Category Archives: Health Policy

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.

GOP allies drawing up health plans for a Republican administration

Posted on by • Posted in Abortion, ACA, Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC), Dept of Health and Human Services (HHS), Health Policy, Medicaid, Medicaid Block Grants, Medicaid Funding, Short Term Health Insurance, Skinny Health Plans • Leave a comment
https://www.axios.com/2023/08/31/republican-health-care-policy-think-tanks?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosvitals&stream=top

Influential conservative policy groups are sketching out health care plans for a potential Republican administration over a year before the election.

Why it matters: 

Republicans have moved on from the “repeal and replace” — the Affordable Care Act didn’t even get a mention in the first GOP presidential debate last week — but still haven’t settled on new health care agenda.

  • Republican-aligned groups are stepping in to build out ideas for a party platform that may not be as ambitious as an ACA replacement but could still shift health care policy in a conservative direction on everything from Medicaid to abortion to public health.

Context: 

The early push to define the next GOP health agenda partly stems from Republicans’ inability to agree on an ACA alternative after former President Trump was elected, despite years of promises to overhaul the 2010 health care law. The GOP policy experts also said they want to avoid repeating the Trump administration’s failure to plan health care executive actions and key staffing decisions before taking office.

  • “A large part of it comes from the experience of 2017. There wasn’t a clear agenda that was ready to go,” said Brian Blase, a former Trump administration health official who’s now president of the right-leaning Paragon Health Institute.

Details: 

Conservative think tanks are looking to advance some long-held conservative goals like transforming Medicaid’s open-ended entitlement into block grants, but there’s also a new generation of Trump alumni who hope to revive some of his administration’s policies.

  • These include initiatives like encouraging businesses to form association health plans, and pushing even further on price transparency and curbing higher payments to hospitals’ outpatient departments.
  • Some are also drawing up plans for limiting the CDC’s power over public health policy in reaction to what they view as the agency’s failed response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Zoom in: 

Paragon Health, as well as the Heritage Foundation and America First Policy Institute, are the primary conservative think tanks now drafting health regulations, policy plans and recruiting personnel who could serve in a Republican administration.

  • A roadmap from Paragon envisions a burst of rulemaking at the beginning of a new administration, mostly through the Department of Health and Human Services.

Meanwhile, the America First Policy Institute, founded by Trump administration alumni in 2021, has put forward a 12-part health policy agenda it describes as “radical incrementalism.”

  • That’s an acknowledgement that they’re not planning a major health care overhaul, but a belief that significant changes are possible in the current structure, said former Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who chairs the group’s health policy division.
  • “We are advocating specific policies that try to reform our health care system in a very specific direction that empowers patients … that makes health care more affordable, accessible, that improves outcomes by giving control back to individual patients working with their providers, not government agencies and programs. But, we’re not trying to write the next 3,000-page bill,” Jindal said.
  • Some of those incremental ideas they hope could get bipartisan support, such as broadening health savings accounts for those with chronic conditions, expanding telehealth flexibilities for providers across state lines, implementing transparency for pharmacy benefit managers and speeding up deployment of biosimilars.

The Heritage Foundation has also detailed policy proposals and recently joined more than 70 other conservative groups to launch an initiative called Project 2025 to develop a governing agenda.

  • One of those Heritage policy proposals laid out earlier this year illustrates how a future GOP president could overhaul HHS.
  • Heritage’s plan contains the most detailed ideas for how the next GOP president — who would be the first since the demise of Roe v. Wade — could implement anti-abortion policies, cut off Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood, and roll back Biden administration initiatives aimed at increasing access to abortion.
  • The group also envisions splitting CDC into two agencies — one for research and data collection and another for making public health recommendations with “severely confined ability” to influence policy.

What we’re watching: The GOP presidential candidates themselves have said relatively little so far about their plans for the health care system. That could eventually change, given Americans’ concern over health care costs.

