Category Archives: Medicaid

How America skimps on healthcare

Posted on by • Posted in ACA, Cost Management, Cost Reduction, Cost Shifting, Delayed Care, Denial, Denial Rates, Employee Benefits, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Insurance Denial, High Deductible Health Plans, Labor Spend Management, Medicaid, Medical Loss Ratio (MLR), Medicare, Prior Authorization, Shrinkflation, Utilization Trends • Leave a comment

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-america-skimps-healthcare-robert-pearl-m-d–p1qnc/

Not long ago, I opened a new box of cereal and found a lot fewer flakes than usual. The plastic bag inside was barely three-quarters full.

This wasn’t a manufacturing error. It was an example of shrinkflation.

Following years of escalating prices (to offset higher supply-chain and labor costs), packaged-goods producers began facing customer resistance. So, rather than keep raising prices, big brands started giving Americans fewer ounces of just about everything—from cereal to ice cream to flame-grilled hamburgers—hoping no one would notice.

This kind of covert skimping doesn’t just happen at the grocery store or the drive-thru lane. It’s been present in American healthcare for more than a decade.

What Happened To Healthcare Prices?  

With the passage of the Medicare and Medicaid Act in 1965, healthcare costs began consuming ever-higher percentages of the nation’s gross domestic product.

In 1970, medical spending took up just 6.9% of the U.S. GDP. That number jumped to 8.9% in 1980, 12.1% in 1990, 13.3% in 2000 and 17.2% in 2010.  

This trajectory is normal for industrialized nations. Most countries follow a similar pattern: (1) productivity rises, (2) the total value of goods and services increases, (3) citizens demand better care, newer drugs, and more access to doctors and hospitals, (4) people pay more and more for healthcare.  

But does more expensive care equate to better care and longer life expectancy? It did in the United States from 1970 to 2010. Longevity leapt nearly a decade as healthcare costs rose (as a percentage of GDP).

Then American Healthcare Hit A Ceiling

Beginning in 2010, something unexpected happened. Both of these upward trendlines—healthcare inflation and longevity—flattened.

Spending on medical care still consumes roughly 17% of the U.S. GPD—the same as 2010. Meanwhile, U.S. life expectancy in 2020 (using pre-pandemic data) was 77.3 years—about the same as in 2010 when the number was 78.7 years.

How did these plateaus occur?

Skimping On U.S. Healthcare

With the passage of the Affordable Care Act of 2010, healthcare policy experts hoped expansions in health insurance coverage would lead to better clinical outcomes, resulting in fewer heart attacks, strokes and cancers. Their assumption was that fewer life-threatening medical problems would bring down medical costs.

That’s not what happened. Although the rate of healthcare inflation did, indeed, slow to match GDP growth, the cost decreases weren’t from higher-quality medical care, drug breakthroughs or a healthier citizenry. Instead, it was driven by skimping.

And as a result of skimping, the United States fell far behind its global peers in measures of life expectancy, maternal mortality, infant morality, and deaths from avoidable or treatable conditions.

To illustrate this, here are three ways that skimping reduces medical costs but worsens public health:

1. High-Deductible Health Insurance

In the 20th century, traditional health insurance included two out-of-pocket expenses. Patients paid a modest upfront fee at the point of care (in a doctor’s office or hospital) and then a portion of the medical bill afterward, usually totaling a few hundred dollars.

Both those numbers began skyrocketing around 2010 when employers adopted high-deductible insurance plans to offset the rising cost of insurance premiums (the amount an insurance company charges for coverage). With this new model, workers pay a sizable sum from their own pockets—up to $7,050 for single coverage and $14,100 for families—before any health benefits kick in.

Insurers and businesses argue that high-deductible plans force employees to have more “skin in the game,” incentivizing them to make wiser healthcare choices.

But instead of promoting smarter decisions, these plans have made care so expensive that many patients avoid getting the medical assistance they need. Nearly half of Americans have taken on debt due to medical bills. And 15% of people with employer-sponsored health coverage (23 million people) have seen their health get worse because they’ve delayed or skipped needed care due to costs.

And when it comes to Medicaid, the government-run health program for individuals living in poverty, doctors and hospitals are paid dramatically lower rates than with private insurance.

As a result, even though the nation’s 90 million Medicaid enrollees have health insurance, they find it difficult to access care because an increasing number of physicians won’t accept them as patients.

2. Cost Shifting

Unlike with private insurers, the U.S. government unilaterally sets prices when paying for healthcare. And in doing so, it transfers the financial burden to employers and uninsured patients, which leads to skimping.

To understand how this happens, remember that hospitals pay the same amount for doctors, nurses and medicines, regardless of how much they are paid (by insurers) to care for a patient. If the dollars reimbursed for some patients don’t cover the costs, then other patients are charged more to make up the difference.

Two decades ago, Congress enacted legislation to curb federal spending on healthcare. This led Medicare to drastically reduce how much it pays for inpatient services. Consequently, private insurers and uninsured patients now pay double and sometimes triple Medicare rates for hospital services, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation report.

These higher prices generate heftier out-of-pocket expenses for privately insured individuals and massive bills for the uninsured, forcing millions of Americans to forgo necessary tests and treatments.

