CMS to require positive COVID-19 test results for Medicare pay boost

Posted on by • Posted in American Hospital Association (AHA), Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Clinical Testing, Coronavirus, Health Policy, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Medicare, Rev Cycle Management, Revenue Cycle, The CARES Act, Undue Burden • Leave a comment

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/cms-to-require-positive-covid-19-test-results-for-medicare-pay-boost.html?utm_medium=email

CMS to Pay For Hospital COVID-19 Care Furnished in Other Settings

CMS recently released guidance that includes a new requirement for hospitals to get a Medicare payment boost for caring for patients diagnosed with COVID-19. 

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act provided a 20 percent add-on payment to the inpatient prospective payment system diagnosis-related group rate for treating patients diagnosed with COVID-19. Until now, a physician’s documentation that a patient has COVID-19 was sufficient to receive the add-on payment. However, recent guidance from CMS adds the requirement to have a positive COVID-19 laboratory test documented in the patient’s medical record for the claim to be eligible for the add-on payment. The new requirement applies to admissions occurring on or after Sept. 1.

To receive the payment boost under the new guidance, the COVID-19 test must be taken within 14 days of the hospital admission. Only the results of viral testing that are consistent with CDC guidelines can be used. Tests performed by an entity other than the hospital, such as a local government-run testing center, can be manually entered into the patient’s medical record, CMS said.

Meeting the new requirement for the add-on payment could be difficult for hospitals, Ronald Hirsch, MD, vice president of the regulations and education group at R1 Physician Advisory Services, told Becker’s Hospital Review. 

“There is no way to indicate on a claim for a hospital patient that a test was positive or negative,” he said. “First, the hospital will manually need to go into every record for a patient with U07.1 as a diagnosis and look for a positive test in their own lab system. If one is not found, they will need to search the notes to see if the patient had a test in the 14 days prior to admission and if that test was positive. If there is a note the patient self-reported that they had a positive test, the hospital must decide if they must go through due diligence and attempt to get that actual test result for their records.”

In cases where there isn’t a positive test noted in the medical record, hospitals would need to notify the Medicare audit contractor that they are submitting a claim for a COVID-19 diagnosis that was made clinically, Dr. Hirsch said. The MAC would need to make the appropriate adjustment to ensure the 20 percent add-on payment is not made.

The “undue burden” that the new requirement will place on hospitals was one of the concerns the American Hospital Association highlighted in an Aug. 26 letter to CMS Administrator Seema Verma. The group is also concerned that requiring a positive COVID-19 test will lead to unnecessary additional testing.

“Basing the COVID-19 diagnosis code on clinical judgment alone — in line with coding rules — continues to be an important approach given that test accuracy may not be reliable, re-testing is unnecessarily onerous, and some communities face persistent testing shortages.” 

The AHA is urging CMS to drop the new requirement and allow provider documentation of a COVID-19 diagnosis to be sufficient for the add-on payment if the test result is unavailable. 

 

 

 

 

2020 Health Care Legislative Guide

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Clinical Testing, Contact Tracing, Coronavirus, Essential Health Benefits, Evidence-based Leadership, Evidence-Based Plan, Evidence-Based Policy, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, High Deductible Health Plans, High Drug Prices, High Premiums, High Prices, Nonpartisan, Out of Pocket Expenses, Pandemic, Preexisting Conditions, Public Health, Public Safety, Telemedicine, Underinsured, Unemployment, Unemployment Insurance, Uninsured, Vulnerable Populations, Worker Protection • Leave a comment

https://unitedstatesofcare.org/resources/2020-health-care-legislative-guide/

Pennsylvania 2020 Health Care Legislative Guide - United States of Care

ABOUT THE UNITES STATES OF CARE

United States of Care is a nonpartisan nonprofit working to ensure every person in America has access to
quality, affordable health care regardless of health status, social need or income. USofCare works with elected
officials and other state partners across the country by connecting with our extensive health care expert
network and other state leaders; providing technical policy assistance; and providing strategic communications
and political support. Contact USofCare at help@usofcare.org

Health care remains one of the most important problems facing America.

Voters are concerned about access to and the cost for health care and insurance.

Health Care During the COVID Pandemic
The COVID-19 pandemic has illuminated the need for effective solutions that address both the immediate
challenges and the long-term gaps in our health care systems to ensure people can access quality health care
they can afford. Americans are feeling a mix of emotions related to the pandemic, and those emotions are
overwhelmingly negative.*

In addition, the pandemic has illuminated deficiencies of our health care system.

