Review finds 5 in 20 Washington hospitals violate state charity care law

http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/legal-regulatory-issues/review-finds-5-in-20-washington-hospitals-violate-state-charity-care-law.html

Related image

Twelve hospitals across the state of Washington received charity care deficiency letters after a recent report by Columbia Legal Services revealed significant problems.

Washington law requires all hospitals to only demand one form of an income-related document, determine if patients qualify for charity care and notify patients of their options. Columbia Legal Services found five hospitals violated this law. The legal organization also found seven more hospitals deficient in their charity care offerings, but not in violation of state or federal laws.

The study cited instances where hospitals were not doing enough to overcome language barriers to charity care, patients were not adequately informed about their charity care rights and hospitals were not informing patients of eligibility or screening them for eligibility.

To investigate the efficacy of charity care policies in Washington hospitals, Columbia Legal Services reviewed state and national charity care reports, hospital data, state laws and uninsured rates. The report tested 20 hospitals in the state.

Read the full report here.

Click to access 170824CharityCareReportFINAL-DIGITAL.pdf

 

Novant Health sees operating income drop 32.3%

http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/novant-health-sees-operating-income-drop-32-3.html

Image result for novant health headquarters

Winston-Salem, N.C.-based Novant Health saw operating income drop 32.3 percent year-over-year in the second quarter of fiscal year 2017 to $39.7 million, according to unaudited financial documents.

The health system recorded a 2.2 percent year-over-year increase in operating revenue in the second quarter of this year, to $1.11 billion. However, the system saw operating expenses increase 5 percent year-over-year to $994 million.

Including expenses, Novant saw net income drop 2.8 percent year-over-year for the second quarter ended June 30 to $83.9 million.

Becker’s Hospital Review reached out to Novant Health for further explanation of its second quarter financial performance. The system did not provide any additional information.

Exposure Draft: U.S. Not-For-Profit Hospitals andHealth Systems Rating Criteria

https://www.fitchratings.com/site/re/895646

Image result for Fitch U.S. Not-For-Profit Hospitals

Fitch Ratings has proposed rating criteria changes for nonprofit hospitals and health systems.

Here are five things to know.

1. Fitch said the proposed criteria changes include introduction of revenue defensibility, operating risk and financial profile rating factors as well as individual assessments for each of those factors.

2. Other proposed criteria changes from Fitch include “financial profile alignment with business profile in rating assessment; forward looking consideration of the impact of existing or needed capital investments that may increase financial leverage; and introduction of FAST, an issuer specific scenario analysis tool measuring investment portfolio stress linked to asset allocation, stress on revenue and cost growth rates.”

3. The overall goal with the proposed criteria changes is “to communicate Fitch’s credit ratings more clearly and better express the characteristics that affect a credit’s relative resilience in changing economic conditions,” said Fitch Senior Director Kevin Holloran.

He added, “Fitch believes that this will facilitate a more forward-looking approach to ratings and will better highlight differences among credits within the same rating category.”

4. The agency said it anticipates “fewer than 15 percent of ratings will be affected, with a roughly equal mix of upgrades and downgrades” as a result of the proposed criteria changes.

5. Fitch is accepting comments on the proposed criteria changes via email until Oct. 20. The full Fitch report on the proposed criteria changes is available here.

State officials plead for bipartisan ObamaCare fix

State officials plead for bipartisan ObamaCare fix

State officials plead for bipartisan ObamaCare fix

State insurance officials pleaded with senators on Wednesday to quickly act to stabilize the ObamaCare marketscalling for a multiyear extension of key payments to help fund premiums for low-income customers.

Congress must pass a fix by the end of September to shore up the wobbly individual markets, several officials said, in particular funding for key ObamaCare insurer payments known as cost-sharing reductions (CSR).

“The CSR funding issue is the single most critical issue that you can address to help stabilize insurance markets for 2018 and potentially bring down costs,” Tennessee’s insurance commissioner Julie Mix McPeak told the Senate Health Committee.

