‘Better Than the Hospital’: Pandemic Boosts Care for Serious Illnesses at Home

Late last year, Janet Yetenekian was one of the thousands of people in Southern California whose case of covid-19 was serious enough to send her to the hospital. But Yetenekian’s recovery was not typical: She received hospital-level care in her own home in Glendale.

“It was even better than the hospital,” Yetenekian said, laughing. “They were constantly reaching out — it’s time for you to do your vitals, or it’s time for you to take your medications.”

Yetenekian contracted the virus that causes covid in December, after friends invited her family to an afternoon barbecue. It seemed like a safe antidote to the isolation caused by the pandemic. But the day after the gathering, the host came down with a fever. A test confirmed it was covid. Within two weeks, Yetenekian’s husband and two teenage children developed mild symptoms. She came down with a more serious case, however, and her blood oxygen plummeted to dangerously low levels.

She went to the hospital at Adventist Health in Glendale, where doctors told her she would need an intravenous infusion of the antiviral drug remdesivir and constant monitoring. And it surprised Yetenekian when her doctor offered to move all her care home to be monitored virtually.

Doctors and nurses at a command center nearly 200 miles away in the San Joaquin Valley town of Hanford, California, managed Yetenekian’s care as part of a new federal effort aimed at freeing up hospital beds during public health emergencies. Under the model, about 60 illnesses — including covid — qualify for home treatment.

“Heart failure, pneumonia, skin infections — those are all patient populations we can safely care for in the home,” said Dr. Margaret Paulson, who leads the Mayo Clinic’s new home-based care program in rural Wisconsin.

Hospital care at home is nothing new for patients with low-level health needs. But since the pandemic began, a growing number of health systems, including Adventist Health, the Mayo Clinic and Kaiser Permanente (which is not affiliated with KHN) are offering people with more serious health conditions hospital-level treatment in the comfort of their homes.

Paulson said that, once her patients understand home care does not mean less care, they eagerly embrace it.

“Especially for patients who have been in the hospital a lot, to know that they can actually go home and sleep in their own bed and be with their family and have their pets by their side, it’s just really reassuring,” Paulson said.

And studies suggest at-home care provides better outcomes for patients and costs less to provide than traditional inpatient care.

“This is actually a higher level of touch from physicians and advanced practitioners,” said Dr. Kavita Patel, a physician and health policy fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Regular video conferencing and 24/7 monitoring is augmented by twice-daily, in-person visits by nurses and other health workers who provide basic care — such as antibiotics — that can’t be given virtually.

“This isn’t just sending Mom or Dad to the bedroom,” Patel said.

The technology infrastructure is key, Patel said, for patients and doctors. It includes Wi-Fi phones that ring directly into a hospital’s command center, iPads that allow videoconferencing with health professionals and wearable devices with emergency call buttons.

Raphael Rakowski is co-founder of Medically Home, a Boston-based technology company that supports at-home programs for Adventist Health. Mayo Clinic and Kaiser Permanente announced on May 13 a combined $100 million investment in Medically Home to help expand the service to other health systems. Rakowski said another selling point of the at-home care model is that there are no facility transfers as patients heal.

“We stay with the patient until they’re fully recovered, and that averages anywhere from 20 to 30 days, sometimes longer,” he said. “So, we substitute not just for the hospital, but for all the care that follows.”

Still, the program is not a good fit for every patient. To be eligible for care at home, patients must live within 30 minutes of emergency care; they also need high-speed internet and, said Patel, they can’t be too sick.

“This can’t be something where it’s so complicated that you are monitoring a patient, worried that they could crash and need to be in the ICU within minutes,” she said.

But for moderate covid and dozens of other conditions, acute hospital care at home is likely to become a more common option as more health systems adopt the program and even more diseases are included. It is offered now in 30 states.

This story is part of a reporting partnership that includes NPR and KHN.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).



from Health Industry – Kaiser Health News

Related Posts:

KHN Journalists Comment on Abortion Case, Wasted Covid Doses

KHN chief Washington correspondent Julie Rovner discussed the Supreme Court’s decision to hear a challenge in an abortion case from Mississippi on Newsy on Tuesday.

KHN freelancer Sara Reardon discussed allegations by a rail company that a clinic in Libby, Montana, is defrauding Medicare by overdiagnosing asbestos-related diseases on Montana Public Radio on May 13.

California Healthline correspondent Angela Hart discussed how the pandemic has shaped California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s political outlook on KCBS’ “The State of California” on May 12.

KHN freelancer Joshua Eaton discussed how CVS and Walgreens account for the majority of wasted covid-19 vaccines on NPR’s “All Things Considered” on May 9.

KHN correspondent Rachana Pradhan discussed how CVS and Walgreens account for the majority of wasted covid-19 vaccines on NBC’s “NBC News Now” and Newsy on May 4.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).



from Health Industry – Kaiser Health News

Related Posts:

Colorado Will Pay Hospitals to Close Expensive Free-Standing ERs

Colorado health officials so abhor the high costs associated with free-standing emergency rooms they’re offering to pay hospitals to shut the facilities down.

This story also ran on Fortune. It can be republished for free.

The state wants hospitals to convert them to other purposes, such as providing primary care or mental health services.

At least 500 free-standing ERs have set up in more than 20 states in the past decade. Colorado has 44, 34 owned by hospitals.

The trend began a decade ago with hopes these stand-alone facilities would fill a need for ER care when no hospital was nearby and reduce congestion at hospital ERs.

But that rarely happened.

Instead, these emergency rooms — not physically connected to hospitals — generally set up in affluent suburban communities, often near hospitals that compete with the free-standing ERs’ owners. And they largely treated patients who did not need emergency care, but still billed them and their insurers at expensive ER rates, several studies have found.

“We don’t want hospitals to have stand-alone ERs, so we are willing to pay to shut them down,” said Kim Bimestefer, executive director of Colorado’s Department of Health Care Policy & Financing, which oversees the state’s Medicaid program. She said using these facilities to treat common injuries and illnesses leads to higher costs for Medicaid, which the state partly finances, and other insurers.

Colorado’s move is part of a new initiative that requires hospitals to improve their quality of care to qualify for millions of dollars in Medicaid payments. Hospitals can choose among goals provided by the state such as lowering readmission rates or screening patients for social needs such as housing. Converting free-standing ERs to meet other needs is one of those goals.

“Money talks,” Bimestefer said in explaining why the state is offering the financial incentives.

