Friday, October 18, 2013

Self-esteem Booster

Hi all of you geniuses who read my column,
As you may have surmised I have been promoting, Unraveling U.S. Health Care-A Personal Guide, without an agent, and for a publisher lacking a significant promotional budget. So far my book tour is a tale of two cities, but I am willing to expand on request. I have been speaking at libraries, the pathways to democracy. and book stores (thank you University Book store). to sparse turn outs. It usually takes me about two days to recover from the downer of the meager attendance, but I persist. Though my book has been embraced by experts in law, medicine, and journalism, it is the public acceptance I seek, for the book is written for the average consumer. And, to that end, here is what the Library Journal has to say about it all.

Guaranteed access to basic health care continues to fuel debate across the United States. As politicians and insurance providers struggle for a workable solution, the American population continues to be divided between the insured and uninsured—the “haves” and the “have-nots.” Despite this distinction, however, all would benefit from knowing exactly what health-care options are available. Winter, an independent consultant, has successfully crafted a guide that is entirely consumer focused. Whereas Nortin M. Hadler’sCitizen Patient: Reforming Health Care for the Sake of the Patient, Not the System is an authority for health-care providers and policymakers, Winter’s work is written in a style that is understandable to the general public. It aims to educate consumers of American health care, providing relevant information and offering sound solutions, thereby reducing costs in the long run. Statistics and facts serve to debunk health-care myths; plentiful citations represent current data. The result is a well-documented road map addressing issues that range from consumers who lack health insurance to those engaging in medical tourism. Lists of suggested care units by state are consistent with the book’s consumer focus. VERDICT Highly recommended for anyone who seeks quality health care and for those who are serious about improving the current system. (Library Journal)

 

