Posts Tagged ‘American Hospital Association’

« Older Entries

Super Committee’s Failure Raises Questions About Healthcare Funding

Wednesday, December 7th, 2011

Now that the Super Committee has failed to identify $1.2 trillion in cuts from the federal budget, automatic cuts totaling billions for everything from Medicare to biomedical research, start in 2013.  Some healthcare sectors will fare better than others.  The primary health entitlement programs, Medicare and Medicaid, are protected under the law that created the Super Committee.  Automatic cuts will not impact Medicaid, the joint federal-state health program for the poor.  Medicare would be cut by two percent – all from payments to hospitals and other providers.

The bad news is that unless Congress reworks the legislation mandating the automatic cuts, a series of across-the-board reductions will begin in 2013.  The House and Senate appropriations committees must decide how to spread the cuts among various programs.  And some of the larger, better-financed lobbies may be able to influence what is cut and what is kept.

Even though the Medicare cuts are limited to hospitals and other medical providers and would not exceed two percent, they argue that is too much and that they sacrificed plenty in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA).  Rich Umbdenstock, president and CEO of the American Hospital Association, said sweeping cuts would hurt Medicare beneficiaries and their families and “also have an impact on the ability of hospitals to provide essential public services to the communities they serve given the impact that Medicare has on the entire healthcare system.”

Officially known as the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, the Super Committee was unable to meet its deadline to come up with $1.2 trillion of deficit reduction required by the law that created it, much less the $4 trillion that deficit hawks said was necessary to stabilize the finances of the U.S. government, whose debt has topped $15 trillion.  The failure ensures that the fiscal debate between Democrats who want to protect social programs and increase revenue by raising taxes on the wealthy; and Republicans who want smaller government and have pledged to reject tax increases will be a fundamental choice confronting voters in 2012.

“After months of hard work and intense deliberations, we have come to the conclusion today that it will not be possible to make any bipartisan agreement available to the public before the committee’s deadline,” Representative Jeb Hensarling,(R-TX), and Senator Patty Murray, (D-WA) said.  The co-chairs thanked committee members, staffers and “the American people for sharing thoughts and ideas and for providing support and good will as we worked to accomplish this difficult task.”

Writing for Politico, David Nather speculates on whether the Super Committee’s failure has harmed efforts to reform Medicare and Medicaid.  It would be easy to conclude that the Super Committee’s failure means the big, expensive health care entitlement programs — Medicare and Medicaid — are untouchable.  It also would be wrong.  The timing was off, coming too close to a presidential election.  The co-chairs weren’t powerful enough.  The work came too soon after a summer debt deal that Democrats hated.  Republicans couldn’t give the kind of concessions on taxes that Democrats needed.  And the alternative to a Super Committee deal on healthcare entitlements — the two percent automatic cuts in healthcare payments and defense funding that will now take place in 2013 — wasn’t harsh enough to force a deal on Medicare and Medicaid. In fact, it might even have been the easier way out.  All of which means Medicare and Medicaid are not off the table forever.”

The Hill’s Sam Baker offers a different perspective. “The Super Committee’s demise is a mixed bag for the American Medical Association and other groups that wanted the 12-member panel to tackle Medicare’s payment formula, known as the sustainable growth rate (SGR).  The AMA — with bipartisan support in Congress — pushed hard for the supercommittee to include in its deficit-cutting package a long-term fix to the SGR.  The formula calls for automatic annual cuts in doctors’ payments, which add up as Congress consistently delays each cut from taking effect.  Aspirations of a long-term SGR patch should be put to rest, healthcare lobbyists said. But they questioned whether the supercommittee push was ever realistic, because an SGR fix would add to the deficit.”

