When An Insurer Balks And Treatment Stops

When An Insurer Balks And Treatment Stops

Gillen Washington, a student at Northern Arizona University, had been getting medication for an immunodeficiency disease since 2011. But when he went to his clinic in November 2014 for the monthly dose, a nurse told him his insurance company had denied it.

Soon after, the plan sent him a letter saying his bloodwork was outdated and didn’t show that the treatment was medically necessary, Washington’s attorney said.

Over the next few months, as Washington appealed the insurance company’s decision, he developed a cough that wouldn’t go away. He moved home to Huntington Beach, Calif., and ended up in the hospital with pneumonia and a collapsed lung.

“It was terrifying,” said Washington, 22. “I have never felt so depressed and so scared in my entire life.”

In 2015, Washington filed a breach of contract lawsuit in Orange County Superior Court against his insurer, Aetna, arguing that the company had improperly denied him the medication. The case is set for trial this month.

From 35,000 to 50,000 people in the U.S. are estimated to be dependent on medications to treat primary immunodeficiency diseases — about 300 rare conditions in which the immune system doesn’t function properly, or at all. The medication, known as immunoglobulin replacement therapy, replaces antibodies that the body doesn’t make. It can cost tens of thousands of dollars each year.

In recent years, patients with these diseases have faced increasing difficulty getting their insurers to approve treatments, according to clinicians and patient advocates. In some cases, insurers interrupt treatments that are already underway. In others, they deny it at the outset. Without medication, patients can get infections or even suffer organ failure.

Aetna, one of the nation’s largest insurers, with a 2016 net income of $2.3 billion, declined to answer questions about Washington’s case, citing the pending litigation. In court documents, attorneys representing the company argued that it didn’t breach its contract with Washington.

In 2014, Aetna denied coverage of the medication that Gillen Washington was taking for an immunodeficiency disease. He was later hospitalized with pneumonia and a collapsed lung. (Courtesy of Gillen Washington)

Dr. Rebecca Buckley, a professor of immunology and pediatrics at Duke University Medical Center, said insurance companies often require patients with immunodeficiency diseases to stop taking their medication and undergo new lab work to demonstrate they still need it. That interruption is a “serious problem” for people with a definitive diagnosis, she said, because the consequences can be so devastating.

“If you stop the treatment, they are going to get sick,” Buckley said. “There are no spontaneous recoveries from any of these genetic defects.”

Buckley acknowledged that some people are put on the medication unnecessarily. But those who definitely have the diseases can’t make antibodies on their own and have no protection without treatment.

The Immune Deficiency Foundation, a national patient advocacy organization, regularly advises patients who receive insurance denials. President and founder Marcia Boyle said the foundation is getting a growing number of calls each year from patients who face treatment delays because of insurance company decisions. Insurers are also more frequently shifting costs to patients by requiring higher copays and coinsurance or using restrictive formularies, she said.

“Some insurers are creating unnecessary roadblocks because of the costly therapy,” she said. “More often than not, when you have someone with a lifelong, preexisting condition that needs very good medical care and expensive therapy, you are going to have issues with access to care and insurance.”

41% of healthcare spending attributed to 12% of Americans, study finds

http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/41-of-healthcare-spending-attributed-to-12-of-americans-study-finds.html

Image result for chronic care management

U.S. adults with five or more chronic conditions spend 14 times more on health services on average than those with no chronic conditions, according to a new RAND Health report prepared for the Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease.

For the study, researchers analyzed the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey from Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. MEPS is a nationally representative sample of the noninstitutionalized U.S. adult population.

The study revealed 60 percent of U.S. adults had at least one chronic condition in 2014, the most recent year data is available. Forty-two percent of U.S. adults had more than one chronic condition, according to the study.

The study showed people with more chronic conditions require more healthcare services. For example, the study revealed people with five or more chronic conditions average 20 physician visits per year, while those with three or four chronic conditions average 12 physician visits annually.

The study also showed spending on healthcare services rises with the number of chronic conditions a person has. U.S. adults with one or two chronic conditions make up 31 percent of the population and 23 percent of total healthcare spending. Those with five or more chronic conditions make up 12 percent of the population but account for 41 percent of total healthcare spending, according to the study.

For the study, researchers defined healthcare spending as the amount spent on all inpatient and outpatient care across all payers, including out-of-pocket payments.

Recipe for Successful Health System M&A: Ensure Focus on Execution of Transaction Does Not Undermine Key Long-Term Strategic Imperatives

http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/leadership/recipe-successful-health-system-ma-ensure-focus-execution-transaction-does-not-undermine?spMailingID=11163372&spUserID=MTY3ODg4NTg1MzQ4S0&spJobID=1180078976&spReportId=MTE4MDA3ODk3NgS2

Image result for strategic imperatives

The evolving U.S. healthcare landscape, perhaps more now than ever before, requires that health system executives possess varied and deep skill sets. Not only must executives navigate the changing political and macroeconomic landscape, including the repeal-and-replace uncertainty, but in execution of their well-intentioned strategic transactions, health system leaders must remain focused on the original strategic imperatives and objectives to help ensure long-term, sustainable success. Of 140 surveyed participants, 61% believe their organization’s merger, acquisition or partnership activity will increase within the next three years.

