Late last week, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its analysis of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI)’s spending outlays, revealing that in its first decade of operations it produced a $5.4B net increase in federal spending instead of a projected $2.8B reduction.
Moreover, CBO revised its CMMI projection for 2021-2030 from a $77.5B net spending reduction to a $1.3B increase, predicting CMMI may only begin to generate annual savings in 2031. CBO says its updated projections largely reflect revised expectations on CMMI’s ability to identify and scale models that actually reduce Medicare spending.
CMMI was created by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010 to test new payment models and other initiatives for reducing the federal government’s healthcare costs, but of the nearly 50 models it has run, only four have become permanent programs.
The Gist: This critical report confirms what many in the healthcare world already believed: the ACA’s value-based care initiatives have largely struggled to reduce Medicare spending.
There are plenty of policy factors to blame, including the lack of mandatory participation for providers and conflicting incentives across care models, but one factor left out of the CBO report is CMMI’s disproportionate emphasis on accountable care organizations (ACOs) to produce meaningful cost savings, even as years of data proved otherwise.
ACOs are designed to reduce spending primarily through utilization management, but research has shown that prices, not utilization, are responsible for the US’s high medical spend relative to other countries.
While CMMI’s mission is still laudable and important, the center must make good on its 2021 “strategic refresh” if it hopes to continue receiving Congressional support.
On Wednesday, 75K Kaiser Permanente (KP) healthcare workers in five states and Washington, DC walked off the job as part of the largest healthcare strike in US history.
The striking workers are a diverse group, based mostly in California, that includes support staff, X-ray technicians, medical assistants, and pharmacy workers. They will continue their work stoppage until Saturday morning, though union leadership is threatening an even larger strike in November if a new contract agreement is not reached by then.
Their employment contract expired on September 30th, and while negotiations have progressed on issues like shift-payment differentials and employee training investments, union leaders and KP executives remain at odds over key wage increase demands, with the unions asking for a $25 national minimum wage, and KP proposing $21.
The company has sought to minimize disruptions to patient care during the strike, bringing in temporary labor to keep critical infrastructure open, but has told its members to expect some non-urgent procedures to be rescheduled, some clinic and pharmacy operating hours to be reduced, and call center wait times to be lengthy.
The Gist: Kaiser Permanente has enjoyed solid relations with its unions for decades, making this strike a significant break from precedent,fueled by post-pandemic burnout and staffing shortages.
While KP is keeping all essential services open, care disruptions are inevitable with around one third of its total workforce on strike.
The stakes of these labor negotiations extend far beyond just KP and its employees, as union success could inspire other unionized healthcare workers to adopt similar tactics and demands. (Case in point: Employees at eleven Tenet Healthcare facilities in California represented by SEIU-UHW, one of the unions representing striking KP workers, just voted to authorize their own strike.)
While happening alongside high-profile strikes in other industries, labor unrest is a troubling trend for health systems, whose margins remain well below historical levels amid persistently high labor and supply expenses.
Short-term, limited-duration insurance (STLDI) plans are exempt from the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) essential benefit coverage requirements and from prohibitions on medical underwriting.
This means that consumers with preexisting conditions can be denied coverage and anyone who purchases such a plan may lack coverage for key services.
In August 2018, under the Trump administration, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services revised the definition of short-term plans to include coverage with an initial term of less than 12 months that could be renewed for up to 36 months. While the purported goal of this change was to increase coverage and reduce uninsured rates, our analysis indicates that it did not accomplish this: coverage did not increase and the uninsured rate did not drop.
In July 2023, the Biden administration issued a notice to limit the initial duration of short-term plans to three months, with an option to renew for one additional month. This change was intended to ensure that people purchasing insurance coverage have meaningful protection and to preserve the preexisting condition protections in the ACA.
In 2019, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), using its forecast model (data were not yet available), estimated that 1.5 million people would purchase short-term plans and that 500,000 would gain coverage (relative to being uninsured). Our analysis suggests that these forecasts substantially overstated the effects of the rule change; far fewer people enrolled in STLDI plans and the enrollment that did occur was from people moving off marketplace coverage.
There is no evidence that the number of uninsured people declined because these plans became available.