People feel that the U.S. was caught unprepared to handle the pandemic and our losses have
been greater than those of other countries.

People blame government for the inadequate pandemic response, not health care systems.

Health Care During the COVID Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has illuminated the need for effective solutions that address both the immediate challenges and the long-term gaps in our health care systems to ensure people can access quality health care they can afford. In the wake of COVID, policymakers have a critical opportunity to enact solutions to meet their constituents’ short- and long-term health care needs. The 2020 Health Care Legislative Candidate Guide provides candidates with public opinion data, state-specific health care information, key messages and ideas for your health care platform.

Key Messages for Candidates:

  • Acknowledge the moment: “Our country is at a pivotal moment. The pandemic, economic recession, and national discussion on race have created a renewed call for action. They have also magnified the critical problems that exist in our health care system.”
  • Take an active stance: “It is long past time to examine our systems and address gaps that have existed for decades. We must find solutions and common ground to build a health care system that serves everyone.”
  • Commit to prioritizing people’s needs: “I will put people’s health care needs first and I’m already formalizing the ways I gather input and work with community and business leaders to put effective solutions in place.”
  • Commit to addressing disparities and finding common ground: “The health care system, as it’s currently structured, isn’t working for far too many. I will work to address the lack of fairness and shared needs to build a health care system that works for all of us.”

Click to access USC_Generic_CandidateEducationGuide.pdf

 

 

Promising State Policies to Respond to People’s Health Care Needs

In the wake of COVID, policymakers have a critical opportunity to enact solutions to meet their constituents’
short- and long-term health care needs. Shared needs and expectations are emerging in response to the
pandemic, including the desire for solutions that:

Ensure individuals are able to provide for themselves and their loved ones, especially those worried about
the financial impact of the pandemic.

• Protect against high out-of-pocket costs.
• Expand access to telehealth services for people who prefer it to improve access to care.
• Extend Medicaid coverage for new moms to remove financial barriers to care to support healthier moms
and babies.

Ensure a reliable health care system that is fully resourced to support essential workers and available when
it is needed, both now and after the pandemic.

• Ensure safe workplaces for front-line health care workers and essential workers and increase the capacity to
maintain a quality health care workforce.
• Support hospitals and other health care providers, particularly those in rural or distressed areas.
• Expand mental health services and community workforce to meet increased need.

Ensure a health care system that cares for everyone, including people who are vulnerable and those who
were already struggling before the pandemic hit.

• Adopt an integrated approach to people’s overall health by coordinating people’s physical health, behavioral health
and social service needs.
• Establish coordinated data collection to quickly address needs and gaps in care, especially in vulnerable
communities.

Provide accurate information and clear recommendations on the virus and how to stay healthy and safe.
• Build and maintain capacity for detailed and effective testing and surveillance of the virus.
• Resource and implement contact tracing by utilizing existing programs in state health departments, pursuing
public-private partnerships, or app-based solutions while also ensuring strong privacy protections.

 

BY THE NUMBERS

The pandemic is showing different impacts for people across the country
that point to larger challenges individuals and families are grappling.

A disproportionate number of those infected by COVID-19 are Black, Indigenous, and people of color. According to recent CDC data, 31.4% of cases and 17% of deaths are among Latino residents and 19.9% of cases and 22.4% of deaths were among Black residents.ix They make up 18.5% and 13.4% of the total population, respectively.

Seniors are at greatest risk. According to a CDC estimate on August 1, 2020, 80% of COVID-19 deaths were among patients ages 65 and older. In 2018, only 16% of Americans were in this age range.

Access to health care in rural areas has only become more challenging during the pandemic and will likely have lasting impacts on rural communities.

The economic fallout of the pandemic has caused nearly 27 million Americans to lose their employer-based health insurance. An estimated 12.7 million would be eligible for Medicaid; 8.4 million could qualify for subsidies on exchanges; leaving 5.7 million who would need to cover the cost of health insurance policies (COBRA policies averaged $7,188 for a single person to $20,576 for a family of four) or remain uninsured.

