Category Archives: Medicare

Medicare won’t cover coronavirus vaccines approved under emergency use authorization

Posted on by • Posted in Coronavirus, Dept of Health and Human Services (HHS), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, Medicare, Out of Pocket Expenses, Pandemic, Vaccine, Vaccine Distribution, Vaccine Efficacy • Leave a comment

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/pharmacy/medicare-won-t-cover-coronavirus-vaccines-approved-under-emergency-use-authorization.html?utm_medium=email

Medicare Wouldn't Cover Costs of Administering Coronavirus Vaccine Approved Under Emergency-Use Authorization - WSJ

Medicare won’t cover the cost of a COVID-19 vaccine if it is approved under an emergency use authorization, according to The Wall Street Journal. 

The White House recently concluded that Medicare’s exclusion of emergency-use drug costs could mean 44 million Americans, or 15 percent of the U.S. population, may have to pay out-of-pocket for a vaccine if it is approved under an emergency use authorization, the Journal reported.

HHS is now exploring coverage options, and a spokesperson told the Journal any vaccine doses bought by the government will be provided free.

The administration of President Donald Trump has pushed for a COVID-19 vaccine to be approved and distributed before the presidential election, which would likely only come with an emergency use authorization, since FDA approvals take more time.

In March, lawmakers passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or CARES Act, which ensures no out-of-pocket costs for COVID-19 vaccines for people on Medicare.

HHS also said in August that government health insurance programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, would cover the costs of administering a COVID-19 vaccine. 

 

 

 

 

Chicago hospital defeats allegations of ‘ghost payroll’ scheme

Posted on by • Posted in Bad Debt Expense, District Court, False Claims Act, Fraud and Abuse, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Internal Control, Lawsuit, Medicare, Rev Cycle Management, Revenue Cycle, Whistleblower, Whistleblower Lawsuit • Leave a comment

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/chicago-hospital-defeats-allegations-of-ghost-payroll-scheme.html?utm_medium=email

False Claims Act & Physicians - Basic Primer

An Illinois federal court has dismissed a whistleblower lawsuit alleging University of Chicago Medical Center, Medical Business Office and Trustmark Recovery Services violated the False Claims Act, according to Bloomberg Law. 

MBO and Trustmark provided medical billing and debt collection services for UCMC. The whistleblowers, Kenya Sibley, Jasmeka Collins and Jessica Lopez, alleged MBO and Trustmark engaged in a “ghost payroll” scheme that involved regularly falsifying UCMC invoices, listing employes who didn’t work on the hospital’s collections and time charges from people who were not employees.

The whistleblowers, former employees of MBO and Trademark, alleged the companies and UCMC knew about the “ghost payroll” scheme, and that the allegedly falsified invoices caused the hospital to report overstated wages to the federal government, triggering a larger Medicare reimbursement than it was entitled to.

The complaint further alleged that MBO and Trustmark engaged in a “bad debt” scheme. “MBO would regularly write-off Medicare bad debts for amounts a Medicare beneficiary owed without conducting a reasonable collection effort, when Medicare beneficiaries were still paying on the debts, or when Medicare beneficiaries did not actually owe a debt,” the amended complaint states.

After writing off the bad debt, MBO would allegedly send the bad debt to Trustmark or another collection agency for further collection efforts.

On Sept. 14, Judge Harry Leinenweber of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed the amended complaint, saying the whistleblowers failed to adequately allege the defendants engaged in a scheme to inflate bad debts and falsify invoices in University of Chicago’s cost reports. 

The allegations of a “ghost payroll” scheme fail because the whistleblowers failed to allege that defendants certified compliance with any regulation, which is required when filing a false claims case, the judge said in the decision. The amended complaint also fails to establish sufficiently UCMC’s knowledge of the alleged scheme.

The judge also ruled that the amended complaint failed to adequately allege a “bad debt” scheme. Allegations related to MBO’s and Trustmark’s bad debt reports to clients cannot satisfy the requirements to show that companies or their clients submitted improper claims for bad debt reimbursements to the government, reads the decision.

