Federal Shutdown Has Meant Steep Health Bills For Some Families

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/01/18/686003135/federal-shutdown-has-meant-steep-health-bills-for-some-families

Joseph Daskalakis’ son Oliver was born on New Year’s Eve, a little over a week into the current government shutdown, and about 10 weeks before he was expected.

The prematurely born baby ended up in a specialized neonatal intensive care unit, the only one near the family’s home in Lakeville, Minn., that could care for him.

But Daskalakis, who works as an air traffic controller outside Minneapolis, has an additional worry: The hospital where his newborn son is being treated is not part of his current insurer’s network and the partial government shutdown prevents Daskalakis from filing the paperwork necessary to switch insurers, as he would otherwise be allowed to do.

As a result, he could be on the hook for a hefty bill — all the while not receiving pay. Daskalakis is just one example of federal employees for whom being unable to make changes to their health plans really matters.

Although the estimated 800,000 government workers affected by the shutdown won’t lose their health insurance, an unknown number are in limbo like Daskalakis — unable to add family members such as spouses, newborns or adopted children to an existing health plan; unable to change insurers because of unforeseen circumstances; or unable deal with other issues that might arise.

“With 800,000 employees out there, I imagine that this is not a one-off event,” says Dan Blair, who served as both acting director and deputy director of the federal Office of Personnel Management during the early 2000s and is now senior counselor at the Bipartisan Policy Center. “The longer this goes on, the more we will see these types of occurrences.”

While little Oliver Daskalakis is getting stronger every day — he’s now out of the ICU, according to his father’s local air traffic union representative — it’s unclear how the situation will affect his family’s finances.

That’s because out-of-network charges are generally far higher than being in-network, and NICU care is enormously expensive,no matter what. Those bills could add up, especially as the family’s current insurance plan has an out-of-pocket maximum of $12,000 annually. Because Oliver was born before the new year, the family could face that amount twice — for 2018 and for 2019.

And Daskalakis still isn’t getting paid.

“I don’t know when I’ll be able to change my insurance, or when I’ll get paid again,” Daskalakis wrote to Sen. Tina Smith, D-Minn., who shared the letter on Facebook and before her Senate colleagues last week.

Other families are also worried about paperwork delays, and the financial and medical effects a prolonged shutdown could cause.

Dania Palanker, a health policy researcher at Georgetown’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms, studies what happens when families face insurance difficulties. Now she’s also living it.

After arranging to reduce her work hours because of health problems, Palanker knew her family would not qualify for coverage through her university job. No problem, she thought, as she began the process in December of enrolling her family in coverage offered by her husband’s job with the federal government.

But there was a hitch.

We could not get the paperwork in time to apply for special enrollment through the government and get it processed before the shutdown,” Palanker says.

Georgetown allowed her to boost her work hours this month to keep the family insured through January, but Georgetown’s share of her coverage will end in February.

Palanker’s treatments are expensive, so she is likely to hit or exceed her annual $2,000 deductible in January — then start over with another annual deductible once the family secures new health coverage.

“I’m postponing treatment in hopes that it is just a month and I’m back on the federal plan in February,” says Palanker, who has an autoimmune disease that causes nerve damage. “But I can’t postpone indefinitely, as my condition will get worse.”

Overseeing federal health benefits programs is within the purview of the Office of Personnel Management, whose data hub is operational, according to a spokeswoman. But getting information to that data hub to make the kind of changes Daskalakis, Palanker and others need depends on the individual agencies that employ government workers.

The OPM has told government agencies “that they should have [human resources] staff available during the lapse, specifically to process” such requests, which are called “qualifying life events,” the spokeswoman says.

Workers enrolled in plans under the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, which covers about 5 million federal workers and retirees in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, can make qualifying life event changes directly with the insurer if they can’t get it processed by their workplace, an association spokesman said Friday.

In a written statement Wednesday, Smith said: “Oliver’s story is a powerful reminder that hundreds of thousands of real families have had their financial and personal lives turned upside down by this unnecessary shutdown.” The Minnesota senator called onthe president to come back to the negotiating table.

