Tag Archives: Medicaid

Health Insurance Coverage Eight Years After the ACA

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

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2019/feb/health-insurance-coverage-eight-years-after-aca

Fewer Uninsured Americans and Shorter Coverage Gaps, But More Underinsured

What does health insurance coverage look like for Americans today, more than eight years after the Affordable Care Act’s passage? In this brief, we present findings from the Commonwealth Fund’s latest Biennial Health Insurance Survey to assess the extent and quality of coverage for U.S. working-age adults. Conducted since 2001, the survey uses three measures to gauge the adequacy of people’s coverage:

  • whether or not they have insurance
  • if they have insurance, whether they have experienced a gap in their coverage in the prior year
  • whether high out-of-pocket health care costs and deductibles are causing them to be underinsured, despite having continuous coverage throughout the year.

As the findings highlighted below show, the greatest deterioration in the quality and comprehensiveness of coverage has occurred among people in employer plans. More than half of Americans under age 65 — about 158 million people — get their health insurance through an employer, while about one-quarter either have a plan purchased through the individual insurance market or are enrolled in Medicaid.1Although the ACA has expanded and improved coverage options for people without access to a job-based health plan, the law largely left the employer market alone.2

Survey Highlights

  • Today, 45 percent of U.S. adults ages 19 to 64 are inadequately insured — nearly the same as in 2010 — though important shifts have taken place.
  • Compared to 2010, many fewer adults are uninsured today, and the duration of coverage gaps people experience has shortened significantly.
  • Despite actions by the Trump administration and Congress to weaken the ACA, the adult uninsured rate was 12.4 percent in 2018 in this survey, statistically unchanged from the last time we fielded the survey in 2016.
  • More people who have coverage are underinsured now than in 2010, with the greatest increase occurring among those in employer plans.
  • People who are underinsured or spend any time uninsured report cost-related problems getting care and difficulty paying medical bills at at higher rates than those with continuous, adequate coverage.
  • Federal and state governments could enact policies to extend the ACA’s health coverage gains and improve the cost protection provided by individual-market and employer plans.

The 2018 Commonwealth Fund Biennial Heath Insurance Survey included a nationally representative sample of 4,225 adults ages 19 to 64. SSRS conducted the telephone survey between June 27 and November 11, 2018.3 (See “How We Conducted This Study” for more detail.)

WHO IS UNDERINSURED?

In this analysis, we use a measure of underinsurance that accounts for an insured adult’s reported out-of-pocket costs over the course of a year, not including insurance premiums, as well as his or her plan deductible. (The measure was first used in the Commonwealth Fund’s 2003 Biennial Health Insurance Survey.*) These actual expenditures and the potential risk of expenditures, as represented by the deductible, are then compared with household income. Specifically, we consider people who are insured all year to be underinsured if:

  • their out-of-pocket costs, excluding premiums, over the prior 12 months are equal to 10 percent or more of household income; or
  • their out-of-pocket costs, excluding premiums, over the prior 12 months are equal to 5 percent or more of household income for individuals living under 200 percent of the federal poverty level ($24,120 for an individual or $49,200 for a family of four); or
  • their deductible constitutes 5 percent or more of household income.

The out-of-pocket cost component of the measure is only triggered if a person uses his or her plan to obtain health care. The deductible component provides an indicator of the financial protection the plan offers and the risk of incurring costs before someone gets health care. The definition does not include other dimensions of someone’s health plan that might leave them potentially exposed to costs, such as copayments or uncovered services. It therefore provides a conservative measure of underinsurance in the United States.

Compared to 2010, when the ACA became law, fewer people today are uninsured, but more people are underinsured. Of the 194 million U.S. adults ages 19 to 64 in 2018, an estimated 87 million, or 45 percent, were inadequately insured (see Tables 1 and 2).

Despite actions by the Trump administration and Congress to weaken the ACA, our survey found no statistically significant change in the adult uninsured rate by late 2018 compared to 2016 (Table 3). This finding is consistent with recent federal surveys, but other private surveys (including other Commonwealth Fund surveys) have found small increases in uninsured rates since 2016 (see “Changes in U.S. Uninsured Rates Since 2013”).

While there has been no change since 2010, statistically speaking, in the proportion of people who are insured now but have experienced a recent time without coverage, these reported gaps are of much shorter duration on average than they were before the ACA. In 2018, 61 percent of people who reported a coverage gap said it has lasted for six months or less, compared to 31 percent who said they had been uninsured for a year or longer. This is nearly a reverse of what it was like in 2012, two years before the ACA’s major coverage expansions. In that year, 57 percent of adults with a coverage gap reported it was for a year or longer, while one-third said it was a shorter gap.

There also has been some improvement in long-term uninsured rates. Among adults who were uninsured at the time of the survey, 54 percent reported they had been without coverage for more than two years, down from 72 percent before the ACA coverage expansions went into effect. The share of those who had been uninsured for six months or less climbed to 20 percent, nearly double the rate prior to the coverage expansions.

Of people who were insured continuously throughout 2018, an estimated 44 million were underinsured because of high out-of-pocket costs and deductibles (Table 1). This is up from an estimated 29 million in 2010 (data not shown). The most likely to be underinsured are people who buy plans on their own through the individual market including the marketplaces. However, the greatest growth in the number of underinsured adults is occurring among those in employer health plans.

WHY ARE INSURED AMERICANS SPENDING SO MUCH OF THEIR INCOME ON HEALTH CARE COSTS?

