Day 1 At The Court: Is Time Right For Health Law Review?

Today’s oral arguments before the Supreme Court will focus on whether an 1867 law — the Anti-Injunction Act – allows the court to consider the challenges to the health law before the individual mandate provision takes effect in 2014.

The Washington Post: Supreme Court To Hear Arguments On Timing Of Health-Care Ruling
The Supreme Court begins its constitutional review of the health-care overhaul law Monday with a fundamental question: Is the court barred from making such a decision at this time? The justices will hear 90 minutes of argument about whether an obscure 19th-century law — the Anti-Injunction Act — means that the court cannot pass judgment on the law until its key provisions go into effect in 2014. It is the rare issue on which both sides agree: the Obama administration lawyers and those representing the states and private organization challenging the new law argue that the Supreme Court should decide the constitutional question now (Barnes, 3/25).

The New York Times: Health Act Arguments Open With Obstacle From 1867
The Supreme Court on Monday starts three days of hearings on the constitutionality of the 2010 health care overhaul law, an epic clash that could recast the very structure of American government. But it begins with a 90-minute argument on what a lawyer in the case has called “the most boring jurisdictional stuff one can imagine.” The main event — arguments over the constitutionality of the law’s requirement that most Americans obtain insurance or pay a penalty — will not come until Tuesday (Liptak, 3/26).

Stateline: Supreme Court Hears First Issue: Jurisdiction
If the Medicaid portion of the health law is upheld, the work of expanding Medicaid access will be squarely on states’ shoulders, although the initial financial burden will be primarily on Washington. States have already been laying the groundwork for the Medicaid expansion, because waiting until the court decides would mean missing the law’s deadlines. For the same reason, most states have been developing so-called health insurance exchanges, the law’s central mechanism for extending health care access to millions of uninsured Americans (Vestal, 3/26).

Fox News: First Round Of Supreme Court Health Care Hearings Not About Health Care
For all the anticipation leading up to this week’s historic arguments, Monday morning’s opener at the Supreme Court isn’t about the law itself. It’s about the rules of the game. The day may prove disappointing to anyone looking for a vigorous constitutional argument or a hint of how the justices will ultimately rule on the merits of the dispute. Still, the fate of the case rests on this opening round (Ross, 3/26).

Bloomberg: Court Opens Health-Care Debate With Law That Might Derail Case
The U.S. Supreme Court opens today its historic review of President Barack Obama’s health- care law, three days of arguments that might result in the president’s premier legislative achievement being found unconstitutional in the middle of his re-election campaign. The court will determine the fate of a measure designed to extend insurance to about 32 million people and revamp an industry that accounts for 18 percent of the U.S. economy. The six hours of planned debate is the most on a case in 44 years (Stohr, 3/26).

NewsHour: Health Care Reform Heads To The Supreme Court: A Guide To Day 1
Between Monday and Wednesday, the justices will consider several issues, including whether it’s constitutional for the federal government to force Americans either to buy health insurance or pay a fine. … What can we expect on the first day of arguments in this historic case? (Kane, 3/26).

 

Summaries courtesy of  Kaiser Health News’ Daily Report

LinkedInShare

The Hardest Job To Fill (And Keep) – CMS Chief

President Obama is fighting to save his signature health law on two fronts: in the Supreme Court and on the campaign trail, where Republican candidates are promising to kill the Affordable Care Act.

Photos by Getty Images and Associated Press

 Yet even if the president prevails, he faces another daunting challenge: implementing the law in a seamless, timely manner. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is charged with making the health law work, drafting regulations, setting up new programs and providing oversight. But for years Congress has undermined the agency’s leadership and potential effectiveness, raising questions about its capabilities and resources even as the health law ramps up its responsibilities.

For starters: consider the revolving door leadership at CMS.

Since its creation in 1977 as the Health Care Financing Administration, the agency has had 29 administrators in 35 years – an average tenure of just 14 months. The longest-serving administrator held the job for four years and five months. The shortest: two months.

