Cooperating for better care.

ACA

Tag Archives

Healthcare leaders deeply fear ACA repeal

panic

A Modern Heathcare survey of healthcare CEO’s found great concern verging on panic that the Trump administration, whose campaign rhetoric has been stridently and ideologically in favor of “repealing” the Affordable Care Act, would do just that abruptly, causing economic and clinical chaos in the sector and  leaving millions of Americans without insurance.

“You can’t drop 20 million people from the insurance rolls,” said William Conway, M.D., who is CEO of the 1,200-physician Henry Ford Medical Group in Michigan. “I hope there’s no way to go back.”

“I would hope and pray that we don’t unwind the thing without anything to replace it.”

A Modern Healthcare Power Panel survey in May found that 67 percent of CEOs opposed repealing and replacing the ACA.

Modern Healthcare noted:

“Republican leaders are debating whether to quickly pass a repeal of most of the ACA, possibly with a one- or two-year delay, then later craft a replacement package. But 86% of the CEOs responding to the survey either strongly or somewhat agreed that repeal should not proceed without a replacement plan that provides affordable health insurance for all Americans who lack employer-based coverage.”

To read the Modern Healthcare on what many healthcare leaders see as a huge crisis of uncertainty, please hit this link.


Move to value-based care seen continuing

 

The move to value-based care will continue under the Trump administration, argue Emme L. Deland, New York-Presbyterian Hospital’s  senior vice president and chief strategy officer, and Jonathan Gordon, director of NYP Ventures,  a New York-Presbyterian telemedicine unit, in a post for NEJM Catalyst.

They write:

“At the moment, it seems likely that health care financing will get more attention than health care delivery under the new Administration. Medicaid expansion may be rolled back in some states, and block grants are likely to constrain state Medicaid plans — though a fixed Medicaid budget may drive a more rapid shift toward value-based care in many states. The aspects of the ACA that have attracted the most public attention — the individual and employer mandate, and insurance exchanges and subsidies — are most likely to see significant changes.”

“{W}hile there is a significant chance that the specific mechanics of reform may change, the interest in and demand for value-based care will persist on both sides of the aisle. This can be seen in the 392-37 and 92-8 House and Senate votes that passed MACRA, which established a permanent ‘doc fix’ to Medicare reimbursement rates in exchange for a choice between a complex series of quality and efficiency measures, or participation in risk-bearing value-based payment models.”

“Looking ahead, it is possible that there may be a push for a less-regulated approach toward new models, with state Medicaid plans, private payers, and employers taking more of a lead as a result of a more hands-off CMS and a move toward federal Medicaid block grants. The result could be net positive for innovators in health care, as an even more diverse range of delivery reform approaches is tried — though incumbent providers and payers may be challenged to adapt to yet another changing landscape. Many states and their providers, however, could be financially adversely affected by block grants.”

To read their whole article, please hit this link.


Trump picks GOP retreads to help kill or gut ACA

 

Modern Healthcare reports that its sources say that President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team for  the Department of Health & Human Services will be led by Andrew Bremberg, who worked at the department under President George W. Bush and advised  Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.

Mr. Bremberg worked on Mr. Walker’s healthcare proposal when the latter ran for president. Mr. Walker backed repealing the Affordable Care Act and splitting Medicaid into smaller programs with separate funding.

Mr. Bremberg worked for the Mitt Romney campaign in 2012 with the direct responsibility for laying the groundwork for the repeal of the ACA.

The publication also said that Mr. Trump had selected Paula Stannard to  concentrate on healthcare-reform measures.  She is a former deputy general counsel and acting general counsel of the HHS under President George W. Bush.

“They bring a basic philosophy that we can advance our healthcare system by making sure that the patient is at the center of every single reform and that reforms are actionable – and result in less government intrusion,” said Peter Pitts, president of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest and a former associate commissioner at the Food and Drug Administration, said of the two.

To read more, please hit this link.


Fitch: Trump could hurt hospitals’ credit ratings

butcher\

Medieval butcher shop in Europe.

A Fitch Ratings report says that President-elect Donald Trump’s stated intention to  dismantle the Affordable Care Act will hurt the credit ratings of hospitals and health systems.

Fitch  says that the ACA has helped  hospitals by sending them higher volumes of insured patients, which  would drop if the ACA is repealed or  dramatically changed.

Fitch also noted  that repeal could  slow the transition to value-based payment models and cause fewer people to keep prescription coverage, which would, of course, hurt  the pharmaceutical industry.

To read the Fitch report, please hit this link.


4 ways Trump could affect hospital revenue cycle

bucks

Becker’s Hospital Review presents four ways  in which President-elect Donald Trump’s proposed healthcare reforms could affect hospitals’ revenue cycle:

“1. Tax-free, inheritable health savings accounts. Mr. Trump said he would sign legislation to promote tax-advantaged HSAs to encourage consumers with high-deductible health plans to set aside money for out-of-pocket healthcare costs.

“Mr. Trump would also tie HSAs to a person’s estate, meaning an account could pass on to next of kin without facing federal taxes.”

“2. Federal mandate for provider price transparency. Mr. Trump said he would require ‘all healthcare providers, especially doctors and healthcare organizations like clinics and hospitals,’ to disclose service prices to consumers prior to treatment. This could speed the rate of price transparency adoption at hospitals across the nation.”

“3. New Medicaid funding method. Mr. Trump proposed dismantling financing for Medicaid expansion under the ACA and converting the program to a block grant to contain healthcare costs. Block grants would give states more authority over their Medicaid programs in exchange for accepting a fixed amount of funding from the federal government. This means states would not be required to cover certain groups of people, such as children, pregnant women and the elderly, to receive federal money. ”

“4. Repeal of the ACA. Mr. Trump vowed to repeal the ACA as one of his first presidential acts. Bill HR 3762, introduced into Congress October 2015, would: repeal ACA tax credits, end Medicaid expansion, repeal major taxes used to fund insurance expansion and create a two year transition period to dismantle ACA infrastructure. The Congressional Budget Office estimated 22 million people would lose insurance if HR 3762 is signed into law without a Republican replacement plan. The rise in uninsured Americans could negatively affect healthcare providers by increasing their uncompensated care and bad debt rates to pre-ACA levels.”

To read the full article, please hit this link.


Trump victory may kill the ACA

 

gallows

Preparing for a hanging.

Modern Healthcare wrote: Donald Trump’s victory on Nov. 8 “will force a major shift in the healthcare industry’s thinking about its future. Combined with the GOP’s retention of control of the Senate and the House, a Trump presidency enables conservatives to repeal or roll back the Affordable Care Act and implement at least some of the proposals outlined in the GOP party platform and the recent House Republican leadership white paper on healthcare.

“{T}he maintenance of Republican control over both the White House and Congress “most likely means an end to the expansion of Medicaid to the 19 states that have not yet implemented it, and puts the expansion in the other 31 states in serious jeopardy.”

“But there are divisions even among conservatives over issues such as Medicare restructuring and how to help Americans afford health insurance. And Senate Democrats almost certainly would try to use their filibuster power to block major ACA changes.”

To read all of Modern Healthcare’s post-mortem, please hit this link.


What a ‘public option’ would look like

 

By PAULINE BARTOLONE

For Kaiser Health News

SACRAMENTO

The “public option,” which stoked fierce debate in the run-up to the Affordable Care Act, is making a comeback — at least among Democratic politicians.

The proposal to create a government-funded health plan, one that might look like Medicare or Medicaid but would be open to everyone, is being advocated by some  federal officials, and gaining traction here in California too.

Amid news that two major insurers were pulling out of Affordable Care Act exchanges, 33 senators recently renewed the call for a public option. The idea was first floated, then rejected, during the drafting of the federal health law, which took effect in 2010.
Dave Jones, the elected regulator of California’s private insurance industry, endorsed the idea of a state-specific public option in an interview last month with California Healthline, though he did not specify how it might work. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton includes a public option in her campaign platform, and President  Obama urged Congress to revisit the idea in a JAMA article published in August.

A public option “would look just like an insurance plan,” except that the state or federal government would pay for medical care, potentially set up the network of doctors and hospitals, and make rules about paying providers, according to Gerald Kominski, director of the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research. Private industry could be involved in these or other aspects of running the health plan, much as they do in Medicare Advantage and managed Medicaid plans.

California Healthline interviewed Kominski to better understand how a public option could work. The interview was edited for length and clarity.

Q: When we talk about a public option, do we mean a health plan for which the government takes the risk, sets the coverage rules and pays out the claims — and enrollees pay premiums just as they would to an insurance company?

That is what the public option would be. But that still leaves out the answer to a lot of questions about how actually that would occur. How would a government agency essentially become the insurer? So we have two examples. We have the Medicare program and we have the Medicaid program.

Medicare establishes the rules. It contracts with insurance companies to pay the bills. And that’s the way that Medicare has operated for over 50 years.

Now we have Medicare Advantage plans, where the contracting is not to pay bills but is basically contracting with insurers to bundle the services. And rather than pay the doctors and hospitals, the government pays the insurer and puts the insurer at risk.

Q: Insurers have opposed this idea in the past, and they’re opposing it again now that it’s being raised by members of Congress.

Private insurers could participate as administrators or providers on behalf of the state. But here’s one concern that I have with that model: California has four large insurance companies in the exchange that account for about 90 percent of the market.

Let’s say that California wanted to create a public option and hire an insurance company to administer that product for it. What would be the reason or the incentive for any of those companies to agree to be the plan administrator for the public option when the public option would be competing with the product that they’re already offering? They would be competing with themselves.

Q: Some provider groups may be opposed to a public option because they say that government programs like Medi-Cal pay very little and they believe a public option plan would also pay little. Is this necessarily the case that a government program would pay low rates?

It’s not necessarily the case, but it is in fact what we observe in the Medicare and the Medicaid/Medi-Cal programs.

Q: Do you think a public plan would help bring down costs in the healthcare system by negotiating for lower payments to hospitals and doctors?

I think that is possible in other areas of the country, where there are markets with one or two health insurance plans in the exchange. I think California has one of the most competitive ACA marketplaces. And so would the public option in California dramatically reduce premiums? I think the answer is no. It would have little or no effect.

For some people, the advantage is that we think that the public option’s going to be around because the state’s not going to back out of its commitment, whereas private insurers come and go in the marketplace.

Q: Is there something about California’s healthcare system that uniquely primes the state for a public option?

I think so. One of the things that’s unique about California is the high percentage of managed-care enrollment. The public option in California would probably include or be based on a managed-care model and Californians are pretty receptive to that model.

Q: So if the public option could include private insurance, why are the insurers so opposed?

Well, the simple answer is they don’t want more competition. And again it goes back to, why was this battle so intense during the development and enactment of the ACA back in 2009 and 2010? The insurance industry said we cannot compete with a plan, a government plan, that pays doctors and hospitals using Medicare fees or fee schedules.

You remember the fundamental rule of business is you don’t want more competition. You want the market to yourself.
Well, that’s where you can’t ignore the political environment. And so the short answer is in the current political environment, doing something at the national level is extremely difficult. Even though there might be arguments to develop a public option at the national level, it’s very challenging in the current political environment to get the agreement.

Q: Do you think it would be more effective or easier to implement a public option at a state or national level?

Q: Is there something that’s more efficient about a national public option?

Potentially. It’s economies of scale. You know, the larger your potential market nationally, the lower the potential costs per person. You just get administrative savings and efficiency. But it’s not easy to create a national program. One issue that’s challenging is how to put together a national network of doctors and hospitals that would participate. That’s a lot of work.

Q: Do you think the idea of a public option is more viable now than it was when it was debated before and ultimately stripped from the Affordable Care Act?

A: Well, I think that what makes it more attractive right now is the fact that we’ve got large insurance companies pulling out of the exchange marketplaces. And because of that … the idea of a public option to provide stability and protection for people in the exchanges has resurfaced. And I think with good reason.


States seeking ACA innovation waivers

Herewith is a review of states’ activities in seeking  Section 1332 Waivers (also called State Innovation Waivers) under the Affordable Care Act.

As Health Affairs notes  of an increase in states seeking waivers:  “This is not entirely unexpected given that January 1, 2017 is the first day that these waiver programs could take effect. It is heartening to see that states are looking to this opportunity to make the Affordable Care Act (ACA) work better in their states, especially in the face of what many (including us) see as unduly restrictive guidance issued by the {Obama} administration.”

To read the review, please hit this link.


Smooth care transitions a point of pride for this small R.I. hospital

wecare2

South County Health, a small nonprofit system in bucolic southern Rhode Island, owes a large part of its success to its ability to manage transitions of care – an increasingly urgent imperative as healthcare moves from fee-for-service to value-based reimbursement.
The system’s flagship is South County Hospital, a 100-bed community hospital. The system also includes South County Home Health Services (a home health agency); South County Surgical Supply (home medical supplies); South County Medical Group, with 65 physicians and advanced-practice providers, and two Medical and Wellness Centers, one in Westerly and the other in East Greenwich, with urgent-care facilities and an array of primary-care and specialist physicians.

South County Hospital has long had very high marks for quality and patient satisfaction. Indeed, surveys have often called it the best hospital in its state and one of the best in New England. It was recently awarded a five-star rating by the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS), putting it in the top 2 percent of those surveyed nationwide.

Louis R. Giancola, the system’s president and chief executive, attributes much of the hospital’s success in patient satisfaction — and fiscal stability — to the strong engagement of its staff, which “we keep in the know’’; a “supportive board’’; the long-term loyalty of people in the service area, and the “nimbleness of a community hospital’’. Having a relatively affluent market with many well-insured people hasn’t hurt either, he acknowledged.

lou

Mr. Giancola.

A particular point of pride is: “We’re good at transitions of care. Maybe that’s a result of our being small.’’

South County Hospital, like virtually all health systems these days, faces many challenges in dealing with the rewards and penalties involved in the forced-march transition to value-based reimbursement. Mr. Giancola notes:

“Medicare incents us to improve patient satisfaction, reduce hospital infections and avoid various patient injuries.  Most commercial payers (insurers) have followed suit. I believe the threat of reduced payments has focused our attention on these measures even though we sometimes complain that the measures are not always fair.’’ (See below.)’’
“It’s all about blocking and tackling. The biggest issue is readmissions within 30 days. {South County has long had lower readmission rates than most hospitals.} We’ve really focused on managing the transition from the hospital to another level of care. The important element is good communication between the hospital providers and the skilled-nursing facility, home health and the doctors caring for the patients in the community.’’

Part of South County’s recognized success in overseeing clinically successful and financially efficient transitions – and, in so doing, reducing costly readmissions — has been its emphasis on using, when possible, home health care instead of nursing centers to save money and improve care, Mr. Giancola said.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and other regulators and payers have been pushing hard for better patient-care management, especially since the Affordable Care Act took full effect. Much of South County Health’s work in this area involves helping primary-care physicians to be better traffic managers of their patients’ care.

Another transition success story he cites is medication reconciliation. “Often patients are confused about their drugs and that can lead to readmission because they take drugs that are contra-indicated or they take two meds designed to address the same problem. We’ve hired pharmacists that review meds in the hospital to ensure they are reconciled and the patients get clear advice on discharge.’’

He notes as an example of what might sometimes be unfair pressure from the Feds: CMS’s making hospitals put many patients who have to stay in the hospital for a night or two into “observation’’ status instead of as inpatients, thus slashing potential hospital reimbursement.

Bundled payments, Medicaid and an ACO

An increasingly important strategy for controlling costs and improving care is bundled payments.

South County Health participates in a bundled-payment program for joint-replacement patients with Blue Cross for their Medicare Advantage and commercial-insurance members. (Cambridge Management Group has been doing a lot of work in bundled-payment programs and so this particularly caught our eyes.)

With older-than-average market demographics, the joint-replacement business is a major contributor to the system’s bottom line. (However, while the system is financially stable, its operating margin is only about 2 percent; the system is closely managed.)

Mr. Giancola said that, as with many things in the brave new world of value-based medicine, it’s unclear what sort of savings may come out of the move to bundled payments. However, he thinks that the clinical benefits are clear:

“The bundling process helps us to get a better handle on the clinical process. Having to report quality throughout the entire episode of care makes for better transitions and final outcomes.’’

South County Hospital’s leaders are happy that the Affordable Care Act has put so many uninsured people into Medicaid. While Medicaid reimbursements lag those of Medicare it’s a lot better than no insurance for low-income people. Many of those people, of course, have long used the emergency room as their major source of “free’’ (to them) medical care.

But, perhaps surprisingly, Mr. Giancola told us, Medicaid expansion has not yet cut the flow of people into South County Hospital’s ER, despite efforts encouraged by public and private insurers to promote more and better preventive care to keep people out of the ER. “ERs are too handy for lots of people,’’ he observed.

South County Hospital has had to deal with many other changes, whose long-term fiscal effects are difficult to predict. One is the rising number of employed physicians, hired, Mr. Giancola says, to ensure that the hospital can maintain the range of services that patients want and need in an acute-care facility, such as obstetrics.

Mr. Giancola notes that’s expensive. “Hiring doctors away from private practices to be based in the hospital puts them in more expensive places, with expensive support staffs, equipment and technology. The jury is out on whether the increase in hospital-employed physicians will save money in the long run.’’

Also unknowable at this point is whether South County’s participation in an Accountable Care Organization with Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island (BCBSRI) and Integra Community Care Network will ultimately save money. Integra is a partnership of Care New England Health System and its network physicians, Rhode Island Primary Care Physicians Corporation and South County Health and its network physicians. Focused on population-health management, the ACO provides incentives for Integra’s providers to proactively manage patient health, with a heavy emphasis on prevention of illness, while trying to restrain costs.

South County Health, as befits a, well, beloved local institution is big on promoting community-wide collaboration of institutions that can help improve not just healthcare in a clinical sense, but population health.

Toward that end, it has brought together such diverse agencies as the YMCA, the five Federally Qualified Health Centers in its area, school systems, the local Community Action Program and community members to harness the resources of the community. Whatever happens to the ACA, the move toward community and population health will continue, and South County Health will help lead it in southern Rhode Island.

Mr. Giancola has written: “Our long-term goal is to inspire the broader community to see health as a community issue and to mobilize government, schools, businesses and citizens at large to rally around efforts to ensure a healthy community.’’


GOP leaders refuse to compromise on ACA

Leading congressional Republicans have rejected President Obama’s suggestion that they cooperate with Democrats next year in fixing the Affordable Care Act. The Republicans demand that the whole ACA be repealed.

But meanwhile, a panel of experts at the University of Pennsylvania say that they doubt the ACA will be repealed because of  the vested interests  of pharmaceutical and health-insurance corporations that have profited from the law.

To read more, hit this link.


Page 5 of 10First...456...Last

Contact Info

info@cmg625.com

(617) 230-4965

Wellesley, Mass