Massachusetts Report Finds Hospitals’ Negotiating Clout With Insurers Drives Up Costs

Massachusetts hospitals and physician groups with market clout negotiate rates that are twice as high as for other hospitals, and such clout is the main cause of healthcare inflation in the state, according to a release by State Attorney General Martha Coakley.

Ms. Coakley’s office based the findings on a year-long study of the Massachusetts market, finding that about 10 hospitals enjoy reimbursements 10-100 percent higher, for similar work, than reimbursements for the other 55 hospitals in the state.

The office’s report says the 10 favored hospitals had brand-name recognition or few competitors in their markets, but it did not name any provider or insurer, saying its aim was to identify systemic problems and not blame individual organizations.

Based on its findings, the report recommended against establishing global payments covering a patient’s entire medical care for an illness, an approach recommended by a state commission.

The study concluded that higher healthcare costs are basically caused by rising prices, not increased demand for new services. One major insurer reported provider price increases accounted for 80 percent of the growth of medical expenses from 2006-2009.

The report called on the state to:

• Discourage or prohibit contract provisions that perpetuate market disparities;
• Increase transparency and standardization in payment and quality;
• Reform payments to account for market distortions; and
• Encourage development of a “value-based” healthcare market.

Read the Massachusetts Attorney General’s release on health insurance reimbursements.

11 Things to Know About the False Claims Act

1. Initial development of the False Claims Act. The False Claims Act, also known as the “Lincoln Law” after its primary proponent, President Abraham Lincoln, was initially developed during the Civil War. The Act was a response to war profiteering by military contractors who attempted to defraud the government, for example, by sending boxes of sawdust instead of guns or selling the same cavalry horse to the armed forces multiple times. The Act remained in its original form from its initial passage in 1863 until 1943, at which point various amendments de-incentivizing qui tam actions made the statute nearly obsolete. In 1986, the Act was amended again with greater incentives for private citizens to report fraud on the government. The Act has become an increasingly active mechanism to combat fraud and false claims submitted to the federal government ever since. For additional background information, see http://www.all-about-qui-tam.org/fca_history.shtml.

2. Overview of Qui Tam concepts. Qui Tam means “in the name of the king”. The concept of a Qui Tam action is similar to a whistleblower action and allows a private person, referred to as a “relator,” to file suit on behalf of the United States against those who have falsely or fraudulently claimed federal funds. Incentives are built in so that the qui tam relator is able to receive a part of the proceeds of a victory on behalf of the government. Further, the portion of an award amount that the relator retains is greater if the government does not join in the suit and therefore he or she does not receive the help of the government. Alternatively, if the government joins or “intervenes” in the lawsuit, the relator retains a lesser portion of any judgment or settlement obtained.

False Claims Act qui tam actions run the gamut of federally funded programs, from Medicare and Medicaid to defense and other government procurement contracts, federally insured mortgage and other federal housing programs, disaster assistance loans, agricultural subsidies and more. Persons who knowingly make false claims for federal funds are liable for three times the government’s loss plus a civil penalty of $5,500 to $11,000 for each claim. Relators recover 15 to 25 percent of the proceeds of a successful suit if the United States intervenes in the qui tam action, and up to 30 percent if the United States declines to intervene and the relator pursues the action alone. During fiscal year 2009 alone, relators were awarded $255 million. (This figure does not include relator shares awarded after Sept. 30, 2009.)

3. Top hospital recoveries. To see a list of the top 20 False Claims recoveries to date, go to www.taf.org/top20. Several hospitals and hospital companies have paid massive settlements to resolve false claims actions against them, including St. Barnabas Hospitals, a non-profit hospital chain in New Jersey, which paid $265 million in 2006 to settle allegations related to improperly claiming “outlier” Medicare payments (additional payments for particularly difficult or complex procedures). Also in 2006, Tenet Healthcare, a national hospital system, agreed to pay the federal government $900 million for billing violations also involving manipulation of outlier payments, as well as kickbacks, upcoding and bill padding. Similarly, in 2000, Columbia HCA, the largest for-profit hospital chain in the country paid more than $731 million to settle False Claims Act allegations against it. Currently, Toumey Healthcare System in South Carolina is involved in a False Claims litigation based on physician self-referral law violations that resulted in the submission of false claims, a legal theory that proved successful against a medical practice management company in the 2008 case U.S. v. Rogan in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

4. 2009 recoveries. In 2009, the U.S. government recovered $2.4 billion dollars under the False Claims Act. This was the second highest annual collection amount recorded in history, thanks in large part to an enormous settlement between the government and Pfizer Inc. The Department of Justice made the following statement regarding the Pfizer settlement in Sept. 2009:

American pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc. and its subsidiary Pharmacia & Upjohn Company Inc. hereinafter together “Pfizer”) have agreed to pay $2.3 billion, the largest health care fraud settlement in the history of the Department of Justice, to resolve criminal and civil liability arising from the illegal promotion of certain pharmaceutical products, the Justice Department announced today.

Pharmacia & Upjohn Company has agreed to plead guilty to a felony violation of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act for misbranding Bextra with the intent to defraud or mislead. Bextra is an anti-inflammatory drug that Pfizer pulled from the market in 2005. Under the provisions of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, a company must specify the intended uses of a product in its new drug application to FDA. Once approved, the drug may not be marketed or promoted for so-called “off-label” uses – i.e., any use not specified in an application and approved by FDA. Pfizer promoted the sale of Bextra for several uses and dosages that the FDA specifically declined to approve due to safety concerns. The company will pay a criminal fine of $1.195 billion, the largest criminal fine ever imposed in the United States for any matter. Pharmacia & Upjohn will also forfeit $105 million, for a total criminal resolution of $1.3 billion.

In addition, Pfizer has agreed to pay $1 billion to resolve allegations under the civil False Claims Act that the company illegally promoted four drugs – Bextra; Geodon, an anti-psychotic drug; Zyvox, an antibiotic; and Lyrica, an anti-epileptic drug – and caused false claims to be submitted to government health care programs for uses that were not medically accepted indications and therefore not covered by those programs.

5. Healthcare fraud — Top industry for False Claims recovery. Healthcare fraud represents the largest and most profitable industry for Qui Tam false claims collections. Healthcare fraud recoveries accounted for approximately $1.6 billion, more than two-thirds of the $2.4 billion dollars collected under the False Claims Act in total during 2009. Numerous federal agencies shared in these recoveries, including the Department of Health and Human Services, in connection with its Medicare and Medicaid programs; the Office of Personnel Management, which administers the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program; the Department of Defense for its TRICARE insurance program; and the Department of Veterans Affairs.

6. Pharmaceutical and medical device companies – Main targets. The largest qui tam settlements in 2009 came from pharmaceutical and medical device companies, including Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, Bayer HealthCare, Quest Diagnostics and Eli Lilly, amongst others. The DOJ reported that pharmaceutical and device companies accounted for $866.7 million in settlements for federal recoveries, in addition to $402 million being returned to state Medicaid programs.

7. Retention of overpayments now can be considered a False Claims Act violation. In 2009, President Obama signed into law the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009 which implemented significant changes to the False Claims Act, including the expansion of prohibited conduct under the False Claims Act to include not just the improper filing to collect monies, but also the known retention of overpayments by hospitals or other health care providers. The 2009 amendments also make clear that false claims submission to a state Medicaid program, although not directly submitted to the federal government, does constitute a violation of the False Claims Act.

8. Hospital sample False Claims policy. All health care providers and businesses submitting claims to the government for payment should have health care regulatory and false claims policies in place to educate its employees and agents and minimize the submission of false claims and the potential liability attached thereto. A good sample policy is available online at www.centralcommunityhospital.com. This sample policy is particularly designed to address a community hospital’s approach to false claims and other policies, and may need to be modified depending on the size of the entity, breadth of practice, or type of industry or provider submitting the claims.

9. Plaintiff’s law firms focus on Qui Tam. Over the past several years, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of Qui Tam suits. As a result, there are now law firms that focus exclusively on qui tam actions. One such firm, Warren Benson Law Group, states on its website, www.warrenbensonlaw.com/medicare-fraud.com:

In recent years, Medicare fraud and Medicaid fraud have been the two most active areas of qui tam litigation, outnumbering qui tam cases involving defense contractor fraud. It is estimated that Medicare fraud and other fraud cost the federal government billions of dollars each year.

There are numerous frauds Medicare and other healthcare providers and companies have devised to cheat the Government…[such as:]

- Services not rendered
- Upcoding schemes and Unbundling
- Kickbacks and Self Referrals
- Falsely Certifying and Giving False Information
- Lack of Medical Necessity
- Fraudulent Cost Reports
- Grant or Research Fraud

These firms generally take qui tam cases on a contingency fee basis, making it enticing for potential relators to come forward and initiate litigation against the alleged wrong-doers.