The most recent CMS administrator, Dr. Donald Berwick, resigned in December after 16 months. His replacement, Marilyn Tavenner, currently holds the title of acting administrator. That’s hardly uncommon.

Acting administrators have run the agency 20 percent of the time. And the trend appears to be increasing: the Senate hasn’t confirmed a full-time CMS administrator since 2006, when Mark McClellan resigned midway through the second Bush administration.

“Imagine if somebody went two years without a Secretary of Defense,” Thomas A. Scully, who was CMS administrator under President George W. Bush, told the journal Health Affairs in April 2010.

For decades, government and private researchers have pointed to a widening gap between the agency’s responsibilities and resources. As the largest purchaser of health care in the world, with a budget of $820 billion, CMS pays for the care of one in three Americans, and interacts daily with thousands of hospitals, doctors and other providers.

4,900 vs. 62,000 Employees

The number of Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries has soared since the programs started in 1966, with tens of millions of Baby Boomers and uninsured expected to swell the rolls even more in coming years. Yet today the agency has the same number of employees it had during the during the Carter administration – about 4,900.

By comparison, the Social Security Administration, with a smaller budget, has 62,000 employees. Even including work that CMS outsources to private contractors – bill-paying, coverage decisions and quality oversight – the agency operates with about half as many employees as Social Security.

The shortages have hurt the agency’s ability to implement crucial reforms, ensure adequate oversight of hospitals and other providers and find ways to stem spiraling medical costs, researchers say. For years, CMS executives weren’t even sure if they could consider cost as part of their coverage decisions, paying high-quality and low-quality providers the same amount.

In 1999, a bipartisan group of former administrators and health policy experts wrote an open letter to Congress decrying “the mismatch” between the agency’s resources and its “mammoth assignment.”

Three years later, the nonprofit National Academy of Social Insurance wrote, “This mismatch has grown worse in recent years as CMS’ responsibilities have increased dramatically.”

“Really, when you consider what they have to work with, they do a fairly remarkable job,” adds Robert A. Berenson, a former CMS administrator, and now a health researcher at the Urban Institute. “Assuring adequate staff at CMS has not been a priority for Congress even though it might more than pay for itself in more efficient programs.”

‘What’s Missing Is … A Consolidated Strategic Vision’

Berwick, a physician and national expert on health quality, said he was “impressed and gratified” by the way senior staff rallied around his calls to implement the sprawling health law. But much of staff time is taken up writing rules and regulations.

Career executives “perform these core components well,” said Berwick. “What’s missing is a kind of coherence and consolidated strategic vision of where to head next.”

In recent years, Congress has added more programs and complex legislation to the agency’s plate, including overseeing a 2003 prescription drug benefit for seniors, ensuring patient privacy, helping to weed out waste and fraud and developing a system for grading hospitals and nursing homes.

The Obama administration’s nearly two-year-old health law adds yet more duties: helping to oversee insurance exchanges in 50 states, operating a program to spur ways of delivering care more efficiently, and guiding big expansions of Medicare and Medicaid, the agency’s core programs.

CMS will be expected to do so even as “frequent changes” at the top “have inhibited the implementation of long-term Medicare initiatives or the pursuit of a consistent management strategy,” according to a 2000 study by the U.S. General Accounting Office.

For years, the agency was criticized for focusing more on getting checks out to hospitals and doctors than ensuring quality or finding ways to trim health spending. Part of that had to do with Medicare’s unique history. For the first 11 years of its existence, the program was housed in the Social Security Administration, which issues monthly income support checks to retired Americans.

But even after the Medicare and Medicaid programs were put under one roof in 1977, the agency continued to struggle, facing criticism from Congress and medical providers. “It’’s almost paradoxical the extent to which Medicare is so important and valued in the lives of so many families and communities, and the overwhelming communication the people running the program get is hostility,” said Bruce Vladeck, an administrator in the Clinton administration.

