Trump’s Lightweight Alternative to Medicare for All

https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2019/10/11/trumps_lightweight_alternative_to_medicare_for_all_111288.html?utm_source=The+Fiscal+Times&utm_campaign=bc4ead3dce-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_10_11_09_27&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_714147a9cf-bc4ead3dce-390702969

Image result for weak light bulb

President Trump and senior officials in his administration have been signaling for several months that they would release an updated GOP health-care plan, presumably to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA) — which the president still criticizes as a “disaster.” Last week, the president gave a campaign-style speech denouncing Medicare for All and announcing a new executive order (EO) on improving Medicare. If the EO is the administration’s much-hyped health-care “plan,” it is a surprisingly lightweight offering.

The EO tasks the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) and officials in the White House with producing several deliverables focused mainly on expanding options in Medicare Advantage (MA), which is the private insurance alternative to Medicare’s government-managed fee-for-service (FFS) option.

  • HHS is to propose regulations within a year to make it easier for Medicare beneficiaries to use medical savings accounts (Medicare’s version of health savings accounts) in conjunction with MA offerings and to facilitate cash rebates to MA enrollees when selecting options with particularly low premiums.
  • HHS is to suggest regulatory changes to make it easier for MA plans to offer innovative supplemental benefits, including telehealth services.
  • Working with the Council of Economic Advisers and others in the White House, HHS is to recommend how payment rates for medical services paid by the traditional FFS program could be tied more closely to the market rates paid by MA plans.
  • To provide more flexibility for MA plans, HHS is to recommend changes that scale back network adequacy requirements in states that limit provider competition and to account for the benefits of telehealth services.
  • The agency is to look for ways to allow MA plans to speed adoption of innovative medical technology and practices.
  • HHS also is to provide beneficiaries with “better” quality and cost data.

The EO uses general language throughout so it is difficult to know for sure what some of these administrative actions will mean. Overall, however, it is clear that what is called for are steps allowed under current law. As such, the changes are likely to be incremental and gradual.

The most promising proposal might be the push to encourage the payment of cash rebates to beneficiaries selecting low-cost MA options. Today, MA plans compete mainly by offering supplemental benefits beyond what Medicare covers. Cash rebates paid directly to the beneficiaries might usher in more direct price competition among MA plans, and between MA and FFS too.

The benchmarking of FFS rates to those negotiated by MA plans is a particularly obscure recommendation. Most FFS payment rates are grounded in statutory requirements. HHS may not have much authority to unilaterally adjust payments based on what is occurring among MA plans. Further, it is not clear if what the administration has in mind would raise or lower FFS spending.

While some of the concepts in the EO may be helpful, it is hard to see how they will have a dramatic effect on the health system, or on voters’ perception of the health system. The EO does nothing of consequence for Americans who are not enrolled in Medicare, nor does it offer much for 40 million Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in the traditional FFS program.

The EO may signal a play it safe approach by the administration. Instead of offering an actual plan or even just a vision for a reformed system, the administration may have decided that it is better to attack the Democratic party’s ideas rather than offer up a viable alternative course of action. Most of the political attention in 2020 will be focused upon whatever plan is pushed by the winning Democratic candidate anyway (either Medicare for All, or perhaps the introduction of a public option). The Trump administration seems more comfortable attacking either of those ideas than defending a Republican alternative.

That’s not a new development, of course. For years, Republicans have been more willing to state what they are against than what they are for.

But that strategy has its limits. As was demonstrated when the ACA passed in 2010, under the right circumstances, Democrats can pass a health-care bill even when all Republicans vote no. That might happen again, and perhaps soon, if the GOP fails to offer a convincing vision for fixing the problems – most especially rising costs — that concern many voters.

Most Republicans say they want the health system to rely on competition and consumer choice, not government control to discipline costs, but they have only vague ideas of what that would require in practice.

For the market to work, consumers need to be rewarded financially when they migrate to low-cost, high-value health care and away from costly and inefficient alternatives. That does not occur often enough today in large part because, under current law, the federal government provides larger subsidies when consumers in Medicare and job-based health care opt for more expensive coverage. Republicans shy away from fixing these problems because doing so would be politically controversial. Thus, they are left with offering safer, and less consequential, changes that represent modest progress at best.

