Lowering those outpatient rates, that is, could affect the surgical center rates and create a kind of downward spiral.”
The Associated Press reports that federal investigators have found that a law lets rural hospitals bill Medicare for rehabilitation services for seniors at higher rates than nursing homes and other facilities and cost billions of dollars in extra government spending.
Yet more reasons why Medicare spending is out of control.
Most patients could have been moved to a skilled-nursing facility within 35 miles of the hospital at about one-fourth the cost, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ inspector general said.
The AP reported that hospitals ”juggling tough balance sheets have come to view such ‘swing-bed’ patients as lucrative, fueling a steady rise in the number of people getting such care and costing Medicare an additional $4.1 billion over six years.”
”Legislation passed by Congress in 1997 created the designation of ‘critical-access hospitals’ to help small facilities in remote areas survive. Rather than paying set rates for services as throughout the rest of the Medicare system, the federal government reimburses the hospitals for 101 percent of their costs. They also often receive state funding and grants.”
Congress, as now, was controlled by Republicans in 1997. Many represent rural areas in the South and West with many such “critical-access hospitals.”
The AP said that Alan Morgan, chief executive of the National Rural Health Association, agreed that Medicare could save money by modifying the system. But he told the AP that dozens of rural hospitals have closed in the past five years, and nearly 300 others are very financially fragile. The Obama administration has already proposed cutting all reimbursements to critical-access hospitals, which Morgan said would further accelerate the closures.
”Some hospitals received critical access designation under old rules and were grandfathered in. A previous report from the inspector general’s office found the vast majority would not meet the requirements if forced to requalify,” the news service reported.
California Capitol
The Sacramento Bee reported that Harris ”called the deal the largest ever overseen by the office, and it carries a hefty set of conditions requiring Prime to provide charity care ‘at historical levels’ and reproductive care without ‘restriction or limitation’; to spend $150 million on capital improvements at the newly acquired facilities; to cover the pension obligations of 17,000 active and retired employees; and to remain certified to treat Medi-Cal and Medicare patients for a decade.”
A former HCA employee has filed a whistleblower suit against the giant hospital chain alleging that the company subjected patients to dangerous and unnecessary cardiac procedures and then billed Medicare for fraudulent claims for the procedures.
The Feds have recently been investigating the company to determine whether some of its cardiac procedures have been medically unneeded and done simply for the money.
HCA settled federal criminal- and civil-fraud charges for a total $1.7 billion in 2000 and 2003. The charges included improperly billing Medicare and other federal health programs and paying kickbacks to physicians.
”Kristen Miranda, vice president for strategic partnerships and innovation at Blue Shield California, said the changing payment landscape is resulting in some strange bedfellows….she cited the not-for-profit insurer’s partnership with competitor Anthem Blue Cross to launch the $80 million California Integrated Data Exchange as evidence of unique collaborations aimed at creating a more efficient healthcare system.”
Some argue that ”paying doctors more for services provided at hospitals than they get paid for the same care delivered in an office is driving up costs and driving consolidation. ‘The site-of-service differential has to go,’ said Simeon Schwartz, CEO of New York’s WESTMED Medical Group,” Modern Healthcare reported.
By JORDAN RAU, for Kaiser Health News
The sleek hospital tower that Johns Hopkins Medicine built in 2012 has the frills of a luxury hotel, including a meditation garden, 500 works of art, free wi-fi and a library of books, games and audio.
As Dr. Zishan Siddiqui watched patients and some fellow physicians in Baltimore move from their decades-old building into the Sheikh Zayed Tower, the internist saw a rare opportunity to test a widespread assumption in the hospital industry: that patients rate their care more highly when it is given in a nicer place.
For decades, hospital executives across the country have justified expensive renovation and expansion projects by saying they will lead to better patient reviews and recommendations. One study estimated $200 billion might have been spent over a decade on new building. Hopkins’s construction of the tower and a new children’s hospital cost $1.1 billion.
Patient judgments have become even more important to hospitals since Medicare started publishing ratings and basing some of its pay on surveys patients fill out after they have left the hospital.
Siddiqui’s study, published this month by the Journal of Hospital Medicine, contradicts the presumption that better facilities translate into better patient reviews. Siddiqui examined how patient satisfaction scores changed when doctors started practicing in the new tower, which has 355 beds and units for neurology, cardiology, radiology, labor and delivery and other specialties.
