Showing posts with label new trends. Show all posts
Showing posts with label new trends. Show all posts

Thursday, January 15, 2015

Obamacare Has Reversed A Negative Trend. Researchers Call It ‘Remarkable.’

For the first time in a decade, the number of people struggling to pay their medical bills has started to decline, according to a new survey released on Thursday by the Commonwealth Fund. The researchers attributed the historic drop to the number of people gaining insurance under the health care reform law.

Between 2012 and 2014 — as Obamacare’s main coverage expansion took effect — the Commonwealth researchers found that the number of people who had issues paying for health treatment dropped from 41 percent to 35 percent. Over the same time period, the people who skipped out on health services because they couldn’t afford them declined from 43 percent to 36 percent:

commonwealth1
CREDIT: Commonwealth Fund

commonwealth2
CREDIT: Commonwealth Fund

In a press release, the researchers described the declines as “remarkable.” This marks the first time since 2005, when Commonwealth started surveying people on these questions, that the number of Americans struggling to afford medical care hasn’t increased.

“Health insurance really provides people with a financial means to get care,” Sara Collins, a vice president at the Commonwealth Fund and one of the people who worked on the study, told the New York Times. “We don’t know yet that the law is improving people’s health, but this is a first indication that people are affording care that they weren’t able to get in the past.”

Commonwealth’s findings, which also documented a drop in the number of Americans going without insurance, track closely with other surveys that have reported declines in the uninsured rate under Obamacare. The number of Americans without health care was reduced by about 25 percent last year, which means that between eight million and eleven million people have gained coverage.

The high cost of health care remains an issue for millions of Americans; according to Commonwealth, there are still about 66 million adults who reported skipping out on care last year because they couldn’t afford it. And previous studies from the organization have documented a trend in employers pushing more health costs onto their workers, leaving some Americans struggling to pay their deductibles and co-pays. Medical debt is one of the leading causes of bankruptcy in the United States.

Still, the new report provides significant evidence that the Affordable Care Act is taking steps to tackle the problem. As the New York Times reports, “financial distress was a clear target of the health law,” and Commonwealth’s data suggests that Obamacare is moving toward this goal.

That progress could be undermined, however, depending on the outcome of a pending Supreme Court case against Obamacare. King v. Burwell seeks to prevent the government from providing tax credits in the 37 states with federally-run marketplaces, essentially cutting off millions of people from affordable coverage under the health law. Previous analyses have calculated that, if federally-run marketplaces were no longer permitted to extend tax credits, the cost of insurance in those states would increase by an average of 76 percent. In some states, monthly premiums could jump by nearly $400.

source

Thursday, October 2, 2014

Improving the 'Patient Experience' By Eliminating the Big Insurance Company

by Wendell Potter

Health care provider organizations that are working directly with employers like Boeing -- and cutting out the insurance company middlemen -- believe they can do more than save money for those employers. They're confident they can also improve both health care quality and service for workers and their families in ways that insurance companies cannot.

Employers are starting to realize that insurers might not be, as they have claimed, "part of the solution" to achieving a more patient-centered health care system. In fact, in some ways they have been part of the problem.

Providence-Swedish Health Alliance, a not-for-profit, hospital-based accountable care organization (ACO), will soon be providing both coverage and care to many Boeing employees, along with UW (University of Washington) Medicine -- without an insurance firm. Officials at Providence-Swedish told me Boeing chose to work with them directly in part because of the firm's desire to ensure their employees had a "better patient experience." While cutting costs and improving quality of care were priorities, improving service and reducing hassles that have become synonymous with insurance company interactions was equally important to Boeing.
So Providence-Swedish has committed to a number of assurances and is even establishing a "concierge center" for Boeing employees. Among other things, the ACO has promised same-day or next-day appointments for urgent primary care visits and acute care, proactive support for preventive care and chronic disease management. The hub for all of this will be the concierge center, which patients can reach by phone, email or the Web.

While Boeing is contracting directly with Providence-Swedish and UW Medicine, the ACOs will have their own deals with insurance companies to provide back room services like claims processing. Dr. Joe Gifford, CEO of the Providence-Swedish ACO, told me his organization is working with Blue Cross of Illinois for that work. The federal government works with insurers in the same way to handle claims for Medicare beneficiaries.

Gifford also told me he's in discussions with a number of other employers in the region that could result in similar deals -- and even some that will include insurance companies, to some extent. And he noted that government entities, including Medicare and state governments, are following a similar path.

It's a path that leads to what is often referred to as value-based care, a term that encompasses a spectrum of arrangements. What is common to all of the arrangements is a movement away from paying doctors and hospitals for individual treatments and diagnostic tests. In the deal with Boeing, for example, the aerospace company has given the ACOs a budget to provide all the care Boeing employees and dependents are likely to need in 2015.

In that sense, he said, "Boeing is treating us like an industrial supplier... and we are fully accountable" for costs and outcomes. That means that the ACOs will by necessity need to focus on keeping patients healthy and managing chronic conditions in the most cost-effective ways so as to prevent complications and reduce unnecessary hospitalizations.

Other hospitals are also taking on responsibilities that once were the complete domain of insurance companies. One example: the Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula in California, which earlier this year began offering its own Medicare Advantage plan to serve area seniors through a subsidiary called Aspire. "We think we can do a better job of meeting local needs than having a national company come in and tell us how to do it," the company's CEO, Scott Kelly, told the Monterey County Weekly.

This trend is not new. Many hospitals in the 1980s began operating their own HMOs to compete with insurance companies, but most of them failed, in large part because they didn't have the actuarial and claims management expertise in-house they needed to stay solvent.

Learning from past mistakes, many of the hospitals and physician-led groups that are moving back into the health insurance market are hiring companies like Chicago-based Valence Health, a fast-growing firm that offers services ranging from claims adjudication to patient care coordination to more than 120 hospitals nationwide.

The number of employees at Valence has doubled to 325 over the past two years and is expected to grow by another 500 within five years. According to Kevin Weinstein, Valence's chief marketing officer, that growth has been fueled by the movement away from fee-for-service medicine to value-based care in which health care providers are finding they have no alternative but to be more accountable for both cost and quality.

While the Affordable Care Act has been a catalyst for much of this change, employers like Boeing and other big payers of health care, including federal and state governments, will continue to drive it.

source

Tuesday, December 4, 2012

Walmart Looking to Shift Costs of Employee Healthcare to Taxpayers?

Walmart, the nation’s largest private employer and the world’s biggest retailer plans to begin denying health insurance to newly hired employees who work fewer than 30 hours a week, according to a copy of the company’s policy obtained by The Huffington Post.

The online news outlet reports that under the policy, set to take effect in January, Walmart also reserves the right to eliminate health care coverage for certain workers if their average workweek dips below 30 hours, something the report says happens with regularity and at the direction of company managers.