Not Just A Check-Writing Agency

Gail Wilensky, who ran the agency for two years under President George H.W. Bush, said CMS has evolved into a much more sophisticated operation. “It’s not just a check-writing agency anymore,” she said. But the turnover at the top sends the wrong message to employees, who respond by being “more inward and protective.”

The CMS administrator’s position is a political appointment requiring Senate confirmation. Berwick’s name surfaced as a potential CMS leader shortly after Obama’s election. A pediatrician by training, Berwick gradually shifted his focus to quality improvement, steering the nationally recognized Institute for Healthcare Improvement, a nonprofit based near Boston.

The Obama administration waited to submit his name for the CMS position until April 2010, one month after it won passage of the Affordable Care Act. By then, Republicans were openly attacking the legislation as unduly burdensome and costly. Berwick never did get a Senate hearing and was appointed by the president during the congressional recess that July.

The recess appointment avoided what many predicted would be a losing battle with Senate Republicans. Some of them accused Berwick of promoting rationing, based on favorable comments he had made in the past about the British National Health System. Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., said Berwick’s focus on cutting costs would lead to a rural health system consisting “of a Band-Aid and a bed pan.”

In an interview, Berwick said Republicans “twisted and distorted” his words and used the agency as “a political football. It’s a game to them,” he said. Berwick added that the churn in administrators “demoralizes and confuses” senior staff and hurts the agency’s ability to develop a consistent long-term vision. “What happens, I think, when you have a lot of turnover is senior staff loses its confidence and is less willing to take risks.”

Wilensky said she was “especially frustrated” with what happened to Berwick. “I like Don Berwick. I don’t always agree with him but I have a lot of respect for what he has done and for his passion for the great issues he takes on.”

Berwick had little choice except to resign. His acting term was set to expire at the end of 2011 and 42 Republican senators had already announced their intentions to block his confirmation as a full-time administrator. The administration nominated Tavenner, a former Virginia health official and executive with the for-profit Hospital Corporation of America, just days later.

Several prominent Republicans, including Republican House Majority leader, Eric Cantor, said Tavenner was “eminently qualified” to run the agency. But months later Tavenner still hasn’t gotten a hearing and, with the heated politics of an election year, some wonder if she will.

 

 

By Gilbert M. Gaul Kaiser Health News

This story was produced in collaboration with The Washington Post

LinkedInShare

Success of Health Reform Hinges on Hiring 30,000 Primary Care Doctors by 2015

On a chilly afternoon at a community clinic in Southeast Washington, three young doctors are busily laying the foundation for the health-care law’s success.

Jacob Edwards flips through a manual on skin conditions, diagnosing a rash that looks like chicken pox. Jessica O’Babatunde consults her supervisor on treating an adolescent’s obesity, which is literally off-the-charts. And Julie Krueger peppers 3-year-old Daphauni with questions at her physical: How do you spell your name? What did you eat for breakfast? What’s your favorite vegetable? (Cheese.)

Primary Care Physicians

They are primary-care residents at Children’s National Medical Center. A third of their class has more than $200,000 each in student loan debt. At the end of residency, they can stay in primary care and earn $29.58 an hour. Or they can specialize and make $74.45. Over a lifetime, a medical student who specializes can expect to earn $3.5 million more.

The Obama administration — and, arguably, the American health-care system — desperately needs them to choose primary care. [Read more...]

LinkedInShare

Catholic Healthcare West Ends Ties with Church as Part of Business Conversion

Catholic Healthcare West shed more than words when the 38-hospital system changed its name to Dignity Health. It dropped its formal connection to the Roman Catholic Church.

San Francisco-based CHW envisioned a system with hospitals coast to coast, beyond its three-state region of Arizona, California and Nevada. To realize that vision, the system on Jan. 23 introduced the new name and the restructuring of its governance to separate from the church. Officials cited enhanced opportunities to expand, saying separating from the church would make the system more attractive to executives from secular or non-Catholic hospitals that are looking for an investor.“What this does is two things: it removes the words ‘Catholic’ and ‘West’ from its name; I think the intention is for broadening the pool of affiliations,” said Brad Spielman, a vice president and senior analyst for Moody’s Investors Service.