For Daskalakis, there’s been some recent good news.

His union representative, Tony Walsh, says both the OPM website and Daskalakis’ insurer now indicate that the family’s request to change to an insurance plan that classifies the hospital as “in-network” will be retroactive to Oliver’s birthday — so the out-of-network charges may not play a role.

Just to be safe, “Joe is currently working on an insurance appeal based on no in-network care [being available],” Walsh reports in an emailed statement.

Still, the family has already received an initial $6,000 bill from the hospital, Walsh notes. He says that $6,000 does not include costs associated with Oliver’s birth or his stay in the intensive care unit — those charges likely are still to come.

Walsh says the shutdown is affecting a broad swath of employees in ways many lawmakers never anticipated.

The workers “are essential to the system,” he says, “and it’s unfair they are being treated this way.”

 

 

 

 

U.S. healthcare stocks seen maintaining momentum after strong 2018

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-stocks-healthcare/u-s-healthcare-stocks-seen-maintaining-momentum-after-strong-2018-idUSKCN1P82A6

Image result for U.S. healthcare stocks seen maintaining momentum after strong 2018

One of the rare market bright spots last year, the U.S. healthcare sector remains a Wall Street darling despite a slow start to 2019.

As 2019 begins, healthcare .SPXHC is the most favored of the 11 main S&P 500 sectors, according to a Reuters review of ratings from 13 large Wall Street research firms, which recommend how to weigh those groups in investment portfolios.

Healthcare shares overall rose 4.7 percent last year, one of only two S&P 500 sectors, along with utilities, to post positive returns in 2018 as the benchmark index fell 6.2 percent.

Proponents cite the healthcare sector’s reasonable valuations, strong balance sheets and dividend payments among many companies, as well as the group’s upbeat outlook for earnings, which are less susceptible to economic cycles than other businesses.

If economic growth is slowing, some investors are wary of being too invested in cyclical sectors that thrive during an upswing, but do not want to be too defensive either.

“We are trying to find things that skirt both of those two categorizations, and healthcare is a really nice diversified earnings stream,” said Noah Weisberger, managing director for U.S. portfolio strategy at Bernstein.

Such diversity stems from the variety of companies comprising the sector: manufacturers of prescription medicines, makers of medical devices, such as heart valves and knee replacements, health insurers, hospitals and providers of tools for scientific research.

From a stock perspective, that means the sector includes potential fast-growing stocks, such as biotechs that can carry more risk and more reward, or large pharmaceutical companies and others that offer steadier, slower growth.

Investment advisory firm Alan B. Lancz & Associates sold some pharmaceutical holdings late last year that had posted big gains, such as Merck & Co (MRK.N), to move into biotech stocks it believed were undervalued, said Alan Lancz, the firm’s president.

“We have maintained our overweighting, which is unusual for us with a sector that has outperformed so dramatically,” Lancz said. “But mainly there are segments within the sector that still offer opportunity.”

For 2019, healthcare companies in the S&P 500 are expected to increase earnings by 7.5 percent, ahead of the 6.3 percent growth estimated for S&P 500 companies overall, according to IBES data from Refinitiv.

Health insurer UnitedHealth Group Inc (UNH.N), the sector’s third-largest company by market value, kicks off fourth-quarter earnings season for healthcare on Tuesday.

“Healthcare is one of the few sectors with high quality, above-market growth and it’s relatively immune to the array of macro headwinds that we see out there,” said Martin Jarzebowski, sector head of healthcare for Federated Investors.

Healthcare shares could also benefit from anticipation of increased dealmaking activity after two large acquisitions of biotechs were already announced this year.

Despite healthcare’s outperformance last year, the sector is trading at the same valuation as the S&P 500 – 14.5 times earnings estimates for the next 12 months – whereas healthcare on average has held a premium over the market for the past 20 years, according to Refinitiv data.