 

 

 

 

Administration’s Record on Health Care

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, ACA, Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC), Chronic Care Management, Chronic Conditions, Chronic Diseases, Clinical Testing, Contact Tracing, Deferred Healthcare, Employer-Based Health Insurance, Essential Health Benefits, False Hope, False Narrative, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, High Deductible Health Plans, High Drug Prices, Infection Control, Infection Control Plan, Infectious Virus, Medicaid, Medicaid Block Grants, Medicaid Expansion, Medicare, Medicare Hospital Fund, Misinformation, Misinterpret, Mislead, Misleading, Mistake, Mistrust, Mixed Message, National Strategy, Pandemic, Pharmaceutical Industry, Preexisting Conditions, Price Transparency, Public Health, Public Opinion, Public Perception, Public Safety, Public Trust, Scientists, Short Term Health Insurance, Skinny Health Plans, Social Distancing, Supreme Court • Leave a comment

President Trump’s Record on Health Care

President Trump's Record on Health Care | KFF

A review of Trump’s health care record so far. Avoiding the problematic issue of Trump’s alleged plan, analysts at the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation released a report this week that examines President Trump’s record on health care over the last three and half years. Some highlights from the overview and the full analysis:

  • On the Affordable Care Act: “From the start of his presidential term, President Trump took aim at the Affordable Care Act, consistent with his campaign pledge leading up to the 2016 election. He supported many efforts in Congress to repeal the law and replace it with an alternative that would have weakened protections for people with pre-existing conditions, eliminated the Medicaid expansion, and reduced premium assistance for people seeking marketplace coverage. While the ACA remains in force, President Trump’s Administration is supporting the case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the ACA in its entirety that is scheduled for oral arguments one week after the election.”

 

  • On Medicare and Medicaid: “The Administration has proposed spending reductions for both Medicaid and Medicare, along with proposals that would promote flexibility for states but limit eligibility for coverage under Medicaid (e.g., work requirements).”

 

  • On drug prices: “The President has made prescription drug prices a top health policy priority and has issued several executive orders and other proposals that aim to lower drug prices; most of these proposals, however, have not been implemented, other than one change that would lower the cost of insulin for some Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes, and another that allows pharmacists to tell consumers if they could save money on their prescriptions. The Trump Administration has also moved forward with an initiative to improve price transparency in an effort to lower costs, though it is held up in the courts.”

 

  • On the response to the coronavirus: “The Trump administration has not established a coordinated, national plan to scale-up and implement public health measures to control the spread of coronavirus, instead choosing to have states assume primary responsibility for the COVID-19 response, with the federal government acting as back-up and ‘supplier of last resort.’ The President has downplayed the threat of COVID-19, given conflicting messages and misinformation, and often been at odds with public health officials and scientific evidence.”

 

President Trump’s Record on Health Care – Issue Brief

 

ACOs in Medicare Shared Savings Program post third year of savings

Posted on by • Posted in Accountable Care Organization (ACO), Health Policy, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Medical Group, Medicare, Medicare ACO, Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP), Physician, Physician Practice Management • Leave a comment

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/ACOS-medicare-shared-savings-health-affairs-seema-verma/585210/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Issue:%202020-09-15%20Healthcare%20Dive%20%5Bissue:29671%5D&utm_term=Healthcare%20Dive

PYA Releases Updated Medicare ACO Road Map White Paper - PYA

Dive Brief:

  • The Medicare Shared Savings Program saved the agency $1.19 billion in 2019, according to CMS performance results of 541 accountable care organizations released Monday.
  • This marks the third year of savings for the value-based care program and its largest yet, CMS Administrator Seema Verma wrote in a Health Affairs blog post Monday. ACOs taking on more risk continued to outperform those that didn’t, Verma wrote, including those under its Pathways to Success rule rolled out in December 2018.
  • ACOs in the Pathways to Success program generated net per-beneficiary savings of $169 compared to $106 for legacy track ACOs, Verma said, suggesting the policies are incentivizing ACOs to deliver more coordinated and efficient care.