American healthcare: The good, bad, ugly, future

Posted on by • Posted in ACA, Access & Quality of Healthcare, Affordability, Clinical Research, Cost Management, Dept of Health and Human Services (HHS), Health Inequity, Health Policy, Inflation Reduction Act, Maternal Care, Medicaid Expansion, Medicaid Redeterminations, Medicare Drug Price Negotiation, Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act, Mental Health, Mortality, Quality of Care, Underinsured, Uninsured, Vaccine, Vaccine Booster, Vaccine Development, Vaccine Distribution, Vaccine Efficacy, Weight Loss Drugs • Leave a comment

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/american-healthcare-good-bad-ugly-future-robert-pearl-m-d-/

Albert Einstein determined that time is relative. And when it comes to healthcare, five years can be both a long and a short amount of time.

In August 2018, I launched the Fixing Healthcare podcast. At the time, the medium felt like the perfect auditory companion to the books and articles I’d been writing. By bringing on world-renowned guests and engaging in difficult but meaningful discussions, I hoped the show would have a positive impact on American medicine. After five years and 100 episodes, now is an opportune time to look back and examine how healthcare has improved and in what ways American medicine has become more problematic.

Here’s a look at the good, the bad and the ugly since episode one of Fixing Healthcare:

The Good

Drug breakthroughs and government actions headline medicine’s biggest wins over the past five years.

Vaccines

Arguably the most massive (and controversial) healthcare triumph over the past five years was the introduction of vaccines, which proved successful beyond any reasonable expectation.

At first, health experts expressed doubts that Pfizer, Moderna and others could create a safe and effective Covid-19 vaccine with messenger RNA (mRNA) technology. After all, no one had succeeded in more than two decades of trying.

Thanks in part to Operation Warp Speed, the government-funded springboard for research, our nation produced multiple vaccines within less than a year. Previously, the quickest vaccine took four years to develop (mumps). All others required a minimum of five years.

The vaccines were pivotal in ending the coronavirus pandemic, and their success has opened the door to other life-saving drugs, including those that might prevent or fight cancer. And, of course, our world is now better prepared for when the next viral pandemic strikes.

Weight-Loss Drugs

Originally designed to help patients manage Type 2 diabetes, drugs like Ozempic have been helping people reverse obesity—a condition closely correlated with diabetes, heart disease and cancer.

For decades, America’s $150 billion a year diet industry has failed to curb the nation’s continued weight gain. So too have calls for increased exercise and proper nutrition, including restrictions on sugary sodas and fast foods.

In contrast, these GLP-1 medications are highly effective. They help overweight and obese people lose 15 to 25 pounds on average with side effects that are manageable for nearly all users.

The biggest stumbling block to their widespread use is the drug’s exorbitant price (upwards of $16,000 for a year’s supply).

Drug-Pricing Laws

With the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, Congress took meaningful action to lower drug prices, a move the CBO estimates would reduce the federal deficit by $237 billion over 10 years.

It’s a good start. Americans today pay twice as much for the same medications as people in Europe largely because of Congressional legislation passed in 2003.

That law, the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act, made it illegal for  Health and Human Services (HHS) to negotiate drug prices with manufacturers—even for the individuals publicly insured through Medicare and Medicaid.

Now, under provisions of the new Inflation Reduction Act, the government will be able to negotiate the prices of 10 widely prescribed medications based on how much Medicare’s Part D program spends. The lineup is expected to include prescription treatments for arthritis, cancer, asthma and cardiovascular disease. Unfortunately, the program won’t take effect until 2026. And as of now, several legal challenges from both drug manufacturers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are pending.

The Bad

Spiking costs, ongoing racial inequalities and millions of Americans without health insurance make up three disappointing healthcare failures of the past five years.

Cost And Quality 

The U.S. spends nearly twice as much on healthcare per citizen as other countries, yet our nation lags 10 of the wealthiest countries in medical performance and clinical outcomes. As a result, Americans die younger and experience more complications from chronic diseases than people in peer nations.

