Dental Care and Medicare Beneficiaries: Access Gaps, Cost Burdens, and Policy Options

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/in-the-literature/2016/dec/dental-care-and-medicare-beneficiaries?omnicid=EALERT1137219&mid=henrykotula@yahoo.com

Synopsis

In 2012, more than half of Medicare beneficiaries reported they went without a dental visit in the past 12 months, with lower-income beneficiaries much less likely than higher-income ones to have received dental care. Overall, only 12 percent of beneficiaries reported having any kind of dental insurance. To expand access to care and reduce out-of-pocket exposure for older adults, the authors propose two policy options for adding dental benefits to Medicare’s benefit package.

The Issue

Despite evidence of a strong connection between oral health and physical health, Medicare explicitly excludes dental care from covered benefits. This leaves beneficiaries at risk for tooth decay and disease and exposed to high out-of-pocket costs. Moreover, the lack of regular preventive dental exams means missed opportunities for detecting the onset of certain diseases, including some cancers. A new Commonwealth Fund–supported study in Health Affairs looks at older adults’ access to dental care and their out-of-pocket expenses for dental services. The authors also suggest two policies for expanding dental care for seniors, along with cost estimates.

Key Findings on Use of Dental Services and Out-of-Pocket Spending

  • In 2012, less than half of all Medicare beneficiaries had any dental visits in the past 12 months.

    “Until dental care is appropriately considered to be part of one’s medical care, and financially covered as such, poor oral health will continue to be the ‘silent epidemic’ that impedes improving the quality of life for older adults.”

  • Use of services was sharply related to income. Only 26 percent of beneficiaries with incomes below 100 percent of the federal poverty level had a dental visit, compared with 73 percent of beneficiaries with incomes at or above 400 percent of poverty.
  • Only 12 percent of beneficiaries (6.6 million out of 56.1 million people) reported having at least some dental insurance to help pay bills. In contrast, around 80 percent of Americans under age 65 who were covered by employer-based health insurance had dental benefits.
  • Medicare beneficiaries reported spending an average of $427 on dental care in the past 12 months, of which $329 was spent out of pocket. About 7 percent of beneficiaries spent more than $1,500 in that period.

Feds Allege Mass Forest Park Medical Center Kickback Scheme; 21 Indicted

http://healthcare.dmagazine.com/2016/12/01/doj-indicts-21-alleges-forest-park-officials-paid-40-million-in-kickbacks-for-patient-referrals/?utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=38578013&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9nq-_xFj_5ZsB5A4GXxtR4dmyVTHWn9cNkB_MTg2hapXhZT97fHccuUvHO0Xt0TZ00pj_4tk5lsYhA5hKfDHAVK1sDrw&_hsmi=38578013

(Credit: Justin Clemons)

A federal grand jury has returned indictments on 21 individuals allegedly involved in a massive kickback scheme through the defunct Forest Park Medical Center chain of luxury hospitals, which resulted in “well over half a billion dollars” in billed claims due to illegal bribes.

The 44-page indictment, unsealed Thursday, describes a vast, four-year conspiracy, fueled by $40 million in kickbacks funneled through a number of shell companies—consulting firms, commercial real estate firms, business services organizations—into the pockets of high-powered surgeons, some of whom have their faces on billboards throughout Dallas-Fort Worth.

The 21 suspects include two of the four physician founders of the hospital chain, including Dr. Richard Toussaint, the anesthesiologist who is awaiting sentencing on a separate fraud conviction; and Wade Barker, the bariatric surgeon who helped develop the idea for Forest Park. Other early adopters indicted in the scheme include Wilton ‘Mac’ Burt, a consultant who helped run the chain’s affiliated management company until he and his colleague, Alan Beauchamp, were bought out in 2015. Beauchamp was also indicted.

