Author Archives: henrykotula

The health system “black market” for care

Posted on by • Posted in Access, Access & Quality of Healthcare, Black Market, Consumerism, Insider Healthcare, Physician, Primary Care • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/192abb940510/the-weekly-gist-february-7-2020?e=d1e747d2d8

Image result for black market

Recently we’ve been working with one of our member health systems to build a comprehensive plan for ambulatory access. As we were brainstorming a list of success metrics, one physician leader made an interesting comment: “I’ll know we’re successful at improving access when people stop calling me asking to get their mom or husband or friend into a specialist.”

The other leaders in the room all nodded in agreement. While we’re all happy to assist friends and family with finding the best doctor for their problem, or getting in more quickly, these leaders recognized that these informal channels represent yet another level of inequality in our healthcare system: patients and families who can tap into “insider” provider connections have access to a “black market” of enhanced access and information that can expedite treatment, assuage worry, and potentially provide better outcomes.

Thinking about eliminating the need for the healthcare black market broadened our discussion of a successful access solution. Getting a quick appointment doesn’t fully solve the problem, patients want to be assured they’re seeing the “best” doctor for their problem—meaning the system needs to have a better process for matching new patients to the most appropriate provider.

One call to tap into the “black market” can eliminate a dozen frustrating calls and dead ends; any solution must also address the many friction points in finding the right care. A tall order for sure, but one that could address one large inequity in our healthcare system: the difference between people who know someone on the inside and those who don’t.

 

 

Humana doubles down on its primary care strategy

Posted on by • Posted in Health Insurance Industry, Medicare Advantage, Primary Care, Private Equity, Venture Capital • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/192abb940510/the-weekly-gist-february-7-2020?e=d1e747d2d8

Image result for Humana doubles down on its primary care strategy

Humana, the nation’s second largest Medicare Advantage (MA) insurer, is partnering with a private equity (PE) firm to expand its senior-focused subsidiary medical group, Partners in Primary Care.

The arrangement will be structured as a joint venture between Humana and Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe, with a combined initial $600M investment that will give the PE firm majority ownership of the medical group. The new venture is likely to double the number of centers that Humana’s Partners in Primary Care operates—currently 47 throughout Texas, Kansas, Missouri, Florida and the Carolinas.

While Humana has been looking to grow its MA membership, patients need not be Humana members to access care at the centers. Humana has established other partnerships in the physician practice space, including last fall’s announcement that it is teaming up with Iora Health to add 11 additional Iora-branded primary care practices to its MA networks in Arizona, Georgia, and Texas.

Humana has previously partnered with private equity to acquire postacute providers Kindred Healthcare and Curo Health Services. These latest moves suggest the company is shifting its focus to the front end of the delivery system, looking to control costs of care for seniors by quickly building a primary care physician network focused on reducing high-cost referrals to hospitals and specialists.

 

 

 

A new health system-employer partnership takes flight

Posted on by • Posted in Accountable Care Organization (ACO), Direct Contracting, Health System • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/192abb940510/the-weekly-gist-february-7-2020?e=d1e747d2d8

Image result for direct contracting healthcare american airlines

This week, Dallas, TX-based Baylor Scott & White Health (BSWH) announced a new relationship with American Airlines, creating a lower-cost, narrow-network health plan option for American’s 55,000 employees based in the Dallas-Ft. Worth region.

The new “DFW ConnectedCare” will provide employees access to over 5,000 doctors and 50 hospitals that are part of the Baylor Scott & White Quality Alliance (BSWQA), BSWH’s accountable care organization; participants will also have zero deductibles and receive priority access to network providers. The American Airlines contract builds on a decade of work to move as many of BSWH’s contracts to total cost-risk arrangements as possible, delivering cost savings for Medicare beneficiaries, the system’s own employees, and other DFW-area employers, including Dallas Area Rapid Transit, which re-upped its direct contract with the system this year.

Whereas most accountable care organizations have focused on the Medicare population, three-quarters of the estimated 815,000 covered lives BSWQA will manage this year are in the commercial sector. With growing frustration with high deductibles and other forms of employee cost sharing, large employers like American Airlines, General Motors and others appear to be open to novel network arrangements that offer lower costs and other benefits in exchange for reduced choice—and are willing to work with regional health system partners for a subset of their employee population.

Health systems have a window of opportunity to demonstrate that direct contract arrangements can generate sustainable cost savings and provide the levels of access and service required for a long-term relationship with large employers. But to truly change the commercial market, these arrangements must also be scalable across medium and small employers, who have much lower purchasing sophistication and risk tolerance in selecting health benefits.