Walmart did not disclose how many of its roughly 1.4 million U.S. workers are vulnerable to losing medical insurance under its new policy and in an emailed statement a company spokesman said Walmart had “made a business decision” not to respond to questions from The Huffington Post, accusing the publication of unfair coverage.

The paper reported that labor and health care experts portrayed Walmart’s decision to exclude workers from its medical plans “as an attempt to limit costs while taking advantage of the national health care reform known as Obamacare. Among the key features of Obamacare is an expansion of Medicaid, the taxpayer-financed health insurance program for poor people. Many of the Walmart workers who might be dropped from the company’s health care plans earn so little that they would qualify for the expanded Medicaid program, these experts said.”

Ken Jacobs, chairman of the Labor Research Center at the University of California, Berkeley told the newspaper that, “Walmart is effectively shifting the costs of paying for its employees onto the federal government with this new plan, which is one of the problems with the way the law is structured.”

The report noted that because of Walmart’s huge size and its massive number of employees, the company’s policies tend to influence American working conditions more broadly and that other companies are now crafting similar policies that will exclude some part-time workers from medical coverage. 


source

Monday, August 13, 2012

It May Be Time to See Doctor - After Recent Slowdown, Health-Care Firms Detect Uptick in Outpatient Visits

Years of economic drag have had some profound effects on Americans. One big one: They stopped going to the doctor as much as they used to.

Now people may be starting to head back for checkups and other medical procedures. Any shift has important implications for the health-care sector and the broader economy, since the drought has helped restrain spending growth.

The trend has been surfacing in the quarterly results of some of the biggest health-care companies, including major health insurers and hospital operators such as Tenet Healthcare Corp., which said outpatient visits were up 5.3% over last year.  UnitedHealth Group Inc., WellPoint Inc. and Aetna Inc. all flagged upticks in outpatient use on recent earnings calls, with WellPoint and Aetna pointing to doctor services as well.

Tenet is "seeing an increased willingness of consumers to get that checkup, get that imaging done, get that minor surgery taken care of," said Trevor Fetter, the company's chief executive, in an interview.

The nature of the rebound may reflect a change in where people go for care, because it doesn't appear to extend to the priciest category: Hospital stays generally aren't increasing, according to the insurers. There has been a long-term migration of some types of surgeries into outpatient centers.

Tenet, for its part, said its admissions on a same-hospital basis were down 0.4% compared with last year, and some other hospital companies reported larger dips. Medical-device makers' sales also remain under pressure from slow traffic in U.S. hospitals, despite some glimmers of improvement in areas like orthopedic surgery.

But even a small increase in use is notable after the slowdown that has stretched for more than two years, and some insurers spotted an outpatient blip even before the most recent quarter. Generally, the muted use of medical services has helped buoy the results of health insurers, and posed a tough challenge to hospitals and other health-care providers already struggling with cutbacks in government payments.

Economists have attributed the medical-use drag largely to the challenging economy, which has left even some insured consumers leery of extra costs and nervous about time away from work. They have also pointed to structural changes, such as the rise of health plans that force people to pay more out of their pockets for medical services.

Those same trends may be helping to drive the current move toward more outpatient services, as people continue to avoid the most expensive care. Health plans have been encouraging this by providing more pricing information. Insurers and the health-overhaul law have also created new efforts to reduce hospital stays and boost primary care, partly as a way of heading off worse health problems later.

A survey of around 2,500 consumers by Wedbush Securities earlier this year found that nearly a third had postponed or canceled medical services such as knee surgeries during the economic downturn, and most cited out-of-pocket charges as the main reason. Of those who had put off care, 29% said they planned to get a delayed low-cost procedure by the end of the year, while just 6% said they would get an expensive one; 11% said both.

Debbie Hall, administrator of the Cheyenne Surgical Center, an outpatient facility in Wyoming, said she has seen growth this year in spinal fusion surgeries, disc removals and laparoscopic gallbladder surgeries, all procedures that could have been done in a hospital. "Insurance carriers are trying to shift business toward us," she said, and patients are also increasingly opting to keep costs down if possible.

Indeed, UnitedHealth Group and Aetna both said that part of the recent outpatient boost stems from their initiatives to get certain services moved out of inpatient settings. UnitedHealth, for instance, has a program, pegged to a heart association's guidelines, that aims to test for heart attacks in a hospital's outpatient suite rather than sending chest-pain patients straight to an intensive-care unit. "Some of that outpatient growth is purposeful on our part," said Joe Zubretsky, Aetna's chief financial officer, in an interview.

Visits to primary-care physicians may also be on the rise. Humana Inc. said it saw a rise in checkups fueled by a new Medicare benefit under the health law. Truven Health Analytics Inc., which tracks a cohort of around 3,600 primary-care physicians, said that their average daily visits went up in the first and second quarter of this year, compared with 2011. That came after nine straight quarters of decreases, according to Truven, which was spun off from Thomson Reuters Corp.


Health plans that encourage primary care are one reason visits have increased at Village Health Partners, a 20-physician family practice in Plano, Texas, said Christopher Crow, its president, who said he sees employers using "benefit designs that include both carrots and sticks" to get folks to seek preventive services and tests. Dr. Crow also pointed to improvements in the local economy.

source

Monday, June 11, 2012

House approves health care cost containment bill

BOSTON -- The Legislature moved a step closer to a dramatic overhaul of the state’s health care system on Tuesday when the House approved a bill aimed at reining in health care costs by altering the system to reward quality over quantity of care.

The House voted 148-7 Tuesday night to approve a bill Democratic leaders say will trim $160 million from health care costs over the next 15 years by setting a cost growth target and encouraging providers and insurers to adopt alternative payment and care delivery models.

The seven votes against the bill all came from freshman Republicans, including Reps. Paul Adams, Richard Bastien, Ryan Fattman, Kevin Kuros, Steven Levy, Marc Lombardo and Jim Lyons.

If resolved before the end of formal sessions in July, the cost containment bill that has drawn national attention and has been identified by Gov. Deval Patrick as his top priority could become a signature issue for members of the Legislature and their opponents heading into campaign season.

The overwhelmingly supportive vote came after just one day of debate on the complex piece of legislation when the House moved swiftly through 275 amendments filed by members, adopting dozens with little or no debate.

House Speaker Robert DeLeo, who presided over the final vote, congratulated Rep. Steven Walsh, the Lynn Democrat and lead author of the bill, and all members of the House for what he called “a spectacular job on a very difficult matter.”

Walsh, who has spent the better part of the last year working on the bill, told his colleagues that the bill would help contain cost without pushing the industry to change so fast that it hurt one of the largest employment sectors in the state.

Citing health care cost growth levels that are far exceeding economic growth and devouring funds that might be spent on education or public safety, Walsh said greater disclosure and pricing transparency requirements in the bill would put consumers "in the driver’s seat."