10. Broad provider responsibility – Scope of liability. In the face of the increasing scrutiny of claims and the relatively new era of Recovery Audit Contractors, parties should understand the broad scope of what can be considered a false claim and their obligations to properly bill for services. A good discussion of the breadth of the provider’s responsibility is set forth in an article by Charlie Artz, a well-regarded healthcare attorney. See False Claims Act Implications in Physician’s News Digest www.physiciansnews.com/law/805artz.html. A few of the key concepts discussed by Mr. Artz are excerpted below:

In Re: Cardiac Devices Qui Tam Litigation, the U.S. District Court in Connecticut refused to dismiss a whistleblower’s case against health care providers who submitted claims for services that were not covered by Medicare, held that the health care providers had a duty to familiarize themselves with all requirements for reimbursement, and allowed the False Claims Act case to proceed exposing the health care providers to millions of dollars in refunds and civil fines.

Although the opinion was close to 100 pages in length, the key facts can be summarized as follows. Then-HCFA published a manual over 1,000 pages in length containing literally hundreds of reimbursement rules and requirements. These billing guidelines were not statutes passed by Congress after the people had an opportunity to debate them. These were not regulations published with notice and comment by the general public or the health care community to make improvements or to object to certain clauses. These were purely interpretive guidelines published by the federal government. One of those several hundred billing guidelines contained a provision prohibiting reimbursement for any non-FDA approved device or service. The 40 hospital defendants in this massive federal court litigation submitted claims to Medicare and received payment for services provided to patients who participated in clinical trials involving several different investigational cardiac devices that had not been approved for marketing by the FDA.
One clause in the hospital payment manual stated that medical devices not approved for marketing by FDA are considered investigational by Medicare and are not reasonable and necessary for the diagnosis and treatment of illness or injury under the Medicare statutory definition of medical necessity. Apparently, the hospitals billed these services by mistake, believing that since the clinical trial was approved, the provider was allowed to bill Medicare for the device and related services.

A whistleblower realized many hospitals were billing Medicare for non-FDA approved cardiac devices and filed a civil false claims case in federal court. The federal government intervened and is now prosecuting the False Claims Act case against hospitals. The hospitals asked the federal court to dismiss the case for several reasons. One of the key defenses is that a simple violation of a statute or regulation does not, by itself, trigger False Claims Act liability. The federal court rejected that analysis and made the following key points that should guide your compliance efforts.
11. Heightened regulatory and enforcement environment – False Claims Act and Anti-kickback Statute. The government has looked to regulatory mechanisms like the False Claims Act to recover money spent improperly as a politically palatable way to attack healthcare providers and healthcare costs. Given the demonstrated success of this strategy, we expect more, not less, recovery of claims of this sort. As William Corr, Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, stated on October 28, 2009:
As a result of the priority given to combating health care fraud by President Obama, the government has been able to achieve a more rapid response to fraudulent schemes and increase its recovery of more funds lost to fraud than in previous years. For example, HHS Office of Inspector General investigations have resulted in $4.0 billion in receivables for FY 2009, increase from $3.2 billion in DIG investigative receivables in FY2008. Strike force cases typically are indicted and litigated faster than traditional criminal health care fraud cases.

Since March 2007 strike force cases that included HHS agents have obtained 189 convictions, 443 indictments, and total an estimated $227 million in expected recoveries. During this time, the Department of Justice also secured the largest health care fraud settlement in history against a pharmaceutical company for Medicare and Medicaid fraud and for violating the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. I refer to the $2.3 billion settlement with Pfizer to resolve criminal and civil liability arising from the illegal promotion of certain pharmaceutical products.

After Meeting With GOP, President Lays Out Reforms He’d Consider

Following a two-hour meeting with Congressional Republicans, President Obama held a news conference in which he laid out the kind of reforms he would consider, according to a transcript from the White House.

President Obama accused the Republicans of being obstructionist but called on Democratic leaders to “put aside matters of party for the good of the country.” He said he would be willing to consider reforms that:

• “bring down costs for all Americans as well as for the federal government”;
• provide adequate protection against abuses by the insurance industry;
• make coverage affordable and available to the uninsured; and
• help the federal government “get on a path of fiscal sustainability.”

President Obama added that he would like “to work on ways to limit medical malpractice lawsuits” but indicted he might not support tort reforms that could only have a modest effect on healthcare costs.

The president, who plans to meet with Republican and Democratic Congressional leaders in a healthcare summit on Feb. 25, seems to have ambiguous support from the American public.

A Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 57 percent of Americans view the loss of Senate Democrats’ filibuster-proof majority as a “good thing,” but 63 percent still want Congress to deal with health reform.

The Post added that the president’s 20-point advantage over Republicans last summer on handling healthcare issues has slipped.

Read the White House’s transcript of the president’s news conference.

Urban Institute Warns of Consequences of Not Passing Any Health Reform

If health reforms are not enacted, there will be higher numbers of uninsured, an erosion of employer-sponsored coverage, increased spending on public programs and big increases in out-of-pocket insurance costs, according to a report by the Urban Institute.

The think tank simulated effects on coverage and costs under three different scenarios:
1. Worst case: slow growth in incomes and continuing high growth in healthcare costs.
2. Intermediate case: somewhat faster income growth, lower growth in healthcare costs.
3. Best case: full employment, faster income growth and slower healthcare inflation.

Read the Urban Institute’s report on health reform (pdf).

13 Reimbursement and Business Concepts You Should Know About GI in ASCs

GI and endoscopy continue to be profitable specialties for ASCs in spite of some declines in reimbursement. Here are 13 important reimbursement, business and physician concepts you should know for your ASC.

Reimbursement
1. Reimbursement for GI centers will continue to decrease. As has been the case for the last few years, reimbursements for GI procedures have decreased across the board. This has hit ASCs especially hard as surgery centers often receive reimbursement at a percentage of hospital outpatient departments.

“We anticipate that CMS will continue to pressure facility fees in a downward fashion,” says Barry Tanner, president and CEO of Physicians Endoscopy. “It is at least conceivable that freestanding ASCs could get rates at 50 percent of HOPD rates in the next four to five years.” 

With CMS setting lower rates, a problematic trend could be seen across private insurers and third-party payors as their rates are often set relative to what CMS pays for Medicare-covered procedures. As a result, gastroenterologists and GI-driven ASCs must continue to run their centers efficiently and economically.

“Unfortunately, reimbursements are likely to steadily decline over the next few years,” says Stephen Sears, MD, a gastroenterologist in Loveland, Colo. “This effect will cause ASCs to become more efficient or to stop operating. This may also drive more cases into the hospital setting. By doing so the procedural cost will double and in the end healthcare costs will increase. To remain profitable, the GI physician must focus on delivering quality care in the most efficient manner. That can be done with better bowel preps, training, state of the art technology and assessing quality measures.”

One consequence of decreasing GI reimbursements may be a reduction in the number of Medicare patients a GI ASC sees in a year, according to Fernando Bermudez, MD, medical director, and Beth Miller, administrator, of Eastside Endoscopy Center in Saint Clair Shores, Mich.

“Unless Congress changes the existing rules, Medicare will reduce the professional fees for procedures by 20 percent in 2010,” Dr. Bermudez says. “This won’t directly affect ASCs, but it may affect the willingness of gastroenterologists to perform endoscopies on Medicare patients and to do procedures on Medicare patients in the ASC setting.” 

Irving Pike, MD, president of Gastroenterology Consultants in Virginia Beach, Va., has seen some ways in which physicians at ASCs have tried to combat declines in reimbursement. “Several ambulatory endoscopy centers have reported to me that they have recently negotiated an increased fee schedule from non-government insurance companies. In the past when Medicare payments to facilities were decreased, insurance companies did not follow with similar cuts, but ASC fee schedules remain substantially below HOPD fee schedules. In my opinion, insurance companies do not want to discourage physicians performing endoscopy in ASCs. I think at some point it may be plausible for ASCs to move more CMS cases to the hospital and fill the slots opened at the ASC with patients covered by non-government insured patients,” he says.

2. Gaining access to HOPD rates alone is not reason enough to partner with a hospital. Although partnering with a hospital in order to gain access to outpatient department reimbursement rates can be a potentially attractive strategy, GI-driven ASCs should be aware that they may not receive access to full HOPD rates, although they may be better than current reimbursements. Since many hospitals want to own 100 percent of the GI center, physicians may be asked to give up your ownership and access to future distributions.

