Author: cmh

Engaging confidently on health care reform | Battleground Surveys

 

Republicans will run on health care reform in 2014 and 2016, so get used to it. But do not believe that it will give them a better chance of securing their seats or the best shot at putting competitive Democratic seats in danger.  Democrats in the most rural and the strongest Romney seats will have to be inventive as usual, but Democrats have a lot to say on health care: fix it, don’t repeal it, don’t put the insurance companies back in charge and take your hands off Medicare.

Health care is just not a wedge issue that threatens to change these races very much – as we saw in the 2012 elections where Republicans played out this strategy.  This is basically a 50-50 issue in the battleground districts and the country, and it remains a 50-50 issue after voters have heard all of their toughest attacks, including one on the role of the IRS in the new system.  These attacks have power, and it is important to engage on the issue.  But there is no reason to think the debate changes the dynamic in these competitive House seats: we actually show Democrat members gaining on handling health care reform in their own seats.

Why is it that the popularity of the Republican Congress keeps going down as the Republicans vote now 40 times to repeal the Affordable Care Act, despite that the law is not popular with the public?  We suspect because the House Republicans are associated with gridlock, extreme partisanship, and intense anti-Obama sentiment; because voters have other serious priorities and their steadfast focus on health care alone says Republicans are not focused on them and their issues; because Democrats are more trusted than Republicans on health care; and most important because voters do not want to repeal the law.  The more voters hear “repeal,” the less they are interested in voting Republican.

We know Republican base voters feel intensely about health care reform, but voters rank “government takeover of the health care system” pretty low as a concern about Democrats in Congress.

These results suggest Democrats should engage the issue with some confidence — they can undermine the Republican attacks and indeed gain an advantage by educating the public on the reforms. 

Engaging confidently on health care reform | Battleground Surveys

Special Deal by Haley Sweetland Edwards | The Washington Monthly

Another piece on the RUC. Follow the tags to learn more…

Over the past few years, a few well-placed health care figures from both parties have spoken out—at least once they’ve left office—about how crazy this system is. “The RUC is really just a giant cabal run by the AMA,” Thomas Scully, former head of the CMS under George W. Bush, told me. “A private trade association should not have that sort of control over the biggest spending account in the government. It’s an outrageous travesty of democracy.” Bruce Vladeck, former head of the CMS under Bill Clinton, agrees, calling the RUC “a significant part of the problem.”

There have also been scathing reports issued by the Government Accountability Office, and by MedPAC, the agency that advises Congress on Medicare-related issues, as well as some hard-hitting investigative reporting by the Wall Street Journal and the Center for Public Integrity. In 2011, a bipartisan panel participated in a Senate roundtable, during which three former heads of the CMS took turns lamenting the RUC.

Yet, for the most part, the RUC continues to operate exactly as it always has—behind the scenes, without anyone, including actual doctors laboring in the clinics and hospitals across the country, even really knowing about it. (This spring, Scully told me that he went to lunch with a very high-ranking official at the CMS who had no idea how the RUC actually worked.)

The Affordable Care Act, for its part, includes a few lines that could potentially, if incrementally, limit the RUC’s power. But in general, it doesn’t much change the way the reimbursement system works. Taking on the RUC would have “started a nuclear war with the AMA,” as Scully put it, and alienated other key political allies that the administration needed to pass the law to begin with. Fixing the RUC, however, is essential to fixing health care in this country.

Special Deal by Haley Sweetland Edwards | The Washington Monthly

How a secretive panel uses data that distorts doctors’ pay – The Washington Post

An “expose” on the RUC and physician payment structure. Follow the tag for “RUC” at the bottom to learn more, and “Physician Income” to learn more about what a fair income is, and “IPAB” for a potential solution…

So how much does a physician make on a basic colonoscopy?

A good place to look is Pennsylvania, where the state tracks medical procedures and the profits of the doctor-owned surgery centers.

Even in an otherwise down-at-the-heels former coal town, the procedure can be big business.