 

Children might play a bigger role in COVID transmission than first thought. Schools must prepare

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Asymptomatic Transmission, Chronic Care Management, Chronic Conditions, Chronic Diseases, Clinical Testing, Contact Tracing, Coronavirus, Crisis, Crisis Management, Economic Crisis, Economic Recovery, Infection Control, Infection Control Plan, Infectious Virus, Leadership Decentralized, Misinformation, Misinterpret, Mislead, Misleading, Mistake, Mistrust, Mixed Message, Mortality, National Strategy, Pandemic, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), Preexisting Conditions, Public Health, Public Opinion, Public Perception, Public Safety, Public Schools, Public Trust, Quarantine, School Reopening, Scientists, Social Distancing, World Health Organization (WHO) • Leave a comment

https://theconversation.com/children-might-play-a-bigger-role-in-covid-transmission-than-first-thought-schools-must-prepare-144947?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20August%2028%202020%20-%201715916573&utm_content=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20August%2028%202020%20-%201715916573+Version+A+CID_8719e3ecf842bc9762e48ce42f2ba6ad&utm_source=campaign_monitor_us&utm_term=Children%20might%20play%20a%20bigger%20role%20in%20COVID%20transmission%20than%20first%20thought%20Schools%20must%20prepare

Children might play a bigger role in COVID transmission than first thought—schools must prepare

Over the weekend, the World Health Organisation made an announcement you might have missed.

It recommended children aged 12 years and older should wear masks, and that masks should be considered for those aged 6-11 years. The German Society for Virology went further, recommending masks be worn by all children attending school.

This seems at odds with what we assumed about kids and COVID-19 at the start of the pandemic. Indeed, one positive in this pandemic so far has been that children who contract the virus typically experience mild illness. Most children don’t require hospitalisation and very few die from the disease. However, some children can develop a severe inflammatory syndrome similar to Kawasaki disease, although this is thankfully rare.

This generally mild picture has contributed to cases in children being overlooked. But emerging evidence suggests children might play a bigger role in transmission than originally thought. They may be equally as infectious as adults based on the amount of viral genetic material found in swabs, and we have seen large school clusters emerge in Australia and around the world.

How likely are children to be infected?

Working out how susceptible children are has been difficult. Pre-emptive school closures occurred in many countries, removing opportunities for the virus to circulate in younger age groups. Children have also missed out on testing because they typically have mild symptoms. In Australia, testing criteria were initially very restrictive. People had to have a fever or a cough to be tested, which children don’t always have. This hindered our ability to detect cases in children, and created a perception children weren’t commonly infected.

One way to address this issue is through antibody testing, which can detect evidence of past infection. A study of over 60,000 people in Spain found 3.4% of children and teenagers had antibodies to the virus, compared with 4.4% to 6.0% of adults. But Spain’s schools were also closed, which likely reduced children’s exposure.

Another method is to look at what happens to people living in the same household as a known case. The results of these studies are mixed. Some have suggested a lower risk for children, while others have suggested children and adults are at equal risk.

Children might have some protection compared to adults, because they have less of the enzyme which the virus uses to enter the body. So, given the same short exposure, a child might be less likely to be infected than an adult. But prolonged contact probably makes any such advantage moot.

The way in which children and adults interact in the household might explain the differences seen in some studies. This is supported by a new study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Children and partners of a known case were more likely to be infected than other people living in the same house. This suggests the amount of close, prolonged contact may ultimately be the deciding factor.

How often do children transmit the virus?

Several studies show children and adults have similar amounts of viral RNA in their nose and throat. This suggests children and adults are equally infectious, although it’s possible children transmit the virus slightly less often than adults in practice. Because children are physically smaller and generally have more mild symptoms, they might release less of the virus.

In Italy, researchers looked at what happened to people who’d been in contact with infected children, and found the contacts of children were more likely to be infected than the contacts of adults with the virus.

Teenagers are of course closer to adults, and it’s possible younger children might be less likely to transmit the virus than older children. However, reports of outbreaks in childcare centres and primary schools suggest there’s still some risk.

What have we seen in schools?

Large clusters have been reported in schools around the world, most notably in Israel. There, an outbreak in a high school affected at least 153 students, 25 staff members, and 87 others. Interestingly, that particular outbreak coincided with an extreme heatwave where students were granted an exemption from having to wear face masks, and air conditioning was used continuously.

At first glance, the Australian experience seems to suggest a small role for children in transmission. A study of COVID-19 in educational settings in New South Wales in the first half of the year found limited evidence of transmission, although a large outbreak was noted to have occurred in a childcare centre.

This might seem reassuring, but it’s important to remember the majority of cases in Australia were acquired overseas at the time of the study, and there was limited community transmission. Also, schools switched to distance learning during the study, after which school attendance dropped to 5%. This suggests school safety is dependent on the level of community transmission.

