IOM Recommendations

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) an influential organization long known for criticizing health care providers and advocating reform, has issued process recommendations for deciding the "essentials" of health insurance plans. An essentials list is required by DHHS by 2014 for all health plans available on the state health exchanges. The essentials should balance quality of care with projected premium costs.

PPACA does specify ten (10) broad areas of coverage, but not a specific plan menu.

The IOM study was a disappointment to some because it did not specify benefits, as this would have been a good discussion starter and would have given DHHS some political cover. The IOM focused on an approach to making the decision, and it is to start with costs and then work into benefits.

IOM also suggested an annual review of the programs beginning in 2016, and some waiver flexibility for states to customize plans.

Not exciting, but very very important.

see: http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2011/Essential-Health-Benefits-Balancing-Coverage-and-Cost.aspx

Major Reform Proposal - Bundling

PPACA (Obamacare) included initiatives to create "bundled payment" plans for Medicare (which would likely encouraged bundled payment for other payers as well).

This week the CMS Innovation Center issued directives encouraging creation of four (4) models of bundling services.

Rather than paying for quantity of services, Medicare wants to pay for quality and outcomes (this can become problematic in elder care).

This could be one PPACA initiative that actually brings some significant results, or the bureaucrats could bungle it. Time will tell. For now providers are on board or even ahead of CMS, racing to get ahead of the changing revenue cycle.

There are significant business complications in making this shift, so we do not expect quick progress or instant success.

ACOs Becoming IPWACOCs?

Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) are the keystone of the Obamacare efforts to improve quality and control costs.

After considerable initial enthusiasm providers have cooled on the ACO concept, especially as envisioned by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovations. Why? Apparently.....

* ACOs are very difficult to organize and assemble
* ACOs are very difficult to operate and manage
* ACOs are unlikely to provide gain sharing dollars higher than new administrative costs

So is there good news? Yes.

Providers appear to be picking various components of the ACO concept and creating new and innovative models for improving care and containing costs.

It is way too early to declare a trend or to make definitive statements, but it appears providers are creating Innovative Projects With ACO Characteristics, or IPWACOCs.

Obama's Mystery Shoppers

If there is anything most health policy wonks and politicians agree on, it is the shortage of primary care physicians, a shortage that is going to get worse.

So now the Obama administration is setting out to prove what we already know, and likely to create a public relations attack on primary care physicians.

The administration has hired a research firm to employ mystery phone shoppers to call primary care offices with two versions of a script, one a insured patient script and the other a government funded patient script.

The purpose is to measure wait times for new appointments, and to look for discrimination against government-funded patients, particularly Medicaid patients.

The biggest burden will fall on front desk personnel, who are always too busy (I never asked an employee to do what I wouldn't, so I have worked the receptionist chair - gasp).

All this to prove what we already know. ????

Accountable Care "Smackdown" Part III

The Feds fight back:

published in modernhealthcare.com, Berwick interview


http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20110517/NEWS/305179959?AllowView=VW8xUmo5Q21TcWJOb1gzb0tNN3RLZ0h0MWg5SVgra3NZRzROR3l0WWRMZmJVZndHRWxiNUtpQzMyWmV1NW5zWUpibW8=

Accountable Care "Smackdown" Part II

While the feds were developing regulations for Medicare ACOs, both the feds and the American Hospital Association were developing cost numbers for ACO start-ups.

Today the AHA published its preliminary numbers, listing 23 major competencies to form and operate a hospital-based ACO (the AHA has been generally supportive of reform efforts, seeing a grim future).

The AHA costs estimates ranged from 600% and 1400% higher than the DHHS-CMS estimates. Both estimates are preliminary, but that is a huge difference. In my opinion (without deep analysis) the federal estimates have the substance of cotton candy.

On the list of 23 competencies, some were for formation only but most for formation and operations (my own list was 13 major competencies for on-going operations). The ACO is a very complex business model.

If ACOs do not fly, the major objectives of PPACA (Obamacare) will be difficult if not impossible to achieve.

Accountable Care "Smackdown"

The American Medical Group Association represents about 400 very large and sophisticated multi-specialty physicians groups, such as the Cleveland Clinic group and Intermountain (Utah) group.

The Obama administration had counted on these groups to be the first to create Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs), starting with Medicare ACOs in 2012 and then moving to full service ACOs. These groups were more likely to have the resources necessary to start an ACO.

On Wednesday the group announced probably 90% of its members would not participate, because the draft regulations issued March 31st were too prescriptive, too operationally complex, the move to risk sharing is too quick, the gatekeeper and risk management capabilities requirements too much, and the time lines too short. The AMGA consensus is the chance of success is close to zero, so why waste resources.

If the big 400 cannot chew through this and come up with a workable plan, neither will other physician groups. Based on our recent conference attendance many provider organizations are taking the slow down approach.

It appears today only very large very integrated systems owning all of the necessary providers will be in the first wave. This could change for the better, but we doubt it. This could change for the worse though.

Not enough ACOs, no significant cost savings with quality improvement, no deficit improvement, train wreck.