At Schuylkill Endoscopy, located in a tidy green building behind the McDonald’s in Pottsville, Pa., three doctors performed thousands of colonoscopies in 2011, taking in more than $700,000, along with hundreds of thousands more for other similar procedures. On top of those physician fees, the endoscopy clinic, which is owned by two of the physicians and a management company, took in $1.5 million in operating profits in 2011, according to state records.

“I am very comfortable — very grateful,” said one of the owner-doctors, Amrit Narula, who lives in a modern-style, 5,000-square-foot house atop a ridge here.

Like other doctors interviewed for the story, Narula noted that he has no role in setting the Medicare value. He does not lobby Medicare and has never filled out one of the RUC surveys. He agreed that the time estimates in his field sound exaggerated.

By itself, the professional fee for a colonoscopy makes him about $260 an hour after his expenses. (That’s a figure that’s based on the clinics’ mix of patients and the Medicare assumptions about overhead.)

Is that too much? In the past, the loudest criticism of the point system has come from primary care physicians who think their work has been undervalued.

The median salary for a gastroenterologist was $481,000 in 2011, according to data from the Medical Group Management Association. By contrast, the median salary for a pediatrician was $204,000 and that of a general internal medicine doctor was $216,000. Those kinds of disparities are leading medical students away from primary care, critics say.

“I didn’t know they got that many RVUs [points] for a colonoscopy — that’s kind of amazing,” said Cynthia Lubinsky, a family practitioner in the next county over from Narula. “Do I believe that the payment system is fair? I would have to say no.”

How a secretive panel uses data that distorts doctors’ pay – The Washington Post

12 Questions Republicans Need to Answer on Infant Mortality in Ohio

 

Fresh off passing a budget that will increase Ohio’s infant mortality rate, Sen. Shannon Jones is touring the state with the Senate Medicaid, Health & Human Services Committee.

In 2009, the Ohio Department of Health formed the Ohio Infant Mortality Task Force (OIMTF) to address our infant mortality rate, which is currently 3rd-highest in the nation; our infant mortality rate among African-Americans is the highest in the nation. (In 2009, we were the 12th-highest. Go Team Kasich!)

The OIMTF made a 10-point recommendation to address the problem, but the Ohio budget systematically undermines each of the 10 recommendations. There’s a chart at the bottom of the [link page] with more detail.

They’ll be hearing “the concerns of constituents… regarding infant mortality rates and health disparities.”

That’s convenient. Here are some sample questions to ask Sen. Jones when she comes to town.

  • Early prenatal care is the most effective way to reduce infant mortality, but almost half of Ohio women are uninsured when they become pregnant. Expanding Medicaid would mean that all pregnant Ohioans can get immediate prenatal care without seeking reimbursement. Sen. Jones, how you do propose to lower the infant mortality rate without expanding insurance coverage to all Ohioans?
  • In 2009, ODH recommended expanding pre-pregnancy gynecological services. The most popular provider of these “family planning” services is Planned Parenthood, which every year sees 1 in 6 Ohio women. Sen. Jones, you just voted for a budget to take away funding from Planned Parenthood, raising the price of these family planning services. Does that mean that you disagree with the recommendation that women talk to a gynecologist before they get pregnant?
  • 10 more at the link below…

12 Questions Republicans Need to Answer on Infant Mortality in Ohio

Diagnosis – Insufficient Outrage – NYTimes.com

You don’t often see a good rant of moral outrage regarding health care in the Times, so here you go!

RECENT revelations should lead those of us involved in America’s health care system to ask a hard question about our business: At what point does it become a crime?

Diagnosis – Insufficient Outrage – NYTimes.com

Unpacking The Meaning Of ‘Rationing’: A Response To Dowd And Allison – Health Affairs Blog

The Dowd and Allison article appeared in Health Affairs,  and fortunately Uwe Reinhardt has analyzed it in a reality-based context. An excerpt:

The view that private markets — whether or not perfectly competitive — ration goods and services in scarce supply apparently is not shared by Dowd and Allison when they write:

“…rationing involves limits on consumption that are (1) set by someone other than the consumer (such as the supplier) with (2) the intent of limiting choices that some consumers otherwise would be willing and able to make.”

