Dinged, Dented, Defiant: The ACA Is Still Standing

https://www.healthleadersmedia.com/dinged-dented-defiant-aca-still-standing

Texas v. Azar is the latest in a long line of lawsuits and legislation that Republicans have used to undermine the Affordable Care Act, which has shown itself to be remarkably resilient.


KEY TAKEAWAYS

A federal judge in Texas could slap a preliminary injunction on the ACA.

The case is the latest in a long string of efforts to dismantle the ACA since its inception in 2010.

A federal judge in Texas is poised to drop a ruling that could determine the future of the Affordable Care Act.

Or, maybe not.

The Republican plaintiffs from 20 states in Texas v. Azar argued before U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor in early September that the entire ACA became unconstitutional when Congress zeroed out the individual mandate penalty, effective 2019.

Led by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, the Republican plaintiffs are asking for a preliminary injunction. The Department of Justice, which declined to defend portions of the ACA, also urged O’Conner to delay any injunction until after the enrollment period, saying any attempts to impose the injunction during the enrollment period would invite “chaos.”

If the injunction goes through, it could end premium subsidies for ACA beneficiaries and cripple enrollment. The Urban Institute has estimated that 17 million people would lose their health insurance coverage if the ACA was overturned.

As potentially catastrophic as this sounds, the healthcare sector doesn’t seem to be overly concerned. In fact, business couldn’t be better.

A report in Axios shows that many players in the healthcare sector are prospering under the ACA. The website notes that S&P 500 healthcare index of 63 major companies has grown by 186% since the ACA became law in 2010, outstripping the S&P 500 and the Dow Jones.

In addition, health insurance companies are flush. Shares of UnitedHealth Group have gone up more than 700% since 2010, and the stock price of ACA marketplace insurer Centene has gone up 1,100% over the same period, Axios reports.

While hospitals have had a tougher time of it, especially in states that refused to expand Medicaid, they’re still seeing reductions in charity care and bad debt owing.

Regardless of how O’Connor rules in Texas v. Azar, ACA payers, providers, and other stakeholders will continue to presume that the law isn’t going anywhere, says healthcare economist Gail Wilensky.

“They’re assuming it’ll be around, or something very similar will be,” says Wilensky, a former director of Medicare and Medicaid, and a former chair of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.

“I don’t think people are regarding any serious likelihood of it going away again,” she says.

Even if O’Connor, appointed to the court in 2007 by President George W. Bush, agrees with the severability arguments raised by the Republican governors and attorneys general in 20 states who brought the suit, the matter likely would get shot down on appeal, Wilensky says.

” I would be surprised if it doesn’t get reversed someplace else,” says Wilensky, now a senior fellow at Project HOPE.

“If it had go all the way to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court isn’t going to tolerate it, but I don’t know that it would even get that far,” she says.

The case is just one in a long string of legal and legislative actions Republicans are taking at the state and federal level to either undermine or bolster the ACA.

Earlier this year, O’Connor sided with Texas and five other states and threw out an Obama administration tax on states receiving Medicaid funds.

The Republican-controlled Congress has tried more than 50 times to repeal Obamacare, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said this week that Republicans may try again in 2019.

While the signature legislation of the Obama era has been dinged and dented, it’s also proven to be remarkably resilient.

Wilensky says the ACA is resilient because it solves a problem “for a small but non-trivial group of people,” and that Republicans don’t have a credible alternative.

“Once a benefit is in place for any measurable amount of time, certainly two or three years would qualify, there’s no precedent for removing it,” she says.

“And most of the proposals that had come up did not seriously get the job done,” Wilensky says.

“They really weren’t effective as an alternative and you simply aren’t going to take away a benefit, like the extension of insurance to people who are above the poverty line and not offered traditionally employer sponsored insurance without having a credible alternative.

“It’s just not going to happen because there are too many issues that have already been adjudicated at a more serious level,” Wilensky says. “I don’t know why they did this other than that this is 20 attorneys general and they’re running for something.”

