Author Archives: henrykotula

Insurers continue to pay rebates while providers struggle

Posted on by • Posted in ACA, Health Insurance Industry, Market Consolidation, Medical Loss Ratio (MLR), Physician Practice Valuation, Strategy, Vertical Integration • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/f2774a4ad1ea/the-weekly-gist-may-22-2020?e=d1e747d2d8

Reform Brings More Health Insurance Rebates | Bankrate.com

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan became the latest health insurer to announce plans to refund money to its enrollees, as reimbursement for healthcare services dropped in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, with many hospitals and physicians curtailing operations. The company will return $100M to enrollees, in the form of premium discounts and refunds, and said it might increase that amount later in the year depending on how quickly health spending picks up again.

UnitedHealthcare (UHC), Cigna, and Humana are among the other insurers who have recently announced similar plans, with UHC alone slated to give back $1.5B to purchasers. Under the Affordable Care Act, plans must spend between 80 and 85 percent of the premiums they collect on medical care, depending on the segment of the market they cover, and must return excess profits to purchasers if they do not. Insurers are getting ahead of this requirement by returning money now to their employer and individual-market customers.

Meanwhile, some industry observers have begun to question why insurers, who have weathered the pandemic in good financial shape, are not spending more to stabilize the operations of struggling hospitals and physicians in their networks. For instance, Harvard researchers Leemore Dafny and Michael McWilliams proposed this week that insurers extend a “primary care boost” of 50 percent to their payments to doctors through the end of this year. Getting plans to act in concert to support providers will prove to be challenging, of course, and the temptation to free-ride on others’ generosity and instead “spend” excess premium dollars to return cash to customers may prove too strong for its public relations and loyalty benefits.

Or perhaps there are more Machiavellian motives at play: allowing physician practices to suffer financially could result in lower practice valuations, as insurers set their sights on further “vertical integration” plays in the months to come.

 

 

 

A deeper look at a new(ish) model of primary care delivery

Posted on by • Posted in Direct Primary Care (DPC) Model, Office Visit, Physician, Physician Compensation, Physician Practice Management • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/f2774a4ad1ea/the-weekly-gist-may-22-2020?e=d1e747d2d8

Direct Primary Care: What Does it Mean for Independent and ...

Cometh the moment, cometh the care model. That’s one way of interpreting a new study commissioned by the Society of Actuaries, and performed by Milliman researchers, that evaluates the direct primary care (DPC) model. Often touted by advocates as a way to “cut out the middleman” and allow for greater patient-physician engagement, DPC is membership-model primary care, with a monthly or annual fee paid by the patient (or their employer) for unlimited access to a range of services for no additional out-of-pocket payment, and without billing insurance for care delivery.

In the study, Milliman reviewed existing literature, conducted a survey of nearly 200 DPC practices, and performed an in-depth analysis of one employer’s DPC offering. Their findings: higher physician satisfaction; smaller panel sizes (on average 445 patients per practice); and statistically significant decreases in overall demand for services (down 12.6 percent) and ED utilization (down 40.5 percent). All that for a monthly fee of between $65 and $85 per adult patient—resulting in a slight net increase in employer benefit costs (1.3 percent) but higher enrollee satisfaction.

The Milliman study is one of the first detailed analyses of the potential benefits of this newish care model, and the results suggest that there is promise for the approach. Critics rightly raise some doubts: could there could ever be enough physician supply to make this model work at national scale? And does the model encourage cherry-picking of more affluent, lower-utilizing patients, making the remaining risk pool more costly to cover?

But in a post-COVID world, with primary care doctors increasingly concerned about revenue stability, and employers looking to control spend (and searching for sweeteners to offset a potential shift to narrower referral networks), the model has the potential to play a greater role in future benefit design. Especially if coupled with a (potentially lower-cost) virtual-first approach, DPC could prove an attractive option for physicians and patients to move away from the fee-for-service, productivity-driven primary care model.

 

 

Charting the rebound of physician office visits

Posted on by • Posted in Consumerism, Coronavirus, Health Policy, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Office Visit, Physician, Physician Practice Management, Quality of Care, Telemedicine, Virtual Healthcare, Virtual Visit • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/f2774a4ad1ea/the-weekly-gist-may-22-2020?e=d1e747d2d8

MultiBrief: Telehealth is keeping doctors, patients connected in ...

