Against the backdrop of the so-called safety net hospital (those with heavy Medicare, Medicaid claims utilization) as a healthcare-related industry and campaign ’12 meme, there is interesting data out in JAMA this week that either supports Mitt Romney’s assertion that the “very poor” are taken care of in this country quite adequately, or there is reason to believe that P4P measures (or, at least the idea, anyway) are superficially quite similar in non-safety net acute care centers in terms of ultimate patient dispositions.
Researchers studied whether patients were admitted to the acute hospital within eight hours ED admission or if they were to be discharged, transferred or moved to observation within four hours of coming to the ED. They found that
compliance with proposed ER length-of-stay measures for admitted, discharged, transferred, and observed patients to not differ between safety-net and non-safety-net hospitals
Although length-of-stay (LOS) data is interesting, it is not compelling — quite limited in its implications, actually. Currently there is no “accepted” ED LOS strict guideline in the U.S. Digging deeper into this study (abstract-only text cited above available without a JAMA susbscription), one can infer more from the upper decile of data — in which LOS significantly increased among both types of institutions (10-15 h in length), the authors citing mostly acute patient decompensations in mental illness as the reason for protracted admission LOS.
Still, the trial provides renewed attention over a surrogate care parameter just a few years ago was hailed as an agreeable target upon which to base healthcare reform on spending within the government sector. These days, the study may only serve as yet another reason why P4P as a quality measure is so derided by many as the ACA is just beginning to take hold.
Probable GOP nominee for president, former Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney, came under attack over the past couple of days for comments on discounting the “very poor” as this demographic benefits from the existence of a societal “safety net” for the delivery of essential services — presumably basic healthcare among them. Terming the gaffe as simply a “misspoken” choice of words, the GOP frontrunner initially found it difficult to run from those words and their implications from members of his own party and the Democrats.
Chief rival Newt Gingrich jumped on the metaphorical bandwagon early.
Gingrich said both Romney and Democratic President Barack Obama think poverty can be solved with a safety net.”What the poor need is a trampoline so they can spring up,” he said. “So I want to replace a safety net with a trampoline.” Romney spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg responded that Gingrich was joining Democrats in “distorting Mitt Romney’s comments.”
South Carolina Gov. Jim Demint, a prominent force of social conservatism within the party, was a little more sanguine.
“He needs to address it,” DeMint told Roll Call. “Because I know he does care about the poor. But I think he was trying to make a case that they’re taken care of. But, in fact, I would say I’m worried about the poor because many are trapped in dependency, they need a good job; they don’t need to be on social welfare programs. I think he needs to turn that around because — the middle class is key, and we have to focus on that. And, really, the problem with the middle class is not successful people, it’s politicians — but the key to making our country successful it to get everyone on that economic ladder.
Typical “bootstrap” rhetoric, to be sure, but a teachable point for Romney; because, as it applies to healthcare — let’s take Medicaid, for example — his disavowal of basic healthcare delivery to the poor (and elderly) runs in stark contrast to his pledge to “fix it” — meaning the “safety net”. What does Mitt Romney want to fix, exactly? Continued taxpayer subsidied care for the indigent without further acknowledgement, or does he want to weaken an already painfully inadequate payor of healthcare in chronically cash-strapped states — threatening any stake they have as the reform law takes hold? In his efforts in trying to explain away his current campaign gaffe, Romney has made his stance on healthcare reform much murkier in this young election season. | LINK
Embattled WI governor, Scott Walker (R), issued a statement yesterday opposing the implementation of a state exchange as provisioned by the ACA — opting to defer action on the measure until the case is heard by the SCOTUS in March. In doing so, he will be returning almost $40 M in federal funding earmarked for the healthcare exchange. Whether this is earnest on his part or merely a symbolic gesture to Wisconsin GOP faithful in the wake of a pending certified recall vote on his office remains to be seen. Walker has always been against the passage of the reform law, instead focusing on efforts to deny federal assistance in doing so (states which choose this path will have to demonstrate fiscal independence on healthcare exchange creation by 1/1/13 or will be mandated a program by the feds).