 

 

 

 

Both Parties Seek to Energize Base Voters on Health Issues

http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/both-parties-seek-to-energize-base-voters-on-health-issues?utm_source=just-in&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=energize-health-parties&utm_content=101918&bt_ee=05ccTe0Lp820lMqsIKZ9rsEC84uBk8tCGVMHpj2I80iDh%2BrNDK%2BwJpRqg0%2BFWTO2&bt_ts=1539981664412

Image result for pre existing conditions

As Republicans talk Obamacare repeal, Democrats re-emphasize top issue.

Democrats are seeking to energize their core supporters by repeating Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s remark this week that Republicans hope to revive a push to overhaul the 2010 health care law.

“McConnell gave us a gift,” Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer told MSNBC on Friday. “That’s a game-changer when he shows who he is and wants to really hurt people on health care.”

McConnell said Wednesday that the GOP may pursue repeal next year if it wins enough seats in the elections. The Kentucky Republican also said entitlement programs such as Medicare and Medicaid are driving deficits.

Democratic candidates are issuing press releases and tweets warning that a GOP-controlled Congress might roll back the law and its protections for pre-existing conditions, which has enjoyed growing support nationwide since Republicans targeted it last year. They also say Republicans want to reduce the growth of popular entitlement programs.

But McConnell appears to expect the idea of repeal to also rile up GOP base voters. For months, polls have shown that health care is the top issue for Democratic voters, but Republicans still want to repeal the health care law, also known as the Affordable Care Act.

“Republicans overwhelmingly disapprove of the law,” said Ashley Kirzinger, a senior survey analyst at the Kaiser Family Foundation. “I think that Sen. McConnell is trying this out because despite the fact that some of the provisions that are part of the ACA are really popular, the ACA overall is still not.”

A Kaiser Family Foundation poll released Thursday found that of Republican voters who said health care was their top campaign issue this year, 18 percent said they specifically meant repealing the health care law. That comes behind 23 percent of survey respondents who said they meant addressing high health care costs.

In Nevada, where health care has been a marquee issue in the Senate race between Republican incumbent Dean Heller and Democratic Rep. Jacky Rosen, 29 percent of GOP voters said a candidate’s commitment to overhauling the law is most important to determining their votes.

In Florida, where the health care law is less of an issue in the Senate race between Democratic incumbent Bill Nelson and Republican Gov. Rick Nelson, 31 percent of Republican voters said wanting to scale it back is the most important issue in determining who they would vote for.

But while Republican voters may say they’re clamoring for Congress to overhaul the law, GOP candidates are not talking loudly about their plans to do so on the campaign trail. When it comes to health care, many are campaigning to protect pre-existing conditions, which the 2010 law does. Polls show a majority of voters across the political spectrum support keeping that provision.

GOP on defense

President Donald Trump said Thursday on Twitter that if any Republican did not support pre-existing conditions coverage, “they will after I speak to them.”

Texas GOP Sen. Ted Cruz built his national political ambitions around his opposition to the health care law, going so far as to shut down the government in 2013. Now, as he faces off against Democratic Rep. Beto O’Rourke, Cruz has taken a quieter tone on the law, vowing to maintain protections for pre-existing conditions although he has said he wants to roll back other parts of the law.

While Republicans say they could revisit legislation to overhaul the law, they’re also doubling down on a commitment to guarantee coverage for people with pre-existing conditions. Those protections have become a focal point across the country after the Trump administration declined to defend those provisions against a lawsuit. A group of conservative state officials sued to overturn the law after Republicans used a tax overhaul last year to effectively end the requirement that most Americans have health insurance.

The repeal measure that House Republicans passed last year would have weakened protections for pre-existing conditions by allowing states to seek waivers that would allow insurers to charge sick patients more for coverage. In the Senate, Cruz proposed to let insurers sell plans that do not meet all of the health care law’s requirements if they also offer policies that do comply with it, which health experts said would lead to higher costs for sick patients.

In both chambers, allowing insurers to sell plans that would not comply with all of the law’s requirements were critical to earning votes from more conservative members.

Two Republican lawmakers fighting for re-election, Reps. David Young of Iowa and Pete Sessions of Texas, each recently proposed nonbinding resolutions that commit to protecting pre-existing conditions if a federal judge rolls back the protections.

U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor has yet to rule on the lawsuit by the conservative state officials, but said during oral arguments last month that he would try to do so as soon as possible. The administration asked that O’Connor postpone judgment until after the sign-up period for insurance sold on the federal and state exchanges ends in December in order to avoid chaos in the markets.

