Government Oversight of Private Insurance: What it Means for the Cost of Your Health Insurance
The plethora of health care laws passed in 2010 under the Affordable Care Act,include provisions for “rate setting” and monitoring of private sector insurance plans on a federal level. The ruling applies to all insurance plans which participate in any government funded health care program, including Medicare, Medicaid, and the soon-to-be-deployed regional insurance exchanges. This article explains how this differs from present rate monitoring and premium-setting and the ultimate impact on the consumer.
The Rules
Health & Human Services is charged with establishing a health insurance rate oversight committee, to assess the reasonableness of proposed health insurance rate increases starting in 2014. Since health insurance premiums have continued to grow at a rate in excess of inflation and increased 41% between 2003 and 2009, according to a Commonwealth Fund study , affordability is a concern. The federal PPACA law mandates health insurance as a means to providing national health care, so the viability of the national health care program depends on manageable health insurance premiums for the private sector.
Current State
Insurance premiums are determined based on each state’s rate authorization standards with the Insurance Commissioner, who is an elected official. Some states have a “use and file” policy which means the insurance company can decide to make plan changes, adjust the rates, and start implementing before the state approves them. Other states have a “file and preapproval” policy, which means you have to get the state office to approve of your math, the reasons for your plan increase first. The insurance company then has the opportunity to comment and either accept the commissioners regulations or withdraw the product. In the case of Principal Financial Group, when a previous Washington State Insurance Commissioner mandated that all individual medical plans provide maternity coverage and other provisions, they pulled their product from the state. In economic terms this is referred to as an unintended consequent of a regulatory action. The federal government does not have the authority to control state insurance premiums for the private sector. Medicare and Medicaid plans are of course, a different story as they are government plans.
Altered State
Through the process of gathering data, analyzing cost impacts, discerning patterns, and revealing information to health care purchasers, both individual and corporate, Health and Human Services, which oversees the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, is charged with creating a more transparent process for what you actually end up paying for medical insurance. The intent is good, but there is no regulatory authority to enforce rate fairness by state and a regulation without enforcement can be problematic. Finally, the cost of the regulation will be borne by the private sector rate payers, which will add a nominal cost to individual premiums, spread over the entire population.
Economic Impact
I spoke briefly of unintended consequences above, but let me restate, if an additional regulation means more insurance companies will cease to offer insurance plans to the small group and individual markets, this may not be a good thing for consumers. Of course, the insurance industry is already seeing a reduction in the number of companies offering medical insurance and this trend has been going on since I was in the benefits business in the 80’s and 90’s. In short, private sector companies, both for-profit and not-for-profit will make market decisions based on where their strengths lie and act accordingly. And one could argue that as long as the companies which remain are of quality and offer good consumer products and services, this change is not untenable. The Netherlands and Switzerland both have private sector insurance programs financing their public health plans and only a hand full of companies provide the coverage, which seems to work fine. Also, they pay much less per-capita for health care than the United States does, but the healthpolicymaven has told you that before.
What it Means to the Health Insurance Premium Payer
OK, here is the “skinny” on this one, since the federal government Does Not have rate setting authority for insurance, which is controlled by each state’s elected insurance commissioner and those state administrators, this change will not have a direct impact on the rates you pay for medical insurance. What is more, since it is highly unlikely the government will be able to overturn ERISA or the McCarran Ferguson Act; don’t expect to see any rate relief. ERISA is the Employee Retirement Income Security Act which created the exemption for self-funded or self-insured plans, which most major employers have used to exempt themselves from many state and federal mandates. I do not see the government succeeding in overturning this act either. The McCarran Ferguson Act is a federal law which gives states the authority to regulate insurance. It should also be noted that insurance premiums taxes are a major source of funding for the states and they will never give up that revenue. Indirectly the fact the government is requiring the disclosure of the rate factors and will publish the information is a good thing for consumers. You will no longer have to be an insider in the insurance business, which you know I was for a couple of decades, to understand this process. In conclusion, will this make your insurance cheaper, no, because that depends on many complex factors that have to do with underfunding of government programs which the private sector has to support with cost transfers, market supply factors, and the degree to which primary health care is deployed in this country. Finally, people will still have to care enough to read about the provisions and many people don’t. The healthpolicymaven’s book, Unraveling U.S. Health Care should come out later this year and it is a guidebook to our health system, in lay person’s terms, which I am hoping will facilitate more outreach in this area.
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Friday, April 29, 2011
Accountable Care Medicare Shared Savings Rules and How they Benefit Consumers
Accountable Care Organizations and Medicare Shared Savings Program
The federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which includes the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), announced proposed rules for the much vaunted Shared Savings Program for qualifying Accountable Care Organizations on March 31st. What struck me about the program, was how much of the risk management formula was taken directly from the private insurance sector, which is an indication of a public/private hybrid for program management. Since it is my belief that we can provide optimal public services through this model, I am keen to evaluate, follow, and measure the results for this revolutionary change in health care delivery for Americans. This article explains the risk sharing mechanisms in the new program and what it may mean for consumers.
Private Sector Influence
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid, which administer the largest health care program in the country, have created a health care program, called Accountable Care which requires clinical results within a certain range in order to get optimal reimbursement levels. Additionally, organizations which outperform the government set standards have an opportunity to receive a gain or a share of the unused funds. In the insurance business this is called retrospective financing, where the provider reimbursements and participant insurance rates are established based on certain assumptions by actuaries at the beginning of the plan year. About three months after the close of the plan year a final report is given, which illustrates the true performance compared to the expected levels. At this time the corporate insurance client either owes money or has a credit toward the new plan year. It is this type of accounting that CMS is using to gauge the “Shared Savings” for ACO participants. But before we examine the shared savings program let’s briefly review what it takes to qualify as an Accountable Care Organization.
Eligibility Rules for Accountable Care Organizations
Who is eligible to be part of an ACO? All clinicians in group practice arrangements, networks of individual practitioners, joint venture partnerships with hospitals and other professionals, hospitals who employ ACO professionals, Critical Access Hospitals, and any health care practitioner or entity receiving Medicare reimbursements for services are eligible for ACO status.
Potential Roadblocks in Achieving ACO Status
Rural and semi-rural areas may have difficulty with the ACO status (Wenatchee Valley Medical Center for eastern Washington comes to mind) because anti-trust hurdles must be cleared with respect to market share. I imagine the way an organization will address this is to make sure the mix of employed clinicians versus contracted ones meets the 50% or less rule for Primary Service Area standards. It also looks like the non-urban exemptions and critical access rules will allow organizations like these to qualify.
All organizations who wish to participate in the ACO program must maintain a minimum level of patient volume of 5,000 patients.
The Accountable Care Agreement is binding for Three Consecutive Years
Organizations participating in the ACO Shared Savings Program have a choice of two models, either the one-sided or two-sided version. The names are humorous to me, but let me explain where they come from in terms of insurance risk management programs. The one-sided program means the organization shares only in the “up-side” or gain for performance improvements under the contract. However, CMS always likes to be a little different and this more limited risk exposure is just for the first two years, after which the organization experiences the full risk sharing. The “two sided” model means the organization is exposed to both gains and losses from the beginning of the three year contract. This seems like a no-brainer, why would a clinic want to be on the hook for losses right away in a new Medicaid program? However there is more to it than that, because the potential for gain differs.
Government Incentive for Meeting Benchmarks
Using a complicated formula of a per-enrolled-patient-risk-adjusted cost benchmark CMS has created a financial incentive of 2% to 3.9% depending on the number of patients involved in the ACO. In my previous ACO article in September, I highlighted some of the clinical outcomes the agency was seeking, to be eligible for the shared savings. CMS has identified 65(yes, it is complex) quality measures in these five areas under ACO provisions:
1. Patient/caregiver experience
2. Care Coordination
3. Patient Safety
4. Preventive Health
5. At-risk population/frail elderly health
Conversely, in terms of shared losses, the organization’s cost basis must be 2% or more over the cap to be required to pay CMS a differential based on ACO patient performance. What is important is that the participating ACO organizations report their quality metrics using the Medicare Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS) and also using an electronic health record or HER or EMR. This incentive system will allow Medicare, the administrator for the largest health program in the United States to make assessments and extrapolate information on its population, for better program management. This is a great thing for the consumer, which is anyone who is on Medicare now and all of us who are paying for Medicare. There is also an additional incentive to use the Medicare reporting system which is the equivalent of one half percent of the total clinician’s billing to Medicare for each eligible professional’s Medicare Part B fee (out-patient doctor’s visits). This is significant and should encourage providers to participate in the program. Another ACO rule states that at least 50% of primary care physicians must be users of a certified electronic health record by the beginning of the second year of the contract. (Tremendous opportunity for EMR companies). Another aspect of the ACO rules is public reporting of some of the quality measures, which will create a nationwide standard for health care quality measures.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has anticipated that some organizations will have difficulty meeting 100% compliance, so they have a Corrective Action Plan process. The CAP process includes noncompliance warnings, special monitoring, and a formalized corrective plan. If an organization fails to meet the ACO compliance rules and is removed from the program, it must wait three years before re-applying for participation. The review process for noncompliance is rigorous and participating organizations must submit to period audits.
