Drug companies on verge of sinking longtime Democratic priority

https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/572841-drug-companies-on-verge-of-sinking-longtime

The pharmaceutical industry is on the verge of defeating a major Democratic proposal that would allow the federal government to negotiate drug prices.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) can afford only three defections when the House votes on a sweeping $3.5 trillion spending package, but Reps. Scott Peters (D-Calif.), Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.) and Kathleen Rice (D-N.Y.) last week voted to block the drug pricing bill from advancing out of the Energy and Commerce Committee. Rep. Stephanie Murphy (D-Fla.) voted against advancing the tax portion of the legislation in the House Ways and Means Committee.

All told, the number of House Democrats who have concerns about the drug pricing bill is in the double digits, and several Democrats in the 50-50 Senate would not vote for the measure in its current form, according to industry lobbyists.

The holdouts mark a sharp contrast to just two years ago, when every House Democrat voted for the same drug pricing bill, underscoring the inroads pharmaceutical manufacturers have made with the caucus on a measure that would narrow corporate profit margins.

“The House markups on health care demonstrate there are real concerns with Speaker Pelosi’s extreme drug pricing plan and those concerns are shared by thoughtful lawmakers on both sides of the aisle,” the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the industry’s top trade group, said in a statement following the committee votes.

The reversal follows the industry’s multimillion-dollar ad campaigns opposing the bill, timely political donations and an extensive lobbying effort stressing drugmakers’ success in swiftly developing lifesaving COVID-19 vaccines.

The bill at the center of the fight, H.R. 3, would allow Medicare to negotiate the price of prescription drugs by tying them to the lower prices paid by other high-income countries. The measure is projected to free up around $700 billion through the money it saves on drug purchases — covering a big chunk of the Democrats’ $3.5 trillion spending plan.

Drugmakers say the measure would reduce innovation, pointing to a Congressional Budget Office estimate that found it would lead to nearly 60 fewer new drugs over the next three decades.

Peters and other Democrats have proposed an alternative bill that would limit price negotiation to a fraction of the prescription drugs included in H.R. 3, focusing instead on drugs like insulin, the diabetes treatment that has seen its price rise dramatically over the last decade. The alternative measure also would set a yearly out-of-pocket spending limit for lower-income Medicare recipients.

The proposal foreshadows a less aggressive drug pricing compromise that uneasy Senate Democrats are more likely to get behind.

“You’re going to see something pass, but it probably won’t be H.R. 3,” said a lobbyist who represents pharmaceutical companies.

Pharmaceutical manufacturers oppose any efforts to control the price of prescription drugs, but the alternative bill is more favorable to the industry than the broader Democratic bill.

“Any kind of artificial price controls will have an impact on both new scientific investment as well as access to medicines,” said Rich Masters, chief public affairs and advocacy officer at the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, a trade group that represents pharmaceutical giants such as Sanofi, Merck and Johnson & Johnson.

“We appreciate the focus on patient out of pocket costs, which we know is a critical component to any reform efforts and something that BIO and our member companies have long supported,” he added.

Progressive lawmakers, who have long bemoaned rising drug prices, blasted the three House Democrats who voted to block H.R. 3, saying they succumbed to industry donations and lobbying efforts.

“What the pharmaceutical industry has done, year after year, is pour huge amounts of money into lobbying and campaign contributions … the result is that they can raise their prices to any level they want,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said in a video message Friday.

The pharmaceutical industry spent $171 million on lobbying through the first half of the year, more than any other industry, to deploy nearly 1,500 lobbyists, according to money-in-politics watchdog OpenSecrets. That’s up from around $160 million at the same point last year, when the industry broke its own lobbying spending record.

Peters announced his opposition to Pelosi’s drug pricing proposal in May and shortly after was showered with donations from pharmaceutical industry executives and lobbyists, STAT News reported.

Peters is the No. 1 House recipient of pharmaceutical industry donations this year, bringing in $88,550 from pharmaceutical executives and PACs, according to OpenSecrets. Over his congressional career, Peters has received in excess of $860,000 from drugmakers, more than any other private industry.

