Category Archives: Medicare

The future of the ACA takes center stage yet again

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, ACA, Chronic Care Management, Chronic Conditions, Chronic Diseases, Employer-Based Health Insurance, Essential Health Benefits, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, High Deductible Health Plans, High Drug Prices, High Premiums, High Prices, Medicaid, Medicaid Expansion, Medicare, Medicare for All, Out of Pocket Expenses, Preexisting Conditions, Public Option, Supreme Court, Underinsured, Uninsured • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/0e13b5a09ec5/the-weekly-gist-august-21-2020?e=d1e747d2d8

The 2020 ACA Reporting & Regulation Landscape for US Employers ...

Across four nights of a national convention that was anything but conventional, with the nominating process, acceptance speeches, and traditional pomp and circumstance forced into a virtual format due to the coronavirus pandemic, Democrats returned to the healthcare playbook widely viewed as successful in the 2018 midterm elections.

In addition to promising a more robust and concerted response to the COVID crisis gripping the nation, party leaders vowed to protect and expand the Affordable Care Act (ACA), rather than aiming to replace it with the more aggressive “Medicare for All” (M4A) approach that dominated much of the discussion during the primary campaign.

In his acceptance speech on Thursday, Democratic nominee Joseph R. Biden, Jr. promised “a healthcare system that lowers premiums, deductibles, and drug prices by building on the Affordable Care Act he’s trying to rip away,” referring to President Trump’s continued support for the full repeal of the 2010 healthcare reform law.

Earlier, progressive runner-up and vocal M4A advocate Sen. Bernie Sanders signaled a closing of the party’s ranks around Biden’s more moderate approach: “While Joe and I disagree on the best path to get to universal coverage, he has a plan that will greatly expand healthcare and cut the cost of prescription drugs. Further, he will lower the eligibility age of Medicare from 65 to 60.”

Several other speakers highlighted the need to protect the ACA’s guarantee of affordable insurance to those with preexisting conditions, most powerfully the prominent M4A crusader Ady Barkan, who suffers from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).

“Even during this terrible crisis,” Barkan said, “Donald Trump and Republican politicians are trying to take away millions of people’s health insurance.”

 

 

 

 

Drug payment cuts to 340B hospitals spur debate on best path forward

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, America's Essential Hospitals, American Hospital Association (AHA), Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), Big Pharma, District Court of Appeals, Health Policy, Health System, High Deductible Health Plans, High Drug Prices, High Premiums, High Prices, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Lawsuit, Medicare, Medicare 340B Drug Discount Program, Out of Pocket Expenses, Pharmaceutical Industry, Safety Net Hospitals, Underinsured, Uninsured • Leave a comment

https://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/drug-payment-cuts-340b-hospitals-spur-debate-best-path-forward

340B hospitals breathing easier under Dem-controlled House

Hospitals say revenue from the 340B program is essential, while others contend the original law is being abused.

On August 3, an federal appeals court ruled that 340B hospitals will now be subject to Medicare cuts in outpatient drug payments by nearly 30%, reversing an earlier ruling calling those cuts illegal. The 2-1 decision by the U.S Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit essentially gives the Trump Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services the legal authority to reduce payment for Medicare Part B drugs to 340B hospitals.

HHS Secretary Alex Azar said the action means patients – particularly those who live in vulnerable areas – will pay less out-of-pocket for drugs in the Medicare Part B program. But providers, including the American Hospital Association, the Association of American Medical Colleges and America’s Essential Hospitals, said the 340B decision will hurt hospitals and patients in these vulnerable areas.

Hospitals that serve large numbers of Medicaid, Medicare and uninsured patients were getting the drugs for a discounted price, but, getting reimbursed at the higher price, HHS pays all hospitals for Medicare Part B drugs. The hospitals, many of which are in the red or operating on thin margins, were using the pay gap in the price difference to cover operational expenses. HHS deemed it inappropriate that these facilities would use Medicare to subsidize other activities and initiatives, and the appeals court agreed.

As per the original 340B legislation, discounts on drugs can range from 13% to 32% off the average retail price for participating providers, but Medicare Part D sets reimbursement in an entirely different way, leading to the significant reimbursement discrepancies – until the ruling, which furthered HHS’ push to narrow the spread between acquisition price and reimbursement.