Friday, September 13, 2013

Ten Things You May Not Know About The Accountable Care Act



Ten Things Health Care Consumers May Not Know About the Accountable Care Act

The Accountable Care Act is perhaps the most meaningful of the 2010 health care reform mandates and a number of health care organizations have completed their first year in the program. This article highlights some of the consumer protection and cost cutting mandates and reveals the impetus for each element.
1-Application of evidence-based medical care, as a means to evaluate and pay for health services  
One of the results of the fifty-state, private payer national health care panorama is there are a lot of differences in patient care patterns, with some doctors ignoring the evidence based recommendations of national organizations, which result in disparate clinical outcomes. This means significant variances in patient deaths, re-admission rates for hospitalizations following treatment, and medical complications. An example of this phenomenon is in cardiac care, which has expanded the application of the very expensive cardiac pacemaker devices from the initial 1984 list of fifty-six diagnosis to the 2008 guidelines now at eighty- eight.[1]The problem with this robust expansion is scope-creep because only 5% of these recommendations are backed by the findings of “gold standard” randomized double-blind studies, which control for bias and are subject to rigorous scientific controls. To put it bluntly, many patients have received pacemakers for which the clinical research shows were not justified.
Cardiac device manufacturers like St. Jude Medical and Medtronic earn a tidy sum, roughly $7,500 for each pacemaker device, regardless of what the hospital receives in compensation and Medicare pays for most of these devices.[2]The medical device companies have earned between 48% and 20% net profits for years, meanwhile many hospitals  serving Medicare and Medicaid patients are starved for cash, as the current Medicare reimbursement model rewards the device makers and the cardiac specialist more than the hospital or the primary care doctor.
 The creation of the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute is an attempt to have an independent third party entity audit and recommend treatment practices based on scientific studies, especially for government funded health care programs. Many health care companies are outraged about this new agency oversight, but it is directly due to the opportunistic behavior of medical suppliers, specialists, and some hospitals at the expense of the health care system.
2-Creation of the Medical Home Criteria due to the over emphasis on specialty care while ignoring primary care
Facts of life in American health care include a plethora of specialists swarming over a patient in an acute care setting, but no one coordinating patient health over the care continuum. Medical schools produce more specialists than primary care providers now and the specialists earn a lot more money, which means political power in hospitals, medical associations, and in the beltway. By way of comparison, the mean income of cardiologists in 1987 was $271,555 versus less than $100,000 for primary care doctors, including family practitioners and pediatricians. Medicare is primarily to blame for this discrepancy as its reimbursement for clinical care has favored procedures and not time spent with patients. Ergo the doctor who spends the most time with the patient and may be the better practitioner will make less money.
3- Improved integration of patient care by observing key diagnosis and patient outcomes and paying people more for improved clinical performance
The Accountable Care Act links reimbursement payments from Medicare and Medicaid to clinical outcomes, in an attempt by the government to provide better stewardship of what we are getting for our health care investment. Specific conditions that the Accountable Care Act Shared Savings Program includes are: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (adult asthma), high blood pressure, heart failure, stroke, and diabetes. The ACO mandates attempt to assess clinical performance through a risk standardized assessment of chronic medical conditions, by reviewing hospital data, with the goal being the reduction in hospital admissions. In order to be eligible for the enhanced savings program the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid require hospitals which participate to report on the following metrics: patient caregiver experience, care coordination and patient safety, preventive health, and patient management for the at-risk population.
4-Accountable Care Act creates bundled payments for renal or kidney dialysis which is a cost containment measurement for this $78,000 per patient per year treatment, which is almost entirely paid for by Medicare.  
5-The Sunshine Act mandates disclosure of financial payments from medical device manufacturers and the pharmaceutical industry to health care providers.
The Sunshine Act, which is part of the Accountable Care Act mandates disclosure of financial payments from medical device manufactures (aka cardiac devices and orthopedic joints) and from the pharmaceutical industry to health care providers, including doctors and hospitals.[3]The highly profitable medical device industry has a practice of offering on-site bonuses for using their lucrative devices, which are now being prescribed for treatments which are not in compliance with evidence based treatment protocols.  So to assist the consumer, the government is attempting, through this mandate to shine a bit of light on conflicts of interest for treatment practices, so that you can make an informed decision on your procedure and where you have it done.
6-CMS, the government agency overseeing Medicare and Medicaid has established national performance metrics for key medical conditions which impact 80% of the national population.These benchmarks will establish a performance and reporting standard for all organizations, regardless of whether they choose to participate in the ACO Shared Savings Program. This new level of transparency will increase patient safety as better information becomes available to health care consumers.
7-ACO attempts to improve care for diabetes and heart disease patients
 By requiring 100% compliance with the six measures of clinical care, in order to achieve the increase in reimbursement under the Accountable Care Shared Savings Program, CMS hopes to stem the tide of these costly medical conditions. The measures of clinical care include; health status, health promotion and education, caregiver to patient communication, timely care, patient safety, and care coordination. This level of scrutiny is based on the drastic increase in disease prevalence and the need for the country to create a national intervention.
8-Establishment of the Independent Payment Advisory Board to reign-in health care overcharging
The Accountable Care Act has created the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which has broad authority to review and make recommendations for payment changes for health care services under Medicare. This is actually an aspect of the law that has great potential for cost containment authority, if congress will not capitulate to the powerful medical industrial lobby by refusing to deploy recommended changes. For example, why should cardiac device manufacturers continue to receive such exorbitant reimbursements at the expense of primary care services, so a realignment of payment could occur there. The point of the IPAB is to slow the growth of Medicare, which is presently escalating in an unsustainable fashion and everyone in Congress is in agreement on this factoid.
9-Savings Generated from the Accountable Care Act Will Shore-up the Medicare Trust Fund
The focus of the ACO mandates is to deliver better clinical outcomes and to reduce the long term trajectory of Medicare costs. Since Medicare is funded by payroll taxes and general funds, it is of concern to us all.
10-Accountable Care Act Increases Funding for More Fraud Auditors
Medicare fraud has been a problem since inception, because of entrepreneurial health care suppliers, clinicians, and hospitals. FYI the current Governor of Florida was at the helm of HMA, a large hospital chain when it was convicted of fraudulent Medicare billing, and he was asked to step down.[4]The Office of the Inspector General has found that for every dollar invested in fraud detection seventeen are recovered, yet a budget request for this in 2005, was denied by Congress(medical industrial lobbyists at work again).[5]
So the next time you are forced to listen to the grousing about the health care reforms and Obama care, just remember there are many consumer protection elements  which have the potential to transform the health care paradigm in this country and that is precisely what we need.
Feel free to share this article, written by Roberta E. Winter, MHA, MPA, and the author of Unraveling U.S. Health Care-A Personal Guide. http://www.amazon.com/Unraveling-U-S-Health-Care-Personal/dp/1442222972






[1]Knocking on Heaven’s Door, Katy Butler, Scribner, a division of Simon & Schuster, 2013, chapter 12, p. 177, 2008 American College of Cardiology, Heart Rhythm Society, and the American Heart Association update for treatment guidelines.
[2]Knocking on Heaven’s Door, Katy Butler, Scribner, a division of Simon & Schuster, 2013, chapter 4, p. 64
[5]It’s Enough To Make You Sick-The Failure of American Health Care and a Prescription for the Cure,  Jeffrey Lobosky, MD, Rowman & Littlefield, 2012, chapter 13, page 208

