Michigan this week counted more people hospitalized with COVID-19 than at any other time during the pandemic

https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/09/us/hospital-covid-19-deaths-michigan/index.html

Coronavirus: Michigan's highest-in-the-U.S. case count exceeds California,  Texas combined | CTV News

Nurse Katie Sefton never thought Covid-19 could get this bad — and certainly not this late in the pandemic. “I was really hoping that we’d (all) get vaccinated and things would be back to normal,” said Sefton, an assistant manager at Sparrow Hospital in Lansing, Michigan. But this week Michigan had more patients hospitalized for Covid-19 than ever before. Covid-19 hospitalizations jumped 88% in the past month, according to the Michigan Health & Hospital Association.

“We have more patients than we’ve ever had at any point, and we’re seeing more people die at a rate we’ve never seen die before,” said Jim Dover, president and CEO of Sparrow Health System.

“Since January, we’ve had about 289 deaths; 75% are unvaccinated people,” Dover said. “And the very few (vaccinated people) who passed away all were more than 6 months out from their shot. So we’ve not had a single person who has had a booster shot die from Covid.”

Among the new Covid-19 victims, Sefton said she’s noticed a disturbing trend.

We’re seeing a lot of younger people. And I think that is a bit challenging,” said Sefton, a 20-year nursing veteran.She recalls helping the family of a young adult say goodbye to their loved one. “It was an awful night,” she said. “That was one of the days I went home and just cried.”

‘We haven’t peaked yet’

It’s not just Michigan that’s facing an arduous winter with Covid-19. Nationwide, Covid-19 hospitalizations have increased 40% compared to a month ago, according to data from the US Department of Health and Human Services. This is the first holiday season with the relentless spread of the Delta variant — a strain far more contagious than those Americans faced last winter.

“We keep talking about how we haven’t peaked yet,” Sefton said.Health experts say the best protection against Delta is to get vaccinated and boosted. But as of Thursday, only about 64.3% of eligible Americans had been fully vaccinated, and less than a third of those eligible for boosters have gotten one.

Sparrow Hospital nurse Danielle Williams said the vast majority of her Covid-19 patients are not vaccinated — and had no idea they could get pummeled so hard by Covid-19.“Before they walked in the door, they had a normal life. They were healthy people. They were out celebrating Thanksgiving,” Williams said. “And now they’re here, with a mask on their face, teary eyed, staring at me, asking me if they’re going to live or not.”

‘The next few weeks look hard’

Dover said he’s saddened but not surprised that his state is getting walloped with Covid-19.“Michigan is not one of the highest vaccination states in the nation. So it continues to have variant after variant grow and expand across the state,” he said.

“The next few weeks look hard. We’re over 100% capacity right now,” Dover said.”Most hospitals and health systems in the state of Michigan have gone to code-red triage, which means they won’t accept transfers. And as we go into the holidays, if the current growth rate that we’re at today, we would expect to see 200 in-patient Covid patients by the end of the month — on a daily basis.”And that would mean “absolutely stretching us to the breaking point,” Dover said.”We’ve already discontinued in-patient elective surgeries,” he said. “In order to create capacity, we took our post-anesthesia recovery care unit and converted it into another critical care unit.”

‘There’s a lot of frustration’

Nurse Leah Rasch is exhausted. She’s worked with Covid-19 patients since the beginning of the pandemic and was stunned to see so many people still unvaccinated enter the Covid unit.

“I did not think we’d be here. I truly thought that people would be vaccinated,” the Sparrow Hospital nurse said.”I don’t remember the last time we did not have a full Covid floor.”The relentless onslaught of Covid-19 patients has impacted Rasch’s own health. “There’s a lot of frustration,” she said. “The other day, I had my first panic attack … I drove to work and I couldn’t get out of the car.”

‘We need everybody to get vaccinated’

Dover said many people have asked how they can support health care workers.”If you really want to support your staff, and you really want to support health care heroes, get vaccinated,” he said. “It’s not political. We need everybody to get vaccinated.”

He’s also urging those who previously had Covid-19 to get vaccinated, as some people can get reinfected.”My daughter’s a good example. She had Covid twice before she was eligible for a vaccine,” Dover said. “She still got a vaccine because we know that if you don’t get the vaccine, just merely having contracted Covid is not enough to protect you from getting it again. And I know that from personal experience. “And those who are unvaccinated shouldn’t underestimate the pandemic right now, Dover said.

“The problem is, it’s not over yet. I don’t know if people realize just how critical it still is,” he said.”But they do realize it when they come into the ER, and they have to wait three days for a bed. And at that point, they realize it.”

Facing a “new normal” of higher labor costs

https://mailchi.mp/161df0ae5149/the-weekly-gist-december-10-2021?e=d1e747d2d8

The price of higher labor costs in the consumer discretionary sector -  AlphaSense

Attending a recent executive retreat with one of our member health systems, we heard the CEO make a statement that really resonated with us. Referring to the current workforce crisis—pervasive shortages, pressure to increase compensation, outsized reliance on contract labor to fill critical gaps—the CEO made the assertion that this situation isn’t temporary. Rather, it’s the “new normal”, at least for the next several years.

