Category Archives: Affordability

Health System Chief Strategy Officer Roundtable Assessment: ‘The Near-Term is Tough, the Long-Term is Uncertain and the Deck is Stacked against Hospitals’

Posted on by • Posted in Affordability, Chief Strategy Officer, Competition, Competition on Price, Health Policy, Health System, Healthcare Reform, Hospital Industry, Leadership, Leadership Transformation, Leadership Vision, Private Equity, Regulation, Regulatory Pressures, Reputation, Transition to Value-Based Healthcare, Value Based Care Model, Value Proposition, Value-Based Healthcare • Leave a comment
https://paulkeckley.com/the-keckley-report/2023/12/4/health-system-chief-strategy-officer-roundtable-assessment-the-near-term-is-tough-the-long-term-is-uncertain-and-the-deck-is-stacked-against-hospitals/

On November 2-3 in Austin, I moderated the 4th Annual CSO Roundtable* in which Chief Strategy/Growth Officers from 12 mid-size and large multi-hospital systems participated. The discussion centered on the future: the issues and challenges they facing their organizations TODAY and their plans for their NEAR TERM (3-5 years) and LONG-TERM (8-10 years) future. Augmenting the discussion, participants rated the likelihood and level of disruptive impact for 50 future state scenarios using the Future State Diagnostic Survey. *

Five themes emerged from this discussion:

1-Major change in the structure and financing of U.S. health system is unlikely.

  • CSOs do not believe Medicare for All will replace the current system. They anticipate the existing public-private delivery system will continue with expanded government influence likely.
  • Public funding for the system remains problematic: private capital will play a larger role.
  • CSOs think it is unlikely the public health system will be fully integrated into the traditional delivery system (aka health + social services). Most hospital systems are expanding their outreach to public health programs in local markets as an element of their community benefits strategy.
  • CSOs recognize that states will play a bigger role in regulating the system vis a vis executive orders and referenda on popular issues. Price controls for hospitals and prescription drugs, restraints on hospital consolidation are strong possibilities.
  • Consensus: conditions for hospitals will not improve in the immediate and near-term. Strategies for growth must include all options.

2-Health costs, affordability and equitable access are major issues facing the health industry overall and hospitals particularly.

  • CSOs see equitable access as a compliance issue applicable to their workforce procurement and performance efforts and to their service delivery strategy i.e., locations, patient experiences, care planning.
  • CSOs see reputation risk in both areas if not appropriately addressed in their organizations.
  • CSOs do not share a consensus view of how affordability should be defined or measured.
  • There is consensus among CSOs that hospitals have suffered reputation damage as a result of inadequate price transparency and activist disinformation campaigns. Executive compensation, non-operating income, discrepancies in charity care and community benefits calculations and patient “sticker shock” are popular targets of criticism.
  • CSO think increased operating costs due to medical inflation, supply chain costs including prescription drugs, and labor have offset their efforts in cost reduction and utilization gains.
  • CSO’s are focusing more of their resources and time in support of acute clinical programs where streamlining clinical processes and utilization increases are achievable near-term.
  • Consensus: the current financing of the system, particularly hospitals, is a zero-sum game. A fundamental re-set is necessary.

3-The regulatory environment for all hospitals will be more challenging, especially for not-for-profit health systems.

  • Most CSOs think the federal regulatory environment is hostile toward hospitals. They expect 340B funding to be cut, a site neutral payment policy in some form implemented, price controls for hospital services in certain states, increased federal and state constraints on horizontal consolidation vis a vis the FTC and State Attorneys General, and unreasonable reimbursement from Medicare and other government program payers.
  • CSOs believe the challenges for large not-for-profit hospital systems are unique: most CSOs think not-for-profit hospitals will face tighter restrictions on their qualification for tax-exempt status and tighter accountability of their community benefits attestation. Most expect Congress and state officials to increase investigations about for-profit activities, partnerships with private equity, executive compensation and other issues brought to public attention.
  • CSOs think rural hospital closures will increase without significant federal action.
  • Consensus: the environment for all hospitals is problematic, especially large, not-for-profit multi-hospitals systems and independent rural facilities.

4-By contrast, the environment for large, national health insurers, major (publicly traded) private equity sponsors and national retailers is significantly more positive.

  • CSOs recognize that current monetary policy by the Fed coupled with tightening regulatory restraints for hospitals is advantageous for national disruptors. Scale and access to capital are strategic advantages enjoyed disproportionately by large for-profit operators in healthcare, especially health insurers and retail health.
  • CSOs believe publicly traded private equity sponsors will play a bigger role in healthcare delivery since they enjoy comparably fewer regulatory constraints/limitations, relative secrecy in their day-to-day operations and significant cash on hand from LPs.
  • CSOs think national health insurer vertical consolidation strategies will increase noting that all operate integrated medical groups, pharmacy benefits management companies, closed networks of non-traditional service providers (i.e. supplemental services like dentistry, home care, et al) and robust data management capabilities.
  • CSOs think national retailers will expand their primary care capabilities beyond traditional “office-based services” to capture market share and widen demand for health-related products and services
  • Consensus: national insurers, PE and national retailers will leverage their scale and the friendly regulatory environment they enjoy to advantage their shareholders and compete directly against hospital and medical groups.

5-The system-wide shift from volume to value will accelerate as employers and insurers drive lower reimbursement and increased risk sharing with hospitals and medical groups.

  • CSOs think the pursuit of value by payers is here to stay. However, they acknowledge the concept of value is unclear but they expect HHS to advance standards for defining and measuring value more consistently across provider and payer sectors.
  • CSOs think risk-sharing with payers is likely to increase as employers and commercial insurers align payment models with CMS’ alternative payment models: the use of bundled payments, accountable care organizations and capitation is expected to increase.
  • CSOs expect network performance and data management to be essential capabilities necessary to an organization’s navigation of the volume to value transition. CSOs want to rationalize their current acute capabilities by expanding their addressable market vis a vis referral management, diversification, centralization of core services, primary and preventive health expansion and aggressive cost management.
  • Consensus: successful participation in payer-sponsored value-based care initiatives will play a bigger role in health system strategy.