So according to Dowd and Allison, rationing occurs only when limits are placed upon choices that some potential buyer of a good or service would otherwise be willing and able to make, and I emphasize here the words “and able.”

For example, if for some reason government intervened in a reasonably price competitive market for some health care good or service that is in limited supply — e.g., a vaccine — to allocate that scare item to members of society on the basis of some criterion other than price and the recipients’ ability to pay, it would be rationing. On the other hand, if that limited supply were allocated among members of society on the basis of price and ability to pay, and on that basis individuals were denied access to that good or service, that might possibly be an “economic injustice”, but it would not be rationing.

Dowd and Allison certainly are free to posit this as their definition of rationing. They should not assume, however, that their definition is universally shared, even among economists, nor should they assume that in the debate on health policy the more expansive definition of rationing, including price-rationing, is abusive.

Unpacking The Meaning Of ‘Rationing’: A Response To Dowd And Allison – Health Affairs Blog

‘Premium Shock’ and ‘Premium Joy’ Under the Affordable Care Act – NYTimes.com Uwe Reinhardt

Community Rating Under the Affordable Care Act
Under the law, an individual health plan selling policies in the small-group and nongroup market — whether it sells policies through the state’s exchange or not — will be free to set its own premium for a given policy. But within a given age group, it must apply the same premium to all comers, regardless of their health and their gender. Furthermore, the health plan cannot reject any applicant willing to pay that premium, a provision called “guaranteed issue,” or cancel existing policies.
In other words, the Xi based on the individual’s health status in the equation above will be replaced by the average expected health spending per insured, with the average calculated over the insurer’s entire anticipated risk pool of insured members of a given age. To calculate the average, the insurer must consider as one single risk pool all enrollees in all health plans offered by the insurer, whether or not they are offered on the exchange.
This form of premium setting is known as “community rating.” Because it forces healthier individuals to subsidize sicker individuals through the community-rated premiums, it has been much debated.
Community rating invites “cherry-picking” by insurers — i.e., attempts to attract mainly low-risk applicants. To limit the profit potential from cherry-picking, there will be post-enrollment risk adjustments through which funds are transferred from insurers ending up with relatively healthier risk pools to those ending up with relatively higher risk pools.
The community rating under the law is not the pure version found in the social insurance systems of Europe (e.g., Switzerland, the Netherlands and Germany) or Asia, where even age is not considered in setting premiums. Rather, the American version is called adjusted community rating, because it does allow insurers to adjust the community-rated premium for the age of the applicant.
Age-adjusting is done by multiplying the community-rated premium for the youngest members in the expected risk pool by a standard, multiplicative age ratio to be used by all insurers. Thus the quoted premium can increase step by step with age, but only up to a multiplicative factor of 3. At a given age, smokers can be charged up to 1.5 times the regular premium.
The change from what was in place before the Affordable Care Act to post-law arrangements in the nongroup market can be illustrated graphically. In the chart below, we assume initially that all members of a given population are covered by either medically underwritten or community-rated health insurance, with a given package of covered health benefits. The white line represents the premium individuals would have to pay under medical underwriting. The dashed segment of that line is meant to show the actuarial cost and the premium range in which insurers in the real world would reject applicants outright. The green line shows the community-rated premium for this same population. We assume here that age is either not factored into the premium or the population in question is all of the same age, which is why the green line is horizontal.