As prices climb ever-higher, at least half of Americans can’t afford to pay their out-of-pocket medical bills, which remain the leading cause of U.S. bankruptcy. And with rising insurance premiums alongside growing out-of-pocket expenses, more people are delaying their medical care and rationing their medications, including life-essential drugs like insulin. This creates a vicious cycle that will likely prolong today’s healthcare problems well into the future.

Health Disparities

Inequalities in American medicine persist along racial lines—despite action-oriented words from health officials that date back decades.

Today, patients in minority populations receive unequal and inequitable medical treatment when compared to white patients. That’s true even when adjusting for differences in geography, insurance status and socioeconomics.

Racism in medical care has been well-documented throughout history. But the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic provided several recent and deadly examples. From testing to treatment, Black and Latino patients received both poorer quality and less medical care, doubling and even tripling their chances of dying from the disease.

The problems can be observed across the medical spectrum. Studies show Black women are still less likely to be offered breast reconstruction after mastectomy than white women. Research also finds that Black patients are 40% less likely to receive pain medication after surgery. Although technology could have helped to mitigate health disparities, our nation’s unwillingness to acknowledge the severity of the problem has made the problem worse.

Uninsurance

Although there are now more than 90 million Americans enrolled in Medicaid, there are still 30 million people without any health insurance. This disturbing reality comes a full decade after the passage of the Affordable Care Act.

On Capitol Hill, there is no plan in place to reduce the number of uninsured.

Moreover, many states are looking to significantly rollback their Medicaid enrollment in the post-Covid era. Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that between 8 million and 24 million people will lose Medicaid coverage during the unwinding of the continuous enrollment provisions implemented during the pandemic. Without coverage, people have a harder time obtaining the preventive services they need and, as a result, they suffer more chronic diseases and die younger.

The Ugly

An overall decrease in longevity, along with higher maternal mortality and a worsening mental-health crisis, comprise the greatest failures of U.S. healthcare over the past five years.

Life Expectancy

Despite radical advances in medical science over the past five years, American life expectancy is back to where it was at the turn of the 20th century, according to CDC data.

Alongside environmental and social factors are a number of medical causes for the nation’s dip in longevity. Research demonstrated that many of the 1 million-plus Covid-19 deaths were preventable. So, too, was the nation’s rise in opioid deaths and teen suicides.

Regardless of exact causation, Americans are living two years less on average than when we started the Fixing Healthcare podcast five years ago.

Maternal Mortality

Compared to peer nations, the United States is the only country with a growing rate of mothers dying from childbirth. The U.S. experiences 17.4 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births. In contrast, Norway is at 1.8 and the Netherlands at 3.0.

The risk of dying during delivery or in the post-partum period is dramatically higher for Black women in the United States. Even when controlling for economic factors, Black mothers still suffer twice as many deaths from childbirth as white women.

And with growing restrictions on a woman’s right to choose, the maternal mortality rate will likely continue to rise in the United States going forward.

Mental Health

Finally, the mental health of our country is in decline with rates of anxiety, depression and suicide on the rise.

These problems were bad prior to Covid-19, but years of isolation and social distancing only aggravated the problem. Suicide is now a leading cause of death for teenagers. Now, more than 1 in every 1,000 youths take their own lives each year. The newest data show that suicides across the U.S. have reached an all-time high and now exceed homicides.

Even with the expanded use of telemedicine, mental health in our nation is likely to become worse as Americans struggle to access and afford the services they require.

The Future

In looking at the three lists, I’m reminded of a baseball slugger who can occasionally hit awe-inspiring home runs but strikes out most of the time. The crowd may love the big hitter and celebrate the long ball, but in both baseball and healthcare, failing at the basics consistently results in more losses than wins.

Over the past five years, American medicine has produced a losing record. New drugs and surgical breakthroughs have made headlines, but the deeper, more systemic failures of American healthcare have rarely penetrated the news cycle.

If our nation wants to make the next five years better and healthier than the last five, elected officials and healthcare leaders will need to make major improvements. The steps required to do so will be the focus of my next article.

Not for Profit Hospitals: Are they the Problem?