 

 

The growth of private equity investment in physician practice

Posted on by • Posted in Cardiology, Dermatology, Gastroenterology, Market Consolidation, Market Power, Ophthalmology, Orthopedics, Physician, Physician Practice Management, Private Equity, Specialty Care, Strategy, Urology, Venture Capital, Womens Health • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/192abb940510/the-weekly-gist-february-7-2020?e=d1e747d2d8

Private equity (PE) investment in US healthcare has ballooned over the past decade—2018 and 2019 saw record numbers of deals, representing more than $100 billion in total value. As we show below, in 2018 just under a fifth of these transactions were in the physician practice space, with the largest number of deals in dermatology and ophthalmology.

While these two specialties remain active areas of PE investment, a growing number of recent deals have focused on women’s health, gastroenterology, and urology practices.

Across all these areas, PE firms see an opportunity to grow revenue from high-margin ancillary services, cash procedures, and retail products.

Physician groups are pursuing PE investment as an alternative to joining health systems or large payer-owned physician organizations to access capital and fund buyouts of legacy partners. Doctors’ heads are increasingly being turned by the current sky-high multiples PE firms are offering, often up to 10 or even 12 times EBITA.

Private equity roll-ups of physician practices are far from over. Recent activity suggests that the behavioral health market is heating up, as it remains very fragmented in a time of increasing consumer demand.

And we predict a rush for further investment in cardiology and orthopedic practices, as investors look to profit from the shift of lucrative joint and heart valve replacement procedures to outpatient facilities.

 

Bipartisan Ways and Means leaders unveil measure to stop surprise medical bills

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Health Policy, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Physician, Rev Cycle Management, Surprise Bills • Leave a comment

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/481985-bipartisan-ways-and-means-leaders-unveil-measure-to-stop-surprise-medical?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=27536

Image result for surprise medical bills

The bipartisan leaders of the House Ways and Means Committee on Friday released their legislation to protect patients from getting massive, surprise medical bills as congressional action on the subject intensifies.

The legislation is backed by the panel’s chairman, Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.), and its top Republican, Rep. Kevin Brady (Texas). It would protect patients from getting bills for thousands of dollars when they go to the emergency room and one of their doctors happens to be outside their insurance network.

Surprise billing is seen as a rare area of possible bipartisan action this year and has support from President Trump.

But the effort has been slowed by varying approaches and intense lobbying from doctor and hospital groups.

The Ways and Means bill is a rival approach to the bipartisan bill passed out of committee last year by the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

The divide between those two committees will have to be overcome for any bill to move forward.

Neal and Brady said in a statement Friday that their approach “differs” from others because “we create a more balanced negotiation process.”

“Our priority throughout the painstaking process of crafting our legislation has been to get the policy right for patients, and we firmly believe that we have done that,” Neal and Brady said. “We look forward to working with our Democratic and Republican colleagues in Congress, as well as the Administration, to advance this measure swiftly.”

The Ways and Means Committee is planning to vote on the legislation next week.

While all sides in the surprise billing fight agree the patient should be protected, the main dispute has been how much the insurer will pay the doctor once the patient is taken out of the middle. 

Doctors and hospitals have lobbied hard against the Energy and Commerce approach, which they fear would lead to damaging cuts to their payments. That approach sets the payment based on the median rate in that geographic area, with the option of going to arbitration for some high-cost bills.

The Ways and Means approach has generally been seen as more favorable to doctors and hospitals, but industry groups have not yet responded to the details on Friday morning.

The Ways and Means bill gives the decision on how much the insurer should pay the doctor to an outside arbiter, although that arbiter will have to consider the median rate usually paid for that service in making its decision.

The House Education and Labor Committee is also planning to vote on legislation next week, and released a bill on Friday that closely reflects the Energy and Commerce and Senate Health Committee legislation, isolating Ways and Means.

Shawn Gremminger, senior director of federal relations at the liberal health care advocacy group Families USA, said it is “disappointing” that Ways and Means is using an approach that will not lower health costs as much, but he said it is good the process is moving forward.

The Energy and Commerce leaders, along with leaders of the Senate Health Committee, who also back their bill, released a conciliatory statement on Friday about the Ways and Means bill.

“Protecting innocent patients has been our top goal throughout this effort, and we appreciate that the other two House committees share this priority,” said Reps. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.) and Greg Walden (R-Ore.) and Sens. Lamar Alexnader (R-Tenn.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.). “We look forward to working together to deliver a bill to the president’s desk that protects patients and lowers health care costs for American consumers.”

