Health Care Stakeholders Weigh In On the Obama Budget

By Clive Riddle, February 27, 2009

So how do some key stakeholders view the health care implications of President Obama’s FY 2010 budget?

AHIP (America’s Health Insurance Plans) applauds the health care agenda, sort of. As the voice of the health plan industry, AHIP is compelled register very deep concerns over cutting Medicare Advantage payments to plans. Will we return to the Medicare health plan market withdrawals of a decade ago? Karen Ignagni, AHIP President, states:

“We have strongly supported recent efforts by the Administration and Congress to strengthen the health care safety net, expand coverage for kids, conduct comparative effectiveness research, and invest in health information technology. Our Board of Directors has offered a comprehensive proposal that starts with us playing a leadership role in advocating for market reforms and addresses the core issues of cost, access, and quality. Health plans will continue to be constructive participants in the health care reform discussion. We recognize that to achieve reform of this magnitude, every stakeholder group will be expected to contribute and will be challenged to innovate, perform better, and be held accountable for results.“As policymakers evaluate the entire Medicare program, including Medicare Advantage, as part of health care reform, it is vital that seniors continue to have access to the benefits and services they rely on. Medicare Advantage plans provide care coordination, disease management, and prevention programs for seniors and reward clinicians for delivering quality care to patients. Unfortunately, this proposal would force seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage to fund a disproportionate share of the costs to reform the health care system. A cut of this scale would jeopardize the health security of more than ten million seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage and would turn back the clock on innovative payment incentives to improve the quality of care that patients receive.”

The AHA (American Hospital Association) commends the President, sort of. They are quite concerned that “half of the reserve fund would come from savings in health care programs, including proposals to bundle Medicare payments for hospital and post-acute care ($17.84 billion in savings), reduce payments to hospitals with certain readmission rates ($8.43 billion), and link a portion of inpatient hospital payment to performance on specific quality measures ($12.09 billion). The budget outline also cites the need to address physician self-referral to facilities in which they have a financial interest."

AHA President and CEO Rich Umbdenstock states, "We commend President Obama for making health reform a top priority in his budget blueprint. However, we are concerned about any cuts that would affect the work hospitals do for their communities during this economic downturn. We remain ready to work with the president and Congress to strengthen health care in America."

The AMA (American Medical Association) offers applause without the reservations in bold print. They like the rollback of planned physician Medicare payment cuts. Nancy H. Nielsen, MD, President, American Medical Association states “President Obama’s budget proposal takes a huge step forward to ensure that physicians can care for seniors by rejecting planned Medicare physician payment cuts of 40 percent over the next decade. Looming widespread physician shortages coupled with aging baby boomers highlight the urgent need for permanent Medicare physician payment system reform to preserve seniors’ access to health care. “The AMA is committed to working with the administration and Congress to develop reforms that will reward and preserve access to high-quality care for seniors and all Americans.”

AARP (the Amer) not only applauded the budget, but now tells Congress to step up and act on it. AARP CEO Bill Novelli states “We are making it clear to our leaders that they need to work with the president in a bipartisan fashion to complete the plan for reform and finance reform in a fiscally—and morally—responsible way. They must make sure that any savings from Medicare and Medicaid are dedicated to reforms that strengthen the quality, efficiency and performance of our health care system, including these critical lifeline programs.”

AARP also announced key priorities to be included in health reform legislation in 2009, including: Making affordable health care coverage options available to everyone, especially people ages 50-64 who are among the fastest growing group of uninsured; Keeping Medicare affordable by rewarding doctors and hospitals for quality rather than the quantity of care; Promoting prevention and healthy behaviors; Eliminating fraud, waste and abuse; and Improving care coordination for people with chronic conditions and helping them stay in their homes and out of institutions.

The National Business Group on Health is pleased and concerned: they are “very pleased to see such emphasis on making health care affordable for all American” but don’t like new taxes and Medicare Advantage cuts.

Helen Darling, President of the National Business Group on Health states "with respect to proposed financing schemes for health reform, we have concerns that the funding mechanism could be subject to constant political pressures. The proposed 10-year $634 billion health-care fund - paid for through new taxes and particularly cuts to Medicare Advantage beneficiaries - approximates the annual portion of health spending that is estimated to be wasteful, redundant, or even harmful. We believe there are other ample opportunities to reduce costs through eliminating overuse of services, preventing serious adverse avoidable medical errors, and combating waste. As legislation is crafted in the coming months, we strongly encourage policymakers to look at the root causes of higher health care costs and use health reform as an opportunity to make lasting structural reforms - many of which have been discussed previously by both the President and congressional leadership - that will yield long-term savings and improve patient care and safety."