“HOPD rates can increase GI center facility revenue 35-40 percent for non-Medicare patients,” says Jon Vick, president of ASCs Inc.. 

“If the GI physicians are going to be owners, then the expectation of getting HOPD rates is misplaced,” Mr. Tanner says. “Better rates may be possible, but HOPD rates are highly unlikely.”

In some cases the hospital and an ASC management development company may form a joint venture that then purchases a 51 percent interest in the center, according to Mr. Vick. “I suggest partnering with a management company first and letting the company negotiate with the hospital as the hospital partner will want to control the deal,” he says. “The management company would then work on the side of the physicians and ensure that the hospital doesn’t ’steamroll’ the physicians into accepting less than the center is worth. Additionally, with the ASC management company managing the center it will retain it efficiencies and economies.” 

It is important to remember when considering this arrangement that even if a physician-owned ASC partners with a hospital, it is still a freestanding ASC and it does not become an HOPD nor does it share in the HOPD reimbursement rates, according to Rick Jacques, president and CEO of Covenant Surgical Partners. “Sometimes, however, a hospital may have such good contracts with third-party payors that a partnership with the hospital would increase the reimbursement rates with payors other than Medicare,” he says.

3. Declining pay may force GI physicians to seek new revenue opportunities. The proposed 21.5 percent cut in the physician fee schedule for specialists, including gastroenterologists, coupled with decreasing reimbursements for GI procedures, may encourage GI physicians to consider additional revenue streams.

“We believe that professional fees will continue to be pressured downward, and GI physicians will be forced to resign themselves to reduced income or to capture a portion of the technical fees,” Mr. Tanner says. “Those GI physicians that have not yet captured a portion of the technical fees through ASC ownership are increasingly under pressure to do so by forming coalitions, mergers with larger groups, etc.” 

General business concerns
1. Good case volume depends on the market. While there is no definitive average number of cases GI centers should see to remain profitable, most GI ASCs have a good referral base from which they can pull patients. However, there are some figures to keep in mind to help you determine if your center is on target.

“The key is to maximize utilization of each available procedure room,” Mr. Tanner says. “There is an average of 251 operating days per year, and full utilization for a GI procedure room operating eight hours each day would be approximately 16 cases per day (30 minute time slots per case) or roughly 4,016 annual cases. Sixteen cases per day is rarely achieved due to cancellations, no shows, etc. However aiming for 80 percent utilization is certainly reasonable (around 3,200 cases annually). Achieving that sort of utilization per room, and assuming that the ASC is not overbuilt, should result in a successful GI ASC.” 

Dr. Sears notes that physicians at the ASC where he practices average 12 procedures per day, or one every 30 minutes.

Mr. Jacques agrees that around 3,000 annual cases can lead to a successful center. “Most physicians [who use GI ASCs] have well-established practices, and it is very unlikely that those cases will go away. The key is keeping your relationships within the community strong,” he says.

2. Some GI centers have benefited from providing anesthesia. In the past, most GI procedures were performed under conscious sedation, which the gastroenterologist administered prior to the procedure, according to Mr. Jacques. Since the patient was not fully sedated, monitoring by an anesthesiologist was not necessary. However, over the past decade, the trend with GI procedures has moved toward monitored anesthesia, using drugs such as propofol, which must be administered by an anesthesiologist or CRNA. 

“I believe that monitored anesthesia care is fast becoming the standard of care,” Mr. Jacques says. “Patients who are under monitored anesthesia often allow physicians to provide a more successful colonoscopy, because they are more comfortable. Under conscious sedation, although the patient may not remember the procedure, they are still awake and uncomfortable, which may cause them to react and compromise how well the colonoscopy is performed.”

Mr. Jacques notes that centers have three options to keep them in compliance with what states mandate regarding anesthesia administration: 1) the physicians who own the ASC arrange to ‘employ’ an anesthesiologist or anesthetist who provides anesthesia through their private practice, 2) the ASC employs its own anesthesiologist or 3) the ASC contracts with an independent anesthesiology practice. 

However, anesthesia is not covered for many GI procedures, so some gastroenterologists have benefited by directing the administration by propofol. Mr. Tanner cautions that if physicians choose to do this, they must be aware of the regulations in their area regarding anesthesia administration.

Dr. Pike also notes a trend towards anesthesia in GI procedures but cautions that colonoscopies performed while the patient is under propofol have not been indicated for use by many gastroenterology societies. 

“It is true some ASCs have turned to various models of anesthesia as an additional source of revenue,” he says. “I have seen information estimating that currently 40 percent of GI endoscopy is performed with deep sedation involving propofol. One concern I have about this practice is that as the total cost of GI endoscopy increases due to the additional cost of providing anesthesia [and] the payment for both the professional fee for the endoscopy and anesthesia will be cut to control overall cost to insurers. It should be noted that the three GI societies have jointly written a letter indicating the opinion deep sedation with propofol administered by anesthesiologists or CRNAs is not warranted for standard GI endoscopic procedures.”

3. Beware of potential kickback scenarios with contract anesthesia companies. As more GI centers consider providing anesthesia services, they may look to an outside company to assist them with the process. Mr. Jacques warns that some companies may enter into joint ventures with GI centers in ways that “push the envelope” with regard to the law.

“Some companies have been extremely aggressive when approaching gastroenterologists about these joint ventures,” he says. “We’ve seen gastroenterologists approached at a much higher rate over the past 1.5 years. Some scenarios have the company essentially providing kickbacks to the gastroenterologists for the contract to provide anesthesiology services to the center. The government is now looking very hard at these ‘pay for play’ arrangements.” 

Procedures and gastroenterologist issues
1. The number of procedures performed per endoscopy case can lead to lower reimbursements for secondary procedures. According to Mr. Tanner, the typical number of procedures per endoscopy case is 1.10-1.20. Many payors, including Medicare, often reimburse any secondary procedures at a much lower rate, which can affect revenue and efficiency in the ASC.

“The number of procedures per case impacts upon revenue per case because for many payors, the second and third procedures are reimbursed at half and then 25 percent of the first procedure,” Mr. Tanner says. “Therefore, valuable procedure room time is being utilized at an ever decreasing rate. If the facility is essentially fully utilized, the impact is not as strong; however, if an ASC is struggling with utilization, then it may not be profitable to perform these secondary procedures at one time.” 

2. Payment data for some of the most common procedures in GI ASCs. Here are 2008 CMS payment data for some of the most commonly performed GI procedures in ASCs.

Upper stomach-intestine scope for biopsy (CPT 43239)

• average submitted charge: $1,451
• average allowed charge $408
• average payment: $321

Scope of colon for diagnosis (CPT 45378)

• average submitted charge: $1,502
• average allowed charge: $422
• average payment: $330

Scope of colon with biopsy (CPT 45380)

• average submitted charge: $1,549
• average allowed charge: $406
• average payment: $318

3. With the number of certified gastroenterologists decreasing, it is important to focus on recruiting. As with many medical professionals, the number of practicing gastroenterologists is decreasing as physicians retire or leave practice, and the number of GI physicians coming out of medical school is not enough to sustain the rate of departing physicians. A recent New York Times report indicated an additional 1,050 GI physicians is needed by 2020 to meet the demand, with current employment around 10,390 as reported in the Times. According to Mr. Tanner, around 20 percent (2,000-2,500) of practicing GI physicians are at or close to retirement, and only 300 GI fellows graduate each year. Thus, competition for new, talented GI physicians is high.

“Recruiting new physicians is difficult especially because there is such a demand for their services,” Mr. Tanner says. “They can literally pick a place on the map where they want to work and go there with near certainty of getting a good job. This makes it more difficult for smaller, more out of the mainstream communities to find and recruit GI physicians. Many physicians graduating today are seeking a better quality of life, and, for them, the employment model is a better option.”

Although the outlook for recruiting new physicians may seem grim, Mr. Tanner notes some new physicians may be looking for options outside of the employment model. “There are still many entrepreneurial physicians not seeking employment, but they are looking for ownership in an ASC knowing that the ASC will be responsible for a significant portion of their total medical practice income,” he says.

4. Single-specialty GI ASCs have a lot to offer gastroenterologists. Although some concern has been raised by the trend of many specialists and practices seeking employment with local hospitals, single-specialty GI ASCs offer gastroenterologists an additional source of income and autonomy that may not be available through the hospital. As a result, ASCs should demonstrate the potential benefits of ASC ownership to physicians looking to partner with the center.

