Safety-Net Hospitals Struggle in Medicare Joint Replacement Model
Non-safety-net hospitals are outperforming safety-net hospitals in the Medicare’s Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement model, which was introduced in 2016.
According to a new study published in Health Affairs,
…in comparison to non-safety-net hospitals, 42 percent fewer safety-net hospitals qualified for rewards based on their quality and spending performance (33 percent of safety-net hospitals qualified, compared to 57 percent of non-safety-net hospitals), and safety-net hospitals’ rewards per episode were 39 percent smaller ($456 compared to $743). Continuation of this performance trend could place safety-net hospitals at increased risk of penalties in future years.
What might be done to address this disparity? The study suggests that
Medicare and hospital strategies such as those that reward high-quality care for vulnerable patients could enable safety-net hospitals to compete effectively in CJR.
Learn more in the Health Affairs article Performance of Safety-Net Hospitals in Year 1 of the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement Model.
increasing Pennsylvania’s minimum wage
Some are implementing hospital or insurer taxes while others are increasing existing taxes on hospitals and health insurers. New Hampshire is directing part of the proceeds from a liquor tax for this purpose and other states have introduced cigarette taxes. Some are charging premiums to Medicaid beneficiaries and introducing work requirements for their Medicaid population so they can reduce overall enrollment. Many are using money from their general revenues.
Hospitals and health systems spent $99.7 million lobbying in Washington, D.C. last year, just barely more than in 2017 but much less than in 2009, when the focus of health care lobbying was the Affordable Care Act, then just a proposal and not a law.
The report, from the Institute for Medicaid Innovation, focuses on how state Medicaid programs, through alternative payment models and especially through managed care organizations, have implemented new programs designed to address social determinants of health such as inadequate social supports and housing, food insecurity, lack of transportation, and others. It also highlights federal regulations that facilitate the implementation of new ways to address social determinants of health and presents brief case studies in which states, state Medicaid programs, and Medicaid managed care organizations tackle social determinants of health.
Currently, Medicaid DSH allotments to the states are scheduled to be reduced $4 billion in FY 2020 and then $8 billion a year in FY 2021 through FY 2025. MACPAC recommends that the cuts be reduced to $2 billion in FY 2020, $4 billion in FY 2021, $6 billion in FY 2022, and $8 billion a year from FY 2023 through FY 2029.
According to a presentation delivered at a MACPAC meeting last week:
The following is MACPAC’s own summary of the sessions.
While many, including members of Congress, insist that the administration cannot move forward with such a proposal without legislation, others suggest that the administration may offer states the opportunity to participate in Medicaid block grants voluntarily, by seeking a federal waiver. What remains to be seen is whether the prospect of greater flexibility to shape their own Medicaid programs is sufficient to entice states to participate in an approach that almost certainly would result in less federal money for those programs.
SNAP’s letter addressed three aspects of the proposed regulation: payment rate ranges, directed Medicaid payments, and Medicaid pass-through payments. The overall theme underlying SNAP’s comments was that the proposed changes represent positive steps but could be taken further to provide additional flexibility for Pennsylvania’s Medicaid program to take stronger steps to ensure the ability of Pennsylvania safety-net hospitals to serve their communities.