Money has been a major driver of the boom in free-standing emergency centers. Hospitals used them to attract patients who could be referred to the main hospital for inpatient care. They are also seen as a way to compete with rivals. For instance, in Palm Beach County, Florida, for-profit hospital chain HCA Healthcare has opened free-standing ERs near competing hospitals in Palm Beach Gardens and Boynton Beach.

In addition, the massive amounts of private equity funds flowing into health care have further fueled the growth of independently owned stand-alone ERs.

The Denver-based Center for Improving Value in Health Care found that most conditions treated in these facilities are more appropriate for lower-acuity, lower-cost urgent care centers. Patients can pay 10 times more in a free-standing ER than in an urgent care center for treatment of the same condition, the organization’s studies show.

Adam Fox, deputy director of the Colorado Consumer Health Initiative, said free-standing ERs have not been placed where health care services are scarce. Instead, they’ve opened in middle- and upper-income neighborhoods where most people have health insurance and access to care. “This push from the state will help” as hospitals rethink whether these facilities still make sense financially, he said.

In the past few years, Colorado has moved to make owning these facilities less attractive with laws preventing them from sticking patients with surprise bills for high fees because the ER was out of their insurer networks. It also has required that patients without true emergencies be told they can get treatment for a lower price at an urgent care facility.

The law requires a free-standing ER to post a sign informing patients it is an emergency room that treats emergency conditions. It must also specify the prices of the 25 most common services it provides.

Even before the new policy begins to roll out later this year, some Colorado hospitals started converting these facilities. UCHealth has turned nine in the past two years into primary or urgent care centers and one into a specialty center. It still has nine others in operation across the state.

The conversions were not prompted by state actions, according to Dan Weaver, a spokesperson for UCHealth, part of the University of Colorado. “Neither surprise billing legislation nor price transparency played a role in these decisions — we converted them because we felt patients in these communities needed urgent care, primary care and/or specialty care services close to home,” Weaver said.

He added that the hospital system always stressed that people should use lower-cost services, including urgent care, primary care or virtual urgent care, in nonemergencies.

Ryan Westrom, senior director of finance at the Colorado Hospital Association, said hospitals have converted some of these centers to services such as urgent care in response to changes in insurance reimbursement and other factors. He said he wasn’t sure whether many hospitals will accept the state payments to close their free-standing ERs.

HealthONE, which has eight free-standing ERs in the Denver area, said it has no plans to close any despite the state incentive payment.

Vivian Ho, a health economist at Rice University in Houston who has tracked the growth of these stand-alone emergency rooms, applauded Colorado’s effort.

But she worries hospitals may decide it’s not worth closing a free-standing emergency department and forfeiting the profits: “You have to attack free-standing EDs from multiple angles to get people to stop going to them and to get hospitals from using them as a way to generate extra revenues for care that can be delivered at lower-cost sites.”

Ho said the covid pandemic, which dampened demand for emergency care, and recent federal surprise billing legislation may hurt the growth of free-standing ERs.

They are already facing headwinds. Adeptus Health, the Texas company that’s been leading the trend there and started dozens of the free-standing emergency rooms, often in conjunction with hospitals, filed for bankruptcy this year. And numerous stand-alone facilities closed at least temporarily during the pandemic as demand for care fell dramatically.

Advisers to Medicare are also pushing back on the growth. A recent proposal from the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, which reports to Congress, would cut Medicare payment rates 30% on some services at stand-alone facilities within 6 miles of an emergency room in a hospital.

According to a MedPAC analysis of five markets — Charlotte, North Carolina; Cincinnati; Dallas; Denver; and Jacksonville, Florida — 75% of free-standing facilities were within 6 miles of a hospital with an emergency department. The average drive time to the nearest such hospital was 10 minutes.

Markian Hawryluk, KHN’s senior Colorado correspondent, contributed to this article.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).



from Health Industry – Kaiser Health News

Related Posts:

Why Your Dentist Might Seem Pushy

In 1993, Dr. David Silber, a dentist now practicing in Plano, Texas, was fired from the first dental clinic he worked for. He’d been assigned to a patient another dentist had scheduled for a crown preparation — a metal or porcelain cap for a broken or decayed tooth. However, Silber found nothing wrong with the tooth, so he sent the patient home.

This story also ran on U.S. News & World Report. It can be republished for free.

He was fired later the same day. “Never send a patient away who’s willing to pay the clinic money,” he was told.

Silber said what happened to him then still happens today, that some dentists who don’t think they receive enough from insurance reimbursement — whether private insurance or Medicaid — have figured out ways to boost their bottom lines. They push products and procedures a patient doesn’t need or recommend higher-cost treatment plans when less expensive options might accomplish the same thing.

The pressure is more intense now since the covid pandemic cut traffic into dentists’ offices. But while most dentists are ethical, the practice of going with more profitable procedures, materials or appliances is not new. In 2013, a Washington dentist writing in an American Dental Association publication lamented a pattern of “creative diagnosis.” A 2019 study of dental costs found wide differences in the price of certain services. It said teeth whitening at the dentist’s office, for example, is no more effective than whitening strips one buys at the drugstore — and at least 10 times more expensive.

But sometimes dentists escalate to outright fraud. A recent article in the Journal of Insurance Fraud in America put it plainly: “Medicaid fraud is the most lucrative business model in U.S. dentistry today.”

Indeed, the ADA sees a problem. Dr. Dave Preble, senior vice president of the American Dental Association’s Practice Institute, said, “Hundreds of thousands of dental procedures are performed safely and effectively on a daily basis.” But he cited a study from the National Health Care Anti-Fraud Association that says between 3% and 10% of the $3.6 trillion Americans spend annually on health care is lost to fraud each year. That’s as much as $13 billion of the $136 billion Americans spend annually on dental care lost to dental fraud.

Silber said he saw the X-rays of one patient after she’d seen another dentist and was shocked to learn she’d had two crowns put in when she needed only one minor filling. She was told the first crown was necessary to treat decay in one tooth, and the second crown was needed to make the first crown fit better. “She only needed one small filling. It should have cost her $100 or so,” Silber said. “Instead, the dentist convinced her to replace two perfectly good teeth just so he could make $2,400 from her insurance company.”

The absorption of small private practices by corporations, private-equity buyouts or group practices over the past two decades has increased the emphasis on higher profits. “The executive at the top tells the dentists working for them which procedures to push, like a chef tells their team of waiters to push the daily special,” Silber said. “If a dentist refuses to comply, they’re shown the door.”

One treatment patients are commonly pressured to undergo in corporate dental chains is quadrant scaling: an invasive teeth-cleaning procedure along the gum line, usually done over three or four visits. While the procedure can be helpful if a patient suffers from severe gum disease, it can erode gum tissue that cannot grow back. Dentists can charge between $800 and $1,200 for each procedure, while a standard cleaning nets them only about $100.

