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
Medicare will now expand its breadth of covered preventive services to include obesity treatment and management. In what could be a sign of the increasing population of beneficiaries who were weaned in the Boomer mentality, treatment coverage for such a hot-button topic among politicians, lobbyists, healthcare advocates, and physicians themselves — will remain, indeed, controversial. According to CMS, obese Medicare beneficiaries (defined as those with a body mass index of 30 or higher) may see their primary care physician for one face-to-face visit every week for the first month. Then, Medicare will pay for one face-to-face visit every other week for the next five months. If the patient loses at least 3 kg (6.6 lbs.) over the first six months, Medicare will pay for an additional six months of once-a-month face-to-face visits with the doctor.
Insurance remains above the fray here. While the feds may explain away this coverage as putting a dent in future healthcare costs associated with the obese patient, the fact remains, that outside of a universally defined pragmatic treatment regimen (ie, dedicated drugs = dedicated reimbursements/payments) — provider acceptance of this latest move by CMS will continue to advance at a trickle. It’s hard to get on board with yet another taxpayer funded government initiative whose intentions really haven’t been proven to lower across-the-board healthcare costs, lower all-cause mortality, and assume that all physicians are competent weight-loss counselors. Also: about 30 percent of beneficiaries are projected to qualify for this latest Medicare preventive care benefit. | 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
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
A new study out of Harvard finds that approximately a third of all Medicare beneficiaries in the last year of life chose to have a major surgical procedure. The operative (excuse the pun) issue here is whether such timed, elective surgeries are necessary — implying a possible increase in life expectancy. Problem is, no one knows when the beneficiary will die.
By analyzing Medicare claims data the study authors found that, in a group of almost 2 million elderly beneficiaries, all of whom died in 2008, almost one-third had inpatient surgery in the year before they died, almost one in five in the last month of their lives and almost one in 10 in the week before they took their last breath.
The study itself is a good lesson in who exactly “benefits” in these cases. As futile as these findings may sound, there is no question that any procedure done within FFS Medicare coverage remains a reimbursement cache for the provider and hospital, crudely suggesting a financial incentive. While this scenario is entirely possible, it really doesn’t seem to be the impetus for the study’s findings, in my humble opinion. Besides being reflective of a cynical and laconic way of approaching the study’s results, it really makes no sense in a healthcare delivery system increasingly focused on positive outcomes (read: anything but mortality or unacceptable morbidity). The study, however, does usher in the need to discuss the perennial issue of quality of life versus the “appropriateness” of acute surgical treatment among consenting patients with significant chronic illness.
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.
#pharma news: Playoff Trifecta Means Windfall Curbed by L.A. Traffic http://t.co/voOlghpt
RT @Ziggy_Daddy: Hunger Growing Problem Among Seniors | Crooks & Liars http://t.co/FRRGv4d4 But hey #GOP, let's turn #Medicare into a voucher system, right?
Details: Join us on Thursday, May 24 th for an inVentiv Health Pharmaceutical Sales Representative Job F... http://t.co/hweWSf3J #pharma Details: Baxter International Inc. develops, manufactures and markets products that save and sustain the... http://t.co/9WjUB30d #pharma
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.
