Tag: The Industry

Medicare Announces 27 ACOs. A New Species?

Apr 12, 2012• 22

By Vince Kuraitis

I’m surprised and intrigued by Medicare’s announcement of 27 new Shared Savings model ACOs.

Surprised

I had been anticipating this announcement as a defining moment for Medicare’s thrust into accountable care. My expectations had been that we would see either:

Boom — a big splash of new Medicare shared savings ACOs announced, including big name hospitals and medical groups that were starting large scale ACOs, perhaps with hundreds of thousands of patients.

Bust — no one showed up at the party. Providers would have concluded that Medicare ACOs were too risky, bureaucratic, and high effort.

Intrigued

What we got is something in the middle:

Very small ACOs. Many only meet Medicare’s minimum of 5K patients; most are in the 8 to 25K range; and the largest ACO anticipates 70K patients. Collectively these 27 ACOs plan to serve 375K patients, less than 1% of the entire Medicare population.
13 are smaller, physician led
Only 10 hospitals are involved across the 27 ACOs
Very few household names

Another Look at Health Insurance Exchanges

Apr 11, 2012• 23

By JONATHAN HALVORSON

Of all the provisions of the ACA, probably none has received greater attention from health insurers than the exchanges. Though the exchanges are expected to be the conduit for just a small fraction of all the insured at their start in 2014, they will be where most of the growth in health insurance lies. Given the rule that the individual exchanges must be integrated with Medicaid, their role will be critical for any insurer that wants to compete and grow in the individual or Medicaid markets. The dominance of the exchanges for growth in the small group and even the Medicare markets may not be not far behind. It should be no surprise if, eventually, all fully-insured business goes through the exchanges, leaving only self-insured plans outside.

So getting it right matters. Now is the time to think hard about getting it right, before the exchanges are created and inertia sets in. And, as some have argued, getting it right means that we think about the exchanges as places for people to choose their health care, not just their health insurance. So how should we do that?

Here is what we should not do: make it easy to choose care without considering both the quality and the cost of care delivered by the care system. It would be an enormous lost opportunity to improve consumer attitudes towards health care if we built the exchanges to make it easy for people to reason: “I like doctor A. Doctor A accepts insurance products X, Y and Z. Of these three, insurance product X seems to have the lowest cost, so I’ll choose product X.”

Health Reform: Still the Best-Covered Social Policy Story, Ever.

Mar 26, 2012• 11

By Harold Pollack

Two years ago, I put myself in hot water by making the simple (admittedly somewhat hyperbolic) claim:

Because it is so easy to find bad reporting and public stupidity, it is easy to overlook something. Press coverage of health care reform was the most careful, most thorough, and most effective reporting of any major story, ever.

This column appeared on April Fools’ Day. Some readers didn’t quite believe that I was serious. I was. Others were simply horrified. Allison Kilkenny, writing in the Huffington Post, typified the reaction among frustrated left-of-center commentators who had just witnessed the “death panels” debacle, the demise of the public option, and similar depressing episodes: “Harold Pollack went out on a limb, and unfortunately fell off the edge.” Andrew Sullivan said something similar.

The Columbia Journalism Review’s Trudy Lieberman was more brutal:

Last week, The New Republic turned over its health care blog “The Treatment” to an odd commenter on media coverage—University of Chicago professor Harold Pollack, who runs the university’s Center for Health Administration Studies. I thought I knew most of those who dabble in these waters, but Pollack’s name took me by surprise. Pollack, a special correspondent for The Treatment, may know something about welfare programs and substance abuse, but we on Campaign Desk take issue with his credentials as a press critic and dispute his central point….

Better coverage than the Vietnam War; the civil rights movement; the consumer movement? Really? In the case of the civil rights struggle, the press helped change the discourse; Americans began to view race in a new way, which led to the eventual passage of the Civil Rights Act. During the Vietnam War, the media effectively changed the public dialogue from a war we couldn’t lose to one we could not win. In the early days of the consumer movement, media coverage of Ralph Nader led Congress to enact significant consumer protections. Coverage of health reform has hardly risen to that level.