The Great Resignation that’s swept across the American economy in the wake of COVID has not spared healthcare; every system we talk to is facing alarmingly high vacancy rates as nurses, technicians, and other staff head for the exits. The CEO made a compelling case that the labor cost structure of the system has reset at a level between 20 and 30 percent more expensive than before the pandemic, and executives should begin to turn attention away from stop-gap measures (retention bonuses and the like) to more permanent solutions (rethinking care models, adjusting staffing ratios upward, implementing process automation).

That seemed like an important insight to us. It’s increasingly clear as we approach a third year of the pandemic: there is no “post-COVID world” in which things will go back to normal. Rather, we’ll have to learn to live in the “new normal,” revisiting basic assumptions about how, where, and by whom care is delivered.

If hospital labor costs have indeed permanently reset at a higher level, that implies the need for a radical restructuring of the fundamental economic model of the health systemrazor-thin margins won’t allow for business to continue as usual. Long overdue, perhaps, and a painful evolution for sure—but one that could bring the industry closer to the vision of “right care, right place, right time” promised by population health advocates for over a decade.

9 hospitals laying off workers

Layoffs are back in NC: Emerson Electric to close facility; Global Brands  cutting jobs | WRAL TechWire

Several hospitals across the U.S. are laying off workers over the next three months. 

Below are nine hospitals and health systems that laid off employees or announced plans to implement layoffs since Oct. 1. 

1. Community Hospital Long Beach (Calif.) plans to lay off 328 employees early next year, according to a notice filed with state regulators. The hospital said the layoffs are set to begin after Jan. 31, 2022, and may come in stages. The layoffs are a result of Community Hospital Long Beach ending acute care and closing its emergency department. 

2. Watsonville (Calif.) Community Hospital is preparing to lay off 677 workers, according to a notice filed with the state Nov. 29. The hospital entered Chapter 11 bankruptcy Dec. 5 and announced a tentative sale agreement with the Pajaro Valley Healthcare District Project. If the sale to the nonprofit group or another buyer is finalized by Jan. 28, all 677 employees will be terminated by Watsonville Community Hospital. CEO Steven Salyer said all potential buyers are being asked to offer employment to the hospital’s workers. If the sale isn’t finalized, the hospital will close after the bankruptcy court authorizes those steps, and all employees would be terminated Jan. 28, according to the notice to the state. Funds made available through the bankruptcy process may allow the hospital to delay the layoffs.

3. Pensacola, Fla.-based Baptist Health Care said in a notice filed with state regulators that it is eliminating 233 jobs in February when it outsources various services to Wayne, Pa.-based Compass One Healthcare. Affected employees were offered positions with Compass One at the same or higher wages, according to the Nov. 22 layoff notice. 

4. West Reading, Pa.-based Tower Health filed a notice in early November with state regulators indicating it would lay off 293 employees by Dec. 31. The health system said the layoffs would affect workers at Jennersville Hospital in West Grove, Pa., which Tower Health was planning to close by the end of the year. In late November, the health system announced it entered into a definitive agreement to sell Jennersville Hospital and another facility to Canyon Atlantic Partners, a hospital management firm based in Austin, Texas. The health system subsequently called off that deal. It plans to close Jennersville Hospital on Dec. 31 and Brandywine Hospital in Coatesville, Pa., on Jan. 31. The closures will result in the loss of more than 800 jobs, according to the Philadelphia Business Journal

5. Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York City is laying off 56 workers in February, but affected employees will be offered employment with NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, according to a notice filed with the state Nov. 8. The layoffs are due to the integration of electronic medical records systems at Columbia University Irving Medical Center and NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, according to the notice. 

6. Ascension Technologies, the IT subsidiary of St. Louis-based Ascension, outsourced about 330 tech jobs in November, according to a notice filed with the state. Affected employees could apply for other positions within Ascension Technologies or with the new vendor that took over the tech support for application and platforms, collaboration and end-user engineering, network and telecom and field services areas.

7. Middletown, N.Y.-based Garnet Health laid off 66 workers Oct. 29 when it closed its skilled nursing unit, according to a notice filed with the state. 

8. Kindred Hospital Northwest Indiana, a 70-bed long-term acute care hospital in Hammond, is closing, resulting in 110 layoffs, according to a notice filed with the state in August. The layoffs started Oct. 10. Kindred said the closure is a result of Mishawaka, Ind.-based Franciscan Health’s decision to downsize its Hammond hospital, a move that will eliminate Kindred’s space on the campus. 

9. Garland (Texas) Behavioral Hospital, part of King of Prussia, Pa.-based Universal Health Services, is closing and laying off its 119 employees, according to the Dallas Morning News. The layoffs started Oct. 7, according to a notice filed with the state. 

