Category: Medicaid

Primary Payer Status Affects Mortality for Major Surgical Operations

This is the famous “Medicaid is worse than no insurance” study. It’s worth jumping to the full study and reading the Discussion section, as the authors do a pretty good job of pointing out why Medicaid patients, like the uninsured, are so darn sick and do so poorly in the health system. But, it does not say what they (the Right) think it says!

CONCLUSION

In this study, we conclude that Medicaid and Uninsured payer status confers increased risk adjusted in-hospital mortality compared with Private Insurance for major surgical operations in the United States. Medicaid is further associated with higher postoperative in-hospital complications as well as the greatest adjusted length of stay and total costs despite risk factors or the specific major operation. These differences serve as an important proxy for larger socioeconomic and health system-related issues that could be targeted to improve surgical outcomes for US patients.

Primary Payer Status Affects Mortality for Major Surgical Operations

What is Medicaid’s Impact on Access to Care, Health Outcomes, and Quality of Care? Setting the Record Straight on the Evidence – Issue Brief | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

Finding #1:  Having Medicaid is much better than being uninsured.

Consistently, research indicates that people with Medicaid coverage fare much better than their uninsured counterparts on diverse measures of access to care, utilization, and unmet need. A large body of evidence shows that, compared to low-income uninsured children, children enrolled in Medicaid are significantly more likely to have a usual source of care (USOC) and to receive well-child care, and significantly less likely to have unmet or delayed needs for medical care, dental care, and prescription drugs due to costs.3 4 5 6
The research findings on adults generally mirror the patterns for children. A synthesis of the literature on the impact of Medicaid expansions for pregnant women concluded, “…the weight of evidence is that expansions led to modest improvements in prenatal care use, in terms of either earlier prenatal care or more adequate prenatal care, at least in some states and for some groups affected by the expansions.”7 Mothers covered by Medicaid are much more likely than low-income uninsured mothers to have a USOC, a doctor visit, and a dental visit, and to receive cancer screening services.8 Nonelderly adults covered by Medicaid are more likely than uninsured adults to report health care visits overall and visits for specific types of services; they are also more likely to report timely care and less likely to delay or go without needed medical care because of costs.9 Projections from a recent analysis show that, if Medicaid beneficiaries were instead uninsured, they would be significantly less likely to have a USOC and much more likely to have unmet health care needs; except for emergency department care, their use of key types of services would also drop significantly. At the same time, their out-of-pocket spending would increase dramatically – almost four-fold on average.10 Other research provides evidence of increased access to care and health care utilization for previously uninsured low-income adults who gain Medicaid coverage under state expansions of eligibility.11

Keep reading! (link below)
What is Medicaid’s Impact on Access to Care, Health Outcomes, and Quality of Care? Setting the Record Straight on the Evidence – Issue Brief | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

Uninsured in Texas and Florida – NYTimes.com

 

A new Census Bureau report documents the alarming percentages of people in Texas and Florida without health insurance. Leaders of both states should hang their heads in shame because they have been among the most resistant in the nation to providing coverage for the uninsured under the Affordable Care Act, the law that Republicans deride as “Obamacare.”

Uninsured in Texas and Florida – 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

Public in Deep South supports expanding Medicaid, poll finds, but lawmakers don’t – KansasCity.com

WASHINGTON — Even though governors and lawmakers in five Deep South states oppose a plan to cover more people through Medicaid under the health care overhaul, 62 percent of the people in Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi and South Carolina support expanding the program, according to a new poll.
The level of support for expanding Medicaid – the state and federal health insurance program for the poor and disabled – ranged from a low of 59 percent in Mississippi to a high of 65 percent in South Carolina, according to the poll by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, a leading research and public policy think tank that focuses on African-Americans and other people of color.
Brian Smedley, director of the center’s health policy institute, said the findings show that lawmakers who are blocking Medicaid expansion in the five states are “out of step with their constituents.”