To Integrate or Not to Integrate

The Obama administrative, and especially the Department of Health and Human Services, is pushing the notion of accountable care organizations (ACOs) and similar innovative integration strategies to improve the cost-benefit ratio of health care services. This is integral to PPACA ("Obamacare.")

ACOs and other integrated provider networks are to provide 1) better coordination of care and 2) lower cost, perhaps through a bundled payment system. The exact form of these organizations is still evolving.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accountable_care_organization


The Federal Trade Commission appears to be preparing to hammer physicians and hospitals under the assumption ACOs and the like are anti-competitive. This is consistent with pre-PPACA enforcement policies. Reports and lawyer gossip say there is a tug-of-war between the two agencies, with the Justice Department being more sympathetic to the integration.

To be fair, the FTC is supposed to enforce the laws on the books, perhaps we need some clarification from Congress?

A little clarity would speed the integration and further the intent of PPACA, IMHO.

Structuring Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs)

The success of PPACA (Obamacare) depends heavily on innovative delivery systems such as ACOs.

With the health care industry there is lot of chatter and lots of thinking about how these innovations can be achieved.

One problem though. Over the past couple of decades the federal government (Congress, FTC, Justice) have been concerned about anti-competitive actions. The Stark legislation (I, II, III) and antikickback statutes add to the mix (being a health care transaction lawyer has been and will be very lucrative).

There is much concern about innovating organizations into trouble, and the possible considerable costs if all parties in a transactions have to buy legal assurance each step of the way.

Suggested solutions include "safe harbor" rules (a big help with Stark) or perhaps an omnibus pre-screening mechanism.

Innovation can be very complicated.

Further recommended reading: Modern Healthcare and other major journals and newsletters

Comparative Effectiveness Research, Gender and Emotion

A key cost bending feature of PPACA (Obamacare) is comparative effectiveness research (see http://www.hhs.gov/recovery/programs/cer/index.html).

This research is designed to apply statistical, economic and clinical analysis to care and treatment to encourage effective care and block ineffective treatments.

It is highly likely, based on current research, the statisticians will recommend less screening and much less treatment for prostate cancer. As my doc says, "almost all old men die with prostate cancer, almost none of them die from prostate cancer." Screening should likely be focused on younger men and more aggressive forms of the cancer.

With men being somewhat nonchalant about such matters, and prostate cancer being something less than a celebrity telethon issue, it is unlikely there will much of a fuss. Money can be saved and the resulting increased mortality will be slight.

At the same time, current recommendations about breast cancer are suggesting a lot less mammography, and there is an uproar.

Breast cancer hits many women, hits many younger women, and the results are horrifying. The blowback from advocacy groups has been and will be fierce.

So can we get past gender and emotion to become more efficient and effective? Whatever sounds good in the abstract, many of us will go with emotion.

Obamacare and PPACA Whistleblower Regs

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009 (H.R. 3590, aka PPACA) includes a number of whistleblower clauses. some are focused specifically on long-term care (which should interest physicians servicing ltcfs).

The broadest provision (Act Section 1558) added whistle blower protection to the Fair Labor Standards Act, referenced only to Title I provisions in the bill (critics wonder why not Titles 2 – 9, but there are other pre-existing regs in the federal (and state) law).

Procedural and remedy sections are tied to and mirror the provisions in the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008. These include a 180 day statute of limitations, initial complaints are filed with OSHA, options on litigation venues, a right to a jury trial, and a broad range of remedies. The causation and proof standards are very favorable to the employee, and may be an impossible standard for the employer .

Another Section, 6703(b)(3) creates an additional special responsibility for long-term care providers (on top of numerous other reporting regulations) to inform all officers, employees and contractors of mandatory reporting and whistleblowing situations.

Section 6105, specifically focused on long-term care adds a mandatory complaint form for each nursing home (more paperwork, yippee!) and a prohibition against retaliation. Each state must develop (another) process to track and investigate complaints.

Employer “gag order” policies are voided by employee free speech rights, although “gags” related to HIPAA privacy and related issues would appear to remain valid (whistleblowing should be done through government channels therefore not violating HIPAA regs).

Employers may not use mandatory arbitration clauses to bypass or void these statutory rights.

IDS - Wave of the Future?

Among those who ponder the technical aspects of health care reform, there is strong sentiment for more use of Integrated Delivery Systems (IDS) in delivering health care.

This is hardly a new concept, but it may well be the concept of the future.

The first big IDS wave occurred in the early to mid-90s, as physicians and hospitals tried various medical service organization (MSO) models; essentially the hospital owned the physician practices. Many of these deals were disasters, some worked, some evolved into something that worked.

The idea is that if a central entity (an insurer, a hospital, or a hospital network) owns and coordinates services there will better care coordination and cost savings.

The successful integrations so far have largely focused on family practice, internal medicine and ob-gyn (the OBs assistance with malpractice premiums and 24/7 coverage issues).

An interesting change is surfacing, the acceptance of specialists and surgeons into IDS models. Historically there has been a great deal of friction between these docs and the hospitals.

