The Health Care Blog – Page 663 – Everything you always wanted to know about the Health Care system. But were afraid to ask.

Above the Fold

Does Obamacare Limit Profits for Health Insurance Companies in Your State?

Feb 4, 2012• 84

By Jason Shafrin

One of the provisions in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (a.k.a ACA, a.k.a. Health Reform, a.k.a. Obamacare) is that it limits the profits of health insurance companies. The ACA imposes a minimum medical loss ratio (MLR) on all insurers. The MLR is the amount of money spent on covered person medical care divided by the total revenue received through premiums. There is some debate of what constitutes ‘medical care’ (e.g., do investments in electronic health records count as medical care?), but insurer profits certainly are non-medical.

The ACA requires health insurers in the individual and small group market to spend 80 percent of their premiums (after subtracting taxes and regulatory fees) on medical costs. The corresponding figure for large groups is 85 percent. According to a recent Kaiser tracking poll, 60 percent of the public views the MLR concept favorably, although only 38 percent was aware that the provision is in the ACA. Insurance brokers may be getting squeezed for insurers to meet this amount.

Even though the MLR is a national law, it may not apply in your state. Continue reading…

Do Something Really Innovative In Health: Crowdsource Problems, Not (Just) Solutions

Feb 4, 2012

By David Shaywitz

Businesses exist to solve problems, right? Certainly, this is the heart of the classic entrepreneurial model: you become obsessed with a particular problem, and create a business to solve it. Example: eBay was created by Pierre Omidyar to solve a perceived problem with inefficient markets, and since its inception has generally focused on doing exactly this.

Most enterprises are not blessed by such a coherent focus, at least not for long. More often, organizations – including university research labs as well as for-profit businesses – have a point at which they realize that their challenge has changed, and the problem they thought there were going to solve has shifted or even completely disappeared. The team – often an impressive group of people representing a wide range of capabilities — is then left to figure out what to do.

While disbanding is always an option, it rarely seems to happen, at least volitionally. Businesses, projects, academic enterprises – all are obsessed with their own survival, which rapidly becomes the defining mission. As a result, the organization urgently tries to figure out a way to pivot, a way to apply established resources in a different, useful way as it searches for a purpose to justify its existence. Very often, the question becomes: what should we do – what problem should we solve?

Nimble Medicine

Feb 3, 2012• 9

By Dave Chase

In a piece for the New Yorker, Dr. Atul Gawande outlined how, early in the 1900s, more than forty per cent of household income went to paying for food and food production consumed roughly half the workforce. Beginning in Texas, a wide array of new methods of food production were tested. After many pilots, tests and information dissemination, food now accounts for 8% of household budgets and 2% of the workforce. As a wide array of small innovations ultimately led to the transformation of farming, so too is a rapidly building wave of innovative new care and payment models leading to similar breakthroughs in healthcare. I call this Nimble Medicine.

Until recently, attempting a new care or payment model meant long planning and development cycles. The cost and complexity of testing new models prevented many from being tried. Even today, the leading HealthIT vendor is known to charge $100 million and up for its software. Amazingly, they require three months of training before they even let people administer the software.

Genetic Testing and Insurance: One Datum

Feb 3, 2012• 4

By DAVID FRIEDMAN

Reductions in the cost of genetic testing and improvements in what we know about what it tells us produce obvious benefits; if you know you are likely to have some particular medical problem, you may be able to take precautions against it. But they also have at least one potential downside.

The more is known about the chance of bad things happening to us, the less able we will be to insure against them.

A solution to this problem that is sometimes proposed is to permit individuals to have their genes tested but forbid insurance companies to require testing as a condition of insurance or to use the information it produces. The problem with that is adverse selection. If the customer knows his risk and the insurance company doesn’t, high risk and low risk customers are charged the same price, making insurance a good deal for the former and a bad deal for the latter. Insurance companies, realizing that most of those who choose to buy their insurance are bad risks, will charge accordingly, driving more of the low or average risk customers out of the market. In the limiting case, insurance is bought only by high risk customers, at a high risk price. A famous description of the problem is Akerlof’s article “The Market for Lemons.”