“I never once believed that the Joint Select Committee would be the one to do that,” said Julius Hobson, a senior adviser at the Washington, D.C.-based law firm Polsinelli Shughart and a former AMA official.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Healthcare, Hospital Systems | No Comments »

ACO Rules Revised to Attract Providers

Thursday, October 27th, 2011

The Obama administration has issued revised regulations to encourage doctors, clinics and hospitals to take greater responsibility for improving patients’ care.  The rules will reward healthcare providers who enter into partnerships to cut the cost of caring for Americans while also boosting quality — two goals of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA).  Known as Accountable Care Organizations, or ACOs, these partnerships have been promoted by many experts as the most promising remedy for the high costs that typify the American healthcare system.

Supporters believe that ACOs could save taxpayers billions of dollars by better coordinating patient care and replacing the current fragmented system in which patients bounce between doctors and hospitals with minimal communication between providers.  “ACOs can represent a very big step forward in helping to transform Medicare, Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Programs so they can help assure high quality, seamless and less costly healthcare,” said Dr. Donald Berwick, who runs the Medicare and Medicaid programs and helped to write the new rules.

“We have made changes in response to what we heard,” Berwick said. “I think they make the program more attractive.”  During the early days, between 50 and 270 ACOs may enroll in the program and save the Medicare program as much as $950 million over four years, according to independent estimates.

Among the changes are increased flexibility in eligibility to participate in the Shared Savings Program; a choice of start dates in 2012; a longer agreement period for those starting in 2012; more flexibility in the governance and legal structure; more streamlined quality performance standards; changes to the financial model to enhance financial incentives to participate; increased sharing caps; no downside risk and first-dollar sharing in Track 1; removal of the 25 percent withholding of shared savings; increased flexibility in timing for the evaluation of sharing savings (claims run-out reduced to three months); more flexibility in antitrust review; enhanced flexibility in timing for repayment of losses; and more options for participation of Federally Qualified Health Centers and Rural Health Clinics.

ACOs are a key provision in the ACA to decelerate rising health costs while delivering high-quality care to Medicare patients.  They are designed to change the incentives that influence how doctors and hospitals operate.  Today, most hospitals and doctors get paid more by delivering more, not necessarily better, care.  ACOs will reward healthcare providers for keeping costs down and meeting certain quality measures, including cutting hospital readmissions or emergency room visits.  ACO’s goal is to replicate the highly respected models of care at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN, and the Geisinger Health System in Pennsylvania where hospitals and doctors coordinate their efforts within the same organization.

George Roman, senior director of health policy at the American Medical Group Association, which represents approximately 400 large provider organizations, described the changes as “music to my ears.  We asked for almost all of these things.”

“We are very pleased at the number of significant changes in rules.  They have made the program look more attractive,” said Linda Fishman, senior vice president of the American Hospital Association.  “But it remains to be seen how many hospitals will find these changes to be motivation enough to enter the program.”

The 696-page document includes more generous shared savings incentives, leaves out 32 of the 65 original quality measures, and gives potential ACO participants extra time to formulate their plans.  One vital change is that the rule no longer mandates that 50 percent of participating physicians be approved under meaningful use requirements for electronic health record use. The revisions provide more opportunities for new ACOs to participate without absorbing risk in the earlier years, as well as major changes in at least 10 other critical areas.  Thanks to the revisions, many in the healthcare industry think more providers will be encouraged to sign up.

Writing in the Washington Post, Sarah Kliff notes that “It’s a big moment in health policy wonk land right now: the Obama administration has just published the final Accountable Care Organization rule.  Sound dull?  Let’s rephrase: The Obama administration has just released a regulation that could decide whether the American healthcare system moves past the broken, expensive fee-for-service model.  The idea is to encourage groups of providers to band together into ‘accountable care organizations’ and accept a flat fee for all care related to a particular patient or condition.  If they could deliver high-quality care in a cost-effective way, they could keep the money they saved.  The hope is to do nothing less than change the basic business model of American medicine from making money by getting patients to spend more money to making money by saving patients money.  There.  That’s better.  This is not the administration’s first crack at encouraging ACOs.  A proposed rule in April, which detailed the requirements to become an ACO, was greeted with howls of protest by the provider community.  In hundreds of comment letters, hospital and doctor groups blasted the program as unattractive, with too much risk and not enough reward.  The American Medical Group Association warned CMS that virtually none of its members would participate.  The group called the rule ‘overly prescriptive, operationally burdensome, and the incentives are too difficult to achieve to make this voluntary program attractive.’