Posted on by • Posted in CEO, Community Benefit, Elevance Health Policy Institute, Executive Compensation, Health Insurance Industry, Health Policy, Health System, High Deductible Health Plans, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Lobbyist, Market Consolidation, Market Power, Medical Debt, Non-Profit Healthcare Industry, Out of Pocket Expenses, Pharmaceutical Industry, Public Perception, Tax Exempt Status • Leave a comment
Not for Profit Hospitals: Are they the Problem?

Last Monday, four U.S. Senators took aim at the tax exemption enjoyed by not-for-profit (NFP) hospitals in a letter to the IRS demanding detailed accounting for community benefits and increased agency oversight of NFP hospitals that fall short.

Last Tuesday, the Elevance Health Policy Institute released a study concluding that the consolidation of hospitals into multi-hospital systems (for-profit/not-for-profit) results in higher prices without commensurate improvement in patient care quality. “

Friday, Kaiser Health News Editor in Chief Elizabeth Rosenthal took aim at Ballad Health which operates in TN and VA “…which has generously contributed to performing arts and athletic centers as well as school bands. But…skimped on health care — closing intensive care units and reducing the number of nurses per ward — and demanded higher prices from insurers and patients.”

And also last week, the Pharmaceuticals’ Manufacturers Association released its annual study of hospital mark-ups for the top 20 prescription drugs used on hospitals asserting a direct connection between hospital mark-ups (which ranged from 234% to 724%) and increasing medical debt hitting households.

(Excerpts from these are included in the “Quotables” section that follows).

It was not a good week for hospitals, especially not-for-profit hospitals.

In reality, the storm cloud that has gathered over not-for-profit health hospitals in recent months has been buoyed in large measure by well-funded critiques by Arnold Ventures, Lown Institute, West Health, Patient Rights Advocate and others. Providence, Ascension, Bon Secours and now Ballad have been criticized for inadequate community benefits, excessive CEO compensation, aggressive patient debt collection policies and price gauging attributed to hospital consolidation.

This cloud has drawn attention from lawmakers: in NC, the State Treasurer Dale Folwell has called out the state’s 8 major NFP systems for inadequate community benefit and excess CEO compensation.

In Indiana, State Senator Travis Holdman is accusing the state’s NFP hospitals of “hoarding cash” and threatening that “if not-for-profit hospitals aren’t willing to use their tax-exempt status for the benefit of our communities, public policy on this matter can always be changed.” And now an influential quartet of U.S. Senators is pledging action to complement with anti-hospital consolidation efforts in the FTC leveraging its a team of 40 hospital deal investigators.

In response last week, the American Hospital Association called out health insurer consolidation as a major contributor to high prices and,

in a US News and World Report Op Ed August 8, challenged that “Health insurance should be a bridge to medical care, not a barrier.

Yet too many commercial health insurance policies often delay, disrupt and deny medically necessary care to patients,” noting that consumer medical debt is directly linked to insurer’ benefits that increase consumer exposure to out of pocket costs.

My take:

It’s clear that not-for-profit hospitals pose a unique target for detractors: they operate more than half of all U.S. hospitals and directly employ more than a third of U.S. physicians.

But ownership status (private not-for-profit, for-profit investor owned or government-owned) per se seems to matter less than the availability of facilities and services when they’re needed.

And the public’s opinion about the business of running hospitals is relatively uninformed beyond their anecdotal use experiences that shape their perceptions. Thus, claims by not-for-profit hospital officials that their finances are teetering on insolvency fall on deaf ears, especially in communities where cranes hover above their patient towers and their brands are ubiquitous.

Demand for hospital services is increasing and shifting, wage and supply costs (including prescription drugs) are soaring, and resources are limited for most.

The size, scale and CEO compensation for the biggest not-for-profit health systems pale in comparison to their counterparts in health insurance and prescription drug manufacturing or even the biggest investor-owned health system, HCA…but that’s not the point.

NFPs are being challenged to demonstrate they merit the tax-exempt treatment they enjoy unlike their investor-owned and public hospital competitors and that’s been a moving target.

