Cooperating for better care.

Medicaid

Tag Archives

And now, concierge care for the masses

 

spa

By SHEFALI LUTHRA

For Kaiser Health News

A growing number of primary-care physicians, spurred by the Accountable Care Act and frustrations with insurance requirements, are bringing a service that generally has been considered “health care for billionaires” to middle-income, Medicaid and Medicare populations.

It’s called “direct primary care,” modeled after “concierge” practices that have gained prominence in the past two decades. Those feature doctors generally bypassing insurance companies to provide personalized healthcare while charging a flat fee on a monthly or yearly basis. Patients can shell out anywhere from thousands to tens of thousands of dollars annually, getting care with an air of exclusivity.

In direct primary care, patients pay about $100 a month or less directly to the physician for comprehensive primary care, including basic medication, lab tests and follow-up visits in person, over email and by phone. The idea is that physicians, who no longer have to wade through heaps of insurance paperwork, can focus on treating patients. They spend less on overhead, driving costs down. In turn, physicians say they can give care that’s more personal and convenient than in traditional practices.

The 2010 health law, which requires that most people have insurance, identifies direct primary care as an acceptable option. Because it doesn’t cover specialists or emergencies, consumers need a high-deductible health plan as well. Still, the combined cost of the monthly fee and that plan is often still cheaper than traditional insurance.

The health law’s language was “sort of [an] ‘open-for-business’ sign,” said Jay Keese, a lobbyist who heads the Direct Primary Care Coalition. Before 2010, between six and 20 direct primary care practices existed across the country. Now, there are more than 400 group practices.

The total number of physicians participating doctors may exceed 1,300. The American Academy of Family Physicians estimates 2 percent of its 68,000 members offer direct care.

“This is a movement — I would say it’s in its early phase,” said AAFP President Wanda Filer, a doctor in Pennsylvania. “But when I go out to chapter meetings, I hear a lot more interest.”

But questions persist about feasibility. The lower fees could still be a non-starter for people earning minimum wage or on a limited budget, said Robert Berenson, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute. “Can people afford this? Or is it [still] just for well-off people?”

The American College of Physicians advises doctors to consider whether direct primary care can work within their practices, but also urges physicians to recognize how it could affect poorer patients and look for ways to keep care affordable.

Direct primary-care doctors say they see patients across incomes. Dr. Stanford Owen, of Gulfport, Miss., treats “waitresses and shrimpers, as well as doctors and lawyers.” He charges $225 for initial visits, $125 for a follow-up, if needed, and then about $50 per month after.

Owen and other physicians report positive experiences, triggering other efforts to apply direct care more broadly. Although most of these doctors eschew dealing with insurance, some have been trying the model with Medicaid and Medicare patients.

If those experiments work — and save money and improve health — they could mitigate concerns about who can afford direct primary care. Berenson pointed out that partnering with insurance or public programs is key to making direct care affordable for lower-income people.

“The idea of setting up stronger primary care services for patients is very exciting and very much needed,” said Ann Hwang, director of the Center for Consumer Engagement in Health Innovation, an outpost of the consumer advocacy group Community Catalyst. But, she added, “This is so new that I think the jury is still really out on whether this will be successful.”

In Seattle, a company called Qliance, which operates a network of primary-care physicians, has been testing how to blend direct primary care with the state’s Medicaid program. They started taking Medicaid patients in 2014. So far, about 15,000 have signed up. They get a Qliance doctor and the unlimited visits and virtual access that are hallmarks of the model.

“Medicaid patients are made to feel like they’re a burden on the system,” said Dr. Erika Bliss, Qliance’s CEO. “For them, it was a breath of fresh air to be able to get such personalized care — to be able to talk to doctors over phone and email.”

Qliance has a contract with Centene, an insurance company in the state’s Medicaid program. That Medicaid coverage pays for the monthly fee, which covers primary and preventive care, and for other specialty and emergency services. If patients need a specialist, they’ll get referred to one who accepts Medicaid. Advocates in other states — such as North Carolina, Idaho and Texas — are watching the outcomes and costs while considering rolling out similar programs.