Attacking Medicare for All or the public option is a short-term political strategy. Over the long run, the best way to beat those ideas is by enacting a viable, market-based reform plan that demonstrates cost discipline is possible without handing over all control to the federal government.

 

Health care’s fraud and abuse laws are getting overhauled

https://www.axios.com/health-care-fraud-abuse-stark-law-antikickback-changes-fd354212-9583-44c7-85e4-86e4690cc56e.html

Doctors dressed in blue operate on a patient in a surgical suite.

The Trump administration is proposing to loosen regulations that prohibit doctors from steering patients insured by federal programs to facilities where they have a financial interest and that outlaw health care companies from offering bribes and kickbacks in exchange for patient referrals.

Why it matters: The industry has long clamored for an overhaul to these laws, which companies say obstruct their goals of providing “value-based care.” But critics worry the broad and vague changes could engender more fraud and abuse than there already is.

Driving the news: The Department of Health and Human Services would create new exemptions for the physician self-referral law and the federal anti-kickback statute — decades-old, complex laws that forbid payments that encourage unnecessary care and increase taxpayer costs.

  • Hospitals, doctors, nursing homes and other entities would be able to create “value-based arrangements,” and those deals could include exchanging bonuses or other types of “remuneration” without running afoul of referral laws.
  • For example, under these exemptions, a hospital could provide a nursing home with a behavioral health nurse for certain discharged patients, or a hospital could donate cybersecurity technology to a physician’s office.
  • Many exemptions already exist, including for organizations called “accountable care organizations” that try to keep a patient’s care within a narrow set of hospitals and doctors, but these changes would go much further.

Between the lines: The overarching concern is everyone’s definition of “value” is different. How will regulators know whether providers are acting in good faith to coordinate care, or if they are using “value-based care” as a cover to control patient referrals and enrich themselves?

A major exclusion: Pharmaceutical companies, medical device firms, labs and medical equipment makers are cut out from the changes because the federal government is afraid those companies would “misuse the proposed safe harbors.”

  • Pharma lobbyists, in particular, have pushed hard to change the law so drug companies could directly subsidize drug copays for Medicare and Medicaid patients, even though federal officials have said that practice “masks the high prices those companies charge for their drugs.”
  • HHS Secretary Alex Azar told reporters the government may consider separate regulations for value-based drug contracts, even though the evidence of those deals’ effectiveness is limited at best.

The bottom line: These changes come at the same time that hospitals, physicians, pharmaceutical companies and others are paying out billions of dollars every year in fraud settlements.

  • Public comments are due Dec. 31, and if this comment process is anything like the initial requests that asked for guidance, the industry will be heavily involved.

 

 

 

DOJ breaks up alleged genetic testing fraud scheme estimated at $2.1 billion

https://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/doj-breaks-alleged-genetic-testing-fraud-scheme-estimated-21-billion?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWkdNMU56WmxabVl3TWpRMSIsInQiOiI0dlhaYUJpT2xBU0FqeDNmWkRlZHVZYnRsZ2xBK3pxMmN6RG5kS3Q1UWgrWFYyNllIK2lLZEYzclRDWUYyTFwvOGdhUzRVSnlscG5MQjBtY0NwT2d1TjZHdXJYRUlYRGszVEhrQmY5b0xhRDlFTWNTNUEwWnVvWGUwZXE3ME9kdGgifQ%3D%3D

The defendants ordered unnecessary tests that were reimbursed by Medicare, with laboratories sharing the profit, DOJ says.

The U.S. Department of Justice has charged 35 people with unlawfully charging Medicare $2.1 billion in what it said is one of the largest healthcare fraud schemes in history.

The 35 alleged offenders were charged in five separate federal districts, and were linked to dozens of telemedicine firms and laboratories focused on genetic testing for cancer. The people charged, including nine doctors and one other medical professional, cumulatively billed Medicare billions for cancer genetic tests, the DOJ said in a press release.

