Home » Archive for Januari 2023

Some Addiction Treatment Centers Turn Big Profits by Scaling Back Care

Near the end of his scheduled three-month stay at a rehab center outside Austin, Texas, Daniel McKegney was forced to tell his father in North Carolina that he needed more time and more money, he recently recalled.

His father had already received bills from BRC Recovery totaling about $150,000 to cover McKegney’s treatment for addiction to the powerful opioid fentanyl, according to insurance statements shared with KHN. But McKegney, 20, said he found the program “suffocating” and wasn’t happy with his care.

He was advised against the long-term use of Suboxone, a medication often recommended to treat opioid addiction, because BRC does not consider it a form of abstinence. After an initial five-day detox period last April, McKegney’s care plan mostly included a weekly therapy session and 12-step group meetings, which are free around the country.

McKegney said a BRC staffer recommended he stay a fourth month and even sat in on the call to his dad.

“They used my life and [my] father’s love for me to pull another 20 grand out of him,” said McKegney, who told KHN he began using fentanyl again after the costly stay.

BRC did not respond to specific concerns raised by McKegney. But in an emailed statement, Mandy Baker, president and chief clinical officer of BRC Healthcare, said that many of the complaints patients and former employees shared with KHN are “no longer accurate” or were related to covid safety measures.

But addiction researchers and private equity watchdogs said models like the one used by BRC — charging high patient fees without guaranteeing access to evidence-based care — are common throughout the country’s addiction treatment industry.

The model and growing demand are why addiction treatment has become increasingly attractive to private equity firms looking for big returns. And they’re banking on forecasts that predict the market will grow by $10 billion — doubling in size — by the end of the decade as drug overdose and alcohol-induced death rates mount.

“There is a lot of money to be made,” said Eileen O’Grady, research and campaign director at the Private Equity Stakeholder Project, a watchdog nonprofit that tracks private equity investment in health care, housing, and other industries. “But it’s not necessarily dovetailing with high-quality treatment.”

In 2021, 127 mergers and acquisitions took place in the behavioral health sector, which includes treatment for substance use disorders, a rebound after several years of decline, according to investment banking firm Capstone Partners. Private equity investment drove much of the activity in an industry that is highly fragmented and rapidly growing, and has historically had few guardrails to ensure patients get appropriate care.

Roughly 14,000 treatment centers dot the country. They’ve proliferated as addiction rates rise and as health insurance plans are required to offer better coverage of drug and alcohol treatment. The treatment options vary widely and are not always consistent with those recommended by the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. While efforts to standardize treatment advance, industry critics say private equity groups are investing in centers with unproven practices and cutting services that, while unprofitable, might support long-term recovery.

Baker said BRC treats people who have been unsuccessful in other facilities and does so with input from both clients and their families.

Private Equity Skimps on the Known Standards

Centers that discourage or prohibit the use of Food and Drug Administration-approved medications for the treatment of substance use disorder are plentiful, but in doing so they do not align with the American Society of Addiction Medicine’s guidelines on how to manage opioid use disorder over the long term.

Suboxone, for example, combines the pain reliever buprenorphine and the opioid-reversal medication naloxone. The drug blocks an overdose while also reducing a patient’s cravings and withdrawal symptoms.

“It is inconceivable to me that an addiction treatment provider purporting to address opioid use disorder would not offer medications,” said Robert Lubran, a former federal official and chairman of the board at the Danya Institute, a nonprofit that supports states and treatment providers.

Residential inpatient facilities, where patients stay for weeks or months, have a role in addiction treatment but are often overused, said Brendan Saloner, an associate professor of health policy and management at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

Many patients return to drug and alcohol use after staying in inpatient settings, but studies show that the use of medications can decrease the relapse rate for certain addictions. McKegney said he now regularly takes Suboxone.

“The last three years of my life were hell,” he said.

Along with access to medications, high-quality addiction treatment usually requires long-term care, according to Shatterproof, a nonprofit focused on improving addiction treatment. And, ideally, treatment is customized to the patient. While the “Twelve Steps” program developed by Alcoholics Anonymous may help some patients, others might need different behavioral health therapies.

But, when looking for investments, private equity groups focus on profit, not necessarily how well the program is designed, said Laura Katz Olson, a political science professor at Lehigh University who wrote a book about private equity’s investment in American health care.

With health care companies, investors often cut services and trim staff costs by using fewer and less-trained workers, she said. Commonly, private equity companies buy “a place that does really excellent work, and then cut it down to bare bones,” Olson said. During his stay, McKegney said, outings to movies or a lake abruptly stopped, food went from poke bowls and pork tenderloin to chili that tasted like “dish soap,” and staff turnover was high.

Nearly three years ago, BRC landed backing from NewSpring Capital and Veronis Suhler Stevenson, two private equity firms with broad portfolios. Their holdings include a payroll processor, a bridal wear designer, and a doughnut franchise. With the fresh funds, BRC started an expansion push and bought several Tennessee treatment facilities.

NewSpring Capital and Veronis Suhler Stevenson did not respond to emails and phone calls from KHN.

High Prices and Low Overhead = Big Business

Before the sale to BRC, Nashville Recovery Center co-founder Ryan Cain said, roughly 80% of the center’s offerings were free. Anyone could drop by for 12-step meetings, to meet a sponsor, or just to play pool. But the new owners focused on a new high-end sober living program that cost thousands of dollars per month and relied on staffers who were in recovery themselves.

In 2021, Nanci Milam, 48, emptied her 401(k) retirement fund to go through the sober living program and tackle her alcohol addiction. She had been sober for only six months when she was hired as a house manager, overseeing some of the same residents she had gone through the program with. She had to handle other residents’ medications, which she said she could have abused. Milam said she was fortunate to maintain sobriety.

“I think it served their need. And I was ambitious. But it should not have happened,” said Milam, adding that she left because the company hadn’t helped her start her certification as a drug counselor as promised.

A licensing violation reported to Tennessee regulators in late 2021 involved a staffer who was later fired for having sex with a resident in a storage area. And KHN obtained a copy of a 911 call placed in August 2022 — after a resident drank half a bottle of mouthwash — during which a staffer admitted there was no nurse on-site, which some other states require.

Removing the Burden from Consumers

The regulations of treatment providers largely focus on health and safety rather than clinical guidelines. Only a handful of states, including New York and Massachusetts, require that licensed addiction treatment centers offer medication for opioid use disorder and follow other best practices.

“We have a huge issue in the field where licensing standards don’t comport with what we know to be the most effective quality-of-care standards,” said Michael Botticelli, former director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy during the Obama administration and a member of a clinical advisory board for private equity-backed Behavioral Health Group. Some organizations, including Shatterproof, guide patients toward appropriate care. The federal and state governments largely direct public funds to centers that meet clinical quality-of-care standards.

But access to treatment is limited, and desperate patients and their families often don’t know where to turn. State or federal regulators aren’t policing claims from rehab facilities, like the “99% success rate” touted by BRC.

“We cannot put the burden on patients and their families” to navigate the system, said Johns Hopkins’ Saloner. “My heart really breaks for people who have thrown thousands of their dollars at programs that are bogus.”

When her niece was ready for inpatient rehab in summer 2020, Marina said, sending her to BRC was a “knee-jerk reaction.” Marina, a physician in Southern California, requested to be identified only by her middle name to protect the privacy of her niece, who suffers from alcohol addiction.

She had researched the facility three years earlier but didn’t investigate deeper because she was worried her niece would change her mind. BRC advertised success stories on the television show “Dr. Phil” and posted affirmations on social media.

Marina agreed to BRC’s upfront cost of $30,000 a month for a three-month stay in Texas, which she paid for out-of-pocket because her niece lacked insurance. She allowed KHN to review some of her niece’s pharmacy and treatment bills.

