Administrative Costs – The Moral Healthcare Blog

Non-profit hospital CEOs’ compensation rises again | Modern Healthcare

The hutzpah is amazing!

Despite the ongoing public ire aimed at executives at not-for-profit healthcare systems because of their multimillion-dollar pay packages, their salaries and total cash compensation continued to rise at a far faster clip than average worker salaries in 2012—the most recent year with full data available.
Boards and compensation consultants continue to cite market forces—the need to keep up with peers to hold onto skilled healthcare leaders—as the main reason for the increases.
Total cash compensation grew an average of 24.2% from 2011 to 2012 for the 147 chief executives included in Modern Healthcare’s analysis of the most recent public information available for not-for-profit compensation. Of those 147 CEOs, 21, or 14.3%, saw their total cash compensation rise by more than 50%.

Non-profit hospital CEOs’ compensation rises again | Modern Healthcare

Adventures in ‘Prior Authorization’ – NYTimes.com

DEAR Doctor,” the letter from the insurance company began. “We are writing to inform you that a prior authorization is required for the medication you prescribed.”

That’s usually where I stop reading. Thousands of these letters arrive daily in doctors’ offices across the country. They are attempts by insurance companies to prod doctors away from more expensive treatments and toward less expensive alternatives. To use the pricier option, you need to provide a compelling clinical reason.

In theory, this is a reasonable way to control costs by making it harder to prescribe costlier medications. In practice, it is a wasteful administrative nightmare, a cavalcade of recurring paperwork, lengthy phone calls and bureaucratic battles.

One study estimated that on average, prior authorization requests consumed about 20 hours a week per medical practice: one hour of the doctor’s time, nearly six hours of clerical time, plus 13 hours of nurses’ time. Other studies have suggested that prior authorizations could cost individual practices tens of thousands of dollars a year.

Adventures in ‘Prior Authorization’ – NYTimes.com

At NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, Its Ex-C.E.O. Finds Lucrative Work – NYTimes.com

When Dr. Herbert Pardes retired as president and chief executive of NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital in 2011, the institution honored him at its annual “Cabaret” fund-raiser. More than 1,000 guests dined on wild mushroom soup catered by the restaurateur Danny Meyer and listened to Kelli O’Hara, a star of “South Pacific,” serenade them with Rodgers and Hammerstein, Sondheim and Berlin.

But there were more thanks to come.

The next year, Dr. Pardes earned $5.6 million, which included $1 million in base salary, a $1.8 million bonus for his final year as chief executive and more than $2 million in deferred compensation, according to hospital tax records. That exceeded the amount earned by Dr. Pardes’s successor, Dr. Steven Corwin, who made $3.6 million that year.

Three years after retirement, Dr. Pardes is still employed by the hospital as the executive vice chairman of its board of trustees, a position that compensation experts say is rare in the nonprofit world, though much more common in for-profit companies

At NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, Its Ex-C.E.O. Finds Lucrative Work – NYTimes.com

Medicine’s Top Earners Are Not the M.D.s – NYTimes.com

THOUGH the recent release of Medicare’s physician payments cast a spotlight on the millions of dollars paid to some specialists, there is a startling secret behind America’s health care hierarchy: Physicians, the most highly trained members in the industry’s work force, are on average right in the middle of the compensation pack.
That is because the biggest bucks are currently earned not through the delivery of care, but from overseeing the business of medicine.
The base pay of insurance executives, hospital executives and even hospital administrators often far outstrips doctors’ salaries, according to an analysis performed for The New York Times by Compdata Surveys: $584,000 on average for an insurance chief executive officer, $386,000 for a hospital C.E.O. and $237,000 for a hospital administrator, compared with $306,000 for a surgeon and $185,000 for a general doctor.

And those numbers almost certainly understate the payment gap, since top executives frequently earn the bulk of their income in nonsalary compensation. In a deal that is not unusual in the industry, Mark T. Bertolini, the chief executive of Aetna, earned a salary of about $977,000 in 2012 but a total compensation package of over $36 million, the bulk of it from stocks vested and options he exercised that year. Likewise, Ronald J. Del Mauro, a former president of Barnabas Health, a midsize health system in New Jersey, earned a salary of just $28,000 in 2012, the year he retired, but total compensation of $21.7 million.
The proliferation of high earners in the medical business and administration ranks adds to the United States’ $2.7 trillion health care bill and stands in stark contrast with other developed countries, where top-ranked hospitals have only skeleton administrative staffs and where health care workers are generally paid less. And many experts say it’s bad value for health care dollars.

Medicine’s Top Earners Are Not the M.D.s – NYTimes.com

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

‘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 X_i 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

Not Running a Hospital: Do I get paid too much?

Not Running a Hospital: Do I get paid too much?:

“Here are the facts. As noted by the Globe, my total compensation was about $1 million in fiscal 2005. Of this, $650,000 was the base salary. Also, I was eligible for a 30% incentive compensation payment if the hospital achieved specified results for clinical quality, patient satisfaction, and financial performance. I received the full amount that year, $195,000. The rest of the million comprised payments made by BIDMC for life insurance and retirement. (Don’t worry, there are no other perks, like cars or country club memberships!)

Now, some background on BIDMC: The hospital is a billion-dollar-a-year enterprise, about $800 million in clinical revenues and $200 million in research programs. Our annual capital budget is roughly in the range of $80 million. Last year, we raised $30 million in philanthropic donations from people in the community. We have facilities that cover about 3 million square feet. We see 50,000 emergency room visitors per year, 40,000 inpatients, and 500,000 outpatients. We have about 8,000 employees and about 800 doctors on staff. We are affiliated with six community health centers (one of which we own); several community hospitals and physician practices; and we own and run two off-site clinics in Chelsea and Lexington and one small community hospital in Needham.

So, if you were on my board, how would you set an appropriate salary?

– Sent using Google Toolbar”

How the U.S. measures up to Canada’s health care system | Worldfocus

How the U.S. measures up to Canada’s health care system | Worldfocus:

“Edie Magnus: We were in a hospital that was affiliated with McGill University, and it was a regional system that had six hospitals that were affiliated with one another, and they annually have some 39,000 inpatients, and they do about 34,000 surgeries and they deliver about 3,000 babies. And managing all of this is a staff of 12 people doing the billing, the administration. What would an equivalent hospital in the U.S. take to run administratively?

Uwe Reinhardt: You’d be talking 800, 900 people, just for the billing, with that many hospitals and being an academic health center. We were recently at a conference at Duke University and the president of Duke University, Bill Brody, said they are dealing with 700 distinct managed care contracts. Now think about this. When you deal with that many insurers you have to negotiate rates with each of them. In Baltimore, they are lucky. They have rate regulations, so they don’t have to do it. But take Duke University, for example, has more than 500,000 and I believe it’s 900 billing clerks for their system.

Edie Magnus: What are 800, 900 people doing?

Uwe Reinhardt: Well first of all there’s a contract. With each different managed care contract you have different rates. You have different things that need pre-authorization, not depending on the contract. You haggle over every bill. You submit the bill, the insurer rejects it, you haggle, and it may take 90 days to settle one bill. They don’t have that in Canada. You see, we spend in this country an enormous amount of money just administering claims. It’s a huge wrestling match over the payment.

– Sent using Google Toolbar”

Healthcare Compensation Still Strong

New survey results from Executive Compensation 2010/2011 show that hospital CEOs earn an average $353,900 per year, (CEOs at not-for-profits average $225,400; at home care facilities, $282,300 a year; at physician clinics, $254,000; at behavioral health facilities, $241,300; and at long-term care facilities, $235,700.

These executives, physicians, and skilled clinicians undoubtedly would make a strong argument that they deserve the salaries they’re getting. Besides, it’s what the market is paying, and it’s hard to blame anyone for earning as much money as he or she can.

However, let’s put this in perspective. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 4.1% of U.S. households had an income between $150,000 and $200,000 in 2009, and 3.9% had an income of $200,000 or higher, while 11% of U.S. households earn between $15,000 to $25,000 annually. The median household income in the U.S. that year was $50,221.

I threw this in the ‘contrarian economics’ category because it has the 2009 income data.