The former CHW counts itself as the fifth-largest Catholic system in the country based on revenue, and whether other systems follow suit in an effort to grow remains to be seen. Still, CHW’s conversion poses the latest example of a faith-based system taking drastic actions to position itself for impending healthcare reform and the business demands of the future.

Most observers aren’t surprised, but also wonder if the system’s mission and values have evolved to the point where they were forced to separate. “They view it as removing the ball and chain from themselves,” said Paul Danello, a Washington-based lawyer focused on Catholic canon law.As a growing number of laypeople continue to be involved in leadership, some question whether the Catholic way will remain a feasible way of doing business.

Lawrence Singer, director of the Beazley Institute for Health Law and Policy at Loyola University, a Jesuit school in Chicago, and his colleagues envision a time when compliance with ethical and religious directives could hamstring Catholic hospitals attempting to conduct business in the modern age. “Are we getting to a point where either government policy in the Affordable Care Act or community demand for certain services is such that Catholic healthcare providers won’t effectively be able to compete or serve their market any longer?” Singer said.

Looking to expand eastward

Dignity Health President and CEO Lloyd Dean declined to discuss any pending deals that may have served as motivation for the restructuring, but did say the system is looking to expand east. He also said there’s no “one-size-fits-all” remedy for all Catholic systems. But this one, he said, gives Dignity Health the flexibility to ally with a larger number of organizations.“What I can tell you is, this is the right model for us and it allows us to partner with others whose values who are in sync with our mission, vision and organization,” Dean said.

Dignity Health now has 23 Catholic and 15 non-Catholic hospitals.

Dignity Health officials planted the seeds for a name change in 2010, when CHW released its vision statement for the next decade. Besides making bold goals of expanding, the system listed “dignity” as the first of five core values and described aspirations of developing a “vibrant national healthcare system” by the end of 2020.

“We will grow our healing ministry by expanding access and market share within existing service areas, entering new service areas, and significantly expanding our community-based wellness, ambulatory and nonacute services,” the report, titled Horizon 2020, stated.

Dignity Health officials are quick to point out that they aren’t severing all ties to the church. Dean said the church’s values will remain important at the system’s Catholic and non-Catholic hospitals. The system will continue to prohibit most reproductive services at its existing facilities, regardless of the hospital’s affiliation, allowing only sterilizations at its non-Catholic facilities.“I would say our vision has not changed and neither has our mission as being a voice for the voiceless, serving those in need of quality healthcare,” Dean said.

That’s a statement supported by the Washington, D.C.-based Catholic Health Association. “We do not see it as separating from the church; they worked this corporate structure out in consultation with many bishops,” CHA President and CEO Sister Carol Keehan wrote in an e-mailed statement.

A changing climate is forcing Catholic healthcare organizations to make changes. Earlier this month, the largest Catholic care group in America, 76-hospital Ascension Health, St. Louis, split into two (Jan. 9). The Ascension Health Alliance will manage support services and subsidiaries, while Ascension Health concentrates on hospital operations and healthcare delivery. Last year, Ascension formed a for-profit partnership with private-equity firm Oak Hill Capital Partners that intends to buy struggling Catholic providers and keep them Catholic (See related story).

Blazing a trail?

Sister Judy Carle, Dignity Health’s board vice chair, said CHW leaders discussed splitting the system into non-Catholic and Catholic components, but concluded that would go against the system’s belief in inclusivity. CHW has been the rare group with both non-Catholic and Catholic hospitals. However, Danello predicted that other Catholic systems would follow Dignity Health’s lead, and that three out of the other top five Catholic healthcare organizations would do so in the next two to four years.

Dignity Health has not acquired a hospital since 2007, when it added St. Mary’s Regional Medical Center in Reno, Nev., and the system has been searching for a buyer for that 269-bed hospital.