 

Health Care in America – The Experience of People with Serious Illness

http://features.commonwealthfund.org/health-care-in-america?_ga=2.69920404.568922675.1539785477-833267550.1532293701

Image result for Health Care in America - The Experience of People with Serious Illness

Listening to People with Serious Illness

These are just a few of the many voices of people with serious illness. They express the bewilderment and the loss of control. They convey fear that the system is indifferent to their needs and that the cost of care is beyond their reach. They reflect the joy of feeling well enough to get back to the familiar parts of life.

Most Americans expect the health care system will deliver effective treatment and support them through trying times when they get sick. But in reality, health care in America sometimes hurts even as it helps. Appointments can be difficult to get. Clinics and emergency rooms are often overcrowded. Doctors’ recommendations can be confusing and difficult to follow. And when the bills arrive, the costs can be unexpected and devastating. More than 40 million adults in the United States experienced serious illness in the past three years. More than 41 million provided unpaid care to elderly adults during the past year.

Health Care in America: The Experience of People with Serious Illness, a project of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, the New York Times, and the Commonwealth Fund, is examining the experiences of Americans with serious illness — the sickest of the sick — and those who help care for them. Our goal is to understand whether our health care system is doing all it can do not just to treat illness but to help people cope with illness. Where is the system failing to meet people’s needs? How is it adding to already heavy burdens? Can the most seriously ill Americans afford the care our health system delivers?

To help answer these and other questions, we surveyed nearly 1,500 Americans with serious illness and the friends or family members caring for them. We considered someone to have serious illness if, within the past three years, they had two or more hospital stays and visits with three or more doctors. Below we discuss what we found. We then point to opportunities to help ensure that American health care not only saves people but also supports them in their time of need.

Serious Illness: A Life-Altering Journey

People going through serious illness often experience profound loss: loss of control, loss of independence, loss of time, and the loss of capabilities that most of us take for granted. The physical, emotional, and financial toll can be life-altering. It can mean an end to the activities that give life pleasure; growing isolation from friends, family, and familiar places; and an inability to work or support others. And there is the worry of being a burden on family and friends.

People with serious illness experience distress over and above the physical symptoms of their specific condition. And our new survey reveals that many are distressed. Sixty-two percent feel anxious, confused, or helpless at some point. Nearly half have emotional or psychological problems. Social isolation, a known risk factor for worse health outcomes, is common, with one-third of respondents reporting feeling left out, lacking in companionship, or isolated from others.

Many people with serious illness want to continue working or continue to provide care for family and friends who need their help, but they face high hurdles. Nearly three of four have had problems related to work or their ability to care for others (Appendix 1). Half reported being unable to do their job as well as they could before. Twenty-nine percent lost a job or had to change jobs. Half reported wanting to work but being unable to do so.

Our Health Care System Often Adds to the Burden of Illness

It’s fair to say that several consequences of serious illness — the distress, isolation, confusion, and lost earnings — are simply part of being sick. In some cases, they are probably inevitable. But being sick in America also means carrying some burdens that our health care system foists upon us.

Americans have high expectations for their health care. Most believe that when serious illness strikes, their health professionals will be fully prepared to make a diagnosis and provide appropriate treatment. This belief is not wholly unwarranted, of course. News stories brim with pioneering medical advances. For people with what were once fatal and untreatable diseases, there are now cures. Once harrowing chemotherapy regimens have been replaced by pills taken once a day. New technologies are improving the quality of life for many people with serious disabilities.

A health care system that promises so much would seem capable of minimizing the burdens of illness and care, of helping people cope. But for too many, American health care does the opposite: it places unexpected and unnecessary burdens on the sick. People struggle to obtain effective treatments and services. Pervasive fragmentation and lack of coordination across the health system make obtaining services heavy labor for people with advanced illnesses or frailty.

How common are such problems for this vulnerable group? In our survey, six of 10 people with serious illness reported at least one problem receiving care (Appendix 2). The difficulties people reported are symptomatic of the confusing patchwork that is health care in the United States. Nearly a third of those with serious illness spoke of trouble understanding what their health insurance covered. Twenty-nine percent reported being sent for duplicate tests or diagnostic procedures by different doctors, nurses, or other health care workers. Twenty-three percent of respondents said they experienced a problem with conflicting recommendations from the health professionals that saw them. One of five had difficulty understanding a doctor’s bill — a confusion not just about the costs of care but about what services were provided.