THE DEBATE

“The opportunity to exploit this buy/sell differential probably has something to do with the explosive growth there’s been in the number of participating institutions in 340B,” said Michael Abrams, cofounder and managing partner of Numerof and Associates. “According to the data I came across, discounted 340B purchases grew 23% from 2018 to 2019, and currently make up about 8% of the total of the U.S. drug market. So from my perspective this looks like a loophole that’s been used by a small number of large institutions, who in many cases don’t serve that many disadvantaged patients, but nonetheless serve enough to qualify for the 340B program and to purchase the drugs they buy at the discounted rate.”

Groups representing U.S. hospitals would disagree with that assessment, and, in fact, when the appeals court handed its ruling, the AHA, AAMC and America’s Essential Hospitals said 340B hospitals and their patients would “suffer lasting consequences.”

“The decision conflicts with Congress’ clear intent and defers to the government’s inaccurate interpretation of the law, a point that was articulated by the judge who dissented from the opinion,” the groups wrote in a statement. “For more than 25 years, the 340B program has helped hospitals stretch scarce federal resources to reach more patients and provide more comprehensive services. Hospitals that rely on the savings from the 340B drug pricing program are also on the front-lines of the COVID-19 pandemic, and today’s decision will result in the continued loss of resources at the worst possible time.”

President and CEO of 340B Health Maureen Testoni also lamented the appeals court’s decision, calling the cuts “discriminatory.”

“These cuts of nearly 30% have caused real and lasting pain to safety-net hospitals and the patients they serve,” she said earlier this month. “Keeping these cuts in place will only deepen the damage of forced cutbacks in patient services and cancellations of planned care expansions. These effects will be especially detrimental during a global pandemic.”

Abrams contends that much of the confusion and legal wrangling can be attributed to the vagueness of the original 340B legislation, the stated goal of which was to “enable participating institutions to stretch scarce financial dollars.” With little else to go on in terms of the language, those on each side of the issue were able to interpret it in their own way, with participating institutions saying it’s within the bounds of the law to use that revenue stream to enhance their mission – another phrase that’s open to wide interpretation.

“There’s no question this is being put to uses that were never intended,” said Abrams, adding that the profits generated by the buy/sell differential often disappear into balance sheets with little to no accountability.

Hospitals, for their part, feel they’re under siege by HHS at a critical time for the healthcare system’s financial viability. Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, hospitals saw the migration of lucrative inpatient procedures, such as hip and knee replacements, to freestanding outpatient facilities, which in some cases are not owned by the hospital. That represents a significant loss of revenue. Factor in the lost revenue from cancelled or delayed elective procedures due to the coronavirus, as well as patients who are too cautious to enter the healthcare system, and hospitals are hurting. AHA President and CEO Rick Pollack said in July that half of all U.S. hospitals will likely be in the red by the end of the year.

A COMPLICATED PICTURE

Actions by the pharmaceutical industry are also adding to the complication. A recent statement from America’s Essential Hospitals alleges that recent actions by pharmaceutical manufacturers “hinder access to affordable medications for millions of people who face financial hardships and defy clear statutory requirements that they provide drugs to 340B Drug Pricing Program covered entities.”

The manufacturers have threatened punitive actions – including withholding 340B drugs to contract pharmacies – for failing to comply with reporting requirements that Essential Hospitals call “arbitrary.”

“These data requests have no clear link to program integrity,” the group said. “Rather, they seem to be little more than a fishing expedition.”

A concrete example can be found in AstraZeneca’s decision to refuse 340B pricing to hospitals with on-site pharmacies for any drugs that will be dispensed through contract pharmacies. In a statement this week, Testoni of 340B called this action an “attack” on the 340B program that will hurt healthcare institutions as well as low-income and rural Americans.

“We believe that refusing to offer discounts that the 340B statute requires is a violation of federal law,” said Testoni. “We are calling on Health and Human Services Secretary (Alex) Azar to exercise his authority to stop these overcharges before they cause permanent damage to the healthcare safety net.”

Abrams sides more with the appeals court decision, saying that requiring the pharmaceutical industry to sell drugs at a discount comes with significant regulation to ensure they do so – a stark contrast to the lack of regulation around the resulting revenue. Though another appeal certainly isn’t out of the question, Abrams expects participation in the program to shrink back to a level reflecting the size of the target populations.

“This is about helping disadvantaged patients get their drugs, and that should be the driving activity of the program,” he said. “I’m fine with HHS taking this problem on, because it was an abuse that was never intended in the original legislation. It just seems to me that HHS really wants the healthcare sector to deliver care that is more accountable both for efficient use of resources and outcomes.”