Tuesday, August 6, 2013

Save money on your health care by going to Europe



Orthopedic Surgery is Cheaper in Belgium, a country with “Socialized Medicine” than the USA
Kudos to the Seattle Times for outing the medical device supply mafia in their August 5th story on a patient who was able to save money for his hip replacement by going to a European country with a national health care system. And low and behold, this story was front page news for today’s New York Times.[1]Here are the facts, the federal government, through the CMS or Centers for Medicare and Medicaid pay for most of the hip replacements in the United States. This is a multi-billion dollar industry which generates huge profits for a few companies in Indiana. How can a device that costs $350 to produce be sold for $3,000 to $4,000 in the U.S. market? The answer is, because we allow it. Medical device manufacturers, including cardiac devices and others are all guilty of price gouging in this country, because as a people we have not demanded that our government funded health care plans pay a reasonable cost (say cost plus a percentage) for products and services purchased for enrollees.
Price Gouging Medicare
Americans should be outraged that someone can go to Belgium, pick up some luxurious chocolate (sorry Hershey’s no comparison), spend more than a week in an inpatient facility and spend only $16,000 versus $60,000 or 63% less than the same procedure and the same hip device would have cost in the United States. Of course in the states this total bill also includes layers of mark-ups and marketing, including hospitals, and clinicians, but in this case, the surgeons are the least guilty. There is a wide variation in the hospital charges for a hip transplant across the United States. Why do we allow this gouging of our federal coffers? The answer is simple, political lobbyists who spend all day every day greasing the skids in the beltway. And this matter was made even worse with the “super pacs” which allow the ubber rich to contribute unlimited amounts to political campaigns. And who might some of these super rich people be, well, as it turns out, all three executives of the artificial hip makers each earn eight million dollars a year. They are paid this handsomely to make money for their shareholders, not to deliver the most affordable health care for device users. Top executives of these for-profit companies are paid based on short term shareholder returns and they have little incentive to lower the price of their devices. In Europe, executives do not receive these ultra compensation packages and thus do not have perverse anti-consumer incentives to over charge their countrymen for products.
Pack Your Bags
In my previous experience researching ways to reduce the cost of cardiac devices I discovered those suppliers have a black box, crash tested cartel around their pricing of devices as well. All of this is geared to keep competitors of lower-priced devices out of the picture and profits high for the few. None of this means you are getting better health care, just more expensive health care, as the entrepreneurial health care purchaser, formerly from Washington State figured out. If the government is unwilling to use its bully pulpit to negotiate with medical device suppliers for lower prices for Medicare and Medicaid, then at least have CMS approve the reimbursement of procedures performed at International Joint Commission approved facilities off shore. Clearly, if it is less expensive for our citizens to go outside the country for health care, Medicare and Congress need to address this inequity.
Health Care Reforms Attempting to Address the Concern
There is a faint glimmer of hope in this tunnel, with the launch of PCORI, or Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute, under the health care reforms in 2010. PCORI is a federal agency that was created to look at system-wide health care inputs and data to figure out how to cut costs and improve patient outcomes for the country, namely Medicare and other federally funded programs.[2]The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act initiated a sixty-day payment delay for medical device suppliers, so that Medicare can analyze abusive practices, which is needed. Additionally, the reform mandates added a 2.3% tax on medical devices to fund some of the PPACA mandates, like health care subsidies to buy insurance. Of course the medical device industry is trying to get that repealed.
 The current free-for-all cartel environment of charging as much as you can to the U.S. health care system and only offering discounts to foreign governments who use the same devices has to stop. Since I see no effort on the part of the free market in this country to lower prices for medical devices or more effectively negotiating device payments by CMS (your government and the largest health care purchaser in the nation), I say it’s time to pack your bags.
Take Action
For Americans who want to learn more about accessing health care abroad, go to Chapter 10 of Unraveling U.S. Health Care and learn how to find a safe facility for your surgery abroad, whether it is in Europe, Latin America, or Asia.
And this is the health policy maven signing off.
This article was written by Roberta E. Winter, an independent health care consultant and journalist and author of a guidebook on the U.S. health care system. Feel free to share this article virally.

Friday, July 26, 2013

Hold the Phone an Understandable Book About Resourcing Health Care

For all of the grousing about health care, reforms or not, we still need to figure out how to resource our needs in the bifurcated U.S. delivery system and to that end, I wrote Unraveling U.S. Health Care-A Personal Guide, for the average Joe and Joanne. This easy to read guidebook for the U.S. health care system and some global centers for health care, is available on Amazon and elsewhere now.
http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/1442222972
https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781442222977

I will be presenting material from the book on these dates:
August 5th-6:00PM-Bremerton Public Library
August 22nd-5:00PM-Book Release Event-La Toscanella
September 4th-7:00PM-University Book Store
October 15th-6:00PM-Seattle Public Library Main Branch

And into the deep we swim-working on my strokes.