Dive Insight:

ACOs are groups of doctors, hospitals and other providers with payments tied to the cost and quality of care they provide beneficiaries. According to Verma’s post, the number of ACOs taking on downside financial risk has nearly doubled since the Pathways to Success program launched for those in the Medicare Shared Savings Program.

New participation options under the rule require accountability for spending increases, generally after two years for new ACOs, and close evaluation of care quality. The new benchmarks and speed at which ACOs would need to take on downside risk was initially shot down by ACOs.

But CMS also created an option for “low-revenue” ACOs, generally run by physician practices rather than hospitals, allowing them an additional year before taking on downside risk for cost increases.

According to the blog post, physician-led ACOs performed better than hospital-led ACOs.

But the National Association of Accountable Care Organizations said only 5% of eligible ACOs took CMS’ offer on the Pathways to Success program structure early and instead chose to remain under the previous MSSP rules.

“To get program growth back on track, Congress needs to take a close look at the Value in Health Care Act, which makes several improvements to the Medicare ACO program and better incentivizes Advanced Alternative Payment Models,” trade group CEO Clif Gaus said in a statement.

Farzad Mostashari, CEO of the Aledade, pointed to physician-led ACOs out-performing hospital ACOs in a statement on the results. “What we need now is to help more practices participate in these models of care,” he said.

Low-revenue ACOs, typically physician-led, had per beneficiary savings of $201 compared to $80 per beneficiary for high-revenue ACOs. Low-revenue ACOs in the Pathways to Success program saved $189 per beneficiary while high-revenue ACOs in the program saved $155 per beneficiary, according to the 2019 performance results.

 

 

 

 

Drug pricing politics aren’t dead

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Dept of Health and Human Services (HHS), Election, Employer-Based Health Insurance, Executive Orders, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, High Deductible Health Plans, High Drug Prices, High Prices, Medicare, Out of Pocket Expenses, Prescription Drugs, Underinsured, Uninsured • Leave a comment

https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-vitals-319d5198-f7a8-401f-9b00-26118ca0b966.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosvitals&stream=top

Ending The Cycle Of Drug Price Hikes, Death And Outrage | Cognoscenti

President Trump released an executive order yesterday ordering the Department of Health and Human Services to begin the process of limiting what Medicare pays for prescription drugs relative to other countries.

Why it matters: It’s September of an election year. That means that this executive order is, at best, a statement of Trump’s intention to keep trying to achieve something big on drug prices should he get a second term.

  • But given that he’s had four years already to act on what was also a big issue in 2016, there’s plenty of reason to be skeptical of this ever translating into official policy.
  • “President Trump’s executive order on drug pricing does not by itself do anything. It has to be followed up by regulations, which will take time. Trump has a history of bold talk on drug prices, only to pull back when it comes to putting actual regulations in place,” the Kaiser Family Foundation’s Larry Levitt tweeted.

Details: The order calls for Medicare to receive the “most-favored-nation” price for certain drugs.

  • This price is defined as “the lowest price, after adjusting for volume and differences in national gross domestic product, for a pharmaceutical product that the drug manufacturer sells in a member country of the [OECD] that has a comparable per-capita gross domestic product.”

The bottom line: Trump and Joe Biden have both pitched aggressive drug pricing policies — a good reminder that once we get the pandemic under control, the issue is bound to become front-and-center again.

 

 

 

 

Hospital revenue at risk in CMS’ proposal to move joint replacement to outpatient care

Posted on by • Posted in Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Joint Replacement Surgery, Medicare, Medicare ASC, Net Patient Service Revenue, Outpatient Surgery, Rev Cycle Management, Revenue Cycle, Telemedicine, Total Hip Replacement Surgery, Virtual Healthcare, Virtual Visit • Leave a comment

https://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/hospital-revenue-risk-cmss-proposal-move-joint-replacement-outpatient-care

Hospital revenue at risk in CMS' proposal to move joint replacement to outpatient care | Healthcare Finance News

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ push to move procedures from inpatient to less expensive outpatient care continues, with revenue at risk for lucrative joint replacement starting in 2021.