Using data from the American Community Survey and marketplace enrollment from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), we assessed whether the loosening of STLDI regulations (under the Trump administration) led to increased enrollment in off-marketplace nongroup coverage in states that permitted sales compared to those that did not. Plans sold off the marketplace include STLDI as well as ACA-compliant plans, grandfathered coverage, health care sharing ministries, and fixed indemnity plans. Next, we looked to see whether the Trump-era regulations increased nongroup insurance coverage altogether (including marketplace coverage) in these states. Finally, we looked to see whether the broader availability of STLDI was associated with lower uninsured rates. We examined coverage patterns for adults ages 26 to 64 and then focused on young men ages 26 to 35, who may be most sensitive to the presence of regulations similar to those in the ACA because they are less likely to have preexisting conditions or to seek comprehensive coverage.
In 2017, 2.6 million adults ages 26 to 64, about 1.6 percent of that population, purchased private nongroup insurance outside the marketplace. By 2020, about 270,000 more people were enrolled in off-marketplace nongroup plans, across all states, than had been in 2017. There was a larger increase in off-marketplace nongroup enrollment among all adults and among young adults (we cannot separate young men in the CMS data) in states that permitted the sale of STLDI coverage, compared to those that prohibited it. This is consistent with the evidence of growth in sales of these plans. Across all states, about 160,000 more young adults, ages 26 to 34, held off-marketplace nongroup coverage in 2020 than in 2017.
The ACS data show that off-marketplace plans largely substituted for marketplace plans in states that permitted the sale of STLDI. Patterns of enrollment in nongroup plans overall were very similar in states with and without STLDI plans available for purchase over this period. While nongroup coverage was consistently more popular in states with no restrictions, between 2017 and 2020 enrollment in nongroup plans declined slightly more in states where STLDI plans were available for purchase than in those where they were not. The same pattern of marginally greater declines held for young men (and young adults) in states where STLDI plans were available.
Nongroup coverage was slightly higher in states where STLDI plans were available for sale, but the overall uninsured rate is much higher in these states, primarily because many did not expand Medicaid eligibility.
The gap in uninsured rates between states with STLDI plans available and those in which they were not available widened through 2018, narrowed slightly in 2019, and rose again in 2020. Patterns among young men were similar.
The lack of reliable information on STLDI plans and the small size of the market make it difficult to draw strong inferences about how changes in regulations affected participation. Nonetheless, by comparing states where the 2018 regulatory changes took effect and those where they did not, we are able to rule out any notable effects. A modest number of people — no more than one-fifth of the 1.5 million the CBO projected — are likely to have enrolled in STLDI plans that became available after the Trump administration’s regulatory change. This enrollment mainly appears to have displaced marketplace coverage.
There is no evidence that the broader availability of STLDI plans had any meaningful effect on nongroup coverage in general or on uninsurance, either in the full population or among young men.
This suggests that the Biden administration’s proposed tightening of STLDI is unlikely to have substantial negative effects on nongroup coverage or uninsurance. Instead, limiting STLDI will likely strengthen the health insurance marketplaces that offer reliable, comprehensive nongroup coverage.
Misinformation. A recent and major problem facing us all, and one that is pervasive in many realms including medicine and healthcare, which are, of course, favorite realms around here. But is all this stuff recent? Is misinformation a new phenomenon in the world of medicine and health, or does it have a history?
The answer to that, thanks in part to funding from the National Institute for Healthcare Management, is the topic of this week’s Healthcare Triage.
Picketing began Wednesday at Kaiser Permanente hospitals as some 75,000 health care workers went on strike in Virginia, California and three other states over wages and staffing shortages, marking the latest major labor unrest in the United States.
Kaiser Permanente is one of the country’s larger insurers and health care system operators, with 39 hospitals nationwide. The nonprofit company, based in Oakland, California, provides health coverage for nearly 13 million people, sending customers to clinics and hospitals it runs or contracts with to provide care.
The Coalition of Kaiser Permanente Unions, representing about 85,000 of the health system’s employees nationally, approved a strike for three days in California, Colorado, Oregon and Washington, and for one day in Virginia and Washington, D.C.
A cheer went up from union members outside Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Center when the strike deadline arrived before dawn.