Author-Roberta E. Winter AKA the healthpolicymaven

Thursday, July 4, 2013

Hospital Billing and the Uninsured-Class Action Lawsuit



Hospital Overcharging-Where the Rubber Meets the Courtroom

In a landmark class action lawsuit, Seattle based Swedish Hospital, now part of the Providence Hospital Group is being sued for charging an uninsured Issaquah man who visited the emergency room much more than what it charged privately insured patients or those covered on government health insurance programs. Though this disparity in hospital billing phenomenon is not new, what is raising the level of accountability is the class action lawsuit, because this will allow the courts to examine the billing of all uninsured patients for all seven of Swedish Hospital’s emergency departments. Though class action lawsuits often end in relatively small settlements for the plaintiffs in the suit, they are big money for the attorneys, at least those with the cojones to see them through to the end.
Lifting the Veil on Hospital Billing
 Basically here is how hospital billing works, there are different reimbursement levels for services for different contracts, including the various insurers, as well as Medicare, and Medicaid. The government plans of course, by virtue of their bully pulpit actually pay the least for services and private insurers pay more of the reduced gross hospital charges, per patient. As in the Puget Sound Business Journal Article[1], the uninsured person was charge $10,000 for the same services(found in legal discovery) for which the insurance company contracts paid $3,500.
Why charge the patient without health insurance more than the insured person? The answer is two-fold, first there is no underlying contract to secure payment for the hospital, so the facility takes on the risk(as required by the government under Emergency Medical Treatment Act) of providing potentially costly services. Secondly, often the uninsured person is not able to pay the normal fees for services, so there are charitable discounts or write offs for this patient demographic. Is this method of billing legal, yes, ethical, well that is where it gets to be a sticky wicket. The hospital can charge 100% of gross prices for services to anyone without insurance coverage, but it rarely gets that amount of money from the uninsured patients, so the hospital offers a charitable discount to entice the patient to pay the services, and then the hospital takes a charitable deduction for the unpaid portion of the gross charges. Though this may seem reasonable from an accounting standpoint, the hospital is able to take a deduction for gross charges it never expects to receive, because the gross charges are inherently designed to provide at least enough payment from the other payers, including Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers to keep the facility solvent. Thus, in the case of an uninsured patient who actually pays his bill, even if it is paid at a higher rate than the hospital normally would receive for those services, the hospital  still deducts any portion of the unpaid gross charges  as  their charitable discount.  This  may even make the reimbursement from the uninsured patient better than from the other contracts, just not as consistent. So, is it fair that we allow hospitals to charge the uninsured patients more than what they get from patients with greater resources?
At various times when I have been uninsured and forced to access services at hospitals, I found quite a variance in the charitable care discount I was offered, and the billing practices of different facilities. One hospital required a 40% payment based on gross charges and the other wanted 60%.  If one hospital requires the patient to pay 60% of gross charges for services, this is greater reimbursement than most insurance contracts, and hence a very good deal for the hospital. This is also enhanced by the fact the hospital can claim the 40% as charitable care, assuring political fodder for future negotiations with state and federal regulators.This is yet another example of a health system failure in the United States, because of our bifurcated financing system, and social inequities. Of course it isn’t right that the uninsured are charged more than those with insurance plans, but it is legal, and hospitals develop their fee schedules based on a complex mix of patient demand, high marginal cost for services, and regulatory requirements. The class action lawsuit will be costly and in the end just add to the hospital fees, but it does shine a light on this inequity. One of the things we all could use is transparency in the prices of health care services in this country. Though we are making progress on patient safety outcomes and reporting, thanks in large part to the IOM’s report more than a decade ago, we still have a huge battle ahead to fully inform and empower health care consumers as they navigate the black box of the American health care system.
For more information on this hospital conundrum and how to negotiate with a hospital should you need services and lack health insurance(fifty million at last count), go to Chapter Nine of Unraveling U.S. Health Care-A Personal Guide, out this month by Rowman and Littlefield. https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781442222984
For practical advice on resourcing your health care, read more of what the healthpolicymaven has to say. This article was written by Roberta E. Winter, MHA, MPA, someone who has negotiated insurance contracts for private employers, analyzed network reimbursement data for hospitals, and advocated for the empowerment of health care consumers.



[1] http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2013/07/03/case-claiming-swedish-overcharges.html?page=2