Industry Voices—This is the real issue that should be driving the national healthcare conversation

https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/hospitals-health-systems/industry-voices-real-issue-should-be-driving-healthcare-conversation?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTUdFNU9UQTFaV1U1TWpsayIsInQiOiJuOXFyQVwvWGx0NUFJdnhjK0ZEZ0ZwamdmMU8wXC9ZWkNPZkMydnJIOHR4eW9mT0RJVmphWGd5b3F4aFB6RTZaOG8yU21uZm91UVJFUGU4UWxBXC9DdXdoaWIwTFRFYW53dTlRWVwvRUs1dUN4WWtONjF1ZEJJemVCM2ZnQURGWnB1Z1EifQ%3D%3D&mrkid=959610&utm_medium=nl&utm_source=internal

Healthcare is traditionally one of the top issues voters say they want Congress to address. This year, the sentiment has intensified. From presidential town hall meetings to congressional hearings to recent public opinion polling, an overwhelming majority of Republican and Democratic voters want Congress to address rising healthcare costs.

But employers and their employees have more at stake than just the cost of utilizing a drug or service, the narrative that is driving today’s healthcare discussion in Congress.

Indeed, employers are at a crossroads in addressing the critical issue of healthcare costs. The fact of the matter is that most employers have no idea how their benefit programs affect employee health outcomes. While it sounds logical that employers understand the link between the benefits they purchase and their employees’ long-term health status, they don’t. Most employers manage their benefits program in separate silos with a single-minded focus only on short-term costs.

When employers focus only on unit costs and transactions in healthcare, employees are undertreated and employers overpay.

Instead of a short-term cost approach, designing healthcare benefits that align the interests of employees and employers around health, and focus on connecting employee health status, care options and outcomes will help employers attain the ultimate goal of a healthy, productive workforce that drives business value for the company.

Employers are recognizing the urgency of this choice but aren’t yet doing enough to address it. If employers don’t start doing a better job of purchasing benefits that help keep employees healthy and productively at work, in part through effective treatment of manageable diseases, our future global competitiveness will be greatly challenged.

For example, better use of medicines can improve health and overall quality of life, which can lead to improved productivity from lower disability and fewer missed days of work. A study found adults with multiple sclerosis that improved medication adherence by 10 percentage points decreased the likelihood of an inpatient or emergency room visit by 9% to 19% and days of work lost by 3% to 8%. Another study found that for workers with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, better medication adherence resulted in less time out of work and more than $3,100 in savings on average per worker annually.

Yet, time and again when it comes time to decide on benefits coverage, the choice offered to employers by payers centers on the cost of therapy and not the value it delivers.

What should employers do to define the best path ahead? We believe that when it’s time to negotiate benefits packages with payers, employers must take a more holistic approach to foster key components of healthy, productive workers by addressing the following guiding principles:

  • The health and well-being of a workforce is a long-term investment for employers.
     
  • Tangible outcomes for both employers and employees should be clearly defined and include input from both stakeholder communities.
     
  • Benefits should be designed to optimize positive outcomes (both health-related and readiness for work) for the heterogenous population of covered lives.
     
  • Employers should be able to access data to see both unit cost and total cost of care for any given mix of interventions. Employers should evaluate currently available data to define gaps and call on vendors to aid in bridging those information voids.

As price and upfront cost continue to dominate the headlines, a substantive policy conversation among all different healthcare stakeholders about what constitutes value is needed. Without such inclusive dialogue, the value narrative will continue to revolve solely around “whether to pay or not to pay” for a particular intervention. For employers at the crossroads who know that determining value isn’t a binary exercise, the correct path forward is focusing on a definition of value that includes broader outcomes and recognizes the heterogeneity of covered lives.

Our employees depend upon it.

 

 

 

 

Poll: Americans divided over what Congress should do about Obamacare

Poll: Americans divided over what Congress should do about Obamacare

Image result for Poll: Americans divided over what Congress should do about Obamacare

According to a new POLITICO/Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health poll, Americans remain divided over how to move forward on healthcare.

