Health Affairs

It is increasingly well-known that improper payments cost taxpayers as much as $50 billion each year. These include reimbursements for billing for non-existent patients, falsified diagnoses, non-covered procedures, services not rendered or simply upcoded, as well as billing errors in favor of providers. Steps are being taken to address these issues through increased acceptance of approaches, tools and techniques from private industry and from industries outside of healthcare. More than just technology, some of the most powerful ideas to come along are that incentives matter, decentralization may achieve results faster and better, and stretch goals are crucial.

Scale of the problem

Safeguarding taxpayer resources and maintaining access to healthcare are clear public policy priorities. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has long designated Medicare as a high-risk federal program due to its vulnerability to waste, fraud and abuse. Conservative estimates by the National Health Care Anti-Fraud Association are that improper payments represent 3 percent of national health care spending. The GAO and others estimate nearly 10 percent of the more than $500 billion in current annual Medicare payments are improper. At the same time, Medicare provides necessary — and often much needed — access to health care for 48 million Americans.

Performance measurement — if done right — can be a core activity to move the health care system to higher value for the American public, while rewarding health professionals and health care institutions for doing the right thing for their patients. Yet, policy makers, private and public, have a duty to the public, patients, and providers to get it right — to measure and report accurately and meaningfully.

Harlan Krumholz and Peter Pronovost have been among the most important contributors to the development of performance measures for quality and safety of health care. At the same time, each has written powerful critiques of particular aspects of the current measurement enterprise with suggested improvements. I work mostly inside the Beltway in a world of policy makers who, despite good intentions, by their actions often display a lack of understanding of the challenges associated with measures, measurement, public reporting, and pay-for-performance. For example, the physician value-based modifier, which was mandated as part of the Affordable Care Act and now must be implemented by CMS, cannot produce a valid snapshot of an individual physician’s “value” but will be imposed nevertheless, unfortunately feeding those within the physician community who resist all efforts to improve accountability and transparency of performance.

With the encouragement of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Harlan, Peter, and I joined in a collaborative endeavor to produce a comprehensive look at the state of play of performance measurement and public reporting — their conceptual underpinnings and limitations, successes and failures, and, perhaps most importantly, recommendations for major steps that are needed now to put the measurement enterprise on track to achieve its potential to improve the value of U.S. health care without doing harm.

Medicare is caught between two countervailing impulses: the desire of beneficiaries (and providers and the adult children of beneficiaries) to have a benefit package that covers more, rather than less, and the desire to restrain program spending due to its impact on the federal budget. This tension is heightened by the transition of the Baby Boomers from paying taxes into Medicare to receiving benefits.

The default is that Medicare covers acute care therapies, tests and procedures if there is a patient that wants to receive them and a provider who is willing to deliver them, whether there is evidence of any benefit to the patient or not. As I tell students in my Introduction to Health Policy Course, while Medicare sets payment rates (and is therefore like Marlon Brando in The Godfather: “I have an offer you can’t refuse”), when it comes to what is covered in the acute care setting, it is more like my Grandmother serving lunch (“whatever you would like, honey.”)

There are exceptions. Recently, the Medicare Evidence Development and Coverage Advisory Committee decided not to approve the payment of PET scans to aid in the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease. However, such a move is rare, and both provider and patient groups are protesting this decision.

The release of average charges for common procedures in more than 3,000 U. S. hospitals last week by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) elicited divergent reactions – not surprisingly. On one hand, it was front-page news for most of the major newspapers: “Hospital Billing Varies Wildly, Government Billing Data Shows,” was the headline in the New York Times. The article went on to speculate that these new data would likely “intensify a long debate over the methods that hospitals use to determine their charges.”

On the other hand the data were “old hat” to most health policy analysts. Several colleagues mentioned to me that “this is old news” and “it isn’t meaningful at all because we all know that charges don’t mean anything.”

“No one pays charges” is the common refrain. “Charges are merely an accounting fiction.”