One person who disagrees is Circuit Judge Cornelia Pillard, who wrote the dissenting opinion in the appeals court decision.

“The challenged rules took a major bite out of 340B hospitals’ funding,” she said. “Often operating at substantial losses, 340B hospitals rely on the revenue that Medicare Part B provides in the form of standard drug-reimbursement payments that exceed those hospitals’ acquisition costs. 340B hospitals have used the additional resources to provide critical healthcare services to communities with underserved populations that could not otherwise afford these services.”

 

 

 

 

Home as the center of “care anywhere”

Posted on by • Posted in Consumer Loyalty, Consumer Preferences, Consumerism, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Medicare, Strategy, Virtual Care Strategy, Virtual Healthcare, Virtual Hospital, Virtual Visit • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/647832f9aa9e/the-weekly-gist-august-14-2020?e=d1e747d2d8

We’re increasingly convinced that virtual physician visits are just one part of a continuum of care that can be delivered in the convenience and safety of the patient’s home. Health systems that can deliver “care anywhere”—an integrated platform of virtual services consumers can access from home (or wherever they are) for both urgent needs and overall health management, coordinated with in-person resources—have an unprecedented opportunity to build loyalty at a time when consumers are seeking a trusted source of safe, available care solutions.

The graphic above outlines the key components of a comprehensive home-based care model,

which requires the integration of three main elements:

a technology backbone,

a supply chain to provide services like labs and diagnostics,

and a tiered, flexible workforce. 

Of course, these infrastructure needs will increase with care acuity level, ranging from a simple virtual visit to home-delivered vaccination, all the way to hospital-level care at home. Delivering safe, accessible care within the home can be the foundation for an access platform that creates ongoing consumer loyalty—especially for systems who can build a financial model less dependent on payers’ long-term support for telemedicine reimbursement “parity”.

 

 

Pandemic relief funds pivotal in keeping hospitals afloat during Q2

Posted on by • Posted in Capital Structure, Cash, Cash Reserves, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Coronavirus, Economic Crisis, Economic Stimulus, Elective Procedures, Elective Surgery, Employee Furlough, Employee Hiring Freeze, Employee Layoffs, Employee Pay Cuts, Financial Pressure, Financial Viability, Financially Distressed, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Liquidity, Medicare, Medicare Advance Payments, Operating Expense Reduction, Operating Expenses, Operating Income, Operating Margin, Operating Performance, Operating Revenue, Pandemic, Uncertainty • Leave a comment

https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/hospitals/hospital-earnings-highlight-pivotal-role-federal-relief-funds-staying-afloat-during?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTURoaU9HTTRZMkV3TlRReSIsInQiOiJwcCtIb3VSd1ppXC9XT21XZCtoVUd4ekVqSytvK1wvNXgyQk9tMVwvYXcyNkFHXC9BRko2c1NQRHdXK1Z5UXVGbVpsTG5TYml5Z1FlTVJuZERqSEtEcFhrd0hpV1Y2Y0sxZFNBMXJDRkVnU1hmbHpQT0pXckwzRVZ4SUVWMGZsQlpzVkcifQ%3D%3D&mrkid=959610

Hospital system earnings for the second quarter of the year painted a stark picture of how federal relief funding helped offset massive losses in patient volume sparked by the COVID-19 pandemic.

But a full financial recovery may not happen until next year, some analysts warn.

Major hospital systems such as HCA Health and Universal Health Services posted profits in the second quarter despite plummeting volumes sparked by the cancellation of elective procedures and patients avoiding care due to fears of exposure to the virus. A key boost, however, came from a $175 billion fund passed by Congress and loans under the Medicare Accelerated and Advance Payments Program.

“These companies survived the June quarter and exited the quarter with substantial amounts of liquidity,” said Jonathan Kanarek, vice president and senior credit officer for Moody’s Investors Services. “We think [liquidity] is probably the most critical factor for them as far as weathering the storm.”

Congress has approved $175 billion to help prop up providers, of which the Department of Health and Human Services has distributed more than $100 billion.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services also gave out $100 billion in advance Medicare payments before suspending the program in late April. But the payments are loans that hospitals have to start repaying as soon as this month, as opposed to the congressional funding that does not have to get paid back.

Hospital system earnings illustrated how pivotal the relief funds were to combat massive holes in patient volumes.

Tenet Healthcare, which operates 65 hospitals across the country, reported Monday that it earned in the second quarter adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) of $732 million. But of that $732 million, more than 70% of it was aid from the relief fund.