A published report quoted Dean saying officials from non-Catholic hospitals interested in affiliating with CHW seemed reluctant about joining a Catholic system, worried that they’d have to become Catholic. [Read more...]

LinkedInShare

CLASS Dismissed: Administration Pulls Plug On Long-Term Care Program

Federal officials on Friday effectively shut down part of the health care law that would have helped consumers cover some long-term-care costs, saying they could not find a way to make it work financially.

After looking at a variety of options, the Obama administration determined the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) Act program could not simultaneously meet three important criteria: be self-sustaining, financially sound for 75 years and affordable to consumers.

The move does not affect the rest of the health care law, although it does remove more than $70 billion in expected federal budgetary savings over 10 years.  The savings would have come having policyholders pay premiums for the first few years, but not receive benefits until 2017.

The program – championed by the late Sen. Edward Kennedy – would have allowed working adults to apply for insurance that would provide up to $50 a day in cash benefits if they became disabled. The money could be used to help with in-home assistance or nursing home care.

While acknowledging the need for such long-term-care assistance, the program’s administrator, Kathy Greenlee, said Friday that the numbers just didn’t add up.

Under one scenario shown in a report sent to Congress Friday, administration analysts said a basic CLASS insurance plan with a $50 a day benefit might have cost $235 to $391 month.  That might have been more than consumers would have been willing to pay based on the benefit. If enough people did not voluntarily enroll, the program would not have been self-sustaining.

“The overall program could not run if it had a highly priced solvent product no one would buy,” said Greenlee, administrator of the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) program.

Republicans had slammed the CLASS since its inception, describing it as a scheme that would require policyholders to pay into a program whose costs would quickly surpass its revenues.  Recently, Hill Republicans had asked for a congressional hearing into the program and had released a report that concluded HHS officials ignored warnings about its sustainability.
[Read more...]

LinkedInShare

Medicare Plans See Dollars In Quality Rating Stars

Three Boston-area health insurers are in a race for a decisive competitive advantage. They’re not seeking the usual industry plaudits, exclusive deals with high-profile medical providers, or splashy marketing campaigns.

They’re after the highest mark on Medicare’s quality exam, a one-to-five star rating system that was an afterthought until the 2010 health law tied it to big cash bonuses.  The Medicare Advantage plans’ latest ratings for 2012 will be released Wednesday. Top scoring plans will also win the ability to enroll new members year-round, rather than a few weeks each autumn.

“It’s a huge game changer in Massachusetts,” said Ken Arruda, executive director of Medicare services for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, which currently has 4.5 stars. Also in the Boston area, Fallon Community Health Plan and Tufts Health Plan are on the cusp of the top score. Each says their strategy is to reach five stars as soon as possible –a feat only three plans nationwide have achieved so far.

Competition is fiercest in places like Boston, where high-ranking plans are near their goal, but shades of this quality arms race are visible throughout the country. Insurers have rarely competed on quality measures, but as the federal government prepares to unleash an estimated $3 billion to $4 billion next year in bonus payments, the industry is following the money. Star-ratings are bleeding into bottom lines, board meetings, and corporate strategy as the insurers chase top scores.

Wednesday’s announcement comes just ahead of the open enrollment period which runs from Oct. 15 through Dec. 7. About one quarter of Medicare beneficiaries are now in private plans that contract with the federal government to provide health benefits to seniors and disabled people.

The star ratings have been on the books since 2007 and are the only guide to health plan performance available to consumers. Next year, though, is the first in which there is money at stake for the companies.

“To say that the [private plans] put less than optimal resources toward star quality ratings in the past would be an understatement,” wrote Barclays Capital analyst Joshua Raskin. Now, he said by e-mail, he sees a “clear effort on improving the ratings at most companies.”

The federal health law cut $136 billion in payments to Medicare Advantage plans over 10 years, and health plan accountants increasingly see the new star-rating bonuses as a way to mitigate the losses.