Commonly, a decision is made to move forward on an appropriate strategic transaction and then senior leadership assigns a multidisciplinary deal team to consummate such. The majority (74%) of surveyed participants cite both financial/operational and clinical/care delivery equally as the primary objective when deciding to transact. Prior to commencement, successful healthcare organizations will have gone through a lengthy strategic planning process, developed a list of strategic imperatives and had such approved by their board of trustees. Some of these strategic imperatives may include: the Triple Aim, relevance/attractiveness with employers and payers, alignment of incentives, ability to manage the resulting organization as a system versus a loose federation, and the stickiness and sustainability of the resulting system.

A breakdown in the deal consummation process that results in the strategic imperatives not maintaining primacy but being subordinated or ignored may result in a nice press release or closing ceremony but when measured by the test of time, the transaction may not deliver expected and necessary sustaining strategic benefits. This is exacerbated in complex M&A transactions and strategic partnerships. Such complex transactions cannot be managed in a manner similar to important but more routine operational or capital initiatives (e.g., construction of a new bed tower or implementation of a staff reduction initiative) facing healthcare organizations. Senior leadership must help ensure that the strategic benefits of a transaction do not become deemphasized due to deal fatigue, completion of task bias, arbitrary deadlines, and other pressures that work against the deal team obtaining optimal outcomes.

Healthcare leaders must help ensure that the strategic imperatives are effective guardrails of the deal team’s efforts and not lost in the difficult and dynamic transaction negotiation and consummation process. A successful approach focuses less on arbitrary timelines or goals and embraces an accountability process that monitors the deal progress and documentation to help ensure a true north heading. Effective leaders must remain laser-focused on the strategic imperatives and not allow completion and execution of the deal to subordinate the foundation of the original strategic mandate.

As Healthcare Changes, So Must its CEOs, CFOs, COOs…

http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/leadership/healthcare-changes-so-must-its-ceos-cfos-coos%E2%80%A6?spMailingID=11163372&spUserID=MTY3ODg4NTg1MzQ4S0&spJobID=1180078976&spReportId=MTE4MDA3ODk3NgS2

To keep up with big changes in how healthcare is administered, financed, and organized, top leaders are finding a need for new talents and organizational structures.

To keep up with big changes in how healthcare is administered, financed, and organized, top leaders are finding a need for new talents and organizational structures.

Healthcare reform as a term has become so ubiquitous that it is almost indefinable. At first, and broadly, it meant removing the waste in an excessively expensive healthcare system that too often added to the problems of the people whose health it aimed to improve. Then it became legislative and regulatory, in the form of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and its incentives aimed at improving the continuum of care and expanding the pool of those covered by health insurance.

Now, for many in the industry, healthcare reform has matured into a business imperative: the process of ingraining tactics, strategies, and reimbursement changes so that health systems improve quality and efficiency with the parallel goal of weaning us all off a system in which incentives have been so misaligned that neither quality nor efficiency was rewarded.

That leaders finally are able to translate healthcare reform into action is welcome, but to many health systems trying to survive and thrive in a rapidly changing business environment, the old maxim that all healthcare is local is being proved true. Making sense of healthcare reform is up to individual organizations and their unique local circumstances. Fortunately, there are some broad themes and organizational principles that are helpful for all that are trying to make this transition. What works in one place won’t necessarily work in another, but the innovation level is off the charts as healthcare organization leaders reshape what being a leading healthcare organization means as well as what it requires.

Pharmaceutical Product Hopping: A Proposed Framework For Antitrust Analysis

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2017/06/01/pharmaceutical-product-hopping-a-proposed-framework-for-antitrust-analysis/

Skyrocketing drug prices are in the news. Overnight price increases have riveted the attention of the public, media, and politicians of all stripes. But one reason for high prices has flown under the radar. When drug companies reformulate their product, switching from one version of a drug to another, the price doesn’t dramatically increase. Instead, it stays at a high level for longer than it otherwise would have without the switch. Although more difficult to discern than a price spike, this practice, when undertaken to prevent generic market entry, can result in the unjustified continuation of monopoly pricing, burdening patients, the government, and the health care system as a whole.

Not all reformulations pose competitive concerns. Empirical studies have shown that more than 80 percent can be explained by improvements that are not temporally connected to impending generic entry. But a dangerous subset of such reformulations is undertaken for one, and only one, reason: to delay generic entry. In such cases, reformulation is called “product hopping.”

When generics enter the market, the price can fall dramatically overnight, by as much as 85 percent. For that reason, brand firms have every incentive to delay this moment of reckoning as long as possible. Sure enough, making trivial changes to their drugs has that effect. Every state has a substitution law that requires or allows pharmacists to offer a generic drug when the patient presents a prescription for a brand drug. But such substitution is thwarted if the drug is not the same—in particular, if it is not bioequivalent (able to be absorbed into the body at the same rate) and therapeutically equivalent (having the same active ingredient, form, dosage, strength, and safety and efficacy profile). A minor change to a drug’s formulation can prevent the pharmacist from substituting the generic.