The sector also is valued at a discount, by such price-to-earnings measures, to defensive sectors, including consumer staples .SPLRCS, which trades at 16.6 times forward earnings, and utilities .SPLRCU, which trades at 15.8 times.

According to the Reuters review of sector weightings, healthcare is followed by financials .SPSY, then technology .SPLRCT. Real estate .SPLRCR ranks as the most negatively rated group.

The healthcare sector has lagged in the early days of 2019, rising less than 1 percent against a 3 percent rise for the S&P 500.

Some investors doubt healthcare will maintain its outperformance. JP Morgan strategists downgraded the sector to “underweight” last month, pointing in part to political rhetoric possibly turning “more negative on healthcare leading up to the 2020 presidential elections.”

The healthcare sector struggled ahead of the 2016 election, with the high U.S. cost of prescription medicines a prominent issue during the presidential campaign. With renewed scrutiny on drug pricing, such concerns linger.

The sector could suffer if investors become more optimistic about economic growth and flee defensive stocks, while the popularity of healthcare as an investment could work against it if the trade becomes overly crowded.

“There is risk there,” said Walter Todd, chief investment officer at Greenwood Capital in South Carolina. But given issues affecting other sectors, he said, “when you look around the market…you arrive by default at healthcare, and so I think that’s why a lot of people are interested in the sector.”

 

 

 

Big Pharma Lobby Group Spent Record Amount as Reform Push Grows

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-22/big-pharma-lobby-group-spent-record-amount-as-reform-push-grows

The pharmaceutical industry’s 2 leading trade groups both set records for lobbying spending in 2018 — a sign of just how much the industry believes is on the line in the political battle over drug prices.

By the numbers:

  • PhRMA, the industry’s largest trade organization, spent $27.5 million on lobbying last year, per Bloomberg. That’s the most it has ever spent in 1 year.
  • A full $10 million of that came in the first quarter — the most PhRMA has ever spent in a single quarter.
  • The Biotechnology Innovation Organization, meanwhile, spent just shy of $10 million, according to STAT — also a record.
  • Those totals don’t include the millions individual drug companies spent on their own lobbyists. They also don’t include the industry’s campaign contributions, which topped $17 million in the 2018 cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Between the lines: PhRMA set its previous lobbying record during the debate over the Affordable Care Act, trying to stop a fully Democratic government from taking a bite out of its bottom line.

  • It’s remarkable that PhRMA would break that record in a year where Republicans — the industry’s allies — controlled the House, Senate and White House.

 

 

 

 

U.S. Uninsured Rate Rises to Four-Year High

https://news.gallup.com/poll/246134/uninsured-rate-rises-four-year-high.aspx?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosvitals&stream=top

Line graph. The percentage of U.S. adults without health insurance has grown steadily since 2016.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

  • The U.S. uninsured rate has risen steadily since 2016
  • Women, younger adults, the lower-income have the greatest increases
  • All regions except for the East reported increases

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. adult uninsured rate stood at 13.7% in the fourth quarter of 2018, according to Americans’ reports of their own health insurance coverage, its highest level since the first quarter of 2014. While still below the 18% high point recorded before implementation of the Affordable Care Act’s individual health insurance mandate in 2014, today’s level is the highest in more than four years, and well above the low point of 10.9% reached in 2016. The 2.8-percentage-point increase since that low represents a net increase of about seven million adults without health insurance.

Nationwide, the uninsured rate climbed from 10.9% in the third and fourth quarters of 2016 to 12.2% by the final quarter of 2017; it has risen steadily each quarter since that time. Since Gallup’s measurement began in 2008, the national uninsured rate reached its highest point in the third quarter of 2013 at 18.0%, and thus, the current rate of 13.7% — although it continues a rising trend — remains well below the peak level.

These data, collected as part of the Gallup National Health and Well-Being Index, are based on Americans’ answers to the question, “Do you have health insurance coverage?” Sample sizes of randomly selected adults in 2018 were around 28,000 per quarter.

