Biodun Iginla, BBC News

Biodun Iginla, BBC News
Showing posts with label healthcare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label healthcare. Show all posts

Friday, November 22, 2019

ANALYSIS: Donald Trump wants hospitals to be more upfront about prices

Diagnosis: opaque


by Susan Riddell and Biodun Iginla, The Economist Intelligence Unit News Analysts

They demand a second opinion
BusinessNov 21st 2019 edition



“Idon’t know if the hospitals are going to like me too much any more with this,” quipped President Donald Trump on November 15th. He was referring to two bold initiatives unveiled earlier that day by Alex Azar, his health secretary, to rein in America’s soaring health-care costs. The administration finalised a rule, to take effect in 2021, which will double down on its effort to bring price transparency to hospital care. And it put forward a new proposal, open for 60 days of public comment, that would force health-insurance firms to reveal confidential details of negotiated discounts with hospitals and doctors. It is the biggest shake-up of America’s $3.5trn health-care industry in years. And no, hospital operators are not happy.
Mr Trump’s first round of hospital reform required hospitals to make public the full list of costs billable to patients or their insurers. Hospitals previously held these so-called “chargemasters” close to their chest. Since January, when the reform came into force, they have taken to releasing convoluted spreadsheets with theoretical list prices for thousands of procedures, all couched in impenetrable medical jargon—transparent in theory but “useless” in practice, says George Nation of Lehigh University in Pennsylvania.

In need of radical surgery

The new rule goes further. It requires hospitals to disclose and update details, including gross charges, cash prices and negotiated rates, for thousands of services. They must also explain in plain English how much a basket of 300 common services (things like mri scans or hip replacements) will cost, including any extras and hidden charges.
In setting his sights on hospitals, Mr Trump is taking on a colossus. They accounted for nearly a third of America’s health-care costs in 2017, far more than the share of much-maligned drugmakers (see chart 1). The country has over 6,000 hospitals. Only 1,300 or so are private for-profit institutions; the rest are non-profit or government-run. The lack of an overt profit motive has done little to rein in prices, however. Hospital costs have risen at an annual rate of close to 5%, compared with below 1% for drug prices. Nor has a charitable mission dampened the ambition of bosses at big hospital chains; seven-figure salaries are not unheard of at those with revenues exceeding $500m a year. They have also been on an acquisition binge. The number of deals has jumped from around 55 a year between 2002 and 2009 to 90 or more these days. Since 2018 non-profit hospitals have been the acquirers in three-quarters of the transactions.
Early on, consolidation was fuelled by the passage in 2010 of the Affordable Care Act. Barack Obama’s health reform imposed red tape, such as a switch to electronic medical records, that some smaller hospitals found onerous. Moody’s, a ratings agency, thinks economies of scale and gaining leverage in negotiations with insurers are now the chief motive.
The merger wave has increased concentration and pricing power. Brent Fulton of the University of California, Berkeley, found that 90% of America’s hospital markets, representing a population of over 200m, were highly concentrated (see chart 2). Zack Cooper of Yale University, whose team looked at insurance claims covering over a quarter of Americans with employer-provided health insurance, discovered that prices at hospitals with a local monopoly were 12% higher than in markets with four or more rivals. A study by an insurance-industry body concluded that consolidation cut costs by 15-30% at acquired hospitals, but average prices for hospital services still rose by between 6% and 18%.
According to the American Hospital Association, a lobby group, operating margins in the industry rose from 4.4% in 2007 to 6.4% in 2017. But many hospitals in rural areas, which suffer from undercapacity, and in poor urban areas, which have lots of uninsured patients, barely break even or lose money. Big for-profit chains like hca Healthcare, with around 180 hospitals, can enjoy high (if volatile) margins. Non-profit institutions often plough those gains into expansion or salaries.
Given this concentration, many experts are sceptical that transparency alone can rein in prices. Sherry Gleid of New York University observes that patients are often not price-sensitive. They are either in need of urgent care, with no time to shop around, or have insurance, and so pay a fraction of the full cost (often nothing beyond an annual out-of-pocket limit).
Insurers, for their part, care less about prices because they now make more money by managing health plans for self-insured employers than by managing risk. They may even like to see inflation rise, since they can take a bigger cut from a bigger base. A well-intentioned Obamacare rule forces insurers to pay out at least 80% of their revenue from premiums. But by capping margins, it encourages raising revenue, not efficiency—and higher costs can be used to justify higher premiums.
Others are more hopeful. Marty Makary of Johns Hopkins University, author of “The Price We Pay”, a new book about America’s health-care system, thinks that a small number of “proxy shoppers” can bring about powerful change once prices are revealed, even if most patients remain insensitive to prices. Dr Makary points out that in elective procedures like lasik eye surgery, cosmetic surgery or in vitro fertilisation, which enjoy full transparency, “prices fall and quality rises each year just like in every normal market.”
It is possible that prices may initially rise in some places as cheaper hospitals raise theirs once they realise how much peers in similar markets or pricier local rivals are earning. The Federal Trade Commission (ftc) has raised that troubling prospect—and hospitals have (self-servingly) echoed it. Hospital lobbyists report their clients are likely to sue the government over the new rules.
Larry Levitt of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a health-care think-tank, worries that many hospitals will ignore the paltry $300 daily penalty for scofflaws as a cost of doing business. But, he says, Mr Azar’s second proposal, to force disclosure of prices insurers actually pay, may prove potent.
The cost of insurance is growing unbearable for many. Nearly 180m Americans, more than half the population, are covered by employer-provided health insurance. The average family’s premiums have shot up by 54% over the past decade, far outpacing wage growth, and employers are shifting more costs onto workers through ever higher out-of-pocket payments and deductibles. Reformers hope that by making real prices and out-of-pocket costs available upfront in simple language, patients can shop for non-emergency services. pwc, a consultancy, reckons these make up about half of all medical services by volume (though less by value).
Why should hospital and insurance prices remain taboo, asks Dr Makary, when a corner of the health industry is already subject to strict transparency regulation? The Funeral Rule, enacted by the ftc in 1985, requires undertakers to provide itemised and detailed price data. What is good for the dead is surely good for the living.
This article appeared in the Business section of the print edition under the headline "Donald Trump wants hospitals to be more upfront about prices"
Reuse this contentThe Trust Project