The Obama administration has argued that the private plans, originally devised as a way to reduce Medicare costs, have long been overpaid. They cost the government as much as 114 percent of the cost of traditional Medicare patients, without producing better health outcomes for enrollees. The federal government announced in November that it would increase the bonuses. The program is part of a push for quality, led by Medicare administrator Dr. Donald Berwick, that is meant to boost results even as the cuts kick in.

Consumer advocates, such as Ilene Stein, the Medicare Rights Center’s federal policy director, are hopeful that the ratings will improve quality for Medicare beneficiaries. However, Stein cautioned, the Medicare agency will need to oversee the bonus system so health plans don’t game the measures.

Beginning in January, plans with three stars – the average rating – or better, will get bonuses of 3 to 5 percent of their total Medicare payments.  The ratings are based on 36 measures, ranging from diabetes care to the volume of consumer complaints. Twenty-two insurers across the country now boast a 4.5 star rating. Of 396 plans that received 2011 scores, only three achieved five stars: one each in Colorado, Florida and Wisconsin.

Attention to the ratings is new even to the top performers. At Marshfield Clinic’s 5-star Security Health Plan in Wisconsin, the plan’s top administrative officer, Steve Youso, described the high score as a natural byproduct of the insurer’s culture of quality.

But, now executives there are paying attention, too, knowing the top rating is worth keeping. “Prior to March 2010″ – when the health law passed – “[ratings were] probably not a topic of discussion,” Youso said. Now, “our senior executive team is talking about this on a weekly basis.”

There’s a similar dynamic at Massachusetts’s Fallon Community Health Plan, which is still gunning for five stars. “The finance department is more interested in our [quality] results than ever before,” said Ann Marie Sciammacco, vice-president of health services. “Basically, the stars equate to dollars.”

In Worcester County, the hub of Fallon’s service area, five-star plans would earn $8 a month more than 4.5 star plans for a typical member, according to Medicare data. For Fallon’s 28,000 members there, it would add up to $2.7 million a year – money that could be used to reduce premiums and attract more customers.

Sometimes boosting ratings is simple work. One measure the government tracks is the rate of colorectal cancer screening for certain patients. Fallon members get a birthday card from their insurance company that reads, “Every nine minutes, someone in the U.S. dies from colorectal cancer.” Eighty-four percent of Fallon patients get the screening.

Fallon – or a rival plan in the Boston-area – could also benefit from the year-round enrollment perk, which would allow a five-star plan to pick off its competitor’s members.  ”The primary – but untested in this market – competitive advantage of being five stars… is the ability to enroll year round,” said Richard Burke, Fallon’s president of senior care services, in an e-mail.

Nationally, lower ranking insurers, such as the publicly traded HealthSpring, which runs mostly three-star plans, view star ratings as a crucial ingredient to boosting revenues and competing more effectively. Jason Feuerman, a top HealthSpring executive, said in an April interview, “We’re putting the resources in place to make sure we can drive those ratings.”

During a visit that month to a HealthSpring-operated clinic in Philadelphia, administrator Nathaniel Decker pointed out equipment, such as a digital retinal camera, that he said was installed to help boost star ratings by allowing doctors to easily perform one of the tasks measured: eye exams for diabetic patients.

In addition to missing out on the bonuses, plans that consistently score less than three stars could eventually be booted from the program altogether under a proposed regulation released early this month by the Medicare agency.

Plans’ interest in boosting ratings is widespread enough to fuel a niche consulting business. The consulting arm of OptumInsight, a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group, for instance, says it has picked up 35 health plan clients seeking star-related services. “As soon as you start attaching some money to it, it’s amazing,” said Steve Wood, an Optum management consultant.

In some markets, the star ratings could boost underdogs. Houston-based KelseyCare Advantage, a Medicare plan affiliated with the Kelsey-Seybold Clinic, is on the cusp of a five-star rating. In membership, though, it trails TexanPlus, a Medicare plan operated by the publicly-traded Universal American Corporation, that has 50,000 members – twice as many as KelseyCare. But TexanPlus has only 3.5 stars this year.

