Starting June 1, UnitedHealthcare will require physicians to submit prior authorization requests for certain types of colonoscopies. While routine screening colonoscopies will remain exempt, United beneficiaries requiring surveillance or diagnostic colonoscopies—which are performed on patients at greater risk of developing colon cancer or those already exhibiting worrisome symptoms—will need advance approval for the procedures to be covered by the payer. A UnitedHealthcare spokesperson said that this policy change is due to concerns that colonoscopy overutilization generates unnecessary medical risks and higher healthcare spending for patients.
The American College of Gastroenterology released a statement criticizing the new policy on the grounds that prior authorization requirements create harmful delays for patients and are a significant source of provider burnout.
The Gist: So much for the planned rollback of prior authorizations that UnitedHealthcare recently touted.
While the insurer is not wrong in saying that some studies have documented overutilization of colonoscopies,
prior authorization is a blunt tool that takes care decision making out of practicing providers’ hands, redirecting that power (along with more profit) to the payer.
To process prior authorization requests in a timely manner, insurers now commonly rely on AI algorithms, which are an imperfect solution. For patients exhibiting signs of colon cancer,improper denials and delayed approvals for colonoscopies could have life-threatening implications.
American Medical Association President Jack Resneck Jr., MD, detailed in a post on the medical group’s website the “Kafkaesque” prior authorization process that an unnamed insurance company allegedly put one of his patients through.
Dr. Resneck, a San Francisco-based dermatologist, was treating a patient with severe head-to-toe eczema, who was unable to sleep because of the condition, according to the post. Dr. Resneck found a medication that allowed the patient to sleep and return to work.
Several months later, however, the patient was unable to get the prescription refilled at the pharmacy, according to the report. Dr. Resneck completed the paperwork describing how well the patient had responded to the medication, as required by the insurance company, and faxed it over. The prior authorization request for the prescription refill was rejected.
Dr. Resneck said the insurance company rejected the refill on the grounds that the patient no longer met the severity criteria because not enough of his body was covered and he was not missing enough sleep.
The insurance company allegedly wanted to take the patient off the medication for several weeks to let his eczema flare up again, according to the post. It took more than 20 additional telephone calls until the patient’s prescription was refilled.
In the last edition of the Weekly Gist, we illustrated how non-hospital physician employment spiked during the pandemic. Diving deeper into the same report from consulting firm Avalere Health and the nonprofit Physicians Advocacy Institute, the graphic above looks at the specialties that currently have the greatest number of physicians employed by hospitals and corporate entities (which include insurers, private equity, and non-provider umbrella organizations), and those that remain the most independent.
To date, there has been little overlap in the fields most heavily targeted for employment by hospitals and corporate entities. Hospitals have largely employed doctors critical for key service lines, like cancer and cardiology, as well as hospitalists and other doctors central to day-to-day hospital operations.
In contrast, corporate entities have made the greatest strides in specialties with lucrative outpatient procedural business, like nephrology (dialysis) and orthopedics (ambulatory surgery), as well as specialties like allergy-immunology, that can bring profitable pharmaceutical revenue.
Meanwhile, only a few specialties remain majority independent. Historically independent fields like psychiatry and oral surgery saw the number of independent practitioners fall over 25 percent during the pandemic.
While hospitals will remain the dominant physician employer in the near term, corporate employment is growing unabated, as payers and investors, unrestrained by fair market value requirements, can offer top dollar prices to practices.
With recent residency match data showing a 26 percent drop in applications to emergency medicine training programs since 2021, this article in the Washington Post grapples with why the once sought-after profession is now struggling with recruitment.
Some point to high rates of pandemic burnout and the unappealing nature of the work: emergency departments (EDs) are increasingly overcrowded, understaffed, and violent—turning ED docs into “the cops of medicine,” as one ED residency program leader put it. Others suggest that residents are simply following the money elsewhere, discouraged by reports of an impending oversupply of ED physicians in coming years.
