SNAPShots

SNAPShots

Wolf Presents Health Care Reform Proposal

Governor Wolf has unveiled a health care reform plan with the goal of making health care more affordable, supporting sustainable growth and transformations of health systems and corporations, and addressing health inequities across Pennsylvania.  The plan includes three major components:

  • An Interagency Health Reform Council charged with developing recommendations on how to identify and capitalize on efficiencies in the existing health care system.
  • Regional Accountable Health Councils convened by Medicaid managed care organizations to assess community needs and develop regional transformation plans.
  • A Health Value Commission charged with setting spending targets for payers in the areas of primary care, behavioral health, and value-based purchasing. The commission also would perform public interest reviews of proposed large provider mergers, acquisitions, and changes in ownership.

Although it requires legislation to move forward, the third component of the governor’s plan appears to have the most potential to affect Pennsylvania safety-net hospitals

Learn more from the Wolf administration’s news release announcing the plan.

2020-10-07T06:00:03+00:00October 7th, 2020|Health care reform|Comments Off on Wolf Presents Health Care Reform Proposal

Interview With Seema Verma

In late December, PBS broadcast an interview with Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services administrator Seema Verma.  Kaiser Health News has published a transcript of excerpts from that interview during which Verma discusses Medicaid – including enrollment, eligibility, services, and children – Medicare for all, administration attempts to reduce health care costs, protection for people with pre-existing conditions, and more.  Read those excerpts in the Kaiser Health News article “One-On-One With Trump’s Medicare And Medicaid Chief: Seema Verma.”

2020-01-09T06:00:16+00:00January 9th, 2020|Affordable Care Act, Federal Medicaid issues, Health care reform|Comments Off on Interview With Seema Verma

New Series Examines Serving High-Need, High-Cost Patients

The Commonwealth Fund is launching a new series of case studies describing “innovative programs designed to address the needs of the nation’s high-need, high-cost patients, a group that accounts for a disproportionate share of health care spending.”
commonwealth fundAmong the types of programs it will profile are:

  • home-based primary care
  • enhanced primary care
  • programs of all-inclusive care (PACE)
  • accountable care for Medicaid populations
  • guided care

For a closer look at the new series and the programs it will profile go here, to the web site of the Commonwealth Fund.

2016-08-02T06:00:47+00:00August 2nd, 2016|Health care reform|Comments Off on New Series Examines Serving High-Need, High-Cost Patients

Background Information on Payment Methodologies and Benefit Design

The Urban Institute has issued two new papers with background information on health care payment methodologies and the design of health care benefits packages.
The first paper, Payment Methods: How They Work, describes nine payment methodologies:

  • fee schedules
  • primary care capitation
  • per diem payments to hospitals for inpatient visits
  • DRG-based payments to hospitals for inpatient visits
  • global budgeting for hospitals
  • bundled payments
  • global capitation for organizations
  • shared savings
  • pay for performance

The second paper, Benefit Designs: How They Work, explains seven different types of benefit designs:

  • value-based design
  • high-deductible health plans
  • tiered networks
  • narrow networks
  • reference pricing
  • centers of excellence
  • benefit design for alternative sites of care

urban institute 2A third paper, Matching Payment Methods with Benefit Designs to Support Delivery Reforms, describes how to match benefit designs with payment methods.
Go here to find Payment Methods: How They Work.
Go here to find Benefit Designs: How They Work.
And go here to find Matching Payment Methods with Benefit Designs to Support Delivery Reforms.

2016-05-09T06:00:00+00:00May 9th, 2016|Health care reform|Comments Off on Background Information on Payment Methodologies and Benefit Design

Safety Net Still Needed, Study Finds

Despite Affordable Care Act policies that have enabled millions of Americans to obtain health insurance, the health care safety net is still needed.
Or so concludes a new report from the Georgetown University Health Policy Institute’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms.
For the report A Tale of Three Cities: How the Affordable Care Act is Changing the Consumer Coverage Experience in 3 Diverse Communities, researchers visited and examined conditions in Tampa, Columbus, and Richmond (Virginia), and among their conclusions was:

We still need a safety net. Safety net programs in existence before the ACA were expected to become less necessary once the ACA coverage expansions took effect. And to some extent that has indeed been the case. But what was deemed affordable under the ACA for those with income too high for Medicaid eligibility is not necessarily perceived to be affordable to the individuals enrolling in the marketplace plans, particularly when health care spending must compete with other pressing household expenses. As a result, safety net providers report that many patients who start the year with coverage return to them later in the year uninsured.

Happy medical team of doctors togetherThe report also found that

Safety net providers are adapting to the new coverage and health system landscape ushered in by the ACA. However, there’s not yet enough data to know whether coverage has translated to better, more affordable access to health care services.

To learn more about the report and its findings, go here to read a Center on Health Insurance Reforms blog entry on the research and go here to see the report itself.