In 2009, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) updated the Form 990 Schedule H to require more detailed reporting of community benefit expenditures across seven different categories including charity care, unreimbursed costs from means-tested government programs, community health spending, research, and others. The Affordable Care Act added requirements that non-profit hospitals complete community health needs assessments (CHNAs) every three years to identify the most pressing community health priorities and create detailed implementation strategies explaining how the identified needs will be addressed.

But currently, there are no federal community benefit requirements that ensure hospitals use the most accurate accounting standards for charity care and unreimbursed Medicaid services; set a minimum level of community benefit spending; require hospitals to spend on community benefit dollars on identified needs; or describe in detail the type of activities that quality as community benefit spending.

Thus, the methodology for consistently defining and accounting for community benefits needs attention. That would be a good start but alone it will not solve the more fundamental issue: what’s the future for the U.S. health system, what role do players including hospitals and others need to play, and how should it be structured and funded?

The issues facing the U.S. health industry are complex. The role hospitals will play is also uncertain. If, as polls indicate, the majority of Americans prefer a private health system that features competition, transparency, affordability and equitable access, the remedy will require input from every major healthcare sector including employers, public health, private capital and regulators alongside others.

It will require less from DC policy wonks and sanctimonious talking heads and more from frontline efforts and privately-backed innovators in communities, companies and in not-for-profit health systems that take community benefit seriously.

No sector owns the franchise for certainty about the future of U.S. healthcare nor its moral high ground. That includes not-for-profit hospitals.

The darkening cloud that hovers over not-for-profit health systems needs attention, but not alone, despite efforts to suggest otherwise.

Clarifying the community-benefit standard is a start, but not enough.

Are NFP hospitals a problem? Some are, most aren’t but all are impacted by the darkening cloud.

Payers declare War on Corporate Hospitals: Context is Key

Posted on by • Posted in Access & Quality of Healthcare, Advocacy, Affordability, Corporate War, Health Insurance Industry, Health Policy, Health System, High Deductible Health Plans, High Premiums, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Market Consolidation, Market Power, Monopoly, Monopoly Behavior • Leave a comment
Payers declare War on Corporate Hospitals: Context is Key

Last week, six notable associations representing health insurers and large employers announced Better Solutions for Healthcare (BSH): “An advocacy organization dedicated to bringing together employers, consumers, and taxpayers to educate lawmakers on the rising cost of healthcare and provide ideas on how we can work together to find better solutions that lower healthcare costs for ALL Americans.”

BSH, which represents 492 large employers, 34 Blue Cross plans, 139 insurers and 42 business coalitions, blames hospitals asserting that “over the last ten years alone, the cost of providing employee coverage has increased 47% with hospitals serving as the number one driver of healthcare costs.”

Its members, AHIP, the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, the Business Group on Health, Public Sector Health Care Roundtable, National Alliance of Healthcare Purchaser Coalitions and the American Benefits Council, pledge to…

  • Promote hospital competition
  • Enforce Federal Price Transparency Laws for Hospital Charges
  • Rein in Hospital Price Mark-ups
  • Insure Honest Billing Practices

And, of particular significance, BSH calls out “the growing practice of corporate hospitals establishing local monopolies and leveraging their market dominance to charge patients more…With hospital consolidation driving down competition, there’s no pressure for hospitals to bring costs back within reach for employees, retirees and their families…prices at monopoly hospitals are 12% higher than in markets with four or more competitors.”

The BSH leadership team is led by DC-based healthcare policy veterans with notable lobbying chops: Adam “Buck” Buckalew, a former Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) staffer who worked on the Health Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) committee and is credited with successfully spearheading the No Surprises Act legislation that took effect in January 2022, and Kathryn Spangler, another former HELP staffer under former Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) who most recently served as Senior Policy Advisor at the American Benefits Council.

It’s a line in the sand for hospitals, especially large not-for-profit systems that are on the defensive due to mounting criticism. 