Supreme Court hears 340B rate cut case

https://mailchi.mp/016621f2184b/the-weekly-gist-december-3-2021?e=d1e747d2d8

Earlier this week, the American Hospital Association (AHA) made its case before the US Supreme Court, in opposition to Medicare reimbursement cuts to hospitals that participate in the 340B Drug Pricing Program. The program allows hospitals that serve low-income patients to purchase outpatient drugs at a discount.

In the graphic above, we look at what’s at stake for hospitals in the case. Beginning in 2018, Medicare cut reimbursement for 340B-eligible drugs purchased by most hospitals by 28.5 percentage points, amounting to roughly $1.6B annually—which was a significant hit to hospitals’ 340B revenue. As we recently discussed, that revenue has become essential for many hospitals’ financial sustainability. However, the true impact on hospital bottom lines is more nuanced, as the savings from 340B rate cuts are being redistributed to all hospitals that participate in the Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS), regardless of their 340B status, via a 3.2 percent payment bump for non-drug Part B services. While the cut negatively impacts those with large 340B programs—generally larger hospitals located in urban areas—the resulting redistribution actually provides a net benefit to about four in five hospitals.

Although 340B program revenues are at stake, the broader legal question before the Court centers on the level of authority federal agencies like the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) have to create regulations to interpret ambiguous laws. (If the justices rule against CMS, it will overturn a key legal doctrine known as the Chevron Defense, which compels courts to defer to an agency’s interpretation of unclear statutes.)

A ruling isn’t expected until next spring, but regardless of the outcome, the 340B program faces other threats, chiefly from several lawsuits involving large pharmaceutical manufacturers’ moves to restrict discounted product sales to contract pharmacies. Undoubtedly, the ongoing scrutiny of the 340B program will continue to raise questions about whether there are better ways to subsidize the operations of hospitals serving low-income patients and ensure that underserved patients have access to lifesaving treatments.

Strategic misalignment at the heart of a governance issue

https://mailchi.mp/016621f2184b/the-weekly-gist-december-3-2021?e=d1e747d2d8

When Innovation and Strategy Don't Align - TENZING Strategic

In our work with health systems, physician groups, and other organizations over the years, we’ve often been asked to facilitate board-level discussions about governance—resolving board conflicts, navigating difficult decisions, evaluating board composition.

A recent discussion again highlighted one of our main observations in working with boards: governance problems are often strategy problems in disguise. Working with a system that has grown through acquisition over the years, and whose board includes members from several of the “legacy” hospitals which had merged into the system over time, we were asked to help facilitate a dialogue about investment priorities across the component parts of the system.

At the root of the issue: each of the “representatives” of the subsidiary entities were pushing to have their own investment needs take precedence. On the face of it, that’s a governance problem: boards shouldn’t be constituent assemblies, with each member representing the interests of a sub-unit. Rather, they should act with one purpose: to advance the interests of the whole.

But that misalignment turned out to be a symptom of a larger problem: there was no consensus at the board level about what the strategic direction of the combined system should be, and what role each component part played in that direction.

That’s a strategy problem, masquerading as a governance issue. Identifying the strategic issue allowed the board to reframe the dialogue around vision, which then unblocked the subsequent decisions about investments. Good strategy and good governance go hand in hand.

Justices mull Chevron and voice skepticism of Medicare’s rate cut for hospital drugs

Justices mull Chevron and voice skepticism of Medicare's rate cut for hospital  drugs - SCOTUSblog

Over at Scotusblog, I’ve posted a recap of yesterday’s oral argument on American Hospital Association v. Becerra.

The Supreme Court appeared receptive to the claim that Medicare overstepped its authority when it cut the amount that it paid certain hospitals for drugs they dispensed in their outpatient departments. None of the justices voiced sympathy with the government’s argument that Congress had precluded judicial review of the question. And while oral argument mainly involved a technical discussion about statutory meaning, several of the conservative justices toyed with the possibility of abandoning Chevron deference — the principle that the courts will defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of the statute that it administers.

It is always treacherous to try to anticipate what the justices will decide from the questions they ask at oral argument. Still, it’s safe to say that the hospitals challenging Medicare’s rate change had a good day in court. If they prevail, 340B hospitals will recoup billions in withheld payments and will continue to have an enormous incentive to dispense expensive drugs in their outpatient centers, even when cheaper and equally effective alternatives exist.

That’s a bad policy outcome, whatever the Supreme Court thinks the law requires. If Medicare lacks the legal power to fix it, however, it will be up to Congress to narrow the gap between 340B drug costs and Medicare payments. We could be waiting a very long time for a solution.

Hospitals brace for omicron as margins weaken further, Kaufman Hall reports

Dive Brief:

  • Hospitals saw operating margins continue to erode in October, declining 12% from September under the weight of rising labor costs, according to a national median of more than 900 health systems calculated by Kaufman Hall. It was the second consecutive monthly drop and comes as facilities are preparing for the fast-spreading omicron variant of the coronavirus.
  • Although expenses remained highly elevated, patient days and average length of stay fell for the first time in months in October, likely reflecting lower hospitalization rates as the pressure of treating large numbers of COVID cases began to ease, Kaufman Hall said in its latest report.
  • At the same time, operating room minutes rose 6.8% from September, pointing to renewed patient interest in elective procedures.

