Infection Lapses Rampant In Nursing Homes But Punishment Is Rare

https://khn.org/news/infection-lapses-rampant-in-nursing-homes-but-punishment-is-rare/

Image result for Infection Lapses Rampant In Nursing Homes But Punishment Is Rare

 

A Kaiser Health News analysis of federal inspection records shows that nursing home inspectors labeled mistakes in infection control as serious for only 161 of the 12,056 homes they have cited since 2014.

Basic steps to prevent infections — such as washing hands, isolating contagious patients and keeping ill nurses and aides from coming to work — are routinely ignored in the nation’s nursing homes, endangering residents and spreading hazardous germs.

A Kaiser Health News analysis of four years of federal inspection records shows 74 percent of nursing homes have been cited for lapses in infection control — more than for any other type of health violation. In California, health inspectors have cited all but 133 of the state’s 1,251 homes.

Although repeat citations are common, disciplinary action such as fines is rare: Nationwide, only one of 75 homes found deficient in those four years has received a high-level citation that can result in a financial penalty, the analysis found.

“The facilities are getting the message that they don’t have to do anything,” said Michael Connors of California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform, a nonprofit in San Francisco. “They’re giving them low-level warnings year after year after year and the facilities have learned to ignore them.”

Infections, many avoidable, cause a quarter of the medical injuries Medicare beneficiaries experience in nursing homes, according to a federal report. They are among the most frequent reasons residents are sent back to the hospital. By one government estimate, health care-associated infections may result in as many as 380,000 deaths each year.

The spread of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and other antibiotic-resistant germs has become a major public health issue. While Medicare has begun penalizing hospitals for high rates of certain infections, there has been no similar crackdown on nursing homes.

As average hospital stays have shortened from 7.3 days in 1980 to 4.5 days in 2012, patients who a generation ago would have fully recuperated in hospitals now frequently conclude their recoveries in nursing homes. Weaker and thus more susceptible to infections, some need ventilators to help them breathe and have surgical wounds that are still healing, two conditions in which infections are more likely.

“You’ve got this influx of vulnerable patients but the staffing models are still geared more to the traditional long-stay resident,” said Dr. Nimalie Stone, the CDC’s medical epidemiologist for long-term care. “The kind of care is so much more complicated that facilities need to consider higher staffing.”

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), which oversees inspections, has recognized that many nursing homes need to do more to combat contagious bugs. CMS last year required long-term care facilities to put in place better systems to prevent infections, detect outbreaks early on and limit unnecessary use of antibiotics through a stewardship program.

But the agency does not believe it has skimped on penalties. CMS said in a statement that most infection-control violations have not justified fines because they did not put residents in certain danger. For instance, if an inspector observed a nurse not washing his or her hands while caring for a resident, the agency said that would warrant a lower-level citation “unless there was an actual negative resident outcome, or there was likelihood of a serious resident outcome.”

 

California, North Carolina and New York hit hardest by 340B cuts

http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20171213/NEWS/171219953

Image result for 340b drug pricing program

 

The CMS’ planned $1.6 billion in Medicare cuts to 340B hospitals across the nation will disproportionately impact providers in California, North Carolina and New York, according to a new study.

Slashing the 340B drug discount program, which is intended to lower operating costs for hospitals to give its low-income patients access to drugs, would result in large funding cuts across California, North Carolina and New York hospitals, ranging from $62 million to $126 million, researchers for consultancy Avalere found. Overall, six states will see drug payment cuts of more than $50 million next year.

About 62% of Medicaid disproportionate-share hospitals will experience less than a 5% reduction in Medicare Part B revenue due to the drug cuts, while 6% of impacted hospitals will experience cuts greater than 10%.

But the concurrent increase in non-drug payments will mean that most hospitals will have very minimal changes to their revenues, according to the study. Because the drug-related cuts will disproportionately impact 340B hospitals while the non-drug payment increases will be distributed evenly across facilities, some hospitals would see increased payments while hospitals with high 340B volumes will likely see decreases.

Still, any reduction to the already thin margins of hospitals could spell trouble for providers.

Consumers stand to benefit from the cuts, researchers said. Since Medicare beneficiaries are responsible for a portion of the total drug reimbursement, consumers in California, North Carolina and New York would save a range of $15 million to $32 million. Ten states will have aggregated Medicare beneficiary savings greater than $10 million in 2018.

“The 340B program has become a big business for hospitals,” Avalere President Dan Mendelson said. “As a result, all hospitals in the program have to think about this carefully going into next year.”