Examples from last week: Atrium and Caremont were singled in NC by the state Treasurer for their debt collection practices based on a Duke study that got wide media coverage. Allina’s dispute with 550 of its primary care providers seeking union representation based on their concerns about patient safety. Jefferson Health was called out for missteps under its prior administration’s “growth at all costs” agenda and the $35 million 2021 compensation for Common Spirit’s CEO received notice in industry coverage.

My take:

BSH represents an important alignment of health insurers with large employers who have shouldered a disproportionate share of health costs for years through the prices imposed for the hospitals, prescriptions and services their employees and dependents use.

Though it’s too early to predict how BSH vs. Corporate Hospitals will play out, especially in a divided Congress and with 2024 elections in 14 months, it’s important to inject a fair and balanced context for this contest as the article of war are unsealed:

  • Health insurers and hospitals share the blame for high health costs along with prescription drug manufacturers and others. The U.S. system feasts on opaque pricing, regulated monopolies and supply-induced demand. Studies show unit costs for hospitals along with prescription drug costs bear primary responsibility for two-thirds of health cost increases in recent years—the result of increased demand and medical inflation. But insurers are complicit: benefits design strategies that pre-empt preventive health and add administrative costs are parts of the problem.
  • Corporatization of the U.S. system cuts across every sector: Healthcare’s version of Moneyball is decidedly tilted toward bigger is better: in healthcare, that’s no exception. 3 of the top 10 in the Fortune 100 are healthcare (CVS-Aetna, United, McKesson)) and HCA (#66) is the only provider on the list. The U.S. healthcare industry is the largest private employer in the U.S. economy: how BSH addresses healthcare’s biggest employers which include its hospitals will be worth watching. And Big Pharma companies pose an immediate challenge: just last week, HHS called out the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for siding with Big Pharma against implementation of drug price controls in the Inflation Reduction Act—popular with voters but not so much in Big Pharma Board rooms.
  • The focus will be on Federal health policies. BSH represents insurers and employers that operate across state lines–so do the majority of major health systems. Thus, federal rules, regulations, administrative actions, executive orders, and court decisions will be center-stage in the BSH v. corporate hospitals war. Revised national policies around Medicare and federal programs including military and Veterans’ health, pricing, equitable access, affordability, consolidation, monopolies, data ownership, ERISA and tax exemptions, patent protections and more might emerge from the conflict. As consolidation gets attention, the differing definitions of “markets” will require attention: technology has enabled insurers and providers to operate outside traditional geographic constraints, so what’s next? And, complicating matters, federalization of healthcare will immediately impact states as referenda tackle price controls, drug pricing, Medicaid coverage and abortion rights—hot buttons for voters and state officials.
  • Boards of directors in each healthcare organization will be exposed to greater scrutiny for their actions: CEO compensation, growth strategies, M&A deals, member/enrollee/patient experience oversight, culture and more are under the direct oversight of Boards but most deflect accountability for major decisions that pose harm. Balancing shareholder interests against the greater good is no small feat, especially in a private health system which depends on private capital for its innovations.

8.6% of the U.S. population is uninsured, 41% of Americans have outstanding medical debt, and the majority believe health costs are excessive and the U.S. system is heading in the wrong direction.

Compared to other modern systems in the world, ours is the most expensive for its health services, least invested in social determinants that directly impact 70% of its costs and worst for the % of our population that recently skipped needed medical care (39.0% (vs. next closest Australia 21.2%), skipped dental care (36.2% vs. next closest Australia 31.7%) and had serious problems/ were unable to pay medical bills (22.4% next closest France 10.1%). Thus, it’s a system in which costs, prices and affordability appear afterthoughts.

Who will win BSH vs. Corporate Hospitals? It might appear a winner-take all showdown between lobbyists for BSH and hospital hired guns but that’s shortsighted. Both will pull out the stops to win favor with elected officials but both face growing pushback in Congress and state legislatures where “corporatization” seems more about a blame game than long-term solution.

Each side will use heavy artillery to advance their positions discredit the other. And unless the special interests that bolster efforts by payers are hospitals are subordinated to the needs of the population and greater good, it’s not  the war to end all healthcare wars. That war is on the horizon.

Why providers are paying fees to get paid

Posted on by • Posted in ACA, American Medical Association (AMA), Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT), Electronic Transmission, Health Policy, Medical Group Management Association (MGMA), Physician • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/d29febe6ab3c/the-weekly-gist-august-25-2023?e=d1e747d2d8

An investigative piece published this month by ProPublica documents how it came to be that nearly 60 percent of healthcare providers report being charged fees to receive electronic payments from insurers. 

The fees, which can be as high as five percent of total reimbursement, were briefly forbidden by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), before the agency reversed its policy in 2018. The article follows one dogged physician’s efforts to uncover why CMS allows these fees. His voluminous stream of public records requests revealed a highly coordinated pressure campaign, mounted by the insurance industry through one particularly influential regulator-turned-lobbyist.

While the American Medical Association has urged the Biden administration to protect physicians from these fees, and the Veterans Health Administration is refusing to pay them, CMS is so far maintaining the position that electronic-payment claims-processing fees are permissible. 

The Gist: Through partnerships with payment companies, who charge double the average fees of electronic bank transfers and share the spoils of their “virtual credit cards”, insurers are essentially using the same business model as credit card companies, skimming revenue from physician payments just as Visa and MasterCard do to merchants. 

With the increasing consolidation of both insurers and claims processors, physicians are left with little recourse but to pay these fees, as nonelectronic payments come with infrastructure costs and payment delays.

While the shift to electronic payments spurred on by the Affordable Care Act was supposed to improve efficiency, this article offers yet another example of how efficiency gains can be captured by industry middlemen before they can be translated into provider and consumer benefits. 

Are American doctors overpaid? 

Posted on by • Posted in Health Policy, National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), Physician Compensation, Physicians Per Capita, Supply and Demand • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/27e58978fc54/the-weekly-gist-august-11-2023?e=d1e747d2d8

A recent National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) working paper analyzed the individual income tax records of 965,000 US physicians between 2005 through 2017 to provide a comprehensive look at physician earnings. As doctors’ incomes are often a combination of wage and business income, earnings are commonly underestimated in survey data. Researchers found that the average physician earned $350K per year, which rose to $405K annually during the prime earning years of ages 40-55. However, researchers found a large gap between the lowest and highest earners: the top ten percent of physicians in that age band averaged $1.3M per year, with those in the top one percent averaging over $4M (and 85 percent of that income coming from business income or capital gains versus wages).  

The Gist: Many policymakers long believed that increasing the number physicians nationally would drive higher medical spending, and worked to constrain supply by freezing funding for residencies in the late 1990s, a move that has yet to be fully unwound. Recent research, however, has found that the impact of physician supply on excess treatment is small or nonexistent.

Meanwhile, the imbalance in supply and demand has led to relatively high prices for physician labor. Compared to other western countries, the US has far fewer physicians per capita, and we pay our doctors significantly more.

Case in point:

Germany has 69 percent more physicians per capita, and American doctors are paid roughly 50 percent more than their German counterparts.

Weight loss drug Wegovy cuts risk of heart problems by 20 percent

Posted on by • Posted in Cardiology, Cardiovascular Disease, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Clinical Outcomes, Clinical Research, Health Policy, Medicare Coverage, Wegovy, Weight Loss, Weight Loss Drugs • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/27e58978fc54/the-weekly-gist-august-11-2023?e=d1e747d2d8

On Tuesday, Novo Nordisk released the headline results of a large clinical trial demonstrating that its popular GLP-1 inhibitor Wegovy reduced the risk of heart attacks, strokes, and cardiovascular deaths by 20 percent. The SELECT trial enrolled roughly 17,600 non-diabetic adults aged 45 and older who were overweight or obese with established cardiovascular disease. It compared people in this population treated with the drug to those given a placebo, and tracked them for up to five years. The drugmaker said it plans to release the full trial results at a conference later this year. These results are similar to a previous study that found Wegovy sister drug Ozempic, also made by Novo Nordisk, reduced the risk of adverse cardiac events by 26 percent in adults with type 2 diabetes.