Premium Shock
As the chart illustrates, a switch from medically underwritten premiums to community-rated ones raises the premiums for the relatively healthier members of the insurer’s risk pool. Many of them will suffer what has come to be called premium shock.
Younger and healthier members of the pool should realize that, in effect, they are buying a call option that allows them to buy coverage at a premium far below the high actuarial cost of covering them when they are sicker. The price charged the healthy for this call option is the difference between the premium they must pay and the current lower actuarial cost of covering them.
Furthermore, for Americans in households with incomes below 400 percent of the federal poverty line, the green and red lines exaggerate the impact of the law on their spending. These Americans will be granted often quite generous, income-dependent federal subsidies toward the premiums they face on the exchanges and their out-of-pocket costs for health care. This makes it well-nigh impossible to make general statements, based on averages, about the net after-subsidy impact of the law.

‘Premium Shock’ and ‘Premium Joy’ Under the Affordable Care Act – NYTimes.com

Wendell Potter: A Rare Bipartisan Idea to Improve Medicaid and Save Money

 

The problem is referred to by policy wonks as "churn." Because of the way Medicaid is administered by the states, millions of Americans enrolled in the program lose coverage temporarily every year because of often minor fluctuations in their income or even a change of address. Many are removed from the rolls simply because they can’t take time off from work to go to a Medicaid office to re-verify their incomes every three months, which some states require.

It’s called churn because most people who are "disenrolled" — to use insurance industry jargon — are eventually reinstated. Their eligibility for Medicaid never changed. They lost coverage solely because of paperwork requirements or a slight and fleeting bump in pay from working overtime during a given week.

This is unknown in the private insurance world because once you enroll in a health plan, you can stay enrolled in that plan for a year, so long as you keep paying the premiums on time. It doesn’t matter if you move from one street to another or work an extra shift to make a few extra bucks.

But staying covered for a full year under Medicaid is not a given, and the consequences of this churn are costly, and not just for those most directly affected. The situation is costly to taxpayers, too, because of the unnecessary administrative expense. It costs hundreds of dollars per enrollee to verify income multiple times a year and to process all the paperwork involved in reinstating a beneficiary. When you consider that 58 million of Americans are currently enrolled in Medicaid — a number that will grow substantially next year when many states expand coverage under the Affordable Care Act — billions of taxpayers’ dollars are being wasted because of churn.

Those who fare the worst, though, are eligible beneficiaries who get dumped into the ranks of the uninsured.

"Even short gaps in coverage can lead to delay or avoidance of needed care," says Leighton Ku, director of the Center for Health Policy Research at George Washington University’s School of Public Health and Human Services, who along with colleague Erika Steinmetz studied the effects of churn. They released their findings in a report last month.

Please read on…

Wendell Potter: A Rare Bipartisan Idea to Improve Medicaid and Save Money

Colonoscopies Explain Why U.S. Leads the World in Health Expenditures – NYTimes.com

By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL | Published: June 1, 2013

MERRICK, N.Y. — Deirdre Yapalater’s recent colonoscopy at a surgical center near her home here on Long Island went smoothly: she was whisked from pre-op to an operating room where a gastroenterologist, assisted by an anesthesiologist and a nurse, performed the routine cancer screening procedure in less than an hour. The test, which found nothing worrisome, racked up what is likely her most expensive medical bill of the year: $6,385.
That is fairly typical: in Keene, N.H., Matt Meyer’s colonoscopy was billed at $7,563.56. Maggie Christ of Chappaqua, N.Y., received $9,142.84 in bills for the procedure. In Durham, N.C., the charges for Curtiss Devereux came to $19,438, which included a polyp removal. While their insurers negotiated down the price, the final tab for each test was more than $3,500.
“Could that be right?” said Ms. Yapalater, stunned by charges on the statement on her dining room table. Although her insurer covered the procedure and she paid nothing, her health care costs still bite: Her premium payments jumped 10 percent last year, and rising co-payments and deductibles are straining the finances of her middle-class family, with its mission-style house in the suburbs and two S.U.V.’s parked outside. “You keep thinking it’s free,” she said. “We call it free, but of course it’s not.”
In many other developed countries, a basic colonoscopy costs just a few hundred dollars and certainly well under $1,000. That chasm in price helps explain why the United States is far and away the world leader in medical spending, even though numerous studies have concluded that Americans do not get better care.
Whether directly from their wallets or through insurance policies, Americans pay more for almost every interaction with the medical system. They are typically prescribed more expensive procedures and tests than people in other countries, no matter if those nations operate a private or national health system. A list of drug, scan and procedure prices compiled by the International Federation of Health Plans, a global network of health insurers, found that the United States came out the most costly in all 21 categories — and often by a huge margin.
Americans pay, on average, about four times as much for a hip replacement as patients in Switzerland or France and more than three times as much for a Caesarean section as those in New Zealand or Britain. The average price for Nasonex, a common nasal spray for allergies, is $108 in the United States compared with $21 in Spain. The costs of hospital stays here are about triple those in other developed countries, even though they last no longer, according to a recent report by the Commonwealth Fund, a foundation that studies health policy.