CMS’s continued push to the outpatient setting has been going on for some time, but the agency has found its sea legs in the recent hospital outpatient prospective payment system proposed rule, according to Stuart Clark, a managing director for The Advisory Board Company, in an August 27 presentation on payment updates.

CMS is slowly phasing out the inpatient only list over the next three years and is adding more services to the ambulatory surgical center list. There’s around 1,400 total codes on the list right now which are expected to be phased out by 2024.

AUG 29MORE ON REIMBURSEMENT

Hospital revenue at risk in CMS’ proposal to move joint replacement to outpatient care

At stake is $3.2 billion in revenue for a one-day length of stay as 80% of revenue for all services is in joint replacement.

Susan Morse, Managing Editor

 

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ push to move procedures from inpatient to less expensive outpatient care continues, with revenue at risk for lucrative joint replacement starting in 2021.

CMS’s continued push to the outpatient setting has been going on for some time, but the agency has found its sea legs in the recent hospital outpatient prospective payment system proposed rule, according to Stuart Clark, a managing director for The Advisory Board Company, in an August 27 presentation on payment updates.

CMS is slowly phasing out the inpatient only list over the next three years and is adding more services to the ambulatory surgical center list.

There’s around 1,400 total codes on the list right now which are expected to be phased out by 2024.

For 2021, CMS has added 11 new procedures to the ASC list, including musculoskeletal services and total hip replacement.

WHY THIS MATTERS 

Eighty percent of hospital revenue for all services is in joint replacement. At stake is $3.2 billion in revenue for a one-day length of stay.

Per hospital, 12-15 procedures may shift from a one-day stay to outpatient, according to Clark and Shay Pratt, vice president of Strategy and Service Line Research for the Advisory Board.

Hospitals may not see a huge amount of revenue at risk if they can continue to keep the services in-house, but in an outpatient setting.

However, there is less revenue to be made from the move to a lower cost care setting. And an estimated 83% of ambulatory surgical centers are physician-owned.

There is still debate on the efficacy of total hip replacement done as an outpatient service. Commercial payers say ASCs can provide total hip replacement, while opponents say they are not equipped for the service, according to the Advisory Board.

The comment period for the proposed rule is set to close on October 5.

Next year, CMS is expected to add cardiovascular services to the outpatient list, but the volume and revenue is not on as large a scale as joint replacement.

THE LARGER TREND IN TELEHEALTH

In telehealth, CMS is implementing incremental change as its use has increased dramatically during the coronavirus pandemic.

For Medicare reimbursement, 22 services have been added to the telehealth list. Of these, nine codes have been added permanently and 13 are approved through the end of the year in which the public health emergency ends.

Audio-only services are eligible under the public health emergency, but CMS is inviting input on how long they should remain eligible. The agency has said it’s uncertain about the value of an audio-only visit.

 

 

 

 

CMS to require positive COVID-19 test results for Medicare pay boost

Posted on by • Posted in American Hospital Association (AHA), Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Clinical Testing, Coronavirus, Health Policy, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Medicare, Rev Cycle Management, Revenue Cycle, The CARES Act, Undue Burden • Leave a comment

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/cms-to-require-positive-covid-19-test-results-for-medicare-pay-boost.html?utm_medium=email

CMS to Pay For Hospital COVID-19 Care Furnished in Other Settings

CMS recently released guidance that includes a new requirement for hospitals to get a Medicare payment boost for caring for patients diagnosed with COVID-19. 