The Gist: The days of the television drama ER, which inspired a generation of would-be doctors to pursue emergency medicine, are gone—most medical students graduating today weren’t even born when the show first aired in 1994. The article fails to note the changes in EDs brought on by investor-backed staffing companies, which now staff anywhere from an estimated quarter to half of the nation’s EDs.
They’re accused of cutting costs by hiring fewer ED docs, as well as funding more ED residency spots in an attempt to flood the market and drive down their future labor costs even further. In the wake of COVID, emergency physicians find themselves in EDs largely staffed by advanced practice providers.
While in the near-term hospitals will surely face challenges in staffing these critical roles, shortages may drive momentum to refine and expand technology- and team-based care models.
The Medicare Advisory Payment Commission recommends a higher-than-current-law fee-for-service payment update in 2024 for acute care hospitals and positive payment updates for clinicians paid under the physician fee schedule. It recommends reductions in base payment rates for skilled nursing facilities, home health agencies and inpatient rehabilitation facilities.
MedPAC gave Congress recommendations on payment rates in both traditional fee-for-service and Medicare Advantage for 2024, satisfying a legislative mandate comparing per enrollee spending in both programs.
MedPAC estimates that Medicare spends 6% more for MA enrollees than it would spend if those enrollees remained in fee-for-service Medicare.
In their March 2023 Report to the Congress: Medicare Payment Policy, commissioners said they were acutely aware of how providers’ financial status and patterns of Medicare spending varied in 2020 and 2021 due to COVID-19 and were also aware of higher and more volatile cost increases.
However, they’re statutorily charged to evaluate available data to assess whether Medicare payments are sufficient to support the efficient delivery of care and ensure access to care for Medicare’s beneficiaries, commissioners said.
FEE-FOR-SERVICE RATE RECOMMENDATIONS
MedPAC’s payment update recommendations are based on an assessment of payment adequacy, beneficiaries’ access to and use of care, the quality of the care, the supply of providers, and their access to capital, the report said. As well as higher payments for acute care hospitals and clinicians, MedPAC recommends positive rates for outpatient dialysis facilities.
It recommends providing additional resources to acute care hospitals and clinicians who furnish care to Medicare beneficiaries with low incomes. It also recommends a positive payment update in 2024 for hospice providers concurrent with wage adjusting and reducing the hospice aggregate Medicare payment cap by 20%.
It recommends negative updates, which are reductions in base payment rates, for skilled nursing facilities, home health agencies and inpatient rehabilitation facilities.
Acute care
For acute care hospitals paid under the inpatient prospective payment system, commissioners recommend adding $2 billion to current disproportionate share and uncompensated care payments and distributing the entire amount using a commission-developed “Medicare SafetyNet Index” to direct funding to those hospitals that provide care to large shares of low-income Medicare beneficiaries.
This recommendation got pushback from America’s Essential Hospitals.
“We appreciate the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission’s desire to define safety net hospitals for targeted support, but the commission’s Medicare safety net index (MSNI) could have the perverse effect of shifting resources away from hospitals that need support the most,” said SVP of Policy and Advocacy Beth Feldpush. “The MSNI methodology fails to account for all the nation’s safety net hospitals by overlooking uncompensated care and care provided to non-Medicare, low-income patients – especially Medicaid beneficiaries. Any practical definition of a safety net provider must consider the care of Medicaid and uninsured patients, yet the MSNI misses on both counts.”
Feldpush urged policymakers to develop a federal designation of safety net hospitals and to reject the MSNI.
“Further, policymaking for these hospitals should supplement, rather than redistribute, existing Medicare DSH funding, which reflects a congressionally sanctioned, well-established methodology,” she said.
Physicians and clinicians
For clinicians, the commission recommends that Medicare make targeted add-on payments of 15% to primary care clinicians and 5% to all other clinicians for physician fee schedule services provided to low-income Medicare beneficiaries.
The American Medical Association commended MedPAC, but also said that an update tied to just 50% of the Medicare Economic Index would cause physician payment to chronically fall even further behind increases in the cost of providing care. AMA president Dr. Jack Resneck Jr. urged Congress to pass legislation providing for an annual inflation-based payment update.
MedPAC has long championed a physician payment update tied to the Medicare Economic Index, Resneck said. Physicians have faced the cost of inflation, the COVID-19 pandemic and growing expenses to run medical practices, jeopardizing access to care, particularly in rural and underserved areas.
“Not only have Medicare payments failed to respond adequately, but physicians saw a 2% payment reduction for 2023, creating an additional challenge at a perilous moment,” Resneck said. “As one of the only Medicare providers without an inflationary payment update, physicians have waited a long time for this change. When adjusted for inflation, Medicare physician payment has effectively declined 26% from 2001 to 2023. These increasingly thin or negative operating margins disproportionately affect small, independent, and rural physician practices, as well as those treating low-income or other historically minoritized or marginalized patient communities. Our workforce is at risk just when the health of the nation depends on preserving access to care.”
The AMA and 134 other health organizations wrote to congressional leaders urging for a full inflation-based update to the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule.
MGMA’s SVP of Government Affairs Anders Gilberg said, “Today’s MedPAC report recommends Congress provide an inflationary update to the Medicare base payment rate for physician and other health professional services of 50% of the Medicare Economic Index (MEI), an estimated annual increase of 1.45% for 2024. In the best of times such a nominal increase would not cover annual medical practice cost increases. In the current inflationary environment, it is grossly insufficient.”
MGMA urged Congress to pass legislation to provide an annual inflationary update based on the full MEI.
Ambulatory surgical centers and long-term care hospitals
Previously, the commission considered an annual update recommendation for ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs). However, because Medicare does not require ASCs to submit data on the cost of treating beneficiaries, the commissioners said they had no new significant data to inform an ASC update recommendation for 2024.
Commissioners also previously considered an annual update recommendation for long-term care hospitals (LTCHs). But as the number of cases that qualify for payment under Medicare’s prospective payment system for LTCHs has fallen, they said they have become increasingly concerned about small sample sizes in the analyses of this sector.
“As a result, we will no longer provide an annual payment adequacy analysis for LTCHs but will continue to monitor that sector and provide periodic status reports,” they said in the report.
MEDICARE ADVANTAGE
Commissioners said that overall, indicators point to an increasingly robust MA program. In 2022, the MA program included over 5,200 plan options, enrolled about 29 million Medicare beneficiaries (49% of eligible beneficiaries), and paid MA plans $403 billion (not including Part D drug plan payments).
In 2023, the average Medicare beneficiary has a choice of 41 plans offered by an average of eight organizations. Further, the level of rebates that fund extra benefits reached a record high of about $2,350 per enrollee, on average.
Medicare payments for these extra benefits – which are not covered for beneficiaries in FFS – have more than doubled since 2018. For 2023, the average MA plan bid to provide Medicare Part A and Part B benefits was 17% less than FFS Medicare would be projected to spend for those enrollees.
However, the benefits from MA’s lower cost relative to FFS spending are shared exclusively by the companies sponsoring MA plans and MA enrollees (in the form of extra benefits). The taxpayers and FFS Medicare beneficiaries (who help fund the MA program through Part B premiums) do not realize any savings from MA plan efficiencies.
Medicare should not continue to overpay MA plans, MedPAC said. Over the past few years, the commission has made recommendations to address coding intensity, replace the quality bonus program and establish more equitable benchmarks, which are used to set plan payments, the report said. All of these would stem Medicare’s excess payments to MA plans, helping to preserve Medicare’s solvency and sustainability while maintaining beneficiary access to MA plans and the extra benefits they can provide.
PART D
Medicare’s cost-based reinsurance continues to be the largest and fastest growing component of Part D spending, totaling $52.4 billion, or about 55% of the total, according to the report.
As a result, the financial risk that plans bear, as well as their incentives to control costs, has declined markedly. The value of the average basic benefit that is paid to plans through the capitated direct subsidy has plummeted in recent years.
In 2023, direct subsidy payments averaged less than $2 per member per month, compared with payments of nearly $94 per member, per month, for reinsurance. To help address these issues, in 2020 the commission recommended substantial changes to Part D’s benefit design to limit enrollee out-of-pocket spending; realign plan and manufacturer incentives to help restore the role of risk-based, capitated payments; and eliminate features of the current program that distort market incentives.
In 2022, Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act, which included numerous policies related to prescription drugs. One such provision is a redesign of the Part D benefit with many similarities to the commission’s recommended changes.
The changes adopted in the IRA will be implemented over the next several years, and are likely to alter the drug-pricing landscape, commissioners said.
While hospitals, payers, and private equity firms have long been competing to acquire independent physician groups, theCOVID pandemic spurred a marked acceleration of the physician employment trend, with non-hospital corporate entities leading the charge.
The graphic above uses data released by consulting firm Avalere Health and the nonprofit Physicians Advocacy Institute to show that nearly three quarters of American physicians were employed by a larger entity as of January 2022, up from 62 percent just three years prior.
While hospitals employ a majority of those physicians, corporate entities (a group that includes payers, private equity groups, and non-provider umbrella organizations) have been increasing their physician rolls at a much faster rate.
Corporate entities employed over 40 percent more physicians in 2022 than in 2019, and in the southern part of the country—a hotspot for growth of Medicare Advantage—corporate physician employment grew by over 50 percent.
We expect the move away from private practice, accelerated by the pandemic, will only continue as physicians seek financial returns, secure a path to retirement, and look to access capital for necessary investments to help grow and manage the increasing complexities of running a practice.
Addressing the education pipeline is one thing that legislators could focus on to improve nurse and physician shortages, medical school and health system leaders said.
As the healthcare industry continues to face pandemic-driven workforce challenges, lawmakers are exploring ways to boost the number of clinicians practicing in the U.S.
“A shortage of healthcare personnel was a problem before the pandemic and now it has gotten worse,” Chairman Sen. Bernie Sanders I-Vt., said during a Thursday Senate HELP committee hearing. “Health care jobs have gotten more challenging and, in some cases, more dangerous,” he said.
Hospitals are currently facing shortages of registered nurses as burnout and other factors drive them to other roles.
For example, 47-hospital system Ochsner Health in New Orleans has about 1,200 open nursing positions, Chief Academic Officer Leonardo Seoane said at Thursday’s hearing.
The workforce shortaged led Ochsner to close about 100 beds across its system during the past six months, leading to it use already-constrained emergency departments as holding bays for patients, he said.
Like other systems, labor costs have also been a concern due to a continued reliance on temporary staff to fill gaps. Ochsner’s non-agency labor costs grew just under 60% since 2019, while its costs for contract staff grew nearly 900%, he said.
“Our country is perilously short of nurses, and those we do have are often not working in the settings that could provide the most value,” Sarah Szanton, dean of Johns Hopkins School of Nursing said.
“This was true before the pandemic and has become more acute,” she said.
While many nurses left permanent roles for higher-paying contract positions during the pandemic, others have turned to jobs at outpatient clinics, coinciding with a shift toward non-hospital based care.
Registered nurse employment is nearly 5% above where it was in 2019, with nearly all that growth occurring outside of hospitals, Douglas Staiger, a professor of economics at Dartmouth College, found in his research and said at the hearing.
One major concern: Driving current and projected shortages in hospitals that lawmakers can address is the educational pipeline, medical school and health system leaders said.
Educational programs for nurses and physicians face site shortages and educators who are often allured by other higher-paying jobs in the industry.
Nursing educators in Vermont earn about $65,000 a year — about half of what nurses with similar degrees working in hospitals earn, Sanders said during the hearing. He asked members to consider expanding the Nurse Corps and nurse faculty loan repayments, among other programs.
