Blog Home

Archive for the 'Health Care Costs' Category




Competition In Health Care Markets


January 26th, 2015

In this post, I want to focus on the key role economic analysis plays in the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)’s health care enforcement program. I use this lens to look first at how the FTC has become more successful in challenging hospital mergers, and then to rebut the notion that the Affordable Care Act is somehow a “free pass” for health care industry consolidation.

After the federal antitrust agencies successfully challenged a number of hospital mergers in the 1980s and early 1990s,[1] we suffered a string of court losses in the mid- and late-1990s, even in cases involving highly concentrated hospital markets.[2] In 2002, the FTC decided to take a step back and examine the reasons for our losses, and whether our analysis of hospital markets was correct.

We engaged in an in-depth retrospective study, used our authority to collect data from hospitals and insurance companies, and held workshops along with DOJ. (See here, here, here, and here.) Cory Capps of Bates and White, and other economists contributed significantly to our understanding as well. This intense period of reflection led to several important papers demonstrating that the consummated mergers stemming from the hospital merger challenges we lost—including those involving non-profits—resulted in anticompetitive effects, particularly increased prices. We also determined that our losses were due in part to the courts’ acceptance of faulty economic analysis of geographic and competitive effects. (See here, here, and here.)

Read the rest of this entry »

Beyond Law Enforcement: The FTC’s Role In Promoting Health Care Competition And Innovation


January 26th, 2015

By now, the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) law enforcement efforts in the health care area are well known. We have successfully challenged several hospital and physician practice mergers in the last few years. We also continue to pursue anticompetitive pharmaceutical patent settlements, following a victory at the Supreme Court in the Actavis case. Speaking of the Court, it is currently reviewing a case we brought against the North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners, alleging that its members conspired to exclude non-dentists from providing teeth whitening services in North Carolina.

Perhaps less publicized are the FTC’s various non-enforcement efforts in health care. Arguably most significant among those is the advocacy that the agency conducts in favor of competition principles before state legislatures and other policymakers. I will discuss our advocacy efforts in the health care space in this post, and then turn to the subject of telemedicine, an area in which FTC competition policy may play a significant role.

Read the rest of this entry »

Moving Beyond Wellness ROI Toward Employment-Based Cultures Of Health: Part I


January 26th, 2015

With their recent post declaring that employment-based wellness initiatives “increase rather than decrease employer spending on health care with no net health benefit,” Al Lewis and coauthors are continuing to exert a clarifying presence in a field with a history of unsubstantiated claims and suspect methods. This conclusion is not supported by the work with which we and others have been associated and is thus not one with which we agree.

Nevertheless, Lewis et al. are to be acknowledged for fueling the need for a sharper focus on the core challenge at hand for employers: how best to improve the value of their health care investment—that is, how to manage health care costs while improving employee health and productivity—in ways that are sustainable. Incremental, inconsistent and, at times, maddeningly slow progress has been made. Employment-based wellness has been at the forefront, even as the need for quality improvement continues.

Moreover leading employers with well-developed management and measurement approaches have moved well beyond calculating the return on investment of individual wellness efforts and are demonstrating the more comprehensive value of building “cultures of health.”

Read the rest of this entry »

New Health Policy Brief: The Two-Midnight Rule


January 23rd, 2015

A new policy brief from Health Affairs and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) examines the so-called “two-midnight rule,” which takes effect on April 1 of this year for new Medicare hospital claims. The rule, announced in 2013, is an effort by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to clarify when a patient will be considered by Medicare as an inpatient for hospital billing purposes. Under this rule, only patients that a doctor expects to need two nights in the hospital would be considered inpatients for the purpose of Medicare claims.

In the past, CMS provided little guidance to hospitals on this matter. This is important because the Medicare payment structures are very different for inpatients versus outpatients: Hospitals are reimbursed with a single comprehensive payment for all care provided to an inpatient during his or her time at the hospital, but they are paid standard fees for each unique service they provide to outpatients. This brief describes the perceived need by CMS for the two-midnight rule, how it would work, the implications for Medicare payment, and the heated response to the rule by the hospital industry.