Additionally, we shouldn’t be reassured by examples where children have not transmitted the virus to others. Approximately 80% of secondary COVID-19 cases are generated by only 10% of people. There are also many examples where adults haven’t transmitted the virus.

As community transmission has grown in Victoria, so has the significance of school clusters. The Al-Taqwa College outbreak remains one of Australia’s largest clusters. Importantly, the outbreak there has been linked to other clusters in Melbourne, including a major outbreak in the city’s public housing towers.

Close schools when community transmission is high

This evidence means we need to take a precautionary approach. When community transmission is low, face-to-face teaching is probably low-risk. But schools should switch to distance learning during periods of sustained community transmission. If we fail to address the risk of school outbreaks, they can spread into the wider community.

While most children won’t become severely ill if they contract the virus, the same cannot be said for their adult family members or their teachers. In the US, 40% of teachers have risk factors for severe COVID-19, as do 28.6 million adults living with school-aged children.

Recent recommendations on mask-wearing by older and younger children mirror risk-reduction guidelines for schools developed by the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health. These guidelines stress the importance of face masks, improving ventilation, and the regular disinfection of shared surfaces.

The changing landscape

As the virus has spread more widely, the demographic profile of cases has changed. The virus is no longer confined to adult travellers and their contacts, and children are now commonly infected. In Germany, the proportion of children in the number of new infections is now consistent with their share of the total population.

While children are thankfully much less likely to experience severe illness than adults, we must consider who children have contact with and how they can contribute to community transmission. Unless we do, we won’t succeed in controlling the pandemic.

 

 

 

 

History tells us trying to stop diseases like COVID-19 at the border is a failed strategy

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC), Clinical Testing, Contact Tracing, Coronavirus, Culture, Evidence-based Leadership, Evidence-Based Plan, Evidence-Based Policy, Failed, Failed Repeatedly, Failure, False Hope, False Narrative, Germ Theory, Health Policy, Individualism, Infection Control, Infection Control Plan, Infectious Virus, Leadership Decentralized, Misinformation, Misinterpret, Mislead, Misleading, Mistake, Mistrust, Mixed Message, Mortality, National Strategy, Pandemic, Partisanship, Public Health, Public Opinion, Public Perception, Public Safety, Public Schools, Public Trust, Quarantine, School Reopening, Scientists, Social Distancing • Leave a comment

https://theconversation.com/history-tells-us-trying-to-stop-diseases-like-covid-19-at-the-border-is-a-failed-strategy-145016?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20August%2028%202020%20-%201715916573&utm_content=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20August%2028%202020%20-%201715916573+Version+A+CID_8719e3ecf842bc9762e48ce42f2ba6ad&utm_source=campaign_monitor_us&utm_term=History%20tells%20us%20trying%20to%20stop%20diseases%20like%20COVID-19%20at%20the%20border%20is%20a%20failed%20strategy

History tells us trying to stop diseases like COVID-19 at the border is a failed strategy

To explain why the coronavirus pandemic is much worse in the U.S. than anywhere else in the world, commentators have blamed the federal government’s mismanaged response and the lack of leadership from the Trump White House.

Others have pointed to our culture of individualism, the decentralized nature of our public health, and our polarized politics.

All valid explanations, but there’s another reason, much older, for the failed response: our approach to fighting infectious disease, inherited from the 19th century, has become overly focused on keeping disease out of the country through border controls.

As a professor of medical sociology, I’ve studied the response to infectious disease and public health policy. In my new book, “Diseased States,” I examine how the early experience of outbreaks in Britain and the United States shaped their current disease control systems. I believe that America’s preoccupation with border controls has hurt our nation’s ability to manage the devastation produced by a domestically occurring outbreak of disease.

Germ theory and the military

Though outbreaks of yellow fever, smallpox, and cholera occurred throughout the 19th century, the federal government didn’t take the fight against infectious disease seriously until the yellow fever outbreak of 1878. During that same year, President Rutherford B. Hayes signed the National Quarantine Act, the first federal disease control legislation.

By the early 20th century, a distinctly American approach to disease control had evolved: “New Public Health.” It was markedly different from the older European concept of public health, which emphasized sanitation and social conditions. Instead, U.S. health officials were fascinated by the newly popular “germ theory,” which theorized that microorganisms, too small to be seen by the naked eye, caused disease. The U.S. became focused on isolating the infectious. The typhoid carrier Mary Mallon, known as “Typhoid Mary,” was isolated on New York’s Brother Island for 23 years of her life.