Why the change? Fear of dire economic consequences of staying in a traditional group practice model.

Preliminary numbers from the 6/30/2010 residency class is that for the first time, a majority may opt for IDS employment rather than group practice. There are also reports that young docs are more concerned with life balance issues than previous generations.

So, any problems?

Some hospitals are bad at managing physician practices, physician contracts must be structured carefully, physician productivity sometimes drops off with a steady paycheck, and the process of merging practices and/or converting ownership is a great deal of complex work at no small cost. Also, making this work in rural areas is tough.

Biggest question, will IDS on a large scale really cut costs? Or just reshuffle the deck chairs?

A New Era 3/21/2010

An Editorial:

The passage of the health care reform bill is a major milestone for U.S. health care services. With passage, we will need to unravel the bill and the real story and prepare for the intended and unintended consequences of this massive effort.

The legislation is neither as bad as the Republicans make it out to be, not as fabulous as the Democrats claim. The bill changes the health care system to an amazing depth and breadth, and despite the proclamation of economists, politicians and policy wonks, we do not really know the full impact of the bill.

Reform is needed, we will soon be hitting the point at which employers have trouble providing health insurance to employees at an affordable price, the alternatives being dropping coverage or taking more from employees pockets.

President Obama will be hammered by the political right for going too far too fast, and by the progressive left of his own party for being timid. The left wanted a single payer system, was willing to settle for a public option, but left the table with only hope reform will be revisited, as it will.

The amount of misinformation, over generalization and plain old hot air tossed around during the debate make a calm analysis difficult, and will leave citizens and patients confused and alarmed, probably more than required. The bill is full of slow phase-ins and long transitions as we attempt to turn around one-sixth of our economy and attempt to attain several seemingly contradictory goals.

A great deal of the debate has focused on the budget impacts, and specifically the positive or negative impact on the deficit over a ten year span. The bill is full of wiggles and gimmicks, and as the vote drew near the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated a positive deficit impact of about $140 billion in ten years.

Truth be told no one has any real idea what the bill will do to the deficit over ten years. Anyone who has studied the history of Medicare and Medicaid knows the legislative budget estimates tend to melt in the face of annual politicking and lobbying.

There are problems needing immediate attention. State budgets, hammered by the recession will have to be cut Medicaid benefits, a backwards step. Medicare physician reimbursement formulas, problematic for a decade, are being patched again while Congress dances around a permanent solution. Private insurers and employers will have to adjust quickly to new regulations and cost structures. Changes in Medicare are inevitable.

We can improve coverage and contain cost, but the reforms have to be constructed so carefully it is unlikely any political process has or will do so.

Now we know when the journey begins and the direction it is going. The details will be tough to work out, and there are many battles ahead, but decision making improves as certainty increases. We may get a good place, but not without many bumps and bruises.

CER Hits a Snag

Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) may have inadvertently lost credibility even before health care reform is actually launched.

CER is the darling of the government-dominated health reform movement (not a government take-over, to be clear). The use of evidence-based medicine when combined with cost-benefit analysis has the potential to save a great deal of money while better serving the patients. Many see downsides though; too rigid protocols and interference with physician judgment, or the dirty “R” word, rationing.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recently released a study on various breast cancer screening modalities, recommending more limited screening protocols, particularly delaying routine mammography until age 50 (except in women with unusual risk factors).

Kah – boom!

USPSTF points out film mammography does cut mortality, with the greatest reductions in women over 50, with the best results in the age 60 – 69 cohort. Film mammography does carry a risk of false positives and the pain and inconvenience of unnecessary biopsies.

USPSTF also recommends ceasing mammography on women over 74, citing a lack of reliable evidence of reduced mortality.

There was a huge backlash from women, physicians, cancer activists and some health care associations.

USPSTF also recommends against teaching women to perform ”breast self-exam” (BSE) which has been a standard tool for decades. More backlash.

USPSTF does point out that digital and MRI mammography do not show, at this time, significant improvement over film mammography, but do have greater costs.

None of the conclusion appear to have been made on strong and startling statistics, but on think pros and cons, as one might expect from quants and scientists.

Women apparently want a little less quant and a lot more consideration.



USPSTF report:
http://www.annals.org/content/151/10/716.full

cross-posted at: http://healthcarethinktank.blogspot.com/

Health Care Reform Part 2

President Obama's speech yesterday was "hitting the reset button" for health care reform.

First impressions - the numbers do not add up.

And every President since Nixon has promised to reduce "waste, fraud and abuse" from Medicare and Medicaid.

Game on!

Selling Health Care Reform

President Obama is selling health care reform with the argument that we need to fix health care in order to fix the overall economy.

Economic advisor Christina Romer distributed an op-ed piece today explaining how health care reform would 1) improve family incomes, 2) enhanced GDP, 3) lower budget deficits, 4) lower unemployment, 5) provide greater health care coverage (of course) and a 6) better labor market.

Wow. This is quite a claim.

Full report: http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/CEA_Health_Care_report.pdf