The charges were a culmination of coordinated law enforcement activities over the past month that were led by the Criminal Division’s Health Care Fraud Unit, resulting in charges against more than 380 individuals who allegedly billed federal healthcare programs for more than $3 billion, and allegedly prescribed and dispensed approximately 50 million controlled substance pills in Houston, across Texas, the West Coast, the Gulf Coast, the Northeast, Florida and Georgia, and the Midwest.

These include charges against 105 defendants for opioid-related offenses, and charges against 178 medical professionals.

The investigation targeted an alleged scheme involving the payment of illegal kickbacks and bribes by CGx laboratories in exchange for the referral of Medicare beneficiaries by medical professionals working with fraudulent telemedicine companies for expensive, and medically unnecessary, cancer genetic tests.

According to the DOJ, the targets of the scheme were primarily seniors, who were approached at health fairs, at their homes during door-to-door visits, or through telemarketing calls. The “recruiters,” as they were called, would approach seniors about supposedly free cancer screenings or generic cheek swab tests, and the recruiters would then obtain the seniors’ Medicare information for the purposes of fraudulent billing or identify theft.

The recruiter would then get a doctor to sign off on a genetic so a lab would process it, and then pay a kickback in exchange for ordering the test. The lab would process the test and bill Medicare, and once it was reimbursed, would share the proceeds with the recruiter, according to the charges.

Often, the test results were not provided to the beneficiaries, or were worthless to their actual doctors. Some of the defendants allegedly controlled a telemarketing network that lured hundreds of thousands of elderly and/or disabled patients into a criminal scheme that affected victims across the U.S.

The defendants allegedly paid doctors to prescribe CGx testing, either without any patient interaction or with only a brief phone conversation with patients they had never met or seen.

WHAT’S THE IMPACT

In addition to the DOJ charges, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Center for Program Integrity said it took adverse administrative action against cancer genetic testing companies and medical professionals who submitted more than $1.7 billion in claims to the Medicare program.

The DOJ Criminal Division, along with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General and the FBI, spearheaded the investigation.

The DOJ calls the scheme one of the largest it has ever handled.

THE LARGER TREND

Since its inception in March 2007, the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, which maintains 15 strike forces operating in 24 districts, has charged nearly 4,000 defendants who have collectively billed the Medicare program for more than $16 billion.

In addition, CMS, working in conjunction with the Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General, are taking steps to increase accountability and decrease the presence of fraudulent providers.

The newest Medicare fraud scheme is the second to be uncovered in the last month. Earlier in September, a telemedicine CEO pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States and pay and receive healthcare kickbacks and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering in a scheme estimated at $424 million.

ON THE RECORD

“Unfortunately, audacious schemes such as those alleged in the indictments are pervasive and exploit the promise of new medical technologies such as genetic testing and telemedicine for financial gain, not patient care,” said Deputy Inspector General for Investigations Gary L. Cantrell of HHS-OIG. “Instead of receiving quality care, Medicare beneficiaries may be victimized in the form of scare tactics, identity theft, and in some cases, left to pay out of pocket.  We will continue working with our law enforcement partners to investigate those who steal from federal healthcare programs and protect the millions of Americans who rely on them.”

“Healthcare fraud and related illegal kickbacks and bribes impact the entire nation,” said Assistant Director Terry Wade of the FBI’s Criminal Investigative Division. “Fraudulently using genetic testing laboratories for unnecessary tests erodes the confidence of patients and costs taxpayers millions of dollars. These investigations revealed some medical professionals placing their greed before the needs of the patients and communities they serve. Today’s law enforcement actions reinforce that the FBI, along with its partners, will continue to pursue and stop this type of illegal activity.”

 

Texas docs, pharmacists charged in alleged opioid pill mill scheme

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/texas-docs-pharmacists-charged-in-alleged-opioid-pill-mill-scheme/563270/

Dive Brief:

  • The U.S. Department of Justice said Wednesday it charged 58 people in Texas in connection with their alleged roles in various schemes to defraud government health programs, including distributing and dispensing medically unnecessary opioids, billing Medicaid for non-emergency ambulance services that were never actually provided and paying kickbacks and laundering money through durable medical equipment companies.
  • The allegations involved multiple programs including Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE, the Department of Labor-Office of Worker’s Compensation programs as well as private insurance companies.
  • Separately, DOJ brought charges against a total of 34 people for their alleged participation in Medicare and Medicaid fraud schemes in other states, including California, Arizona and Oregon. Seventeen of the people charged in those schemes were doctors or licensed medical professionals.

