Hearing Planned In Boston For Proposed 13-Hospital Merger

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2018/04/08/massachusetts-hospital-merger-boston-council-hearing/

Image result for Hearing Planned In Boston For Proposed 13-Hospital Merger

 

The Boston City Council is planning to hold a public hearing on one of the largest hospital mergers ever proposed in Massachusetts.

The 13-hospital deal would result in the merger of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center hospitals, The Lahey Health system, along with New England Baptist Hospital in Boston, Mount Auburn Hospital in Cambridge, and Anna Jaques Hospital in Newburyport.

The hospitals hope to create a health network that can compete with Partners HealthCare, the parent company of Massachusetts General and Brigham and Women’s hospitals.

Not everyone is on board. Critics say creating a second hospital behemoth is the wrong direction for the state.

The hearing is scheduled for Tuesday morning at Boston City Hall.

A staff report from the state Department of Public Health has recommended the deal’s approval.

Consolidating California: Concentrated Provider Markets and Rising Prices

http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/finance/consolidating-california-concentrated-provider-markets-and-rising-prices?utm_source=edit&utm_medium=ENL&utm_campaign=HLM-FIN-SilverPop_04092018&spMailingID=13279518&spUserID=MTY3ODg4NTg1MzQ4S0&spJobID=1380773897&spReportId=MTM4MDc3Mzg5NwS2#

A UC Berkeley study suggests that provider and insurer consolidation is increasing, reducing competition in regional markets, and leading to higher healthcare prices across California.

In the midst of a nationwide consolidation trend, California is witnessing a swell of mergers among health providers and insurers, resulting in higher prices for consumers and large-scale employers across the state.

A recent study found most counties in California, especially those in the rural northern portion of the state, have highly concentrated hospital markets, noting provider consolidation rose as average insurer consolidation decreased statewide.

The report, released last month by the Nicholas C. Petris Center on Health Care Markets and Consumer Welfare School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley, concluded that Californians pay for healthcare services that are “considerably above what a more competitive market would produce.”

Of the 54 counties surveyed, 44 were highly concentrated hospital markets and six were moderately concentrated. According to the study, seven of these counties warrant “concern and scrutiny” by the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission.

The report found from 2010 to 2016, there was a 15% increase in physicians working for a foundation owned by a hospital or health system rather than physician practices, due in part to health system mergers, as well as a 13% increase for primary care physicians, and a 29% increase for specialist physicians.

Additionally, the study found 42 counties surveyed for commercial health plans were highly concentrated while 16 were moderately concentrated. The study also recommended federal agencies review the concentration levels of the insurer market in seven counties.

Breeding anticompetitive behavior

Bill Kramer, MBA, executive director for national health policy at the Pacific Business Group on Health, told HealthLeaders Media the consolidation trend in California is a “serious problem” that employers have been dealing with for years.

Kramer said large health systems, physician groups, and health plans recognize that consolidation leads to increased market power, which in turn provides the opportunity to raise healthcare service prices above what is allowed in a competitive marketplace.

Two weeks ago, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra sued northern California’s Sutter Health, for anticompetitive practices. Sutter, a health system with $12.4 billion in operating revenue in 2017, is charged with foreclosing price competition on its competitors, imposing prices for healthcare services exceeding a competitive market value, and restricting negotiations with insurers to an “all-or-nothing” basis.

Since 2014, Sutter has also been the focus of a class-action lawsuit filed by a grocery worker’s health plan alleging violation of antitrust and unfair competition laws.

“When a provider or any other healthcare entity gains significant market share, it can use that power to negotiate higher prices,” Kramer said. “But they also can put in place mechanisms that strengthen their market power further. That’s what [Becerra] and complainants in this other lawsuit have alleged, that anticompetitive behavior further strengthens their market power and their ability to raise prices. It’s all part of the same picture.”

State and federal blocks on insurers, not providers

Becerra’s lawsuit against Sutter is not the first time state or federal officials have stepped in to address concerns in California’s healthcare industry.

In June 2016, California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones requested the federal government block the proposed Aetna-Humana merger, citing concerns about an “already heavily concentrated commercial insurance” market. A federal judge agreed with his request and blocked the move in January 2017.