Marina said she paid for a fourth month, but said ultimately the program didn’t help her niece, who remains “horribly sick.” She said her niece felt constant guilt and shame at rehab. Marina thought there was inadequate medical oversight, and said the program “nickeled and dimed” her for additional services, like physicians’ visits, that she thought would be included.

“It almost doesn’t matter if you are educated and intelligent,” Marina said. “When it’s your loved one, you are just desperate.”

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

Government Lets Health Plans That Ripped Off Medicare Keep the Money

Medicare Advantage plans for seniors dodged a major financial bullet Monday as government officials gave them a reprieve for returning hundreds of millions of dollars or more in government overpayments — some dating back a decade or more.

The health insurance industry had long feared the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services would demand repayment of billions of dollars in overcharges the popular health plans received as far back as 2011.

But in a surprise action, CMS announced it would require next to nothing from insurers for any excess payments they received from 2011 through 2017. CMS will not impose major penalties until audits for payment years 2018 and beyond are conducted, which have yet to be started.

While the decision could cost Medicare plans billions of dollars in the future, it will take years before any penalty comes due. And health plans will be allowed to pocket hundreds of millions of dollars in overcharges and possibly much more for audits before 2018. Exactly how much is not clear because audits as far back as 2011 have yet to be completed.

In late 2018, CMS officials said the agency would collect an estimated $650 million in overpayments from 90 Medicare Advantage audits conducted for 2011 through 2013, the most recent ones available. Some analysts calculated overpayments to plans of at least twice that much for the three-year period. CMS is now conducting audits for 2014 and 2015.

The estimate for the 2011-13 audits was based on an extrapolation of overpayments found in a sampling of patients at each health plan. In these reviews, auditors examine medical records to confirm whether patients had the diseases for which the government reimbursed health plans to treat.

Through the years, those audits — and others conducted by government watchdogs — have found that health plans often cannot document that they deserved extra payments for patients they said were sicker than average.

The decision to take earlier audit findings off the table means that CMS has spent tens of millions of dollars conducting audits as far back as 2011 — much more than the government will be able to recoup.

In 2018, CMS said it pays $54 million annually to conduct 30 of the audits. Without extrapolation for years 2011-17, CMS won’t come near to recouping that much.

CMS Deputy Administrator Dara Corrigan called the final rule a “commonsense approach to oversight.” Corrigan said she did not know how much money would go uncollected from years prior to 2018.

Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra said the rule takes “long overdue steps to move in the direction of accountability.”

“Going forward, this is good news. We should all be happy that they are doing that [extrapolation],” said former CMS official Ted Doolittle. But he added: “I do wish they were pushing back further [and extrapolating earlier years]. That would seem to be fair game,” he said.

David Lipschutz, an attorney with the Center for Medicare Advocacy, said he was still evaluating the rule, but noted: “It is our hope that CMS would use everything within their discretion to recoup overpayments made to Medicare Advantage plans.” He said that “it is unclear if they are using all of their authority.”

Mark Miller, who is the executive vice president of health care policy for Arnold Ventures and formerly worked at the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, a congressional advisory board, said extrapolating errors found in medical coding have always been a part of government auditing. “It strikes me as ridiculous to run a sample and find an error rate and then only collect the sample error rate as opposed to what it presents to the entire population or pool of claims,” he said. (KHN receives funding support from Arnold Ventures.)

Last week, KHN released details of the 90 audits from 2011-2013, which were obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. The audits found about $12 million in net overpayments for the care of 18,090 patients sampled for the three-year period.

In all, 71 of the 90 audits uncovered net overpayments, which topped $1,000 per patient on average in 23 audits. CMS paid the remaining plans too little on average, anywhere from $8 to $773 per patient, the records showed.

Since 2010, the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid services has threatened to crack down on billing abuses in the popular health plans, which now cover more than 30 million Americans. Medicare Advantage, a fast-growing alternative to original Medicare, is run primarily by major insurance companies including Humana, UnitedHealthcare, Centene, and CVS/Aetna.

But the industry has succeeded in opposing extrapolation of overpayments, even though the audit tool is widely used to recover overcharges in other parts of the Medicare program.

That has happened despite dozens of audits, investigations, and whistleblower lawsuits alleging that Medicare Advantage overcharges cost taxpayers billions of dollars a year.

Corrigan said Monday that CMS expected to collect $479 million from overpayments in 2018, the first year of extrapolation. Over the next decade, it could recoup $4.7 billion, she said.

Medicare Advantage plans also face potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in clawbacks from a set of unrelated audits conducted by the Health and Human Services inspector general.

The audits include an April 2021 review alleging that a Humana Medicare Advantage plan in Florida had overcharged the government by nearly $200 million in 2015.

Carolyn Kapustij, the Office of the Inspector General’s senior adviser for managed care, said the agency has conducted 17 such audits that found widespread payment errors — on average 69% for some medical diagnoses. In these cases, the health plans “did not have the necessary support [for these conditions] in the medical records, which has caused overpayments.”

“Although the MA organizations usually disagreed with us, they almost always had little disagreement with our finding that their diagnoses were not supported,” she said.

While CMS has taken years to conduct the Medicare Advantage audits, it also has faced criticism for permitting lengthy appeals that can drag on for years. These delays have drawn sharp criticism from the Government Accountability Office, the watchdog arm of Congress.

Leslie Gordon, an acting director of the GAO health team, said that until CMS speeds up the process, it “will fail to recover improper payments of hundreds of millions of dollars annually.”

KHN senior correspondent Phil Galewitz contributed to this report.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

from Health Industry – Kaiser Health News

Montana Pharmacists May Get More Power to Prescribe

Mark Buck, a physician and pharmacist in Helena, Montana, said he’s been seeing more patients turn to urgent care clinics when they run out of medication. Their doctors have retired, moved away, or left the field because they burned out during the covid-19 pandemic, leaving the patients with few options to renew their prescriptions, he said.

“Access is where we’re really hurting in this state,” Buck said.

Senate Bill 112, sponsored by Republican Sen. Tom McGillvray, would address that need by expanding the limited authority Montana already gives pharmacists to prescribe medications and devices. Supporters said the measure could help fill health care gaps in rural areas in particular, while opponents worried it would give pharmacists physician-like authority without the same education.

Eleven states, including Montana, give pharmacists prescribing authority to some degree for medications such as birth control, naloxone, tobacco cessation products, preventive HIV drugs, and travel-related medications. The FDA has allowed pharmacists nationwide to prescribe the covid drug Paxlovid during the public health emergency.

According to a 2021 report by George Mason University’s Mercatus Center, there were about 228,000 primary care physicians nationwide in 2019 and more than 315,000 pharmacists in 2020. The report found that patients using Medicare visit a pharmacist twice as often as a primary care provider, and the difference is even larger in rural areas.

Pharmacists, who often work in grocery stores, “are open longer hours than most doctors’ offices, and no appointment is needed,” the authors of the Mercatus Center study wrote.

Under the bill, pharmacists could prescribe for patients who do not require a new diagnosis, for minor conditions, or in emergencies. They could not prescribe controlled substances.

During a Jan. 18 committee hearing on the bill, supporters said pharmacists also would be able to provide strep and flu tests, along with diabetic supplies.

Buck, the Helena doctor-pharmacist, said the bill wouldn’t solve the provider shortage, but it would “put a thumb in the dike that’s leaking.”

According to data from the University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute, Montana had one primary care physician per 1,210 people in 2019. Some counties have no primary care providers, but they usually have a pharmacy, said Kendall Cotton, executive director of the Frontier Institute, a public policy think tank in Montana. For example, Powder River County has no physician, he said, but a grocery store in the county seat, Broadus, has a pharmacy.

As a clinical pharmacist practitioner for 15 years, Travis Schule of Kalispell wouldn’t be much affected by the passage of SB 112. In Montana, providers like him with additional education and training already have authority to prescribe under Montana’s existing rules.