My take:

The role of Chief Strategy Officer in a multi-hospital system setting is multi-functional and unique to each organization. Some have responsibilities for M&A activity; some don’t. Some manage marketing, public relations and advocacy activity; others don’t. All depend heavily on market data for market surveillance and opportunity assessments. And all have frequent interaction with the CEO and Board, and all depend on data management capabilities to advance their recommendations about risk, growth and the future. That’s the job.

CSOs know that hospitals are at a crossroad, particularly not-for-profit system operators accountable to the communities they serve. In the 4Q Keckley Poll, 55% agreed that “the tax exemption given not-for-profit hospitals is justified by the community benefits they provide”  but 45% thought otherwise. They concede their competitive landscape is more complicated as core demand shifts to non-hospital settings and alternative treatments and self-care become obviate traditional claims-based forecasting. They see the bigger players getting bigger: last week’s announcements of the Cigna-Humana deal and expansion of the Ascension-LifePoint relationship cases in point. And they recognize that their reputations are under assault: the rift between Modern Healthcare and the AHA over the Merritt Research ’s charity care study (see Hospital section below) is the latest stimulant for not-for-profit detractors.

In 1937, prominent literary figures Laura Riding and Robert Graves penned a famous statement in an Epilogue Essay that’s especially applicable to hospitals today: “the future is not what it used to be.”

For CSO’s, figuring that out is both worrisome and energizing.

Amazon announces One Medical membership discount for Prime members

Posted on by • Posted in Affordability, Amazon, Amazon Care, Amazon Clinic, Amazon Pharmacy, Consumer Focus, Consumer Marketing, Consumer Value Proposition, Consumerism, Convenient Access, Innovative Care Models, Primary Care, Primary Care Strategy, Urgent Care, Urgent Response, Virtual Care Strategy, Virtual Healthcare, Virtual Office, Virtual Visit • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/f12ce6f07b28/the-weekly-gist-november-10-2023?e=d1e747d2d8

On Wednesday, e-commerce giant Amazon announced that its 167M US-based Prime members can now access One Medical primary care services for $9 per month, or $99 per year, which amounts to a 50 percent annual discount on One Medical membership. (Additional Prime family members can join for $6/month or $66/year.) 

One Medical, which Amazon purchased for $3.9B last year, provides its 800K members with 24/7 virtual care as well as app-based provider communication and access to expedited in-person care, though clinic visits are either billed through insurance or incur additional charges. Amazon also recently started offering virtual care services through its Amazon Clinic platform, at cash prices ranging from $30 to $95 per visit. 

The Gist: After teasing this type of bundle with a Prime Day sale earlier this year, Amazon has made the long-expected move to integrate One Medical into its suite of Prime add-ons, using a similar pricing model as its $5-per-month RxPass for generic prescription medications.

At such a low price, Amazon risks flooding One Medical’s patient population with demand it may struggle to meet. But if Amazon can scale One Medical, while maintaining its quality and convenience, it may be able to make the provider organization profitable. 

Known for its willingness to take risks and absorb financial losses, Amazon is continuing to build a healthcare ecosystem focused on hybrid primary care and pharmacy services that delivers a strong consumer value proposition based on convenience and low cost. 

Are Employers Ready to Engage the Health Industry Head On?

Posted on by • Posted in Affordability, Community Benefit, Direct Contracting, Employer-Based Health Insurance, Employer-Sponsored Commercial Health Insurance, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Out of Pocket Expenses, Tax Exempt Status, Uncompensated Care, Underinsured, Uninsured • Leave a comment
Are Employers Ready to Engage the Health Industry Head On?

Last week, Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) released its Annual Employer Health Benefits Survey which included a surprise:

The average annual single premium and the average annual family premium each increased by 7% over the last year.

In 2022 as post-pandemic recovery was the focus for employers, the average single premium grew by 2% and the average family premium increased by 1%. Health costs and insurance premiums were not top of mind concerns to employers struggling to keep employees paid and door open. But 7% is an eye-opener.

The rest of the findings in the 2023 KFF Report are unremarkable: they reflect employer willingness to maintain benefits at/near pre-pandemic levels and slight inclination toward expanded benefits beyond mental health:

  • “The average annual premium for employer-sponsored health insurance in 2023 is $8,435 for single coverage and $23,968 for family coverage. Comparatively, there was an increase of 5.2% in workers’ wages and inflation of 5.8%2. The average single and family premiums increased faster this year than last year (2% vs. 7% and 1% vs. 7% respectively).
  • Over the last five years, the average premium for family coverage has increased by 22% compared to an 27% increase in workers’ wages and 21% inflation.
  • For single coverage, the average premium for covered workers is higher at small firms than at large firms ($8,722 vs. $8,321). The average premiums for family coverage are comparable for covered workers in small and large firms ($23,621 vs. $24,104) …
  • Most covered workers contribute to the cost of the premium for their coverage. On average, covered workers contribute 17% of the premium for single coverage and 29% of the premium for family coverage, similar to the percentages contributed in 2022…
  • 90% of workers with single coverage have a general annual deductible that must be met before most services are paid for by the plan, similar to the percentage last year (88%).
  • The average deductible amount in 2023 for workers with single coverage and a general annual deductible is $1,735, similar to last year…
  • In 2023, among workers with single coverage, 47% of workers at small firms and 25% of workers at large firms have a general annual deductible of $2,000 or more. Over the last five years, the percentage of covered workers with a general annual deductible of $2,000 or more for single coverage has grown from 26% to 31%.
  • While nearly all large firms (firms with 200 or more workers) offer health benefits to at least some workers, small firms (3-199 workers) are significantly less likely to do so. In 2023, 53% of all firms offered some health benefits, similar to the percentage last year (51%).”

My take:

These findings show that employers are not prone to drastic changes in health benefits for their employees despite recognition it is expensive and unaffordable to small companies and for many of their own employees.  But many large self-insured employers (except those in government, education and healthcare) are poised to make significant changes next year. They recognize themselves as the primary source of profits enjoyed by insurers, hospitals, physicians, drug companies and others.  

They’re developing multi-year at risk direct contracts, value-based purchasing arrangements, primary care gatekeeping, narrow networks, restricted formularies, alternative care models and more to that leverage their clout. They’re going on offense.

The KFF Benefits Survey is a snapshot of where employer benefits are today, but it’s likely not the same next year. It appears employers are ready to engage the health industry head on.