Charges Do Matter — They Matter A Great Deal

Counter to the belief of both hospital industry representatives and many of my colleagues, hospital charge levels and rapidly escalating charges matter a great deal. While individual states and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) have instituted limits on the amounts low-income uninsured patients pay hospitals, insured patients that receive care at hospitals that are “Non-Par” or “out-of-network” are still victims of hospital’s exorbitant charging practices. When patients receive emergency services at an out-of-network hospital, the patient and/or insurance company (depending on insurer cost sharing for out-of-network care) pay full charges.

High and increasing hospital charges, combined with increasing proportions of cases admitted through the hospital Emergency Department (ED), are major factors behind the ever-declining negotiating leverage of private health insurers. This situation, coupled with the increased pricing power of the ever-more-concentrated provider industry, will be a major contributor to the almost certain rapid escalation in total U.S. health care costs in coming years.

A new study, released today as a Web First by Health Affairs, reports that cancer patients in Washington state were 2.65 times more likely to file for bankruptcy than people without cancer. Of 197,840 cancer patients age 18 or older in the western district of Washington between 1995 and 2009, 4,408 (2.2 percent) filed for bankruptcy protection after being diagnosed with cancer. Among a control group of 197,840 people from that same region who did not have cancer, only 2,291 (1.1 percent) filed for bankruptcy.

“Although the risk of bankruptcy for cancer patients is relatively low in absolute terms, bankruptcy represents an extreme manifestation of what is probably a larger picture of economic hardship for cancer patients,” conclude Scott Ramsey of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and coauthors. “As a policy issue, there may be a role for employers and governments in creating programs or incentives to reduce the likelihood of financial insolvency, given that bankruptcies are ‘lose-lose’ events for debtors and creditors alike.”

The list of most-read Health Affairs Blog posts for April includes four posts in Tim Jost’s ongoing series on implementing the Affordable Care Act; number one on the top-ten list is Tim’s post about proposed regulations on health insurance exchange navigators. The list also includes posts on accountable care organizations, patient-centered care, controlling health care costs. and more.

The full list is below:

The Affordable Care Act survived the Supreme Court and a presidential election, so why does it face such an uncertain future? One reason is that it was essentially silent on how to control costs. This has led many pundits — including the likes of Paul Krugman and Robert Reich — to argue that the best approach would be to extend Medicare to everyone. A January National Research Council report on the relative disadvantage of America in global health outcomes, especially compared to countries with national health insurance, added further fuel to the fire. But is a larger government role in health insurance the best approach?

The idea of universal Medicare is powerful and attractive. Mr. Krugman points out that in the last forty years, average Medicare costs per person have grown by 400 percent while those for private insurance have increased more than 700 percent. His numbers suggest that if everyone had Medicare for the last 40 years, we might now spend only 14 percent of GDP on health care instead of nearly 18 percent, while also reaching universal coverage. Mr. Reich argues that “Medicare-for-All” would save between $58 billion and $400 billion annually, and similarly concludes: “Medicare isn’t the problem. It’s the solution.” Critics of the U.S. system are also quick to point out that Americans don’t live as long as their counterparts in countries that spend much less, suggesting universal Medicare could save money and improve our health.

The argument for universal Medicare basically comes down to three key claims: (1) Medicare gets lower prices, (2) Medicare’s administrative costs are lower; and (3) Greater spending does not mean better health. Each of these deserves closer attention.

At Managed Care Matters, Joe Paduda presents highlights of recent health policy blogging in a new Health Wonk Review. Among the pieces Joe highlights are Health Affairs Blog posts by John Holahan & Stacey McMorrow and Charles Roehrig on the causes and likely longevity of the recent slowdown in health spending growth.

The Affordable Care Act included provisions to accelerate the transition to value-based payment, including Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs). Many private sector insurers, providers and employers also are moving in this direction.

However, many of today’s measures are inadequate to the task of assessing and paying for value. Current measures focus on process and clinical outcomes, as opposed to health status, and few are based on patient-reported data that would measure the overall care experience.