Beginning in 2018, Medicare intends to reduce 340B payments from average sales price (ASP) plus 6% to ASP minus 22.5%, which the CMS estimates to be closer to the hospitals’ acquisition cost. With the proposed changes, if a drug costs $84,000, the CMS would pay just over $65,000, instead of the current $89,000. Hospital groups have sued to prevent those cuts and litigation is ongoing.

About half of the hospitals across the country participate in the 340B program, which has been criticized because it does not restrict how hospitals spend 340B money. Critics say that some hospitals use the program to pad profits while rural and critical access hospitals maintain that it’s a vital revenue source and helps support preventive services.

In a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing on the pharmaceutical supply chain on Wednesday, U.S. Rep. Dr. Larry Bucshon (R-Ind.) said that some hospitals manipulate the program. A financially stable hospital could acquire a physician practice in a rural community and get a 340B distinction for it, he said.

Mandating more transparency on how hospitals use 340B money would prevent abuse, Bucshon said.

“The rules allow the hospitals to pursue these mechanisms aggressively,” said Mendelson. “Some members of Congress believe the rules diverge from the original intent of the program as a way for low-income individuals to access drugs.”

 

Top Ambulatory EHR Systems by Hospital Implementation

https://www.definitivehc.com/news/top-ambulatory-ehr-systems?source=newsltr-blog&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=12-12-17

ambulatory ehr vendors market share

 

EHR system implementation has been on the rise over the past 10 years. This is, at least in part, attributed to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Meaningful Use initiative that began in 2011. Under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act, eligible providers who demonstrated meaningful use of Electronic Health Record (EHR) technology received incentive payments. The intent was to encourage healthcare providers to utilize electronic data recording and sharing technology to improve clinical quality and care transparency.

More than 92 percent of hospitals in the U.S. use an EHR system, according to Definitive Healthcare data. The implementation rate is even higher among acute care hospitals, with over 95 percent of long- and short-term facilities using EHR systems. Vendors Epic and Cerner dominate the EHR market, holding a combined 52 percent market share. There are two varieties of EHR systems: inpatient and ambulatory. Inpatient EHR is designed for use on patients staying at a facility for at least one night and is therefore primarily used by hospitals. Ambulatory EHR is designed for outpatient facilities and small physician practices, where patient visits do not include an overnight stay.

Top 5 Ambulatory EHR System Vendors

  1. Epic
  2. Cerner
  3. Meditech
  4. CPSI (Evident and Healthland)
  5. Medhost

An EHR is the digital version of a patient’s medical history. Generally, a patient’s EHR includes demographic information, diagnosis history, prescription data, laboratory results, vital signs, immunizations, progress notes, and more. Digital records allow providers to quickly and easily share patient data with providers in other facilities, regardless of whether the facility is in-network. Electronic record sharing can improve patient care and experience by allowing providers anywhere to access and understand an individual’s medical history. This is particularly useful in cases where a patient may be unconscious or unable to communicate upon arrival to a facility, when a patient is visiting a facility out-of-state, or if a patient visits a retail clinic or freestanding urgent care clinic.

 

Out-of-pocket health spending in 2016 increased at the fastest rate in a decade

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/12/06/out-of-pocket-health-spending-in-2016-increased-at-the-fastest-rate-in-a-decade/?utm_term=.42b85bdeba98

U.S. health care spending increased to $3.3 trillion in 2016, with out-of-pocket health care costs borne directly by consumers rising 3.9 percent — the fastest rate of growth since 2007.

The findings, published Wednesday by Health Affairs, are considered the authoritative breakdown of American health care spending and are prepared each year by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

The overall rate of increase in health care spending experienced a slight slowdown over the previous year, driven in part by the expected moderation in growth after the expansion of insurance coverage through the Affordable Care Act. There was also a sharp decrease in the growth of prescription drug expenditures, as hepatitis C treatment costs have declined and fewer patients are receiving them.

The slowdown in spending growth — a 4.3 percent increase in 2016, following a 5.8 percent growth the previous year — stemmed from changes in a broad array of health care sectors.

That ranged from slower growth in Medicaid spending after the surge in enrollment caused by the Affordable Care Act expansion, to a marked slowdown in prescription drug spending growth that had been pushed higher by the approval of a new, expensive treatment for hepatitis C in 2013.

A shift toward insurance plans that transfer more of the burden of health care costs onto patients helped fuel the rise in out-of-pocket costs. In 2016, 29 percent of people who receive insurance through employers were enrolled in high-deductible plans, up from 20 percent in 2014. The size of the deductibles also increased over this time period, a 12 percent increase in 2016 for individual plans, compared with a 7 percent increase in 2014.

Out-of-pocket spending grew the most on medical equipment and supplies and decreased slightly for prescription drugs, according to the analysis.

The most noticeable change was a big slowdown in prescription drug spending growth, which made up 10 percent of the total spending, or $328.6 billion. (That spending number does not include drugs administered by physicians or hospitals.)

That decrease highlights the effect that expensive new treatments used by large numbers of people can have on national spending. A new generation of expensive hepatitis C drugs drove national drug spending 12.4 percent higher in 2014 and 8.9 percent higher in 2015. In 2016, the prescription drug spending increased by 1.3 percent, closer to the rates in the years before the new drugs were approved.

The authors of the report attributed that trend not just to hepatitis C drugs. There were also fewer new, brand name drugs approved in 2016 — 22 new drugs, compared with 45 the previous year. Another factor was a slowdown in the growth of spending on insulin, a lifesaving drug for people with diabetes, in Medicare.

Insulin prices have been under intense scrutiny as drugmakers have increased the list prices of insulin while claiming the true cost to patients has remained flat due to discounts and rebates

Health care spending has been buffeted by unusual changes during the past decade. There was a historic slowdown in growth due to the Great Recession, and then the Affordable Care Act’s expansion of health insurance coverage fueled spending.

The authors said this year’s trend of slower growth could be a sign that things were returning to normal.

“Future health expenditure trends are expected to be mostly influenced by changes in economic conditions and demographics, as has historically been the case,” the authors wrote.

 

Bipartisan group of senators seek to block Trump cuts to drug discount program

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/363772-gop-senators-move-to-block-trump-administrations-cuts-to-drug-discount?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=12524

Image result for 340b drug pricing program

 

Six senators, including three Republicans, are asking GOP leadership to block a Trump administration rule that slashes funding for a federal drug discount program.

The program, called 340B, requires drug companies give discounts to health-care organizations that serve high volumes of low-income patients.

But a new rule from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which takes effect Jan. 1, cuts Medicare payments to hospitals enrolled in the program by $1.6 billion.

The senators are urging the cuts to be reversed in the year-end spending deal.

“We recognize there are opportunities to strengthen the program through targeted clarifications and improvements to ensure it continues to fulfill its purpose with integrity and efficiency and are willing to work with stakeholders to find productive solutions in this space,” the senators wrote in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.).

“However, with a January 1, 2018 start date and over half of the Senate and half of the House of Representatives having expressed concerns with CMS’ rule, we request your help in ensuring the long-term sustainability of the 340B program by preventing these changes in an end of the year package.”

Sens. John Thune (R-S.D.), Rob Portman (R-Ohio), Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) and Debbie Stabenow(D-Mich.) all signed the letter.

The request follows a letter 51 senators sent to CMS earlier this year expressing concerns over the changes.

Hospital groups argue the rule would jeopardize the ability to serve low-income patients.

The American Hospital Association, America’s Essential Hospitals and the Association of American Medical Colleges are suing the administration to block the rule.

CMS has argued that the changes will increase access to care and lower out-of-pocket drug costs for Medicare beneficiaries.

 

CMS makes it official: Two mandatory bundled-pay models canceled

http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20171130/NEWS/171139986?utm_source=modernhealthcare&utm_medium=email&utm_content=20171130-NEWS-171139986&utm_campaign=dose

Image result for medicare bundled payments

The CMS has finalized its decision to toss two mandatory bundled-payment models and cut down the number of providers required to participate in a third.

Only 34 geographic areas will be required to participate in the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement Model, or CJR, according to a rulemaking released Thursday. Initially, 67 geographic areas were supposed to participate.

Up to 470 hospitals are expected to continue to operate under the model. That includes the CMS’ estimate that 60 to 80 hospitals will voluntarily participate in CJR. Originally, 800 acute-care hospitals would have participated under the program.

With so many hospitals getting a reprieve, the CMS estimates the model will save $106 million less over the next three years versus what it would have saved if CJR had remained mandatory for all 67 geographic areas. The model is now expected to save $189 million over those years instead of $295 million.

The rule comes weeks after the CMS finalized a proposal to allow knee-replacement surgeries to take place in outpatient settings. When the proposal was released in July, some questioned if it was an attempt to undermine the CJR model.

The CMS has also finalized plans to cancel the Episode Payment Models and the Cardiac Rehabilitation Incentive Payment Model, which were scheduled to begin on Jan. 1, 2018. Eliminating these models gives the CMS greater flexibility to design and test innovations that will improve quality and care coordination across the inpatient and post-acute-care spectrum, the agency said.

These cardiac pay models were estimated to save Medicare $170 million collectively over five years.

The agency acknowledged that some hospitals wanted the models to continue on a voluntary basis, as they had already invested resources to launch them, but said those arguments were not detailed enough for the agency to do so.

“We note that commenters did not provide enough detail about the hiring status or educational and licensing requirements of any care coordinator positions they may have created and filled for us to quantify an economic impact for these case coordination investments,” the CMS said.

On average, hospitals have five full-time employees, including clinical staff, tracking and reporting quality measures under value-based models, according to the AHA. They are also spending approximately $709,000 annually on the administrative aspects of quality reporting.

More broadly, the average community hospital spends $7.6 million annually on administrative costs to meet a subset of federal mandates that cut across quality reporting, record-keeping and meaningful use compliance, according to the trade group.

Ultimately, the CMS decided to not alter the design of these models to allow for voluntary participation since that would potentially involve restructuring the model, payment methodologies, financial arrangement provisions and quality measures, and it did not believe that such alterations would offer providers enough time to prepare for the changes before the planned Jan. 1, 2018 start date.

The CMS acknowledged that hospitals and other stakeholders have voiced concerns that the Trump administration may not be as committed to value-based care as the Obama administration, but it insists that’s not true. The CMS said the Trump administration just believes voluntary models are the better way to go.

“We take seriously the commenters’ concerns about the urgency of continuing our movement toward value-based care in order to accommodate an aging population with increasing levels of chronic conditions,” the agency said in the rule. “We continue to believe that value-based payment methodologies will play an essential role in lowering costs and improving quality of care, which will be necessary in order to maintain Medicare’s fiscal solvency.”

 

Florida wipes inspections of troubled nursing homes from its website

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article185211503.html?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Issue:%202017-11-20%20Healthcare%20Dive&utm_content=B&utm_term=Healthcare%20Dive

Image result for Florida wipes inspections of troubled nursing homes from its website

On a good day, Olga Vasquez would dress up in the morning, apply makeup and stand in the hallway at her Hialeah Gardens nursing home, helping other residents get in and out of wheelchairs or offering unsolicited advice. On a bad day, her depression got the best of her and she would remain in bed in her nightgown.

May 31, 2012, was a very bad day.

Vasquez — who hadn’t seen a psychiatrist in weeks despite instructions to the contrary — hoisted herself out of the window of Room 310, and hurled herself to the concrete courtyard 39.4 feet below.

This is the type of thing you might want to know about before your mom, dad or spouse moves into a nursing home. And such documented events were readily available on the website of state health regulators.

They aren’t anymore — part of the latest erosion in what is supposed to be ready access to public records in Florida.

 A little under three months ago, the state scrubbed its website. No longer can you go online and view the 83-page report that found Vasquez’s death to be the result of misconduct and that determined other residents of Signature Healthcare of Waterford were in “immediate jeopardy.”

The document can still be obtained from the state Agency for Health Care Aministration, although you have to know what to ask for and whom to ask — and you may be required to pay and wait. Online, AHCA now refers consumers to a separate website managed by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, though that site does not include as much material as the state previously provided. AHCA does maintain spreadsheets online that rate homes on a host of criteria, and allow consumers to compare.

For many years, AHCA’s website included links to inspections of nursing homes, retirement homes and hospitals. They were available with a few keystrokes with very few redactions. The agency then began to heavily redact the reports — eliminating words such as “room” and “CPR” and “bruises” and “pain” — and rendering the inspections difficult to interpret for families trying to gauge whether a facility is suitable for a loved one. AHCA says the redactions were necessary to protect medical privacy, though patients were identified only by number. Vasquez was “Resident 239.”

Carmen Veroy’s 89-year-old parents, Libia and Gabriel Giraldo, survived the ordeal — but Veroy said she could not fathom the overheated conditions in the rehab center until her sister sent her a video of the hallway scene during a visit Tuesday night.

The Veroy Family

In the past year, the state spent $22,000 for redaction software that automatically blacks out words the agency says must be shielded from the public. Those same words were available on a federal website unredacted. Elder and open-government advocates said the newly censored detail did more to protect the homes than patients.

In September, 13 frail elders died miserable deaths at the Rehabilitation Center at Hollywood Hills in the sweltering aftermath of Hurricane Irma, which knocked out the home’s cooling system. The Miami Herald and other media wrote extensively about Hollywood Hills’ troubling regulatory history. And the Herald also reported on AHCA’s decision to heavily redact reports.

Soon after, with no announcement or notice, AHCA wiped its website clean of all nursing home inspections, shielding the industry to the detriment of consumers.

“I’m just stunned,” said Barbara A. Petersen, who is the president of the First Amendment Foundation in Tallahassee, an open-government group. “Government serves the people. They are doing a disservice, and one with potentially grave consequences.”

Barbara Petersen

Barbara Petersen, president of the First Amendment Foundation, a Tallahassee-based group that promotes open government, said the removal of online nursing home records makes it difficult for consumers to make informed choices.
Miami Herald file photo

In recent weeks, Petersen needed to find a nursing home for her 96-year-old father in Colorado. The assisted living facility where he lived had become inappropriate, and Petersen had only 48 hours to move him.

“If I was in that situation here, and I had to do that without the information that used to be online, I’d have to submit a public records request for it. And, as we know, it takes a long time for them to produce public records. Meanwhile, I’d be stuck with the hardest decision I’ve ever made in my life without any information.”

“We put a tremendous amount of trust in these homes, and we need to make the best decisions for our families. Honestly, this makes no sense,” Petersen added.

A spokeswoman for the healthcare agency said both AHCA’s website and the federal site at Medicare.gov allow consumers to compare homes along a range of indicators, including quality of life, nutrition, dignity and abuse.

“AHCA goes above and beyond Florida law in the amount of information we make available online,” said spokeswoman Mallory McManus. “AHCA’s website www.FloridaHealthFinder.gov allows consumers to compare nursing homes by their inspection rating. Consumers can search by county, Zip code and even by services offered at every nursing home in Florida. This gives families more information to make informed healthcare decisions for their loved ones.”

“In fact,” McManus added, “in 2016 FloridaHealthFinder.gov won a Digital Government Achievement Award from the Center for Digital Government in the “Government-to-citizen State and Federal government” category, showing that Florida is a leader in getting information about healthcare facilities to consumers. FloridaHealthFinder.gov is an excellent tool for consumers, and a national leader in transparency.”

The award was given before the state removed nursing home inspections from AHCA’s site.

The Herald was unable to speak with administrators at the Hialeah Gardens home. Representatives from the corporate Signature HealthCARE did not return requests for comment. McManus said health regulators removed the “immediate jeopardy” label from the nursing home days after Vasquez’s death after administrators demonstrated they had improved the home’s safety. “Our Agency expected quick action to remove the potential risk to others. During a revisit on July 5 [2012], it was determined that the facility had implemented measures that removed the threat of serious risk to patients,” McManus said.

“Our Agency held this facility accountable, and all deficiencies were corrected,” McManus said.

The home’s plan of correction included a long list of actions administrators took to improve safety, including a comprehensive review of all residents’ medical records, new policies to ensure doctors’ orders are carried out, better monitoring of the symptoms of psychiatric patients, and an audit of records for all patients on mental health drugs to “ensure that they were seen by the psychiatrist as ordered.”

Though reports on Vasquez’s death are no longer available on AHCA’s website — or that of the federal Medicare program — a copy of the inspection obtained by the Herald is heavily redacted. The words “neglect” and “abuse,” for example, are removed from one of the report’s findings — and the definition of abuse from the Florida statutes is redacted.

A separate 50-page AHCA report on the same incident recites a portion of Florida law: “[Redacted] means any willful act or [redacted] act by a caregiver that causes or is likely to cause significant [redacted] to a [redacted] adult’s physical, [redacted] or emotional health. [Redacted] includes acts and omissions.” The portion is drawn directly from the state’s elder abuse law, a public record, and is the definition of abuse.

AHCA’s move is far from the only restriction in what records the public can see. The Herald wrote about an emergency management plan from the Hollywood Hills rehab center that was filed with — and approved by — Broward County, which included portions that were copied and pasted from a prior year, and failed to say how residents would be kept cool during a power outage. Broward and Palm Beach counties then refused to release any plans, though both had originally said they were public record. Miami-Dade released 54 plans, all heavily redacted.

Vasquez, who migrated to Florida from Cuba, first began to suffer from depression about a decade before her death, when her husband died, relatives told the Miami-Dade Medical Examiner’s Office. “Due to her depression, she was placed in” the nursing home, the report said. In addition to depression, Vasquez also was diagnosed with anxiety, chronic insomnia, heart disease and hypertension.

AHCA’s report on Vasquez’s death, dated June 14, 2012, said the 82-year-old former factory worker last saw her primary psychiatrist on March 1, 2012, for treatment of clinical depression. Staff at Signature never told him, the report said, that Vasquez’s condition had worsened.

Vasquez, the report said, “was very depressed at times.”

Vasquez’s primary doctor had ordered a psychiatric consultation around April 30, 2012. But a constellation of lapses led to the home’s failure to ensure Vasquez actually was treated. The psychiatrist Vasquez was to see left the nursing home, a report said, and the nurse who was trying to help Vasquez never was told who would fill in. Meanwhile, a psychiatrist who regularly saw patients on Vasquez’s floor reported “he never saw [her] and [she] was not on his caseload.”

Complicating matters: there was a 15-day gap in nursing notes in Vasquez’s chart, the report said, and the home’s administrator told an AHCA inspector he “had no idea” why no notes were made during those two weeks.

AHCA concluded: “There was no documentation to demonstrate the [psychiatric] consultation was completed, as ordered.”

Three days before Vasquez died, the report said, she “was observed to be sitting in the hallway or lying in bed; she was not wearing any makeup, and the resident told [a nurse] she did not feel like doing anything.” Vasquez needed help to fill out her menus.

A short report from the Miami-Dade Medical Examiner said that, on May 31, 2012, a maintenance worker noticed that the window in Vasquez’s room was open. The widow was found in the courtyard underneath her bedroom window, 14 feet from the building. The medical examiner’s office ruled Vasquez’s death a suicide.

Six months before Vasquez plunged from her window, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development faulted the home for failing to maintain the windows safely. Windows, HUD said, were secured only with screws, and a corrective action plan required Signature to install window locks within all residents’ rooms.

The AHCA report is unclear as to whether the windows in Vasquez’s room were fixed, though an unspecified relative told AHCA she had noticed the day before Vasquez died that “the window clamp was not in place.”

A Hialeah Gardens police report confirms some of AHCA’s account, noting Vasquez wasn’t breathing by the time she arrived at Palmetto General Hospital. A doctor pronounced her dead at 4 p.m.

Vasquez’s niece, Maria Salgado, who handled Vasquez’s affairs, told police she had been taking 10 medications for her depression, some of which are listed in the AHCA report, though the names and dosages are largely redacted.

Staff at the nursing home told Salgado that something happened to her aunt while she was walking in the garden — exactly what Salgado was told is redacted — according to the AHCA report.

Salgado, 53, called her aunt’s death and the ordeal that followed painful to talk about.

She felt very close to her aunt, she said.

“It was such a horrible time,” she said. With a long breath, she added, “I don’t want to relive it.”

OBTAINING AN INSPECTION REPORT

To request an inspection report for a Florida nursing home, use this form and submit it to this web address. Here are tips from the Agency for Health Care Administration.

Hospital groups, health systems sue HHS to halt $1.6B in payment cuts

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/hospital-groups-health-systems-sue-hhs-to-halt-1-6b-in-payment-cuts.html

Image result for us district court of district of columbia

Three hospital groups and three provider organizations sued HHS Monday in an attempt to stop payment cuts for drugs purchased through the 340B Drug Pricing Program.

The lawsuit, which was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, was filed by the following hospital groups: the American Hospital Association, America’s Essential Hospitals and the Association of American Medical Colleges. The groups were joined in the lawsuit by three health systems: Brewer, Maine-based Eastern Maine Healthcare Systems; Detroit-based Henry Ford Health System; and Hendersonville, N.C.-based Park Ridge Health.

Earlier this month, CMS released its 2018 Medicare Outpatient Prospective Payment System rule, which finalizes a proposal to pay hospitals 22.5 percent less than the average sales price for drugs purchased through the 340B program. That’s compared to the current payment rate of average sales price plus 6 percent. This change would reduce Medicare payments to hospitals by $1.6 billion.

The lawsuit argues the 340B provisions of the OPPS final rule violate the Social Security Act and should be set aside. The lawsuit further alleges the 340B provisions are outside of the HHS secretary’s statutory authority.

The hospital groups and health systems are seeking an injunction that would prohibit HHS from implementing the 340B provisions of the OPPS final rule pending resolution of the lawsuit.

“From its beginning, the 340B Drug Pricing Program has been critical in helping hospitals stretch scarce federal resources to enhance comprehensive patient services and access to care,” said Rick Pollack, president and CEO of the AHA. “CMS’s decision to cut Medicare payments for so many hospitals for drugs covered under the 340B program will dramatically threaten access to healthcare for many patients, including uninsured and other vulnerable populations. This lawsuit will prevent these significant cuts from moving forward.”

 

The Senate Tax Bill Threatens Access to Health Care

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/healthcare/news/2017/11/16/442906/senate-tax-bill-threatens-access-health-care/

Image result for individual mandate

This week, Senate Republicans announced that they plan to pay for their tax cuts for large corporations and millionaires not only by imposing tax increases on the middle-class but also by undermining people’s access to health care. Specifically, they have proposed eliminating the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) individual mandate, which helps keep premium costs affordable by ensuring that both healthy and sick people have health insurance.

Repealing the mandate would drive up premiums by 10 percent in 2019 and lead to 13 million fewer people having health insurance by 2025. A Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report also revealed that the similar House version of the tax bill would result in $25 billion in cuts to Medicare in fiscal year 2018 and hundreds of billions of dollars of cuts to the program overall. Taken as a whole, the tax bill would not only increase taxes for millions of middle-class families but would also have disastrous effects on people’s health care.

A typical middle-class family buying individual market insurance would see premiums increase nearly $2,000

The Senate tax bill would substantially increase premiums in the individual market for health insurance, and middle-class families would bear the brunt of the price hike. The bill would eliminate the individual mandate—the requirement that people maintain health coverage or pay a penalty. Without the mandate, people would only purchase coverage when they needed it, resulting in adverse selection that would drive up premiums. The CBO estimates that premiums would increase about 10 percent as a result of this adverse selection.

The Center for American Progress estimates that this premium increase translates to an extra $1,990 for benchmark plan coverage for an unsubsidized middle-class family of four. Families with incomes above 400 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL)—more than $98,400 for a family of four in the lower 48 states—are not eligible for premium tax creditsto reduce the cost of marketplace coverage. The 10 percent increase would be an even greater financial burden for families in states with higher premium levels, increasing costs by $2,900 in Alaska, $2,350 in Maine, and $2,060 in Arizona.

13 million more people would be uninsured by 2025

The CBO estimates that repeal of the mandate would result in 4 million fewer people having coverage in 2019 and 13 million fewer with coverage by 2025. As a result, about 16 percent of the nonelderly population would not have health insurance by 2025, compared with about 10 percent currently.

The individual mandate is necessary because of the consumer protections put in place by the ACA. The ACA banned discrimination by insurance companies against people with pre-existing conditions, required that people be charged the same amount regardless of health status, and eliminated annual and lifetime limits on coverage. But these protections would also make it easy for people to game the system by only buying health insurance once they needed it. To address this concern, the ACA coupled these reforms with an individual shared responsibility provision, also known as the individual mandate, which requires that everyone maintain health insurance coverage so that the overall insurance risk pool is healthy and premium rates are kept in check.

Repeal of the mandate would have two effects on the individual market. First, people who expect to be healthy would avoid purchasing coverage until they need it. As a result, the remaining enrollees in the individual market would be sicker on average, and insurance companies would need to raise rates to cover the increased average cost. Second, the resulting higher premiums would discourage additional people from purchasing coverage through the individual market. Those who become uninsured would no longer have financial protection against catastrophic medical costs, and hospitals and other providers would be forced to provide more uncompensated care.

Medicare would be cut by $25 billion in 2018

In addition to its frontal assault on health care for the middle class, the Senate bill would also secretly cut Medicare. Because the tax cuts for the wealthy in the proposed bill are not fully paid for, they would increase the deficit by more than $1.4 trillion over 10 years. But the little-known Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 requires that any deficit-increasing legislation be offset with cuts to other mandatory programs, including Medicare. The CBO has estimated that the offsetting spending reductions for the similar House version of the tax bill would cut Medicare by about $25 billion in fiscal year 2018. Given that similar cuts would be required in subsequent years, the total cost imposed on the Medicare program would be hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade. This would have a particularly harmful effect on rural hospitals with thin margins, which could be at risk of closure as a result.

Asking millions of middle-class families to pay more in taxes so that corporations and the wealthy few can pay less in bad enough. But to use those cuts to also undermine health care for middle-class families is unconscionable. Once again, the congressional majority seems to be doing everything in its power to make life harder for everyday Americans, just so it can provide giveaways to the wealthy few.

Methodology

Our estimated reduction in coverage in 2025 due to repeal of the mandate is based on national projections by the CBO. The CBO estimates that 13 million fewer people will have coverage in 2025, including 5 million fewer people with Medicaid, 5 million fewer people with individual market coverage, and 3 million fewer people with employer-sponsored insurance. We used data from the 2016 American Community Survey Public Use Microdata Sample (ACS PUMS), available from the IPUMS-USA to tabulate the number of nonelderly people in each state by primary coverage type using a coverage hierarchy. We then assumed that each state’s reduction in coverage was proportional to its share of the national total for each of those three coverage types. For more on the IPUMS-USA data set, see Steven Ruggles and others, “Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 5.0” (Minneapolis: Minnesota Population Center, 2010).

We made two adjustments to our ACS PUMS tabulations to account for potential effects of Medicaid expansion in Maine, given voters’ recent approval of expansion. We increased the number of Medicaid enrollees in Maine by 51,000 based on projections by the Urban Institute. We also decreased the number of people with coverage through Maine’s individual market by 20 percent to account for the fact that some enrollees will lose access to marketplace premium subsidies when they become Medicaid eligible under expansion. Enrollment data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) show that 27 percent of 2017 marketplace plan selections were by people with family incomes between 100 and 150 percent of the federal poverty level.

Our estimates of 2019 premium increases are based on the CBO projection that mandate repeal will increase individual market premiums 10 percent. We used the HealthCare.govplan information to calculate the 2018 average marketplace benchmark—second-lowest cost silver—plan in each state, weighting by the geographic distribution of current marketplace enrollment. We then inflated that premium to 2019 levels according to National Health Expenditure projections for per-enrollee cost growth. To calculate the 2019 average benchmark premium specific to a typical family of four, we borrowed the example family composition that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services uses in its reports: 40-year-old and 38-year-old parents and two children. We estimated that the family would pay an additional 10 percent of that 2019 benchmark due to mandate repeal. Premium data were not available for all states.

Finally, our estimates of state-level cuts to Medicare in fiscal year 2018 divided the $25 billion total Medicare funding reduction projected by the CBO proportional to each state’s share of national Medicare spending as of 2014, the most recent year for which CMS National Health Expenditure data is available, using data published by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

CMS Cut to Outpatient Drugs Will Hit Some 340B Hospitals Hard

http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/finance/cms-cut-outpatient-drugs-will-hit-some-340b-hospitals-hard?spMailingID=12347580&spUserID=MTY3ODg4NTg1MzQ4S0&spJobID=1281228729&spReportId=MTI4MTIyODcyOQS2#

Image result for 340b drug pricing program

The 340B program is intended to help safety net hospitals, but some others have taken advantage. A lack of transparency and accounting led to deep cuts for all participants.

Hospitals receiving drug discounts will take a big financial hit in January when the federal government sharply reduces the Medicare payment for outpatient drugs, effectively cutting a subsidy that some hospitals use to provide needed medications to those who cannot afford them.

The affected hospitals are bracing for a significant drain on their bottom lines, and some serve the neediest populations. However, some other hospitals have used the program to increase profits rather than to help underserved populations.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services released a final Medicare Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS) ruleNovember 1 that cuts Medicare reimbursement for separately payable outpatient drugs purchased by hospitals under the 340B program, which helps certain hospitals and other healthcare entities pay for covered outpatient drugs. The 340B program requires pharmaceutical companies to sell drugs to these hospitals at a discount, but CMS reimburses the hospitals as if there were no discount.

CMS will cut the reimbursement rate from the current average sales price (ASP) plus 6% to ASP minus 22.5%, starting January 1, 2018.

CMS estimates that the change will result in a $1.6 billion reduction in OPPS payments to 340B hospitals for separately payable drugs. The new reimbursement rate was derived from a May 2015 Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) Report to Congress, which estimated that the ASP minus 22.5% rate was the “lower bound of the average discount” on drugs paid under the Medicare OPPS. However,MedPAC’s March 2016 Report to Congress recommended a less drastic reduction in payment to ASP minus 10%. Under that rate, most 340B hospitals could still see a financial benefit from the program.

Instead, the adopted rate will negatively affect all 340B hospitals, says Keely Macmillan, general manager of bundled payments for care improvement with Archway Health, a Boston-based firm that works with providers to manage bundled payments.