Product hopping raises nuanced issues arising at the intersection of patent law, antitrust law, the federal Hatch-Waxman Act, and state drug product substitution laws. It is even more complex given the uniquely complicated pharmaceutical market, in which the buyer (patient, insurance company) is different from the decision maker (doctor).

Courts applying US antitrust law have struggled to create a robust and defensible legal framework for separating anticompetitive product hops from competitively benign, legitimate product development. In this post, we propose a framework that would help courts defer to legitimate reformulations while targeting anticompetitive switches.

Healthcare’s Consolidation Landscape

http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/leadership/healthcare%E2%80%99s-consolidation-landscape?spMailingID=11162259&spUserID=MTY3ODg4NTg1MzQ4S0&spJobID=1180070662&spReportId=MTE4MDA3MDY2MgS2

Image result for hospital market consolidation

Market and regulatory factors have unleashed a wave of merger, acquisition, and partnership activity that is changing the delivery of healthcare services.

Consolidation in the healthcare-provider sector has accelerated in recent years, reshaping the relationships between health systems, hospitals, and independent physicians across the country.

In the Buckeye State, healthcare consolidation activity has been a transformational force at OhioHealth, says Michael Louge, CPA, who serves as executive vice president and chief operating officer at the 11-hospital health system based in Columbus.

“When you look at OhioHealth, and you go back two or three decades, it was a much different organization. The reason it is different today is because of philosophy and the way we approach regional partnerships—how we have worked with physicians and hospitals in the region. Our whole organization’s evolution has been through successful partnerships and consolidations with regional players.”

Over the past year, statistics have been gathered on the pace of healthcare-provider consolidation.

In a recent HealthLeaders Media survey, 159 healthcare executives—mainly from health systems, hospitals, and physician practices—were asked about their merger, acquisition, and partnership (MAP) deals.

Eighty-seven percent of the respondents said their organizations were expected to both explore potential deals and complete deals that were underway in the next 12–18 months. Only 13% of the respondents said their organizations were not planning MAP deals in that same time period.

From the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) in 2010 through the end of last year, merger and acquisition transactions involving acute-care hospitals increased 55% from 66 announced deals to 102, according to Skokie, Illinois–based Kaufman Hall. Last year, the operating revenue of acquired organizations was more than $22 billion, according to the consultancy.

Kit Kamholz, managing director at Kaufman Hall, says two sets of drivers are propelling consolidation activity among health systems and hospitals.

“There are transactions that are driven by financial rationale. This is driven by a level of distress at the smaller organization, either from a historical-financial standpoint, an access-to-capital standpoint, or they are experiencing some significant clinical deficiencies. … The second bucket is in the category of strategic rationale. These are organizations that tend to be relatively strong financially, that are considered to be strong community-based providers in their marketplaces; but they are looking at the landscape of the evolving healthcare environment and saying, ‘Do we have the skills and capabilities to be successful in this new era of value-based care?’ ”

Healthcare consolidation activity is impacting the country’s physician practices and physician-employment trends.

EHR vendor, executives to pay $155M for allegedly misrepresenting software’s capabilities

http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/legal-regulatory-issues/ehr-vendor-executives-to-pay-155m-for-allegedly-misrepresenting-software-s-capabilities.html

Image result for whistle blower lawsuit

Westborough, Mass.-based eClinicalWorks, an EHR vendor, and some of its executives and employees have agreed to pay $155 million to resolve allegations it violated the False Claims Act, according to the Department of Justice.

HHS offers incentive payments to healthcare provider organizations that demonstrate meaningful use of certified EHR technology. Companies that develop and market EHR software must attest that their software meets certain criteria adopted by HHS and also pass testing by an HHS-approved entity.

The government alleged eClinicalWorks falsely obtained certification for its EHR software by withholding information from its certifying entity. For example, the company allegedly concealed that its software wasn’t able to meet certain criteria for standardized drug codes. Software must be able to retrieve any drug code from a complete database for certification. Instead of disclosing that its software didn’t meet this requirement, eClinicalWorks allegedly hardcoded only the 16 drug codes required for testing directly into its software.

Due to eClinicalWorks’ alleged misrepresentations, healthcare organizations using the company’s software submitted false claims for federal incentive payments, according to the DOJ.

The government also alleged the company paid kickbacks to certain customers in exchange for promoting its product.

Under the settlement agreement, eClinicalWorks and three of its founders — CEO Girish Navani, CMO Rajesh Dharampuriya, MD, and COO Mahesh Navani — will pay $154.92 million to the federal government. A software developer will pay an additional $50,000 and two project managers will each pay $15,000, according to the DOJ.

In addition to the monetary settlement, eClinicalWorks entered into a corporate integrity agreement with HHS’ Office of Inspector General that covers the company’s EHR software.

The allegations against eClinicalWorks were originally brought under the qui tam, or whistle-blower, provisions of the False Claims Act.