Posts Tagged ‘Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts’

Handicapping the ACA’s Fate

Wednesday, June 13th, 2012

As the nation anticipates the Supreme Court decision on the future of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA),  pointed questioning by justices has supporters and opponents facing the possibility that the law could be declared unconstitutional.  That would eliminate — along with the contentious mandate that people purchase health insurance — popular provisions such as letting young adults stay on their parents’ plans until age 26, making prescription drugs more affordable for seniors, and requiring insurers to cover those with pre-existing medical conditions.

Even if the court keeps most of the law intact and strikes down the individual mandate, many healthcare advocates, insurers, and legislators believe that these consumer protections will be meaningless.  “There are a series of provisions of the law which have already been enacted which have proven to be fairly popular,’’ said Andrew Dreyfus, president and CEO of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts.  “The question nationally is will there be bipartisan consensus to maintain those provisions even if the Supreme Court overturns some aspects of the law or the whole law?’’

Congress has been disinclined to talk about contingency plans, or the possibility of compromise.  There is agreement  that nothing will be done before November’s presidential election.  “Repeal and replace is a good slogan, but what kind of replacement are we talking about?’’ asked Gail Wilensky, a healthcare economist who administered Medicare and Medicaid under George H.W. Bush.  “Is it a replacement that will substantially extend coverage for people who have been uninsured?  At the moment it’s a little hard to see that happening.’’

“It’s a standard rule of politics that people value losses more than hypothetical gains,’’ said John McDonough, director of Harvard University’s Center for Public Health Leadership and who helped the Senate write the ACA.  “If the court were to strike down significant parts of the law that are already in place, there could quite possibly be a potent public reaction against what is being taken away from people.’’

In an interview with Kaiser Health News, Jon Kingsdale, Executive Director of the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority, who is working to implement the ACA said “We’re working with about a dozen states, and they fall, I’d say, into three camps: One, working very, very hard with a real strong vision of what they want to set up, to implement by October 1, 2013 – which is less than 18 months away.  Others that are planning – they’re preparing.  They’re waiting to see, in fact, if it’s implemented after the Supreme Court decision, which is expected to be announced in June – and/or the election in November.  And then there are states, frankly, we are not working with that are pretty much waiting to see this go away.”

Kingsdale believes that the entire law will not be thrown out by the Supreme Court.  “I think their striking down the entire law is much less probable than striking down the mandate,” he said.  “I’ve begun to talk to people in insurance companies and states and vendor organizations about what happens if the entire law is struck down, and I am struck by the lack of anticipation of what that would mean.  People are aware that there are huge problems. There are many things that have been implemented already, in terms of insurance coverage and Medicare payment policies and accountable care organizations, the authorization of which would be undercut.”

David Axelrod, chief campaign strategist to President Barack Obama, is denying reports that the White House may revisit healthcare in his second term.  “Our hope and our expectation is that the Supreme Court will affirm the healthcare law,” Axelrod said.  “Now is not the time to speculate on that.  We believe that the law is constitutional.  The Affordable Care Act is also really important to the health and well-being of the American people,” Axelrod said. “It is already helping people all over this country, and has improved the position of people relative to their insurance companies, and the kind of policies they are getting and the return they are getting for the premiums they are paying.”

Medicare to Tie Physician Pay to Quality, Cost

Tuesday, April 24th, 2012

Approximately 20,000 physicians in four Midwest states recently had a sneak peak at their financial future. According to Kaiser Health News, they were e-mailed links to Medicare reports detailing the amount their patients cost on average as well as the quality of the care they provided.  Additionally, the reports showed how Medicare spending on each doctor’s patients compared to their peers in Kansas, Iowa, Missouri and Nebraska.

The so-called “resource use” reports, which Medicare eventually plans to distribute to doctors nationally, are one of the most visible phases of the government’s efforts to enact a complex and delicate although little-known proviso of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA): paying more to doctors who provide quality care at lower cost to Medicare, and cutting payments to physicians who add to Medicare’s costs without improved results.

Requiring providers to pay closer attention to cost and quality is seen as crucial if the nation is to succeed at controlling its healthcare spending — currently more than $2.5 trillion a year.  It’s also vital to Medicare’s solvency.  Efforts are already underway to transform the way Medicare pays hospitals, physicians and other providers who agree to work together in accountable care organizations.  This fall, Medicare – which covers 47 million seniors and disabled people — will fine-tune hospital reimbursements based on quality of care.  It plans to take cost into account as early as next year.

But applying these same precepts to doctors is much more difficult, experts agree. Doctors see far fewer patients than do hospitals, so making statistically accurate assessments of doctors’ care is much harder. Comparing specialists is tricky, since some focus on particular kinds of patients that tend to be more costly.  Properly assessing how a physician impacts costs must include not just the specific services provided, but also care other providers may give.