In addition, most measures are add-ons to current work rather than an integral part of the care process, requiring manual chart reviews and retrospective data analysis. Not only does this make implementation burdensome, it limits opportunity for real-time feedback and adjustment.

These inadequacies create opportunities to implement new measures that will be more meaningful to consumers, clinicians, purchasers and policy makers. But to avoid a proliferation of measures that are inconsistent or questionable in terms of assessing value, a framework is needed to define specific measures for each component of value – health outcomes, patient experience and per capita cost (see Table 1, click to enlarge).

In less than nine months millions of Americans will receive new health care coverage through provisions of the Affordable Care Act. Most observers believe that strong physician leadership can help heath care reform succeed, through the optimization of care quality and cost management. But, at the same time, too many American physicians are dissatisfied with current medical practice, and unsure of what to do about it. Many would not recommend a career as a physician to their own children.

There are multiple causes for this dissatisfaction where it exists, including unpredictable reimbursement for services, excessive work burden and long hours, and excessive time devoted to non-clinical activities, including “paperwork”.

One possible reaction to physician dissatisfaction is a shrug of one’s shoulders. Most physicians are well paid, compared to most Americans, and are highly respected. We suggest, however, that improving physician practice satisfaction should be important for both patients and policymakers.

Much has been made of the slowdown in health spending growth and the role played by the economy. I have to confess that my first take, after studying plots of business cycles and health spending, was that health spending “had a mind of its own” and paid no attention to business cycles. Consider the two most recent recessions depicted in the chart below. During the recession of 2001, health spending growth actually shot up at the same time that the growth in gross domestic product (GDP) was dropping, and continued to rise even after the recession officially ended.

During the Great Recession, spanning December 2007 through June 2009, the growth in health spending dropped by about 2 percentage points and then leveled off while GDP growth dropped by nearly 10 percentage points and then quickly rebounded to a more normal long run rate of growth (though not sufficient to make a large dent in unemployment). I hope you can see why I was skeptical of a predictable relationship.

Following the third straight year in which the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services estimated the growth in national health expenditures to be a record-low 3.9 percent, considerable speculation on the causes of slower spending growth has come from a variety of sources. There seems to be a consensus among actuaries, academics, and other analysts that the recession and the associated increase in unemployment and decline in insurance coverage led individuals to cut back on their use of health care services. (See here, here, But, while the recession is clearly associated with the dramatic slowdown in spending growth from 2007-2009, there is also evidence that the slowdown in spending preceded the recent recession and seems to be continuing during the modest economic recovery.

Observers of this more general trend have begun to suggest that fundamental structural changes in the health system are playing a role in recent spending trends. The ability of some high profile providers and health systems to achieve high quality outcomes with greater efficiency has garnered a lot of attention and some suggest that more salaried employment of physicians could be altering the practice patterns that developed under a fee-for-service system. Others have pointed to patient-centered medical homes, accountable care organizations, and other payment and delivery system reforms as potential contributors to the slowdown in spending growth. The Obama administration has also argued that the Affordable Care Act has started to have a moderating effect on spending growth.

The extent to which the economy versus broader systemic changes has been driving slower spending growth has enormous implications for forecasting future spending trends. If the economy has been the primary driver of recent trends, we should expect spending growth to return to historically high levels as the economy recovers. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the CMS actuaries have revised their Medicare and Medicaid forecasts downward to reflect the latest trends, but both entities seem to suggest that spending growth over the long term will return to historical levels. If, however, more structural changes are at work, then perhaps there is reason to be hopeful that health care spending growth will continue at a rate much closer to the rate of growth in the economy.

Health Affairs’ May issue, released today, analyzes the recent slowing in the growth of health care expenditures and explores whether the trend will last. The issue also addresses major cost drivers in Medicare and presents proposals for putting the program on a more sustainable path. Another article tracks federal spending on mental health during severe state budget constraints throughout the recession.

