Category Archives: Health Policy

In Defense of Value: A Response to Ken Kaufman

Posted on by • Posted in Business Model, Change, Consumer Focus, Consumer Preferences, Consumer-Centric, Consumerism, Health Policy, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Leadership, Restructure, Strategic Change, Strategy, Value Proposition, Value-Based Healthcare • Leave a comment
https://mcusercontent.com/8a4bf5d1617f86a90e5a909f0/files/9ab01dec-37fb-e32e-1fe2-55f1869be8a3/4sightHealth.A_Response_to_Kaufman.MCC.10_11_22.03.pdf?utm_source=4sight+Health+Readers&utm_campaign=b15a593847-CMS+Misdirection_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_96b6d85309-b15a593847-147498402
In an Oct. 5, 2022, commentary, Ken Kaufman offers a full-throated and heartfelt defense of non-profit healthcare during a time of significant financial hardship. Ken describes 2022 as “the worst financial year for hospitals in memory.” His concern is legitimate. The foundations of the nonprofit healthcare business model appear to be collapsing. I’ve known and worked with Ken Kaufman for decades. He is the life force behind Kaufman Hall, a premier financial and strategic advisor to nonprofit hospitals and health systems. The American Hospital Association uses Kaufman Hall’s analysis of hospitals’ underlying financial trends to support its plea for Congressional funding. Beyond the red ink, Ken laments the “media free-for-all challenging the tax-exempt status, financial practices, and ostensible market power of not-for-profit hospitals and health systems.” He is referring to three recent investigative reports on nonprofits’ skimpy levels of charity care (Wall Street Journal), aggressive collection tactics (New York Times) and 340B drug purchasing program abuses (New York Times). Ken has never been timid about expressing his opinions. He’s passionate, partisan and proud. His defense of nonprofit healthcare chronicles their selfless care of critically ill patients, the 24/7 demands on their resources and their commitment to treating the uninsured. These “must have clinical services…don’t just magically appear.” Nonprofit healthcare needs “our support and validation in the face of extreme economic conditions and organizational headwinds. ”Given his personality, it’s not surprising that Ken’s strident rhetoric in defending nonprofit healthcare reminds me of the famous “You can’t handle the truth” exchange between Lieutenant Kaffee (Tom Cruise) and Colonel Jessup (Jack Nicholson) from the 1992 movie “A Few Good Men.” Kaffee presses Jessup on whether he ordered a “code red” that led to the death of a soldier under his command. When Kaffee declares he’s entitled to the truth, Jessup erupts,… I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man that rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you say, “thank you” and be on your way. Should American society just say “thank you” to nonprofit healthcare and provide the massive incremental funding required to sustain their current operations?
Truth and Consequences
(Download PDF here)The social theorist Thomas Sowell astutely observed, “If you want to help someone, tell them the truth. If you want to help yourself, tell them what they want to hear.” In this commentary, Ken Kaufman is telling nonprofit healthcare exactly what they want to hear. The truth is more nuanced, troubling and inconvenient. Healthcare now consumes 20 percent of the national economy and the American people are sicker than ever. Despite the high healthcare funding levels, the CDC recently reported in U.S. life expectancy dropped almost a full year in 2021. Other wealthy nations experienced increases in life expectancy. Combining 2020 and 2021, the 2.7-year drop in U.S. life expectancy is the largest since the early 1920s. During an interview regarding the September 28, 2022, White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition and Health, Senator Cory Booker highlighted two facts that capture America’s healthcare dilemma. One in three government dollars funds healthcare expenditure. Half of Americans suffer from diabetes or pre-diabetes.As a nation, we’re chasing our tail by prioritizing treatment over prevention. Particularly in low-income rural and urban communities, there is a breathtaking lack of vital primary care, disease management and mental health services. Instead of preventing disease, our healthcare system has become adept at keeping sick people alive with a diminished life quality. There is plenty of money in the system to amputate a foot but little to manage the diabetes that necessitates the amputation. Despite mission statements to the contrary, nonprofit healthcare follows the money. The only meaningful difference between nonprofit and for-profit healthcare is tax status. Each seeks to maximize treatment revenues by manipulating complex payment formularies and using market leverage to negotiate higher commercial payment rates. According to Grandview Research, the market for revenue cycle management in 2022 is $140.4 billion and forecasted to grow at a 10% annual rate through 2030. By contrast, Ibis World forecasts the U.S. automobile market to grow 2.6% in 2022 to reach $100.9 billion. Unbelievably, in today’s America, processing medical claims is far more lucrative than manufacturing and selling cars and trucks. According to CMS’s National Expenditure Report for 2020, hospitals (31%) and physicians and clinical services (20%) accounted for over half of national healthcare expenditures. This included $175 billion allocated to providers through the CARES Act. Despite the massive waste embedded within healthcare delivery, the CARES Act funding gave providers the illusion that America would continue to fund its profligate and often ineffective operations. It’s not at all surprising that healthcare providers now want, even expect, more emergency funding. Change is hard. Not even during COVID did providers give up their insistence on volume-based payment. Providers did not embrace proven virtual care and hospital-at-home business practices until CMS guaranteed equivalent payment to existing in-hospital/clinic service provision. Even with parity payment and the massive CARES Act funding, there was uneven care access for COVID patients. Particularly in low-income communities, tens of thousands died because they did not receive appropriate care. More of the same approach to healthcare delivery will yield more of the same dismal results. Healthcare providers have had over a decade to advance value-based care (VBC). I define VBC as the right care at the right time in the right place at the right price. Instead of pursuing VBC, providers have doubled-down on volume-driven business models that attract higher-paying commercially-insured patients. Despite the relative ease of migrating service provision to lower-cost settings, providers insist on operating high-cost, centralized delivery models (think hospitals). They want society, writ large, to continue paying premium prices for routine care. It’s time to stop. As a country, we need less healthcare and more health.
A Fourth Question
(Download PDF here)

