Almost 40% of Americans are willing to split their ticket and vote for a candidate from the opposing party who made a top priority of lowering health costs, according to a Gallup/West Health poll published Thursday.
Why it matters: Though candidates haven’t been talking much about medical costs in the run-up to the midterms, the issue remains enough of a priority that it could erode straight party-line voting.
By the numbers: 87% of Americans polled said a candidate’s plan to reduce the cost of health care services was very or somewhat important in casting a vote.
The issue cut across partisan lines, with 96% of Democrats and 77% of Republican respondents saying a candidate with a health care costs plan was an important factor.
86% also said a plan to lower prescription drug prices is very or somewhat important. That’s especially true for seniors.
Of note: Democratic voters were more likely than Republicans to say they would cross party lines because health costs are a top priority. Four in 10 Democrats said they were likely to do so compared to about 1 in 5 Republicans.
The next phase of the Biden administration’s bid to curb rising drug costs is in the hands of an under-the-radar federal office called the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI).
Driving the news: The center will publish a report within three months on how it can use new payment and delivery models to lower drug costs and boost access to treatments for beneficiaries of the two government health programs, per a recent executive order from President Biden.
Zoom in: CMMI was created through the Affordable Care Act to experiment with new ways of paying for and delivering health care.
Pilot programs typically last for years. Participation is usually voluntary, but the center can require provider involvement in some cases.
CMMI programs can become permanent fixtures of Medicare and Medicaid — if they’re found to save money or improve care quality.
Be smart: The expectation is the center will tackle the prices health providers pay for Medicare drugs like infusions or injectables. Under the Inflation Reduction Act, the government can’t negotiate prices for these drugs until 2028.
Experimenting with price negotiation or payments based on patients’ health outcomes could help regulators learn best practices before that start date.
The center may also look for ways to incorporate drug pricing reforms into its existing projects and across different federal payers, said David Ault, a lawyer at Ropes & Gray and a former CMMI employee.
Refining policies from recent congressional action on Medicare prescription drug pricing could also be on the agenda.
The center could test alternative versions of the $2,000 annual cap on out-of-pocket costs for Medicare prescription drugs, for example.
Incorporating a monthly spending limit “could avoid having people pay everything in one month, after which all of their treatments are free,” Stacie Dusetzina, a health policy professor at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, wrote in an email.
Flashback: CMMI has tried to tackle drug prices under previous administrations, with mixed success.
Both the Obama and Trump administrations failed to implement experiments meant to lower health providers’ Medicare drug costs. But 106 health plan sponsors currently participate in a center program that gives seniors access to lower-cost insulin.
Reality check: It could take some time to get new drug pricing experiments up and running.
Programs typically take a year and a half to two years to be approved and implemented, so any new drug pricing model likely wouldn’t start until at least 2024, Ault said.
Don’t forget: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the center’s parent, will continue its own work on drug pricing as it implements policies from the Inflation Reduction Act.
Congress also hasn’t tapped out of the discussion. Lawmakers seem keen to continue talking about insulin costs and pharmacy benefit manager practices, Rachel Sachs, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis, told Axios.
Zoom out: Expect to see more from CMMI in the next couple years, on drug pricing reforms and other federal health care policy issues.
“You oftentimes see the innovation center being very active in the last few years of administration, trying to take ideas or concepts … far enough along that they’re in place, should there be a change in political party,” Ault said.
Earlier this month, the Biden administration officially extended the federal public health emergency (PHE) declaration it had set in place for COVID-19. That means the PHE provisions will stay in effect for another 90 days — until mid-January at least.
When the PHE does end, a number of rules developed in response to the pandemic will sunset. One of those is a provision that temporarily requires states to let all Medicaid beneficiaries remain enrolled in the program — even if they have become ineligible during the pandemic.
Estimates suggest that millions could lose Medicaid coverage when this emergency provision ends. Among those who would lose coverage because they are no longer eligible for the program, about one-third are expected to qualify for subsidized coverage on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplaces. Most others are expected to get coverage through an employer. It remains an open question, though, how many people will successfully transition to these other plans.
A recent paper by health economics researcher Laura Dague and colleagues in the Journal of Health Politics, Policy, and Law sheds light on these dynamics. The authors used a prior change in eligibility in Wisconsin’s Medicaid program to estimate how many people successfully transitioned to a private plan when their Medicaid eligibility ended.
Wisconsin’s Medicaid program is unique. Back in 2008 — before the ACA passed — Wisconsin broadly expanded Medicaid eligibility for non-elderly adults. After the ACA came into effect, Wisconsin reworked its Medicaid program in a way that made about 44,000 adults (mostly parents) with incomes above the federal poverty line ineligible for the program. To remain insured, they would have to switch to private coverage (via Obamacare or an employer).
Only about one-third of those 44,000 people had definitely enrolled in private coverage within two months of exiting the Medicaid program.
The remaining two-thirds of people were uninsured or their insurance status couldn’t be determined.
Even using the most optimistic assumptions to fill in that missing insurance status data, the authors estimated only up to 42% of people might have had private coverage within three months.
Nearly 1 in 10 enrollees had re-entered Medicaid coverage within six months, possibly due to fluctuations in household income.
This paper has several limitations. Health insurers are not required to participate in Wisconsin’s APCD, so the authors may not be capturing all successful transitions from Medicaid to private insurance. The paper also does not distinguish between different types of private insurance: Some coverage gains may have resulted from employer-based insurance rather than the ACA marketplace.