So, what does your spokesperson have to say about the ten year $634 billion health care fund, and the budget?

The Path to Reform as laid out by the Commonwealth Fund

By Clive Riddle , February 19, 2009

The Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance Health System today published their report, the Path to a High Performance U.S. Health System: A 2020 Vision and the Policies to Pave the Way, which the Commonwealth Fund in a press release distributed today bills as a proposal for “a comprehensive set of insurance, payment, and system reforms could guarantee affordable health insurance coverage, improve health outcomes, and slow the growth of health spending by $3 trillion by the end of the next decade” and “details the Commission’s recommendations for an integrated set of policies and assesses the impacts of specific policy actions from 2010 to 2020, compared to the status quo.”

The Commonwealth Fund is a major policy stakeholder organization in Washington, and has the ear of various key Democratic party health care leaders. Not that the eventual Administration or Congress reform proposal would mirror the Commonwealth Fund’s report by any means, but it has significant potential to influence the discussion, and thus bears reading.

 Here’s some projected results the report touts would be ultimately achieved via their proposed package:

• Insurance reforms would extend coverage to everyone within two years, with only 1 percent uninsured throughout the next decade. The number of uninsured, currently 48 million and estimated to increase to 61 million by 2020, would instead under the proposal decrease to 19.7 million in 2010, 6.3 million in 2011 and stabilize at 4 million for the rest of the decade
• Combined with payment and system reforms initiated in 2010, the integrated approach to reform could slow the growth of national health spending by a cumulative $3 trillion by 2020.
• Spending would still go up but at a slower rate. The U.S. is expected to spend $42 trillion on health care over the next 11 years, with spending rising 6.7 percent per year, the proposal package would lower this rate to 5.5 percent per year.

So how would such lofty results be achieved? Here’s a verbatim summary as provided in the 122 page report:

• National Health Insurance Exchange. Offers businesses and individuals a choice of private plans and a new public plan, phased in by size of firm with all eligible by 2014. Premium of the public plan would be community rated within broad age bands. Benefits are similar to the standard option in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. The plan would use Medicare’s claims administrative structure and reformed payment methods and rates.
• Individual Mandate. All individuals are required to obtain coverage.
• Affordability. Premiums are capped at 5 percent of income for low-income individuals and 10 percent of income for those in higher-income tax brackets.
• Shared Financial Responsibility. Employers are required to provide coverage or contribute to a trust fund. The example used in the model included 7 percent of payroll, up to $1.25 an hour.
• Medicaid/SCHIP Expansion. All individuals with incomes up to 150 percent of the federal poverty income level are eligible for Medicaid acute care benefits. Medicaid provider payment rates are raised to Medicare levels. The federal matching rate is increased to offset state costs.
• Medicare. The two-year waiting period for coverage of the disabled is eliminated. Medicare beneficiaries are offered a supplement with the same acute care benefits as in new public plan and premium affordability provisions.
• Insurance Market Reforms. Require community-rate premiums (age bands permitted) and guaranteed issue and renewal of policies. Premium and insurance information would be publicly available on the Web.
• Enhance Payment for Primary Care. Increase Medicare payments for primary care by 5 percent and apply differential updates for primary care and other care.
• Encourage Development and Spread of Patient-Centered Medical Homes. Provide payment per patient in addition to fee-for-service to practices qualified to provide patient-centered care. Reduced premiums and cost-sharing available to patients who designate a primary care practice as their medical home. Shared savings would be distributed on the basis of performance.
• Bundled Payments for Acute Care Episodes. Expand acute care payment to include services during the hospital stay and 30 days post-discharge in a global fee. The policy would be phased in, starting with inpatient services in 2010, then post-acute care in 2013, and hospital inpatient and outpatient physician care in 2016.
• Correcting Price Signals. Modify payments by: 1) slowing the rate of Medicare payment updates in geographic areas with high costs; 2) reducing prescription drug costs by having Medicare pay Medicaid prices for drugs used by dually eligible beneficiaries and determining Medicare payments for unique drugs with effective monopolies based on prices paid in other countries; and 3) resetting benchmarks for Medicare Advantage plans in each county to projected per-capita spending under traditional Medicare.
• Accelerate the Adoption and Use of Health Information Technology. Require all providers to report key health outcomes electronically by 2015 to qualify for payment updates. Provide funding to support health information networks and assistance for safety-net providers and small practices through a 1 percent assessment on insurance premiums and Medicare outlays.
• Center for Medical Effectiveness and Health Care Decision-Making. Create a mechanism to develop information on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of alternative treatment options. Fund the Center with a .05 percent assessment on insurance premiums and Medicare and Medicaid spending. Use the information in benefit designs with higher out-of-pocket costs or differential pricing depending on comparative effectiveness and include physician–patient shared decision
• Reduce Tobacco Use. Increase federal taxes on tobacco products by $2 per pack of cigarettes. Use revenues to fund public health programs and insurance expansion.
• Reduce Obesity and Alcohol Use. Establish a new tax on sugar-sweetened soft drinks of 1 cent per 12-ounces to finance state obesity prevention programs, and increase the federal excise tax on alcohol by 5 cents per 12-ounce can of beer, with proportionate increases on other alcohol products. Use funds for prevention and insurance expansion.

The Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance Health System was established by the organization in 2005, to “seek opportunities to change the delivery and financing of health care to improve system performance, and to identify public and private policies and practices that would lead to those improvements. It also explores mechanisms for financing improved health insurance coverage and investment in the nation's capacity for quality improvement.”

So who has a seat at the table for the Commission. Not all major stakeholders. Integrated hospital/medical group systems, large non profit health plans, some progressive employers, and like-minded associations, policy institutions and academic institutions are well represented. For profit health plans and health care providers, non-integrated private providers, public agencies and dissimilar institutions are not. Here’s the list of the Commission members:

• James J. Mongan, M.D. (Chair), President and CEO, Partners HealthCare System, Inc.
• Maureen Bisognano, Executive Vice President and COO, Institute for Healthcare Improvement
• Christine K. Cassel, M.D., President and CEO, American Board of Internal Medicine and ABIM Foundation
• Michael Chernew, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School
• Patricia Gabow, M.D., CEO, Denver Health
• Robert Galvin, M.D., Director of Global Health Care, General Electric Company
• Fernando A. Guerra, M.D., Director of Health, San Antonio Metropolitan Health District
• Glenn M. Hackbarth, J.D., Consultant
• George C. Halvorson, Chairman and CEO, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.
• Robrrt M. Hayes, J.D., President, Medicare Rights Center
• Cleve L. Killingsworth, Chairman and CEO, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts
• Sheila T. Leatherman, Research Professor, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina
• Gregory P. Poulsen, Senior Vice President, Intermountain Health Care
• Dallas L. Salisbury, President and CEO, Employee Benefit Research Institute
• Sandra Shewry, President and CEO, California Center for Connected Health
• Glenn D. Steele, Jr., M.D., Ph.D., President and CEO, Geisinger Health System
• Mary K. Wakefield, Ph.D., R.N., Associate Dean for Rural Health and Director, Center for Rural Health, University of North Dakota
• Alan R. Weil, J.D., Executive Director, National Academy for State Health Policy
• Steve Wetzell, Vice President, HR Policy Association

Identity Crisis: What’s in a name?

By Clive Riddle, February 12, 2009

I recently watched with bemusement as a stream of e-mails progressed through my inbox from participants in the HFMA Managed Care Forum debating what to change the name of their forum to, given the evolution of the business and the negative connotations of the term ‘managed care.’

The debate isn’t new. Significant Managed Care backlash in the media, consumer and provider community started ten years ago, and calls to re-coin the term have been continual ever since. The term “Health Plan” is often now inserted where Managed Care once resided for various publications, organizations and activities, but “Health Plan” doesn’t always fit the situation.

HMO’s aren’t so much the term of choice either, compared to a decade ago, given the decline in HMO enrollment and rise of PPO enrollment and other benefit designs. Back in the day (way back in the day) before “Managed Care” was coined, in the 1970’s the movement was often referred to as “Alternative Delivery Systems.” Eventually that term took on other meanings.