Dive Insight:

Doctors and nurses have barely caught a breath from the most recent surge in inpatient volumes driven by the delta variant. Now, hospitals face the possibility of a fresh wave of cases led by omicron.

“Performance could continue to suffer in the coming months as hospitals face sustained labor increases and the uncertainties of the emerging omicron variant,” according to the Kaufman Hall report.

The new variant has not been detected in the U.S. as of Wednesday morning, but Canada is among the 20 countries that have confirmed cases.

Scientists are scrambling to understand the characteristics of the omicron variant. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told a White House press briefing Tuesday that omicron’s mutation profile points to “increased transmissibility and immune evasion.” But it is too soon to tell whether omicron will cause more severe disease than other COVID-19 variants, or how well current vaccines and treatments work against it, Fauci said.

Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel told the Financial Times he thought existing vaccines would be less effective against omicron than earlier variants. Moderna, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson and other manufacturers are already working to adapt their vaccines to combat the new threat, first reported by South African scientists on Nov. 24.

Regeneron also said its COVID-19 antibody drug, the top-selling treatment in the U.S., might be less effective against omicron. The company said it is now conducting tests to determine how the variant affects its drug.

As the focus shifts to preparing for omicron, labor costs are squeezing hospital margins. Leading hospital systems including Kaiser Permanente and Advocate Aurora Health were among those reporting pressure on margins from rising labor expenses in the third quarter.

The median hospital operating margin, not including federal Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act funding, was down 31.5% in October, compared to pre-pandemic levels in the same month of 2019, according to Kaufman Hall’s snapshot. Hospitals in the West, South and Midwest that were hardest hit by the delta variant saw year-over-year margin declines.

Total labor expenses rose nearly 3% from September to October, 12.6% compared to October 2020 and 14.8% compared to October 2019, Kaufman Hall said. Full-time equivalents per adjusted occupied bed decreased 4.5% versus 2020 and 4% versus 2019, suggesting higher salaries due to nationwide labor shortages, rather than increased staffing levels, are driving up labor expenses.

Total non-labor expenses, however, decreased 1% in October from September for supplies, drugs and purchased services, following months of increases.

Broader economic trends such as U.S. labor shortages are adding to the extreme pressures of the pandemic. Hospitals face greater uncertainties in the coming months as a result, as COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations appear to once again be on the upswing before many have even had a chance to recover from the last surge,” Erik Swanson, a senior vice president of data and analytics at Kaufman Hall said.

Chevron deference at stake in fight over payments for hospital drugs

Chevron deference at stake in fight over payments for hospital drugs -  SCOTUSblog

How much should we pay for drugs? That’s the question at the center of American Hospital Association v. Becerra, a sleeper of a case involving billions of dollars in federal spending and a chance to reshape two doctrines at the heart of administrative law.

Drugs, money, and the law: Sounds sexy, right? Still, you could be forgiven for never having heard of the case, which will be argued on Tuesday. It arises out of a technical dispute over how Medicare, the federal program that insures 63 million elderly and disabled people, pays for some of the drugs that hospitals dispense to patients in outpatient departments — in particular, chemotherapy drugs and other expensive anti-cancer medications.

The case centers on part of a 2003 law that gives Medicare two options for how to pay for those drugs. Under the first option, Medicare would survey hospitals about what it cost them to acquire the drugs. Medicare would then draw on the survey data and reimburse hospitals for their “average acquisition costs,” subject to variations for different types of hospitals. It’s a rough-cut way to make hospitals whole without requiring them to submit receipts for every drug purchase.

But Medicare immediately encountered a problem: It just wasn’t practical to survey hospitals about their acquisition costs. Fortunately, the law anticipated that possibility and gave Medicare a second option. In the absence of survey data, Medicare could pay the “average price” for the drug, “as calculated and adjusted by the Secretary [of Health and Human Services] as necessary for purposes of this [option].”

This approach turned out to be costly. A drug’s “average price” is fixed elsewhere in the Medicare statute, typically at 106% of the drug’s sale price. As a policy matter, this “average sales price plus 6%” approach is hard to defend. Because 6% of a large number is bigger than 6% of a small number, hospitals have an incentive to dispense more expensive drugs, even when there are cheaper and equally effective therapies.

Other developments soon made the payment policy look even more dubious. Back in 1992, Congress created something called the 340B program to support health-care providers that serve poor and disadvantaged communities. Eligible providers get steep discounts on the drugs that they purchase — anywhere between 20% and 50% of the normal price.

