The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released its 2022 Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS) proposed rule this week. Overall, the rule brings good news for hospitals: Medicare reimbursement rates are slated to increase by 2.8 percent,resulting in a $2.5B payment boost to the industry.
In another win, hospitals will no longer be required to disclose their contract terms with Medicare Advantage (MA) insurers. Hospitals had previously been mandated by the 2021 rule to report median, payer-specific, negotiated charges for MA insurers on their Medicare cost reports. Medicare’s goal was to use this data to create a new, market-based, inpatient reimbursement methodology—an effort which has also been tabled, at least for now.
Led by the American Hospital Association, hospitals have been embroiled in lengthy legal challenges over a variety of CMS price transparency requirements, maintaining they are neither beneficial for consumers, nor helpful in lowering healthcare costs.
It’s too early to tell whether this step back from price transparency, which was a key goal of the Trump administration, signals anything about the Biden administration’s priorities; it’s possible CMS may just be slowing down the effort in the wake of the pandemic.
Other highlights of the proposed rule includefunding 1,000 more residency slots over the next five years, and extending payments for COVID-19 treatments to the end of 2022, as CMS expects COVID patients will need care beyond the duration of public health emergency. The agency also proposed several changes to its readmissions and other value-based purchasing programs, to ensure hospitals aren’t penalized by COVID-related impacts on quality measures.
Comments on the proposed rule are due by June 28th.
Employers — including companies, state governments and universities — purchase health care on behalf of roughly 150 million Americans. The cost of that care has continued to climb for both businesses and their workers.
For many years, employers saw wasteful care as the primary driver of their rising costs. They made benefits changes like adding wellness programs and raising deductibles to reduce unnecessary care, but costs continued to rise. Now, driven by a combination of new research and changing market forces — especially hospital consolidation — more employers see prices as their primary problem.
By amassing and analyzing employers’ claims data in innovative ways, academics and researchers at organizations like the Health Care Cost Institute (HCCI) and RAND have helped illuminate for employers two key truths about the hospital-based health care they purchase:
1) PRICES VARY WIDELY FOR THE SAME SERVICES
Data show that providers charge private payers very different prices for the exact same services — even within the same geographic area.
For example, HCCI found the price of a C-section delivery in the San Francisco Bay Area varies between hospitals by as much as:$24,107
Data show that hospitals charge employers and private insurers, on average, roughly twice what they charge Medicare for the exact same services. A recent RAND study analyzed more than 3,000 hospitals’ prices and found the most expensive facility in the country charged employers:4.1xMedicare
Hospitals claim this price difference is necessary because public payers like Medicare do not pay enough. However, there is a wide gap between the amount hospitals lose on Medicare (around -9% for inpatient care) and the amount more they charge employers compared to Medicare (200% or more).
A small but growing group of companies, public employers (like state governments and universities) and unions is using new data and tactics to tackle these high prices. (Learn more about who’s leading this work, how and why by listening to our full podcast episode in the player above.)
Note that the employers leading this charge tend to be large and self-funded, meaning they shoulder the risk for the insurance they provide employees, giving them extra flexibility and motivation to purchase health care differently. The approaches they are taking include:
Some employers are implementing so-called tiered networks, where employees pay more if they want to continue seeing certain, more expensive providers. Others are trying to strongly steer employees to particular hospitals, sometimes know as centers of excellence, where employers have made special deals for particular services.
Purdue University, for example, covers travel and lodging and offers a $500 stipend to employees that get hip or knee replacements done at one Indiana hospital.
Negotiating New Deals
There is a movement among some employers to renegotiate hospital deals using Medicare rates as the baseline — since they are transparent and account for hospitals’ unique attributes like location and patient mix — as opposed to negotiating down from charges set by hospitals, which are seen by many as opaque and arbitrary. Other employers are pressuring their insurance carriers to renegotiate the contracts they have with hospitals.
In 2016, the Montana state employee health plan, led by Marilyn Bartlett, got all of the state’s hospitals to agree to a payment rate based on a multiple of Medicare. They saved more than $30 million in just three years. Bartlett is now advising other states trying to follow her playbook.
In 2020, several large Indiana employers urged insurance carrier Anthem to renegotiate their contract with Parkview Health, a hospital system RAND researchers identified as one of the most expensive in the country. After months of tense back-and-forth, the pair reached a five-year deal expected to save Anthem customers $700 million.
Legislating, Regulating, Litigating
Some employer coalitions are advocating for more intervention by policymakers to cap health care prices or at least make them more transparent. States like Colorado and Indiana have passed price transparency legislation, and new federal rules now require more hospital price transparency on a national level. Advocates expect strong industry opposition to stiffer measures, like price caps, which recently failed in the Montana legislature.
Other advocates are calling for more scrutiny by state and federal officials of hospital mergers and other anticompetitive practices. Some employers and unions have even resorted to suing hospitals like Sutter Health in California.
Employers face a few key barriers to purchasing health care in different and more efficient ways:
Hospitals tend to have much more market power than individual employers, and that power has grown in recent years, enabling them to raise prices. Even very large employers have geographically dispersed workforces, making it hard to exert much leverage over any given hospital. Some employers have tried forming purchasing coalitions to pool their buying power, but they face tricky organizational dynamics and laws that prohibit collusion.