But he sees the bill’s potential to expand access to treatment in Montana. In some cases, people might have to drive three hours to see a physician, and SB 112 would allow a pharmacist to serve as a “first triage” before they travel that long distance, Schule said.

“This bill is a patient-centric bill,” Schule said. “It’s not for pharmacists. It’s for patients.”

SB 112 is modeled after a bill passed in Idaho. Tim Flynn, a pharmacist at an Albertsons grocery store in Meridian, Idaho, said the legislation lets patients be treated for minor conditions, such as urinary tract infections, when they can’t schedule a doctor’s appointment or get to an urgent care clinic.

The Montana Medical Association and the Montana chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics oppose SB 112. They say SB 112 would fragment care, risk patient safety, and substitute pharmacists for emergency care physicians.

But Montana Medical Association CEO Jean Branscum said there was an opportunity to build on the Idaho model, by bringing pharmacists and physicians together while making sure patients get the same standard of care.

“Let’s come up with a model of care that will allow pharmacists to do more than they do now, be a part of that team, practice at the highest level, and also appreciate the value of the physicians as part of that team too,” Branscum told lawmakers at the Jan. 18 hearing.

Keely Larson is the KHN fellow for the UM Legislative News Service, a partnership of the University of Montana School of Journalism, the Montana Newspaper Association, and Kaiser Health News. Larson is a graduate student in environmental and natural resources journalism at the University of Montana.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

from Health Industry – Kaiser Health News

As States Seek to Limit Abortions, Montana Wants to Redefine What Is Medically Necessary

Montana’s conservative leaders, stymied by the courts from passing laws that impose significant statewide abortion restrictions, seek to tighten the state’s Medicaid rules to make it more difficult for low-income women to receive abortions.

The Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services is proposing to define when an abortion is medically necessary, limit who can perform such services, and require preauthorization for most cases.

The push to change the regulations is borne of a belief by Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte’s administration that health providers are using existing rules that allow Medicaid reimbursements to cover abortions that aren’t medically necessary.

“Taxpayers shouldn’t foot the bill for elective abortions,” said Gianforte spokesperson Brooke Stroyke.

Medical professionals have said the term “elective abortions” can misrepresent the complex reasons someone may seek an abortion and constrain health providers from making their best clinical judgment. Laurie Sobel, associate director of Women’s Health Policy at KFF, said that appears to be the aim of the Montana proposal’s focus on defining medically necessary abortions.

“It looks like Montana’s trying to curtail abortion access under Medicaid and take the conversation of ‘medically necessary’ away from a physician and a patient,” Sobel said.

Democratic lawmakers and many health providers have said existing state rules ensure providers consider and document why an abortion is needed to protect a patient.

Democratic state Rep. Ed Stafman, who recently chaired the Children, Families, Health, and Human Services Interim Committee, said the proposed changes are unnecessary because the state already complies with federal Medicaid rules on abortion.

“It’s clear that this is part of the anti-abortion agenda,” Stafman said.

States are barred from using federal funds to pay for abortions except in cases of rape or incest, or when a woman’s life is at risk. However, states have the option of using their own money to allow reimbursements under the joint state-federal Medicaid program in other circumstances.

Montana is one of 16 states that allow the use of state Medicaid funds for abortions deemed medically necessary. A study published in 2017 in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology found that states with Medicaid coverage of medically necessary abortions had a reduced risk of severe maternal morbidity for that population, 16% on average, compared with states without that coverage.

Montana’s proposed changes are more restrictive than the rules in many of the other states that allow medically necessary Medicaid abortions. At least nine states that use state funds to pay for Medicaid abortions don’t require health providers to report the circumstances for an abortion, according to a 2019 U.S. Government Accountability Office report on state compliance with abortion coverage rules. For example, California’s Medi-Cal program does not require any medical justification for abortions, and requires preauthorization only when the patient needs to be hospitalized.

Most of the states that permit medically necessary Medicaid abortions, including Montana, are under court orders to fund the procedure as they would other general health services for low-income people.

Montana’s coverage is tethered to a 1995 court case that determined the state’s Medicaid program was established to provide “necessary medical services” and the state can’t exclude specific services. The state’s existing eligibility rules governing when a Medicaid-funded service is medically necessary include when a pregnancy would cause suffering, pain, or a physical deformity; result in illness or infirmity; or threaten to cause or aggravate a disability.

Under the health department’s new proposal, abortions would be determined to be medically necessary only when a physician — not another type of provider — certifies a patient suffers from an illness, condition, or injury that threatens their life or has a physical or psychological condition that would be “significantly aggravated” by pregnancy.

Elsewhere, courts have rejected some states’ attempts to create a definition for medically necessary abortions apart from existing Medicaid standards as constitutional violations of equal protection. The Alaska Supreme Court struck down a 2013 state law changing the definition of a medically necessary abortion because it treated Medicaid beneficiaries who wanted an abortion differently than those seeking pregnancy-related procedures like a cesarean section. And New Mexico’s high court said in 1999 that a state rule limiting Medicaid-funded abortions applied different standards of medical necessity to men and women.

Montana opponents of the proposed changes have threatened to sue if the regulations are adopted.

The state’s Medicaid program covers more than 153,900 women. From 2011 through 2021, the program paid for 5,614 abortion procedures, which typically represents nearly a third of all abortions in the state, according to state data.

Currently in Montana, doctors, physician assistants, and advanced nurse practitioners are allowed to perform abortions. At least one Montana clinic that provides abortions to Medicaid beneficiaries is run by a nurse practitioner, All Families Healthcare’s Helen Weems, who is suing the state for trying to block nurses from performing abortions.

Medical providers make the decision of whether an abortion is medically necessary and submit a form afterward to the state health department.

The proposed change would require providers to get state approval before performing an abortion, except in emergencies, and submit supporting documents to justify the medical necessity. That preauthorization process would entail providing state officials details of patients’ medical history, such as how many pregnancies a person has had, the date of their last menstrual cycle, whether they smoke, the results of any pregnancy tests, and whether they have ever had behavioral health issues or substance use disorders.

Martha Fuller, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Montana, said providers already collect that information but don’t send it to the state. If they are required to do so, she said, that will have a chilling effect that may keep people from seeking help or lead them to pay for it out-of-pocket, if they can.

“Patients could feel like, ‘Oh, and everything that I tell you, it’s going to be now shared with my insurer for the purpose of them making a decision about whether or not I can have an abortion?’” Fuller said.

In Montana, a patient seeking an abortion via medication typically gets that through nurse practitioners or physician assistants instead of going through one of the few physicians who provide that care through Medicaid, Fuller said. She said Medicaid patients would see longer wait times if the new rules are put in place as they wait to see a physician. And waiting for prior authorization would add to the time in limbo.

Telehealth helps provide access amid scattered resources across the big, rural state, but Montana’s proposed changes would require a physical examination.

“Patients might have to make a more invasive procedure. They may have to travel. They have to take more time off from work,” Fuller said. “There will be patients who will decide not to seek abortion care because they cannot afford it.”

Of the 1,418 abortions covered by Montana Medicaid in 2020 and 2021, state records show, one was performed because a person’s life was in danger. The rest were performed under the broader medically necessary justification, with paperwork about those cases including a brief explanation for why the procedure was needed.

According to the state’s proposed rules, the lack of supporting documentation for the procedures leads “the department to reasonably believe that the Medicaid program is paying for abortions that are not actually medically necessary.”

In 2021, state lawmakers passed and Gianforte signed three laws restricting abortions that a court temporarily blocked. The Montana Supreme Court upheld the injunction, arguing that the state constitution’s right-to-privacy provision extends to abortion.