PS Last week, the feud between Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee Chair Bernie Sanders and Not-for-Profit Health Systems heated up. On Oct. 10, he released a Majority Staff Report that said NFP hospitals do not deserve their tax exemptions as they spend “paltry amounts” on charity care. “Hospitals have gladly accepted the tax benefits that come with nonprofit status but have failed to provide the required community benefits. Non-profit hospitals spent only an estimated $16 billion on charity care in 2020, or about 57% of the value of their tax breaks in the same year.”

The same day, the American Hospital Association (AHA) released its analysis of hospital Schedule H filings concluding that tax-exempt hospitals provided $130 billion in community benefits in 2020 and called the HELP report “just plain wrong”.

In response to the AHA report, Sanders noted that AHA had not included CEO Compensation for NFPs in its analysis though featured prominently in his Majority Staff Report: “In 2021, the most recent year for which data is available for all of the 16 hospital chains, those companies’ CEOs averaged more than $8 million in compensation and collectively made over $140 million…

The disparities between the paltry amounts these hospitals are spending on charity care and their massive revenues and excessive executive compensation demonstrates that they are failing to live up to their end of the non-profit bargain.”

This tit for tat between the Committee Chairman and AHA is notable for 2 reasons: it draws attention to the Schedule H information goldmine about how not-for-profit hospitals operate since they’re now required to attach their S-10 Medicare cost report worksheets. Quantifying charity care in Exhibit 3B (for which there’s no expectation of payment) and the myriad of claimed community benefits including bad debt in Schedule 3C will likely intensify scrutiny of NFPs even more.  Second, it draws attention to Executive Pay in hospitals: in this regard the Majority Staff Report commentary on CEO pay is misleading: by combining Column B (wages, bonuses) with Columns C (Deferred compensation) and D (non-taxable benefits), the total is significantly higher than one-year’s actual take-home pay for the CEOs. But it makes headlines!

If not-for-profit systems wish to lead transformational change in U.S. healthcare, not-for-profit system boards and their trade associations must be prepared to address the storm clouds gathering above. The skirmish between the Senate HELP Chair and AHA mirrors an increasingly skeptical public who, with Congress, believe the system is being gamed.

How US is failing to keep its citizens alive into old age

Posted on by • Posted in Access & Quality of Healthcare, Accessible Care, Affordability, Chronic Care Management, Chronic Conditions, Chronic Diseases, Health Equity, Health Inequity, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, Health Predictors, Mortality, Poverty, Social Determinants of Health, Systemic Issues • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/9fd97f114e7a/the-weekly-gist-october-6-2023?e=d1e747d2d8

Published this week in the Washington Post, this unsparing article packages a year of investigative reporting into a thorough accounting of why US life expectancy is undergoing a rapid decline. 

After peaking in 2014, US life expectancy has declined each subsequent year, trending far worse than peer countries. In a quarter of US counties, working-age Americans are dying at the highest rates in 40 years, reversing decades of progress. While deaths from firearms and opioids play a role, chronic diseases remain our nation’s greatest killer, erasing more than double the years of life as all overdoses, homicides, suicides, and car accidents combined.

The drivers of this trend are too numerous to list, but experts suggest targeting “the causes of the causes”, namely social factors, as the death rate gap between the rich and poor has grown almost 15x faster than the income gap since 1980. 

The Gist: This reporting is a sobering reminder of the responsibilities—and failures—borne by our nation’s healthcare system. 

The massive death toll of chronic disease in this country is not an indictment of the care Americans receive, but of the care and other resources they cannot access or afford. 

While it’s not the mandate of health systems to reduce systemic issues like poverty, there is no solution to the problem without health systems playing a key role in increasing access to care, while convening community resources in service of these larger goals.

For Healthcare, the Debt Limit and Possible Shutdown Further a Shift away from its Status Quo

Posted on by • Posted in Affordability, Health Policy, Healthcare Reform, State of the Union • Leave a comment
https://paulkeckley.com/the-keckley-report/2023/10/2/for-healthcare-the-debt-limit-and-possible-shutdown-further-a-shift-away-from-its-status-quo/

This week, all eyes will be on the U.S. Congress as the clock ticks toward a potential government shutdown. Whether lawmakers reach agreement on a continuing resolution to extend funding for30 to 60 days or the government shuts down at midnight this Saturday, it will have direct negative impact on consumer activities and spending in healthcare.

Background:

A shutdown alone is not apocalyptic for consumers: they’ve weathered 20 shutdowns averaging 8 days each since 1976 and recovered productivity shortfalls within 3-6 months. What’s complicating and most problematic for healthcare is its concurrence with equally threatening events and trends inside and outside healthcare:

  • The resumption of Student Loan debt payments starting in October 1 impacting 900,000 Americans– 90% say they can’t!
  • The probability the Federal Reserve will increase its federal borrowing rate by 25 basis points to 5.50 thus increasing interest costs and consumer prices.
  • The slowdown in GDP growth and increase in fuel costs projected by economists and regulators.
  • Increased workforce-management tension resulting in strikes, walkouts and slowdowns in labor-intense settings like auto manufacturing, nursing homes and hospitals.
  • Medical inflation: technological advancements, increased demand, rising drug prices, expensive medical equipment, and increased administrative costs are contributors. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, prices for medical care are 5,274.47% higher in 2023 vs. 1935 (a $52,744.67 difference in value). Between 1935 and 2023, medical care experienced an average inflation rate of 4.63% per year, but in that period, working-age consumers who are privately insured paid a disproportionate and growing share projected to exceed 10% in 2023.

The health system’s economics are partially protected from shutdowns since funding for the Medicare and Medicaid is somewhat protected. That’s the status quo.

But the confluence of growing bipartisan Congressional antipathy toward the industry vis a vis regulatory reforms (i.e. price transparency, site neutral payments, DOJ-FTC consolidation constraints et al), high profile congressional investigations (i.e. PBMs and drug prices, role of private equity ownership), administrative orders from the White House and Governors (i.e.medical debt, value initiatives, organ procurement et al) and negative publicity challenging community benefits, CEO compensation and fraudulent activities erode the industry’s good will and expose it to unprecedented consumer risks.

Evidence in support of this assessment is substantial as illustrated in the sections that follow. There are no easy solutions. The U.S. health industry status quo is a B2B2P2C (business to business to physician to consumer) industry in which most decisions impacting what consumers ultimately spend for healthcare products and services are made for them, not by them. The direct costs associated with supply chain, technologies, facilities and R&D are closely guarded secrets. Indirect costs, administrative overhead, off balance sheet activities, partnerships and alliances even more.

