Posts Tagged Medicaid

The Government We Deserve: Healthcare Edition

So, the battle is joined – the passage of the Senate Finance Bill has forced every healthcare participant whose oxen might be gored into the open, and the fighting is fierce.

I don’t have a dog in the fight from an economic standpoint, unless Washington, D.C. decides to give everyone a full indemnity policy like the New Hampshire state union employees. As a result, I have had a freedom to think and speak in a way that few of my colleagues can.

It took me a while to realize that I would be so alone in this regard. I have been very fortunate to participate for the past five years in two different groups of nationally recognized healthcare executives with very diverse experiences. Several of them are very publicly prominent in the debate, and others are quietly influential. I have hoped that these groups might coalesce, create a blueprint for reform, and lead the way forward. While I am disappointed that has not happened, I am really surprised at how resolutely the group members have retreated to their economic realities or their philosophical ideals. In short, there has been no sustained dialogue with the goal of determining how hospitals, physicians, insurance companies, device manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies and others can create a reformed system. At the same time, I have observed all of us bemoan that “healthcare reform” is really “insurance coverage reform”, and not so impressive at that.

The result is that We, the People, have turned it over to Washington, D.C. In the coming weeks, 535 people who know a lot about politics, a little about the art of compromise, and almost nothing about how approximately 20% of the economy works will decide our future. The 20% of us employed in healthcare have failed to reform ourselves through real and shared sacrifice. The 80% is angry enough not to care that they don’t know the difference between a scalpel and a saw.

In the words of Dandy Don Meredith, some people in healthcare will need to “turn out the lights, the party’s over”. The tricky part is that we won’t know until the very end who that is.

On Wednesday, The Wall Street Journal ran an opinion piece called “Paying the Health Tax in Massachusetts” by an author named Wendy Williams. In it, Ms. Williams lamented that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts changed the definition of acceptable coverage. Her family’s policy no longer meets the requirement, so she must either (a) buy a more expensive policy, which she does not think she needs, or (b) enroll in the government option.

What caught my eye was the following:

Mr. Romney and Sen. Ted Kennedy publicly promised that the middle class – that is, people like us – would not be taxed and that our health-care costs would actually decrease if the plan became law.

My husband and I weren’t convinced. It all seemed inane, but we are neither politically or socially conservative and figured the plan wouldn’t affect us much. Besides, who could be against a plan that covers more people for less money?”

Here in the South, we might respond to that statement by saying, “I’m not sure I would have told that”, but I am afraid the subject is too serious to be that dismissive.

Ms. Williams, in four sentences, has summarized the debate.

First, in order to get elected, politicians have to tell people (us) what we want to hear. Politicians rarely make the call for sacrifice, and today’s America is not interested in that much anyway. Elections for 473 of the 535 positions will be held in 2010. For each of those 473, the calculus over the next 60 days is about how a vote on healthcare reform will play at home between now and November 4, 2010 (Note: “what will get me reelected” is sometimes phrased as “what my constituents want” but rarely as “what does my country need” or “what does courage require”).

Second, We, the People, know better. What is wrong with us? We aren’t that stupid, and we don’t even like Congress. On the other hand, we do seem to like something for nothing. The members of the Greatest Generation have given way to individuals who are more interested in their personal good than the common good. Most of us just listen for what we want to believe and ignore the rest; some of us listen to talk radio and shout at the rest. The Greatest Generation gave way to the Baby Boomers, who seem to be the majority of those in power. The generation of Timothy Leary and “Turn on, tune in, drop out” seems to have taken the “drop out” part to heart, except that Leary’s hope for self-reliance has morphed into singular self-interest.

*********

It is time for We, the People, to wake up:

  • As we proved spectacularly in Tennessee, you cannot cover more people for less money. No one in Washington, D.C. should know that better than Nancy-Ann Deparle.
  • The results of the Massachusetts experiment are that costs have increased, while quality and access have decreased. These results should be terrifying since Massachusetts had one of the lowest uninsured rates in the nation at the start of the Massachusetts Connector program. Up next, “global payments”, aka capitation – good luck with that at Partners.
  • In The Washington Post, Alec MacGillis reports that maybe the Mayo Clinic is not a model for reform since they restrict access to Medicare and Medicaid patients. As we continue to report, the Mayo Clinic does not deliver high healthcare value.
  • The Senate Finance Bill pretends that physicians will take a 25% cut in pay in 2011 to achieve the $900B cost; it appears that AMA has convinced Senator Reid otherwise.

Sir Winston Churchill famously stated that:
“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” He also said, “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” Let’s hope that we do not allow Washington, D.C. to test the former, and let’s see if America can prove Sir Winston wrong on the latter.

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

1 Comment

$155B Down, $845B To Go

Ceci Connolly reports that Hospitals Reach Deal With Administration in the July 7 edition of The Washington Post. Unnamed sources report that the American Hospital Association, Federation of American Hospitals and the Catholic Health Association agreed to “contribute $155B over 10 years toward the cost of insuring the 47 million Americans without health coverage.” Approximately $100B will come through reduced Medicare and Medicaid payments, while $40B will come through “slowly reducing what hospitals get to care for the uninsured”, which presumably means lower payments to disproportionate share hospitals.

The White House has previously discussed plans to find $600B of “savings” from providers. In that context, the “contribution” by the hospitals of $155B appears to be a significant win, and the stock market seems to agree this afternoon. However, it is difficult to understand how the balance of providers make up the $445B difference.

Even so, hospitals have not fared as well as the pharmaceutical industry, whose “contribution” of $80B will not accrue to the government. In addition, it is likely that their “sacrifice” will be offset substantially or entirely by an increase in the number of new customers because of lower drug prices or the acquisition of health insurance. Along those lines, The New York Times published Sheryl Gay Stolberg and David Herszenhorn’s article Health Deals Could Harbor Hidden Costs on the front page of the July 8 edition.

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

, , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

CMS: ‘Value’ proposition puts onus on hospitals

May 27, 2009 | John Andrews, Contributing writer

Take heed, hospital administrators – Uncle Sam is watching.  Because the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is getting pickier about what it pays for in the acute care setting, the agency is looking inside the hospital to find claim denials……….

CMS: ‘Value’ proposition puts onus on hospitals – Published in HealthcareFinanceNews.com

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

, ,

No Comments

Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) recently proposed Value-Based Purchasing

Why Does It Matter?

 

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) recently proposed Value-Based Purchasing as a new policy initiative “to drive improvements in clinical quality, patient-centeredness and efficiency” in hospitals. CMS’s goal is to “transform Medicare from a passive payer of claims to an active purchaser of care.” (SOURCE: Report To Congress: Plan to Implement a Medicare Value-Based Purchasing Program)

At the same time, healthcare consumers shoulder an increasing burden of the cost of healthcare, of which hospital services is a large part.

In this new reality, hospitals are subject to heightened demands for transparency and comparative information. It is no longer enough for a hospital to focus on incremental improvements in quality and outcomes. Hospitals will ultimately be judged, and in some cases reimbursed, based on the overall value that they deliver.

The Hospital Value Index™ is the first-ever benchmark designed to help hospitals understand their value proposition.

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

, ,

No Comments