The decision at the SCOTUS hearings at the end of this month all eyes will feast upon is, of course, the opinion on the coverage mandate. But the smart money is on a more mundane matter: Medicaid expansion. Specifically, if the plaintiff 26 states have to accept legislative power via “coercive action” in order to obtain matching funds under reform in the short term. This “state sovereignty” provision under the ACA will be heard for approximately 60 minutes on the final day of arguments (3/28). Check out KFF’s primer here.
UPDATE: No cameras allowed. | LINK
Match Day 2012 is practically upon us. Me? I’m about 18 years removed, but the drama surrounding where I would be receiving my OJT after medical school was palpable. I still feel the goosebumps from that day; it’s that exciting and unnerving. Each year, I have tried to chronicle briefly what the tea leaves hold for primary care. Last year, there was some reason to hope for an increased representation of the collective discipline in the overall scheme of matches of graduates to training programs, but feelings were still mixed on the issue. Though, this year could be even more of the same.
As we approach health reform in this country, the need to increase the numbers of primary care physicians has never been greater. The White House has a stake in this interest, as the ACA will dramatically increase that need for presumptive increases in demand for this mode of care delivery. Last year, there was some wind in the sails of primary care. Many more medical students chose the discipline than were expected, citing looming changes via the ACA and the need to “make a difference” with respect to preventive medicine and public health. The WH has an initiative in place to address primary care’s dwindling numbers, but it is only a modest amount needed to stem the projected approximately 30,000-numbered provider deficit by 2015.
If representation compared to medical and surgical subspecialties continues on this uneven pace, healthcare costs will continue to rise as more and more people are guaranteed access to basic (primary) care under reform. Throw in the costs to Medicare (a significant funding source for most residency programs), one can only hope that changes (cuts) in reimbursement will not negatively affect those who continue to see such patients. While the entire fiscal future of healthcare delivery will most certainly not rest upon the primary care results of Match Day ’12, it will be interesting to see if last year spurs a trend.
From one extreme to the other. Just as Washington state will become the first in the nation to guarantee insurance coverage of elective abortion within the insurance marketplace under pending nationwide health reform, Mississippi is looking at legislation to severly restrict (or possibly ban outright) such services.
Bills have been introduced that would require doctors to do ultrasounds or look for a fetal heart beat before an abortion and offer the woman a chance to see the results. Neither is currently required under Mississippi law. Senator Chris McDaniel, R-Laurel, authored the heartbeat legislation and says women would have to sign a waiver before the abortion can be performed.“Because science has demonstrated to us that once a discernible heartbeat is heard that the chances of that child growing to term are outstanding,” McDaniel said.
Mississippi’s recent defeat of the proposed so-called personhood statute — language protecting initial conceptus — is only emboldening this try at legislation which also seeks to prohibit out-of-state OB/GYNs from performing procedures in Miss., to require the use of ultrasound technology to document fetal heart tones before a procedure, and to require notarization of the current parental notification requirement, among other provisions. | LINK
Is this the obligatory Leap Year Day post (as this would be this blog’s first since its inception) or is it what it should be — informative and representative of the most of the content therein? While you ponder that, consider this: the state of Washington, hot off the heels of one “culture war” issue — the passage of a same-sex marriage law — comes another hot button issue. The legislature is considering passage of the Reproductive Parity Act, a first-of-its-kind law that would require insurers to cover “voluntary” abortions.
As it would apply to state-run exchanges under the PPACA, healthcare consumers would have to pay a premium to insurers in a given virtual marketplace (online exchange) in addition to the base premium for all other services offered in a coverage plan. (There is also an insurer opt-out exemption clause in the legislation.) The bill has made it through the House and is expected to sail through the Senate there on the way to Gov. Gregoire’s desk, as she is expected to sign it into law. Although the law makes this coverage quite voluntary for the consumer, anti-abortion groups are expected to fight it. But, the bigger issue is how this will play out nationwide, as other states consider similar legislation in the law’s wake. It will also be interesting to see how demand for this service will affect its availability in exchange marketplaces, and how insurers will continue to pay for that coverage under the mandate of affordability as laid out by the reform law. | LINK
Recall that the Supreme Court will be hearing arguments next month as to the constitutionality of the ACA, with a decision expected on the insurance mandate of the law by this summer. Via TPM, there are indications that the high court may be considering an option to delay that decision.
The temporary escape hatch involves the Anti-Injunction Act, an age-old law that says courts may not halt a tax that isn’t yet being collected. (Under the Affordable Care Act, it won’t be collected until 2014.) Although the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals last fall tossed out a lawsuit against the mandate on this basis, most courts have decreed that the statute doesn’t apply here.
This opens up an entirely new wrinkle on the means to the ends of whatever decision is reached regarding this important provision in the law — so much so, that the SCOTUS has added time to discuss the taxation implications behind the “age old” Anti-Injunction Act.