Public in Deep South supports expanding Medicaid, poll finds, but lawmakers don’t – KansasCity.com

PolitiFact Virginia | Pete Snyder says Medicaid causes higher risk of surgery death

PolitiFact Virginia | Pete Snyder says Medicaid causes higher risk of surgery death

This is the fact check on that VA Medicaid outcomes study that conservatives love to willfully misinterpret:

But researchers place little of the blame on Medicaid.
They noted that Medicaid recipients are the poorest, sickest and least educated group of patients. They are the least likely group to seek preventive health care. As a result, they are more likely to enter hospitals in dire conditions that require emergency surgery.
“Medicaid patients had the highest incidence of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, depression, liver disease, neurologic disorders and psychoses,” the study said. “Furthermore, Medicaid patients had the highest incidence of metastatic cancer.”
The researchers said that uninsured patients have similar characteristics to Medicaid recipients and that it is “plausible” that both groups may suffer from a “system bias” that limits their access to private hospitals and top physicians.
“For many surgical patients, private insurance status often allows for referral to expert surgeons for their disease,” the study said. “Alternatively, Medicaid and uninsured patients may have been referred to less skilled and less specialized surgeons.”
Does the research prove, as Snyder and other conservatives suggest, that it’s safer to be uninsured than on Medicaid? Ailawadi, co-author of the study, said it does not.

Primary care still waiting on ACA Medicaid pay raise – amednews.com

If the states manage to screw this up, and prevent pay improvement for primary care, it could jeopardize the success of the ACA…

Washington Primary care physicians who qualify for higher Medicaid payments under the Affordable Care Act might not see these rate increases as quickly as anticipated this year.

The Medicaid program has had a long-standing reputation for paying doctors at rates far below what Medicare pays for the same services. The ACA aimed to address this problem by directing states to bump rates for primary care services provided by primary care doctors up to 100% of Medicare rates for calendar years 2013 and 2014. Because the final rule on the provision was issued in late 2012 with an effective date of Jan. 1, many family doctors were hoping to see an immediate boost in their claims payments. However, “there could be a lag of several months even from now” for the enhanced Medicaid rates to take effect, said Jeffrey Cain, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

Some physician organizations are concerned that states are missing the opportunity to prop up primary care because they aren’t moving quickly enough to pay these higher fees.

Several administrative steps are needed first at the state and federal levels, said Neil Kirschner, senior associate of regulatory and insurer affairs for the American College of Physicians. States have until March 31 to modify their Medicaid plans accordingly and submit those changes to the federal government, which then has an additional 90 days to approve the plans. “It’s unclear how many states have done that,” he said.

In recent letters to the National Governors Assn. and the National Assn. of Medicaid Directors, the American Medical Association and other organizations representing primary care doctors called on states to enact the pay bump expeditiously and engage in active communication with physicians to notify them about the timing of the pay increase.

With the ACA provision in effect for only two years, any implementation delays will make it harder for the government to collect data to see if patient access is improving by raising Medicaid payments, Kirschner said. The longer states take, the longer physicians must wait for these enhanced payments, which could affect decisions whether to take new Medicaid patients, he said.

Primary care still waiting on ACA Medicaid pay raise – amednews.com

Testimony for PA Senate Democratic Appropriations Committee Public Hearing on Medicaid Expansion, March 8, 2013

Good morning. Thank you for conducting this session and for inviting me to speak. I am Dr. Chris Hughes, state director for Doctors for America, a nation-wide group of physicians advocating for high quality, affordable health care for all. I have been an intensive care physician for my entire career, now approaching 25 years, and within the past year I have also begun practicing hospice and palliative medicine. I am a former Trustee of the Pennsylvania Medical Society and Chair of the Patient Safety Committee. I have completed graduate studies in health policy at Thomas Jefferson University, and I am now teaching there, in the Graduate School of Population Health.

I tell you this to let you know that I can get down in the weeds with you about the nuts and bolts of implementation of the Affordable Care Act, and I know a fair amount about health care financing, access, cost shifting, and all the rest. But you have fine panelists assembled here today who have been doing this for you, and I know you all know your way around these topics as well. That’s why you’re here.

I am here as a physician and a representative of my profession. Every doctor you know, and every nurse and pharmacist and social worker and everyone in the front lines of health care, for that matter, can tell you stories of how our health care system has failed someone. Our system fails people regularly, and often spectacularly, and often cruelly, day in, day out.

I’ve had patients who work full time in jobs that fall far short of the American dream. They get by, but they can’t afford health insurance.