“There are two things that really irked healthcare systems here. First, if an ACO ended up spending more money than the target set by Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), it would have to pay back some funds. Second, any ACO would have to show savings above two percent before they could reap any of the financial rewards.  The rule eliminates both of those barriers to entry.  It creates an ACO track with no ‘downside risk.’  The two percent gap gets cut, too: under the final rule, ACOs share in any savings from the very first penny.  CMS made a lot of other adjustments too that make the program easier to participate in, like lowering the quality reporting requirements and eliminating requirements that ACOs show significant use of electronic medical records.  As one CMS official put it this morning, the agency wanted to ‘smooth the on-ramp’ into the program.”

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Healthcare, Hospital Systems | No Comments »

Medicare Bundling Payments to Save Money

Wednesday, September 21st, 2011

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has a new program that would bundle insurance payments for multiple procedures with the goal of improving patient care while saving money.  CMS invited providers to help develop four models to bundle payments.  The program encourages hospitals, doctors and other specialists to coordinate in treating a patient’s specific condition during a single hospital stay and recovery.  “Today Medicare pays for care in the wrong way,” Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said.  “Payments are based on the quantity of care, and not on the quality of that care.  There is little financial incentive for the kind of care coordination that can help patients from returning to the hospital.” 

The models give providers flexibility regarding how they get paid and for which services, and provides financial incentives to avoid needless or duplicate procedures.  “Hospitals and other providers recognize that they have to accommodate the current (fiscal) environment,” said Nancy Foster, vice president for quality at the American Hospital Association. 

“From a patient perspective…you want your doctors to collaborate more closely with your physical therapist, your pharmacist and your family caregivers,” CMS Administrator Donald Berwick said.  “But that sort of common sense practice is hard to achieve without a payment system that supports coordination over fragmentation.  We’re taking steps that will save Medicare, seniors and taxpayers $28 billion over 10 years. Medicare is paying much more than the private sector for equipment like wheelchairs and walkers.  By expanding our successful competitive bidding program, we can ensure that Medicare pays a fair rate for these goods.”

According to CMS, the initial round of competitive bidding has added up to savings of 35 percent compared to the fee schedule.  Questions in the 1st quarter of 2011 totaled less than 0.9 percent of calls to Medicare’s call center; Medicare received just 45 complaints during that time.  CMS will conduct the second phase of the program for a similar set of products in 91 major cities.  Competition begins this fall; the new prices go into effect on July 1, 2013.  “The success we’ve had in the first phase tells us that we can achieve these savings with no disruption for patients’ access and no negative effect on patients’ health,” said Jonathan Blum, deputy CMS administrator and director of the Center for Medicare. “We remain confident in our bidding methodologies that will produce tangible savings while ensuring adequate choice of qualified suppliers.”

The CMS Innovation Center, created under President Barack Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), has been investigating bundling payments as part of a larger effort to both improve patient care and reduce costs.

There is some disagreement over whether the CMS bidding program is successful.  Economists, consumer groups and some in Congress are on record opposing the program.  They cite reduced access to care, flaws in the program design and impact on local jobs.  “There’s a reason why more than 30 patient advocacy groups, 244 economists and auction experts and 145 members of Congress oppose this program: it undermines quality of care and it increases costs,” said Tyler J. Wilson, president of the American Association for Homecare.  “Because of this bidding program, beneficiaries will spend more time in expensive institutions, rather than in the far more cost-effective setting for care – their own homes.” 