As patients begin to return to doctors’ offices, we were intrigued to read an analysis out this week from the Commonwealth Fund that provides a first glimpse into the pace of the recovery. Researchers from Harvard University and healthcare technology company Phreesia analyzed data from 12M visits at over 50,000 physician practices, finding that in-person visits had declined nearly 70 percent by mid-April, compared to pre-pandemic levels.

Behavioral health providers, medical specialists and primary care practices maintained the most volume, and procedural specialists were the hardest hit. Many practices deployed telemedicine quickly, but even with those added encounters, total visits were still down by nearly 60 percent. While visits are starting to return, it’s likely that physician practices are in for a long, slow rebound. Telemedicine as a percentage of all visits peaked in late April, and by mid-May, in-person visits had reached 55 percent of pre-pandemic levels.

Even if virtual volumes pull back from their COVID high, we’re likely to see telemedicine play a much more expansive role moving forward. Dr. Rushika Fernandopulle, CEO of Iora Health, shared his company’s learnings from their COVID-19 response, predicting that ultimately 70-80 percent of physician encounters could be virtual, necessitating a need to reorganize care delivery around populations, instead of practices.

Expect the next year to be a reckoning as changes in payment and regulations, combined with a heated marketplace for virtual care, continue to shift the balance between in-person and virtual care.

 

 

Is it time for hospital at home?

Posted on by • Posted in Consumerism, Coronavirus, Cost Management, Health System, Home Care, Hospital, Hospital at Home, Hospital Industry, Infection Control, Infection Control Plan, Infectious Virus, Pandemic, Quality of Care, Telemedicine • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/f2774a4ad1ea/the-weekly-gist-may-22-2020?e=d1e747d2d8

JAMA - The John A. Hartford Foundation

We’ve long been intrigued by “hospital at home” care models, which deliver hospital-level care for acute conditions, supported by caregivers and technology, in a patient’s home. Stymied by the lack of payment, however, few health systems have pursued the approach. But as COVID-19 has made patients fearful of entering hospitals, we’ve had a flurry of health system leaders ask us whether they should consider launching a program now.

We think the answer is yes—with some caveats. A growing body of evidence supports its use. Cost of care is lower compared to a traditional inpatient stay. Patient satisfaction with care is high. And from a clinical perspective, hospital at home is well-established, capable of managing a number of mild- and moderate-acuity medical conditions, including exacerbations of chronic diseases like heart failure and diabetes, as well as infections like pneumonia and cellulitis, often better than a traditional hospital stay. Some programs are now using hospital at home for management of COVID-19 patients as well. Physician leaders we’ve spoken with are also interested in using the approach to manage post-operative recovery.

“Over half of our joint replacement patients spend time in skilled nursing or inpatient rehab,” one doctor told us. “People think those places are death traps now, and those cases aren’t coming back until we can find another way for them to recover.”

For patients averse to facility-based care, and systems wanting to offer an alternative, hospital at home sounds like a panacea. But experts recommend approaching it with a clear eye to the economics and ramp-up time, which can easily take 12 to 18 months. With emergency regulations released last month, Medicare will now provide payment for hospital care provided in an alternate setting, including the patient’s home—although it’s unclear whether that will continue once the COVID emergency ends. Commercial payer coverage usually requires a separate negotiation.

According to one leader, “Grass roots support of doctors is not enough. The CEO and CFO have to be on board with changing the care and payment model if it’s ever going to be more than a pilot.” But with patients and doctors becoming more comfortable with virtual care and open to new options, there is a a window of opportunity for expanding home-based care—and the longer the COVID-19 crisis lasts, the more hospital at home could provide a competitive advantage over being admitted to a busy, crowded inpatient hospital.