“It may be the most difficult measurement challenge in the whole world of value-based purchasing,” said Dr. Donald Berwick, the former administrator of the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).  “We do have to be cautious in this case.  It could lead to levels of gaming and misunderstanding and incorrect signals to physicians that might not be best for everyone.”

Dr. Michael Kitchell, a neurologist and chairman of the McFarland Clinic in Ames, IA, predicted that the Medicare reports “will be a huge surprise to almost every physician.”  That’s because the calculations of how much those doctors’ patients cost Medicare not only include the services of the individual doctor but of all the physicians who provided any treatment to the patient.  Kitchell said his own patients typically saw 13 other physicians.  “You’re a victim or a beneficiary of your medical neighborhood,” Kitchell said.  “If the primary-care doctors are doing the preventative screening tests, you’ll get credit for that, but if you’re in a community where the community doctors are doing a poor job, you’re going to look bad.”

Medicare officials are attempting to improve the way they measure physicians as they follow the ACA’s directive to phase in the new payment system, called a Physician Value-Based Payment Modifier, which is scheduled to begin in 2015.  At first, it will apply solely to physician groups and some specialists selected by the government; by 2017, the payment change is intended to apply to most if not all doctors.  The assessment “is a very important change we’re putting into place, one where we’re going to need a lot of feedback and deliberation,” said Jonathan Blum, CMS’s deputy administrator. “We’re not blind to the challenges that are coming toward us.”  Although the program is still being worked out, it will become reality for many doctors in January, because CMS wants to base its 2015 bonuses or penalties on a doctor’s patients’ outcomes during 2013.

Private insurers may decide to use a formula similar to Medicare’s, said Paul Ginsburg, president of the Center for Studying Health System Change.  Medicare’s ultimate method of judging and paying physicians could become “a valuable asset for private insurers, with a tool that will be somewhat bulletproof, that physicians won’t attack because they’ve been part of the process of developing them.”

Getting physician support might not be a peace of cake, said Margaret O’Kane, president of the National Committee for Quality Assurance.  “Doctors are a very powerful political segment,” she said. Additionally, “Patients are not behind this agenda.  The public is very scared about managing costs.”

Dana Gelb Safran, who measures quality for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, doubts it will be possible for the government to judge individual doctors.  “There really are very few measures that we can reliably evaluate on the individual doctor level,” she said.  “When they move forward with the value-based modifier, there is going to have to be a way to allow physicians to identify other physicians with whom they say they practice and who they say they share clinical risk for performance.”

Massachusetts Healthcare Reform: Part II

Monday, February 28th, 2011

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick has unveiled legislation to rein in spiraling insurance costs by setting boundaries on the healthcare market.   The move to slow soaring costs in Massachusetts has strengthened since the state passed its ground-breaking 2006 MassHealth law that now insures approximately 98 percent of residents.  Although the law significantly expanded coverage, it did little to curb rising costs that are now putting pressure on the state budget and family finances.  Patrick told the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce that Massachusetts led the way in expanding health coverage and is now “poised to lead again on health cost containment.”  The plan will move Massachusetts toward a “global payment” system where physicians are rewarded according to their patients’ health, rather than by the number of procedures or office visits they schedule.

We have an expensive system that doesn’t provide the best care for patients and that has to change,” Patrick said. “Universal health care in Massachusetts has been a resounding success, and rightly serves as a model for what’s possible for the rest of the nation, but it costs too much.  “Healthcare in Massachusetts is now universally accessible but it is not universally affordable,” according to Patrick.

Critics of Massachusetts’ healthcare system say MassHealth currently includes incentives that increase physician and hospital compensation based on the number of procedures or tests they perform.  Under Patrick’s new proposal, a primary-care physician will be compensated for treating a patient’s overall health.  Some Massachusetts healthcare providers are already moving in that direction.  Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts and physicians at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston signed an “alternative quality contract” to cut costs by paying doctors and hospitals for the quality — not the quantity — of the care they provide.

Patrick’s proposal would establish a more formal structure, including the creation of a new healthcare council made up of leading public health officials to act as a central clearinghouse.  The council’s goal is to pressure the market.  Although it won’t have the power to directly set prices, it will try to establish boundaries for the market.

Not everyone in the Bay State likes Governor Patrick’s proposal.  Writing in the Boston Business Journal, Julie Donnelly says that “The bill would require those who cannot afford private health coverage or do not have the option of enrolling their child in a private plan to reimburse the state up to eight percent of their gross income for the cost of that dependent child’s health coverage under Medicaid.” According to Donnelly, “The proposed revisions to the healthcare law would hit low-income, working divorced fathers who pay child support but cannot afford health insurance.  The bill also hurts kids who are low income and live with a single parent.”