Dr. Michael Davis, a dentist practicing in Santa Fe, New Mexico, said some dentists look for procedures for which Medicaid pays more. He explained that Medicaid pays three to six times more for nickel-chromium steel crowns than for standard fillings, so some dentists recommend those more profitable and invasive treatments to unsuspecting patients. “The fit of premanufactured steel crowns is unfavorable and can show gaps,” Davis said, “so unethical dentists target little children who won’t notice the misshapen fit until their permanent teeth come in.”

Children who still have their baby teeth are prime targets for pulpotomies — the removal of the pulp of a tooth — whether they need them or not.

Unethical dentists also perform shortcut versions of otherwise covered procedures for a patient, while billing the insurer for the full amount — a practice known as upcoding.

Mini-implants, for example, can be easily upcoded. A standard dental implant is an artificial tooth root that dentists install to anchor a dental crown or bridge. A mini-implant, by contrast, is like “a thumbtack compared to a bolt,” said Dr. David Weinman, a dentist practicing in Buffalo, New York. In the past, mini-implants were used only to hold dentures in place, but because they are so much quicker to install and cost the dentist as much as 60% less than a regular implant, more dentists have been recommending them as a long-term solution.

“We in the dental community see a high failure rate when mini-implants are used where a regular implant is needed,” Weinman said, “but that hasn’t stopped some dentists from pushing them on patients who don’t know better.”

Then there are horror stories of dentists gone bad. In March, Dr. Mouhab Rizkallah, a Massachusetts orthodontist, was sued by the state’s attorney general for deliberately keeping his patients in braces longer than medically necessary and for deceptive billing for mouthguards. The complaint against him alleges he instructed his staff to buy plastic mouthguards at a discount store even though he knew they wouldn’t fit the patients’ teeth properly. Rizkallah then billed Medicaid $75 to $85 more than the retail price for each one and was reimbursed more than $1 million for the mouthguards alone, according to the lawsuit.

Other dental practitioners have done far worse. After a video of Dr. Seth Lookhart, an Alaska dentist, riding a hoverboard during a dental procedure went viral, intrigued authorities found he’d been sedating nearly all his patients to cash in on the reimbursements Medicaid pays for general anesthesia. He was sentenced last year to 12 years in prison.

The Texas Dental Board revoked the license of Bethaniel Jefferson, a dentist who was practicing in Houston, after she was found to be endangering her patients by needlessly administering general anesthesia to take advantage of the same insurance payments. She left one patient in an oxygen-deprived state for so long the child suffered severe brain damage.

Dr. Scott Charmoli, a Wisconsin dentist, was charged with fraud after he was found to be using his drill to intentionally break patients’ teeth so he could bill the insurance company for crowns instead of fillings. The indictment alleges that he performed more than $2 million worth of crown procedures between Jan. 1, 2018, and Aug. 7, 2019 — amounting to more than 80 fraudulent crown procedures a month.

Weinman said patients can always seek a second opinion — especially for expensive treatments — and that a dentist who seems hesitant when you say you want a second opinion is worrisome. “A dentist who is confident in his or her abilities won’t have a problem with you checking a diagnosis or treatment plan elsewhere,” he said.

Other red flags: Weinman said to be wary of any dentist who seems to be reading from a script, or who pushes a treatment plan too hard or refuses to explain treatment options. “There may be several scientifically sound, evidence-based treatment plans available to a patient,” Weinman said, “and a good dentist is willing to explain your options — even the ones that may not be as profitable.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).



from Health Industry – Kaiser Health News

Related Posts:

Doctors Now Must Provide Patients Their Health Data, Online and On Demand

Last summer, Anna Ramsey suffered a flare-up of juvenile dermatomyositis, a rare autoimmune condition, posing a terrifying prospect for the Los Angeles resident: She might have to undergo chemotherapy, further compromising her immune system during a pandemic.

This story also ran on Los Angeles Times. It can be republished for free.

After an agonizing three-day wait, the results of a blood test came back in her online patient portal — but she didn’t understand them. As hours passed, Ramsey bit her nails and paced. The next day, she gave in and emailed her doctor, who responded with an explanation and a plan.

For Ramsey, now 24, instant access to her test results had been a mixed blessing. “If there’s something I’m really nervous about,” she said, “then I want interpretations and answers with the result. Even if it takes a few days longer.”

On April 5, a federal rule went into effect that requires health care providers to give patients like Ramsey electronic access to their health information without delay upon request, at no cost. Many patients may now find their doctors’ clinical notes, test results and other medical data posted to their electronic portal as soon as they are available.

Advocates herald the rule as a long-awaited opportunity for patients to control their data and health.

“This levels the playing field,” said Jan Walker, co-founder of OpenNotes, a group that has pushed for providers to share notes with patients. “A decade ago, the medical record belonged to the physician.”

But the rollout of the rule has hit bumps, as doctors learn that patients might see information before they do. Like Ramsey, some patients have felt distressed when seeing test results dropped into their portal without a physician’s explanation. And doctors’ groups say they are confused and concerned about whether the notes of adolescent patients who don’t want their parents to see sensitive information can be exempt — or if they will have to breach their patients’ trust.

Patients have long had a legal right to their medical records but often have had to pay fees, wait weeks or sift through reams of paper to see them.

The rule aims not only to remove these barriers, but also to enable patients to access their health records through smartphone apps, and prevent health care providers from withholding information from other providers and health IT companies when a patient wants it to be shared. Privacy rules under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which limit sharing of personal health information outside a clinic, remain in place, although privacy advocates have warned that patients who choose to share their data with consumer apps will put their data at risk.

Studies have shown numerous benefits of note sharing. Patients who read their notes understand more about their health, better remember their treatment plan and are more likely to stick to their medication regimen. Non-white, older or less educated patients report even greater benefits than others.

For Sarah Ford, 34, of Pittsburgh, who has multiple sclerosis, reading her doctor’s notes helps her make the most of each visit and feel informed.

“I don’t like going into the office and feeling like I don’t know what’s going to happen,” she said. If she wants to try a new medication or treatment, reading previous notes helps her prepare to discuss it with her doctor, she said.

The new rule will have less impact on Ford and the more than 50 million patients in the U.S. whose doctors had already made their notes available to patients before the rule kicked in. However, only about a third of patients with access to secure online health portals were using them.

While most doctors who have shared notes with patients think it’s a good idea, the policy has drawbacks. One recent study found that half of doctors reported writing their notes less candidly after they were opened to patients.

