Posts Tagged ‘Medicaid’

Can Marilyn Tavenner Save Medicare?

Monday, December 5th, 2011

President Barack Obama’s choice of Marilyn Tavenner as administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services – to replace Dr. Donald Berwick, whose recess appointment was set to expire at the end of the year – is more likely to survive the Senate confirmation process relatively unscathed.

A Harvard-educated pediatrician, Berwick won praise and the backing of major healthcare groups for his academic work, which focused on cutting the cost of care while improving quality and patient experience.  Republicans took exception to his praise of Britain’s National Health Service as an “example” for the United States to emulate.  Others accused him of supporting “rationing” healthcare services, a claim Berwick rejects.  “Every bone in my body, as a physician, even as a person, is to get everything (patients) want and need and to help them at every step,” he said.  “I have gone to the mat to get a last-ditch bone marrow transplant for a child with leukemia…and they are telling me I’m rationing?  They haven’t met me.”

White House officials said, “Before entering government services, Tavenner spent nearly 35 years working with health care providers in significantly increasing levels of responsibility, including almost 20 years in nursing, three years as a hospital CEO, and 10 years in various senior executive-level positions for Hospital Corporation of America.”

According to Ezra Klein, “Tavenner’s healthcare experience lies much more in management than policy.  Former colleagues describe her as a patient-centered manager, a hands-on medical professional equally comfortable in the board room and the emergency room.  And in contrast to Berwick, Tavenner isn’t associated with a grand vision for health reform, or a particular policy agenda for Medicare and Medicaid.  ‘With Marilyn, you present the information, then she makes a decision, and you move on,’ said Patrick Finnerty, who served as Virginia’s Medicaid director under Tavenner.  ‘She doesn’t make promises she can’t keep.  There are differences of opinions, and she would try to work through those.  She’s straight with folks but always respectful.’”

Tavenner started her career as a nurse at Virginia hospitals owned by the Hospital Corporation of America (HCA).  Tavenner met with success, rising from chief nursing officer to CEO.  In 2004, she was again promoted to HCA’s president of outpatient services, her first national position with the firm.  She resigned two years later, when then-Virginia Governor Tim Kaine tapped her to head the state’s Health and Human Resources department.

Tavenner has already won the American Medical Association’s (AMA) backing. “We have worked extensively with her in her role as deputy administrator, and she has been fair, knowledgeable and open to dialogue,” AMA President Peter Carmel said.  “With all the changes and challenges facing the Medicare and Medicaid programs, CMS needs stable leadership, and Marilyn Tavenner has the skills and experience to provide it.”

Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said that the panel would thoroughly scrutinize Tavenner, but did not say he opposes her nomination.  Despite Hatch’s mild comment, Tavenner is expected to face some difficult questioning because Senate Republicans have not overtly endorsed her.  According to a Republican healthcare lobbyist, “I can’t imagine a lot of support for her,” noting that the high-profile CMS role “always gets sucked into the controversy of the day.”  Ultimately, Tavenner is likely to be confirmed for the CMS post.

Tavenner is widely seen as a pragmatic administrator who will not rock the CMS boat. “The only way to stabilize costs without cutting benefits or provider fees is to improve care to those with the highest health care costs,” she said.  Tavenner also said she opposed Republican efforts to turn Medicaid into a block grant that would limit the amount of federal funding states can receive for the program.  “That approach would simply dump the problem on states and force them to dump patients, benefits or make provider cuts or all the above,” she said.  Tavenner “brings continuity in terms of implementing the mission,” said Len Nichols, director of George Mason University’s Center for Health Policy Research and Ethics.

Showdown As Opposing Medicare Ads Debut

Wednesday, November 30th, 2011

A coalition of advocacy groups such as the Americans United for Change, Service Employees International Union, American Federation of State, County, the Municipal Employees and Service Employees International Union and Moveon.org recently started running a series of ads telling lawmakers not to cut Medicare benefits.  In particular, the ads target Representative Denny Rehberg (R-MT), Senator Dean Heller (R-NV) and Senator Scott Brown (R-MA).