“Many GI physicians who have ownership in a single-specialty ASC earn a substantial amount of ancillary income from their ASC ownership, sometimes as much as they earn from their professional fees,” Mr. Jacques says. “A single-specialty ASC is an excellent recruiting tool for practices, because it gives the practice the ability to offer new physicians ownership in the center. A hospital trying to recruit physicians to their [facility] might not be able to offer the new physician the same ancillary income potential an independently-owned, single-specialty ASC can. Typically, once a hospital buys a physician practice and ASC, the physician income decreases substantially.” 

Dr. Sears notes that some GI specialists may turn to the hospital to avoid feeling the financial hit of reduced reimbursements, but that reason alone is not enough for all GI physicians to turn away from private practice and ASCs. “I feel that remaining as a private practitioner, I have more to offer than as a salaried hospital employee,” he says. “In order to keep the edge on the hospitals, we will need to focus on an equivalent or better product for the same cost. Patients will be able to see what procedures cost at different facilities and in the future may refuse to be treated in the hospital setting due to the additional charges.”

5. Although GI physicians aren’t running to the hospitals, primary care physicians are. Primary care physicians, who refer cases to gastroenterologists, are increasingly employed by hospitals. As a result, GI centers and their physicians should develop a positive relationship with hospitals.

“We have seen a significant number of PCPs employed by the hospitals,” says Dr. Bermudez. “This gives the hospitals significant leverage in the referral pattern to specialists, and it is very important that specialists, including gastroenterologists, maintain a good relationship with the hospital and work more like a partner than a competitor.”

6. Surgery centers should look to grow their referral base. When it comes to recruiting new physicians to your surgery center, looking within the local community still remains one of the best tactics. According to Mr. Jacques, there are probably unaffiliated physicians nearby who would jump at the opportunity to invest and perform cases at a single-specialty center, if approached properly and given a fair proposal.

“In order to grow, you also need to expand your referral base,” Mr. Jacques says. “Look into the areas of the community that are not getting screened for colon cancer. The same tried and true techniques that have worked in building a physician’s practice are still successful. Make sure you are consistently making call backs and follow-ups to local referring physicians.”

7. Salary information for gastroenterologists. In respect to other surgical and medical specialties, salaries for gastroenterologists have increased at an average rate. For example, the median salary in 2008 was $389,385, up 3.93 percent from 2007, compared with a 6.58 percent increase for ophthalmologists and a 5.80 percent for orthopedic surgeons over the same period, according to data from the American Medical Group Association’s 2009 Medical Group Compensation and Financial Survey. The average starting salary for GI physicians was $275,000, according to the same report.

Here are regional median salaries for gastroenterologists, according to the AMGA:

• East — $401,615
• West — $385,611
• South — $385,542
• North — $394,417

Anthem Blue Cross of California Raises Individual Premiums by 30-39%

Anthem Blue Cross, California’s largest for-profit health insurer, is raising premiums for individual insurance policies by 30-39 percent on March 1, according to a report by the Los Angeles Times.

Individual policies, which already tend to be more expensive than group policies, are a refuge for people who are uninsured, self-employed or have recently lost employer-based coverage.

Word of the increase, the largest in policyholders’ memory, has prompted the California Insurance Commissioner to order an actuarial study to determine if Anthem spends at least 70 percent of individual premiums on medical care, as required by state law.

The company, which provides individual coverage for 800,000 customers, said the increases “are merely the symptoms of a larger underlying problem in California’s individual market — rising healthcare costs.”

Read the Los Angeles Times’ report on insurance premiums.

Clinical consequences drive the need for pharmacy integration

THE INTEGRATION OF pharmacy and medical data has gone a step further into the coordination of services. A whitepaper published in March 2009 by several pharmacy organizations attributes a new focus on collaboration to an uptick in clinical consequences and costs of medication misuse and non-adherence; a shift from acute to chronic care; the increasing role of pharmacists; and the growing number and complexity of medications.

“Coordinating pharmacy and medical benefits paints a total picture of compliance without a gap in data, and thus, impacts outcomes,” says Nita Stella, senior vice president, ActiveHealth Management, a care management company headquartered in New York City. “In addition, sharing information can increase medication safety and effectiveness by triggering alerts to flag drug-to-drug interactions, contraindicated drugs and non-compliance.”

Integration is an effective vehicle for identifying high-risk members and putting value-based benefit design into place. For example, an integrated system could identify high-risk members and lower copayments for those individuals or for an entire class of drugs, such as stains, to encourage compliance.

David Dross, leader of the managed pharmacy practice for Mercer Inc. in Houston, says that integration is easier if one vendor is managing both sides of the equation. While he believes that a carve-out pharmacy is willing to share its data, he says the medical vendor could be the “fly in the ointment” because there may be a fee attached to the provision of data.

The Clinical Pharmacy Cardiac Risk Service (CPCRS) at Kaiser Permanente Colorado combines KP HealthConnect, an electronic health record (EHR), with an electronic care registry, proactive patient outreach, wellness and medication management.

After high-risk patients for coronary artery disease are identified, they are referred to CPCRS. The program has served 21.000 patients since 1998.

“We are able to determine who has a cardiovascular event and deliver continuity of care cost-efficiently by integrating pharmacy and nursing teams with patients and their doctors and using technology and other tools to address problems,” says Jon Rasmussen, chief of clinical pharmacy, cardiovascular services. “Primary care physicians and cardiologists spend an inordinate amount of time with chronic care patients, so we’re looking for ways that pharmacists and nurses can relieve some of the burden. If these cardiac patients are managed consistently through collaboration, that frees up physicians to address acute issues.”

Results show the number of those meeting their LDL cholesterol goals increased from 26% to 73%, and screening for cholesterol rose from 55% to 97% during an average length of participation in the program of 2.3 years.

In addition, participants in the CPCRS program had an 88% reduced risk of dying from a cardiac-related cause when enrolled in the program within 90 days of a heart attack.

When members are close to release from the program, Kaiser Permanente rehabilitation nurses set up phone calls to discuss diet, exercise, depression, smoking cessation and medications. In a seamless process, Rasmussen says, after discharge, participants work closely with clinical pharmacists for long-term medication management.

Although the program has been successful by saving lives, reducing hospitalizations and recouping investment, it hasn’t been without its challenges. Among them have been getting clinicians to communicate via the EHR, developing multifunctional teams and making sure that “we target the right person with the right treatment at the right time,” he says.

THE FOUNDATION OF INTEGRATION

CIGNA is another insurer that relies on pharmacy to reduce medical costs through evidence-based medicine.

“Data sharing between the pharmacy benefit manager and the insurer is the foundation of integration,” says Claire Marie Burchill, vice president of strategy, product and marketing for CIGNA Pharmacy Management based in Bloomfield, Conn.

Many of CIGNA’s pharmacy programs demonstrate integration with the medical side with an emphasis on adherence. Although they are pharmacy-related, they have a large impact on medical cost reductions, such as emergency room visits and hospitalizations.

CIGNA’s Outcome Improvement Programs, which combine the use of prescriptions drugs, disease management and behavioral coaching, saw results in 2008:

• a 74% medication adherence rate led to 50% of those in the cholesterol program reaching their goals;
• a 78% decrease in LDL and the avoidance of 262 heart attacks annually saved $6.6 million;
• a 34% increase in use of drugs for treating asthma led to fewer emergency room visits and hospitalizations, cutting costs for participants by 50%;
• an adherence rate of 84% for diabetes drugs resulted in 13% fewer emergency room visits and 18% fewer hospitalizations; and
• a 35% increase in completion of depression treatment plans realized an 18% reduction in medical and behavioral healthcare costs.

Dovetailing with the program is CIGNA’s new CoachRx, an interactive Web site to enhance medication adherence with home delivery. A self-assessment helps members identify barriers to adherence and allows them to request daily reminders for self-care.

Those who need additional assistance can call toll-free for medication coaching sessions with a clinical pharmacist, who works with case managers. The coaching team will help find the most appropriate and cost-effective medications for a member, discuss possible side effects and reinforce the importance of taking prescribed medications as directed.

“In this way, we have used one intermediary to maximize health,” Burchill says.

To address high-cost drugs with the potential for side effects and infections, CIGNA offers TheraCare, a medication therapy management program targeting individuals using specialty injectable medications for 16 chronic conditions, such as multiple sclerosis.

“We still have a way to go in integrating pharmacy and medical benefits because the Rx benefit is administered in silos,” says Steve Mullenix, senior vice president of communications and industry relations for the National Council for Prescription Drug Programs (NCPDP). “Medicare Part D’s Medication Therapy Management Program is a step in the right direction, but we are still trying to buy drugs as inexpensively as possible without knowing the impact of the full picture. The right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing.”

For example, if a pharmacist dispenses a drug but it’s not refilled, that requires communication so that some action can be taken to encourage compliance.