The California Democrat told The Hill last week that accusations of his vote being guided by donations are “flat wrong” and noted that his San Diego congressional district employs roughly 27,000 pharmaceutical industry workers consisting mostly of researchers.

“It’s always going to be the attack because it’s simple and it’s easier than engaging on the merits,” he said.

Schrader received nearly $615,000 from the industry. He inherited a fortune from his grandfather, a former top executive at Pfizer, and had between $50,000 and $100,000 invested in Pfizer, in addition to other pharmaceutical holdings as of last year, according to his most recent annual financial disclosure.

Schrader tweeted last week that he is “committed to lowering prescription drug costs,” while arguing that the House bill would not pass the Senate in its current form.

Rep. Lou Correa (D-Calif.) another supporter of Peters’s more industry friendly bill, received an influx of pharmaceutical donations in recent months, including a $2,000 check from Pfizer’s PAC in mid-August, according to Federal Election Commission filings.

In meetings with lawmakers, lobbyists have argued that now is not the time to go after drugmakers, which developed highly effective COVID-19 vaccines and are developing booster shots and other treatments to fight the virus.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which represents several major pharmaceutical manufacturers, said last month that Democratic drug pricing efforts will leave the U.S. “unprepared for the next public health crisis.”

PhRMA last week launched a seven-figure ad campaign to oppose H.R. 3. That’s after pharmaceutical groups and conservative organizations bankrolled by drugmakers spent $18 million on ads attacking the proposal through late August, according to an analysis from Patients for Affordable Drugs, a group that launched its own ads backing H.R. 3 last week.

The ad buys are meant to sway both lawmakers and the general public. A June Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that 90 percent of Americans approve of the drug pricing measure, but that support dropped to 32 percent when they were told that the proposal “could lead to less research and development of new drugs.”

Democrats’ competing health care priorities

The Democrats’ reconciliation bill includes several major health care pieces backed by different lawmakers and advocates, setting up a precarious game of policy Jenga if the massive measure needs to be scaled back.

Between the lines: Health care may be a priority for Democrats. But that doesn’t mean each member values every issue equally.

Why it mattersAs the party continues to hash out the overall price tag of its giant reconciliation bill, it’s worth gaming out which policies are on the chopping block — and which could potentially take the entire reconciliation bill down with them.

There are clear winners of each pillar of Democrat’s health plan:

  • Seniors benefit from expanding Medicare to cover dental, vision and hearing benefits.
  • Low-income people — primarily in the South and disproportionately people of color — in non-expansion states benefit if the Medicaid gap is closed, giving them access to health coverage.
  • Affordable Care Act marketplace enrollees benefit if the increased subsidy assistance that Democrats enacted earlier this year is extended or made permanent.
  • Elderly and Americans with disabilities benefit from an expansion of their home-based care options, and their caretakers benefit from a pay bump.
  • Seniors — and potentially anyone facing high drug costs — benefit if Medicare is given the authority to negotiate drug prices, although the drug industry argues it will lead to fewer new drugs.

Yes, but: Each of these groups face real problems with health care access and affordability. But when there’s a limited amount of money on the table — which there is — even sympathetic groups can get left in the dust.

Each policy measure, however, also has powerful political advocates. And when Democrats have a razor-thin margin in both the House and the Senate, every member has a lot of power.