Is this entire episode a game of chicken by Walker in light of his sudden vulnerability? It is, if one listens to the rhetoric from the state’s Democrats on the issue. Advocacy groups are also weighing their own disapproval of the governor’s intentions. The SOCTUS will hear testimony on the constitutionality of the reform law (notably, the mandate for coverage) over a two day period by the end of March. By the end of Februrary numerous amicus briefs will be filed by both Obama admin (DOJ) and plaintiffs (states) in the case. In spite of all the rancor surrounding this issue, it will difficult to envision striking of the mandate provision, much less the entire reform law as two lower courts have offered split decisions on the matter — prompting the SCOTUS to act quickly on a decision on the entirety of the ACA well before the election. | PDF brief from UCB Labor Center in support of the ACA’s constitutionality
The good news: the media have done a reasonably good job of getting the word out to consumers of healthcare with respect to the prevention of medical and surgical mistakes in acute care settings. The bad news? Here in Minnesota, the numbers of “wrong surgeries”, a collective term meaning never-events in this care realm, topped 2010′s tally by five cases — creating a surge in such cases last year.
The figure is the highest in eight years of self-reporting by Minnesota hospitals. Officials cited many reasons for the mistakes — from doctors filling out incorrect orders to sloppy inventories that make it easy to grab the wrong joint implants for orthopedic procedures.
While the surge appears to be from the absolute numbers of incorrect procedures performed, the rate of adverse events has globally decreased, bringing into question the efforts of many healthcare systems in the processes involved in preventing completely avoidable lapses in care delivery. | LINK
The long term care marketplace is one of those sectors in healthcare delivery on the cusp of markedly innovative practices in this young century, buoyed by the sudden proliferation of the senior Boomer demographic. Sky’s the limit on the impact of care services and offerings a market-based approach can muster on the eve of reform. Unfortunately, certain models are ripe for abuse.
The DOJ said today it joined a whistleblower case against AseraCare in federal court in Birmingham, Alabama, accusing the closely held company of seeking to cheat Medicare for the hospice care of patients who weren’t terminally ill. The U.S. is seeking three times the damages and a penalty of $5,500 to $11,000 per claim.
The hospice company is owned by a national company that provides services within LTC. Whistleblowers prompted the government action when the hospice operation recruited Medicare beneficiaries and continued to fraudulently collect payments by inappropriately cycling those patients under the hospice benefit. The process would continue upon initial termination of Medicare payments for those services once the initial LTC services ceased. Multiple referrals for covered services later, the LTC contractor would continue to collect those payments, based upon allegedly fraudulent qualifying practices by the LTC contractor/company.
The case is an interesting one which will, hopefully, provide Medicare reform in yet another overlooked care sector that will only increase in prevalence as the rate of patients diagnosed with chronic disease and disability skyrockets. More here
The cost of the delivery of healthcare in this country always seems to be independent of traditional models of demand in practically any other market-based, for-profit operation. That is, instead of relying on the parameters of patient (consumer) satisfaction or dissatisfaction; further innovation fuels the development of costlier, more advanced technology seemingly designed to break the bank (in one way or another) the very entity it is supposed to benefit: the patient.
An editorial reprint in today’s Minneapolis-St. Paul paper of record, the Star Tribune, makes the case for the unintended costly consequences this very innovation has on the big picture with respect to healthcare delivery in the 2010s. It focuses on the use of nuclear diagnostics developed by the Mayo Clinic as a superfluous and disruptive innovation which does the patient-as-consumer no favors…while benefiting the institution at the hands of government abetting.
Proton beam therapy is a kind of radiation used to treat cancers. The particles are made of atomic nuclei rather than the usual X-rays, and theoretically can be focused more precisely on cancerous tissue, minimizing the danger to healthy tissue surrounding it. [...]