Read the rest of this entry »

Early Evidence On Medicare ACOs And Next Steps For The Medicare ACO Program (Updated)


January 22nd, 2015

Note: Pratyusha Katikaneni and Carmen Diaz also contributed to this post. They are both research assistants at the Engelberg Center for Health Care Reform, The Brookings Institution.

On December 1, CMS released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP), which requests feedback for changes CMS is considering for the Medicare accountable care organization (ACO) programs in 2016 and beyond. The proposal suggests significant potential alterations to the program, many of which we recently reviewed, that would address major issues that ACOs and others have raised: uncertainty and inexperience at transitioning to increasing levels of risk, lack of timely and accurate data, changes in attributed patient populations from year-to-year, and financial benchmarks that fail to account for regional variations and continue to reward high ACO performance over time.

The proposed rule raises more issues than it settles, but it clearly indicates that CMS is open to meaningful public comments and will make important revisions in the MSSP. However, the proposal also illustrates the challenges of resolving these issues in a way that both assures substantial ACO participation and improvement, as well as Medicare savings.

Ideally, big changes in key features in a major program like the MSSP would be based on extensive empirical evidence on what determines success in the program. Unfortunately, only limited evidence, including case studies and some comparative data, is available on the determinants of success for Medicare ACOs, and thus on the MSSP. Data released by CMS in September, which we previously reviewed, showed that the MSSP has generated over $700 million in savings to date relative to the spending benchmarks in the program. This is around 1 percent of the costs of care for beneficiaries affected by Medicare ACO initiatives.

Read the rest of this entry »

Unpacking The Medicare Shared Savings Proposed Rule: Geography And Policy


January 22nd, 2015

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) recently announced a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs). The rulemaking contains several proposals that if enacted, would fundamentally change the underlying incentives for providers to participate in the program. These proposed reforms address issues such as data sharing, renewals of participation agreements, beneficiary attribution, incentives to move to two-sided risk, and lastly, reforms to the benchmark calculations against which ACOs compete to earn savings.

The NPRM comes on the heels of a September 16, 2014 release of performance results for MSSP ACOs that began their performance years by 2013. Under the current program rules, ACOs that successfully reported quality performance data and whose savings exceeded their “minimum savings rate” were eligible to share in savings with Medicare. The MSSP program allows ACOs to choose either one-sided risk (Track 1, only upside potential to earn savings) or two-sided risk (Track 2, both upside and downside potential to earn savings/incur losses) with the final sharing amount based on achieving quality targets (up to 50 percent for Track 1 and 60 percent for Track 2). A vast majority of ACOs enrolled in Track 1, the one-sided risk option. Of the 220 ACOs in the program that participated in the first performance year, 53 earned shared savings, 52 saved money but not enough to meet the required “minimum savings rates,” and the other 115 did not accrue savings (spending on patients assigned to the ACO was greater than projected).

In February 2014, the CMS asked stakeholders for input as to how to improve its ACO programs, feedback which they used to generate the NPRM. Many ACOs and other stakeholders argued that failures to achieve savings over and above minimum savings rates were a partial result of residing in low spending areas. In this post, we examine the merits of this contention and consider the policy implications of our results and their bearing on some of the modifications of the MSSP program that CMS has proposed. We also discuss other strategies for improving the program CMS did not mention in the NPRM.

Read the rest of this entry »

Last Year Was A Wild One For Health Law — What’s On The Docket For 2015?


January 22nd, 2015

Everywhere we look, we see the tremendous impact of new legal developments—whether regulatory or statutory, federal or state—on health and health care. These topics range from insurance to intellectual property to religion to professionalism to civil rights. They remain among the most important questions facing Americans today.

This post is the first in a series that will stem from the Third Annual Health Law Year in P/Review event to be held at Harvard Law School on Friday, January 30, 2015. The conference, which is free and open to the public, brings together leading experts to review major developments in health law over the previous year, and preview what is to come.

The event is sponsored by the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School and the New England Journal of Medicine, and co-sponsored by Health Affairs, The Hastings Center, and the Center for Bioethics at Harvard Medical School. Below, we will highlight a few themes that have emerged so far. The conference’s speakers will author a series of posts that follow on more specific topics.

