Tag Archives: CMS

What’s Driving Health Care Costs?

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20180625.872430/full/?utm_term=Read%20More%20%2526gt%3B%2526gt%3B&utm_campaign=Health%20Affairs%20Sunday%20Update&utm_content=email&utm_source=2018-06-24&utm_medium=email&cm_mmc=Act-On%20Software-_-email-_-ACA%20Round-Up%3B%20Health%20Care%20Costs%3B%20Medicaid%20Expansion%3B%20Prescription%20Drug%20Monitoring%20Programs-_-Read%20More%20%2526gt%3B%2526gt%3B

Value-based payment (VBP) models are an effort to rein in the growth of health care costs and improve quality. However, it’s unclear what overall impact VBP models are having on health care costs. Even though health care is provided at the local level, most evaluations examine health care spending at the national level. To address this disconnect, we conducted quantitative and qualitative market-level assessments. Our goals were to examine the impact of population-based, value-based care within a market; identify what measurable factors were associated with differing costs; and understand how business leaders are thinking about value-based care and cost reduction.

Leavitt Partners, the Healthcare Financial Management Association (HFMA), and McManis Consulting, with participation from Mark McClellan at Duke University, conducted three mixed-methods studies:

  1. “Growth of Population-Based Payments Is Not Associated with a Decrease in Market-Level Cost Growth, Yet” examined the impact of population-based VBP on per-beneficiary-per-year (PBPY) health care spending and quality of care. The study used growth curve modeling and fixed-effects regression analyses of Medicare and commercial claims data.
  2. “Market Factors Associated with Medicare Costs and Cost Growth” examined which market factors are correlated with PBPY health care costs and cost growth within a market using growth curve modeling. The study used and aggregated multiple data sets from public and private sources.
  3. “What Is Driving Total Cost of Care? An Analysis of Factors Influencing Total Cost of Care in U.S. Health Care Markets” combined qualitative interviews conducted during site visits of nine markets and the quantitative findings from the studies above to understand factors that may be influencing total cost of care in US health care markets.

Key findings from the studies include:

  • Based on data from 2015, there was no association between an increase in population-based VBP and slowing of health care costs in a given market. Our study did not include episode-based payments.
  • Health care leaders across markets believe further changes to payment and delivery models are coming. Less clear is what, or who, will be the catalyst to push further change.
  • Some stakeholders expressed stronger support for other types of VBP models, including episode-based models and models that address the needs of specific patient groups.
  • The question of “what type of competition” in a market may be more important than “how much” competition. Lower-cost markets featured competition among a few health systems with well-aligned physician practices and geographic coverage across their market.
  • Lower-cost markets appear to benefit from organized mechanisms, including state-sponsored or endorsed reporting agencies, for more transparent sharing of information on provider quality and costs.Based on quantitative and qualitative evidence, the studies contribute to our understanding of the dynamics of competition, integration, and transparency on health care costs in a market. Below, we summarize findings from the three mixed-method studies and provide some policy implications.

Population-Based VBP Models Are Not Lowering Market-Level Health Care Costs … Yet

VBP dates back to 2005 with the Physician Group Practice Demonstration. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) significantly accelerated the proliferation of VBP models with the creation of the Medicare Shared Savings Program(MSSP) and the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation, which was tasked with developing and testing innovative new models. Commercial VBP arrangements have also taken hold in the years since the ACA’s passage.

Given the growth of VBP, we wanted to examine whether, in the first few years following the ACA, these models were influencing the total cost of care. We used Medicare data from 2012 to 2015 and commercial data from 2012 to 2014 to assess the early impact of these models. We restricted our study to population-based VBPs, which included models with upside risk only (shared savings), both upside and downside risk, and global budgets, but excluded episode-based (bundled) payments.

We did not find a statistical relationship between the level of penetration of population-based VBPs in a market and a decline in health care costs for Medicare or commercial payers. Nor did we find an improvement in quality. When we limited our analysis to just those markets with higher levels of population-based VBP penetration (at least 30 percent), our results suggested a very modest, not statistically significant, market-level decrease in cost growth. Despite this null finding, our results provide an important baseline for future research.

Possible Explanations

There are several potential explanations for the null findings. For one, our study period (2012–15) may simply have been too early to see signs of population-based VBP lowering health care costs. Although today 561 MSSP accountable care organizations (ACOs) (the largest of Medicare’s ACO programs) cover 10.5 million beneficiaries, at the beginning of our study period in 2012 and 2013, only 220 MSSP ACOs covered 3.2 million beneficiaries. Many interviewees told us not enough lives were covered under VBP. Indeed, in some markets, less than 1 percent of lives were part of a VBP arrangement.

Second, although participation in population-based VBP models is growing, few models involve the provider taking on downside risk. As of 2018, the majority (82 percent) of MSSP ACOs were in the non-risk-bearing Track 1, which means they share in savings if they spend less money than their assigned benchmark, but they will not incur financial losses if they spend more than the benchmark. Our site visits found that although different markets had varying levels of population-based VBP activity, no market had significant numbers of providers participating in downside risk. Several interviewees stressed the need to take incremental steps to more risk.

Fee-for-service payment remains quite profitable for many providers and health systems. Even for those that have begun to take on risk-based contracts, fee-for-service payment represents the majority of total revenue. As long as the status quo remains lucrative, it’s difficult to make the business case for why a provider should undertake the effort to switch to a value-based focus that may lead to a reduction in use and total revenue.

Still, several interviewees said they believed the move toward paying for value would continue, even if there’s some uncertainty over whether Medicare or private payers will lead the movement. It’s possible that when VBP models outweigh fee-for-service payments in a market, we’ll reach a “tipping point” and health care cost growth will decline. Many interviewees expressed enthusiasm for other VBP models, such as those based on episodes of care (bundled payments) and those designed for specific populations (for example, the frail elderly). These models may make more sense for specialty providers who perform a certain type of procedure or care for a certain type of patient.

Other Market Factors

If these initial population-based VBPs results don’t show a relationship to health care cost growth, then which market-level factors do correlate? For our second quantitative analysis, we used a variety of public and private data sources to examine the relationship among several market-level factors beyond value-based payment and Medicare costs and cost growth between 2007 and 2015. All the factors together explained 82 percent of variation in baseline Medicare costs (Exhibit 1). 

The prevalence of chronic diseases was the most influential predictor of market costs, accounting for 41.5 percent of the variance. Hospital quality metrics, market socioeconomic status, and the concentration of hospitals and insurers also helped explain market-level costs.

Using these same factors to predict Medicare cost growth was less fruitful, explaining only 27 percent of the variation in Medicare cost growth—substantially less than the 82 percent of baseline costs. As Exhibit 2 shows, a much weaker association exists between chronic disease prevalence and Medicare cost growth. Significant additional research should be done to identify factors that predict cost growth.

These findings matter for several reasons. First, they reinforce efforts currently underway to contain costs, including strategies to prevent and better manage chronic conditions, reduce hospital readmissions, and reduce the number of individuals without insurance. Second, although we know less about what drives health care cost growth in a market, meaningfully reducing spending in a market relies on developing strategies that target cost growth, instead of baseline costs. More research that focuses on what’s driving cost growth is needed.

The Role Of Competition And Transparency On Costs

The interviews we conducted add insights into these market-level findings. We identified two distinguishing characteristics of higher- and lower-cost markets: type of competition in the market and degree of transparency in the market. We recognize that while there are some common lessons, health care markets differ significantly and their approaches to care, costs, and VBP models will vary.

Competition

We know competition can help drive down costs and increase quality in health care markets. However, how much competition, and what type, seems to make a difference. For example, we found that the lower-cost markets in our nine site visits had at least one integrated delivery system. Consolidation in these markets had resulted in two to four health systems with geographic coverage across the market. In these markets, physicians were generally employed by the health system or worked in close alignment with it. Health plan competition matters as well, particularly with respect to innovation in new payment and care delivery models. Portland, Oregon, and Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota, two of the lowest-cost markets, both had competitive health plan landscapes.

Conversely, the markets we visited with less integration and seemingly more provider competition actually had higher costs. These included Los Angeles, California (which had higher Medicare costs only), Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. One reason for this may be that there is less focus on addressing unnecessary use in these markets.

Transparency

Transparency is often cited as a strategy that will help contain costs. Similar to competition, the type of transparency effort matters. We found that some lower-cost markets seemed to benefit from organized transparency mechanisms, including state-sponsored or endorsed reporting agencies and employer coalitions that made information on provider quality and costs publicly available. For example, in 2005, the Minnesota Medical Association and health plans in the state together formed MN Community Measure, a nonprofit organization tasked with the collection and dissemination of data on the quality and cost of providers across the state. Today, providers are required to submit data to the organization. Our interviewees expressed optimism but acknowledged more work is needed to optimize consumer-oriented transparency tools, which research has so far shown to have had only minimal use.

Policy Recommendations

Our research led us to three primary policy recommendations to help improve health care quality and lower costs (for additional ones, see the fullstudies).

  1. Continue movement toward payment models that increase financial incentives to manage total cost of care and closely monitor the impact of doing so because our findings show that the majority of payments in a market continue to flow through fee-for-service, instead of value-based arrangements. Experiments should continue with population-based VBP models but should not be confined exclusively to these models. Episode-based payment models, for example, may be better suited to certain types of providers who perform a certain procedure (for example, a knee replacement) instead of care for a general population of patients.
  2. Balance the benefits of competition with the benefits of integration. The lower-cost markets we studied had competition among two and four systems with well-organized provider networks that had been developed through vertical integration or strong alignment of physician practices. Most of the lower-cost markets also had an integrated delivery system—with vertically integrated health plan, hospital, and physician capabilities—as a competitor in the market.
  3. Support more transparent sharing of information on health care cost and quality within markets. Lower-cost markets in the qualitative study had organized mechanisms for the sharing of information on health care cost and quality, whether through employer coalitions, statewide reporting agencies, or both.

Although differences exist among each health care market, all markets can act to improve quality and reduce costs. Our studies suggest several actions different stakeholders in each market can take to improve care for their populations.

