GOP states move to cut Medicaid

GOP states move to cut Medicaid

GOP states move to cut Medicaid

Republican governors are working with the Trump administration to do something Congress couldn’t accomplish: fundamentally alter their state Medicaid programs.

At least six states with GOP governors— Arkansas, Kentucky, Arizona, Maine, Wisconsin and Indiana — have already drafted plans meant to introduce new rules people would have to meet to be eligible for Medicaid, which provides healthcare to low-income Americans and those with certain disabilities.

Some want to add work requirements or introduce drug testing for recipients. Others want to raise premium prices.

The Trump administration has to approve the plans. Some approvals could come in weeks.

Critics say the proposed changes will leave fewer people on Medicaid and hurt the poor and vulnerable.

“There are limits on what’s allowable, and tying eligibility to work or drug testing or some of these other things is not consistent with what should be allowed,” said Judith Solomon, vice president for health policy at the liberal-leaning Centers on Budget and Policy Priorities.

“That said, we know we now have an administration that likely thinks differently, and we could see some changes in that regard,” she said.

Proponents argue the changes, which would waive federal requirements under Medicaid, are an important tool in trimming the fast-rising costs of the program.

They say Medicaid recipients should have some “skin in the game” — an incentive to transition from government support to full-time employment.

“Medicaid is Pac-Manning state budgets right now. It’s taking money away from education, transportation, in expansion and non-expansion states alike. It is eating their budgets,” said Josh Archambault, a senior fellow at the conservative Foundation for Government Accountability.

In the past, waivers have been granted to test new ways of delivering care and expanding Medicaid coverage. The only real requirements are that the waivers be budget neutral and promote the objectives of the Medicaid program.

Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price, a former Republican congressman from Georgia and a vocal ObamaCare critic, has enormous flexibility in deciding what that means.

In March, Price and Seema Verma, who helms the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, sent a letter to governors saying the administration would allow work requirements, larger premiums and other waiver provisions.

It was a dramatic departure from the Obama administration and “an open invitation” for states, said Robin Rudowitz, associate director for the Kaiser Family Foundation’s Program on Medicaid and the Uninsured.

“By and large, Obama let states use waivers to expand the number of people in the Medicaid program,” Archambault said.

The Trump administration seems poised to do the opposite.

Critics say the proposed requirements go beyond the authority of the executive branch, but Archambault said the statute on what’s allowed is extremely broad, meaning the administration has the authority to approve most, if not all of the proposals.

Republicans in Congress have been deeply divided over Medicaid, with conservatives seeking to cut spending on the program but centrists from states where it was expanded under ObamaCare pushing back.

The House and Senate’s ObamaCare repeal bills sought to drastically cut back Medicaid spending by capping federal financing and ending ObamaCare’s enhanced federal funding for coverage expansion. The bills also would have given states the option of imposing work requirements.

Medicaid waivers can’t change the program’s financing the way a federal law could, but several state waivers filed months ago include a work requirement as a way to trim spending.

Work requirements “will have the result of cutting state Medicaid costs because fewer people will be on Medicaid,” said Deborah Bachrach, a partner at Manatt Health and former Medicaid director of New York.

To date, no state has received an approval for a waiver requiring people to work to be eligible for Medicaid. If the Trump administration approves of one, most experts think other states will get similar requirements approved quickly.

“If and when Kentucky and Arizona get approval … you’ll see a bunch of other Republican states copycat,” Archambault said.

Other changes, if approved, include lowering the eligibility levels for coverage and a time limit for being on Medicaid.

Arkansas recently filed a waiver request to lower the Medicaid eligibility level while still receiving extra federal money as a Medicaid expansion state. It’s the first state to make such a request of the Trump administration; some states tried similar requests during the Obama administration and were denied.

Wisconsin would like to screen all and test some applicants for drugs. Those who test positive for drugs would be required to receive treatment; those who refuse to be screened or take a test would be ineligible for Medicaid benefits.

The state also wants to impose a 48-month limit on Medicaid eligibility, unless the person is working.

“My biggest concern is that the state is going to create a lot of new red tape and expense that is going to suppress Medicaid participation and increase total healthcare costs by putting greater reliance on hospital and emergency departments,” Jon Peacock, research director for Wisconsin-based Kids Forward, said.

Experts warn certain controversial provisions, if implemented, could be targets for lawsuits.

“Some of these waivers are pushing the boundaries of what has been approved before, and that could lead to potential litigation,” Rudowitz said.