Losing one’s credentials as a “press critic” is a particularly low blow. The only thing worse would be to lose the moniker “Democratic strategist” on the cable talk circuit. I appreciate where Lieberman is coming from, but I think she missed my point, which was actually intended to be sobering.
Continue reading…

Why Do You Care Whether I’m Insured?

Oct 5, 2011• 102

By JOHN GOODMAN

If you care a great deal, I’ll give you an account number you can use to make a deposit.

[Note to Self: Send this Alert to the folks at Commonwealth. Also to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. CC Uwe Reinhardt as well. You never know what they might do. They certainly talk about this topic a lot.]

While you’re thinking about the initial question, here are a few follow-up questions:

Do you care whether I have life insurance?

What about disability insurance?

Homeowner’s insurance?

Auto casualty?

Auto liability?

What about retirement insurance? (A pension or savings plan.)

Do you care whether I keep my money at an FDIC-insured institution?

Or whether I bought an extended warranty on my car?

Or whether I bought travel insurance before taking my scuba diving trip to Palau? (It pays off if you get sick and can’t go.)

I’m sure there are busybodies who would like to run everyone else’s life. But society as a whole has taken a more rational approach. We basically don’t care whether people insure to protect their own assets (at least we don’t care enough to make them do so). But we do care about events that could create external costs for other people.

Consumer Groups Shut Out of Comparative Effectiveness Board

Sep 27, 2010• 4

By MERRILL GOOZNER

The Government Accountability Office last week appointed two “faster cures” patient advocates and a former insurance company executive now on the AARP board to the three slots reserved for patient and consumer representatives on the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute board, which will oversee comparative effectiveness research under health care reform.

The reform legislation passed last March gave GAO the job of appointing the 17 public members, which also includes five representatives of private payers, five physicians, and three industry representatives (one each for drugs, devices and diagnostic manufacturers). A full list can be found here.

The three “patient and consumer” representatives are:

Ellen Sigal, chair, Friends of Cancer Research.

Sigal is an outspoken advocate for more money for cancer research. Her board is comprised largely of fellow executives in the research community, including staff from the American Cancer Society, Research America!, and the American Society of Clinical Oncology, which represents cancer docs. She serves on numerous non-profit boards, including the Reagan-Udall Foundation set up by the Food and Drug Administration to expedite drug development; and has served on numerous Institute of Medicine panels investigating new ways of conducting cancer research that can lead to faster access to new medicines.

Nancy Turett, Edelman: “Health is the new Green”

Jan 11, 2010• 5

By Matthew Holt

Late last year PR/Communications giant Edelman released a survey called the Health Engagement Pulse. (Here’s the press release and here are the charts) This is separate from both Edelman’s Trust Barometer which has looked at consumer engagement and trust in business and institutions for years, and their Health Engagement Barometer (HEB) which looked at engagement in health in five countries in 2008 and is going to be run again this spring. At Health 2.0 we;ve worked with Edelman and featured the HEB data in our meetings and will continue to do so. Recently I “chatted” with Edelman’s President for Health, Nancy Turett, to find out what she thinks the data is telling us about people’s attitudes towards “health”.

Matthew Holt: Nancy, Edelman’s been looking at Health for a long time and also Engagement with the well known Engagement Barometer separately. In late 2008 you did the first Health Engagement Barometer. What does Health Engagement mean, and why have you put the two concepts together now?

Nancy Turett: Over the past several years, our engagement in all things health has growth dramatically, giving us a particularly useful whole-egg look at health industry, issues, and especially the growing convergence of public and personal health imperative. With clients from all industries and sectors grappling with health — costs, social expectations, pressures to innovate, and policy changes underway — we’ve found it useful to all to provide insights about what the public-at-large — wearing their many health hats — knows, wants, cares about and does as relates to health. And as a communications and engagement firm, we’ve delved particularly deeply into how people are influenced and how they influence others.

The Health Engagement Barometer, which we created and conducted for the first time a year ago, shone a bright light on some key issues, and identifying a fascinating cohort of people who by dint of their engagement, involvement, and information about health, have high influence over the attitudes and actions of others. We called them the “Health Info-entials.” We also learned a lot about people’s interest in engaging with health brands and companies — and we found people crave more connection than they’re getting — and that transparency and completeness trumps perfection when it comes to building trust between a health-involved brand and a consumer.