To generate sufficient revenue, proton beam facilities need to treat patients with other types of cancer. Consequently, they have been promoted for patients with lung, esophageal, breast, head and neck cancers.
But the biggest target by far has been prostate cancer, diagnosed in nearly a quarter of a million men each year. [...]
With Medicare reimbursement so generous, and patients and doctors eager for the latest technology, building new machines is sane, profitable business for hospitals like Mayo.
But it is crazy medicine and unsustainable public policy.
Maybe so, but the practice of medicine depends upon the richness of technologies in which parties not only compete toward developing paths of effective treatments for chronic diseases (like cancer, in this case), but also race to spur further research on the nature and behavior of disease. It is within this self-fulfilling prophecy of the cycle of medical education that knowledge moves forward — something the creators of publications like this one thrived upon. And, that’s a good thing. | LINK
The cornerstone of the ACA is the provision for a coverage mandate — whether that coverage includes complete subsidized services (Medicaid or another fed subsidized program) or via private insurer. In order that individual states comply with this most essential of the reform law’s benefits, HHS has announced that states have the option to create “essential benefits packages” as a method of increasing compliance within the ACA.
“Flexebility” is the key, according to Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
The national health law lists 10 categories of health care that all insurance policies must cover: hospitalization, emergency care, out-patient services, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance abuse services, prescription drugs, laboratory testing, preventive and wellness care, pediatric services (including dental and vision examinations), rehabilitative care and habilitative care such as services for children with developmental disabilities. But within those categories, the federal government is allowing each state to determine its own basket of essential benefits by choosing a “benchmark” package offered by any of a variety of insurers.
Sebelius: This move protects consumers by respecting states’ role in healthcare delivery under the ACA. Obama administration: This is the only way in which the mandate can be upheld while making essential services affordable in all fifty states. Consumers? Increased standardization among offerings of basic services by states under the ACA raises the possiblity of mandated coverage rather than making things too onerous for the feds in getting the legislation off the ground in just a couple of years. | LINK
In an effort to track physician referral patterns, some hospital systems are resorting to detailing to increase revenue. Much like the pharma reps hired by their respective companies back in the day, hospitals are hiring these paid ambassadors — many former pharma reps – to trumpet favorable care data in order to buffer the bottom line. Hospitals say they are doing this to better streamline care — especially among providers who split referrals among hospitals, thereby cutting administrative waste in this regard. Proponents call these detailing visits to primary care offices liaison-like – initiatives allowing providers a voice from beyond the hosptial arena in an affort to enhance patient care quality. They are also quick to point out that hiring former pharma reps displaced by shrinking sales, fewer NDAs, increased generic availability, and general prohibition of access by reps by healthcare orgs only benefits the economic sector in a flailing economy.
Hospitals say their new sales approach is part of a broader strategy to develop closer ties to physicians, who largely determine where patients go for care. Hospitals also are buying doctors’ practices or forming closer partnerships with physicians to improve care and drive admissions.
Like it or not, healthcare delivery is an industry in this country. In one sector in which market share is showing a tremedous decline, there jumps in another opportunity to create new platforms for innovation. As long as no antitrust issues occur, there should be room for the experimentation of new avenues to enhance quality of care delivery. As the components of care delivery (ambulatory versus inpatient, for example) become more specialized in their own right, it will be interesting to observe this effort by hospitals to grow and innovate in an increasingly crowded healthcare marketplace, allowing regulation by government entities only if patient care is truly at risk. | LINK
The wrangling back and forth in the US legislature concerning the upcoming vote on the payroll tax cut extension (which includes a provision giving providers a two-year break on Medicare payment cuts) continues to raise the ire of acute hospitals, which would shoulder part of the financing for such an action. The amount to be financed, at the literal expense of hospitals, approaches $17 billion. Essentially, the proposed offsets to direct provider payments would come from reduced payments to hospital administrative and evaluatory functions.