Consumer Benefits
One of the positive aspects of ACO reporting is the data which will be gathered in a standard format and shared in aggregate with participating Accountable Care Organizations. There are also methods to coordinate with other Medicare Demonstration Programs, to avoid “double-dipping.” Other Medicare Demonstration Projects include: the Independence at Home Medical Practice Demonstration, Medicare Health Care Quality Demonstration, Medical Home Demonstrations, Physician Group Practice Transition Demonstration, Community Home Health Teams supporting Patient-Centered Care, and various state initiatives supporting Medicaid patients with chronic conditions.
Conclusions for Consumers
The ground breaking requirements of the Accountable Care Organization Rules enacted in 2010 are the result of a peer review process since the International Order of Medicine’s infamous report on the poor patient safety record in many United States health care facilities. Consumers will start to have access to standardized reports on participating health care facilities clinical safety measures and patient care data. This is a tremendous step forward for American consumers, as transparency in reporting is one of the hallmarks of high quality organizations. Integrated health care organizations like Virginia Mason already provide detailed patient quality information and the CMS Shared Savings Program will help others achieve similar reporting and patient quality standards. This is an example of good governance at its best, with an incentive to respond to the consumer push for greater efficacy in patient care.
The federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which includes the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), announced proposed rules for the much vaunted Shared Savings Program for qualifying Accountable Care Organizations on March 31st. What struck me about the program, was how much of the risk management formula was taken directly from the private insurance sector, which is an indication of a public/private hybrid for program management. Since it is my belief that we can provide optimal public services through this model, I am keen to evaluate, follow, and measure the results for this revolutionary change in health care delivery for Americans. This article explains the risk sharing mechanisms in the new program and what it may mean for consumers.
Private Sector Influence
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid, which administer the largest health care program in the country, have created a health care program, called Accountable Care which requires clinical results within a certain range in order to get optimal reimbursement levels. Additionally, organizations which outperform the government set standards have an opportunity to receive a gain or a share of the unused funds. In the insurance business this is called retrospective financing, where the provider reimbursements and participant insurance rates are established based on certain assumptions by actuaries at the beginning of the plan year. About three months after the close of the plan year a final report is given, which illustrates the true performance compared to the expected levels. At this time the corporate insurance client either owes money or has a credit toward the new plan year. It is this type of accounting that CMS is using to gauge the “Shared Savings” for ACO participants. But before we examine the shared savings program let’s briefly review what it takes to qualify as an Accountable Care Organization.
Eligibility Rules for Accountable Care Organizations
Who is eligible to be part of an ACO? All clinicians in group practice arrangements, networks of individual practitioners, joint venture partnerships with hospitals and other professionals, hospitals who employ ACO professionals, Critical Access Hospitals, and any health care practitioner or entity receiving Medicare reimbursements for services are eligible for ACO status.
Potential Roadblocks in Achieving ACO Status
Rural and semi-rural areas may have difficulty with the ACO status (Wenatchee Valley Medical Center for eastern Washington comes to mind) because anti-trust hurdles must be cleared with respect to market share. I imagine the way an organization will address this is to make sure the mix of employed clinicians versus contracted ones meets the 50% or less rule for Primary Service Area standards. It also looks like the non-urban exemptions and critical access rules will allow organizations like these to qualify.
All organizations who wish to participate in the ACO program must maintain a minimum level of patient volume of 5,000 patients.
The Accountable Care Agreement is binding for Three Consecutive Years
Organizations participating in the ACO Shared Savings Program have a choice of two models, either the one-sided or two-sided version. The names are humorous to me, but let me explain where they come from in terms of insurance risk management programs. The one-sided program means the organization shares only in the “up-side” or gain for performance improvements under the contract. However, CMS always likes to be a little different and this more limited risk exposure is just for the first two years, after which the organization experiences the full risk sharing. The “two sided” model means the organization is exposed to both gains and losses from the beginning of the three year contract. This seems like a no-brainer, why would a clinic want to be on the hook for losses right away in a new Medicaid program? However there is more to it than that, because the potential for gain differs.
Government Incentive for Meeting Benchmarks
Using a complicated formula of a per-enrolled-patient-risk-adjusted cost benchmark CMS has created a financial incentive of 2% to 3.9% depending on the number of patients involved in the ACO. In my previous ACO article in September, I highlighted some of the clinical outcomes the agency was seeking, to be eligible for the shared savings. CMS has identified 65(yes, it is complex) quality measures in these five areas under ACO provisions:
1. Patient/caregiver experience
2. Care Coordination
3. Patient Safety
4. Preventive Health
5. At-risk population/frail elderly health
Conversely, in terms of shared losses, the organization’s cost basis must be 2% or more over the cap to be required to pay CMS a differential based on ACO patient performance. What is important is that the participating ACO organizations report their quality metrics using the Medicare Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS) and also using an electronic health record or HER or EMR. This incentive system will allow Medicare, the administrator for the largest health program in the United States to make assessments and extrapolate information on its population, for better program management. This is a great thing for the consumer, which is anyone who is on Medicare now and all of us who are paying for Medicare. There is also an additional incentive to use the Medicare reporting system which is the equivalent of one half percent of the total clinician’s billing to Medicare for each eligible professional’s Medicare Part B fee (out-patient doctor’s visits). This is significant and should encourage providers to participate in the program. Another ACO rule states that at least 50% of primary care physicians must be users of a certified electronic health record by the beginning of the second year of the contract. (Tremendous opportunity for EMR companies). Another aspect of the ACO rules is public reporting of some of the quality measures, which will create a nationwide standard for health care quality measures.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has anticipated that some organizations will have difficulty meeting 100% compliance, so they have a Corrective Action Plan process. The CAP process includes noncompliance warnings, special monitoring, and a formalized corrective plan. If an organization fails to meet the ACO compliance rules and is removed from the program, it must wait three years before re-applying for participation. The review process for noncompliance is rigorous and participating organizations must submit to period audits.
Consumer Benefits
One of the positive aspects of ACO reporting is the data which will be gathered in a standard format and shared in aggregate with participating Accountable Care Organizations. There are also methods to coordinate with other Medicare Demonstration Programs, to avoid “double-dipping.” Other Medicare Demonstration Projects include: the Independence at Home Medical Practice Demonstration, Medicare Health Care Quality Demonstration, Medical Home Demonstrations, Physician Group Practice Transition Demonstration, Community Home Health Teams supporting Patient-Centered Care, and various state initiatives supporting Medicaid patients with chronic conditions.
Conclusions for Consumers
The ground breaking requirements of the Accountable Care Organization Rules enacted in 2010 are the result of a peer review process since the International Order of Medicine’s infamous report on the poor patient safety record in many United States health care facilities. Consumers will start to have access to standardized reports on participating health care facilities clinical safety measures and patient care data. This is a tremendous step forward for American consumers, as transparency in reporting is one of the hallmarks of high quality organizations. Integrated health care organizations like Virginia Mason already provide detailed patient quality information and the CMS Shared Savings Program will help others achieve similar reporting and patient quality standards. This is an example of good governance at its best, with an incentive to respond to the consumer push for greater efficacy in patient care.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Hospital Quality-Checks & Balances
Discerning Hospital Quality
The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services(CMS) now requires health quality measures for specific clinical services, in order to recognize and encourage the best patient outcomes. Recognition will include greater financial reimbursement for those medical practices which conform to the CMS standards for clinical outcomes. This is yet another step in the right direction toward patient-centered-care as identified by the International Order of Medicine. This article highlights the primary hospital quality watchdogs in the United States and consumer tips on how to assess your hospital.
Organizations Measuring Hospital Quality
There are a number of ways to gauge your hospital’s quality, including accessing information from public sites, such as the Center for Disease Control, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Health & Human Services Agency. There are also nonprofit organizations devoted to measuring hospital quality including; the Joint Commission for Hospital Accreditation Organization, National Quality Forum,Then LeapFrog Group and the Quality & Patient Safety Organization. Here are the crib notes for these organizations.
Private Sector Quality Watchdogs
Joint Commission
The Joint Commission for Hospital Accreditation is the pre-eminent organization for auditing and certifying hospital services in the United States. Obtaining its’ certification is an essential requirement for hospitals, which may lose reimbursement contracts and patients without the JCO recognition. The Joint Commission recognizes twenty-two hospital medical errors, which it has been tracking for patient safety purposes for 15 years.
National Quality Forum
The National Quality Forum is a non-profit group created by thirty-two health care organizations to develop consensus about hospital quality indicators and reporting. The NQF reviews twenty-seven patient safety metrics, but the information is not shared with the public.
Quality & Patient Safety Organization
The non-profit Quality and Patient Safety Organization or QuPS provides state-by-state analysis of patient safety initiatives by state governments. You can go to the site and see what your state has done to make your hospital safer.
