M2, Author at M2HCC

About M2

Brenda Gleason can help lead your group to bigger picture thinking and creative solutions, especially in the changing health care system.

Dr. Gawande, Please Open the Can of Worms

By M2|2018-06-25T17:45:38+00:00June 21st, 2018|Uncategorized|

Dr. Gawande, Please Open the Can of Worms

Congratulations, Dr. Atul Gawande. On July 9, 2018, you will start leading the Amazon (NASDAQ: AMZN), Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE: BRK.A, BRK.B) and JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM) partnership “to address healthcare for their U.S. employees, with the aim of improving employee satisfaction and reducing costs.” What follows is a polite request:

Please, open the can of worms

When announcing the new partnership, Warren Buffett, Chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, said, “The ballooning costs of healthcare act as a hungry tapeworm on the American economy.” I have bad news—it’s not just one tapeworm. Patients and non-patients are different. Start with patients – that’s where the costs are. If the 1.1 million U.S. employees of Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway, and JPMorgan Chase are like a typical subset of Americans, about half have annual healthcare costs of less than $300. So half of these employees are essentially non-patients. Nationally, according to the Peterson-Kaiser Health System Tracker, the top 5% of people in health spending have costs averaging $51,000 annually; the top 1% have costs averaging $112,000 annually. Instead of thinking of employee averages, bifurcating patients and non-patients should help ABC pursue different strategies for different categories of employees.

Spending variations seem obvious. You, Dr. Gawande, have been writing about the issue for years. Treating a rare disease is more expensive than treating a sinus infection. But that’s just one “tapeworm.” What is well known (but often unsaid) should be tackled directly by ABC: The U.S. healthcare system pays for incorrect diagnoses and treatments; it pays for treatments evidence shows don’t work; it rarely differentiates payment between mediocre and superb health practitioners.

We need to stop paying for what doesn’t work

The system tolerates (and pays dearly for) incorrect diagnoses and incorrect treatment. ABC shouldn’t. Errors in diagnosis occur about 10 to 15% of the time, though errors vary widely by disease or condition and specialty area of the physician. A study of second opinions provided at The Mayo Clinic in Minnesota found that in only 12% of cases was the referral diagnosis the same as the final diagnosis. In other words, more than 85% of the time the first diagnosis was wrong, or needed to be refined.

Medical errors, including incorrect diagnoses, treatments, and mistakes, kill between 44,000 and 250,000 people a year (which would make it the third leading cause of death). That is a big range, because medical errors statistics are controversial. Since death certificates don’t list cause of death as “medical error,” researchers have to estimate. When researchers at Johns Hopkins Medicine reviewed 25 years of U.S. malpractice claim payouts, they found “diagnostic errors — not surgical mistakes or medication overdoses — accounted for the largest fraction of claims, the most severe patient harm, and the highest total of penalty payouts.” Health systems analysts can quibble about the numbers, but ABC should strive to lower medical errors. Study lead, David E. Newman-Toker, M.D., Ph.D., associate professor of neurology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, says, “Experts have often downplayed the scope of diagnostic errors not because they were unaware of the problem, but ‘because they were afraid to open up a can of worms they couldn’t close.’”

To best serve employees who are patients, ABC needs to open up this can of worms. ABC should collect, verify, and use data to determine how employees can be better served by the healthcare system. Which doctors have the lowest error rates? Where is care delivered with the best outcomes for a particular disease or condition, or for a particular type of patient? Continuing to provide employer-sponsored health insurance without taking additional steps to help patients and their families figure out where they can get the best care is something akin to employer malpractice. This approach also perpetuates the idea that there is little difference in quality or outcomes at different health facilities, which is demonstrably false.

For over 20 years, the Dartmouth Atlas Project has been documenting the stark variations in medical use across the U.S. For example, the Atlas shows discretionary surgery, such as knee or hip replacement or back surgery, varies significantly by region, in part because “physician opinion can vary widely as to when the treatment is necessary, and which patients are appropriate.” Diagnosis and treatment differences across practitioners have varying causes. Grand Rounds, for example, was started in 2011 in recognition of the gap between first and final diagnoses and treatment recommendations. As co-founder Owen Tripp (who was a candidate for this job…) explained in an interview with Bruce Rogers for Forbes.com, he was shocked by the realization it takes about 17 years for a proven technology or approach in an academic setting to “make its way to the majority of doctors who practice in the field,” while in the software world it only takes about 18 months between discovery and adoption. Connecting patients to information about which healthcare providers perform best is an easy step for ABC to take (if they haven’t already). If the data exists, ABC should use it.