Colonoscopies Explain Why U.S. Leads the World in Health Expenditures – NYTimes.com

Failure to Launch? The Independent Payment Advisory Board’s Uncertain Prospects — NEJM

 

Yet 3 years after the ACA’s enactment, the IPAB still has no members. Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius described “active discussions” about IPAB nominees in February 2012 and said last month that the administration was “consulting” Congress regarding “potential members.” But President Obama has not yet nominated anyone for the IPAB, and Republican congressional leaders have refused to provide any recommendations for appointees. Even if Democrats settle on nominees, the controversy surrounding the IPAB will make their Senate confirmations, which are subject to filibuster, extraordinarily difficult. Presidents historically have made appointments when the Senate is in recess, and President Obama conceivably could fill some IPAB slots in this manner. But recess appointments are temporary, lasting only until the end of the next congressional session. Moreover, in January 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued a ruling severely restricting the President’s constitutional authority to make such appointments. The Obama administration is appealing that decision to the Supreme Court; meanwhile, in May, another federal appeals court echoed the D.C. Circuit’s narrow interpretation of recess-appointment power. Even if the legal obstacles are circumvented, relying on recess appointments could undermine the IPAB’s theoretically nonpartisan character. However, if no members are appointed, the power to recommend changes to Medicare when spending targets are exceeded does not disappear: it reverts to the secretary of health and human services.

Since Medicare spending is currently not projected to exceed the ACA’s targets, there is no need for the administration to appoint members now. Yet the difficulties in launching the IPAB point to a more fundamental problem. The board’s appeal lies largely in its aspiration to remove politics from Medicare — to create a policymaking process that is informed by experts and insulated from electoral pressures, interest-group demands, financial considerations, and partisan divisions. But given Congress’s extreme partisan and ideological polarization, the ongoing fight over the ACA, the legacy of mythic “death panels,” and recriminations over Medicare reform, the IPAB’s rough start should not be surprising. This is not the sort of political environment in which an independent board charged with making controversial decisions about one of America’s most popular social programs is likely to thrive. These dynamics are unlikely to recede soon, which means that the IPAB is stuck in purgatory, neither operational nor canceled — an institution designed to be above politics that cannot escape the political binds holding it back.

The longer-term picture is, as always, cloudier. Perhaps President Obama will pursue recess appointments. A new president and Congress could, in 2017 and beyond, unshackle the IPAB in response to deficit pressures and the search for Medicare savings. And if Medicare spending growth accelerates, the IPAB’s role could expand. Yet a new president could also refuse to appoint any members or enforce the spending targets, and Congress could repeal the IPAB in 2017. The IPAB’s demise would, in that scenario, deal a symbolic blow to health care reform and cost containment. But the impact on Medicare expenditures and national health spending would be negligible. For all the hype, the Congressional Budget Office currently forecasts no savings from the IPAB over the next decade.

Regardless of the IPAB’s future, one thing is clear: rather than removing politics from Medicare, the board’s difficult early journey has underscored just how entrenched politics are in health care policy.

Failure to Launch? The Independent Payment Advisory Board’s Uncertain Prospects — NEJM