Walsh also tried to discredit unnamed "talking heads" who he said claim the health care sector is working well, citing a recent Price Waterhouse Cooper report estimating health care costs in Massachusetts are expected to grow at 7.5 percent while the state’s economy will grow at only 2.4 percent.

"The market is most certainly not working. The market is absolutely broken," Walsh said.

Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation President Michael Widmer last week called the House bill "seriously flawed." Noting that price caps and rate regulation "that have a long record of failure" and will place new costs on the system, Widmer said, "The House bill is a setback for health care consumers, the health care industry, and the future of the Massachusetts economy."

The Massachusetts Hospital Association has also warned about the impact on jobs if lawmakers push too fast to squeeze savings out of the system, and critics such as the Pioneer Institute have warned the bill is based on unrealistic savings estimates and would create a new, complicated bureaucracy to oversee the new system.

In addition to encouraging provider and insurers to adopt to payment models, the bill includes a nearly $200 million, one-time assessment on large providers and insurers to be redistributed to struggling community hospitals, and proposes to tax high-cost hospitals whose price variations from lower-cost providers can’t be justified.

A move to expand the excise tax on cigarettes to other tobacco products, including smokeless products, failed when Democratic leadership ruled it beyond the scope of a health care cost containment bill.
Rep. Jonathan Hecht, a Watertown Democrat, proposed to expand the state’s excise tax on cigarettes - currently $2.51 per pack - to flavored cigars, chewing tobacco and other forms of smokeless tobacco, which he said have been target toward youth, and use the revenue to fund a Prevention and Wellness Trust. Though Hecht’s amendment was co-sponsored by 51 House members, lawmakers did not get a chance to vote on the amendment.

Knowing her amendment to lift the sales tax exemption on soda faced a similar fate, Rep. Kay Khan withdrew her amendment as well.

The final action in the House sets up negotiations with the Senate, who last month passed a cost containment bill with similar objectives, but divergent from the House’s plan in several key areas. Senate President Therese Murray has indicted she has no interest in the House’s proposed luxury tax on high cost providers, and the Senate bill proposed to charge health plans $40 million a year to pay for a transition to electronic medical records and prevention and wellness programs.

Some of the most spirited debate on the bill came at the end of the night when Rep. Daniel Winslow (R-Norfolk) offered an amendment that would have required health plans to offer a new basic health plan without all of the current coverage mandates required.

Winslow said that the cost containment bill would only limit cost growth, but would do nothing to reduce the cost of health care. Comparing the Massachusetts health insurance system to a pizza, Winslow said consumers are currently required by the state to order their pizza with pepperoni and anchovies when all they might want or need is plain cheese.

“Please give us plain cheese pizza, Mr. Speaker,” Winslow said.

Rep. Paul Frost (R-Auburn) also turned to analogies to make a point in favor of Winslow’s amendment, arguing lawmakers over the past six years have layered on mandates requiring consumers to purchase a Cadillac rather than a Chevrolet. “If you’re going to tell people they have to buy insurance, then let them buy affordable insurance that fits their needs rather than tell them what they need,” Frost said.

Rep. Thomas Conroy (D-Wayland) warned that Winslow’s plan could lead to a slow erosion of benefits, complicating the marketplace and confusing consumers while undoing the well-thought out decisions of past Legislatures. Rep. Walsh also took offense to the suggestion that the bill, and the amendment accepted Tuesday, ignored the plight of families and small businesses.

The amendment failed 34-119.

The House did adopt an amendment offered by Rep. Martin Walsh (D-Boston) requiring accountable care organizations to serve children with specialty care needs.

Another amendment offered by Rep. Linda Dorcena Forry passed unanimously that would allow small businesses to reduce their “fair share” assessments by not counting employees who already have qualifying insurance coverage from a spouse, parent, veterans’ plan, Medicare, Medicaid, or a plan tied to disability or retirement against their head count for required employee insurance.

source

Thursday, February 2, 2012

Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association loses 3 members

Arizona's three largest hospital systems are leaving a statewide hospital lobbying group over concerns about how the group represents the large hospitals on legislative and regulatory issues.

Abrazo Health Care, Banner Health and Dignity Health (formerly Catholic Healthcare West) on Friday informed the Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association that their membership will end effective March 1.

The pullout by the three hospital systems that represent more than 20 metro Phoenix hospitals comes as larger urban hospitals have faced rising numbers of uninsured patients seeking free or reduced-cost care in hospital emergency rooms. The hospitals say the rise in uninsured patients follows the Legislature's cuts to the state's Medicaid program and Arizona's tepid economic recovery.

"Fundamentally, we believe at this juncture the association can't represent our interests," said Suzanne Pfister, vice president of external affairs for Dignity Health, a three-hospital system that includes St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center.

The three hospitals' top executives said in a letter to Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association CEO Laurie Liles that the hospital association "is no longer consistent with nor reflective of our collective interests on legislative and regulatory issues before the governor and state Legislature."

The letter added: "We know you have sincerely tried to manage the disparate voices within the organization, but we no longer believe the association can serve as a voice for our concerns."

The letter was signed by Banner Health CEO Peter Fine, St. Joseph's Hospital CEO Linda Hunt and Reginald Ballantyne III, senior corporate officer of Vanguard Health Systems, which controls the six-hospital chain Abrazo Health Care.

Pete Wertheim, a spokesman for the hospital association, said the hospital association is still gathering information about why the hospitals decided to leave.

"Obviously, there have been some incredible challenges with hospitals and the budget cuts and other factors," Wertheim said.

The hospital association has not calculated the financial impact of losing its three largest dues-paying members, but it expects to cushion the financial hit with revenue collected through services such as a nursing registry and a discounted vendor program.

Among the major challenges facing hospitals is securing hundreds of millions in federal dollars lost when the Legislature and Gov. Jan Brewer imposed deep cuts to the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, or AHCCCS, the state's Medicaid program.

The hospital association proposal to assess a bed tax on hospitals to recoup matching federal dollars received little support at the Legislature. The hospital association also backs a pending legal challenge to AHCCCS enrollment freeze for childless adults. The state Supreme Court next month will decide whether to hear a case challenging the state's enrollment freeze for childless adults in the state's Medicaid program.

Representatives of Banner Health, Dignity Health and Abrazo Health Care said it is pivotal to find a way to reverse the impact of the Medicaid cuts.

Ballantyne said that securing matching federal dollars will be a significant issue for Abrazo, Banner and Dignity Health.

"Within the membership of the association are those who do not place as high a priority on finding a solution permitting the flow of these matching federal funds," Ballantyne said. "We need to take steps to assure solutions and that has grown increasingly difficult given disparate views within the association membership."