What’s clear is that every sector in healthcare will be subject to scrutiny through an uncomfortable lens—the consumer. Prices matter. Service matters. Integrity matters. Transparency matters. Ownership matters. Purpose matters. And whether accurate or not, fair or not, comfortable or not, information accessible to consumers is readily accessible.

The shutdown over the debt limit might happen or be diverted. What will not be diverted is growing discontent with the medical system that the majority of consumers believe wasteful, expensive and self-serving.  How the status quo is impacted is anyone’s guess, but it’s a good bet its future is not a cut-and-paste version of its past.

Ryder Cup Lessons for Team USA Healthcare

Posted on by • Posted in Affordability, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, Healthcare Reform, Lobbyist, Medical Debt, Mortality, Out of Pocket Expenses, Outcomes, Profit Motive, Public Health, Public Health Strategy, Quality of Care, Quality of Life, Underinsured, Uninsured, Universal Coverage, Universal Healthcare System • Leave a comment
Ryder Cup Lessons for Team USA Healthcare

Saturday, Congress voted overwhelming (House 335-91, Senate 88-9) to keep the government funded until Nov. 17 at 2023 levels. No surprise.  Congress is supposed to pass all 12 appropriations bills before the start of each fiscal year but has done that 4 times since 1970—the last in 1997. So, while this chess game plays out, the health system will soldier on against growing recognition it needs fixing.

In Wednesday night’s debate, GOP Presidential aspirant Nicki Haley was asked what she would do to address the spike in personal bankruptcies due to medical debt. Her reply:

“We will break all of it [down], from the insurance company, to the hospitals, to the doctors’ offices, to the PBMs [pharmacy benefit managers], to the pharmaceutical companies. We will make it all transparent because when you do that, you will realize that’s what the problem is…we need to bring competition back into the healthcare space by eliminating certificate of need systems… Once we give the patient the ability to decide their healthcare, deciding which plan they want, that is when we will see magic happen, but we’re going to have to make every part of the industry open up and show us where their warts are because they all have them”

It’s a sentiment widely held across partisan aisles and in varied degrees among taxpayers, employers and beyond. It’s a system flaw and each sector is complicit.

What seems improbable is a solution that rises above the politics of healthcare where who wins and loses is more important than the solutions themselves.

Perhaps as improbable as the European team’s dominating performance in the 44th Ryder Cup Championship played in Rome last week especially given pre-tournament hype about the US team.

While in Rome last week, I queried hotel employees, restaurant and coffee shop owners, taxi drivers and locals at the tournament about the Italian health system. I saw no outdoor signage for hospitals and clinics nor TV ads for prescriptions and OTC remedies. Its pharmacies, clinics and hospitals are non-descript, modest and understated. Yet groups like the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation Development (OECD) rank Servizio Sanitario Nazionale (SSN), the national system authorized in December 1978, in the top 10 in the world (The WHO ranks it second overall behind France).

“It covers all Italian citizens and legal foreign residents providing a full range of healthcare services with a free choice of providers. The service is free of charge at the point of service and is guided by the principles of universal coverage, solidarity, human dignity, and health. In principle, it serves as Italy’s public healthcare system.” Like U.S. ratings for hospitals, rankings for the Italian system vary but consistently place it in the top 15 based on methodologies comparing access, quality, and affordability.

The U.S., by contrast, ranks only first in certain high-end specialties and last among developed systems in access and affordability.

Like many systems of the world, SSN is governed by a national authority that sets operating principles and objectives administered thru 19 regions and two provinces that deliver health services under an appointed general manager. Each has significant independence and the flexibility to determine its own priorities and goals, and each is capitated based on a federal formula reflecting the unique needs and expected costs for that population’s health. 

It is funded through national and regional taxes, supplemented by private expenditure and insurance plans and regions are allowed to generate their own additional revenue to meet their needs. 74% of funding is public; 26% is private composed primarily of consumer out-of-pocket costs. By contrast, the U.S. system’s funding is 49% public (Medicare, Medicaid et al), 24% private (employer-based, misc.) and 27% OOP by consumers.

Italians enjoy the 6th highest life expectancy in the world, as well as very low levels of infant mortality. It’s not a perfect system: 10% of the population choose private insurance coverage to get access to care quicker along with dental care and other benefits. Its facilities are older, pharmacies small with limited hours and hospitals non-descript.

But Italians seem satisfied with their system reasoning it a right, not a privilege, and its absence from daily news critiques a non-concern.

Issues confronting its system—like caring for its elderly population in tandem with declining population growth, modernizing its emergency services and improving its preventive health programs are understood but not debilitating in a country one-fifth the size of the U.S. population.

My take:

Italy spends 9% of its overall GDP on its health system; the $4.6 trillion U.S spends 18% in its GDP on healthcare, and outcomes are comparable.  Our’s is better known but their’s appears functional and in many ways better.

Should the U.S.copy and paste the Italian system as its own? No. Our societies, social determinants and expectations vary widely. Might the U.S. health system learn from countries like Italy? Yes.

Questions like these merit consideration:

Might the U.S. system perform better if states had more authority and accountability for Medicare, CMS, Veterans’ health et al?

Might global budgets for states be an answer?

Might more spending on public health and social services be the answer to reduced costs and demand?

Might strict primary care gatekeeping be an answer to specialty and hospital care?

Might private insurance be unnecessary to a majority satisfied with a public system?

Might prices for prescription drugs, hospital services and insurance premiums be regulated or advertising limited?

Might employers play an expanded role in the system’s accountability?

Can we afford the system long-term, given other social needs in a changing global market?

Comparisons are constructive for insights to be learned. It’s true in healthcare and professional golf. The European team was better prepared for the Ryder Cup competition. From changes to the format of the matches, to pin placements and second shot distances requiring precision from 180-200 yards out on approach shots: advantage Europe. Still, it was execution as a team that made the difference in its dominating 16 1/2- 11 1/2 win —not the celebrity of any member.

The time to ask and answer tough questions about the sustainability of the U.S. system and chart a path forward. A prepared, selfless effort by a cross-sector Team Healthcare USA is our system’s most urgent need. No single sector has all the answers, and all are at risk of losing.

