Tag Archives: Health Policy

Rising Insulin Prices Have Diabetics Crying Foul

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

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/insulin-prices-rise-yet-again-causing-diabetics-to-cry-foul/

Image result for Rising Insulin Prices Have Diabetics Crying Foul

Insulin prices are only getting more painful.

Drugmakers Eli Lilly (LLY) and Novo Nordisk recently boosted their insulin list prices by almost 8 percent each, adding to concerns that treating diabetes is unaffordable for some patients. The average price of insulin almost tripled between 2002 and 2013, according to the American Diabetes Association (ADA). Even before the most recent price hike, some diabetics were cutting back or even going without the drug because of its expense.

The price hikes come at a sensitive time for the drugmakers as Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk and rival Sanofi-Aventis are facing a class-action lawsuit alleging they conspired to raise their prices in lockstep. Almost one in 10 Americans has diabetes, a group of conditions where the body fails to properly regulate blood sugar. People with Type 1 diabetes, often referred to as juvenile diabetes, need to take insulin daily to stay alive.

“We were really disappointed in this announcement,” said Dr. William Cefalu, the chief scientific, medical and mission officer for the ADA, who noted that his organization has partnerships for research with the drugmakers. “This is really going in the wrong direction.”

 

Lobby groups to watch in Senate healthcare fight

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

Lobby groups to watch in Senate healthcare fight

Image result for Lobby Groups to Watch in Senate Health Care Fight

Lobbying groups opposed to the House’s healthcare reform bill are pinning their hopes on the Senate for big changes.

Industry groups felt largely cut out of the House’s drafting and passage of the American Health Care Act and now are clamoring for action to fix what they view as serious defects in the legislation.

Major hospital and doctor associations, for example, want people with health insurance to stay covered and are pushing to ensure adequate funding for the Medicaid program.

Characterizing this wish list, one healthcare lobbyist put it simply: “Coverage, coverage, coverage.”

AARP, meanwhile, is urging the Senate to start from scratch on a new healthcare bill. The powerful lobbying group for senior citizens believes the legislation, in its current form, creates  “an unaffordable age tax” for older Americans.

Here are the industries and groups to watch as senators write their healthcare reform bill.

Hospitals

Just a day after the House released its bill, the American Hospital Association (AHA) sent a letter to lawmakers in opposition — and that position hasn’t changed.

In a statement after the bill’s passage through the House, AHA President and CEO Rick Pollack said he was “disappointed” because the bill “jeopardize[s] coverage for millions of Americans” and “makes deep cuts to Medicaid.”

The association’s voice carries weight, as it represents nearly 5,000 member hospitals and healthcare systems and is the sixth-highest spender on lobbying this year, according to OpenSecrets.

About 24 million people would become uninsured under the House bill, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO). An updated score from the CBO is expected next week.

Other hospital organizations have also panned the House’s healthcare bill, including the Federation of American Hospitals and America’s Essential Hospitals.

Hospital associations want a bill that won’t result in millions more without health coverage and are looking to prevent the CBO-estimated $880 billion in Medicaid cuts. They say the proposed reductions will make it more difficult for hospitals to deliver care.

One hospital advocate said its group is having serious conversations on the policy recommendations it can make to the Senate to help protect patients and hospitals from the costs that could fall on their shoulders.

Healthcare providers

The fourth-largest lobbying spender this year, the American Medical Association (AMA), is also a vocal critic of the House bill.

On Monday, the group representing physicians and medical students sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) to “reaffirm the principles” that they say should guide any bill that changes ObamaCare.

Health coverage is a top priority for the group.

“Throughout the current debate we have consistently recommended that any proposals to replace portions of the current law should pay special attention to ensure that individuals currently covered do not lose access to affordable, quality health insurance coverage,” AMA CEO James Madara wrote in the letter.

The group is pushing to retain protections for pre-existing conditions and ensure states that expanded Medicaid under ObamaCare isn’t put at risk.

The AMA also says the new tax credits in the Republican bill for purchasing insurance should factor in income, geography and age. The House-passed bill only factored in age for determining a credit, increasing the size of the subsidy as a person gets older.

The American College of Surgeons, consisting of more than 80,000 members, didn’t formally oppose the House bill. Yet it had concerns about the bill’s access to surgical care and ability to let states opt out of requiring insurers to cover a list of 10 categories of services.

“Making sure that patients have insurance that is needed to making sure that they have timely access to surgical care was important, and I know will continue to be important to the American College of Surgeons as we review a Senate bill,” Christian Shalgian, the director of the group’s division of advocacy and health policy, said.

He added: “I think we’re definitely getting a receptive ear from the Senate. They’re interested in where we’re at with what they’re going to be doing in the coming weeks and months.”

Insurers

The leading lobbying group for health insurers, America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), didn’t oppose the House bill.

But it did see room for improvement — and was quick to provide recommendations to the Senate.

Just two hours after the House passed its bill, Marilyn Tavenner, AHIP president and CEO, detailed a few proposed changes in a statement. They included bolstering tax credits for lower-income Americans, older adults and those living in areas with high healthcare costs and providing enough time for people to adjust to Medicaid changes, among others.

Insurers also have an immediate request, though: getting certainty from the administration and Congress that crucial ObamaCare payments to insurers, to the tune of about $7 billion, will continue to be made.

The Association for Community Affiliated Plans (ACAP) did come out against the bill. ACAP represents 60 nonprofit safety net plans serving those enrolled in public health programs, such as Medicaid and the children’s health insurance program.

ACAP CEO Margaret Murray said the House’s bill, if enacted, “would cause considerable damage to our health care system.” Areas of concern included Medicaid cuts and phasing out the enhanced federal funding to states that expanded the health program for the poor and disabled.

“[The bill] will severely limit access to services for the more than 70 million people who rely on Medicaid for effective health coverage — and locks states’ funding to what they spent on Medicaid in 2016,” Murray said in a statement an hour before the bill passed.

AARP

AARP says the bill has an “age tax.”

The group, which represents nearly 38 million people, opposes a provision in the House bill that would let insurance companies charge older adults five times more than younger people.

This is a change from ObamaCare, which operates under a 3-to-1 ratio — a ratio that AARP would like to keep, said David Certner, AARP’s legislative counsel. “Already at 3-to-1, it’s quite expensive,” he said.

AARP is concerned that the change to the age ratio, coupled with reduced financial assistance, will result in premiums older adults can’t afford. The CBO estimated a 64-year-old making $26,500 a year would have to pay more than half of their income in premiums under the American Health Care Act.

“AARP urges you to ‘start from scratch’ and craft health care legislation that ensures robust insurance market protections, controls costs, improves quality, and provides affordable coverage to all Americans,” AARP Executive Vice President Nancy LeaMond wrote in a letter sent to senators Monday.

House Bill Targets Pre-Existing Conditions in Multiple Ways

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

http://www.realclearhealth.com/articles/2017/05/18/house_bill_targets_pre-existing_conditions_in_multiple_ways_110599.html?utm_source=RC+Health+Morning+Scan&utm_campaign=38995c8cb7-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_05_19&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b4baf6b587-38995c8cb7-84752421

Image result for healthcare for all

For those with pre-existing medical conditions, the House-passed health bill became notorious for a last-minute addition that would let insurers once again charge them higher premiums in the individual market based on their health status. But the focus on this single provision distracts from a troubling fact: even without it, the bill would threaten health care for those with pre-existing conditions in four broader ways.

#1: The bill would cap and cut federal funding for virtually all of Medicaid by imposing a per capita cap or letting states convert Medicaid into a block grant.

A per capita cap would set annual limits on federal funding per beneficiary that would grow more slowly than actual health care costs. A block grant would cap the amount of overall federal Medicaid funding the state could receive. Either way, states would receive significantly less federal funding compared to current law, under which the federal government pays a fixed share of state Medicaid costs, and the funding cuts would grow deeper each year.

Faced with large cuts in federal funding, states would have no choice but to sharply cut their programs. Consequently, tens of millions of people with pre-existing conditions – including millions of children with disabilities and special health care needs – would face the threat of Medicaid cuts.  They could lose coverage entirely or go without needed care as states scaled back covered benefits and payments to medical providers.

Home- and community-based services, an optional Medicaid benefit that most states already limit based on available funds, would be at particular risk. These services, which include nursing and home health care and help with chores, meals, transportation, and other services, let seniors and other low-income people with serious health problems remain in their homes instead of having to go to a nursing home.

#2: The federal government wouldn’t provide any more enhanced funding after 2019 for Medicaid enrollees who were enrolled because their states took the option, under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), to expand their Medicaid programs.

That would force states to pay three to five times more for the ACA’s Medicaid expansion.  Most or all of the 31 states and Washington, D.C. that have adopted it would have no choice but to drop it because they could no longer afford it.