Siddiqui discovered that for the most part, patients’ assessments of the quality of the clinical care they received did not improve any more than they did for patients treated in the older Hopkins building, which had remained open. Units there were constructed as early as 1913 and as late as 1980, Hopkins officials said. They functioned as the control group in the study, since a hospital’s satisfaction scores often change over time even when a hospital’s physical environment remains constant.
The study used the responses both to Medicare-mandated surveys and private ones from Press Ganey, a consulting company that administers surveys. In the study, Hopkins patient ratings about the cleanliness and quiet in new tower’s rooms — elements Medicare uses in setting pay — soared, as did views on the pleasantness of the décor and comfort of the accommodations. But patient opinions about their actual care — such as the communication skills of doctors, nurses and staff — did not rise any higher than they did in the older building.
“Despite the widespread belief among healthcare leadership that facility renovation or expansion is a vital strategy for improving patient satisfaction, our study shows that this may not be a dominant factor,” Siddiqui and his fellow authors wrote.
Newer buildings allow for some medical benefits, such as better organized nursing stations and private rooms that protect against the spread of infectious bacteria and diseases. But the Hopkins researchers said “hospitals should not use outdated facilities as an excuse for achievement of suboptimal satisfaction scores.”The study’s results were startling because previous studies have found that patients in older hospital buildings give lower scores on the quality of their care.
Hospital executives have noticed it anecdotally as well; for instance, when NYU Langone Medical Center relocated its cardiology unit to a renovated floor, its patient experience scores rose.
A nationwide survey from 2012 conducted by the consultants J.D. Power and Associates reached similar conclusions to the Hopkins paper about the influence of the physical environment on satisfaction scores. That survey found that communication by doctors, nurses and other staff was most important, while the facility accounted for a fifth of patient satisfaction.
After reading the Hopkins study, Dr. Bradley Flansbaum, a physician at Lenox Hill Hospital, in Manhattan, wrote on the blog of the Society of Hospital Medicine that “it just might be that what doctors do and say matters, and a first-class meal and green gardens cannot paper over, or in the converse, sully our evaluations.”
The questions discussed:
“What are the most appropriate alternative payment models?”
“How much impact on quality and cost of care do you expect to see?”
“What unintended consequences do you worry about?”
Among the more interesting remarks were those of Richard Kravitz, M.D., who said:
”{R}egardless of the accounting scheme, value-based payment requires systems for measuring both medical risk and quality reproducibly and accurately. Our ability to measure quality at the aggregate level is excellent, but quality assessment at the individual level lags far behind.”
Medicare is giving bonuses to a majority of hospitals that it graded on quality, but many of those rewards will be wiped out by penalties the government has issued for other shortcomings, federal data show.
As required by the 2010 health law, the government is taking performance into account when paying hospitals, one of the biggest changes in Medicare’s 50-year-history. This year 1,700 hospitals – 55 percent of those graded – earned higher payments for providing comparatively good care in the federal government’s most comprehensive review of quality. The government measured criteria such as patient satisfaction, lower death rates and how much patients cost Medicare. This incentive program, known as value-based purchasing, led to penalties for 1,360 hospitals.
When all these incentive programs are combined, the average bonus for large hospitals — those with more than 400 beds — will be nearly $213,000, while the average penalty will be about $1.2 million, according to estimates by Eric Fontana, an analyst at The Advisory Board Co. a consulting company based in Washington. For hospitals with 200 or fewer beds, the average bonus will be about $32,000 and the average penalty will be about $131,000, Fontana estimated. Twenty-eight percent of hospitals will break even or get extra money.
On top of that, Medicare this year also began docking about 200 hospitals for not making enough progress in switching over to electronic medical records. Together, more than 6 percent of Medicare payments are contingent on performance.
“You’re starting to talk about real money,” said Josh Seidman, a hospital adviser at Avalere Health, another consulting firm in Washington. “That becomes a really big driver; it really gets the attention of the chief financial officer as well as everybody else in the executive suite of the hospital.”