There’s little data so far. Bliss estimated participants will cost Washington state 15  to 20 percent less than traditional Medicaid. Before launching the Medicaid pilot, Qliance contracted with some companies that provide insurance to their employees — in those cases, employees who opted for Qliance cost about 20 percent less than employees in traditional health insurance. Because patients get better care upfront, the theory goes, they’re less likely to develop expensive chronic illnesses.

Still, expanding this approach is tricky. The number of participating physicians is low. There’s already a nationwide shortage of primary-care doctors. In this model, physicians see fewer patients, potentially exacerbating that shortage’s impact. Also, Medicaid negotiates the monthly payment rate, which could be less than what doctors might set independently.

In New Jersey, a pilot program using direct primary care is launching in 2016 for state employees, like firefighters and teachers. It’s a hybrid: When consumers pick a primary doctor, they can choose a direct primary care-style practice, which gives around-the-clock access to preventive and primary care services. The monthly fee is undetermined.

Participants will get benefits such as same-day appointments for non-emergency visits. But when they pick this plan — which will be administered by Aetna and Horizon — they will have access to specialists that participate in the insurers’ plan networks.

In New Jersey, about 800,000 people will be eligible to enroll in the direct primary care program. The state’s hoping to attract and accommodate at least 10,000 in the first year.

That’s appealing, said Mark Blum, executive director of America’s Agenda, an advocacy group that helped develop the project. He cited interest in California, Texas, Pennsylvania and Nebraska. “There are a lot of eyes on New Jersey right now.”

Meanwhile, direct primary care is finding traction with Medicare Advantage, the private health plan alternatives to traditional Medicare. Iora Health, a direct primary-care system that contracts with unions and employers, a year ago launched clinics in Washington and Arizona catering to Medicare Advantage patients.

Iora’s setting up similar clinics in Colorado and Massachusetts.

Despite its potential, the direct-care model faces the challenges of integration into existing payment systems and attracting more participating doctors. And navigating Medicare and Medicaid rules can deter physicians.

“It’s not for the faint of heart,” said Dr. Rushika Fernandopulle, Iora’s CEO.

How it evolves from here will vary across the country, said Filer, the AAFP president.

“There are some parts of the country where it is working very well,” she said. “But there are other reasons a physician might decide, ‘This is not for my patient base.’”


The world after Meaningful Use

sunrise

While acting CMS head Andy Slavitt said this week  that the Meaningful Use program, at least as it existed, will end,  providers will still be held accountable for using technology in patient care.

The end of Meaningful Use  as we know it means no more incentives  (as opposed to penalties) from Medicare for adopting it,  although Meaningful Use-style incentives  will continue for Medicaid.

Still, an eligible  Medicare provider who fails to attest to Meaningful Use will  face a penalty.

However, Becker’s Hospital Review says that the recently passed blanket “hardship exemption permitting any Meaningful Use participant to apply for an exemption from Meaningful Use penalties in 2017 may bring the reimbursement penalties that year close to zero.”

 

 

 

 


‘Building resilience’ in community health

 

San Francisco Bay area-based Contra Costa Regional Medical Center and Health Centers is reinventing  its care delivery by partnering with a service provider called Health Leads to send patients to resources that address their health in a broad way, such as food and housing.

The hospital’s CEO, Anna Roth, R.N., told NEJM Catalyst about how the program works for her hospital system as part of its move toward value-based care.

 She said that “you build resilience: by surrounding providers with tools that help them meet the needs of people they’ve dedicated their lives to serving.”

“It is time we look beyond the four walls of our institutions and see how we can partner with those who have already mastered things like housing and employment…..{M}aybe the role we can play is to be strong partners for them so they can strengthen themselves.”

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services   will spend as much as  $147 million in grant money starting this fall to help fund similar partnerships under a new Accountable Health Communities (AHC) model that will screen Medicare and Medicaid recipients for health-related social needs. Bridge organizations will screen and refer patients to clinical and community services.

 


Employers turn to Medicaid for lowest-paid employees

 

By FRED MOGUL, for WNYC and Kaiser Health News

kaiserhealthnews.org

NEW YORK

Butter-flavored popcorn oil is in high demand at Oasis Foods, a manufacturer of cooking oils, mayonnaise and other products that restaurants and distributors often purchase by the ton.

“We get a rush this time of year with all the movie-going at the holidays,” said Duke Gillingham, president of Oasis, at his factory in Hillside, New Jersey, just west of Newark Liberty International Airport.

The company’s health insurance coverage is not as popular as its popcorn oil. Oasis offered health insurance to all employees for 2015, to comply with a new Affordable Care Act mandate. And while some employees did sign up for the insurance — the company doubled the number of people on its health plan over previous years — about two-thirds of the employees declined the coverage. With monthly premiums of roughly $350 for a family of four, and with a $2,500 annual deductible, it was too expensive for factory workers, many of whom earn between $10 and $15 an hour.

Gillingham said he hasn’t been able to find decent insurance much cheaper than that, and he cannot afford to significantly raise his employees’ wages.

“The sad fact is we’re in a very competitive business,” he said. “We wish we could make [insurance] more affordable, but it’s essentially what the business can bear. If we don’t watch what we’re doing, we can be high-cost, and that doesn’t serve any of the employees well.”

Companies Look To Avoid Penalties

Oasis Foods, a subsidiary of a Swedish food manufacturer, has about 180 workers. As of Jan. 1, smaller firms — those that employ between 51 and 100 workers — are being phased into the same mandate that Oasis faced in 2015. Companies must offer affordable coverage to all employees and will be subject to a penalty if their workers instead turn to the health exchange to buy subsidized coverage.

There’s no penalty for companies, it turns out, if workers qualify for Medicaid — though there could be controversy.

At firms like Oasis, low-wage workers are candidates more often for Medicaid than for the state or federal insurance exchange.

To qualify for Medicaid in a state that expanded the program, applicants may earn no more than 138 percent of the federal poverty level — or roughly $16,000 for a single person and around $33,000 for a household of four.

Employers have not historically played a significant role in helping workers enroll in Medicaid. But Gillingham’s insurance broker told him about a startup called BeneStream, which is based in New York City and facilitates enrollment in the government program.

Company Shifts Insurance Costs To The Government

Founded two years ago with seed money from the Ford Foundation, BeneStream now helps more than 6,500 workers at 125 companies across the country get Medicaid. CEOBenjamin Geyerhahn said moving workers from private insurance to Medicaid helps firms shift their costs to the government.

“The savings is quite significant,” he said. “Our average is about 250 percent — so about two-and-a-half times the money you spend on us comes back to you in the form of saved premium.”

Geyerhahn said going onto Medicaid, which is nearly free for employees, is a good deal, though it lacks the generous benefits of more expensive plans. If employees make so little that they’re eligible for Medicaid, he says, they probably can’t afford regular insurance premiums, especially when combined with the high deductibles that undermine much of the benefit of insurance.

“Yes, this [level of coverage] is something that will help them if they get in a car accident or have a heart attack,” he said, “but this isn’t something that’s going to help them manage their health over the course of the year.”

Wal-Mart, McDonald’s and some other large companies have drawn fire for not providing employees with health insurance, instead relying on taxpayers to fund workers’ health needs via Medicaid.

Ken Jacobs, chair of the University of California, Berkeley’s Labor Center, said companies whose workers get Medicaid should bear some of the burden of the cost to taxpayers.

Critics Think Employers Should Pay Bigger Share

“Those employers should be paying more into the general pot that pays for health care, rather than putting those costs onto everyone else,” Jacobs said.

California legislators considered imposing a state tax penalty for companies whose workers get Medicaid, but lawmakers ultimately rejected the proposal.

Linda Blumberg, an economist at the Urban Institute, said that whether you are looking at a vast company like Wal-Mart or a modest-sized one like Oasis Foods, compensation is about trade-offs. The more you pay for people’s insurance, the less you have to put in their paychecks.

“When workers are low-income,” Blumberg said, “I would rather that we publicly finance their medical care, make it very accessible to them, have low cost-sharing so that’s not a barrier to them getting necessary care, and let them have a little bit higher wages in order to compensate.”

And even the large increases in the minimum wage currently being contemplated or phased in by several states and cities might still not be enough for those workers to afford most employer-sponsored insurance, given the high premiums and deductibles of such plans.

At Oasis, Gillingham says his company pays a lot in taxes, so getting almost-free health care for some workers amounts to a “fair deal.”

He contrasts this system to one he and his family of six experienced in England.

“My kids didn’t suffer from having a five- or six-minute checkup,” he said, compared with doctor visits in the United States — which may have been twice as long, and at much higher expense, but without any noticeable difference in results.

“We didn’t see any of the demons that people speak of when they talk about socialized medicine,” Gillingham said. “There were no lines, no poor standard-of-care.”

But despite being relatively upbeat about government health care, he conceded that Oasis workers so far have given Medicaid mixed reviews. Some doctors and hospitals take the insurance, but many don’t.

Still, that’s true of most health insurance, Gillingham said.

A Gallup poll last month found that 67 percent of Americans, in general, are satisfied with the country’s health care system, compared with 75 percent of people who are on Medicaid.

“I think the system is evolving,” Gillingham said. “I don’t know where it’s going to go, but I know it’s going to change, and we need to adapt and make use of the system in the best way possible.”

This story is part of a partnership that includes WNYC, NPR and Kaiser Health News.


7 ideas for maximizing ACO potential

 

This HealthAffairs article looks at  what Accountable Care Organization funders can do to maximize an ACO’S potential. Among the suggestions of the authors, Andrea Ducas, Rob Houston, Tricia McGinnis, and Stephen Shortell:
1. “Encouraging movement toward greater accountability. Experts still grapple with the question of what ACOs are really accountable for. There is a need to clarify goals (for example, cost reduction, quality and value improvement, transfer of risk to providers) and to use these insights to drive accountability…. ”


2. “Breaking down policy and regulatory barriers
. Barriers exist that inhibit optimal ACO data sharing, such as privacy regulations, software interoperability, and regulations limiting how Medicaid funding can be used to address the social determinants of health. Minimizing these barriers may help ACOs and their partners to create more efficient and innovative ways to serve patients.”

3. “Facilitating multipayer alignment. Support for alignment—for example, aligning payment methodologies with quality measurement and reporting requirements, but also aligning efforts across payers and programs—may help ACOs develop more population-based models, reduce measurement confusion, and increase provider participation.”

4. “Refining risk adjustment across populations and services. More accurate risk adjustment methods that include factors like the social determinants of health could make ACOs better able to bear more financial risk and to support population-based models, particularly for people dependent on the safety net.”

5. “Managing market consolidation. Additional research is needed to determine the effects of ACO arrangements on market consolidation. The results from such research could inform future regulatory or other market action that may be taken by state or federal governments, if they felt it was warranted.”

6. “Encouraging greater patient engagement in care. Funding could be used for research or pilot projects to improve patient engagement. More specifically, foundations could explore ways that well-designed incentives might promote shared decision making and greater self-care management.”

7. “Improving measurement of ACO success. Randomized controlled trials and other formal, but more feasible, methods of evaluating ACO interventions and performance relative to non-ACO activity could help to identify key factors in ACO success and lead to adoption of more scalable models.”

 


4 reasons for providers to start insurance plans

 

Paul Keckley,  managing director of the Navigant Center for Healthcare Research and Policy Analysis,  give four reasons for providers  to start their own health-insurance plans.

But first he notes:

“The most fundamental question facing hospitals and physicians in every community is this: Given the shift in accountability for costs from insurers to hospitals and physicians, does sponsoring a health plan make sense?”

“The bottom line: Physicians, hospitals and post-acute providers are at risk for managing costs and quality. The buck stops there.”

“….Arguably, what’s needed is a financial structure through which efforts to manage the sick efficiently and maintain the health of those who are well can be coordinated. That vehicle is a provider-sponsored health plan.”