Tenet wasn’t the only for-profit system where relief funding was a large part of their adjusted EBITDA.

Community Health Systems, which operates 95 facilities, reported an adjusted EBITDA of $454 million in the second quarter. But most of that figure was due to the $448 million that it got from the relief funds.

The provider funding made up a smaller portion of HCA Healthcare’s earnings. The system of 184 hospitals reported that the funding made up 31% of its adjusted EBITDA.

Hospital system volumes greatly declined in April as facilities were forced to cancel elective procedures and patients were scared of going to the hospital.

For example, Tenet’s hospital admissions in April were 33% of what it had in the same month in 2019. But volumes started to recover as shelter-in-place orders expired and some states got a better handle on the pandemic.

Tenet saw admissions grow in June to 90% of what they were in June 2019.

But it remains unclear what hospital finances will look like for the rest of the year. Major systems like Tenet and HCA have scrapped their 2020 financial outlook because of the pandemic.

“We don’t think the shape of this recovery or trajectory will be linear in nature,” Kanarek said. “We think there will be a lot of starts and stops.”

Those starts and stops will depend on the extent of the spread of the virus in an area.

Some states such as Florida, Texas and Arizona have seen massive spikes in the virus in recent weeks, which has put renewed strain on systems. Texas’ governor canceled elective procedures in eight counties back in June, some of which included major cities such as Houston and Dallas.

“I am a little skeptical that we are going to be back to normal before we ultimately have a vaccine,” Kanarek said.

It is also murky on whether hospitals will continue to get more financial help from Congress.

The House passed the HEROES Act more than a month ago that gives providers another $100 billion, but it has stalled in the Senate.

Congress and the White House have been in extensive talks for more than a week on a new relief package. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell released a package last week that had $25 billion in relief funding and lawsuit liability protections for providers.

But even without the additional funding, for-profit hospitals have made some moves to prepare for more shutdowns such as accessing capital markets to add additional lawyers of bank liquidity, Kanarek said.

“We can only hope 2021 will look like a more normal year for hospitals, perhaps more like 2019, but there is still a lot of uncertainty out there,” he said.

 

 

 

 

Some providers face daunting repayment deadline for Medicare advance loans

Posted on by • Posted in Cash, Cash Reserves, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Coronavirus, Crisis, Crisis Management, Economic Crisis, Economic Stimulus, Health Policy, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Liquidity, Medicare, Medicare Advance Payments • Leave a comment

https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/hospitals/some-providers-face-daunting-aug-1-repayment-deadline-for-medicare-advance-loans?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWkRReFlqRmpaamRtWVdabSIsInQiOiJFTEp3SjQ3NG01NXcwRTg3Z0hCZkdTRlwvOURSeEVlblwvRlFUWlZcL09ONjZGNVEybzl3ekl3VFd2ZEgxSjY2NGQ0TkFIRFdtQ0ZDWUx0ak96NU15d09qMWcrdm9BMFUxOSszcVI0T21rak5raEN0aE5Kb0VUUGFcL254QnBjMjdCbzkifQ%3D%3D&mrkid=959610

Starting this month, some providers are facing the prospect of their Medicare payments garnished to repay COVID-19 loans.

The pressing Aug. 1 deadline has sparked concerns from some experts and hospital groups that worry providers couldn’t afford to lose out on Medicare revenue as they combat revenue losses caused by the pandemic. While the program was intended to be a short-term solution, COVID-19 surges are proving that is not the case for some hospitals.

At the onset of the pandemic in March, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) extended the advance payment program, which has been used previously to help providers beset by disasters such as hurricanes. Providers and suppliers could apply for advance Medicare payments to offset massive losses sparked by declines in patient volumes due to COVID-19.

Most providers could get up to 100% of their Medicare payments for a three-month period, and inpatient acute care hospitals, children’s hospitals and some cancer hospitals can request up to 100% for a six-month period. Critical access hospitals could have gotten up to 125% over six months.

CMS had given out $100 billion of loans before suspending the program.

“It was very effective because the process was already in place,” said Denise Burke, a partner with the healthcare compliance and operations group for law firm Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis.

The goal behind the program is to help providers stay afloat and was meant to be a short-term solution, as repayment starts 120 days after a provider gets the first payment. But that is the problem, experts say.

“It was intended as a short-term bridge so they could get through the summer before everything returned to normal, only problem is nothing has returned to normal,” said Dan Mendelson, founder and former president of consulting firm Avalere Health.