If we allow both insurance companies and their customers to make use of genetic information, then both high risk and low risk customers can buy insurance, but at different prices. The risk of having genetic variants that make you more likely to suffer some expensive medical problem is uninsurable, although you can still insure against the risk that, given those genes, the problem will actually appear.

Thinking About the Bipartisan Policy Center Report on Health IT

Feb 3, 2012

By Jane Sarasohn-Kahn

There are few issue areas within the Beltway of Washington, DC, that have enjoyed more support across the political aisle than health care information technology. In 2004, George Bush asserted that every American would/should have an electronic medical record by 2014. Since then, Democrats and Republicans alike have supported the broad concept of wiring the U.S. health information infrastructure.

With the injection of ARRA stimulus funds earmarked in the HITECH Act to promote health providers’ adoption of electronic health records, we’re now on the road to Americans getting access to their health information electronically. It won’t be all or even most U.S. health citizens by 2014, but it will millions.

Just how solid is political support for health IT these days, then? An important report, Transforming Health Care: The Role of Health IT, from the Bipartisan Policy Center Task Froce on Delivery System Reform and Health IT published in January 2012, talks about the gaps and obstacles to achieving an interoperable, accessible health IT infrastructure.

Care Innovations Summit

Feb 2, 2012• 9

By Kent Bottles, MD

Anyone who is concerned about the future transformation of the United States clinical delivery system should pay attention to the Care Innovations Summit. The selection of presentations as well as the content that was discussed says volumes about where CMS believes payment is headed. Speaker after speaker stated that decreasing the per-capita cost of health care and increasing the quality patients receive is the dominant political, social, and economic issue for all Americans.

Marilyn Tavenner, the new Acting Administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, outlined what she saw as the major accomplishments of the past few years. Her list included providing partial relief for 3.8 million seniors who hit the prescription drug “doughnut hole,” creating high risk pools for 45,000 Americans, creating a consumer website, allowing young adults to stay on their parents’ health care insurance until age 26, eliminating denial of coverage for patients with pre-existing conditions, eliminating lifetime and annual health care insurance maximums, increasing the coverage of many prevention measures, creating pilots to explore how to base payments on quality not volume, and getting the Innovation Center up and running.

Atul Gawande, MD, the Harvard surgeon and New Yorker author, presented the morning keynote. Gawande, the author of three books on health care (Complications, Better, and The Checklist Manifesto), said the “cost of health care is destroying the American dream.” In Massachusetts the state government sent nearly a billion dollars to local schools to pay for smaller class sizes and better teachers’ pay, but every dollar was diverted to covering higher health care costs. For each dollar added to school budgets, the costs of teacher health benefits consumed $1.40.

Gawande listed three causes of our current health care problem: business interests, government bureaucracy, and the sheer complexity of delivering clinical care in a broken system. He focused on the last of these causes and noted that there are at present 13,600 diagnoses, 4,000 medical procedures, and 6,000 medications. In 1970 the average patient saw two physicians for their medical conditions; today the average patient has more than 15 physicians consulting on their care. He also stated that the health care system “trained and hired physicians to be cowboys, when what we really need are pit crew team members.” He is also hopeful because the health care systems that have the best results are not the most expensive.

It Takes a CEO to Save the U.S. Health-Care System

Feb 2, 2012• 22

By Darrell Moon

Forget Washington and the political debate over Obamacare. The real battle for the future of health care is being fought in the world of business, where tens of thousands of companies have seen their financial well-being undermined by skyrocketing employee health costs.

Although few people realize it, employee health costs have now become the third-largest expenditure for U.S. businesses today, constituting a whopping 8 percent of total compensation. And they are rising fast, more than doubling in just the last decade to more than $15,000 a year for family coverage. Of that cost, 73 percent is paid by the employer.

Yet most chief executive officers are curiously passive, failing to employ even the most basic management tools and market incentives to deal with the problem. Employees and employers alike — but first and foremost the boss — need to be held accountable for reducing the cost burden that is damaging so many companies’ bottom lines.

