Why an Open Market Won’t Repair American Health Care

AN AMERICAN SICKNESS
How Healthcare Became Big Business and How You Can Take It Back
By Elisabeth Rosenthal
406 pp. Penguin Press. $28.

A few years back, the future of American health policy appeared to hinge on how similar medical care was to broccoli. It was March 2012, and the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) was before the Supreme Court. Justice Antonin Scalia zeroed in on its controversial requirement that all Americans purchase health insurance. Yes, everybody needs health care, Scalia conceded, but everybody needs food too. If the government could make people buy insurance, why couldn’t it “make people buy broccoli”?

The Affordable Care Act survived, of course — though not before a fractured court made the expansion of Medicaid optional, leaving millions of poorer Americans without its promised benefits. But the question Justice Scalia asked remains at the heart of a debate that has only intensified since: Why is health care different? Why does it create so much more anxiety and expense, heartache and hardship, than does buying broccoli — or cars or computers or the countless other things Americans routinely purchase each day?

For those leading the charge to roll back the 2010 law, the question has a one-word answer: government. President Trump’s point man on health policy, the former congressman (and ultrawealthy orthopedic surgeon) Tom Price, has said that “nothing has had a greater negative effect on the delivery of health care than the federal government’s intrusion into medicine through Medicare.” Senator Rand Paul (another surgeon) and House Speaker Paul Ryan have claimed that the affordability of Lasik eye surgery — generally not covered by health insurance — shows that a much freer health care market would be much less expensive. Their idea of “reform” is to cut back public and private insurance so consumers have “more skin in the game” and thus shop more wisely.

The physician-turned-journalist Elisabeth Rosenthal offers a very different answer in her eye-opening “An American Sickness.” Rosenthal — formerly a reporter for The New York Times, now the editor in chief of the nonprofit Kaiser Health News — is best known for a prizewinning series of articles, “Paying Till It Hurts.” In them, Rosenthal chronicled the seemingly endless pathologies of America’s medical-industrial complex, from prescription drugs that grew more costly as they became more dated to hip-replacement surgery so expensive it was cheaper for a patient to fly to a hospital in Belgium.

Rosenthal thinks the health care market is different, and she sums up these differences as the “economic rules of the dysfunctional medical market.” There are 10 — some obvious (No. 9: “There’s money to be made in billing for anything and everything”); some humorous (No. 2: “A lifetime of treatment is preferable to a cure”) — but No. 10 is the big one: “Prices will rise to whatever the market will bear.” To Rosenthal, that’s the answer to Scalia’s question. The health care market doesn’t work like other markets because “what the market will bear” is vastly greater than what a well-functioning market should bear. As Rosenthal describes American health care, it’s not really a market; it’s more like a protection racket — tolerated only because so many different institutions are chipping in to cover the extortionary bill and because, ultimately, it’s our lives that are on the line.

Consider the epicenter of America’s cost crisis: the once humble hospital. Thanks in part to hit TV shows, we think of hospitals as public-spirited pillars of local communities. Yet while most are legally classified as nonprofits, they are also very big businesses, maximizing surpluses that can be plowed into rising salaries and relentless expansion even when they are not earning profits or remunerating shareholders. And they have grown much bigger and more businesslike over time.

Rosenthal tells the story of Providence Portland Medical Center, a Northwest hospital system founded by nuns. Four decades ago, its operational hub in Portland, Ore., consisted of two modest hospitals: Providence and St. Vincent. As it happens, my mother was a nurse at St. Vincent for more than half those years, and thus had a front-row seat as Providence transformed from a Catholic charity into one of the nation’s largest nonprofit hospital systems, with annual revenues of $14 billion in 2015.

Along the way, Providence jettisoned most of its original mission, replacing nuns with number crunchers. Once run mainly by doctors, it filled its growing bureaucracy with professional coders capable of gaming insurance-reimbursement rules to extract maximum revenue. Meanwhile, Providence stopped paying doctors as staff and reclassified them as independent contractors (though not so independent they could skip a “charm school” designed by its marketers). Yet even as its C.E.O. earned more than $4 million, Providence touted itself as a “not-for-profit Catholic health care ministry” upholding the “tradition of caring” started by the nuns (now listed as “sponsors” in promotional materials). Rosenthal sums up the result as “a weird mix of Mother Teresa and Goldman Sachs.”