The ACA marketplace exchanges opened on Oct. 1, 2013, and most new insurance plans purchased during the last quarter of that year began their coverage on Jan. 1, 2014. Medicaid expansion among 24 states (and the District of Columbia) also began at the beginning of 2014, with 12 more states expanding Medicaid since that time. Expanded Medicaid coverage as a part of the ACA broadens the number of low-income Americans who qualify for it to those earning up to 138% of the federal poverty level. The onset of these two major mechanisms of the ACA at the beginning of 2014 makes the uninsured rate in the third quarter of 2013 the natural benchmark for comparison to measure the effects of that policy.

Uninsured Rates Increase Most Among Women, Young Adults, the Lower-Income

The uninsured rate rose for most subgroups in the fourth quarter of 2018 compared with the same quarter in 2016, when the uninsured rate was lowest. Women, those living in households with annual incomes of less than $48,000 per year, and young adults under the age of 35 reported the greatest increases. Those younger than 35 reported an uninsured rate of over 21%, a 4.8-point increase from two years earlier. And the rate among women — while still below that of men — is among the fastest rising, increasing from 8.9% in late 2016 to 12.8% at the end of 2018.

At 7.1%, the East region, which has in recent years maintained the lowest uninsured rate in the nation, is the only one of the four regions nationally whose rate is effectively unchanged since the end of 2016. Respondents from the West, Midwest and South regions all reported uninsured rates for the fourth quarter of 2018 that represent increases of over 3.0 points. The South, which has always had the highest uninsured rate in the U.S. but has seen some of the greatest declines at the state level, has had a 3.8-point increase to 19.6%.

Implications

A number of factors have likely played a role in the steady increase in the uninsured rate over the past two years. One may be an increase in the rates of insurance premiums in many states for some of the more popular ACA insurance plans in 2018 (although most states saw premiums stabilize for 2019). For enrollees with incomes that do not qualify for government subsidies, the resulting hike in rates could have had the effect of driving them out of the marketplace. Insurers have also increasingly withdrawn from the ACA exchanges altogether, resulting in fewer choices and less competition in many states.

Other factors could be a result of policy decisions. The open enrollment periods since 2018 have been characterized by a significant reduction in public marketing and shortened enrollment periods of under seven weeks, about half of previous periods. Funding for ACA “navigators” who assist consumers in ACA enrollment has also been reduced in 2018 to $10 million, compared with $63 million in 2016. Overall, after open enrollment in the ACA federal insurance marketplace (i.e., healthcare.gov) peaked in 2016 at 9.6 million consumers, it declined by approximately 12.5%, to 8.4 million in 2019, based on recently released figures.

Other potential factors include political forces that may have increased uncertainty surrounding the ACA marketplace. Early in his presidency, for example, President Donald Trump announced, “I want people to know Obamacare is dead; it’s a dead healthcare plan.” Congressional Republicans made numerous high-profile attempts in 2017 to repeal and replace the plan. Although none fully succeeded legislatively, the elimination of the ACA’s individual mandate penalty as part of the December 2017 Republican tax reform law may have reduced participation in the insurance marketplace in the most recent open enrollment period.

Trump’s decision in October 2017 to end cost-sharing reduction could also potentially have affected the uninsured rate. The cost-sharing payments were made to insurers in the marketplace exchanges to offset some of their costs for offering lower-cost plans to lower-income Americans. The Trump administration had previously renewed the payments on a month-by-month basis but later concluded that such payments were unlawful. In April 2018, a federal court granted a request for a class-action lawsuit by health insurers to sue the federal government for failing to make the payments. Such lawsuits continue to be litigated.

 

 

 

 

20 recent hospital, health system outlook and credit rating actions

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/20-recent-hospital-health-system-outlook-and-credit-rating-actions.html?origin=cfoe&utm_source=cfoe

Related image

The following hospital and health system credit rating and outlook changes or affirmations occurred in the last two weeks, beginning with the most recent:

1. Fitch upgrades Cottage Health rating to ‘AA-‘

Fitch Ratings assigned an issuer default rating of “AA-” to Santa Barbara, Calif.-based Cottage Health and upgraded its revenue bond rating from “A+” to “AA-.”

2. Moody’s assigns ‘A1’ rating to Bexar County Hospital District

Moody’s Investors Service assigned an “A1” rating to Bexar County (Texas) Hospital District.

3. Moody’s confirms ‘Ba1’ ratings for Monroe County Health Authority

Moody’s Investors Service confirmed its “Ba1” issuer and general obligation limited tax ratings for Monroe County (Ala.) Health Care Authority.

4. Moody’s affirms ‘A3’ rating for The Christ Hospital

Moody’s Investors Service has affirmed its “A3” rating for Cincinnati-based The Christ Hospital, affecting $311 million of outstanding debt.

5. Moody’s assigns ‘Aa3’ rating to Partners Healthcare System

Moody’s Investors Service assigned an “A3” rating to Boston-based Partners Healthcare’s proposed revenue bonds.

6. Moody’s affirms ‘Aa2’ rating for Northwestern Memorial HealthCare

Moody’s Investors Service affirmed its “Aa2,” “Aa2/VMIG 1,” and “P-1” ratings for Chicago-based Northwestern Memorial HealthCare, affecting $1.1 billion of debt.

7. Moody’s affirms Yale New Haven Health’s ‘Aa3’ rating

Moody’s Investors Service affirmed the long-term underlying “Aa3” ratings of Yale New Haven (Conn.) Health, affecting $715 million of rated debt.

8. Moody’s assigns ‘A2’ rating to Kettering Health Network

Moody’s Investors Service assigned an “A2” rating to Dayton, Ohio-based Kettering Health Network.

9. S&P assigns ‘A+’ rating to Indiana’s Marion General Hospital

S&P Global Ratings assigned an “A+” long-term rating to Marion (Ind.) General Hospital.

10. Moody’s affirms ‘Ba3’ rating for Antelope Valley Healthcare District

Moody’s Investors Service affirmed its “Ba3” rating for Lancaster, Calif.-based Antelope Valley Health District, which includes Antelope Valley Hospital, affecting $122 million of revenue bonds.

11. Moody’s affirms ‘Ba2’ rating for Community Memorial Health System

Moody’s Investors Service affirmed Ventura, Calif.-based Community Memorial Health System’s “Ba2” rating, affecting $339 million of rated debt.

12. Moody’s affirms ‘A2’ rating for University of Maryland Medical System

Moody’s Investors Service affirmed its “A2” rating for the Baltimore-based University of Maryland Medical System, affecting $1.1 billion of outstanding debt.

13. Moody’s affirms ‘B1’ rating for Sauk Prairie Healthcare

Moody’s Investors Service affirmed its “B1” rating for Sauk Prairie Healthcare in Prairie du Sac, Wis., affecting $38 million of fixed rate bonds.

14. Moody’s affirms ‘A3’ rating for Excela Health

Moody’s Investors Service affirmed Greensburg, Pa.-based Excela Health’s “A3” rating, affecting $72 million of outstanding debt.

15. Moody’s affirms Northwest Community Hospital’s ‘A2’ rating

Moody’s Investors Service affirmed its “A2” rating for Arlington Heights, Ill.-based Northwest Community Hospital, affecting $194 million of rated debt.

16. Fitch assigns ‘AA-‘ long-term rating to Trinity Health

Fitch Ratings assigned an “AA-” long-term rating to Livonia, Mich.-based Trinity Health, affecting $175 million of bonds.

17. Fitch withdraws rating for Greenwich Hospital

Fitch Ratings has withdrawn its issuer default rating for Greenwich (Conn.) Hospital.

18. Fitch assigns ‘A’ rating to East Tennessee Children’s Hospital

Fitch Ratings has assigned an “A” rating and an “A” issuer default rating to Knoxville-based East Tennessee Children’s Hospital.

19. Moody’s affirms ‘A1’ rating for Lexington County Health Services District

Moody’s Investors Service affirmed its “A1” rating for Lexington County (S.C.) Health Services District, affecting $369 million of outstanding revenue bonds.