Open up the can, differentiate the tapeworms by type, and make decisions that will benefit employees accordingly. We can’t starve the tapeworms unless we start to open up these cans. We are all looking forward to you taking the first crack.

More on social determinants of health: What are they, why are we talking about them so much, what’s happening now?

By M2|2018-06-15T19:32:48+00:00June 15th, 2018|Health Care Trends, Health Disparities, Health Information Technology, Health Reform, Innovation, Public Health, Social Determinants of Health, Uncategorized|

More on social determinants of health: What are they, why are we talking about them so much, what’s happening now?

Here at M2, we spend a lot of time thinking about the social determinants of health (SDH), or the nonmedical factors that can affect a person’s overall health and health outcomes. We have blogged recently about this issue, and . The issue is gaining momentum and we are seeing more articles and studies addressing how to better incorporate SDH into programs and technologies; for example, former CMS administrator Andy Slavitt recently announced his new venture capital firm will focus on companies in this area. Another recent article highlights the opportunities for technology entrepreneurs as adoption rates for SDH technologies are projected to increase over the next ten years. Today we are taking a close look at a recent position paper from the American College of Physicians (ACP).

SDH are defined as “the conditions in which people are born, grow, work, live, age, and the wider set of forces and systems shaping the conditions of daily life”. In other words, “where a person is born and the social conditions they are born into can affect their risk factors for premature death and their life expectancy,” the ACP notes in its recent paper.

SDH are “responsible for most health inequalities,” the ACP says; the paper examines the complex issues involved and provides recommendations on “better integration of social determinants into the health care system while highlighting the need to address systemic issues hindering health equity.”

The paper was drafted by the ACP’s Health and Public Policy Committee, and the ACP notes that it is charged with addressing “issues that affect the health care of the U.S. public and the practice of internal medicine and its subspecialties.”

“Understanding and addressing social factors that affect health outcomes is a pressing issue for physicians and medical professionals,” the ACP says. The group is issuing a set of recommendations “to empower stakeholders to advocate for policies aimed at eliminating disparities and establishing health equity among all persons.”

The paper features nine policy recommendations. Most notably, these include: integrating SDH into medical education at all levels; adequately funding federal, state, tribal, and local agencies in their efforts to address social determinants of health; developing best practices for utilizing electronic health record (EHR) systems as a tool to improve health without adding to the administrative burden on physicians; and adjusting quality payment models and performance measurement assessments to reflect the “increased risk associated with caring for disadvantaged patient populations.”

Expanding on one of the recommendations above – the importance of EHRs and collecting data – the paper notes that in 2014, a National Academies of Science committee identified 12 social determinants to be included in EHRs as part of meaningful use stage 3, and issued recommendations on standardizing collection of measures of these social determinants. Several behavioral and social domains are currently collected: tobacco use; alcohol use; race/ethnicity; and residential address, which is geocoded.

The report says that in terms of racism and health equity, the ACP’s policy on racial and ethnic health disparities “acknowledges that addressing social determinants of health is a key component to increasing health equity among racial and ethnic populations.”

Social determinants “can exacerbate health care disparities among racial or ethnic groups,” the paper says. “Socioeconomic status, race, and ethnicity are connected in a complex, multidimensional way and may affect a person’s health independently or in combination.” As an example, the ACP notes that Latina women experience a greater incidence of cervical cancer and higher mortality rates than non–Latina women. Access to care for Latina women is also affected, as they are more likely to lack health insurance than white non-Latina women.

SDH has been a bit of a buzzword for a while in public health circles, but it may finally be time for SDH to influence policy, as seen by ACP’s efforts. “Why now?” many are wondering. As proof points pile up, and more people gain an understanding of what SDH are, the concept is gaining momentum and being included in more discussions.

For example, it’s interesting that one of the largest physician groups has developed policy positions on SDH. This may be an indication that physicians in general are realizing the significant role that SDH play in individuals’ health. Incorporating an understanding of SDH into not only the practice of medicine, but also into the tools and incentives that drive patient care, would be welcome steps in helping to reduce the negative health outcomes related to SDH.

Who Should Be Allowed to Help Patients Pay Health Costs?

By M2|2018-06-06T17:07:51+00:00June 6th, 2018|Health care spending, Health Care Trends, Health Reform, Insurance, Medicaid, Medicare, Out-of-pocket spending, Reimbursement, State Health Initiatives, Uncategorized|

Who Should Be Allowed to Help Patients Pay Health Costs?