Medicare’s Biggest Change in 40 Years on the Horizon?

Nov 11, 2009• 2

By Vince Kuraitis

Earlier this week CMS issued a typically cryptic Announcement indicating that they were shelving the Medicare Medical Home Demonstration (MMHD) and instead would focus on the recently announced Multi-Payer Advanced Primary Care Initiative (MAPCI). My blog post from Tuesday provides details and asks the question “What does all this mean?”

Medicare’s Biggest Change in 40 Years?

CMS’ Announcement about the rise of MAPCI and the fall of MMHD struck me as highly significant…but all the pieces didn’t fit. I’ve spent a fair amount of time emailing and talking with colleagues this week…and the big picture is emerging…and it’s really BIG. My working hypothesis is that Medicare is on the verge of its biggest
change in 40 years:

Medicare was created as a centralized, monolithic payment model.
It’s been one size fits all, and that size is created in Washington DC.
There has been little tolerance of regional administrative variability,
and the ironic result has been high variability in regional costs and
quality.
Medicare seems poised to do a 180. It’s signaling movement toward
supporting state-based, multipayer initiatives — where Medicare is at
the table and influential, but not in control. It’s a recognition that
health care is local and that unique solutions will be needed in
different regional markets. The Obama administration is demonstrating
strong support for the Patient Centered Medical Home (PCMH) and
Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) as important building blocks in
this transition.Continue reading…

Health Reform Bills Would Be Great For the Business Of Health Care

Aug 29, 2009• 17

By ROBERT LASZEWSKI

Editors Note: This piece by veteran THCB contributor, Robert Laszewski, first appeared on Kaiser Health News. The piece is republished here with permission.

Have you noticed how none of the big health care business special
interests is running any negative health care reform ads? Why should
they when each is poised to gain billions of dollars from it?

As
President Barack Obama has said many times, any health care bill that
costs about $1 trillion would be paid for, roughly half and half, with
savings in the health care system and new revenues (taxes).

All
told, health care providers will likely get hit by $500 billion in
federal payment reductions over 10 years from what they would have
received otherwise. This is their "savings" contribution to help pay
for the overhaul effort. It amounts to no more than a couple of
percentage points less than they would have received anyway.

But
more importantly, the Congress is getting ready to spend $1 trillion
over the same 10 years mostly to expand Medicaid and provide subsidies
to the uninsured to help them purchase private health insurance and be
able to pay their medical bills. The health industry, by giving up $500
billion, gets millions more patients armed with public and private
health insurance cards. Not a bad deal—particularly when the other $500
billion needed to finance the bill comes from new levies on taxpayers,
not bigger industry cuts.

The details show an even prettier picture for the business of health care.

Finally, A Reasonable Plan for Certification of EHR Technologies

Aug 4, 2009• 28

By DAVID C. KIBBE and BRIAN KLEPPER

A caution to readers: This post is about methods for certifying Electronic Health Record (EHR) technologies used by physicians, medical practices, and hospitals who hope to qualify for federal incentive payments under the so-called HITECH portion of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). It may not be as critical as the larger health care reform effort or as entertaining as Sarah Palin, but it WILL matter to hundreds of thousands of physicians, influencing how difficult or easily those in small and medium size practices acquire health IT. And indirectly for the foreseeable future, it could affect millions of American patients, their ability to securely access their medical records, and the safety, quality, and the cost of medical care.

Three weeks ago, on July 14-15, 2009, the ONC’s Health IT Policy Committee held hearings in DC to review and consider changes to CCHIT’s current certification process. The Policy Committee is one of two panels formed to advise the new National Coordinator for Health IT, David Blumenthal. In a session that was a model of open-mindedness and balance, the Committee heard from all perspectives: vendors, standards organizations, physician groups, and many others.

And then, on July 16, they released their final recommendations on what is now referred to as “HHS Certification.” The effects of their recommendations – these are available online and should be read in their entirety to grasp their extent – are potentially monumental, and could very positively change health IT for the foreseeable future.