Read the rest of this entry »

Academic Medical Centers Should Lead The Charge On Price Transparency


January 21st, 2015

A bipartisan campaign to increase price transparency in the medical world has been reverberating through the press, government, and hospitals. Recent examples include CMS’ release of datasets for inpatient and outpatient charges and North Carolina’s House Bill 834, which was signed into law on August 21, 2013 and mandates that the state’s Department of Health and Human Services publish hospital charges. In Time Magazine, Steven Brill’s article, “Bitter Pill,” provided stunning real world examples of how the lack of price transparency can create enormous uncertainty and confusion among both patients and providers.

The momentum will only continue as Section 2718(e) of the Affordable Care Act is implemented. The provision, which took effect on October 1, 2014, mandates that each hospital establish, update, and publicize a list of standard charges for items and services provided. At this critical moment, there is one set of institutions that are uniquely positioned to ensure that price transparency is implemented deliberately and successfully: Academic Medical Centers.

For good reason, there is excitement about the potential of the price transparency movement. A recent Health Affairs study by Wu et al. suggests that when patients have access to health care prices for an intervention such as an MRI, a significant number select the lower-price option. This proof of concept shows that price transparency has the potential to lead to competition between hospitals, thus reducing costs to the patient and health care system.

Read the rest of this entry »

Health Affairs Briefing: Biomedical Innovation


January 20th, 2015

Biomedical innovation lengthens and enriches our lives through breakthroughs in medications and care, but it is has also been the leading source of health care cost growth over the past few decades. The upcoming February 2015 thematic issue of Health Affairs examines the topic from many perspectives.

You are invited to join us on Thursday, February 5, at a forum featuring authors from the new issue at the W Hotel in Washington, DC.  Panels will cover pharmaceuticals; biotechnology; medical devices; and accelerating, diffusing, and financing innovation.

WHEN: 
Thursday, February 5, 2015
9:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.

WHERE: 
W Hotel Washington
515 15th Street NW
Washington, DC, Great Room, Lower Level

Register Now!

Follow live Tweets from the briefing @Health_Affairsand join in the conversation with #HA_BiomedInnovation.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Payment Reform Landscape: Drilling Down


January 15th, 2015

Catalyst for Payment Reform’s 2014 National Scorecard on Payment Reform revealed a dramatic jump in the percent of commercial health care payments that is value-oriented, meaning the payments are tied to the quality of care in some way. In last year’s Scorecard, commercial health plans reported 40 percent of payments were value-oriented, up from just 11 percent in 2013. So on the face of it, as the “health care payment reform arms race” continues among commercial health plans, we’re well on our way to a reformed approach to payment.

But we can’t jump for joy or shout from the rooftops just yet. As I shared in my December blog, we’ve learned not all payment reform models are created equal, and a lot of the jump can be explained by an increase in pay-for-performance — not the most ambitious model when it comes to reining in costs. Meanwhile, there was a very sluggish uptick in the use of models that place providers at financial risk (such as shared risk payment arrangements for ACOs). Moreover, while the National Scorecard tells us how plans are paying for care, it cannot answer other lingering questions: Which models should purchasers adopt if they want the best savings and improvements in care? Which models are spreadable and scalable so a broader swath of the population can reap their benefits?

Since Catalyst for Payment Reform (CPR) works on behalf of large employers and other big health care purchasers, we field these kinds of questions frequently. Unfortunately, there are no easy answers. And we often find ourselves stuck at a crossroads. Purchasers say they want payment reform, and they attempt to spell out what they want and need. Health plans work to build it, but often the purchasers don’t come, saying it’s not what they asked for, or citing concerns about return on investment and scalability. Plan leaders, who think they understood the “specs” and tried to deliver, become frustrated. Over time they can become reluctant to get creative. Purchasers can become jaded and start to wonder if the plans just don’t understand their needs.

Read the rest of this entry »

Health Affairs Web First: New Medicare Per Capita Spending Shows A Rise With Age, Then A Decline After 96


January 14th, 2015

New analysis of Medicare spending from 2000–11 found that in 2011 per capita spending increased with age, from $7,566 for beneficiaries age seventy to $16,145 at age ninety-six, and then declining for even older beneficiaries. The study authors Patricia Neuman, Juliette Cubanski, and Anthony Damico also found that since 2000, the age that Medicare per capita spending peaks has increased each year: In 2000, the highest spending was found to be among those age ninety-two.