If you can’t pay your health insurance premium, should you be allowed to have someone else pay it for you? What about your deductible? Your co-insurance or a copayment? These might seem like trick questions, but no. There really are circumstances when a person can’t receive help for health care costs. In the past few years, this has become a hot topic in health policy circles as health care costs continue to rise. At issue is a fundamental question we have considered before: whose health care costs should be managed, those of the healthy or the sick? Is it better to have sick people pay more so that healthy people who buy insurance can keep their premiums low? Or is it better to spread catastrophic health costs across larger pools of people so everyone pays a little in order to avoid ever paying a lot?

Third-party payments: Friend or foe?

When the Affordable Care Act was being debated nearly a decade ago, the American Enterprise Institute correctly pointed out, the entire U.S. health care system “relies on a third-party payment system.” That is, either individuals or employers make payments to insurers who in turn make payments to health care providers, or taxpayer money is used to pay health care providers who care for people covered by Medicaid, Medicare, TriCare or other public programs.

While the big picture debate of how to finance and provide health care services and for whom continues, this blog is focused on a more specific type of third-party payments (TPP). Right now, states and the feds are being asked to weigh in on which third parties should be allowed to pay insurance premiums or healthplan-required cost sharing, for example, a deductible or a health care service or product copayment. The debate at this moment is focused on people with chronic, severe, or expensive health care needs – people who need kidney dialysis, for example. The feds have been trying to work out guardrails since 2013 related to whether a third-party organization can pay for a person’s premiums in the state insurance exchanges. (For a deeper dive, go here). California has also joined the fray and is considering a bill, SB 1156, “Health care service plans: 3rd-party payments,” setting forth who will be allowed to make TPP for health insurance premiums.

Representing the “foe” side is America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP). A recent brief titled “How Third-Party Premium Payments Can Harm Consumers and Destabilize Markets” argues that TPPs from “entities steering Medicare and Medicaid eligible beneficiaries into qualified health plans (QHPs) sold through the Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplaces…can increase the number of older and less healthy individuals in the individual market risk pool, resulting in higher premiums for all consumers and further destabilizing the market.” In support of SB 1156, the California Labor Federation presents a similar point-of-view, arguing that allowing TPPs of premiums for individuals with chronic or severe illnesses “also shifts costs onto commercial plans, driving up health care spending and increasing premiums for Californians already struggling with rising costs.” Who should pay when a person is sick? Is it always the better choice to shift costs to taxpayers by requiring a person who needs dialysis to enroll in Medicaid or Medicare, as AHIP suggests? How should we balance the interests of individuals and employers who want low health care premiums with the needs of patients with high health care costs?

Representing the “friend” side is The Commonwealth Fund in “Assessing the Promise and Risks of Income-Based Third-Party Payment Programs.” Their brief acknowledges the policy debate outlined above regarding TPP programs serving patients with specific health diagnoses, but focuses on TPP programs that address health care costs for a different population, noting, “History suggests that TPP programs can address low-income consumers’ affordability concerns on a large scale.”

Many of the guardrails set forth by The Commonwealth Fund parallel the California bill, including basing eligibility for TPP on income and paying “consumers’ premium shares from the point of enrollment through the end of the coverage year, thus preventing short-term enrollment that ends once a course of treatment is complete.” These guardrails seem to address several of the foe’s concerns. First, basing TPP on income means both the healthy and the sick can gain access to health insurance, which makes it much less likely that premiums rise due to a sicker risk pool. Second, AHIP argues consumers can be harmed “particularly if the third party stops making premium and cost-sharing payments once initial treatment is received, which could result in serious or life-threatening interruptions in access to care.” Requiring entities that provide TPPs to pay for more than just initial treatment addresses the foe’s concern.

I’m an aunt. Can I pay for my nephew’s prescription drug cost sharing?

One of the remaining concerns at the heart of TPP for health insurance premiums or health plan required cost-sharing (such as co-payments) relates to whether the organization making the TPP is motivated by financial gain or is steering patients to specific health care products, services, or providers. Federal law prohibits most TPPs in federal health programs, for example, Medicaid and Medicare, considering the TPPs to be in violation of one or another fraud and abuse law, such as the Anti-Kickback Statute and the Physician Self-Referral Law (Stark law).

While it makes sense that a health care provider should not be allowed to accept bribes, it is much less clear who should be allowed to help patients pay health costs. The way the U.S. health care system works today, if a person is not eligible for government-sponsored health care (for example, through Veterans Affairs, Medicare, or Medicaid) and they cannot pay for individual health care costs, whether premiums or cost-sharing such as copayments or deductibles, the person can usually be denied care. To be clear, AHIP is arguing that private entities, or groups of people, cannot come together and help such an individual make the health plan-required payments. The California bill says, “Any member of the individual’s family” can make a TPP, but then goes on to define “family” only to “include the individual’s spouse, domestic partner, child, parent, grandparent and siblings.”

This begs the question of what should be allowed when it comes to TPPs. What entities should be allowed to pay for patient’s health care costs?

Medical crowdfunding, such GoFundMe campaigns?
Health care sharing ministries?
Contributions gathered voluntarily by employees to help a co-worker with cost-sharing requirements? Or by a congregation to help a fellow churchgoer?
Employer emergency funds?
Family members helping family members, (let’s say Aunts, for example…)

It is quite clear that the alternative to the TPP being made is no payment being made, which certainly would cause an interruption in access to care for the patient who needs it. Like most health policy issues, TPPs can be either friend or foe and a one size fits all policy won’t work. Creating guardrails focused on allowing entities, including those in the list above, help patients pay their medical bills should be paramount.

States May Be Interested in Value-Based Payments, but Commercial Insurers Are Not

By M2|2018-05-31T15:01:26+00:00May 30th, 2018|Health Care Trends, Health Reform, Medicaid, State Health Initiatives, Uncategorized|

States May Be Interested in Value-Based Payments, but Commercial Insurers Are Not

CMS has issued the fourth of five planned annual reports on its Medicaid State Innovation Models (SIM) Initiative. Under the SIM initiative, six “test states” – Arkansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oregon, and Vermont – have been awarded funds and are using policy levers to facilitate the creation or spread of innovative models and integrating population health and broader stakeholder perspectives into health care delivery and payment redesign models. The latest report describes the experiences of providers, health systems, consumers, payers, and state officials during the final full implementation year.

The evaluation, conducted by RTI International, working with The Urban Institute, National Academy for State Health Policy, and The Henne Group, found all six states have introduced value-based payment models (VBP models) in their Medicaid programs and are offering technical assistance to providers, social service and community-based organizations, and others to implement new delivery system models. States are also offering services, such as health IT and data analytic investment, that “enable or improve model effectiveness,” according to the Year 4 Annual Report.

However, the evaluation found “limited interest” among private payers and insurers in aligning their existing VBP models with state models. “All states struggled with effective engagement of private payers and insurers to expand VBP models beyond existing efforts and to achieve alignment across multiple payers,” the report finds. “Although private payers and insurers were willing to discuss the states’ conceptualization of VBP models, most did not make changes to the VBP models they offered to providers.”

As a result of limited interest among commercial payers, “states ultimately focused on Medicaid or state employee health plans over which they had control.”

There are several factors contributing to this lack of multi-payer alignment around common payment models, including a difference in business goals between Medicaid and commercial payers. Commercial payers in Maine, for example, reported issues related to value-based insurance design and multi-payer measure alignment; this was due to “insufficient engagement with payers” when the SIM goals were established, the report says. In addition, commercial payers in Maine are reluctant to change the design of their insurance products “in response to a single state’s recommendations,” and there is a “preference for making product design changes in response to their clients’ needs.”

If you are a business, your client’s needs come first. If a state becomes a client of an insurer, perhaps this VBP model alignment problem would be easier to solve. But other state’s experiences would indicate that is unlikely.

The RTI evaluation identified several other factors contributing to the lack of payer alignment in payment models including: the proprietary nature of information (e.g., commercial payers in Minnesota preferred not to share details on quality and utilization measures and performance reports for providers, which “limited the type of dialogue necessary to advance multi-payer payment reform”) and competitive concerns (e.g., payers that have invested in changes in payment reforms are “concerned that the returns on those investments are accruing to other parties”).

Many of these concerns are age-old problems; in the policy world, we encounter these types of issues frequently: (1) the complaint that “you didn’t engage us from the beginning;” (2) the fact that health care delivery is competitive in a capitalist market; and (3) the free rider problem.

We could add two more issues or concerns to the list above: (4) “You don’t understand clinical issues” (e.g., physicians in Arkansas felt that “state decision-makers were too far removed from daily clinical practice to understand what would work effectively”) and (5) We would have to create multiple products – e.g., products tailored to the needs of the Medicaid population vs. commercial population.

In the six test states, participation by health care practitioners in innovative models varies wildly. For example, in testing an integrated care model, the number of participating providers varied such that in Massachusetts, 10% of the Medicaid population was reached, while in Oregon, the comparable figure was 85%, as noted in the chart below (from the evaluation report):

For tests of the patient-centered medical home (PCMH) or health home model in these six states, 17% of the Medicaid population was reached in Maine, compared with 70% in Vermont and 75% in Oregon.

Engaging private payers in innovative payment models is important for health care system transformation. Given that some payers in these six test states were reluctant to change the design of their insurance products in response to a single state’s recommendations, states might consider combining forces for the purposes of designing more responsive VBP models. Another alternative is to ask insurers, along with representatives from other health care entities, consumer groups and employers to participate in system design change from the beginning of the process. VBP may lead to health cost reductions if implemented widely and well, but such achievements will be nearly impossible if entities that control so much of a population’s health care coverage choices are not involved.

Proof Point: Addressing Social Determinants of Health Reduces ED and Hospital Visits, and Reduces Costs

By M2|2018-05-23T16:53:35+00:00May 23rd, 2018|Evidence-Based Medicine, Health Care Trends, Hospitals, Providers, Social Determinants of Health, Uncategorized, What do we pay for and why|

Proof Point: Addressing Social Determinants of Health Reduces ED and Hospital Visits, and Reduces Costs

Just a couple weeks ago, I about social determinants of health (SDH), so I was intrigued to come across this recent study in Health Affairs showing that improved access to care and a consideration of SDH can lower emergency room use and inpatient hospitalizations, and reduce costs.

A health clinic in Dallas, the Baylor Scott & White Health and Wellness Center (we’ve also highlighted before), partnered with the Dallas Parks and Recreation Department to create a primary care clinic in a rec center in an underserved Dallas community. The public-private partnership offers clinical services such as routine primary care, regardless of the person’s ability to pay. But it also offers access to other health-supporting interventions. For example, the partnership provides access to programs that help community members participate in physical activity and get healthy food.

Community health workers are also a component of the approach. Patients often need help navigating both the health care system and support programs, for example, free exercise classes at the rec center. Community health workers assist patients with that navigation in a culturally relevant way for the Dallas center. Local churches – more than 25 of them – provide an additional level of support by increasing awareness of the health clinic/rec center offerings and availability of community health workers.

The clinic “exemplifies the integration of social determinants of health within a population health strategy,” according to the study by David Wesson, President, Baylor Scott & White Health and Wellness Center, and his colleagues.

While increasing access to both clinical health care services and health-supporting programs, such as those offered by rec centers, is worthy goal on its own, to health policy wonks the added proof point of cost savings due to a population based approach that integrates SDH is just as exciting.

The study examined emergency department (ED) and inpatient care use for 12 months after initiation of the program. People who used the center’s services experienced a reduction in ED use of 21.4% and a reduction in inpatient care use of 36.7%, with an average cost decrease of 34.5% and 54.4%, respectively. All of these are notable proof points: “These data support the use of population health strategies to reduce the use of emergency services,” the authors conclude.

The Baylor Scott White/Dallas Recreation Center partnership is a great example of how improving access to health care and addressing the social determinants of health can have a positive impact on both health outcomes as well as costs, by reducing expensive types of care such as emergency and inpatient services. We are still building the evidence-base, but this study shows taking a holistic approach to patient care, including addressing the social determinants of health such as culture and language, can help achieve what everyone wants: improved health and lower costs.

Want to Fix the Opioid Crisis? First, Think Structurally

By M2|2018-05-17T16:49:16+00:00May 17th, 2018|Chronic pain, Evidence-Based Medicine, Insurance, Public Health, Social Determinants of Health, Uncategorized, What do we pay for and why|

Want to Fix the Opioid Crisis? First, Think Structurally

I am often asked to come up with creative ways to address various health care problems. When I was asked by a client a few years ago to come up with some ideas to address the opioid crisis, I dove in to the latest academic literature, news reports, and books (if you haven’t read it yet, and are interested in the bigger picture of opioids, check out Dreamland by Sam Quinones). Thousands of pages later, I came to what seemed an obvious conclusion: opioid misuse and abuse is not a singular crisis, but the effect of a huge set of policy decisions that have occurred over years.

In a recent commentary in the American Journal of Public Health, author Nabarun Dasgupta of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and colleagues are blunt – “The structural and social determinants of health framework is widely understood to be critical in responding to public health challenges. Until we adopt this framework, we will continue to fail in our efforts to turn the tide of the opioid crisis.”

Using a structural framework to analyze causes of the opioid crisis generates “an alternate hypothesis…that an environment that increasingly promotes obesity coupled with widespread opioid use may be the underlying drivers of increasing White middle-class mortality,” the authors point out. “Complex interconnections between obesity, disability, chronic pain, depression, and substance use have not been adequately explored.” Also, suicides “may be undercounted among overdose deaths,” they say. “Under both frameworks, social distress is a likely upstream explanatory factor.”

In order to “turn the tide” on the opioid crisis, the authors urge a focus on patient suffering, tied to things like social disadvantage, isolation, and pain. However, one of the challenges is that the U.S. health care system is “unprepared to meet the demands elucidated by a structural factors analysis.”

Again, seems obvious, but still bears repeating: the health care delivery system is not built to deal with structural problems.

Addressing these types of factors requires “meaningful clinical attention that is difficult to deliver in high-throughput primary care.” Indeed, the current “institutional, legal, and insurance architecture have robbed clinicians of time and incentives to continue care for these patients,” the authors say.

Incorporating social determinants of health (SDH) into care plans also highlights the need to “integrate clinical care with efforts to improve patients’ structural environment,” the commentary says. While the commentary authors recommend, “Training health care providers in ‘structural competency’” as promising, as the system scales up “partnerships that begin to address upstream structural factors such as economic opportunity, social cohesion, racial disadvantage, and life satisfaction,” I’m not as inclined to think health provider training alone will suffice. When I was first taught the basic premises of SDH and structural thinking as a young graduate student, the discipline was already decades old.

Knowing the importance of SDH is not enough. Until the evidence base is deeper, it is difficult to get payers to reimburse such as activities. (See next week’s blog for a great example though!)

Thinking structurally is not so difficult to learn, but acting structurally is extremely difficult. Still, the opioid crisis – like so many health care conundrums – can’t be solved without it. Let’s get to it.

Paying to Address Social Determinants of Health: Medicare Advantage to Offer “Supplemental Benefits”

By M2|2018-05-07T14:32:50+00:00May 4th, 2018|Health care spending, Health Care Trends, Medicare, Social Determinants of Health, Uncategorized, What do we pay for and why|

Paying to Address Social Determinants of Health: Medicare Advantage to Offer “Supplemental Benefits”

CMS recently announced it will change its policy regarding Medicare Advantage plans and the scope of “supplemental benefits” these plans may offer. As of the 2019 plan year, CMS says it is reinterpreting existing law and expanding the options that Medicare Advantage plans may offer to enrollees.

In the past, CMS has not allowed an item or service to be eligible as a supplemental benefit – an additional benefit beyond the standard benefits under traditional Medicare – “if the primary purpose includes daily maintenance,” the agency says.

However, in the 2019 final Call Letter for Medicare Advantage, CMS says the policy change will “expand the scope of the primarily health-related supplemental benefit standard” to allow benefits used to “diagnose, prevent, or treat an illness or injury, compensate for physical impairments, act to ameliorate the functional/psychological impact of injuries or health conditions, or reduce avoidable emergency and healthcare utilization.”

Items and services under this expanded scope could include things like “air conditioners for people with asthma, healthy groceries, rides to medical appointments and home-delivered meals,” a recent article in Kaiser Health News notes.

Transportation, different food options, and items such as grab bars in bathrooms might be covered options now. While a physician’s order or prescription is not necessary, the new benefits must still be “medically appropriate” and recommended by a licensed health care provider.

While public health types (me included) often focus on explaining what a social determinant of health is and how it could be addressed in order to improve health equity, this policy change is significant in that it attaches payment to interventions – even if they are not clinical – that could lead to improved health.

Separately, the most recent federal budget agreement lifts the annual caps on the amount Medicare pays for physical, occupational, or speech therapy, and streamlines the medical review process. This policy change will apply to both traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage enrollees.

As of Jan. 1, Medicare beneficiaries will be eligible for therapy indefinitely as long as their provider confirms their need for therapy and they continue to meet other requirements. Also, under a 2013 court settlement, enrollees will not lose coverage “simply because they have a chronic disease that doesn’t get better,” KHN says.

In an interview with KHN, Judith Stein, executive director, Center for Medicare Advocacy, said, “Put those two things together and it means that if the care is ordered by a doctor and it is medically necessary to have a skilled person provide the services to maintain the patient’s condition, prevent or slow decline, there is not an arbitrary limit on how long or how much Medicare will pay for that.”

These are innovative moves on CMS’s part; they show the agency recognizes the need for a more holistic approach to health care for Medicare enrollees and that it’s willing to address the social determinants of health, such as the impact of the home environment on a patient’s health.

CMS is now moving beyond purely “medical” treatments for Medicare Advantage enrollees and addressing broader aspects of health. We get what we pay for, and by covering different types of care, CMS is encouraging actions that may lead to improved health outcomes and avoidance of some preventable health events for patients.

Obesity: Survey Finds Primary Care Providers’ Knowledge “Inconsistent” with Evidence-Based Recommendations

By M2|2018-04-26T20:09:32+00:00April 26th, 2018|Evidence-Based Medicine, Hospitals, Providers, Uncategorized|

Obesity: Survey Finds Primary Care Providers’ Knowledge “Inconsistent” with Evidence-Based Recommendations

Despite the high prevalence of obesity in the US, a new study finds that providers’ knowledge of evidence-based recommendations for obesity is low.

For example, only 15% were able to identify the “appropriate indication” for prescribing pharmacotherapy for patients: a BMI over 27 with an obesity-associated comorbid condition. Two-thirds said it is appropriate to continue long-term pharmacotherapy under conditions inconsistent with evidence-based guidelines. Providers were “most knowledgeable” regarding the physical activity guidelines, with 49% answering correctly.

In addition, “only 16% of respondents indicated that obesity counseling should be provided approximately twice monthly in an individual or group setting for at least 6 months,” in accordance with U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and CMS guidelines, according to the study by Monique Turner, George Washington University, Milken Institute of Public Health, et al., and published in the journal Obesity. (Shout out to my colleague at GWU, Dr. Monique!)

Overall, providers’ understanding of clinical care for obesity, which includes intensive behavioral therapy, physical activity, and pharmacotherapy, is “inconsistent with evidence-based recommendations” the study found – despite the fact that most health care providers believe they are responsible for ensuring patients are informed about obesity treatments.

Given the current obesity epidemic and the known costs associated with obesity, it seems obvious that primary care physicians should make it a priority to be up-to-date with current treatments and approaches to weight loss and optimal health. This would also help them advocate for better coverage of interventions.

In an accompanying commentary, Robert Kushner, Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, appears to agree:

“Knowledge of the guidelines is a reasonable objective but is not sufficient to change practice behavior,” Kushner says. Nonadherence to practice guidelines “may be due to other factors independent of knowledge,” including fragmentation of care, disagreement between guidelines, and “external practice barriers.”

He cites the need for effective dissemination and implementation approaches for practice guidelines. He also points out that other educational initiatives are under way “that will impact the practice of obesity in the primary care setting,” for example, through the Obesity Medicine Education Collaborative (OMEC), which is “currently finalizing a set of 32 obesity-specific competencies” as part of undergraduate, postgraduate, and fellowship training. “By taking a continual and comprehensive educational approach, we are on our way to get primary care ready to treat obesity,” he concludes.

Obesity is a growing problem in the U.S. in terms of both health outcomes and costs; in fact, as I’ve about recently, it is also linked to declining mortality improvements in the US compared to other wealthy countries. Unfortunately, despite the availability of a range of non-surgical interventions supported by evidence-based practice guidelines, primary care providers generally are not appropriately trained in this area, nor do they keep pace with new treatment findings on how to address this problem. If we want to tackle the obesity problem and improve health outcomes, life expectancy and costs, we must find ways to address barriers of this kind, and our reimbursement policies will need to incentivize providers to focus on this issue.

It’s a Hospital, It’s a Health Plan, It’s Both!

By M2|2018-04-20T18:55:42+00:00April 20th, 2018|Health care spending, Health Plans, Hospitals, Insurance, Medicaid, Medicare, Uncategorized|

It’s a Hospital, It’s a Health Plan, It’s Both!

Tufts Health Plan (Watertown, MA) and hospital company Hartford HealthCare (Hartford, CT) have announced a joint venture to form an insurance company, which will focus on providing those over 65 who qualify for Medicare the alternative of purchasing a Medicare Advantage plan.

The “twist” with this joint venture is that it will bring together an insurer and a hospital firm in one company and “it’s a first for Connecticut.”

Like many of the new health care collaborations sprouting up, such as Aetna-CVS and Berkshire Hathaway, Amazon and JPMorgan, the name of the game right now is using data better to try to lower costs.

Hartford is looking to Tufts Health Plan to bring “insights around closing gaps in care, identifying members who have needs they may not even be aware of and better coordination of care,” James Cardon, Hartford’s chief integration officer, told the Hartford Courant. Tufts has 1.1 million members across New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island.

Collaborations between health plans and providers are not unknown; however, they are in “relative infancy, and many of the approaches don’t involve as extensive as a commitment that is implied and inherent in a joint venture,” according to Tufts CEO Thomas Croswell.

A key advantage of the joint venture is that it will combine clinical data from Hartford with claims data from Tufts Health Plan, giving the partners the ability to reach out to members. Inherent in these concepts is reaching patients before they have serious health care needs.

Hartford HealthCare CEO Elliot Joseph explained the joint venture was built specifically to address both organizations’ realization that there’s room for improvement in care for patients with chronic conditions, especially in helping seniors manage their care in order to avoid hospitalizations. If reducing costs is the goal, it makes sense that Tufts and Hartford HealthCare are focusing initially on seniors, given their high use of health care services; however, such a strategy is unlikely to work for other populations.

In another example of provider-insurer consolidation, Centene Corp., a Medicaid managed care insurer and the “dominant health plan on the Affordable Care Act exchanges,” plans to buy Florida-based primary-care provider Community Medical Group.

Community Medical will boost Centene’s scale and capabilities around care delivery, and Centene will gain access to the provider’s patient population.

Community Medical Group operates 13 medical centers and two specialty centers serving more than 70,000 Medicaid, Medicare Advantage, and Affordable Care Act exchange patients in Miami-Dade County, FL. As of the end of last year, Centene had 848,000 Florida plan members, and that number is expected to increase as it grows membership in the ACA exchange in Florida.

Centene also announced recently that it has agreed to buy MHM Services, a provider of health care and staffing services to correctional facilities and government agencies, serving 330,000 people.

This strategic approach is all about controlling where plan members receive care, similar to previous deals where an insurer buys a provider group. UnitedHealth Group’s Optum subsidiary bought DaVita’s medical group and acquired Surgical Care Affiliates last year. Humana also bought home healthcare provider Kindred Healthcare last year.

The health care system in the U.S. is changing rapidly. With less direction (or interference, depending on your point of view) from the federal government, health plans and provider groups are leading the way in creating new approaches for care delivery. Whether payers, including employers and consumers are better off, is yet to be seen.

An Alternative to Opioids? Other Interventions Show Significant Improvements in Pain and Physical Function For Disadvantaged Populations

By M2|2018-04-10T19:27:24+00:00April 10th, 2018|Chronic pain, Evidence-Based Medicine, Health Disparities, Insurance, Social Determinants of Health, Uncategorized, What do we pay for and why|

An Alternative to Opioids? Other Interventions Show Significant Improvements in Pain and Physical Function For Disadvantaged Populations

Pain is a common, yet difficult to treat condition; it is one of the top reasons people go to the doctor. Opioids are commonly prescribed to treat pain; opioids are quite effective but addictive. The use of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is known to be efficacious in addressing chronic pain; however, its benefit in disadvantaged populations is not well understood.

To help shed light on this question, a team led by Beverly Thorn, University of Alabama, conducted a study to evaluate the efficacy of literacy-adapted and simplified group CBT versus group pain education (EDU) versus usual care.

The randomized controlled trial enrolled 290 adults with chronic pain symptoms. Most had incomes at or below the poverty level, and about one-third read below a fifth grade level. Many participants were taking opioids at the beginning of the study.

Both the CBT and EDU were delivered in ten weekly 90-minute group sessions. Participants in all three groups reported their pain levels and physical functioning via questionnaires at baseline, ten weeks, and six months.

The study, funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, found that patients in the CBT and EDU groups had greater decreases in pain intensity scores between baseline and post-treatment than participants receiving usual care.

However, while treatment gains were still present in the EDU group at six-month follow-up, these gains were not maintained in the CBT group, Thorn, et al., say.

Regarding the secondary outcome of physical function, those in the CBT and EDU interventions had greater post-treatment improvement than patients who received usual care; this progress was maintained at six-month follow-up. Changes in depression, another secondary outcome, did not differ between either the CBT or EDU group and those receiving usual care, the researchers state.

This study highlights the fact that when done correctly, i.e., when materials are adjusted and tailored to a patient’s reading level, there are non-opioid interventions like behavioral therapy and education that work. While it is probably easier to prescribe opioids for pain, given the increasing severity of the opioid addiction epidemic, insurers really should consider these effective alternative treatments which positively impact pain. Why NOT prescribe effective, non-addictive treatment whenever possible?

Previous 456 Next