California Health Policy Poll Released

https://elink.clickdimensions.com/m/1/52313696/02-b20044-0c24a5f919b04c9baf7a61e0f9656ec6/6/989/a24990fd-e009-4b4b-be17-ea9b7c8eef0e

Increases in Worry Over Health Care Costs and Skipping/ Postponing Treatment Due to Cost Over the Last Year

PERCENTAGE WHO SAY THEY ARE VERY OR SOMEWHAT WORRIED ABOUT…

 

The health system “black market” for care

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.

 

 

A stunning indictment of the U.S. health-care system, in one chart

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/12/10/stunning-indictment-us-health-care-system-one-chart/?fbclid=IwAR35UzHd8LQexhBxPukkwmBAmGGyxhagBfTR6CINomsJcSM-IkjiC26x10c

Image result for A stunning indictment of the U.S. health-care system, in one chart

One quarter of American adults say they or a family member has put off treatment for a serious medical condition because of cost, according to data released this week by Gallup. That number is the highest it’s been in nearly three decades of Gallup polling.

An additional 8 percent have made the same choice for less serious ailments, the survey showed. That means a collective 33 percent of those polled have prioritized financial considerations over their health, tying the high set in 2014.

The report also shows a growing income gap in cost-related delays. In 2016, for instance, one-fourth of U.S. households earning less than $40,000 a year reported cost-related delays, vs. 13 percent for households making more than $100,000. In 2019, the rate of cost-related delays among poorer households shot up to 36 percent, while the rate for the richer group remained at 13 percent.

Gallup cautions that the Trump presidency may be influencing these numbers on a partisan level: From 2018 to 2019, the share of Democrats reporting cost-related delays for serious conditions jumped from 22 percent to 34 percent. Among Republicans, the year-over-year increase was more subdued, from 12 percent to 15 percent.

Gallup data also show Democrats (31 percent) self-report higher rates of preexisting conditions than Republicans (22 percent).

“Whether these gaps are indicative of real differences in the severity of medical and financial problems faced by Democrats compared with Republicans or Democrats’ greater propensity to perceive problems in these areas isn’t entirely clear,” according to Gallup’s Lydia Saad. “But it’s notable that the partisan gap on putting off care for serious medical treatment is currently the widest it’s been in two decades.”

Data from the Kaiser Family Foundation’s Employer Health Survey underscores the severity of the health-care spending problem. In 2019, 82 percent of covered workers must meet a deductible before health-care coverage kicks in, up from 63 percent a decade ago. “The average single deductible now stands at $1,655 for workers who have one,” according to KFF, “similar to last year’s $1,573 average but up sharply from the $826 average of a decade ago.”

Deductibles have surged 162 percent since 2009, data show — more than six times the 26 percent climb in earnings over the same period.

There are many factors driving up the cost of care for most American families. Administrative costs are a big part of the issue: Health insurance is largely a for-profit industry, meaning insurance companies and their shareholders are reaping a percentage of your deductibles and co-pays as profit.

Many hospitals, too, are raking in profits. In recent years, surprise billing practices and outrageous markups for simple drugs and services have drawn the ire of lawmakers looking for ways to reduce health-care spending.

Physician pay is another significant expense. The Commonwealth Fund, a health-care research group, estimates American doctors earn “nearly double the average salary” of doctors in other wealthy nations. The American Medical Association, a trade group representing doctors, has a long history of opposing efforts to implement European-style single-payer health-care systems in the United States.

The American health-care system, in other words, works pretty well for the powerful players in the health-care industry. Hospitals and insurance companies are reaping significant profits. Doctors are earning high salaries. But what are the rest of us getting in return for our ever-growing co-pays and deductibles?

The national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has an answer, and it’s an indictment of our health-care system: The United States is in the midst of the longest sustained drop in life expectancy in at least 100 years. Relative to other wealthy countries, lives in America are short and getting shorter.