They also found that Medicare beneficiaries ages eighty and older, who comprised 24 percent of the beneficiaries, accounted for a disproportionate share (33 percent) of traditional Medicare spending in 2011. This study, being released by Health Affairs as a Web First, is part of its re-established DataWatch series, which features timely health-related data and surveys.

Read the rest of this entry »

CMS Spending Report Leads Health Affairs 2014 Top-Ten List


January 13th, 2015

A report on 2012 health spending by analysts at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Office of the Actuary was the most-read Health Affairs article in 2014. To celebrate the New Year, Health Affairs is making this piece and all the articles on the journal’s 2014 top-ten list freely available to all readers for two weeks.

Health Affairs publishes annual retrospective analyses of National Health Expenditures by the CMS analysts, as well as their health spending projections for the coming decade. In the latest installment in this series — which also made our 2014 top ten — the analysts reported on 2013 health spending and discussed their findings at a Washington DC briefing. The two reports documented continued slow growth in health spending; the 2013 report featured the slowest rate of health spending growth since CMS began tracking NHE in 1960.

Next on the 2014 Health Affairs most-read list was an article on PepsiCo’s workplace wellnesss program. John Caloyeras and coauthors at RAND and PepsiCo found that the diseases management component of the program saved money, but the lifestyle management component did not. This was followed by two Narrative Matters essays by Charlotte Yeh and Diane Meier; another Narrative Matters piece, by Janice Lynn Schuster, rounded out the list at number ten.

The full top-ten list is below. And check out the 2014 most-read Health Affairs Blog posts and GrantWatch Blog posts.

Read the rest of this entry »

Reconsidering Pauly And Coauthors’ ‘Economic Framework For Preventive Care Advice’


January 12th, 2015

In the November issue of Health Affairs, Mark Pauly and coauthors criticize the lack of cost-effectiveness considerations in the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which mandates that health plans include preventive care free at the point of use. The bodies critiqued, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, convene health experts to develop recommendations for immunizations and other preventive services.

According to the authors, the task entrusted to these bodies by the ACA, of offering sound advice on preventive care without considering its cost-effectiveness, is “impossible to do well.” They propose instead an “economic framework” under which only services with “substantial external benefits” (e.g. a vaccination for contagious disease) would be mandated for coverage. We believe this position is misguided.

Read the rest of this entry »

A (Global) Cornucopia Of Clues To Optimize Medication Use


January 6th, 2015

The most common patient care intervention, issuing a prescription, is fraught with continuing challenges for patients, their caregivers, and practitioners. Patients rely on medications across a continuum of care, with expectations for self-management; some experience unintended problems along the way. For older patients, such problems often result in emergency hospitalizations, many of which could be prevented.

Historically, integration to support safe and appropriate medicine use across the U.S. health care ecosystem has been sporadic, including within our siloed Medicare Part D benefit. Other countries, however, are well on their way to better integration.

In the following blog post, we share examples from the United Kingdom and Australia. Fortunately, U.S. practitioners who recognize optimizing medication use as an essential element of population health can look to several recent federal opportunities to support their efforts.

Read the rest of this entry »

Health Affairs’ January Issue: Aging And Health


January 5th, 2015

The January issue of Health Affairs includes a number of studies examining issues pertaining to aging and health or health care. Other subjects covered include: the effect of Medicare’s Hospital Compare quality reports on hospital prices; how the Affordable Care Act’s provisions impact Americans shouldering high medical cost burdens; and whether California’s Hospital Fair Pricing Act has benefited uninsured patients.

Content on aging and health was supported by the John A. Hartford Foundation.

Read the rest of this entry »

Rethinking The Gruber Controversy: Americans Aren’t Stupid, But They’re Often Ignorant — And Why


December 29th, 2014

M.I.T. economist Jonathan Gruber, whom his colleagues in the profession hold in very high esteem for his prowess in economic analysis, recently appeared before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Gruber was called to explain several caustic remarks he had offered on tortured language and provisions in the Affordable Care Act (the ACA) that allegedly were designed to fool American voters into accepting the ACA.

Many of these linguistic contortions, however, were designed not so much to fool voters, but to force the Congressional Budget Office into scoring taxes as something else. But Gruber did call the American public “stupid” enough to be misled by such linguistic tricks and by other measures in the ACA — for example, taxing health insurers knowing full well that insurers would pass the tax on to the insured.

During the hearing, Gruber apologized profusely and on multiple occasions for his remarks. Although at least some economists apparently see no warrant for such an apology, I believe it was appropriate, as in hindsight Gruber does as well. “Stupid” is entirely the wrong word in this context; Gruber should have said “ignorant” instead.

Read the rest of this entry »

Sovaldi, Harvoni Payment Issues Lead Health Affairs Blog November Most-Read List


December 24th, 2014

A piece by Laura Fegraus and Murray Ross on the challenges of paying for lifesaving but high-priced drugs like Sovaldi and Harvoni from was the most-read Health Affairs Blog post for November. This was followed by a critical analysis of workplace wellness programs from Al Lewis, Vik Khanna, and Shana Montrose.

Next came a post on the 2016 Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters Proposed Rule from Tim Jost, and then a look at health care policy after the mid-term elections from James Capretta.

The full top-ten list for November is below.

Read the rest of this entry »

Health Insurance Rate Setting: Time To Raise The Bar And Lift The Veil Of Secrecy


December 24th, 2014

Over 15 million Americans stand to benefit from a strong health insurance rate review system, with the number growing each year. But in many states the rate review laws—and how they are carried out—fall short. Health insurance is one of the most expensive purchases consumers make, it is vital to the financial and physical health of their families, and it is required under the Affordable Care Act.

It is, therefore, important for insurance regulators to ensure consumers pay a fair price for their coverage. At the recent National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) meeting, we, along with two other organizations, presented a set of recommendations designed to strengthen the rate review process at both the state and federal level so that all consumers will be assured fairly priced health insurance.

The Affordable Care Act introduced new, important protections for consumers, while at the same time retaining a large role for state policy and regulation. This framework resulted in inconsistent policies across states. States that expanded Medicaid sit adjacent to states that did not. Some states operate their own insurance Marketplace, while consumers in other states use the federal Marketplace.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Value of Workplace Health Promotion (Wellness) Programs


December 22nd, 2014

The recent Health Affairs Blog post by Al Lewis, Vik Khanna, and Shana Montrose titled, “Workplace Wellness Produces No Savings” has triggered much interest and media attention. It highlights the controversy surrounding the value of workplace health promotion programs that 22 authors addressed in an article published in the September 2014 issue of the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine titled, “Do Workplace Health Promotion (Wellness) Programs Work?”  That article also inspired several follow-up discussions and media reports, including one published by New York Times columnists Frakt and Carroll who answered the above question with: “usually not.”

There are certainly many points of contention and areas for continued discussion on this topic. It turns out that Lewis et al. and I agree on many things, and there are other areas where we see things differently.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Medicare Shared Savings Program: CMS Turns To Stakeholders On Incentivizing ACO Risk


December 19th, 2014

On December 1, 2014, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) released its long awaited Proposed Rule to update regulation and operation of the Medicare Shared Savings Program (“MSSP”). In response to concerns raised by participating accountable care organizations, CMS proposes to revise the MSSP program in several ways to provide greater flexibility for ACOs.

However, in important areas CMS may not have gone far enough. This post describes the framework CMS has set forth and then suggests several ways in which the proposal could, in our view, be improved to achieve the CMS objective of encouraging ACOs to bear more risk. In particular, CMS should consider using its waiver authority more robustly; allowing Medicare beneficiaries to designate their primary care providers, and by extension their ACO; and revising the MSSP risk-adjustment methodology to better reflect the changing risk profiles of ACOs.

CMS is actively seeking stakeholder input, which may indicate agency recognition that further changes beyond those in the propose rule are needed. By all indications, stakeholder input will be seriously considered; more than any time in recent memory, stakeholder comments will make a difference in the shape of the Final Rule. This presents a unique opportunity for stakeholders and we urge concerned parties to share their perspectives through comments – the deadline for submitting comments is February 6, 2015.

Read the rest of this entry »

Click here to email us a new post.