Here are seven things that CEOs can do:

No. 1: Give incentives to insurance brokers.

Most employers buy their health insurance through brokers who make more money when the plan costs more. Not exactly a smart way to get market forces working in your favor. Better to pay brokers on a fee-for-service basis. Better still to offer them a bonus tied to the amount by which they can reduce a plan’s costs, not a plan’s benefits.

No. 2: Give incentives to your managers.

Every CEO learned in business school that if you want to achieve a key business objective — be it launching a new product or reducing company health costs — you need to provide incentives to managers to help you succeed. Yet rare is the boss who offers bonuses to human-resources and benefits managers who reduce claims costs for the company. It’s long past the time for CEOs to get the incentives working in the right direction inside their companies, as well.

The Latest Big Pharma Scandal

Feb 2, 2012• 3

By Shannon Brownlee

Imagine yourself in front of your computer, looking up information about a drug prescribed by your doctor. Your Internet search tells you that there is a cheaper, maybe even a generic version available, but you have just paid top dollar for the brand name drug. You also learn that another treatment may be safer than the prescription you just filled. Now imagine you discover that your doctor gets paid by the manufacturer to promote the drug to other doctors.

There are various words for this sort of financial transaction, when, say, a radio disk jockey is paid by a recording studio to play a song or a broker is paid to tout a stock — both of which, by the way, are illegal. In medicine it’s called a financial conflict of interest, although “pharmapayola” is in some ways more accurate. It’s perfectly legal, and it’s rampant. In a survey published in the Archives of Internal Medicine in 2010, 28% of physicians reported that they received some kind of payment from a drug company to serve on a speaker’s board, as a consultant, or on an advisory board. Other bennies handed out by companies included free drug samples, tickets to sporting events, meals at five-star restaurants and all-expenses paid trips to medical meetings in nice locales.

As of this year, doctors who accept gifts and payments from drug and device makers will see their names on the web, the result of the 2010 Physician Payment Sunshine Act, one of the most controversial provisions in the health care reform law. Companies will be required to report any gift or payment to a doctor or academic researcher over $10, whether it’s in the form of stock options, speaking fees, box seat tickets, knickknacks for the doctor’s office or travel to a medical conference. Doctors will also be required to disclose payments and gifts.

Congressional Research Service: Courts Could Force HHS to Implement CLASS Act, Despite Its Insolvency

Feb 1, 2012• 6

By Avik Roy

Today, the U.S. House of Representatives will vote on H.R. 1173, the Fiscal Responsibility and Retirement Security Act of 2011, sponsored by Rep. Charles Boustany (R., La.). This two-page bill would repeal the fiscal disaster known as the CLASS Act, Obamacare’s new long-term care entitlement, which was “suspended” by the Obama Administration because Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius could not certify that the entitlement was fiscally sustainable. Why, you might ask, should Congress bother to repeal CLASS, given that Sebelius has suspended its implementation? Because, according to the Congressional Research Service, courts could force her to implement the new entitlement, despite the fact that it will blow up the deficit.

According to the text of the Affordable Care Act, Secretary Sebelius is required to “designate a benefit plan as the CLASS Independence Benefit Plan” by October 1, 2012. Back in November, the House Energy and Commerce Committee asked CRS to evaluate the question: based on this language, could advocacy groups file suit against HHS for failing to implement the program? Would a court be likely to side with these plaintiffs? According to CRS, it’s a real possibility.

“If the Secretary does not designate a plan by October 1, 2012,” write the CRS staffers, “this failure to act would appear to be the type of agency action that could be challenged under the judicial review provision for agency action unlawfully withheld.” A court could grant deference to Sebelius’ finding that the program was unsustainable, but it could also force implementation of CLASS by “declaring the Secretary in violation of 5 U.S.C. § 706(1) or issuing a write of mandamus to compel agency action, thus requiring the Secretary to renew her efforts to create a plan that is consistent with the statutory requirements.”