The strikers include licensed vocational nurses, home health aides and ultrasound sonographers, as well as technicians in radiology, X-ray, surgical, pharmacy and emergency departments.
Doctors are not participating, and Kaiser says its hospitals, including emergency rooms, will remain open during the picketing. The company said it was bringing in thousands of temporary workers to fill gaps during the strike. But the strike could lead to delays in getting appointments and non-urgent procedures being rescheduled.
It comes amid unprecedented worker organizing — from strike authorizations to work stoppages — within multiple industries this year, including, transportation, entertainment and hospitality.
Wednesday’s strike is the latest one for the health care industry this year as it continues to confront burnout with the heavy workloads — problems that were exacerbated greatly by the pandemic.
Unions representing Kaiser workers in August asked for a $25 hourly minimum wage, as well as increases of 7% each year in the first two years and 6.25% each year in the two years afterward.
They say understaffing is boosting the hospital system’s profits but hurting patients, and executives have been bargaining in bad faith during negotiations.
“They’re not listening to the frontline health care workers,” said Mikki Fletchall, a licensed vocational nurse based in a Kaiser medical office in Camarillo, California. “We’re striking because of our patients. We don’t want to have to do it, but we will do it.”
Kaiser has proposed minimum hourly wages of between $21 and $23 next year depending on the location.
Since 2022, the hospital system has hired 51,000 workers and has plans to add 10,000 more people by the end of the month.
Kaiser Permanente reported $2.1 billion in net income for this year’s second quarter on more than $25 billion in operating revenue. But the company said it still was dealing with cost headwinds and challenges from inflation and labor shortages.
Kaiser executive Michelle Gaskill-Hames defended the company and said its practices, compensation and retention are better than its competitors, even as the entire sector faces the same challenges.
“Our focus, for the dollars that we bring in, are to keep them invested in value-based care,” said Gaskill-Hames, president of Kaiser Foundation Health Plan and Hospitals of Southern California and Hawaii.
She added that Kaiser only faces 7% turnover compared to the industry standard of 21%, despite the effects of the pandemic.
“I think coming out of the pandemic, health care workers have been completely burned out,” she said. “The trauma that was felt caring for so many COVID patients, and patients that died, was just difficult.”
The workers’ last contract was negotiated in 2019, before the pandemic.
Hospitals generally have struggled in recent years with high labor costs, staffing shortages and rising levels of uncompensated care, according to Rick Gundling, a senior vice president with the Healthcare Financial Management Association, a nonprofit that works with health care finance executives.
Most of their revenue is fixed, coming from government-funded programs like Medicare and Medicaid, Gundling noted. He said that means revenue growth is “only possible by increasing volumes, which is difficult even under the best of circumstances.”
Workers calling for higher wages, better working conditions and job security, especially since the end of the pandemic, have been increasingly willing to walk out on the job as employers face a greater need for workers.
The California legislature has sent Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom a bill that would increase the minimum wage for the state’s 455,000 health care workers to $25 per hour over the next decade. The governor has until Oct. 14 to decide whether to sign or veto it.
With Medicare’s Annual Election Period (also known as Open Enrollment) beginning on October 15th, over 65 million adults across the United States will have until December 7th to decide whether they plan to renew or change their Medicare coverage. Beneficiaries choose between Traditional Medicare (TM) and a variety of Medicare Advantage (MA) plans and prescription drug coverage.
For this enrollment cycle, it is estimated that the average beneficiary will have over 40 plans to choose from, leading to complexity. For those who are dually eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid benefits, there is an even greater number of options for them to consider, especially if they live in areas where integrated options such as dual-eligible special needs plans and Medicare-Medicaid plans are available.
As the US population continues to age and the number of Medicare enrollees grow, it is important to understand how beneficiaries make their coverage decisions and ensure they are protected from any misinformation in the process.
Though already complex, the plan selection process for older adults is further complicated by the deceptive marketing tactics that brokers, agents, and third-party marketing organizations (TPMOs) have employed in recent years. In a recent study, the Commonwealth Fund identified how some of these practices are driven by the financial incentives associated with enrolling beneficiaries in particular MA plans.
Between robocalls and misleading television advertisements, many beneficiaries across the country have found themselves enrolled in MA plans they did not intend to enroll in, or that did not cover services or in-network providers that they were initially marketed. In a sweeping review of Medicare Open Enrollment-related television ads, Kaiser Family Foundation found that the majority of Open Enrollment-related advertisements last year promoted the Medicare logo and privately-operated hotlines, misleading beneficiaries into believing these were government sponsored ads and helplines.
Acknowledging the growing concerns and complaints among beneficiaries, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced that starting in 2024, Medicare-related television ads must be approved in advance of airing and cannot contain plan names or Medicare logos and images that misrepresent their organization or agency. Additional consumer protections included in the 2024 MA and Part D Final Rule will hold brokers, agents, and other TPMOs to higher standards of providing transparent, quality information. These activities include monitoring TPMO behavior, regulating how and when they market to beneficiaries, ensuring brokers review the full list of options and choices available to a beneficiary, and going through a detailed, standardized set of pre-enrollment questions. There is also an increased effort in getting beneficiaries to use some of the federally funded tools and resources available to assist in their coverage decisions.
Some of these tools include the Medicare.gov website, the CMS Medicare Plan Compare tool, and a 1-800-MEDICARE hotline to help inform beneficiaries about their benefits. However, a study by Hernandez et al. revealed that very few Medicare beneficiaries utilized these tools and often felt more comfortable discussing their options in-person with brokers or family members and friends, even though these sources may be biased or potentially inaccurate. Additionally, it is important to recognize that navigating these tools requires some degree of health literacy and technological proficiency, which may disproportionately affect those who are low-income, have lower levels of education, or are non-native English speakers.
The State Health Insurance Assistance Program (SHIP), however, is a free and unbiased resource for Medicare counseling that few beneficiaries are aware of. In 1990, the federal government implemented SHIPs to help support Medicare beneficiaries with free, one-to-one health insurance counseling and education within their communities. It is currently run by the Administration for Community Living (ACL). The ACL administers grants to states, who in turn provide funding to community-level subgrantees to maintain various networks of full-time, part-time, and/or volunteer counselors. The latest available data suggests that SHIPs provided assistance to 2.7 million Medicare beneficiaries from April 2018 through March 2019—just 4.5% of the eligible Medicare population.
While some states had greater success, serving over 10% of their eligible population, others were only able to reach as few as 2%. A 2018 evaluation of California’s SHIP, called HICAP (Health Insurance Counseling & Advocacy Program), highlighted the strengths of this community-based counseling system. HICAP reported high rates of engagement, citing their ability to deliver uniquely tailored counseling to beneficiaries in their native languages and through in-person or hybrid settings depending on the beneficiary’s condition or preferences. Moreover, strong marketing efforts via Spanish radio shows and mailing postcards were particularly effective in reaching “hard-to-locate” populations. However, the program did experience challenges given the variation in operations across locations, citing concerns over the recruitment, training and retention of volunteers and paid staff.
In recognition of SHIP’s potential to provide an unbiased alternative to brokers and combat misinformation, CMS finalized a requirement in the 2024 MA and Part D rule that TPMOs are to provide a disclaimer citing SHIP as an option for beneficiaries to obtain additional help (42 CFR § 422.2267(e )(41)). But despite SHIP’s promise, some beneficiary advocates have worried that the multi-tiered, volunteer, and part-time driven delivery model that characterizes most SHIPs leads to access and quality gaps. This is especially a concern among vulnerable beneficiaries who may live in low-income neighborhoods, have disabilities, or limited English proficiency. Given their historically low utilization rates and limited visibility, others have expressed concern that SHIPs may be ill-equipped to handle an increased demand for services in the coming year, due to more Medicare beneficiaries being advised of their existence through TPMO disclaimers. With the limited evidence about SHIP’s performance and outreach nationally, given the diffuse nature of the program, it will be important to understand some of the barriers and facilitators they face to delivering timely and accurate Medicare counseling.
The free and unbiased nature of the SHIP program presents a promising alternative to helping beneficiaries navigate complex plan choices for Open Enrollment. As MA enrollment increases and as plan choices become more complex, the SHIP program should be monitored for potential inequities in access to and quality of services based on area income.
For more information about your state’s SHIP program and to find a local Medicare counselor, please visit https://www.shiphelp.org/.
HENRY KOTULA 