“If you vote to cut Medicare, Representative Rehberg, I will remember it every time I visit my doctor.  I’ll remember you cut Medicare and Medicaid every time I fill my prescription,” says an elderly woman narrator in one of the ads.  “I’ll remember you cut Medicare every time I fall or get hurt. I’ll remember you protected millionaires over protecting my health. My friends will remember it, too — all of them.  Call Senator Heller.  Tell him to protect Medicare and Medicaid.”

Brian Walsh, the National Republican Senatorial Committee communications director, made light of the Democratic message, arguing that the half-trillion dollars they shifted out of Medicare to pay for healthcare reform makes their argument hollow.  “The irony of this pathetic attack ad is that in each of these three races, it’s actually the Democrat candidates who are all firmly on record supporting the $500 billion in Medicare cuts that were included in their massive healthcare overhaul,” said Walsh.  “The big labor unions funding this ad know that, but yet they are doing everything they can to mislead voters in Montana, Nevada and Massachusetts.”

In the meantime, the United States Chamber of Commerce is running commercials attacking Senators Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Jon Tester (D-MT).  Friends of the U.S. Chamber criticize Tester for supporting “government-run healthcare” and challenges Brown on energy taxes.  The business community has been under unprecedented threat,” Rob Engstrom, part of a two-man team running the chamber’s political operation, said.  The trade group plans to break its previous political spending record — $50 million — to try to elect a more business-friendly Congress.  The Montana ad reminds viewers about Tester’s votes for “government-run healthcare” then urges voters to “call Senator Tester and tell him to stop supporting big government and start fighting for Montana’s families.”

Americans United for Change explains why it is running ads about protecting Medicare and Medicaid.  “For decades, seniors have relied on Medicare being a guaranteed benefit and those less fortunate have depended on Medicaid to provide long-term care and coverage for children.  These programs need to be strengthened to ensure they remain available for future generations, which means not gutting and decimating benefits, leaving low-income children, seniors, and people with disabilities out in the cold.  The key to making Medicare sustainable is reining in costs, not dumping more expenses onto seniors.  We are working to set the right priorities for an economically secure future while continuing to protect healthcare coverage for those who can least afford it.”

Writing for the Huffington Post, Sam Stein describes the Democratic ads as “Not exactly the most visually stimulating videos, the ads warn lawmakers that they will pay a political price for cutting Medicare or Medicaid.  That may prove to be popular politics — certainly, polls show that voters want the two healthcare programs protected — but the notion that cuts won’t ultimately be pursued is highly unlikely.  Aides on the Hill from both political parties have long agreed that there is room to trim down Medicare’s provider-side components.  Reforms to Medicaid, whether in the form of decreased help to the states or something more structural, have also been discussed.”

Employer-Susidized Healthcare Insurance at a New Low

Wednesday, November 23rd, 2011

Fewer than half of  America employers - just 44.5 percent in the 3rd quarter, a decline of more than five percent in three years, — contribute to their employees’ healthcare coverage, according to a Gallup and Healthways Inc., poll.  The firms, which surveyed more than 90,000 adults, blamed the decline on high unemployment, under-employment and an increased number of employers who do not offer health insurance to their workers.

Employer-sponsored health insurance is one of the pillars of the $2.6 trillion U.S. healthcare industry.  Unfortunately, companies have scaled back benefits and raised employee charges to cope with fast-rising healthcare costs and anemic economic growth.  The latest figure was 5.3 percent below the 2008 high of 49.8 percent, when the companies began tracking trends in employer-sponsored health insurance.  “The health insurance system in the United States is experiencing numerous changes.  Governments and businesses have and will continue to cut back and/or reform their health coverage offerings,” according to the pollsters.

There was also an increase in the ranks of those covered by government plans from Medicaid, Medicare and military programs, which was up 2.2 percentage points since 2008 at 25.1 percent but off a 2010 high of 25.7 percent.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, there were 41 million uninsured American adults and 24 million adults under retirement age receiving the Medicaid program for low-income people and other public insurance plans last year.  Medicare covers an estimated 48 million beneficiaries.  The survey found higher levels of health insurance coverage among young people aged 18 to 26, which the pollsters attributed to a provision of the ACA that allows parents to cover grown children under their insurance plans.  Other portions of the law, including tax credits for small businesses, did not appear help those aged 25 to 64, whose uninsured ranks increased.