Despite recent and growing recognition among state and federal officials that action must be taken, Kramer says provider consolidation remains an issue without a simple solution. Efforts to enact antitrust statutes against health system mergers in recent years have not always been successful, and are often looked at as the “nuclear option” by industry watchers.

A potential path to offsetting provider consolidation is greenlighting insurer consolidation, though Kramer says there is mixed evidence about whether that would be effective. He said some argue that two large industries competing against each other can result in lower prices, while others claim there is no guarantee that consumers will see lower prices if savings are secured by insurers.

The Berkeley report recommends legislative and regulatory action to address “significant variation” in prices and Affordable Care Act (ACA) premiums across the state, specifically suggesting the implementation of reference pricing by public marketplaces and private employers.

Kramer says the consolidation dilemma is not unique to California, which offers state officials a chance to adopt proactive measures taken by other states to address rising healthcare costs associated with consolidation.

In 2011, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley authored a report similar to the Berkeley study that analyzed the rise in high prices due to health system mergers. The study ultimately led to the creation of the Health Policy Commission in 2012, with the purpose of monitoring healthcare prices in the state.

NoCal versus SoCal

Another important aspect of the consolidation trend in California is the divide between the rural northern counties and the more populous southern metropolitan area.

Northern California is a sparsely populated region dominated by large health systems, giving insurers less leverage to negotiate prices. A 2017 study from the Bay Area Council Economic Institute (BACEI), the Center for Health Policy at Brookings, and The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government found that the hospital concentration in northern counties, where only two insurers cover the entire region, is five times higher than the Inland Empire.

Micah Weinberg, PhD, president of BACEI, told HealthLeaders Media the consolidation trend is not tied to one particular factor such as geography.

BACEI’s report cited the consolidation of a few health systems in northern California as a “perennial concern” and driver of rate variation between regions. However, Weinberg said that when low-price, for-profit systems in southern California are removed from the equation, there is a fair amount of parity between prices charged there compared to those charged in northern California.

Related: 3 Reasons Why Health Insurers and PBMs Are Merging

According to Weinberg, another aspect to California’s healthcare market that affects prices has been the implementation of a “very successful experiment” in managed competition through the state exchange. In 2010, California became the first state to create its own insurance marketplace under the ACA.

He argues that Covered California, the state’s insurance marketplace, has standardized healthcare products, instituted financial incentives for providers to embrace limited networks, and fostered competition.

“What that does is it emphasizes the importance of not only payers and providers, but of the structure of the marketplace, in which consumers are making choices across different provider groups linked to particular insurance plans,” Weinberg said.

The BACEI report did cite the ACA as an unintended driver of increased regional consolidation among providers, which has made achieving profitability in northern California a challenge for insurers such as UnitedHealth Group Inc., which exited the statewide ACA marketplace entirely in 2016.

 

 

Beating Amazon to the punch: Zipline launches drone to deliver medical supplies at 79 mph

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/supply-chain/beating-amazon-to-the-punch-zipline-launches-drone-to-deliver-medical-supplies-at-79-mph.html

Image result for Beating Amazon to the punch: Zipline launches drone to deliver medical supplies at 79 mph

Zipline, a startup based in California that focuses on delivering medical supplies via drone, created a new drone that can travel up to 79 mph and carry 3.85 pounds of cargo, reports CNBC.

Established in 2011, the California-based startup beat Amazon, Fed-Ex and UPS to the punch when it established drone-based logistics for delivering medical supplies in 2016.

The startup initially focused on delivering life-saving medical supplies, such as blood, to rural areas in Rwanda. However, Zipline plans to expand into more markets this year — including the U.S.

Zipline investor and former aerodynamics engineer Paul Willard told CNBC the startup’s new drone — dubbed Zip 2 — can be scaled globally because of its speed and battery life.

Zipline will begin making medical supply deliveries in the U.S. later this year as part of a Federal Aviation Administration pilot program. Once the company establishes a service area in the U.S. for its drones, it would be able to make deliveries within 30 minutes to people in its service area.

A service area would be 99 miles in diameter and would encompass a population of around 10 million people, according to CNBC.