Gianforte and the state attorney general have called on the Montana Supreme Court to strike down the two-decade-old ruling that tied abortion to the right to privacy. Republican lawmakers also have filed a slew of abortion-related bills in the legislative session, including one proposal to exclude abortion from the state’s right-to-privacy protections.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

from Health Industry – Kaiser Health News

Luring Out-of-State Professionals Is Just the First Step in Solving Montana’s Health Worker Shortage

Jenna Eisenhart spent nearly six years as a licensed therapist in Colorado before deciding to move to a place with a greater need for her services. She researched rural states facing a shortage of behavioral health providers and accepted a job as a lead clinical primary therapist at Shodair Children’s Hospital in Helena, Montana, in January 2018.

But she couldn’t start her new job right away because state officials denied her application for a license to practice in Montana on the grounds that her master’s degree program required only 48 credits to complete instead of 60.

Eisenhart spent nearly $7,000 to earn 12 more credits to meet the requirement, something she acknowledged not every provider would be able, or want, to do.

“I’m coming here as a licensed therapist to provide services that Montana desperately needs and you’re saying, no, you’re educationally deficient, when that’s not actually true,” said Eisenhart, now the director of clinical services at Shodair. “It kind of made me feel unwanted.”

Eisenhart’s difficulties are an example of the problems that health professionals can have in obtaining a Montana license to practice. State lawmakers are considering proposals to make it easier for professionals with out-of-state licenses to work in Montana. The need to attract more workers is particularly acute amid a national mental health crisis and a worker shortage, both heightened by the covid-19 pandemic. But lawmakers, behavioral health advocates, and providers say the need is so great, they doubt that lowering barriers for out-of-state practitioners will be enough.

One measure, House Bill 101, sponsored by Republican Rep. Jane Gillette and drafted by the Children, Family, Health and Human Services Interim Committee, covers social workers, professional counselors, addiction counselors, marriage and family therapists, and behavioral health peer support specialists. It would let the Department of Labor & Industry automatically license those providers in Montana if they meet certain requirements, like having an active license from another state for at least a year and having proper educational credentials.

Eisenhart said if the bill had been in effect in 2018, she wouldn’t have had to jump through as many hoops to work in Montana.

Another, House Bill 152 sponsored by Republican Rep. Bill Mercer and requested by the state Department of Labor & Industry as part of Gov. Greg Gianforte’s “Red Tape Relief” initiative, aims to streamline the licensing process for all occupations regulated by the department, from nurses to real estate appraisers.

HB 152 is designed to simplify the process for licensing the more than 50 professions and 150 types of licenses under the purview of the labor department, Eric Strauss, administrator of the department’s Employment Standards Division, said in a Jan. 18 committee hearing on the bill.

Last year, the department received more than 21,300 applications for licensure across professions, and half of those were from out-of-state professionals, said Dave Cook, the department’s deputy administrator of professional licensing. Health care-related licenses had an even higher share of out-of-state applicants — 60%, he said.

HB 152 would improve license mobility by creating a standard the department uses across professions to determine whether out-of-state license holders are qualified to work in Montana, department officials said. It also would establish a timeline of 30 days for the agency to issue a license after receiving a completed application.

“This helps the engineer, psychologist, social worker, or cosmetologist who has practiced for 20 years to get licensed without being required to get additional education or take an examination,” said department spokesperson Jessica Nelson.

Though the two bills have the same aim, labor department officials criticized Gillette’s bill on behavioral health worker licensing as not going far enough to remove obstacles for out-of-state workers.

HB 101 “creates additional burdens to licensure, including requiring residency and mandating that a particular licensing examination has been taken,” Nelson wrote in an email. “These are issues that HB 152 is attempting to reform.”

Gillette said she doesn’t think her bill or Gianforte’s bill alone would solve the workforce problem in health care. To make a substantial change, Gillette said, Medicaid provider reimbursement rates need to be higher.

“It’ll do something but it’s not going to fix it by any stretch,” Gillette said, referring to streamlining the licensing process.

A study commissioned by the 2021 legislature found that Montana’s Medicaid provider rates were too low to cover the cost of many of those who work with seniors, people with disabilities, and children and adults with mental illness.

The study found that the state’s Medicaid program is now paying, on average, 85% of the actual cost of care for adult behavioral health services, for example. Gianforte’s proposed budget would boost that funding next year to 94% of costs, on average, before lowering it again to 91%. The budget proposal is before lawmakers, and, to fully fund the services, providers are asking them to raise the rates higher than the governor proposes.

Mary Windecker, executive director of the Behavioral Health Alliance of Montana, which strives to make community-based services more accessible to patients, said that her organization recommended the interim committee come up with what became HB 101 but that HB 152 goes further than they could have hoped.

Windecker said every agency that her organization represents is experiencing staffing shortages of 25% to 30%. Up to 90% of the alliance members’ income comes from Medicaid reimbursements, she said, and it’s not enough. She said speeding up the licensure process and raising the Medicaid provider rates in accordance with a study the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services instigated are the main strategies needed to satisfy demand for behavioral health services.

“We’ve got to get people in here to work,” Windecker said. “We have a huge labor shortage and with the Medicaid reimbursement so low, we’re having a really hard time hiring people.”

According to the Board of Behavioral Health, there were 5,126 active behavioral health providers in Montana as of last April. The Montana chapter of the National Alliance on Mental Illness reported 163,000 adults in Montana have a mental health condition.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

from Health Industry – Kaiser Health News

As US Bumps Against Debt Ceiling, Medicare Becomes a Bargaining Chip

The Host

Julie Rovner KHN @jrovner Read Julie's stories. Julie Rovner is chief Washington correspondent and host of KHN’s weekly health policy news podcast, “What the Health?” A noted expert on health policy issues, Julie is the author of the critically praised reference book “Health Care Politics and Policy A to Z,” now in its third edition.

While repealing the Affordable Care Act seems to have fallen off congressional Republicans’ to-do list for 2023, plans to cut Medicare and Medicaid are back. The GOP wants Democrats to agree to cut spending on both programs in exchange for a vote to prevent the government from defaulting on its debts.

Meanwhile, the nation’s health care workers — from nurses to doctors to pharmacists — are feeling the strain of caring not just for the rising number of insured patients seeking care, but also more seriously ill patients who are difficult and sometimes even violent.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KHN, Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico, Tami Luhby of CNN, and Victoria Knight of Axios.

Panelists

Joanne Kenen Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico @JoanneKenen Read Joanne's stories Tami Luhby CNN @luhby Read Tami's stories Victoria Knight Axios @victoriaregisk Read Victoria's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

Conservative House Republicans are hoping to capitalize on their new legislative clout to slash government spending, as the fight over raising the debt ceiling offers a preview of possible debates this year over costly federal entitlement programs like Medicare.
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy said Republicans will protect Medicare and Social Security, but the elevation of conservative firebrands — like the new chair of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee — raises questions about what “protecting” those programs means to Republicans.
Record numbers of Americans enrolled for insurance coverage this year under the Affordable Care Act. Years after congressional Republicans last attempted to repeal it, the once highly controversial program also known as Obamacare appears to be following the trajectory of other established federal entitlement programs: evolving, growing, and becoming less controversial over time.
Recent reports show that while Americans had less trouble paying for health care last year, many still delayed care due to costs. The findings highlight that being insured is not enough to keep care affordable for many Americans.
Health care workers are growing louder in their calls for better staffing, with a nursing strike in New York City and recent reports about pharmacist burnout providing some of the latest arguments for how widespread staffing issues may be harming patient care. There is bipartisan agreement in Congress for addressing the nursing shortage, but what they would do is another question.