KelseyCare President Marnie Matheny is hoping to achieve five stars – and a marketing edge that could level the playing field with a competitor who can do things like rent out the Reliant Center for a Wii bowling tournament to attract customers.

“It will be huge for us,” said Matheny. When patients see “there’s no one else in the market [with five stars], they’ll think there’s something special about KelseyCare.”

 

Article By Christopher Weaver a KHN Staff Writer.  Kaiser Health News

 

 

LinkedInShare

CMS Administrator Berwick says CMS has the Money to Establish Health Insurance Exchanges

CMS Administrator Dr. Donald Berwick told reporters Monday that the CMS has the money necessary to move forward in establishing health insurance exchanges.

“We have every intention of running the exchanges on time and helping states do the same,” Berwick said following his remarks at the America’s Health Insurance Plans conference on Medicare and Medicaid, which runs through Sept. 15. “There will be federal exchanges, of course. Some states will choose that as a better way for them,” he added. We don’t know how many.” When pressed for whether the CMS has the funding required to establish these insurance marketplaces, Berwick said: “Step by step, we have the money we need now to take the next steps.”

Meanwhile, Berwick said the selection process for the Pioneer ACO model—the sister program to the Medicare Shared Savings Program for accountable care organizations—is under way. Berwick said the application process, including even the number of applicants for it, is confidential, and that he suspects the CMS will announce the Pioneer ACOs before the MSSP program begins in January.

In his keynote speech earlier, Berwick emphasized that the cost of healthcare is a “center-stage issue” and one that can be addressed in two ways: either by cutting care, which he noted is “seductively easy,” or by improving care, which he said is not only the better option, but one that is within reach.

There are “direct savings policies” that reduce costs even if there are no changes in provider or patient behavior, such as changes to the level of payment to providers and productivity adjustments that he said are easy to quantify. But those policies are less than ideal and “certainly not the best route to the better healthcare that we all seek,” Berwick said. Instead, the focus should be on the “indirect savings policies,” which are ways to work with stakeholders to reduce the waste in the healthcare system.

Berwick outlined six major types of healthcare waste: failures to coordinate care; failures in the care process (such as delays or producing injuries); over-treatment; excessive administrative costs; problems in healthcare pricing; and fraud and abuse.

Read more at: Modern Healthcare . Story by By Jessica Zigmond
**Would you like to learn more about what an ACO (Accountable Care Organization) is?  Here is an article to read ACO FAQs by Kaiser Health News.
LinkedInShare

Physician Shortage Could Hinder Califorina’s Bridge to Reform Program

Over the next few years, California’s Bridge to Reform program aims to provide medical coverage for thousands of uninsured state residents, but officials say it will not address the shortage of primary care and specialty physicians, HealthyCal reports.

Background

The Bridge to Reform Medi-Cal waiver is a joint state and federal program that aims to help California prepare for wider implementation of the federal health reform law in 2014. Medi-Cal is California’s Medicaid program.

The bridge program provides matching federal funds to counties for health care spending for low-income, uninsured adults.

Physician Shortage Concerns

The program calls for patients to have a primary care physician and for follow-up care that includes medications and lab tests to stave off potentially costly emergency treatment.

However, county officials say a shortage of primary and specialty care physicians will make it more difficult to meet the needs of those who will receive health coverage under Bridge to Reform and in 2014 under an expansion of the federal health reform law.

Mary Ann Lee, managing director of the Stanislaus County Health Services Agency, said there have been difficulties trying to recruit physicians under Bridge to Reform in part because “reimbursements (for Medi-Cal) are lower than many other states and the unemployment is higher, so there is higher uncompensated care.”

Ken Cohen, director of health care services at San Joaquin County Health Care Services, said his county has ”a significant manpower shortage,” adding that more physicians practice in Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Jose.

Cost Concerns

County officials also have expressed concerns about whether the cost of adding patients and expanding coverage would exceed the amount of federal funds received.