 

 

 

Employers seeking a “source of truth” for coronavirus guidance

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Clinical Testing, Coronavirus, Credibility, Crisis, Crisis Management, Economic Crisis, Economy Reopening, Employee Benefits, Employee Protections, Employer-Based Health Insurance, Health Insurance Industry, Health Policy, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Infection Control, Infection Control Plan, Infectious Virus, Mortality, Narrow Network, Network Design, Pandemic, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), Public Health, Public Safety, Strategy, Supply Chain, Transparency, Trust, Truth • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/f2774a4ad1ea/the-weekly-gist-may-22-2020?e=d1e747d2d8

What Is Truth? | Psychology Today

As states begin to reopen, employers need guidance to ensure safe, COVID-free operations, and are beginning to call local health systems for advice on how to manage this daunting task. Providing this support is uncharted territory for most systems, and they’re learning on the fly as they bring back shuttered outpatient services and surgery centers themselves. This week we convened leaders from across our Gist Healthcare membership to share ideas on how to assist employers in bringing businesses safely back online—and to discuss whether the pandemic might create broader opportunities for working with the employer community.

It’s no surprise some companies are hoping that providers can step in to test their full workforce, but as several systems shared, “Even if we thought that was the right plan, testing supplies and PPE are still too limited for us to deliver on it now.” Better to support businesses in creating comprehensive screening strategies (with some offering their own app-based solutions), coupled with a testing plan for symptomatic employees.

Health systems have been surprised by the hunger for information on COVID-19 among the business community. Hundreds of companies have registered for informational webinars, hosted by systems through their local chambers of commerce. They’re excited to receive distilled information on local COVID-19 impact and response. As one leader said, the system isn’t really creating new educational content, but rather summarizing and synthesizing CDC, state and local guidance.

Business leaders are looking for “a source of truth” from their local health system amid conflicting guidelines and media reports. Case in point: employers are asking about the need for antibody testing, having been approached by testing vendors and feeling pressure from employees. Guidance from system doctors provides a plain-spoken interpretation on testing utility (great for looking at a population, meaningless right now for an individual), and helps them make smarter decisions and educate their workforce.

Health systems are hopeful that helping employers through the coronavirus crisis will lay the foundation for longer-term partnerships with employers, allowing them to continue to provide benefits through lower cost, coordinated care and network options. 

Timing is critical, and it may be smaller businesses that have the ability to change more quickly. Large companies have mostly locked in their benefits for 2021, whereas many mid-market businesses are looking for alternative options now.

Worksite health, telemedicine, and direct primary care arrangements are all on the table. One system surveyed local brokers and employers and found that 20 percent of mid-market employers are open to narrow-network partnerships. “The number seems low,” they reported, “but it’s up from five percent last year, a huge jump.” For systems seeking direct partnerships with employers, there’s a window of opportunity right now to find those businesses committed to continuing to offer benefits, who are looking for a creative, local alternative—and to get that first Zoom meeting on the calendar.

 

 

 

Further confusion on the coronavirus testing front

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC), Clinical Testing, Coronavirus, Credibility, Crisis, Economic Crisis, Economy Reopening, Health Policy, Infection Control, Infection Control Plan, Infectious Virus, Mislead, Misleading, Mortality, Pandemic, Public Health, Public Safety, Quarantine, Social Distancing, Trust, Truth • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/f2774a4ad1ea/the-weekly-gist-may-22-2020?e=d1e747d2d8

Coronavirus test: confusion over availability and criteria is ...

With all 50 states now in the process of reopening, data reported by public health agencies on coronavirus testing is under increased scrutiny. The issue is not how many tests are being conducted—that number has dramatically increased nationwide (although experts still caution that total testing should be about three times higher than the current 300,000 per day).

Rather, as reported this week, the issue is what kind of tests are being included in public reporting. It emerged this week that several states—including Georgia, Texas, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Virginia—have been combining statistics on polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests, used to diagnose current infection, with antibody blood tests, used to detect past infection.

More troublingly, The Atlantic reported on Wednesday that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has been doing the same thing, which artificially inflates the number of tests conducted, and makes the numbers difficult to interpret. Among other experts, Dr. Ashish Jha, director of Harvard’s Global Public Health Institute, was stunned: “You’ve got to be kidding me. How could the CDC make that mistake? This is a mess.”

Accurate testing data is critical to determine the pace and scope of reopening, and to monitor for resurgences of the virus that might necessitate future restrictions. It’s important to know who’s infected now for clinical reasons, and it’s essential to understand who’s already been sick for public health purposes. Combining the two datasets is positively unhelpful, and likely only serves a political purpose.

Testing problems have proven to be this country’s original sin in the way the coronavirus pandemic has evolved, but it’s not too late to make sure that we have ample, accurate, and well-reported testing to guide critical public health decisions.