 

 

Trump’s New Plan to Penalize the Sick

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/healthcare/news/2017/04/06/430156/trumps-new-plan-penalize-sick/

Image result for penalizing the sick

Republicans need to stop making a terrible health care bill even worse. A little over a week ago, President Donald Trump declared that the White House would be moving on from its efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, or ACA. However, in an abrupt about-face, the administration is now reportedly considering a new proposal in an attempt to reinvigorate talks: allowing insurers to drastically raise prices on people with pre-existing conditions, even to the point of preventing them from obtaining insurance at all.

First Republicans had a proposal that would lead to skyrocketing uninsurance and out-of-pocket costs while increasing premiums. Then they argued for driving up coverage prices for services like maternity care and substance abuse treatment while simultaneously weakening protections for employer-provided insurance. Now they’re threatening to eliminate protections for the up to 133 million individuals who have pre-existing conditions.

Healthcare Competition Needs a Priority Check and Reset, Experts Say

http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/leadership/healthcare-competition-needs-priority-check-and-reset-experts-say

Image result for healthcare competition

Farzad Mostashari, MD, the former National Coordinator for Health IT at the Department of Health and Human Services, and Martin S. Gaynor, a professor of economics and health policy, discuss how policy helps and/or harms competition in the healthcare marketplace.

Despite the near-universal agreement that the U.S. healthcare delivery system should remain market-based, there has been surprisingly little talk amongst government policy makers and private payers about the potential for stifling competition with over-regulation.

An essay this month in JAMA calls for a re-examination of how healthcare rules, regulations, and policies help or harm competition in the healthcare marketplace.

Farzad Mostashari, MD, the former National Coordinator for Health IT at the Department of Health and Human Services, and Martin S. Gaynor, a professor of economics and health policy at Carnegie Mellon University, two authors of the essay, spoke with HealthLeaders last week. The following is a lightly edited transcript.

US For-profit Hospital Outlook Holds Stable

http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/finance/us-profit-hospital-outlook-holds-stable?spMailingID=10772724&spUserID=MTY3ODg4NTg1MzQ4S0&spJobID=1140471104&spReportId=MTE0MDQ3MTEwNAS2

Moody’s foresees modest revenue growth, flat margins over the next 12 to 18 months; Profit margins will stabilize after a significant drop between 2015 and 2016.

The outlook for the for-profit hospital industry remains stable over the near term, with earnings expected to grow in the low-single digits over the next 12 to 18 months, while volume and pricing trends will continue to be modestly positive, Moody’s Investors Service says.

“Positive same-facility revenue growth and flat margins drive our stable outlook for the US for-profit hospital sector,” Moody’s Senior Vice President Jessica Gladstone said in a media release Thursday.

“Aggregate EBITDA will grow between 2.5% and 3.5% over the next year or so. Margins will hold steady as company-specific actions offset multiple industry challenges, including higher wage and benefits expense stemming from nursing shortages and increased physician employment.”

Gladstone says many companies’ margins will benefit as they integrate acquisitions and divest less-profitable hospitals and other facilities.

Moody’s projects patient volumes to increase 1% to 2% over the next 12 to 18 months, with declining unemployment and an aging population among the macro trends that will spur demand for healthcare.

However, structural shifts in payer programs that to reduce utilization and the cost of care by shifting patients to lower-cost settings will offset these positive trends, Moody’s says.

Higher private payer rates will be the main driver of revenue growth over Moody’s outlook period. Medicare rates for inpatient services will rise, though cuts to laboratory and outpatient reimbursement and reduced Medicaid disproportionate share hospital payments will constrain growth.

Hospitals will continue to employ specialist physicians and make capital improvements for more profitable procedures, contributing to pricing growth.

Mayo Clinic Prefers Privately Insured Patients. So What?

http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/leadership/mayo-clinic-prefers-privately-insured-patients-so-what?spMailingID=10772724&spUserID=MTY3ODg4NTg1MzQ4S0&spJobID=1140471104&spReportId=MTE0MDQ3MTEwNAS2#

John Noseworthy, MD

You may have heard that John Noseworthy, MD, the president and CEO of the Mayo Clinic, recently told employees that the Rochester, MN-based health system will give preference to patients with private insurance over those who rely on Medicaid or Medicare.

At this point it’s safe to say he wishes he hadn’t said that.

Predictably, that statement opened up a nasty public relations crisis for which the health system has still not fully recovered, even two weeks later. I asked to speak with Noseworthy, but through a spokesperson, he declined to further address the issue beyond the written statement proffered after the Internet exploded in reaction to his comments.