The three hospital systems have not yet released a proposal to secure matching federal dollars, but they say they realize it is important to act quickly.

St. Joseph's Hospital reported a 37 percent surge in charity care and bad debt from July through October last year compared with the year before.

Charity care describes free or discounted care a hospital gives to patient who does not have the financial resources to pay their bills, and bad debt stems from patients who don't pay.

St. Joseph's Hospital and its two sister hospitals have responded with their own staffing cuts, eliminating or freezing 300 jobs.

source

Thursday, September 1, 2011

Mayo, Cleveland clinics seek affiliations with doctors nationwide

The well-known health systems are extending their reach as hospitals compete to buy or team up with practices.

Two powerful competitors are declaring their intentions to affiliate with outside physician practices: Mayo Clinic and Cleveland Clinic.

They and other large, brand-name health systems have affiliated with local hospitals in recent years as one way to expand their reach and names. Despite their prominence, Mayo and Cleveland separately are seeking physician practices because they don't want to be left behind as hospitals and physicians furiously ally as health system reform rolls out.

"There's a lot of consolidation among health care groups as people try to predict what health care reform will mean," said David L. Hayes, MD, a cardiologist and medical director of Mayo's affiliated practice network. "The whole point for us is to grow strong relationships with other health care groups, other health care systems, that are of a similar mindset in terms of caring for the patient. We can help support them with clinical expertise and help the local practices stay strong."

Neither Mayo nor Cleveland is interested in acquiring practices. Instead, they are seeking practices to pay subscription fees that will vary according to the terms of the deal and to meet clinical criteria. In exchange, the practices get to use the Mayo or Cleveland resources and name.

The organizations said they're open to groups of all sizes but that they are more likely to affiliate with medium or large single-specialty groups. These groups already may be affiliated with other institutions in some way. As of yet, Mayo and Cleveland have not signed any partners or said when they will announce their first deals.

Mayo and Cleveland said their goals are not explicitly to create referral streams to their own facilities. Mayo has 3,700 staff physicians and scientists at its hub in Rochester, Minn., and at campuses in Scottsdale, Ariz., and Jacksonville, Fla. Cleveland has 1,841 physicians and dentists in Ohio; Weston, Fla.; Elko, Nev.; Toronto; and Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.

"We hope they think of us first, but we don't require that," said Joseph Cacchione, MD, chair of business operations at Cleveland Clinic.

Neither Cleveland nor Mayo has announced that any affiliated practices will be part of an accountable care organization, a health reform-born model that gives hospitals and physicians a chance to earn bonuses for quality care.

"This is not being thought of as definitely part of an ACO, but it might in the future lend itself to that," Dr. Hayes said.

New avenues of alignment

Health industry experts say such affiliation programs are creative ways for Mayo and Cleveland to respond to overall trends of consolidation and alignment in the health system. The most rapidly growing part of health care mergers and acquisitions is physician practices, according to a report issued July 14 by Irving Levin Associates, a Norwalk, Conn.-based health care publishing firm. Several surveys have noted that the number of physicians in solo and small practices is declining.

These affiliations are a way for Mayo and Cleveland to continue to broaden their reach into outpatient care when hospitalizations are declining and inpatient revenue is flattening or even shrinking, analysts said. For instance, a statistical brief issued Feb. 17, 2010, by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality found that 58% of surgeries were performed on an outpatient basis in 2007 compared with 16% in 1980.

Some experts theorize that these institutions are responding to changing referral patterns linked to the emergence of the hospitalist as a medical specialty during the past couple of decades. Physicians providing only outpatient care may have a greater number of options for referring patients.

"Hospitals have to be more strategic in terms of working referrals," said Kenneth Cohn, MD, a general surgeon and editor of Getting it Done, a book about how health care leaders have handled change. "Now that we have hospitalists, we have outpatient doctors and inpatient doctors. Physicians can refer patients to anybody they want. And referral patterns are not just local. They're becoming statewide and national. We're recognizing that referral networks eventually may have to be global."

Mayo Clinic launched its hospital affiliate program on May 18 with Altru Health System, based in Grand Forks, N.D. The Mayo Clinic label will be on Altru's signs, and its physicians will be able to access Mayo's evidence-based disease management protocols, clinical care guidelines and treatment recommendations. Altru, which includes a hospital and more than a dozen clinics, has long collaborated with Mayo, but this contract formalizes the arrangement.

"While others quickly consolidate to address health care reform and an uncertain reimbursement environment, at Mayo we are focused on further developing our integrated model of practice, education and research, as well as a range of external affiliations and relationships, to give more people seamless access to the knowledge and expertise of Mayo Clinic," said John Noseworthy, MD, Mayo Clinic's president and CEO.

Other industries have had a tradition of deals that involve applying a well-recognized name to another company's product, and they are increasingly common in the health setting. Cleveland Clinic launched such a program seven years ago and has about a half-dozen affiliates. MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston and Geisinger Health System in Danville, Pa., also operate affiliate programs.

Branding experts say the key to maintaining the value of such an arrangement is having an appropriate vetting process on both sides. Affiliated institutions must exercise caution in how the nature of the relationship is communicated to patients to avoid misunderstandings about who is providing care.

"They need to protect the value of that brand," said Jeffrey Nemetz, founder and CEO of HBG Health in Chicago, which specializes in developing brands in the health care industry. "It can be a bit of a slippery slope from a brand point of view, and it can be confusing to the public. It has to be a partnership that's capable of producing better outcomes with them than without them. You need to do some very careful analysis."

source

Thursday, August 11, 2011

Nonprofit Hospitals Face Downgrades As Revenues Fall: Moody's

A dwindling number of patients, combined with oncoming Medicare and Medicaid cuts, are making more likely the prospect of nonprofit hospitals being issued credit rating downgrades, according to a report released Wednesday.

Hospital revenues grew at an average rate of only 4 percent in 2010, a 20-year low, according to the rating agency Moody’s, which issued the report. Moreover, the rate of revenue growth is expected to keep dropping. Federal cuts in Medicare, and state efforts to save money in Medicaid spending, will hurt hospitals’ bottom line. Medicare represents about 43 percent of hospital revenues, while Medicaid accounts for another 11 percent.

Nonprofit hospitals, including facilities owned by state and local governments, account for about 80 percent of acute-care hospitals in the U.S., according to the Wall Street Journal.

In addition to government cuts, hospitals must contend with a fall-off in the number of patients seeking treatment. Patient volume has declined since 2009, a drop that Moody’s attributes to the struggling economy. More people might be deciding to forgo elective surgeries, given the high unemployment and underemployment rates.

When patients do visit the hospital, they’re more likely to stay for an observation period of 24 to 48 hours, rather than seek inpatient care. Observation stays require the patient to pay much less than inpatient treatment, but they cost the hospital about the same amount to provide.