Team USA lost the Ryder Cup because it was out-performed by Team Europe: its data, preparation and teamwork made the difference.

Today, there is no Team Healthcare USA: each sector has its stars but winning the competition for the health and wellbeing of the U.S. populations requires more.

How Do Democrats and Republicans Rate Healthcare for 2024?

Posted on by • Posted in 2024 Election Issues, ACA, Affordability, Association Health Plans, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, Healthcare Reform, High Deductible Health Plans, High Premiums, High Prices, Inflation Reduction Act, Medicaid Expansion, Medicare Drug Price Negotiation, Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act, Out of Pocket Expenses, Preexisting Conditions, Short Term Health Insurance, Skinny Health Plans, Surprise Bills, Underinsured, Uninsured • Leave a comment
https://mailchi.mp/burroughshealthcare/april-16-9396870?e=7d3f834d2f

It feels as though November 5, 2024 is far away, but for both Democrats and Republicans, the election is now. On the issue of healthcare, the two parties’ approaches differ sharply.
 


Think back to the behemoth effort by Republicans to “repeal and replace” the Affordable Care Act six years ago, an effort that left them floundering for a replacement, basically empty-handed. Recall the 2022 midterms, when their candidates in 10 of the tightest House and Senate races uttered hardly a peep about healthcare.
 
That reticence stood in sharp contrast to Democrats who weren’t shy about reiterating their support for abortion rights, simultaneously trying hard to ensure that Americans understood and applauded healthcare tenets in the Inflation Reduction Act.
 
As The Hill noted in early August, sounds like the same thing is happening this time around as America barrels toward November 2024. The publication said it reached to 10 of the leading Republican candidates about their plans to reduce healthcare costs and make healthcare more affordable, and only one responded: Rep. Will Hurd (R-Texas).


 
Healthcare ‘A Very Big Problem’


 
Maybe the party thinks its supporters don’t care. But, a Pew Research poll from June showed 64% of us think healthcare affordability is a “very big problem,” superseded only by inflation. In that research, 73% of Democrats and 54% of Republicans thought so.


 
Chuck Coughlin, president and CEO of HighGround, an Arizona-based public affairs firm, told The Hill that the results aren’t surprising.
 
“If you’re a Republican, what are you going to talk about on healthcare?” he said.
 
Observers note that the party has homed in on COVID-lockdowns, transgender medical rights, and yes, abortion.


 
Republicans Champion CHOICE


 
There is action on this front, for in late July, House Republicans passed the CHOICE Arrangement Act. Its future with the Democratic-controlled Senate is bleak, but if Republicans triumph in the Senate and White House next year, it could advance with its focus on short-term health plans. They don’t offer the same broad ACA benefits and have a troubling list of “what we won’t cover” that feels like coverage is going backwards to some.
 

Plans won’t offer coverage for preexisting conditions, maternity care, or prescription drugs, and they can set limits on coverage. The plans will make it easier for small employers to self-insure, so they don’t have to adhere to ACA or state insurance rules.


 
CHOICE would let large groups come together to buy Association Health Plans, said NPR, which noted that in the past, there have been “issues” with these types of plans.
 
Insurance experts say that the act takes a swing at the very foundation of the ACA. As one analyst described it, the act intends to improve America’s healthcare “through increased reliance on the free market and decreased reliance on the federal government.”


 
Democrats Tout Reduce-Price Prescriptions


 
Meanwhile, on Aug. 29, President Joe Biden spoke proudly in The White House: “Folks, there’s a lot of really great Republicans out there. And I mean that sincerely…But we’ll stand up to the MAGA Republicans who have been trying for years to get rid of the Affordable Care Act and deny tens of millions of Americans access to quality, affordable healthcare.” 
 
Current ACA enrollment is higher than 16 million.
 
He said that Big Pharma charges Americans more than three times what other countries charge for medications. And on that date, he announced that “the (Inflation Reduction Act) law finally gave Medicare the power to negotiate lower prescription drug prices.” He wasn’t shy about saying that this happened without help from “the other team.”
 
The New York Times said it feels this push for lower healthcare costs will be the centerpiece of his re-election campaign. The announcement confirmed that his administration will negotiate to lower prices on 10 popular—and expensive drugs—that treat common chronic illnesses.


 
It said previous research shows that as many as 80% of Americans want the government to have the power to negotiate.


 
The president also said that “Next year, Medicare will select more drugs for negotiation.” He added that his administration “is cracking down on junk health insurance plans that look like they’re inexpensive but too often stick consumers with big hidden fees.” And it’s tackling the extensive problem of surprise medical bills.
 
Earlier, on August 11, Biden and fellow Democrats celebrated the first anniversary of the PACT Act, legislation that provides healthcare to veterans exposed to toxic burn pits while serving. He said more than 300,000 veterans and families have received these services, with more than 4 million screened for toxic exposure conditions.


 
Push for High-Deductible Plans


 
Republicans want to reduce risk of high-deductible plans and make them more desirable—that responsibility is on insurers. According to Politico, these plans count more than 60 million people as members, and feature low premiums and tax advantages. The party said plans will also help lower inflation when people think twice about seeking unneeded care.
 
The plans’ low monthly premiums offer comprehensive preventive care coverage: physicals, vaccinations, mammograms, and colonoscopies, and have no co-payments, Politico said. The “but” in all this is that members will pay their insurers’ negotiated rate when they’re sick, and for medicines and surgeries. Minimum deductible is $1,500 or $3,000 for families—and can be even higher.
 
Members can fund health savings accounts but can’t fund flexible spending accounts.
Proponents cite more access to care, and reduced costs due to promotion of preventive care. Nay-sayers worry about lower-income members facing costly bills due to insufficient coverage.
 

Republican Candidates Diverge on Medicaid
 

The American Hospital Association (AHA) doesn’t love these high deductible plans. It explained that members “find they can’t manage the gap between what their insurance pays and what they themselves owe as a result,” and that, AHA said, contributes to medical debt—something the association wants to change.


 
An Aug. 3 Opinion in JAMA Health Forum pointed out other ways the two parties diverge on healthcare. For example, the piece cited Biden’s incentives for Medicaid expansion. In contrast, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, a Republican presidential candidate, has not worked to offer Medicaid to all lower-income residents under the ACA. Former Governor Nikki Haley of South Carolina feels the same, doing nothing. However, former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has expanded it, as did former Vice President Mike Pence, when he governed Indiana.