The disparities domestically are perhaps even more shocking: In the nation’s wealthiest places, where the high cost of modern health care remains within relatively easy reach, life expectancies are literally decades longer than in America’s poorest places.

As health care becomes more expensive and economywide inequalities more pronounced, these disparities in life span are likely to get worse — and the share of Americans skipping out on much-needed medical care only likely to grow.

 

 

 

 

Trump Shift, Backed by States, Fuels Fear of Too Few Medicaid Docs

https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2019/08/07/trump-shift-backed-by-states-fuels-fear-of-too-few-medicaid-docs?omnicid=CFC1662263&mid=henrykotula@yahoo.com

Stateline Aug7

Dr. Barbara Ricks is a pediatrician in Greenville, Mississippi, whose patients are nearly all on Medicaid. The Trump administration proposed eliminating an Obama-era rule that aims to ensure that patients can find a doctor who accepts Medicaid.
Rogelio V. Solis/The Associated Press

The Trump administration wants to drop an Obama-era rule designed to ensure that there are enough doctors to care for Medicaid patients.

State health officials say the rule, which requires states to monitor whether Medicaid reimbursement rates are high enough to keep doctors in the program, forces them to spend a lot of time collecting and analyzing data with little benefit. Health care advocates, though, fear that dropping the regulation would enable states to set those payments at a level that would cause some of the 72 million Americans who rely on Medicaid to scramble for health care. Research shows that when reimbursement rates drop, fewer providers agree to accept low-income Medicaid patients.

Although the Medicaid Access Rule, adopted in 2016, pertains to Medicaid fee-for-service plans, the Trump administration also is seeking to relax requirements on how states determine whether Medicaid managed care organizations have enough providers.

If reimbursement rates are too low, there’s a risk that health care providers would see fewer Medicaid patients or even refuse to treat Medicaid enrollees altogether. That, in turn, could lead to longer wait times to see providers still participating in Medicaid or force patients to travel longer distances to reach providers remaining in the program.

Medicaid, the government health plan for low-income U.S. residents, covers 1 in 5 citizens. It is jointly administered and financed by the federal government and the states.

The rule, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) said, “excessively constrains state freedom to administer the program in the manner that is best for the state and Medicaid beneficiaries in the state.”

According to Matt Salo, executive director of the National Association of Medicaid Directors, scrapping it would eliminate a bureaucratic headache for states that, in the end, hasn’t improved patients’ access to providers.

“Nobody is moving the goal of improved access,” Salo said.

Some health care advocates disagree, pointing out that the rule hasn’t been in place very long and that getting rid of it fits the Trump administration’s overall mission of giving states more freedom in operating Medicaid.

“The Trump administration’s approach to Medicaid has been state flexibility, giving states a lot more discretion to do what they want without a lot of attention to what beneficiaries need,” said Abbi Coursolle, a senior attorney with the National Health Law Program, a group based in Washington, D.C., that works to protect access to health care for low-income populations.

CMS last year called for a significant watering down of the Obama rule. Last month, the agency proposed to scrap it altogether. The comment period on elimination of the rule runs through next month, after which CMS will announce its decision.

The initial proposal to weaken the rule generated plenty of opposition. Among those objecting were hospital and physician organizations, groups that advocate for health care access for all, and organizations created to support those living with certain diseases and to raise funds for research into those conditions.

Among the latter was the Epilepsy Foundation, which warned in its public comment that weakening the rule would deprive CMS of information it needed to monitor and enforce Medicaid beneficiaries’ access to care. State reimbursement rates, the foundation said, are crucial to ensuring enough willing providers are available to treat Medicaid beneficiaries.

Shawn Martin, senior vice president of the Academy of Family Physicians, said scrapping the rule would make states more likely to set reimbursement rates too low, prompting practitioners to stop taking Medicaid patients or cut back. “A low reimbursement would affect how many beneficiaries providers are willing to see.”

Just as adamant on the other side, however, are many states that complain that the Obama rule is cumbersome and ineffective at ensuring access for Medicaid beneficiaries.