Still, the findings suggest that when a large number of Wisconsin residents lost Medicaid eligibility in 2014, many were not able to transition from Medicaid to private coverage. Wisconsin’s experience can help us understand what might happen when the national public health emergency ends and Medicaid programs resume removing people from their rolls.
Stillwater Medical Center in Oklahoma has ended all in-network contracts with Medicare Advantage plans amid financial challenges at the 117-bed hospital, the Stillwater News Press reported Oct. 14.
Humana and BCBS of Oklahoma were notified that their members will no longer receive in-network coverage after Jan. 1, 2023.
“BCBSOK is willing to work with Stillwater Medical Center in finding solutions that will allow Payne County residents continued local access to Medicare Advantage providers,” a BCBS spokesperson told the newspaper.
The hospital said it made the decision after facing rising operating costs and a high prior authorization burden for the MA plans.
“This was a very tough financial decision for the Stillwater Medical leadership team. Our cost to operate has increased 26 percent over the past 2 years,” Tamie Young, vice president of revenue cycle at SMC, told the News Press. “Financial challenges are increased by a 22 percent denial of service rate from Medicare Advantage plans. This is in comparison to a less than 1 percent denial rate from traditional Medicare.”
There are few easy ways to cut expenses. But in hospitals and health systems, there are quieter ways.
Workforce reductions are never painless — or never should be, especially for those doing the reducing. Involuntary job loss is one of the most stressful events workers and families experience, carrying mental and physical health risks in addition to the disruption it poses to peoples’ short- and long-term life plans.
But as health systems find themselves in untenable financial positions and looming risk of an economic recession, job cuts and layoffs in hospitals and health systems are increasingly likely. In a report released Oct. 18 from Kaufman Hall based on response from 86 health system leaders, 46 percent said labor costs are the largest opportunity for cost reduction — up significantly from the 17 percent of leaders who said the same last year.
Job cuts at hospitals may seem counterintuitive given the nation’s widely known shortages of healthcare workers. But as hospitals weather one of their most financially difficult years, some are reducing their administrative staff, eliminating vacant jobs and reorganizing or shrinking their executive teams to curb costs.
Decisions to reduce administrative labor tend to garner quieter reactions compared to budgetary decisions to end service lines or close sites of patient care, including hospitals. While the implications of administrative shakeups may be felt throughout a health system, the disruption they pose to patients is less immediately palpable. Few people know the name of their community hospitals’ senior vice presidents, but most do know how many minutes it takes to travel to a nearby site of care for an appointment during a workday or a tolerable amount of time to wait for said appointment.
It doesn’t hurt that hospital and health systems’ administrative ranks have ballooned compared to their patient-facing counterparts. While the number of practicing physicians in the U.S. grew 150 percent between 1975 and 2010, the number of healthcare administrators increased 3,200 percent in the same period. More broadly, administrative spending accounts for 15 to 30 percent of healthcare spending in the U.S. and at least half of that “does not contribute to health outcomes in any discernible way,” according to a report published Oct. 6 in Health Affairs.
A couple of health systems have denoted their plans to cut nonclinical employees and jobs in the past week.
Cleveland-based University Hospitals announced efforts to reduce system expenses by $100 million Oct. 12, including the elimination of 326 vacant jobs and layoffs affecting 117 administrative employees. The workforce reduction comes as the 21-hospital system faces a net operating loss of $184.6 million from the first eight months of 2022.
Sioux Falls, S.D.-based Sanford Health is laying off an undisclosed number of staff, a decision the organization’s top leader says is “to streamline leadership structure and simplify operations” in certain areas, the Argus Leader reported Oct. 19. Bill Gassen, president and CEO of Sanford Health, also said the layoffs primarily affect nonclinical areas and that they will “not adversely impact patient or resident care in any way.”
These developments are only several days old, but have not yet triggered any newsworthy follow-up developments or pushback. Cost reduction efforts that close facilities or reduce services tend to — on the other hand — catalyze scrutiny, debate and conflict in communities that can span for months and even years.
Look to Atlanta. Marietta, Ga.-based Wellstar unexpectedly announced on Aug. 31 that its 460-bed Atlanta Medical Center will end operations on Nov. 1, with plans to progressively wind down services leading up to that date. The system attributed the decision to the $107 million loss incurred operating the hospital over the last 12 months. Noteworthy is that the system has said that 1,430 (82 percent) of Atlanta Medical Center workers affected by the facility’s impending closure have accepted job offers at other Wellstar Health System facilities.
Since, the decision to close one of Atlanta’s level 1 trauma centers has drawn attention from Georgia’s governor and gubernatorial candidate, congressional members and Atlanta Mayor Andre Dickens, who in a town hall Oct. 19 said that in closing Atlanta Medical Center, “Wellstar said they don’t want to be in the business of urban healthcare.”
The decision has also spilled over to affect area hospitals, namely Atlanta’s public Grady Health System, which received a $130 million cash infusion from the state and reported a 30 percent increase in patient volume after the emergency department of Atlanta Medical Center closed.
Health systems have a lot to weigh. Their administrative layers are thick, varied and necessary to a degree, meaning this broad category of workers still poses tough decisions when it comes to cost containment efforts. But in a very simple view, laying off people who care for patients will only hurt health systems’ chances of recruiting and retaining clinical talent — in a time when no health systems’ odds of doing so are especially outsized.
HENRY KOTULA 