Initially, few hospitals qualified for the 340B program. Today, more than two-thirds of nonprofit hospitals participate. (For-profits are excluded from the program.) For years, Medicare kept paying those 340B hospitals 106% of the average sales price of their outpatient drugs. The upshot was that hospitals were buying highly discounted drugs and then charging the federal government full price. That heightened the incentive to prescribe very expensive medications — which is partly why Medicare spending on outpatient drugs has ballooned, growing an average of 8.1% per year from 2006 through 2017.

Federal regulators were troubled by the gap between hospital costs and Medicare payments. In their view, the point of the 2003 statute was to cover hospitals’ costs, not to subsidize 340B hospitals. That jibes with the Medicare statute more generally: Its “overriding purpose” is to provide “reasonable (not excessive or unwarranted) cost-based reimbursement.”

So Medicare adopted a rule that, starting in 2018, slashed the reimbursement rate for 340B hospitals’ outpatient drugs (or, more precisely, a subset of them) to 22.5% less than the average sales price. That was still generous, since on average the 340B discount is about one-third of a drug’s price. But it was much less generous than before, and Medicare estimated that the change would save taxpayers $1.6 billion every year.

The American Hospital Association, together with two hospital trade groups and three hospitals, filed suit. Had Medicare chosen option one, the plaintiffs argued, it could have focused on acquisition costs and even distinguished among hospital groups in setting payment rates. Instead, it chose option two, which says that Medicare must pay a drug’s “average price” — not its acquisition price — and doesn’t provide for discriminating between hospitals. While the plaintiffs acknowledged that Medicare could “adjust” the average price, they argued that a cut from 106% to 77.5% of the average sales price was not really an adjustment. It was a wholesale revision of the statutory scheme.

The plaintiffs encountered an obstacle right out of the gate. To prevent courts from second-guessing Medicare’s choices about how much to pay for outpatient care, the Medicare statute says that “[t]here shall be no administrative or judicial review” of those choices. In the government’s telling, Congress precluded review because Medicare has a fixed annual budget for outpatient care. Increasing payments for one type of care thus requires cutting payments for other types of care.

That linkage means that, if the plaintiffs win, it’s not just that they should have been paid more for certain drugs. It’s that all hospitals should have been paid less for other services. (That helps explains why coalitions representing rural and for-profit hospitals have filed amicus briefs in support of Medicare.) Unwinding that decision would be an administrative nightmare — which is why Congress precluded review in the first place.

As the plaintiffs see it, however, the government simply misreads the scope of the preclusion language. Though it generally precludes review of reimbursement decisions relating to outpatient care, it doesn’t cross-reference the subsection relating to outpatient drugs. Both the district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed, invoking the strong presumption favoring judicial review of agency action.

On the merits, the plaintiffs fared less well. Though they won in the district court, the D.C. Circuit held that Medicare reasonably read the 2003 law to allow it to align hospital reimbursement with hospital acquisition costs. Medicare’s interpretation — and the scope of its authority to “adjust” payment rates — was thus owed deference under Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, a 1984 decision holding that courts generally should defer to agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes. Judge Cornelia Pillard dissented, arguing that the statute unambiguously foreclosed Medicare’s interpretation.

The plaintiffs asked the Supreme Court to review a single question: whether Medicare should receive Chevron deference for interpreting the 2003 law in the manner that it did. Tantalizingly, the plaintiffs noted that “[i]t is no secret that members of this Court have raised concerns about whether Chevron deference, particularly when applied as indiscriminately as it was in this case, violates the separation of powers.”

The Supreme Court bit. In its order granting certiorari, however, the court instructed the parties to brief an additional question: whether the Medicare statute precludes the lawsuit. What that means is that — in addition to resolving whether hospitals are entitled to billions of taxpayer dollars — the court will have the chance to address two foundational doctrines of administrative law: the presumption of reviewability and Chevron deference.

Arguably, AHA v. Becerra offers an unusually vivid example of the costs of a strong presumption of reviewability. If the plaintiffs win, what’s the remedy? Is Medicare supposed to reopen every outpatient payment decision that it’s made since 2018, given that paying more for 340B drugs means it should have paid less for other services? The plaintiffs say no, arguing that Medicare wouldn’t be required to make any retroactive adjustments. But the government fears otherwise and the answer is not at all clear. Isn’t that the kind of mess that preclusion is meant to avoid?

I’ve called in my academic work for abandoning the presumption of reviewability precisely because it disrespects Congress’ reasonable desire to shield some administrative decisions from judicial review. In recent years, however, the Supreme Court has evinced no interest in doing so — the presumption of reviewability remains “strong.” We may soon find out just how strong it is.

But the big question about the case is whether the court will use it as a vehicle to reconsider Chevron deference. In the plaintiffs’ view, it is galling — “an affront to the separation of powers” — that the courts would defer when Medicare has exploited a purported ambiguity to sidestep Congress’ clear instructions about how much to pay hospitals. Several of the conservative justices, including in particular Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, may be receptive to the argument. If so, the right wing of the court could use the case to narrow or even overturn Chevron, with potentially dramatic implications for the scope of executive-branch power.

