Baylor Hires COO, Splits President and CEO Roles

http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/leadership/baylor-hires-coo-splits-president-and-ceo-roles?spMailingID=11450593&spUserID=MTY3ODg4NTg1MzQ4S0&spJobID=1200956765&spReportId=MTIwMDk1Njc2NQS2#

Related image

Northwestern EVP and COO Peter McCanna will take over Baylor Scott & White’s president role and some responsibilities from CEO James Hinton.

Baylor Scott & White Health says it will split the office of President and CEO, a little more than six months into President and CEO Jim Hinton’s tenure at the Dallas- and Temple, Texas-based organization. Hinton had been serving in both roles since he took over the nonprofit health system in January, as had his predecessor Joel Allison, who retired.

Pete McCanna, who is currently executive vice president and chief operating officer at Chicago-based Northwestern Memorial Healthcare, will assume the new president role in September, and will take over a number of Hinton’s current duties, according to a press release.

While his expected duties as president were not immediately apparent, McCanna has ties to Hinton, having served as chief financial officer at Presbyterian early in Hinton’s 20-year career at that organization, where Hinton served as president and CEO before coming to Baylor Scott & White. Hinton said the new office of the president will expand the capabilities of the health system’s “already talented leadership team, helping us more rapidly evolve.”

Presumably that rapid evolution involves Hinton focusing more intently on integrating the Scott & White Health Plan into the entire organization.

In fact, one reason for Hinton’s appointment in the wake of Allison’s retirement was his extensive experience running an integrated delivery system at Presbyterian, where the provision of healthcare services is combined with a proprietary health plan, allowing for smoother integration of population health principles and tactics. Baylor Health Care System’s 2013 merger with Scott & White Healthcare created the blueprint for such an integrated system, which includes 48 hospitals, 44,000 employees, and the Scott & White Health Plan.

“We are committed to extending Baylor Scott & White’s long history of success by transforming into a nationally recognized, high-value integrated delivery network; and to transform, we must drive costs down, while making the right investments in key areas,” said Hinton, in the release.

McCanna should be instrumental in helping Baylor Scott & White achieve financial and strategic growth targets. In his 15 years at Northwestern, operating revenue grew from $700 million to more than $5 billion, while patient experience, employee engagement and quality goals exceeded targets.

He also gets credit for helping integrate the faculty physician practice plan at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine with Northwestern Memorial Hospital.

“Pete is a highly respected senior executive with a track record of helping to grow organizations, create and implement successful, long-range strategic plans and lead financial turnarounds,” said Hinton. “He is one of the best and brightest in healthcare.”

 

Obamacare 101: Is there a smaller fix for the Affordable Care Act?

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-obamacare-101-marketplace-fixes-20170712-story.html?utm_campaign=KHN%3A%20First%20Edition&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=54139610&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_oK9ym4MAYbgjGTqJrtwWnYS7JczHHbl_O85RanUGaeiUnTcx9hvcqv7rFbgtEigUowQiiD8dTN5J0Reyhnc3D456E0Q&_hsmi=54139610

Image result for aca limited fix

With Senate Republicans struggling to find votes for sweeping legislation to roll back the Affordable Care Act, several GOP lawmakers have raised the prospect of a more limited bill — passed with help from Democrats — to stabilize health insurance markets around the country.

That may be heresy for conservative Republicans who’ve spent seven years demanding the full repeal of Obamacare, as the law is often called.

But most patient advocates, physician groups, hospitals and even many health insurers say more-targeted fixes to insurance marketplaces make more sense than the kind of far-reaching overhaul of government health programs that Republicans have been discussing.

Why do a more limited Obamacare ‘fix’?

For one thing, it would be politically easier. More-targeted legislation also wouldn’t threaten insurance protections for tens of millions of Americans.

The political debate over the 2010 healthcare law has focused for years on what has been happening to insurance marketplaces like HealthCare.gov, which were created by the law for Americans who don’t get health insurance through work.

For a variety of reasons, the marketplaces’ first several years have been rocky.

Insurers in many states struggled to figure out how much to charge for their plans and then raised premiums substantially when customers turned out to be sicker than they expected.

And as uncertainty over the future of the markets has intensified since President Trump’s election last year, several leading national insurers have decided to stop selling plans in some states, leaving consumers in some places with few if any health plans to choose from. Trump has called Obamacare a “disaster” and “dead.”

But the marketplaces — where about 10 million Americans currently get coverage — represent a very small fraction of the U.S. healthcare system.

By contrast, more than 70 million Americans rely on Medicaid and the related Children’s Health Insurance Plan, the government safety net plans for the poor.

Altering Medicaid, as proposed under the GOP plan, would be far more disruptive. And, as congressional Republicans are learning, it is much more controversial.