 

 

CMS seeks input on Stark Law changes amid value-based care shift

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/cms-seeks-input-on-stark-law-changes-amid-value-based-care-shift/526239/

Related image

Dive Brief:

  • The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services asked stakeholders Wednesday for input on how to change the Stark Law to allow for better care coordination and new alternative payment models or other novel financial arrangements.
  • The American Hospital Association has been vocal in pushing for changes to the physician self-referral law, calling it outdated. AHA argues the law presents “nearly impenetrable roadblocks in the move toward value-based care.”
  • The agency specifically is requesting input on what new exemptions to the Stark Law are needed to protect accountable care organization models, bundled payment models and other payment models, including how to allow coordination care outside of an alternative payment model. It also asks for help examining definitions for terminology such as risk-sharing, enrollee, gain-sharing and other terms.

Dive Insight:

The Stark Law, enacted in 1989, aims to cut down on financial incentives impacting physician care decisions. It prohibits certain Medicare-payable referrals to entities they have a financial or familial relationship with, and stops such entities from filing Medicare claims for referred services, unless exempted under certain instances.

CMS says that it is issuing the RFI in response to comments it has received that raised concern that the Stark Law is impeding participation in healthcare delivery and payment reform efforts.

“We are particularly interested in your thoughts on issues that include, but are not limited to, the structure of arrangements between parties that participate in alternative payment models or other novel financial arrangements, the need for revisions or additions to exceptions to the physician self-referral law, and terminology related to alternative payment models and the physician self-referral law,” the CMS notice states.

In a statement submitted by AHA to the House Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Ways and Means, the group urged Congress to step in to change Stark Law to allow hospitals and physicians to more closely work together.

“Congress should create a clear and comprehensive safe harbor under the anti-kickback law for arrangements designed to foster collaboration in the delivery of health care and incentivize and reward efficiencies and improvement in care,” AHA said.  “In addition, the Stark Law should be reformed to focus exclusively on ownership arrangements. Compensation arrangements should be subject to oversight solely under the anti-kickback law.”

CMS Administrator Seema Verma appears to be sympathetic. In a Wednesday blog post, she said the Stark Law may be prohibiting value-based arrangements that HHS has made a priority to shift towards. Previously, Verma said that CMS was going to put together an inter-agency group to examine potential changes to the law.

“I think that Stark was developed a long time ago, and this gets to where we are going modernizing the program,” Verma told AHA President and CEO Rick Pollack during a webcast in January. “The payment systems and how we are operating is different, and we need to bring along some of those regulations and figure out what we can do. And I’m not sure that this is not going to require some congressional intervention as well.”

CMS is asking for comments to be submitted on the RFI by August 24.

 

The ‘Biggest Health Care News of the Year’

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , • Leave a comment

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2018/06/08/Biggest-Health-Care-News-Year

Image result for supreme court

 

Trump Administration Says ACA Protections for Preexisting Conditions Are Unconstitutional.

The Department of Justice said Thursday that it will not defend the constitutionality of key provisions of the Affordable Care Act in a lawsuit currently underway in Texas. Here’s what you need to know:

The background: Twenty states, led by Texas, sued the federal government in February as part of an effort to overturn the Affordable Care Act, arguing that, because the GOP tax bill eliminated the penalty for individuals who don’t buy health insurance, the law as a whole was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court’s 2012 ruling that upheld the Affordable Care Act called the individual mandate penalty a tax — and therefore legal. But the lawsuit argues that since the mandate can no longer raise any revenue, the mandate itself is now unconstitutional – and so is the entire ACA.

What they did: The Department of Justice filed a brief Thursday in support of the suit, saying “this Court should hold that the ACA’s individual mandate will be unconstitutional as of January 1, 2019,” and that some other provisions of the law – including those protecting people with pre-existing conditions being denied coverage or charged higher premiums – are inseparable from the mandate and therefore should be declared unconstitutional as well.

Why they did it: Republicans have targeted the Affordable Care Act for elimination ever since it passed, and President Trump continues to promise that it will be overturned. However, the federal support for the states’ lawsuit is unusual, since the Justice Department typically defends existing law. Attorney General Jeff Sessions wrote a letter to House Speaker Paul Ryan explaining that this is a “rare case” that warrants deviating from the Justice Department’s “longstanding tradition of defending the constitutionality of duly enacted statutes.” Tom Miller of the American Enterprise Institute told Politico that the refusal to defend key parts of the ACA shows that the Trump administration is going even further in its battle against the health care law.

What it means: If successful, the states’ lawsuit would allow insurers to charge much higher rates to people with pre-existing conditions, or deny them coverage altogether, effectively ending the ACA’s promise of providing health care for all Americans. If the Justice Department’s analysis is ultimately persuasive, however, other parts of the law, including Medicaid expansion, could stay in place. Some legal experts say the suit is weak, since it turns on the idea that if one part of a law is invalid, the whole thing is invalid, without recognizing that the Congress passed the law and is free to alter it while leaving the rest in place. But the lawsuit has been filed in a conservative court in Texas, and the Trump administration’s refusal to defend key parts of the law has likely boosted the plaintiffs’ chances.

Supporters of the health care law expressed considerable alarm on Friday. Andy Slavitt, who ran the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services under President Obama, tweeted that the Justice Department’s decision is the “biggest health care news of the year” and a blow to public health. Slavitt and others criticized the move as an unprecedented decision by the Justice Department to not defend the rule of law. Ultimately, the case may be heading for the Supreme Court.

 

Providers argue against Medicaid rate cuts without oversight

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

http://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/providers-argue-against-medicaid-rate-cuts-without-oversight?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTmpKa1pXWTVNVFkzWVRoaSIsInQiOiJNWHRUZHRjS2dlNkRPaGs2aFNZK0xBb05tS05iY2taMzBGZndmTGNWSWRubjFYVVNtOUhHb1N6VnlUVm40TGFyS3UyWitMM2ppc3VnVnM3eU03bHdFeTN4SFwvQktueldQUDd2YWN6dGJZZ0pBZ25OK0pcL2xrbDZoSWpuaitaRzhjIn0%3D

 

States with at least 85% of their Medicaid population in managed care could implement nominal payment cuts without assuring care.

Hospitals, particularly rural providers, would be hurt by a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services proposed rule that would force them to take lower Medicaid rates without a review of the impact of the cuts, according to comments made to CMS asking for a reconsideration of the plan.

Provider organizations, hospitals, the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission, are among those asking the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to rethink its proposed rule.

Comments were due this week.

CMS proposed the rule in March to allow states that have a comprehensive, risk-based Medicaid managed care enrollment that is above 85 percent of their total Medicaid population to get around network adequacy rules when implementing “nominal” rate changes.

States had raised concern over the administrative burden associated with the current requirements, particularly for states with high rates of Medicaid managed care enrollment.

For states proposing nominal cuts below 4 percent a year or 6 percent over two years, the rule amends the process for them to document whether Medicaid payments in fee-for-service systems are sufficient to enlist providers to assure access to covered care and services.

These states would be exempt from access monitoring requirements and they would not need to seek public input on the rate reductions.

America’s Essential Hospitals said, “Requiring states to ensure, through monitoring, that rate reductions do not diminish access to needed services is particularly important now, as access monitoring reviews are the only vehicle left for providers to challenge state payment rate decisions.”

The Federation of American Hospitals contends that the rule would allow for more than nominal rate changes. If finalized, FAH said, the rule would allow for an estimated 18 states to implement a rate reduction of up to 12 percent over a period of four years or 16 percent over five years, without going through requirements for ongoing monitoring of the impact of the rate changes.

This would disproportionately impact vulnerable Medicaid beneficiaries and subject providers with unsustainable rate reductions, FAH said.

Most states, even those with very high rates of managed care enrollment, often exclude certain categories of particularly vulnerable groups from managed care plans, the organization said. People with physical, mental or intellectual disabilities or who are elderly, largely get services through fee-for-service, FAH told CMS Administrator Seema Verma.

The Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission said it did not find the states’ argument of administrative burden compelling enough given the federal government’s obligations to oversee state performance and assurances related to access.

“Moreover, exceptions to reporting may introduce gaps in oversight,” MACPAC Chair Penny Thompson said. “In short, the need for states to maintain resources and tools to monitor access as an ongoing element of state program administration and decision making outweighs the limited savings states would achieve as a result of these changes.”

 

Red states find there’s no free pass on Medicaid changes

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

Red states find there’s no free pass on Medicaid changes from Trump

Image result for medicaid waiver

Red states are getting a reality check from the Trump administration in just how conservative they can remake their Medicaid programs.

Earlier this month, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) rejected a request from Kansas to limit Medicaid eligibility to just three years.

CMS Administrator Seema Verma followed up on the Kansas decision by saying the administration will not allow any states to impose lifetime limits on Medicaid.

“We’ve indicated that we would not approve lifetime limits and I think we’ve made that pretty clear to states,” Verma said last week at a Washington Post event on health care.

The Trump administration has made state innovation a priority and has promised to fast-track Medicaid waivers, especially those that will impose work requirements on beneficiaries.

Four states have been granted permission to do so — Arkansas, Kentucky, Indiana and New Hampshire — and six others have pending waivers.

States have also been allowed to impose lockout periods if beneficiaries can’t meet the work requirements and to charge higher premiums than the Obama administration allowed.

But the decision on lifetime limits marks the first time the administration completely rejected a policy favored by conservatives and shows there is no blank check for red states.

Verma never promised automatic approvals of conservative ideas, though some might have interpreted it that way, according to Jeff Myers, president and CEO of the Medicaid Health Plans of America.

He said it’s becoming clear that what the Trump administration wants is to construct policies that will make Medicaid beneficiaries self-sufficient, but that will not take away their benefits entirely.

Verma has long argued that promoting self-sufficiency is key to any changes states make to Medicaid. In explaining the decision to reject lifetime limits, Verma noted that states only temporarily suspend benefits if work requirements aren’t met.

“An individual may not comply with a requirement around cost-sharing and they could potentially lose coverage. But we want to make sure that there’s a pathway back into the program … if they’re compliant with the requirements,” Verma said last week.

Medicaid experts said officials in Kansas and other red states were mistaken if they thought they could get the Trump administration to approve changes just because they happen to be conservative.

“Contrary to some states’ expectations, there really is a waiver approval process,” said Joe Antos, a health policy expert at the American Enterprise Forum, a conservative think tank.