Originally, the military managed disease control. After the yellow fever outbreak, the U.S. Marine Hospital Service (MHS) was charged with operating maritime quarantine stations countrywide. In 1912, the MHS became the U.S. Public Health Service; to this day, that includes the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps led by the surgeon general. Even the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention started as a military organization during World War II, as the Malaria Control in War Areas program. Connecting the military to disease control promoted the notion that an attack of infectious disease was like an invasion of a foreign enemy.

Germ theory and military management put the U.S. system of disease control down a path in which it prioritized border controls and quarantine throughout the 20th century. During the 1918 influenza pandemic, New York City held all incoming ships at quarantine stations and forcibly removed sick passengers into isolation to a local hospital. Other states followed suit. In Minnesota, the city of Minneapolis isolated all flu patients in a special ward of the city hospital and then denied them visitors. During the 1980s, the Immigration and Naturalization Service denied HIV-positive persons from entering the country and tested over three million potential immigrants for HIV.

Defending the nation from the external threat of disease generally meant stopping the potentially infectious from ever entering the country and isolating those who were able to gain entry.

Our mistakes

This continues to be our predominant strategy in the 21st century. One of President Trump’s first coronavirus actions was to enforce a travel ban on China and then to limit travel from Europe.

His actions were nothing new. In 2014, during the Ebola outbreak, California, New York and New Jersey created laws to forcibly quarantine health care workers returning from west Africa. New Jersey put this into practice when it isolated U.S. nurse Kaci Hickox after she returned from Sierra Leone, where she was treating Ebola patients.

In 2007, responding to pandemic influenza, the Department of Homeland Security and the CDC developed a “do not board” list to stop potentially infected people from traveling to the U.S.

When such actions stop outbreaks from occurring, they are obviously sound public policy. But when a global outbreak is so large that it’s impossible to keep out, then border controls and quarantine are no longer useful.

This is what has happened with the coronavirus. With today’s globalization, international travel, and an increasing number of pandemics, attempting to keep infectious disease from ever entering the country looks more and more like a futile effort.

Moreover, the U.S. preoccupation with border controls means we did not invest as much as we should have in limiting the internal spread of COVID-19. Unlike countries that mounted an effective response, the U.S. has lagged behind in testing, contact tracing, and the development of a robust health care system able to handle a surge of infected patients. The longstanding focus on stopping an outbreak from ever occurring left us more vulnerable when it inevitably did.

For decades, the U.S. has been underfunding public health. When “swine flu” struck the country in 2009, the CDC said 159 million doses of flu shots were needed to cover “high risk” groups, particularly health care workers and pregnant women. We only produced 32 million doses. And in a pronouncement that now looks prescient, a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation report said if the swine flu outbreak had been any worse, U.S. health departments would have been overwhelmed. By the time Ebola appeared in 2014, the situation was no better. Once again, multiple government reports slammed our response to the outbreak.

Many causes exist for the U.S.‘s failed response to this crisis. But part of the problem lies with our past battles with disease. By emphasizing border controls and quarantine, the U.S. has disregarded more practical strategies of disease control. We can’t change the past, but by learning from it, we can develop more effective ways of dealing with future outbreaks.

 

 

 

 

HAP and Henry Ford collaboration creates new health plan for Michigan businesses

Posted on by • Posted in Health Insurance Industry, Health Plan, Health System, Primary Care, Telemedicine, Virtual Care Strategy, Virtual Healthcare, Virtual Visit • Leave a comment

https://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/hap-and-henry-ford-collaboration-creates-new-health-plan-michigan-businesses

HAP introduces innovative health plan for Michigan businesses in collaboration with Henry Ford Health System

Health Alliance Plan (HAP) and Henry Ford Health System have furthered their partnership through the release of Pivotal, a new health plan for Michigan-based businesses.

The plan was created for businesses with more than 100 employees and offers customized benefit options for each company.

WHAT’S THE IMPACT

Pivotal’s network includes seven hospitals, more than 6,000 physicians and 3,500 ancillary providers including urgent care, labs, radiology, imaging, rehab services, long-term care and nursing facilities, and physical, occupational and speech therapy.

Its members will have access to providers within the Henry Ford Health System, Henry Ford Physician and Jackson Health networks, Henry Ford Allegiance Health, as well as HAP’s ancillary provider and pharmacy network, and its contracted pediatric providers.