Several factors may be contributing to high underinsured rates among adults in individual market plans and rising rates in employer plans:

  1. Although the Affordable Care Act’s reforms to the individual market have provided consumers with greater protection against health care costs, many moderate-income Americans have not seen gains. The ACA’s essential health benefits package, cost-sharing reductions for lower- income families, and out-of-pocket cost limits have helped make health care more affordable for millions of Americans. But while the cost-sharing reductions have been particularly important in lowering deductibles and copayments for people with incomes under 250 percent of the poverty level (about $62,000 for a family of four), about half of people who purchase marketplace plans, and all of those buying plans directly from insurance companies, do not have them.4
  2. The bans against insurers excluding people from coverage because of a preexisting condition and rating based on health status have meant that individuals with greater health needs, and thus higher costs, are now able to get health insurance in the individual market. Not surprisingly, the survey data show that people with individual market coverage are somewhat more likely to have health problems than they were in 2010, which means they also have higher costs.
  3. While plans in the employer market historically have provided greater cost protection than plans in the individual market, businesses have tried to hold down premium growth by asking workers to shoulder an increasing share of health costs, particularly in the form of higher deductibles.5 While the ACA’s employer mandate imposed a minimum coverage requirement on large companies, the requirement amounts to just 60 percent of typical person’s overall costs. This leaves the potential for high plan deductibles and copayments.
  4. Growth in Americans’ incomes has not kept pace with growth in health care costs. Even when health costs rise more slowly, they can take an increasingly larger bite out of incomes.

It is well documented that people who gained coverage under the ACA’s expansions have better access to health care as a result.6 This has led to overall improvement in health care access, as indicated by multiple surveys.7 In 2014, the year the ACA’s major coverage expansions went into effect, the share of adults in our survey who said that cost prevented them from getting health care that they needed, such as prescription medication, dropped significantly (Table 4). But there has been no significant improvement since then.

The lack of continued improvement in overall access to care nationally reflects the fact that coverage gains have plateaued, and underinsured rates have climbed. People who experience any time uninsured are more likely than any other group to delay getting care because of cost (Table 5). And among people with coverage all year, those who were underinsured reported cost-related delays in getting care at nearly double the rate of those who were not underinsured.

There was modest but significant improvement following the ACA’s coverage expansions in the proportion of all U.S. adults who reported having difficulty paying their medical bills or said they were paying off medical debt over time (Table 4). Federal surveys have found similar improvements.8 However, those gains have stalled.

Inadequate insurance coverage leaves people exposed to high health care costs, and these expenses can quickly turn into medical debt. More than half of uninsured adults and insured adults who have had a coverage gap reported that they had had problems paying medical bills or were paying off medical debt over time (Table 6). Among people who had continuous insurance coverage, the rate of medical bill and debt problems is nearly twice as high for the underinsured as it is for people who are not underinsured.

Having continuous coverage makes a significant difference in whether people have a regular source of care, get timely preventive care, or receive recommended cancer screenings. Adults with coverage gaps or those who were uninsured when they responded to the survey were the least likely to have gotten preventive care and cancer screenings in the recommended time frame.

Being underinsured, however, does not seem to reduce the likelihood of having a usual source of care or receiving timely preventive care or cancer screens — provided a person has continuous coverage. This is likely because the ACA requires insurers and employers to cover recommended preventive care and cancer screens without cost-sharing. Even prior to the ACA, a majority of employer plans provided predeductible coverage of preventive services.9

Conclusion and Policy Implications

U.S. working-age adults are significantly more likely to have health insurance since the ACA became law in 2010. But the improvement in uninsured rates has stalled. In addition, more people have health plans that fail to adequately protect them from health care costs, with the fastest deterioration in cost protection occurring in the employer market. The ACA made only minor changes to employer plans, and the erosion in cost protection has taken a bite out of the progress made in Americans’ health coverage since the law’s enactment.

Both the federal government and the states, however, have the ability to extend the law’s coverage gains and improve the cost protection of both individual-market and employer plans. Here is a short list of policy options:

  • Expand Medicaid without restrictions. The 2018 midterm elections moved as many as five states closer to joining the 32 states that, along with the District of Columbia, have expanded eligibility for Medicaid under the ACA.10 As many as 300,000 people may ultimately gain coverage as a result.11 But, encouraged by the Trump administration, several states are imposing work requirements on people eligible for Medicaid — a move that could reverse these coverage gains. So far, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has approved similar work-requirement waivers in seven states and is considering applications from at least seven more. Arkansas imposed a work requirement last June, and, to date, more than 18,000 adults have lost their insurance coverage as a result.
  • Ban or place limits on short-term health plans and other insurance that doesn’t comply with the ACA. The Trump administration loosened regulations on short-term plans that don’t comply with the ACA, potentially leaving people who enroll in them exposed to high costs and insurance fraud. These plans also will draw healthier people out of the marketplaces, increasing premiums for those who remain and federal costs of premium subsidies. Twenty-three states have banned or placed limits on short-term insurance policies. Some lawmakers have proposed a federal ban.
  • Reinsurance, either state or federal. The ACA’s reinsurance program was effective in lowering marketplace premiums. After it expired in 2017, several states implemented their own reinsurance programs.12  Alaska’s program reduced premiums by 20 percent in 2018. These lower costs particularly help people whose incomes are too high to qualify for ACA premium tax credits. More states are seeking federal approval to run programs in their states. Several congressional bills have proposed a federal reinsurance program.
  • Reinstate outreach and navigator funding for the 2020 open-enrollment period. The administration has nearly eliminated funding for advertising and assistance to help people enroll in marketplace plans.13 Research has found that both activities are effective in increasing enrollment.14 Some lawmakers have proposed reinstatingthis funding.
  • Lift the 400-percent-of-poverty cap on eligibility for marketplace tax credits. This action would help people with income exceeding $100,000 (for a family of four) better afford marketplace plans. The tax credits work by capping the amount people pay toward their premiums at 9.86 percent. Lifting the cap has a built in phase out: as income rises, fewer people qualify, since premiums consume an increasingly smaller share of incomes. RAND researchers estimate that this policy change would increase enrollment by 2 million and lower marketplace premiums by as much as 4 percent as healthier people enroll. It would cost the federal government an estimated $10 billion annually.15 Legislation has been introduced to lift the cap.
  • Make premium contributions for individual market plans fully tax deductible. People who are self-employed are already allowed to do this.16
  • Fix the so-called family coverage glitch. People with employer premium expenses that exceed 9.86 percent of their income are eligible for marketplace subsidies, which trigger a federal tax penalty for their employers. There’s a catch: this provision applies only to single-person policies, leaving many middle-income families caught in the “family coverage glitch.” Congress could lower many families’ premiums by pegging unaffordable coverage in employer plans to family policies instead of single policies.17

