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
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
For Don Berwick, MD, the path to greatness as head of the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Svcs was essentially doomed from the start. President Obama’s choice to head the federal agency was one made via his executive powers, bypassing congressional confirmation and giving Berwick a scarlet letter on the forehead ever since. Sure, there were the efforts at priming the PR pump in the first year since the reform bill was signed into law — his efforts to eliminate the quality chasm in hospitals and other care settings, bringing new light and interest into so-called comparative effectiveness research to improve healthcare, and most recently, his support of a citizen-led innovation care advisory panel, of sorts, to create models of reform in cutting Medicare spending on the run-up to reform. But it was all for naught. Senate Republicans, miffed at the recess appointment at the outset, never were willing to give the new CMS head a chance. Rather than face an uphill battle with pending confirmation hearings amid a hellish re-election campaign, Obama decided to drop him in favor of a less controversial pick:
President Obama said on Wednesday he plans to nominate Marilyn Tavenner as administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to replace Dr. Donald Berwick, who has never won the support of Congress. [...] Tavenner, Berwick’s principal deputy, was the Virginia secretary of health and human resources. She has served as a board member of the American Hospital Association and as president of the Virginia Hospital Association. Ms. Tavenner holds a B.S. in nursing and an M.A. in health administration, both from the Virginia Commonwealth University.
You can bet that this nominee will be a safer one — an administrator who can hold steady on policies of Medicare spending without being seen as a “rationer” of healthcare delivery whose ideas on cutting federal costs of healthcare will not be perceived as coming from a wealth redistribution model.
Robbing Peter to pay Paul — in terms of Medicare cost sharing, that is. A new Medicare benefit design will enable increased costs for lower utilizers of the government entitlement (relatively healthier beneficiaries). This limit on cost-sharing among beneficiaries would decrease the costs per sicker beneficiary for, say, acute visits to the hospital rather substantially, leaving those who do not use services as much shouldering the burden.
A melding of the services by hospitals (part A) and doctor visits (B) as they relate to deductibles, plus a requirement that participants pay 20 percent toward a $5500 limit would increase the payment of almost 75 percent of beneficiaries (the lower utilizers of acute care) by almost $200/month. My take? It’s potentially a mechanism for some savings by the federal government, and it may give more ammo to Republicans who are interested in tiering beneficiary eligibility — such as via so-called means-testing.
All this in an interesting study via Kaiser. | LINK
Just under 13 percent of skilled long term care facilities here in Minnesota are part of a project that is aimed at reducing the “supply side” of potentially unnecessary hospitalizations in the care of their elderly patients. The three year initiative is based upon data already gleaned from smaller tests and it essentially involves going back to the fundamentals of physical diagnosis — from all members of the skilled provider team.
“The problem is the doctors,” [Dr. Robert Kane, a University of Minnesota aging expert who is helping lead the experiment, said.] “Physicians familiar with nursing homes learn quickly to trust the precise information from nurses using the Interact tools. But for the others, especially nights or weekends, the default is hospitalization.”
I like to think of this as a recognition about what physicians have always known about medicine. Nothing substitutes for a thorough physical exam, regardless of who the examiner is. Any effort to utilize the good ol’ noggin to diagnose and treat without the knee-jerk rush to the hospital ED to provide primary care is always preferred, and it saves the proverbial bean counters on the acute care side of things (hospitals) of having to deal with yet another inappropriate admission. | 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.
The reining in of costs associated with spiraling Medicare coverage amidst the proposed so-called “doc-fixes” addressing incessant threats of congressionally mandated cuts has many on the Hill wondering what will the Super Committee do to remedy the situation? FYI, the Super Committee is the bipartisan congressional panel made up of 6 Dems and 6 GOPers tasked with putting the brakes on deficit spending to the tune of $1.5T over the next ten years. Issues of Medicaid and Medicare spending are high on the panel’s agenda.
Specifically, futher tightening of Medicare eligibility rules and block-grant funding of Medicaid are mong the most rancorous of discussions — so much so, that at least one Republican moderate senator has chosen to distance herself from the Super Committee recommendations forthcoming. Sen Olympia Snowe (R-ME) also cites her support of branded pharma rebates (something her GOP colleagues really aren’t enthusiastic about) as another mechanism to trim costs.
The ramped-up schedule endorsed by the panel has states, insurance companies, and policywatchers of reform on the edge of their collective seats as issues of funding of the Medicare hospice benefit funding and possible elimination of the SGR formula for determining Medicare reimbursements to phsyicians and hospitals are discussed along with Medicaid funding. | 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
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.