Mullenix, whose organization focuses on developing consistent standards is concerned that without standardization, it will be difficult to create interoperability between proprietary systems.

“We are a proponent of a team approach to healthcare, including patients and pharmacists, who have become medication experts and need to be reimbursed for their guidance,” he says.

Cost spiral slows, stays on upward path

Squeezed by the recession, U.S. health spending growth slowed from 6% in 2007 to 4.4% in 2008, the smallest increase in nearly half a century, according to a new federal report. Still, health costs hit $2.3 trillion, rising from 15.9% of Gross Domestic Product to 16.2% as economic output sagged.

Experts say the slowdown in total spending doesn’t necessarily signal any long-term flattening of the cost curve.

“History would say it’s not sustainable,” says Bob Campbell, the state government leader for Deloitte LLP. “As the economy turns, so do healthcare costs.”

PRIVATE AND PUBLIC SPENDING

Federal healthcare spending grew much faster than private or local government spending. Costs for various federal programs soared 10.4% in 2008, with Medicare increasing 8.6% compared with 7.1% the year before. Healthcare consumed 36% of federal revenue, compared with 28% in 2007.

In contrast, spending by private businesses grew only 1.2% in 2008, while state and local government spending grew 3.4%, compared with 6.6% the year before. Health Affairs, which published the report last month, said business costs for healthcare declined as private plan enrollment dropped by 1 million people—at least partly due to lost jobs.

State Medicaid spending growth declined, according to authors, partly because cash-strapped states cut payments to hospitals and other providers.

The report, compiled by researchers at the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) attributed the overall health cost slowdown to the economic recession. But the jump in federal spending was due to faster Medicare spending growth on hospitals, physicians, Part D drug benefits, and private Medicare Advantage plans, as well as a temporary new infusion of federal funds into state Medicaid programs.

Costs for Medicare Advantage plans soared 21.3% in 2008—to $108.2 billion—similar to the 22.1% growth in 2007. That was due to 13.6% enrollment growth in private Medicare plans, and to a 22.9% increase in Part D drug spending within those plans.

“The slowdown is good news but likely reflects the recession and to some extent anticipation by providers of the threat of controls from healthcare reform,” said Marilyn Moon, a health economist at the American Institutes for Research in Washington, D.C. “When people are feeling more secure, I expect we’ll see it go up again.”

By sector, U.S. spending on hospitals totaled $718.4 billion in 2008, with cost growth dropping to 4.5% from 5.9% the year before—the slowest rate of increase since 1998. Expenditures for physician and outpatient clinical services reached $496.2 billion, representing 5% growth, down from 5.8% and the slowest growth rate since 1996. But outpatient clinical costs rose faster than physician spending—6.6% versus 4.7%.

SLOW GROWTH ON DRUG SPENDING

Prescription drug prices grew 2.5% in 2008 compared with 1.4% the year before; that was still below the average annual growth of 4.1% from 1997 to 2007. Home health spending reached $64.7 billion in 2008, with growth declining to 9% from 11.8%.

Private health insurance premiums and benefits in 2008 grew 3.1% and 3.9%, respectively, the slowest rate since 1967. That was due to declines in enrollment and smaller spending growth for physician and outpatient services and prescription drugs, journal authors said. Consumer out-of-pocket spending growth slowed to 2.8%, from 6%, as people may have forgone medical care due to the poor economy and unemployment.

Moon says the new report shows that congressional health reformers are targeting the right areas for cost control—Medicare spending on hospitals and Medicare Advantage plans, which are among the fastest growing sectors.

Health Affairs authors cautioned that despite the overall spending slowdown, monitoring the drivers of cost growth will remain critical since the proportion of personal income and government revenue devoted to healthcare continues to rise and the nation faces an uncertain economic future.

Campbell warns that health reform could drive up costs as uninsured Americans obtain coverage and seek care. But Moon says reform will have highly uneven effects, with the drive toward ever-increasing prices possibly moderating when there are more paying patients.

“Those things are very hard to predict until it’s all out there in full bloom,” she says.

Medical homes in practice

Healthcare is notorious for trying out solutions that seem to work in theory, only to watch them collapse in practice. Like throwing spaghetti at the wall, players from all segments have experimented, looking for new ideas that might stick.

The most recent concept that is showing real sticking power is the patient-centered medical home.

Since 2006, more than 30 states have initiated projects to apply the medical-home concept to Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Programs. Reduced costs, better support for chronic care and improved population health are the impetus behind the local efforts, which comprehensively hold the potential to effect system change, piece by piece.

Although no two projects are identical, all reflect core principles of aligning reimbursement, supporting primary-care practices, measuring results and scaling the model beyond an initial pilot phase. Early results have shown promise, which is inspiring more payers and providers to adopt the model.

The general arrangement of a team of clinicians providing a home base of individualized, coordinated care and prevention emerged through the American Academy of Pediatrics in the 1960s for specific pediatric populations. It wasn’t until recent years—as the industry began to focus more on healthcare value—that the medical-home idea was identified as a potential formula for improvement of service delivery within broader primary care practice.

In 2007, four major physician groups defined a set of joint principles to describe a patient-centered medical home, which was soon followed by the creation of the Patient-Centered Primary Care Collaborative (PCPCC), which represents employers, plans, providers and other organizations that endorse the principles. The National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) is currently in the process of updating standards for its medical-home recognition program, which were initially released in January 2008.

Policymakers and the healthcare industry continue to assess the local projects, anxious to determine their financial worth and their promise for large-scale implementation.

MANAGED HEALTHCARE EXECUTIVE recently brought together a roundtable of executive thought leaders to discuss the issues related to patient-centered medical homes. The panel includes:

• Paul Grundy, MD, chairman of the Patient-Centered Primary Care Collaborative and director of healthcare technology and strategic initiatives at IBM;
• Lori Heim, MD, president, American Academy of Family Physicians;
• Len Nichols, economist, New America Foundation;
• Jerry Salkowe, MD, vice president of clinical quality improvement, MVP Healthcare; and
• C. Edwin Webb, PharmD, associate executive director, American College of Clinical Pharmacy

MHE: What do you see as the long term potential of applying the medical-home model in the next five to 10 years?

Grundy: The early pilots’ results are—well, first of all, they’re early—but I think they’re quite impressive. The PCPCC presented data from 10 of those pilots to the White House a few months ago, and what we’re seeing is better integrated, coordinated care.

When you have comprehensive, accountable, accessible, integrated, coordinated care, that results in lower downstream costs. We’re seeing hospitalizations dropping by 20%. We’re seeing hospitalization readmissions dropping by 40%. We’re seeing emergency room utilization dropping by 12% when patients have access to more robust, integrated primary care—which is better upstream care. That bodes well for the future, in which we really need to look at value creation.

Salkowe: The enthusiasm is growing by leaps and bounds outside of the pilots, so physicians who have been either ignoring or sitting back and watching what the earlier doctors did aren’t sitting back and watching anymore. They’re getting very engaged and very interested in pursuing [NCQA recognition] and many of the features in medical homes now, even if they’re not an active part of an organized pilot.

Heim: I see the medical home being integral when you look forward to whether or not it’s an ACO [accountable care organization] or just more generally talking about value-based design. As hospitals and big health organizations begin to look at this, how they integrate with the small practice is going to be one of the biggest challenges.

If you look at the North Carolina Community Care project, that was community based. It showed incredible cost savings and increases in quality, but that was another way to virtually link a bunch of community based practices, which is going to be one of the models we’ll have to accept because large health organizations are not going to be in all communities. But yet, the hospitals and the communities are still going to have to figure out a way to control the costs. And the other critical component then is getting the IT linked up.

MHE: Some say medical homes will not solve the problem of fragmented care. Primary care will continued to be siloed apart from subspecialists. Do you foresee that?

Heim: If people are saying that medical homes will further fragment care, I don’t think they understand the model because it’s the opposite that’s true. The basic tenet of the medical home is the personal physician is the coordinator of the care, and there’s integration of the patient’s needs, not only when they walk into the office, but by taking advantage of knowing your population and doing population management, using IT and tools and a team approach to coordinate that care.

Without something like the ACOs and aligning incentives, we have a mismatch in terms of how much the subspecialists and the other members of the team are brought into integrating that care. I definitely would say it’s not going to go in the opposite direction.

Webb: I’m not sure we could fragment healthcare any worse than it is right now, particularly across professions and disciplines. One of the things that is exciting to the pharmacist community is the potential for the medical home model to integrate across professional care concerns—again, assuming that we can find mechanisms to realign payment incentives, also understanding it’s obviously not possible to have a pharmacist in every three- or four-person medical practice in the United States.