The Medicaid expansion now covers 11 million people, including many who have pre-existing conditions. For example, almost 30 percent of those benefitting from the Medicaid expansion have a mental illness or substance use disorder. By effectively ending the Medicaid expansion starting in 2020, the House bill would leave millions of low-income people with pre-existing conditions without coverage.

#3: The bill would let insurers charge older people — many of whom have pre-existing conditions —at least five times more to buy coverage compared to younger consumers, while also slashing the subsidies that help them afford insurance. 

For example, a 60-year-old woman with $22,000 of annual income who faced the national average benchmark premium would pay $8,200 more in premiums after accounting for federal tax credits than she does now. The Congressional Budget Office projects that uninsured rates for people age 50-64 would double due to the House bill.  Some 84 percent of people age 55-64 have pre-existing health conditions.

#4: The bill would eliminate a broad range of consumer protections that the ACA established in the individual market, threatening access to health care and coverage for those with pre-existing conditions.

Plans would no longer need to offer a comprehensive set of benefits and could exclude even core benefits such as maternity services and mental health care. Nor would they have to limit the amount that people with expensive health care must pay out-of-pocket for deductibles and other cost-sharing each year.  Insurers could again place annual and lifetime limits not only on individual and small-group plans but also on coverage that people get from large employers, leaving millions with costly pre-existing conditions to once again worry about exhausting their benefits.

All told, then, the House bill would bring back the highly-flawed, pre-ACA individual insurance market that made it impossible for millions with pre-existing conditions to get adequate, affordable health coverage.  Additionally, it would threaten the coverage of millions of Medicaid recipients with pre-existing conditions.

That’s not a health care system that should make us proud.

AHCA Would Affect Medicare, Too

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

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/blog/2017/may/ahca-would-affect-medicare?omnicid=EALERT1211869&mid=henrykotula@yahoo.com

Image result for ahca medicare

“Don’t touch my Medicare” has been a rallying cry in recent years, first as Congress considered health reform and now as it debates the fate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). While the bill that would repeal and replace the ACA—the American Health Care Act (AHCA)—does not include explicit changes to Medicare, the legislation could have a profound impact on the 11 million Medicare beneficiaries who also rely on Medicaid for key components of their care. Here’s a look at how the ACHA’s major changes in federal funding for Medicaid would affect low-income older adults and the Medicare program.

One-Third of All Medicaid Spending Is for People Covered by Medicare

Low-income Medicare beneficiaries who also are enrolled in Medicaid—often referred to as “dual eligibles”—could be disproportionately affected by congressional efforts to cut and cap federal Medicaid financing. Not only do these older adults account for one-third of all Medicaid spending, much of the Medicaid spending for low-income Medicare beneficiaries is “optional” for states.1

The nearly three-quarters (72%) of dual eligibles who receive full Medicaid benefits are most at risk under the AHCA’s funding caps.2  They tend to be in poorer health than other Medicare (and Medicaid) beneficiaries, and rely on Medicaid for high-cost services.3  While Medicare covers physician, hospital, and most other acute care, Medicaid covers some of dual eligibles’ behavioral health services as well as most of their long-term services and supports, such as nursing home and home and community-based services. Under federal law, many of these services are optional. Similarly, many low-income Medicare beneficiaries who qualify for Medicaid are “optional” beneficiaries who qualify only when they incur health and long-term care costs that are well in excess of their incomes. States can drop optional services and optional enrollees even without any new federal flexibility.

58% of Physicians ‘Strongly Negative’ on AHCA

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

http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/physician-leaders/58-physicians-strongly-negative-ahca?spMailingID=11059722&spUserID=MTY3ODg4NTg1MzQ4S0&spJobID=1161579213&spReportId=MTE2MTU3OTIxMwS2

Image result for physician health policy

Survey data suggests that physicians dislike the GOP’s American Health Care Act even more than they disliked the Affordable Care Act.

Two-thirds of physicians do not like the American Health Care Act, the Republican House bill to unwind Obamacare, while only about a quarter support it, a new survey indicates.

The survey of 1,112 physicians by the Dallas-based physician search firm Merritt Hawkins found that 66% of doctors have a negative impression of the AHCA, 26% have a positive impression, and 7% are neutral.

“Physicians have consistently expressed dissatisfaction with government-sponsored healthcare legislation in the past, and the AHCA does not reverse this trend,” Mark Smith, president of Merritt Hawkins, said in a media release. “So far, the bill rates a strongly negative diagnosis from physicians.”