Whether the court will do so is anyone’s guess. The justices could easily resolve the case on narrower grounds. Maybe the statute unambiguously forecloses Medicare’s interpretation of the law, as the plaintiffs argue. Or maybe, as the government claims, Medicare properly exercised its explicit authority to “adjust” prices for outpatient drugs.

Neither of those holdings would be the sexiest decision that the Supreme Court has ever issued. It would be technical, arcane — even boring. Given the financial stakes, however, it would be significant nonetheless.

https://ballotpedia.org/Chevron_deference_(doctrine)

The less-discussed consequence of healthcare’s labor shortage

Patient Safety and Quality Care Movement - YouTube

The healthcare industry’s staffing shortage crisis has had clear consequences for care delivery and efficiency, forcing some health systems to pause nonemergency surgeries or temporarily close facilities. Less understood is how these shortages are affecting care quality and patient safety. 

A mix of high COVID-19 patient volume and staff departures amid the pandemic has put hospitals at the heart of a national staffing shortage, but there is little national data available to quantify the shortages’ effects on patient care. 

The first hint came last month from a CDC report that found healthcare-associated infections increased significantly in 2020 after years of steady decline. Researchers attributed the increase to challenges related to the pandemic, including staffing shortages and high patient volumes, which limited hospitals’ ability to follow standard infection control practices. 

“That’s probably one of the first real pieces of data — from a large scale dataset — that we’ve seen that gives us some sense of direction of where we’ve been headed with the impact of patient outcomes as a result of the pandemic,” Patricia McGaffigan, RN, vice president of safety programs for the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, told Becker’s. “I think we’re still trying to absorb much of what’s really happening with the impact on patients and families.”

An opaque view into national safety trends

Because of lags in data reporting and analysis, the healthcare industry lacks clear insights into the pandemic’s effect on national safety trends.

National data on safety and quality — such as surveys of patient safety culture from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality — can often lag by several quarters to a year, according to Ms. McGaffigan. 

“There [have been] some declines in some of those scores more recently, but it does take a little while to be able to capture those changes and be able to put those changes in perspective,” she said. “One number higher or lower doesn’t necessarily indicate a trend, but it is worth really evaluating really closely.”

For example, 569 sentinel events were reported to the Joint Commission in the first six months of 2021, compared to 437 for the first six months of 2020. However, meaningful conclusions about the events’ frequency and long-term trends cannot be drawn from the dataset, as fewer than 2 percent of all sentinel events are reported to the Joint Commission, the organization estimates.

“We may never have as much data as we want,” said Leah Binder, president and CEO of the Leapfrog Group. She said a main area of concern is CMS withholding certain data amid the pandemic. Previously, the agency has suppressed data for individual hospitals during local crises, but never on such a wide scale, according to Ms. Binder.  

CMS collects and publishes quality data for more than 4,000 hospitals nationwide. The data is refreshed quarterly, with the next update scheduled for October. This update will include additional data for the fourth quarter of 2020.

“It is important to note that CMS provided a blanket extraordinary circumstances exception for Q1 and Q2 2020 data due to the COVID-19 pandemic where data was not required nor reported,” a CMS spokesperson told Becker’s. “In addition, some current hospital data will not be publicly available until about July 2022, while other data will not be available until January 2023 due to data exceptions, different measure reporting periods and the way in which CMS posts data.”

Hospitals that closely monitor their own datasets in more near-term windows may have a better grasp of patient safety trends at a local level. However, their ability to monitor, analyze and interpret that data largely depends on the resources available, Ms. McGaffigan said. The pandemic may have sidelined some of that work for hospitals, as clinical or safety leaders had to shift their priorities and day-to-day activities. 

“There are many other things besides COVID-19 that can harm patients,” Ms. Binder told Becker’s. “Health systems know this well, but given the pandemic, have taken their attention off these issues. Infection control and quality issues are not attended to at the level of seriousness we need them to be.”

What health systems should keep an eye on 

While the industry is still waiting for definitive answers on how staffing shortages have affected patient safety, Ms. Binder and Ms. McGaffigan highlighted a few areas of concern they are watching closely. 

The first is the effect limited visitation policies have had on families — and more than just the emotional toll. Family members and caregivers are a critical player missing in healthcare safety, according to Ms. Binder. 

When hospitals don’t allow visitors, loved ones aren’t able to contribute to care, such as ensuring proper medication administration or communication. Many nurses have said they previously relied a lot on family support and vigilance. The lack of extra monitoring may contribute to the increasing stress healthcare providers are facing and open the door for more medical errors.

Which leads Ms. Binder to her second concern — a culture that doesn’t always respect and prioritize nurses. The pandemic has underscored how vital nurses are, as they are present at every step of the care journey, she continued. 

To promote optimal care, hospitals “need a vibrant, engaged and safe nurse workforce,” Ms. Binder said. “We don’t have that. We don’t have a culture that respects nurses.” 