Now, repayment for the first loans are due on Aug. 1 as more and more states are seeing massive surges of COVID-19. Some major hospital systems, such as HCA and CHS, have been able to offset massive declines in revenue thanks to the loans and money from a $175 billion provider relief fund passed by Congress.

Hospitals have one year from the date of the accelerated payment to repay the balance of the loan, but Medicare Part A providers and Part B suppliers have 210 days from the accelerated payment to repay.

“CMS should think about relative to financial position of the provider,” Mendelson said. “Some providers are doing just fine and can repay loans just like everybody else.”

After the 120-day period is up, CMS will take 100% of Medicare claims payments that would have gone to the provider to offset the balance of the loan.

But it remains unclear whether CMS can change the terms of the repayment to give providers and suppliers more time, especially if they are struggling.

“CMS moves deadlines all the time,” Mendelson said. “The question is whether they can or are willing to exercise this discretion in this case.”

It also is unlikely that CMS will resume the program, which some provider groups have also called for.

“It seems unlikely CMS will continue to allocate money through the advance payment program that has fewer terms and conditions than allocating through provider relief fund,” Burke said, referring to the $175 billion fund that Health and Human Services is still allocating.

CMS did not return a request for comment as of press time.

A major problem for some hospitals is they may not have the liquidity available to repay the loans.

“There are a lot of hospitals struggling right now because volumes are off,” Mendelson said. “This comes down to the fact that people are staying away from the hospital to the extent they possibly can.”

Provider groups such as the American Hospital Association are imploring Congress to forgive the loans, or at the very least change the repayment terms.

For instance, some groups want to lower the interest rates to 50 or 25% of a Medicare payment as opposed to 100%.

But talks on a new COVID-19 relief package have stalled so far no deal has emerged.

Senate Republicans released their own package earlier this week that includes another $25 billion for providers and gives liability protections for hospitals and other businesses. But the package doesn’t include changes to the loans.

 

 

 

Appeals court upholds nearly 30% payment cut to 340B hospitals

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Dept of Health and Human Services (HHS), District Court of Appeals, Health Policy, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Medicare, Medicare 340B Drug Discount Program, Medicare Site Neutral Payment, Pandemic, Safety Net Hospitals, Safety-Net Providers • Leave a comment

https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/hospitals/appeals-court-upholds-nearly-30-payment-cut-to-340b-hospitals?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWkRReFlqRmpaamRtWVdabSIsInQiOiJFTEp3SjQ3NG01NXcwRTg3Z0hCZkdTRlwvOURSeEVlblwvRlFUWlZcL09ONjZGNVEybzl3ekl3VFd2ZEgxSjY2NGQ0TkFIRFdtQ0ZDWUx0ak96NU15d09qMWcrdm9BMFUxOSszcVI0T21rak5raEN0aE5Kb0VUUGFcL254QnBjMjdCbzkifQ%3D%3D&mrkid=959610

In court filing, AHA says HHS should make 340B hospitals 'whole ...

A federal appeals court has ruled the Trump administration can install nearly 30% cuts to the 340B drug discount program.

The ruling Friday is the latest legal setback for hospitals that have been vociferously fighting cuts the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced back in 2017.

340B requires pharmaceutical manufacturers to deliver discounts to safety net hospitals in exchange for participation in Medicaid. A hospital will pay typically between 20% and 50% below the average sales price for the covered drugs.

HHS sought to address a payment gap between 340B and Medicare Part B, which reimburses providers for drugs administered in a physician’s office such as chemotherapy. There was a 25% and 55% gap between the price for a 340B drug and on Medicare Part B.

So HHS administered a 28.5% cut in the 2018 hospital payment rule. The agency also included the cuts in the 2019 payment rule.

Three hospital groups sued to stop the cut, arguing that HHS exceeded its federal authority to adjust the rates to the program.

A lower court agreed with the hospitals and called for the agency to come up with a remedy for the cuts that already went into effect.

But HHS argued that when it sets 340B payment amounts, it has the authority to adjust the amounts to ensure they don’t reimburse hospitals at higher levels than the actual costs to acquire the drugs.

If the hospital acquisition cost data are not available, HHS could determine the amount of payment equal to the average drug price. HHS argued that hospital cost acquisition data was not available and so HHS needed to determine the payment rates based on the average drug price.

The court agreed with the agency’s interpretation.