2016-04-13T06:00:37+00:00April 13th, 2016|Affordable Care Act, Health care reform|Comments Off on Safety Net Still Needed, Study Finds

Hospitals Not Using Observation Status to Avoid Readmissions Penalties

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.
new england journalSince 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.”

2016-02-26T06:00:17+00:00February 26th, 2016|Health care reform, Medicare, Uncategorized|Comments Off on Hospitals Not Using Observation Status to Avoid Readmissions Penalties

Push From Volume to Value Continues

As the end of 2015 nears, CMS has used its blog to reflect on its continued efforts to move the U.S. health care system from one that pays for the volume of care provided to one that pays for the value of that care.
The blog notes the replacement of the sustainable growth rate (SGR formula) with a new payment system that better supports patient-centered care; the creation of the Home Health Value-Based Purchasing model; and the introduction of Medicare reimbursement for advance care planning.
cmsThe blog also describes the many programs launched by the Affordable Care Act-created Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation, including the Pioneer ACO Model, the Medicare Shared Savings Program, the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement program, the Comprehensive Primary Care Initiative, the Independence at Home demonstration, the Bundled Payment for Care Improvement Initiative, and the State Innovation Models initiative.
Together, CMS hopes these and other programs will help achieve its stated goal of paying for 30 percent of Medicare services through alternative payment models and making 85 percent of payments based on quality or value by the end of 2016.
For a better sense of how CMS sees these efforts pushing toward its policy objectives, see the commentary “Continuing the shift from volume to results in American healthcare” here, on the CMS blog.

2015-11-30T06:00:46+00:00November 30th, 2015|Affordable Care Act, Health care reform, Medicare|Comments Off on Push From Volume to Value Continues

OIG Reveals 2016 Plans

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of the Inspector General (OIG) has published its work plan for the 2016 fiscal year.
In 2016, the OIG will continue to examine all aspects of HHS endeavor, including Medicare, Medicaid, hospital services, public health activities, and more. In the coming year it will continue a number of hospital-focused projects while also focusing more on health care delivery, health care reform, alternative payment methodologies, and value-based purchasing initiatives.
hhsOIGAmong the OIG’s planned Medicare projects in 2016 – some of them continued from the past and some of them new, quoted directly from the work plan – are:

  • Hospitals’ use of outpatient and inpatient stays under Medicare’s two-midnight rule. We will determine how hospitals’ use of outpatient and inpatient stays changed under Medicare’s two-midnight rule, as well as how Medicare and beneficiary payments for these stays changed, by comparing claims for hospital stays in the year prior to the effective date of the two-midnight rule to stays in the year following the effective date of that rule. We will also determine the extent to which the use of outpatient and inpatient stays varied among hospitals.
  • Analysis of salaries included in hospital cost reports. We will review data from Medicare cost reports and hospitals to identify salary amounts included in operating costs reported to and reimbursed by Medicare. Employee compensation may be included in allowable provider costs only to the extent that it represents reasonable remuneration for managerial, administrative, professional, and other services related to the operation of the facility and furnished in connection with patient care.
  • Medicare oversight of provider-based status. We will determine the number of provider-based facilities that hospitals own and the extent to which CMS has methods to oversee provider-based billing. We will also determine the extent to which provider-based facilities meet requirements described in 42 CFR Sec. 413.65 and CMS Transmittal A-03-030, and whether there were any challenges associated with the provider-based attestation review process. Provider-based status allows facilities owned and operated by hospitals to bill as hospital outpatient departments. Provider-based status can result in higher Medicare payments for services furnished at provider-based facilities and may increase beneficiaries’ coinsurance liabilities. The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) has expressed concerns about the financial incentives presented by provider-based status and stated that Medicare should seek to pay similar amounts for similar services.
  • Comparison of provider-based and freestanding clinics. We will review and compare Medicare payments for physician office visits in provider-based clinics and freestanding clinics to determine the difference in payments made to the clinics for similar procedures and assess the potential impact on Medicare of hospitals’ claiming provider-based status for such facilities. Provider-based facilities often receive higher payments for some services than do freestanding clinics.
  • Review of hospital wage data used to calculate Medicare payments. We will review hospital controls over the reporting of wage data used to calculate wage indexes for Medicare payments. Prior OIG wage index work identified hundreds of millions of dollars in incorrectly reported wage data and resulted in policy changes by CMS with regard to how hospitals reported deferred compensation costs.
  • Inpatient rehabilitation facilities—adverse events in postacute care for Medicare beneficiaries. We will estimate the national incidence of adverse and temporary harm events for Medicare beneficiaries receiving postacute care in inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs). We will also identify factors contributing to these events, determine the extent to which the events were preventable, and estimate the associated costs to Medicare.
  • CMS validation of hospital-submitted quality reporting data. We will determine the extent to which CMS validated hospital inpatient quality reporting data.
  • Ambulatory surgical centers—payment system. We will review the appropriateness of Medicare’s methodology for setting ambulatory surgical center (ASC) payment rates under the revised payment system. We will also determine whether a payment disparity exists between the ASC and hospital outpatient department payment rates for similar surgical procedures provided in both settings.
  • Use of electronic health records to support care coordination through ACOs. We will review the extent to which providers participating in ACOs in the Medicare Shared Savings Program use electronic health records (EHRs) to exchange health information to achieve their care coordination goals. We will also assess providers’ use of EHRs to identify best practices and possible challenges to the exchange and use of health data, such as degree of interoperability, financial barriers, or information blocking.
  • Accountable Care Organizations: Strategies and Promising Practices. We will review ACOs that participate in the Medicare Shared Savings Program (established by section 3022 of the Affordable Care Act). We will describe their performance on the quality measures and cost savings over the first three years of the program and describe the characteristics of those ACOs that performed well on measures and achieved savings. In addition, we will identify ACOs’ strategies for and challenges to achieving quality and cost savings.