Even before Managed Care really hit backlash mode, there were calls to rename the term. CMS among other made a major effort to re-label Managed Care as “Coordinated Care.” Of course, back then CMS wasn’t CMS either. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services was called HCFA (Health Care Finance Administration.) While we’re digressing, what’s up with the acronym CMS anyway? Why isn’t it CMMS? And which “M” stayed in, and which “M” got dropped? Is it the same reason that the Department of Health and Human Services some time ago dropped the “D” from DHHS and now call themselves HHS? Did the missing “D” and missing “M” get together and form the acronym for “Disease Management”?

Managed Care isn’t the only term, movement or industry continuing to experience an identity crisis. Consumer driven care is also referred to as consumer-directed care, and at the start of the decade “defined contribution health plans” was the term of choice referring to account-based plans. Of course, now many simply use the term “consumerism” to more globally encompass consumer driven initiatives, including those beyond the scope of account based plans.

Health care companies as well run into identity crisis as times change and situations evolve. Almost everyone knows that Kaiser Permanente after World War II grew out of Henry J Kaiser’s prior programs to provide prepaid clinics and care to his shipyard and steel workers. Not everyone knows that AvMed Health Plan of Florida was coined from “Aviation Medicine” when the company was formed in 1969 to provide a prepaid health system for the Miami area aviation industry.

Of course, if your first name is Clive, you’re used to identity issues. I have credit cards made out to Olive, phone calls for Cleve and Clyde and receive mail for Cline and Cliff. When I was in second grade I informed my teacher on the first day of class my correct name was Edward (my middle name) causing great confusion when I brought school friends home. Eventually I embraced my inner Clive. Clive Owens has made things a little easier, but its still an issue. Perhaps I should seek a Clive Forum and start a discussion thread on renaming the Forum. Perhaps I’ll check with the HFMA Managed Care Forum and see how things worked out for them.

The Future Ain’t What It Used to Be

By Clive Riddle, February 5, 2008

A couple of weeks ago, MCOL in conjunction with the Seventh Future Care Web Summit, conducted its annual e-poll on health care trends for the coming year and beyond. As the same three basic questions are asked each year, results have been tracked since 2003. So, given the massive change in the economy during the past twelve months, how do health care executives and other professionals feel about the future?

Answers were not that surprising to the questions: (1) which trends will have the greatest overall impact in 2009; and (2) which predicted trend is least likely to have an impact in 2009. But I was taken aback somewhat with answers to the question which stakeholders will be better off, worse off, or the same in 2009.

Comparing current answers with previous years is difficult, for the first question: "Which of the following health care business trends do you think will have the greatest overall impact in 2008?" That’s because “Effects of the Recession” was contemplated as a trend in previous years, and over half (57.3%) of respondents list that as the trend that will have the greatest impact, and I would agree with them.

Here’s a table listing responses to this question since 2003:

Trend	2009	2008	2007	2006	2005	2004	2003
Advances in health care technology	3.4%	11.8%	7.5%	16.6%	13.6%	11.9%	10.8%
Consumer Driven health plans	3.4%	13.4%	18.5.%	21.0%	22.7%	14.4%	15.1%
Compliance issues	1.1%	0.8%	3.4%	0.8%	0.9%	5.9%	18.0%
Effects of the Recession	57.3%	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
Health Care Reform Initiatives	21.3%	23.6%	11.0%	28.1%	13.6%	4.3%	N/A
Increased consumer cost sharing	9.0%	33.9%	40.4%	25.8%	38.2%	35.6%	38.8%
Disease Management initiatives	3.4%	12.6%	7.5%	3.0%	5.5%	23.7%	N/A
Other	1.1%	3.9%	11.6%	4.5%	5.5%	4.2%	17.3%
Grand Total	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%

One way to compare any of the other trends(which have been listed each year) with previous years, you need to multiply this year’s response by two, or divide pervious year’s in half, to factor in this year’s new Recession trend that was missing before. When you do that, it makes the runner-up choice (health care reform initiatives, with 21.3% in 2009) all that more prominent. While all other trends dropped to around a third of their previous levels (except compliance, which still only weighed in at 1.1%) reform stayed basically the same as last year.

So the conclusion for 2009 not surprisingly, is forget everything else, two “R’s - recession and reform, will dominate this year in health care.

When asked “which of the following predicted trends do you feel is least likely to occur or have an impact in the next two years,” respondents had little consensus regarding any particular trend. What is interesting, however, is to compare these answers to previous years.