The panel kicked off a series of hearings Wednesday on stabilizing the markets. If Congress can pass a bill, it would represent the biggest bipartisan update since President Obama signed the law in 2010.

Health committee Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) wants to find consensus by the end of next week. To sell the fix, he and ranking member Patty Murray (D-Wash.) held a private meeting with senators not on the committee and the witnesses who testified as Wednesday’s hearing.

“If we can do two things, that would be two more things that we have agreed on in a bipartisan way in the last seven years in health insurance,” Alexander told reporters.

“And then let the leaders see if we can pass it, and hope the House does and that the president signs it.”

Despite some pushback that could still come from conservatives calling the payments an “insurer bailout,” Alexander and Murray hope to cobble together a bipartisan group that agree some continuation of the payments is necessary.

The cost sharing subsidies, which reimburse insurers for giving discounted deductibles and co-pays to low-income customers, have been made by the Trump administration on a month-to-month basis.

Republicans had sued the Obama administration over the payments, calling them unconstitutional, but many have since acknowledged they need to continue at least in the near term to prevent steep premium hikes.

Insurers have asked for long-term certainty on the payments, threatening to hike premiums and leave the ObamaCare markets altogether if they don’t get it.

Democrats, and some Republicans like Alexander, agree Congress should fund the payments, but there’s disagreement on the time frame.

Alexander wants to fund the payments through 2018 while Murray has pushed for multiple years.

“It is critical that we work toward a multiyear solution in order to provide the kind of certainty that will have the most impact on families’ premiums and choices in the marketplaces,” Murray said.

America’s Health Insurance Plans, the nation’s largest insurer trade association, and other stakeholder groups urged Congress to fund the payments through at least 2019.

“Without two years of CSR funding, uncertainty will persist and the Congress will need to address these same issues early next year,” the groups wrote in a letter to the committee Tuesday.

Meanwhile, Republicans say a bipartisan health bill must include changes to ObamaCare’s state waivers so states have more control over what their insurance plans look like.

Alexander said ObamaCare’s waivers should be amended so “states can have more flexibility to devise ways to provide more coverage with more choices and lower costs.”

“It just hasn’t been very appealing to states because it is a difficult tool to use,” he said.

This point was echoed by Pennsylvania’s insurance commissioner Theresa Miller, who called the process to get approved cumbersome.

“Baseline coverage requirements should be kept intact as much as possible … but make it easier for states to respond to market issues,” she said.

For example, it takes at least six months to get a waiver approved with the federal government, which the commissioners said made it difficult to quickly respond to market issues.

But Democrats have been wary of anything they say could result in coverage losses and the availability of less comprehensive insurance plans.

The Senate GOP’s ObamaCare repeal plan, which failed in a dramatic vote with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) joining two other Republicans in opposition, contained language intended to make it easier for states to approve less comprehensive plans.

However, Democrats say that is going in the wrong direction.

We should be “moving forward not backward on affordability, coverage and quality of care,” Murray said.

“We’re all well aware threading this needle won’t be easy,” she said, “but I do believe an agreement that protects patients and families from higher costs and uncertainty, and maintains the guardrails in our current health care system, is possible.”

Several commissioners also recommended setting up a temporary reinsurance program to help insurers with high cost patients with the intent of lowering premiums for healthier ones.

“Congress should enact a federal reinsurance program with a minimum duration of three years,” said Washington state insurance commissioner Mike Kreidler, adding that it would “significantly help stabilize the individual health insurance market.”

But Alexander indicated it’s unlikely for the bill to include reinsurance funding, noting that the U.S. is already trillions in debt.

“If a reinsurance program is such a good idea … why don’t states do it?” he asked, suggesting states impose small fees on every insurance plan sold to help fund it.

Democrats are also pushing for a bill to restore ObamaCare outreach funding after the Trump administration announced drastic cuts to the program.

Alaska’s insurance director Lori Wing-Heier said the cuts concern her because “these programs reduce the number of uninsured citizens and maximize public participation.”

Insurance official to Congress: ObamaCare not collapsing

Insurance official to Congress: ObamaCare not collapsing

Insurance official to Congress: ObamaCare not collapsing

A Pennsylvania insurance official told Congress Wednesday that ObamaCare is not collapsing, as some Republicans have argued.

Speaking at a Senate Health Committee hearing on efforts to stabilize Affordable Care Act (ACA) markets, Teresa Miller, Pennsylvania’s acting Human Services secretary and former insurance commissioner, said that the notion is “just false.”

“I’m not going to sit here this morning and tell you that the ACA is perfect,” she said. “I think we all know that it’s not, but the narrative that the ACA is failing and imploding is just false.”

Miller, who works in the administration of Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf, noted that insurers in the state filed average premium increases of just 8.8 percent for next year, and that most enrollees receive government subsidies to help them afford premium costs.

While there have been “difficulties” in the market, she said, “our individual market is not collapsing.”

Other states have encountered more problems with their markets, but every state is on track to have at least one insurer offering ObamaCare coverage in every county next year, after some worries that there would be empty counties.

The insurance commissioners testifying largely called for efforts to further stabilize ObamaCare markets, for example by funding key payments known as cost-sharing reductions, which President Trump has threatened to cancel.

Multiple commissioners also called for a program called reinsurance that provides government funding to bring down premiums by paying for part of especially sick enrollees’ claims.

The Senate Health Committee is trying to reach a deal on a bipartisan stabilization bill by the end of next week, a tough task on such a polarizing issue.

Anthem Now Requiring Pre-approval for Hospital MRIs, CT Scans

http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/finance/anthem-now-requiring-pre-approval-hospital-mris-ct-scans?spMailingID=11861186&spUserID=MTY3ODg4NTg1MzQ4S0&spJobID=1240498373&spReportId=MTI0MDQ5ODM3MwS2

Image result for medical necessity

The insurer no longer allows outpatient imaging in hospitals. Hospitals may feel the financial loss.

In a bid to cut costs, Anthem is now informing consumers that it must pre-approve any hospital-based MRIs and CT-scans, and that approval won’t come easily.

The insurer’s new policy forbids hospital imaging services on an outpatient basis and requires proof that inpatient imaging is medically necessary.

The Anthem change in policy is likely to be a financial blow to hospitals, which have seen outpatient imaging as a profit center in recent years.

Anthem announced recently that outpatient MRIs and CT scans must be performed at lower-priced facilities, citing its commitment to the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) Triple Aim Initiative, which calls for improving the patient experience, improving population health, and reducing costs.

The insurer says clinical research has shown the safety of imaging services in free-standing facilities, so the additional cost of a hospital setting is unnecessary.

“Anthem’s primary concern is to provide access to quality and safe healthcare for our members. We are also committed to reducing overall medical cost where possible when the safety of the member is not put at risk,” the company says.

Anthem notes that imaging costs can vary widely without any effect on quality of care, with scans costing as little as $350 and as much as $2,000.

The company also notified providers of the change in policy, explaining that physicians must obtain pre-certification approval for inpatient hospital imaging. Anthem told consumers that it will provide assistance in finding imaging facilities other than hospitals.

The change in policy could reduce a member’s out-of-pocket costs, Anthem notes.

“If the member has a benefit plan where he or she pays a percentage of the cost, it is possible that his or her percentage of out-of-pocket cost may be reduced,” Anthem says. “This is because the cost to undergo a CT or MRI scan administered in a freestanding imaging facility may be less than what a hospital-based facility would charge. If the member has a facility copay, there may not be a reduction in a member’s out of pocket cost.”

However, the policy still stands even if using a freestanding facility would not reduce the consumer’s out-of-pocket cost, the insurer explains. The approval or denial of the site of service is based only on medical necessity.

In the unlikely event that the physician ignores the policy and the patient receives imaging services in a hospital outpatient setting, the hospital would be responsible for the cost, Anthem says. The patient would not be held responsible unless he or she signed a statement acknowledging the deviation from Anthem policy and agreed to be financially responsible.