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

Julie Rovner: Roll Call’s “NIH Missing Top Leadership at Start of a Divided Congress,” by Ariel Cohen

Tami Luhby: CNN’s “ER on the Field: An Inside Look at How NFL Medical Teams Prepare for a Game Day Emergency,” by Nadia Kounang and Amanda Sealy

Joanne Kenen: The Atlantic’s “Don’t Fear the Handshake,” by Katherine J. Wu

Victoria Knight: The Washington Post’s “‘The Last of Us’ Zombie Fungus Is Real, and It’s Found in Health Supplements,” by Mike Hume

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

The New York Times’ “As France Moves to Delay Retirement, Older Workers Are in a Quandary,” by Liz Alderman

Stat’s “Congressional Medicare Advisers Warn of Higher Drug Prices, Despite New Price Negotiation,” by John Wilkerson

Credits

Francis Ying Audio producer Emmarie Huetteman Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to KHN’s What the Health? on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Pocket Casts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

from Health Industry – Kaiser Health News

Readers and Tweeters Diagnose Greed and Chronic Pain Within US Health Care System

Letters to the Editor is a periodic feature. We welcome all comments and will publish a selection. We edit for length and clarity and require full names.

U.S. Health Care Is Harmful to One’s Health

Thank you for publishing this research (“Hundreds of Hospitals Sue Patients or Threaten Their Credit, a KHN Investigation Finds. Does Yours?” Dec. 21). I am a psychotherapist and have written about this problem in my blog. The mercenary American health care system is hypocritical in the stressful financial demands and threats it imposes on so many patients. Stress due to health care-related bankruptcy, or the threat of bankruptcy, is harmful to one’s health. A health care system that is supposed to treat illness and restore health can, in fact, cause serious illness and/or exacerbate existing medical problems. The higher levels of stress and the threat of bankruptcy that all too frequently follow needed medical care can be harmful to individuals with cardiovascular issues such as high blood pressure and heart arrhythmia, and can trigger panic attacks in those who suffer from anxiety disorders. There may be digestive issues associated with higher levels of stress, and the patient’s sleep may be adversely affected. The individual may have to cut back on essentials such as food and medications because of unpaid medical bills, aggressive calls from collection agencies, and the threat of bankruptcy.

All of this in the name of “health care” delivered by professions and organizations that proclaim the importance of beneficence, justice, and malfeasance within their respective codes of ethics. Curative stress? Therapeutic bankruptcy? The hypocrisy is palpable.

American history is replete with examples of discrimination against certain groups, including racial discrimination, the disenfranchisement of women, child labor, and others. Eventually, political measures were enacted to correct these injustices. It’s only a matter of time until the American health care system, including the pharmaceutical industry, is forced to reform itself for the sake of the men, women, and children in need of essential health care. It’s not a question of if, but when.

— Fred Medinger, Parkton, Maryland

I find this infuriating! Especially the nonprofit organizations. Hundreds of US Hospitals Sue Patients or Threaten Their Credit, a KHN Investigation Finds | Kaiser Health News https://t.co/87TTYPVE0P
— Jan Oldenburg ☮️ (@janoldenburg) December 21, 2022

— Jan Oldenburg, Richmond, Virginia

Thanks for the article about hospitals suing patients. I just switched health plans in New York state. Reasons: My previous insurer raised my premium over 90% last year, paid very little of my claims (leaving Medicare to pay most of the claims), and sent me to collections. This, even though I worked two full-time jobs for most of my 46 years of teaching. How do insurance companies and hospitals get away with this unethical and outrageous behavior?

— George Deshaies, Buffalo, New York

Great story by @KHNews' @NoamLevey, which found that at least 297 hospitals in MN, 56%, sue patients for unpaid medical bills. 90, or 17%, can deny patients nonemergency medical care if they have past-due bills.Mayo is one of those hospitals. See🧵https://t.co/p5dHdbZKou
— Molly Work (@mollycastlework) December 21, 2022

— Molly Work, Rochester, Minnesota

Unhappy New Year of Deductibles and Copays

Listened to a conversation between Noam N. Levey and NPR’s Ari Shapiro, regarding Levey’s article on Germany’s lack of medical debt (“What Germany’s Coal Miners Can Teach America About Medical Debt,” Dec. 14). Levey passed along the tidbit that Affordable Care Act plans purchased through state exchanges would pay a maximum out-of-pocket amount of $9,000 a year. Likely Mr. Levey knows the actual details of the ACA at least as well as I, but I had well over $20,000 in out-of-pocket expenses for my own care last year (in addition to annual premiums of over $15,000). The deductible/copay aspect of health insurance is rigged against folks who actually use their insurance. The in-network and out-of-network provider scheme is likewise designed to benefit providers as opposed to patients.

I’ve had health insurance for about 40 years, since I graduated from college. Always a plan paid for by myself, never through an employer. I’ve had my first year of using a lot of heath care services (colon cancer surgery and chemo follow-up), and the bills are quite astronomical. Still awaiting the final negotiations between Stanford Hospital and Blue Shield of California for the $97,000 bill for services for the surgery and stay in the hospital. Though my surgery was in September, the two had not resolved the bill by year-end. Now all my copays and deductibles have reset, and I’ll be back at the starting gate, dollar-wise.

We need health care payment reform.

— George McCann, Half Moon Bay, California

Tx @NoamLevey for this important comparative piece on how Germany's private healthcare system does not create #medicaldebt. We need to do better. @RIPMedicalDebt https://t.co/PoAduYljXq
— Allison Sesso (@AllisonSesso) December 14, 2022

— Allison Sesso, president and CEO of RIP Medical Debt, Long Island City, New York

Greedy to the Bone?

In orthopedics, surgery is where the money is (“More Orthopedic Physicians Sell Out to Private Equity Firms, Raising Alarms About Costs and Quality,” Jan. 6). Just as a private equity-controlled ophthalmology group tried to persuade me to have unnecessary cataract surgery (three other eye doctors agreed it wasn’t necessary), too many orthopedic patients can expect to be pushed to unnecessary surgeries.

— Gloria Kohut, Grand Rapids, Michigan

As #private #equity firms acquire #physician practices, the issue of non-competes and #restrictive covenants become even more relevant in #healthcare @AAOS1 @AmerMedicalAssn @JHU_HBHI @linakhanFTC @KHNews https://t.co/fTfilK4WEX
— Amit Jain, MD, MBA (@AmitJainSpine) January 8, 2023

— Dr. Amit Jain, Baltimore

The Painful Truth of the Opioid Epidemic

In a recent article, Aneri Pattani and Rae Ellen Bichell discussed disparities in the distribution of settlement funds from lawsuits against major pharmaceutical companies, especially in rural areas (“In Rural America, Deadly Costs of Opioids Outweigh the Dollars Tagged to Address Them,” Dec. 12).

We suggest that the merit of many of the lawsuits that led to these large settlements remains unproven. While Purdue Pharma clearly overstated the safety of prescription opioids in treating chronic pain, judges in two high-profile cases ruled in favor of the pharmaceutical companies stating that prosecutors falsely inflated the danger of opioids and noted that opioids used per FDA guidelines are safe and effective, remaining a vital means to treat chronic pain. Also, many cases involving Purdue Pharma, Johnson & Johnson, and others were settled based on expediency, rather than merit. This may have been due to the reasoning that continuing their defense against prosecutors having access to limitless public funds would lead to bankruptcy.

The primary cause of America’s overdose crisis is not physicians’ “overprescribing” opioids. Dr. Thomas Frieden, former head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, noted that the rise in prescription opioids paralleled the increase in opioid deaths up to 2010, leading the CDC to create guidelines in 2016 limiting opioid use to treat chronic pain. However, cause-and-effect relationships between the legitimate use of prescription opioids and opioid deaths remain unclear. For example, the National Institute on Drug Abuse noted in 2015 that since 2000, misuse of prescription drugs preceded the use of heroin in most cases. But legitimate prescriptions by physicians to patients with chronic pain constituted only 20% of the cases leading to heroin addiction. Prescription drugs used by heroin addicts were from family members or friends in 80% of the cases leading to heroin use.