  • Seniors are disproportionately powerful on their own, due to their voting patterns. But expanding what Medicare covers is extremely important to progressives — including Sen. Bernie Sanders.
  • Closing the Medicaid gap is being framed as a racial justice issue, given that it disproportionately benefits people of color. And although many Democrats hail from expansion states — particularly in the Senate — some very powerful ones represent non-expansion states.
  • These members include Sen. Raphael Warnock, who represents Georgia and is up for re-election next year in an extremely competitive seat, and Rep. Jim Clyburn, who arguably is responsible for President Biden winning the 2020 primary.
  • The enhanced ACA subsidies are scheduled to expire right before next years’ midterm elections. Democrats’ hold on the House is incredibly shaky already, making extending the extra help a political no-brainer.
  • Expanding home-based care options was one of the only health care components of Biden’s original framework for this package. But aside from the president’s interest in the issue, unions care a lot about it as their members stand to gain a pay raise — and Democrats care a lot about what unions care about.
  • And finally, giving Medicare the power to negotiate drug prices has the most powerful opponents, theoretically making it vulnerable to the chopping block. But it also polls very highly, and perhaps even more importantly, produces enough government savings to help pay for these other health care policies.

The bottom line: From a political perspective, none of these health care proposals seem very expendable,” said KFF’s Larry Levitt.

  • Most — if not all of them — can be scaled to save money.
  • But there are also powerful constituencies for the other components of the bill that address issues like child care and climate change, meaning these health care measures aren’t only competing against one another.
  • And, Levitt points out, “there’s always a difference between members of Congress staking out positions and being willing to go to nuclear war over them.”

Implementing a long overdue vaccine mandate

https://mailchi.mp/60a059924012/the-weekly-gist-september-10-2021?e=d1e747d2d8

There's a Lot That Can Go Wrong With 'Vaccine Passports'

Declaring that “our patience is wearing thin” with Americans who refuse to be vaccinated against COVID-19, President Biden announced sweeping new plans to implement vaccine mandates on Thursday.

Businesses that employ more than 100 people must require their employees to get vaccinated or face weekly COVID testing, federal workers and contractors must be vaccinated or face disciplinary measures, and all healthcare organizations that receive Medicare or Medicaid funds must ensure 100 percent employee vaccination as a condition of continued participation in those federal payment programs. The healthcare component of the mandate will impact about 17 million workers, including those at hospitals, surgery centers, dialysis facilities, and home health agencies. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) already requires nursing home workers to be vaccinated, and yesterday announced plans to release a new regulation by October 1st, implementing the expanded mandate. According to Fierce Healthcare, at least 172 hospital systems have already announced some form of vaccine mandate, but others have expressed concerns that forcing workers to get vaccinated might exacerbate labor shortages and result in employees seeking work elsewhere.
 
Responding to President Biden’s announcement, the American Hospital Association (AHA) echoed those concerns, citing “the critical challenges that we are facing in maintaining the resiliency of our workforce.” In our view, that concern pales in comparison to the imperative to protect patients by reducing the potential for exposure by unvaccinated caregivers. If anything, the national healthcare mandate should provide cover for those hospitals and care providers that have shied away from mandates, letting other organizations take the lead. Once universal healthcare mandates are implemented, vaccine resistant workers will find few employment alternatives left, significantly dampening the risk of widespread resignations. If you don’t want to take the necessary precautions to keep patients safe, you shouldn’t be working in healthcare in the first place. Yesterday’s mandate announcement, while aggressive, is overdue.

U.S. health care costs a lot, and not just in money

Administrative Burden | RSF

Health spending in the United States is highest in the world, driven in part by administrative complexity. To date, studies examining the administrative costs of American health care have primarily focused on clinicians and organizations—rarely on patients.

A new study in Health Services Research finds administrative complexity in the U.S. health care system has consequences for access to care that are on par with those of financial barriers like copays and deductibles. In other words, we pay for health care in two ways: in money and in the hassle of dealing with a complex, confusing, and error-riddled system. Both are barriers to access. The study was led by Michael Anne Kyle, and coauthor, Austin Frakt.

Main Findings

  • Nearly three-quarters (73%) of people surveyed reported doing at least one health care-related administrative task in the past 12 months. Such administrative tasks include: appointment scheduling; obtaining information from an insurer or provider; obtaining prior authorizations; resolving insurance or provider billing issues; and resolving premium problems.
  • Administrative tasks often impose barriers to care: Nearly one-quarter (24.4%) of survey respondents reported delaying or foregoing needed care due to administrative tasks.
  • This estimate of administrative barriers to access to care is similar to those of financial barriers to access: a 2019 Kaiser Family Foundation survey, found that 26% of insured adults 18-64 said that they or a family member had postponed or put off needed care in the past 12 months due to cost.
  • Administrative burden has consequential implications for equity. The study finds administrative burden falls disproportionately on people with high medical needs (disability) and that existing racial and socioeconomic inequities are associated with greater administrative burden.

