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 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
Okay, here’s what we do know about the current state of solvency of Medicaid post-stimulus funding: states are grappling with a larger share of Medicaid liabilities than before, and they are immediately reacting with a combination of cuts to providers/hospitals and pulling in the reins on certain services.
Although states are bearing a bigger share of the Medicaid burden this year than they have in the recent past, overall Medicaid spending (state and federal dollars) is projected to grow by only 2.2 percent, the lowest amount since 2006, [a] Kaiser report [shows]. That is because the stimulus funding ended, and program costs are stabilizing as the national economy shows tentative signs of recovery and enrollment growth slows.
The article is a lengthy one, but worth a read. The Kaiser-funded survey trial of states with respect to this question suggests many states are implementing myriad Medicaid spending stopgaps in the short term. All this is on the table as the bipartisan so-called congressional supercommittee gets ready to release its report on trimming the current budgetary deficit.
The news Wednesday morning of a 3.6 percent increase in Social Security COLA payments for 2012 is somewhat of a mixed blessing for Medicare beneficiaries, many of whom have had to shoulder stagnant SS income over the last couple of years due to negligible inflation. The increase — set to take place in January — could be offset by higher Medicare B premiums, which are deducted from SS payments.
Typically, and unsurprisingly, Medicare B premiums increase at rates higher than inflation — but those increases cannot exceed COLA, by law. Dually eligible recipients over the last couple of years, as well as higher income senior beneficiaries, were not protected from rate increases over 2010 because of Medicaid payments incurred by the former and Part B surcharges paid by the latter group.
The majority of Medicare beneficiaries, however, paint a variable picture with respect to SS income and Part B liability; and the degree of variability has to due with the amount of the monthly SS benefit paid to seniors. All of this is a stark reminder of the degree of the increasing costs of healthcare delivery on Medicare and how it compares and impacts SS entitlements year-in and year-out.
From the Did You Know category today: the state of Indiana is challenging a key provision of the ACA having to do with the medical loss ratio for insurers. That’s the amount by which insurance premiums are set a certain degree of cost implementation for overhead. The ACA requires the insurer to spend 80 percent on healthcare delivery, or else pay a fine. Indiana is pursuing a federal waiver from this proviso. Healthcare consumer advocacy weighs in.
Indiana’s application is based on state politicians’ ideological opposition to health reform, not the realities of the state’s health care market … As the MLR regulations make clear, there must be a credible threat to the stability of the individual marketplace in order to grant a waiver. Indiana has demonstrated no such threat. We urge [HHS] to reject Indiana’s application.
Indiana is the only state in the country to request that consumer high deductible health plans be exempted from MLR provisions unconditionally. HHS will ultimately decide on the matter. | LINK
While California struggles to make some headway in reconciling its budgetary woes amidst an outcry from patients, hospitals, and physicians with respect to Medicaid funding, the funding of Medicare — specifically via auterity measures to ensure its short term viability within reform — is a top concern among the same factions. Only this time, the ire is directed towards the commission charged with implementing payment scales.
The [sustainable growth rate] calls for annual, automatic cuts in Medicare payments to doctors, which Congress always delays, allowing the cuts to accumulate. MedPAC is considering a 10-year replacement that would be offset by cuts to most medical specialties. But the American Hospital Association said health care providers shouldn’t have to foot the bill for a new formula.
MedPAC knows that this is an issue which legislators are echoing, as well. It is becoming a rather common — and exasperating — rite of passage: automatic SGR cuts in Medicare reimbursements which are usually stalled by Congress; the inevitable revisiting of definitive methods to decrease healthcare costs due to Medicare next on the agenda. Most parties agree on that point, just as long as that agenda does not include massive industry cuts (read: providers) within healthcare delivery. | LINK
Getting the word out about all the preventive services available to Medicare beneficiaries is about as easy as wiping out fraud within CMS completely. But that’s not stopping HHS from pulling out all the stops in an effort to curtail future spending on preventable medical problems.
On Monday, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced that the agency was launching a publicity campaign, known as “Share the News, Share the Health” to alert Medicare patients, their doctors and their relatives that the services are available at no charge. “Our job is to make sure every single Medicare beneficiary in the country knows,” Sebelius said.
Chalk it up to a (political) campaign by the federal government to get patients knowledgeable and accepting of the benefits afforded them under the reform law. Overall, this effort is a good thing. At its most superficial, it is a way to catch disease earlier, implement higher quality care delivery for less ill patients sooner, and it represents a time saver for the primary care physician, freeing him from informing the beneficiary in order to make the most of the covered physician service/visit. More profound, however, is the stark effect this initiative could have on patient empowerment — as only slightly more than 10 percent of beneficiaries takes advantage of at least one of the covered preventive medical screenings and services.
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.