Since at least 2010, the volume of prescription opioids dropped by over 60% — yet overdose deaths have skyrocketed to over 100,000 cases in 2021. The opioid overdose death crisis is now driven mainly by illegally imported fentanyl and in part by a misguided crackdown of the Drug Enforcement Administration against physicians who legitimately prescribe opioids to chronic pain patients, forcing them to seek out street drugs.

Statistics from Michigan indicate that nearly 40% of primary care clinics will no longer see new patients for pain management. The CDC, in its 2022 updated guidelines, attempted to clarify misunderstandings, including inappropriate rapid tapering and individualizing care. However, the public health crisis of undertreated pain remains. Some states have passed intractable pain laws to restore access to opioids to chronic pain patients with a legitimate need, indicating the shortfalls of the CDC guidelines to treat pain.

— Richard A. Lawhern, Fort Mill, South Carolina, and Dr. Keith Shulman, Skokie, Illinois

Important reporting from @aneripattani and @raelnb in @KHNews: National settlements are being paid out by #opioids manufacturers, but #rural communities are often getting less funds to address the #OpioidCrisis than their urban and suburban counterparts. https://t.co/qeoXtqKfpo
— Joanne Conroy (@JoanneConroyMD) December 15, 2022

— Dr. Joanne Conroy, Lebanon, New Hampshire

We’re fighting to hold accountable the companies that helped create and fuel the opioid crisis so we can help people struggling with opioid use disorder across North Carolina and the country get resources for treatment and recovery. We need this money now to save lives.

To that end, I wanted to flag one concern about the article on rural counties and opioid funding. It looks as if the comparison and the maps about North Carolina funding by county and overdose deaths may not correlate. The reporting seems to reflect overdose deaths on a per capita basis, but funding is indicated by total dollars received.

This spreadsheet might be helpful. It ranks each North Carolina county by the amount of funds they will receive from the distributor and Johnson & Johnson settlements (as posted on www.ncopioidsettlement.org) per capita, using 2019 population figures. In per capita rankings, rural and/or less populous counties are typically receiving more funding per capita than larger counties. For example, the 10 counties receiving the most per capita funding are all rural and/or less populous counties (Wilkes, Cherokee, Burke, Columbus, Graham, Yancey, Mitchell, Clay, Swain, and Surry). Wake County, our most populous county, is ranked 80th.

It’s also important to note that the formula was developed by experts for counsel to local governments in the national opioid litigation, who represent and have duties of loyalty to both large urban and small rural local governments. It takes into account opioid use disorder in the county (the number of people with opioid use disorder divided by the total number of people nationwide with opioid use disorder), overdose deaths as a percentage of the nation’s opioid overdose deaths, and the number of opioids in the county. Click here for more information.

Indeed, one of the special masters appointed by U.S. District Judge Dan Polster in the national opioid litigation found that the national allocation model “reflects a serious effort on the part of the litigating entities that devised it to distribute the class’s recovery according to the driving force at the heart of the lawsuit — the devastation caused by this horrific epidemic.” (See Page 5 of this report of Special Master Yanni.)

You’re absolutely right that rural counties were often the earliest and hardest hit by the opioid epidemic, and it’s critical that they receive funds to help get residents the treatment and recovery resources they need. We’re hopeful that these funds, whose allocation was determined in partnership by local government counsel, will help deliver those resources.

— Nazneen Ahmed, North Carolina Attorney General’s Office, Raleigh, North Carolina

This article is a great example of equality ≠ equity regarding opioid settlement funds disbursement. Really thoughtful article by @aneripattani & @raelnb https://t.co/vRbksffwqP
— Kate Roberts, LCSW (@KateandOlive_) December 14, 2022

— Kate Roberts, Durham, North Carolina

A Holistic Approach to Strengthening the Nursing Workforce Pipeline

As we face the nation’s worst nursing shortage in decades, some regions are adopting creative solutions to fill in the gaps (“Rural Colorado Tries to Fill Health Worker Gaps With Apprenticeships,” Nov. 29). To truly solve the root of this crisis, we must look earlier in the workforce pipeline.

The entire nation currently sits in a dire situation when it comes to having an adequate number of nurses — especially rural communities. With the tripledemic of covid-19, influenza, and RSV tearing through hospitals, it’s never been more evident how vital nurses are to the functioning of our health care system. A recent McKinsey report found that we need to double the number of nurses entering the workforce every year for the next three years to meet anticipated demand. Without support from policymakers and health care leaders, we cannot meet that.

As a health care executive myself, I’ve seen firsthand how impactful apprenticeships can be because they help sustain the health care workforce pipeline. From high school students to working adults, these “earn while you learn” apprenticeships allow students to make a living while working toward their degree, and my system’s apprenticeship program has even reduced our turnover by up to 50%. It provides a framework to support a competency-based education rooted in real-life skills and hands-on training for key nursing support roles, all while team members earn an income.

Education is key to developing competent, practice-ready nurses. Not just through apprenticeships but early on in students’ educational journey, too. According to the newest data from the nation’s report card, students in most states and most demographic groups experienced the steepest declines in math and reading ever recorded. As we continue to see the devastating impact the pandemic had on young learners, it’s crucial we invest more in remediation and support, so students graduate from secondary school with a deep understanding of these core competencies and are ready to pursue nursing. A recent survey of nearly 4,000 prospective nursing students from ATI Nursing Education found that a lack of academic preparedness was the top reason for delaying or forgoing nursing school.

Without intervention now, our nursing workforce shortage will only worsen in the future. We need our leaders to face these challenges head-on and invest in a holistic approach to strengthen our nursing pipeline. There’s no time to waste.

— Natalie Jones, executive director of workforce development at WellStar Health System, Atlanta

1 solution to the staffing crisis: Apprenticeship programs put students directly into long-term care professions. Rural areas benefit the most since they have more residents who are 65 or older & fewer direct care workers to help people w/ disabilities. https://t.co/vnbHAJYWvY
— OK Health Action (@ok_action) November 30, 2022

— Oklahoma Health Action Network, Oklahoma City

Planning Major Surgery? Plan Ahead

I read Judith Graham’s good article “Weighing Risks of a Major Surgery: 7 Questions Older Americans Should Ask Their Surgeon” (Jan. 3) on CNN. Thought I should add some personal experience. At age 78, my mother had back surgery in 2016. When she was getting prepped, she was given multiple documents to sign. Once signed, she was immediately taken to surgery. There was not enough time to read any of them. In hindsight, we are certain the documents were mostly for release of liability if something goes wrong. After surgery, she had “drop foot” — total loss of use of her left foot. Never heard of it. She was told she would regain use in about six months. Never happened. She had to use a walker and still had numerous falls in which her head had hit the ground multiple times. She slowly slid into long-term “confusion” that was attributed to her falls and passed away at age 84.

My story is about my abdominal aorta aneurysm surgery in 2022 at age 62. I did not have an overnight recovery — tube taken out of my throat, catheter removed, and was immediately transferred to a room. An IV pump of saline was left on and my arm swelled up — I thought my arm was going to burst. Five days later, I was discharged. Everything seemed rushed. The only postsurgical “instructions” I received were to keep the incision clean and not to play golf, and I don’t even play golf. I recuperated at home, and after five months I still have abdominal pain that I’ll always have.

Both of our surgeries were done on a Friday. I’m certain our experiences were due to hospital staff wanting to leave early on Friday, and weekend staffers are mostly the “B” team. So, my advice is to suggest to the elderly not to have surgery scheduled on a Friday unless there is absolute urgency in choosing the date.

— Paul Lyon, Chesapeake, Virginia

Reality bites, doesn’t it.https://t.co/sHe0EV1DQG
— suzette sommer (@suzette_sommer) December 28, 2022

— Suzette Sommer, Seattle

I am writing to express my concerns over the significant misinformation in the article about what older Americans should ask their surgeon before major surgery.