“Decisions will move more rapidly than they were … [but] that doesn’t mean approvals,” he said.

Matt Salo, executive director of the National Association of Medicaid Directors, said any time there’s a change in administration, states jockey to see what policies they can get approved.

“There’s a lot of pent-up interest in pursuing flexibility and changes that the Obama administration would not entertain, [but] I don’t think anyone thought it was a blank check, do whatever you want,” Salo said.

The administration has yet to make a decision on other conservative wish list policies, such as Wisconsin’s proposal for drug testing Medicaid recipients, and partial Medicaid expansion, which would let states expand coverage for only a fraction of the population and still receive full federal funding under ObamaCare.

Salo said federal officials want to make sure that any waivers they approve will survive the inevitable lawsuits that follow.

“People are pretty savvy … if you’re just going to approve something that gets torn down in the courts, you’re wasting everyone’s time,” Salo said. “The granting of a wish list that gets trounced doesn’t do any good, and even sets the agenda back somewhat. Everyone’s better off if there’s a real rationale.”

CMS recently declined to issue a decision on a request by Arkansas to roll back the eligibility levels for Medicaid beneficiaries. The agency also declined to rule on Kansas’s request to impose work requirements, which experts have speculated could be an implicit rejection of the proposals.

Unlike the other four states that have been approved, Kansas is not a Medicaid expansion state, and the administration has not approved work requirements in any nonexpansion states.

Kansas officials indicated they were still working with federal officials.

“While we will not be moving forward with lifetime caps, we are pleased that the Administration has been supportive of our efforts to include a work requirement in the 1115 waiver. This important provision will help improve outcomes and ensure that Kansans are empowered to achieve self-sufficiency,” Gov. Jeff Colyer (R) said in a statement.

 

CMS Administrator Seema Verma promotes cuts to 340B drug payments

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

http://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/cms-administrator-seema-verma-promotes-cuts-340b-drug-payments?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTURSaU5UWXhOV1EzTlRNeiIsInQiOiJvU3NYQXBoQkwzMXBteUNzVVNpXC9abldIM3RMZXkrc05LNUNXdXd1TzUrUmJwTFZYTDBFZmRYNmFvVnloTEE2K0dtZXhEbWYyRjFWTmpRT29Zb3I0ZFdLRW92bGFrQUJnYyt2N0JyV1dVSE5IR1RJRmczYnZJUlo1d1pYZzR1UkIifQ%3D%3D

Image result for 340b drug discount program

Senate committee is taking a closer look at the drug discount program.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ focus on lowering drug prices now includes the contentious 340B drug pricing program.

On Wednesday, CMS Administrator Seema Verma told the Pharmacy Quality Alliance that the agency’s change in the 340B payment rate to qualifying hospitals would save Medicare beneficiaries $320 million this year.

Under 340B, hospitals that serve a large number of vulnerable patients are able to buy drugs from manufacturers at discounted prices. However, Verma said Wednesday, “these discounts were not being passed on to our beneficiaries. So, CMS reduced the amount that beneficiaries and the federal government will pay hospitals for drugs that they acquire through this program.”

Medicare beneficiaries will save a total of $320 million in drug spending this year from the change, Verma said.

Last November, several hospital groups including the American Hospital Association, sued CMS for the $1.6 billion in cuts, representing a 28 percent decrease.

On Tuesday, a Senate health committee got involved when members questioned why a rule that would set ceiling prices on drugs in the program has been delayed five times.

The final rule would impose monetary penalties for manufacturers that charge more than the ceiling price for an outpatient drug and imposes other restrictions.

340B hospitals want to see the rule enforced.

The Government Accountability Office will be looking into the issue and the work of the Health Resource and Services Administration, the agency which manages the program and is responsible for the latest delay in implementation of the final rule until July 2019.

The problem is that states and providers do not know the ceiling prices. Confidentiality rules prevent the HRSA from sharing ceiling prices with states or 340B providers.

Because of this, 340B hospitals don’t know what they ought to be paying for discounted drugs, according to Ann Maxwell, assistant inspector general for evaluation and inspections for the Office of the Inspector General, speaking before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.

This lack of transparency prevents ensuring that 340B providers are not overpaying pharmaceutical manufacturers and that state Medicaid programs are not overpaying 340B providers, Maxwell said.

The 340B drug pricing program debate pits the hospitals that benefit from the discounted prices of the program against organizations that contend these providers are taking advantage of the financial incentive.

The 340B program, established in 1992, generates savings for certain safety-net providers by allowing them to purchase outpatient drugs at discounted prices.

Opponents of 340B say seniors get none of the benefit and pay full price and that the disproportionate share hospitals that get the discount take advantage of the financial incentive by buying larger quantities of drugs and more expensive drugs.

HRSA reported that total 340B sales in 2016 amounted to approximately $16 billion, or about 3.6 percent of the U.S. drug market.

The Alliance for Integrity and Reform of 340B, or AIR340B released a new report with analytics by the Berkeley Research Group on Medicare Part B hospital outpatient reimbursements that found in 2016, 340B hospitals accounted for nearly two-thirds of Medicare Part B reimbursements – while only representing slightly more than half of all Medicare hospital outpatient revenue.