Friday, January 19, 2018

What happens in a U.S. government shutdown?

January 19, 2018  19H:54  GMT/UTC/ZULU TIME
President Donald Trump and the U.S. Congress are racing to meet a midnight Friday deadline to pass a short-term bill to keep the U.S. government open and prevent agencies from shutting down.
In shutdowns, government employees are vulnerable to furlough, or temporary unpaid leave. Other “essential” workers, including those dealing with public safety and national security, keep working, some with and others without pay.
After previous government shutdowns, Congress passed measures to ensure that essential and nonessential employees received retroactive pay.
The last shutdown in October 2013 lasted more than two weeks. More than 800,000 federal employees were furloughed. Here is what happened then and some recent updates from officials:
MILITARY: The Defense Department said on Friday that a shutdown would not impact the U.S. military’s war in Afghanistan or its operations against Islamist militants in Iraq and Syria. All military personnel on active duty would remain on normal duty status. Civilian personnel in non-essential operations would be furloughed.
JUSTICE: The Justice Department has many “essential” workers. Under its shutdown contingency plan, about 95,000 of the department’s almost 115,000 staff would keep working.
FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT: The stock market-policing Securities and Exchange Commission funds itself by collecting fees from the financial industry but its budget is set by Congress. It has said in the past it would be able to continue operations temporarily in a shutdown. But it would have to furlough workers if Congress went weeks before approving new funding.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission, meanwhile, would have to furlough 95 percent of its employees immediately. An agency spokeswoman said the derivatives regulator could call in additional staff, however, in the event of financial market emergency.
NATIONAL PARKS: National parks closed in 2013 and it resulted in a loss of 750,000 daily visitors, said the nonprofit National Parks Conservation Association. The National Park Service (NPS) estimated the shutdown cost $500 million in lost visitor spending in areas around the parks and the Smithsonian museums.
WASHINGTON TOURIST SIGHTS: In 2013, popular tourist sites such as the Smithsonian closed, with barricades going up at the Lincoln Memorial, the Library of Congress and the National Archives. The National Zoo closed and its popular “Panda Cam” went dark. The NPS, which oversees many Washington landmarks, including the National Mall, has said it has a plan in place so that “First Amendment activities” can continue during a shutdown.
TAXES: The Internal Revenue Service furloughed 90 percent of its staff in 2013, the liberal Center for American Progress said. About $4 billion in tax refunds were delayed as a result, according to the Office of Management and Budget, or OMB.
MAIL DELIVERY: Deliveries are expected to continue as usual because the U.S. Postal Service gets no tax dollars for day-to-day operations.
TRAVEL: Air and rail travelers did not feel a big impact in 2013 because security officers and air traffic controllers remained at work. Passport processing continued with some delays.
COURTS: The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts has said federal courts, including the Supreme Court, could continue to operate normally for about three weeks without additional funding.
HEALTHCARE: Sign-ups for the newly created Obamacare health insurance exchanges began as scheduled in 2013. The Medicare health insurance program for the elderly continued largely without disruption. A program at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to track flu outbreaks was temporarily halted. Hundreds of patients could not enroll in National Institutes of Health clinical trials, according to the OMB.
CHILDREN: Six Head Start programs in Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi and South Carolina serving about 6,300 children shut for nine days, the OMB said.
SOCIAL SECURITY: Social Security and disability checks were issued in 2013 with no change in payment dates and field offices remained open but offered limited services. There were delays in the review process for new applicants.
LOANS: Processing of mortgages and other loans was delayed when lenders could not access government services such as income and Social Security number verification. The Small Business Administration was unable to process about 700 applications for $140 million in loans until the shutdown ended, OMB said.
VETERANS: Most employees at the Department of Veterans Affairs would not be subject to furlough. VA hospitals would remain open and veterans’ benefits would continue, but education assistance and case appeals would be delayed, the department said.
FOOD INSPECTIONS: Department of Agriculture meat inspectors stayed on the job. Agricultural statistical reports ceased publication. The USDA’s website went dark.
ENERGY: The Department of Energy said on Friday that since most of its appropriations are for multiple years, employees should report to work as normal during a shutdown until told otherwise. If there was a prolonged lapse in funding a “limited number” of workers may be placed on furlough, according to its plan.