The Gist: The cardioprotective effects demonstrated in this study far exceeded researchers’ expectations. Though concerns still abound about the high costs of Wegovy (nearly $1,350 per month) and similar drugs, these results will certainly put pressure on Medicare and other insurers to provide coverage. 

Questions remain around how the drug actually improves cardiovascular outcomes, and whether patients with cardiac disease who are not overweight or obese might also benefit from taking it.

Despite the fact that the data are still preliminary, the argument that obesity medications are solely “lifestyle” or “vanity drugs”—which some insurers and employers have been using to deny coverage—will now be much harder to defend.

Citing lax enforcement, senators ramp up scrutiny of nonprofit hospitals’ tax exemptions

Posted on by • Posted in Charity Care, Community Benefit, Health Policy, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Non-Profit Healthcare Industry, Tax-Exempt Status, Uncompensated Care • Leave a comment

https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/providers/citing-lax-enforcement-senators-ramp-scrutiny-nonprofit-hospitals-tax-exemptions

A bipartisan quartet of influential senators is tapping tax regulators within the U.S. Treasury for detailed information on nonprofit hospitals’ reported charity care and community investments, the latest in legislators’ increasing scrutiny of tax-exempt hospitals’ business practices.

In a pair of letters (PDF) sent Monday, Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts, Raphael Warnock, D-Georgia, Bill Cassidy, M.D., R-Louisiana, and Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, wrote they “are alarmed by reports that despite their tax-exempt status, certain nonprofit hospitals may be taking advantage of this overly broad definition of ‘community benefit’ and engaging in practices that are not in the best interest of the patient.”

The missives referenced a bevy of news reports as well as an investigation conducted by Grassley’s office detailing tax-exempt hospitals and health systems’ aggressive debt collection practices.

They also outlined studies from academic and policy groups highlighting that the tax-exempt status of the nation’s nonprofit hospitals collectively was worth about $28 billion in 2020 and how this tally paled in comparison to the charity care most of those hospitals had provided during that same period.  

Such studies have been quickly contested by the hospital lobby, which highlights that charity care is just one component of the broader activities that constitute a nonprofit hospital’s community benefit spending.

However, that ambiguity was squarely in the crosshairs of the legislators who said the long-standing community benefit standard “is arguably insufficient in its current form to guarantee protection and services to the communities hosting these hospitals.”

They cited a 2020 report from the Government Accountability Office that found oversight of nonprofit hospitals’ tax exemptions was “challenging” due to the vague definition of community benefit.

Though the IRS implemented several of the office’s recommendations from the report, “more is required to ensure nonprofit hospitals’ community benefit information is standardized, consistent and easily identifiable.” Included here could be additional updates to Form 990’s Schedule H, where nonprofits detail their community benefits and related activities.

To get a better handle on the agencies’ current oversight, the legislators requested from the IRS and the Treasury’s Tax Exempt & Government Entities Division a laundry list of information related to nonprofits’ tax filings from the last several years, including “a list of the most commonly reported community benefit activities that qualified a nonprofit hospital for tax exemptions in FY2021 and FY2022.”

They also sought lists of the nonprofit hospitals that were flagged, penalized or had their tax-exempt status revoked for violating community benefit standard requirements.

In another letter to the Treasury’s inspector general for tax administration, they asked the auditor to update their upcoming reviews to evaluate existing standards for financial assistance policy and other “practices that reduce unnecessary medical debt from patients who qualify for free or discounted care.”

The lawmakers also asked the inspector general to explore how often nonprofit hospitals bill patients with “gross charges” and to make sure the IRS is doing enough to ensure hospitals are making “’reasonable efforts’ to determine whether individuals are eligible for financial assistance before initiating extraordinary collection actions.”

Both letters from the senators gave the tax regulators 60 days to provide the requested information.

RELATED

As nonprofit hospitals reap big tax breaks, states scrutinize their required charity spending