“Medicare patients treated in 340B hospitals have disproportionately high outpatient drug spend as compared to patients treated at non-340B hospitals,” AIR340B said

PhRMA said it was encouraged to see the Senate HELP Committee continuing to take a closer look at issues within the 340B program.

The New England Journal of Medicine concluded that financial gains for 340B hospitals have not been associated with clear evidence of expanded care or lower mortality among low-income patients, PhRMA said.

340B also drives a shift of treatment to more expensive hospital settings for physician-administered medicines, PhRMA said.

Hospitals and proponents say the 340B drug pricing program is one of the few federal programs to curb drug costs that is working.

“Sadly, the administration’s policy proposals would erode that progress and just put more money into the pockets of pharmaceutical companies,” 340B Heath said. “The administration’s proposals are based on a faulty understanding of the 340B program and the pharmaceutical market. The notion that 340B discounts are raising drug prices is simply false. Drug companies set the prices for their products and they, alone, decide how high those prices go.”

Hospitals participating in the 340B program account for 60 percent of all uncompensated care in the U.S. and serve a high proportion of low-income patients on Medicaid, 340B Health said.

“There is a clear history of manufacturers overcharging 340B providers. Delaying enforcement of this rule will have a tremendous adverse impact on hospitals, clinics and health systems caring for low-income and rural patients,” said Maureen Testoni, interim president and CEO of 340B Health.

America’s Essential Hospitals said federal scrutiny of manufacturer pricing practices has found overcharges in the 340B drug pricing program.

“These overcharges undermine the program’s ability to make drugs affordable for vulnerable patients and increase costs for their hospitals, which already operate with thin margins,” the group said.

 

HHS Secretary Alex Azar to Supreme Court: Time to rule on Medicare case that affects $4 billion

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , • Leave a comment

http://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/hs-secretary-alex-azar-supreme-court-time-rule-medicare-case-affects-4-billion?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTXpGak1qTmhNbVUxWVRsaSIsInQiOiJwQlwvU1ZxcTU2bExreng4NXpEZ0Q2WkRYeldUbzlNM3kwWlJFeER5WlwvS3NqQ0lvMFwveHVNRExjdmVkdkRNMTBOb3FlZlwvOUJIMTYzR0tVWlNlcDJWMlRkMVM4TzZCK1I3XC9NSkFkc1U5QjhYaTZXKzhaUnY0M2RKNGNubTR5dk84In0%3D

HHS Secretary Alex Azar Credit: Chris Kleponis-Pool, Getty Images

HHS Secretary Alex Azar

Lower court’s decision about disproportionate share hospital payments undermines the ability HHS has to administer Medicare reimbursement, Azar says.

Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review an appeals court case won by numerous hospitals over disproportionate share hospital payments.

Azar said the decision affects between $3 and $4 billion in Medicare funding and therefore, the Supreme Court’s review is warranted.

At issue is whether the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services needed to go through a notice and comment rulemaking to get stakeholder feedback before deciding on its own to include Medicare Advantage beneficiaries in its calculations for DSH payments.

Medicare pays hospitals for providing inpatient care and gives an additional payment known as disproportionate share hospital adjustment to hospitals that serve a significantly disproportionate number of low-income patients.

The payment is based on two percentages. The first is a Medicare fraction, which is calculated using the number of patient days for patients who are entitled to benefits under Medicare Part A and for supplemental Social Security income benefits.

The second percent includes patient days attributable to patients who are not entitled to benefits under Medicare Part A.

Medicare Advantage, or Medicare Part C, established in 1997, allows individuals to receive benefits under Parts A and B through enrollment in a private MA plan.

Prior to 2004, CMS did not count a hospital’s Medicare Part C patient days when calculating the Medicare fraction used to determine DSH payments. Starting in 2004, CMS made a decision on its own interpretation of a rule and determined Part C patients were entitled to benefits under Medicare Part A within the meaning of Medicare-fraction provisions.

Hospitals challenged CMS’ interpretation done without notice and comment rulemaking. A district court sided with the government, but in 2017 the U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia ruled with the hospitals.

The appeals court said HHS needed notice and comment rulemaking before providing Medicare Administrative Contractors the payment calculation that is passed on to hospitals.

The decision undermines its ability to administer the annual Medicare reimbursement process in a workable manner, HHS said.

“The D.C. Circuit’s contrary decision would significantly impair HHS’s ability to administer annual Medicare reimbursements through the MACs that act on its behalf,” the Supreme Court filing said. “It would also impose significant costs on the government. Just with respect to the Medicare-fraction issue in this case, the decision below affects between $3 and $4 billion in Medicare funding.”

Solicitor General Noel Francisco filed the petition in April on behalf of Azar, against health systems Allina Health Services, doing business as United Hospital, Unity Hospital and Abbott Northwestern Hospital; Florida Health Sciences Center dba Tampa General Hospital; Montefiore Medical Center; Mount Sinai Medical Center of Florida dba Mount Sinai Medical Center; New York Hospital Medical Center of Queens; New York Methodist Hospital; and New York Presbyterian Hospital and New York Presbyterian Hospital Weill Cornell Medical Center.