Dive Insight:

Created in 2007, the Medicare Fraud Strike Force​ has units operating in 23 districts, and has charged nearly 4,000 defendants who have collectively billed the Medicare program for more than $14 billion. It’s a joint effort between DOJ and HHS to deter healthcare fraud.

According to the most recent statistics, from January, the strike force has brought 2,117 criminal actions, secured 2,754 indictments and recovered $3.3 billion in connection with its investigations.

HHS declared the opioid crisis a national emergency in 2017. And the DOJ is increasingly focusing on fraud related to opioids, including going after medical professionals allegedly involved in the unlawful distribution of opioids and other prescription narcotics.

“Sadly, opioid proliferation is nothing new to Americans,” U.S. Attorney Ryan K. Patrick of the Southern District of Texas said in a statement announcing the charges. “What is new is the reinforced fight being taken to dirty doctors and shady pharmacists,” he said.

The coordinated healthcare fraud enforcement operation across Texas resulted in charges involving networks of “pill mill” clinics that led to $66 million in losses and the distribution of 6.2 million pills, the government said. Sixteen doctors and pharmacists were among those charged.

And that’s on top of last month, when the Health Care Fraud Unit’s Houston Strike Force charged dozens of people in a trafficking network that diverted more than 23 million oxycodone, hydrocodone and carisoprodol pills.

The Texas actions also involved healthcare fraud other than opioid diversion, including fraudulent physician orders for durable medical equipment, fraudulent claims for ambulance services and stealing protected healthcare information.

The separate actions in California, Arizona and Oregon involved schemes that ran the gamut from billing for medically unnecessary compounded drugs, unnecessary cardiac treatments and testing, billing for chiropractic services never provided and a hospice kickback scheme.

 

 

 

Trade Secrets Challenge Could Trip Up Trump Hospital Prices Plan

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/health-law-and-business/trade-secrets-challenge-could-trip-up-trump-hospital-prices-plan

Image result for Trade Secrets Challenge Could Trip Up Trump Hospital Prices Plan

A legal fight is looming over a Trump administration proposal that would require hospitals to list their standard prices for medical services and their negotiated rates with insurance companies—prices some believe are proprietary.

Hospital and insurance groups are likely to sue if the administration moves forward with a final rule, and the litigation could raise thorny legal questions about a company’s right to be competitive and a patient’s right to make informed health-care choices.

One way hospitals and insurance groups may try to fight the rule is by claiming their negotiated prices are trade secrets, health attorneys say.

“We’ve been looking in our research group at whether health-care prices can be trade secrets, and the law is very unsettled on this issue,” said Jaime King, associate dean and professor of law at the University of California Hastings College of Law in San Francisco.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued the proposed rule July 29 as part of a Trump administration push to make health-care costs more transparent.

It would require hospitals to list their standard prices and what individual insurers have agreed to pay for 70 “shoppable” medical services—like psychotherapy, blood tests, MRIs and ultrasounds—that can be scheduled in advance.

The government’s goal is to give consumers the information they need to compare what hospitals charge for similar services and to help them understand their potential financial liability for services they obtain at the hospital. Hospitals that fail to comply would be fined.

Listing the negotiated price an insurance company will pay on a patient’s behalf will show consumers how effective different health insurers are at negotiating lower out-of-pocket costs, attorneys say.

“We believe that this, in turn, will enable health-care consumers to make more informed decisions, increase market competition, and ultimately drive down the cost of health-care services, making them more affordable for all patients,” the CMS said in its proposal.

Legal Authority Questioned

The American Hospital Association was quick to object, contending in a prepared statement that the plan “exceeds the administration’s legal authority.” If the proposal is finalized, the trade group said it would look at its legal options.

“I think it’s reasonable for hospital groups to be looking at potential challenges if the rule is finalized as proposed,” said Philo Hall, senior counsel in Epstein, Becker and Green LLP’s health-care and life sciences practice.