But the bribery scheme sailed far outside the doors of Forest Park’s grey and blue flagship at the corner of U.S. 75 and Interstate 635. Also indicted were prominent bariatric surgeons Drs. David Kim and William Nicholson as well as the minimally invasive spine surgeons Drs. Michael Rimlawi, Douglas Won, and Shawn Henry. Won, the DOJ alleges, was paid $7 million for his referrals. Rimlawi is accused of accepting $3.8 million. The feds argue that Kim and Nicholson, both of whom were investors in Forest Park, were paid $4.595 million and $3.8 million respectively. Reads the indictment: “The surgeons spent the vast majority of the bribe payments marketing their personal medical practices—which benefitted them financially—or on personal expenses such as cars, diamonds, and payments to family members.”

In all, the feds say Forest Park collected “in excess of two hundred million dollars in tainted and unlawful claims.” None of those named in the indictment have returned requests for comment. Sheryl Zapata, the chief development officer for the Texas Back Institute where Nicholson currently practices, said “TBI is not a part of this and we will not be commenting.”

“Medical providers who enrich themselves through bribes and kickbacks are not only perverting our critical health care system, but they are committing a serious crime,” read a statement from U.S. Attorney John Parker. “Massive, multi-faceted schemes such as this one, built on illegal financial relationships, drive up the cost of healthcare for everyone and must be stopped.”

Forest Park Medical Center was a chain of luxury hospitals that sprouted in Dallas, Fort Worth, Southlake, Frisco, and San Antonio. One in Austin was built but never opened, kneecapped due to nearly two dozen construction liens.

The model collapsed in on itself due to its reliance on high out-of-network charges that it would bill to insurance companies. The payers eventually balked, and the patient volumes dried up. The hospitals died one by one, each eventually entering bankruptcy and sold off to a health system. Because they were physician owned, they were barred by the Affordable Care Act from billing any public health insurance plan, such as Medicare, for fear of conflicts of interest regarding referrals. And despite this, it twice had to settle claims with the DOJ for paying kickbacks for Tricare patients and Department of Labor employees. The indictment alleges that this is exactly what happened: Beauchamp, Barker, and Kim, among others, “also attempted to refer patients with lower-reimbursing insurance coverage, namely Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries, to other facilities in exchange for cash.”

A Battle to Change Medicare Is Brewing, Whether Trump Wants It or Not

Donald J. Trump once declared that campaigning for “substantial” changes to Medicare would be a political death wish.

But with Election Day behind them, emboldened House Republicans say they will move forward on a years-old effort to shift Medicare away from its open-ended commitment to pay for medical services and toward a fixed government contribution for each beneficiary.

The idea rarely came up during Mr. Trump’s march toward the White House, but a battle over the future of Medicare could roil Washington during his first year in office, whether he wants it or not.

“Let me say unequivocally to you now: I have fought to protect Medicare for this generation and for future generations,” Senator Joe Donnelly of Indiana, a Democrat running for re-election in 2018, said this week in a video message to constituents. “I have opposed efforts to privatize Medicare in the past, and I will oppose any effort to privatize Medicare or turn it into a voucher program in the future.”

For nearly six years, Speaker Paul D. Ryan has championed the new approach, denounced by Democrats as “voucherizing” Medicare. Representative Tom Price of Georgia, the House Budget Committee chairman and a leading candidate to be Mr. Trump’s secretary of health and human services, has also embraced the idea, known as premium support.

And Democrats are relishing the fight and preparing to defend the program, which was created in 1965 as part of Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society. They believe that if Mr. Trump chooses to do battle over Medicare, he would squander political capital, as President George W. Bush did with an effort to add private investment accounts to Social Security after his re-election in 2004.

Democrats will “stand firmly and unified” against Mr. Ryan if he tries to “shatter the sacred guarantee that has protected generations of seniors,” said Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leader.

Republicans have pressed for premium support since Mr. Ryan first included it in a budget blueprint in 2011. As he envisions it, Medicare beneficiaries would buy health insurance from one of a number of competing plans. The traditional fee-for-service Medicare program would compete directly with plans offered by private insurers like Humana, UnitedHealth Group and Blue Cross Blue Shield.

 

 

California healthcare advocates rally against Trump

http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article116320043.html

California Secretary of State Alex Padilla the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia on Wednesday, July 27, 2016.

They backed Obamacare, and they’re not letting it go without a fight.

The federal healthcare overhaul could be one of the first casualties of President-Elect Donald Trump, who has joined the Republicans controlling Congress in vowing to dismantle the law. Since winning the presidency Trump has softened his stance somewhat, speaking favorably about popular provisions that prohibit insurers from turning away people with pre-existing conditions and allow people to stay on their parents’ plans until they turn 26.

Still, Trump’s election has California healthcare advocates on high alert, not to mention the state’s new U.S. senator. California could forfeit billions of federal dollars that support Medi-Cal, the insurance program for poor Californians, and subsidize private insurance purchases. They’re worried about the fate of Medicare, a program that Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, said has “serious problems because of Obamacare” and is “going broke.”

 A rally today in Los Angeles offers the latest example of a policy rift between California and Washington, D.C., with elected officials joining healthcare workers and patients for an event billed as a push to “protect our health care.” Among the expected speakers are Senate Health Committee chair Ed Hernandez, D-West Covina, Los Angeles County Health Agency Director Mitch Katz, and California Secretary of State Alex Padilla, whose public denunciations of Trump have become a recurring feature.

BY THE NUMBERS: 13.6 million is the number of Californians enrolled in Medi-Cal as of June 2016, the most recent data available, a net increase of about 800,000 from a year earlier and about double Medi-Cal enrollment a decade ago. The total includes almost 3.4 million people who became eligible for Medi-Cal under the state’s optional Obamacare expansion. The Legislative Analyst’s Office last week reported that Medi-Cal caseload should grow by about 100,000 annually through mid-2021 among families, children and people covered by ACA expansion. Enrollment among senior citizens and people with disabilities will grow by an estimated 50,000.

Cost, Not Choice, Is Top Concern of Health Insurance Customers

It is all about the price.

Millions of people buying insurance in the marketplaces created by the federal health care law have one feature in mind. It is not finding a favorite doctor, or even a trusted company. It is how much — or, more precisely, how little — they can pay in premiums each month.

And for many of them, especially those who are healthy, all the prices are too high.

The unexpected laser focus on price has contributed to hundreds of millions of dollars in losses among the country’s top insurers, as fewer healthy people than expected have signed up. And that has created two vexing questions: Will the major insurance companies stay in the marketplaces? And if they do, will the public have a wide array of plans to choose from — a central tenet of the 2010 Affordable Care Act?

“The marketplace has been and continues to be unsustainable,” said Joseph R. Swedish, chief executive of Anthem, one of the nation’s largest insurers.

Most Americans with health insurance get it through their employers or from government programs like Medicare and Medicaid. The marketplaces were created under the health care law to give the millions of people not covered in those ways a way to buy health plans.

While major insurers continue to make profits over all, they say that the economics of the marketplaces do not work for them. Insurers can offer marketplace plans at four different coverage tiers, and the government subsidizes the premiums for millions of people. The thinking was that enough healthy people would buy insurance to balance out the costs for the not-so-healthy.

But things are not going exactly as envisioned.

 

 

The Future of Health Care Mergers Under Trump

Though there has been a flurry of merger and acquisition activity in recent years, industry experts are unsure whether the merger momentum will continue under President-elect Donald Trump’s administration, according to The New York Times.

Here are five things to know about how M&A activity in the healthcare industry may be affected under the Trump administration.

1. President-elect Trump nominated Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) to replace Attorney General Loretta Lynch. While it is unclear how the department will handle antitrust cases under Sen. Sessions, the impact from the change in leadership will not be felt immediately. The outcomes of the two major antitrust cases in the insurance market, the Anthem-Cigna and Aetna-Humana mergers, are expected to be decided before Mr. Trump takes office in January. However, the new administration might still have an impact on the mergers, particularly if either the companies or the government decide to appeal the decision, according to the article.

2. According to the article, there is little expectation the Department of Justice under President-elect Trump would drop the cases if the insurers lost and appealed. However, any agreed upon settlement deal may be less onerous to the insurers involved.

3. There is a chance the federal government’s approach to healthcare mergers may not change, according to the article. “There is a history of bipartisan support for antitrust enforcement in healthcare,” said Leslie Overton, a partner at Alston & Bird and a former DOJ official. “I don’t think we should expect a wholesale shift, based on the change from Democratic to Republican.”

4. The Federal Trade Commission’s position on M&A activity may change even less, according to industry experts interviewed by The New York Times. The independent agency is less subject to the political preferences of the president and of Congress.

5. Industry experts also suggest the possible repeal of the ACA will not impede the increasing M&A activity of the past few years. According to the article, hospitals may feel more pressure to join together if the ACA is repealed due to reduced Medicare and Medicaid payments and increased volumes of uninsured patients.

Uncertain Fate Of Health Law Giving Health Industry Heartburn

Uncertain Fate Of Health Law Giving Health Industry Heartburn

WASHINGTON, DC - NOVEMBER 10:  President-elect Donald Trump (L) talks after a meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama (R) in the Oval Office November 10, 2016 in Washington, DC. Trump is scheduled to meet with members of the Republican leadership in Congress later today on Capitol Hill.  (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Six years into building its business around the Affordable Care Act, the nation’s $3 trillion health care industry may be losing that political playbook.

Industry leaders, like many voters, were stunned by the election of Donald Trump and unprepared for Republicans’ plans to “repeal and replace” Obamacare.

In addition, Trump’s vague and sometimes conflicting statements on health policy have left industry officials guessing as to the details of any substitute for the federal health law.

“It will be repealed and replaced,” Trump said Sunday in an interview on CBS’ “60 Minutes.” At the same time, he vowed to preserve popular provisions of the law like ensuring that people with preexisting conditions can get insurance and allowing young adults to stay on their parents’ health plans.

Charles (Chip) Kahn, chief executive of the Federation of American Hospitals, said that before the election, health groups had not been meeting with Republicans about a rewrite of the law “because the working assumption was we had a program that wasn’t going anywhere. That working assumption is now no longer operative.”

Upending the health law plays havoc with a health industry that had invested heavily in strategies geared to the ACA’s financial incentives. The flipped script initially left some industry groups speechless. Others issued bland statements pledging cooperation with the next administration as they awaited greater clarity from the next president.

Said Donald Crane, who heads CAPG, a national trade group for physician organizations: “Nobody was ready for this. We didn’t have a Plan B.”

The results appear to have rattled the fragile industry coalition that the Obama administration carefully crafted to support the law. Looking ahead, some health sectors might have even more reason to worry.

The hospital industry may be the most vulnerable to proposed changes, which could result in millions of Americans losing health coverage, both through the insurance exchanges and expansion in the Medicaid program for those with lower incomes.

Not Just Obamacare: Medicaid, Medicare Also On GOP’s Chopping Block

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obamacare-medicaid-medicare-gop-chopping-block_us_582a19b8e4b060adb56fbae7?jn7jtocg8bzqia4i

rious about repealing Obamacare, and doing so quickly. But don’t assume their dismantling of government health insurance programs will stop there.

For about two decades now, Republicans have been talking about radically changing the government’s two largest health insurance programs, Medicaid and Medicare.

The goal with Medicaid is to turn the program almost entirely over to the states, but with less money to run it. The goal with Medicare is to convert it from a government-run insurance program into a voucher system ― while, once again, reducing the money that goes into the program.

House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) has championed these ideas for years. Trump has not. In fact, in a 2015 interview his campaign website highlighted, he vowed that “I’m not going to cut Medicare or Medicaid.” But the health care agenda on Trump’s transition website, which went live Thursday, vows to “modernize Medicare” and allow more “flexibility” for Medicaid.