3. Delaying, Denying Care

Insurers act as the bridge between those who pay for healthcare (businesses and the government) and those who provide it (doctors and hospitals). To sell coverage, they must design a plan that (a) payers can afford and (b) providers of care will accept.

When healthcare costs surge, insurers must either increase premiums proportionately, which payers find unacceptable, or find ways to lower medical costs. Increasingly, insurers are choosing the latter. And their most common approach to cost reduction is skimping through prior authorization.

Originally promoted as a tool to prevent misuse (or overuse) of medical services and drugs, prior authorization has become an obstacle to delivering excellent medical care. Insurers know that busy doctors will hesitate to recommend costly tests or treatments likely to be challenged. And even when they do, patients weary of the wait will abandon treatment nearly one-third of the time.

This dynamic creates a vicious cycle: costs go down one year, but medical problems worsen the next year, requiring even more skimping the third year.

The Real Cost Of Healthcare Skimping

Federal actuaries project that healthcare expenses will rise another $3 trillion over the next eight years, consuming nearly 20% of the U.S. GDP by 2031.

But given the challenges of ongoing inflation and rapidly rising national debt, it’s more plausible that healthcare’s share of the GDP will remain at around 17%.

This outcome won’t be due to medical advancements or innovative technologies, but rather the result of greater skimping.

For example, consider that Medicare decreased payments to doctors 2% this year with another 3.3% cut proposed for 2024. And this year, more than 10 million low-income Americans have lost Medicaid coverage as states continue rolling back eligibility following the pandemic. And insurers are increasingly using AI to automate denials for payment. 

Currently, the competitive job market has business leaders leery of cutting employee health benefits. But as the economy shifts, employees should anticipate paying even more for their healthcare.

The truth is that our healthcare system is grossly inefficient and financially unsustainable. Until someone or something disrupts that system, replacing it with a more effective alternative, we will see more and more skimping as our nation struggles to restrain medical costs.

And that will be dangerous for America’s health.

The ACA’s Promise of Free Preventive Health Care Faces Ongoing Legal Challenges

Posted on by • Posted in ACA, Dept of Health and Human Services (HHS), District Court, District Court of Appeals, Health Policy, Lawsuit, Medicaid, Preventable Disease, Preventative Care, Prevention, Preventive Screening, Public Health, Quality of Care, Supreme Court, United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) • Leave a comment
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/blog/2023/acas-promise-free-preventive-health-care-faces-ongoing-legal-challenges?utm_campaign=Achieving%20Universal%20Coverage&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=279218032&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9zDeEtOawTu_XlAtH44MhtF0pskow9Np3hYpbHYjISSFzah0E6zBTL84n3AeOQ8gGyhdTdr6AtdEF017WhYC8AnMM58A&utm_source=alert

An ongoing legal challenge is threatening the guarantee of free preventive care in the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

Six individuals and the owners of two small businesses sued the federal government, arguing that the ACA provision “makes it impossible” for them to purchase health insurance for themselves or their employees that excludes free preventive care. The plaintiffs argue that they do not want or need such care. They specifically name the medication PrEP (used to prevent the spread of HIV), contraception, the HPV vaccine, and screening and behavioral counseling for sexually transmitted diseases and substance use; however, they seek to invalidate the entire ACA preventive benefit package.

A federal trial court judge agreed with some of their claims and invalidated free coverage of more than 50 services, including lung, breast, and colon cancer screenings and statins to prevent heart disease.

This ruling, which is currently being appealed, strips free preventive services coverage from more than 150 million privately insured people and approximately 20 million Medicaid beneficiaries who are covered under the ACA’s Medicaid expansion.

This suit was first filed in 2020. The plaintiffs in the case, Braidwood Management v. Becerra, continue to oppose the entire preventive benefit package, which consists of four service bundles: services rated “A” or “B” by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF); routine immunizations recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP); evidence-informed services for children recommended by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA); and evidence-informed women’s health care recommended by HRSA. The trial judge invalidated all benefits recommended by the USPSTF after March 23, 2010, the date the ACA became law. (The court also exempted the plaintiffs on religious grounds from their obligation to cover PrEP.) The Fifth Circuit put the trial court’s decision on temporary hold while the case is on appeal.

The Fifth Circuit, one of the nation’s most conservative appeals courts, will hear the Biden administration’s appeal of the trial court’s USPSTF ruling and the entirety of the plaintiffs’ original challenge, thereby putting all four coverage guarantees in play. The court also will hear whether the ruling should apply only to the plaintiffs or to all Americans.

The trial court held that the USPSTF lacks the legal status necessary under the Constitution to make binding coverage decisions, and that the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) — who can make such binding decisions — lacks the power to rectify matters by formally adopting USPSTF recommendations. The judge concluded that federal law fails to require that members be presidential nominees confirmed by the Senate under the Appointments Clause; in the judge’s view, this means that members are not politically accountable for their decisions, which is constitutionally problematic. The judge also ruled that federal law makes the USPSTF the final coverage arbiter, which means that the HHS Secretary, who is nominated and confirmed under the Appointments Clause and thus politically accountable, cannot cure the constitutional problem by ratifying USPSTF recommendations.

On appeal, the Biden administration argues that the USPSTF passes constitutional muster because the HHS Secretary, who oversees the Task Force, is a nominated and confirmed constitutional officer. Alternatively, the administration argues the appeals court should interpret the statute as allowing the HHS Secretary to ratify USPSTF recommendations, since the law specifies that USPSTF members are independent of political pressure only “to the extent practicable.” The administration makes similar arguments on behalf of ACIP and HRSA.