At the Maryland Department of Health, Tricia Roddy, a research director, said the rule doesn’t do much to help gauge the fees’ effects on access to care.

Similarly, at the Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing, Marc Williams, a spokesman, said his state uses other strategies to ensure Medicaid beneficiaries’ access to the health services they need.

According to Salo of the Medicaid directors group, states of both political stripes, red and blue, are delighted that the Trump administration is moving to abolish the rule.

“It was creating many bureaucratic burdens without accomplishing anything concrete,” Salo said. The rule, he said, “is insanely micro-managed and overly bureaucratic.”

The 1965 law establishing Medicaid has been amended through the years to ensure that enough doctors, nurses and other providers are available to serve beneficiaries. Congress in 1989 passed an amendment making clear states’ obligation to pay providers enough to ensure Medicaid enrollees have access to care.

Medicaid pays doctors about three-fourths as much as Medicare, the government program for senior citizens, according to a 2017 analysis by the Urban Institute, a nonpartisan think tank in Washington, D.C. And Medicare pays much less than private insurers.

When Medicaid and Medicare payments, or reimbursement rates, go down, research shows that patients make fewer doctor’s visits and more trips to the emergency room.

According to a 2017 Kaiser Family Foundation report, only about 70% of office-based physicians accept new Medicaid patients. The results vary from 39% in New Jersey to 97% in Nebraska. By comparison, the study found, 85% of doctors accept new patients with private insurance.

The 2016 rule required states to tell the agency every three years how providers from various geographic regions and specialties were participating in Medicaid, and how reimbursement rates were affecting that participation.

 

 

 

 

Does the United States Ration Health Care?

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/blog/2019/does-united-states-ration-health-care

MRI taking place in the U.S.

As recent congressional hearings on Medicare for All proposals have illustrated, members of Congress and presidential candidates are looking outside the United States to find ways to achieve universal coverage. Some have suggested that other countries are able to provide universal coverage because they “ration” care — a term rife with negative connotations. This post examines the extent to which health care is rationed in Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom — as compared to the U.S.

Examples of health care rationing tend to focus on long wait times for procedures —such as hip replacements, or MRIs — or limited access to the newest drugs. This happens in some (but not all) countries and can be a challenge for policymakers. But there are other ways in which health systems engage in rationing, by restricting access to insurance, through insurance benefit design, or by imposing high patient cost-sharing. While other countries may ration because of national budget constraints and supply-side factors, the United States’ lack of access to comprehensive insurance and affordable care represent a de facto form of rationing that leads people to delay getting care or going without it entirely.

Getting in the Door

In the five European countries we examined, all residents are entitled to health care through the national system. These range from tax-funded systems in Sweden or the U.K. to private insurance-based systems in Germany, the Netherlands, and Switzerland. In the latter, governments regulate premiums to be affordable and provide income-related subsidies to low-income families, which include 27 percent of Swiss and 30 percent of Dutch residents. Governments also mandate generous benefit packages that typically guarantee a minimum set of services: primary, specialty, and hospital care; prescription drugs; mental health; maternity; and palliative care.

In comparison, there are 30.4 million uninsured people in the U.S. Not having affordable, comprehensive insurance coverage often means that sick Americans do not even get in the door to see a doctor. For those who do have coverage, new rules that allow states to circumvent the Affordable Care Act’s mandated essential health benefits may mean skimpy coverage for some.

Waiting to Be Seen

Patients in some countries face longer wait times for specialty care than in the U.S., where only 25 percent of Americans need to wait longer than one month for a specialist appointment. Patients in Germany and Switzerland get in just as fast (27% and 26%, respectively) as their U.S. counterparts, but those in Sweden and the U.K. do not (45% and 43%, respectively). Similarly, very few U.S., Dutch, and Swiss patients (4% to 7%) who need elective surgery face wait times longer than four months, while 12 percent of Swedish and British patients do. It should be noted that in Sweden and the U.K., where wait times for specialty care are longer, people can buy supplemental insurance to gain quicker access to private specialists.

While Americans overall enjoy shorter wait times for specialty care, wait times for same- or next-day appointments when sick are around average compared to other countries. U.S. adults are among the most frequent users of emergency departments. Nearly half who do report doing so because they couldn’t get an appointment with their regular doctor.

Weighing Health Against Your Wallet

In a recent Commonwealth Fund survey, fewer than one of 10 patients in the U.K., Germany, the Netherlands, or Sweden reported skipping needed care or treatments because of cost. This contrasts sharply with the U.S., where one of three Americans reported the same. This is partly because of the rise in high deductibles, unpredictable and opaque copayments, and higher health care prices in the U.S. than in other countries. An estimated 44 million Americans who have insurance are effectively underinsured because their out-of-pocket costs and deductibles are very high relative to their incomes.

Other countries are more protective. In the U.K., Germany, and the Netherlands, patients have no out-of-pocket costs when they visit a primary care doctor, and Brits never pay for hospital care. In Germany, out-of-pocket costs are capped at 2 percent of annual household income and 1 percent for chronically ill people. In Sweden, out-of-pocket costs for physician visits and drugs are capped at $370 annually. No one in these five countries declares bankruptcy because of medical debt.

Paying for Value

A commitment to providing universal coverage means that other countries have to make hard choices to ensure that each health care dollar is spent effectively.

Countries aim to give patients access to the most clinically meaningful and cost-effective drugs. In the U.K., only drugs that are deemed cost-effective are covered, while in Germany, manufacturers have to demonstrate that their new drug adds clinical benefit to negotiate a higher price than other existing drugs. This doesn’t mean that new technologies aren’t available; in fact, 79 percent of new cancer drugs are approved for routine use in the U.K.

These kind of controls, coupled with fixed copayments and annual caps on patient drug spending, translate into better access. While nearly one of five U.S. adults skip doses or do not fill a prescription because of costs, just 2 percent to 9 percent of patients do so in the other countries discussed here.

Conclusion

It would be a missed opportunity for America to ignore lessons about universal coverage from other countries out of a fear that they ration health care more than we do. In reality, more people in the U.S. forgo needed health care because access to care is rationed through lack of access to adequate insurance or unaffordable services and treatments.

 

 

 

The Drivers of Health: What makes us healthy?

The Drivers

 

What makes us healthy?

We have an intuitive sense that things like what we eat, how much we exercise, the quality of our water and air, and getting appropriate health care when sick all help us stay healthy, but how much do each of these factors matter?

Studies have also shown that our incomes, education, even racial identity are associated with health — so-called “social determinants of health.”

How much do social determinants matter? How much does the health system improve our health?

In the 1970s the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tried to answer these questions but had little rigorous science to guide it. Though we know a great deal more today, they still have not been fully answered. This is no mere curiosity — knowing what makes us healthy will help us direct investments into the right programs.

Over the years, many frameworks have been developed to illuminate what affects health. The relationships are so complex that no single framework captures everything. To get us started on this research project — and our broader conversation about what drives health — we created a model that allows us to explore some of the dimensions of these drivers, and their relationships to each other.

The Framework

We developed our framework by reviewing research on factors that influence health and surveying similar projects and tools from prominent organizations . It is not meant to be complete, but a starting point that allows us to think about what drives health and how.

Indirect vs. Direct Factors
Many things affect health, some directly and others indirectly. Government/policy, income/wealth, education, and racial identity don’t necessarily affect health in an immediate way. They are indirect factors that tend to affect health through complex pathways. Those pathways usually involve other factors that more immediately affect health. These are the direct factors such as occupation, health care access, and health behaviors.

Why these Outcomes?
There are many possible health outcomes. The framework includes four examples—age-adjusted mortality, life expectancy, quality of life/well-being, and functional status. These outcomes are commonly studied, prevalent in the literature, and reflect the kinds of things people care most about.

The Drivers