Diagnostic accuracy is another important area to watch, Ms. McGaffigan said. Diagnostic errors — such as missed or delayed diagnoses, or diagnoses that are not effectively communicated to the patient — were already one of the most sizable care quality challenges hospitals were facing prior to the pandemic. 

“It’s a little bit hard to play out what that crystal ball is going to show, but it is in particular an area that I think would be very, very important to watch,” she said.

Another area to monitor closely is delayed care and its potential consequences for patient outcomes, according to Ms. McGaffigan. Many Americans haven’t kept up with preventive care or have had delays in accessing care. Such delays could not only worsen patients’ health conditions, but also disengage them and prevent them from seeking care when it is available. 

Reinvigorating safety work: Where to start

Ms. McGaffigan suggests healthcare organizations looking to reinvigorate their safety work go back to the basics. Leaders should ensure they have a clear understanding of what their organization’s baseline safety metrics are and how their safety reports have been trending over the past year and a half.

“Look at the foundational aspects of what makes care safe and high-quality,” she said. “Those are very much linked to a lot of the systems, behaviors and practices that need to be prioritized by leaders and effectively translated within and across organizations and care teams.”

She recommended healthcare organizations take a total systems approach to their safety work, by focusing on the following four, interconnected pillars:

  • Culture, leadership and governance
  • Patient and family engagement
  • Learning systems
  • Workforce safety

For example, evidence shows workforce safety is an integral part of patient safety, but it’s not an area that’s systematically measured or evaluated, according to Ms. McGaffigan. Leaders should be aware of this connection and consider whether their patient safety reporting systems address workforce safety concerns or, instead, add on extra work and stress for their staff. 

Safety performance can slip when team members get busy or burdensome work is added to their plates, according to Ms. McGaffigan. She said leaders should be able to identify and prioritize the essential value-added work that must go on at an organization to ensure patients and families will have safe passage through the healthcare system and that care teams are able to operate in the safest and healthiest work environments.

In short, leaders should ask themselves: “What is the burdensome work people are being asked to absorb and what are the essential elements that are associated with safety that you want and need people to be able to stay on top of,” she said.

To improve both staffing shortages and quality of care, health systems must bring nurses higher up in leadership and into C-suite roles, Ms. Binder said. Giving nurses more authority in hospital decisions will make everything safer. Seattle-based Virginia Mason Hospital recently redesigned its operations around nurse priorities and subsequently saw its quality and safety scores go up, according to Ms. Binder. 

“If it’s a good place for a nurse to go, it’s a good place for a patient to go,” Ms. Binder said, noting that the national nursing shortage isn’t just a numbers game; it requires a large culture shift.

Hospitals need to double down on quality improvement efforts, Ms. Binder said. “Many have done the opposite, for good reason, because they are so focused on COVID-19. Because of that, quality improvement efforts have been reduced.”

Ms. Binder urged hospitals not to cut quality improvement staff, noting that this is an extraordinarily dangerous time for patients, and hospitals need all the help they can get monitoring safety. Hospitals shouldn’t start to believe the notion that somehow withdrawing focus on quality will save money or effort.  

“It’s important that the American public knows that we are fighting for healthcare quality and safety — and we have to fight for it, we all do,” Ms. Binder concluded. “We all have to be vigilant.”

Conclusion

The true consequences of healthcare’s labor shortage on patient safety and care quality will become clear once more national data is available. If the CDC’s report on rising HAI rates is any harbinger of what’s to come, it’s clear that health systems must place renewed focus and energy on safety work — even during something as unprecedented as a pandemic. 

The irony isn’t lost on Ms. Binder: Amid a crisis driven by infectious disease, U.S. hospitals are seeing higher rates of other infections.  

“A patient dies once,” she concluded. “They can die from COVID-19 or C. diff. It isn’t enough to prevent one.”

5 biggest health care provisions inside the House reconciliation bill

House to consider modified reconciliation bill with health care provisions  | AHA News

After months of negotiations, House Democrats on Friday passed their version of the Build Back Better bill—an expansive $1.7 trillion package that contains some of the largest health reforms since the Affordable Care Act’s passage in 2010.

While the overall scope of the bill is roughly half the size of President Biden’s original $3 trillion proposal, many of Democrats’ key health care provisions made it in, albeit with some modifications. What’s more, the Congressional Budget Office projected that while the overall bill would add $367 billion to the deficit over the 10 year period, the health care provisions would all be largely paid for by provisions aimed at lowering drug prices.

Below, I round up the five biggest health care changes included in the House bill.

Find out where the states stand on Medicaid expansion

1. Health care coverage expansions

The House bill leverages the ACA’s exchanges and federal tax credits to expand access to coverage in two ways. First, the bill would extend the American Rescue Plan’s enhanced ACA tax credits through 2025. The enhanced tax credits, which are currently slated to expire in 2023, fully subsidize coverage for people with annual incomes up to 150% of the federal poverty level (FPL) and have enabled people above 400% FPL to qualify for subsidies and capped their premium costs at 8.5% of their incomes.