Last month, Moody’s announced that it had downgraded 12 nonprofit hospitals in the second quarter of 2011, compared with only three upgrades for the same time period. Those numbers are trending in a direction hospitals don't want them to: In the first quarter of 2011, Moody’s downgraded just six nonprofit hospitals and upgraded five.

When a hospital's rating is downgraded, it can make it more difficult for the hospital to get access to the capital it needs to function.

Overall, Moody’s has maintained a negative outlook on the nonprofit health care sector since November 2008, and expects to maintain it at least through the rest of 2011.

Fitch and Standard & Poor’s, the other two major credit rating agencies, have both given the nonprofit health care sector a stable outlook for the year.

With more and more nonprofit hospitals feeling financial pressure, an increasing number are merging with larger outfits or selling themselves to for-profit companies, the Journal reports. There were 72 deals of this kind last year, the most since 2001, and already there have been another 55 transactions in 2011.


source

Friday, August 5, 2011

Medicaid cuts force hospitals onto auction block Struggling economy squeezes health-care providers, forces mergers

LOS ANGELES (MarketWatch) — In Tennessee, a state where health care is king, hospital operator Catholic Health Partners has found that it can’t do business there anymore.

Tennessee is home to such giant hospital chains as HCA Holdings (NYSE:HCA), Community Health Systems (NYSE:CYH) and LifePoint Hospitals (NASDAQ:LPNT). But aggressive Medicaid cuts by state politicians are eating into the bottom line at six Catholic Health Partners medical centers in Knoxville. So it’s selling the group of hospitals, says James Gravell, Cincinnati-based Catholic’s chief financial officer.

Catholic’s net margin already stands at a tenuous 2% to 2.5%, leaving little wiggle room, Gravell says. Most of its hospitals are centered in Ohio and serve such depressed Rust Belt cities as Youngstown and Toledo. Low Medicaid reimbursements already put a crimp in profits; its hospitals won’t make back costs on roughly 22% of its patients on average, and up to 30% in regions such as Toledo.

“When you’re a business and you see that, it’s a real challenge,” Gravell said. “We were not making money in Tennessee. We were losing money.”

Stories similar to Catholic’s are cropping up throughout the nation, and could lead to a drastic makeover for the hospital business landscape. Many small operators are fleeing for the exits and getting absorbed by bigger, more resilient chains.

Larger, more risk-averse facilities substituting for the homegrown community hospital.

Cutbacks in federal reimbursements on Medicaid programs initiated in recent years are hitting nonprofits like Catholic Health Partners the hardest, especially community hospital companies that operate only one or two facilities and can’t spread out the risk.

Cuts in federal matching dollars

States such as Georgia are seeing massive reductions in federal matching funds. Other states like California — which face massive budget shortfalls year in and year out — or others especially troubled in a down economy have cut back on their Medicaid reimbursements.

There are 23 states over budget on Medicaid. And in 13 states, Medicaid budgets are being slashed. Those states are: Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia and Washington.

Moody’s Investors Service recently issued a study examining the issues for nonprofit hospitals. It says Medicaid funding pressures could put stress on hospital credit ratings for at least the next several years.

“We do see an increasing trend in M&A activity,” said Lisa Martin, Moody’s senior vice president and analyst. It’s not just troubled hospitals that seek partners, she adds. Healthy facilities with an eye toward possible trouble on the horizon are on the prowl for prospective mates as well.

Relief may come from the 2009 Affordable Care Act, when coverage is expected to extend to indigent patients who have up to now been uninsured. That should help cut down on what is known as “bad debt” for many hospitals, or the cost to treat charity cases.

But those provisions won’t take effect until after 2013, leaving a funding chasm for many hospitals. Plus, there’s no guarantee that the ACA will cure hospitals’ Medicaid ills. So many are taking refuge.

“I think it’s starting to drain on people,” said Rick Kneipper, chief strategy officer for Anthelio Health Solutions, a Dallas-based health-care consultant. “If you ever did have a sustainable model in the health-care provider world, you really don’t anymore.”

Taking action

Bigger hospital chains with an eye toward acquisitions have already taken notice — and action in some cases. Community Health Systems, based in the health-care industry hub of Nashville, has announced 13 purchases in the past three years.

It tried in vain to buy the Tenet Healthcare Corp. (NYSE:THC) system earlier this year, but a contentious battle between the two hospital companies ended with Community withdrawing its hostile bid.

That didn’t scare the company off, though. In Community’s most recent earnings call on July 29, Chairman and Chief Executive Wayne T. Smith noted two transactions involving five hospitals the company made in Pennsylvania during the second quarter. Three of the facilities are in Scranton, Pa., and are owned by Catholic Health Partners.

“We continue to look for opportunities, and have a very strong and active pipeline,” Smith told analysts on the call. Smith declined to comment further.

But Community isn’t the only player. LifePoint Hospitals, also based in Nashville, is looking to bulk up as well, said Jone Koford, president of the company’s strategic growth division.

Koford said the company has just expanded into its 18th state with a deal in North Carolina, and LifePoint expects to move into other states.

“I think we’re certainly seeing the pressures of the industry, the stress the industry’s facing,” Koford said in an interview, adding many are forced to seek partnerships.

“I certainly see there will be a lot of consolidation in this industry. That’s one of the things I feel very certain about,” she said. “I think we are at the beginnings of the changes we are going to see. I think you’ll see it over a sustained period of time.”

Dire situation

Lex Reddy, chief executive of Prime Healthcare Services in Ontario, Calif., says the situation for community hospitals is dire. Most will have to consolidate if they are to retain any hope of survival.

Prime has acquired 14 hospitals in the Los Angeles metro region over the past decade, three nonprofits and 11 for-profit facilities. Virtually all were distressed and turned around to be more profit-minded.

“Everybody thinks health care is a right, not a privilege,” Reddy said. “These community hospitals won’t survive in the long run.”

Another problem facing community hospitals, in addition to Medicaid cuts, is a weak economy cutting into contributions made to their cause, he added.

“When communities were rich, they could get endowments,” Reddy said. “Those days are gone. The communities are not rich anymore.”

Still, there is a reluctance on the part of some hospitals to consolidate even just some of their operations.

Kneipper, the health-care consultant, tells of one community hospital’s chief executive facing a $21 million shortfall in his budget. But he remains reluctant to consolidate back-office operations with neighboring hospitals because his facility is one of the town’s primary employers.

That sentiment was echoed by Gravell of Catholic Health http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifPartners, which has cut its hospital count from 31 to 24.

“In many cases, we are the largest employer in town,” he shttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifaid. Selling to another hospital company ohttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifften means he and his colleagues have to persuade local stakeholders that the deal not only makes financial sense, but may be the only means of survival.

In any case, most hospitals will have to consider at least some form of consolidating operations, either partially or fully, in order to keep going, Gravell says.