The federal government has given opponents of the ACA another reason to gripe: it has announced the formation of loans to initiate health plans on the new exchange platform in individual states. Think of the offering has a cooperative of sorts, built for the delivery of services within an exchange. CMS intends to oversee the adoption of at least one co-op per state via this method. Of course, emergency stopgaps are in place for the recipients of loans that may have problems satisfying the terms set forth by the feds; interest rates will be typically less than 1 percent.
Naturally, the behavior of such a healthcare delivery system is a reflection of the acronym used by the ACA’s program promoting it: the Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan. Proponents of the initiative are bullish on it, as the GOP-led legislature has incrementally cut initial CMS plan estimates earmarked for this purpose. Skeptics wonder if these loan startups will carry the heft needed to compete with established private insurers in the newly formed exchange marketplace in two years. The best intentions of non-profits in this case will have to be tempered by the new reality of such competition for healthcare consumer loyalty come 2014 under the law. Should be interesting to watch. | LINK
Here’s a convenient talking point for the Obama campaign as it begins to coalesce its message surrounding healthcare reform spending under the ACA: enrollment in Medicare Advantage is up since the beginning of the current decade, while premiums have been on the decline. HHS Sec’y Sebelius attributes this to the core provisions within the ACA allowing stipulations of bonus payments based upon quality, changes to enrollment periods, new medical loss ratio requirements and penalties, and the power for CMS to reject plan bids.
According to Humana’s last quarterly report, it bought two Medicare Advantage contractors in the third quarter of last year and enrollment increased over the past 12 months. Wellpoint also acquired an Advantage contractor in 2011 and saw increased enrollment.
While it may be a little premature to trumpet reform to this sector of Medicare spending by the government as being a permanent fixture of ACA implementation, it does highlight the need to revisit the drama surrounding payments to providers in FFS plans. Will the doc-fix ever be truly fixed? Bipartisan Senate and House members tasked with establishing a permanent end to reimbursement cuts to physicians will have their work cut out for them starting today — apparently considering everything from repeal of the SGR in its current form for Medicare spending to the use of war funds to finance such a permanent patch. Should be interesting.
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 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
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
When she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, a Minnesota woman thought that her carefully chosen neurologist had her best interests in mind when prescribing initial treatments to modify the disease. That was before a little detective work uncovered the real motivation for her physician’s patterns of prescribing that left her even more debilitated than when she was initially showing symptoms.
It worried me that none of them ever suggested that I discontinue treatment—or switch to another treatment—even after I reported that my injection site reactions were affecting my quality of life. Despite the fact that my neurologist insisted that I begin disease-modifying therapy, I was never contacted by him, his nurse, or anyone else in the neurology clinic with questions about how my Copaxone injections were going.
The patient, a U of M philosophy graduate student, puts into her own words the ethical issue she gradually uncovered while under the specialist’s care. Just how influential are pharma companies’ financial compensations for physicians who choose to prescribe their products? Just how willing are they to prescribe knowingly untested medications without concern as to their problematic and potentially lethal adverse effects? Her answer came at her next appointment, after enduring months of increasingly debilitating pain and enfeebling function from the trial with the first drug.
[M]y neurologist informed me that I’d begun to develop lesions inside my brain stem. He explained that this was a very bad place to have lesions, occupied as it is with regulating some of the body’s basic functions, such as breathing. He strongly recommended that I go back on MS treatment, suggesting this time a drug called Tysabri (natalizumab), which had worked wonders for some of his patients but also carried some amount of risk. Worried about the new lesions, but knowing little about the drug he was advising, I told him I’d think about it. I needed to be convinced through my own investigations that this drug would be worth taking.
Her investigations were not only telling, but they are also indicative of an all-to-familiar refrain for patients of (mostly specialist) physicians who pocket major coin from pharma companies to get these ridiculously expensive agents to the marketplace, at the risk of patient harm. In Minnesota, the patient was assisted by a database which lists pharmaceutical third parties with which a prescribing physician has a financial interest. She makes little doubt of her eagerness for this requirement to spread nationally as the result of the reform law. | PDF 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.
Mobile healthcare innovations are the way of the future! #mhealth Check out this article published by Forbes: http://t.co/rqIO0Gj5
Pfizer in News These Stocks are Forming a Rising Wedge (Bearish) on May-17: These Stocks are For... http://t.co/710gScqn #pharma #pfizer
RT @markraganceo: 14 ways social media may change doctors' visits http://t.co/CXpyRFRV #hcsm #physicians
FCC proposes allocation of spectrum for Medical Body Area Networks (for vote on 5/24) http://t.co/bAiyRaRk #mHealth
#eHealth News: These Stocks Will Thrive, Obamacare or Not http://t.co/6uXhFARZ http://t.co/b7p882rP
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.