But isn’t Medicaid a big problem, too?

Many conservatives have long argued the federal government can’t afford to provide so much healthcare assistance to the poor.

But Medicaid has become a vital lifeline for tens of millions of Americans. Medicaid provides assistance to more than one in three U.S. children, protects millions of Americans with disabilities and is the largest funder of nursing home care for elderly Americans, in large part because Medicare does not cover nursing homes.

Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion, which made coverage available to working-age adults in many states, is credited with driving down the nation’s uninsured rate to the lowest levels ever recorded.

And a growing body of evidence shows it is improving low-income Americans’ access to needed medical care, reducing financial strains on families and improving health.

That is why Medicaid has been fiercely defended by patient groups, doctors, nurses, educators and even some Republican governors.

What would it take to stabilize insurance markets?

Probably not that much, actually.

There is widespread agreement that the federal government must first continue funding assistance through Obamacare to low-income consumers to help offset their co-pays and deductibles.

This aid — known as cost-sharing reduction, or CSR, payments – was included in the original law.

But the payments have become a political football as Republicans argued the aid can’t be provided without an appropriation by Congress. And Trump administration officials keep threatening to cut off the payments.

Many insurers say that would be devastating, forcing them to raise premiums by double digits.

Congress could simply put an end to that uncertainty by voting to appropriate the CSR money.

Secondly, most insurance industry officials and independent experts say the federal government must create a better system to protect insurers from big losses if they are hit with very costly patients.

Such reinsurance systems are used in other insurance marketplaces such as the Medicare Part D prescription drug program and are seen as critical to stabilizing markets.

Thirdly, current and former marketplace officials say, the federal government should aggressively market and advertise to get younger, healthier people to buy health plans on the marketplaces.

This strategy has helped Covered California, that state’s marketplace, which has not been beset by some of the problems in other markets.

Finally, many experts say, federal officials likely will have to come up with additional incentives to convince health insurers to offer plans in remote, rural areas.

Some Republicans have suggested that consumers in these areas could be allowed to buy health plans that don’t meet standards set out in the current law.

Would these steps cost more money?

Yes.

But both the House and Senate GOP bills to roll back Obamacare included billions of dollars to stabilize markets over the next several years.

So could Congress put that aid in a smaller healthcare bill?

That’s still unclear.

Many congressional Republicans are reluctant to spend any more money on healthcare aid, especially for a law that most have sworn to repeal.

But polls indicate that Americans now hold congressional Republicans and the Trump administration responsible for the fate of the nation’s healthcare system, including the insurance marketplaces.

That suggests that there could be a political price to pay for the GOP if the markets are not stabilized.

At the same time, Senate Democrats have signaled a willingness to work with Republicans on marketplaces fixes if GOP lawmakers agree to drop their repeal campaign.

But major hurdles remain, including demands from many GOP lawmakers that at least some of Obamacare’s provisions be repealed, such as the highly unpopular mandate requiring Americans to have health insurance.

Rather than stabilizing markets, however, eliminating the insurance requirement could lead to even more turmoil, experts say.

Dirty, Dingy Hospitals: Doctors Blame Debt-Fueled Takeovers

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-01/dirty-dingy-hospitals-doctors-blame-debt-fueled-takeover-boom

There are two groups Community Health Systems Inc. can’t push too far: the doctors at its hospitals, and the debtholders it owes billions of dollars. Right now, the creditors are winning, and the doctors aren’t happy.

In Fort Wayne, Indiana, the rancor about Community’s neglect of a local health system has gotten so bad that a group of doctors tried to get rid of corporate ownership and buy the company out. And 1,500 miles away on the island of Key West, Florida, doctors say patients are being overcharged so that Community, sometimes called CHS, can rake in cash.

The two locations are among Community’s most lucrative, and their conflicts are part of the flip side of an industrywide acquisition binge over the last decade. For-profit hospital chains like Community borrowed billions to snap up rivals, facing massive debt reimbursements just as the benefits of the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare, began to wane.

“I understand that they have billions in debt and may need to take money from this chain to service it,” said William Pond, an anesthesiologist at one of the Fort Wayne hospitals and president of the county health department’s executive board. “But it’s very disappointing to see the course that CHS is taking and the devastating effect they’re having on our community.”

Once the biggest U.S. for-profit hospital chain, Community is selling off other, poorly performing facilities to pay off $2 billion of its $15 billion in debt. Yet even as the company skimps on spending and patient satisfaction lags at key facilities like Fort Wayne, its bonds are rising in value — an indication that debtholders are betting that the chain will make a financial turnaround.

The company’s $3 billion of 6.875 percent bonds due February 2022 have gained almost 30 percent this year and were changing hands at 89 cents on the dollar, according to Trace, the bond-price reporting system of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. The debt still trades at yields about 8 percentage points more than government debt.

If the chain can’t subdue the unrest at its most profitable locations, it’s not clear how successful the turnaround will be. Indiana and Key West represent just nine of Community’s about 150 hospitals, yet they contribute an estimated 16 percent of the company’s adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization, according to Mizuho Securities analyst Sheryl Skolnick.

CDC Flags Hospitals’ Stubborn Problem with Legionnaires’ Disease

http://www.medpagetoday.com/hospitalbasedmedicine/generalhospitalpractice/65825

Image result for Legionnaires' Disease

Most outbreaks preventable with properly designed and maintained water systems.

Most of the country has seen cases of Legionnaires’ disease associated with healthcare facilities, CDC officials said Tuesday.

This is “a concerning finding,” a CDC statement said, because of the illness’s increased severity when contracted in hospitals and long-term care facilities. The fatality rate for definite healthcare-associated Legionnaires’ disease was 25% in a new CDC analysis.

Surveillance data from 20 states and one large city identified 2,809 Legionella infections.

Although the analysis found that only 3% of confirmed cases were definitely acquired in healthcare institutions, officials said they believe that a much larger fraction were contracted in such facilities but were diagnosed only after discharge. The CDC’s Vital Signs report indicated that another 17% of infections were suspected to have originated in healthcare facilities, in that the patients had been in such a facility within 10 days of symptom onset.

During a press call with reporters, CDC Acting Director Anne Schuchat, MD, said the study highlights the important work that hospitals and long-term care facilities must do with regard to their water systems. Legionella organisms live in water and outdated systems allow them to spread.

Proper water management “could have prevented four out of five Legionnaires’ disease outbreaks,” Schuchat said. “This means tending to the buildings’ water infrastructure,” she added, particularly in older facilities.

The chief of CDC’s respiratory diseases branch, Cynthia Whitney, MD, MPH, noted on the press call that the agency has developed a water-management toolkit for hospitals and other facilities to minimize Legionnaires’ disease. As important as having a program, she emphasized, is assigning “a dedicated team to execute the program.”

Whitney and Schuchat also said they believe many, perhaps most, Legionnaires’ cases go undiagnosed. Whitney said it’s vital that patients with symptoms consistent with the condition undergo specific testing for Legionnaires’ disease, so that outbreaks can be curtailed at their outset.

0 Comments

Sounding The Alarms On Children’s Health Coverage

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2017/06/26/sounding-the-alarms-on-childrens-health-coverage/

Amari Carter, 5, protests the U.S. House passage of the plan to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act at the south gate of the Capitol in Austin, Texas, on Friday May 5, 2017. (Jay Janner/Austin American-Statesman via AP)

Buried beneath a very intense discussion on the future of adult coverage in this country has been a far more serious issue in children’s coverage many years in the making.

The American Health Care Act (AHCA) and the president’s recent budget proposal certainly have those who care for children concerned about the future of children’s insurance. The AHCA’s proposed changes to Medicaid would undo a half century of health care standards that were designed to maximize child development and well-being outcomes, such as guaranteed comprehensive health care coverage that includes access to mental health services, dental care, and school-based assistance for children with special health care needs. For special needs children, they have also insured that children with autism have aides to assist them in school, or that a child with cerebral palsy has access to appropriate transportation for themselves and their durable medical equipment to and from school, as well as the assisted nursing to support them while they are there.

But it’s not just the direct impact to children that is concerning. To the extent the AHCA rolls back the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) Medicaid expansion, it would strip health insurance coverage from many low-income parents, whose own health is critical to that of their children.

There have also been proposed cuts to Medicaid that are at a magnitude never seen before: the president’s budget recommends reducing Medicaid funding by more than $600 billion dollars over 10 years, above and beyond the more than $800 billion in Medicaid cuts written into the AHCA.

These changes to Medicaid would not be trivial: more than 36 million children and adolescents in this country are insured through Medicaid, a number that grows every day. These are not simply children living in poverty; most hail from working families. Many of these children have complex medical or behavioral health concerns, intellectual disabilities, or are in foster care. Medicaid’s reach among children is huge.

The Risk To Families Is A Perfect Storm That’s Been Brewing For Some Time

Although the dramatic changes proposed by the AHCA and the president’s budget are more immediate, the truth is that their impact would negate the gains made in reducing the uninsured rate in children and leave families with fewer options for their children’s health care. When the ACA became law in 2010, children’s uninsurance rates in this country were much lower among children than adults (and continued to decline to only 5 percent by 2015). Lawmakers, therefore, designed the ACA principally to address uninsurance among adults, but nonetheless, added regulations that guaranteed a set of essential benefits to families who purchased coverage through the exchanges, including maternity, pediatric, mental health, and substance abuse benefits.