Public Agency Quality Police
Agency for Health Research and Quality
The Agency of Health Research and Quality or AHRQ was created in 1999 to promote methods for improving health care quality in the United States. Though it doesn’t have any enforcement provisions, it does conduct research, award grants, and recognize health care groups with excellent performance.
Center for Disease Control
The federal Center for Disease Control established the National Health Safety Network in 2005. As of 2010, twenty-two states had adopted this method for reporting patient safety errors in hospitals and other inpatient facilities. Presently, 3,000 hospitals use this system, which make it the largest database for hospital errors in the United States. The data is collected for scientific review and specific facilities are not disclosed.
Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services
The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services polices patient quality outcomes and publishes statistics, like patient mortality from pneumonia, heart failure, and acute myocardial infarction (AMI). However, mortality information alone is not a good measure of hospital quality or patient safety, because you would have to know the patient volumes as well as the morbidity or overall patient health. This information may be found at:
http://www.cms.gov/HospitalQualityInits/20_OutcomeMeasures.asp
One of the CMS sites that is helpful is the listing for certified organ transplant centers at: www.cms.gov/CertificationandComplianc/Downloads/ApprovedTransplantPrograms.pdf
Health & Human Services
The Health & Human Services Agency or HHS has a web site where you can find your hospital and compare clinical outcomes by diagnosis, to other facilities. This is a useful tool if you live in an urban area with multiple facilities, because you will literally be able to check their performance before your procedure. The link to this site is: www.hospitalcompare.hhs.gov
Other Public Sources for Hospital Certification Information
The American College of Surgeons publishes an on-line guide to Trauma Center Certification which is quite detailed because it explains the criteria for Level I Trauma Status. Also, university hospitals are teaching facilities and they typically have the highest status for trauma injuries. Information on your university hospital is available on its web site or through the State Department of Health.
Local Look
Washington State Hospitals which scored high in quality measures for 2009 data include: Virginia Mason, all of the Swedish Hospitals, University of Washington Medical Center, Harborview, Northwest Hospital, Seattle Children’s Hospital, Kadlec Hospital, St. Claire Hospital, and Mary Bridge Children’s Hospital. For information on how hospitals fared in your area, contact the healthpolicymaven by scrolling down to the comment tool or complete the form at: roberta@healthpolicymaven.com
Consumer Tips
The healthpolicymaven’s advice is to know-before-you-go for your surgical procedure and here are some helpful tips to figure out your hospital's quality score:
1.Look for public reporting of hospital medical errors as this is the highest degree of transparency and commitment to improve patient safety.
2.Hospitals which use a national model like the CDC’s National Health Safety Network are using a rigorously tested assessment model.
3.Find out if your state mandates public disclosure of patient safety errors and if it is available by facility.
4.The Center for Medicare & Medicaid publishes information on hospital performance, including infections, surgical errors, and discharge information.
5.Ask questions and do some research.
Closing Thoughts
This patient safety article may not seem that germane now that the country is in its third war and on its knees fiscally. However, the Chinese are paying our light bill, having mastered science and math and access to birth control. Meanwhile folks in the United States continue to debate teaching the science of evolution versus the dogma of religion in public schools. Is it any wonder the US doesn’t measure up to global standards for primary education
The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services(CMS) now requires health quality measures for specific clinical services, in order to recognize and encourage the best patient outcomes. Recognition will include greater financial reimbursement for those medical practices which conform to the CMS standards for clinical outcomes. This is yet another step in the right direction toward patient-centered-care as identified by the International Order of Medicine. This article highlights the primary hospital quality watchdogs in the United States and consumer tips on how to assess your hospital.
Organizations Measuring Hospital Quality
There are a number of ways to gauge your hospital’s quality, including accessing information from public sites, such as the Center for Disease Control, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Health & Human Services Agency. There are also nonprofit organizations devoted to measuring hospital quality including; the Joint Commission for Hospital Accreditation Organization, National Quality Forum,Then LeapFrog Group and the Quality & Patient Safety Organization. Here are the crib notes for these organizations.
Private Sector Quality Watchdogs
Joint Commission
The Joint Commission for Hospital Accreditation is the pre-eminent organization for auditing and certifying hospital services in the United States. Obtaining its’ certification is an essential requirement for hospitals, which may lose reimbursement contracts and patients without the JCO recognition. The Joint Commission recognizes twenty-two hospital medical errors, which it has been tracking for patient safety purposes for 15 years.
National Quality Forum
The National Quality Forum is a non-profit group created by thirty-two health care organizations to develop consensus about hospital quality indicators and reporting. The NQF reviews twenty-seven patient safety metrics, but the information is not shared with the public.
Quality & Patient Safety Organization
The non-profit Quality and Patient Safety Organization or QuPS provides state-by-state analysis of patient safety initiatives by state governments. You can go to the site and see what your state has done to make your hospital safer.
Public Agency Quality Police
Agency for Health Research and Quality
The Agency of Health Research and Quality or AHRQ was created in 1999 to promote methods for improving health care quality in the United States. Though it doesn’t have any enforcement provisions, it does conduct research, award grants, and recognize health care groups with excellent performance.
Center for Disease Control
The federal Center for Disease Control established the National Health Safety Network in 2005. As of 2010, twenty-two states had adopted this method for reporting patient safety errors in hospitals and other inpatient facilities. Presently, 3,000 hospitals use this system, which make it the largest database for hospital errors in the United States. The data is collected for scientific review and specific facilities are not disclosed.
Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services
The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services polices patient quality outcomes and publishes statistics, like patient mortality from pneumonia, heart failure, and acute myocardial infarction (AMI). However, mortality information alone is not a good measure of hospital quality or patient safety, because you would have to know the patient volumes as well as the morbidity or overall patient health. This information may be found at:
http://www.cms.gov/HospitalQualityInits/20_OutcomeMeasures.asp
One of the CMS sites that is helpful is the listing for certified organ transplant centers at: www.cms.gov/CertificationandComplianc/Downloads/ApprovedTransplantPrograms.pdf
Health & Human Services
The Health & Human Services Agency or HHS has a web site where you can find your hospital and compare clinical outcomes by diagnosis, to other facilities. This is a useful tool if you live in an urban area with multiple facilities, because you will literally be able to check their performance before your procedure. The link to this site is: www.hospitalcompare.hhs.gov
Other Public Sources for Hospital Certification Information
The American College of Surgeons publishes an on-line guide to Trauma Center Certification which is quite detailed because it explains the criteria for Level I Trauma Status. Also, university hospitals are teaching facilities and they typically have the highest status for trauma injuries. Information on your university hospital is available on its web site or through the State Department of Health.
Local Look
Washington State Hospitals which scored high in quality measures for 2009 data include: Virginia Mason, all of the Swedish Hospitals, University of Washington Medical Center, Harborview, Northwest Hospital, Seattle Children’s Hospital, Kadlec Hospital, St. Claire Hospital, and Mary Bridge Children’s Hospital. For information on how hospitals fared in your area, contact the healthpolicymaven by scrolling down to the comment tool or complete the form at: roberta@healthpolicymaven.com
Consumer Tips
The healthpolicymaven’s advice is to know-before-you-go for your surgical procedure and here are some helpful tips to figure out your hospital's quality score:
1.Look for public reporting of hospital medical errors as this is the highest degree of transparency and commitment to improve patient safety.
2.Hospitals which use a national model like the CDC’s National Health Safety Network are using a rigorously tested assessment model.
3.Find out if your state mandates public disclosure of patient safety errors and if it is available by facility.
4.The Center for Medicare & Medicaid publishes information on hospital performance, including infections, surgical errors, and discharge information.
5.Ask questions and do some research.
Closing Thoughts
This patient safety article may not seem that germane now that the country is in its third war and on its knees fiscally. However, the Chinese are paying our light bill, having mastered science and math and access to birth control. Meanwhile folks in the United States continue to debate teaching the science of evolution versus the dogma of religion in public schools. Is it any wonder the US doesn’t measure up to global standards for primary education
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Amending the 2010 Health Care Reforms Checklist
Suggestions for Amending the 2010 Health Care Reforms
Now that the teeth gnashing is on-going over proposed changes to the health care reforms of 2010, this article addresses some areas for potential modifications. If any of you are under the delusion that everything will be repealed, wake-up, because the Medicare changes are essential to management of that costly federal entitlement program. I am speaking of the pay-for-performance initiatives where Medicare (Center for Medicare Services) pays more money to organizations which have fewer medical errors and re-admissions for patient procedures. I am referring to the Accountable Care Act will have a major impact on how medical care is organized, models for disease interventions, and the reporting of performance metrics(I wrote about this last fall). So, that stays, but the rest of this article addresses some of the things that could go or at least be modified.