 
Undoubtedly, as in presidential elections past, healthcare will be at least a talking point, with Democrats likely continuing to make it a central focus, as before.

Healthcare System in Campaign 2024: Out of Sight, Out of Mind?

Posted on by • Posted in 2024 Election Issues, Abortion, ACA, Access & Quality of Healthcare, Affordability, Election, Health Policy, Healthcare Reform, Healthcare Spending, Medicaid, Medicaid Expansion, Price Transparency • Leave a comment
Healthcare System in Campaign 2024: Out of Sight, Out of Mind?

The GOP Presidential debate marked the unofficial start of the 2024 Presidential campaign. With the exception of continued funding for Ukraine, style points won over issue distinctions as each of the 8 White House aspirants sought to make the cut to the next debate September 27 at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, CA.

For the candidates in Milwaukee, it’s about “Stayin’ Alive” per the BeeGee’s hit song: that means avoiding self-inflicted harm while privately raising money to keep their campaigns afloat. And, based on Debate One, with the exception of abortion, that means they’ll not face questions about their positions on the litany of issues that dominate healthcare these days i.e., drug prices, hospital consolidation, price transparency, workforce burnout and many others. In Milwaukee, healthcare was essentially ‘out of sight our of mind’ to the moderators and debaters despite being 18% of the U.S. economy and its biggest employer.

For now, each will enlist ghostwriters to produce position papers for their websites, and, on occasion, reporters will press for specifics to test their grasp on a topic but that’s about it. Based on last Wednesday’s 2-hour event, it’s unlikely general media outlets like Fox News (which also hosts Debate Two) will explore healthcare issues except for abortion.

That means healthcare will be subordinated to the economy, inflation, immigration and crime—the top issues to GOP voters—for most of the Presidential primary season.  

Next November, voters will also elect 34 US Senators, 435 members of the House of Representatives, 11 Governors and their representatives in 85 state legislative bodies. This will be the first election cycle after reapportionment of votes in the United States Electoral College following the 2020 United States census. Swing states (WI, MI, PA, NV, AZ, GA, FL, OH, CO, VA) will again be keys to the Presidential results since demographics and population shifts have increased the concentrations of each party’s core voters in so-called Blue States and Red States:

  • The Democratic voter core is diverse, educated and culturally liberal with its strongest appeal to African-Americans, Latinos, women, educated professionals and urban voters. Blue States are predominantly in the Northeast, Upper Midwest and West Coast regions.
  • The Republican voter core consists of rural white voters, evangelicals, the elderly, and non-college educated adults. Red States are predominantly in the South and Southwest.

The increased concentrations of Blue or Red voters in certain states and regions has contributed to political polarization in the U.S. electorate and presents an unusual challenge to healthcare. Per Gallup: “Political polarization since 2003 has increased most significantly on issues related to federal government power, global warming and the environment, education, abortion, foreign trade, immigration, gun laws, the government’s role in providing healthcare, and income tax fairness. Increased polarization has been less evident on certain moral issues and satisfaction with the state of race relations.” 

Thus, healthcare issues are increasingly subject to hyper partisanship and often misinformation.

Given the limited knowledge voters have on most health issues and growing prevalence of social media fueled misinformation, political polarization creates echo chambers in healthcare—one that thinks the system works for those who can afford it and another that thinks that’s wrong.

It’s dicey for politicians: it’s political malpractice to offer specific solutions on anything, especially healthcare. It’s safer to attack its biggest vulnerabilities—affordability and equitable access—even though they mean something different in every echo chamber.

My take:

Barring a second Covid pandemic or global conflict with Russia/China, it’s unlikely healthcare issues will be prominent in Campaign 2024 at the national level except for abortion.  At least through the May primary season, here’s the political landscape for healthcare:

Affordability and inequitable access will be the focus of candidate rhetoric at the national level: Trust and confidence in the U.S. health system has eroded. That’s fertile political turf for critics.

In Congress, the fiercest defenders of the status quo have joined efforts to impose restrictions on consolidation and price transparency for hospitals and price controls for prescription drugs. There’s Bipartisan acknowledgement that inequities in accessing care are significant and increasing, especially in minority and low income populations. They differ over the remedy. Employers expect their health costs to increase at least 8% next year and blame hospitals and drug companies for price gauging and want Congress to do more. 85% of Democrats think “the government should insure everyone” vs. 33% of Republican voters which calcifies inaction in a divided Congress though. Opposition to the Affordable Care Act (2010) has softened and Medicaid expansion has passed in 40 Blue and Red states.

In the 2024 election cycle, remedies for increased access and more affordability will pit Republicans calling for more competition, consumerism and transparency and Democrats calling for more government funding, regulation and fairness. 

But more important, voter and employer frustration with partisan bickering sans solutions will set the stage for the vigorous debate about a single payer system in 2026 and after,

State elections will give more attention to healthcare issues than the Presidential race: That’s because Governors and state legislators set direction on issues like abortion rights, drug price controls, Medicaid funding, scope of practice allowances and others.

Increasingly, state Attorney’s General and Treasurers are weighing in on consolidation and spending. States referee workforce issues like nurse staffing requirements and others. And ballot referenda on healthcare issues trail only public education as a focus of grassroots voter activity.  At the top of that list is abortion rights:

In 25 states and DC, there are no restrictions on access; in 14 states, abortion is banned and in 11 abortions—both procedures and medication—are legal, but with gestational limits from 6 weeks (GA), to between 12 and 22 weeks (AZ, UT, NE, KS, IA, IN, OH, NC, SC, FL). It’s an issue that divides legislators and increasingly delineates Blue and Red states and in many states remains unsettled.

Other healthcare issues, like ageism, will surface in Campaign 2024 in the context of other topics: Finally, healthcare will factor into other issues: Example: The leading Presidential candidates are seniors: President Biden was the oldest person to assume the office at age 78 and would be would be 86 at the end of his second term. Former President Trump was 70 when elected in 2016 and would be 81 if elected when his second term ends.