House GOP leaders are in the hospitals’ crosshairs, as the hospitals complain that, under the proposal, there is little incentive for them to continue to collect other payments (copays, deductibles) in the face of such financing, compromising care delivery in the process. Republicans are quick to point out, however, hospitals did agree to major cuts in Medicare as part of reform and that overall Medicare spending would fall by less than 1 percent over the next 10 years. | LINK
As a primary care geriatrician, I am especially fortunate to have the dual experience of meeting the difficulty of treating chronic disease and, at the same time, making a difference in the lives of patients and their families. But, I have also been bitten by the acute care bug. For the past couple of years, I have also done urgent care medicine part time. I really enjoy it. And it seems to be falling into a healthcare delivery niche, as far as reform is concerned.
Across the country, an estimated 3 million patients visit these centers each week, according to the Urgent Care Association of America, a trade group based in Chicago. To meet increased demand, the number of facilities has steadily increased from 8,000 in 2008 to more than 9,200 this year, the association said. About 600 new urgent centers opened this year. Fueling that rise are two longstanding trends — crowded emergency rooms and a lack of primary care doctors. Urgent care operators also say another factor is helping to propel business: the drive to lower costs.
I’m not sure what to make of the supposition that the cost savings derived from urgent care as an emergency department surrogate. In the long run, these presumed cost savings will likely be minimal if patients-as-conumers remain in the mindset that urgent care access is equivalent to primary care access. Yes, the decreasing numbers of primary care physicians may be entering a critical phase, and as this scenario demonstrates, urgent care as a delivery mechanism, will not replace the reality of impaired access to primary care. Paitents desirous of value as recipients of health care will always gravitate toward the path of least resistance. Only by increasing the primary care workforce can that level of access and value actually be realized. | LINK
The federal government finally announces that it will open up its Medicare claims database to allow third party access (advocacy groups, insurers, hospitals, etc). This follows a few years of speculation on the part of pundits and legislators alike on what such a move could entail and how it would impact heatlhcare reform — in particular, enhancing quality parameters. The benefits of availability of such information gleaned from billing, requisitions, and payments will vary among groups seeking such data.
Though the data aggregate is invaluable for constructing tools for everything from clinical trials to arranging care delivery based upon demographics, there is always the specter of misrepresentation of that data. For years, many clinicians (including professional associations like the AMA) have lobbied against the release of such info on the gounds that internal reviews should be made before that info is released to the general public. End data may not always be reflected by the healthcare delivery means for many difficult-to-treat patients, for example.
Still, the move is a win for groups wanting to move beyond the formerly impenetrable wall imposed and maintained by physicians and physician groups in order to access that gold mine of clinical, financial, and parametric information. | LINK
Originating from Saint Paul, Minnesota, [doctorpundit.com] is a weblog about the policy of healthcare and where it intersects with politics and public opinion; it is edited by Michael Douglas, MD, MBA. Welcome, and please consider my take on what is Healthcare 2.0, complemented by a few of my thoughts on my personal avocations and guilty pleasures: music, prose, and writing. Follow Doctor Pundit via RSS above.
Infographic: Learn about the rise of the digital doctor http://t.co/XRefG3sk #Hcsm #Hc
RT @reedsmith: Infographic: Rise of the Digital Doctor http://t.co/FgZuSXL0 #hcmktg #hcsm #mccsm #mdchat
RT @LavaLandBlog: #HIPAA Compliant Email Solution By MostHost: http://t.co/I127VLzM
RT @LavaLandBlog: #HIPAA Compliant Email Solution By MostHost: http://t.co/I127VLzM
RT @LavaLandBlog: #HIPAA Compliant Email Solution By MostHost: http://t.co/I127VLzM
DOCTOR PUNDIT @ ONE YEAR | An occasional DP series from 2010 highlighting healthcare policy trends over the period from 2009-2010 in a compare/contrast format.