Federal Insurance Purchasing Subsidies for Mandated Health Insurance
A few months ago I did an analysis of the federal insurance purchasing subsidies for the middle-class under the Health Care Affordability Act and it was pretty eye opening. Based on World Bank data the mean income in the United States is $47,240, which is the average income per person using 2009 Gross Nation Income data . Using this average income as a starting point, what kind of a subsidy would someone receive in 2014, when the insurance exchanges are in place and medical insurance is mandated? Families with seven or more children and incomes equal to 133% of the federal poverty rate will receive a federal subsidy equal to 97% of the insurance premiums. This seems fair to me, as that is a modest income for a huge family. However, the federal subsidies also are slated to provide assistance to folks who fall within 400% of the federal poverty level, which can be a very decent income. For example, someone who is single and earns $54,120 is eligible to receive 90.5% of their insurance premium paid for by the federal government. First of all if you are single and have that much income you ought to be able to scrape by. Secondly, this income is higher than most of the world averages and higher than the USA’s average per capita. But it gets worse, based on the 400% of Federal Poverty Level criteria people who earn up to $185,160 are eligible to receive the same federal subsidy if they have at least eight children. Now, I think by anyone’s standards someone with that income, which falls into the top 10% of all incomes in the country, is not poor. I can see giving a subsidy to a family of four with the $54,120 income or even higher, but not over $100,000!
Budget Saving Suggestion
Here is my suggestion, only provide medical insurance subsidies to people who earn up to 150% of the mean national income, which equates to $71,131 and is roughly equivalent to $73,835 for a large family in the federal poverty criteria. For people who want tax subsidies for families earning over $100,000 I say start eating beans or tuna noodle casserole, which I ate a-lot-of as a child.
Possible Places for Federal Budget Cuts
For crying out loud, it would be nice if both parties could focus on the real apocalyptic events for the country, such as the fiscal meltdown from a strong country with reserves to the largest national debt in history in eight short years. The real concern should be reducing the national debt by cutting spending so the country will have to do less begging for financing from China and other creditors. According to the non-profit Kaiser Foundation, 40% of the entire 2010 federal budget was for defense spending. To decrease that by 50%, just cut the discretionary defense spending budget which equals nearly 20% of the entire federal budget, and we can get the country back in fiscal shape in no time. The country needs to find a way to pay for its existing programs, like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security and reducing spending on other ones is required.
Of course the Medicare expenses are of concern and the changes to the program in 2010 are a start towards reworking that care model. The USA will move to a Medicare model which provides services for the treatments that are most effective and hopefully pays the physicians a decent fee. There is still much to be done on aligning clinical reimbursement in both the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The latter is very onerous, because the federal government dictates Medicaid benefits but provides grossly uneven support to the states which are charged with administering the program.
Focus on the Real Issues which have significant Cost/Benefit Ratios
It would be nice if the Democrats would quit focusing on who-is-shagging-who or what someone’s sexual orientation is, because I really don’t want them to tell me about it. As long as it isn’t a crime (certain southern states excepted) I don’t need to hear about it and this goes for anyone’s sexual persuasion, I don’t care to hear about your predilections. I prefer to focus on issues we have in common, such as education, health care, and oh, not-going-into-the-poor-house as a nation. Don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t care is where I am at in this tired issue.
Republicans, I am tired of having abortion as such a divisive issue and I question whether the paltry amount of federal money that is actually spent on abortions for Medicaid women who have been raped (one of the criteria) is the real problem. What would it take to make you folks quit yapping about this issue, a total ban on federal money? The big stink made about offering birth control options, not just abortion in the federal insurance exchanges far exceeds the estimated $1 cost-per-head factor for this provision. Although I think it is immoral to prevent poor women from seeking birth control options which are legal, I believe the rational and generous people of this country will rise to their aid through contributions to Planned Parenthood and women's health organizations. Of course I know the right wingers will still flail away state-by-state (I reported on this in a July article for an east coast distribution and in my November blog about state appeals to the health care reform mandates) attempting to demonize women who seek medical procedures for which they do not agree. We can at least aspire to have a more effective and civilized national conversation about resource allocations.
Current focus on re-defining rape is actually part of the Republican Agenda in Congress
It would be nice if the vagina control police would spend less time defining what constitutes the a rape of a female, thereby qualifying her for federal funding for an abortion under the tan-your-Hyde Amendment, and focus on delivering cost effective primary care to everyone. The discussions on whether drug or alcohol induced sex with an incapacitated female constitute rape are too prurient for this voter. To say nothing of the “men's room chats” about redefining what is considered incest in the case of sexual intercourse. In other words if your uncle coerces his thirteen-year-old-niece to have sex with him and she gets pregnant that may not be considered rape unless other physical violence was involved (barring rape or incest the girl would not be eligible for a federally paid abortion). Also, since when are thirteen year-old girls women? The marginalizing of women in America is in full force, what is next, wearing burkas?
This article was written by Roberta E. Winter, MHA, MPA a health policy analyst and independent journalist and may be reprinted with her permission.
Now that the teeth gnashing is on-going over proposed changes to the health care reforms of 2010, this article addresses some areas for potential modifications. If any of you are under the delusion that everything will be repealed, wake-up, because the Medicare changes are essential to management of that costly federal entitlement program. I am speaking of the pay-for-performance initiatives where Medicare (Center for Medicare Services) pays more money to organizations which have fewer medical errors and re-admissions for patient procedures. I am referring to the Accountable Care Act will have a major impact on how medical care is organized, models for disease interventions, and the reporting of performance metrics(I wrote about this last fall). So, that stays, but the rest of this article addresses some of the things that could go or at least be modified.
Federal Insurance Purchasing Subsidies for Mandated Health Insurance
A few months ago I did an analysis of the federal insurance purchasing subsidies for the middle-class under the Health Care Affordability Act and it was pretty eye opening. Based on World Bank data the mean income in the United States is $47,240, which is the average income per person using 2009 Gross Nation Income data . Using this average income as a starting point, what kind of a subsidy would someone receive in 2014, when the insurance exchanges are in place and medical insurance is mandated? Families with seven or more children and incomes equal to 133% of the federal poverty rate will receive a federal subsidy equal to 97% of the insurance premiums. This seems fair to me, as that is a modest income for a huge family. However, the federal subsidies also are slated to provide assistance to folks who fall within 400% of the federal poverty level, which can be a very decent income. For example, someone who is single and earns $54,120 is eligible to receive 90.5% of their insurance premium paid for by the federal government. First of all if you are single and have that much income you ought to be able to scrape by. Secondly, this income is higher than most of the world averages and higher than the USA’s average per capita. But it gets worse, based on the 400% of Federal Poverty Level criteria people who earn up to $185,160 are eligible to receive the same federal subsidy if they have at least eight children. Now, I think by anyone’s standards someone with that income, which falls into the top 10% of all incomes in the country, is not poor. I can see giving a subsidy to a family of four with the $54,120 income or even higher, but not over $100,000!
Budget Saving Suggestion
Here is my suggestion, only provide medical insurance subsidies to people who earn up to 150% of the mean national income, which equates to $71,131 and is roughly equivalent to $73,835 for a large family in the federal poverty criteria. For people who want tax subsidies for families earning over $100,000 I say start eating beans or tuna noodle casserole, which I ate a-lot-of as a child.
Possible Places for Federal Budget Cuts
For crying out loud, it would be nice if both parties could focus on the real apocalyptic events for the country, such as the fiscal meltdown from a strong country with reserves to the largest national debt in history in eight short years. The real concern should be reducing the national debt by cutting spending so the country will have to do less begging for financing from China and other creditors. According to the non-profit Kaiser Foundation, 40% of the entire 2010 federal budget was for defense spending. To decrease that by 50%, just cut the discretionary defense spending budget which equals nearly 20% of the entire federal budget, and we can get the country back in fiscal shape in no time. The country needs to find a way to pay for its existing programs, like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security and reducing spending on other ones is required.
Of course the Medicare expenses are of concern and the changes to the program in 2010 are a start towards reworking that care model. The USA will move to a Medicare model which provides services for the treatments that are most effective and hopefully pays the physicians a decent fee. There is still much to be done on aligning clinical reimbursement in both the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The latter is very onerous, because the federal government dictates Medicaid benefits but provides grossly uneven support to the states which are charged with administering the program.
Focus on the Real Issues which have significant Cost/Benefit Ratios
It would be nice if the Democrats would quit focusing on who-is-shagging-who or what someone’s sexual orientation is, because I really don’t want them to tell me about it. As long as it isn’t a crime (certain southern states excepted) I don’t need to hear about it and this goes for anyone’s sexual persuasion, I don’t care to hear about your predilections. I prefer to focus on issues we have in common, such as education, health care, and oh, not-going-into-the-poor-house as a nation. Don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t care is where I am at in this tired issue.
