Trying to Survive: Community Responses to Uncertainties About Federal Funding for Medicaid and Public Health Programs

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/blog/2018/community-responses-federal-funding?omnicid=EALERT1457501&mid=henrykotula@yahoo.com

Mother and baby at a Federally Qualified Health Center

“We are just trying to survive.”

So says the director of an Ohio federally qualified health center (FQHC) that, like many such clinics nationwide, struggles to meet the demand for a wide range of services, from prenatal and other preventive care to addiction treatment and oral health care.

Along with community hospitals and public health departments, FQHCs — critical providers of health services in many low-income communities — are funded through state and local taxes, federal and state government programs, and private philanthropy. But some FQHCs are experiencing shortfalls in trying to meet their clients’ needs. Threats from Congress to reduce federal Medicaid funding, scale back Medicaid expansion, and decrease funding for public health programs have further compounded the financial uncertainties.

To learn how funding shortfalls are being experienced on the ground, my colleagues and I spoke with hospital administrators, chiefs of emergency departments, directors of county public health departments, and heads of FQHCs and behavioral health clinics. We also interviewed community leaders connected to businesses, law enforcement, local media, religious organizations, and political groups in eight North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin counties.

Local Health Funding Inadequate

Nearly all of these community leaders described increasing access to health care as just one of three priorities for their communities. Improving local schools and attracting businesses with good-paying jobs are the other top concerns. As one school superintendent said, “We need to focus on all of these if we are to attract employers and people and remain a desirable place to live.”

But local health needs keep growing. The list is daunting: the decontamination of public water supplies; prenatal and infant care; immunizations; reductions in smoking and obesity; better nutrition; dental care for children and adults; and addressing mental illness, suicide risks, and substance use disorders. “We don’t have the capacity to deal with all who [need help],” says a Wisconsin county public health director. “We need to build infrastructure” — clinics and treatment centers — “and provider network capacity.”

Health departments and community clinics report that local funding has been inadequate for some time. As state and county governments have resisted raising taxes and increasing funds for public health needs and community clinics, grants from local organizations and foundations have helped fill the breach. But private philanthropy only goes so far. “Local foundations do not want to fund long-term staff needs,” one public health director said.

Medicaid Funding Is Critical for FQHCs and Emergency Departments

Threats to Medicaid funding have community providers worried. Medicaid generally provides about half the revenues for FQHCs, enabling them to provide care to all, regardless of ability to pay. FQHC directors fear that changes to eligibility — including requirements that beneficiaries work or volunteer, as proposed under various waivers — could mean that some patients will lose coverage, along with their access to counseling and medications for mental illness or chronic conditions like diabetes. Medicaid cutbacks also could make it harder for FQHCs to find specialists willing to see their uninsured or underinsured patients.

Hospital emergency departments (EDs) also would suffer from cuts to Medicaid. “Medicaid and self-pay [patients are] now 40 percent of our revenue, compared to 20 percent before Medicaid was expanded,” one ED chief told us. While more patients are covered thanks to the expansion, ED revenue from private insurance in these communities is down over the past two years, making hospitals more dependent on public insurance. ED chiefs also say that people with mental illnesses or substance use disorders experiencing crises are already crowding EDs, in part because it’s often easier for Medicaid beneficiaries to get to the hospital than to find primary care providers willing to treat them in a timely manner. If Medicaid funding is cut or eligibility requirements are changed, such problems could become much worse.

Medicaid Changes Already Impacting Providers

Complicating matters is a 2016 rule issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services that was intended to improve quality of care and oversight for the growing number of Medicaid beneficiaries enrolled in managed care. Some states are responding to the rule by requiring that FQHCs and other safety-net clinics use more complex coding to file their claims for reimbursement, adding to the administrative burden on clinics. “We used to use just 15 codes to bill for services,” the director of a behavioral health clinic said. “Now there are about 250, and I’ve had to hire more administrative staff.”

Moreover, some clinics have seen longer gaps between the time claims are submitted and reimbursement is received from the state. The resulting cash flow problems hit smaller clinics, which have narrow operating margins, particularly hard. “This [delay] is causing smaller clinics to live in their ‘line of [bank] credit’,” one clinic director said. “Does the state want to deal only with large provider agencies?”

Paralyzed by Unease About the Future

These ongoing changes to Medicaid payment, along with proposed eligibility changes and fears of funding cutbacks, are causing grave concerns among community health leaders. With needs for care growing, they are understandably focused on the present. Otherwise, as one clinic director said, “[we] would be paralyzed by unease about the future.”

In the counties we visited, local independent political groups that have sprung up in response to these and other concerns see the federal government as out of touch with local needs for better health care, better schools, and higher-paying jobs — and with communities’ inability to dig deeper into their pockets to address these needs. For the clinics and hospitals that serve Medicaid patients and their communities, stable Medicaid funding will be critical to meeting their missions.

 

 

19 emergency departments honored for leadership, quality

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/rankings-and-ratings/19-emergency-departments-honored-for-leadership-quality.html

Image result for lantern award

The Emergency Nurses Association recognized 19 emergency departments across the U.S. with its Lantern Award, which honors EDs that demonstrate excellent performance in leadership, practice, education, advocacy and research.