Tim Size, executive director of the Rural Wisconsin Health Cooperative, is concerned about the impact on rural hospitals.  “Washington has created a new ‘super committee’ to find more cuts.  Some call it a super Congress to remind us this is a small group given powers usually kept by Congress.  Most economists say Washington needs a coherent policy for both additional cuts and additional revenue.  But politics seems to have taken new revenue off the table.  Most people believe the super committee will deadlock.  If Congress fails to act, cuts will be implemented across the board.  Most federal programs will be cut.  Across-the-board cuts harm efficient programs along with the inefficient.  Across-the-board cuts harm necessary along with the less necessary. The country deserves better than bulldozers driven by blindfolded drivers.  Most rural hospitals are financially just holding their heads above water.  Under-payment by government programs has left them vulnerable.  A sluggish economy and an increasingly competitive healthcare marketplace are taking their toll.  Medicare and Medicaid are rural hospitals’ largest payers. Additional cuts are likely to tip many rural hospitals into the red and eventual closure.”

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Healthcare, Hospital Systems | No Comments »

Senators Question CMS Rules for ACOs

Wednesday, August 24th, 2011

Some Senators want the rules for Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) rewritten to increase their acceptance by providers. “An ACO model that can increase provider coordination and patient accountability would be a step in the right direction compared to today’s fragmented delivery system,” wrote the senators, led by Mike Enzi (R-WY) to Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Administrator Dr. Donald Berwick. “However, it is increasingly clear that this proposed rule misses the target.”

According to the Senators, the ACO rules have misaligned incentives and accountability, as well as an unclear return on investment for physicians and other providers. The Senators highlighted healthcare providers who have raised concerns about the ACO rules, including the American Hospital Association, which released a study that estimated six to 14 times higher start-up costs for the new entities than estimated by CMS.

The AHA study determined that the costs of elements to successfully manage the care of a defined population is considerably higher – $11.6 to $26.1 million – than the $1.8 million estimated by CMS in its proposed rule for start-up and one year of operations. “CMS’ estimate falls short of the mark,” said Rich Umbdenstock, president and CEO of the AHA. “The shared savings rate with ACOs should be adjusted to reflect these costs in order to encourage and enable participation in this important program.” Specific areas of concern include network development and management , care coordination, quality improvement and utilization management ; clinical information systems; and data analytics.

In addition to Enzi, the letter was signed by Tom Coburn (R-OK); Jon Kyl R-AZ); Mike Crapo (R-ID); John Cornyn (R-TX); Pat Roberts (R-KS); and Richard Burr (R-NC).  According to Coburn, who is also a physician, “The letter I signed today echoes the reservations of health professionals who have expressed deep concerns about the well-intended, but ultimately unworkable, ACO regulations recently proposed by the administration. It is certainly my hope that the administration will not misread this letter as partisan, but will work to address the underlying problems of misaligned incentives and regulatory uncertainty that have elicited such concern by a range of health care institutions and providers. If the administration withdraws the regulation, they will find strong bipartisan support among Congress and stakeholders to craft a proposal that encourages broad participation in innovative models to achieve lower costs and better care.”

Berwick and CMS officials believe that organizations that participated in demonstration projects will back the rules because the results showed that Medicare saved more than $38 million in the years of the pilot program; the medical groups that participated got performance payments from the feds totaling more than $31 million. Among the participants are some of the nation’s most prestigious medical systems, including The Mayo Clinic, The Cleveland Clinic and the Geisinger Health System in western Pennsylvania.

Part of the problem, according to The Hill, is that budgetary concerns were the elephant in the room when the Obama administration wrote the proposed ACO rule. This resulted in regulations requiring stringent quality improvements that offered no upfront funding for hospitals to change their procedures. According to regulators, the proposed regulation is open for public comment and can be fine-tuned. CMS recently unveiled new tools to help hospitals start care coordination efforts, for example, by giving them the money they’re supposed to save Medicare through more efficient patient care.