The plan recognizes the current need for telehealth services by offering virtual care for zero cost-share for in-network visits.

Members can use Pivotal’s telehealth offerings in three different ways: through at-home video visits, clinic-to-clinic video visits where providers can connect with specialists at other facilities, and with e-visits where non-emergency visits are conducted through email.

Pivotal plans also come with concierge services that include personalized onboarding for every employer group, phone support, as well as guaranteed same-day appointments with a primary care physician for sick visits and specialist appointments within 10 business days.

THE LARGER TREND

HAP has been working with Henry Ford since it became a subsidiary of the health system in 1986.

Henry Ford leveraged another partnership with CarePort during the COVID-19 public health emergency to communicate directly with post-acute care providers to share the COVID-19 testing status of patients. This allows providers to take the necessary safety precautions, including deciding if the facility can admit the patient at all, triaging care and managing the use of personal protective equipment.

ON THE RECORD

“HAP and Henry Ford have a long history of working together and sharing the same focus,” Genord said Dr. Michael Genord, president and CEO of HAP. “Working together, we’ve made sure that as many Michigan businesses as possible have access to high-quality affordable care, whether they’re in Detroit or Jackson or anywhere in between.”

 

 

 

 

UPMC’s revenue tops $11B in first half of year

Posted on by • Posted in Credit Quality, Credit Ratings, Health Insurance Industry, Health Plan, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Net Income, Nonoperating Income, Operating Expenses, Operating Income, Operating Margin, Operating Performance, Operating Revenue • Leave a comment

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/upmc-s-revenue-tops-11b-in-first-half-of-year.html?utm_medium=email

UPMC tops $11B in revenue in 1st half of 2020 | TribLIVE.com

UPMC reported higher revenue in the first half of this year than in the same period of 2019, but the Pittsburgh-based health system’s operating income declined year over year, according to unaudited financial documents.

UPMC reported revenue of $11.1 billion in the first six months of this year, up nearly $1 billion from the same period of 2019. A year-over-year decline in net patient service revenue attributed to volume declines linked to the COVID-19 pandemic was offset by gains in insurance enrollment revenue. Enrollment in UPMC’s health plans grew to 3.9 million members as of June 30.

Expenses also increased year over year. UPMC reported operating expenses of $11.1 billion in the first half of this year, up from $10.1 billion a year earlier. Operating income for the first two quarters of 2020 totaled $59 million, down $20 million from the same period last year.

The health system ended the first half of this year with a net loss of $165 million, compared to net income of $372 million a year earlier. The net loss was attributed to a $423 million loss on investments from January through July. 

Though UPMC continues to experience some disruption to operations as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the system’s interim CFO Edward Karlovich said it’s on solid financial footing.

“We’re positioned with an organization of great financial strength to deal with what comes at us,” Mr. Karlovich said during a news conference Aug. 26, according to TRIBLive. 

 

 

 

 

Hospitals face closure as $100B in Medicare loans come due

Posted on by • Posted in Bankruptcy, Cash, Cash Management, Cash Reserves, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Critical Access Hospitals, Economic Crisis, Economic Stimulus, Financially Distressed, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Medicare, Medicare Advance Payments, Rural Health, Rural Hospital, The CARES Act • Leave a comment

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/hospitals-face-closure-as-100b-in-medicare-loans-come-due.html?utm_medium=email

HCA posts a billion-dollar profit, bolstered by CARES Act funds - MedCity News

CMS accelerated payments to hospitals and other healthcare providers at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic to help temporarily relieve financial strain. It’s time to begin repaying the Medicare loans but that isn’t possible for some rural hospitals, according to NPR. 

CMS expanded the Accelerated and Advance Payment Program in late March to help offset financial damage caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. CMS announced April 26 that it was reevaluating pending and new applications for advance payments due to the availability of funds under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act. As of May, CMS had paid out $100 billion in advance payments, the bulk of which went to hospitals. 

Hospitals and other healthcare providers are required to start repaying the Medicare loans this month. Most hospitals will have one year from the date the first loan payment was made to repay the loans, according to Kaiser Family Foundation.

Ozarks Community Hospital, 25-bed critical access hospital in Gravette, Ark., is one of the hospitals that applied for and accepted the Medicare loans. The hospital also received grants made available under the CARES Act, which do not have to be repaid.