20. Moody’s assigns ‘A1’ rating to Munson Healthcare

Moody’s Investors Service assigned an “A1” long-term rating to the proposed revenue refunding bonds for Traverse City, Mich.-based Munson Healthcare while also maintaining an “A1” rating on the system’s existing debt.

Bankrupt hospital chain receives $610M bid

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/hospital-transactions-and-valuation/bankrupt-hospital-chain-receives-610m-bid.html?origin=cfoe&utm_source=cfoe

Image result for verity health system bankruptcy

El Segundo, Calif.-based Verity Health received a $610 million offer for four of its hospitals in California.

Four things to know:

1. Verity Health, which operated six hospitals in California when it entered Chapter 11 bankruptcy in August, is selling its assets through the bankruptcy process.

2. Corona, Calif.-based KPC Group bid $610 million to purchase the following four Verity hospitals: St. Francis Medical Center in Lynwood, St. Vincent Medical Center in Los Angeles, Seton Medical Center in Daly City, and Seton Coastside in Moss Beach.

3. KPC Group’s offer is a stalking horse bid, meaning Verity will evaluate competing bids to ensure it receives the highest offer for its assets.

4. Verity’s hospitals in San Jose and Gilroy are not included in KPC Group’s bid. Santa Clara County previously placed a bid for those two hospitals. The bankruptcy court approved the sale, but California Attorney General Xavier Becerra appealed the bankruptcy court’s approval.

 

Loosening Up Stark and Anti-Kickback Laws: What Would It Look Like?

https://mailchi.mp/burroughshealthcare/pc9ctbv4ft-1611881?e=7d3f834d2f

Image result for Stark and Anti-Kickback Laws

The Department of Health and Human Services under the Trump administration has taken a deregulatory approach toward healthcare delivery. Its efforts on the payer side includes expanding the availability of individual health insurance policies that don’t conform to the rules of the Affordable Care Act, and more recently liberalizing the use of tax credits to purchase them.

However, the HHS has made one of its boldest proposals on the provider side. Over the summer, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued a request for information (RFI) regarding potentially loosening up the Stark and anti-kickback laws.

Originally signed into law in 1972, the Anti-Kickback Statute barred any sort of renumeration to a provider to induce the referral of a patient. The Stark Law, enacted in 1990, bars doctors from referring Medicare or Medicaid patients to any ‘designated facility’ in which they have any form of a financial relationship. Both laws have been updated – and strengthened – numerous times in the intervening years. The HHS’ proposed changes would signal a shift away from how those laws are interpreted.

According to Mark Hardiman, partner with the Nelson Hardiman healthcare law firm in Los Angeles, the move represents a desire by HHS “to move all payments away from fee-for-service and make the providers at risk on both the upside and downside.”

Although the proportion of fee-for-service payments made to Medicare providers has shrunk in recent years, it still comprises the majority. A total of $392 billion in Medicare fee-for-service payments were made in 2017, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 56 percent of all payments made from the program. Although that’s down from 70 percent of all Medicare payments made a decade prior, the continuing aging of the Baby Boomer population and healthcare cost inflation is putting pressure on CMS and HHS to find ways to continue to pare back costs. Coordinated care initiatives such as accountable care organizations comprise just a small fraction of all Medicare payments, and many providers are balking about taking on too much downside financial risk when forming accountable care organizations.

 According to HHS, the intent is to make it easier for providers to implement value-based care initiatives. “Removing unnecessary government obstacles to care coordination is a key priority for this administration,” said HHS Deputy Secretary Eric Hargan of the rationale behind the regulatory review. “We need to change the healthcare system so that it puts value and results at the forefront of care, and coordinated care plays a vital role in this transformation.”

Nonetheless, the hospital sector has been generally supportive of regulatory changes. In testimony to a U.S. House Ways and Means subcommittee over the summer, Michael Lappin, chief integration officer at Advocate Aurora Health, observed that strict liability rules discourage value-based arrangements.

