Health care CEOs made $2.6 billion in 2018

https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-vitals-3dafd3d8-dd1c-47ed-a1f0-287e7f37fc6f.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosvitals&stream=top

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1AY1nXwBnQVlata0RgdLz17OI4XaK6785hfAsiLFz84U/edit#gid=0

Illustration of George Washington with a stethoscope around his neck.

The CEOs of 177 health care companies collectively made $2.6 billion in 2018 — roughly $700 million more than what the National Institutes of Health spent researching Alzheimer’s disease last year, according to a new Axios analysis of financial filings.

Why it matters: The pay packages reveal the health care system’s real incentives: finding ways to boost revenue and stock value by raising prices, filling more hospital beds, and selling more drugs and devices, Axios’ Bob Herman reports.

By the numbers: The median pay of a health care CEO in 2018 was $7.7 million. Fourteen CEOs made more than $46 million each.

  • The figures were calculated by using actual realized gains of stock options and awards, which are in the annual proxy disclosures companies file with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The highest-paid health care CEO last year was Regeneron Pharmaceuticals CEO Leonard Schleifer, who made $118 million. A spokesperson said Schleifer “has built Regeneron from a start-up into a leading innovative biopharmaceutical company” and that he “generally holds his option awards until nearly the end of the full 10-year option term.”

  • Pharmaceutical CEOs represented 11 of the 25 highest compensation amounts last year.
  • Executives of medical device and equipment companies that don’t attract as much attention — such as Intuitive Surgical, Masimo, Hill-Rom and Exact Sciences — also were sitting at the top.

Between the lines: A vast majority of CEO pay comes from exercised and vested shares of stock. Salaries are almost an afterthought.

  • But health care executives routinely earned millions of dollars in cash bonuses, based on factors like revenue goals and financial metrics that experts say can be manipulated.
  • Quality of care is either not a factor at all in CEOs’ bonuses at all, or a marginal one.

Details: McKesson CEO John Hammergren received a $4 million bonus for hitting financial targets last year, just as the company was facing a slew of lawsuits over its role in the opioid crisis. McKesson did not immediately respond to questions.

  • Community Health Systems CEO Wayne Smith recorded a $3.3 million bonus even though his hospital chain continued to hemorrhage money. His bonus was heavily weighted by an adjusted metric that made CHS look profitable, and none of his bonus was tied to patient outcomes. CHS did not respond.

Worth noting: The analysis does not include compensation from not-for-profit hospital systems, because their 2018 tax filings have not been released yet.

 

 

 

HEALTHCARE INDUSTRY MOST FOCUSED ON CONSOLIDATION, CONSUMERISM IN 2019

https://www.healthleadersmedia.com/finance/healthcare-industry-most-focused-consolidation-consumerism-2019?spMailingID=15535559&spUserID=MTg2ODM1MDE3NTU1S0&spJobID=1621654766&spReportId=MTYyMTY1NDc2NgS2

A new Definitive Healthcare survey polled healthcare leaders on the most important trends of the year.


KEY TAKEAWAYS

Industry consolidation was listed as the most important trend of the year, leading the way with 25.2% of the votes, followed by consumerism at 14.4%.

Definitive tracked 803 mergers and acquisitions along with 858 affiliation and partnership announcements last year, a trend that is not expected to slow in 2019.

Thirty-five percent of healthcare M&A activity occurred in the long-term care field, according to CEO Jason Krantz.

Widespread industry consolidation as well as the growing influence of consumerism registered as the most important trends healthcare leaders are paying attention to in 2019, according to a Definitive Healthcare survey released Monday morning.

Industry consolidation was listed as the most important trend of the year, leading the way with 25.2% of the votes, followed by consumerism at 14.4%.

Other topics that received double-digit percentages of the vote were telehealth at 13.8%, AI and machine learning at 11.4%, and staffing shortages at 11.1%. Cybersecurity, EHR optimization, and wearables rounded out the list.

The top results are generally in-line with some of the top storylines from the past year in healthcare, including focus on several vertical megamergers and longstanding business models being redefined by consumer behavior.

Jason Krantz, CEO of Definitive Healthcare, told HealthLeaders that healthcare is becoming increasingly more complicated and leaders are looking at a host of business strategies to navigate industry challenges or emerging market conditions.

“Something that’s on the mind of all of the people that [Definitive Healthcare] has been talking to, whether they are pharma leaders, healthcare IT companies, or providers, is that they’re constantly grappling with all of these new regulations, consolidation, and new technologies,” Krantz said. “[They’re asking] ‘What does that mean for my business and how do I address my strategy as a result?'”

In 2018, Definitive tracked 803 mergers and acquisitions along with 858 affiliation and partnership announcements, a trend Krantz does not expect to slow in 2019.