When I give speeches to healthcare audiences, I typically begin with three yes-or-no questions about U.S. healthcare to establish the foundation for my subsequent observations. Here they are. Question #1: The U.S. spends 20% of its economy on healthcare. The big country with the next highest percentage spend is France at 12%. How many believe we need to spend more than 20% of our economy to provide great healthcare to everyone in the country? No one ever raises their hand. Question #2: The CDC estimates that 90% of healthcare expenditure goes to treat individuals with chronic disease and mental health conditions. How many believe we’re winning the war against chronic disease and mental health conditions? No one ever raises their hand. Question #3: Given the answer to the previous two questions, how many believe the system needs to shift resources from acute and specialty care into health promotion, primary care, chronic disease management and behavioral health? Everyone raises their hands. This short exercise is quite revealing. It demonstrates that healthcare doesn’t have a funding problem. It has a distribution problem. It also demonstrates that providers aren’t adequately addressing our most critical healthcare challenge, exploding chronic disease and mental health conditions. Finally, the industry needs major restructuring.

The real questions about reforming healthcare are less about what to reform and more about how to undertake reform. The increasing media scrutiny that Ken Kaufman references as well as growing consumer frustrations with healthcare service provision, demonstrate that healthcare is losing the battle for America’s hearts and minds.

Markets are unforgiving. The operating losses most nonprofit providers are experiencing reflect a harsh reality. Their current business models are not sustainable. An economic reckoning is underway. The long arc of economics points toward value. As healthcare deconstructs, the nation’s acute care footprint will shrink, hospitals will close and value-based care delivery will advance. The process will be messy.

The devolving healthcare marketplace led me to ask a fourth question recently in Nashville during a keynote speech to the Council of Pharmacy Executives and Suppliers. Here it is. Question #4: As the healthcare system reforms, will that process be evolutionary (reflecting incremental change) or revolutionary (reflecting fundamental change). Two-thirds voted that the change would be revolutionary. That response is just one data point but it reflects why post-COVID healthcare reform is different than the reform efforts that have preceded it. The costs of maintaining status-quo healthcare are simply too high. From a policy perspective, either market-driven healthcare reforms will drive better outcomes at lower costs (that’s my hope) or America will shift to a government-managed healthcare system like those in Germany, France and Japan.

Like Ken Kaufman, I admire frontline healthcare workers and believe we need to make their vital work less burdensome. I also sympathize with health system executives who are struggling to overcome legacy business practices and massive operating deficits. Unfortunately, most are relying on revenue-maximizing playbooks rather than reconfiguring their operations to advance consumerism and value-based care delivery.

Unlike Ken Kaufman, I believe it’s time for some tough love with nonprofit healthcare providers. Payers must tie new incremental funding to concrete movement into value-based care delivery. This was the argument Zeke Emanuel, Merrill Goozner and I made in a two-part commentary (part 1; part 2) in Health Affairs earlier this year. It’s also why the HFMA, where I serve on the Board, has made “cost effectiveness of health (CEoH)” its new operating mantra.