The financial barrier to developing antibiotics? No big payday for drug companies

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/financial-barrier-developing-antibiotics-no-big-payday-drug-companies/

Image result for dollars

 

The New Metrics

http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/leadership/new-metrics?spMailingID=11626424&spUserID=MTY3ODg4NTg1MzQ4S0&spJobID=1220355864&spReportId=MTIyMDM1NTg2NAS2

Image result for critical metrics

The business and clinical intelligence that are necessary for healthcare leaders to better manage their organizations are changing rapidly. Returns may be greatest for organizations that are able to measure outcomes and show value.

An old saying from Six Sigma and other process improvement regimes is that “what gets measured gets done.” That’s important for senior healthcare executives to remember. But that truth leaves out the critical question of what should be measured.

The options are literally endless, but determining the most important metrics to measure in an era in which healthcare is transforming is no trivial decision.

The move toward reimbursement based on the value the healthcare organization provides to the patient and the payer, which is happening at vastly different rates in some geographical areas compared to others, means that asking and answering that question at regular intervals is crucial.

If that’s the case, what are the metrics that leaders need to watch to ensure clinical, financial, and strategic success?

This special issue of HealthLeaders examines how high-performing organizations are instilling and adapting to new performance measures that healthcare leaders need to track to “get value done.”

Our editorial team talked with more than a dozen organizations in a variety of sectors, from leaders of hospital inpatient organizations to payer leaders, from leaders of postacute care organizations to information technology, nursing, and finance leaders; all have measurements they find useful to achieve value in a rapidly transforming healthcare business environment.

Some metrics may be familiar, such as admissions or readmissions per thousand patients. Other metrics may be unfamiliar, such as a “user resource metric,” part of which incorporates the speed with which patient calls are answered at a call center.

Many more important metrics are clinical in nature, but are often monitored and reported by the financial arms of the organization, as they provide a proxy for customer satisfaction, a growing component of the value equation.

Also critical is the latency of such measurements. For example, it’s less valuable to learn about line infection rates and sepsis diagnoses after the patient has been discharged, because little can be done to influence the statistics by that time.

Whistleblowers: United Healthcare Hid Complaints About Medicare Advantage

http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/leadership/whistleblowers-united-healthcare-hid-complaints-about-medicare-advantage?spMailingID=11626431&spUserID=MTY3ODg4NTg1MzQ4S0&spJobID=1220355933&spReportId=MTIyMDM1NTkzMwS2#

Die Whistleblower

 

The suit, filed by United Healthcare sales agents accuses the giant insurer of keeping a “dual set of books” to hide serious complaints about its services

United Healthcare Services Inc., which runs the nation’s largest private Medicare Advantage insurance plan, concealed hundreds of complaints of enrollment fraud and other misconduct from federal officials as part of a scheme to collect bonus payments it didn’t deserve, a newly unsealed whistleblower lawsuit alleges.

The suit, filed by United Healthcare sales agents in Wisconsin, accuses the giant insurer of keeping a “dual set of books” to hide serious complaints about its services and of being “intentionally ineffective” at investigating misconduct by its sales staff. A federal judge unsealed the lawsuit, first filed in October 2016, on Tuesday.

The company knew of accusations that at least one sales agent forged signatures on enrollment forms and had been the subject of dozens of other misconduct complaints, according to the suit. In another case, a sales agent allegedly engaged in a “brazen kickback scheme” in which she promised iPads to people who agreed to sign up and stay with the health plan for six months, according to the suit.

Though it fired the female sales agent, United Healthcare concluded the kickback allegations against her were “inconclusive” and did not report the incident to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, according to the suit.

Asked for comment on the allegations in the suit, United Healthcare spokesman Matt Burns said: “We reject them.”

Medicare serves about 56 million people, both people with disabilities and those 65 and older. About 19 million have chosen to enroll in Medicare Advantage plans as an alternative to standard Medicare. United Healthcare is the nation’s biggest operator, covering about 3.6 million patients last year.

The whistleblowers accuse United Healthcare of hiding misconduct complaints from federal officials to avoid jeopardizing its high rankings on government quality scales. These rankings are used both as a marketing tool to entice members and as a way for the government to pay bonuses to high-quality plans.

Medicare paid United Healthcare $1.4 billion in bonuses in fiscal 2016 based upon their high quality ratings, compared with $564 million in 2015, according to the suit. CMS relies on the health plans to report problems and does not verify the accuracy of these reports before issuing any bonus payments.

The suit alleges the bonuses were “fraudulently obtained” because the company concealed the true extent of complaints. In March 2016, for instance, the company advised CMS only of 257 serious complaints, or about a third of the 771 actually logged, according to the suit.

The suit was filed by James Mlaker, of Milwaukee, a sales agent with the insurance plan in Wisconsin, and David Jurczyk, a resident of Waterford, Wis., a sales manager with the company.

The suit says Jurczyk had access to “dual” complaint databases, described as “the accurate one with a complete list of complaints and more details of the offenses and the fraudulent, truncated one provided to CMS.”

Jurczyk “has direct, personal knowledge of dozens of cases in Wisconsin alone in which customer complaints raising serious issues were routinely determined and falsely documented as either “inconclusive” or “unsubstantiated” by the company, according to the suit. Overall, about 84 percent of complaints alleging major infractions, such as forging signatures on enrollment forms, were determined to be inconclusive or unsubstantiated, according to the suit.

According to Mlaker, one sales agent faced little disciplinary action even after allegedly forging a customer’s signature on an enrollment form. The customer was “shocked” to learn that the agent had enrolled him because he had told the agent he was “not interested and did not want to enroll,” according to the complaint.

As a result, according to the suit, CMS officials never learned of these customer complaints.

The two men said that in early 2013 they began noticing that investigations of serious customer complaints that previously would have been completed “swiftly” instead “were drawn out; little actual inquiry was made, or even worse, known facts were ignored and discounted to falsify findings,” according to the suit.

Complaints also brought “much fewer and less serious corrective or disciplinary actions,” according to the suit. According to the suit, United Healthcare took steps to encourage any members with complaints to report them directly to the company rather than to complain to CMS.

The unsealing of the Wisconsin cases comes as United Healthcare and other Medicare Advantage plans are facing numerous cases brought under the Federal False Claims Act. At least a half-dozen of the whistleblower suits have surfaced since 2014.

The law allows private citizens to bring actions to recover damages on behalf of the federal government and retain a share. The Justice Department elected not to take over the Wisconsin case, which could limit the amount of money, if any, recovered. United Healthcare spokesman Burns said the company agreed with that decision.

In May, the Justice Department accused United Healthcare of overcharging the federal government by more than $1 billion by improperly jacking up risk scores over the course of a decade.

6 California urgent care centers file for bankruptcy

http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/6-california-urgent-care-centers-file-for-bankruptcy.html

Image result for bankruptcies

Six urgent care centers in Southern California filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy Wednesday, according to The Orange County Register.

The bankruptcy case includes the following six facilities:

  • Cypress (Calif.) Urgent Care
  • Hoag Urgent Care-Anaheim (Calif.) Hills
  • Hoag Urgent Care-Huntington Harbour (Huntington Beach, Calif.)
  • Hoag Urgent Care-Orange (Calif.)
  • Hoag Urgent Care-Tustin (Calif.)
  • Laguna Dana Urgent Care (Dana Point, Calif.)

Robert C. Amster, MD owns the facilities. He is the founder of Your Neighborhood Urgent Care, which includes a network of 10 urgent care centers in Southern California.

Four of the urgent care facilities that entered bankruptcy are leased from Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian in Newport Beach, Calif.

Dr. Amster’s attorney, Ashley McDow, told The OC Register the bankruptcy will help “restructure our affairs with the landlord and the bank.”

Hoag Urgent Care-Orange closed in 2016. The other five urgent care centers are expected to remain open and conduct business as normal during the bankruptcy case, according to the report.

What’s the Near-Term Outlook for the Affordable Care Act?

http://www.kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/whats-the-near-term-outlook-for-the-affordable-care-act/?utm_campaign=KFF-2017-August-Health-Reform-Outlook-ACA&utm_medium=email&_hsenc=p2ANqtz–oP5wlywrzGCg7hZVAatEjF0shnUXWvPMPB7MBQfAJJXiDqeMCZIkw7rhXhhVQ7bv4RTl4IFWk3zbvJFTnYv730hVqBQ&_hsmi=54950542&utm_content=54950542&utm_source=hs_email&hsCtaTracking=b35f36e5-60c0-4e14-ba27-3e14c4025b79%7Cf0a0cb87-2715-4168-b499-2000076067bf

If Congress abandons efforts to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA), President Trump has said he would “let Obamacare fail.” This Q&A examines what could happen if the Affordable Care Act, also called “Obamacare,” remains the law and what it might mean to let Obamacare fail.

Is Obamacare failing?

The Affordable Care Act was a major piece of legislation that affects virtually all payers in the U.S. health system, including Medicaid, Medicare, employer-sponsored insurance, and coverage people buy on their own. One of the biggest changes under the health reform law was the expansion of the Medicaid program, which now covers nearly 75 million people, about 14 million of whom are signed up under the expansion. Most Americans, including most Republicans, believe the Medicaid program is working well.

When people talk about the idea of the ACA failing, they are usually referring to the exchange markets, also called Marketplaces. These markets, which first opened in 2014, are part of the broader individual insurance market where just 5-7% of the U.S. population gets their insurance. People who get insurance from other sources like their work or Medicaid are not directly affected by what happens in the individual insurance market.

The exchange markets have not been without problems: There have been some notable exits by insurance companies and premium increases going into 2017, and in the early years of the exchanges, insurers were losing money. The structure of the ACA’s premium subsidies – which rise along with premiums and cap what consumers have to pay for a benchmark plans a percentage of their income – prevents the market from deteriorating into a “death spiral.” However, premiums could become unaffordable in some parts of the country for people with incomes in excess of 400% of the poverty level, who are ineligible for premium assistance.

Insurer participation in this market has received a great deal of attention, as about 1 in 3 counties – primarily rural areas – have only one insurer on exchange. Rural counties have historically had limited competition even before the ACA, but data now available because of the Affordable Care Act brings the urban/rural divide into sharper focus. On average at the state level, competition in the individual market has been relatively stable – neither improving nor worsening.

Premiums in the reformed individual market started out relatively low and remained low in the first few years – about 12% lower than the Congressional Budget Office had projected as of 2016 –before increasing more rapidly in 2017. Most (83%) of the 12 million people buying their own coverage on the exchange receive subsidies and therefore are not as affected by the premium increases, but many of the approximately 9 million people buying off-exchange may have difficulty affording coverage, despite having higher incomes. As might be expected, after taking into account financial assistance and protections for people with pre-existing conditions, some people ended up paying more and others paying less than they did before the ACA. Our early polling in this market found that people in this market were nearly evenly split between paying more and paying less. About 3 millionpeople who remain uninsured are not eligible for assistance or employer coverage and many of them may be going without coverage due to costs.

Our recent analysis of first quarter 2017 insurer financial results finds that the market is not showing signs of collapse. Rather, insurers are on track to be profitable and the market appears to be stabilizing in the country overall. In other words, those premium increases going into 2017 may have been enough to make the market stable without discouraging too many healthy people from signing up. However, there are still markets – particularly rural ones – that are fragile.

Red October: CMS Details Process for Billions in DSH Cuts

http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/leadership/red-october-cms-details-process-billions-dsh-cuts?spMailingID=11619096&spUserID=MTY3ODg4NTg1MzQ4S0&spJobID=1220267507&spReportId=MTIyMDI2NzUwNwS2#

Image result for disproportionate share hospital payments

With Congressional delays in Medicaid disproportionate share funding cuts set to expire Sept. 30, CMS issues a proposed rule that details billions in reductions that will begin in 2018.

As the Senate tries repeatedly to repeal the Affordable Care Act, so far without success, CMS is moving ahead with detailing how cuts in disproportionate share funding will be administered under a political deal the hospital lobby agreed to in exchange for getting more people covered by health insurance under the ACA.

The first step of the DSH cuts, which were supposed to have been implemented in stair-step fashion beginning in 2014 and running through 2020, had been delayed by Congress until 2018 after hospitals successfully argued that uncompensated care costs weren’t declining as much as expected under the ACA.

The cuts will now begin in 2018 with $2 billion, with $1 billion in cuts added each year until 2024, when DSH payments will be cut by $8 billion. Another $8 billion in cuts is scheduled for 2025.

Cuts will total $43 billion over the eight years.

The proposed rule lays out the DSH Health Reform Methodology (DHRM) that will be used to implement DSH funding reductions by state, in an attempt to target more heavily hospitals that experience the least financial impact from uncompensated care.

The DHRM will incorporate several sources of data to determine the amount by which each state’s DSH funding will be reduced for each year, in an attempt to account for a variety of factors that influence the financial impact of uncompensated care burdens in each state.

The methodology must, according to CMS “impose a smaller percentage reduction on low-DSH states.”

The largest reductions will be imposed on states with the lowest percentage of uninsured during the most recent year data is available, to states that do not target their DSH payments to hospitals with high volumes of Medicaid inpatients and to states that do not target DSH payments to hospitals with high levels of uncompensated care.

Data that will influence the DHRM will include United States Census Bureau Data and Medicaid DSH audit and reporting data submitted by the states.

The proposed rule is open for public comment until August 28.