Methods

To measure the size and consequences of patients’ administrative roles, we used data from the nationally representative March 2019 Health Reform Monitoring Survey of insured, nonelderly adults (18-64) to assess the annual prevalence of five common types of administrative tasks patients perform: (1) appointment scheduling; (2) obtaining information from an insurer or provider; (3) obtaining prior authorizations; (4) resolving insurance or provider billing issues; (5) and resolving insurance premium problems. The study examined the association of these tasks with two important measures of their burden: delayed and forgone care.

Conclusions

High administrative complexity is a central feature of the U.S. health care system. Largely overlooked, patients frequently do administrative work that can create burdens resulting in delayed or foregone care. The prevalence of delayed or foregone care due to administrative tasks is comparable to similar estimates of cost-related barriers to care. Administrative complexity is endemic to all post-industrial health systems, but there may be opportunity to design administrative tools with greater care to avoid exacerbating or reinforcing inequities.

20 Years Since 9/11: Why the U.S. Should Vaccinate the World

When will a coronavirus vaccine be ready? | Coronavirus | The Guardian

Earlier this week, David States and Bill Gardner argued that the U.S. should lead the developed nations in a program to immunize the entire human population. The Washington Post reported that President Biden is expected to call for a global vaccine summit conference.

David and Bill wrote that we should do this because it would save many lives. Perhaps this is all that needs to be said. We also argued that the U.S. stood to benefit if we could substantially reduce the number of global covid cases. This would reduce U.S. coronavirus exposure and slow the rate of evolution of new coronavirus variants. The economic cost to the U.S. of a more severe pandemic could easily be greater than the cost of making and distributing the vaccine. If so, the global vaccination effort would pay for itself.

There is, however, another moral argument for global vaccination, this one tied to 9/11 and the ensuing global war on terror. Since 9/11, the U.S. has engaged in 20 years of warfare in countries across the world.

The consequences of that war have been catastrophic. According to the Watson Institute at Brown University,

At least 801,000 people have been killed by direct war violence in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, and Pakistan… The U.S. post-9/11 wars have forcibly displaced at least 38 million people in and from Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, the Philippines, Libya, and Syria. This number exceeds the total displaced by every war since 1900, except World War II.

Of course, much of that violence was committed by al-Qaeda, ISIS, or the Syrian government. Some of the civil wars that have followed 9/11 might have happened anyway. Nevertheless, Americans failed to limit their 9/11 response to the specific individuals who carried out the attacks. This was a principal cause of the ensuing death and displacements.

So now, the U.S. is known not only for baseball and democracy but also for drone strikes and torture. If we led an effort to vaccinate the world, it would be one of the largest humanitarian actions in history. We should do this to set an example and balance the effects of the global war on terror.

Industry pushes for more time before surprise billing ban enforced

As the healthcare industry gears up to fall under the requirements of the No Surprises Act that bans balance billing, hospitals and insurers said they need more time and information to abide by the requirements.

Payers are asking for a safe harbor until 2023 calling the Jan. 1 start day is too soon for plans to determine payment amounts to out-of-network providers and as it seeks clarification on the resolution process.

Safety net hospitals represented by America’s Essential Hospitals want implementation to be delayed until six months after the public health emergency for COVID-19 ends, saying staff and resources are spread too thin dealing with the pandemic and especially the spread of the delta variant.

HHS released the first interim final rule to implement the No Surprises Act in June — one of multiple expected to be released this year — including those from the Departments of Treasury and Labor.

A major and much-debated aspect of the law is how qualifying payment amounts — the amount paid to providers who are not in network but are providing care at an in-network facility — are calculated.