 

 

The Supreme Court isn’t done with the ACA case yet. Here are the next steps.

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, ACA, Health Policy, Individual Mandate, Severability, Supreme Court, Underinsured, Uninsured • Leave a comment

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/the-supreme-court-isnt-done-with-the-aca-case-yet-here-are-the-next-steps/570816/

The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to review the legal challenge to the Affordable Care Act on Feb. 21 to potentially weigh whether to take the case. However, legal expert Katie Keith from Georgetown University cautioned Healthcare Dive it’s common for the court to reschedule or relist cases for a later conference date.

Tuesday’s one-sentence order from the U.S. Supreme Court denying a request to fast-track the challenge to the Affordable Care Act is not the final word from the high court.

The justices will now decide whether to take up the legal case threatening to overturn the landmark law during their next term, which begins in October.

Essentially, the order returns the case to the typical review process as a group of blue states, led by California’s Democratic Attorney General Xavier Becerra, try to convince the Supreme Court it should hear the case at some point instead of letting it wind its way back through the lower courts.

“The court did not say we’re not reviewing this case at all,” MaryBeth Musumeci, an associate director at Kaiser Family Foundation and graduate of Harvard Law School, told Healthcare Dive.

The blue states sought to expedite the case, which would have resulted in a ruling before the presidential election in November. Some Democrats hoped that would pressure Republicans to come up with a replacement had the law been tossed, or more publicly defend efforts that would kill popular provisions like protections for pre-existing conditions.

The court refused to accelerate its review despite requests from hospitals, insurers, advocacy groups including AARP and a group of bipartisan economic scholars.

“It’s disappointing but it’s not altogether unsurprising. They typically don’t like to grant expedited review,” Katie Keith, a lawyer and health policy expert at Georgetown University​, told Healthcare Dive.

Other legal experts warned against reading too much into Tuesday’s order and what it may mean for the case going forward.

“Expediting was always unlikely. It’s a big ask for little purpose here. I wouldn’t read anything else into it,” Jonathan Adler, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University, told Healthcare Dive​.

Careful observers of the case should expect the justices to vote on whether to take it up by June at the latest, Keith said.

In the meantime, Tuesday’s order sets off another wave of briefs. First, the red states will try to convince the court of its position on whether the legal challenge should be heard in October. Expect that motion in the first few days of February, experts told Healthcare Dive.

Robert Henneke, the lawyer representing the individual plaintiffs, told Healthcare Dive his team will argue that the case is still premature for Supreme Court review. “The opinion from the Fifth Circuit was not a complete opinion,” Henneke said.

The appeals court in part affirmed a lower court’s decision, ruling that the individual mandate is unconstitutional because it can no longer be considered a tax. However, it sent the key question of whether the rest of the ACA can stand without the mandate back to the lower court for further analysis.

Becerra has argued that the lower court’s decision is wrong and, without a definitive ruling from the Supreme Court, the challenge only fuels doubt about the future of the ACA — credited with significantly reducing the ranks of the uninsured.

“The health and wellbeing of millions of our loved ones who rely on the ACA for healthcare is too important. We will do everything in our power to keep fighting for them,” Becerra said in a tweet following the order.

Nevertheless, Tuesday’s result likely thrusts the issue of the ACA back in the spotlight for another presidential campaign cycle.

Much of the healthcare debate among Democrats vying to take on President Donald Trump has revolved around a “Medicare for All” idea. One question now is, will Democrats shift to talk about rescuing the ACA, a law in place but remains in jeopardy?

The problem is the outcome is still uncertain, Stephanie Kennan, senior vice president of federal public affairs at McGuireWoods Consulting, told Healthcare Dive. However, it does give Democrats the opportunity to talk about what’s popular in the bill, noting protections for those with pre-existing conditions.

“It certainly gives them a springboard for them to talk about the things they could do to fix it,” Kennan said.

Despite Tuesday’s outcome, there will still be some Democratic contenders who will campaign for Medicare for All, Bill Jordan, chair of Alston and Bird’s healthcare litigation group, told Healthcare Dive. But this ruling gives Democrats another tool against Republicans, he said.

“As time has gone on, the Affordable Care Act has become more popular, not less popular,” Jordan said.

But he cautioned that anything can happen in the next election, which could entirely alter the political landscape and influence whether the case makes it back up to the Supreme Court if the justices pass this time.