Most abdominal aortic aneurysms are treated with endovascular methods. These minimally invasive procedures still require general anesthesia (with a breathing tube), but most patients have the tube removed before leaving the operating room, and many patients leave the hospital the next day with minimal functional limitations due to surgery being performed through half-inch incisions in each groin.

The “best case” surgical scenario described in your article describes open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, which is recommended for fewer than 20% of patients requiring aortic aneurysm repairs.

In essence, you’re threatening everyone who comes in for a tuneup with an engine rebuild.

Abdominal aortic aneurysms are still undertreated in the U.S., with many patients not receiving screening recommended by Medicare since 2006. Your article misrepresents the “best case” scenario and may dissuade patients from receiving lifesaving care.

— Dr. David Nabi, Newport Beach, California

I read, with interest, Judith Graham’s article about older Americans preparing for major surgery. But you failed to mention the life-altering effects of anesthesia. My independent 82-year-old mother had a minor fall in July and broke her hip. After undergoing anesthesia, she is required to have 24/7 care as her short-term memory has been forever altered. Was there a choice not to have hip surgery? I didn’t hear one. Did anyone explain the issues that could (and often do) occur with an elderly brain due to anesthesia? No. And now we are dealing with this consequence. And what happens when you don’t have money (like most people in the U.S.) for 24/7 care? I hope you’ll consider writing about this.

— Nancy Simpson, Scottsdale, Arizona

Shouldn't more people wonder why MA plans are profitable while our own gov't MC is losing money. Only 5% of MA plans are audited yearly. Yet they are getting 8.5% increase in payment & docs (the folks taking care of the pts) are getting cut. https://t.co/UiFiiQ9wre via @khnews
— Madelaine Feldman (@MattieRheumMD) December 15, 2022

— Dr. Madelaine Feldman, New Orleans

The High Bar of Medicare Advantage Transparency

Unfortunately, KHN’s article “How Medicare Advantage Plans Dodged Auditors and Overcharged Taxpayers by Millions” (Dec. 13) provided a misleading, incomplete depiction of Medicare Advantage payment.

This story focuses largely on audits that, in some cases, are more than a decade old. While KHN’s focus is on alleged “overpayment,” the same audits show that many plans were underpaid by as much as $773 per patient.

More recent research demonstrates Medicare Advantage’s affordability and responsible stewardship of Medicare dollars. For example, an October 2021 Milliman report concludes “the federal government pays less and gets more for its dollar in MA than in FFS,” while the Department of Health and Human Services’ fiscal year 2021 report shows that the net improper payment rate in Medicare Advantage was roughly half that of fee-for-service Medicare.

KHN’s article is right about one thing: Only a small fraction of Medicare Advantage plans are audited each year — denying policymakers and the public a fuller understanding of the program’s exceptional value to seniors and the health care system. That is why Better Medicare Alliance has called for regulators to conduct Risk Adjustment Data Validation (RADV) audits of every Medicare Advantage plan every year.

There are opportunities, as outlined in our recent policy recommendations, to further strengthen and improve Medicare Advantage’s high bar of transparency and accountability, but that effort is not well served by this misleading article.

— Mary Beth Donahue, president and CEO of the Better Medicare Alliance, Chevy Chase, Maryland

Targeting Gun Violence

I’m curious why KHN neglected to actually get into all the “meat and potatoes” regarding its report on Colorado’s red flag law (“Colorado Considers Changing Its Red Flag Law After Mass Shooting at Nightclub,” Dec. 23). Specifically, it failed to report that the suspect in this case used a “ghost gun” to execute the crime in Colorado Springs, and more importantly what impact any red flag law is going to have on a person who manufactures their own illegal firearm. Lastly, why is it the national conversation regarding the illegal use and possession of firearms curiously avoids any in-depth, substantive conversation of access to firearms by mentally ill people? Quite frankly, this is the underlying cause of illegal firearms use and no one wants to step up to the plate and address the issue at any in-depth level. It’s categorically embarrassing for American journalism.

— Steve Smith, Carbondale, Colorado

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

from Health Industry – Kaiser Health News

The Biggest, Buzziest Conference for Health Care Investors Convenes Amid Fears the Bubble Will Burst

SAN FRANCISCO — Health care’s business class returned to its San Francisco sanctuary last week for JPMorgan’s annual health care confab, at the gilded Westin St. Francis hotel on Union Square. After a two-year pandemic pause, the mood among the executives, bankers, and startup founders in attendance had the aura of a reunion — as they gossiped about promotions, work-from-home routines, who’s getting what investments. Dressed in their capitalist best — ranging from brilliant-blue or pastel-purple blazers to puffy-coat chic — they thronged to big parties, housed in art galleries or restaurants.

But the party was tinged with new anxiety: Would the big money invested in health care due to covid-19 continue to flow? Would investors ask to see results — meaning profits — rather than just cool ideas?

The buzzy conference had just as many words about profits as about patients. The mostly maskless crowd spoke English, French, Japanese — and, of course, money.

Besides the corporate and investment types, attendees routinely saw surprising characters — like celebrity doctor Mehmet Oz, fresh off a Senate run, holding court in the lobby on Jan. 10.

If the vibe in the hotel’s congested halls was upbeat — or, at least, cheery — underneath there was a frisson of anxiety as all were aware that the health care business bonanza looked to be slowing down.

The conference started with a sidewalk protest of pharmaceutical company Gilead Sciences, whose drugs combating HIV and hepatitis C are fabulously effective — and fabulously expensive. During the pandemic, Congress for the first time has set up a plan to allow Medicare to negotiate U.S. drug prices, which are by far the highest in the world. In a statement, company spokesperson Catherine Cantone said Gilead is the largest private funder of HIV programs in the U.S., adding, “Gilead’s role in ending the HIV and hepatitis epidemics is to discover, develop, and ensure access to our life-saving medicines.”

Then there’s the economic environment, which is turning treacherous. Journalists at financial publication Bloomberg diagnosed a lack of exciting deals. Startup executives — who previously found millions of dollars in investments easy to come by — seemed obligated to show results in their impromptu pitches in bars and coffee shops. Business executives of all stripes promised they either currently made profits or were about to, soon.

“I think this is a tricky year,” said Hemant Taneja, CEO of the venture capital firm General Catalyst, during one panel. He suggested that large swaths of health tech startups were overvalued and that their clients will be more interested in whether they’re actually providing useful services.

The new message from potential investors was clear. “The idea you could grow and not be profitable is dead, gone,” said Dr. Jon Cohen, CEO of the mental health startup Talkspace, in an interview.

There was some cognitive dissonance at the conference. Take, for example, BioNTech, the vaccine developer whose mRNA vaccine, created with Pfizer, provides powerful protection for covid. Company co-founder Uğur Şahin was interrupted by applause during a presentation recounting its role in fighting the pandemic — and that’s before he touted his company’s role in reducing infectious disease, saving lives, and meeting global health needs for tuberculosis and malaria.

The conversation later turned to the pricing of his company’s flagship vaccine — which it’s jockeying to set at more than $100 a dose, up from an average government purchase price of $20.69. It was a fair price considering the “health economics,” BioNTech’s chief strategy officer, Ryan Richardson, explained: the hospitalizations and serious outcomes averted.

Or take drugstore giant CVS — which is steadily expanding beyond its retail roots into health insurance and primary care. CVS Health CEO Karen Lynch said that as part of its health business the company is looking at all the factors that underlie being well. “Health isn’t just about the engagement with the provider; it’s about all the other factors — including housing and nutrition,” she said. Left unaddressed was the sight often greeting CVS customers upon entering a store: candy, chips, and other processed foods.

For critics, it was a mind-bending comment. “The last I heard, CVS was a for-profit company, not a social welfare agency,” said Marion Nestle, a researcher who is a longtime critic of the food industry. “It sells junk foods that make people sick and drugs to treat those illnesses. How’s that for a nifty business model!”