Later rules are expected to provide more detail on the key issue of how the independent dispute resolution process will be conducted.

Payers and providers both argued in their comments that without more information on that process, it is hard to prepare. 

The ERISA Industry Committee, which lobbies for large employers, said that as the resolution process is developed, deviation from QPAs “should be limited to extenuating circumstances.” That’s in direct contrast to the American Hospital Association, which requested the department not overly weigh the QPA as a factor in consideration.

When Congress debated a ban on surprise billing, whether a dispute resolution process would be used or whether rates for out-of-network providers would be based on a set rate was perhaps the most hotly contested aspect. In the end, providers got the win with the arbitration clause.

In comments on the rule, both AHA and payer lobby AHIP called for a multi-stakeholder group to advise on issues such as what provisions fall under state and federal jurisdiction and other operational challenges.

The hospital lobby requested clarification on a number of aspects of the rule, such as how good faith estimates of costs should be calculated on consent forms patients may sign to waive balance billing protections and when a provider can bill a patient if their claim is denied by the plan.

In multiple instances, the group asked the department to confirm that the initial payment should not be the QPA unless both the plan and provider agree to that circumstance.

The country’s largest hospital lobby is also concerned that the act won’t do enough to ensure network adequacy from insurers and will not institute enough oversight on plans’ compliance.

AHA said it is “deeply concerned that the existing oversight mechanisms are insufficient to monitor plan and issuer behavior and a more robust structure is needed to enforce the QPA requirements.”

The Federation of American Hospitals expressed similar concerns, particular regarding “abusive plan practices” like inappropriate claims denials and downcoding. The group urged the departments “to expand their oversight of plans and issuers to prevent and address unlawful and abusive plan practices.”

AEH, meanwhile, asked for assurances that administrative burdens like the notice and consent documentation would be fairly split with insurers.

Under the rule, the QPA is to be decided by a plan’s median in-network contracted rate for a geographic area. It must have a minimum of three contracted rates to use this method. If that is not available, the payer can use an independent claims database.

FAH, in particular, asked that the rule strengthen conflict of interest regulations for these databases and have their eligibility determined by the departments instead of the insurers themselves.

AHIP’s most immediate concern is the timeline for implementation. It asked for the good faith safe harbor request to develop QPA methodologies, create the infrastructure to transmit notice and consent forms with providers and for it to receive the forthcoming information on the arbitration process.

“Health plans and issuers have responsibility for developing work streams; updating information technology; creating forms, notices, and other communications; training employees; and other operational measures necessary to effectuate obligations” in the rule, the group wrote.

Hospital mergers and acquisitions are a bad deal for patients. Why aren’t they being stopped?

Contrary to what health care executives advertise, hospital mergers and acquisitions aren’t good for patients. They rarely improve access to health care or its quality, and they don’t reduce prices. But the system in place to stop them is often more bark than bite.

During 2019 and 2020, hospitals acquired an additional 3,200 medical practices and 18,600 physicians. By January 2021, almost half of all U.S. physicians were employed by a hospital or health system.

In 2018, the last year for which complete data are available, 72% of hospitals and more than 90% of hospital beds were affiliated with a health care system. Mergers and acquisitions are increasing the number of health care systems while decreasing the number of independently operated hospitals.

When hospitals buy provider practices, it leads to more unnecessary care and more expensive care, which increases overall spending. The same thing happens when hospitals merge or acquire other hospitals. These deals often increase prices and they don’t improve care quality; patients simply pay more for the same or worse care.

Mergers and acquisitions can negatively affect clinician morale as well. Some argue they lead to providers’ loss of autonomy and increase the emphasis on financial targets rather than patient care. They can also contribute to burnout and feeling unsupported.