Another study, published in February, found that 1 in 10 patients had ever felt offended or judged after reading a note. The study’s lead author, Dr. Leonor Fernandez, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, said there is a “legacy of certain ways of expressing things in medicine that didn’t really take into account how it reads when you’re a patient.”

“Maybe we can rethink some of these,” she said, citing the phrase “patient admits to drinking two glasses of wine a day” as an example. “Why not just write ‘two glasses of wine a day’?”

UC San Diego Health started phasing in open notes to patients in 2018 and removed a delay in the release of lab results last year. Overall, said Dr. Brian Clay, chief medical information officer, both have been uneventful. “Most patients are agnostic, some are super-jazzed, and a few are distressed or have lots of questions and are communicating with us a lot,” he said.

There are exceptions to the requirement to release patient data, such as psychotherapy notes and notes that could harm a patient or someone else if released.

Dr. David Bell, president of the Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine, believes it’s unclear exactly what qualifies as “substantial harm” to a patient — the standard that must be met for doctors to withhold an adolescent patient’s notes from a parent. Clarity, he said, is especially important to protect teenagers living in states with less restrictive laws on parental access to medical records.

Most electronic medical records are not equipped to segregate sensitive pieces from other information that might be useful for a parent in managing their child’s health, he added.

Some doctors say receiving devastating test results without counseling can traumatize patients. Dr. James Kenealy, an ear, nose and throat doctor in central Massachusetts, said a positive cancer biopsy result for one of his patients was automatically pushed to his portal over the weekend, blindsiding both. “You can give bad news, but if you have a plan and explain, they’re much better off,” he said.

Such incidents aren’t affecting the majority of patients, but they’re not rare, said Dr. Jack Resneck Jr., an American Medical Association board trustee. The AMA is advocating for “tweaks” to the rule, he said, like allowing brief delays in releasing results for a few of the highest-stakes tests, like those diagnosing cancer, and more clarity on whether the harm exception applies to adolescent patients who might face emotional distress if their doctor breached their trust by sharing sensitive information with their parents.

The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, the federal agency overseeing the rule, responded in an email that it has heard these concerns, but has also heard from clinicians that patients value receiving this information in a timely fashion, and that patients can decide whether they want to look at results once they receive them or wait until they can review them with their doctor. It added that the rule does not require giving parents access to protected health information if they did not already have that right under HIPAA.

Patient advocate Cynthia Fisher believes there should be no exceptions to immediately releasing results, noting that many patients want and need test results as soon as possible, and that delays can lead to worse health outcomes. Instead of facing long wait times to discuss diagnoses with their doctors, she said, patients can now take their results elsewhere. “We can’t assume the consumer is ignorant and unresourceful,” she said.

In the meantime, hospitals and doctors are finding ways to adapt, and their tactics could have lasting implications for patient knowledge and physician workload. At Massachusetts General Hospital, a guide for patients on how to interpret medical terminology in radiology reports is being developed, said Dr. William Mehan, a neuroradiologist.

An internal survey run after radiology results became immediately available to patients found that some doctors were monitoring their inbox after hours in case results arrived. “Burnout has come up in this conversation,” Mehan said.

Some electronic health records enable doctors to withhold test results at the time they are ordered, said Jodi Daniel, a partner at the law firm Crowell & Moring. Doctors who can do this could ask patients whether they want their results released immediately or if they want their doctor to communicate the result, assuming they meet certain criteria for exceptions under the rule, she said.

Chantal Worzala, a health technology policy consultant, said more is to come. “There will be a lot more conversation about the tools that individuals want and need in order to access and understand their health information,” she said.

This story was produced by KHN, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).



from Health Industry – Kaiser Health News

Related Posts:

KHN’s ‘What the Health?’: Drug Price Effort Hits a Snag

Can’t see the audio player? Click here to listen on SoundCloud.

The high cost of prescription drugs is a top health issue for the public and politicians, but concerns raised by a group of moderate Democrats threaten to derail a bill being pushed by House Democratic leaders.

Meanwhile, the Food and Drug Administration has authorized the use of the Pfizer covid-19 vaccine for everyone age 12 and up, and Pfizer is applying for full licensure of that vaccine. It is currently being distributed under emergency authorization. Full approval could open the door to vaccine requirements in some workplaces, schools or other gathering spots, which will likely touch off more controversy.

And the Biden administration reinstated an Obama-era policy barring discrimination in health care for LGBTQ individuals, even as more states pass anti-LGBTQ legislation.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KHN, Joanne Kenen of Politico, Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet and Rachel Cohrs of Stat.

Among the takeaways from this week’s podcast:

  • Opposition by a handful of conservative and moderate Democrats to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s proposal to drive down prescription drug prices was a bit of a surprise since some of the members had voted for very similar legislation in the previous Congress. Back then, though, it was clear the bill had no chance of survival in a Republican-controlled Senate. Now the stakes are much higher because Democrats control Congress and the White House.
  • In addition to drugmakers’ clout on Capitol Hill, some resistance to Pelosi’s plan reflects the fact it was written by leadership behind closed doors and didn’t go through the typical committee process, in which members of the House would have had a chance to debate and amend the legislation.
  • Another factor in the dispute is that several of the representatives who signed the letter to the speaker come from areas where drugmakers have large operations and argue that measures to lower prices could cost jobs.
  • The administration announced that more than 1 million people have signed up for health coverage on the Affordable Care Act’s marketplaces during the special enrollment period established by the Biden administration. The enrollment boost is attributed to enhanced subsidies passed by Congress earlier this year and a strong messaging campaign about the need for insurance by the administration.
  • Democrats in the Senate are pushing forward the nomination of Chiquita Brooks-LaSure to head the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, despite efforts by Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) to block her nomination as a protest against Biden administration policies that could cut Medicaid payments to Texas hospitals.
  • If Brooks-LaSure is confirmed, nominations for other key posts at HHS will likely quickly follow, such as the heads of Medicaid and the Health Resources & Services Administration. But there has been no movement on a new commissioner for the Food and Drug Administration.
  • The vaccine advisory committee for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is recommending that children 12 and older not only can safely get the Pfizer covid-19 vaccine, but that it can be given with other vaccines. Health officials had previously recommended that vaccines be spaced apart. Pediatricians, however, are concerned about how many children missed other important vaccinations over the course of the pandemic.
  • Equipping pediatricians to give the vaccine to youngsters may prove vital in getting this age group protected. But the vaccine that has been approved requires the most stringent cold storage, so that may be a hurdle in getting it into doctors’ offices. The administration is looking for ways to make it easier for pediatricians to deliver the shot.

Plus, for extra credit, the panelists recommend their favorite health policy stories of the week they think you should read too:

Julie Rovner: HBO’s “The Crime of the Century” by Alex Gibney

Joanne Kenen: Grist’s “There’s Federal Money Available to House the Homeless. No One’s Taking It,” by Adam Mahoney

Rachel Cohrs: Stat’s “CDC’s Slow, Cautious Messaging on Covid-19 Seems out of Step with the Moment, Public Health Experts Say,” by Nicholas Florko

Sarah Karlin-Smith: KHN’s “The Making of Reluctant Activists: A Police Shooting in a Hospital Forces One Family to Rethink American Justice,” by Sarah Varney

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to What the Health? on iTunesStitcherGoogle PlaySpotify, or Pocket Casts.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).



from Health Industry – Kaiser Health News

Related Posts:

Covid Testing Has Turned Into a Financial Windfall for Hospitals and Other Providers

Pamela Valfer needed multiple covid tests after repeatedly visiting the hospital last fall to see her mother, who was being treated for cancer. Beds there were filling with covid patients. Valfer heard the tests would be free.

This story also ran on Fortune. It can be republished for free.

So, she was surprised when the testing company billed her insurer $250 for each swab. She feared she might receive a bill herself. And that amount is toward the low end of what some hospitals and doctors have collected.

Hospitals are charging up to $650 for a simple, molecular covid test that costs $50 or less to run, according to Medicare claims analyzed for KHN by Hospital Pricing Specialists (HPS). Charges by large health systems range from $20 to $1,419 per test, a new national survey by KFF shows. And some free-standing emergency rooms are charging more than $1,000 per test.

Authorities were saying “get tested, no one’s going to be charged, and it turns out that’s not true,” said Valfer, a professor of visual arts who lives in Pasadena, California. “Now on the back end it’s being passed onto the consumer” through high charges to insurers, she said. The insurance company passes on its higher costs to consumers in higher premiums.

As the pandemic enters its second year, no procedure has been more frequent than tests for the virus causing it. Gargantuan volume — 400 million tests and counting, for one type — combined with loose rules on prices have made the service a bonanza for hospitals and clinics, new data shows.

Lab companies have been booking record profits by charging $100 per test. Even in-network prices negotiated and paid by insurance companies often run much more than that and, according to one measure, have been rising on average in recent months.

Insurers and other payers “have no bargaining power in this game” because there is no price cap in some situations, said Ge Bai, an associate professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health who has studied test economics. When charges run far beyond the cost of the tests “it’s predatory,” she said. “It’s price gouging.”

The data shows that covid tests continue to generate high charges from hospitals and clinics despite alarms raised by insurers, anecdotal reports of high prices and pushback from state regulators.

The listed charge for a basic PCR covid test at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles is $480. NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital lists $440 as the gross charge as well as the cash price. Those amounts are far above the $159 national average for the diagnostic test, which predominated during the first year of the pandemic, at more than 3,000 hospitals checked by HPS.

<![CDATA[ window.addEventListener('message', function(event) { if (typeof event.data['datawrapper-height'] !== 'undefined') { var iframes = document.querySelectorAll('iframe'); for (var chartId in event.data['datawrapper-height']) { for (var i=0; i

That’s the amount billed to insurance companies, not what patients pay, Cedars spokesperson Cara Martinez said in an email.

“Patients themselves do not face any costs” for the tests, she said. “The amounts we charge [insurers] for medical care are set to cover our operating costs,” capital needs and other items, she said.

Likewise at NewYork-Presbyterian, charges not covered by insurance “are not passed along to patients,” the hospital said.

Many hospitals and labs follow the Medicare reimbursement rate, $100 for results within two days from high-volume tests. But there are outliers. Insurers oftentimes negotiate lower prices within their networks, although not for labs and testing options outside their purview.

Billing by hospitals and clinics from outside insurance company networks can be especially lucrative because the government requires insurers to pay their posted covid-test price with no limit. Regulation for out-of-network vaccine charges, by contrast, is stricter. Charges for vaccines must be “reasonable,” according to federal regulations, with relatively low Medicare prices as a possible guideline.

“There’s a problem with the federal law” on test prices, said Sabrina Corlette, co-director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University. “The CARES Act requires insurers to pay the full billed charge to the provider. Unless they’ve negotiated, their hands are tied.”

But even in-network payments can be highly profitable.

Optim Medical Center in Tattnall, Georgia, part of a chain of orthopedic practices and medical centers, collects $308 per covid test from two insurers, its price list shows. Yale New Haven Hospital collects $182 from one insurer and $173 from another.

Yale New Haven’s prices resulted from existing insurer agreements addressing unspecified new procedures such as the covid test, said Patrick McCabe, senior vice president of finance for Yale New Haven Health.

“We didn’t negotiate” specifically on covid tests, he said. “We’re not trying to take advantage of a crisis here.”

Officials from Optim Medical Center did not respond to queries from KHN.

Castlight Health, which provides benefits and health care guidance to more than 60 Fortune 500 companies, analyzed for KHN the costs of 1.1 million covid tests billed to insurers from March 2020 through this February. The analysis found an average charge of $90, with less than 1% of bills passing any cost along to the patient. Since last March, the average cost has gone up from $63 to as high as $97 per test in December before declining to $89 in February, the most recent results available.

In some cases, hospitals and clinics have supplemented revenue from covid tests with extra charges that go far beyond those for a simple swab.

Warren Goldstein was surprised when Austin Emergency Center, in Texas, charged him and his wife $494 upfront for two covid tests. He was shocked when the center billed insurance $1,978 for his test, which he expected would cost $100. His insurer paid $325 for “emergency services” for him, even though there was no emergency.

“It seemed like highway robbery,” said Goldstein, a New York professor who was visiting his daughter and grandchild in Texas at the time.

Austin Emergency Center has been the subject of previous reports of high covid-test prices.

The center provides “high-quality health care emergency services” and “our charges are set at the price that we believe reflects this quality of care,” said Heather Neale, AEC’s chief operating officer. The law requires the center to examine every patient “to determine whether or not an emergency medical condition exists,” she said.

Curative, the lab company that billed $250 for Valfer’s PCR tests, said through a spokesperson that its operating costs are higher than those of other providers and that consumers will never be billed for charges insurance doesn’t cover. Valfer’s insurer paid $125 for each test, claims documents show.

Even at relatively low prices, testing companies are reaping high profits. Covid PCR tests sold for $100 apiece helped Quest Diagnostics increase revenue by 49% in the first quarter of 2021 and quadruple its profits compared with the same period a year ago.

“We are expecting … to still do quite well in terms of reimbursement in the near term,” Quest CFO Mark Guinan said during a recent earnings call.

Hospitals and clinics do pay tens of thousands of dollars upfront when purchasing analyzer machines, plus costs for chemical reagents, swabs and other collection materials, maintenance, and training and compensating staff members. But the more tests completed, the more cost-effective they are, said Marlene Sautter, director of laboratory services at Premier Inc., a group purchasing organization that works with 4,000 U.S. hospitals and health systems.

A World Health Organization cost assessment of running 5,000 covid tests on Roche and Abbott analyzers — not including that initial equipment price, labor or shipping costs — came to $17 and $21 per test, respectively.

Unlike earlier in the pandemic, lab-based PCR tests no longer dominate the market. Cheaper, rapid options can now be purchased online or in stores. In mid-April, some CVS, Walmart and Walgreens stores began selling a two-pack of Abbott Laboratories’ BinaxNOW antigen test for $23.99.

Regulations require insurers to cover covid testing administered or referred by a health care provider at no cost to the patient. But exceptions are made for public health surveillance and work- or school-related testing.

Claire Lemcke, who works for a Flagstaff, Arizona, nonprofit, was tested at a mall in January and received a statement from an out-of-state lab company saying that the price was $737, that it was performed out-of-network and that she would be responsible for paying. She’s working with her insurer, which has already paid $400, to try to get it settled.

Sticker shock from covid tests has gotten bad enough that Medicare set up a hotline for insurance companies to report bad actors, and states across the country are taking action.

Free-standing emergency centers across Texas, like the one Goldstein visited, have charged particularly exorbitant prices, propelling the Texas Association of Health Plans to write a formal complaint in late January. The 19-page letter details how many of these operations violate state disclosure requirements, charge over $1,000 per covid test and add thousands more in facility fees associated with the visit.

These free-standing ERs are “among the worst offenders when it comes to price gouging, egregious billing, and providing unnecessary care and tests,” the letter says.

In December, the Kansas Insurance Department investigated a lab whose cash price was listed at nearly $1,000. State legislatures in both Minnesota and Connecticut have introduced bills to crack down on price gouging since the pandemic began.

"If these astronomical costs charged by unscrupulous providers are borne by the health plans and insurers without recompense, consumers will ultimately pay more for their health care as health insurance costs will rise,” Justin McFarland, Kansas Insurance Department’s general counsel, wrote in a Dec. 16 letter.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).



from Health Industry – Kaiser Health News

Related Posts:

KHN’s ‘What the Health?’: Sharing Vaccines With the World

Can’t see the audio player? Click here to listen on SoundCloud.

The Biden administration — keeping a campaign promise — announced it would back a temporary waiver of patent protections for the covid-19 vaccines, arousing the ire of the drug industry.

The administration is also picking a fight with tobacco companies, as the Food and Drug Administration prepares to ban menthol flavorings in cigarettes and small cigars. Tobacco makers have long promoted menthol products to the African American community, and the action is controversial.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KHN, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, Tami Luhby of CNN and Kimberly Leonard of Business Insider.

Among the takeaways from this week’s podcast:

  • It is unclear whether the Biden administration’s decision to support a patent waiver for covid vaccines foreshadows Democrats’ willingness to take on the powerful pharmaceutical industry. There is a school of thought that the patent issue is more about trade and intellectual property than it is about health care.
  • President Joe Biden has issued a new goal for vaccinations — getting at least one dose into the arms of 70% of adults by July 4. And the FDA is expected to grant emergency authorization to vaccinate teens age 12 and up in the coming days. But the vaccination effort is slowing down as most of those who want a shot have been vaccinated. Now the challenge is to reach people who are hesitant and those with access problems, either because of where they live or because it is difficult for them to find the time.
  • Even without a plan from the administration, Democrats on Capitol Hill say they plan to press ahead with legislation to reduce prescription drug prices. But the prospects remain cloudy. Democrats have only a slim majority in the House and no votes to spare in the Senate, so finding a compromise will not be easy, despite the popularity of the issue.
  • The FDA’s move to ban menthol flavoring for cigarettes has directly raised the issue of racial disparities in health care. On one hand, African Americans are far more likely to smoke menthol products than white or Hispanic populations, in part because the tobacco industry has strongly promoted menthol within Black communities. If people stopped smoking as a result, that would promote better health. But some people are worried about creating another legal hurdle that would give law enforcement a reason to harass people of color.

Plus, for extra credit, the panelists recommend their favorite health policy stories of the week they think you should read too:

Julie Rovner: KHN’s “The Vulnerable Homebound Are Left Behind on Vaccination,” by Jenny Gold

Tami Luhby: Stat’s “Biden’s Medicaid Pressure Tactics Could Put His Team at Odds With Hospitals,” by Rachel Cohrs

Alice Miranda Ollstein: The Washington Post’s “Many Police Officers Spurn Coronavirus Vaccines as Departments Hold Off on Mandates,” by Isaac Stanley-Becker

Kimberly Leonard: Business Insider’s “Big Insurers Like UnitedHealth, Humana, Cigna, and Anthem Are Moving Beyond Paying for Care. A New Report Reveals Just How Much Their DNA Has Changed,” by Shelby Livingston

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to What the Health? on iTunesStitcherGoogle PlaySpotify, or Pocket Casts.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).



from Health Industry – Kaiser Health News

Related Posts:

Dos grupos que apoyan a médicos están vinculados a organizaciones antiinmigrantes

En su último año en la escuela de medicina, a los estudiantes de cuarto año se les asigna un hospital donde harán su residencia.

Este rito anual se llama Programa Nacional de Asignación de Residentes. Para los estudiantes, es simplemente “La Asignación”.

Pero no todos los estudiantes de medicina la consiguen. Aunque decenas de miles acceden a una plaza de residente cada año, no es así para muchos.

Estos estudiantes “sin asignación” se ven obligados a buscar una salida, ya que los médicos recién graduados que no completan un programa de residencia no pueden recibir su licencia para ejercer la medicina.

A primera vista, dos organizaciones, Doctors Without Jobs y Unmatched and Unemployed Doctors of America, parecen defender su causa, ayudándoles a encontrar plazas de residencia y presionando al Congreso para que cree más espacios de aprendizaje. Estos grupos también organizaron recientemente una protesta en Washington, DC, para llamar la atención sobre la escasez de residencias.

Pero estas organizaciones no son simples grupos de apoyo. Están vinculadas a Progressives for Immigration Reform (PFIR), una organización que el Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) ha designado como grupo antiinmigrante. PFIR está financiada por una fundación antiinmigrante y su director ejecutivo ha estado afiliado a una red de grupos antiinmigrantes.

Las dos organizaciones quieren que los médicos formados en Estados Unidos, y con nacionalidad estadounidense, tengan prioridad en la asignación antes que los médicos formados en el extranjero. Aunque tanto Doctors Without Jobs, como Unmatched and Unemployed Doctors of America, no se declaran antiinmigrantes, sus sitios web incluyen mensajes que dan a entender que los médicos extranjeros le quitan plazas de residencia a los médicos estadounidenses.

Pero los nuevos estudiantes de medicina sin plaza, que buscan ayuda, no son necesariamente conscientes de las afiliaciones antiinmigrantes de estos grupos.

Haley Canoles, una estudiante de cuarto año de medicina que no fue admitida este año, se sorprendió al enterarse de la agenda de estas organizaciones.

“No tenía ni idea. Hace poco me uní a Twitter y empecé a seguir grupos que pensé que podrían ayudarme a encontrar un puesto de residente”, escribió Canoles en un mensaje privado por Twitter. “No defiendo en absoluto ninguna agenda antiinmigración”.

Dado que el porcentaje de estudiantes de medicina estadounidenses sin plaza aumenta cada año y el número de residencias se mantiene básicamente igual, más personas podrían sentirse atraídas por grupos como Doctors Without Jobs.

Según datos de 2021 del Programa Nacional de Asignación de Residentes, el porcentaje de graduados de las escuelas de medicina sin residencia ha aumentado. En 2021, el 7,2% de los estudiantes no accedieron a programas de residencia, frente al 5,7% en 2017.

Al mismo tiempo, el porcentaje de extranjeros en facultades de medicina, que no consiguieron una residencia, ha disminuido en los últimos cinco años a 45,2% en 2021, de 47,6% en 2017.

Eso hace que los defensores de los estudiantes internacionales de medicina se preocupen de que, si esta tendencia continúa, podría aumentar el resentimiento hacia los médicos educados en el extranjero y las actitudes xenófobas en la comunidad médica.

“Obviamente, no estoy de acuerdo con la idea de que los médicos graduados en el extranjero le estén quitando el puesto a los graduados estadounidenses”, dijo el doctor William Pinsky, presidente y director ejecutivo de la Comisión Educativa para Graduados Médicos Extranjeros, que certifica a los graduados médicos internacionales antes de que ingresen al sistema de educación médica de posgrado de Estados Unidos. “Lo que los directores de residencias buscan principalmente es quién está mejor calificado, y a veces los graduados extranjeros encajan en esa categoría”.

Kevin Lynn, director ejecutivo de PFIR, fundó Doctors Without Jobs como una filial de la organización en 2018, después de conocer a un médico sin plaza de residencia hospitalaria, durante una protesta ante la Casa Blanca.

“Ni siquiera sabía que esto era un problema, y entonces empezamos a mirar los datos y a darnos cuenta de que miles de estudiantes de medicina se quedaban fuera de los programas de residencia”, explicó Lynn. “Pero al mismo tiempo, aumenta el número de médicos extranjeros que se gradúan en facultades de medicina extranjeras y consiguen residencias financiadas por los contribuyentes”.

Según PFIR, las restricciones a la inmigración en Estados Unidos protegen la mano de obra estadounidense y el medio ambiente. Su sitio web también dice que investiga las “consecuencias no deseadas de la migración masiva”.

En un informe de 2020, SPLC descubrió que Lynn había estado estrechamente relacionado con miembros de destacados grupos de odio antiinmigrante de Washington, como la Federación para la Reforma de la Inmigración de Estados Unidos (FAIR) y el Centro de Estudios de Inmigración (CIS). Ambas organizaciones presionan para reducir el número de inmigrantes en Estados Unidos, están designadas como grupos de odio por el SPLC y fueron fundadas por el doctor John Tanton, a quien SPLC ha vinculado con nacionalistas caucásicos, racistas y partidarios de la eugenesia.

Y en julio de 2020, en el punto álgido de la pandemia, Lynn envió una carta al entonces líder de la mayoría republicana del Senado, Mitch McConnell, pidiéndole que rechazara el proyecto de ley bipartidista que asignaría tarjetas de residencia no utilizadas a trabajadores de salud extranjeros, y que en su lugar diera prioridad a los médicos estadounidenses sin plaza de residentes.

Esa idea fue difundida por Breitbart News, una publicación de derecha que comparte la agenda antiinmigrante. El proyecto de ley murió en el Senado.

SPLC también informó que Joe Guzzardi, escritor de Doctors Without Jobs, había escrito más de 700 comentarios de blogs para un sitio web de odio nacionalista blanco.

Según recientes declaraciones de impuestos de organizaciones sin fines de lucro, de 2015 a 2019 PFIR recibió casi $2 millones en fondos de la Fundación Colcom, una organización antiinmigrante, que también proporciona fondos significativos a FAIR y CIS.

El modus operandi de este tipo de grupos nativistas es enfrentar cualquier problema político y decir que la solución es restringir o eliminar la inmigración en Estados Unidos, señaló Eddie Bejarano, analista de SPLC que escribió el informe de 2020. El hecho de que los médicos no reciban plazas de residencia es sólo el último tema que ha aprovechado el movimiento antiinmigración.

“Hablan de temas como éste diciendo que la solución es el nativismo, no la reforma”, apuntó Bejarano. “Es el guión de los nativistas, se aprovechan de los temores de los estadounidenses, como en este caso, donde los médicos sólo quieren una oportunidad justa de trabajo, para  culpar a los inmigrantes”.

La retórica de Lynn no contradice la observación de Bejarano. “Creo que deberíamos dar prioridad a los estadounidenses”, indicó Lynn en una entrevista con KHN. “La gente dice que eso es xenófobo, que es racista. Son intentos de acallar la disidencia. Lo que digo son verdades incómodas”.

Unmatched and Unemployed Doctors of America tiene una conexión menos directa con los grupos antiinmigrantes. La organización asegura estar dirigida por voluntarios, ser independiente de Doctors Without Jobs y no recibir ninguna financiación de ese grupo. Pero sí dice en su página web que está afiliada a Doctors Without Jobs. Ambas organizaciones han colaborado durante una reciente protesta y se presentan mutuamente en sus respectivos sitios web y en sus materiales de promoción.