While this truth may be hard, it also is liberating. Freeing nonprofit organizations from their attachment to perverse payment incentives can create the impetus to embrace consumerism and value. Kinder, smarter and affordable care for all Americans will follow.

A Self-Inflicted Wound: The Looming Loss of Coverage

Posted on by • Posted in Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), Dept of Health and Human Services (HHS), Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA), Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, Medicaid, Medicaid Coverage Gap, Pandemic, Public Health Emergency (PHE), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) • Leave a comment

https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/second-opinions/101004?trw=no

Millions are about to lose Medicaid while still eligible.

President Biden recently said that the pandemic is “over.” Regardless of how you feel about that statement or his clarification, it is clear that state and federal health policy is and has been moving in the direction of acting as if the pandemic is indeed over. And with that, a big shoe yet to drop looms large — millions of Americans are about to lose their Medicaid coverage, even though many will still be eligible. This amounts to a self-inflicted wound of lost coverage and a potential crisis for access to healthcare, simply because of paperwork.

An August report from HHS estimated that about 15 million Americans will lose either Medicaid or Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) coverage once the federal COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE) declaration is allowed to expire. Of these 15 million, 8.2 million are projected to be people who no longer qualify for Medicaid or CHIP — but nearly just as many (6.8 million) will become uninsured despite still being eligible.

Why Is This Happening?

This Medicaid “cliff” will happen because the extra funding states have been receiving under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) since March 2020 was contingent upon keeping everyone enrolled by halting all the bureaucracy that determines whether people are still eligible. Once all the processes to redetermine eligibility resume, the lack of up-to-date contact information, requests for documentation, and other administrative burdens will leave many falling through the cracks. A wrong address, one missed letter, and it all starts to unravel. This will have potentially devastating implications for health.

When Will This Happen?

HHS has said they will provide 60 days’ notice to states before any termination or expiration of the PHE — and they haven’t done so yet. It also seems incredibly unlikely that they would announce an end date for the PHE before the midterm elections, as that would be a major self-inflicted political wound. So, odds are that we are safe until at least January 2023 — but extensions beyond that feel less certain.

What Are States Doing to Prepare?

CMS has issued a slew of guidance over the past year to help states prepare for the end of the PHE and minimize churn, another word for when people lose coverage. Some of this guidance has included ways to work with managed care plans, which deliver benefits to more than 70% of Medicaid enrollees, to obtain up-to-date beneficiary contact information, and methods of conducting outreach and providing support to enrollees during the redetermination process.

However, the end of the PHE and the Medicaid redetermination process will largely be a state-by-state story. Georgetown University’s Center for Children and Families has been tracking how states are preparing for the unwinding process. Unsurprisingly, there is considerable variation between states’ plans, outreach efforts, and the types of information accessible to people looking to renew their coverage. For example, less than half of all states have a publicly available plan for how the redetermination process will occur. While CMS has encouraged states to develop plans, they are not required to submit their plans to CMS and there is no public reporting requirement.

Who Will Be Hurt Most?

If you dig into the HHS report, you will see that the disenrollment cliff will likely be a disaster for health equity — as if the inequities of the pandemic itself weren’t enough. A majority of those projected to lose coverage are non-white and/or Latinx, making up 52% of those losing coverage because of changes in eligibility and 61% among those losing coverage because of administrative burdens. Only 17% of white non-Latinx are projected to be disenrolled inappropriately, compared to 40% of Black non-Latinx, 51% of Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander, and 64% of Latinx people — a very grim picture. This represents a disproportionate burden of coverage loss, when still eligible, among those already bearing inequitable burdens of the pandemic and systemic racism more generally.

Another key population at risk are seniors and people with disabilities who have Medicaid coverage, or those who aren’t part of the Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI) population. Under the Affordable Care Act, states are required to redetermine eligibility at renewal using available data. This process, known as ex parte renewal, prevents enrollees from having to respond to, and potentially missing, onerous re-enrollment notifications and forms. Despite federal requirements, not all states attempt to conduct ex parte renewals for seniors and people with disabilities who have Medicaid coverage, or those who aren’t qualifying based on income. Excluding these groups from the ex parte process has important health equity implications, leaving already vulnerable groups more exposed and at risk for having their coverage inappropriately terminated.