 

Payer trade groups slam short-term health plan proposal

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/payer-trade-groups-slam-short-term-health-plan-proposal/521941/

 

More organizations, including Aetna and the American Medical Association, submitted comments on the proposed rule Monday.

Dive Brief:

  • The Alliance of Community Health Plans (ACHP) and America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) both slammed CMS’ proposal to expand short-term, limited duration (STLD) insurance plans, saying the proposed rule would undermine key consumer protections, lead to higher premiums in the individual market and jeopardize market stability.
  • The proposed rule, pushed by the Trump administration as a way to increase access to cheaper plan alternatives and sidestep the Affordable Care Act, would allow consumers to purchase plans for up to 12 months that do not adhere to federal rules for individual health insurance. STLD plans can charge those with pre-existing conditions more and may not cover ACA essential health benefits such as prescription drug coverage.
  • The insurance lobbies argued that other policy mechanisms would be more effective at improving the individual health insurance market. AHIP pointed to increasing 1332 state waiver flexibility and the adoption of regulations aimed at preventing improper steering of Medicare and Medicaid consumers into the individual market, and ACHP advocated for the creation of a federal reinsurance program as more effective ways to promote affordable coverage.

Dive Insight:

The comments are indicative that many insurers are hesitant to back health plans that lack the consumer protections the ACA put into place due to a fear such plans would destabilize the individual market. Monday is the last day to submit comments on the rule.

A new Kaiser Family Foundation brief notes that many middle-income people not shielded by premium subsidies in the individual market would likely see premium costs increase. Combined with the individual mandate penalty being zeroed out, the effort to increase STLD plans could result in fewer individuals enrolled in the ACA market, adversely impacting its stability.

“Short-term plans were designed for consumers to use as temporary, stop-gap measures when moving between plans – not as long-term replacements for health insurance,” ACHP CEO Ceci Connolly said in a statement. “A broad, stable risk pool is crucial for providing affordable coverage and care. ACHP believes that other policy options, such as reinsurance, would be far more effective at promoting high-quality, affordable coverage and care for all Americans.”

ACHP argued the proposed rule should not be finalized, saying the current status-quo limit of 90 days should be maintained.

AHIP called for any final rule to limit the duration of STLD plans to six months, adding that the plans should be required to have a plain-language disclosure that the plans should not be considered comprehensive health insurance. The group argued that the effective date of any final rule should come no sooner than Jan. 1, 2020.

“As the Departments advance policies to expand access to lower-cost coverage choices for a subgroup of consumers, it is critical to improve the affordability of comprehensive coverage options for all Americans, regardless of health status,” Matthew Eyles, AHIP COO, wrote in the group’s comment.

But major insurer Aetna, which left AHIP in 2016, said in its comment STLD plans “can be a valuable option for many consumers.”

The insurer argued that such plans must be transparent with disclosure language, limit any look-back period for pre-existing conditions to 12 months and define a minimum floor of benefits including inpatient hospital services, physician services, mental health and substance abuse services and one annual physical and annual well-woman visit before the deductible.

A group of Senate Democrats were among those asking for the rule to not be finalized, arguing it “could increase costs and reduce access to quality coverage for millions of Americans, harm people with pre-existing conditions, and force premium increases on older Americans.”

The American Medical Association also echoed the insurance lobby’s concern, saying STLD plans would endanger the coverage gains of the past decade and destabilize the market. AMA argued the administration should withdraw the proposed rule, saying it is “a step in the wrong direction and will lead to a proliferation of inadequate health insurance policies in the market.”

A joint comment of 21 consumer advocates, including March of Dimes and the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, also called for withdrawing the proposal.

PhRMA voiced concern in its comment over the lack of prescription drug coverage in STLD plans, citing an analysis that found than 71% of such plans do not cover outpatient prescription drugs. “If consumers can renew these plans for an extended period, it increases the chances that consumers may find themselves diagnosed with a new condition that can be effectively treated by an innovative drug at a time when they are covered by a short-term plan that does not cover prescriptions drugs,” PhRMA wrote.

 

 

Trump administration issues rule further watering down Obamacare

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-healthcare-regulation/trump-administration-issues-rule-further-watering-down-obamacare-idUSKBN1HG384

Image result for Trump administration issues rule further watering down Obamacare

The Trump administration took additional steps to weaken Obamacare on Monday, allowing U.S. states to relax the rules on what insurers must cover and giving states more power to regulate their individual insurance markets.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services issued a final rule that allows states to select essential health benefits that must be covered by individual insurance plans sold under former President Barack Obama’s healthcare law. The 2010 Affordable Care Act requires coverage of 10 benefits, including maternity and newborn care and prescription drugs. Under the new rule, states can select from a much larger list which benefits insurers must cover.

That could lead to less generous coverage in some states, according to Avalere Health, a research and consulting firm.

President Donald Trump’s administration has used its regulatory power to undermine Obamacare after the Republican-controlled Congress last year failed to repeal and replace the law. About 20 million people have received health insurance coverage through the program.