“At a minimum, the statute does not clearly preclude HHS from adjusting the [340B] rate in a focused manner to address problems with reimbursement rates applicable only to certain types of hospitals,” the ruling said.

The court added that the $1.6 billion gleaned from the cuts would go to all providers as additional reimbursements for other services.

340B groups were disappointed with the decision.

“These cuts of nearly 30% have caused real and lasting pain to safety-net hospitals and the patients they serve,” said Maureen Testoni, president and CEO of advocacy group 340B Health, which represents more than 1,400 hospitals that participate in the program. “Keeping these cuts in place will only deepen the damage of forced cutbacks in patient services and cancellations of planned care expansions.”

This is the latest legal defeat for the hospital industry. A few weeks ago, the same appeals court ruled that HHS had the legal authority to institute cuts to off-campus clinics to bring Medicare payments in line with physician offices, reversing a lower court’s ruling.

The groups behind the lawsuit — American Hospital Association, American Association of Medical Colleges and America’s Essential Hospitals — slammed the decision as hurtful to hospitals fighting the COVID-19 pandemic. But the groups didn’t say if it would appeal the decision.

“Hospitals that rely on the savings from the 340B drug pricing program are also on the front-lines of the COVID-19 pandemic, and today’s decision will result in the continued loss of resources at the worst possible time,” the groups said in a statement Friday.

 

 

 

Can we ‘TRUST’ the ‘CARES ACT’ to ‘HEAL’ our nation?

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Coronavirus, Economic Crisis, Economic Stimulus, Election, Health Policy, Medicare, Medicare Hospital Fund, Pandemic, Partisanship, Social Security, The CARES Act, Transparency, Vote, Voting, Voting by Mail • Leave a comment

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/08/01/cares-trust-heals-heroes-congress-stimulus/?utm_campaign=wp_post_most&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_most

Social Security Error Leads to Unpaid Medicare Coverage

A groan-up look at Congress’s aspirational acronyms for its various stimulus bills.

Two of the things missing from the increasingly bitter debate about how to handle covid-19’s effect on our people, our businesses and our economy are a sense of humor and bipartisanship.

So as a public service, let me try to bring both of those to bear by doing a deep dive into the various pieces of stimulus legislation currently running around in Our Nation’s Capital.

No, I’m not going to give you a detailed, sleep-inducing analysis featuring numbers and experts opining about various provisions. Instead, I’m going to look at the names — which I find hilariously tortured — of the various pieces of legislation.

Possibly because I’m both a recovering English major and a non-Washingtonian, I like to know the full names of the legislation — like the Cares Act — that I’m writing about. And these names are just great. Let’s start with the Cares (or as I prefer to call it, CARES) Act.

Do you know what the full name of that legislation is? Probably not. Okay, I’ll tell you. It’s the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act. A name clearly invented to produce a seemingly empathetic acronym.

Now, let’s move on to two total groaners — the Democrats’ and Republicans’ proposals for more stimulus legislation. Remember, I’m not talking about the proposals’ provisions — I’m talking about their names. The Democrats’ candidate in the current stimulus battle is the Heroes (or rather HEROES) Act. The full name of this piece of work, which has been passed by the House, is the Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions Act. My favorite part is “Omnibus,” which clearly is in the title because an acronym meister needed an O, and Omnibus was better than Outsized or Over-the-top.

Showing that they would not be out-acronymed, the Republicans named their legislation, which is currently kicking around (and being kicked around) in the Senate, the Heals (or HEALS) Act. That stands for Health, Economic Assistance, Liability protection and Schools Act. The lowercase p in “protection” let the acronym mavens call the legislation HEALS rather than HEALPS.

And finally, there’s legislation that’s been around for several years but that I discovered only recently when Mitch McConnell and his crew stuck it into the HEALS Act. It’s a proposal that would let a congressional committee, operating outside of public sight, propose cuts and changes to Social Security, Medicare and some other federal programs that use trust funds. It’s called the Time to Rescue United States Trusts (or TRUST) Act. I’ve looked at it only superficially — but from what I’ve seen, I don’t think there’s any reason to trust it.

I hope you’ve noticed that I’m doing equal-opportunity name mocking: the Cares and Trust acts, which are bipartisan; the Heroes Act, which is Democratic; and the Heals (or HEALPS) Act, which is Republican.

What do I propose to do about these contorted names? I’m glad you asked. My answer, naturally, is to propose a piece of legislation of my own: The Get Rid Of Acronyms Now Act. That, my friends, would be a true GROAN-er.