While Krantz cited some of the major health system mergers from last year as examples, he said another area that is experiencing widespread M&A activity is the post-acute care side.

Thirty-five percent of healthcare M&A activity occurred in the long-term care field, according to Krantz, and this is indicative of hospitals seeking to control costs and drive down rising readmission rates.

It also relates to another issue likely to accelerate in the coming years, which are the staffing shortages facing providers.

The sector currently suffering the most are long-term care facilities, which struggle to maintain an adequate nursing workforce due to the advanced age of most doctors and nurses in the face of the rapidly aging baby boomer generation. Krantz warns that all providers are likely to face these issues going forward.

Krantz also expects consumerism to hold steady as a top issue facing healthcare, citing the growing popularity of urgent care centers and the interconnection of telehealth services to provide patients with care outside of the traditional delivery sites.

However, the growth of these are reliable business options are all dependent on figuring out an adequate reimbursement rates for telehealth services rendered, Krantz said, which has not been fully addressed.

“I think until [telehealth reimbursement rates] get completely figured out, it’s hard for the providers to invest heavily in it,” Krantz said. “This is why you see a lot of non-traditional providers getting into telehealth, but I think it is something that people are thinking about and they know they need to adjust to, though nobody’s stepping up and being first in [telehealth] right now.”

For AI, machine learning, wearables, and cybersecurity, though the responses are split into smaller amounts, Krantz emphasized their combined score, which encompasses more than 25% of total votes, as a sign that healthcare leaders are paying attention to the area despite market complexity.

He added that they are all interconnected issues that deal with technological changes health systems are aware they will have to address in the coming years.

One issue related to harnessing technological change is EHR optimization, which Krantz believes leaders on the provider side are finally starting to gain excitement around. He said most leaders who have waited years to set up a comprehensive EHR system and input data are in-line to now utilize the data in their respective system.

“There’s a lot of great data in there and people are starting to figure out how to utilize that and improve patient outcomes based on the sharing of data,” Krantz said. 

 

 

 

Healthcare Triage News: Why Do Insulin Prices Keep Rising?

Healthcare Triage News: Why Do Insulin Prices Keep Rising?

Image result for Healthcare Triage News: Why Do Insulin Prices Keep Rising?

Frederick Banting discovered insulin in 1921 and didn’t want to profit off of such a life-saving drug. Fast forward to 2019, and the price of insulin continues to increase year over year. Why is that?

 

 

 

 

Aetna, Anthem, Health Care Service Corporation, PNC Bank and IBM announce blockchain network

https://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/aetna-anthem-health-care-service-corporation-pnc-bank-and-ibm-announce-blockchain-network?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiT0RJNU16UTNOakl4WlRFNCIsInQiOiJ1WHRTRHREbE5rM1hkZmc1QnRcL3JCSjdxMWdtXC9weGE1OE4yT0tMZ2d0eGVCYnlXbkVDSmVtU09UTzZDaUVSTmE2aVRpT1YzSklCVmVsZ3VaMWVyMDlNa1Z2b25DbXZ2QnpxSUpySWluXC8zSDRoTmkya2JCMU53b1h5YkRQUDlNcyJ9

Network will eventually be open to new members for secure digital sharing of healthcare information.

Aetna, Anthem, IBM, Health Care Service Corporation and PNC Bank have partnered to create a blockchain technology network aimed at improving transparency and interoperability in the healthcare industry. 

The groups intend to use blockchain for more efficient claims and payment processing. Blockchain enables the secure exchange of information. It will also benefit more accurate provider directories.

WHY THIS MATTERS

Collaboration is key in the industry as a more cost-effective alternative to merging to create more competitive and efficient systems.

The current network is expected to add additional health organizations in the coming months, including providers, startups, and technology companies.

Initial members include three of the nation’s largest insurers, Anthem; HCSC,a customer-owned health insurer that includes Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans; Aetna, which is now part of the CVS Health business; IBM, which is a leading blockchain provider; and PNC Bank, which is a member of The PNC Financial Services Group.

Blockchain technology gives health systems an edge because it ideally creates faster, more efficient and secure claims and payment processing.

Insurers are mandated to maintain accurate provider directories, a time consuming and often manual practice involving numerous emails, phone calls and even fax exchanges.

For providers, a new technology that can actually reduce time spent in administrative clicks on a computer is a boon.

THE TREND

Despite major initiatives to digitize healthcare information, improvements in transparency and interoperability are still needed for that data to be shared.

Blockchain is designed to fill that role, reducing administrative errors and costs and ultimately enhancing patient care. The network also enables the companies to build and deploy new solutions.

Walmart last year filed a patent to use blockchain for medical records. A pharmaceutical industry consortium called the MediLedger Project, launched in 2017, is using blockchain to track pills across the supply chain, according to Fortune.