“I think it’s going to happen everywhere,” he said. “It needs to happen everywhere.”

source

Note: Information on Prem Rex Reddy of Prime Healthcare from an earlier post. (click)

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

States Rushing to Create Their Own Insurance Exchanges, Pass on Federal Exchange

Several states are rushing to establish their respective health insurance exchanges by 2014, according to various news reports.

Under the new healthcare reform law, states are required to set up insurance exchanges that would allow individuals and businesses to shop and compare various health plans. If these exchanges are not implemented by the 2014 deadline, the federal government will require tardy states to implement a federally established exchange.

According to a Star Tribune news report, the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce is hoping the state will pass a law that would create an exchange funded by taxpayer dollars. "It doesn't mean we're for Obamacare," said Minnesota Chamber President David Olson. "Our bigger paranoia is that we don't want the federal government imposing its will on us. ... We think the best outcome is for us to design this ourselves."

Bills have been introduced to the Minnesota Senate and House, but neither body has scheduled a hearing of the bills, according to the news report. In Oregon, however, The Senate has already passed Senate Bill 99, which would allow a public corporation to set up standards for commercial health plans, according to a Statesman Journal news report.

The proposed public corporation would incorporate seven governor- and Senate-approved board members, including members of the Oregon Health Authority and the Department of Consumer and Business Services. "I urge the legislature to quickly approve Senate Bill 99 so we can build a strong health insurance exchange that works for Oregon, rather than wait for the federal government to create one for our state that would meet minimum national standards," said Gov. John Kitzhaber.

Read other coverage about health insurance exchanges:

-
Insurance Plans Offered on Health Exchanges Could Carry Sihttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifgnificant Deductibles

-
Bureau Releases Data to Define Benefits Under Reform Law

-
Oklahoma Governor Turns Down $54M From HHS for Insurance Exchange

source

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Say Farewell to the Family Doctor

On tourist maps, it might get eclipsed by the nearby Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library. But St. John's Hospital, a tan, 11-story building, is beginning to cast a long shadow in Springfield, Ill. For several years most of the physicians in this town of 120,000 have been split into teams like kids in a summer-camp color war: SIU HealthCare and The Springfield Clinic, huge medical groups employing 450 doctors between them, have dominated the market for years. But recently, the Franciscan nuns and executives behind St. John's have been trying to put together their own dream team and have bought up some of the few independent medical practices left in this pocket of the Midwest.

The effort is all being laid out in a cramped off-site conference room, where Kelly Ford and a dozen other executives huddle in a buzz of conversation, plotting the next steps in the expansion of Hospital Sisters Health System Medical Group, the network St. John's belongs to. A mosaic of pastel pink, yellow and blue Post-it notes covers one wall, each inscribed with an item from what looks like the world's longest medical shopping list ("Order lab coats/business cards"; "Update insurance contracts"). It adds up to a lot of work for executives like Ford, the director of medical-staff affairs for Hospital Sisters. But the mood in the room is upbeat, and with good reason. In less than two years, the group has grown from just a handful of executives to become a squad of almost 200 doctors and nurse practitioners, recruiting the likes of a pulmonologist from Joliet, Ill., and an internist with hundreds of patients at a big, independent practice across town. "We like to think of ourselves as a fast-moving start-up," says Ford.

Remember the solo family doctor? In places like Springfield, it has become increasingly likely that she's collecting a paycheck from a large regional hospital—and practicing medicine according to the hospital's strict playbook. The experience in Springfield is just a needle prick compared with what's going on nationwide. At least one in six doctors—more than 150,000 nationwide—now works as an employee of a hospital system. And with about half of recent medical school graduates deciding to work for hospitals and many established doctors looking to unload their practices amid the tough economic climate, what was a trickle of change has turned into a torrent. Jim Pizzo, a Chicago-area hospital consultant, says the blistering pace of these mergers is leading some colleagues to joke that there are two types of physicians today: "Those employed by hospitals and those about to be."

Whether they wear suits or scrubs, many medical pros think they're doing the right thing. Hospital executives say they're adapting to the rapid evolution of the health care business, while physicians, fed up with running businesses during the recession, are drawn to the safety of a salary and regular hours. What's less clear is how the fever to buy up local doctors' offices will affect the paper-gowned patients caught in the middle, with many saying they've already seen costs rise or treatment choices dwindle. Consumer advocates say the demise of the neighborhood doctor could turn out to be as big a change for medicine as anything happening at the national level with health care reform. "The story of how well these collaborations will actually work, day after day, hasn't been written yet," says Roland Goertz, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians.


The University of Washington is one of a few fast-growing hospital groups in the Seattle area. Frustrated consumers have raised objections about facility fees added to their bills by the expanding hospital chains; in some cases, those fees raised the cost by 65% or more. (The University declined to comment.)

Ruth Taylor, a 44-year-old woman in Bozeman, Mont., started seeing Robert Hathaway as her doctor during college, and she stuck with him through everything from routine blood tests to a kidney transplant. Taylor, a professional nurse with warm blue eyes, describes Hathaway as a "classic small-town doctor" who knew all his patients by name and socialized with them at local basketball games; he was accessible and thorough—even catching a health problem of hers that other doctors had missed. But after Hathaway sold his practice to the local hospital, Taylor says, things began to sour. She was more likely to be assigned to see the physician assistant rather than Hathaway himself. And when she went in for a comprehensive physical (also run by the assistant) in late 2008, she was charged $360, more than double what she'd paid for a workup in previous years. Her insurance covered very little of the higher tab; now, fearful of the cost, Taylor is putting off a mammogram. "When a nurse is skipping out on care she knows she needs," Taylor says, "you know there are problems."

Stories like Taylor's aren't uncommon in Bozeman, a funky, college-kid and retiree paradise surrounded by soaring mountains. Bozeman Deaconess Hospital sits high on a hill outside town, cross-country ski trails circling it like lassos. Five years ago Deaconess, the lone hospital here, didn't own any medical practices. Since then it has gone on such a buying binge that more than half the doctors in town are on its payroll. Hathaway says the arrangement was eventually a godsend for him, letting him avoid the evening ritual of wondering whether his office could eke out enough funds to pay its overhead, and he disputes the notion that he saw his patients less. He acknowledges, however, that rising costs for patients were a troubling side effect. "It was the one thing I lost control of," Hathaway says wistfully.


With only 65 independent practices remaining in the area, doctors are being heavily wooed. One high-profile signing by UNC subsidiary Rex Healthcare: a 23-doctor cardiology practice. Rex executive director Bob Ricker says the expansion will save consumers money by creating efficiencies, like having doctos share billing staff.