Monday, December 4, 2017

CVS purchase of Aetna pitched as antidote to US health maze


by Judith Stein and Biodun Iginla, France24 Business reporters, New York


    © GETTY/AFP/File / by John BIERS | CVS Health's proposed takeover of insurer Aetna could see CVS's nearly 10,000 stores remade to include wellness and medical testing areas

    NEW YORK - 
    CVS Health's proposed takeover of insurer Aetna is being pitched as a cost-effective antidote to the complex and at times frustrating American health care system, with pharmacies playing a broader role in patient care.
    Architects of the $69 billion deal unveiled Sunday said CVS's nearly 10,000 stores could be remade to include wellness and medical testing areas, allowing customers easy access to medical professionals and treatment while containing costs.
    The shift could encourage more preventive care and cut unnecessary emergency room visits, including by the almost 60 percent of the American population who do not have a regular doctor, executives said on a conference call with analysts.
    The goal is to create a "new front door to healthcare," CVS chief executive Larry Merlo said, noting that the morass of health care players including the government, insurers and medical providers can be confusing for consumers to navigate.
    The transaction creates a health care giant by fusing one of America's biggest pharmacy chains with an insurer that serves about 46.7 million people, nearly 15 percent of US population.
    Analysts see the deal as partly preemptive in case internet retail powerhouse Amazon enters the pharmacy business, as it has entered groceries through its takeover of Whole Foods Market. But the reactions were not all positive.
    S&P placed CVS and Aetna on credit watch negative, saying their financial risk profile would be impacted by the deal, which could lead to a one-notch downgrade for CVS and as much as three notches lower for Aetna.
    While Aetna represents an "attractive" acquisition, it will likely require time before the deal boosts earnings for CVS, which will need to issue debt to finance the transaction, the ratings agency said.
    - Regulatory concerns -
    Wall Street analysts expect the deal to receive heavy scrutiny from government regulators, who have often been hostile to big health care deals.
    The FTC blocked Aetna's 2015 proposed takeover of rival insurer Humana and balked at Walgreens Boots Alliance's proposed takeover of Rite Aid, forcing the pharmacies to radically scale back the transaction.
    "While we believe (Federal Trade Commission) risk is ultimately relatively low, we would expect the deal to be tied up in the regulatory review process for an extended period," JPMorgan Chase said.
    Unlike those deals, the CVS-Aetna transaction is a "vertical" merger that unites companies from different sectors, which has not usually sparked government action.
    An exception is the government's suit to block telecom giant AT&T's vertical takeover of Time Warner, a sign President Donald Trump's administration may be taking a different approach.
    The deal also sparked misgivings among some critics on Twitter about the risks of consolidation. Still, as of midday Monday, major groups such as AARP had not taken a stance on the merger. Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy organization, was studying the bill, a spokesman said.
    The companies do not expect to complete the transaction until late next year.
    - More direct care -
    Founded in 1963 in Lowell, Massachusetts and now based in Rhode Island, CVS had revenues of $177.5 billion in 2016.
    It already provides insurance under its pharmacy benefits management system. It also has introduced "one-minute clinics" into some stores that provide vaccines and some other basic services.
    CVS envisions building on these programs following the Aetna deal, repurposing more store space to enable more direct consumer health services.
    Noting that 41 percent of health care costs are shouldered by consumers out of pocket, Aetna chief executive Mark Bertolini said a key objective was to "offer people a better cost experience."
    And perhaps more critically "people are really confused" about health care, and are "wandering through the systems, multiple doctors, multiple medications."
    "So I would say eliminate the confusion, number one consumer issue," Bertolini said.
    An integrated process also would aim to help patients with chronic illnesses, such as diabetes, allowing for face-to-face counseling or assistance with home monitoring of the condition.
    Executives said they plan to test various concepts, with all retailers in the chain sharing some common offerings and some stores having enhanced services.
    The executives likened the concept to the Apple Genius Bar in Apple's retail stores, that allow customers the "ability to walk in a store and get help."