I’ll give you a few of my patients’ stories here, not just to point out the obvious- that we are mistreating our fellow human beings – but that we are misspending countless dollars on the wrong end of the system.

There’s the cabbie who recognizes his diabetes and determines to work harder and longer so he can buy insurance before he is stricken with the label even worse than diabetes: preexisting condition! He doesn’t make it and ends up in the ICU with diabetic ketoacidosis.

There’s the construction worker who has a controllable seizure disorder that goes uncontrolled because he can’t afford to go to the doctor. He ends up in the ICU, on a ventilator – life support – multiple times.

There’s the woman who stays home to care for her dying mother and loses her insurance along with her job. When her mother is gone and she finally gets to a doctor for herself, her own cancer is far advanced. She goes on hospice herself.

The laid-off engineer whose cough turns bloody for months and months before he “accesses” the health care system – through the Emergency room and my ICU with already far advanced cancer.

Shona’s attendant, of course. [Shona Eakin, Executive Director of Voices for Independence, in her earlier testimony.]

These are people who are doing the right thing – working, caring for family members – and still have to go begging for health care. How many hours does an American have to work to “deserve” health care? 40? 50? 60? We, as a society, are telling these people that their work, their lives, are not valuable enough to deserve access to health care until they meet some standard of employment in a job that has health insurance.

While doing some research on Medicare cost savings, I ran across a paper from US Sen. Tom Coburn with this quote: "Medicaid is a particular burden on states, consuming on average 22 percent of state budgets." I don’t quibble with the number, I quibble with the mindset that leads one to think that the suffering of millions is a non-factor in the decision making. And the fate of patients is not mentioned in his paper.

Not long ago, expanding access to health care was a nonpartisan goal. As recently as 2007, a bipartisan group of U.S. senators, including Republicans Jim DeMint and Trent Lott, ( let me repeat that, “Jim DeMint and Trent Lott” ) wrote a letter to then-President George W. Bush pointing out that our health care system was in urgent need of repair. "Further delay is unacceptable as costs continue to skyrocket, our population ages and chronic illness increases. In addition, our businesses are at a severe disadvantage when their competitors in the global market get health care for ‘free.’ "

Their No. 1 priority? It was to "Ensure that all Americans would have affordable, quality, private health coverage, while protecting current government programs. We believe the health care system cannot be fixed without providing solutions for everyone. Otherwise, the costs of those without insurance will continue to be shifted to those who do have coverage."

Medicaid expansion and the Affordable Care Act will get us closer to this than at any time in our history.

You will hear some physicians speak out against all of this. But what you generally will not hear is their leadership and organizations speaking out against it, except perhaps in the deep south. There is a reason for this. As leaders of our profession, we have to come to terms with the idea that we are not just in it for ourselves. We are in it for our profession as well, and that means we have to put our patients’ interests above our own, and that means we have to do our best to ensure that everyone has access to high quality, affordable health care. Don’t just take my word for it. The American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation and other organizations put together a Charter on Medical Professionalism about ten years ago, specifically making this, fair distribution of health care resources, a part of our professional responsibility. If you go to their website, you will find that virtually every physician organization you can think of has endorsed it. That means the anesthesiologists and orthopedic surgeons as well as the pediatricians and the family practitioners.

For Medicaid expansion specifically, we should note here that the major national physician organizations, including the AMA, and the organizations representing internists, family practice, pediatricians, psychiatry and more, all endorse Medicaid expansion. On the state level, all of these organizations state chapters endorse it as well, with the exception of the Pennsylvania Medical Society, which I am chagrined to say, has endorsed general terms of expansion only.

But this concept is really not controversial among physicians and health care providers. We see everything from the catastrophes to the small indignities. They are tragic, unnecessary, and we are on the road to ending them.

Some in the provider community have expressed concerns about Medicaid in particular as the way we are providing access, so I would like to take a moment to address the concerns we hear most often.