Gordon Davidson, chief financial officer at Bozeman Deaconess, says that some price increases have been related to Medicare billing rules; he also says that the hospital's pricing has helped keep doctors from leaving Bozeman. While this isn't the first time that hospitals have tried to buy up doctors' offices, Boze-man's merger drama sheds some light on why the trend is picking up again now. Davidson says that Deaconess first started buying practices when cash-strapped doctors turned to the hospital for help; they did so largely because of Medicare, whose payments have been criticized by doctors for not keeping up with medical inflation. With the 2010 health care reform law aiming to trim $500 billion from projected Medicare spending levels, many doctors' economic anxiety is increasing.

But hospital executives also believe that buying doctors' practices could yield a big payday, thanks to a different provision in the health care law. The law will encourage doctors and hospitals to share some payments when treating each patient; as collaborative teams, they could earn bonuses for holding down costs and meeting quality markers. "The real question for everyone is how that pie—that money—is going to get split up," Goertz says; hospitals think they'll have the upper hand if they employ the doctors that they're sharing their banana crème with. And that's touched off a flurry of mergers everywhere—from Seattle to Roanoke, Va.

Hospitals are also scrambling to get a bigger share of one of the most lucrative arenas of medicine: outpatient surgeries. These options have become popular with patients because they're often cheaper and faster than hospital surgeries and boast lower infection rates (and often, better parking). Timothy Eckels, vice president for government relations at Hospital Sisters in Springfield, says the outpatient-care trend is one factor that jump-started his institution's acquisition boom: "We really could see the writing on the wall." One recent study by health care consultancy Sg2 predicted demand for outpatient surgeries will grow by 22 percent from 2010 to 2019, while growth for hospital-based surgeries will remain flat; another study showed profit margins at outpatient centers are five or six times as high as at hospitals.


Aurora is one of a few health systems that provide most of the health care in Milwaukee. According to independent research, insurers pay doctors here about double what they pay for the same care in Miami or Los Angeles, where large health groups aren't as prominent. Aurora says the system ultimately saves money by coordinating care.

Now that the acquisition spree is in full swing, some experts worry that price increases could become the dominant narrative for patients. When hospitals run medical practices, federal law allows them to add substantial "facility fees" to patients' bills to cover overhead expenses. The new bosses also often rip equipment like X-ray machines and MRIs out of the physician's office, preferring to have patients get those tests from radiologists at the hospital. That, too, can cost patients. A consumer with a high-deductible Aetna plan, for instance, would pay up to $1,400 for an MRI of her back at the University Medical Center at Princeton, N.J., according to data that the insurer makes available to its members. The same scan would cost about a third as much at nearby Radiology Affiliates of New Jersey, a nonhospital facility. Based on a review of insurance databases and state regulatory records, that's a fairly typical price gap. (Barry Rabner, president and CEO of the Princeton system, says the hospital's fees cover expenses like 24-hour staffing and caring for uninsured patients.)

Price increases also have the potential to bleed outward—affecting not only the patients of the absorbed doctor, but also the cost of health care citywide. That's because when hospitals sit down at the bargaining table with insurers, they're almost always able to negotiate higher payment rates for their big groups of doctors than a lone physician with little bargaining power. Fast-growing hospital systems, including Hospital Sisters and Bozeman Deaconess, say that their growth will eventually make care more efficient and bring costs back down, since they'll be able to cut back on unnecessary care and duplicate tests. But Robert Berenson, a fellow with the Urban Institute, a think tank, says the new relationship sets up a vicious cycle: Hospitals become emboldened to ask for 60 or 75 percent price increases one year, and then insurers have to step up premiums to cover costs. "Unless something major changes in how we pay for care," Berenson says, "this could be the Achilles' heel of our health care system."

For some patients, there may be an even bigger headache that comes from all of this consolidation—potentially much less choice in which doctors they see. By their own admission, most hospitals are eager to keep patient referrals under the same corporate umbrella, to save on costs and share medical records but also to boost revenue. The hospitals say they wouldn't force an internist, for example, to refer a patient with heart problems to their own cardiologists, but critics say there's certainly financial pressure. Under a little-noticed regulation that took effect in 2007, hospitals are allowed to pay doctors less if they don't do enough internal referrals.

Doctors in Bozeman and Springfield who granted interviews said they didn't feel pressure to be "team players" with referrals. But some of those who've left large health systems tell a different story, including Mark Callenberger, an orthopedist in Merritt Island, Fla. Callenberger says that the hospital group where he used to work urged him to direct more patients to the MRI machine owned by the hospital. The doctor preferred a more advanced machine at a private practice that he says offered clearer pictures. But after he ignored the recommendations, Callenberger says, the hospital told his office manager to schedule patients at the hospital's MRI anyway, leaving him to perform surgery using "crummy images." (The hospital declined to comment on Callenberger's case but says its doctors can use whatever facilities they choose.) Patients may never know about these power struggles, because doctors aren't required to disclose how they choose specialists. And while patients who ask can always see a specialist outside the network, in practice few are likely to challenge their doctors' judgment, says Bruce A. Johnson, a Denver health care lawyer. "Face it, when we're really sick," says Johnson, "if the doctor tells us to jump off a roof, we'll probably consider doing it."


This eight-hospital chain has recently gotten involved in contract tangles with major insurers in the area over its attempts to negotiate higher fees. A hospital spokesperson attributed the sleep-study discrepancy to the higher overall costs of impatient care; the hospital declined to comment further.

Sometimes the hospital and its doctor jump ship on the patient. As hospital groups get more clout and demand more money in negotiations with insurers, some employers and insurers are now showing a willingness to ax them out of their networks. When Kaiser Permanente went through contract negotiations for 2010, it couldn't reach an agreement with one hospital-owned, 400-doctor network in the Atlanta area, so it dropped them. For Stephannie Owen, a 42-year-old mother of two, that meant losing access to all her family's doctors. Owen, who was being treated for suspected breast cancer, says her primary-care doctor and breast-care clinic refused to keep seeing her, fearful that she'd be unable to pay her higher, out-of-network bills. "It was like they cut ties altogether," she says. "I was really upset and scared." Kaiser Permanente says it opened more clinics in the Atlanta area so consumers could see Kaiser physicians instead, but for Owen, that created some awkward moments. At one point, she says, she wound up being treated in an office in a strip mall.

As more patients face such disruptions, regulators are taking notice. In October, the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Health and Human Services met with doctors, insurers and other health officials to discuss the referral and pricing problems that could arise from "accountable-care organizations"— those new groups of hospitals and doctors that will share financial incentives. The Federal Trade Commission will offer guidelines on what's permissible by midyear. But hospitals are already lobbying for accountable-care groups to be exempt from antitrust and antifraud rules, even as they scoop up more and more medical practices. Under current regulations, officials in Washington must green-light all mergers involving companies valued at more than $63 million. But by buying up tiny medical practices one at a time, critics say, hospitals stay below the threshold and avoid getting much attention. And by the time regulators settle on more-formal legal guidelines, those mergers may be hard to undo, says Cory Capps, a Washington economist specializing in health care antitrust issues.