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act provided a 20 percent add-on payment to the inpatient prospective payment system diagnosis-related group rate for treating patients diagnosed with COVID-19. Until now, a physician’s documentation that a patient has COVID-19 was sufficient to receive the add-on payment. However, recent guidance from CMS adds the requirement to have a positive COVID-19 laboratory test documented in the patient’s medical record for the claim to be eligible for the add-on payment. The new requirement applies to admissions occurring on or after Sept. 1.

To receive the payment boost under the new guidance, the COVID-19 test must be taken within 14 days of the hospital admission. Only the results of viral testing that are consistent with CDC guidelines can be used. Tests performed by an entity other than the hospital, such as a local government-run testing center, can be manually entered into the patient’s medical record, CMS said.

Meeting the new requirement for the add-on payment could be difficult for hospitals, Ronald Hirsch, MD, vice president of the regulations and education group at R1 Physician Advisory Services, told Becker’s Hospital Review. 

“There is no way to indicate on a claim for a hospital patient that a test was positive or negative,” he said. “First, the hospital will manually need to go into every record for a patient with U07.1 as a diagnosis and look for a positive test in their own lab system. If one is not found, they will need to search the notes to see if the patient had a test in the 14 days prior to admission and if that test was positive. If there is a note the patient self-reported that they had a positive test, the hospital must decide if they must go through due diligence and attempt to get that actual test result for their records.”

In cases where there isn’t a positive test noted in the medical record, hospitals would need to notify the Medicare audit contractor that they are submitting a claim for a COVID-19 diagnosis that was made clinically, Dr. Hirsch said. The MAC would need to make the appropriate adjustment to ensure the 20 percent add-on payment is not made.

The “undue burden” that the new requirement will place on hospitals was one of the concerns the American Hospital Association highlighted in an Aug. 26 letter to CMS Administrator Seema Verma. The group is also concerned that requiring a positive COVID-19 test will lead to unnecessary additional testing.

“Basing the COVID-19 diagnosis code on clinical judgment alone — in line with coding rules — continues to be an important approach given that test accuracy may not be reliable, re-testing is unnecessarily onerous, and some communities face persistent testing shortages.” 

The AHA is urging CMS to drop the new requirement and allow provider documentation of a COVID-19 diagnosis to be sufficient for the add-on payment if the test result is unavailable. 

 

 

 

 

Hospitals face closure as $100B in Medicare loans come due

Posted on by • Posted in Bankruptcy, Cash, Cash Management, Cash Reserves, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Critical Access Hospitals, Economic Crisis, Economic Stimulus, Financially Distressed, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Medicare, Medicare Advance Payments, Rural Health, Rural Hospital, The CARES Act • Leave a comment

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/hospitals-face-closure-as-100b-in-medicare-loans-come-due.html?utm_medium=email

HCA posts a billion-dollar profit, bolstered by CARES Act funds - MedCity News

CMS accelerated payments to hospitals and other healthcare providers at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic to help temporarily relieve financial strain. It’s time to begin repaying the Medicare loans but that isn’t possible for some rural hospitals, according to NPR. 

CMS expanded the Accelerated and Advance Payment Program in late March to help offset financial damage caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. CMS announced April 26 that it was reevaluating pending and new applications for advance payments due to the availability of funds under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act. As of May, CMS had paid out $100 billion in advance payments, the bulk of which went to hospitals. 

Hospitals and other healthcare providers are required to start repaying the Medicare loans this month. Most hospitals will have one year from the date the first loan payment was made to repay the loans, according to Kaiser Family Foundation.

Ozarks Community Hospital, 25-bed critical access hospital in Gravette, Ark., is one of the hospitals that applied for and accepted the Medicare loans. The hospital also received grants made available under the CARES Act, which do not have to be repaid.

CEO Paul Taylor said Ozarks Community Hospital’s revenue is still constrained, and he doesn’t know how it will pay back its $8 million Medicare loan. Payments for new Medicare claims will be offset to repay the loans, but losing those payments could force the hospital to close, Mr. Taylor told NPR.

“If I get no relief and they take the money … we won’t still be open,” he said.

Ozarks Community Hospital is one of more than 850 critical access hospitals in rural areas that received Medicare loans, according to NPR. Given the shaky financial footing of many rural hospitals before the pandemic, the strain of having Medicare payments withheld could be enough to force others to shut down. 

Before the pandemic, more than 600 rural hospitals across the U.S. were vulnerable to closure, according to an estimate from iVantage Health Analytics, a firm that compiles a hospital strength index based on data about financial stability, patients and quality indicators.

If the financial pressures tied to the pandemic force any of those hospitals to shut down, they’ll join the list of 131 rural hospitals that have closed over the past decade, according to the Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research.

 

 

 

 

Drugmakers getting bolder in fight over 340B drug discounts

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Dept of Health and Human Services (HHS), Health Policy, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Lawsuit, Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare 340B Drug Discount Program, Pharmaceutical Industry, Safety Net Hospitals, Safety-Net Providers • Leave a comment

https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/hospitals/drug-makers-getting-bolder-fight-over-340b-drug-discounts?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTTJRMlkySTJZV1ZoWldGbSIsInQiOiJYVUFLbDJLQ2hkbzBrWjBpOVwvbm5YYUpVWExRZ21QRXBkWGJFWldLVGxCZXlFOENlazZBdUhpVm5RUTczOGFxZFVLSEszOTZra20zYzdOQllvMjVHVXNvOUFcL0J3Rk0reFwvV1VHRytoUTYwaDNxelgwcmw5RHhuSEZtNGtlcXZ6MCJ9&mrkid=959610

Drugmakers getting bolder in fight over 340B drug discounts ...

Drugmakers are getting bolder in their bid to restrict access to drugs discounted under the 340B program as legal experts say a lack of enforcement has created a regulatory void.

Hospitals are imploring the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to clamp down on several moves by drug companies, including Novartis and AstraZeneca, to limit distribution of certain 340B drugs. But experts say an administration-wide change in what agencies can enforce is likely behind drugmakers’ aggressive moves.

“It is an outrage that these actions are being taken at a time when hospitals are in the midst of their response to the COVID-19 public health emergency, which has further demonstrated the fractured, inadequate state of the prescription drug supply chain,” the American Hospital Association said in a release last week.

Hospitals and 340B advocates are furious that AstraZeneca announced last Friday that starting Oct. 1 it will not offer any discounted drugs to contract pharmacies, which are third-party entities that dispense drugs acquired under the program. 

It is the most aggressive move in a fight sparked last month between drug companies against contract pharmacies, which are a popular tool among 340B hospitals.

The back story

In exchange for participating in Medicaid, a drug manufacturer is required to offer discounts to safety-net hospitals that participate in 340B. But the program has been beset with controversy in recent years as drug companies claim the program has gotten too large and patients aren’t benefiting from the discounts.

Eli Lilly decided last month to restrict sales to contract pharmacies of certain formulations of erectile dysfunction drug Cialis. Merck and Novartis also said contract pharmacies would need to submit claims data to avoid duplicate discounts.

We’ve reached out to pharmaceutical companies for comment and will update when we hear back.

Industry advocacy organization Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) has previously called for reforms to the 340B program, including to the ability for covered entities to contract with multiple outside pharmacies to dispense drugs that receive 340B discounts. Even though the number of Americans who are insured has risen, 340B is growing exponentially, they said. “Not all 340B hospitals are good stewards of the program,” PhRMA said.

Hospital groups and 340B allies charge that the moves blatantly violate a 2010 guidance released by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), which oversees the 340B program.

The guidance permits a hospital participating in 340B to voluntarily use a contract pharmacy and outlines the requirements to do so. The guidance also says a manufacturer must still sell a drug at a price not to exceed the statutory 340B price.

But an October 2019 executive order said federal agencies cannot enforce guidance documents unless they are part of a contract amid other exceptions.

HRSA has said that it doesn’t have the authority under the 340B statute to take enforcement action on “requirements that have been established under guidance,” said Emily Cook, a partner with law firm McDermott Will & Emery.

The agency’s current position is that it can only take enforcement actions on clear violations of the 340B statute, she added.

HRSA told Fierce Healthcare in a statement it is considering the issues raised by the manufacturers and “evaluating our next steps.”

What’s next

Hospitals are hoping HHS steps in and clears up the issue.

If not, then hospitals could either take drug companies to court or lobby Congress to give HRSA more authority over the program.

The advocacy group 340B Health said last week that if the administration refuses to step in then it will “pursue all legislative and legal avenues available to us to defend the safety net.”

Hospitals need to re-examine their 340B contract pharmacy deals to exclude AstraZeneca drugs, according to an article from Brenda Maloney Shafer and Richard Davis of law firm Quarles & Brady.

If they fail to do this, then the contract pharmacy could pay for dispensing and administrative fees for drugs that won’t get a 340B discount.

This is the latest spat over the controversial program. Hospitals took the administration to court after it tried to cut payments under the program by nearly 30%.

An appeals court recently ruled that HHS does have the authority to institute the cuts.

 

 

 

 

Trump Unveils Healthcare Agenda

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Abortion, ACA, Employer-Based Health Insurance, Essential Health Benefits, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, High Deductible Health Plans, High Drug Prices, High Premiums, High Prices, Medicaid, Medicaid Expansion, Medicare, Out of Pocket Expenses, Pandemic, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), Pharmaceutical Industry, Preexisting Conditions, Prescription Drugs, Social Security, Supreme Court, Surprise Bills, Underinsured, Unemployment, Unemployment Insurance, Uninsured, Vaccine, Vague, Womens Health • Leave a comment

https://www.medpagetoday.com/washington-watch/electioncoverage/88250?xid=nl_mpt_DHE_2020-08-26&eun=g885344d0r&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily%20Headlines%20Top%20Cat%20HeC%20%202020-08-26&utm_term=NL_Daily_DHE_dual-gmail-definition

What's in, and out, of Biden's health care plan

List of bullet points prompts debate over lack of detail, potential for actual achievement.

Health policy scholars critiqued the Trump campaign’s broad strokes healthcare agenda for his potential second term. While some found it overly vague, even dishonest, one suggested it was precisely what voters want.

Released Sunday night as a list of bullet points, the “Fighting for You” agenda will apparently serve as the Republican platform for the 2020 election. The GOP’s platform committee voted over the weekend to dispense with the customary detailed policy document for this cycle, in favor of simply backing President Trump’s agenda.

That agenda, which the Trump campaign promised would be fleshed out in future speeches and statements, included the following points relevant to healthcare:

Eradicate COVID-19

  • Develop a vaccine by the end of 2020
  • Return to normal in 2021
  • Make all critical medicines and supplies for healthcare workers
  • Refill stockpiles and prepare for future pandemics

Healthcare

  • Cut prescription drug prices
  • Put patients and doctors back in charge of our healthcare system
  • Lower healthcare insurance premiums
  • End surprise billing
  • Cover all pre-existing conditions
  • Protect Social Security and Medicare
  • Protect our veterans and provide world-class healthcare and services

Reliance on China

  • Allow 100% expensing deductions for essential industries like pharmaceuticals and robotics who bring back their manufacturing to the U.S.
  • No federal contracts for companies who outsource to China
  • Hold China fully accountable for allowing the virus to spread around the world

Joseph Antos, PhD, a resident scholar in healthcare and retirement policy at the American Enterprise Institute, characterized Trump’s strategy as “Don’t explain it. Just say what your goals are.”

He applauded the brevity of the document, 6 pages in total, covering 10 different policy areas from jobs to healthcare to immigration, as a “smart strategy.”

Voters don’t want to read lengthy policy briefs and gave the “Biden-Sanders Unity Task Force Recommendations” which were over 100 pages long and “unbelievably complicated stuff” as an example of how not to reach voters.

“I think [Trump] got it right. He’s not running a think tank…. He’s running for office. He does have a keen eye for what the average voter could stand to listen to.”