Unnecessary tests and procedures are not only redundant and costly. They carry their own risks to health. Safety in health care is, in fact, an ongoing challenge, especially for patients requiring complex care plans. Nearly one of four adults in our survey reported a serious medical error in their care. We know from other studies that people with serious illness are especially prone to diagnostic errors, prescribing errors, and communication mishaps. Every doctor and many patients can recall missed abnormal lab results, failure to account for allergies, and lost information that led to terrible side effects, or even death.

Paying for Care: Teetering on the Edge of Financial Ruin

Health care can be extraordinarily expensive for anyone, but especially so for people with serious illness. Millions of Americans are ruined financially by the costs of their treatment. Although most survey respondents reported having insurance coverage, nearly one in 10 were uninsured. Even with coverage, many are not adequately protected from health care costs. More than half of people with serious illness in our survey (representing more than 21 million people) experienced one or more dire financial consequences related to their care (Appendix 3).

Apart from its sometimes lasting health consequences, serious illness also appears to cause long-term financial problems for many. More than one-third of survey respondents used up most or all of their savings. Nearly one-quarter were unable to pay for basic necessities like food, heat, or housing. Nearly a third were contacted by a collection agency for unpaid bills. And the financial consequences are not felt by patients alone. More than one in four survey respondents reported that the costs of care placed a major burden on their family.

What Can Be Done to Improve the Experience of the Seriously Ill?

The burdens described above are not an inevitable companion to serious illness. They are a consequence — at times inadvertent, but no less real — of how our health system operates today. But things could be different. It is fully within our means as a nation to improve the experience of the millions of Americans living with serious illness and the millions more who help care for them.

In fact, strategies for delivering a better health care experience — one that ensures comprehensive, holistic care while always respecting the dignity of the individual — already exist. They just need to be adopted on a much wider scale.

  1. Build the capacity to identify and manage the behavioral health needs of patients and their caregivers. Integrating behavioral health services into medical care requires more than simply improving communication among siloed professionals. Multidisciplinary care teams that include behaviorists, social workers, and patients working together can ease the sense of helplessness, the loss, and the social isolation that seriously ill people commonly experience.
  2. Assess and address social service needs. Our findings illustrate that the impact of serious illness extends well beyond the medical realm. Many people cannot work while dealing with a life-threatening condition. This means fewer resources at a time when expenses can increase dramatically. Access to and support for reliable transportation, supportive housing, nutritious meals, and other services are critical to helping the seriously ill maintain a level of well-being.

  3. Make it easier for patients, caregivers, and professionals to work in close coordination with one another. Patients want their clinicians and other providers to talk to each other — and they want in on the conversation, too. Providers can improve communication with each other, with patients, and with caregiving family members and friends by taking full advantage of advances in consumer-friendly digital tools like secure texting, email, telehealth, and social media platforms. Coordination could be further enhanced by care managers or community health workers who check in on patients and caregivers between appointments and connect them to needed services.
  4. Make care more affordable. Universal health insurance coverage is a fundamental protection against the cost of unexpected illness. It not only guards against the threat of financial ruin but minimizes the costs incurred by everyone else when sick people who are uninsured (or underinsured) show up in emergency rooms or hospitals, which by law must treat everyone in need of care. Guaranteed coverage of preexisting conditions is especially important to those who have experienced serious illness and would otherwise be denied coverage by insurers. Keeping out-of-pocket costs like copayments and coinsurance reasonable not only prevents bills from going unpaid but makes it easier for patients to stick with their preventive care regimen, avoid repeated emergency room visits and hospitalizations, and maintain progress in their treatment.

Conclusion

Americans have high expectations for their health system. They spend more than the citizens of any other country with the hope that the right care will be there for them when serious illness strikes. But along with the treatments and services that can improve life for the seriously ill come an unwanted and unnecessary set of physical, emotional, and financial burdens. These burdens result from the choices made by policymakers, practitioners, payers, and others. Listening to the voices of people with serious illness, reckoning with the human costs of our current system, and lifting the burdens that health care places on us when we become sick may be the most important work health care can undertake.