Republicans, I am tired of having abortion as such a divisive issue and I question whether the paltry amount of federal money that is actually spent on abortions for Medicaid women who have been raped (one of the criteria) is the real problem. What would it take to make you folks quit yapping about this issue, a total ban on federal money? The big stink made about offering birth control options, not just abortion in the federal insurance exchanges far exceeds the estimated $1 cost-per-head factor for this provision. Although I think it is immoral to prevent poor women from seeking birth control options which are legal, I believe the rational and generous people of this country will rise to their aid through contributions to Planned Parenthood and women's health organizations. Of course I know the right wingers will still flail away state-by-state (I reported on this in a July article for an east coast distribution and in my November blog about state appeals to the health care reform mandates) attempting to demonize women who seek medical procedures for which they do not agree. We can at least aspire to have a more effective and civilized national conversation about resource allocations.
Current focus on re-defining rape is actually part of the Republican Agenda in Congress
It would be nice if the vagina control police would spend less time defining what constitutes the a rape of a female, thereby qualifying her for federal funding for an abortion under the tan-your-Hyde Amendment, and focus on delivering cost effective primary care to everyone. The discussions on whether drug or alcohol induced sex with an incapacitated female constitute rape are too prurient for this voter. To say nothing of the “men's room chats” about redefining what is considered incest in the case of sexual intercourse. In other words if your uncle coerces his thirteen-year-old-niece to have sex with him and she gets pregnant that may not be considered rape unless other physical violence was involved (barring rape or incest the girl would not be eligible for a federally paid abortion). Also, since when are thirteen year-old girls women? The marginalizing of women in America is in full force, what is next, wearing burkas?
This article was written by Roberta E. Winter, MHA, MPA a health policy analyst and independent journalist and may be reprinted with her permission.
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Fatwa on the Fat Wallets; the Dismantling of the Middle Class in America
How the latest proposed tax cuts lead to the dismantling of the middle class in America
President Obama’s latest capitulation to the greed of the Republicans is unparalled in the blatant disregard for the middle class of the United States. In the event you are just coming out of a coma let me enlighten you as to the facts on the Obama Tax Cut Proposal.
Social Security is being Dismantled
The financing mechanism for social security has been cut by 30%; further eroding the ability of this program to provide the funds for those who are retired, disabled, as well as for widows and children. This is not some abstract idea to me, as my son lost his father when he was an infant and it has been a long 14 years of scratching by. In order to pay for the current social security benefits the fund has to borrow money, to the tune of 112 million. The reduction in Social Security funding will mean our children will have to pay higher taxes in the future to make up for the funding shortfall, to say nothing of the fact I have paid into it since I was fourteen years old.
Impact on the National Debt
The United States overspending is financed by other countries, including China, who have now decided that the US debt is not such a good investment and they have raised the interest rate the US must pay (which is akin to a drop in the bond rating of the nation). This country is spending 39% of the entire 2010 annual budget on war and half of that is on a discretionary defense budget; since I no longer have a discretionary budget, I suggest we get rid of that expense and balance the budget like the rest of us.
Impact on the Average American
The impotent rational for the give-a-way to the rich was the extension of unemployment benefits to the 15 million people who are out of work, of which I am one. Why does there have to be a rational when the country is in a depression and job cuts are at every level both private sector and in all levels of government? Once again government is out of touch with the daily lives of its citizens.
According to the latest figures from the World Bank the average income in this country is $47,240 and the tax cuts provide less of proportional benefit to the average American, with $1,000 for those earning $50,000 and $2,000 for those earning $100,000. People who earn the former need the money more.
The entire spend for Medicare and Medicaid health care programs is only 23% of the budget and with current Social Security spending that adds another 20%, for a grand total of 43%. Yes, that is right folks; your government spends nearly as much on war as on all of the benefits, which you have paid for, for everyone else in the country. At least Obama has included health care in the benefit equation, but he capitulated on that too, by letting the insurance lobby create an expensive mess instead of more affordable national health care.
The top 3% don’t need the tax breaks and boo hoo on their estate taxes; they set up trusts, and use insurance to pay that tab anyway. And whatever happened to the adage you can’t take it with you?
Conclusion
It is about time the elected officials in this country started having more respect for the poor working stiffs, who are not getting ahead, instead of catering to the rich, who are obviously born under a different star. So Mr. Obama as you continue to spend 40% of the budget on a war that we never should have entered and dismantle my Social Security benefits, I look forward to opening that can of Friskies for dinner. The dismantling of the middle-class will bring a revolution to this country, for which I am prepared to serve. Ending on a positive note I salute Senator Bernard Sanders of Vermont for his nine and a half hour filibuster decrying the injustice of this tax proposal.
This article was written by Roberta E. Winter, MHA, MPA an independent health policy analyst and may be reprinted with her permission.
President Obama’s latest capitulation to the greed of the Republicans is unparalled in the blatant disregard for the middle class of the United States. In the event you are just coming out of a coma let me enlighten you as to the facts on the Obama Tax Cut Proposal.
Social Security is being Dismantled
The financing mechanism for social security has been cut by 30%; further eroding the ability of this program to provide the funds for those who are retired, disabled, as well as for widows and children. This is not some abstract idea to me, as my son lost his father when he was an infant and it has been a long 14 years of scratching by. In order to pay for the current social security benefits the fund has to borrow money, to the tune of 112 million. The reduction in Social Security funding will mean our children will have to pay higher taxes in the future to make up for the funding shortfall, to say nothing of the fact I have paid into it since I was fourteen years old.
Impact on the National Debt
The United States overspending is financed by other countries, including China, who have now decided that the US debt is not such a good investment and they have raised the interest rate the US must pay (which is akin to a drop in the bond rating of the nation). This country is spending 39% of the entire 2010 annual budget on war and half of that is on a discretionary defense budget; since I no longer have a discretionary budget, I suggest we get rid of that expense and balance the budget like the rest of us.
Impact on the Average American
The impotent rational for the give-a-way to the rich was the extension of unemployment benefits to the 15 million people who are out of work, of which I am one. Why does there have to be a rational when the country is in a depression and job cuts are at every level both private sector and in all levels of government? Once again government is out of touch with the daily lives of its citizens.
According to the latest figures from the World Bank the average income in this country is $47,240 and the tax cuts provide less of proportional benefit to the average American, with $1,000 for those earning $50,000 and $2,000 for those earning $100,000. People who earn the former need the money more.
The entire spend for Medicare and Medicaid health care programs is only 23% of the budget and with current Social Security spending that adds another 20%, for a grand total of 43%. Yes, that is right folks; your government spends nearly as much on war as on all of the benefits, which you have paid for, for everyone else in the country. At least Obama has included health care in the benefit equation, but he capitulated on that too, by letting the insurance lobby create an expensive mess instead of more affordable national health care.
The top 3% don’t need the tax breaks and boo hoo on their estate taxes; they set up trusts, and use insurance to pay that tab anyway. And whatever happened to the adage you can’t take it with you?
Conclusion
It is about time the elected officials in this country started having more respect for the poor working stiffs, who are not getting ahead, instead of catering to the rich, who are obviously born under a different star. So Mr. Obama as you continue to spend 40% of the budget on a war that we never should have entered and dismantle my Social Security benefits, I look forward to opening that can of Friskies for dinner. The dismantling of the middle-class will bring a revolution to this country, for which I am prepared to serve. Ending on a positive note I salute Senator Bernard Sanders of Vermont for his nine and a half hour filibuster decrying the injustice of this tax proposal.
This article was written by Roberta E. Winter, MHA, MPA an independent health policy analyst and may be reprinted with her permission.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
State by State Analysis of Patient Rights under 2010 Reforms
State Reactions to 2010 Health Care Reforms
A virtual firestorm has ensued with state reactions to some of the federal government mandates under the health care reforms of 2010, from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the Public Health Services Act, and the Affordable Health Care Act for America. This article reviews two of these bones of contention, including the consumer protection aspects, which impact the Office of Insurance Commissioners and the reproductive rights provisions.
Consumer Protections under Federal Mandates
The federal government has awarded thirty million dollars in grants to the states to shore up their consumer protection services for health insurance policy holders. Since the insurance commissioners of each state are already charged with this duty, are staffed for it, and are funded by a tax on the insurance premiums for each insurer, I struggle with the necessity of this award. The insurance commissioner’s office for each state are very well funded and provide general revenue to each state well beyond their budget requirements. If those states aren’t able to staff appropriately for consumer protections, they should take this up with their state legislatures.
Upon reviewing the mandated consumer protections, they appear to reinforce existing protections in many states, but perhaps the standardization of the process is a good thing overall. Here are the new rules for an insured’s right to appeal a health insurer’s claim decision:
•Allows consumers to appeal when a health plan denies a claim for a covered service or rescinds coverage
•Gives consumers detailed information about the grounds for the denial of claims or coverage
•Requires plans to notify consumers about their right to appeal and instructs them on how to begin the appeals process
•Ensures a full and fair review of the denial
•Provides consumers with an expedited appeals process in urgent cases
These provisions are already spelled out in the Summary Plan Description which employers are required to distribute to medical plan participants as a federal reporting requirement under ERISA health and welfare plans. The new provisions codify what 44 states already have in operation for the outside appeal process. Still, the thirty million dollars to encourage compliance seems like overkill for the six states who are not already meeting these recommended standards, which were created by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. Basically the new rules specify that the patient has a right to an independent review of a rejected claim. According to the Kaiser Foundation’s report on external reviews of insurance claims, the insured won 44% of the time on appeal. Certainly this is enough of an incentive for many patients to pursue a claim review, but one has to wonder, if it is a life saving treatment, the appeals process could still exhaust the patient’s treatment window for optimal efficacy.