First, that Medicaid is “bad” insurance. What is bad about Medicaid is largely fixed in the ACA. Namely, it is very poorly reimbursed for providers. You’ve already heard from others why hospitals want it, why advocates want it, but for providers in primary care, the frontlines of health care, they get a major boost in reimbursement under the new law. Pennsylvania has historically had awful reimbursement in the Medicaid program, among the worst in the nation. Now, reimbursement will go to par with Medicare reimbursement, a huge incentive for providers to take on Medicaid patients whom they may have been reluctant to see previously. There are other new innovations such as Patient Centered Medical Homes, the new Medicaid Health Homes (which, by the way, we have also not begun implementing in PA – maybe another panel?), and other innovations, coming down the pike, that should really give people who previously had no chance at excellent care, a chance to avoid complications, avoid the ER and avoid the hospital. To live in good health.

I’ve also heard the strange claim that having Medicaid is worse than having no insurance. I suppose that in a vacuum where there is no good data, and where one sees, like I do, patients with no insurance or Medicaid, who don’t know how or aren’t able to access a doctor, you could look at patients who get very sick and mistake that association and attribute that to Medicaid, but we do have data now. In Oregon, due to a fairly bizarre set of circumstances a few years ago, Medicaid eligibility was determined by lottery, creating a natural experiment of haves and have-nots. In the first year, those who were enrolled were 70 percent more likely to have a usual source of care, were 55 percent more likely to see the same doctor over time, received 30 percent more hospital care and received 35 percent more outpatient care, and much more. Incidentally, I heard a cable talking head complain about the Oregon data because it didn’t examine outcomes, such as deaths and such. A fair point if we had more than a year’s worth of data! I, and most other health professionals, would argue that the results they have seen already are impressive and worthwhile in and of themselves.

People often ask me why I am so passionate about this, and I always tell them, “I blame the nuns.” Growing up Catholic, there was nothing so drilled into me as Matthew 25. We used to sing a hymn based on it, “Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers,” on a regular basis at Mass. And we went to Mass before school every day!

It turns out this is a pretty universal sentiment. I checked. Go to the websites of every mainstream religious denomination – Anglican, Methodist, Mormon, you name it – and it will be in there somewhere: The Social Gospel and Social Justice. Dignity of the individual. Our duties to the less fortunate. It is part of our national Judeo-Christian heritage, and a component of every major religion and philosophy in the world, with one notable exception – Ayn Rand’s. And I mention Ayn Rand and her most famous book, Atlas Shrugged, because it is perennially listed as the second most influential book in America, after the Bible. A damning fact for us.

In spite of that, I am glad that social justice and a commitment to the fair distribution of our health care resources is integral to the sense of duty of my profession, the nursing profession and all health professions.

I often say that I encourage debate about how we get to universal health care, but I refuse to accept that America, alone among all modern nations, and Pennsylvania in particular, will reject the idea that we need to get there.

A final thought from health care economist Uwe Reinhardt, regarding all of the reasons given about why we cannot achieve universal health care; he says, “Go tell God why you cannot do this. He will laugh at you,”

Right now, Medicaid expansion, the Health Insurance Exchanges and many other components of the Affordable Care Act are our best hope. Let’s not squander it.

Thank You.

In Conservative Arizona, Government-Run Health Care That Works – Kaiser Health News

 

APACHE JUNCTION, Ariz. – In a low-slung building in the vast desert expanse east of Phoenix, a small school of tropical fish peer out, improbably, from a circular tank into the waiting lounge of the Apache Junction Health Center. The hallways of the nursing home are still. Only half of the rooms are filled, and the men and women who live here seem surely in life’s final season. “These are folks that have chronic cognitive and physical disabilities that are not going to improve,” said George Jacobson, administrator of the nursing home.

That this nursing home is sparsely filled with residents too disabled in mind or body to return home is a stunning achievement for Arizona’s public health insurance agency. A decade ago, 60 percent of Arizonans covered by Medicare and Medicaid, and deemed sick, frail or disabled enough to live in a nursing home, resided in a skilled nursing facility. Today, only 27 percent of them do, and the rest – nearly three out of four– live in assisted living facilities or at home with the help of nurses, attendants and case managers provided by government-paid health plans.

As Congress debates an ambitious and far-reaching effort by the Obama administration to streamline medical care and rein in spending for the nation’s sickest and most expensive patients, Arizona – with its finger-wagging Republican governor and Tea Party enthusiasts – is occupying an unusual place in the national landscape: as a model for how a generously-funded, tightly regulated government program can aid vulnerable, low-income patients.

In Conservative Arizona, Government-Run Health Care That Works – Kaiser Health News