The Affordable Care Act amended the Public Health Service Act by requiring hospitals to make public their “standard prices” for items and services. Attorneys say the CMS is now interpreting standard prices to also include the privately negotiated rates for each individual insurer.

But neither Congress, the Department of Health and Human Services, nor hospital groups have ever considered the standard prices provision in the ACA to include commercial and financial information that is treated as confidential in a highly competitive industry, said Hall. Hall served as counsel to the George W. Bush administration’s HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt and worked closely in that role with Alex Azar, the current HHS chief.

“The concern that the government is overstepping is not frivolous,” said Michael Adelberg, a former senior CMS official who now leads the health-care strategy practice of the Faegre, Baker, Daniels Consulting.

“I don’t know if you can say to two entities ‘You can engage in a contract in a competitive market, but the most important terms of that contract are public,’” he said. “I don’t know if you can do that.”

In a statement, America’s Health Insurance Plans said the CMS proposal would make it harder for insurance companies to bargain for lower rates. The group said even the Federal Trade Commission agrees that making hospitals disclose their privately negotiated rates would create a floor—not a ceiling—for what hospitals would be willing to accept.

When the HHS Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology indicated in a proposal that it was considering adding network discounts and pricing data to the definition of electronic health information, UnitedHealth Group told the agency the details of the negotiated rates and the overall cost of its networks is a trade secret.

“Although federal courts have upheld regulations compelling the disclosure of Medicare cost report information, there is a significant difference between government payment information held by the government and the internal, proprietary information that the proposed regulation would compel UHC to disclose,” the insurance company said in comments in June.

CMS Could Prevail

The CMS proposal is similar to an HHS rule that would have required pharmaceutical companies to disclose the list price of their drugs in TV advertisements. A federal district court judge in July said the rule exceeded the administration’s regulatory authority and blocked it from taking effect.

In the drug pricing rule, the agency pointed to two provisions in the Social Security Act that tell the HHS secretary to make rules necessary for the “efficient administration of the Medicare and Medicaid program” as the source of authority.

But the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia said there’s nothing in the law’s text, structure, or context to indicate Congress intended to give the HHS the power to issue a rule that forces drugmakers to disclose their list prices.

Attorneys say the agency’s authority to issue the hospital pricing rule is more explicit in the ACA.

“In this case, we have a different statutory provision that delegates the agency with a more specific task,” a former HHS attorney, who asked not to be identified, said in a conversation with Bloomberg Law.

“We’re not talking about a general statute concerning the efficient administration of the Medicare program to drug companies,” the former HHS attorney said. “We’re talking about an explicit statutory provision that directs the agency to require federally funded hospitals to disclose their ‘standard charges.’”

On that, the former HHS attorney said, the CMS could prevail. But it depends on how the agency defines “standard charges.” The agency could ultimately decide not to include negotiated rates after it considers the public comments.

In a statement, the CMS said its proposal is consistent with the ACA and responsive to patients and their advocates who say knowledge of negotiated rates is necessary for individuals to be able to determine their out-of-pocket costs for hospital services.

“All Americans have the right to know the price of their health care up front,” an agency spokesperson said. “Health-care prices shouldn’t be a mystery and consumers will be able to shop for health care just like they do for everything else they buy.”

 

 

 

Conservatives buck Trump over worries of ‘socialist’ drug pricing

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/456457-conservatives-buck-trump-over-worries-of-socialist-drug-pricing?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=24010

Image result for socialist drug pricing

Conservatives are growing increasingly uneasy with the Trump administration’s new drug pricing policy.

President Trump is desperately seeking an elusive political win in his efforts to lower prescription drug costs, but he faces a hard sell to conservative groups and GOP lawmakers as he touts ideas traditionally favored by Democrats and presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

In a rare break with Trump, conservatives are now pushing back against key administration policies and accusing the president of supporting what they call Sanders-style socialism.

The president has embraced importing drugs from Canada, as well as an international pricing policy that would bar Medicare from paying more than other countries for prescription drugs.

The moves are designed to co-opt Democratic talking points and position Trump as a populist champion of the free market.

Trump has made lowering drug prices a top priority of his presidency, but he has suffered some high-profile setbacks in recent weeks.