 

July ends on an uncertain note in the pandemic battle

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Bankruptcy, Chronic Care Management, Chronic Conditions, Chronic Diseases, Clinical Testing, Coronavirus, Crisis, Crisis Management, Economic Crisis, Economic Recovery, Economy Reopening, Employer-Based Health Insurance, Financial Pressure, Financial Viability, Financially Distressed, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Infection Control, Infection Control Plan, Infectious Virus, Job, Job Loss, Job Market, Job Search, Job Security, Leadership Decentralized, Medicare, Medicare Advance Payments, Mortality, National Strategy, Out of Pocket Expenses, Pandemic, Partisanship, Preexisting Conditions, Public Good, Public Health, Public Safety, Public Welfare, Quarantine, School Reopening, Scientists, Social Distancing, State of the Union, Underinsured, Unemployment, Unemployment Insurance, Uninsured • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/0fa09872586c/the-weekly-gist-july-31-2020?e=d1e747d2d8

Fighting a losing battle - post - Imgur

After a week that brought the most disastrous economic data in modern history, the death of a former Presidential candidate from COVID, and signs of an alarming surge in virus cases in the Midwest, Congress left Washington for the weekend without reaching a deal on a new recovery bill. That left millions of unemployed Americans without supplemental benefit payments, business owners wondering whether more financial assistance would be forthcoming, and hospitals facing the requirement to begin repaying billions of dollars of advance payments from Medicare.

Also remaining on the table was funding to bolster coronavirus testing, with the top health official in charge of the testing effort testifying on Friday that the system is not currently able to deliver COVID test results to patients in a timely manner. While the surge in cases appears to be shifting to the Midwest, there were early indications of positive news across the Sun Belt, as the daily new case count in Florida, Louisiana, Texas, Arizona and California continued to decline, while daily death counts (a lagging indicator) continued to hit new records.

Nationally, the daily case count appears to have reached a new plateau of around 65,000, with daily deaths rising to a 7-day average above 1,150, matching a level last seen in May.

Meanwhile, new clinical findings continued to refine our understanding of how the virus attacks its victims. Reporting in JAMA Cardiology, researchers used cardiac MRI to examine heart function among 100 coronavirus patients, 67 of whom recovered at home without hospitalization, finding that 78 percent demonstrated cardiac involvement and 60 percent had evidence of active heart muscle inflammation—concerning signs pointing to possible long-term complications, even in patients with relatively mild courses of COVID infection.

And yesterday in JAMA, investigators reported that while young children are typically less affected by COVID-19 than adults, children under 5 may harbor 100 times as much active virus in their nose and throat as infected adults. While the study does not confirm that kids spread the virus to adults, it is sure to raise concerns about reopening schools, which has generally been considered relatively safer for younger children.

US coronavirus update: 4.8M cases; 151K deaths; 52.9M tests conducted.

 

 

 

Hospitals lose legal challenge to 340B drug payment cut

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, American Hospital Association (AHA), District Court of Appeals, Health Policy, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Medicare, Medicare 340B Drug Discount Program, Medicare Site Neutral Payment, Safety Net Hospitals, Safety-Net Providers • Leave a comment

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/hospitals-lose-legal-challenge-to-340b-drug-payment-cut/582717/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Newsletter%20Weekly%20Roundup:%20Healthcare%20Dive:%20Daily%20Dive%2008-01-2020&utm_term=Healthcare%20Dive%20Weekender

340B Program: Important, but Weaknesses Cited - Pharmacy Practice News

Dive Brief:

  • A significant rate cut for some medications for 340B hospitals was based on a “reasonable interpretation of the Medicare statute” and can stand, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled Friday.
  • The 2-1 ruling overturns a district court decision that HHS overstepped its bounds when it cut the reimbursement rate for a certain category of outpatient drugs by 28.5% for hospitals enrolled in the 340B drug discount program.
  • The American Hospital Association, which challenged the rate cut along with three individual hospitals, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. An advocacy group for 340B hospitals said in a statement it was disappointed in the ruling and that the rate change has “caused real and lasting pain to safety-net hospitals and the patients they serve.”

Dive Insight:

The decision is another major blow for hospitals, coming two weeks after the same court ruled HHS also acted within its authority when it reduced payments to off-campus hospital outpatient departments.

AHA said this week it is seeking to have that ruling overturned.