As Health Affairs Founding Editor John Iglehart notes on his “From The Founding Editor” page (quoted at length below), the new thematic volume, “Tackling The Cost Conundrum,” continues the journal’s coverage of a topic that has been a “driving theme” of the journal since its inception. The May issue will be discussed at a National Press Club briefing tomorrow morning, Tuesday, May 7. The issue and briefing are supported by a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Researchers writing in the new issue are cautiously optimistic that the slowdown in health care spending is here to stay. A study by Michael Chernew, Alexander Ryu, and colleagues at Harvard Medical School looks at two factors potentially contributing to the record slowdown in growth to 3.1 percent during 2007-11: job loss and benefit changes shifting costs to the insured. Analyzing National Health Expenditure Accounts and large-employer data, the authors found that benefit design changes that increased enrollees’ out-of-pocket costs were responsible for about one-fifth of the observed decrease in the rate of growth. However, the slowdown occurred even when benefit generosity at large firms was held constant. The authors suggest that other factors are largely responsible and that major events, such as health reform, shifts in payment methodology, and the transformation of the delivery system’s organization may contribute to a longer-term trend of slower spending growth.

In a related article, David Cutler and Nikhil Sahni of Harvard University conclude that fundamental changes, including less-rapid development of imaging technology and new pharmaceuticals, increased patient cost-sharing, and greater provider efficiency, led to the majority of the slowdown in health care spending growth; if this path continues for the next ten years, public-sector health care spending could wind up $770 billion under projections, they write.

In a publication released in numerous states as well as a JAMA Forum article and a recent list of ten supposed “myths” about Medicaid expansion, the Heritage Foundation repeatedly cites our paper for the proposition that “40 of 50 states are projected to see increases in costs due to the Medicaid expansion,” and that expansion would force such states “to dig deep into their already overstretched budgets.” Even in the 10 remaining states, according to Heritage, the budget gains we projected to result from expansion were speculative and uncertain, since they supposedly relied on states cutting payments for hospital uncompensated care.

These claims distort our work. We identified 10 states in which Medicaid expansion would yield net savings based on just one factor—namely, unusually generous prior Medicaid coverage, for which states could claim enhanced federal matching funds. The modest additional gains resulting from uncompensated care savings did not tip any state from the red into the black.

Medicaid Expansion Offers Budget Savings, Revenue, and Economic Gains to States

More importantly, Heritage ignored our explanation that, because we were limited to “data available for all 50 states and the District of Columbia, we were unable to estimate several potential sources of state fiscal gain;” and that if additional, state-specific factors were considered, “many more states could realize net fiscal gains.” Nor did Heritage acknowledge that all states must pay for national health reform but only those that expand Medicaid will receive large, offsetting allotments of federal Medicaid dollars, with resulting economic activity, jobs, and state revenue.

US presidents and policymakers have for decades struggled with the issue of ballooning health care costs and were unsuccessful, or unmotivated, in finding a path to lasting cost containment. Recently, though, there has been progress. The forthcoming issue of Health Affairs, “Tackling the Cost Conundrum,” explores the slowing growth of health care expenditures of late and examines whether it is a temporary or lasting phenomenon; the issue also examines major cost drivers and presents proposals for putting Medicare on a more sustainable path.

Please join Health Affairs Founding Editor John Iglehart on Tuesday, May 7, at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, for a Health Affairs briefing at which we unveil the May 2013 thematic issue, “Tackling the Cost Conundrum.” The thematic issue and briefing are supported by a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

WHEN & WHERE:
.
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
9:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.
National Press Club
529 14th Street NW (Metro Center)
Washington, DC
Register Now

Follow live Tweets from the event @HA_Events, and join in the conversation with the hashtag #HA_Costs.

As a longtime physician, I know that having access to stable, affordable health coverage is a critical step in achieving better health outcomes.

That view is underscored in a study that appeared in today’s (May 2) New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) on the effects of Medicaid coverage on individuals’ health and finances. Led by researchers at Harvard and MIT, the study—the Oregon Health Insurance Study—offers a good snapshot of how being insured can help low-income Americans.

Here’s the background: In 2008, Oregon officials created a lottery giving uninsured, low-income adults a chance to apply for Medicaid. Nearly 90,000 people signed up, and approximately 30,000 were selected. By randomly providing health insurance to some, but not all, Oregon effectively established both treatment and control groups, presenting a unique opportunity to analyze the effects of having public health insurance.

The study in NEJM highlighted the latest data from the experiment. It showed that enrollment in Medicaid, after about two years, profoundly increased patients’ use of needed medical services, and vastly reduced the financial strain that previously limited their care.

Although the April 1 Call Letter from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) seemed to reverse proposed rate cuts to Medicare Advantage (MA) plans, the outlook for insurers still isn’t rosy. The “all-in” impact of the per capita rate increases will be offset by new risk coding intensity adjustments, shifts to fee-for-service parity, and the Health Insurance Tax, actually resulting in an expected 2-3 percent cut for MA plans for 2014.

The Call Letter also limits beneficiary cost sharing, a lever that plans have typically used to offset reductions. Such measures come on top of the potential risk of reductions from sequestration, which may lower fee-for-service (FFS) and health plan capitations by a further 2 percent per year.

The expected impact is lower than the original CMS proposal of 8 – 9 percent for 2014, but the announcement still serves as an urgent reminder of the endgame for Medicare— the rate cuts outlined in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that will result in approximately 14 percent reductions in MA reimbursements, relative to pre-ACA reimbursements, by 2017. Traditionally MA has enjoyed a rate premium compared with FFS, often justified by the enhanced benefits available to members. These cuts, however, will put the plans roughly at parity.

Three years after wellness was hailed as perhaps the only truly bipartisan component of the Affordable Care Act, both lay and trade commentators have begun observing that the assumptions behind it were incorrect while downsides were overlooked. As a predictable result, savings have proven elusive even in seemingly ideal baseline circumstances for health improvement. For example, a wellness program at BJC HealthCare in St. Louis reduced hospitalizations for wellness-sensitive medical events, but the savings were limited (and offset by other cost increases) by the fact that older employees there on average were hospitalized for a wellness-sensitive medical event only once every 12 years to begin with. (See Note 1.)

Consistent with that finding, commentators (including the authors) have noted that every vendor claiming savings from what the Affordable Care Act (ACA) terms “health contingent” wellness programs has employed obviously flawed study design (like comparing the results from active motivated participants to non-motivated non-participants, and crediting the program, rather than the obvious difference in motivation, for the savings) and/or has simply made up or misinterpreted their own outcomes .

One reason for the absence of savings is that the biometric screenings themselves on which wellness economics are based cost far more money than they can conceivably save, due to both the likelihood of overdiagnosis and the marginal benefit of taking frequent measurements in generally healthy adults. Routine screening lacks an evidence basis and is eschewed by the medical community. For example, the federal government recommends lipid screening only once every five years.

Over at InsureBlog, Hank Stern hosts a “Money Tree” edition of the Health Wonk Review. Hank highlights a number of great posts, including a Health Affairs Blog post by Paul Ellwood — known as the father of managed care — proposing a framework for holding health spending constant as a percentage of GDP.

US presidents and policymakers have for decades struggled with the issue of ballooning health care costs and were unsuccessful, or unmotivated, in finding a path to lasting cost containment. Recently, though, there has been progress. The forthcoming issue of Health Affairs, “Tackling the Cost Conundrum,” explores the slowing growth of health care expenditures of late and examines whether it is a temporary or lasting phenomenon; the issue also examines major cost drivers and presents proposals for putting Medicare on a more sustainable path.

Please join Health Affairs Founding Editor John Iglehart on Tuesday, May 7, at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, for a Health Affairs briefing at which we unveil the May 2013 thematic issue, “Tackling the Cost Conundrum.”

WHEN & WHERE:
.
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
9:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.
National Press Club
529 14th Street NW (Metro Center)
Washington, DC
Register Now

Follow live Tweets from the event @HA_Events, and join in the conversation with the hashtag #HA_Costs.