Drug importation and the international pricing caps proposal are the only remaining policies remaining that the White House can use to make a splash heading into 2020.

Trump has frequently railed against “global freeloading” and said he doesn’t think it’s fair that the U.S. subsidizes research and development in other countries.

Last year he went to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and announced the plan to cap U.S. payments for expensive drugs, over the objections of some White House advisers.

Those objections later spread to include conservative groups.

Facebook ads this year from FreedomWorks, a conservative advocacy group, urged people to tell HHS Secretary Alex Azar to oppose “socialist-style price controls.”

Another ad warned the administration against “importing socialist European drug prices in America.”

Separately, a website sponsored by the American Conservative Union rails against the administration’s pricing index, calling it an experiment “directly out of the Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton government health care takeover playbook.”

In the GOP-controlled Senate, a bill backed by the administration is facing Republican opposition over a provision that would impose a limit on drug price increases in Medicare’s Part D prescription drug program.

The legislation would force drug companies to pay money back to the government if their prices rise faster than inflation.

The Senate Finance Committee approved the measure late last month in a 19-9 vote — all Democrats voted for it, and all nine “no” votes came from Republicans. Some GOP senators said they were concerned because they think the Medicare Part D provision violates traditional free-market principles.

The bill faces long odds of making it to the Senate floor without substantial changes.

“I’m not comfortable with putting price controls on drugs,” Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), a member of the Finance Committee, told The Hill.

Toomey offered an amendment to strip out the provision, which failed on a tie vote of 14-14. All but two Republicans voted for his amendment.

Aside from capping drug payments, Trump has also softened his stance on importing drugs from Canada. The administration last week announced a proposal that would set the groundwork for states or wholesalers to launch pilot programs to safely import drugs.

Shipping in drugs from abroad has long been a goal of progressives like Sanders, but has also won the support of libertarian-leaning conservatives like GOP Sens. Rand Paul (Ky.), Ted Cruz (Texas) and Mike Lee (Utah).

But with Trump looking for a win on drug pricing, political analysts and health experts argue he doesn’t necessarily care about gaining the support of conservatives.

“This is the administration throwing down a wild card,” said health care consultant Alex Shekhdar, founder of Sycamore Creek Healthcare Advisors. “In order to win in 2020, they need to take into consideration independents and anyone else who thinks drug prices are an issue.”

Joe Antos, a health care expert at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said it doesn’t matter if the policies Trump is embracing are traditionally Democratic ones.

“Just because Democrats endorsed it in the past, doesn’t mean Trump can’t take ownership and call it his idea. He might not call them Republican ideas, but he’ll call them Donald Trump ideas,” Antos said.

But some GOP senators cautioned against letting Democrats play too much of a role.

After the Finance Committee advanced the drug-pricing bill, Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) told reporters that Republicans don’t want Trump negotiating with Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

A competing bill from House Democrats is far more sweeping than the Senate’s, and includes direct Medicare negotiation on drug prices.

“It seems to me that the Grassley-Wyden approach is a very moderate approach to what could come out,” Grassley said, referring to the bill backed by him and Sen. Ron Wyden (Ore.), the ranking Democrat on the Finance Committee.

But a stalled bill could still work to Trump’s advantage, according to Antos, who said the president doesn’t necessarily need to lower drug prices, he just needs to convince the public he is trying. 

In that sense, Antos argued, Republicans haven’t offered anything better, and they will eventually support whatever the administration does.

“Republicans don’t have any alternative ideas,” Antos said. “Trump has full control of Republicans in Congress, so there’s just not going to be any response other than going along with what comes along.”

 

 

 

Healthcare’s number one financial issue is cybersecurity

https://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/node/139027?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTURRMk1tVTFaVE15TkRjMiIsInQiOiJPNUYydDU5cFVodjB4bnlnb2M0eVhDNjg2YU53NDl6MWFRQlVpUEpmTzV5cEcrVVZMWldhd1AzbHNlckIwUWJHczlhOVRMZUxxSngyWk02VVhXTktXRjN1OE9mbkQ2V2FhQlBqVFIzOWpMS0pNUEdCYWh0SUQyZWZHRmpBQjRFWiJ9

Image result for hospital cybersecurity

The cost of a healthcare breach is about $408 per patient record and that doesn’t include the loss of business, productivity and reputation.