Optimism abounded and many hoped that the exchanges’ success might one day eliminate the need for the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). CHIP is a federally subsidized state program, which, at its peak, has insured an additional 8 million children in low- and moderate-income families who were not offered affordable coverage through their employers and could not qualify for Medicaid because their families were just above the federal poverty line.

From that high point, there has been a steady erosion of children’s coverage under their parents’ employer-sponsored plans that has gone largely unseen. Even as we’ve climbed out of recession and more low-income individuals are gaining employment, they’re not being provided affordable family coverage by their employers. Facing soaring benefits costs, many employers are dropping dependent coverage for their employees, or offering ever-more-expensive coverage. Escalating family deductibles and premiums have far outpaced those for single-adult enrollees, making such coverage unaffordable for many families.

Lacking affordable options to cover their children, it’s not surprising that many low- and moderate-income families have responded by flocking to public insurance. We reported on this trend in a recent Health Affairs article, in which we found that in 2013, nearly one-third of children in low-income working families above the poverty line got their health coverage through Medicaid or CHIP, up 8 percent from just six years earlier.

Today, more than 40 percent of children and adolescents in this country are now covered by Medicaid and CHIP, second only to employer-sponsored insurance. As a result, children are disproportionately vulnerable to health care reforms that cut public programs. In making any changes, caution is needed, as is an awareness of the many factors leading to families’ heavy reliance on public programs, if we are to improve, or at least maintain, children’s health.

Potential Solutions To Weather The Storm

Children largely remain on the outside of the ongoing health care debate, yet they have the most to lose. Beyond protecting Medicaid as an entitlement with certain guaranteed benefits there are other potential solutions that could help mitigate this risk.

CHIP Reauthorization

While the AHCA works its way through Congress, some may not have noticed that CHIP funding expires this fall. Without re-appropriation, more than 8 million children may lose coverage immediately. States are already sounding alarms; they have been unable to project their CHIP budgets for next year. The immediacy of the CHIP re-appropriation debate in Congress offers a “NOW” opportunity to stake a new way forward and present pragmatic solutions to strengthen children’s insurance, embracing the realities that have reshaped the family insurance market.

Guarantee Of Essential Health Benefits

The most critical issue arising from any children’s insurance plan today, whether in the employer-sponsored or public insurance market, is the promise of a set of health standards to all children regardless of their insurance. The House-passed AHCA proposes removing the requirement of federally guaranteed essential health benefits from all plans. Should this become law, states will have the choice of whether or not to provide these benefits. So, one solution for protecting children is to require these states to provide families access to a CHIP plan that meets a comprehensive and standard set of federally legislated and guaranteed essential benefits, such as vision, developmental, and behavioral health screenings.

Private Market Reforms

Beyond essential benefits, it may be time to address the affordability and quality of dependent coverage on the employer-sponsored and exchange markets. We may need stronger caps on deductibles as a proportion of income, and limits to exorbitant cost-sharing for child dependents. Furthermore, prohibitions of narrow networks—or the increase of cost-sharing for enrollees who seek out-of-network services—in the pediatric market would go a long way to ensuring that families have critical access to pediatric subspecialty care should their children develop cancer, diabetes, or other debilitating illnesses. While narrow networks may work in the adult health care arena, they are not nimble for families whose children have special health care needs and require specialists based solely in children’s hospital networks that may be tiered out in such plans. All told, the private market is not working for families, and if Congress wishes to halt the migration of families onto public insurance, they may need to hold employers and commercial insurers responsible for their own contributions to crowding families out of that market.

We are at an inflection point in the historic success we’ve had at providing near- universal children’s coverage in this country. While our leaders get mired in discussions around the future of adult coverage, they need to be mindful of immediate vulnerability within the children’s market that could threaten their coverage. It’s time we uncover this threat and make it a bigger part of the mainstream conversation.

Providence Health & Services plans layoffs to cut costs

http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/hospital-management-administration/providence-health-services-plans-layoffs-to-cut-costs.html

Image result for providence health system

Providence Health & Services, a 50-hospital system based in Renton, Wash., will implement a cost-cutting plan that involves layoffs, according to The Oregonian.

The system is looking to reduce costs to improve its financial picture. Providence ended 2016 with an operating loss of $255 million on $22 billion in revenue.

David Underriner, CEO of Providence’s Oregon division, would not disclose how many employees would be affected by the layoffs, according to The Oregonian.

Providence has 111,000 employees, 15,000 of which were hired in the past two years.