One large employer cutting back on healthcare coverage is Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest private employer.  Citing rising costs, the retailer told its employees that all future part-time employees who work less than 24 hours a week will no longer be eligible for any of the company’s health insurance plans.  Additionally, new employees who average 24 hours to 33 hours a week will no longer be able to include a husband or wife as part of their healthcare plan, although children can still be covered.  This is a massive shift from a few years ago when Wal-Mart expanded coverage after being criticized because so many of its 1.4 million workers could not afford or did not qualify for coverage — sending many of them to Medicaid.

“Over the last few years, we’ve all seen our healthcare rates increase and it’s probably not a surprise that this year will be no different,” said Greg Rossiter, a Wal-Mart spokesman.  “We made the difficult decision to raise rates that will affect our associates’ medical costs.  The decisions made were not easy, but they strike a balance between managing costs and providing quality care and coverage.”

There’s also some good news on the employer-subsidized healthcare front. Nearly 75 percent of medium-to-large employers plan will continue to offer their workers health insurance once the major provisions of the ACA take effect, according to a survey by consulting firm Towers Watson.  According to the survey of 368 mid-to- large-sized companies, 71 percent plan to continue to offer healthcare benefits to their employees through 2014, the year that everyone will be required to have health insurance and state-based health insurance exchanges will kick off.  Approximately one-third of the companies are not certain if they will continue offering insurance, or, if they stopped providing insurance, whether they would compensate employees by offering pay raises.

“With so much still unknown regarding both the short- and long-term impact of healthcare reform, most employers will not make wholesale changes to employer-sponsored health plans in 2012,” said Ron Fontanetta, senior healthcare consulting leader at Towers Watson.

Obama to Sign Executive Order Releasing $1 Billion to Cut Medical Fraud

Wednesday, November 23rd, 2011

President Barack Obama will once again sidestep a fractious Congress and sign an executive order designed to cut fraud from Medicare and Medicaid.  The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will administer the changes, such as testing changes to obsolete hospital billing systems to prevent overbilling, administration officials said.

The billion-dollar initiative will reward the “most compelling new ideas” for cutting costs and improving care of Medicare and Medicaid patients with rewarding federal grants.  Called the Health Care Innovation Challenge, the initiative will provide between $1 million and $30 million over three years to individual organizations or coalitions that develop sustainable, new approaches to improving healthcare quality and efficiency.  “We’ve taken incredible steps to reduce healthcare costs and improve care, but we can’t wait to do more,” said HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.  “Both public and private community organizations around the country are finding innovative solutions to improve our healthcare system, and the Health Care Innovation Challenge will help jump-start these efforts.”

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) administrator Dr. Donald M. Berwick, M.D. said, “When I visit communities across the country, I continually see innovative solutions at the very ground.  By putting more programs like this in place and more ‘boots on the ground,’ these types of programs can truly transform our healthcare system.”

This program is part of the Obama Administration’s “We Can’t Wait” initiative, which is a series of legal Executive Branch steps designed to move America forward while Congressional Republicans block critical and necessary legislation.

To demonstrate that its campaign to cut government waste is working, the White House said the administration cut improper payments by nearly $18 billion in 2011, largely in such programs as Medicare, Medicaid, Pell Grants and food stamps.  Budget chief Jack Lew ordered federal agencies to tighten their oversight of contractors and grant recipients to reduce the potential for taxpayer waste.

Not surprisingly, there was some immediate opposition to the initiative, with Republican critics calling it a “$1 billion experiment.”  “On the day the Supreme Court decided to review the constitutionality of ‘Obamacare,’ the president is asking for another $1 billion in taxpayer dollars to pay for another healthcare experiment that will continue taking us in the wrong direction,” said RNC spokeswoman Kirsten Kukowski.  “We already spent $2.6 trillion on his job-killing health care bill.  Another $1 billion Executive Order is just more words for a president more interested in campaign talking points than creating jobs.”

With the Supreme Court preparing to hear arguments for and against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) next March, it is important to note that even the 26 states suing to have the law overturned are hedging their bets.  Only four states have refused all federal money to plan for the changes that are scheduled to take place.

Several healthcare industry leaders expressed their support for the ACA. “The system is transforming itself,” said Charles N. Kahn III, president of the Federation of American Hospitals.  “But the success of these changes depends a lot on whether there is sufficient funding.”  Nationally, hospital systems are anticipating an influx of federal funds and patients as the law goes into full effect.  “If the law is struck down, healthcare reform will have to continue one way or another,” said Patricia Brown, president of Johns Hopkins HealthCare.

America’s Healthcare System Needs Improvement: Study

Wednesday, November 2nd, 2011

The American healthcare system is not very healthy, according to a wide-ranging new assessment of the system that covers 42 measures of healthcare delivery, the United States scored just 64 out of 100.  “Costs are up sharply, access to care deteriorated, health system efficiency remains low, disparities persisted, and health outcomes fail to keep pace with benchmarks,” concluded the 2011 National Scorecard on U.S. Health System Performance. The report was issued by the Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit healthcare policy foundation.

There are some bright spots on the report.  For one, the number of Americans who are controlling their high blood pressure rose from 31 percent in 2008 to 50 percent in 2009.  Additionally hospitals have improved their ability to care for patients with heart attacks, pneumonia, and other common conditions.

The Commonwealth Fund report also determined that the typical U.S. infant mortality rate is 35 percent higher than the top-performing states.  Other wealthy countries still have infant mortality rates that are significantly lower than the best-performing states in the United States.  If the U.S. did as well as the top-performing country in that category — France — 91,000 fewer babies would die prematurely each year, Cathy Schoen, senior vice president at Commonwealth Fund said.  “These statistics are real,” she said.  “They are real human lives.”  Other “areas of concern” include childhood obesity, preventive care and infant mortality.

Another issue is cost, an oft-cited statistic that the U.S. spends more per person on healthcare than any other country.  According to the Commonwealth Fund report, the nation in general spends twice as much as comparable countries, but doesn’t have better care to show for it.  “We are headed toward spending $1 of every $5 of national income on healthcare,” the report’s authors said.  “We should expect a better return on this investment.”  The high cost of healthcare takes a toll on personal finances, the report said.  By 2010, 40 percent of working-age adults had medical debt or difficulties paying medical bills, an increase of 34 percent when compared with 2005.

It is important to note that the majority of the report’s data is from 2007 – 2009, prior to the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA).  The healthcare reform law is likely to lead to improved scores on some of the categories, particularly access and affordability.  For example, 25 percent of residents in 15 states lacked health insurance.  The ACA will require that all Americans have health insurance in 2014.  It also will reduce eligibility requirements for Medicaid so more low-income people will be eligible, and provide government subsidies to others who can’t buy insurance on their own.

The report’s authors remain optimistic that the health reform law will address many of the problems highlighted in the report.  This scorecard illustrates that focused efforts to change the healthcare system for the better are working and are worth the investment,” said Maureen Bisognano, president and CEO of the Boston-based Institute for Healthcare Improvement.  “If we target areas where we fall short and learn from high-performing innovators with the United States, we should see significant progress in the future,” said Dr. David Blumenthal, commission chair and professor of medicine and healthcare policy at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School.

Writing in the Huffington Post, a Social Epidemiologist at Columbia University, thinks that the price Americans pay for their healthcare is too high.  “It’s well known that Americans pay more for less when it comes to healthcare than just about any other country in the world.  In 2009, we spent nearly $8,000 per person to provide medical care to just over 80 percent of our population — that compares, for example, to just under $3,500 spent per person in the U.K. to provide care for the entire population.  To add injury to insult: our counterparts across the pond get an extra year of life for their $3,500 than we do for our $8,000.

“Why do we pay more for less when it comes to our health?  Every policy wonk has his theory.  Common ones include the high cost of American medical education (which is too expensive), or that permissive tort laws in the U.S. enable lawyers to profit from the health system (which is true).  But while each of these theories, and others, explain small quirks in our health system that certainly contribute to it’s gargantuan price tag, they don’t address the fundamental issue with our health system.  And that’s that our market-driven system introduces perverse financial incentives for medical providers that don’t align with the health or wellbeing of Americans.  This leads to wasted money and lost lives.

“In our healthcare system, the fundamental billing unit is the “procedure” — doctors charge per action, diagnostic or curative, taken on the part of a patient.  While, on the surface, rewarding doctors for each step they take to make a patient better may seem fair, it has disastrous consequences for the structure of our health system.  Chief among them is our top-heavy specialty physician structure,” El-Sayed concluded.

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.”

ER Visits on the Rise, Thanks to Quick Treatment

Monday, October 24th, 2011

Visits to hospital emergency rooms soared to an all-time high of 136 million in 2009, according to new estimates provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).  This represents an approximately 10 percent increase from the 2008 statistic of 123.8 million.  The CDC study is one of three examinations of ER use being released at the American College of Emergency Physicians meeting.  

According to the CDC, patients under the age of 15 accounted for 21 percent of ER visits in 2009; patients between 15 and 24 made up 15 percent; patients between 25 and 44 accounted for 28 percent; patients between 45 and 64, 21 percent; and patients 65 and older, 15 percent.  Breaking visits down by gender, the CDC noted that women visited the ER at a rate of 48 visits per 100, while men had a rate of 42.   

The expected sources of payments for ER visits were private insurance, 39 percent; Medicaid or State Children’s Health Insurance Program, 29 percent; Medicare, 17 percent; other and unknown, five percent each.  Nineteen percent of ER visitors reported that they had no insurance.  The most typical reasons for visiting the ER were stomach and abdominal pain, 9.6 million; fever, 7.4 million; chest pain, 7.2 million; cough, 4.7 million; headache, four million; and shortness of breath and back symptoms, 3.7 million each.  

Physicians attributed the sharp increase to both greater demand for services and improvements that allow ERs to treat patients faster.   “With the economy, people have lost their coverage and, given the fact the emergency department is the safety net, they come to us,” said Dr. Jay Kaplan, an emergency physician at Marin General Hospital who serves on the board of the emergency physicians’ organization.  The physicians contend that it is counterproductive to discourage patients from going to the ER to save money in healthcare costs because they say it doesn’t.  “We’re efficient.  We take care of acute patients and that’s what we do well,” said Dr. Paul Kivela, managing partner of Napa Valley Emergency Medical Group, and a board member of the American College of Emergency Physicians.  

According to Dr. Michael Gerardi, an ACEP board member, he and his colleagues want comprehensive medical liability reform that includes indemnification based on recognized guidelines, caps on non-economic damages and medical courts where providers are judged by medical peers.  “In America, we sue far too often for bad outcomes and not deviations from standard of care,” Gerardi said.  “The overall anxiety of patients and the lack of acceptance that bad outcomes happen are driving costs.”  Because ERs are safety-net providers, they have become increasingly overcrowded.  One factor is the passage in 1986 of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, which requires hospitals to provide people with emergency services, despite their inability to pay.  

It has been estimated that 13.7 percent of all emergency room visits could be treated in retail medical clinics, which are typically based in pharmacies or grocery stores.  These facilities are equipped to treat a limited number of minor conditions, such as throat infections or urinary tract infections.  An additional 13.4 percent of emergency room visits could be handled by urgent-care clinics — an independent medical facility that can handle a broader scope of problems, such as minor fractures and more serious injuries.  Urgent-care clinics typically are open on evenings and weekends, fulfilling the need for patients with occurring before or after typical physician office hours.

National Health Service Corps Caring for More Medically Underserved Americans

Wednesday, October 19th, 2011

In the last three years, membership in the National Health Service Corps (NHSC) has tripled, according to Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS).  The NHSC is a national network of 10,000 primary-care providers and 17,000 sites in underserved communities with limited access to healthcare.

“When you don’t have access to primary care, small health problems grow into big ones,” Sebelius said.  “Way too many Americans have gone without check-ups, preventive screenings, vaccines, routine dental work and other care simply because there was no one to see,” Sebelius said.  The agency estimates that its providers care for approximately 10.5 million patients, compared with just 3,600 providers who cared for roughly 3.7 million patients three years ago.

The program, which is almost 40 years old — is administered by HHS’ Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) — and provides financial, educational and professional resources to medical, dental and behavioral healthcare providers.  According to HRSA the NHSC has awarded approximately $900 million in scholarships and loan repayment to healthcare professionals since 2008 to expand the agency’s primary-care workforce. That funding has come from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and base appropriations.  “Eighty-two percent of NHSC clinicians continue to serve in high-need areas after they fulfill their service commitment,” HRSA Administrator Mary Wakefield said.  “These awards help ensure that underserved communities across the country have access to quality healthcare both today and in the future.”

“When you don’t have access to primary care, small health problems grow into big ones,” Sebelius said. “Most of these providers graduate with tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in loans, and it is very difficult to pay off while doing this important work.”

The Association of American Medical Colleges estimates that the nation will have a shortage of 91,500 physicians across all specialties just nine years from now. 

Despite the program’s recent significant growth, Wakefield said there are underserved areas of the country that qualify for National Health Service Corps members, but there is not enough money to fund providers there.  “It is a significant challenge,” Wakefield said.  “We have more sites that are designated or eligible than we have clinicians.  We also have, on the flip side, more students applying to National Health Service Corps than we have availability” to fund.

In Minnesota, for example, a state with vast wilderness areas, the federal government is providing $6.6 million in incentive dollars to doctors and nurses to increase the state’s number of primary-care providers.  According to Minnesota Public Radio, “Minnesota’s rural healthcare system is feeling new pressure.  National healthcare reform is forcing expensive record-keeping changes.  Greater reliance on Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement makes rural providers vulnerable.  Rural people tend to be older and poorer, are less likely to have insurance and suffer more chronic illness.  And the doctor shortage has gotten harder to deal with.  In response, care is changing.  Services like mental health counseling are delivered via teleconference.  Clinics and hospitals are consolidating.  ‘Mid-level’ practitioners like paramedics and dental therapists are starting to play new roles.”

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.”

Uninsured Americans Uncertain About Healthcare Reform

Wednesday, September 14th, 2011

Americans have agreed to disagree about the efficacy of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). According to Kaiser Family Foundation President and CEO Drew Altman, Americans agree about this one thing: “It really does help the uninsured; 32 million uninsured people will get coverage.”  The foundation’s recent tracking poll found that only about 50 percent of uninsured people have any idea that help is on the way.  Fewer than one-third (31 percent) think the ACA means they will be able to purchase health insurance.

Those two misperceptions are unmistakably connected.  Among those who currently lack insurance, 41 percent incorrectly think the law has no provisions to help people with modest means buy health insurance coverage; (seven percent said they didn’t know); and 37 percent believe the law doesn’t include an expansion of the Medicaid program to low-income, able-bodied adults; and (16 percent were unsure). 

The logical conclusion, Altman says, is an apparent “communications failure” on the part of the law’s supporters to explain how the ACA will actually work.  “What’s going on here is people who are uninsured are busy just trying to make it through the week, paycheck to paycheck,” he said.  “They’re listening to a confusing political debate.”  But the bottom line, Altman says, is that the healthcare overhaul will eventually start to become clearer in 2014, “when there are benefits out there, real coverage out there that people can look at — and can get.”  That’s when people without insurance will really be able to decide whether they can afford insurance or they like the law or it helps them.  “Until then,” Altman says, “it’s just a political debate.” 

Writing in The Hill, Sam Baker says that “Only 29 percent knew that the law eliminates cost-sharing for some preventive services, and half said the law did not provide that benefit.  The poll was conducted just two weeks after the Health and Human Services Department (HHS) announced that it would require plans to waive cost-sharing for contraception and other women’s health services.  And strong majorities approved of that decision, despite not being aware that the healthcare law includes preventive benefits.  Eliminating cost-sharing for birth control garnered 66 percent support in the Kaiser poll.  Although support was higher among younger respondents than their older counterparts, partisanship was the sharpest fault line.  Fewer than half of Republican respondents approved of HHS’s decision, compared with 64 percent of independents and 82 percent of Democrats.” 