The plaintiffs argue that secretarial ratification cannot cure the constitutional problems with all three advisory bodies. According to the plaintiffs, none of the advisory bodies has the status of constitutional officers demanded by the Appointments Clause, and so their recommendations must remain recommendations only, unenforceable by HHS on insurers, health plans, and state Medicaid programs.

The second issue is the scope of the remedy if the law is found unconstitutional. The trial court did not limit its holding to the four individual plaintiffs and two companies who sued, but instead applied its order nationwide. The Biden administration argues that, if the coverage guarantee is unconstitutional, the court only should prohibit HHS from enforcing the preventive services provision against the plaintiffs who brought the lawsuit and should allow the coverage guarantee to remain in force for the rest of the country. Citing an amicus brief filed by the American Public Health Association and public health deans and scholars, the administration argues that barring HHS from enforcing the preventive services requirement nationwide “pose[s] a grave threat to the public health” by decreasing Americans’ access to lifesaving preventive services. The plaintiffs argue that a nationwide prohibition is necessary, the broader public interest in free preventive coverage is irrelevant, and insurers will voluntarily continue to offer free preventive coverage if people want it.

The administration’s arguments on appeal have attracted amicus briefs by bipartisan economic scholars, organizations concerned with health equity and preventive health, health care organizations, and 23 states.

Crucially, the economists point out that, prior to the ACA, comprehensive free preventive coverage was extremely limited because it is not in insurers’ interest to make a long-term economic investment in members’ health. Indeed, prior to the ACA, insurers did not even uniformly cover the basic screenings for newborns to detect treatable illnesses and conditions.

Amicus briefs supporting the plaintiffs have been filed by Texas and an organization dedicated to “protecting individual liberties . . . against government overreach.” All briefing will be complete by November 3, 2023, with oral argument thereafter. A decision is likely in early to mid-2024. Whatever the outcome, expect a Supreme Court appeal given the size of the stakes in the case.

Healthcare System in Campaign 2024: Out of Sight, Out of Mind?

Posted on by • Posted in 2024 Election Issues, Abortion, ACA, Access & Quality of Healthcare, Affordability, Election, Health Policy, Healthcare Reform, Healthcare Spending, Medicaid, Medicaid Expansion, Price Transparency • Leave a comment
Healthcare System in Campaign 2024: Out of Sight, Out of Mind?

The GOP Presidential debate marked the unofficial start of the 2024 Presidential campaign. With the exception of continued funding for Ukraine, style points won over issue distinctions as each of the 8 White House aspirants sought to make the cut to the next debate September 27 at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, CA.

For the candidates in Milwaukee, it’s about “Stayin’ Alive” per the BeeGee’s hit song: that means avoiding self-inflicted harm while privately raising money to keep their campaigns afloat. And, based on Debate One, with the exception of abortion, that means they’ll not face questions about their positions on the litany of issues that dominate healthcare these days i.e., drug prices, hospital consolidation, price transparency, workforce burnout and many others. In Milwaukee, healthcare was essentially ‘out of sight our of mind’ to the moderators and debaters despite being 18% of the U.S. economy and its biggest employer.

For now, each will enlist ghostwriters to produce position papers for their websites, and, on occasion, reporters will press for specifics to test their grasp on a topic but that’s about it. Based on last Wednesday’s 2-hour event, it’s unlikely general media outlets like Fox News (which also hosts Debate Two) will explore healthcare issues except for abortion.

That means healthcare will be subordinated to the economy, inflation, immigration and crime—the top issues to GOP voters—for most of the Presidential primary season.  

Next November, voters will also elect 34 US Senators, 435 members of the House of Representatives, 11 Governors and their representatives in 85 state legislative bodies. This will be the first election cycle after reapportionment of votes in the United States Electoral College following the 2020 United States census. Swing states (WI, MI, PA, NV, AZ, GA, FL, OH, CO, VA) will again be keys to the Presidential results since demographics and population shifts have increased the concentrations of each party’s core voters in so-called Blue States and Red States:

  • The Democratic voter core is diverse, educated and culturally liberal with its strongest appeal to African-Americans, Latinos, women, educated professionals and urban voters. Blue States are predominantly in the Northeast, Upper Midwest and West Coast regions.
  • The Republican voter core consists of rural white voters, evangelicals, the elderly, and non-college educated adults. Red States are predominantly in the South and Southwest.

The increased concentrations of Blue or Red voters in certain states and regions has contributed to political polarization in the U.S. electorate and presents an unusual challenge to healthcare. Per Gallup: “Political polarization since 2003 has increased most significantly on issues related to federal government power, global warming and the environment, education, abortion, foreign trade, immigration, gun laws, the government’s role in providing healthcare, and income tax fairness. Increased polarization has been less evident on certain moral issues and satisfaction with the state of race relations.” 

Thus, healthcare issues are increasingly subject to hyper partisanship and often misinformation.

Given the limited knowledge voters have on most health issues and growing prevalence of social media fueled misinformation, political polarization creates echo chambers in healthcare—one that thinks the system works for those who can afford it and another that thinks that’s wrong.