HHS made the cut to 340B hospital outpatient drug reimbursement in the 2018 Outpatient Prospective Payment System rule, arguing that those hospitals, which primarily serve low-income populations, get the drugs at a deep discount and thus could be incentivized to overuse them.

The cut was from 106% of the average sales price to 22.5% less than ASP. Hospitals immediately sued, but HHS retained the reduction in the 2019 OPPS. The department has said the change would save Medicare $1.6 billion in 2018.

Writing for the court, Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan said the department did indeed have the authority to make the reduction, “so as to avoid reimbursing those hospitals at much higher levels than their actual costs to acquire the drugs.”

He also called the cut “a fair, or even conservative, measure of the reduction needed to bring payments to those hospitals into parity with their costs to obtain the drugs.”

In a partially dissenting opinion, Circuit Judge Cornelia Pillard wrote that she believes the statute only allows HHS to make the change for a specific group of hospitals under a clause that requires the agency to use a certain data set it did not use.

 

 

 

 

Why COVID-19’s biggest impact on healthcare may not be until 2022

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, ACA, Business Model, Cost Management, Cost Reduction, Cost Shifting, Employer-Based Health Insurance, Financial Pressure, Financial Viability, Financially Distressed, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Job, Job Loss, Job Market, Medicaid, Medicare, Pandemic, Underinsured, Unemployment, Unemployment Insurance, Uninsured • Leave a comment

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/why-covid-19s-biggest-impact-on-healthcare-may-not-be-until-2022/582129/

This perfect storm of a shift in payer mix, the impending insolvency of Medicare and the inability of states to absorb the growing costs of Medicaid represent a tsunami of challenges.

With COVID-19 there has been unprecedented stress placed upon the healthcare system. The human and financial toll of the current crisis has been extraordinary. Yet, little attention has been focused on the impact of this virus on the viability of our healthcare financing system.

Three significant shifts in healthcare financing are occurring as a result of the pandemic’s economic impact. First, as a result of job losses, there will be a shift in commercial insurance to government-funded insurance programs. Second, revenue for funding Medicare, based on payroll taxes, will be significantly decreased. Finally, states will have less tax revenue to pay for Medicaid, threatening the viability of this program as well.

More than 30 million Americans have filed for unemployment since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. According to a recent report, about 27 million people may lose their employer-sponsored insurance. 

This will result in millions of people seeking coverage through Medicaid programs, the individual marketplace or simply becoming uninsured. Healthcare providers have relied upon margins from commercial insurance to offset costs from poorer reimbursing government funded programs and uncompensated care.

With more than 156 million Americans receiving employer sponsored insurance at the start of this year, and given recent projected job losses, providers may see a 17% shift in payer mix. The reliance on commercial insurance and cost shifting has become a necessary way for providers to financially sustain operations. 

With a 35% margin with commercial insurance compared to Medicare, a 17% shift in payer mix on a trillion dollar spend would result in a substantial reduction in financial resources available to hospitals.

Almost half of healthcare expenditures already come from government programs. Medicare, the largest of these programs, is principally supported by taxes on payroll and social security benefits. With COVID-related job losses there will be a corresponding reduction in payroll tax revenues to the Medicare system. Reports from the Congressional Research Service submitted to Congress in May, with data used prior to COVID-19, projected that Medicare would become insolvent in 2026.

Analyses performed show that there will be a gap in Medicare revenues during the next three years (from the pre-COVID projections) of close to $150 billion. The result is that Medicare will become insolvent as early as 2022. Even by applying more conservative projections, such as recovering all job losses by the end of 2020 and payroll tax revenue holding steady at pre-COVID levels, Medicare still becomes insolvent in 2023.

State revenues, too, will be under real pressure with reduced tax revenues resulting from the current economic downturn. Medicaid programs are supported in part by federal funds, but also from general funds from the state. 
On average, states are projecting about a 10% reduction in revenues in 2020, rising to almost a 25% reduction in 2021. Even without considering the growth in Medicaid enrollment hitting states, this reduced tax revenue will make sustaining current Medicaid program funding increasingly difficult.

This perfect storm of a shift in payer mix, the impending insolvency of Medicare by 2022 and the inability of states to absorb the growing costs of Medicaid represent a tsunami of challenges for the health system. Looking at this new reality, it is clear that our system for financing healthcare is severely broken and we must identify solutions to sustain access to medical care for our citizens.

This will be a challenge of a generation and we will need strength, courage and bold ideas to get through this. Pandemics have a way of changing a society’s political, economic and sociologic outlooks, and COVID-19 will be no different.