What Can Be Done?

There are ways to mitigate some of this coverage loss and ensure people have continued access to care. HHS recently released a proposed rule that would simplify the application for Medicaid by shifting more of the burden of the application and renewal processes onto the government as opposed to those trying to enroll or renew their coverage. We could also change the rules to allow states to use more data, like information collected to verify eligibility for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), in making renewal decisions, rather than relying so much on income. The Biden administration also made significant investments into navigator organizations, which can help those who are no longer eligible for Medicaid transition to marketplace coverage. Furthermore, states should use this as an opportunity to determine the most effective ways to reach Medicaid enrollees by partnering with researchers to test different communication methods surrounding renewals and redeterminations.

As the federal government and state Medicaid agencies continue to prepare for the end of the PHE, it is critical that they consider who these burdensome processes will affect the most and how to improve them to prevent people from falling through the cracks. More sick Americans without access to care is the last thing we need.

Congress passes short-term spending bill—without additional COVID funding

Posted on by • Posted in Coronavirus, Health Policy, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Vaccination, Vaccine, Vaccine Booster • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/b1e0aa55afe5/the-weekly-gist-october-7-2022?e=d1e747d2d8

Late last week, both chambers agreed to an interim funding bill to keep the government open through mid-December. In what is likely the last major piece of legislation before the midterm elections, the bill included an extension of two key Medicare payment programs for rural hospitals, but excluded any new funding for vaccines, testing, or treatment for either COVID-19 or monkeypox.

It has been more than 560 days since the Department of Health and Human Services last received federal COVID funding, and its free COVID vaccination program only has enough money to last through the end of 2022. 

The Gist: Ever since President Biden declared the pandemic “over”, prospects for the White House’s requested $22B to support the continued pandemic response have diminished. While most hospitals had already given up hope of any additional direct COVID aid coming their way, this bill was the last good chance for the lagging bivalent booster campaign to receive a needed shot in the arm. 

A recent Commonwealth Fund study found that if Americans got the new bivalent COVID booster at a rate similar to seasonal flu shots this fall, we could prevent 75K deaths and $44B in medical spending by March 2023—but unfortunately most Americans know little about the boosters, with less than four percent of eligible Americans receiving them so far. 

HHS Must Restore Full Payment to 340B Hospitals Now, Judge Says

Posted on by • Posted in Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), District Court, District Court of Appeals, Health Policy, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Medicare 340B Drug Discount Program, Medicare Reimbursement, Supreme Court • Leave a comment
https://revcycleintelligence.com/news/hhs-must-restore-full-payment-to-340b-hospitals-now-judge-says?eid=CXTEL000000093912&elqCampaignId=27918&utm_source=nl&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter&elqTrackId=1170dfb6ff1a4db7acc3fcda6469b81e&elq=eb4ade5bd3e04c4884bc82d5655f3b51&elqaid=28781&elqat=1&elqCampaignId=27918

The court ruling comes after the Supreme Court struck down a nearly 30 percent cut to 340B hospital payments from 2018.

October 04, 2022 – A federal judge has ordered HHS to immediately end the almost 30 percent cut in Medicare drug reimbursement to 340B hospitals.

The decision published last week by judge Rudolph Contreras with the US District Court for the District of Columbia rejected HHS’ plan to restore full payment to hospitals participating in the 340B Drug Pricing Program in 2023.

“HHS should not be allowed to continue its unlawful 340B reimbursements for the remainder of the year just because it promises to fix the problem later,” wrote Contreras.

Hospitals participating in the 340B Drug Pricing Program receive outpatient prescription drugs at a discounted price of up to 50 percent since they treat a disproportionate amount of low-income and vulnerable patients. The 340B Program is designed to enable the safety-net providers to stretch their financial resources. Medicare must also reimburse hospitals for administering covered outpatient drugs.

HHS reduced the Medicare drug reimbursement rates for 340B hospitals though in 2018, cutting payments by 28.5 percent in an effort to generate about $1.6 billion in savings. Federal officials reasoned that reimbursing 340B hospitals at the same rate as other hospitals creates an incentive for the hospitals to overprescribe the drugs or prescribe more expensive drugs since they receive covered outpatient drugs at a discounted price.

HHS also argued that 340B hospital reimbursement cuts would lower co-payments for Medicare beneficiaries since the amounts are tied to hospital reimbursement rates.