Considerable machinery is in place at both the federal and state levels to stop “anticompetitive” mergers before they happen. But that machinery is limited by a lack of follow through.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the U.S. Department of Justice have always had broad authority over mergers. By law, one or both of these entities must review for any antitrust concerns proposed deals of a certain size before the deals are finalized. After a preliminary review, if no competition issues are identified, the merger or acquisition is allowed to proceed. This is what happens in most cases. If concerns are raised, however, the involved parties must submit additional information and undergo a second evaluation.

Some health care organizations seem willing to challenge this process. Leaders involved in a pending merger between Lifespan and Care New England in Rhode Island — which would leave 80% of the state’s inpatient market under one company’s umbrella — are preparing to move forward even if the FTC deems the deal anticompetitive. The companies will simply ask the state to approve the merger despite the FTC’s concerns.

The reality is that the FTC’s reach is limited when it comes to nonprofits, which most hospitals are. While the FTC can oppose anticompetitive mergers involving nonprofits, it cannot enforce action against them for anticompetitive behavior. So if a merger goes through, the FTC has limited authority to ensure the new entity plays fairly.

What’s more, the FTC has acknowledged it can’t keep up with its workload this year. It modified its antitrust review process to accommodate an increasing number of requests and its stagnant capacity. In July, the Biden administration issued an executive order about economic competition that explicitly acknowledges the negative impact of health care consolidation on U.S. communities. This is encouraging, signaling that the government is taking mergers seriously. Yet it’s unclear if the executive order will give the FTC more capacity, which is essential if it is to actually enforce antitrust laws.

At the state level, most of the antitrust power lies with the attorney general, who ultimately approves or challenges all mergers. Despite this authority, questionable mergers still go through.

In 2018, for example, two competing hospital systems in rural Tennessee merged to become Ballad Health and the only source of care for about 1.2 million residents. The deal was opposed by the FTC, which deemed it to be a monopoly. Despite the concerns, the state attorney general and Department of Health overrode the FTC’s ruling and approved the merger. (This is the same mechanism the Rhode Island hospitals hope to employ should the FTC oppose their merger.) As expected, Ballad Health then consolidated the services offered at its facilities and increased the fees on patient bills.

It’s clear that mechanisms exist to curb potentially harmful mergers and promote industry competition. It’s also clear they aren’t being used to the fullest extent. Unless these checks and balances lead to mergers being denied, their power over the market is limited.

Experts have been raising the alarm on health care consolidation for years. Mergers rarely lead to better care quality, access, or prices. Proposed mergers must be assessed and approved based on evidence, not industry pressure. If nothing changes, the consequences will be felt for years to come.

Biden unveiled a vaccine mandate for nursing homes. What does it mean for the staffing crisis?

Rethinking How We Approach Long-Term Care In The U.S. | On Point

On Wednesday, President Joe Biden unveiled a new plan requiring nursing homes to vaccinate their employees or lose federal funding. Industry members are concerned the mandate will exacerbate current staffing shortages and make it harder for facilities to care for their residents. 

Biden ties employee vaccination to federal funding for nursing homes

Biden announced on Wednesday that nursing homes will have to require their workers be vaccinated against Covid-19 to receive Medicare and Medicaid funding, the New York Times reports.

CMS is expected to release an emergency rule covering this new requirement in September, according to Roll Call. Officials said the decision will affect more than 15,000 nursing homes with around 1.3 million workers across the country.

In a statement, CMS administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure said, “Keeping nursing home residents and staff safe is our priority. The data are clear that higher levels of staff vaccination are linked to fewer outbreaks among residents, many of whom are at an increased risk of infection, hospitalization, or death.”

As of Aug. 8, federal data showed that around 62% of all nursing home staff are currently vaccinated. But vaccination rates vary widely by state, with a high of 88% in some states and a low of 44% in others.

In addition, according to data from CMS, nationwide Covid-19 cases in nursing homes have increased from 319 cases on June 27 to 2,696 cases on Aug. 8. Since the beginning of the pandemic, federal data shows that around 134,000 nursing home residents and nearly 2,000 employees have died from Covid-19.

How will the vaccine mandate affect nursing homes?