Then he gives four good reasons for providers to start health plans;

“1. Mission: Managing total population health is consistent with the role and mission of community-based health organizations. Sponsoring a plan — whether Medicaid, Medicare or commercial — affords a provider organization the mechanism whereby it is able to build and sustain continuous, ongoing relationships with individuals and households (otherwise known as patients). ”

“2. Capability: The management skills, capital, infrastructure and regulatory risk associated with sponsoring a plan can be mitigated through collaboration with  {other} successful provider-sponsored plans. There’s no shortcut to competent administration of a plan, nor is it easy. Nonetheless, it’s been done successfully by many, and their lessons, resources and professionals can be tapped.

“3. Trust: The public trusts hospitals and physicians more than insurers. That does not mean a provider -sponsored health plan can charge significantly higher premiums or offer poor service. It means the community — employers, individuals, legislators and community leaders — will respond favorably if a provider-sponsored plan is offered that’s competitive.”

“4. Timing: The private health insurance industry is at a tipping point. Its margins are at risk. Its traditional market — employers — is becoming more demanding. Its once-soaring profits are shrinking and regulators are watching. As policymakers scrutinize the insurance industry’s consolidation … and as employers seek more value for their premiums, a locally sponsored plan that’s competitive on premiums and plan design with clear alignment to the local provider community is worth discussion, especially if its financial performance is tied directly to the community’s benefit rather than insurer shareholder value.”

 


Indiana plan as a template for Ky. Medicaid?

govoffice

The Kentucky governor’s office. (Photo by Erin Pettigrew).

Kentucky’s new Republican governor, Matt Bevin, who has denounced the Affordable Care Act, wants to revise the state Medicaid program, which was expanded under the ACA with a federal waiver like  the one that Indiana uses.

Instead of the traditional 1115 Medicaid waiver, Bevin’s administration reportedly will seek a 1332 waiver, part of the ACA that lets states organize heir own healthcare programs as long as the number of covered people remains the same or greater.

But states can’t  apply for a 1332 waiver until Jan. 1, 2017.

Assuming that Kentucky uses the Indiana  template for Kentucky’s revised Medicaid expansion, low-income residents will pay for more of their medical costs, which probably would discourage  many  of them from enrolling.

 


WellCare sues Iowa over terminated Medicaid contract

 

WellCare,  a health insurer,  is suing the State of Iowa to contest its terminated contract to help manage the state’s Medicaid program.

A state official last Friday affirmed an administrative law judge’s recommendation to terminate WellCare’s contract over how the company disclosed information on fraud convictions of former executives. The judge also said the company had improper communication with state officials, reported Modern Healthcare.

WellCare,  for its part, asserts that it properly disclosed information and denied any improper communication with state officials.

 


UnitedHealth warning a call for Obama action?

bugle2

By JULIE APPLEBY

For Kaiser Health News

UnitedHealthGroup laid out a litany of reasons Thursday why it might stop selling individual health insurance through federal and state markets in 2017 — a move some see as an effort to compel the Obama administration to ease regulations and make good on promised payments.

Those problems, including low participation by healthy people, have led to financial losses, according to UnitedHealth. If not addressed, similar issues could affect other insurers, causing more to exit the market in the coming years, some Wall Street analysts and policy experts said.

Many said they anticipate the federal government will act to forestall widespread departures, particularly because continued withdrawals could be politically explosive during an election year.

A key piece of the Affordable Care Act, the online marketplaces, also called exchanges, opened in 2014 for people who buy their own insurance because they don’t get it through their jobs. Enrollment, while growing, has fallen short of capturing the share of the eligible uninsured that was anticipated. This year, the marketplaces saw enrollment of more than 9 million customers, although the law’s expansion of Medicaid enrollment in many states has also played a large role in reducing the overall number of uninsured.

Only a month ago, United sounded more optimistic about business on the exchanges. But in its unexpected disclosure Thursday, the insurer said it would cut its earnings forecast and projected hundreds of millions in losses stemming from the policies it sells through the health law’s marketplaces.

The turnaround led some analysts to ask the insurer what had changed.

Stephen Hemsley, UnitedHealth chief executive officer, said too many healthy people dropped coverage and noted slower than expected enrollment. A major factor, he added, was far higher costs for those who signed up  for 2015 coverage under special exemptions after the general open enrollment period ended.

Those exemptions included, for example, people who lost their insurance, moved or suffered a hardship, such as an eviction or had their utilities turned off. United said it did not see a similar increase in costs for people who bought policies from private brokers or Web sites instead of the government marketplaces after open enrollment, suggesting  that the reason was partly that the company’s eligibility assessments were more thorough.

The firm did not say that it would halt sales in 2017 but warned that it would strongly consider doing so based on what happens in the next few months.

“We cannot sustain these losses,” he told Wall Street analysts. “We can’t subsidize a marketplace that doesn’t appear at the moment to be sustaining itself.”

Although it’s the nation’s largest insurer, United captured only a small percentage of consumers who currently have coverage through the Affordable Care Act marketplace, in part because it sat out the first year of enrollment and really ramped up only for this year’s coverage.

While seen as a serious challenge to the ACA, United’s decision alone doesn’t mark the death knell for the exchanges. In remarks to analysts and press reports on Thursday, Aetna and insurer Kaiser Permanente re-affirmed their commitment to selling through the marketplaces.

HHS Spokesman Ben Wakana defended the government marketplaces, noting that 9 of 10 of policyholders re-enrolling have a choice of three or more insurers for next year. “The reality is we continue to see more people signing up for health insurance and more issuers entering the Marketplaces, and at the end of January, we believe we’ll be looking at another successful open enrollment– just like the last two,” he said. “[Thursday’s] statement by one issuer is not indicative of the Marketplace’s strength and viability.”

But insurers, including Humana, Aetna and some of the large Blue Cross Blue Shield plans, were losing money or barely breaking even on their marketplace business, according to earnings reports.

“If there are no changes, all the large publicly traded companies will end up leaving,” said Ana Gupte, analyst with Leerink Partners. “But I would be very surprised if [the Department of Health and Human Services] doesn’t do something to accommodate their issues.”

Those options would be limited to what the agency could do without congressional action, many analysts said. Still, that could include relaxing some regulations or reconsidering some of the exemptions that allow people to sign up after the open enrollment period.

Consultant and former insurance executive Robert Laszewski said  that the administration needs to relax the rules to give insurers more flexibility to design plans that would attract healthier people. He said the costs – including deductibles and premiums – were too high for many people, particularly those with few medical needs.

“Disproportionately, the sick are signing up and the healthy are dropping out,” said Laszewski, adding that alternative plans with fewer benefits but lower costs should be made available.

Economist Len Nichols cautioned, however, that most of the law’s benefit requirements – taken individually – add little to the cost of a plan. Removing the bigger-ticket requirements, such as coverage for maternity care, would leave consumers without adequate coverage, said Nichols, who directs the George Mason University Center for Health Research and Ethics.

Nichols, Gupte and other analysts agree with the industry’s trade lobby, which says one thing that he administration could do is make good on a promise to pay insurers under a temporary program designed to redistribute profits from some insurers that did especially well to offset losses others experienced in the marketplace plans. That program, however, has paid only about 13 cents on the dollar of what was promised, mainly because fewer insurers than expected made money.

Earlier this month, HHS Secretary Sylvia Burwell said the administration is exploring ways it might be able to help make those payments, although such a move comes too late to save many of the dozen insurance cooperatives that have announced they will pull out of the market in January. The less-than-anticipated payments are often cited as a main factor in the co-ops demise.


Public programs look better than insurance via ACA for kids

 

Medicaid got by implication a big plug with the results of a National Survey of Children’s Health report.

The study said that children in low-income households with private insurance  obtained through the Affordable Care Act (ACA) received fewer regular checkups and  had higher medical costs than children on public insurance plans — which mostly means Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP).

The report said:

Only 83 percent of children insured through the ACA’s qualified health plans had a preventive medical visit compared to  88 percent of those on Medicaid and 95 percent on CHIP.

Parents of children with private insurance also reported the highest “prevalence of out-of-pocket costs” No surprise there.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Page 16 of 24First...151617...Last

Contact Info

info@cmg625.com

(617) 230-4965

Wellesley, MA