While Democrats had originally proposed to permanently expand those subsidies, they ultimately had to scale back this—and other proposals—to ensure they could cover the costs. But as we’ve seen in the past, it is much harder to take away an existing benefit or subsidy than it is to create a new one—so while the current bill was able to cover the cost of the health care provisions by making them temporary, lawmakers will have to revisit the tax credits before 2025 and find new money to either further extend them or permanently authorize them. This is one of several health care provisions we could see the Senate take a closer week at in the coming weeks.

Second, the House bill takes aim at the so-called Medicaid coverage gap. The bill would enable residents below 138% FPL who live in states that have not expanded their Medicaid programs to qualify for fully subsidized exchange plans through 2025. While an earlier version of the House bill included language for a new federal Medicaid program covering those below 138% FPL who live in non-expansion states to begin in 2025, the final House bill contains no such program.

Instead, the bill aims to encourage non-expansion states to expand their Medicaid programs by reducing their Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) payments by 12.5% beginning in 2023—a significant cut that the American Hospital Association (AHA) estimates would reduce DSH payments in those states by $2.2 billion over five years and $4.7 billion over 10 years. At the same time, expansion states would see their federal match for spending on the Medicaid expansion population rise from 90% to 93% from 2023 through 2025.

While the AHA and others are pushing back against the proposed DSH payment cuts—the move addresses the moral hazard component that critics raised about earlier versions. It no longer rewards holdout states for not expanding their programs—effectively punishing those who did and are now on the hook for 10% of their expansion population’s costs. It’s a clever move, and one we’ll be watching to see if it survives the Senate.

2. New Medicare benefits.

The House bill adds a hearing benefit to Medicare beginning in 2023. The hearing benefits would cover hearing aids and aural rehabilitation, among other services. While this is certainly a win for many Medicare beneficiaries who do not have or cannot afford private Medicare Advantage plans, this is significantly scaled back from the original proposal to add hearing, as well as dental and vision benefits.

However, given that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has named Medicare benefit expansions as one of his top priorities, it’s possible we could see this topic revisited in the Senate. But any meaningful change would mean Democrats need to find more money to cover the costs—and so far, that has proved challenging.

3. Medicaid home and community care.

The House bill allocates $150 billion for home- and community-based care. The funding would be used to help increase home care provider reimbursement rates and help states bolster home- and community-based care infrastructure.

While the funding is down from an original proposal of $400 billion, the Biden administration—and the Covid-19 pandemic—have made it clear that home-based health care will continue to grow and be a key player in the U.S. health care delivery system. Providers looking at their offerings should keep an eye on how states are investing these funds and building out home-based health care delivery in their areas.

4. Lowering the costs of prescription drugs.

Democrats scored a huge win in the House bill, and that is securing Medicare authority—albeit narrower authority than they sought—to negotiate prices for some of the highest-priced Part B or Part D drugs. Under the bill, HHS would be able to select 10 drugs to negotiation in 2025, up to 15 drugs in 2026 and 2027, and then up to 20 drugs per year in 2028. To be eligible for negotiation, a drug could no longer be subject to market exclusivity.

Drug manufacturers that do not negotiate eligible drug prices could be subject to an excise tax. This was perhaps one of the most contentious provisions debated in the health care portions of this bill. Democrats for years have been seeking to give Medicare drug pricing authority, but intense lobbying and Republican—and some Democrat—objections have kept this proposal on the shelf. While it’s not the first time the House has passed a bill with drug price negotiation—it is the first time we are in a place where the Senate could reasonably pass either this or a modified version of the proposal.

The bill also would redesign the Medicare Part D benefit to create an annual cap of $2,000 on seniors’ out-of-pocket drug costs, and impose an inflation rebate on drug manufacturers’ whose drug prices rise faster than inflation (based on 2021) in a given year.

5. Other notable provisions.

The House bill also includes provisions to permanently fund CHIP, bolster the country’s pandemic preparedness and response, and bolster the health care workforce through new training and workforce programs, the nation’s first permanent federal paid family and medical leave program, investments in childcare, and more.

What’s next?

While the health care provisions in the House bill are notable, it’s important to remember that this is not the end of the road. The House bill now goes to the Senate, where the Senate parliamentarian will check provisions against the Byrd rule—a Senate rule requiring reconciliation bills to meet certain budgetary requirements.

Democrats also will enter a new round of negotiations, and industry groups—including PhRMA and AHA—are expected to launch a new round of lobbying. PhRMA objects to the bill’s drug price negotiation provision and AHA is fighting the provision to reduce DSH payments in non-Medicaid expansion states by 12.5%. Any Senate-passed reconciliation bill will need to go back to the House for final approval before it can go to Biden’s desk.

But this is not the only thing on lawmakers’ plates in December. Members of Congress also face several other deadlines, including addressing looming physician payment cuts and passing end of the year spending bills. The short-version is, while there’s a lot to learn from the House-passed bill, it’s possible the Senate version could look very different—and it may take several weeks before we see that bill take shape.