Reproductive Rights under Federal Health Care Reforms
I reviewed legislation for all fifty states as of June 2010 and 86% of them had bills that were introduced to modify their compliance with the federal insurance exchanges and other mandates, to be rolled out in 2014. Basically here is what the fuss is about; the federal standards state that Medicaid and the insurance exchange plans will cover reproductive procedures. Of course this includes abortion and birth control. Since the Hyde Amendment restricts any federal money from paying for abortion, this means the insurance exchanges and Medicaid plans could include abortion coverage but the states or private employers would pay for it. This has raised the hackles of a lot of people, who do not want to be told what to do when they are going to pay the tab. According to a 2003 survey on contraceptive care provided by insurance programs, 87% of private employers offered coverage for abortion services, which covered approximately 46% of the U.S. population. Since the majority of private employer medical plans already cover abortion and birth control procedures for their female workers, this standard is not new. What is new is the government’s attempt to offer the same reproductive rights to low income women through Medicaid and the subsidies for eligible employers. Many of the states are objecting to the federal requirement that they must offer poor women the opportunity to receive birth control treatment. Why don’t you just keep them barefoot and pregnant? Here are my winners and losers on the reproductive rights bills:
Most female friendly regarding reproductive autonomy
Current Laws
Colorado Law 1021 requires insurers to cover contraceptives if they provide maternity coverage. Wisconsin SA458 improves sex education for youth.
Under Consideration
Illinois- Senate Bill 2482 requires insurance companies who provide prescription drug coverage to include coverage for contraceptives. House Bill 6205 codifies the right to abortion even if Roe-v-Wade is overturned. Bill 6205 also assures the right of Medicaid women to receive contraceptives and abortion as needed. House Bill 6842 blocks some access to reproductive health care under federal health reform stipulations.
Let’s give a shout out to South Dakota for proposing insurance companies cover contraceptives, but also for expanding Medicaid for pregnancy related services. Other states who seek to expand Medicaid for low income women are Alaska and Illinois.
The following states have bills stipulating improvements in sex education, emergency contraceptives upon request (morning after pill), and insurance reimbursement for contraceptives: Pennsylvania, New York, Missouri, Minnesota, California, and Hawaii.
Most paternalistic states regarding female reproductive autonomy
Current Law
Providers Can Decline to Provide Contraceptive Services
The following states have enacted laws which allow health care providers (pharmacists or clinicians) to decline to provide birth control services: Idaho S1353 enacted 3/29/2010 and Oklahoma S1891 signed 4/2/2010.
No Abortions under Private Insurance Plans Either
Under current law, the following states do not allow private insurance funding for abortion services; Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma, Idaho, and North Dakota. If you are unfortunate enough to live in North Dakota, now is a good time to consider moving over to the healthier and wealthier Minnesota neighbor, though I must confess I am a former Minnesotan.
No Abortions in Health Insurance Exchanges
States which have enacted laws that restrict abortion and other contraceptive services under state health insurance exchanges include Arizona and Mississippi.
Arizona- S1305 enacted 4/24/2010, prohibits insurance companies participating in the insurance exchanges from offering abortion and S1001 signed 4/1/2010, blocks portions of the federal health care reforms. If that isn’t charming enough, S1305 also prohibits insurance companies who cover state employees from offering abortion coverage.
States Seeking to Limit Birth Control specifically for Low Income Women
Virginia H30 passed 5/17/2010 limiting access to abortion for Medicaid eligible women and
Colorado L1311 prohibits the payment of abortion for Medicaid participants.
Pending Bills Restricting Reproductive Rights
North Carolina currently has a law that allows insurance companies to refuse contraceptive coverage, N.C. 1068 and also restricts access to contraceptives in school health services (let's keep those teen pregnancies coming). The coupe de tat’ Bill 890 makes an unborn child a crime victim separate and apart from the mother, legalizing the fetus status as an individual. North Carolina also introduced a bill on 3/31/2010 requiring all pregnant women to get an ultrasound, regardless of efficacy, to submit to a state lecture on fetal development, and to wait 24 hours before termination. Also a bill was introduced on 4/13/09 to prohibit state employees and teachers from having an abortion paid for by state medical plans. I wonder if the school boards can still fire teachers who become pregnant out of wedlock as well. Double winner here, ladies, cross your legs in NC. Bill 1157 would restrict funding for low income women on Medicaid, by not covering birth control services. A bill introduced on 6/17/2010 would block federal health care standards for women. Finally, Bill 431 would require parental consent in writing before getting an abortion. Let’s see, your parents may have a different religion, different sexual orientation, and you may not even be living with them, but you need their permission? How does this work for foster kids and run-a-ways?
Additional States that seek to limit access to sex education, contraceptives, fair access to birth control for low income women (Medicaid), and to criminalize abortion are:
Alabama, Louisiana, Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico.
Does this really matter when the 1977 Hyde Amendment has continually been ratified and every federal budget limits payment for abortion procedures except in the case of rape, incest, or a life threatening situation? The tan-your-Hyde amendment has also been broadened to include no federal reimbursement for abortion for federal employees, women in the military, or for Indian Health Services. The latter is a real confounder since American Indian Tribes are considered sovereign nations, yet are conscripted to obtain health care from the occupying nation with opposing values. The 2010 reproductive rights provisions matter because the states can choose different provisions for abortion financing and service availability through the insurance exchanges and Medicaid programs. There is also specific language to protect clinicians who do not want to provide abortions, but no language protecting those who do. This is another example of unequal rights in the land of the not-so-free. The most onerous task is the mandate to attach a separate premium for abortion costs and to bill it as an addendum to the exchange plans. This seems like a lot of work for the estimated $1 additional cost per eligible woman, but that may be another way for the federal government to discourage abortions. What is next, wearing the letter A on our blouses? The shame attached to a common birth control method and often medically necessary procedure wastes a lot of resources that could be better spent on improving primary care across the board. For example, building a robust sex education program into the school system and providing contraceptive options to the sexually active population.
There will be other issues the states will argue about for health care reform implementations, but I thought we would start off with the most litigious and now the healthpolicymaven is signing off with condom in hand.
This article was written by Roberta E. Winter, MHA, MPA and may be reprinted with her permission.
A virtual firestorm has ensued with state reactions to some of the federal government mandates under the health care reforms of 2010, from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the Public Health Services Act, and the Affordable Health Care Act for America. This article reviews two of these bones of contention, including the consumer protection aspects, which impact the Office of Insurance Commissioners and the reproductive rights provisions.
Consumer Protections under Federal Mandates
The federal government has awarded thirty million dollars in grants to the states to shore up their consumer protection services for health insurance policy holders. Since the insurance commissioners of each state are already charged with this duty, are staffed for it, and are funded by a tax on the insurance premiums for each insurer, I struggle with the necessity of this award. The insurance commissioner’s office for each state are very well funded and provide general revenue to each state well beyond their budget requirements. If those states aren’t able to staff appropriately for consumer protections, they should take this up with their state legislatures.
Upon reviewing the mandated consumer protections, they appear to reinforce existing protections in many states, but perhaps the standardization of the process is a good thing overall. Here are the new rules for an insured’s right to appeal a health insurer’s claim decision:
•Allows consumers to appeal when a health plan denies a claim for a covered service or rescinds coverage
•Gives consumers detailed information about the grounds for the denial of claims or coverage
•Requires plans to notify consumers about their right to appeal and instructs them on how to begin the appeals process
•Ensures a full and fair review of the denial
•Provides consumers with an expedited appeals process in urgent cases
These provisions are already spelled out in the Summary Plan Description which employers are required to distribute to medical plan participants as a federal reporting requirement under ERISA health and welfare plans. The new provisions codify what 44 states already have in operation for the outside appeal process. Still, the thirty million dollars to encourage compliance seems like overkill for the six states who are not already meeting these recommended standards, which were created by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. Basically the new rules specify that the patient has a right to an independent review of a rejected claim. According to the Kaiser Foundation’s report on external reviews of insurance claims, the insured won 44% of the time on appeal. Certainly this is enough of an incentive for many patients to pursue a claim review, but one has to wonder, if it is a life saving treatment, the appeals process could still exhaust the patient’s treatment window for optimal efficacy.
Reproductive Rights under Federal Health Care Reforms
I reviewed legislation for all fifty states as of June 2010 and 86% of them had bills that were introduced to modify their compliance with the federal insurance exchanges and other mandates, to be rolled out in 2014. Basically here is what the fuss is about; the federal standards state that Medicaid and the insurance exchange plans will cover reproductive procedures. Of course this includes abortion and birth control. Since the Hyde Amendment restricts any federal money from paying for abortion, this means the insurance exchanges and Medicaid plans could include abortion coverage but the states or private employers would pay for it. This has raised the hackles of a lot of people, who do not want to be told what to do when they are going to pay the tab. According to a 2003 survey on contraceptive care provided by insurance programs, 87% of private employers offered coverage for abortion services, which covered approximately 46% of the U.S. population. Since the majority of private employer medical plans already cover abortion and birth control procedures for their female workers, this standard is not new. What is new is the government’s attempt to offer the same reproductive rights to low income women through Medicaid and the subsidies for eligible employers. Many of the states are objecting to the federal requirement that they must offer poor women the opportunity to receive birth control treatment. Why don’t you just keep them barefoot and pregnant? Here are my winners and losers on the reproductive rights bills:
Most female friendly regarding reproductive autonomy
Current Laws
Colorado Law 1021 requires insurers to cover contraceptives if they provide maternity coverage. Wisconsin SA458 improves sex education for youth.
Under Consideration
Illinois- Senate Bill 2482 requires insurance companies who provide prescription drug coverage to include coverage for contraceptives. House Bill 6205 codifies the right to abortion even if Roe-v-Wade is overturned. Bill 6205 also assures the right of Medicaid women to receive contraceptives and abortion as needed. House Bill 6842 blocks some access to reproductive health care under federal health reform stipulations.
Let’s give a shout out to South Dakota for proposing insurance companies cover contraceptives, but also for expanding Medicaid for pregnancy related services. Other states who seek to expand Medicaid for low income women are Alaska and Illinois.
The following states have bills stipulating improvements in sex education, emergency contraceptives upon request (morning after pill), and insurance reimbursement for contraceptives: Pennsylvania, New York, Missouri, Minnesota, California, and Hawaii.
Most paternalistic states regarding female reproductive autonomy
Current Law
Providers Can Decline to Provide Contraceptive Services
The following states have enacted laws which allow health care providers (pharmacists or clinicians) to decline to provide birth control services: Idaho S1353 enacted 3/29/2010 and Oklahoma S1891 signed 4/2/2010.
No Abortions under Private Insurance Plans Either
Under current law, the following states do not allow private insurance funding for abortion services; Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma, Idaho, and North Dakota. If you are unfortunate enough to live in North Dakota, now is a good time to consider moving over to the healthier and wealthier Minnesota neighbor, though I must confess I am a former Minnesotan.
No Abortions in Health Insurance Exchanges
States which have enacted laws that restrict abortion and other contraceptive services under state health insurance exchanges include Arizona and Mississippi.
Arizona- S1305 enacted 4/24/2010, prohibits insurance companies participating in the insurance exchanges from offering abortion and S1001 signed 4/1/2010, blocks portions of the federal health care reforms. If that isn’t charming enough, S1305 also prohibits insurance companies who cover state employees from offering abortion coverage.
States Seeking to Limit Birth Control specifically for Low Income Women
Virginia H30 passed 5/17/2010 limiting access to abortion for Medicaid eligible women and
Colorado L1311 prohibits the payment of abortion for Medicaid participants.
Pending Bills Restricting Reproductive Rights
North Carolina currently has a law that allows insurance companies to refuse contraceptive coverage, N.C. 1068 and also restricts access to contraceptives in school health services (let's keep those teen pregnancies coming). The coupe de tat’ Bill 890 makes an unborn child a crime victim separate and apart from the mother, legalizing the fetus status as an individual. North Carolina also introduced a bill on 3/31/2010 requiring all pregnant women to get an ultrasound, regardless of efficacy, to submit to a state lecture on fetal development, and to wait 24 hours before termination. Also a bill was introduced on 4/13/09 to prohibit state employees and teachers from having an abortion paid for by state medical plans. I wonder if the school boards can still fire teachers who become pregnant out of wedlock as well. Double winner here, ladies, cross your legs in NC. Bill 1157 would restrict funding for low income women on Medicaid, by not covering birth control services. A bill introduced on 6/17/2010 would block federal health care standards for women. Finally, Bill 431 would require parental consent in writing before getting an abortion. Let’s see, your parents may have a different religion, different sexual orientation, and you may not even be living with them, but you need their permission? How does this work for foster kids and run-a-ways?
Additional States that seek to limit access to sex education, contraceptives, fair access to birth control for low income women (Medicaid), and to criminalize abortion are:
Alabama, Louisiana, Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico.
Does this really matter when the 1977 Hyde Amendment has continually been ratified and every federal budget limits payment for abortion procedures except in the case of rape, incest, or a life threatening situation? The tan-your-Hyde amendment has also been broadened to include no federal reimbursement for abortion for federal employees, women in the military, or for Indian Health Services. The latter is a real confounder since American Indian Tribes are considered sovereign nations, yet are conscripted to obtain health care from the occupying nation with opposing values. The 2010 reproductive rights provisions matter because the states can choose different provisions for abortion financing and service availability through the insurance exchanges and Medicaid programs. There is also specific language to protect clinicians who do not want to provide abortions, but no language protecting those who do. This is another example of unequal rights in the land of the not-so-free. The most onerous task is the mandate to attach a separate premium for abortion costs and to bill it as an addendum to the exchange plans. This seems like a lot of work for the estimated $1 additional cost per eligible woman, but that may be another way for the federal government to discourage abortions. What is next, wearing the letter A on our blouses? The shame attached to a common birth control method and often medically necessary procedure wastes a lot of resources that could be better spent on improving primary care across the board. For example, building a robust sex education program into the school system and providing contraceptive options to the sexually active population.
There will be other issues the states will argue about for health care reform implementations, but I thought we would start off with the most litigious and now the healthpolicymaven is signing off with condom in hand.
This article was written by Roberta E. Winter, MHA, MPA and may be reprinted with her permission.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
High Risk Medical Insurance Federal Mandates
Comparison of State High Risk Medical Pools to the Federal Mandate for Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plans or PCIP's
Recently I had the opportunity to listen in on the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund webinar about how state high risk insurance pools compare to the recent federal mandates for Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plans. The federal PCIP plans are a transition into the nationwide health care reforms mandating all people are covered regardless of their health and without waiting periods for medical insurance. The federal PCIP program started in July 2010 and runs to January 2014, when the national mandates for all insurance plans are slated for activation. This article addresses the plan differences and identifies which states have existing publicly managed health care plans for individuals the insurance industry didn’t want to serve, the uninsurable. Hallelujah, for all of you folks with real health problems, somebody cares, and you can thank the government.
Federal Mandates for PCIPs
The federal PCIP regulations require that all insurance plans be offered without waiting periods for pre-existing conditions, as I have previously reported. They also mandate that these individuals may not be charged a surcharge premium for their risk, in other words you can’t discriminate based on someone’s health. The maximum out of pocket cost for covered medical services per individual under the federal plan is $5,950 per year. The coverage must be nationwide, which probably means some insurance companies will not participate in the plans, which is fine. In order to be eligible for coverage under the federal plan, you must have been uninsured for six months. The federal plan does not offer a high deductible medical plan option of $5,000 for example. State high risk pools are not impacted by the health care reform mandate as they are not insurance companies or insurance plans, but nonprofit self insured funds.
States with Existing High Risk Medical Pools
Wisconsin-WHIRP
The information in this analysis comes from a presentation by Amie Goldman, CEO of WHIRP or Wisconsin Health Insurance Risk Pool. The oldest high risk pool for medical insurance is the State of Wisconsin’s, started by the enterprising cheese makers in 1980, which provides medical coverage for 18,300 participants. Their composite premiums are equal to the private market rates for medical insurance in their state, even though they insure the “high risk” people. Also since they are a nonprofit entity, they do not have to pay the state insurance premium tax, which is an administrative saving. The monthly premium for a 50-54 year old is a mere $277, significantly less than other states. In terms of what their participants want for coverage, they prefer the first dollar benefits. Wisconsin has not noticed any adverse selection, where someone signs up, gets their procedure done, and then dumps the coverage. Wisconsin also does a lot of outreach to health care providers and benefit specialists (insurance agents) to promote their plan. Their director did state that low income folks are still more likely to be uninsured (no kidding, let’s see we'll pay the electricity bill or the insurance). Essentially the chronically uninsured are not able to afford to pay for the premiums (poverty sucks).
New Mexico-NMMIP
The information in this review was presented by Deborah Armstrong, JD, director of the New Mexico high risk medical program. Since New Mexico is a less populated state, they only have 8,200 people enrolled in their high risk health care plan. According to their director, their most popular plan has a $500 deductible. Of their population, it is expected that 1,000 will enroll in the federal high risk pool. Their premium rate (cost) for a 54 year old person is $495 per month, which is less expensive than the new federal risk pool. New Mexico provides financial subsidies for low income people enrolling in their high risk health care pool. Administratively they do promote their product and recently AARP did a mass mailing about it. The state also pays a broker fee to encourage insurance agents to market the program.