At the heart of these hearings was the issue of who will define the certification criteria and who will evaluate vendors’ products. Among many others, we have voiced concerns that the Certification Commission for Health Information Technology (CCHIT), the body currently contracted by HHS to perform EHR certification, has been partial to traditional health IT vendors in defining the certification criteria, and in the ways certification is carried out, and thereby able to inhibit innovation in this industry sector. Despite its leaders’ claims that the certification process has been developed using an open framework, CCHT’s obvious ties to the old guard IT vendors have created an overwhelming appearance of conflict of interest. That appearance has not been refuted by CCHIT’s resistance to and delays in implementing interoperability standards, or by its focus on features and functions over safety, security, and standards compliance.

In the hearings that led to the recommendations, longtime IT watchers were treated to some extraordinary commentary, much of which dramatically undermined CCHIT’s position.

“HHS Certification means that a system is able to achieve government requirements for security, privacy, and interoperability, and that the system would enable the Meaningful Use results that the government expects…HHS Certification is not intended to be viewed as a ‘seal of approval’ or an indication of the benefits of one system over another.”

In other words, as the definition of Meaningful Use is now tied to specific quality and safety improvements and cost savings that result from health IT — among them e-Prescribing, quality and cost reporting, data exchange for care coordination, and patient access to summary health data — HHS Certification will closely follow. Rather than pertain to an EHR’s long list of features and functions, some of which have nothing to do with Meaningful Use, certification will be focused on each IT system’s ability to enable practices and hospitals to collect, store, and exchange health data securely.

Who Determines the Certification Criteria

The Office of the National Coordinator – not CCHIT – would determine certification criteria, which “should be limited to the minimum set of criteria that are necessary to: (a) meet the functional requirements of the statute, and (b) achieve the Meaningful Use Objectives.” As regulator, funder for this project, and a major purchaser of health services, the government, not users or vendors, will now determine HHS’ Certification criteria.

A New Emphasis on Interoperability

“Criteria on functions/features should be high level; however, criteria on interoperability should be more explicit.” That is, functions/features criteria will be broadly defined, but there will be a greater focus in the future on the specifics associated with bringing about straightforward data exchange.

Multiple Certifying Organizations

ONC would develop an accreditation process and select an organization to accredit certifying organizations, then allow multiple organizations to perform certification testing. In other words, the Committee recommended that CCHIT’s monopoly end.

Third Party Validation

The “Validation” process would be redefined to prove that an EHR technology properly implemented and used by physician or hospital can perform the requirements of Meaningful Use. Self-attestation, along with reporting and audits performed by a Third Party, could be used to monitor the validation program.

Broader Interpretation of HHS Certification

HHS Certification would be broadly interpreted to include open source, modular, and non-vendor EHR and PHR technologies and their components.

These bold, forward-thinking proposals from the HIT Policy Committee have not been accepted yet. But in our opinion they should be. These measures would encourage new technologies to enter the market for physician medical practices seeking EHR technology, and wrest control away from the legacy health IT vendors that have maintained barriers and delayed adoption, so you can be sure that the old guard players are doing everything possible to have them rejected.

But these are hugely progressive steps in the right direction, toward allowing HIT to enable improvements in care and cost efficiencies that would be in the best interests of users and the public at large. If implemented, the changes recommended by the HIT Policy Committee would create greater choice, more standardization, lower price, less interruption of the practices — as well as a check from CMS or Medicaid each year to help smooth the implementation, starting in 2011.

David C. Kibbe MD MBA is a Family Physician and Senior Advisor to the American Academy of Family Physicians who consults on health care professional and consumer technologies. Brian Klepper PhD is a health care market analyst. Their collected collaborative columns may be found here.

Why Congress Should Consider Bob Laszewski’s Health Care Affordability Model

Jul 9, 2009• 40

By BRIAN KLEPPER

ALP_H_BK_0010 Over the last few months, I have become increasingly disheartened over the prospects for meaningful health care reform.

First, the process is terribly conflicted, and it shows. In the first quarter of 2009, the Center for Responsive Politics reported that the health care industry contributed $128 million to Congress. Now that the tide has turned, this has gone mostly to Democrats who, as it turns out, are just as receptive as their Republican predecessors.