The award is named in honor of Florence Nightingale, referred to as the “Lady of the Lamp” for carrying a lantern as she cared for wounded soldiers in the night during the Crimean War.

“The Lantern Award acts as a visible symbol to patients that the receiving emergency department values excellence and delivers exceptional care,” said ENA President Jeff Solheim, MSN, RN. “It shines a light on that emergency department’s commitment to providing safe practice and safe care.”

Here are the 19 Lantern Award recipients for 2018:

1. AtlantiCare Regional Medical Center — Hammonton (N.J.) Satellite Emergency Department
2. Belton (Mo.) Regional Medical Center Emergency Department — HCA Midwest Health System
3. Bethesda Butler Hospital Emergency Department — TriHealth (Hamilton, Ohio)
4. Bon Secours St. Mary’s Hospital Pediatric Emergency Department (Richmond, Va.)
5. Boston Children’s Hospital Emergency Department
6. Hughes Spalding Hospital Emergency Department — Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta
7. Inova Loudoun Emergency Department (Leesburg, Va.)
8. Inspira Medical Center Elmer (N.J.) Emergency Department
9. Marin General Hospital Emergency Department (Greenbrae, Calif.)
10. Morristown (N.J.) Medical Center Emergency Department — Atlantic Health System
11. Northwestern Medicine Central DuPage Hospital Emergency Department (Winfield, Ill.)
12. Pennsylvania Hospital Emergency Department — Penn Medicine (Philadelphia)
13. Sarasota (Fla.) Memorial Health Care System Emergency Department
14. St. Anthony Hospital Emergency Department (Lakewood, Colo.)
15. Suburban Hospital Emergency Department — Johns Hopkins Medicine (Bethesda, Md.)
16. Swedish Medical Center Emergency Department — HCA-HealthONE (Englewood, Colo.)
17. The Reading Hospital Emergency Department — Tower Health System (West Reading, Pa.)
18. UCLA Medical Center Emergency Department (Los Angeles)
19. UPMC Pinnacle Hanover Hospital Emergency Department (Hanover, Pa.)

 

 

Only 3.3% of ED Visits ‘Avoidable’

http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/quality/only-33-ed-visits-avoidable?spMailingID=11851350&spUserID=MTY3ODg4NTg1MzQ4S0&spJobID=1240385528&spReportId=MTI0MDM4NTUyOAS2

Image result for ED Visits

The top three non-emergent ER diagnoses were identified by researchers as joint disorders, atopic dermatitis, and other soft tissue diseases.

What does “avoidable” mean?

Answer: It depends on who’s doing the study.

A study published Thursday in the peer-reviewed International Journal for Quality in Health Care found that only 3.3% of emergency room visits could be classified as “avoidable.” That stands in stark contrast, for example, with another study from Truven Health Analytics that found nearly 71% of emergency room visits are avoidable. What gives?

For its part, the more recent study, Avoidable Emergency Department Visits: A Starting Point, contends that it’s difficult to determine whether an ED visit was necessary until after the visit, which makes some sense, but severely limits the ability of triage to make a difference.

“Using chief complaints derived from diagnoses, which are determined post hoc, can be dangerous because visits that are eventually determined to be non-emergent after physician examination and diagnostic testing are virtually indistinguishable from emergent visits,” the study says.

So there’s that.

The 3.3% of visits the study’s authors do contend are actually avoidable include visits that did not require any diagnostic or screening services, procedures or medications, and were discharged home, which is fairly restrictive. Further, a significant number of those avoidable visits, by their definition, included mental health and dental conditions, which emergency departments are ill-equipped to treat.

“This suggests a lack of access to healthcare rather than intentional inappropriate use is driving many of these ‘avoidable’ visits,” said study author Renee Hsia, MD, of the Department of Emergency Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, in a press release. “These patients come to the ER because they need help and literally have no place else to go.”

To derive their results, study authors examined a total of 115,081 records, representing 424 million ED visits made by patients aged 18–64 years who were seen in the ED and discharged home.

By contrast, a separate study, which used data from emergency department visits of patients with employer-sponsored health plans, and examined insurance claims data for more than 6.5 million emergency room visits made by commercially insured individuals, under age 65, in calendar year 2010, found that just 29% of those patients required immediate attention in the emergency room.

The Truven study found that the top three non-emergent diagnoses were joint disorders, atopic dermatitis, and other soft tissue diseases.

Part of the controversy surrounding ED visits is, unsurprisingly, about money. ED care is expensive compared to non-emergency settings, and not only do insurance companies have an incentive to reduce unnecessary visits in favor of lower-cost settings of care, but with the rise of high deductible health plans, so do many patients. That is especially true for patients with employer-sponsored high-deductible plans, where the patient is responsible for all medical care costs up to a certain deductible, usually several thousand dollars, in a calendar year.

Medicaid patients, to use one example, do not generally have the same cost-sharing responsibilities, although that is changing.

ER staffing companies can lead to increased surprise bills

http://www.healthcaredive.com/news/er-staffing-companies-can-lead-to-increased-surprise-bills/447751/

Dive Brief:

  • The New York Times reported that hospitals are turning more to companies like EmCare, which is one of the country’s largest physician-staffing companies for emergency rooms (ERs), to find ER doctors. Having outside doctors is causing patients to receive more expensive hospital bills because the ER doctors are considered out-of-network.
  • The Center for Public Priorities released a study earlier this year that found surprise billing is a problem that goes well beyond one company, but is an issue across the healthcare system.
  • Also, a new National Bureau of Economic Research study on out-of-network billing for emergency care found that patients who visited in-network hospitals for emergency care received out-of-network physician care 22% of the time. The study authors said: “Because patients cannot avoid out-of-network physicians during an emergency, physicians have an incentive to remain out-of-network and receive higher payment rates.”

Dive Insight:

Part of the issue with surprise billing, also known as balance billing, is thatmost states don’t have laws that protect consumers. Only six states have a “comprehensive” laws that protect against surprise billing, and there are no federal protections against the practice, according to The Commonwealth Fund.

The issue of surprise billing is another example of how the U.S. healthcare system confuses people. Patients who visit in-network hospitals often aren’t able to make sure each doctor working on them is in-network. So, they’re stuck with larger than expected hospital bills later.

Patients don’t like it for obvious reasons, and payors aren’t happy with the higher bills either. The hospital CEO the Times interviewed, Tom Wilbur of Newport Hospital in Spokane, Wash., said switching to EmCare turned out to be a fiasco as confused and angry patients started calling in. “Hindsight being 20/20, we never would have done that,” he told the paper.

A recent Commonwealth Fund study found that 14% of ER visits and 9% of hospital stays were likely to produce a surprise bill. Patients who were admitted to the hospital via the ER were more likely (20%)  to receive a surprise bill.

As health systems look to outside agencies more to fill gaps in coverage, surprise billing is not going away and could even intensify. What’s the solution? The Commonwealth Fund suggested it likely won’t come from Washington given the current toxic political climate — especially when it comes to healthcare. Instead, states will need to take up the issue in an attempt to protect consumers from getting large, unexpected hospital bills that are out of their control.

Study: Texans paid approximately 10 times more at EDs than urgent care centers for same diagnosis

http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/study-texans-paid-approximately-10-times-more-at-eds-than-urgent-care-centers-for-same-diagnosis.html

OR Efficiencies

Texans are likely to pay more at freestanding emergency departments than at hospital-based EDs or urgent care centers, according to a study published in Annals of Emergency Medicine.

For the study, researchers examined more than 16 million Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas insurance claims from 2012 to 2015. During that time period, Texans’ utilization of freestanding EDs rose 236 percent. That compares with a 10 percent jump for hospital-based emergency departments and a 24 percent jump for urgent care clinics, according to a news release.

Researchers also found the average price per visit at freestanding EDs was $1,431 in 2012 compared with $1,842 at hospital-based EDs. In 2015, the average price per visit was $2,199 at freestanding EDs and $2,259 at hospital-based EDs. However, the average price per visit at urgent care centers was $164 in 2012 and $168 in 2015, according to the study.

The study also looked at out-of-pocket liability. At freestanding EDs, patients’ out-of-pocket liability increased from 32 percent in 2012 to 35 percent in 2015, researchers said. At hospital-based EDs, the increase was 29 percent to 33 percent. And at urgent care centers, patients saw out-of-pocket liability go from 36 percent in 2012 to 38 percent in 2015.

“There was 75 percent overlap in the 20 most common diagnoses at freestanding EDs versus urgent care centers and 60 percent overlap for hospital-based EDs and urgent care centers. However, prices for patients with the same diagnosis were on average almost 10 times higher at freestanding and hospital-based EDs relative to urgent care centers,” researchers said.

The study’s authors concluded the higher prices at freestanding and hospital-based EDs “imply potential inefficient use of emergency facilities.”

3 Reasons to Tailor Emergency Departments for Seniors

http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/content/PHY-313681/3-Reasons-to-Tailor-Emergency-Departments-for-Seniors

3 Las Vegas hospitals close EDs in August due to capacity issues

http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/capacity-management/3-las-vegas-hospitals-close-eds-in-august-due-to-capacity-issues.html

 

Geneva Healthcare gives ER doctors a universal dashboard for all that cardiac device data

http://medcitynews.com/2014/08/geneva-healthcare-wants-er-doctors-one-universal-dashboard-cardiac-device-data/?utm_source=MedCity+News+Subscribers&utm_campaign=49fe1aaf1c-RSS_Medical+Devices&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c05cce483a-49fe1aaf1c-67650685

Geneva Healthcare cardiac device platform

“Boarding” Of Psychiatric Patients In Emergency Departments Unconstitutional In Washington State

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertglatter/2014/08/16/boarding-of-psychiatric-patients-in-emergency-departments-unconstitutional-in-washington-state/

Study: Calif. ED Closures Linked to Higher Patient Mortality Rates

http://www.californiahealthline.org/articles/2014/8/5/study-calif-ed-closures-linked–to-higher-patient-mortality-rates