Among the Medicaid projects the OIG will undertake, again presented in language taken directly from its work plan, are:

  • Transportation services—compliance with Federal and State requirements. We will determine the appropriateness of Medicaid payments by States to providers for transportation services.
  • Health-care-acquired conditions—prohibition on Federal reimbursements. We will determine whether selected States made Medicaid payments for hospital care associated with health-care-acquired conditions and provider-preventable conditions and quantify the amount of Medicaid payments for such conditions.
  • State use of provider taxes to generate Federal funding. We will review State health-care-related taxes imposed on various Medicaid providers to determine whether the taxes comply with applicable Federal requirements. Our work will focus on the mechanism States use to raise revenue through provider taxes and determine the amount of Federal funding generated.
  • State compliance with Federal Certified Public Expenditures regulations. We will determine whether States are complying with Federal regulations for claiming Certified Public Expenditures (CPEs), which are normally generated by local governments as part of their contribution to the coverage of Medicaid services.
  • Reviews of State Medicaid Fraud Control Units. We will continue to conduct in-depth onsite reviews of the management, operations, and performance of a sample of MFCUs. We will identify effective practices and areas for improvement in MFCU management and operations.
  • Medicaid managed care reimbursement. We will review States’ managed care plan reimbursements to determine whether MCOs are appropriately and correctly reimbursed for services provided.
  • Medicaid managed care entities’ identification of fraud and abuse. We will determine whether Medicaid MCOs identified and addressed incidents of potential fraud and abuse. We will also describe how States oversee MCOs’ efforts to identify and address fraud and abuse.
  • HRSA—duplicate discounts for 340B-purchased drugs. We will assess the risk of duplicate discounts for 340B-purchased drugs paid through Medicaid MCOs and describe States’ efforts to prevent them.

To learn more about the OIG’s plans in 2016, go here to see the document Work Plan Fiscal Year 2016.

2015-11-19T06:00:09+00:00November 19th, 2015|Affordable Care Act, Health care reform|Comments Off on OIG Reveals 2016 Plans

Feds Approve Plan for PA to Establish Insurance Exchange

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has approved a request by Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf for permission for his state to develop a state-based marketplace through which to offer health insurance to Pennsylvanians as provided for in the Affordable Care Act.
Pennsylvania State MapCurrently, Pennsylvanians seeking health insurance use the federal exchange.  The constitutionality of the use of that exchange is currently being weighed by the Supreme Court and the Wolf administration’s desire to create a state exchange is widely considered an attempt to avoid a crisis should the court rule against the federal government in the case of King v. Burwell.  A ruling in that case is expected in the very near future.
Go here to see the letter from HHS Secretary Sylvia Burwell to Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf authorizing the state to move ahead with development of its state-based exchange.

2015-06-18T06:00:53+00:00June 18th, 2015|Affordable Care Act, Health care reform|Comments Off on Feds Approve Plan for PA to Establish Insurance Exchange

PA Seeks to Establish Health Insurance Marketplace

In anticipation of a possible Supreme Court decision that could jeopardize the health insurance of an estimated 382,000 Pennsylvanians, the Wolf administration has applied to the federal government to establish a state-based health insurance marketplace.
The Supreme Court is currently weighing a challenge to the use by some states of the federal health insurance marketplace and the contention of litigants that the Affordable Care Act specifies that insurance subsidies would only be available through state-based exchanges.  If the court rules against the federal government, the insurance of residents of states that did not establish their own exchanges and who instead obtained their insurance and federal subsidies through the federal exchange will be in jeopardy.
The move by the Wolf administration is a contingency plan and does not commit the state to developing its own exchange.
For further information about the state’s application to establish a health insurance exchange, see this Wolf administration news release.

2015-06-05T06:00:42+00:00June 5th, 2015|Affordable Care Act, Health care reform|Comments Off on PA Seeks to Establish Health Insurance Marketplace
Go to Top