 

 

Study: Meal delivery programs linked to fewer emergency visits, lower costs

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/study-meal-delivery-programs-linked-to-fewer-emergency-visits-lower-costs.html

Image result for Study: Meal delivery programs linked to fewer emergency visits, lower costs

Providing home-delivered meals to food insecure people may decrease healthcare spending, according to a study published by Health Affairs.

For the study, researchers examined data for members of Commonwealth Care Alliance, a Boston-based nonprofit healthcare organization that serves adults ages 21 to 64 who are dually eligible for MassHealth (Medicaid) and Medicare. They specifically looked at members who were enrolled in a medically tailored or nontailored meal delivery program for at least six continuous months between January 2014 and January 2016. More than 130 medically tailored meals program participants and 624 nontailored food program participants were then compared with CCA members who were not enrolled in a meal program.

Researchers found medically tailored meals program participants experienced fewer emergency department visits, inpatient admissions and emergency transportation use compared with nonparticipants. They said nontailored food program participants also saw fewer ED visits and emergency transportation use, but not fewer inpatient admissions.

Additionally, both the medically tailored meal program and the nontailored food program were associated with lower medical spending, according to the study. The estimated average monthly medical spending per person was $843 for the medically tailored meals program compared with $1,413 for nonparticipants. For the nontailored food program, it was $1,007 for participants and $1,163 for nonparticipants.

“These findings suggest the potential for meal delivery programs to reduce the use of costly healthcare and decrease spending for vulnerable patients,” the study authors concluded.

 

 

Experienced Bedside Nurses: An Endangered Species?

Experienced Bedside Nurses: An Endangered Species?

Image result for Experienced Bedside Nurses: An Endangered Species?

“The trend toward our hospitals being primarily populated with nurses with less than two years’ experience is worrisome.”

At least three colleagues who’ve recently been patients in hospitals or had family members who were have remarked on the youthful nurses they encountered—and on their lack of experience. In two of the conversations, my colleagues cited instances in which this lack of experience was detrimental to care, one of them dangerous. That “sixth sense,” that level of awareness that comes with lived experience and becomes part of expert clinical knowledge, is important for safe, quality patient care.

In the February editorial, I report on the answers I received when I queried our editorial board members about new nurses’ inclination to work in acute care for only two years to gain experience and then leave to pursue NP careers. Many of the board members have seen a similar trend, one reflected by research on nurse retention, some of it published in AJN (most recently, see Christine Kovner’s February 2014 study on the work patterns of newly licensed RNs, free until February 6).

As one board member noted:

“The narrative must be shifted to embrace the full range of roles and contributions of all nurses. Our health care system depends upon a well-trained, experienced workforce. The trend toward our hospitals being primarily populated with nurses with less than two years’ experience is worrisome.”

It’s a complex issue, and no one is faulting new RNs for the career paths they pursue. But as this trend accelerates, what can be done to ensure that there are enough experienced nurses at the bedside to protect patient safety? Let us know your thoughts.

 

Hospitals are germy, noisy places. Some acutely ill patients are getting treated at home instead.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/hospitals-are-germy-noisy-places-some-acutely-ill-patients-are-getting-treated-at-home-instead/2018/03/30/5fcb5006-2155-11e8-badd-7c9f29a55815_story.html?utm_term=.e3db8d812c05

Phyllis Petruzzelli spent the week before Christmas struggling to breathe. When she went to the emergency department on Dec. 26, the doctor at Brigham and Women’s Faulkner Hospital near her home in Boston said she had pneumonia and needed hospitalization. Then the doctor proposed something that made Petruzzelli nervous. Instead of being admitted to the hospital, she could go back home and let the hospital come to her.

As a “hospital-at-home” patient, Petruzzelli learned, doctors and nurses would come to her home twice a day and perform any needed tests or bloodwork.

A wireless patch would be affixed to her skin to track her vital signs and send a steady stream of data to the hospital. If she had any questions, she could talk via video chat anytime with a nurse or doctor.

Hospitals are germy and noisy places, putting acutely ill, frail patients at risk for infection, sleeplessness and delirium, among other problems. “Your resistance is low,” Petruzzelli said the doctor told her. “If you come to the hospital, you don’t know what might happen. You’re a perfect candidate for this.”

So Petruzzelli, who is now 71, agreed. That afternoon, she arrived home in a hospital vehicle. A doctor and nurse were waiting at the front door. She settled on the couch in the living room, with her husband, Augie, and dog, Max, nearby. The doctor and nurse checked her IV, attached the monitoring patch to her chest, and left.

When David Levine, the doctor, arrived the next morning, he asked Petruzzelli why she had been walking around during the night. Far from feeling uncomfortable that her nocturnal trips to the bathroom were being monitored, “I felt very safe and secure,” Petruzzelli said. “What if I fell while my husband was out getting me food? They’d know.”

After three uneventful days, she was “discharged” from her hospital-at-home stay. “I’d do it again in a heartbeat,” Petruzzelli said.

Brigham Health is one of a slowly growing number of health systems that encourage selected acutely ill emergency department patients to opt for hospital-level care at home.

In the couple of years since Brigham Health started testing this type of care, hospital staff who were initially skeptical have generally embraced it, Levine said. “They very quickly realize that this is really what patients want, and it’s really good care.”

This approach is quite common in Australia, Britain and Canada, but it has faced an uphill battle in the United States.

A key obstacle, clinicians and policy analysts agree, is getting health insurers to pay for it. At Brigham Health, the hospital can charge an insurer for a physician house call, but the remainder of the hospital-at-home services are covered by grants and other funding, Levine said.

Insurers don’t have a position on hospital-at-home programs, said Cathryn Donaldson, a spokeswoman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, an industry trade group.

“Overall, health insurance providers are committed to ensuring patients have access to care they need, and there are Medicare Advantage plans that do cover this type of at-home care,” Donaldson said in a statement.

Levine, a clinician-investigator at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and an instructor at Harvard Medical School, was the lead author of a recently published study comparing patients who received either hospital-level care at home or in the hospital in 2016.

The 20 patients analyzed in the trial had one of several conditions, including infection, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma. The trial found that while there were no adverse events in the home-care patients, their treatment costs were significantly lower — about half that of patients treated in the hospital.

Why? For starters, labor costs for at-home patients are lower than for patients in a hospital, where staff must be on hand around the clock. Home-care patients also had fewer lab tests and visits from specialists.

The study found that both groups of patients were about equally satisfied with their care, but the home-care group was more physically active.

Brigham Health is conducting further randomized controlled trials to test the at-home model for a broader range of diagnoses.

Bruce Leff began exploring the hospital-at-home concept more than 20 years ago, conducting studies that found fewer complications, better outcomes and lower costs in home-care patients.

Hospitals, accustomed to the traditional business model that emphasizes filling hospital beds in a bricks-and-mortar facility, have been slow to embrace the idea, however.

There are practical hurdles, too.

“It’s still easier to get Chinese food delivered in New York City than to get oxygen delivered at home,” said Leff, a professor of medicine and director of Johns Hopkins Medical School’s Center for Transformative Geriatric Research.

Since the seven-hospital Mount Sinai system in New York launched its hospital-at-home program, more than 700 patients have chosen it. And they have fared well on a number of measures.

The average length of stay for acute care was 5.3 days in the hospital vs. 3.1 days for home-care patients, while 30-day readmission rates for home-based patients were about half of those who had been hospitalized: 7.8 percent vs. 16.3 percent.

Begun with a $9.6 million federal grant in 2014, Mount Sinai’s program initially focused on Medicare patients with six conditions, including congestive heart failure, pneumonia and diabetes. Since then, the program has expanded to include dozens of conditions, including asthma, high blood pressure and serious infections such as cellulitis, and is now available to some privately insured and Medicaid patients.

Mount Sinai has also partnered with Contessa Health, a company with expertise in home care, to negotiate contracts with insurers to pay for hospital-at-home services.

Among other things, insurers are worried about the slippery slope of what it means to be hospitalized, said Linda DeCherrie, clinical director of the mobile acute care team at Mount Sinai.

Insurers “don’t want to be paying for an admission if this patient really wouldn’t have been hospitalized in the first place,” DeCherrie said.

 

Five Worrisome Trends in Healthcare

https://www.medpagetoday.com/publichealthpolicy/healthpolicy/72001?xid=fb_o_

healthcare; insurance; drugs; drug companies; Government-run Insurance Program Sure to Backfire | iHaveNet.com

A reckoning is coming, outgoing BlueCross executive says.

A reckoning is coming to American healthcare, said Chester Burrell, outgoing CEO of the CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield health plan, here at the annual meeting of the National Hispanic Medical Association.

Burrell, speaking on Friday, told the audience there are five things physicians should worry about, “because they worry me”:

1. The effects of the recently passed tax bill. “If the full effect of this tax cut is experienced, then the federal debt will go above 100% of GDP [gross domestic product] and will become the highest it’s been since World War II,” said Burrell. That may be OK while the economy is strong, “but we’ve got a huge problem if it ever turns and goes back into recession mode,” he said. “This will stimulate higher interest rates, and higher interest rates will crowd out funding in the federal government for initiatives that are needed,” including those in healthcare.

Burrell noted that 74 million people are currently covered by Medicaid, 60 million by Medicare, and 10 million by the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), while another 10 million people are getting federally subsidized health insurance through the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA’s) insurance exchanges. “What happens when interest’s demand on federal revenue starts to crowd out future investment in these government programs that provide healthcare for tens of millions of Americans?”

2. The increasing obesity problem. “Thirty percent of the U.S. population is obese; 70% of the total population are either obese or overweight,” said Burrell. “There is an epidemic of diabetes, heart disease, and coronary artery disease coming from those demographics, and Baby Boomers will see these things in full flower in the next 10 years as they move fully into Medicare.”

3. The “congealing” of the U.S. healthcare system. This is occurring in two ways, Burrell said. First, “you’ll see large integrated delivery systems [being] built around academic medical centers — very good quality care [but] 50%-100% more expensive than the community average.”

To see how this affects patients, take a family of four — a 40-year-old dad, 33-year-old mom, and two teenage kids — who are buying a health insurance policy from CareFirst via the ACA exchange, with no subsidy. “The cost for their premium and deductibles, copays, and coinsurance [would be] $33,000,” he said. But if all of the care were provided by academic medical centers? “$60,000,” he said. “What these big systems are doing is consolidating community hospitals and independent physician groups, and creating oligopolies.”

Another way the system is “congealing” is the emergence of specialty practices that are backed by private equity companies, said Burrell. “The largest urology group in our area was bought by a private equity firm. How do they make money? They increase fees. There is not an issue on quality but there is a profound issue on costs.”

4. The undermining of the private healthcare market. “Just recently, we have gotten rid of the individual mandate, and the [cost-sharing reduction] subsidies that were [expected to be] in the omnibus bill … were taken out of the bill,” he said. And state governments are now developing alternatives to the ACA such as short-term duration insurance policies — originally designed to last only 3 months but now being pushed up to a year, with the possibility of renewal — that don’t have to adhere to ACA coverage requirements, said Burrell.

5. The lackluster performance of new payment models. “Despite the innovation fostering under [Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation] programs — the whole idea was to create a series of initiatives that might show the wave of the future — ACOs [accountable care organizations] and the like don’t show the promise intended for them, and there is no new model one could say is demonstrably more successful,” he said.

“So beware — there’s a reckoning coming,” Burrell said. “Maybe change occurs only when there is a rip-roaring crisis; we’re coming to it.” Part of the issue is cost: “As carbon dioxide is to global warming, cost is to healthcare. We deal with it every day … We face a future where cutbacks in funding could dramatically affect accessibility of care.”

“Does that mean we move to move single-payer, some major repositioning?” he said. “I don’t know, but in 35 years in this field, I’ve never experienced a time quite like this … Be vigilant, be involved, be committed to serving these populations.”

AIMING HIGHER: Results from the Commonwealth Fund Scorecard on State Health System Performance

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/interactives/2017/mar/state-scorecard/

Image result for AIMING HIGHER: Results from the Commonwealth Fund Scorecard on State Health System Performance

The 2017 edition of the Commonwealth Fund Scorecard on State Health System Performance finds that nearly all state health systems improved on a broad array of health indicators between 2013 and 2015. During this period, which coincides with implementation of the Affordable Care Act’s major coverage expansions, uninsured rates dropped and more people were able to access needed care, particularly those in states that expanded their Medicaid programs. On a less positive note, between 2011–12 and 2013–14, premature death rates rose slightly following a long decline. The Scorecard points to a constant give-and-take in efforts to improve health and health care, reminding us that there is still more to be done.

Vermont was the top-ranked state overall in this year’s Scorecard, followed by Minnesota, Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts (Exhibit 1). California, Colorado, Kentucky, New York, and Washington made the biggest jumps in ranking, with New York moving into the top-performing group for the first time. Kentucky also stood out for having improved on more measures than any other state.

Exhibit 1Exhibit 1: Overall State Health System Performance: Scorecard Ranking, 2017

Using the most recent data available, the Scorecard ranks states on more than 40 measures of health system performance in five broad areas: health care access, quality, avoidable hospital use and costs, health outcomes, and health care equity. In reviewing the data, four key themes emerged:

  • There was more improvement than decline in states’ health system performance.
  • States that expanded Medicaid saw greater gains in access to care.
  • Premature death rates crept up in almost two-thirds of states.
  • Across all measures, there was a threefold variation in performance, on average, between top- and bottom-performing states, signifying opportunities for improvement.

By 2015, fewer people in every state lacked health insurance. Across the country, more patients benefited from better quality of care in doctors’ offices and hospitals, and Medicare beneficiaries were less frequently readmitted to the hospital. The most pervasive improvements in health system performance occurred where policymakers and health system leaders created programs, incentives, or collaborations to ensure access to care and improve the quality and efficiency of care. For example, the decline in hospital readmissions accelerated after the federal government began levying financial penalties on hospitals that had high rates of readmissions and created hospital improvement innovation networks to help spread best practices. (notes)

Still, wide performance variation across states, as well as persistent disparities by race and economic status within states, are clear signals that our nation is a long way from offering everyone an equal opportunity for a long, healthy, and productive life. Looking forward, it is likely that states will be challenged to provide leadership on health policy as the federal government considers a new relationship with states in public financing of health care. To improve the health of their residents, states must find creative ways of addressing the causes of rising mortality rates while also working to strengthen primary and preventive care.

 

 

 

California attorney general sues Sutter Health for anticompetitive practices

https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/regulatory/california-ag-sues-sutter-health-for-anticompetitive-practices?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTkdNMU56bGxOVGRpWlRRMyIsInQiOiJOQmExNkliUVBkRFNHMGRBUFZiRG5MazRJVHJxQjFvRTl3NjVNV0pxeDlHc0dyVEhBS01HRjlcL1ZLaXFcL3hpOHVzVkxtdEpZb1BPYTc3SE82VnN3U05nejlNNEVOWUhhY2h2NThFdUluTjY1SU5zUkgxZEExRTFTemI5a3dSNkZJIn0%3D&mrkid=959610

Gavel

California’s attorney general has filed a lawsuit against Sutter Health, the largest system in the northern part of the state, claiming the organization’s anticompetitive practices have driven up healthcare prices throughout the region

The charges in the lawsuit (PDF) are “not new to Sutter,” AG Xavier Becerra said at a press conference Friday afternoon. The filing follows a statewide investigation into healthcare costs that revealed wide price disparities between the northern and southern parts of the state.

“Sutter Health is throwing its weight around in the healthcare market, engaging in illegal, anticompetitive pricing that hurts California families,” Becerra said in an announcement. “Big business should not be able to throttle competition at the expense of patients.”

Sutter was able to jack up prices for care at its facilities in several ways, according to the lawsuit:

  • Forcing insurance companies to negotiate with it in an “all-or-nothing” systemwide fashion
  • Blocking payers from offering patients low-cost health plan options
  • Charging extremely high rates for out-of-network visits
  • Limiting price transparency

Karen Garner, a spokesperson for Sutter, said in a statement emailed to FierceHealthcare that the system is “aware that a complaint was filed, but we have not seen it at this time, so we cannot comment on specific claims.”