 

Is Medicare for All the Answer to Sky-High Administrative Costs?

Is Medicare for All the Answer to Sky-High Administrative Costs?

Related image

 

Calls for a Medicare for All system are growing louder. Many Democrats have embraced it, while President Trump said last week that it would raise health care costs drastically.

Democrats say that giving people the option to partake in Medicare — no matter their age — will actually cut costs.

American administrative costs for health care are the highest in the world, and they argue that one advantage of Medicare for All is that it would save money because Medicare’s administrative costs are below those of private insurers.

Does that argument hold up?

Medicare’s administrative costs were $8.1 billion last year, or 1.1 percent of total spending, close to the proportion it has been in recent years.

But some have argued that the actual cost is higher because of services performed for Medicare by other parts of the government that aren’t accounted for: The Social Security Administration collects premiums, the Internal Revenue Service collects taxes for the program, the F.B.I. provides fraud prevention services, and at least seven other federal agencies and departments also do work that benefits Medicare.

The claim that these administrative costs are overlooked is false. As annual reporting of Medicare’s finances plainly states, they are accounted for.

But there is something missing from the $8.1 billion Medicare administrative cost figure, as Kip Sullivan explains in a 2013 paper published in the Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law. Although it accurately accounts for the federal government’s administrative costs, it does not include those borne by private plans that also offer Medicare benefits.

In addition to the traditional (public) Medicare plan, Medicare is also available from private plans through the Medicare Advantage program. Today, one-third of people using Medicare are in such plans, up from about one-fifth a decade ago. Moreover, all Medicare drug benefits are administered through private plans.

National Health Expenditure data shows both the government’s administrative costs for Medicare and those of Medicare’s private plans. Putting them together for the most recent year available (2016), they reach $47 billion, or 7 percent of total Medicare spending — well above the administrative costs borne directly by the Medicare program.

Medicare’s private drug benefit plans incur administrative costs that are about 11 percent of their spending. All of this additional, private administrative cost is paid for by taxpayers and, through their premiums, people who use Medicare.

Medicare’s direct administrative costs are not only low, but they also have been falling over the years, as a percent of total program spending. Yet the program’s total administrative costs — including those of the private plans — have been rising.

“This reflects a shift toward more enrollment in private plans,” Mr. Sullivan said. “The growth of those plans has raised, not lowered, overall Medicare administrative costs.”

Making an accurate estimate of the administrative costs of Medicare for All would depend, in part, on whether it would be more like an expansion of traditional Medicare (with its 1.1 percent administrative cost rate) or of all of Medicare, including its private plans (with a combined 7 percent administrative cost rate).

Yet both figures are well below private insurers’ administrative costs, which run about 13 percent of spending (this also includes profit), according to America’s Health Insurance Plans, an advocacy organization for the industry.

Some critics have argued that Medicare’s administrative cost rate appears artificially low because Medicare enrollees’ health spending is so high. Average Medicare spending per beneficiary is just over $12,000 per year; for an average worker in a private plan, it’s about $6,000. If you simply divide administrative costs by total spending, you will get a lower number for Medicare for this reason alone.

This is true, but the government’s administrative costs for Medicare are still below those of private plans. The government’s administrative costs are about $132 per person compared with over $700 for private plans. One reason Medicare’s are so much lower is that it reaps economies of scale. It also benefits from not needing to do much marketing, and it doesn’t earn profits.

The Dose, Episode Two: A Menu of Medical Prices

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/alert/22431?omnicid=EALERT1489433&mid=henrykotula@yahoo.com

Image result for the commonwealth club of california

In this episode of The Dose  — the Commonwealth Fund’s new health policy podcast — host Shanoor Seervai speaks with Natacha Lemaire, a French citizen who spent a year in the U.S. for a fellowship and experienced surprise and frustration as she learned to navigate the U.S. health system.

Coming from France, where everyone has coverage, Natacha was struck by the high costs of care in the U.S., the lack of transparency around prices, and the frequency with which medical tests were ordered.

The Dose will get you up to date on the latest research, personal stories about health care and the health system, and innovations that could make life easier for patients, family, and caregivers.

Click here to listen, and then subscribe wherever you get your favorite podcasts.

 

 

Doctors Like to Think Big Pharma Doesn’t Sway Them. It Does

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-10-04/doctors-often-don-t-see-conflict-of-interest-in-drug-company-cash?srnd=opinion

Doctors Like to Think Big Pharma Doesn’t Sway Them. It Does.

Doctors, when surveyed, say they are opposed to the very idea of skewing their prescribing practice in favor of companies giving them money. The problem is, they still take lots of money in the form of honoraria, speaking fees, research grants, and outright gifts from pharmaceutical and medical device companies. Research suggests they can then fail to recognize that they’ve been influenced.

Psychologists George Loewenstein and Don Moore argued in a 2004 paper that while people consciously think about their professional obligations, the other half of a conflict — self-interest — is “automatic, viscerally compelling and often unconscious.” That theme keeps returning in more recent research.

As MD turned ethics professor Sunita Sah of Georgetown University concluded in a review paper, even if doctors don’t recognize what’s going on, those in the pharmaceutical industry understand social psychology and know what works. Reciprocity is a part of human nature, and field studies have shown that doctors change their practices to reciprocate gifts and favors. Those who ultimately lose in this game are the patients, who are at risk of prescriptions that are not entirely in their best interest.

Every once in a while an extreme case leads to a dramatic downfall. That happened recently when a New York Times/ProPublica story revealed that Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center’s chief medical officer Jose Baselga had accepted millions from industry and then written numerous scientific papers without disclosing financial ties to the companies whose products he was studying.

He resigned within days. The larger problem remains: Conflict of interest is the norm in medicine. According to a 2007 survey, 94 percent of physicians had some sort of industry ties. And as Sah and other social scientists have shown in their research, this can bias their behavior even as they insist they are above it.

Sense of entitlement is a big factor in physicians’ acceptance of industry money. In one study she co-wrote with Loewenstein, doctors were more likely to agree they would accept industry payments when they were reminded of their sacrifices — years of medical school, debt incurred, sleep deprivation when on call. She compared the attitude to that expressed in the famous commercial for L’Oreal hair products: “I’m worth it.”

In addition to the lure of money, pharma and medical device companies can appeal to physicians’ egos by anointing them “key opinion leaders.” In one of her papers, Sah quotes one such leader, a psychiatrist, saying: “It strokes your narcissism. … The first thing they do is take you to a really nice hotel. And sometimes they pick you up in a limo, and you feel very important, and they have really, really good food.”

In another study, which examined conflict of interest and bias across professions, Sah and Lowenstein showed that people were less likely to offer biased, self-serving advice when they worked with individuals, known by name. In experiments, subjects designated as advisers could guide advisees in a number estimation game — the adviser having access to more information than the advisees. The advisers could benefit from causing advisees to make an overestimate, while the advisees benefited from getting the number right.

When they were giving advice to individuals, advisers were less likely to act selfishly. When dealing with groups, self-interest became a bigger factor, though subjects weren’t aware of the change. They reported afterward that they were unbiased and gave good advice. In interpreting the findings, the researchers suggested that in doctor-patient relationships, empathy might guide decisions. But people have more trouble feeling empathy toward nameless groups, as they would in, say, making clinical guidelines or public health recommendations. Grants for studies also appears to create a bias. Industry-funded studies are more likely than independent ones to show a product is effective, according to a 2017 review.

Disclosure rules are supposed to limit the damage, but other studies show they don’t help much. In a 2005 paper, researchers argued that advisers feel “morally licensed and strategically encouraged” to give even more erroneous or exaggerated advice once a conflict was disclosed. In another paper, Sah and colleagues showed that patients were just as likely to take advice after a conflict-of-interest disclosure. Some thought that if a doctor owned a stake in an imaging center, for example, then he or she must have expertise. Others reported they felt awkward about refusing. After a conflict-of-interest disclosure, she said, “advice can be harder to turn down because it suggests you think the doctor is biased and corrupt.”