CEO Paul Taylor said Ozarks Community Hospital’s revenue is still constrained, and he doesn’t know how it will pay back its $8 million Medicare loan. Payments for new Medicare claims will be offset to repay the loans, but losing those payments could force the hospital to close, Mr. Taylor told NPR.

“If I get no relief and they take the money … we won’t still be open,” he said.

Ozarks Community Hospital is one of more than 850 critical access hospitals in rural areas that received Medicare loans, according to NPR. Given the shaky financial footing of many rural hospitals before the pandemic, the strain of having Medicare payments withheld could be enough to force others to shut down. 

Before the pandemic, more than 600 rural hospitals across the U.S. were vulnerable to closure, according to an estimate from iVantage Health Analytics, a firm that compiles a hospital strength index based on data about financial stability, patients and quality indicators.

If the financial pressures tied to the pandemic force any of those hospitals to shut down, they’ll join the list of 131 rural hospitals that have closed over the past decade, according to the Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research.

 

 

 

 

Ex-California hospital CFO pleads not guilty to felony charges

Posted on by • Posted in Audit, Chief Financial Officer (CFO), Conflicts of Interest, Embezzlement, False Claims Act, Fraud, Fraud and Abuse, Internal Audit, Lawsuit, Personal Gain, Private Inurement • Leave a comment

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/legal-regulatory-issues/ex-california-hospital-cfo-pleads-not-guilty-to-felony-charges.html?utm_medium=email

Binghamton Embezzlement Lawyer | Embezzlement Charges in NY

The former CFO of Health Care Conglomerate Associates pleaded not guilty to charges of embezzlement, conflict of interest and using his official position for personal gain, according to The Sun-Gazette. 

Alan Germany formerly served as CFO of HCCA, which previously managed Tulare (Calif.) Regional Medical Center. He also served as the acting CFO of Tulare Regional and Inyo Hospital in Lone Pine, Calif. Mr. Germany was one of three HCCA executives indicted Aug. 11. 

Mr. Germany was charged with 11 counts of embezzlement, four counts of conflict of interest, and one count each of using his official position for personal gain and failing to file a statement of economic interest. On Aug. 19, he pleaded not guilty to the charges, according to the report. 

The charges against Mr. Germany include accusations of having hospital staff generate false billing invoices and working with HCCA’s former CEO Yorai “Benny” Benzeevi, MD, to embezzle U.S. Treasury funds meant for hospital districts, according to the report.

If convicted on all charges, Mr. Germany could face more than 10 years in prison, according to the Visalia Times Delta. His next hearing is set for Sept. 30. 

 

 

 

 

Six months ago, Trump said that coronavirus cases would soon go to zero. They … didn’t.

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Asymptomatic Transmission, Blame, Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC), Clinical Testing, Coronavirus, Credibility, Crisis, Crisis Management, Emergency Preparedness, Evidence-based Leadership, Evidence-Based Plan, Evidence-Based Policy, Expert, Expert Opinion, Failed, Failed Repeatedly, Failure, False Hope, False Narrative, Honesty, Integrity, Misinformation, Misinterpret, Mislead, Misleading, Mistake, Mistrust, Mixed Message, Mortality, National Strategy, Pandemic, Public Health, Public Opinion, Public Perception, Public Safety, Public Schools, Public Trust, Quarantine, School Reopening, Scientists, Social Distancing, Wishful Thinking • Leave a comment

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/08/26/six-months-ago-trump-said-that-coronavirus-cases-would-soon-go-zero-they-didnt/?utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR2-yqYYel73YR3zJXfqtn25DXNEA8Yi1qc0L0RQ3PNP-NqUJ299PFNdeWc

 

But with new constraints on testing, Trump may get his wish eventually.

It was exactly six months ago Wednesday when the spread of the coronavirus in the United States had become too significant for President Trump to wave away. He and several members of the team planning the administration’s response held a news briefing designed to inform the public about the virus and, more important, to allay concerns.

This was the briefing in which Trump made one of his most wildly incorrect assertions about what the country could expect.

“The level that we’ve had in our country is very low,” Trump said, referring to new confirmed infections, “and those people are getting better, or we think that in almost all cases they’re better, or getting. We have a total of 15. We took in some from Japan — you heard about that — because they’re American citizens, and they’re in quarantine.”

That part was generally true. At the time, there had been only a smattering of confirmed cases, with the addition of passengers from the cruise ship Diamond Princess pushing the confirmed total to more than 50.

“So, again,” he added later, “when you have 15 people, and the 15 within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero, that’s a pretty good job we’ve done.”

It was a brash prediction and seemingly an off-the-cuff one. Trump’s point was less about what was going to happen than arguing that his administration had done a good job. But by linking those two things, he made it simple for observers to use his assertion that the number of cases would fade as a baseline for measuring everything that followed.

Over time, more cases from the period before Feb. 26 would be discovered, including two early deaths in California from covid-19, the disease caused by the virus. There were actually almost 200 cases that would eventually be confirmed by the time Trump was saying the country would go from 15 to zero.

The experts standing behind Trump would have known that Trump’s claims were inaccurate. As the briefing was underway, The Washington Post reported a confirmed case of “community spread” — a documented infection that couldn’t be traced to international travel. In other words, it was uncontained: The virus was moving from person to person without impediment or detection.

Although about 200 cases in that period eventually would be confirmed, even that number was far lower than the reality. Researchers can use documented cases to estimate the number of cases that weren’t being detected and that also weren’t later confirmed through testing. For example, an estimate produced by data scientist Youyang Gu puts the likely number of new infections on Feb. 26 somewhere in the range of 13,000 to 25,000.

On that day alone.

Within a month, the country would go from Trump’s 15 cases to nearly 88,000 cases. By April 26, the total was nearly a million. By May 26, 1.7 million. The most recent total is north of 5.7 million.

That steady increase is in part a function of Trump repeating the same mistake over and over, portraying the pandemic as ending or functionally ended. As cases faded a bit in May and June, he pushed for a return to normal economic activity, triggering a new surge in confirmed cases. That second increase has been fading for about a month, happily, but the country is still adding 33 percent more confirmed new cases each day than it did at the peak in April.

That’s confirmed cases, a metric that relies on testing. Gu’s estimates of the actual spread of the virus put the country about 40 percent below the peak in daily new cases, which was reached in early July.

Trump, of course, blames testing for revealing the scale of the pandemic in the first place. He has a point, in a way: Had the United States never managed to solve its problems with testing, something that took weeks, there wouldn’t have been millions of confirmed cases. There would still have been millions of cases or, perhaps, tens of millions of cases. We just wouldn’t have known how many there were.

It has been about two months since Trump held a political rally in Tulsa, contributing to a new surge of cases in the city. There, he made a tongue-in-cheek reference to asking his team to slow down on testing, because it was pushing the number of confirmed cases higher. As they say, though, each joke contains a grain of truth, and it was clear that Trump, in fact, would be happy to see the number of tests drop so that the number of confirmed cases did as well.

Data compiled by the COVID Tracking Project show that he has gotten his wish, to a degree. Over the past month, the number of tests being completed each day in the United States has dropped by nearly one-fifth.

Part of this is a function of interference from natural disasters, with storms in Florida and fires in California limiting testing capacity. Part of it, too, is probably a function of the drop in the number of cases coming back positive. Fewer new cases means fewer people feeling sick and seeking tests to confirm an infection. The drop in the percent of tests coming back positive reinforces that trend.

But, increasingly, part of it will stem from the administration de-emphasizing testing. New guidance published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggested that those who had been in contact with an infected person no longer needed to be tested, particularly when asymptomatic.

This, too, has been something Trump has talked about a lot, complaining that people without symptoms were being tested and confirmed as positive — and added to the total number of infections.

“Many of those cases are young people that would heal in a day,” Trump said in an interview on July 19. “They have the sniffles and we put it down as a test.”

The reason it’s important to track asymptomatic cases, of course, is that those people can still infect others. To defeat the pandemic, we need to contain it, and the new CDC approach runs the significant risk of leaving large holes in that containment effort. But, with the presidential election only about 70 days away, it will mean fewer confirmed cases.

The irony of Trump’s complaints about the virus from the outset is that the United States’ confirmed infection totals already have been minimized because of limited testing. The reason Trump was able to claim that there were only 15 cases six months ago was that the administration had spent the month since the first confirmed case in the country unable to put together a robust testing regimen that would allow the virus to be constrained. South Korea, where such a regimen was quickly implemented, actually did see its virus numbers drop to near zero.

In other words, Trump’s prediction was not only wrong, it was wrong in large part because Trump’s team hadn’t done what would have been needed to make it come true. Trump portrays himself as an unwitting victim of the pandemic, but his comment six months ago Wednesday is a good reminder that he can put a lot of the blame for his position on himself.