CVS spokesperson Ethan Slavin offered a very different vision, one in which CVS is seeking to be a premier health and wellness destination. “We’re always evolving our food and beverage assortment to provide healthier, on-trend products.” It is also supporting programs to bolster food availability in underserved areas, he added.

Some techies encountered new skepticism about “artificial intelligence.” Ginkgo Bioworks co-founder Jason Kelly noted during his presentation that people at the conference heard so much about artificial intelligence during the meetings, “they want to stop hearing it.” (Ginkgo’s AI, used to support pharmaceutical and biotech research, he said, was different than the rest.)

One surgeon, Dr. Rajesh Aggarwal, found conversations with financiers about the stealth startup he founded, which focuses on metabolic health, were focused on silver bullets. “Tell me if I invest in this, I’ll 10x” the outlay, he said, paraphrasing the bankers. Many, he said, wanted to “do some good as well” for patients.

Aggarwal felt the investors were looking for simple solutions to health problems. And one item fit that bill: a new class of drugs — GLP-1 agonists, a type of medication that aids in weight loss but will likely have to be taken for long periods. Some analysts are projecting these drugs will be worth $50 billion. The bankers, Aggarwal felt, aren’t “thinking about health care,” they’re “thinking about the dollars attached to the pill.”

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

from Health Industry – Kaiser Health News

Will Your Smartphone Be the Next Doctor’s Office?

The same devices used to take selfies and type out tweets are being repurposed and commercialized for quick access to information needed for monitoring a patient’s health. A fingertip pressed against a phone’s camera lens can measure a heart rate. The microphone, kept by the bedside, can screen for sleep apnea. Even the speaker is being tapped, to monitor breathing using sonar technology.

In the best of this new world, the data is conveyed remotely to a medical professional for the convenience and comfort of the patient or, in some cases, to support a clinician without the need for costly hardware.

But using smartphones as diagnostic tools is a work in progress, experts say. Although doctors and their patients have found some real-world success in deploying the phone as a medical device, the overall potential remains unfulfilled and uncertain.

Smartphones come packed with sensors capable of monitoring a patient’s vital signs. They can help assess people for concussions, watch for atrial fibrillation, and conduct mental health wellness checks, to name the uses of a few nascent applications.

Companies and researchers eager to find medical applications for smartphone technology are tapping into modern phones’ built-in cameras and light sensors; microphones; accelerometers, which detect body movements; gyroscopes; and even speakers. The apps then use artificial intelligence software to analyze the collected sights and sounds to create an easy connection between patients and physicians. Earning potential and marketability are evidenced by the more than 350,000 digital health products available in app stores, according to a Grand View Research report.

“It’s very hard to put devices into the patient home or in the hospital, but everybody is just walking around with a cellphone that has a network connection,” said Dr. Andrew Gostine, CEO of the sensor network company Artisight. Most Americans own a smartphone, including more than 60% of people 65 and over, an increase from just 13% a decade ago, according the Pew Research Center. The covid-19 pandemic has also pushed people to become more comfortable with virtual care.

Some of these products have sought FDA clearance to be marketed as a medical device. That way, if patients must pay to use the software, health insurers are more likely to cover at least part of the cost. Other products are designated as exempt from this regulatory process, placed in the same clinical classification as a Band-Aid. But how the agency handles AI and machine learning-based medical devices is still being adjusted to reflect software’s adaptive nature.

Ensuring accuracy and clinical validation is crucial to securing buy-in from health care providers. And many tools still need fine-tuning, said Dr. Eugene Yang, a professor of medicine at the University of Washington. Currently, Yang is testing contactless measurement of blood pressure, heart rate, and oxygen saturation gleaned remotely via Zoom camera footage of a patient’s face.

Judging these new technologies is difficult because they rely on algorithms built by machine learning and artificial intelligence to collect data, rather than the physical tools typically used in hospitals. So researchers cannot “compare apples to apples” with medical industry standards, Yang said. Failure to build in such assurances undermines the technology’s ultimate goals of easing costs and access because a doctor still must verify results.

“False positives and false negatives lead to more testing and more cost to the health care system,” he said.

Big tech companies like Google have heavily invested in researching this kind of technology, catering to clinicians and in-home caregivers, as well as consumers. Currently, in the Google Fit app, users can check their heart rate by placing their finger on the rear-facing camera lens or track their breathing rate using the front-facing camera.

“If you took the sensor out of the phone and out of a clinical device, they are probably the same thing,” said Shwetak Patel, director of health technologies at Google and a professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Washington.

Google’s research uses machine learning and computer vision, a field within AI based on information from visual inputs like videos or images. So instead of using a blood pressure cuff, for example, the algorithm can interpret slight visual changes to the body that serve as proxies and biosignals for a patient’s blood pressure, Patel said.

Google is also investigating the effectiveness of the built-in microphone for detecting heartbeats and murmurs and using the camera to preserve eyesight by screening for diabetic eye disease, according to information the company published last year.

The tech giant recently purchased Sound Life Sciences, a Seattle startup with an FDA-cleared sonar technology app. It uses a smart device’s speaker to bounce inaudible pulses off a patient’s body to identify movement and monitor breathing.

Binah.ai, based in Israel, is another company using the smartphone camera to calculate vital signs. Its software looks at the region around the eyes, where the skin is a bit thinner, and analyzes the light reflecting off blood vessels back to the lens. The company is wrapping up a U.S. clinical trial and marketing its wellness app directly to insurers and other health companies, said company spokesperson Mona Popilian-Yona.

The applications even reach into disciplines such as optometry and mental health:

With the microphone, Canary Speech uses the same underlying technology as Amazon’s Alexa to analyze patients’ voices for mental health conditions. The software can integrate with telemedicine appointments and allow clinicians to screen for anxiety and depression using a library of vocal biomarkers and predictive analytics, said Henry O’Connell, the company’s CEO.
Australia-based ResApp Health got FDA clearance last year for its iPhone app that screens for moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea by listening to breathing and snoring. SleepCheckRx, which will require a prescription, is minimally invasive compared with sleep studies currently used to diagnose sleep apnea. Those can cost thousands of dollars and require an array of tests.
Brightlamp’s Reflex app is a clinical decision support tool for helping manage concussions and vision rehabilitation, among other things. Using an iPad’s or iPhone’s camera, the mobile app measures how a person’s pupils react to changes in light. Through machine learning analysis, the imagery gives practitioners data points for evaluating patients. Brightlamp sells directly to health care providers and is being used in more than 230 clinics. Clinicians pay a $400 standard annual fee per account, which is currently not covered by insurance. The Department of Defense has an ongoing clinical trial using Reflex.

In some cases, such as with the Reflex app, the data is processed directly on the phone — rather than in the cloud, Brightlamp CEO Kurtis Sluss said. By processing everything on the device, the app avoids running into privacy issues, as streaming data elsewhere requires patient consent.

But algorithms need to be trained and tested by collecting reams of data, and that is an ongoing process.

Researchers, for example, have found that some computer vision applications, like heart rate or blood pressure monitoring, can be less accurate for darker skin. Studies are underway to find better solutions.

Small algorithm glitches can also produce false alarms and frighten patients enough to keep widespread adoption out of reach. For example, Apple’s new car-crash detection feature, available on both the latest iPhone and Apple Watch, was set off when people were riding roller coasters and automatically dialed 911.

“We’re not there yet,” Yang said. “That’s the bottom line.”

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

from Health Industry – Kaiser Health News

USE OUR CONTENT

Related Posts:

USE OUR CONTENT

Related Posts:

USE OUR CONTENT

Related Posts:

USE OUR CONTENT

Related Posts:

USE OUR CONTENT

Related Posts:

The Host

Panelists

Credits

USE OUR CONTENT

Related Posts:

USE OUR CONTENT

Related Posts:

USE OUR CONTENT

Related Posts:

USE OUR CONTENT

Related Posts: