The Pennsylvania Health Law Project has released the latest edition of its newsletter.
The February edition includes features about Governor Wolf’s proposed FY 2017 Medicaid budget, the launch of a new “fast track” Medicaid enrollment program, the state’s plans for a new approach to providing managed long-term services and supports, and more.
Find the newsletter here.
The Safety-Net Association of Pennsylvania has submitted comments to the Pennsylvania Insurance Department addressing that department’s proposed Balance Billing Protection Act.
While supporting the concept of addressing the problem of surprise balance billing for insurance-covered medical services, SNAP encouraged the Insurance Department to consider the potential market-influenced conditions that may be leading to balance billing; to foster greater transparency and better communication between consumers, insurers, and providers; to avoid any methodology for resolving reimbursement disputes that favors insurers over providers; and to require hospitals to participate in reimbursement dispute resolution only when hospitals are part of that dispute and not when they are only the site at which the disputed services were delivered.
SNAP also encouraged the Insurance Department to involve the state’s Department of Health in addressing this issue; to seek greater public input; and to look to balance billing efforts elsewhere for guidance.
Find the Pennsylvania Insurance Department’s proposed Balance Billing Protection Act here and read SNAP’s comments on that proposal here.
The organization America’s Health Rankings issued a new report documenting the use of preventive health care services across the country.
The organization’s “Spotlight: Prevention”
…takes an in-depth look at the status of clinical disease prevention across the country and the inequities within subpopulations. The aim of this spotlight is to drive awareness and understanding about the roles of key clinical preventive services and interventions—Access to Health Care, Immunizations, and Chronic Disease Prevention—in improving the health of individuals and our communities.
The report takes a state-by-state look the use of preventive services in the country today.
Find an introduction to “Spotlight: Prevention” go here and go here for a look at the status of prevention efforts in Pennsylvania based on such factors as patient age, gender, race, education, and income.
Hospitals are not moving returning patients to observation status to avoid incurring financial penalties under Medicare’s hospital readmissions reduction program, according to new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Since that program’s inception, more than 3300 hospitals have reduced the rate at which they readmit Medicare patients within 30 days of their discharge from the hospital. A moderate increase in the classification of Medicare patients in observation status led some critics to suggest that observation status was being used to avoid penalties for readmissions.
The study disagrees, concluding that
…we found a change in the rate of readmissions coincident with the enactment of the ACA, which suggested that the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program may have had a broad effect on care, especially for targeted conditions. In the long-term follow-up period, readmission rates continued to fall for targeted and nontargeted conditions, but at a slower rate. We did not see large changes in the trends of observation-service use associated with the passage of the ACA, and hospitals with greater reductions in readmission rates were no more likely to increase their observation-service use than other hospitals.
For a closer look at the study, the methodology employed, and its conclusions, go here to see the New England Journal of Medicine article “Readmissions, Observation, and the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program.” In addition, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services features a commentary about the study on its blog. Go here to see that commentary, titled “Reducing Avoidable Hospital Readmissions to Create a Better, Safer Health Care System.”
Patients who visit hospital emergency rooms for care, return home, and then return to the ER within 30 days have better outcomes than those who are admitted to the hospital from the ER.
And their care costs less as well.
This according to a new study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
What does this mean?
According to the study’s abstract,
These findings suggest that hospital admissions associated with return visits to the ED may not adequately capture deficits in the quality of care delivered during an ED visit.
To learn more about the study and its surprising findings, see this Fierce Healthcare article or go here for a link to the JAMA article “In-Hospital Outcomes and Costs Among Patients Hospitalized During a Return Visit to the Emergency Department.”
The National Association of Medicaid Directors has published a detailed memo outlining how President Obama’s proposed FY 2017 would affect Medicaid.
See that memo 
here.
The first two years of major expansion of access to health insurance under the Affordable Care Act did not produce the significant reduction in hospital ER visits that many expected.
Or so reports a new study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
According to the CDC, even though eight million people gained health insurance under the health reform law in 2013 and 2014, ER visit rates changed little.
Still, the CDC survey found some progress: visits among Medicaid patients and the uninsured fell slightly, although Medicaid patents still frequent hospital ERs more than the privately insured.
Among those who did visit the ER, many said their primary care practice was not open at the time or that the ER was the only provider to which they felt they had access to care. In addition, many who made ER return visits reported doing so because of local government reductions of behavior health services options.
Because they are located in low-income communities, Pennsylvania safety-net hospitals typically have far more ER visits than the average hospital.
Learn more about changing rates of ER visits during the first years under the Affordable Care Act in this Fierce Healthcare article or go here to see the CDC report Reasons for Emergency Room Use Among U.S. Adults Aged 18–64: National Health Interview Survey, 2013 and 2014.
The Pennsylvania Department of Human Services has launched a new online portal to facilitate provider enrollment in the state’s Medicaid program.
According to DHS officials, the new portal will enable the state to enroll providers electronically and automate the provider enrollment process. Under the new approach, documents previously transmitted by mail or fax will be uploaded to the portal, providers will be able to view the status of their application, and the time needed to review and process provider applications will be reduced.
Learn more about the new Medicaid provider portal from this state news release.
Medicare disproportionate share (Medicare DSH) hospitals that qualify for the federal 340B prescription drug discount program have lower Medicare Part B drug costs than other Medicare providers.
So concludes a new study performed for 340B Health, an association that represents more 1100 public and non-profit hospitals and health systems that participate in the 340B drug pricing program.
According to the organization 340B Health,
Medicare pays disproportionate share hospitals in the 340B drug discount program on average 13 percent less for separately payable drugs reimbursed through Medicare Part B. This is in comparison to what it pays other hospitals and physician practices in the Part B market. The study also shows that 340B DSH hospitals are treating more vulnerable patients than other providers in terms of race, age, disability, and dual eligibility.
The study also found that 340B-eligible hospitals are
All of Pennsylvania’s safety-net hospitals are Medicare DSH hospitals and many participate in the 340B prescription drug pricing program as well.
For a closer look at the study and its findings, go here to see a 340B Health news release on the study and go here to see the study Analysis of Separately Billable Part B Drug Use Among 340B DSH Hospitals and Non-340B Providers.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office has recommended changes in how the federal government matches state Medicaid funding for its share of overall Medicaid spending.
In testimony submitted to the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Health Subcommittee, GAO reminded Congress that in the past
…GAO has examined multiple concerns regarding how the FMAP [federal medical assistance formula] allocates funds among states, including during times of economic downturn, and has suggested improvements.
In particular, the GAO is concerned about how the FMAP formula’s use of per capita income in targeting federal Medicaid matching funds may not accurate reflect economic conditions at the state level, especially during economic downturns, and fail to respond to states’ individual needs during those downturns.
In response to these concerns, the GAO suggested
…that Congress could consider an FMAP formula that targets variable state Medicaid needs and provides automatic, timely, and temporary assistance in response to national economic downturns.
For a closer look at what the GAO investigated, what it concluded, and what it recommended to Congress, go here to see the GAO report Medicaid: Changes to Funding Formula Could Improve Allocation of Funds to States.