Community Care in North Carolina has done an excellent job of integrating pharmacists’ services as part of the team in a virtual environment across several small- and medium-size practices. The only way we can integrate health professionals into a team is with the medical home because the current payment methodology and our cottage-based industry of silos just isn’t doing the job anymore.

Grundy: From the standpoint of the patient, the patient wants to see the specialist or the person who focuses on a certain part of the body as part of their medical home team. When they need a hip replaced, they have more than a hip. They have a whole bunch of other parts that somehow interconnect, and there has to be medication management adjudication, for example. There have to be linkages and integration, and that’s not happening now at all.

There are places in the United States where it will cost $177,000 for the last six months of life and other places where it costs $17,000. When you look at the places where it costs us seven times as much, what you’ll find is seven specialists doing seven different things—none of it linked, none of it coordinated, none of it integrated, and some of it, by the way, toxic to what the other providers are doing.

I just happened to be in New Mexico at Presbyterian Hospital recently and in Dallas and Tulsa where they’re doing a fantastic job of actually integrating the specialists into the medical home, where everybody’s practicing at the top of their license. In Tulsa, the primary care docs will email the specialists and integrate and pay for an email consult, which the specialists love, and the primary care docs love, but most importantly, the patients love it because it keeps them from wasting half a day [at a medical appointment] when the primary care doc’s doing a good job.

I would agree that whoever asks that question doesn’t understand the model.

Salkowe: There is one aspect of this we need to be conscious of. There are individuals who have one major chronic illness, and 90% of their care is being provided by a specialist: a gastroenterologist, rheumatologists or an oncologist, for example. And health plans are expected to and allow such a specialist to function as a PCP, even though we know that the focus of that care is on specialty needs, and there may be gaps in preventive health needs or other unrelated health conditions. That’s an important reality.

Now, I think we all agree that in a well managed medical home, care that specialist is providing is enhanced because of the improved communication coordination with other physicians that invariably are involved, whether it’s preventive services or hypertension or something else. There is a bit of hesitancy on the part of some of the specialists because of the scenario and uncertainty of whether a PCP should be treating everything. What happens when I have a patient where I really need to be out in front in terms of making decisions?

Heim: There are certainly many patients that I have had over the years, when the oncologist is functioning as the patient-centered medical home. I have no problem with that. From the standpoint of being recognized as a patient-centered medical home, that’s different than a subspecialist who then begins to assume the majority of the care and becomes the director. The problem is that oftentimes they’re handling maybe 70% of what’s currently going on in that patient’s life. However much of the other stuff gets either ignored or sidelined.

So if a rheumatologist becomes the patient-centered medical home, then in order to make sure that they are truly functioning in the whole aspect of managing that patient, they need to fulfill some sort of recognition program. In order for this model to work, you have to realign the payment. That would not be a major barrier if the payment were going to switch from the patient’s PCP to a subspecialist as the designated patient-centered medical home and have the payment model then switch over to that of a patient-centered medical home. That’s not a problem so long as they are then willing to take on the requirement to manage or coordinate the entire care of the patient.

MHE: What is the best strategy for reimbursement in medical home models?

Salkowe: The model that most programs seem to circle around is one that preserves perhaps 60% of the compensation as traditional fee-for-service reimbursement with the other 40% divided between process measures, care management activities and outcomes. The numbers that I’m generally seeing are 30% for the care management piece and 10% for the outcomes piece, although from the early projects where the outcomes just haven’t been measured yet, it may focus solely on care management.

That seems to get us to the dollars that are needed for support, the additional resources the practices need, whether it’s trained staff or new systems, and also to include the extra remuneration that’s needed to really engage the primary care physicians and the work around this new model.

Nichols: I like the structure that Jerry just described, and it makes a whole lot of sense, especially in transition, which is what we’re going to be in probably for three to 10 years—with a fee-for-service base but with a lot of incentives packed around care management and outcomes. Those proportions may very well change over time and may be different in different parts of the country.

The most creative thing we can do in the pilots that we hope come out of healthcare reform is to work out different kinds of shared-savings models. What’s an average cost for a diabetic? You think about the number of diabetics and different comorbidities and you can work out an expected expenditure over the year, including, in my view, expected hospitalizations and utilizations of specialists.

Then instead of holding a primary care team or even a formal medical home at risk, you could have them share in the savings that they might achieve if they hit the targets to achieve savings. Then you really do align incentives. A 2.0 model might include some incentives back to the patient so they too can see a real monetary gain in participating, because after all, health is a participation sport. You want the patients very much engaged. It’s unambiguously true we have to find a way to leverage our rather short supply of primary care professionals, in particular as we think about expanding coverage and access to care in the next five years.

Heim: One of the concerns that I’ve had with shared savings is it being time-limited. If you look at the efficiencies you will gain over time, eventually those efficiencies are going to diminish. Have you thought about making sure that the shared savings don’t become the major component of the blended payment model?

For example, I was in the Air Force for 25 years and after I had a stable population and managed them, I had already found disease and managed it and achieved significant cost savings and decreasing utilization. But then we reached a steady state, relatively. Were you saying, Len, that would be something on top of a designated funding stream for the blended payments?

Nichols: Well, Lori, remember I used the word ‘transition,’ and you are talking about a steady state and a longrun. I would agree that the ideal would be we will get to a place where all patients, especially those with chronic illnesses, are managed optimally and there are no savings to be reached out of the system. I think we all know we are a very long way from there.

What I’m talking about is a mechanism that can enable us to turbo-charge the transition. Ultimately I think you’re right. You would want to go to a more blended payment at the end, but I don’t see how you get from here to there fast without a shared savings component.

It enables you to reach beyond the primary care team to enable the hospital and the specialist and the pharmacist and everybody else to participate. That has a greater potential for aligning interests quicker in a way that is much more likely to be transformative. And yes, once we’ve reached the level of efficiency you reached with your patients in the Air Force, it’ll be a different world. But we’re a long way from there.

Webb: The blended payment model approach that PCPCC has recommended has one other interprofessional political advantage, and that is it defuses some of the potential battles at the feeding trough of fee-for-service. If all members of the team are participating in a blended payment approach, that brings revenue into the medical home based on those performance parameters, then the physician-directed leadership of the practice can then pick and choose among the various members of the team who are needed to be involved in the care of a particular patient at a particular time. There’s not that kind of competition for the fee-for-service dollars among the providers blended into a payment model that rewards team performance rather than individual fee-for-service performance.

As a profession that’s been fighting for years and years to have its non-dispensing services recognized under Medicare Part B—pharmacists have been fighting that battle for 10 or 15 years—this may be a very good thing in terms of an approach that blends all of the qualities that have been mentioned already because that really is what will generate patient-centric care among all the team members.

Grundy: I think there’s another constituency that we need to include in the considerations around shared savings. There’s also the reality that our employers are not competitive in a world market, and in many ways that’s because of healthcare costs. We have large numbers of individuals who can’t afford insurance so some of the savings really needs to come back to those who are actually paying for the healthcare…which will allow them to be more competitive with other parts of the world where healthcare may be more heavily subsidized by the government.

Nichols: That’s right and trust me, they can get their share of the same things, too. I definitely would concur in the short run, the best thing we could do is incentivize clinicians to work together across the traditional silos. Then I’m pretty sure the employers and plans will figure out how to get their piece of that.

MHE: Are behavioral health professionals increasingly being included as part of the medical home?

Grundy: I was in Albuquerque at Presbyterian, and they had a very integrated behavioral health model and a very integrated pharmacy model. The combination was really magic. We were seeing medication-management education and behavior-management education that was enhancing care and amplifying and cadencing the message that the primary care provider was delivering—on ’steroids.’ I mean, it was really impressive.

I was in Dubuque, Iowa, with a primary care provider who was seeing an 84-year-old nun. The issue with her was medication management and care coordination. Once the relationship part of it was established with the primary care provider, it migrated over to a nurse care coordinator working with the pharmacist who was working with a behavioralist with a team approach to care for the next year. I saw that mapped out for the nun, and it had gone over well enough to the point that she really began to understand it and give feedback.

MHE: With all these easily accessible services, what about the potential for increased utilization?

Webb: Particularly with regard to the use of medications, the some of the evidence from the model in North Carolina does indicate that in some cases, the medication-use costs go up. But with a concomitant reduction in consumption of some of the other more expensive services, particularly emergency department business and things like that, the increased utilization of some things may well be a very good thing and what the patient may benefit from most. You have to look at utilization across the entire spectrum of service consumption rather than just in the silos.