If so, many counties that already are facing budget challenges would have to cover the extra costs of providing health care (Moran, HealthyCal, 7/20).

For more coverage on California’s Bridge to Reform Medicaid waiver, see  California’s Healthline’s Feature article of the Day.

Article source from California Healthline
LinkedInShare

Health & Human Services releases National Prevention Strategy | Federal Grants available for Prevention

On June 16, 2011 U.S. Surgeon General Regina Benjamin and members of the National Prevention Council released the first ever National Prevention Strategy at a news conference in Washington, D.C.

The strategy was drafted by the National Prevention Council, which includes representatives from 17 federal agencies, all of whom have committed to emphasizing prevention in their day-to-day decisions.

“The Administration is laying the foundation to help transform our health care system from a system focused on treating the sick to one that’s focused on keeping every American healthy,” said Melody Barnes, director of the Domestic Policy Council at the White House.

The strategy states that:

  • Prevention starts at home and in the community, not just at physicians’ offices;
  • Immunization, cancer screenings and other preventive care, if made available, will translate to better care and lower health care costs;
  • Providing easy-to-understand educational materials on preventive care will help U.S. residents make better choices; and
  • Eliminating health disparities is important

To learn how you can become part of America’s Plan for Better Health and Wellness,
read the National Prevention Strategy Report

The Health and Human Services Department also announced that $4 million is available to “community-based organizations” for healthcare programs. Recipients will help support activities funded by a larger grant opportunity that is oriented toward smoking cessation, healthy diets and preventive healthcare services.

More can be found on www.healthcare.gov

 

 

LinkedInShare

Millions Of Dollars In Consumer Rebates At Stake As States Seek to Soften Rule on Insurers’ Profits

In a move that could absolve health insurers of paying more than $95 million in consumer rebates, nine states are pressing for relief from a federal rule limiting insurers’ profits and administrative costs.

State regulators say they fear insurers would flee their markets and leave some individuals without coverage options if the rule isn’t eased. But consumer groups say there’s little evidence insurers would bail out.

If the rule is relaxed, “the end impact will be to deny consumers the millions in rebates they expect to get on this year’s premiums,” says Carmen Balber, Washington director of the advocacy group Consumer Watchdog.

Under the federal health law, insurers must spend at least 80 percent of premium revenues on medical costs or quality improvements; the remainder can go toward administrative costs, sales commissions and profits. Plans that fail to meet the standard must pay rebates to policyholders.

Many health plans, but not all, already meet that target. Data provided by states seeking to relax the rule show a wide range of spending on medical care: Several insurers spend only slightly more than half of their premium revenues on care. Potential rebates across the nine states total more than $95 million for policies in effect this year.

The spending requirement, called the “medical loss ratio,” applies to all health plans, except those offered by self-insured employers. However, the exceptions sought by the states would affect only individual policies bought by people who don’t get coverage through their jobs.  Nationwide, more than 18 million Americans purchase their own policies.

Up to 9 million Americans with individual policies and in group plans could be eligible for rebates, according to government estimates.

The Department of Health and Human Services is expected to rule soon on requests from New Hampshire and Nevada to ease the rule. Other states that have applied are Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, North Dakota, Georgia, Kansas and Iowa.

“We need time for the market to adjust,” says Nevada Insurance Commissioner Brett Barratt, who wants the medical-spending requirement for insurers in his state lowered to 72 percent this year. Only two of the 10 Nevada carriers subject to the rule expect to hit the 80 percent medical-spending mark this year. Barratt says he doesn’t know if the others would leave the state if they had to pay rebates.

HHS already has approved Maine’s request to lower the target to 65 percent for each of the next three years.  The state’s second-largest insurer – MegaLife, a subsidiary of HealthMarkets – had threatened to withdraw if the target wasn’t reduced.  The insurer, projected to spend 68 percent of its revenues on medical care this year, was facing an estimated $1.9 million in rebates to policyholders.
[Read more...]

LinkedInShare