Gail Wilensky, PhD, an economist and senior fellow at Project Hope in Bethesda, Maryland, and CMS administrator under President George H.W. Bush, agreed that a platform packed with policy details doesn’t sway many voters.

This election, she said, is about one thing only: “Trump or not Trump.”

Whither the ACA?

Nevertheless, the Trump campaign’s goals merit attention, often for what they don’t include as well as what they do.

As for the substance of the agenda, the key difference between the Trump administration’s proposed agenda and that of the Democratic nominee, former Vice President Joe Biden, is that the latter aims to expand access to health insurance using the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) framework, said Wilensky.

While Trump’s 2016 healthcare agenda centered around repealing the ACA, his second-term agenda doesn’t mention the law by name.

Wilensky said she’s glad that Trump did not include ACA repeal among his goals, given that “there’s no historical precedence” for eliminating the core benefits of such far-reaching legislation, now on the books for 10 years and fully implemented for 6.

Kavita Patel, MD, a primary care physician and Brookings Institution scholar in Washington, D.C., who was an advisor on the Democrats’ platform, said, “This is all just posturing and politics and almost a continuation of things [Trump’s] been saying without any real details behind it.”

Many of these items — such as ending surprise billing, lowering health insurance premiums, and cutting prescription drug prices — would have Democrats’ support “but they would get there in a different way,” Patel said.

One thing she was surprised not to see in the agenda were references to abortion or other reproductive health issues, she noted.

Insurance Coverage Neglected

Rosemarie Day, founder and CEO of Day Health Strategies and author of Marching Toward Coverage: How Women can Lead the Fight for Universal Healthcare, was dumbfounded by the overall lack of substance in the agenda, and particularly by the absence of a plan to deal with rising rates of uninsurance related to the pandemic.

Day thought the Trump campaign could have at least included a plan for returning to the “baseline” on the number of uninsured. Another administration might have chosen to promote Medicaid coverage or encourage unemployed workers to enroll on the health insurance exchanges, but not this administration, she said.

“So, they’re really just leaving people out in the cold,” Day said.

Wilensky, too, suggested it would have been “useful” for the Trump campaign to have “talked about how they envision getting more people covered.”

Paul Ginsburg, PhD, director of the USC-Brookings Schaeffer Initiative for Health Policy, said much of the agenda is “just aspirations.”

“‘Put patients and doctors in charge of our healthcare system’? … I don’t know what the policy is, [but] who’s going to quarrel with that?”

Lowering healthcare premiums also sounds “nice” but how that would be achieved is unclear, he said.

One agenda item in the document that really really irked Day was the Trump administration’s pledge to protect people who have pre-existing conditions.

“I consider the ‘covering all pre-existing conditions’ an outright lie,” she said. “I find it incredibly upsetting that [Trump] continues to say that” because he spent his first term attacking the ACA, which does protect pre-existing condition coverage.

Day also noted that the administration has repeatedly promised an ACA replacement without ever delivering an actual proposal.

Responding to the Pandemic

The Trump campaign agenda lists “eradicate COVID-19” on its bullet list, but Patel said it’s “probably not an achievable goal.” A more realistic target is to control it better.

“We have deaths every year and hospitalizations from influenza, but we have a vaccine and we have … strategies to protect people like seniors and young children,” Patel said. “That’s exactly the kind of attitude we have to take” with regard to COVID-19.

For both Patel and Ginsburg, “return to normal” is another aspiration that’s beyond the government’s power to deliver.

“So much depends on a vaccine and its acceptance and how quickly it can be produced,” Ginsburg said.

As for making all critical medicines and supplies for healthcare workers in the United States, Ginsburg acknowledged that it’s theoretically doable, but still unrealistic because it would be “way too expensive.”

“Brand name drugs are routinely produced in other countries as well as the U.S.; I wouldn’t want to upset that supply chain, especially for drugs that are in shortage,” he said.