The new CMS rule also allows states the possibility of modifying the medical loss ratio (MLR) formula, the amount an insurer spends on medical claims compared with income from premiums that is also a key performance metric. A state can request “reasonable adjustments” to the medical loss ratio standard if it shows that it could help stabilize its individual market.

Insurers could also have an easier time raising their rates under the new rule. Obamacare mandated that premium rate increases of 10 percent or more in the individual market be scrutinized by state regulators to ensure that they are necessary and reasonable. The new CMS rule raises that threshold to 15 percent.

 

1115 Medicaid Waivers: From Care Delivery Innovations to Work Requirements

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/explainers/2018/apr/1115-medicaid-waivers#/utm_source=1115-medicaid-waivers-explainer&utm_medium=Facebook&utm_campaign=Health%20Coverage

After months of debate, the Medicaid program emerged from efforts to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA) without major legislative changes. Now, however, the Trump administration is encouraging states to apply for waivers that place new conditions on Medicaid eligibility as well as additional costs on beneficiaries in the form of premiums and copayments at the point of service.

To better understand the continuing controversy over Medicaid, let’s take a look at the waiver program’s objectives and how states have used waivers in the past. Are recently proposed state waivers consistent with Medicaid’s underlying mission? And are federal and state authorities appropriately evaluating them for their impact on Medicaid populations?

What is a Medicaid Section 1115 waiver?

Medicaid grants states autonomy in how they run their programs. Under a provision of the Social Security Act, Section 1115, the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) can waive federal guidelines on Medicaid to allow states to pilot and evaluate innovative approaches to serving beneficiaries. Most waivers are granted for a limited period and can be withdrawn once they expire.

States seek 1115 waivers to test the effects of changes both in coverage and in how care is delivered to patients. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), a government agency, reviews each waiver application to ensure not only that it furthers the core objective of Medicaid — to meet the health needs of low-income and vulnerable populations — but also that the proposed demonstration does not require the federal government to spend more on the state’s Medicaid program than it otherwise would.

However, a recent General Accountability Office (GAO) review found that, because of significant limitations, evaluations of 1115 demonstrations often do not provide enough information for policymakers to understand the waivers’ full impact.1 The GAO recommended that CMS establish procedures to ensure that all states submit final evaluation reports at the end of each demonstration cycle, issue criteria for when it will allow limited evaluations of demonstrations, and establish a policy for publicly releasing findings from federal evaluations.

How have 1115 waivers been used in the past?

States have been granted waivers throughout the 53-year history of Medicaid. Most waivers were small in scope until the 1990s, when states started to use them for a wide range of purposes, including to: expand eligibility, simplify the enrollment and renewal process, reform care delivery, implement managed care, provide long-term services and supports, and alter benefits and cost-sharing. Some states have used 1115 waivers to change the way care is delivered to Medicaid patients, like encouraging investments in social interventions. Oregon, for example, used its waiver to establish Coordinated Care Organizations — partnerships between managed care plans and community providers to manage medical, behavioral health, and oral health services for a group of Medicaid beneficiaries.

With the ACA’s enactment, a new category of low-income adults became eligible for Medicaid. After the Supreme Court ruled in 2012 that this eligibility expansion was optional for states, eight states applied for 1115 demonstration waivers from the Obama administration to test different approaches to expanding eligibility, including the introduction of premiums and copayments that exceeded federal guidelines. One of those states, Arkansas, has used Medicaid funds to purchase private health insurance for marketplace enrollees.

How are 1115 waivers changing?

With encouragement from the Trump administration, many states are applying for waivers to make employment, volunteer work, or the performance of some other service a requirement for Medicaid eligibility. The administration has also encouraged waivers to impose premiums and increases in cost-sharing.

States can take different approaches to work or service requirements. Some might require them only for the Medicaid-expansion population (working-age adults with incomes up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level), while other states might also require employment of the traditional Medicaid population.

As of early April 2018, three states — Kentucky, Indiana, and Arkansas — have received approval for work- or service-requirement waivers. Seven others have pending waivers for new applications, amendments to existing waivers, or requests for renewals or extensions.

In Kentucky — the first state to have its work-requirement waiver approved — affected beneficiaries must complete 80 hours per month of community-engagement activities, such as employment, education, job skills training, or community service. Documentation of meeting this requirement is required to remain eligible for coverage. Exemptions are granted to pregnant women, people considered medically frail, older adults, and full-time students. Indiana and Arkansas have received approval for similar waivers.

Shortly after Kentucky’s waiver was approved, attorneys representing 15 Medicaid beneficiaries sued the HHS secretary in federal court (Stewart v. Azar), arguing that the objective of promoting work is not consistent with Medicaid’s core purpose of “providing medical assistance (to people) whose income and resources are insufficient to meet the cost of necessary medical services.”2 The lawsuit’s outcome will affect whether some of the state demonstrations will be able to proceed.

What’s the bottom line?

The 1115 demonstration waiver program is intended to fulfill the primary purpose of Medicaid: to provide health care protection to poor and disabled Americans. The new waivers seeking to impose work or service requirements, as well as others that would impose lifetime coverage limits or premiums, should be fully and carefully evaluated to determine whether they meet this goal. In addition to state and federal evaluations, independent assessments of state demonstrations will be important to informing policymakers and the public about the waivers’ full impact.