According to Roll Call, divisions among nursing home staff about a vaccine mandate has some people in the industry—which has long suffered staffing shortages—concerned that even more workers will leave.

Lori Porter, CEO of the National Association of Health Care Assistants, said she is worried the industry could lose 20% to 30% of its workforce over the new vaccine requirement.

And Mark Parkinson, president and CEO of the American Health Care Association and National Center for Assisted Living, said a broader vaccine mandate for all health care organizations, instead of just nursing homes, is necessary to prevent further staffing shortages.

“Focusing only on nursing homes will cause vaccine hesitant workers to flee to other health care providers and leave many centers without adequate staff to care for residents,” Parkinson said. “It will make an already difficult workforce shortage even worse.”

Similarly, Katie Smith Sloan, president and CEO of LeadingAge, a nonprofit that represents more than 5,000 aging services providers, said the vaccine mandate should be extended to all health care workers in all settings. She also voiced concern that cutting funding to nursing homes will further hurt facilities that have struggled financially throughout the pandemic.

“Without Medicaid and Medicare funding, nursing homes cannot provide the quality care that our nation’s most vulnerable older adults need,” Smith Sloan said. “Our mission-driven nursing home members, who operate on narrow margins in the best of times, depend on those funds alone to care for their residents.”

Separately, David Grabowski, a professor of health care policy at Harvard Medical School, said funding cuts could put some nursing homes “in a precarious position” and that he believes there will be a “tremendous amount of pushback in the industry.”

Grabowski noted that while a national vaccine mandate could “level the playing field” for nursing homes looking for employees, they may still struggle to retain employees with jobs in other areas, such as retail or hotels, offering similar pay. “I think this is a good measure, but it needs to be paired with additional resources to help pay staff and make sure these are jobs they want to stay in,” he said. (Clason, Roll Call, 8/18; LaFraniere et al., New York Times, 8/18; Christ, Modern Healthcare, 8/18) 

Advisory Board’s take

This is a bold step—but it’s the right thing to do. Here’s why.

Mandating vaccinations for staff in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) is definitely a bold step—but ensuring all staff are vaccinated is unquestionably the right thing to do. As health care leaders, it is our responsibility to care for our patients, our staff, and our communities, and during this pandemic, vaccination is the best way to do that. 

Nationally, staff working in post-acute and long-term care settings have been among the groups most hesitant to take a Covid-19 vaccine. The combination of the extremely vulnerable patient populations in those settings and the lack of voluntary vaccination was likely what motivated this move.

I don’t want to imply this will be easy. Many SNFs will struggle to achieve universal vaccination, and there is understandable fear associated with having to let go of staff in what is an extremely tight staffing environment. 

However, in my view, the staffing implications will be less severe than many believe. In some ways, a national mandate actually makes it easier for providers, because individual staff members can’t simply go work for another facility in order to avoid getting their shot. And as more and more employers across the country begin to mandate vaccinations—a list that so far includes large employers like Walmart and Tyson Foods—staff members will have minimal opportunities for alternate work arrangements that do not require them to get the vaccine. For many staff, even those who have refused in the past, the elimination of other options that would allow them to remain unvaccinated may give them the push they need to get the vaccine.

Some staff will refuse and leave the industry. In the short term, this will increase pressure on already tight staffing. In the medium to long term, however, a fully vaccinated workforce is better for providers. It’s better for recruiting, because it attracts potential workers who want to be in a safer environment. It’s better for the existing workforce, who will likely need to take fewer sick days. And it’s better for the reputation of the industry. In our summer consumer survey, we found that 76% of respondents would be more likely to receive care at a skilled nursing facility if all of that facility’s staff were vaccinated. Staff vaccination helps build a level of community trust in the safety of the facility, which will be critical as SNFs seek to return to growth during and after the Covid-19 pandemic.

Check out our resources for building consumer confidence in post-acute and senior care during and beyond a crisis. For help with how to prepare your staff and residents for the vaccine rollout at your facility, review our guide for long-term care leaders.