ON THE RECORD

“Through the application of blockchain technology, we’ll work to improve data accuracy for providers, regulators, and other stakeholders, and give our members more control over their own data,” said Claus Jensen, chief technology officer at Aetna

Rajeev Ronanki, Anthem chief digital officer Rajeev Ronanki: “Timely access to medical information has been a stumbling block for creating a seamless consumer experience. With a trusted foundation based on transparency and cryptography, we will provide a faster, safer and more secure way to exchange medical information to transform the  consumer healthcare experience.”

What’s more, blockchain will enable large networks to exchange health data in a transparent and controlled way, according to Lori Steele, general manager for Healthcare and Life Sciences for IBM.

“Using this technology, we can remove friction, duplication, and administrative costs that continue to plague the industry,” added Chris Ward, head of product, PNC Treasury Management.

 

340B FINAL RULE WILL LAUNCH ON JANUARY 1, 2019

https://www.healthleadersmedia.com/340b-final-rule-will-launch-january-1-2019

HHS shortens the 340B final rule implantation by six months after determining that it would not ‘interfere’ with the departments ‘comprehensive policies’ to address high drug costs.


KEY TAKEAWAYS

PhRMA says the ‘overly burdensome’ final rule fails to address hospital abuse of the program.

The new rule provides drug pricing information to 340B participants through a closed website.  

Proponents scoff at drug makers’ claims that more time is needed before the oft-delayed final rule is implemented.

After several delays, hundreds of public comments, a lawsuit, and an eight-year-old Congressional mandate, the federal government on Thursday bumped up the starting date of its 340B drug pricing final rule by six months.

In a notice published this week in the Federal Register, the Department of Health and Human Services said the final rule—which is designed to protect hospitals from being overcharged by drug manufacturers—would take effect on January 1, 2019, instead of July 1, 2019.

The final rule was supposed to take effect on January. 5, 2017, but HHS delayed implementation because it said it was in the midst of “developing new comprehensive policies to address the rising costs of prescription drugs.”

Hospitals got tired of waiting and filed suit, asking a federal judge to order the Trump Administration to launch the final rule on January 1, 2019. The hospitals allege that the delays are causing significant financial harm to the nearly 2,500 hospitals nationwide that participate in the 340B Drug Pricing Program.

In late October, the Trump Administration said it was considering accelerating implementation.

In bumping up the final rule implantation by six months, HHS said it “has determined that the finalization of the 340B ceiling price and civil monetary penalty rule will not interfere with HHS’s development of these comprehensive policies.”

Under the new rule, federal regulators will provide pricing information to 340B hospitals through a closed website, which proponents of the rule say is essential for ceiling price enforcement.

As expected, hospitals praised the action, and drug makers expressed disappointment.

“This rule is good for patients and for essential hospitals, which rely on 340B savings to make affordable drugs and health care services available to vulnerable people and underserved communities,” said America’s Essential Hospitals President and CEO Bruce Siegel, MD.

“It also ends years of delay for much-needed measures to hold drug companies accountable for knowingly overcharging covered entities in the 340B program,” Siegel said.

Maureen Testoni, interim president and CEO of 340B Health, called the announcement “a big step toward stopping drug companies from overcharging 340B hospitals, clinics, and health centers.”

“The next step toward ensuring true 340B drug maker transparency is for the administration to launch its ceiling price website so hospitals, clinics, and health centers can ascertain that they are paying the correct amounts for 340B medications,” Testoni said.

“We are encouraged that HHS says it will release that pricing reporting system shortly and that the department will communicate additional updates through its website,” she said.

PhRMA said it was “disappointed the Administration did not issue new proposals for this rule as it repeatedly stated it would.”

The pharmaceutical industry advocates said HHS “ignored the numerous concerns raised by stakeholders on the proposed ceiling price calculations, offset policy and civil monetary penalty provisions.”

Drug makers allege that hospitals have been scamming the 340B program, and PhRMA said Thursday that the final rule’s “flawed policies are not in line with the 340B statute and fail to address root problems in the 340B program that have enabled private 340B hospitals to generate record profit without commensurate benefit to patients.”

“Not only is the final rule itself overly burdensome in its requirements, but moving up its effective date also leaves manufacturers with very little time to make operational changes to systems and procedures,” PhRMA said.

Testoni scoffed at claims that more time was needed.

“The regulation now will be going into effect more than eight years after Congress mandated it—and only after a lawsuit filed by 340B Health and other hospital organizations to stop repeated administrative delays to the effective date,” Testoni said.

“As today’s final rule notes, these delays have given drug makers ‘more than enough time to prepare for its requirements.'”

“THESE DELAYS HAVE GIVEN DRUG MAKERS MORE THAN ENOUGH TIME TO PREPARE FOR ITS REQUIREMENTS.”

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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