Garner said that data from the state’s Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development show lower prices at Sutter Health facilities compared to other providers operating in Northern California. Sutter has also kept rate increases for its health plan in “low single digits since 2012,” she said.

“It’s also important to note that healthy competition and choice exists across Northern California,” Garner said. “There are 15 major hospital systems and 142 hospitals in Northern California, including Kaiser Permanente, Dignity, Adventist, Tenet, UC and more. And health plans can elect to include or exclude parts of the Sutter Health system from their networks, and health plans have been doing so for many years.”

Multiple California employers and labor unions have taken action against the health system for anticompetitive practices prior to the AG’s involvement. Sutter came under fire late last year after it was revealed that in 2015 it destroyed 192 boxes of documents that these entities sought as evidence, which the system said was a regrettable mistake.

A California judge said there was “no good reason” for Sutter to have destroyed the documents and said the “most generous interpretation” was that the system was “grossly reckless.”

The AG’s lawsuit also alleges that in addition to driving up healthcare costs in Northern California, Sutter’s actions enriched its executives, and fueled acquisitions that led to further consolidation and funding for its own health plan.

Becerra’s office was spurred to act, according to the announcement, following the release earlier this week of a report from the University of California that detailed how much consolidation has impacted healthcare costs in the state, with northern regions especially affected.

The average cost for an inpatient stay in Northern California was $223,278, compared to an average of $131,586 in the southern regions, according to the report (PDF).

Kathleen Foote, senior assistant attorney general in California who heads the antitrust unit, said at the press conference that taking action against Sutter’s practices should lead to increased competition that benefits both price and care quality.

A video of the full press conference is embedded below:

 

 

State of California files suit against Sutter Health over antitrust allegations

https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2018/03/30/state-files-antitrust-suit-against-sutter-health.html

Sutter Medical Center in Sacramento

The State of California on Friday filed an antitrust suit against Sutter Health, accusing the Sacramento-based health system of practices that have driven up the cost of care in Northern California.

Sutter is accused of preventing insurance companies from negotiating with the health system on anything but an all-or-nothing basis, which requires insurers to contract with the entire health system, and not just parts of it. The lawsuit also alleges the health system has prevented insurance companies from offering low-cost health plan options and set excessively high out-of-network rates, while restricting the publication of provider cost information for patients’ review.

A Los Angeles Times analysis of medical care costs, which is referenced in the lawsuit, found that hospitals in Northern California’s six most populous counties collect about 56 percent more revenue per patient per day from insurance companies and patients compared to hospitals in Southern California’s six largest counties.

At a news conference this morning, Attorney General Xavier Becerra said the investigation has been in the works for about six years, prompted by complaints from patients and employers about high medical care costs in Northern California.

“It’s time to hold health care corporations accountable,” Becerra said at the news conference. “If we do nothing, it will continue to happen.”

The state attorney general’s office said in a statement that the “excess profits” Sutter took in from its allegedly illegal conduct was put toward “waves of acquisitions, extreme levels of executive compensation and financing its own insurance arm.”

“Much of the increased cost of health care in Northern California is attributable to Sutter and its anticompetitive contractual practices which it has imposed as a result of its market power,” the complaint against Sutter states. “Specifically, Sutter embarked on an intentional, and successful, strategy of 
securing market power in certain local markets in Northern California.”

The lawsuit seeks to enjoin Sutter from continuing its allegedly illegal contracting practices, including all-or-nothing contract negotiations and so-called price-secrecy terms. The lawsuit also seeks to “restore competition” by requiring Sutter to stagger its negotiations between its providers of inpatient services, outpatient services and affiliated physician groups that refer patients to non-Sutter hospitals.

The lawsuit also seeks to stop Sutter from transferring money earned by its health care providers to finance its health plan, Sutter Health Plus.

“We are aware that a complaint was filed, but we have not seen it at this time, so we cannot comment on specific claims,” said Karen Garner, a spokeswoman for Sutter, in an emailed statement. “It’s important to note that publicly available data (from the OSHPD) show that on average, total charges for an inpatient stay in a Sutter hospital are lower than what other Northern CA hospitals charge.” The OSHPD is the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development.