Cyber attacks affect the finances of every hospital and insurer like no other.

“I’ve seen estimates of over $5 billion in costs to the healthcare industry annually,” said Lisa Rivera, a partner at Bass, Berry and Sims who focuses on healthcare security. “That’s enormous and is not going away.”

Beyond the cost to find a solution to fix breaches and to settle any civil complaints are fines from the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Civil Rights. In 2018, OCR issued 10 resolutions that totalled $28 million.

The HHS Office of Civil Rights is stepping up breach enforcement of private health information, according to Rivera, who is a former assistant U.S. Attorney and federal prosecutor handling civil and criminal investigations for the Department of Justice.

What officials want to see is that the hospital or insurer has taken reasonable efforts to avoid a breach.

“There is no perfect cybersecurity,” Rivera said. “They say it’s not perfection, it’s reasonable efforts. That’s going to require an investment up-front to see where data is located, and educating the workforce on phishing incidents.”

Also, hospital finance professionals who are relying more on contractors for revenue cycle management and analytics should take note on the security issues involved in sharing this information.

“Every sector of business has attacks, but healthcare is experiencing the largest growth of cyber attacks because of the nature of its information,” Rivera said. “It’s more valuable on the dark web.”

It’s also not easily fixed.

If an individual’s credit card is stolen, the consumer can cancel his or her credit card. But in health records, the damage is permanent.

THE IMPACT

Despite the number of breaches, healthcare has been behind other sectors in taking security measures. Four to seven percent of a health system’s IT budget is in cybersecurity, compared to about 15% for other sectors such as the financial industry, according to Rivera.

Hospitals are behind because first, it’s a challenge to keep up with the move to more information being in electronic form.

“There’s no hospital that doesn’t have mobile EHR information,” Rivera said. “Then there was this transition with incentives from the government to go to electronic medical records. There were vast routes to doing that without a lot of experience involved in doing it. The push to become electronic began happening with this enormous uptick in cyber attacks.”

Also, the focus of healthcare has always been patient care. The population health explosion also involves the sharing of information.

And consolidation across the healthcare industry can potentially make covered entities more vulnerable to lapses in security during the transition and integration phases.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The number one way to cut costs is to prevent a breach. Once one has happened, hospitals must be able to identify it as soon as possible and then be able to respond to it.

Hospitals should be able to determine where certain data goes off the rail, Rivera said. For instance, large systems doing research have outcome information that may not be within the system of protection.

“You don’t want to learn about a data breach because the FBI saw it on the dark web,” Rivera said. And some hospitals have.

It’s a constant battle of software updates and checks. Criminals are pinging systems thousands of times a day. It’s like locking down doors and windows.

The first thing that’s needed for systems large and small is a risk assessment. This is the first thing the OCR wants to see, she said. Many hospitals use an outside vendor to do the job.

Prices for other cybersecurity measures vary from a software purchase that could be in the millions, to having vendor monitoring.

But the cost of a healthcare breach is about $408 per patient record and that doesn’t include the loss of business, productivity, reputation and the service disruption.

Hospitals can also purchase cyber insurance, which varies in cost and coverage. Some obtain it for purposes of class action lawsuits.

THE LARGER TREND

OCR enforcement activity during 2018 demonstrates the agency’s continued emphasis on enforcing violations of the security risk assessment and risk management requirements, Rivera said.

Covered entities and business associates are required to: conduct a thorough assessment of the threats and vulnerabilities across the enterprise;    implement measures to reduce known threats and vulnerabilities to a reasonable and appropriate level; and ensure that any vendor or other organization accessing or storing private health information is security compliant.
The OCR concluded 2018 with an all-time record year for HIPAA enforcement  activity. The OCR settled 10 cases and secured one judgment, together totaling $28.7 million. This surpassed the previous record of $23.5 million from 2016.

In addition, OCR also achieved the single largest individual HIPAA settlement  of $16 million with Anthem, representing a nearly three-fold increase over the previous record settlement of $5.5 million in 2016. Anthem was held responsible for cyber attacks that stole the protected health information of close to 79 million people.

 

%d bloggers like this: