Colin Powell on Leadership Responsibility
The KISS Principle
Colin Powell on Looking Below Surface Appearances
Colin Powell’s 13 Rules for Leadership
Colin Powell’s Rules for Picking People
Colin Powell on Leadership
Hospitals paying $24 billion more for labor during the COVID-19 pandemic
Clinical labor costs are up by an average of 8% per patient day, translating to $17 million in additional annual labor expenses.
As the delta variant pushes COVID-19 caseloads to all-time highs, hospitals and health systems across the country are paying $24 billion more per year for qualified clinical labor than they did pre-pandemic, according to a new PINC AI analysis from Premier.
Clinical labor costs are up by an average of 8% per patient day when compared to a pre-pandemic baseline period in 2019. For the average 500-bed facility, this translates to $17 million in additional annual labor expenses since the beginning of the public health emergency.
The data also shows that overtime hours are up 52% as of September. At the same time, the use of agency and temporary labor is up 132% for full-time and 131% for part-time workers. The use of contingency labor – positions created to complete a temporary project or work function – is up nearly 126%.
Overtime and the use of agency staff are the most expensive labor choices for hospitals – usually adding 50% or more to a typical employee’s hourly rate, Premier found.
And hospital workers aren’t just putting in more hours – they’re also working harder. The analysis shows that productivity, measured in worked hours per unit of departmental volume, increased by an average of 7% to 14% year-over-year across the intensive care, nursing and emergency department units, highlighting the significance of the increases in cost-per-hour.
Another complicating factor is that hospital employees are more exposed to COVID-19 than many other workers, with quarantines and recoveries requiring the use of sick time. The data shows that use of sick time, particularly among full-time employees (FTEs) in the intensive care unit, is up 50% for full-time clinical staff and more than 60% for part-time employees when compared with the pre-pandemic baseline.
WHAT’S THE IMPACT
The combined stressors of working more hours while under the constant threat of coronavirus exposure are pushing many hospital workers to the breaking point. In fact, the data shows clinical staff turnover is reaching record highs in key departments like emergency, ICU and nursing.
Since the start of the pandemic, the annual rate of turnover across these departments has increased from 18% to 30%. This means nearly one-third of all employees in these departments are now turning over each year, which is almost double the rate from two years ago.
This is a number that could increase as new vaccination mandates take effect. Already, one Midwestern system reported a loss of 125 employees who chose not to be vaccinated, while a New York facility reported another 90 resignations. Overall, staffing agencies are predicting up to a 5% resignation rate once vaccine mandates kick in.
While a minority of the overall workforce, losses of even a few employees during times of extreme stress can have a ripple effect on hospital operations and costs.
THE LARGER TREND
According to the American Hospital Association, hospitals nationwide will lose an estimated $54 billion in net income over the course of the year, even taking into account the $176 billion in federal CARES Act funding from last year. Added staffing costs were not addressed as part of CARES and are further eating into hospital finances.
As a result, some are now predicting that more than half of all hospitals will have negative margins by the end of 2021 – a trend that could be dire for some community hospitals.
Prior to the pandemic, about one quarter of hospitals had negative margins, the Kaufman Hall data showed. At the beginning of 2021, after almost a year of COVID-19, half of hospitals had negative margins.
Meanwhile, the most potentially disruptive forces facing hospitals and health systems in the next three years are provider burnout, disengagement and the resulting shortages among healthcare professionals, according to a March survey of 551 healthcare executives.
Large majorities want Medicare to negotiate drug prices, poll finds
Large majorities of American voters across all political stripes favor letting Medicare negotiate drug prices, and most don’t buy into the argument that high drug prices are needed for drug companies to invest in new research, according to a new poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation.
About 83% of all voters favor letting the federal government negotiate drug prices. Broken down by political ideology, that translates to 95% of Democrats, 82% of independents and 71% of Republicans.
About eight in 10 adults (83%) and adults 65 and older (78%) say they think the cost of prescription drugs is “unreasonable.”
WHAT’S THE IMPACT?
The Democrats’ budget reconciliation package includes a proposal to allow the federal government to negotiate prescription drug prices on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries and people enrolled in private plans. The proposal, which has been part of previous legislative proposals and estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to result in about $450 billion in savings to Medicare, has met strong opposition from the pharmaceutical industry, as well as some lawmakers.
Yet the proposal is largely popular among the public across parties, as well as among seniors, the group most directly impacted by such legislation.
The poll finds that when the public is presented with the main arguments being made by advocates on both sides of the debate, the shift in opinion is modest and support for negotiation remains high.
The argument against negotiation is that the government would be too involved, and would lead to fewer new drugs being available in the future. The argument for negotiation is that Americans pay higher prices than people in other countries, many can’t afford their prescriptions and drug company profits are too high.
After hearing the arguments for and against the proposal to allow the federal government to negotiate prices with drug companies, attitudes remained relatively unchanged with a majority continuing to favor the proposal.
Neither President Joe Biden nor members of either party in Congress have gained the full confidence of the public to do what’s right for the country on prescription drug pricing. Slightly less than half of the public say they have “a great deal” or “a fair amount” of confidence in President Biden (46%) or Democrats in Congress (48%) to recommend the right thing for the country on prescription drug prices.
One-third of the public (33%) say they have at least a fair amount of confidence in Republicans in Congress, and few are confident that pharmaceutical companies will recommend the right thing (14%).
THE LARGER TREND
In August, President Biden called on Congress to pass solutions to lower prescription drug prices and hold brand-name drug manufacturers accountable, and said Medicare should have the ability to negotiate lower drug prices.
The president called for Medicare to cap yearly out-of-pocket drug costs for beneficiaries, as well as backing Food and Drug Administration efforts to accelerate the development of generic medicines, which typically have far lower costs to consumers. The negotiation push was part of a $3.5 trillion budget proposal that narrowly passed the House in August.
This met with opposition from the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, which aired television ads saying the move to have Medicare negotiate drug prices would take away consumer choice.
PhRMA CEO and president Stephen Ubl said by statement after Biden’s August speech: “Unfortunately, the policies the president outlined today would undermine access to life-saving medicines and fail to address an insurance system that shifts the cost of treatments onto vulnerable patients. Many in Congress know that access to medicine is critical for millions of patients and Medicare is not a piggy bank to be raided to fund other, unrelated government programs. This is a misguided approach.”
Ubl was referring to HR 3, the Elijah Cummings lower Drug Costs Now Act, which would use the money saved in Part D negotiations to help offset the $3.5 trillion spending bill. HR 3 passed the House in 2019 but was never voted on by the Senate.
It wasn’t the first time Biden has proposed having Medicare negotiate drug prices. In May, Biden called on Congress to lower prescription drug prices as part of his administration’s Fiscal Year 2022 Budget. During a joint address to Congress in April, the president called for lawmakers to work toward bipartisan solutions to lower prescription drug prices, including giving Medicare the ability to negotiate.
Medicare, Medicare Advantage enrollees have comparable healthcare experiences
Enrollment in Medicare Advantage plans is increasing rapidly, and many insurers are expanding their MA offerings in a bid to grab larger portions of the market share. Medicare Advantage touts itself as having certain advantages over traditional Medicare, such as fitness benefits, coverage for hearing aids and eyeglasses, and limits on out-of-pocket spending.
This begs the question: Are enrollees in the two versions of Medicare fundamentally different, and what are their experiences like in terms of satisfaction?
New analysis from the Commonwealth Fund found that Medicare Advantage enrollees do not differ significantly from beneficiaries in traditional Medicare in terms of their age, race, income, chronic conditions, satisfaction with care, or access to care, after excluding Special Needs Plan (SNP) enrollees.
Both groups reported waiting more than a month for physician office visits, while similar shares of Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare enrollees report that their out-of-pocket costs make it difficult to obtain care.
Ultimately, MA and traditional Medicare are serving similar populations, with beneficiaries having comparable healthcare experiences. The care management services provided by Medicare Advantage plans appear to neither impede access to care nor reduce concerns about costs.
WHAT’S THE IMPACT?
Beneficiaries weigh a number of trade-offs when deciding whether to enroll in Medicare Advantage plans or traditional Medicare. Unlike the latter, MA plans are required to place limits on enrollees’ out-of-pocket spending and to maintain provider networks. The plans also can provide benefits not covered by traditional Medicare, such as eyeglasses, fitness benefits and hearing aids.
Medicare Advantage plans are intended to manage and coordinate beneficiaries’ care. Some MA plans specialize in care for people with diabetes and other common chronic conditions, including Special Needs Plans. SNPs also focus on people who are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid and on those who require an institutional level of care.
Traditional Medicare and MA enrollees have historically had different characteristics, with MA enrollees somewhat healthier. Black and Hispanic beneficiaries and those with lower incomes have tended to enroll in MA plans at higher rates than others, while traditional Medicare has historically performed better on beneficiary-reported metrics, such as provider access, ease of getting needed care, and overall care experience.
The Commonwealth Fund found that, after excluding beneficiaries in SNPs, beneficiaries enrolled in traditional Medicare do not differ significantly from MA enrollees on age, income, or receipt of a Part D low-income subsidy (LIS), which helps low-income individuals pay for prescription drugs. But beneficiaries in traditional Medicare are significantly more likely than MA enrollees to reside in a metropolitan area and more likely to live in a long-term-care or residential facility.
Beneficiaries in SNPs are different. Given the eligibility criteria for these plans, it’s not surprising that enrollees tend to have significantly lower incomes and a greater likelihood of receiving Medicaid benefits or LIS than other Medicare beneficiaries.
Enrollment in SNPs for people who require an institutional level of care has been growing rapidly, leading to a similar share of SNP enrollees and beneficiaries in traditional Medicare living in a long-term-care facility.
There are some areas in which Medicare Advantage plans appear to perform better than traditional Medicare. In particular, MA enrollees are more likely than those in traditional Medicare to have a treatment plan, to have someone who reviews their prescriptions, to have someone they can contact for help, and to receive a response to a health query relatively quickly.
By providing this additional help, Medicare Advantage plans are making it easier for enrollees to get the help they need to manage their healthcare conditions, the report found. Medicare experts have suggested providing a similar service to beneficiaries in traditional Medicare through care coordinators.
The results also raise questions about whether Medicare Advantage plans are receiving appropriate payments. MedPAC estimates that plans are paid 4% more than it would cost to cover similar people in traditional Medicare.
On the one hand, Medicare Advantage plans seem to be providing services that help their enrollees manage their care, and this added care management could be of significant value to both plan enrollees and the Medicare program. On the other hand, rates of hospitalizations and emergency room visits are similar for beneficiaries in Medicare Advantage plans and traditional Medicare. This calls into question the impact of the added services on healthcare use, spending and outcomes.
THE LARGER TREND
Insurers are expanding their Medicare Advantage offerings at a decent clip, with Humana announcing last week it would debut a new Medicare Advantage PPO plan in 37 rural counties in North Carolina in response to market demand in the eastern part of the state.
Just last week, UnitedHealthcare, which already has significant market control with its MA plans, said it will strengthen its foothold in the space by expanding its MA plans in 2022, adding a potential 3.1 million members and reaching 94% of Medicare-eligible consumers in the U.S.
And for the third straight year, health insurer Cigna is expanding its Medicare Advantage plans, growing into 108 new counties and three new states – Connecticut, Oregon and Washington – which will increase its geographic presence by nearly 30%.
Centene is also getting in on the act, expanding MA into 327 new counties and three new states: Massachusetts, Nebraska and Oklahoma. In all, this represents a 26% expansion of Centene’s MA footprint, with the offering available to a potential 48 million beneficiaries across 36 states.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said in late September that the average premium for Medicare Advantage plans will be lower in 2022 at $19 per month, compared with $21.22 in 2021. However, Part D coverage is rising to $33 per month, compared with $31.47 in 2021.
Enrollment in MA continues to increase, CMS said. In 2022, it’s projected to reach 29.5 million people, compared with 26.9 million enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan in 2021.
US COVID-19 cases fall for 4th consecutive week: 9 CDC stats to know
COVID-19 cases have declined nationwide for the fourth consecutive week, according to the CDC’s COVID data tracker weekly review published Oct. 15.
Nine numbers to know:
Reported cases
1. The nation’s current seven-day case average is 84,555, a 12.5 percent decrease from the previous week’s average.
Hospitalizations
2. The current seven-day hospitalization average for Oct. 6-12 is 6,659, an 8.8 percent drop from the previous week’s average.
Vaccinations
3. About 218 million people — 65.6 percent of the total U.S. population — have received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, and more than 188.3 million people, or 56.7 percent of the population, have gotten both doses.
4. About 9.3 million booster doses in fully vaccinated people have been reported.
5. The seven-day average number of vaccines administered daily was 841,731 as of Oct. 14, a 11.3 percent decrease from the previous week.
Variants
6. Based on projections for the week ending Oct. 9, the CDC estimates the delta variant accounts for more than 99 percent of all U.S. COVID-19 cases.
Deaths
7. The current seven-day death average is 1,241, down 13.4 percent from the previous week’s average. Some historical deaths have been excluded from these counts, the CDC said.
Testing
8. The seven-day average for percent positivity from tests is 5.7 percent, down 4.1 percent from the previous week.
9. The nation’s seven-day average test volume for the week of Oct. 1-7 was about 1.49 million, down 5.4 percent from the prior week’s average.
HENRY KOTULA 