So, what would the healthcare delivery environment resemble with looser regulations governing both laws?

   According to Hardiman, the changes HHS is seeking to the regulations are far from sweeping.
“They are really on the margins, and they are not signaling a fundamental shift in the enforcement of the Stark and  Anti-Kickback Law,” he said. 

Why would there not be a major regulatory unraveling? Hardiman notes that doing so would create chaos in healthcare delivery. Moreover, qui tam(whistleblower) lawsuits in healthcare have become a major source of income for attorneys, and they would object to too much of an unwinding. Data from the non-profit watchdog organization Taxpayers Against Fraud bears that out: Of the more than $3.7 billion in False Claims Act settlements reached in 2017, $2.4 billion involved litigation involving healthcare enterprises. It was the eighth consecutive year that healthcare case settlements topped $2 billion. Hardiman also noted that more and more litigation is being settled for large sums even when the U.S. Justice Department declines to intervene in a case.

Hardiman believes that if the regs are loosened, they would likeliest be in the form of a “series of fraud and abuse waivers.” They would cover initiatives such as managed care ventures or ACOs, making it easier for hospitals and physicians to collaborate on care coordination, as well create models to more equitably share expenses and profits and encourage cross-referrals.

“You are going to see a much more comprehensive definition as to what types of risk-sharing arrangements will not be reviewed as renumeration under the kickback statute,” Hardiman said. “I wouldn’t be surprised to see safe harbors around Medicare Advantages, ACOs, and participants in other innovative risk-sharing arrangements.”

Individual physicians and medical groups may also have the opportunity to pay inducements to patients to lose weight or engage in another health-enhancing activity – something they are currently barred from doing under most circumstances.

“Everybody knows we’re heading toward a value-based coordinated care model,” Hardiman said. “And promoting and incentivizing it is still a risky business. You want at least some practical guideposts.” 

 

ARE YOU WORKING WITH PEOPLE OR THROUGH PEOPLE?

Are You Working With People or Through People?

Image result for ARE YOU WORKING WITH PEOPLE OR THROUGH PEOPLE?

One of the mentors I feel very fortunate to have had in my life was the late Richard Neustadt, a founding professor of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard and author of the classic book Presidential Power. When I was a student at the Kennedy School in the mid-80’s, I had Dr. Neustadt for a couple of classes, got to work with him on some special projects and was part of a group of students he’d occasionally have over to his house to teach us about the subtleties of scotch whiskey.

There are a lot of insights that Dick Neustadt is remembered for but the one that is probably the most cited is that, in spite of the awesome resources at his (and, someday soon, her) command, the true power of the President of the United States is the power to persuade. To really be effective in accomplishing their agenda, the President must influence different stakeholders and constituencies to work with him or her.

Note the key preposition in that last sentence. It’s with. As an executive I was talking with recently reminded me, great leaders work with people, not through people. You may, at first, think that the dichotomy between with and through is a distinction without a difference. Not so fast, my friend. Let’s dig a little deeper on the difference between these two prepositions, with and through, and the impact they have on effective leadership.

We can start with definitions. The primary definition of with is “accompanied by.” The primary definition of through is “moving in one side and out of the other side of.” Maybe I could end this post right here. If you’re the colleague, the follower or some other stakeholder, would you rather be accompanied by or moved through one side and out the other? My guess is that for most people the answer is self-evident. You’d rather be accompanied. That’s likely at the essence of the power of persuasion that Dr. Neustadt wrote and talked about.

So, what are other markers of a leader who works with people instead of through people?

As the executive I was recently talking with told me, when you’re working with people, you start with respect for your colleagues. Unless proven otherwise, you assume that they, like you, are acting in the similar best interests of the enterprise. You assume that they’re highly motivated and qualified until proven otherwise.

You also have a focus on what they need as much as on what you need. If you only come in with what you need and what you have right and everyone else has wrong, over the long run you lose your effectiveness.

When you don’t have total control, you have to have influence.  Influence – the power to persuade – takes root when you work with people rather than through them.