In a 2016 survey of 17,236 physicians that Merritt Hawkins conducted for The Physicians Foundation, 23% of physicians gave the Affordable Care Act a grade of A or B, 28% gave it an average grade of C, while 48% gave it a D or F.

The AHCA, now being considered by the Senate, gets an even higher negative rating in the new Merritt Hawkins survey. Fifty-eight percent of those surveyed have a strongly negative impression of the bill, 8% have a somewhat negative impression, while 7% are neutral.

At the other end, 27% of physicians favor full repeal and replacement, while only 7% of respondents say keep it as it is, indicating the extent of dissatisfaction with the ACA, the HealthLeaders Media survey showed.

The Merritt Hawkins survey findings are in line with a HealthLeaders Media survey published in January, which showed that healthcare industry leaders support changes to the ACA rather than replacing it. Two-thirds of respondents (66%) said the best option for the healthcare industry regarding the ACA would be to make some changes but otherwise retain it.

Physicians Groups Denounce AHCA

Opposition to the AHCA among practicing physicians is reflected by the nation’s major physicians associations, all of which have come out against the repeal and replace proposal.

The American Medical Association, the nation’s largest physicians’ association, made clear its strong opposition to the ACHA in a March 7 letter to Congress, and again on April 27. Of course, the AMA has a long history of railing against government-sponsored healthcare.

The Merritt Hawkins survey was sent by email to about 80,000 physicians randomly selected from Merritt Hawkins’ database and has an error rate of +/- 2.87% as determined by experts in statistical response at the University of Tennessee.

GOP Senators divided over Medicaid Cuts

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

Click to access PDF%20PoliticoProDatapointGOPSenatorsMedicaidCuts.pdf

No automatic alt text available.

Early negotiations over the shape and scope of the Senate’s bill to replace the ACA have divided conservative and moderate Republicans. One critical issue: the fate of the Medicaid program.

 

 

Medicare Advantage aggressive coding or fraud

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

https://www.balloon-juice.com/category/mayhew-on-insurance/

Image result for medical coding

The New York Times has a good story from the 15th on a False Claims Act lawsuit filed by a former United Healthcare employee.  It alleges UHC systemically defrauded the US government of billions from up-coding its Medicare Advantage claims to get bigger risk adjustment payments.  This is a big deal.  Medicare knows that the incentive in Medicare Advantage is to make the patients look as sick as possible to maximize upcoding. A recent estimate has coding differentials leading to a $20 billion dollar a year payment differential between Medicare Advantage and Fee for Service Medicare for intrinsically similar patients.

At the heart of the dispute: The government pays insurers extra to enroll people with more serious medical problems, to discourage them from cherry-picking healthy people for their Medicare Advantage plans. The higher payments are determined by a complicated risk scoring system, which has nothing to do with the treatments people get from their doctors; rather, it is all about diagnoses.

Diabetes, for example, can raise risk scores by varying amounts, depending on a patient’s complications. So UnitedHealth gave people with diabetes intensive scrutiny, to see if they had any other conditions that the diabetes might have caused.

As Mr. Poehling’s lawyer, Mary Inman, described it, the government would pay UnitedHealth $9,580 a year for enrolling a 76-year-old woman with diabetes and kidney failure, for instance, but if the company claimed that her diabetes had actually caused her kidney failure, the payment rose to $12,902 — an additional $3,322. Ms. Inman is with the law firm of Constantine Cannon in San Francisco.

We need to differentiate between aggressive coding and fraud.  The key question in this example is not whether or not UHC got a doctor to say that the kidney failure was caused by diabetes but whether or not the evidence in the chart supports that assertion.

If it is medically supported from the chart, history and corroborating results, this is not fraud.  It is aggressive coding designed to maximize revenue.  If it is not supportable, then it is either fraud or abuse.  That will be the key area of argument.  Does the evidence show that the diagnosis codes that UHC is chasing are supportable by medical evidence?

Betsy Nicoletti is a coding specialist who shared her coding book with me.  I want to highlight a legitimate example of what happens at every health plan that has risk adjusted plans.  The example is about diabetes:

Post-acute care: Medicare Advantage vs. Traditional Medicare

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

Post-acute care: Medicare Advantage vs. traditional Medicare

From a public spending point of view, post-acute care is particularly problematic. Most of Medicare’s geographic spending variation is due to this type of care. Part of the story is that Medicare pays for post-acute care in several different ways, with different implications for efficiency.