The majority of Americans are concerned about the impact of age on fitness to serve among aspirants for high office: cognitive impairment, dementia, physical limitations et al. will be necessary talking points in campaigns and media coverage. Similarly, cybersecurity looms as a focus where healthcare’s data-rich dependence is directly impacted. Growing concern about climate and the food supply, sourcing of raw good and materials from China used in drug manufacturing and many other headlines will infer healthcare context.

Summary:  

Healthcare will be on the ballot in 2024 and might very well make the difference in who wins and loses in many state and local elections.

It will make a difference in the Presidential campaign as part of the economy and a major focus of government spending. Beyond abortion, the lack of attention to other aspects of the health system in the Milwaukee debate last week should in no way be interpreted as a pass for healthcare insiders. 

Voters are restless and healthcare is contributing. Healthcare is far from  ‘out of sight, out of mind’ in Campaign 2024.

Is Affordability taken Seriously in US Healthcare?

Posted on by • Posted in Affordability, All-Payer Health Equity Approaches and Development Model (AHEAD Model), Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Community Benefit, Health Insurance Industry, Health Policy, Health System, Healthcare Reform, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Lobbyist, Out of Pocket Expenses, Tax Exempt Status • Leave a comment
Is Affordability taken Seriously in US Healthcare?

It’s a legitimate question.

Studies show healthcare affordability is an issue to voters as medical debt soars (KFF) and public disaffection for the “medical system” (per Gallup, Pew) plummets. But does it really matter to the hospitals, insurers, physicians, drug and device manufacturers and army of advisors and trade groups that control the health system?

Each sector talks about affordability blaming inflation, growing demand, oppressive regulation and each other for higher costs and unwanted attention to the issue.

Each play their victim cards in well-orchestrated ad campaigns targeted to state and federal lawmakers whose votes they hope to buy.

Each considers aggregate health spending—projected to increase at 5.4%/year through 2031 vs. 4.6% GDP growth—a value relative to the health and wellbeing of the population. And each thinks its strategies to address affordability are adequate and the public’s concern understandable but ill-informed.

As the House reconvenes this week joining the Senate in negotiating a resolution to the potential federal budget default October 1, the question facing national and state lawmakers is simple: is the juice worth the squeeze?

Is the US health system deserving of its significance as the fastest-growing component of the total US economy (18.3% of total GDP today projected to be 19.6% in 2031), its largest private sector employer and mainstay for private investors?

Does it deserve the legal concessions made to its incumbents vis a vis patent approvals, tax exemptions for hospitals and employers, authorized monopolies and oligopolies that enable its strongest to survive and weaker to disappear?

Does it merit its oversized role, given competing priorities emerging in our society—AI and technology, climate changes, income, public health erosion, education system failure, racial inequity, crime and global tension with China, Russia and others.

In the last 2 weeks, influential Republicans leaders (Burgess, Cassidy) announced plans to tackle health costs and the role AI will play in the future of the system. Last Tuesday, CMS announced its latest pilot program to tackle spending: the States Advancing All-Payer Health Equity Approaches and Development Model (AHEAD Model) is a total cost of care budgeting program to roll out in 8 states starting in 2026. The Presidential campaigns are voicing frustration with the system and the spotlight on its business practices intensifying.

So, is affordability to the federal government likely to get more attention?

Yes. Is affordability on state radars as legislatures juggle funding for Medicaid, public health and other programs?

Yes, but on a program by program, non-system basis.  

Is affordability front and center in CMS value agenda including the new models like its AHEAD model announced last week? Not really.

CMS has focused more on pushing hospitals and physicians to participate than engaging consumers. Is affordability for those most threatened—low and middle income households with high deductible insurance, the uninsured and under-insured, those with an expensive medical condition—front of mind? Every minute of every day.

Per CMS, out-of-pocket spending increased 4.3% in 2022 (down from 10.4% in 2021) and “is expected to accelerate to 5.2%, in part related to faster health care price growth. During 2025–31, average out-of-pocket spending growth is projected to be 4.1% per year.” But these data are misleading. It’s dramatically higher for certain populations and even those with attractive employer-sponsored health benefits worry about unexpected household medical bills.

So, affordability is a tricky issue that’s front of mind to 40% of the population today and more tomorrow.

Legislation that limits surprise medical bills, requires drug, hospital and insurer price transparency, expands scope of practice opportunities for mid-level professionals, avails consumers of telehealth services, restricts aggressive patient debt collection policies and others has done little to assuage affordability issues for consumers.

Ditto CMS’ value agenda which is more about reducing Medicare spending through shared savings programs with hospitals and physicians than improving affordability for consumers.  That’s why outsiders like Walmart, Best Buy and others see opportunity: they think patients (aka members, enrollees, end users) deserve affordability solutions more than lip service.

Affordability to consumers is the most formidable challenge facing the US healthcare industry–more than burnout, operating margins, reimbursement or alternative payment models. Today, it is not taken seriously by insiders. If it was, evidence would be readily available and compelling. But it’s not.

Healing Healthcare: Repairing The Last 5 Years Of Damage

Posted on by • Posted in ACA, Access & Quality of Healthcare, Affordability, Artificial Intelligence, Artificial Intelligence Generative, ChatGPT, Health Disparity, Health Equity, Health Inequity, Primary Care, Telemedicine, Underinsured, Uninsured, Value Based Care Model, Value-Based Healthcare, Value-Based Insurance Design (VBID), Virtual Healthcare, Virtual Visit • Leave a comment
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/healing-healthcare-repairing-last-5-years-damage-robert-pearl-m-d-/?midToken=AQHcpzuK5TbmJA&midSig=2zEJvATcjCWqU1&trk=eml-email_series_follow_newsletter_01-newsletter_content_preview-0-title_&trkEmail=eml-email_series_follow_newsletter_01-newsletter_content_preview-0-title_-null-fll5j~lmemt85c~nw-null-null&eid=fll5j-lmemt85c-nw&otpToken=MTAwMzFjZTAxMzJhY2FjNWJlMmYwM2UzNDIxYWU1YjU4YmM3ZDk0MjlhYWI4NTZmNzJjZTAwNmI0NjUyNTlmNGZjODNkNDliNThlYWJhYzM3ZmVjNmZiOWUyOTYyZDg0NTk2MmQ5NjkxNDFlMjI1ZDIxLDEsMQ%3D%3D

Five years ago, I started the Fixing Healthcare podcast with the aim of spotlighting the boldest possible solutions—ones that could completely transform our nation’s broken medical system.