The main benefit is that disclosure rules can discourage providers from taking money that creates a conflict in the first place. There is hope, however, that doctors can be more principled than other kinds of advisers. In a recent study, volunteers were asked to play the role of either doctors or financial advisers and were placed in a conflict situation where they could make money at the expense of advisees. Those who were reminded of their responsibility as doctors gave less selfish advice, and those reminded of their role as financial advisers gave more selfish advice. When researchers carried out the same experiment with real doctors and financial advisers, Sah said, they got pretty much the same result.

So maybe doctors are a little special after all, in that they work by professional standards that put patients’ well-being above fancy dinners, prestige and the almighty dollar. But with drug companies and others cleverly playing to doctors’ selfish desires, they may sometimes need a reminder. 

 

 

10 thoughts on the state of healthcare from Scott Becker

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/hospital-management-administration/10-thoughts-on-the-state-of-healthcare-from-scott-becker.html

1. Healthcare, given that we have 325 million-plus people in the U.S. with an aging and growing population that is living longer, is a very complex problem.

2. When I hear any executive, technology person or sales person look at an audience and say, “If everyone would just use this type of coaching app for diabetes or behavioral health, we would cut billions of dollars in costs,” I cringe, scoff, laugh and tend to get angry. I recently heard this in a speech I listened to.

3. Healthcare at its core is really taking care of individual patients. I see the theories behind population health and preventive health but I’m skeptical that it’s a fix-all.

4. When people say there should be no fee for service, I tend to think they’re representing some constituency. I assume at some level someone will still need to get paid to do something.

5. Hospitals and physicians and many providers will struggle as they become more reliant on governmental pay and as commercial patients are siphoned off. Government reimbursements will soften.

6. I’m not so dumb as to not see the irony in the campaign signs that said “get the government’s hands off my Medicare.”

7. Notwithstanding No. 6, whenever the government does place fingers on the scale, they are often wrong, and it often has massive unintended consequences.

8. The system costs with 325 million-plus people in the U.S. are crazy and insurance costs per family are insane.

9. Both parties are tone deaf as to the needs of the American people. Simply stated people that are poor need healthcare, and people that aren’t poor need affordable healthcare. These people are both Republicans and Democrats.

10. Given the quasi-monopolies of insurance companies in certain areas and the lack of insurance options, it’s likely we will need some sort of public option at some point.

 

11 headwinds facing hospitals and health systems

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/hospital-management-administration/11-headwinds-facing-hospitals-and-health-systems.html

Related image

It’s not all bleak and this is part of a larger talk on healthcare as a zero sum game. But here are 11 headwinds facing systems.

1. Pharmaceutical costs particularly non-generic.

2. Payers expanding into providers and combining with providers.

3. Payer market share.

4. Health IT and cybersecurity costs.

5. Labor costs and a labor intensive business.

6. High costs of bricks and mortar.

7. Medicare as a larger percentage of health system revenue and Medicare reimbursement softening now and over time as federal deficits rise.

8. Slowing overall healthcare inflation as hospital costs rise.

9. Siphoning off of better paying commercial patients.

10. Siphoning off of profitable ancillaries.

11. Entry of big technology firms into healthcare.

Test for the ACA

Image result for legal test for ACA
The politics and substantive rules of the road for the Affordable Care Act are more stable now than they have been in years. But chaos is never far away.

What to watch: The upcoming ACA enrollment season, which starts Nov. 1, will be the first one with the Trump administration’s agenda fully in place, and it will test just how effective that agenda is.

  • For the first time, the ACA’s individual mandate won’t be in effect, and consumers will actually be able to the buy cheaper, skimpier insurance plans the Trump administration has been positioning as an alternative to ACA coverage.
  • Insurers don’t like some of these changes on the merits. But they’ve known all this was coming, and generally feel they have a pretty good handle on how badly these policies will affect the market for ACA coverage. The next enrollment window will tell them whether they guessed correctly.

This period of relative certainty could come undone in court.

  • The very early tea leaves suggest that the latest legal challenge to the ACA might have more legs than legal experts initially thought.
  • The red states leading that lawsuit want the courts to strike down the entire law; the Trump administration wants them to only strike down protections for pre-existing conditions. Either outcome would plunge health care back into policy and political chaos.

The bottom line: We’re either adjusting to the new normal, or in the calm before the storm. A federal judge in Texas and a six-week enrollment period will tell us which. — Sam Baker

Sign up for Sam’s daily Vitals newsletter here.