With their expansion a sensitive topic, many hospitals have kept a low profile, declining to discuss their plans and encouraging their doctors to do the same. But in Springfield, the Hospital Sisters system is willing to give us a long, if somewhat stage-managed, tour. A brisk young executive who manages PR is glued to our side as we visit the office of Michael Nenaber, a primary-care doctor who made the switch a year ago. After he signed on, Hospital Sisters quickly moved Nenaber to this new facility. Outside, we find a giant blue sign that identifies the clinic as St. John's Health Center: Prairie Crossing—without mentioning Nenaber's name. Inside, the office is gleaming new, with a TV playing the History Channel in one corner of the waiting area and a crucifix in another. "I'd follow Dr. Nenaber anywhere," says Hazel Jenne, a 90-year-old patient waiting for her husband to be called in for an appointment. In a few months Jenne will get to test that theory again. Across the street a green and white construction trailer and a torn-up plot mark the clinic where Nenaber will be moving in March. Designed by the same architect, the PR manager tells us, it'll be a lot like this office—"but bigger!"

It's clear that transitions like these are sometimes rocky. Last spring Hospital Sisters tried to shift all of its Springfield medical offices to electronic medical records simultaneously. But there wasn't enough tech support to deal with all the problems physicians ran into on day one, and wait times spiked at the system's walk-in locations. Nenaber, a soft-spoken 64-year-old with wire-rim glasses, sounds acquiescent about the situation. "We're getting the hang of these things," he says slowly, sitting at his desk overlooking a gas station and a strip-mall parking lot. But his practice is still waiting for its electronic payoff: While other Hospital Sisters' doctors enthusiastically show off the iPads and iPhones they can use to access and share patient files, Nenaber has a sign tacked to the back of each exam room door urging visitors to "be patient" while he upgrades technology.

At Hospital Sisters, the role model everyone wants to emulate is the Advocate Health Care System in Chicago, a four-hour drive north of here on Interstate 55. That 13-hospital behemoth has been buying doctors' practices for more than a decade, and today it says its patients are healthier, thanks in part to efforts to get doctors to follow uniform guidelines when treating common ailments. Frank Mikell, chief physician executive for Hospital Sisters, says standardization can "make the patient experience dramatically better" through collaboration and a plethora of checklists. Executives here are also hoping to push the needle further—standardizing everything from how long patients wait on hold to the ease of parking at the doctor's office (valets, luxury-restaurant style, are one solution under consideration).

Still, Mikell acknowledges, "doctors don't want follow-the-directions, cookbook medicine." And for many physicians, the idea of following new rules triggers a much larger unease at giving up their independence—a feeling of loss, both for the businesses they built and for their patients. Back in Bozeman, Blair Erb, the sole cardiologist in town, is a picture of resignation as he prepares to sign a contract with Deaconess. "I feel defeated," Erb says, looking around at the office furniture he and his wife, Liz, chose from a catalog years ago. The weathered ranchers and bundled-up women that come through his door mostly express disbelief when they hear that this frank-talking Tennessee native will sell his practice. His staffers say they're not looking forward to the questions the hospital's medical records system will soon prompt them to ask patients. (Do you wear a bike helmet regularly? Do you have a smoke detector?) "We'll try to retain as much professional independence as possible," Erb says, gazing at the hospital building, whose bulk he can see through his window. "But the fact of the matter is, we'll have a new master."


Sutter Health, which recently absorbed a 900-doctor practice in San Francisco, holds considerable bargaining power: One study found that a stay at a Sutter hospital costs 37% more than the state average. A spokesperson says Sutter's prices reflect "other obligations and commitments," like building facilities to withstand earthquakes.

source

Friday, February 18, 2011

U.S. Retail Clinics Expected to Double by 2015, Could Partner With Health Systems

The number of retail medical clinics in the United States could double by 2015, according to The ConvUrgentCare Market Report by Merchant Medicine.

There are currently 1,200 retail clinics in the United States and that number is projected to reach 2,000 to 2,500 by 2015 as health consumers seeks out lower-cost, more convenient primary and urgent care services.

Growth in the overall urgent care industry is expected to be only moderate. Today's 4,500 clinics are anticipated to grow to around 5,500 by 2015.

The future of retail clinics is expected to be greatly shaped by their relationships with hospitals and their role in accountable care organizations. CVS' Minute Clinic, which currently has the largest market share of all retail clinics, has recently announced partnerships with Cleveland Clinic, Minneapolis-based Allina Health and Catholic Healthcare West.

source

Introducing…Massachusetts Health Care Reform, Part Two

Let the history books record: On Feb. 17, 2011, Massachusetts officially launched Health Care Reform II, seeking to go where no state had gone before and stem the relentless growth in medical costs by transforming the system of health care.

Amid a sea of dark business suits this morning, Gov. Deval Patrick presented his plan to the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce at the InterContinental Hotel (the proposed legislation is here). Speaking so emphatically that at one point his voice broke to a high note, he told the gathering:

“Universal health care in Massachusetts has been a resounding success, and rightly serves as a model for what’s possible for the rest of the nation, but it costs too much. Health care in Massachusetts is now universally accessible but it is not universally affordable.”

The governor will file a bill on containing health costs and transforming the system of payment today, he said, and also hold his first meeting with a “working group” of health care, business and other leaders on his plan. The bill was not yet available this morning but is expected to become public later today.

Patrick said his bill consists of four main pieces:

1. It proposes to provide a set of standards and benchmarks for the formation of Accountable Care Organizations and other alternative payment methodologies. (That is, ways to shift the system from “fee for service,” in which providers are paid for each procedure,” to a system of “global” or “bundled” payments that put a provider on a budget for a patient’s overall care.)

2. It empowers the commissioner of insurance to consider a wider array of factors when deciding whether to approve premium increases, including the underlying provider rates and how they compare to medical cost inflation. (Read: the state has more power to crack down on high premiums and costs.)

3. It creates an advisory council of stakeholders and consumers to monitor how payment reform is implemented.

4. The bill seeks to redirect the system of medical malpractice in favor of apology and prompt resolution, to deemphasize so-called defensive medicine.

An additional point: It sets up a new state office to act as a “one-stop shopping” point to help “innovators in the medical community” with pilots and other experiments. And the aim is for new-style health care organizations with incentives for healthier patient outcomes to predominate by 2015.

Overall reaction among attendees in the hubbub after the speech appeared largely positive, but this phrase kept popping up: “The devil is in the details” and the details aren’t clear yet. You can listen to some initial thoughts from health care leaders who were there this morning here, here, here and here.

source