In Washington, those are euphemisms for precisely the kind of Medicare and Medicaid plans Ryan has long envisioned. And while it’s never clear what Trump really thinks or how he’ll act, it sure looks like both he and congressional Republicans are out to undo Lyndon Johnson’s health care legacy, not just Barack Obama’s.

f course, whenever Trump or Republicans talk about dismantling existing government programs, they insist they will replace them with something better ― implying that the people who depend on those programs now won’t be worse off.

But Republicans are not trying to replicate what Medicaid, Medicare and the Affordable Care Act do now. Nor are they trying to maintain the current, historically high level of health coverage nationwide that these programs have produced. Their goal is to slash government spending on health care and to peel back regulations on parts of the health care industry, particularly insurers.

This would mean lower taxes, and an insurance market that operates with less government interference. It would also reduce how many people get help paying for health coverage, and make it so that those who continue to receive government-sponsored health benefits will get less help than they do now.

It’s difficult to be precise about the real-world effects, because the Republican plans for replacing existing government insurance programs remain so undefined. Ryan’s“A Better Way” proposal is a broad, 37-page outline without dollar figures, and Senate Republican leaders have never produced an actual Obamacare “replacement” plan.

But the Republican plans in circulation, along with the vague ― and shifting ― health care principles Trump endorsed during the campaign, have common themes. And from those it’s possible to glean a big-picture idea of what a fully realized version of the Republican health care agenda would mean.

Ryan now has the muscle to phase out Medicare — within months

http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Ryan-now-has-the-muscle-to-phase-out-Medicare-10613139.php?utm_campaign=KHN%3A+Daily+Health+Policy+Report&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=37625118&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8__03zRw-gu7XJrwOBmO6XYdGObArnMQTK9_dRrTgDh69s7q3OUq53AcYCfr9bwrtHj5mbLYOPIBBdQVoE_yCtdZWBTg&_hsmi=37625118

Image result for Ryan now has the muscle to phase out Medicare — within months

House Speaker Paul Ryan’s plan to phase out Medicare is nothing new. But now, under a Trump presidency and with both houses of Congress in Republican hands, it looks like he could finally make it happen, possibly within months.

Back in 2011, as a U.S. representative for Wisconsin’s 1st Congressional District, Ryan floated a plan to turn Medicare into a “premium support” program. The “premium support” would be a payment that would let you buy insurance from private insurers. But you won’t get full coverage.

As Josh Marshall acidly noted Sunday in a blog for TPM, “In any case, rather than Medicare you’ll have insurance from an insurance company, which everybody should love because haven’t you heard from your parents and grandparents how bummed they were when they had to give up their private insurance for Medicare?

“You’ll hear lots of people calling this ‘reform’ and other catchwords. But Medicare is a single payer, universal health care system. Replacing it with private insurance means getting rid of it. Even calling it ‘privatization’ masks what is really afoot.”

On Fox News Special Report on Thursday, Ryan was asked about entitlement reform. His answer:

“You have to remember, when Obamacare became Obamacare, Obamacare rewrote Medicare, rewrote Medicaid. If you are going to repeal and replace Obamacare, you have to address those issues as well. What a lot of folks don’t realize is this 21-person board called the IPAP is about to kick in with price controls on Medicare. What people don’t realize is because of Obamacare, Medicare is going broke, Medicare is going to have price controls because of Obamacare, Medicaid is in fiscal straits. You have to deal with those issues if you are going to repeal and replace Obamacare. Medicare has serious problems [because of] Obamacare. Those are part of our plan.”

Marshall says that’s false, and Ryan knows it. Instead of putting Medicare under deeper financial stress, the Affordable Care Act has had the opposite effect and actually extended Medicare’s solvency by over 10 years, he says.

According to Medicare’s trustees, the “Part A” trust fund — the costliest component of Medicare, covering hospitalization — is set to become insolvent in 2028. In 2009, before the passage of the Affordable Care Act, it was projected that fund would go broke in 2017.