REDUCE COVERAGE GAPS

  • Inform the public about their options. People who lose coverage during the year are eligible for special enrollment periods for ACA marketplace coverage. Those eligible for Medicaid can sign up at any time. But research indicates that many people who lose employer coverage do not use these options.18 The federal government, the states, and employers could increase awareness of insurance options outside the open-enrollment periods through advertising and education.
  • Reduce churn in Medicaid. Research shows that over a two-year period, one-quarter of Medicaid beneficiaries leave the program and become uninsured.19 Many do so because of administrative barriers.20 By imposing work requirements, as some states are doing, this involuntary disenrollment is likely to get worse. To help people stay continuously covered, the federal government and the states could consider simplifying and streamlining the enrollment and reenrollment processes.
  • Extend the marketplace open-enrollment period. The current open-enrollment period lasts just 45 days. Six states that run their own marketplaces have longer periods, some by as much as an additional 45 days. Other states, as well as the federal marketplace, could extend their enrollment periods as well.

IMPROVE INDIVIDUAL-MARKET PLANS’ COST PROTECTIONS

  • Fund and extend the cost-sharing reduction subsidies. The Trump administration eliminated payments to insurers for offering plans with lower deductibles and copayments. Insurers, which by law must still offer reduced-cost plans, are making up the lost revenue by raising premiums. But this fix, while benefiting enrollees who are eligible for premium tax credits, has distorted both insurer pricing and consumer choice.21 In addition, it is unknown whether the administration’s support for the fix will continue in the future, creating uncertainty for insurers.22 Congress could reinstate the payments to insurers and consider making the plans available to people with higher earnings.
  • Increase the number of services excluded from the deductible.Most plans sold in the individual market exclude certain services from the deductible, such as primary care visits and certain prescriptions.23As the survey data suggest, these types of exclusions appear to be important in ensuring access to preventive care among people who have coverage but are underinsured. In 2016, HHS provided a standardized plan option for insurers that excluded eight health services — including mental health and substance-use disorder outpatient visits and most prescription drugs — from the deductible at the silver and gold level.24 The Trump administration eliminated the option in 2018. Congress could make these exceptions mandatory for all plans.

IMPROVE EMPLOYER PLANS’ COST PROTECTIONS

  • Increase the ACA’s minimum level of coverage. Under the ACA, people in employer plans may become eligible for marketplace tax credits if the actuarial value of their plan is less than 60 percent, meaning that under 60 percent of health care costs, on average, are covered. Congress could increase this to the 70 percent standard of silver-level marketplace plans, or even higher.
  • Require deductible exclusions. Congress could require employers to increase the number of services that are covered before someone meets their deductible. Most employer plans exclude at least some services from their deductibles.25 Congress could specify a minimum set of exclusions for employer plans that might resemble the standardized-choice options that once existed for ACA plans.
  • Refundable tax credits for high out-of-pocket costs. Congress could make refundable tax credits available to help insured Americans pay for qualifying out-of-pocket costs that exceed a certain percentage of their income.26
  • Protect consumers from surprise medical bills. Several states have passed laws that protect patients and their families from unexpected medical bills, generally from out-of-network providers.27A bipartisan group of U.S. senators has proposed federal legislation to protect consumers, including people enrolled in employer and individual-market plans.

Health care costs are primarily what’s driving growth in premiums across all health insurance markets. Employers and insurers have kept premiums down by increasing consumers’ deductibles and other cost-sharing, which in turn is making more people underinsured. This means that policy options like the ones we’ve highlighted above will need to be paired with efforts to slow medical spending. These could include changing how health care is organized and providers are paid to achieve greater value for health care dollars and better health outcomes.28 The government also could tackle rising prescription drug costs29 and use antitrust laws to combat the growing concentration of insurer and provider markets.30

 

 

Medicaid is the ACA’s workhorse

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

https://www.axios.com/affordable-care-act-medicaid-90717b08-f58b-4015-8cd6-f6451a7eb0e3.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosvitals&stream=top

A protesting sign that reads, "Save Medicaid!"

The Affordable Care Act’s insurance exchanges have been the law’s headline feature over the past eight years, but the law’s Medicaid expansion has covered just as many people, and its rolls are more likely to grow under the Trump administration.

Driving the news: Roughly 8.8% of Americans were uninsured last year, according to new Census figures released yesterday — essentially unchanged from 2016. That means the Trump administration has not kept the ACA’s coverage gains going, nor has it successfully rolled them back — at least, not yet.

However you slice it, states that expanded Medicaid cover more people, with more stability.

  • The uninsured rate rose last year in non-expansion states, even as it held steady nationally.
  • It’s no big surprise that more low-income families would have insurance in expansion states than non-expansion states. But expansion states cover more people across the board, including people whose incomes would make them ineligible for Medicaid.

What’s next: The Trump administration has mostly muddied the waters for the ACA’s exchanges, rather than blown them up. Its biggest threat to the Medicaid expansion is its willingness to approve work requirements for the program.

  • Those new rules are just getting started, and the impacts can be significant: Arkansas has booted more than 4,000 people off the program in just one month.

Yes, but: More states are also likely to opt into the expansion this year or next, and work requirements are facing a challenge in the courts.

  • The same judge who previously blocked Kentucky’s work requirements from taking effect will also decide the fate of Arkansas’ policy. Judge James Boasberg said yesterday that the two are related and he’ll keep them both.

 

 

 

 

 

Reforming Stark/Anti-Kickback Policies

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

Reforming Stark/Anti-Kickback Policies

Image result for Reforming Stark/Anti-Kickback Policies

An event from the USC-Brookings Schaeffer Initiative for Health Policy

In recent years, the health care system has accelerated experimentation into new payment and delivery models that reward care coordination, integration, and value.  However, observers and market participants have expressed concerns that long-standing anti-fraud rules in Medicare and Medicaid prevent innovation and hold back potentially promising new arrangements.  In 2018, the Trump administration sought stakeholder feedback on how the regulations implementing those laws might be modified to promote value-based, coordinated, integrated care delivery while protecting taxpayers and beneficiaries from fraud.

On January 30, 2019 the USC-Brookings Schaeffer Initiative for Health Policy will host Eric Hargan, the Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services, for a discussion about this effort. Following his presentation, experts in health care payment and delivery system reform will discuss the issue and the path forward.

 

 

 

Trump wants to bypass Congress on Medicaid plan

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

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/11/trump-bypass-congress-medicaid-plan-1078885?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Newsletter%20Weekly%20Roundup:%20Healthcare%20Dive%2001-19-2019&utm_term=Healthcare%20Dive%20Weekender

Image result for medicaid block grant

Block grants for states would achieve conservative dream on health program for poor.

The Trump administration is quietly devising a plan bypassing Congress to give block grants to states for Medicaid, achieving a longstanding conservative dream of reining in spending on the health care safety net for the poor.

Three administration sources say the Trump administration is drawing up guidelines on what could be a major overhaul of Medicaid in some states. Instead of the traditional open-ended entitlement, states would get spending limits, along with more flexibility to run the low-income health program that serves nearly 75 million Americans, from poor children, to disabled people, to impoverished seniors in nursing homes.

Capping spending could mean fewer low-income people getting covered, or state-designated cutbacks in health benefits — although proponents of block grants argue that states would be able to spend the money smarter with fewer federal strings attached.

Aware of the political sensitivity, the administration has been deliberating and refining the plan for weeks, hoping to advance an idea that Republicans since the Reagan era have unsuccessfully championed in Congress against stiff opposition from Democrats and patient advocates. During the Obamacare repeal debate in 2017, Republican proposals to cap and shrink federal Medicaid spending helped galvanize public opposition, with projections showing millions would be forced off coverage.

In addition to potential legal obstacles presented by moving forward without Congress, the administration effort could face strong opposition from newly empowered House Democrats who’ve vowed to investigate the administration’s health care moves.

“Hell no,” Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) wrote on Twitter on Friday evening, vowing to oppose the administration’s block grant plan “through legislation, in the courts, holding up Administration nominees, literally every means that a U.S. Senator has.”

The administration’s plan remains a work in progress, and sources said the scope is still unclear. It’s not yet known whether CMS would encourage states to seek strict block grants or softer spending caps, or if new limits could apply to all Medicaid populations — including nursing home patients — or just a smaller subset like working-age adults.

A spokesperson for CMS did not comment on the administration’s plans but indicated support for the concept of block grants.

“We believe strongly in the important role that states play in fostering innovation in program design and financing,” the spokesperson said. “We also believe that only when states are held accountable to a defined budget — can the federal government finally end our practice of micromanaging every administrative process.”

Republicans have sought to rein in Medicaid spending, especially as enrollment swelled under Obamacare’s expansion of the program to millions of low-income adults in recent years. CMS Administrator Seema Verma has warned increased spending on the Medicaid expansion population could force cutbacks on sicker, lower-income patients who rely on the program.

The administration wants to let states use waivers to reshape their Medicaid programs, but the effort could face legal challenges in the courts. Waivers approved by the Trump administration to allow the first-ever Medicaid work requirements for some enrollees, for example, are already being challenged in two states.

Also complicating the administration’s push: the newfound popularity of Medicaid, which has grown to cover about one in five Americans. Voters in three GOP-led states in November approved ballot measures to expand Medicaid, which has been adopted by about two-thirds of states. Newly elected Democratic governors in Kansas and Wisconsin are pushing their Republican-led legislatures to expand Medicaid this year.

Verma has been trying to insert block grant language into federal guidance for months but has encountered heave scrutiny from agency lawyers, two CMS staffers said. She mentioned interest in using her agency’s authority to pursue block grants during a meeting with state Medicaid directors in the fall but did not provide details, said two individuals who attended.

There is some precedent for the federal government capping its spending on the entitlement program. Former President George W. Bush’s health department approved Medicaid spending caps in Rhode Island and Vermont that would have made the states responsible for all costs over defined limits. However, those spending caps were set so high there was never really any risk of the states blowing through them.

In recent years, governors have complained about the rising costs of Medicaid, which is eating up a bigger share of their budgets. States jointly finance the program with the federal government, which on average covers 60 percent of the cost – though the federal government typically shoulders more of the burden in poorer states. The federal government covers a much higher share of the cost for Medicaid enrollees covered by the Obamacare expansion.

An official from a conservative state, speaking on background to discuss an effort not yet public, said states would consider a block grant as long as the federal government’s guidance isn’t overly prescriptive.

CMS is hoping to make an announcement early this year, but it could be further delayed by legal review, which has already been slowed by the prolonged government shutdown.

Some conservative experts said the administration’s plans ultimately may be limited by Medicaid statute, which requires the federal government to match state costs. However, they say the federal government can still try to stem costs by approving program caps.

“There’s no direct provision of authority to waive the way that the federal government pays the states,” said Joe Antos of the American Enterprise Institute, a right-leaning think tank. “However, that doesn’t mean that you can’t try to have some of the effects that people that like block grants would like to see, in terms of encouraging states to be more prudent with the ways they spend the money.”

 

 

 

Payer, provider trends to watch in 2019

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

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/payer-provider-trends-to-watch-in-2019/545612/

Ripple effects from 2018 will continue well into the new year as players deal with some massive policy and business shifts.

The coming year for healthcare will see the industry reckon with some of the massive changes set in motion last year, such as megamergers like CVS-Aetna and Cigna-Express Scripts and a judge’s declaration that the Affordable Care Act is no longer constitutional.

On the policy front, newly-installed Democrats in Congress (and the party’s 2020 presidential candidates) will be pushing for more comprehensive health coverage plans while the GOP considers tougher Medicaid restrictions at the state, and potentially federal, level.

Meanwhile, some familiar storylines are likely to continue. Effusive digital health funding and increases in mobile and telehealth services show no signs of abating, and neither does general M&A activity.

Here’s a snapshot of a few big trends for the payer and provider crowds to watch for in 2019.

Providers: Behavioral care goes primary, investment in digital

1. Narrowing gaps in population, behavioral healthcare

Historically, behavioral health services have been mostly disparate, but increased spending in digital health and a focus on lowering out-of-pocket costs will help spur greater connectivity, Sandra Kuhn, national lead for behavioral health consulting at Mercer, told Healthcare Dive. She predicted “more partnerships between traditional medical and behavioral health carriers on smaller, targeted point solutions” as the industry already began to see last year.

The trend more broadly fits into the push to recognize and act on social determinants of health.

One partnership is the Utah Alliance for the Determinants of Health, a coalition of providers, community organizations and government agencies banding together to reduce the impacts of SDOH. Their plan seeks to address socioeconomic stressors like housing instability, food insecurity and transportation — circumstances with a direct effect on mental and physical health — before patients show up in the ER lobby. Intermountain Healthcare, a primary stakeholder, invested $12 million in the initiative.

Early efforts include experimental EHR technologies, value-based payments for even more population health management programs and wraparound services. Health Affairs highlighted two separate initiatives, each making inroads on social determinants by carrying out existing population health programs in tandem with trusted community partners.

Overall, Kuhn said, more organizations will step up with tactical solutions to what has otherwise been an intractable problem. That includes payers like state Medicaid programs, many of which have begun value-based payments for behavioral health services.

Progress on behavioral and population health is happening in tandem with — or perhaps existing symbiotically alongside —  the growth of telemedicine. At Riverside Health System, a rural health network in Newport News, Virginia, a long-term telebehavioral health initiative has improved coordinated care among psychiatrists and clinical social workers, as well as replaced a chunk of services offered at the system’s nursing homes.

Riverside isn’t the first to find success with telebehavioral health, but the system’s wider experimentation with programming, a happy accident triggered by a psychiatrist shortage, has certainly shown there’s a market for it — one that Quartet, Lyra and Teladoc have been quick to capitalize on. This year will see a swath of players from across the industry tackle behavioral health gaps by complementing primary care with telemedicine.

2. Doubling down on digital

While larger health systems tend to have the means to be early adopters of new and robust healthcare technologies, physicians are beginning to integrate such services into their practices.

Use of telehealth among the commercially insured has been gradually rising since the mid-2000s, having grown 52% annually from 2005 to 2014 before spiking 261% between 2015 and 2017, according to JAMA.

Revenue cycle management firm SYNERGEN Health estimates digital health tech for remote use will grow by 30% this year, allowing patients to better manage their own healthcare, giving clinicians an opportunity to spend more time with more patients and, of course, generating new revenue streams.

As more payers hop aboard the telemedicine train and more services are covered, hospitals will continue see costs fall. A 2017 report from the Rural Broadband Association found that telehealth services were associated with an annual cost savings of $20,841 per U.S. hospital on average. The caveat here for hospitals is the very real possibility that large facilities will become increasingly more obsolete and overhead costs will become too costly as patients find yet another reason to stay away from their doors.

3. Price transparency still a question mark

Many are hoping the days of the $629 hospital bill for a wet towel and a Band-Aid are coming to an end, but it’s not likely to happen in 2019.

Still, legislators and consumers alike are making price transparency an issue in hopes of curbing skyrocketing healthcare costs.

CMS took some action last year by finalizing a new rule mandating hospitals post chargemaster rates online in a machine-readable format. But the rule is effectively toothless. Hospitals were already required to make those prices available, and chargemaster rates only apply to the uninsured and balance billing. And despite the fact that the rule went into effect on the first day of the year,  CMS admitted recently that it has no way of enforcing the mandate and would not comment on how many hospitals are currently in compliance with the rule.

“It is [our] expectation that all of them will comply,” CMS Administrator Seema Verma said on a call with reporters.

The rule doesn’t specify where hospitals need to post their charges. The only requirement is that they’re made available online, which has allowed health systems like mega-operator Ascension to bury their charges behind a tangled maze of clicks.