Employers can attempt to lower prices by renegotiating contracts with hospitals or tailoring provider networks, but the work is complicated and rife with tradeoffs. Few employers are sophisticated enough, for example, to assess a provider’s quality or to structure hospital payments in new ways.Employers looking for insurers to help them have limited options, as that industry has also become highly consolidated.
Employers say they primarily provide benefits to recruit and retain happy and healthy employees. Many are reluctant to risk upsetting employees by cutting out expensive providers or redesigning benefits in other ways. A recent KFF survey found just 4% of employers had dropped a hospital in order to cut costs.
Employers play a unique role in the United States health care system, and in the lives of the 150 million Americans who get insurance through work. For years, critics have questioned the wisdom of an employer-based health care system, and massive job losses created by the pandemic have reinforced those doubts for many.
Assuming employers do continue to purchase insurance on behalf of millions of Americans, though, focusing on lowering the prices they pay is one promising path to lowering total costs. However, as noted above, hospitals have expressed concern over the financial pressures they may face under these new deals. Complex benefit design strategies, like narrow or tiered networks, also run the risk of harming employees, who may make suboptimal choices or experience cost surprises. Finally, these strategies do not necessarily address other drivers of high costs including drug prices and wasteful care.
Sutter Health, a 24-hospital system based in Sacramento, Calif., has agreed to pay $575 million to settle an antitrust case brought by employers and California Attorney General Xavier Becerra.
The settlement resolves allegations that Sutter Health violated California’s antitrust laws by using its market power to overcharge patients and employer-funded health plans. The class members alleged Sutter Health’s inflated prices led to $756 million in overcharges, according to Bloomberg Law.
Under the terms of the settlement, Sutter will pay $575 million to employers, unions and others covered under the class action. The health system will also be required to make several other changes, including limiting what it charges patients for out-of-network services, halting measurers that deny patients access to lower-cost health plans, and improving access to pricing, quality and cost information, according to a Dec. 20 release from Mr. Becerra.
To ensure Sutter is complying with the terms of the settlement, the health system will be required to cooperate with a court-approved compliance monitor for at least 10 years.
Mr. Becerra said the settlement, which he called “a game changer for restoring competition,” is a warning to other organizations.
“This first-in-the-nation comprehensive settlement should send a clear message to the markets: if you’re looking to consolidate for any reason other than efficiency that delivers better quality for a lower price, think again. The California Department of Justice is prepared to protect consumers and competition, especially when it comes to healthcare,” he said.
A Sutter spokesperson told The New York Times that the settlement did not acknowledge wrongdoing. “We were able to resolve this matter in a way that enables Sutter Health to maintain our integrated network and ability to provide patients with access to affordable, high-quality care,” said Flo Di Benedetto, Sutter’s senior vice president and general counsel, in a statement to The Times.
The settlement must be approved by the court. A hearing on the settlement is scheduled for Feb. 25, 2020.
The market designed to create competition for biologics — typically our most expensive drugs — has been slow to take off, but some experts say that even its best-case scenario doesn’t do enough to lower drug prices.
Why it matters: While wonks debate the future of biosimilars in policy journals and on editorial pages, the argument is reflected in the political divide over whether enhanced drug competition or price regulation is the best way to address drug prices.
The big picture: Congress created the pathway for biosimilars to come to market knowing that they’d look different than small-molecule generics, and even their most ardent supporters say biosimilars will never achieve the steep discounts that generics do.
That’s because biosimilars are much harder to make than normal generics, meaning that drug companies have to charge enough to make their endeavor worthwhile.
Nevertheless, the Biosimilars Council says on its website that biosimilars could lead to more than $54 billion in savings over the next decade. A recent analysis by the Pacific Research Institute found that biosimilars could save $7.2 billion a year under the most optimistic modeled scenario.
Yes, but: Some experts are arguing that that’s not enough, and that biosimilars aren’t the best way to control biologic prices.
Last week, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center’s Peter Bach and MIT’s Mark Trusheim published an editorial in the Wall Street Journal arguing that biosimilars don’t produce enough savings and that the resources spent developing them would be better used to bring new, innovative drugs to market.
Bach and Trusheim proposed that the government instead regulate the price of older biologics after they’ve been on the market for a certain period of time, which they wrote could save around $50 billion a year.
The other side: Former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb wrote an editorial in the WSJ yesterday in response, arguing that Congress should speed up the use and development of biosimilars instead of regulating prices.
“Among other dangers, [price regulation] could trigger shortages of the drugs. It would also discourage investment in manufacturing, as few drugmakers would want to produce complex drugs in perpetuity for little profit,” Gottlieb writes.
The bottom line: This argument isn’t just for the academics. The leading Democratic presidential candidates are also arguing for drug price regulation, a major shift left for the party.
“Price regulation may be a tough sell in some quarters, but it’s the best way to keep the promise of America’s extraordinary pharmaceutical industry alive,” Bach and Trusheim write.