Among these programs, the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing initiative, now in its third year, is the only one that offers bonuses as well as penalties. It is also the only one that recognizes hospital improvement even if a hospital’s quality metrics are still subpar. The value-based purchasing bonuses and penalties were based on 26 different measures, including how consistently hospitals followed a dozen recommended medical guidelines, such as giving patients antibiotics within an hour of surgery, and how patients rated their experiences while in the hospital. Medicare also examined death rates for congestive heart failure, heart attack and pneumonia patients, as well as bloodstream infections from catheters and serious complications from surgery such as blood clots.
Adding An Efficiency Measure
Medicare this year added a measure intended to encourage hospitals to deliver care in the most efficient manner possible. Federal officials calculated what it cost to care for each hospital’s average patient, not only during the patient’s stay but also in the three days before and a month after. Often the biggest differences in medical costs between hospitals are due to what happens to patients after they leave. For instance, Medicare pays more to inpatient rehabilitation facilities than it does to skilled nursing homes, even though both treat similar kinds of patients.
“It’s your one opportunity either to make money on pay-for-performance or at least recoup some of the potential losses you have from the other programs,” said Paul Matsui, who directs data research at The Advisory Board Company.
This year, Medicare judged hospitals based on how they performed in comparison to others in the second half of 2012 and all of 2013, and how much they had improved from two years before. Medicare adds a hospital’s bonus or penalty to every Medicare reimbursement for a patient stay from last October through the end of September.
Nearly 500 more hospitals earned bonuses in the value-based purchasing program compared to last year. The biggest is going to Black River Community Medical Center in Poplar Bluff, Mo., which is getting a 2.09 percent increase, the analysis found. The largest penalty this year is assigned to the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, a teaching hospital of Harvard Medical School, in Boston. It is losing 1.24 percent of its Medicare payments.
The Massachusetts infirmary said in a statement that it was losing only about $60,000 because most of its patients do not remain overnight in the hospital, and the penalties only apply to inpatient stays. The infirmary had so few of those cases that Medicare could not assess its performance on more than half the measures the government uses. Medicare’s program “is a poor match for what” the infirmary does, it said.
Nationally, the average bonus for hospitals under value-based purchasing was a 0.44 percent increase, while the average penalty — not including the other penalty programs — was a 0.30 percent reduction, the KHN analysis found. The actual dollar amount will depend on the mix of Medicare patients that hospitals treat through September and how much they bill Medicare. Medicare set aside 1.5 percent of its payments for the incentives, totaling about $1.4 billion.
States Most Impacted
Medicare awarded bonuses to at least three-fourths of the hospitals it evaluated in Alaska, Hawaii, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, Oregon, South Dakota and Wisconsin, the KHN analysis found. Medicare penalized more than half the hospitals it evaluated in Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wyoming.
More than 1,600 hospitals were exempted from the incentives, either because they specialize in narrow types of patients, such as children or veterans, or because they are paid differently by Medicare, such as all hospitals in Maryland and “critical access hospitals” that are mostly in rural areas.
Hospitals awarded bonuses in one year of the value-based purchasing program do not necessarily do as well the next year. Out of 2,672 hospitals that have been evaluated in all three years of the program, roughly a quarter got bonuses all three years and a quarter lost money in all three years. The rest had a mix of bonuses and penalties, the KHN analysis found.
Matsui said swings were not surprising given that hospitals are getting acclimated to the programs and Medicare has added new measurements each year. “In the grand scheme of things,” he said, “we’re still in the embryonic stage of the pay for performance programs.”
ELAP does cost analysis for its clients by studying hospitals’ department-by-department costs that they reported to Medicare.
The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that “For major back surgery, for example, ELAP employees, called ‘repricers,’ go through every line of what could be a 30-page hospital bill and adjust the charges based on the hospital’s actual costs, using Medicare cost data. Then ELAP adds back a predetermined percentage of the cost, typically 12 percent to 25 percent, ‘to allow a fair margin above that cost,’ (ELAP founder Stephen P.} Kelly said.”
”In a case that landed in court, a hospital billed $312,655. ELAP said its client should pay only $99,476, or 32 percent of gross charges….That determination stood up to a federal judge’s scrutiny in a 2013 court case.”
”Kelly, 60, founded ELAP as an antidote to what he saw as a lack of transparency in medical billing for employers trapped in relationships with third-party administrators who have proprietary contracts with hospital networks.”