According to the letter, “We have been struck by the increasingly diverse chorus of concerns many of our nation’s leading health care institutions have raised in recent days. The concerns…from some of our nation’s most knowledgeable and innovative health care providers are clear. Incentives and accountability are misaligned. Detailed requirements are complex and return on investment is uncertain.”

Although the Senators complimented the work put into the ACO rules draft, the letter said that feedback received from providers around the country brought the Senators to the conclusion that the proposed ACO regulation will not fulfill its purpose.

Another perspective is offered by Robert Tennant, a managing associate with Health Directions, who says that “I’d like to offer another point of view. Certainly, for most healthcare organizations, transitioning to an ACO will create short-term expense and disruption. At Health Directions, we are finding that healthcare organizations are not dismissing ACOs outright, but they are first asking: What do we stand to gain? In some cases the answer may be either not clear or not favorable. Regardless, there is a potential upside if the focus remains on increasing quality and efficiency of care delivery. As we weigh the future of ACOs, let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater. The point of discussion needs to shift from whether or not to become a formally organized ACO down the road toward a more focused evaluation of which ACO-type elements are worth adopting now. A commitment to achieving meaningful use with an electronic health record (EHR) is a step in that direction, as is participating in a quality-driven pay for performance program. Both have short-term, well-defined financial rewards attached to them and both will likely increase quality of care. The key is for healthcare organizations to remain focused on the underlying thought behind ACOs — improving care and reducing costs. And that really is worth getting excited about.”

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Healthcare, Hospital Systems | No Comments »

Ben Cutler: An Insurance Industry CEO Responds to Healthcare Reform

Tuesday, April 26th, 2011

Is the healthcare insurance industry the scapegoat for rising premiums?  In the inaugural episode of the Chuck Lauer Show,  presented by Alter+Care, the former publisher of Modern Healthcare Magazine talked about the insurance industry’s take on healthcare reform with Ben Cutler, Chairman and CEO of USHEALTH Group, Inc., who previously led Fortis Healthcare.  Cutler currently serves on AHIP’s Executive Committee, serves on AHIP’s Board and is also the Chairman of AHIP’s Membership Committee.  The Chuck Lauer Show is an ongoing conversation about the future of healthcare with the leaders and thinkers who are shaping a new direction for healthcare in the United States. 

Cutler, who has spent more than 30 years in the healthcare insurance industry, recalled the ongoing national debate that began nearly 20 years over HillaryCare with the objective of how to provide universal coverage for the more than 50 million uninsured Americans.  Cutler believes that the Obama administration has chosen to focus on access and doesn’t sufficiently address affordability issues.  Healthcare industry groups recognized that the day would come when reform would be a top-line issue and that we would not be well served by just saying “no”.  Cutler says “We’ve worked hard on positioning the industry to accommodate reforms and tried to be very accommodating because getting more people covered is a laudable objective.”

As the healthcare reform bill was drafted, it soon became clear that the insurance industry would have a problem with some of the issues.  Unfortunately, according to Cutler, the politicians decided they needed an enemy and “that turned out to be us.  We continue to be vilified as an industry”, a situation that could – and should — have been avoided.  The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will have some unintended consequences in terms of how the legislation will affect the behavior of various stakeholders who comprise the healthcare economy – consumers, providers, insurers, regulators, etc.  It is inevitable that the insurance industry will have to raise rates if they are to comply with the healthcare law, which essentially constitutes a new tax on the American people.

Cutler cites the example of the $5 billion set aside to subsidize people in high-risk pools.  The government estimated that by this time, upwards of 500,000 individuals would be enrolled in these pools.  So far, just 8,000 people have signed up, an example of where government expectations were totally unrealistic.  Additionally, there is the issue of pre-existing conditions, which the government has characterized as an industry-abusive position, and one which relates to affordability of coverage.  According to Cutler, if people buy homeowners’ insurance only after their house catches fire, the premium obviously would be higher.

 
icon for podpress  Ben Cutler: An Insurance Industry CEO Responds to Healthcare Reform: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Healthcare, Hospital Systems | No Comments »

Expectant Parents Beware! Not All Health Plans Cover NICU

Wednesday, January 19th, 2011

The majority of expectant parents know that their obstetrician and the hospital where their baby will be born participate in their health insurance network.  If the baby is born prematurely or needs special care in the neonatal intensive-care unit (NICU), however, the new parents may get a nasty surprise — this level of care may be out of their network.  “Some hospitals do contract with other clinical provider groups to run their NICUs,” said Marie Watteau, the American Hospital Association’s (AHA) director of media relations.  “When selecting a hospital, pregnant women should…verify that all hospital care, including NICU care and physician services, are in network.”

Three quarters of babies who require costly NICU care are born prematurely; the remaining 25 percent have other medical problems.  In 2009, one baby in eight was born prematurely, defined as before 37 weeks of gestation, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics.  Although premature birth rates have fallen recently, they are still 30 percent higher than in 1981.  The Institute of Medicine reports that medical bills and other premature-related costs totaled $26.2 billion in 2005.  That’s $51,600 per premature baby.

Depending on weight and other medical criteria, some premature babies needing NICU care could be declared disabled under the Supplemental Security Insurance program.  That would make the baby eligible for Medicaid.  Although families typically must meet income guidelines to be eligible for Medicaid, “while the child is in the institution, the child’s income alone is what’s looked at for Medicaid purposes,” according to Mary Kahn, a spokeswoman for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.  After the baby is discharged, however, it is no longer eligible for Medicaid unless the parents meet the income guidelines.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Healthcare, Hospital Systems | No Comments »

Is the GOP Alone In Wanting to Repeal Healthcare Reform?

Monday, December 6th, 2010

Even though Republicans will control the House of Representatives and have a larger presence in the Senate come January, they still are likely to hit some formidable roadblocks in their attempt to repeal the Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act. Those roadblocks are such lobbying giants as the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Hospital Association (AHA) and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PRMA).  The groups are on board with the new healthcare reform law because they will gain an estimated 30 million (or more) new paying customers in the next few years.  The reform law is expected to increase payments to physicians and hospitals who have felt squeezed in recent years.  Additionally, analysts believe the new law is a major force for job creation in the healthcare sector.

“These guys were onboard for a reason,” said David Dranove, a professor of health enterprise management at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management.  “Very few employers will drop private health insurance, and you will expand private insurance to 15 million people.  If this legislation stands, we are not likely to see new reforms for a generation.”

Primary-care physicians, who are likely to benefit significantly from the healthcare reform law, will see their reimbursements from government insurance programs rise – although many believe the reform law is only the beginning.  According to Dr. Cecil Wilson, AMA president, “While the 111th Congress made important improvements to our nation’s healthcare system, more work needs to be done.”  Hospitals – which have been hard hit by patients unable to pay their medical bills because of unemployment – will be in better financial shape once more Americans get health insurance subsidies in 2014.

Pharmaceutical companies, which were among reform’s earliest supporters, oppose repeal, even though analysts say it will cost them $100 billion in government rebates.  The upside is that the industry will obtain new customers who were previously uninsured and unable to afford the latest brand-name medications.  Even the much-maligned insurance companies – who will have more than 15 million new customers – oppose repeal.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Healthcare, Hospital Systems | No Comments »

CMS Issues Revised Guidelines for Electronic Medical Records Adoption

Thursday, July 29th, 2010

Physicians/hospitals could receive $27 billion to use electronic medical records. The federal government has issued revised standards for the “meaningful use” of electronic medical records that will financially reward physicians and hospitals who adopt the new technology. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, physicians and hospitals could receive as much as $27 billion over the next decade if they put patients’ medical records on computer instead of paper.  Physicians can be paid up to $44,000 under Medicare and $63,750 for Medicaid.  Depending on their size, hospitals have the potential to receive millions of dollars.  In 2015, hospitals and physicians face financial penalties under Medicare if they fail to use electronic medical records by the deadline.

Dr. Donald Berwick, the new administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) said electronic medical records will lead to “better, smoother care, more reliable care.”  Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said “Only 20 percent of doctors and 10 percent of hospitals use even basic electronic health records.”  Taking a slightly different perspective, Richard J. Umbdenstock, president of the American Hospital Association (AHA), said the new standards are an improvement over the rules initially proposed but was not convinced that doctors or hospitals would adopt the new technology.

Some physicians believe that using electronic medical records will reduce errors and save patients’ lives.  The new standards are flexible and require physicians to meet 15 specific requirements, as well as another five selected from a list of 10 objectives.  To fulfill the new standards, physicians will have to submit 40 percent of prescriptions electronically.  “We are delaying some of the more ambitious requirements,” said Dr. David Blumenthal, the national coordinator for health information technology.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Healthcare, Hospital Systems | No Comments »

RN Turnover Costs Hospitals An Estimated $9.75 Billion Annually

Wednesday, June 2nd, 2010

Nurse burn-out – a result of working in high-stress environments – is bad for patient care and expensive for hospitals.  According to the American Organization of Nurse Executives (AONE), “a conservative estimate” of the price of hiring a new nurse totals $10,000 in direct recruitment costs.  In a hospital with 400 RNs on staff, it is no stretch to theorize that as many as 80 new nurses must be recruited and trained every year, adding up to $800,000 annually – and that’s just the direct costs.http://www.afscme.org/publications/2211.cfm

These direct costs – which include recruiting a new nurse, hiring the optimal candidate and training that individual — represent only a small portion of the expense of hiring and training a nurse.  It is the hidden costs – such as signing bonuses and other incentives, lost productivity because of the vacant position, and the expenses associated with training – that drive up the price of replacing RNs.  Additionally, hospitals pay more to hire agency nurses versus employing nurses directly on their staff.  A survey of hospital CEOs found that “agency nurses are often not familiar with policies, protocols and standards, and staff nurses then find that they have the additional burden of trying to educate these nurses on the unit.”

According to AONE estimates, the real cost of replacing a medical/surgical nurse is $42,000 and $64,000 for a specialty nurse.  Kaiser Permanente places an even higher price tag on nurse turnover — $47,403 for a medical/surgical nurse and $85,197 for a specialty nurse.  For the hypothetical 400-nurse hospital, the cost of replacing just 80 nurses annually could total $4 million in direct and hidden costs.  Nationally, it is estimated that 1.3 million RNs are employed by hospitals.  With an average turnover rate of approximately 15 percent, that translates to 195,000 nurse positions turning over every year at an estimated total cost of $9.75 billion.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Healthcare, Hospital Systems | 2 Comments »

Hospitals Need to Step Up Hiring to Keep Up With Demographics

Tuesday, February 16th, 2010

There will be a shortfall of 109,600 physicians by 2020 and 260,000 full-time nurses by 2025. Demographic trends will not allow hospitals and other healthcare providers to maintain their current staffing patterns, according to a new American Hospital Association (AHA) study.

Assuming current trends remain the same, the researchers say that there will be a shortfall of 109,600 physicians by 2020 and 260,000 full-time nurses by 2025.  This will occur at a time when other industries will experience similar employee shortfalls.  The study, entitled Workforce 2015:  Strategy Trumps Shortage, notes that hospitals will have to retain their current employees while bringing in new physicians and nurses to provide necessary services.

“Hospitals and health systems need to rapidly implement these strategies, learn early implementation insights, and share successful practices.  Employers in other fields face the same challenges and are likely to use similar strategies,” the AHA study notes.  As an example, hospitals and other healthcare providers must redesign workflows by seeking employee input.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Healthcare | No Comments »

« Older Entries