Grundy: From the perspective of the buyer of care, we really do want to see increased utilization of appropriate medication, and we want our patients to be healthy and productive. For us, the cost of the care is just the tip of the iceberg. We also have the whole issue of productivity. So it’s really a matter of appropriate utilization addressing both under- and overutilization of services. It’s a win-win for the pharmaceutical companies because increased utilization means they sell more medication, also a win for us because we want our folks healthy and productive. The best way to do that is for them to take their medication and comply with wellness instructions and other things.

Heim: Look at some of the data that came out of the Kaiser Foundation surveying patients. Twelve percent of the patients said the doctor had to redo a test or procedure because they didn’t have the earlier test results. So those are the low hanging fruit. We can decrease unnecessary procedures just from that standpoint alone.

MHE: How do we measure the success of medical homes? How can we quantify whether they’re doing any good?

Grundy: The state of Vermont’s early studies indicate a 7% reduction in overall costs. That’s a real bending of the curve. That’s data, right? We’re seeing improved outcomes in terms of indicators of compliance with diabetic management and asthma management. I was just at a physician’s practice in Florida where he used to have on average of one patient a month hospitalized for asthma. In the past 19 months, he’s only had one asthma hospitalization, and that’s data, right? We’re beginning to see pretty robust data and would love comments from other folks on that.

Nichols: I think another aspect of measuring success has to do with the experience of care both from the patient and the physician perspective. For this to be sustainable, patients need to recognize that this is something different, and it’s something different that they really like. It may not be an easy sell for some patients who’ve just been accustomed to picking a specialist out of the yellow pages or calling a friend to see who to go to next.

From the provider’s side, there are two big issues around the experience. There’s a lot of work up front [in creating a medical-home model] so it’s important that physicians see this as being something very positive, something that they advocate to their colleagues. But perhaps even more importantly is one of the underlying driving factors, which is the critical state of primary care in this country and the need to convince more and more of the upcoming graduates from medical school to pursue primary care as a field. The more convincing stories there are about the positive experience that these models are bringing to practice, the more likely we’ll succeed from that perspective.

MHE: What cautions do you have for the industry regarding medical homes?

Heim: Coming from the TransforMED demonstration project that AAFP did, we learned you have to provide enough resources to pull this off. It has to be adequately financed, and the transformation process can be stressful. So provide strong leadership to enable that to occur. The other problem that we’ve seen is that many of the projects have too short a timeline. They’re looking for a quick return on investment in less than two years, and two years is probably the bare minimum.

Nichols: Payers have to have a realistic timeline, and I do think five years is a much better frame. It’s easy for a think-tank guy to say, but I just think that’s the reality. The clinicians will tell you the same thing because of the up-front investment.

I would also hasten to emphasize my favorite phrase from Ronald Reagan: ‘Trust but verify.’ The people who claim that these models don’t work are stuck in defending the status quo, fee-for-service, unaccountable model. They’re just afraid of change, that’s part of it, but they don’t want to move to a world in which they’re going to be held accountable and things are going to be measured.

Not every patient is going to go to some quantitative provider comparison on a Web site, but enough will as we evolve as a society. Look at the number of people using smart phones. And now we’re going to move to a world in which if you can’t show that your treatment modalities and your health plan are achieving outcomes as good as [top-rated] systems and medical homes and health plans, you’re going to be at a competitive disadvantage.

Just look at the companies that…are in many ways poised for the new world because they’ve invested in information systems and information management, and selected forward-thinking and better organized providers. The other plans are really going to have to step up and participate in that ‘trust but verify’ competition or risk very serious competitive problems.

Grundy: That is not an easy transition for the providers to make. We learned in working with MVP Healthcare and others that we need to help pay for the process of this transformation. We’re dealing with oftentimes small groups of providers that are trying to survive on either a -1% margin or a 1% margin. We need to instill a bit of hope in them. If we’re reaping the benefit of that, we as the buyers have to begin to pay for the process of this transformation.

Heim: What we hear most from people who are practicing in a patient-centered medical home is that they feel like they’re back to practicing medicine the way they were trained to. They’re back to taking care of their friends, their patients and their communities, and that is incredibly rewarding for them.

Salkowe: I think just one area that we need to be careful with is the enthusiasm around this topic and the eagerness to move forward.

There’s been a tendency to slip outside of the structured pilots and just throw money at the medical home by financially recognizing providers solely based on recognition rather than how well they’re coordinating and managing the care of their patients.

The practice transformation that’s required goes well beyond whatever any individual recognition can possibly measure. In the pilots, for the most part, there’s been a structure that’s enabled practices to learn from each other and to share and develop communitywide resources. It’s going to take some time for resources to be well enough established in a community that all physicians in the community might be able to readily become a part of this.

We just need to be careful that we don’t get ahead of that infrastructure development and make sure we’ve figured out how to do this right before it becomes a standard for everybody.

Heim: Jerry, are you talking about concern whether or not the NCQA recognition program now truly recognizes those things that are of value?

Salkowe: No. I think it does recognize those things that are of value. It’s necessary, but I don’t think it’s sufficient. Over time we’ll come up with additional measures that will help, but testing itself never really tells the whole story, particularly in something like this, which isn’t just about what an individual practice does. It’s really about what’s happening in a community and how that practice interfaces with the community. Unless you have the right infrastructure in place, a practice might pass the test and really still not be able to deliver on the promise.

Webb: One of the challenges that we face is being flexible enough to recognize that how you construct these teams virtually in small communities and small practices is going to take a lot more creativity. It’s a lot more difficult to do than in those settings where you have large physician groups or managed care organizations or hospital-based teams where that functionality has been existent for a long time.

Particularly from the pharmacy side, we’re looking to create models that integrate pharmacists into the team in a very creative and constructive way. For the small medical practices, the best way to do that remains to be defined… With IT and with virtual framework, it’s entirely possible to do this even if we can’t all be physically present in this mythical place called the medical home.

Squeeze out waste

Understandably, the painstaking scrutiny of healthcare costs has reached a fever pitch. While administration is a relatively small percentage of the overall costs in the system, the pressure is on payers to trim as much waste from their operations as possible.

Administrative costs—or any outlays that are not specifically tied to medical care—are a political hot button. Insurers defend what they spend on tasks such as case management and disease management as well as investments in technology as necessary spending that results in net savings and improved health. Some critics of the insurance industry characterize administrative costs as nothing more than profits and executive compensation and seek legislation to control how premium dollars are spent.

In fact, 15 states have implemented laws dictating minimum medical loss ratios (MLRs), ranging from 50% to 80%. In 2008, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed a bill that would have forced insurers to maintain an MLR of 85%.

According to America’s Health Insurance Plans, in a 2008 study conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), 87 cents of every premium dollar goes to healthcare and medical services, and just 3 cents goes toward profits.

PASSING THE BLAME

Governments are taking some steps that could eventually result in lower healthcare costs, such as smoking bans in public places and removing soda and sugary snacks from school vending machines. On Jan. 1, 2010, California became the first state to ban the use of trans fats in restaurants and bakeries. New York City adopted a similar ban several years ago.

Nonetheless, it was inevitable that scrutiny would intensify on payers and their efforts to reduce costs and minimize wasted resources in the system, and now that it has, they’re possibly receiving more blame than is fair.

“When people look at waste in claims processing, for example, they assume [all of the money is being wasted] by insurers, when a lot of it is wasted by providers,” says Mark Merlis, a health policy consultant who has written several papers on the topic of healthcare waste. “But in fairness to providers, they have to comply with many different insurers’ administrative processes, so we should be doing as much as we can to promote uniform transactions.”

Merlis says the more uniformity that can be achieved among payers, the more money the system overall is going to save. Market complexity makes it difficult to identify who is “committing” the waste. Furthermore, cutting waste from one area might simply shift costs to another. For example, in an attempt to fight losses from fraud, payers could investigate more claims in detail, but that will delay payments to providers, damaging relations and potentially resulting in legal action under prompt payment laws.

TECHNOLOGY TO THE RESCUE

The siloed yet sprawling nature of the U.S. healthcare system—payers, physicians, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, government agencies and consumers—means that waste elimination isn’t as easy as making an individual organization operate more efficiently.

Some Americans, including some physicians, believe a shift to a single payer system would simplify healthcare administration, but the large majority is firmly opposed to such a change. As Merlis points out in his paper, “Simplifying Administration of Health Insurance” (January 2009), complexity is not just a byproduct of the insurance system—it is what insurers are selling.

“The value-added of the managed care industry consists of the very features that make insurance complicated: different coverage rules and formularies, authorization requirements and careful scrutiny of claims, and so on,” he writes. “The variations are what differentiate one plan from another, and competition and uniformity may be conflicting goals.”