On the Politico website, Jennifer Haberkorn writes that “The coverage expansion isn’t due to go into effect until 2014, but Altman says people are unlikely to be truly aware of the benefits until up to two years later.  The figures reflect the struggle supporters of the law will have in getting the word out to consumers who can benefit from it.   President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats focused much of their ‘pitch’ for the health law on the benefits for the uninsured.  They frequently cited the Congressional Budget Office estimate that the law would insure 32 million Americans.  But since the law’s passage, some have criticized that pitch, insisting that they should have focused instead on the benefits for the middle class and those who already have coverage.  Altman said the figures do not reflect a communications failure.  He says busy people — particularly those struggling to afford insurance now — will only understand the law when it becomes tangible for them.  The law’s least popular provision — the requirement that nearly all Americans have to buy insurance — remains one of its most recognizable.  About 65 percent of Americans know about the provision, the poll found.” 

At the beginning of 2011, any Republican suggestion of “repeal” was nearly always followed by “Obamacare”.  Since then, the debate has drifted into the background, morphing into a new regulatory repeal push.  A memo outlining the strategy, issued by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), includes a single paragraph on a grandfathering rule for health insurance plans that will become a target in the winter.   While Republicans are moving away from a health repeal agenda, Democrats appear to be having a hard time explaining what exactly the ACA will do for Americans.

Despite their best efforts, both political parties see their bases moving away from them on health reform.  The number of Republicans who have a favorable opinion has gone up by nine points, while Democratic approval ratings fell by 10 points.  Independent voters held on to their original opinions, with nearly the same number favoring the ACA was as when it was passed.  Both parties are running up against the same two challenges here. First, the health reform law is really complicated.  Other than “repeal and replace,” the ACA doesn’t lend itself easily to slogans that explain how it works.  This hurdle has been especially thorny for Democrats, who have seen low support for the ACA, despite the fact its individual provisions are polling extremely well.  

Tim Hoff of the Albany Times-Union believes that “Offering health insurance at reasonable prices is a key component of making the reform law cost-effective and able to reach millions of uninsured people.  The logic of getting private insurance companies to participate in state health insurance exchanges and offer good coverage at those reasonable prices predicates itself on having a balanced ‘risk pool’ of individuals in the marketplace — who must purchase health insurance.  Through a mix of healthy and sick purchasers, some who overuse their insurance and some who underuse, private insurers can be assured of not losing money (and thus exiting the market) by signing up only high-risk individuals.

“Without a mandate, many healthy uninsured people, as they tend to do, will continue to roll the dice and go uninsured.  This is even truer for the increasing number of Americans who are out of work or who work for employers who do not provide insurance, but earn too much to qualify for Medicaid.  For them, paying for health insurance is lower on the priority list.  That is, until they get sick,” Hoff said.

“Our country faces what may be an extended economic slump, a severe and perhaps more permanent absence of good jobs, rapid downsizing of the middle class and continued abdication by employers from offering benefits such as health insurance.  Yet, we leave it to lawyers and politicians to engage in armchair debates about what might or might not be ‘constitutional’ instead of supporting our government to do something beneficial that furthers the nation’s long-term health and prosperity.  Insuring every citizen is beneficial for our country.  It would do as much for our long-term future as a just, democratic society as any jobs program or debt reduction strategy would.  We are an increasingly sicker, unequal and less productive country in part because of the declining health and well-being of our citizenry, especially our poorer citizens,” according to Hoff.

 “How do we think we can fix the problem of the uninsured without requiring people to carry health insurance?  In our broken, polarized political system that is devoid of bold ideas, this health reform law and its insurance mandate were the best we could do to get health insurance to more people.  Asking almost everyone — citizens and legal residents — to have health insurance is fair, and subsidizing the poor’s ability to do it sensible.  At some point, everyone uses the health care system.  When the uninsured do, they cost us a lot more than those who are insured.  But the insurance mandate issue also speaks to how those of us with good health insurance often think selfishly about the role of healthcare in our own lives.”