But since then, rather than improving, U.S. healthcare has fallen further behind its global peers, notching far more failures than wins.

In that time, the rate of chronic disease has climbed while life expectancy has fallen, dramatically. Nearly half of American adults now struggle to afford healthcare. In addition, a growing mental-health crisis grips our country. Maternal mortality is on the rise. And healthcare disparities are expanding along racial and socioeconomic lines.

Reflecting on why few if any of these recommendations have been implemented, I don’t believe the problem has been a lack of desire to change or the quality of ideas. Rather, the biggest obstacle has been the immense size and scope of the changes proposed.

To overcome the inertia, our nation will need to narrow its ambitions and begin with a few incremental steps that address key failures. Here are three actionable and inexpensive steps that elected officials and healthcare leaders can quickly take to improve our nation’s health: 

1. Shore Up Primary Care

Compared to the United States, the world’s most-effective and highest-performing healthcare systems deliver better quality of care at significantly lower costs.

One important difference between us and them: primary care.

In most high-income nations, primary care makes up roughly half of the physician workforce. In the United States, it accounts for less than 30% (with a projected shortage of 48,000 primary care physicians over the next decade).

Primary care—better than any other specialty—simultaneously increases life expectancy while lowering overall medical expenses by (a) screening for and preventing diseases and (b) helping patients with chronic illness avoid the deadliest and most-expensive complications (heart attack, stroke, cancer).

But considering that it takes at least three years after medical school to train a primary care physician, to make a dent in the shortage over the next five years the U.S. government must act immediately:

The first action is to expand resident education for primary care. Congress, which authorizes the funding, would allocate $200 million annually to create 1,000 additional primary-care residency positions each year. The cost would be less than 0.2% of federal spending on healthcare.

The second action requires no additional spending. Instead, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which covers the cost of care for roughly half of all American adults, would shift dollars to narrow the $108,000 pay gap between primary care doctors and specialists. This will help attract the best medical students to the specialty.

Together, these actions will bolster primary care and improve the health of millions.

2. Use Technology To Expand Access, Lower Costs

A decade after the passage of the Affordable Care Act, 30 million Americans are without health insurance while tens of millions more are underinsured, limiting access to necessary medical care.

Furthermore, healthcare is expected to become even less affordable for most Americans. Without urgent action, national medical expenditures are projected to rise from $4.3 trillion to $7.2 trillion over the next eight years, and the Medicare trust fund will become insolvent.

With costs soaring, payers (businesses and government) will resist any proposal that expands coverage and, most likely, will look to restrict health benefits as premiums rise.

Almost every industry that has had to overcome similar financial headwinds did so with technology. Healthcare can take a page from this playbook by expanding the use of telemedicine and generative AI.

At the peak of the Covid-19 pandemic, telehealth visits accounted for 69% of all physician appointments as the government waived restrictions on usage. And, contrary to widespread fears at the time, patients and doctors rated the quality, convenience and safety of these virtual visits as excellent. However, with the end of Covid-19, many states are now restricting telemedicine, particularly when clinicians practice in a different state than the patient.

To expand telemedicine use—both for physical and mental health issues—state legislators and regulators will need to loosen restrictions on virtual care. This will increase access for patients and diminish the cost of medical care.

It doesn’t make sense that doctors can provide treatment to people who drive across state lines, but they can’t offer the same care virtually when the individual is at home.

Similarly, physicians who faced a shortage of hospital beds during the pandemic began to treat patients in their homes. As with telemedicine, the excellent quality and convenience of care drew praise from clinicians and patients alike.

Building on that success, doctors could combine wearable devices and generative AI tools like ChatGPT to monitor patients 24/7. Doing so would allow physicians to relocate care—safely and more affordably—from hospitals to people’s homes.

Translating this technology-driven opportunity into standard medical practice will require federal agencies like the FDA, NIH and CDC to encourage pilot projects and facilitate innovative, inexpensive applications of generative AI, rather than restricting their use.

3. Reduce Disparities In Medical Care

American healthcare is a system of haves and have-nots, where your income and race heavily determine the quality of care you receive.

Black patients, in particular, experience poorer outcomes from chronic disease and greater difficulty accessing state-of-the-art treatments. In childbirth, black mothers in the U.S. die at twice the rate of white women, even when data are corrected for insurance and financial status.

Generative AI applications like ChatGPT can help, provided that hospitals and clinicians embrace it for the purpose of providing more inclusive, equitable care.

Previous AI tools were narrow and designed by researchers to mirror how doctors practiced. As a result, when clinicians provided inferior care to Black patients, AI outputs proved equally biased. Now that we understand the problem of implicit human bias, future generations of ChatGPT can help overcome it.

The first step will be for hospitals leaders to connect electronic health record systems to generative AI apps. Then, they will need to prompt the technology to notify clinicians when they provide insufficient care to patients from different racial or socioeconomic backgrounds. Bringing implicit bias to consciousness would save the lives of more Black women and children during delivery and could go a long way toward reversing our nation’s embarrassing maternal mortality rate (along with improving the country’s health overall).

The Next Five Years

Two things are inevitable over the next five years. Both will challenge the practice of medicine like never before and each has the potential to transform American healthcare.

First, generative AI will provide patients with more options and greater control. Faced with the difficulty of finding an available doctor, patients will turn to chatbots for their physical and psychological problems.

Already, AI has been shown to be more accurate in diagnosing medical problems and even more empathetic than clinicians in responding to patient messages. The latest versions of generative AI are not ready to fulfill the most complex clinical roles, but they will be in five years when they are 30-times more powerful and capable.

Second, the retail giants (Amazon, CVS, Walmart) will play an ever-bigger role in care delivery. Each of these retailers has acquired primary care, pharmacy, IT and insurance capability and all appear focused on Medicare Advantage, the capitated option for people over the age of 65. Five years from now, they will be ready to provide the businesses that pay for the medical coverage of over 150 million Americans the same type of prepaid, value-based healthcare that currently isn’t available in nearly all parts of the country.

American healthcare can stop the current slide over the next five years if change begins now. I urge medical leaders and elected officials to lead the process by joining forces and implementing these highly effective, inexpensive approaches to rebuilding primary care, lowering medical costs, improving access and making healthcare more equitable.

There’s no time to waste. The clock is ticking.