Recently, President Trump and Republicans in Congress proposed the American Health Care Act (AHCA) as a potential replacement for the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as Obamacare. The AHCA was withdrawn, however, without a vote in Congress. The new survey shows that, following the ACHA’s withdrawal, political opinions remain dramatically polarized about the future of Obamacare. For nearly every question, Republican opinions differ substantially not only from Democratic opinions, but from those of the public as a whole.

Consistent with other polls showing low favorability ratings toward the Republicans’ AHCA, this poll shows that 60% of the public as a whole preferred keeping Obamacare over adopting the AHCA. However, despite the low favorability, 64% of Republicans nonetheless would have preferred the AHCA to Obamacare.

Moving forward, Americans are divided over what President Trump and Republicans should do on healthcare: 41% think that the GOP should work with Democrats to fix Obamacare, while another 19% think they should move on to other issues. A further 19% think they should try again to repeal and replace Obamacare. Republicans are similarly internally divided, while Democrats are more unified. Among Republicans, 60% want the GOP to either try a new repeal-and-replace plan (33%) or to repeal the law entirely (27%). Among Democrats, a 58% majority want the GOP to work with Democrats to fix Obamacare.

Robert Blendon, who co-directed the poll, discussed the poll’s political implications: “The findings mean different things for different parties. Democrats want to see their members of Congress try to fix the law or move on. Republicans, on the other hand, want to see another effort to repeal and replace, or just repeal the whole program. This suggests the GOP would likely face backlash from their constituencies if they were to move on to other issues without at least trying again to repeal and replace Obamacare.”

Additionally, Obamacare allowed for states to expand their Medicaid program, and the Republicans’ recent bill sought to repeal this measure. One element of the Republican proposal would have shifted control over directing the Medicaid program to states, in exchange for less federal money for the program. On this topic, a 54% majority of the public as a whole opposed this idea, instead preferring to keep Medicaid funding as it currently is. Once more Democrats and Republicans differ: 83% of Democrats support the current structure of Medicaid, while 67% of Republicans support increased state control in exchange for less federal funding.

Methodology

These polls are part of an on-going series of surveys developed by researchers at the Harvard Opinion Research Program (HORP) at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in partnership with POLITICO.

The research team at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health consists of: Robert J. Blendon, Professor of Health Policy and Political Analysis and Executive Director of HORP; John M. Benson, Senior Research Scientist and Managing Director; Logan S. Casey, Research Analyst in Public Opinion; and Justin M. Sayde, Administrative and Research Manager. The research team at POLITICO was led by Joanne Kenen, Executive Editor, Health Care at Politico/Politico Pro.

Interviews for the first poll were conducted with a nationally representative sample of 1,019 randomly selected adults, ages 18 and older, via telephone (including cell phones and landlines) by SSRS of Media, Pennsylvania. The interviewing period was March 22–26, 2017.

Interviews for the second poll were conducted with a nationally representative sample of 1,017 randomly selected adults, ages 18 and older, via telephone (including cell phones and landlines) by SSRS of Media, Pennsylvania. The interviewing period was March 29–April 2, 2017.

The data for each of the polls were weighted to reflect the demographics of the national adult population as described by the U.S. Census. When interpreting these findings, one should recognize that all surveys are subject to sampling error. Results may differ from what would be obtained if the whole U.S. adult population had been interviewed. The margin of error for the first poll is ±3.7 percentage points; for the second poll, ±3.8 percentage points

Possible sources of non-sampling error include non-response bias, as well as question wording and ordering effects. Non-response in telephone surveys produces some known biases in survey-derived estimates because participation tends to vary for different subgroups of the population. To compensate for these known biases and for variations in probability of selection within and across households, sample data are weighted by household size, cell phone/landline use and demographics (sex, age, race/ethnicity, education, and region) to reflect the true population. Other techniques, including random-digit dialing, replicate subsamples, and systematic respondent selection within households, are used to ensure that the sample is representative.