It’s dicey for politicians: it’s political malpractice to offer specific solutions on anything, especially healthcare. It’s safer to attack its biggest vulnerabilities—affordability and equitable access—even though they mean something different in every echo chamber.

My take:

Barring a second Covid pandemic or global conflict with Russia/China, it’s unlikely healthcare issues will be prominent in Campaign 2024 at the national level except for abortion.  At least through the May primary season, here’s the political landscape for healthcare:

Affordability and inequitable access will be the focus of candidate rhetoric at the national level: Trust and confidence in the U.S. health system has eroded. That’s fertile political turf for critics.

In Congress, the fiercest defenders of the status quo have joined efforts to impose restrictions on consolidation and price transparency for hospitals and price controls for prescription drugs. There’s Bipartisan acknowledgement that inequities in accessing care are significant and increasing, especially in minority and low income populations. They differ over the remedy. Employers expect their health costs to increase at least 8% next year and blame hospitals and drug companies for price gauging and want Congress to do more. 85% of Democrats think “the government should insure everyone” vs. 33% of Republican voters which calcifies inaction in a divided Congress though. Opposition to the Affordable Care Act (2010) has softened and Medicaid expansion has passed in 40 Blue and Red states.

In the 2024 election cycle, remedies for increased access and more affordability will pit Republicans calling for more competition, consumerism and transparency and Democrats calling for more government funding, regulation and fairness. 

But more important, voter and employer frustration with partisan bickering sans solutions will set the stage for the vigorous debate about a single payer system in 2026 and after,

State elections will give more attention to healthcare issues than the Presidential race: That’s because Governors and state legislators set direction on issues like abortion rights, drug price controls, Medicaid funding, scope of practice allowances and others.

Increasingly, state Attorney’s General and Treasurers are weighing in on consolidation and spending. States referee workforce issues like nurse staffing requirements and others. And ballot referenda on healthcare issues trail only public education as a focus of grassroots voter activity.  At the top of that list is abortion rights:

In 25 states and DC, there are no restrictions on access; in 14 states, abortion is banned and in 11 abortions—both procedures and medication—are legal, but with gestational limits from 6 weeks (GA), to between 12 and 22 weeks (AZ, UT, NE, KS, IA, IN, OH, NC, SC, FL). It’s an issue that divides legislators and increasingly delineates Blue and Red states and in many states remains unsettled.

Other healthcare issues, like ageism, will surface in Campaign 2024 in the context of other topics: Finally, healthcare will factor into other issues: Example: The leading Presidential candidates are seniors: President Biden was the oldest person to assume the office at age 78 and would be would be 86 at the end of his second term. Former President Trump was 70 when elected in 2016 and would be 81 if elected when his second term ends.

The majority of Americans are concerned about the impact of age on fitness to serve among aspirants for high office: cognitive impairment, dementia, physical limitations et al. will be necessary talking points in campaigns and media coverage. Similarly, cybersecurity looms as a focus where healthcare’s data-rich dependence is directly impacted. Growing concern about climate and the food supply, sourcing of raw good and materials from China used in drug manufacturing and many other headlines will infer healthcare context.

Summary:  

Healthcare will be on the ballot in 2024 and might very well make the difference in who wins and loses in many state and local elections.

It will make a difference in the Presidential campaign as part of the economy and a major focus of government spending. Beyond abortion, the lack of attention to other aspects of the health system in the Milwaukee debate last week should in no way be interpreted as a pass for healthcare insiders. 

Voters are restless and healthcare is contributing. Healthcare is far from  ‘out of sight, out of mind’ in Campaign 2024.

GOP allies drawing up health plans for a Republican administration

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

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

Why it matters: 

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

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

Context: 

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

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

Details: 

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

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

Zoom in: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Georgia implements partial Medicaid expansion with work requirements

Posted on by • Posted in Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Medicaid, Medicaid Expansion, Medicaid Work Requirements, Underinsured, Uninsured • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/7f59f737680b/the-weekly-gist-june-30-2023?e=d1e747d2d8

On July 1st, Georgia will launch its Pathways to Coverage program, which partially expands its Medicaid program to enroll individuals with incomes up to 100 percent of the federal poverty line (FPL), but only if they demonstrate at least 80 hours a month of work, education, job training, or community service. 

This expansion is only projected to extend Medicaid coverage to an additional 50K state residents, far short of the 400K that full Medicaid expansion (without work requirements, to individuals earning up to138 percent of the FPL) would have covered. Georgia’s plan was approved by the Trump administration in 2020, but the Biden administration rescinded its waiver prior to implementation. Georgia then sued the Biden administration, and a Federal District Court sided with the state, allowing the partial expansion with work requirements to proceed. The Biden administration chose not to appeal. 

The Gist: Though Georgia’s implementation is more limited in scope compared with other states which are currently pursuing Medicaid work requirements, Georgia sets a precedent to motivate those states that are looking to pursue similar strategies. 

Research has shown that most adults on Medicaid who do not face barriers to work are already working, and that the cost of systems to monitor beneficiary work status likely offsets any savings in reduced Medicaid spending. 

The burden of having to report work status is onerous for potential Medicaid enrollees, discouraging some from seeking coverage altogether.

National Hospital Flash Report: May 2023

Posted on by • Posted in Bad Debt Expense, Consumer Price Index (CPI), Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Inflation, Labor Market, Medicaid, Medicaid Redeterminations, Nonoperating Income, Operating Expenses, Operating Income, Operating Margin, Operating Metrics, Operating Performance, Operating Revenue, Utilization Trends • Leave a comment
https://www.kaufmanhall.com/insights/research-report/national-hospital-flash-report-june-2023?utm_source=mkto&utm_campaign=nhfr-report&utm_medium=em&utm_term=june-nhfr-sub-230627&mkt_tok=NjU0LUNOWS0yMjQAAAGMnDGGjpYH9zyA2KwZhd3TO-fx75wKHW21j7eocz_NWrvPx1vAB1H4gnPUVObUbPrBnzQjK8jfwxhcLCnzPgvhYfq1E6bWI3Wtv6cp3Gv2sdZQ

Hospital finances showed signs of stabilizing in May amid slightly improving operating margins, declining expenses and notable increases in outpatient visits.

The median Kaufman Hall Year-To-Date Operating Margin Index reflecting actual margins was 0.3% in May.

The June issue of the National Hospital Flash Report covers these and other key performance metrics.

About the Data


The National Hospital Flash Report uses both actual and budget
data over the last three years, sampled from more than 900 hospitals
on a recurring monthly basis from Syntellis Performance Solutions.


The sample of hospitals for this report is representative of all hospitals in
the United States both geographically and by bed size. Additionally,
hospitals of all types are represented, from large academic to small
critical access. Advanced statistical techniques are used to standardize
data, identify and handle outliers, and ensure statistical soundness prior
to inclusion in the report.


While this report presents data in the aggregate, Syntellis Performance
Solutions also has real-time data down to individual department,
jobcode, paytype, and account levels, which can be customized into peer
groups for unparalleled comparisons to drive operational decisions and
performance improvement initiatives.

Key Takeaways

  1. Hospitals broke even in April.
    The median operating margin for hospitals was 0% in April, leaving most hospitals with little to no
    financial wiggle room.
  2. Volumes dropped while lengths of stay increased.
    Hospital volumes dropped across the board—including inpatient and outpatient. Emergency department
    volumes were the least affected.
  3. Effects of Medicaid disenrollment could be materializing.
    Hospitals experienced increases in bad debt and charity care in April. Combined with anemic patient
    volumes, experts note this data could illustrate the effects of the start of widespread disenrollment from
    Medicaid following the end of the COVID-19 public health emergency.
  4. Inflation continued to throttle hospital finances.
    Labor costs jumped in April and the costs of goods and services continued to be well above pre-pandemic
    levels. Though expenses generally fell in April, revenues declined at a faster rate.

National Non-Operating Results

Key Observations

At their May meeting, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) raised the
benchmark borrowing rate another 25 basis points, setting the range to 5.00-5.25%
and marking the 10th consecutive hike in the cycle as well as a 16-year high

  • Fed officials acknowledged discussion of a potential pause in tightening while
    leaving wiggle room, saying “rates are going to come down” over a long period of
    time while also warning inflation “continues to run high”     and the Fed will be taking
    a “data-dependent approach”
  • The consumer price index (CPI) rose 0.4% in April, a 4.9% increase year-over-year,
    an annual pace of inflation below 5% for the first time in two years
  • The labor market continued to show resilience in April as U.S. nonfarm payrolls
    grew by 253,000 and unemployment fell back to a 53-year low of 3.4%
  • Strong inflation, a robust labor market, continued banking sector woes, and a debt
    ceiling standoff further complicates credit conditions and may challenge
    the Fed to stabilize financial markets
  • Equities in April, as measured by the S&P 500, were up 1.5% in April and
    8.6% YTD despite downbeat economic data, reoccurring banking sector fears,
    and mixed earnings

The Glaring Disconnect between the Fed and CMS

Posted on by • Posted in Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Federal Reserve, Fee for Service Reimbursement, Health Policy, Health System, Healthcare Reform, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Inflation, Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Part D, Physician, Population Distribution, Population Growth, Prescription Drugs, Price Transparency, Value-Based Healthcare • Leave a comment
The Glaring Disconnect between the Fed and CMS

Two important reports released last Wednesday point to a disconnect in how policymakers are managing the U.S. economy and how the health economy fits.

Report One: The Federal Reserve Open Market Meeting

At its meeting last week, the Governors of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) voted unanimously to keep the target range for the federal funds rate at 5% to 5.25%–the first time since last March that the Fed has concluded a policy meeting without raising interest rates.

In its statement by Chairman Powell, the central bank left open the possibility of additional rate hikes this year which means interest rates could hit 5.6% before trending slightly lower in 2024.

In conjunction with the (FOMC) meeting, meeting participants submitted projections of the most likely outcomes for each year from 2023 to 2025 and over the longer run:

Median202320242025Longer RunLonger Run Range
% Change in GDP1.11.11.81.81.6-2.5
Unemployment rate &4.14.54.54.03.6-4.4
PCE Inflation rate3.22.52.12.02.0
Core PCE Inflation3.92.62.2**

*Longer-run projections for core PCE inflation are not collected.

Notes re: the Fed’s projections based on these indicators:

  • The GDP (a measure of economic growth) is expected to increase 1% more this year than anticipated in its March 2023 analysis while estimates for 2024 were lowered just slightly by 0.1%. Economic growth will continue but at a slower pace.
  • The unemployment rate is expected to increase to 4.1% by the end of 2023, a smaller rise in joblessness than the previous estimate of 4.5%. (As of May, the unemployment rate was 3.7%). Unemployment is returning to normalcy impacting the labor supply and wages.
  • inflation: as measured by the Personal Consumption Expenditures index, will be 3.2% at the end of 2023 vs. 3.3% they previously projected. By the end of 2024, it expects inflation will be 2.5% reaching 2.1% at the end of 2025. Its 2.0% target is within reach on or after 2025 barring unforeseen circumstances.
  • Core inflation projections, which excludes energy and food prices, increased: the Fed now anticipates 3.9% by the end of 2023–0.3% above the March estimate. Price concerns will continue among consumers.

Based on these projections, two conclusions about nation’s monetary policy may be deduced the Fed’s report and discussion:

  • The Fed is cautiously optimistic about the U.S. economy in for the near term (through 2025) while acknowledging uncertainty exists.
  • Interest rates will continue to increase but at a slower rate than 2022 making borrowing and operating costs higher and creditworthiness might also be under more pressure.

Report Two: CMS

On the same day as the Fed meeting, the actuaries at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released their projections for overall U.S. national healthcare spending for the next several years:

“CMS projects that over 2022-2031, average annual growth in NHE (5.4%) will outpace average annual growth in gross domestic product (GDP) (4.6%), resulting in an increase in the health spending share of GDP from 18.3% in 2021 to 19.6% in 2031. The insured percentage of the population is projected to have reached a historic high of 92.3% in 2022 (due to high Medicaid enrollment and gains in Marketplace coverage). It is expected to remain at that rate through 2023. Given the expiration of the Medicaid continuous enrollment condition on March 31, 2023 and the resumption of Medicaid redeterminations, Medicaid enrollment is projected to fall over 2023-2025, most notably in 2024, with an expected net loss in enrollment of 8 million beneficiaries. If current law provisions in the Affordable Care Act are allowed to expire at the end of 2025, the insured share of the population is projected to be 91.2%.  In 2031, the insured share of the population is projected to be 90.5%, similar to pre-pandemic levels.”

The report includes CMS’ assumptions for 4 major payer categories:

  • Medicare Part D: Several provisions from the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) are expected to result in out-of-pocket savings for individuals enrolled in Medicare Part D. These provisions have notable effects on the growth rates for total out-of-pocket spending for prescription drugs, which are projected to decline by 5.9% in 2024, 4.2% in 2025, and 0.2% in 2026.
  • Medicare: Average annual expenditure growth of 7.5% is projected for Medicare over 2022-2031. In 2022, the combination of fee-for-service beneficiaries utilizing emergent hospital care at lower rates and the reinstatement of payment rate cuts associated with the Medicare Sequester Relief Act of 2022 resulted in slower Medicare spending growth of 4.8% (down from 8.4% in 2021).
  • Medicaid: On average, over 2022-2031, Medicaid expenditures are projected to grow by 5.0%. With the end of the continuous enrollment condition in 2023, Medicaid enrollment is projected to decline over 2023-2025, with most of the net loss in enrollment (8 million) occurring in 2024 as states resume annual Medicaid redeterminations. Medicaid enrollment is expected to increase and average less than 1% through 2031, with average expenditure growth of 5.6% over 2025-2031.
  • Private Health Insurance: Over 2022-2031, private health insurance spending growth is projected to average 5.4%. Despite faster growth in private health insurance enrollment in 2022 (led by increases in Marketplace enrollment related to the American Rescue Plan Act’s subsidies), private health insurance expenditures are expected to have risen 3.0% (compared to 5.8% in 2021) due to lower utilization growth, especially for hospital services.

And for the 3 major recipient/payee categories:

  • Hospitals: Over 2022-2031, hospital spending growth is expected to average 5.8% annually. In 2023, faster growth in hospital utilization rates and accelerating growth in hospital prices (related to economy wide inflation and rising labor costs) are expected to lead to faster hospital spending growth of 9.3%.  For 2025-2031, hospital spending trends are expected to normalize (with projected average annual growth of 6.1%) as there is a transition away from pandemic public health emergency funding impacts on spending.
  • Physicians and Clinical Services: Growth in physician and clinical services spending is projected to average 5.3% over 2022-2031. An expected deceleration in growth in 2022, to 2.4% from 5.6% in 2021, reflects slowing growth in the use of services following the pandemic-driven rebound in use in 2021. For 2025-2031, average spending growth for physician and clinical services is projected to be 5.7%, with an expectation that average Medicare spending growth (8.1%) for these services will exceed that of average Private Health Insurance growth (4.6%) partly as a result of comparatively faster growth in Medicare enrollment.
  • Prescription Drugs: Total expenditures for retail prescription drugs are projected to grow at an average annual rate of 4.6% over 2022-2031. For 2025-2031, total spending growth on prescription drugs is projected to average 4.8%, reflecting the net effects of key IRA provisions: Part D benefit enhancements (putting upward pressure on Medicare spending growth) and price negotiations/inflation rebates (putting downward pressure on Medicare and out-of-pocket spending growth).

Thus, CMS Actuaries believe spending for healthcare will be considerably higher than the growth of the overall economy (GDP) and inflation and become 19.6% of the total US economy in 2031. And it also projects that the economy will absorb annual spending increases for hospitals (5.8%) physician and clinical services (5.3%) and prescription drugs (4.6%).

My take:

Side-by-side, these reports present a curious projection for the U.S. economy through 2031: the overall economy will return to a slightly lower-level pre-pandemic normalcy and the healthcare industry will play a bigger role despite pushback from budget hawks preferring lower government spending and employers and consumers frustrated by high health prices today.

They also point to two obvious near-term problems:

1-The Federal Reserve pays inadequate attention to the healthcare economy. In Chairman Powell’s press conference following release of the FOMC report, there was no comment relating healthcare demand or spending to the broader economy nor a question from any of the 20 press corps relating healthcare to the overall economy. In his opening statement (below), Chairman Powell reiterated the Fed’s focus on prices and called out food, housing and transportation specifically but no mention of healthcare prices and costs which are equivalent or more stressful to household financial security:

“Good afternoon. My colleagues and I remain squarely focused on our dual mandate to promote maximum employment and stable prices for the American people…My colleagues and I are acutely aware that high inflation imposes hardship as it erodes purchasing power, especially for those least able to meet the higher costs of essentials like food, housing, and transportation. We are highly attentive to the risks that high inflation poses to both sides of our mandate, and we are strongly committed to returning inflation to our 2% objective.”

2-Congress is reticent to make substantive changes in Medicare and other healthcare programs despite its significance in the U.S. economy. It’s politically risky. In the June 2 Congressional standoff to lift the $31.4 debt ceiling, cuts to Medicare and Social Security were specifically EXCLUDED. Medicare is 12% of mandated spending in the 2022 federal budget and is expected to grow from a rate of 4.8% in 2022 to 8% in 2023—good news for investors in Medicare Advantage but concerning to consumers and employers facing higher prices as a result.

Even simplifying the Medicare program to replace its complicated Parts A, B, C, and D programs or addressing over-payments to Medicare Advantage plans (in 2022, $25 billion per MedPAC and $75 billion per USC) is politically tricky. It’s safer for elected officials to support price transparency (hospitals, drugs & insurers) and espouse replacing fee for service payments with “value” than step back and address the bigger issue: how should the health system be structured and financed to achieve lower costs and better health…not just for seniors or other groups but everyone.

These two realities contribute to the disconnect between the Fed and CMS. Looking back 20 years across 4 Presidencies, two economic downturns and the pandemic, it’s also clear the health economy’s emergence did not occur overnight as the Fed navigated its monetary policy. Consider:

  • National health expenditures were $1.366 trillion (13.3% of GDP) in 2000 and $4.255 billion in 2021 (18.3% of the GDP). This represents 210% increase in nominal spending and a 37.5% increase in the relative percentage of the nation’s GDP devoted to healthcare. No other sector in the economy has increased as much.
  • In the same period, the population increased 17% from 282 million to 334 million while per capita healthcare spending increased 166% from $4,845 to $12,914. This disproportionate disconnect between population and health spending growth is attributed by economists to escalating unit costs increases for the pills, facilities, technologies and specialty-provider services we use—their underlying cost escalation notably higher than other industries.
  • There were notable changes in where dollars were spent: hospitals were unchanged (from $415 billion/30.4% of total spending to $1.323 trillion/31.4% of total spending), physician services shrank (from $288.2 billion/21.1% of total spending to 664.6 billion/15.6% pf total spending), prescription drugs were unchanged (from $122.3 billion/8.95% to $378 billion/8.88% of total spending) and public health increased slightly (from $43 billion/$3.2% of total spending to $187.6 billion/4.4% of total spending).
  • And striking differences in sources of funding: out of pocket spending shrank from $193.6/14.2% of payments to $433 billion/10.2% % of payments; private insurance shrank from $441 billion/32.3% of payments to $1.21 trillion/28.4% of total payments; Medicare grew from $224.8 billion/16.5% of payments to $900.8 billion/21.2% of payments; Medicaid + CHIP grew from $203.4 billion/14.9% to $756.2 billion/17.8% of payments; and Veterans Health grew from $19.1 billion/1.4% of payments to $106.0 billion/2.5% of payments.

Thus, if these trends continue…

  • Aggregate payments to providers from government programs will play a bigger role and payments from privately insured individuals and companies will play a lesser role.
  • Hospital price increases will exceed price increases for physician services and prescription drugs.
  • Spending for healthcare will (continue to) exceed overall economic growth requiring additional funding from taxpayers, employers and consumers AND/OR increased dependence on private investments that require shareholder return AND/OR a massive restructure of the entire system to address its structure and financing.

What’s clear from these reports is the enormity of the health economy today and tomorrow, the lack of adequate attention and Congressional Action to address its sustainability and the range of unintended, negative consequences on households and every other industry if left unattended. It’s illustrative of the disconnect between the Fed and CMS: one assumes it controls the money supply while delegating to the other spending and policies independent of broader societal issues and concerns.

The health economy needs fresh attention from inside and outside the industry. Its impact includes not only the wellbeing of its workforce and services provided its users. It includes its direct impact on household financial security, community health and the economic potential of other industries who get less because healthcare gets more.

Securing the long-term sustainability of the U.S. economy and its role in world affairs cannot be appropriately addressed unless its health economy is more directly integrated and scrutinized. That might be uncomfortable for insiders but necessary for the greater good. Recognition of the disconnect between the Fed and CMS is a start!

The impact of Medicaid redeterminations on the uninsured rate 

Posted on by • Posted in Bad Debt Expense, Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Medicaid, Medicaid Redeterminations, Out of Pocket Expenses, Public Health Emergency (PHE), Underinsured, Uninsured • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/a93cd0b56a21/the-weekly-gist-june-9-2023?e=d1e747d2d8

On April 1st, Medicaid’s pandemic-era continuous enrollment policy began to sunset, kicking off a 14-month window for states to reassess their Medicaid rolls. In this week’s graphic, we highlight new Congressional Budget Office projections showing the impact of Medicaid redeterminations on insurance coverage rates over the next decade for the under-65 population. 

The Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) coverage rate is expected to drop from 31 percent of all Americans under 65 in 2023, to 27 percent in 2024.

Meanwhile, after reaching an all-time low in 2023, the under-65 uninsured rate is projected to surpass nine percent in 2024 and climb to over 10 percent by 2033. 

While over 15M Americans are expected to lose Medicaid coverage during redeterminations, a majority of those disenrolled will gain health insurance either through an employer-sponsored or non-group plan.

But over 6M people, nearly 40 percent of those losing Medicaid coverage, are projected to become uninsured, erasing nearly half the progress the country has made since 2019 at lowering the uninsured rate. 

Arkansas should press pause on its Medicaid unwinding process

Posted on by • Posted in Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, Medicaid, Medicaid Redeterminations, Underinsured, Uninsured • Leave a comment
Arkansas should press pause on its Medicaid unwinding process

Last week, Marlee Stark and I published an op-ed in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette on why the Arkansas Department of Human Services (DHS) should press pause on its Medicaid unwinding process. Earlier this month, DHS released its first report laying out how many people lost coverage in April, as the state resumed its redetermination process.

As we write,

According to DHS’ recent report, over 50,000 people were disenrolled for procedural reasons, like failure to return paperwork or requested information, or because the state didn’t have their correct address on file. Only 15 percent of those who were disenrolled were confirmed truly ineligible or said they no longer needed their coverage, likely because they acquired another source of coverage during the pandemic.

In our piece, we argue that DHS should take a look at why so many people are losing coverage even though they may still be eligible—and outline some of the consequences the state may face if it chooses not to do so.

Read the full piece here.

Healthcare provisions of the debt limit deal: COVID-19 funding clawbacks, no Medicaid work requirements

Posted on by • Posted in Clawbacks, Health Policy, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Medicaid, Medicaid Work Requirements, Medicare • Leave a comment
https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/debt-limit-deal-healthcare-provisions-medicaid-covid-funding/651489/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Issue:%202023-05-30%20Healthcare%20Dive%20%5Bissue:50871%5D&utm_term=Healthcare%20Dive

Congressional Republicans and the White House reached a deal over the weekend to raise the debt ceiling that includes healthcare wins for both sides of the aisle, creating a path forward to prevent economic upheaval roughly a week before a potential federal default.

The 99-page agreement released Sunday to suspend the debt ceiling until January 2025 doesn’t include Medicaid work requirements, a key priority for the White House, but it does claw back billions of unspent COVID-19 relief funds.

The bill, which already faces opposition from some hard-right Republicans, could still be halted in Congress. The government could run out of money to meet its payment obligations as early as Monday without a debt ceiling increase, according to the Treasury Department, with a default threatening Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements to states and providers.

What’s in the agreement

The deal claws back roughly $30 billion in unspent pandemic relief funds from dozens of programs under the CMS, National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, among other agencies.

However, the White House did retain money for some COVID priorities. The Biden administration will retain about $5 billion to develop coronavirus vaccines and treatments in Project NextGen, and to cover the cost of those therapies for uninsured people, according to The New York Times.

The deal leaves healthcare-related federal entitlement programs mostly untouched, a key win touted by the White House in its messaging to Democrats. Despite being targeted by Republicans during negotiations, Medicare, Medicaid and the Inflation Reduction Act emerged unscathed.

Medicaid was particularly at risk. Though the final agreement excludes Medicaid work requirements, last month Republicans in the House passed a debt ceiling bill that would have included the controversial policy. Those requirements would have resulted in an estimated 600,000 people being booted from the safety-net insurance coverage, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

“One thing this budget deal suggests: Democrats won’t go along with Republican proposals to cut or impose restrictions on Medicaid,” tweeted Larry Levitt, executive vice president of health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation.

If passed, however, the deal would enact work rules for people receiving federal food stamps and those on the family welfare benefits program. Veterans and homeless people would be exempt from food stamp work requirements.

Those provisions put food assistance at risk for very low-income older adults, and “will increase hunger and poverty among that group,” nonpartisan think tank the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said in a statement on the bill.

The agreement also increases funding for the Cost of War Toxic Exposures Fund, created by bipartisan legislation last summer that expanded healthcare and disability benefits for veterans exposed to toxic burn pits.

The House Rules Committee, which includes a number of critics of House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., who spearhead the negotiations for Republicans, will discuss the legislation Tuesday afternoon.

A full House vote on the bill could come as soon as Wednesday. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has said the Senate will immediately move to consider the bill once it leaves the House.