Supporting partnerships between universities and hospitals to create more training opportunities is another way Congress can help, along with addressing high costs of tuition, James Herbert, president of University of New England, said during the hearing.
“Scholarship and loan repayment programs are critical to make healthcare education more accessible for those who would otherwise find it out of reach,” Herbert said.
That includes expanding and improving Medicare-funded physician residencies, he said.
Creating a more diverse workforce that looks more like the population it serves is another important task, and one lawmakers can address by supporting historically black colleges and universities.
Federal funding could help improve classrooms and other infrastructure at HBCUs “that have been egregiously are underfunded for decades,” in addition to expanding Medicare-funded residencies for hospitals that train a large number of graduates for HBCU medical schools, said James Hildreth Sr., president and CEO at Meharry Medical College in Nashville.
The American Hospital Association submitted a statement to the HELP subcommittee and said it also supports increasing the number of residency slots eligible for Medicare funds and rejecting cuts to curb long-term physician shortages.
Other AHA supported policies to address current and long-term workforce shortages include better funding for nursing schools and supporting expedited visas for foreign-trained nurses.
AHA also asked lawmakers to look into travel nurse staffing agencies, reviving requests it made last year alleging that staffing companies engaged in price gouging during the pandemic.
In a guest essay for the New York Times this week, Dr. Eric Reinhart argues that physician burnout is not solely a product of physicians’ deteriorating working conditions, but is also driven by a loss of faith in the larger US healthcare system.
He notes that physicians have begun to lose hope in their ability to improve the system in which they work. As outpourings of appreciation for heroic healthcare workers have ended, physicians find themselves working in a system whose myriad structural flaws have been exacerbated by the pandemic. While the system might serve certain physician groups well (particularly specialists who are advantaged by the American Medical Association’s billing code structures), it often fails the patients who trust them for their care, and doctors “are now finding it difficult to quash the suspicion that our institutions, and much of [their] work inside them, primarily serve a moneymaking machine”.
The Gist:While elevating burnout to the level of culture, ideology, and faith in the US healthcare system may be met with skepticism by health system leaders interested in concrete solutions to their workforce problems, it’s important to acknowledge that material benefits and operational improvements may not fully solve engagement challenges.
Compared to peer nations, our healthcare system can be uniquely seen as unfair and unequal, whether because of medical debt, maternal mortality, or declining life expectancies—and many providers feel ill-equipped to address these concerns in their daily work.
This piece serves as a reminder of why most clinicians chose healthcare in the first place: to save lives and help people. The younger generation of physicians isrethinking what that mission means, and how it should include more than just care delivery—and they’re more open to aggressive policy solutions to address systemic inequalities.
A working paper published this week by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that prior authorization requirements reduced drug spending far more than they increased physicians’ administrative costs.
Using a random assignment of plans within Medicare Part D’s low-income subsidy program, the study determined that a prior authorization requirement decreased a drug’s utilization by just over 25 percent, with around half of denied beneficiaries opting for a comparable alternative and the other half receiving no drug at all. This generated $96 in per-beneficiary-per-year savings, which the authors estimate to be around 10 times greater than the administrative costs incurred.
The Gist: Physician groups have long despised prior authorization processes, listing it as their most burdensome regulatory issue. While studies like this are useful for demonstrating the returns from these processes and putting the tradeoffs in perspective, they fail to account for who is bearing the burden of the time spent, and who captures the cost savings: physicians bear the administrative costs, and payers capture the returns. Not to mention that worried patients, anxious to receive treatment, are often put in the position of “quarterbacking” a convoluted and bureaucratic appeals process.
Ongoing work should focus on streamlining authorizations, to lessen the impact on physicians’ time and satisfaction, and make navigating the process simpler for patients. An increasing array of technology options aims to solve this problem though automation, but the challenge remains for payers and providers to come together to deliver on that potential.
HENRY KOTULA 