Here’s a table listing responses to this question since 2003:

Trend	2009	2008	2007	2006	2005	2004	2003
Health Plan cost sharing will level off/slow down	11.2%	15.0%	11.0%	13.1%	19.3%	18.6%	9.5%
Major growth of Consumerism initiatives including consumer driven plans	22.5%	15.0%	17.8%	15.4%	14.7%	12.7%	18.2%
Major advances in patient/provider/plan electronic data transfer	15.7%	22.0%	14.4%	14.2%	16.5%	20.3%	20.4%
Significant National Health Care Reform Legislation will be Enacted*	21.3%	14.2%	16.4%	13.5%	22.9%	11.9%	22.6%
Premium Increases will continue to slow down	22.5%	23.6%	23.3%	30.7%	14.7%	22.9%	N/A
Further growth/adoption of disease management and wellness	6.7%	12.6%	16.4%	12.7%	11.0%	13.6%	N/A
Medicare HMO reforms	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	15.3%
Medicare prescription drug coverage	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	13.1%
Hospital Medicare Outlier Payment Reform	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	18.6%	9.5%
Other	0.0%	3.9%	0.7%	0.1%	0.9%	0.0%	0.7%
Grand Total	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%

As you can see, despite the significant segment that views reform as a trend with the greatest overall impact for 2009, the “doubters” have increased in the past year as well. Last year, as the election season was heating up, 14.2% felt reform would be the trend least likely to happen. This year, that number rose to 21.3%.

Also, interestingly, doubts regarding the last most significant innovation have increased. In 2008, 15.0% listed growth in consumerism as the trend least likely to occur or have an impact; that number increased to 22.5% in 2009. But optimism must be increasing for electronic data transfer. In 2008, 22.0% listed this as the least likely trend; that number decreased to 15.7% in 2009.

The conclusions to this aren’t that surprising either: 1) there are plenty of cynics mixed in with those sure that reform will take place; 2) perhaps because consumerism was politically as a Republican agenda, and now we are facing a Democratic agenda, a growing number think Consumerism initiatives will wane; and 3) given the priority the Obama team is giving electronic health records and data transfer, there is less cynicism that this will eventually happen.

I mentioned that I was surprised by answers to the third question: “Which of the following stakeholders do you view as being better off, the same or worse off in the coming year?” Of course, respondents think things are going to be bad all the way around. I just thought they’d be even more negative.

While as expected, few answered “better off” for any category of stakeholder, the level that answered “same” (as opposed to “worse off”) was surprising. I would have expected a resounding “worse off” response for all categories. Even more perplexing was to when these responses were compared to previous years. The change simply wasn’t as large as I would have thought, and consumers were strangely rated in better position for 2009 versus 2008. Perhaps this is due to the specter of reform?

Here’s tables listing responses to this question, compared to the past two years:

2009 Winners and Losers:

By Next Year:	Better Off	Same	Worse Off	Grand Total
Consumers	16.9%	14.6%	68.5%	100.0%
Employers	8.0%	25.0%	67.0%	100.0%
Physician	5.7%	40.2%	54.0%	100.0%
Hospital	3.4%	35.2%	61.4%	100.0%
Health Plans	11.5%	43.7%	44.8%	100.0%
Pharmaceutical	20.5%	44.3%	35.2%	100.0%

2008 Winners and Losers:

By Next Year:	Better Off	Same	Worse Off	Grand Total
Consumers	6.5%	18.2%	75.3%	100.0%
Employers	20.5%	32.1%	47.4%	100.0%
Physician	46.2%	41.0%	12.8%	100.0%
Hospital	21.8%	37.2%	41.0%	100.0%
Health Plans	14.1%	35.9%	50.0%	100.0%
Pharmaceutical	49.4%	32.5%	16.9%	100.0%

2007 Winners and Losers:

By Next Year:	Better Off	Same	Worse Off	Grand Total
Consumers	7.6%	20.7%	71.7%	100.0%
Employers	19.9%	45.2%	34.9%	100.0%
Physician	46.6%	42.5%	11.0%	100.0%
Hospital	17.8%	37.0%	45.2%	100.0%
Health Plans	11.7%	41.4%	46.9%	100.0%
Pharmaceutical	38.9%	31.9%	29.2%	100.0%

Now, that the books are closed on the first month of the last year of the decade, we don’t have to speculate much more on what 2009 will bring. We can just make sure our seat restraints are locked in position, and hang on for the ride.