The company has previously defended itself in a statement to Healthcare Dive by arguing the costs can be confusing for patients, as they don’t take financial assistance and charity care into consideration. Chargemaster information, as some critics have pointed out, isn’t a very useful measure of pricing for consumers. It can actually be counterproductive.

Thomas Lee, chief medical officer at Press Ganey, speaking at the U.S. News Healthcare of Tomorrow conference, said economists don’t believe price transparency has a noteworthy impact on cost and efficiency.

“I’m predicting not much will happen and people won’t pay attention to it because the charges aren’t actually relevant to the vast majority of people,” Lee said. “If people are uninsured, I doubt they’re looking at these things either.”

If the ACA taught economists and legislators anything about American consumers, it’s that they want healthcare, but don’t want to take the time to shop around for it. In a recent Health Affairs survey, just 13% of respondents responsible for cost-sharing in their last healthcare encounter sought cost information before receiving care. Only 3% compared prices of different providers.

History seems to be repeating itself, as CMS hopes its “first step toward price transparency” will be picked up by market forces. By mandating the information be made available in a different file format, CMS believes it has “set the stage” for that data to be used by private third parties that can develop tools for consumers to use.

“There’s nothing in the rule that prevents hospitals from going further with this,” Verma said. “Hospitals can do that today.”

But they aren’t. In fact, the percentage of hospitals unable provide patients with price information jumped from 14% to 44% between 2012 and 2016, according to a JAMA study.

In short, the CMS rule is much more of a light nudge than a forceful shove into price transparency, and without regulation and the means of enforcing it, hospitals have little to no incentive to change. But expect the wheels of the price transparency conversation to continue turning in 2019, regardless.

Payers: Contract fights, a focus on value and more managed care

1. Contentious negotiations and contract disputes

As insurers have bulked up in scale after blockbuster mergers last year, Fitch Ratings expects relationships between providers and payers to be even more contentious during contract negotiations even in a value-based payment setting.

Some recent headline-grabbing squabbles include UnitedHealthcare’s contract impasse with Envision Healthcare, an ER staffing firm. Tenet and Cigna’s contract negotiations stalled and finally reached a multi-year deal this year.

Hospitals can also expect low rate increases from commercial insurers, according to Moody’s.

In markets where there is a dominant insurer and multiple hospitals, “Each hospital will need to demonstrate why it is indispensable to the insurer … and why it should be included in a network,” Moody’s reports.

However, there are potential glimmers of hope. As more states have expanded Medicaid, it puts pressure on other states to do so, which would provide a means of payment for hospitals that have gone without payment caring for the uninsured.

2. Value-based momentum

Payers and providers will continue to enter into value-based contracts in 2019 at varying degrees, according to Moody’s.

Many hospitals are engaging in contracts that offer incentives or alternative payment models for reaching certain quality measures, but very few are taking on full risk, or both the upside and downside risks within a contract, according to Moody’s.

That will continue into 2019: few are likely to take on downside risk, or the possibility of losing money, Moody’s reports.

However, while the popularity and use of these payment models continues, its cost-savings benefits have yet to be realized, according to a recent report.

Meanwhile, CMMI continues to test for ways to drive change in the healthcare by paying for quality as opposed to quantity. For instance, CMMI is testing whether it can reduce utilization and ultimately costs by addressing social-needs such as housing for Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries. CMMI’s director Adam Boehler said he won’t force organizations to take on risk, but will help them take on a level of riskthey’re comfortable with.

But in an about-face, the Trump administration seems to be signaling that it may institute mandatory payment models that could put providers at risk of losing money.

3. Medicare Advantage still lucrative, popular

Medicare Advantage will continue to be a profit center for insurers, which typically enjoy a 5% margin, according to 2016 data from the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.

As the population ages, it presents a growth opportunity for payers. Enrollment in MA plans grew by 8% from 2016 to 2017, according to a recent MedPAC report, as many more seniors are choosing to enroll in plans run by traditional insurers. About 34% of beneficiaries choose MA, a significant increase from a decade ago when just 10% enrolled in such plans.

Beginning this year, MA plans have greater flexibility to offer non-traditional benefits such as adult daycare, meals or in-home care to improve the overall health of patients, particularly those will high needs. CMS Administrator Seema Verma previously said 270 MA plans will offer these new benefits in 2019.

These new benefits also pose an opportunity for nontraditional healthcare companies such as Lyft and Uber, which are looking for ways to shuttle seniors to appointments and pharmacies.

Payers including Cigna touted the future growth opportunity it sees for MA.  “We are well positioned today and going forward for existing and new markets,” Cigna CEO David Cordani said of MA, according to Forbes. 

4. Medicaid managed care growth

As states weigh expanding Medicaid, it’s another potential opportunity for managed care plans to contract with states. As more states expand the program, it puts pressure on the remaining holdouts.

Last year, some red states took the issue to the ballot box and got approval for expansion, potentially providing a roadmap for stakeholders to replicate in other states where the legislatures balk at expansion. California Gov. Gavin Newsom is backing an idea that would expand Medicaid eligibility in his state to undocumented young adults, providing another opportunity for Medicaid managed care firms.

Likely potential winners are Centene and Molina. Centene is the nation’s largest Medicaid managed care firm with operations in 21 states covering more than 8 million people. Molina serves more than 3 million in 13 states and Puerto Rico.

Just recently, Molina CEO Joseph Zubretsky said even without expansion ushered in by the Affordable Care Act, $1 billion of new revenue opportunity exists in Molina’s existing footprint because of states like Illinois that are expanding Medicaid managed care statewide.

 

 

 

Health Care Costs 101: A Continuing Economic Threat

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

Click to access HealthCareCosts18.pdf

2018 Edition — Health Care Costs 101

Image result for california healthcare foundation

US health spending reached $3.3 trillion in 2016, or $10,348 per capita, and accounted for 17.9% of gross domestic product (GDP). Health spending slowed somewhat in 2016, following the coverage expansions of 2015 and 2014. National health spending increased 4.3% in 2016, down from 5.8% in 2015 and 5.1% in 2014. Despite this slowdown, 2016 health spending grew 1.5 percentage points faster than the economy (GDP grew at a rate of 2.8%).

Looking ahead, health spending is projected to grow at an average rate of 5.5% per year (1.0 points faster than the economy) between 2017 and 2026. At this rate, health care would consume a growing portion of the economy, totaling $5.7 trillion and accounting for one-fifth of GDP by 2026.

Health Care Costs 101: A Continuing Economic Threat (PDF), which relies on the most recent data available, details how much is spent on health care in the US, which services are purchased, and who pays.

Key findings include:

  • Per capita health spending increased 3.5% in 2016 and crossed the $10,000 per capita threshold for the first time.
  • Prescription drug spending declined dramatically from 8.9% in 2015 to 1.3% in 2016, driven in part by fewer new medications on the market, slower brand-name drug spending, and reduced spending on generic drugs.
  • Households and the federal government each accounted for 28% of health spending in 2016.
  • As ACA coverage expansion matured in 2016, the rate of increase in federal spending slowed to 3.9%, lower than private business (5.0%) or households (4.6%).
  • Federal subsidies for ACA marketplace (individual coverage) premiums and cost sharing totaled $33 billion, accounting for 3.5% of federal health spending and 3.0% of private health insurance spending.
  • Public health insurance, including Medicare and Medicaid, paid the largest share of spending (41%) in 2016. Private health insurance paid for a third of health spending and consumers’ out-of-pocket spending accounted for 11%.

The full report, a quick reference guide, and all of the charts found in the report are available under Related Materials. Also available are the datafiles and previous years’ reports.  These materials are part of CHCF’s California Health Care Almanac, an online clearinghouse for key data and analyses describing the state’s health care landscape.

 

 

 

AHA: Medicare underpaid hospitals by $53.9B in 2017

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

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/aha-medicare-underpaid-hospitals-by-53-9b-in-2017.html

Image result for underpayment

Medicare underpaid hospitals by $53.9 billion in 2017, and Medicaid underpaid hospitals by $22.9 billion, according to the latest data from the American Hospital Association’s Annual Survey of Hospitals.

Underpayment occurs when the reimbursement hospitals receive is less than the amount paid for personnel, technology, and other goods and services required to provide care.

In 2017, hospitals received payment of 87 cents for every dollar they spent caring for Medicare and Medicaid patients, according to the AHA.

Access the AHA underpayment by Medicare and Medicaid fact sheet here.

 

Congressional Fight on DSH Set to Begin

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

Image result for disproportionate share hospital

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) jumped into the disproportionate-share hospital funding debate this week with the State Accountability, Flexibility, and Equity (SAFE) for Hospitals Act that would overhaul the billions distributed by the program. Florida receives one of the lowest allotments in the country the Rubio bill would tweak the DSH funding formula so a state’s allotment is based on its overall population of adults below poverty level leading to hospitals that care for higher amounts of poor patients receiving more money. Additionally, the bill would redefine the hospital costs that count as uncompensated care to include some outpatient physician and clinical services.

Under current law substansive DSH cuts go into place on Sept. 30, 2019 unless Congress acts. The Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission discussed proposed recommendations on DSH allotment reductions at its December meeting which included –

  • Phasing in reductions more gradually over a longer period of time -$2B in FY 2020, $4B in FY 2021, $6B in FY 2022 and $8B a year in FYs 2023-2029;
  • Applying reductions to unspent DSH funding first; and
  • Distributing reductions in a way that gradually improves the relationship between DSH allotments and the number of non-elderly, low-income individuals in a state.

MACPAC The Commissioners are expected to vote on the recommendations at the January 24-25 meeting.

Click here for a summary of the Rubio bill and

here to view the MACPAC presentation.

Misconceptions About Health Costs When You’re Older

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

Misconceptions About Health Costs When You’re Older

Image result for Misconceptions About Health Costs When You’re Older

Some significant expenses decline as we age: Most mortgages are eventually paid off, and ideally children grow up and become self-supporting.

But health care is one area in which costs are almost certain to rise. After all, one of the original justifications for Medicare — which kicks in at age 65 — is that older people have much higher health care needs and expenses.

But there are a few common misunderstandings about health costswhen people are older, including the idea that money can easily be saved by reducing wasteful end-of-life spending.

Half our lifetime spending on health care is in retirement, even though that represents only about 20 percent of a typical life span. Total health care spending for Americans 65 and older is about $15,000 per year, on average, nearly three times that of working-age Americans.

Don’t expect Medicare to provide complete protection from these expenses.

Traditional Medicare has substantial gaps, leaving Americans on the hook for a lot more than they might expect. It has no cap on how much you can pay out of pocket, for example. Such coverage gaps can be filled — at least in part — by other types of insurance. But some alternatives, such as Medicare Advantage, aren’t accepted by as many doctors or hospitals as accept traditional Medicare.

On average, retirees directly pay for about one-fifth of their total health care spending. Some spend much more.

One huge expense no Medicare plans cover is long-term care in a nursing home.

Over half of retirement-age adults will eventually need long-term care, which can cost as much as $90,000 per year at a nursing home. Although most who enter a nursing home don’t stay long, 5 percent of the population stays for more than four years. You can buy separate coverage outside the Medicare program for this, but the premiums can be high, especially if you wait until near retirement to buy.

Although Medicare is thought of as the source of health care coverage for retirees, Medicaid plays a crucial role.

Medicaid, the joint federal-state heath financing program for low-income people, has long been the nation’s main financial backstop for long-term care. Over 60 percent of nursing home residents have Medicaid coverage, and over half of the nation’s long-term care is funded by the program.

That isn’t because most people who require long-term care have low incomes. It’s because long-term care is so expensive that those needing it can frequently deplete their financial resources and then must turn to Medicaid.

A recent working paper from the National Bureau of Economic found that, on average, Medicaid covers 20 percent of retiree health spending. The figure is larger for lower-income retirees, who are more likely to qualify for Medicaid for more of their retirement years.

A widely held view is that much spending is wasted on “heroic” measures taken at the end of life. Are all the resources devoted to Medicare and Medicaid really necessary?

First, let’s get one misunderstanding out of the way. The proportion of health spending at the end of life in the United States is lower than in many other wealthy countries.

Still, it’s a tempting area to look for savings. Only 5 percent of Medicare beneficiaries die each year, but 25 percent of all Medicare spending is on individuals within one year of death. However, the big challenge in reducing end-of-life spending, highlighted by a recent study in Science, is that it is hard to know which patients are in their final year.

The study used all the data available from Medicare records to make predictions: For each beneficiary, it assigned a probability of death within a year. Of those with the very highest probability of dying — the top 1 percent — fewer than half actually died.

“This shows that it’s just very hard to know in advance who will die soon with much certainty,” said Amy Finkelstein, an M.I.T. economist and an author of the study. “That makes it infeasible to make a big dent in health care spending by cutting spending on patients who are almost certain to die soon.”

That does not mean that all the care provided to dying patients — or to any patient — is valuable. Another study finds that high end-of-life spending in a region is closely related to the proportion of doctors in that region who use treatments not supported by evidence — in other words, waste.

“People at high risk of dying certainly require more health care,” said Jonathan Skinner, an author of the study and a professor of economics at Dartmouth. “But why should some regions be hospitalizing otherwise similar high-risk patients at much higher rates than other regions?”

In 2014, for example, chronically ill Medicare beneficiaries in Manhattan spent 73 percent more days in the hospital in their last two years of life than comparable beneficiaries in Rochester.

“There absolutely is waste in the system,” said Ashish Jha, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute. But, he argues, waste is present throughout the life span, not just at the end of life: “We have confused that spending as end-of-life spending is somehow wasteful. But that’s not right because we are terrible at predicting who is going to die.”

Of course, beyond any statistical analysis, there are actual people involved, and wrenching individual decisions that need to be made.

“We should do all we can to push waste out of the system,” Dr. Jha said. “But spending more money on people who are suffering from an illness is appropriate, even if they die.”

 

 

DOJ recovered $2.5 billion in 2018 healthcare false claim cases

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

DOJ recovered $2.5 billion in 2018 healthcare false claim cases

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

According to the DOJ, this is the ninth consecutive year that the organizations’ civil healthcare fraud settlements and judgments have exceeded $2 billion.

As part of the federal government’s increasing focus on issues of healthcare fraud, particularly in the Medicare space, the U.S. Department of Justice recovered $2.5 billion in settlements and judgments from False Claims Act Cases over the past year.

According to the DOJ, this is the ninth consecutive year that the organizations’ civil health care fraud settlements and judgments have exceeded $2 billion.

While the $2.5 billion number represents federal losses, the DOJ also said it also helped recover significant funds for state Medicaid programs

“Every year, the submission of false claims to the government cheats the American taxpayer out of billions of dollars,” Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General Jesse Panuccio said in a statement.

“In some cases, unscrupulous actors undermine federal healthcare programs or circumvent safeguards meant to protect the public health … The nearly three billion dollars recovered by the Civil Division represents the Department’s continued commitment to fighting fraudsters and cheats on behalf of the American taxpayer.”

The False Claims Act has its roots in groups trying to defraud the military during and after the Civil War and was significantly strengthened since 1986 when Congress increased incentives for whistleblowers to file lawsuits alleging false claims.

In healthcare, organizations across the industry were hit with False Claims cases including drug companies, medical device manufacturers, payer organizations and healthcare providers.

The single largest recovery over the past year was a $625 million settlement paid by drug wholesaler AmerisourceBergen to resolve a number of claims including that the company illegally repackaged injectable cancer drugs into pre-filled syringes and billing multiple doctors for individual drug vials.

The DOJ also brought cases against drug companies who increased drug prices by funding Medicare co-payments meant to serve as a check on healthcare costs.

In one instance, United Therapeutics Corporation paid $210 million over allegations that it illegally used a foundation to funnel co-pay obligations for Medicare patients taking its drugs. Pfizer paid nearly $24 million in a similar case, with the government alleging that the company raised the price of a cardiac drug called Tikosy by 40 percent over three months

One major case against Massachusetts-based medical device company Alere resulted in a $33.2 million settlement over allegations that it sold unreliable diagnostic devices meant to detect acute coronary syndromes, heart failure, drug overdose and other serious conditions.

On the provider side, the DOJ recovered $270 million from DaVita subsidiary HealthCare Partners Holdings for upcoding and providing inaccurate information to inflate Medicare Advantage payments.

Another major case was against former health system Health Management Associates which allegedly engaged in major Medicare fraud including illegal kickbacks to physicians for referrals, incorrect billing for observation and outpatient services and inflated facility fees.

When it comes to health plans, the government’s case against UnitedHealth Group over allegations that it knowingly obtained inflated risk adjustment payments for its Medicare Advantage beneficiaries is still ongoing.