For example, traditional Medicare (TM) — which spends ten percent of its total on post-acute care — pays skilled nursing facilities per diem rates but inpatient rehabilitation facilities a single payment per discharge. Post-acute care is also available through Medicare Advantage (MA), which operates under a global, per-enrollee, payment. Unlike TM, MA plans establish networks, may require prior authorization for post-acute care, and can charge more in cost-sharing for post-acute care than TM does.

These different payment models offer different incentives that may affect who receives care, in what setting, and for how long. In Health Affairs, Peter Huckfeldt, José Escarce, Brendan Rabideau, Pinar Karaca-Mandic, and Neeraj Sood assessed some of the consequences of those incentives. Focusing on hospital discharges for lower extremity joint replacement, stroke, and heart failure patients between January 2011 and June 2013, they examined subsequent admissions to skilled nursing and inpatient rehabilitation facilities, comparing admission rates, lengths of stays, hospital readmission rates, time spent in the community, and mortality for MA and TM enrollees. To do so, they used CMS data on post-acute patient assessments for patients with discharges from hospitals that received disproportionate share or medical education payments from Medicare.

Medicare’s Bundled Payment Programs Suffer From Fatal Flaws, But There Is A Logical Alternative

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

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2017/05/09/medicares-bundled-payment-programs-suffer-from-fatal-flaws-but-there-is-a-logical-alternative/

Several authors from the Brookings Institution recently argued in favor of making Medicare’s Bundled Payment for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative mandatory. While the principles guiding their recommendations are sound, the recommendations themselves fail to acknowledge five fatal methodological flaws within the BPCI program. Their analysis also overlooks the most logical and reasonable alternative: a physician-focused episode-of-care payment model.

The ‘Medicaidization’ Of The Health Insurance Marketplaces: A Necessary Trend

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

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2017/05/08/the-medicaidization-of-the-health-insurance-marketplaces-a-necessary-trend/

A woman helps someone sign up for health insurance at healthcare.gov

When stripped of emotion and hyperbole, the debate about repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is fundamentally about how to stretch limited funds to offer health care to two populations in need: the poor, who receive health care through Medicaid, and the “near-poor,” who were frequently without coverage prior to the ACA’s enactment. While millions of the near-poor remain uninsured today, six out of 10 limited-income individuals who purchased health care through the ACA’s health insurance Marketplaces were uninsured prior to the ACA. It is this near-poor and recently insured population, and how to cost-effectively provide health care for them, that is the focus of this post.

Many insurers have ably managed their sicker- and poorer-than-expected Marketplace membership by borrowing from the playbook of the most similar market, Medicaid. In short, we believe that the “Medicaidization” of the Marketplaces is a necessary and positive trend, and we remind policy makers that regardless of legislation or regulatory change, health plans must employ the Medicaidization playbook to well-serve a population that both parties believe needs coverage.

Health insurance Marketplaces—the centerpiece of the ACA—provide health insurance in government-refereed individual and small-group markets. However, health plans offering coverage through Marketplaces have been confronted with challenges. Enrollment is roughly 12 million, far behind original Congressional Budget Office projections of 21 million by 2016. This is largely because fewer employers than expected dropped employee coverage after the law passed and because many younger and healthier people have chosen to remain uninsured or covered by their parents’ insurance. As a whole, Marketplace enrollees are sicker and more costly than expected, and more than 80 percent receive means-tested subsidies to buy down some of their insurance costs. Furthermore, lawsuits and congressional actions have hobbled the ACA’s risk mitigation programs and threaten its subsidies. As a result, several health plans left the Marketplaces in 2017 in many states, and at least one—Humana—will exit entirely in 2018.

While the struggles of the ACA-reformed markets and the insurers that operate within those markets are well-documented, there have also been some success stories. Medicaid-focused health plans, as well as commercial plans that adopted tactics common in the Medicaid market, have performed at near break-even or better while serving the near-poor population in the Marketplaces. The relative success of Medicaid-focused plans in the Marketplaces contrasts with the struggles of national for-profit insurers and has led to the Medicaidization of the Marketplaces.

The term “Medicaidization” is not new to this post. It has been used by others, sometimes with a negative connotation. So it is helpful to define the term more precisely. Medicaidization, as used here, describes a set of practices—from sensitivity to sociocultural issues to utilization management—that have evolved to serve the Medicaid population. Because of socioeconomic disadvantage and poor health, this population responds to its health care needs very differently than other populations. However, the term “Medicaidization” belies the fact that health plans beyond those that focus on Medicaid are capable of deploying these same practices—such as several Blues and provider-owned plans—as described below.