US coronavirus update: 1.62M cases, 95K+ confirmed deaths, 12.9M tests conducted (of some type).

 

 

 

Huge Study Throws Cold Water on Antimalarials for COVID-19

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Chloroquine, Clinical Research, Clinical Trials, Coronavirus, Credibility, False Hope, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Health Policy, Hydroxychloroquine, Mislead, Misleading, Mortality, Pandemic, Public Health, Public Safety, Trust, Truth, Wishful Thinking • Leave a comment

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/86642?xid=nl_mpt_DHE_2020-05-23&eun=g885344d0r&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily%20Headlines%20Top%20Cat%20HeC%20%202020-05-23&utm_term=NL_Daily_DHE_dual-gmail-definition

Huge Study Throws Cold Water on Antimalarials for COVID-19 ...

— No support for continued use seen in analysis of 15,000 patients who got controversial drugs

Chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), with or without an antibiotic, in hospitalized COVID-19 patients were associated with increased risk of death in the hospital and higher rates of arrhythmias, analysis of outcomes in nearly 100,000 patients indicated.

The 15,000 patients who received HCQ or chloroquine were about twice as likely to die compared to controls who did not receive these agents after adjusting for covariates (18.o% for hydroxychloroquine and 16% for chloroquine versus 9.3% for controls), reported Mandeep Mehra, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and colleagues.

The drug was also associated with a higher risk of ventricular arrhythmia during hospitalization (6.1% for hydroxychloroquine, 4.3% for chloroquine versus 0.3% for controls), the authors wrote in The Lancet.

Moreover, risks for both in-hospital mortality and ventricular arrhythmia were even higher compared to controls when either drug was combined with a macrolide antibiotic, they noted.

Mehra said in a statement these drugs should not be used as treatments for COVID-19 outside of clinical trials.

“This is the first large scale study to find statistically robust evidence that treatment with chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine does not benefit patients with COVID-19,” he said. “Instead, our findings suggest it may be associated with an increased risk of serious heart problems and increased risk of death. Randomised clinical trials are essential to confirm any harms or benefits associated with these agents.”

Mehra’s group analyzed some 96,000 patients from 671 hospitals on six continents with COVID-19 infection, from Dec. 20 to April 14, all of whom had either died or been discharged from the hospital by April 21.

Overall, 14,888 patients were treated with hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide antibiotic or chloroquine with an antibiotic, and their results were compared to 81,144 controls who did not receive these drugs.

Authors adjusted for demographic factors, as well as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, lung disease, smoking, immunosuppressed conditions and baseline disease severity.

The estimated excess risk attributable to the drug regimen rather than other factors, such as comorbidities, ranged from 34% to 35%.

Arrhythmia’s greatest risk was in the group who received hydroxychloroquine and a macrolide antibiotic such as azithromycin (8% versus 0.3% of controls), and this regimen was associated with a more than five-fold risk of developing an arrhythmia while hospitalized, though cause and effect cannot be inferred, the group noted.

“Previous small-scale studies have failed to identify robust evidence of a benefit and larger, randomised controlled trials are not yet completed,” said co-author Frank Ruschitzka, MD, Director of the Heart Center at University Hospital Zurich in a statement. “However, we now know from our study that the chance that these medications improve outcomes in COVID-19 is quite low.”

An accompanying editorial by Christian Funck-Brentano, MD, PhD, and Joe-Elie Salem, MD, PhD, of Sorbonne Université in Paris, noted limitations of the observational data, but said the authors “should be commended for providing results from a well designed and controlled study … in a very large sample of hospitalized patients.”

They also cautioned against attributing the increased risk of hospital deaths to the higher incidence of arrhythmias, noting that “the relationship between death and ventricular tachycardia was not studied and causes of deaths (i.e., arrhythmic vs non-arrhythmic) were not adjudicated.”

The editorialists nevertheless concluded both hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, with or without azithromycin, “are not useful and could be harmful in hospitalized patients with COVID-19,” and stressed the importance of clinical trials for these drugs.

“The global community awaits the results of ongoing, well powered randomized controlled trials showing the effects of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine on COVID-19 clinical outcomes,” they wrote.