Still, that doesn’t mean plans can’t improve their internal operations and their relationships with other healthcare stakeholders. There are also high hopes that technology can eliminate some waste in the system, and at least one project is proving that to be true.

In 2008, Blue Shield of California (BSC) created its Partnership in Operational Excellence and Transparency (POET) transactions-tracking tool to improve payment accuracy and dispute resolution, speed claims turnaround, and increase operational transparency. The program is available online for 90 of the hospitals Blue Shield of California contracts with across the state.

“POET has been enhancing our working relationships with network hospitals by providing opportunities for data-driven discussions that directly improve operational efficiencies,” says Juan Davila, the plan’s senior vice president for network management. “Using key claims performance indicators and transparent claims data, we work jointly with our facilities to target and prioritize impactful process improvements.”

Davila says the claims-processing related improvements have been impressive, and the benefits of improved relations with network providers are even more so.

“We wanted to show that we were really trying to get at the root of the problem,” he says. “We paid for the system up-front, and we were increasing our transparency to them, as opposed to trying to cover up our errors. We genuinely wanted to develop a more collaborative relationship with our network hospitals, and that’s changed the way we think of each other in a very positive way.”

The hospital association of Southern California recently approached BSC to help the association with another large-scale project.

“I have been in this business for 20 years and have never gotten a phone call like that before,” Davila says.

Within administrative functions, such as those BSC is addressing, it’s hard to know exactly what is waste. A 2008 study by PwC’s Health Research Institute, “The Price of Excess: Identifying Waste in Healthcare Spending,” points out that “inefficiency” and “waste” are not interchangeable terms; the former is merely one component of the latter.

Authors define waste as costs that could have been avoided without a negative impact on quality, which is similar to the definition used by the Institute of Medicine and the authors of another watershed study conducted by Thomson Reuters in October 2009: expenses that don’t add value.

WHERE TO FIND WASTE

The PwC research estimates that slightly more than half of all healthcare spending ($1.2 trillion of the annual $2.2 trillion spent) is wasteful and breaks it into three categories:

• Behavioral waste, which accounts for $303 billion to $493 billion each year;
• Clinical waste, accounting for $312 billion annually; and
• Operational waste, which consumes $126 billion to $315 billion.

The study further breaks the operational waste segment down into four subsets:

• Claims processing, which accounts for $21 billion to $210 billion in waste;
• Inefficient use of technology ($81 billion to $88 billion);
• Staff turnover ($21 billion); and
• Paper prescriptions ($4 billion).

The research by New York-based Thomson Reuters Healthcare Analytics (October 2009) is slightly less pessimistic, estimating that each year, between $600 billion and $850 billion of healthcare spending is wasted.

The study, “Where Can $700 Billion in Waste Be Cut Annually from the U.S. Healthcare System?” identifies six primary culprits:

• Unnecessary care (40% of waste), accounting for $250 billion to $325 billion;
• Fraud (19%), $125 billion to $175 billion;
• Administrative inefficiency (17%), $100 billion to $150 billion;
• Healthcare provider errors (12%), $75 billion to $100 billion;
• Preventable conditions (6%), $25 billion to $50 billion; and
• Lack of care coordination (6%), $25 billion to $50 billion.

Those figures are so staggering that the system can’t expect to “cut” its way out of them, according to Bob Kelley, Thomson Reuters’ vice president of healthcare analytics and author of the report.

“Simple external controls on cost and utilization will not work, and any effort to control costs by eliminating waste must be careful to consider possible unintended impact on access to appropriate and necessary care,” he says. “We should expect that any change to the system of care that improves its performance will require a realignment of the types and levels of professional and facility resources and the relationships among these resources.”

The best solutions will effect positive changes and recognize that the healthcare market dynamic is much different from other product or service markets. Most consumers believe that their access to all potentially useful services is a right.

“We need to shift the public’s perception and expectation [of quality] away from ‘more services is better’ to ‘the care that will most likely result in the outcomes that are best for me,’” he says. “Simultaneously, we must begin to reward physicians for providing this type of care, and recognize and pay for the required time and effort.”

CONSUMER BAD HABITS

Shifting public perception is critical, because for many Americans, “waste in healthcare” brings to mind images of bloated, lethargic mega-plans with outdated technologies and overpaid, fat-cat executives. Although the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that fully half of the nation’s deaths each year are the result of bad and avoidable habits, most Americans, rather than look in the mirror, latch onto headlines about excessive health plan profits and executive bonuses.

When consumers learned that former UnitedHealth Group CEO William McGuire received more than $124 million in total compensation in 2005, it’s understandable that many of them reacted with indignation. While the public’s sensitivity to what they perceive as excessive income is at an all-time high, salaries and bonuses paid to health plan executives are a very small number in a very large sum, according to Dan Munro, principal with The DMM Group.

“If you added up all of the executive bonuses and salaries for the entire healthcare industry, it would just be a drop in the bucket compared to the other costs,” he says. “Healthcare is nothing at all like Wall Street, where firms are racing to pay back their Troubled Asset Relief Program funds because they want to go back to handing out those huge bonuses again.”

Merlis agrees, saying executive compensation “might look ugly when you see how much money certain people are being paid, but it’s really not a driver of healthcare expenses.”

It’s clear that politicians are doing what they can to foster greater use of technology in healthcare, particularly with federal funding included in the stimulus package to spur greater adoption of electronic medical records, which are not yet widely adopted.

“The government is trying to encourage the meaningful use of electronic health records,” Munro says. “For the first time, the government is mandating that EHR applications engage the consumer. If you tell most EHR vendors that you’re going to develop a patient-focused system, they’ll laugh at you. They have always been provider-focused, because that’s where the money is.”

An EHR system can cost millions of dollars, so small providers are less likely to adopt them simply because of the cost. The government has realized that use of health IT won’t progress if it doesn’t engage the consumer, Munro says.

THE OPPORTUNITIES ARE REAL

To further explore IT’s opportunities to improve healthcare, Kelley and Thomson Reuters are working on a follow-up whitepaper highlighting specific initiatives that have been successful in eliminating waste, or that show the potential to do so.

“There are certainly high expectations for the contributions of IT to both improved quality and reduced waste,” he says. “Many of these initiatives are either directly related to new or enhanced IT applications or require IT system support to enable new relationships between providers, or between providers and patients.”

Examples of the first type include electronic medical records, health information exchanges, and clinical registries. Examples of the second type include patient-centered medical homes and bundled or episode-based payment systems.

“I think that these opportunities are real, but changes in the systems of care and the relationships among providers and patients will be required if the great potential for these solutions is to be ultimately realized,” he says.

According to Davila, BSC’s POET program is improving efficiencies at the larger system level.

“Historically, when we would show up to renegotiate a contract, the hospital representative would say, ‘My people are telling me that you don’t pay your claims right, you don’t handle appeals well, and you owe us X million dollars. Before we recontract, I need you to fix that.’ The result, inevitably, was a lot of negative energy.”

To solve the problem, BSC worked with a third-party vendor to develop a system that enables participating hospitals to review 24 months of processed claims information and performance metrics on the POET Hospital Dashboard, an online performance analytics portal specifically designed for those hospitals.

Those facilities routinely receive quarterly claim summary reports that provide information on key indicators such as cycle time; submission type; denial volume and reasons for denial; appeal volume, outcomes, and reasons; and claim volume for patients with Bluecard, a national program that allows any Blue member to receive care from another Blue company when traveling or living outside of their usual service area.

“It’s all right there in black and white for everyone to see,” Davila says. “One national hospital system was upset because they thought we weren’t paying as quickly as we should, until POET revealed the problem: We were paying the claim in 12 days, but it was taking them 25 days to get the claim to us. The system showed them exactly where the process was broken so they could fix it.”

PHYSICIANS’ WEIGH THEIR COSTS

The need for such transparency is significant, according to research from the American Medical Assn. Its second annual National Insurer Report Card study attempts to diagnose the strengths and weaknesses of the claims processing systems used by eight of the nation’s largest health insurers. Five of the eight plans showed improvements in the median amount of time necessary to respond to providers’ claims, but the report estimates that providers still divert as much as 14% of their revenue to ensure they are receiving accurate payments.

Physicians reported spending three hours weekly interacting with plans in 2006, according to a Web Exclusive produced by Health Affairs in May 2009. When time is converted to dollars, the cost to practices is estimated at $23 billion to $31 billion annually, or 6.9% of all U.S. expenditures for physician and clinical services. Further, 45.9% of physicians surveyed for the report said the cost of dealing with health plans had “increased a lot.”

The report goes on to note that administrative cost cannot be reduced to zero dollars and that interactions that cost money also can produce benefit, such as prior authorization, which can reduce inappropriate use.

Next Page »