Washington-WSHIP
Washington State has had a high risk medical plan since 1987, which basically covers all of the people who the private insurance sector did not want to cover and those who can afford the premium. The plan almost evaporated in 2000 due to financial problems at the state and federal level, but with some revisions, it still exists today. And Washington State was selected as the administrator for the federal interim plan or PCIP, until the 2014 health care reforms are fully implemented. The Washington State pool is funded by assessments on insurance companies, based on their premiums charged to customers. Premiums charges to medical pool participants are allowed to be 10% higher than market rates and cover 33% of the pool’s claims. The rest of the plans cost is paid by insurer assessments and there is no state revenue funding. According to Washington’s WSHIP report, about 5% of applicants for market rate medical insurance are rejected and of those, 20% have the resources to enroll on the state plan. According to the 2009 annual report of plan performance, the top diagnosis claimed were all cancer related. For pharmaceutical charges, 58% were HIV/Aids related and these represented 9% of the top prescription drug categories of expenses. Washington’s plan is split into Non Medicare and Medicare Eligible products. For purposes of this analysis, the focus is on Non Medicare products. Since I have already used the 50-54 year old age group for pricing, I am also illustrating that here, because at this age it is more likely medical conditions will exist that may make those persons ineligible for market rate insurance. Monthly premiums for a non smoking person in this age bracket would pay $986/month for a $500 deductible health plan and $476 for a $2,500 deductible health plan. Overall enrollment in Washington’s risk pool was 3,578 people in 2009.
Federal High Risk Medical Plan Rates
$500 and $2,500 deductible plans
Child only premium-$324/$161 for nonsmokers(straight off the federal register)
Child only monthly premium-$327/$162 for smokers (By looks of the small premium difference thankfully there are not too many kids smoking.)
Youth to age 24, nonsmokers, $377, $177 and for smokers,$431 and $207
Age 25-29, nonsmokers, $423, $200, and for smokers, $489 and $232
Age 30-34, nonsmokers, $489, $233, and for smokers, $566 and $271
Age 35-59, nonsmokers, $567, $273, and for smokers, $657 and $316
Age 40-44, nonsmokers, $671, $328, and for smokers, $784 and $382
Age 45-49, nonsmokers, $822, $402, and for smokers, $952 and $464
Age 50-54, nonsmokers, $986, $476, and for smokers, $1,143 and $556
Age 55-59, nonsmokers, $1,157, $563 and for smokers, $1,342 and $653
Age 60-64, nonsmokers, $1,355, $655 and for smokers, $1,577 and $769
65 Plus, nonsmokers, $1,355, $655 and for smokers, $1,577 and $769
Conclusion
The majority of the states (36) have tried to address the “at risk” population of people with serious medical conditions who are unable to obtain medical insurance, which drastically impacts their ability to receive adequate medical treatment. For information on what your specific state is doing, go to the insurance commissioner web site and look for State High Risk Medical Pool or something similar. Or call the customer service number of your state's insurance commissioner’s office and ask about it.
Recently I had the opportunity to listen in on the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund webinar about how state high risk insurance pools compare to the recent federal mandates for Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plans. The federal PCIP plans are a transition into the nationwide health care reforms mandating all people are covered regardless of their health and without waiting periods for medical insurance. The federal PCIP program started in July 2010 and runs to January 2014, when the national mandates for all insurance plans are slated for activation. This article addresses the plan differences and identifies which states have existing publicly managed health care plans for individuals the insurance industry didn’t want to serve, the uninsurable. Hallelujah, for all of you folks with real health problems, somebody cares, and you can thank the government.
Federal Mandates for PCIPs
The federal PCIP regulations require that all insurance plans be offered without waiting periods for pre-existing conditions, as I have previously reported. They also mandate that these individuals may not be charged a surcharge premium for their risk, in other words you can’t discriminate based on someone’s health. The maximum out of pocket cost for covered medical services per individual under the federal plan is $5,950 per year. The coverage must be nationwide, which probably means some insurance companies will not participate in the plans, which is fine. In order to be eligible for coverage under the federal plan, you must have been uninsured for six months. The federal plan does not offer a high deductible medical plan option of $5,000 for example. State high risk pools are not impacted by the health care reform mandate as they are not insurance companies or insurance plans, but nonprofit self insured funds.
States with Existing High Risk Medical Pools
Wisconsin-WHIRP
The information in this analysis comes from a presentation by Amie Goldman, CEO of WHIRP or Wisconsin Health Insurance Risk Pool. The oldest high risk pool for medical insurance is the State of Wisconsin’s, started by the enterprising cheese makers in 1980, which provides medical coverage for 18,300 participants. Their composite premiums are equal to the private market rates for medical insurance in their state, even though they insure the “high risk” people. Also since they are a nonprofit entity, they do not have to pay the state insurance premium tax, which is an administrative saving. The monthly premium for a 50-54 year old is a mere $277, significantly less than other states. In terms of what their participants want for coverage, they prefer the first dollar benefits. Wisconsin has not noticed any adverse selection, where someone signs up, gets their procedure done, and then dumps the coverage. Wisconsin also does a lot of outreach to health care providers and benefit specialists (insurance agents) to promote their plan. Their director did state that low income folks are still more likely to be uninsured (no kidding, let’s see we'll pay the electricity bill or the insurance). Essentially the chronically uninsured are not able to afford to pay for the premiums (poverty sucks).
New Mexico-NMMIP
The information in this review was presented by Deborah Armstrong, JD, director of the New Mexico high risk medical program. Since New Mexico is a less populated state, they only have 8,200 people enrolled in their high risk health care plan. According to their director, their most popular plan has a $500 deductible. Of their population, it is expected that 1,000 will enroll in the federal high risk pool. Their premium rate (cost) for a 54 year old person is $495 per month, which is less expensive than the new federal risk pool. New Mexico provides financial subsidies for low income people enrolling in their high risk health care pool. Administratively they do promote their product and recently AARP did a mass mailing about it. The state also pays a broker fee to encourage insurance agents to market the program.
Washington-WSHIP
Washington State has had a high risk medical plan since 1987, which basically covers all of the people who the private insurance sector did not want to cover and those who can afford the premium. The plan almost evaporated in 2000 due to financial problems at the state and federal level, but with some revisions, it still exists today. And Washington State was selected as the administrator for the federal interim plan or PCIP, until the 2014 health care reforms are fully implemented. The Washington State pool is funded by assessments on insurance companies, based on their premiums charged to customers. Premiums charges to medical pool participants are allowed to be 10% higher than market rates and cover 33% of the pool’s claims. The rest of the plans cost is paid by insurer assessments and there is no state revenue funding. According to Washington’s WSHIP report, about 5% of applicants for market rate medical insurance are rejected and of those, 20% have the resources to enroll on the state plan. According to the 2009 annual report of plan performance, the top diagnosis claimed were all cancer related. For pharmaceutical charges, 58% were HIV/Aids related and these represented 9% of the top prescription drug categories of expenses. Washington’s plan is split into Non Medicare and Medicare Eligible products. For purposes of this analysis, the focus is on Non Medicare products. Since I have already used the 50-54 year old age group for pricing, I am also illustrating that here, because at this age it is more likely medical conditions will exist that may make those persons ineligible for market rate insurance. Monthly premiums for a non smoking person in this age bracket would pay $986/month for a $500 deductible health plan and $476 for a $2,500 deductible health plan. Overall enrollment in Washington’s risk pool was 3,578 people in 2009.
Federal High Risk Medical Plan Rates
$500 and $2,500 deductible plans
Child only premium-$324/$161 for nonsmokers(straight off the federal register)
Child only monthly premium-$327/$162 for smokers (By looks of the small premium difference thankfully there are not too many kids smoking.)
Youth to age 24, nonsmokers, $377, $177 and for smokers,$431 and $207
Age 25-29, nonsmokers, $423, $200, and for smokers, $489 and $232
Age 30-34, nonsmokers, $489, $233, and for smokers, $566 and $271
Age 35-59, nonsmokers, $567, $273, and for smokers, $657 and $316
Age 40-44, nonsmokers, $671, $328, and for smokers, $784 and $382
Age 45-49, nonsmokers, $822, $402, and for smokers, $952 and $464
Age 50-54, nonsmokers, $986, $476, and for smokers, $1,143 and $556
Age 55-59, nonsmokers, $1,157, $563 and for smokers, $1,342 and $653
Age 60-64, nonsmokers, $1,355, $655 and for smokers, $1,577 and $769
65 Plus, nonsmokers, $1,355, $655 and for smokers, $1,577 and $769
Conclusion
The majority of the states (36) have tried to address the “at risk” population of people with serious medical conditions who are unable to obtain medical insurance, which drastically impacts their ability to receive adequate medical treatment. For information on what your specific state is doing, go to the insurance commissioner web site and look for State High Risk Medical Pool or something similar. Or call the customer service number of your state's insurance commissioner’s office and ask about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)