Hospitals and hospital groups, including the American Hospital Association (AHA) Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), and American’s Essential Hospitals, sued the federal government over the reduced reimbursement rates.

The case made it all the way to the Supreme Court where, in a major win for hospitals, judges unanimously ruled that HHS should not have reduced payments to certain hospitals in 2018 and 2019 without surveying hospitals to determine average acquisition costs for drugs. HHS had relied on the average price of the drugs to set lower rates.

However, the Supreme Court did not make judgments on 340B hospital reimbursement cuts for 2020 and later years.  Following the Supreme Court’s ruling, HHS announced it would reimburse hospitals for administering 340B-covered drugs the same as non-340B drugs starting Jan. 1, 2023.

Hospital groups again challenged HHS policy, asking the courts to immediately halt the unlawful cuts in 2022.

“The AHA appreciates Judge Contreras’ ruling that the Department of Health and Human Services must immediately stop unlawful reimbursement cuts for 2022 for hospitals participating in the 340B drug pricing program. Halting these cuts will help 340B hospitals provide comprehensive health services to their patients and communities,” said Melinda Hatton, AHA’s general counsel and secretary, regarding the most recent court ruling.

“We continue to urge the Administration to promptly reimburse all the hospitals that were affected by these unlawful cuts in previous years and to ensure the remainder of the hospital field is not penalized for their prior unlawful policy, especially as hospitals and health systems continue to deal with rising costs for supplies, equipment, drugs and labor,” Hatton continued in the public statement.

340B Health’s president and CEO Maureen Testoni also called the court ruling “an important victory for 340B hospitals that have been fighting these unlawful cuts for nearly six years.” 340B health advocates safety-net hospitals participating in the drug pricing program.

“The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has the clear responsibility to restore the appropriate payments for 340B drugs immediately, and now a federal court has ordered it to do so without delay,” Testoni said.

HHS has not announced a repayment plan for 340B hospitals. Notably, the court ruling also did not cover the AHA’s motion to include reimbursement cuts from 2020 through 2022 in the case, nor AHA’s motion to repay hospitals for the cuts since 2018 without penalizing other hospitals.

Patient acuity is driving up hospital costs, AHA says

Posted on by • Posted in Acuity, American Hospital Association (AHA), Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Employee Staffing Shortage, Financial Pressure, Financially Distressed, Health Policy, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Labor Shortages, Labor Spend Management, MedPAC, Pandemic • Leave a comment

https://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/patient-acuity-driving-hospital-costs-aha-says?mkt_tok=NDIwLVlOQS0yOTIAAAGGiU3xe0NkF9CXkX2TRevw1rc34F0gW3xrh4u01QiSJCzDyJT2rG2TAkJAz344ryPgANhHM9yerPG9lZlib0xHBLXAwqAMIXRTIvQXgJLT

The AHA wants Congress to halt Medicare payment cuts and extend or make permanent certain waivers, among other requests.

The American Hospital Association has released a report on patient acuity that shows hospital patients are sicker and more medically complex than they were before the COVID-19 pandemic.

This is driving up hospital costs for labor, drugs and supplies, according to the AHA report. 

Hospital patient acuity, as measured by average length of stay, rose almost 10% between 2019 and 2021, including a 6% increase for non-COVID-19 Medicare patients as the pandemic contributed to delayed and avoided care, the report said. For example, the average length of stay rose 89% for patients with rheumatoid arthritis and 65% for patients with neuroblastoma and adrenal cancer. 

In 2022, patient acuity as reflected in the case mix index rose 11.1% for mastectomy patients, 15% for appendectomy patients and 7% for hysterectomy patients.

WHY THIS MATTERS

Mounting costs, combined with economy-wide inflation and reimbursement shortfalls, are threatening the financial stability of hospitals around the country, according to the AHA report.

The length of stay due to increasing acuity is occurring at a time of significant financial challenges for hospitals and health systems, which have still not received support to address the Delta and Omicron surges that have comprised the majority of all COVID-19 admissions, the AHA said. 

The AHA is asking Congress to halt its Medicare payment cuts to hospitals and other providers; extend or make permanent certain waivers that improve efficiency and access to care; extend expiring health insurance subsidies for millions of patients; and hold commercial insurers accountable for improper and burdensome business practices.

THE LARGER TREND

Hospitals, through the AHA, have long been asking the federal government for relief beyond what’s been allocated in provider relief funds.

In January, the American Hospital Association sought at least $25 billion for hospitals to help combat workforce shortages and labor costs exacerbated by what the AHA called “exorbitant” rates on the part of some staffing agencies. The Department of Health and Human Services released $2 billion in additional funding for hospitals.

In March, the AHA asked Congress to allocate additional provider relief funds beyond the original $175 billion in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act.

Earlier this month, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services increased what it originally proposed for payment in the Inpatient Prospective Payment system rule. The AHA said the increase was not enough to offset expenses and inflation.

15 million people may lose Medicaid coverage after COVID-19 PHE ends, says HHS

Posted on by • Posted in ACA, Administrative Churning, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), Dept of Health and Human Services (HHS), Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, Inflation Reduction Act, Medicaid, Medicaid Expansion, Public Health Emergency (PHE), Underinsured, Uninsured • Leave a comment

https://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/15-million-people-may-lose-medicaid-coverage-after-covid-19-phe-ends-says-hhs?mkt_tok=NDIwLVlOQS0yOTIAAAGGiU3xe03L9n9GxXZ9yaIV-qA-J7yJdgxxS3cvHsltDu68qeQvkjp9itAyWko5emSDE6no51ICx_rIZyr_2p4wJhXx3hLDN834FGQ0wrLf

Children, young adults will be impacted disproportionately, with 5.3 million children and 4.7 million adults ages 18-34 predicted to lose coverage.

Roughly 15 million people could lose Medicaid coverage when the COVID-19 public health emergency ends, and only a small percentage are likely to obtain coverage on the Affordable Care Act exchanges, according to a new report from the Department of Health and Human Services.

Using longitudinal survey data and 2021 enrollment information, HHS estimated that, based on historical patterns of coverage loss, this would translate to about 17.4% of Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) enrollees leaving the program.

About 9.5% of Medicaid enrollees, or 8.2 million people, will leave Medicaid due to loss of eligibility and will need to transition to another source of coverage. Based on historical patterns, 7.9% (6.8 million) will lose Medicaid coverage despite still being eligible – a phenomenon known as “administrative churning” – although HHS said it’s taking steps to reduce this outcome.

Children and young adults will be impacted disproportionately, with 5.3 million children and 4.7 million adults ages 18-34 predicted to lose Medicaid/CHIP coverage. Nearly one-third of those predicted to lose coverage are Hispanic (4.6 million) and 15% (2.2 million) are Black.

Almost one-third (2.7 million) of those predicted to lose eligibility are expected to qualify for marketplace premium tax credits. Among these, more than 60% (1.7 million) are expected to be eligible for zero-premium marketplace plans under the provisions of the American Rescue Plan. Another 5 million would be expected to obtain other coverage, primarily employer-sponsored insurance.

An estimated 383,000 people projected to lose eligibility for Medicaid would fall in the coverage gap in the remaining 12 non-expansion states – with incomes too high for Medicaid, but too low to receive Marketplace tax credits. State adoption of Medicaid expansion in these states is a key tool to mitigate potential coverage loss at the end of the PHE, said HHS.

States are directly responsible for eligibility redeterminations, while the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services provides technical assistance and oversight of compliance with Medicaid regulations. Eligibility and renewal systems, staffing capacity, and investment in end-of-PHE preparedness vary across states. 

HHS said it’s working with states to facilitate enrollment in alternative sources of health coverage and minimize administrative churning. These efforts could reduce the number of eligible people losing Medicaid, the agency said.

The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 extends the ARP’s enhanced and expanded Marketplace premium tax credit provisions until 2025, providing a key source of alternative coverage for those losing Medicaid eligibility, said HHS.

WHAT’S THE IMPACT?

While the model projects that as many as 15 million people could leave Medicaid after the PHE, about 5 million are likely to obtain other coverage outside the marketplace and nearly 3 million would have a subsidized Marketplace option. And some who lose eligibility at the end of the PHE may regain it during the unwinding period, while some who lose coverage despite being eligible may re-enroll.

The findings highlight the importance of administrative and legislative actions to reduce the risk of coverage losses after the continuous enrollment provision ends, said HHS. Successful policy approaches should address the different reasons for coverage loss.

Broadly speaking, one set of strategies is needed to increase the likelihood that those losing Medicaid eligibility acquire other coverage, and a second set of strategies is needed to minimize administrative churning among those still eligible for coverage.

Importantly, some administrative churning is expected under all scenarios, though reducing the typical churning rate by half would result in the retention of 3.4 million additional enrollees.

THE LARGER TREND

CMS has released a roadmap to ending the COVID-19 public health emergency as health officials are expecting the Biden administration to extend the PHE for another 90 days after mid-October.

The end of the PHE, last continued on July 15, is not known, but HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra has promised to give providers 60 days’ notice before announcing the end of the public health emergency.

A public health emergency has existed since January 27, 2020.

Congress isn’t done with messy health care fights

Posted on by • Posted in Ambulance, American Hospital Association (AHA), American Medical Association (AMA), Health Policy, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Inflation Reduction Act, Medicare, Medicare Sequestration • Leave a comment

https://www.axios.com/2022/08/17/congress-isnt-done-with-messy-health-care-fights

–

The Inflation Reduction Act is law. But that doesn’t mean major health care interests are done testing their lobbying clout. Many are already lining up for year-end relief from Medicare payment cuts, regulatory changes and inflation woes.

The big picture: Year-end spending bills often contain health care “extenders” that delay cuts to hospitals that treat the poorest patients or keep money flowing to community health centers. But lawmakers may be hard-pressed to justify the price tag this time, and are seeing an unusual assortment of appeals for help.

Background: 2% Medicare sequester cuts that had been paused by the pandemic took effect last month. Another 4% cut could come at year’s end, if lawmakers don’t delay it.

  • These automatic reductions in spending come amid health labor force shortages, supply chain problems and other pressures that are making providers jockey for relief.
  • It will fall to Congress to pick winners and losers among hospitals, physicians, home health care groups, nursing homes and ambulance services. And each says the consequences of not helping are dire.
  • “The core question is how do they come up with the money and how do they decide to prioritize who give it to?” said Raymond James analyst Chris Meekins.

Go deeper: Hospitals are pressing hard for relief from the year-end sequester, and want Congress to extend or make permanent programs that support rural facilities and are slated to expire on Sept. 30, absent legislative action.

  • The American Hospital Association has estimated its members will lose at least $3 billion by year’s end.
  • Hospitals in the government’s discount drug program also have to be made whole after the Supreme Court unanimously overturned a huge pay cut stemming from a 2018 rule. And the industry also is seeking to reverse a planned cuts to supplementary payments for uncompensated care.

Doctors and nursing homes are among the other players lining up for relief from sequester cuts, specific Medicare payment changes that affect their businesses or new regulations.

  • The American Medical Association says Medicare cuts could threaten physician practices that have been racked by pandemic-induced retirements and burnout. “This is really about allowing patients and Medicare beneficiaries to continue care,” AMA President Jack Resneck told Axios.
  • National Association for Home Care and Hospice President Bill Dombi said over half of the home health agencies will run deficits if lawmakers don’t act. “When you have that many providers in the red, you can foresee there will be negative consequences. They’re already rejecting 20 to 30% of referrals for admissions to care, so it will be affecting patients,” said Dombi.
  • Ambulance services are also struggling. “Ambulance providers around the country are at a very near breaking point as we kind of walk along the ledge leading to this cliff at the end of the calendar year,” Shawn Baird, president of the American Ambulance Association and chief operating officer of Metro West Ambulance in Oregon, told Axios.

The other side: Despite Congress’ willingness to delay payment cuts, there’s not enough money to make everyone happy. And concerns about Medicare program’s solvency that emerged during the lengthy debate over the Democrats’ tax, climate and health package could dampen lawmakers’ enthusiasm for costly fixes that favor one provider group.

  • The continuation of the COVID-19 public health emergency and its myriad temporary payment allowances could also lessen a sense of urgency around provider relief.

The bottom line: For all the dire warnings, it’s unlikely Congress will do much until December, when it will likely pass a continuing resolution or an omnibus spending bill and could then move to delay the 4% cut.

Medical Abortion and Emergency Contraception: What’s the Difference?

Posted on by • Posted in Emergency Contraception, Health Policy, Medical Abortion, Mifepristone, Misoprostol, Morning After Pill, Roe v. Wade • Leave a comment
Medical Abortion and Emergency Contraception: What’s the Difference?

Pharmaceutical options for both emergency contraception and abortion are available to those who can get pregnant. In this episode we take a look at the availability of these medications, how they work, and the differences between them.

House expected to vote to pass healthcare and climate reform bill, sending it to President Biden for signature

Posted on by • Posted in ACA, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, High Drug Prices, Medicare Drug Price Negotiation, Pharmaceutical Industry • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/11f2d4aad100/the-weekly-gist-august-12-2022?e=d1e747d2d8

The $740B Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) includes significant reforms for Medicare’s drug benefits, including capping seniors’ out-of-pocket drug spending at $2,000 per year, and insulin at $35 per month. Medicare plans to fund these provisions by requiring rebates from manufacturers who increase drug prices faster than inflation, and through negotiating prices for a limited number of costly drugs. Drug prices are consistently a top issue for voters, but seniors won’t see most of these benefits until 2025 or beyond, well after this year’s midterms and the 2024 general election. 

The Gist: While this package allows Democrats to deliver on their campaign promise to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices, the scope is more limited than previous proposals. Over the next decade, Medicare will only be able to negotiate prices for 20 drugs that lack competitors and have been on the market for several years.

Still, because much Medicare drug spending is concentrated on a few high-cost drugs, the Congressional Budget Office projects the bill will reduce Medicare spending by $100B over ten years. However, these negotiated rates and price caps don’t apply to the broader commercial market, and some experts are concerned this will lead manufacturers to raise prices on those consumers—creating yet another element of the cost-shifting which has been the hallmark of our nation’s healthcare system. 

The pharmaceutical industry also claims that this “government price setting” will hamper drug development (although there is limited to no evidence to support this proposition), signaling that they will likely spend the next several years trying to influence the rulemaking process as the new law is implemented.

New York judge dismisses surgeon’s lawsuit challenging surprise billing law

Posted on by • Posted in Health Policy, Lawsuit, No Surprises Act, Out of Network, Out of Pocket Expenses, Out-of-Network, Rev Cycle Management, Revenue Cycle, Surprise Bills • Leave a comment
https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/surgeons-lawsuit-surprise-billing-law/629428/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Issue:%202022-08-11%20Healthcare%20Dive%20%5Bissue:43753%5D&utm_term=Healthcare%20Dive

A New York federal judge on Wednesday dismissed a surgeon’s legal challenge that sought to roll back key pieces of a federal law that protects patients from surprise out-of-network bills.

Judge Ann Donnelly ruled against the surgeon, finding that the law is constitutional, and dismissed the case for lack of standing and dismissed the surgeon’s request for a preliminary injunction.

Katie Keith, a lawyer and health policy expert at Georgetown University who tracks surprise billing litigation, called the ruling good news for consumers.

The lawsuit threatened to once again expose millions of patients to surprise out-of-network bills, Keith previously said in a Health Affairs report on the litigation.

Daniel Haller, a surgeon, and his private practice filed suit in December against federal regulators alleging that the ban on surprise billing was unconstitutional along with the independent dispute resolution process, the way in which providers and payers are supposed to resolve payment disagreements.

Haller said the law deprives physicians the right to be paid a reasonable value for their services, according to the complaint.

Under the law, physicians and insurers can enter into an independent dispute resolution process to come to an agreement on the payment for services. The process was intended to keep patients out of the middle of these payment disputes.

Haller argued the process favored insurers — not providers.

However, a key part of that process was struck down by a Texas judge, who ruled in favor of providers in February.

Donnelly said Haller and his team did not show that they even went through the arbitration, or IDR, process, “much less that the IDR process resulted in a payment amount below the reasonable value,” according to Wednesday’s opinion.

“At the time of oral argument — almost six months after the Act went into effect — the plaintiffs could not say whether they had participated in the IDR process. They do not allege that the IDR process has caused any concrete harm, so their claims of constitutional injury are speculative,” Donnelly said.

Haller’s practice, Long Island Surgical, and its team of six physicians perform procedures on patients who are admitted after an emergency department visit.

Almost 80% of Long Island Surgical’s patients have an insurance plan that does not have a contractual relationship with the surgical group. In other words, Haller and his colleagues are almost always out-of-network, potentially putting patients at risk of a surprise medical bill.

The No Surprises Act tried to solve this problem, and it bans surprise billing in most cases.

The law aimed to tackle one of the most frustrating issues in healthcare, which could ensnare even savvy patients. Patients could be unknowingly treated by out-of-network providers, and then get bills their insurers refused to pay in full or part, leaving them stuck to pay the remaining balance.