Los dirigentes de Unmatched and Unemployed Doctors of America se negaron a conceder una entrevista, pero proporcionaron a KHN una declaración por correo electrónico en la que afirmaban que casi la mitad de sus miembros son inmigrantes o son inmigrantes de segunda generación.

Doctors Without Jobs y Unmatched and Unemployed Doctors of America han aumentado su actividad en los últimos dos meses. En enero, miembros de ambos grupos viajaron a Washington para protestar frente a la sede de la Asociación de Escuelas de Medicina de Estados Unidos (AAMC), y llamar la atención sobre el problema de los médicos sin plaza de residentes. La AAMC gestiona el sistema electrónico de presentación de solicitudes para programas de residencia.

Los grupos comunicaron que se reunieron con miembros del Congreso para discutir la reintroducción de la Ley de Reducción de la Escasez de Médicos Residentes, que aumentaría los puestos de residencia médica con apoyo federal en 2,000 plazas anuales durante siete años. El proyecto de ley se presentó de nuevo en la Cámara de Representantes y el Senado en marzo.

Doctors Without Jobs también publicó recientemente un video atacando a la AAMC en el que se afirma que la organización promueve una política que “permite a los estudiantes de medicina extranjeros usurpar las residencias de los estudiantes estadounidenses”.

En una declaración enviada por correo electrónico, Karen Fisher, directora de políticas públicas de la AAMC, declaró que cualquier restricción innecesaria a la inmigración sólo aceleraría y empeoraría la escasez ya existente de médicos y que los médicos formados en el extranjero a menudo llenan vacíos críticos en la fuerza laboral de la atención médica.

“Los hospitales universitarios del país tratan de contratar a los candidatos más calificados para sus programas de formación de residentes”, dijo Fisher. “Una preferencia generalizada por los solicitantes estadounidenses va en contra de este objetivo y restringiría gravemente el grupo de personas altamente calificadas, impidiendo que los pacientes estadounidenses reciban la mejor atención posible de un grupo diverso y dedicado de aspirantes a médicos”.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).



from Health Industry – Kaiser Health News

Related Posts:

A Primary Care Physician for Every American, Science Panel Urges

The federal government must aggressively bolster primary care and connect more Americans with a dedicated source of care, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine warn in a major report that sounds the alarm about an endangered foundation of the U.S. health system.

Use Our Content

It can be republished for free.

The urgently worded report, which comes as internists, family doctors and pediatricians nationwide struggle with the economic fallout of the coronavirus pandemic, calls for a broad recognition that primary care is a “common good” akin to public education.

The authors recommend that all Americans select a primary care provider or be assigned one, a landmark step that could reorient how care is delivered in the nation’s fragmented medical system.

And the report calls on major government health plans such as Medicare and Medicaid to shift money to primary care and away from the medical specialties that have long commanded the biggest fees in the U.S. system.

“High-quality primary care is the foundation of a robust health care system, and perhaps more importantly, it is the essential element for improving the health of the U.S. population,” the report concludes. “Yet, in large part because of chronic underinvestment, primary care in the United States is slowly dying.”

The report, which is advisory, does not guarantee federal action. But reports from the national academies have helped support major health initiatives over the years, such as curbing tobacco use among children and protecting patients from medical errors.

Strengthening primary care has long been seen as a critical public health need. And research dating back more than half a century shows that robust primary care systems save money, improve people’s health and even save lives.

“We know that better access to primary care leads to more timely identification of problems, better management of chronic disease and better coordination of care,” said Melinda Abrams, executive vice president of the Commonwealth Fund, a New York-based foundation that studies health systems around the world.

Recognizing the value of this kind of care, many nations — from wealthy democracies like the United Kingdom and the Netherlands to middle-income countries such as Costa Rica and Thailand — have deliberately constructed health systems around primary care.

And many have reaped significant rewards. Europeans with chronic illnesses such as diabetes, high blood pressure, cancer and depression reported significantly better health if they lived in a country with a robust primary care system, a group of researchers found.

For decades, experts here have called for this country to make a similar commitment.

But only about 5% of U.S. health care spending goes to primary care, versus an average of 14% in other wealthy nations, according to data collected by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Other research shows that primary spending has declined in many U.S. states in recent years.

The situation grew even more dire as the pandemic forced thousands of primary care physicians — who didn’t receive the government largesse showered on major medical systems — to lay off staff members or even close their doors.

Reversing this slide will require new investment, the authors of the new report conclude. But, they argue, that should yield big dividends.

“If we increase the supply of primary care, more people and more communities will be healthier, and no other part of health care can make this claim,” said Dr. Robert Phillips, a family physician who co-chaired the committee that produced the report. Phillips also directs the Center for Professionalism and Value in Health Care at the American Board of Family Medicine.

The report urges new initiatives to build more health centers, especially in underserved areas that are frequently home to minority communities, and to expand primary care teams, including nurse practitioners, pharmacists and mental health specialists.

And it advocates new efforts to shift away from paying physicians for every patient visit, a system that critics have long argued doesn’t incentivize doctors to keep patients healthy.

Potentially most controversial, however, is the report’s recommendation that Medicare and Medicaid, as well as commercial insurers and employers that provide their workers with health benefits, ask their members to declare a primary care provider. Anyone who does not, the report notes, should be assigned a provider.

“Successfully implementing high-quality primary care means everyone should have access to the ‘sustained relationships’ primary care offers,” the report notes.

This idea of formally linking patients with a primary care office — often called empanelment — isn’t new. Kaiser Permanente, consistently among the nation’s best-performing health systems, has long made primary care central. (KHN is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.)

But the model, which was at the heart of managed-care health plans, suffered in the backlash against HMOs in the 1990s, when some health plans forced primary care providers to act as “gatekeepers” to keep patients away from costlier specialty care.

More recently, however, a growing number of experts and primary care advocates have shown that linking patients with a primary care provider need not limit access to care.

Indeed, a new generation of medical systems that rely on primary care to look after elderly Americans on Medicare with chronic medical conditions has demonstrated great success in keeping patients healthier and costs down. These “advanced primary care” systems include ChenMed, Iora Health and Oak Street Health.

“If you don’t have empanelment, you don’t really have continuity of care,” said Dr. Tom Bodenheimer, an internist who founded the Center for Excellence in Primary Care at the University of California-San Francisco and has called for stronger primary care systems for decades.

Bodenheimer added: “We know that continuity of care is linked to everything good: better preventive care, higher patient satisfaction, better chronic care and lower costs. It is really fundamental.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).



from Health Industry – Kaiser Health News

Related Posts: