A State-Sanctioned Hospital Monopoly Raises Concerns

The Federal Trade Commission has long argued that competition makes the economy better. But some states have stopped the agency from blocking hospital mergers that create local or regional monopolies, and the results have been messy.

Two dozen states have at some point passed controversial legislation waiving anti-monopoly laws, allowing rival hospitals to merge and replacing competition with prolonged state oversight.

Six years ago, Tennessee and Virginia ushered in the largest state-sanctioned hospital monopoly in the nation with the creation of Ballad Health. For most of the 1.1 million residents in the Tri-Cities region of northeast Tennessee and southwest Virginia, the merged system became the only option for hospital care.

The argument for Ballad was that two hospital companies couldn’t survive in the region, and a merger would prevent them from closing or being bought up. But critics say fears a monopoly would jeopardize access to and quality of care have been realized. For example, since the merger, patients spend three times as long in Ballad emergency rooms before admission to hospitals, according to reports released by the Tennessee health department.

“I do not want to further risk my life and die at a Ballad hospital,” said Neal Osborne, a city council member in Bristol, Va. In an interview, Osborne said he spent 30 hours in a Ballad ER this year as he suffered diabetic crisis. “The wait times just to get in and see a doctor in the ER have grown exponentially.”

The legislation that created Ballad is known as a certificate of public advantage, or COPA. The FTC has repeatedly warned states to be wary of COPAs, which “only exist to protect a merger that would otherwise be illegal under antitrust law,” Rahul Rao, a deputy director of the Bureau of Competition at the agency, told KFF Health News in an interview last year.

There have been about 10 hospital mergers in the past three decades that depended on COPAs, and afterward, the feds saw rising prices, decreases in quality, reductions in access and a decrease in wages, Rao said.

Since Ballad’s COPA, the merged system has not met most quality-of-care goals set by the states in recent years. It has fallen short of charity care promises made to Tennessee by about $191 million over a five-year span. 

Ballad has attributed its quality struggles to the coronavirus pandemic, its charity shortfalls to Medicaid changes and its longer ER stays to staffing and discharge challenges it says are beyond its control.

Ballad said ER times for admitted patients have dropped to about 7.5 hours since its latest annual report.  

“On those issues Ballad Health can directly control, our performance has rebounded from 2022,” said a Ballad spokesperson, Molly Luton.

The FTC announced in 2019 that it would study the Ballad merger but has yet to issue a report.

Legislation was introduced this year to limit COPAs in Tennessee. But on Tuesday, a state legislative subcommittee voted to kill the bill without debate, refusing to hear testimony from Tri-Cities residents who drove five hours to Nashville for a chance to speak against Ballad.

This article is not available for syndication due to republishing restrictions. If you have questions about the availability of this or other content for republication, please contact NewsWeb@kff.org.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).



from Health Industry Archives - KFF Health News

Related Posts:

Some Medicaid Providers Borrow or Go Into Debt Amid ‘Unwinding’ Payment Disruptions

https://kffhealthnews.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/03/Montana-Medicaid_WithIntro-1.mp3

George said the company didn’t have enough money to pay its employees. When he called state health and public assistance officials for help, he said, they told him they were swamped processing a high load of Medicaid cases, and that his residents would have to wait their turn.

“I’ve mentioned to some of them, ‘Well what do we do if we’re not being paid for four or five months? Do we have to evict the resident?’” he asked.

Instead, the company took out bank loans at 8% interest, George said.

Montana officials finished their initial checks of who qualifies for Medicaid in January, less than a year after the federal government lifted a freeze on disenrollments during the height of the covid-19 pandemic. More than 127,200 people in Montana lost Medicaid with tens of thousands of cases still processing, according to the latest state data, from mid-February.

Providers who take Medicaid have said their state payments have been disrupted, leaving them financially struggling amid the unwinding. They’re providing care without pay, and sometimes going into debt. It’s affecting small long-term care facilities, substance use disorder clinics, and federally funded health centers that rely on Medicaid to offer treatment based on need, not what people can pay.

State health officials have defended their Medicaid redetermination process and said they have worked to address public assistance backlogs.

Financial pinches were expected as people who legitimately no longer qualify were removed from coverage. But the businesses have said an overburdened state workforce is creating a different set of problems. In some cases, it has taken months for people to reapply for Medicaid after getting dropped, or to access the coverage for the first time. Part of the problem, providers said, are long waits on hold for the state’s call center and limited in-person help.

The problem is ongoing: George said two Guardian residents were booted from Medicaid in mid-March, with the state citing a lack of information as the cause.

“I have proof we submitted the needed information weeks ago,” he said.

Providers said they’ve also experienced cases of inconsistent Medicaid payments for people who haven’t lost coverage. It can be hard to disentangle why payments suddenly stop. Patients and providers are working within the same overstretched system.

Jon Forte is the head of the Yellowstone County health department in Billings, which runs health centers that provide care regardless of patients’ ability to pay. He said that at one point some of the clinics’ routine Medicaid claims went unpaid for up to six months. Their doctors are struggling to refer patients out for specialty care as some providers scale back on clientele, he said.

“Some have honestly had to stop seeing Medicaid patients so that they can meet their needs and keep the lights on,” Forte said. “It is just adding to the access crisis we have in the state.”

Payment shortfalls especially hurt clinics that base fees on patient income.

David Mark, a doctor and the CEO of One Health, which has rural clinics dotted across eastern Montana and Wyoming, said the company anticipated making about $500,000 in profit through its budget year so far. Instead, it’s $1.5 million in the red.

In Yellowstone County, Forte said, the health department, known as RiverStone Health, is down $2.2 million from its anticipated Medicaid revenue. Forte said that while state officials have nearly caught up on RiverStone Health’s direct Medicaid payments, smaller providers are still seeing delays, which contributes to problems referring patients for care.

Jon Ebelt, a spokesperson for the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services, said Medicaid can retroactively pay for services for people who have lost coverage but are then found eligible within 90 days. He said the state’s average redetermination processing time is 34 days, the average processing time for applications is 48 days, and, when processing times are longer, it’s often due to ongoing communication with a client.

Ebelt didn’t acknowledge broader Medicaid payment delays, but instead said a provider may be submitting claims for Medicaid enrollees who aren’t eligible. He rejected the idea that individual examples of disruptions amount to a systemic problem.

“We would caution you against using broad brush strokes to paint a picture of our overall eligibility system and processes based on a handful of anecdotal stories,” Ebelt said in an emailed response to a KFF Health News query.

Ebelt didn’t directly answer questions about continued long waits for people seeking help but instead said continued coverage depends on individual beneficiaries submitting information on time.

Federal data shows Montana’s average call center wait time is 30 minutes — putting it among states with the highest average wait times. Mike White, co-owner of Caslen Living Centers, which has six small assisted living facilities across central and southwestern Montana, said some family members allowed the company to manage residents’ Medicaid accounts to help avoid missing deadlines or paperwork. Even so, he said, the company is waiting for about $30,000 in Medicaid payments, and it’s hard to reach the state when problems arise.

When they do get through to the state’s call center, the person on the other end can’t always resolve their issue or will answer questions for only one case at a time.

“You don’t know how long it’s going to take — it could be two months, it could be six months — and there’s nobody to talk to,” White said.

Ebelt said long-term care facilities were provided information on how to prepare for the unwinding process. He said new Medicaid cases for long-term care facilities are complicated and can take time.

Stan Klaumann lives in Ennis and has power of attorney for his 94-year-old mom, who resides in one of Guardian’s assisted living homes. Klaumann said that while she never lost coverage, the state didn’t make Medicaid payments toward her long-term care for more than four months and he still doesn’t know why.

He said that since last fall the state hasn’t consistently mailed him routine paperwork he needs to fill out and return in exchange for Medicaid payments to continue. He tried the state’s call center, he said, but each time he waited on hold for more than two hours. He made four two-hour round trips to his closest office of public assistance to try to get answers.

Sometimes the workers told him that there was a state error, he said, and other times that he was missing paperwork he’d already submitted, such as where money from selling his mom’s car went.

“Each time I went, they gave me a different answer as to why my mother’s bills weren’t being paid,” Klaumann said.

Across the nation, people have reported system errors and outdated contact information that led states to drop people who qualify. At least 28 states paused procedural disenrollments to boost outreach to people who qualify, according to federal data. Montana stuck to its original time frame and has a higher procedural disenrollment rate than most other states, according to KFF.

Stephen Ferguson, executive director of Crosswinds Recovery in Missoula, said the substance use disorder program doesn’t have a full-time person focused on billing and sometimes doesn’t realize clients lost Medicaid coverage until the state rejects thousands of dollars in services that Crosswinds submits for reimbursement. After that, it can take months for clients to either get reenrolled or learn they truly no longer qualify.

Ferguson said he’s writing grant proposals to continue to treat people despite their inability to pay.

“We’re riding by the seat of our pants right now,” he said. “We are unsure what next month or the next quarter looks like.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).



from Health Industry Archives - KFF Health News

Related Posts:

This State Isn’t Waiting for Biden To Negotiate Drug Prices

As the federal government negotiates with drugmakers to lower the price of 10 expensive drugs for Medicare patients, impatient legislators in some states are trying to go even further. Leading the pack is Colorado, where a new Prescription Drug Affordability Review Board is set to recommend an “upper payment limit” for drugs it deems unaffordable.

In late February the board selected Enbrel, Amgen’s blockbuster drug for autoimmune conditions (list price $1,850 per week), as the first medication that would go through its processNovartis’s Cosentyx and Johnson & Johnson’s Stelara (both treat autoimmune conditions) will undergo affordability reviews later this year.

Enbrel and Stelara are also on the list of drugs whose prices the federal government is negotiating — but only for Medicare patients. Prices may be published Sept. 1 — in time for President Biden to cheer the results in his reelection campaign. But they won’t take effect until 2026, while the drug industry pursues a raft of lawsuits to stop the initiative.

Colorado’s plan is, in many ways, both broader and more prescriptive than the feds’, covering all patients and potentially fixing an upper price limit rather than squabbling with the industry over an acceptable figure.

Colorado’s government said it anticipates similar litigation. A spokesperson for the state’s Division of Insurance, which oversees the program, declined to make anyone available for an interview.

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the industry’s main trade group, said in a blog post: “Policymakers in Colorado have created a system in which patients may face significant barriers to lifesaving medicines because of government price setting.”

The state has already said 604 drugs met the first criteria to undergo an affordability review. The full list of drugs is linked from the board’s webpage, along with a list — in order — of those it has slated for priority review.

The Colorado board will spend the summer setting upper payment levels for drugs selected for price reviews. Drugmakers can then appeal.

The board plans to examine how manufacturers price — and raise prices — for drugs. For generics, the board’s director, Lila Cummings, said at a Feb. 23 meeting, the criteria could include whether the price paid by wholesalers before discounts has increased at least 200 percent in the past year and whether a 30-day supply costs more than $100. Branded drugs that cost more than $30,000 a year or whose wholesale price has increased at least 10 percent in the past year could land in the board’s sights, as could biosimilars that aren’t at least 15 percent cheaper than the brand-name biologics they’re intended to replace, Cummings said.

The five-member board, appointed by Gov. Jared Polis (D), includes two medical doctors, two pharmacists and a hospital executive. A 15-member advisory council includes patient advocates, insurers, pharmacists and representatives of drug manufacturers.

The Colorado law creating the board set out a lengthy process for any drugmaker that decides to withdraw its product from the state over the price caps. (Note that the state is also exploring importing cheaper drugs from Canada, without much success so far.)

More than a dozen states are attempting to rein in drug prices through a variety of tactics. It’s early in U.S. regulators’ work to control drug prices, and it’s unclear whether the federal or state efforts will prevail. 

What is clear is that patients need some relief: Over 30 percent of adults report not taking medications as prescribed because of costs, and 1 in 5 didn’t fill a prescription, according to KFF survey results published in August.

This article is not available for syndication due to republishing restrictions. If you have questions about the availability of this or other content for republication, please contact NewsWeb@kff.org.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).



from Health Industry Archives - KFF Health News

Related Posts:

Overdosing on Chemo: A Common Gene Test Could Save Hundreds of Lives Each Year

One January morning in 2021, Carol Rosen took a standard treatment for metastatic breast cancer. Three gruesome weeks later, she died in excruciating pain from the very drug meant to prolong her life.

Rosen, a 70-year-old retired schoolteacher, passed her final days in anguish, enduring severe diarrhea and nausea and terrible sores in her mouth that kept her from eating, drinking, and, eventually, speaking. Skin peeled off her body. Her kidneys and liver failed. “Your body burns from the inside out,” said Rosen’s daughter, Lindsay Murray, of Andover, Massachusetts.

Rosen was one of more than 275,000 cancer patients in the United States who are infused each year with fluorouracil, known as 5-FU, or, as in Rosen’s case, take a nearly identical drug in pill form called capecitabine. These common types of chemotherapy are no picnic for anyone, but for patients who are deficient in an enzyme that metabolizes the drugs, they can be torturous or deadly.

Those patients essentially overdose because the drugs stay in the body for hours rather than being quickly metabolized and excreted. The drugs kill an estimated 1 in 1,000 patients who take them — hundreds each year — and severely sicken or hospitalize 1 in 50. Doctors can test for the deficiency and get results within a week — and then either switch drugs or lower the dosage if patients have a genetic variant that carries risk.

Yet a recent survey found that only 3% of U.S. oncologists routinely order the tests before dosing patients with 5-FU or capecitabine. That’s because the most widely followed U.S. cancer treatment guidelines — issued by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network — don’t recommend preemptive testing.

The FDA added new warnings about the lethal risks of 5-FU to the drug’s label on March 21 following queries from KFF Health News about its policy. However, it did not require doctors to administer the test before prescribing the chemotherapy.

The agency, whose plan to expand its oversight of laboratory testing was the subject of a House hearing, also March 21, has said it could not endorse the 5-FU toxicity tests because it’s never reviewed them.

But the FDA at present does not review most diagnostic tests, said Daniel Hertz, an associate professor at the University of Michigan College of Pharmacy. For years, with other doctors and pharmacists, he has petitioned the FDA to put a black box warning on the drug’s label urging prescribers to test for the deficiency.

“FDA has responsibility to assure that drugs are used safely and effectively,” he said. The failure to warn, he said, “is an abdication of their responsibility.”

The update is “a small step in the right direction, but not the sea change we need,” he said.

Europe Ahead on Safety

British and European Union drug authorities have recommended the testing since 2020. A small but growing number of U.S. hospital systems, professional groups, and health advocates, including the American Cancer Society, also endorse routine testing. Most U.S. insurers, private and public, will cover the tests, which Medicare reimburses for $175, although tests may cost more depending on how many variants they screen for.

In its latest guidelines on colon cancer, the Cancer Network panel noted that not everyone with a risky gene variant gets sick from the drug, and that lower dosing for patients carrying such a variant could rob them of a cure or remission. Many doctors on the panel, including the University of Colorado oncologist Wells Messersmith, have said they have never witnessed a 5-FU death.

In European hospitals, the practice is to start patients with a half- or quarter-dose of 5-FU if tests show a patient is a poor metabolizer, then raise the dose if the patient responds well to the drug. Advocates for the approach say American oncology leaders are dragging their feet unnecessarily, and harming people in the process.

“I think it’s the intransigence of people sitting on these panels, the mindset of ‘We are oncologists, drugs are our tools, we don’t want to go looking for reasons not to use our tools,’” said Gabriel Brooks, an oncologist and researcher at the Dartmouth Cancer Center.

Oncologists are accustomed to chemotherapy’s toxicity and tend to have a “no pain, no gain” attitude, he said. 5-FU has been in use since the 1950s.

Yet “anybody who’s had a patient die like this will want to test everyone,” said Robert Diasio of the Mayo Clinic, who helped carry out major studies of the genetic deficiency in 1988.

Oncologists often deploy genetic tests to match tumors in cancer patients with the expensive drugs used to shrink them. But the same can’t always be said for gene tests aimed at improving safety, said Mark Fleury, policy director at the American Cancer Society’s Cancer Action Network.

When a test can show whether a new drug is appropriate, “there are a lot more forces aligned to ensure that testing is done,” he said. “The same stakeholders and forces are not involved” with a generic like 5-FU, first approved in 1962, and costing roughly $17 for a month’s treatment.

Oncology is not the only area in medicine in which scientific advances, many of them taxpayer-funded, lag in implementation. For instance, few cardiologists test patients before they go on Plavix, a brand name for the anti-blood-clotting agent clopidogrel, although it doesn’t prevent blood clots as it’s supposed to in a quarter of the 4 million Americans prescribed it each year. In 2021, the state of Hawaii won an $834 million judgment from drugmakers it accused of falsely advertising the drug as safe and effective for Native Hawaiians, more than half of whom lack the main enzyme to process clopidogrel.

The fluoropyrimidine enzyme deficiency numbers are smaller — and people with the deficiency aren’t at severe risk if they use topical cream forms of the drug for skin cancers. Yet even a single miserable, medically caused death was meaningful to the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, where Carol Rosen was among more than 1,000 patients treated with fluoropyrimidine in 2021.

Her daughter was grief-stricken and furious after Rosen’s death. “I wanted to sue the hospital. I wanted to sue the oncologist,” Murray said. “But I realized that wasn’t what my mom would want.”

Instead, she wrote Dana-Farber’s chief quality officer, Joe Jacobson, urging routine testing. He responded the same day, and the hospital quickly adopted a testing system that now covers more than 90% of prospective fluoropyrimidine patients. About 50 patients with risky variants were detected in the first 10 months, Jacobson said.

Dana-Farber uses a Mayo Clinic test that searches for eight potentially dangerous variants of the relevant gene. Veterans Affairs hospitals use a 11-variant test, while most others check for only four variants.

Different Tests May Be Needed for Different Ancestries

The more variants a test screens for, the better the chance of finding rarer gene forms in ethnically diverse populations. For example, different variants are responsible for the worst deficiencies in people of African and European ancestry, respectively. There are tests that scan for hundreds of variants that might slow metabolism of the drug, but they take longer and cost more.

These are bitter facts for Scott Kapoor, a Toronto-area emergency room physician whose brother, Anil Kapoor, died in February 2023 of 5-FU poisoning.

Anil Kapoor was a well-known urologist and surgeon, an outgoing speaker, researcher, clinician, and irreverent friend whose funeral drew hundreds. His death at age 58, only weeks after he was diagnosed with stage 4 colon cancer, stunned and infuriated his family.

In Ontario, where Kapoor was treated, the health system had just begun testing for four gene variants discovered in studies of mostly European populations. Anil Kapoor and his siblings, the Canadian-born children of Indian immigrants, carry a gene form that’s apparently associated with South Asian ancestry.

Scott Kapoor supports broader testing for the defect — only about half of Toronto’s inhabitants are of European descent — and argues that an antidote to fluoropyrimidine poisoning, approved by the FDA in 2015, should be on hand. However, it works only for a few days after ingestion of the drug and definitive symptoms often take longer to emerge.

Most importantly, he said, patients must be aware of the risk. “You tell them, ‘I am going to give you a drug with a 1 in 1,000 chance of killing you. You can take this test. Most patients would be, ‘I want to get that test and I’ll pay for it,’ or they’d just say, ‘Cut the dose in half.’”

Alan Venook, the University of California-San Francisco oncologist who co-chairs the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, has led resistance to mandatory testing because the answers provided by the test, in his view, are often murky and could lead to undertreatment.

“If one patient is not cured, then you giveth and you taketh away,” he said. “Maybe you took it away by not giving adequate treatment.”

Instead of testing and potentially cutting a first dose of curative therapy, “I err on the latter, acknowledging they will get sick,” he said. About 25 years ago, one of his patients died of 5-FU toxicity and “I regret that dearly,” he said. “But unhelpful information may lead us in the wrong direction.”

In September, seven months after his brother’s death, Kapoor was boarding a cruise ship on the Tyrrhenian Sea near Rome when he happened to meet a woman whose husband, Atlanta municipal judge Gary Markwell, had died the year before after taking a single 5-FU dose at age 77.

“I was like … that’s exactly what happened to my brother.”

Murray senses momentum toward mandatory testing. In 2022, the Oregon Health & Science University paid $1 million to settle a suit after an overdose death.

“What’s going to break that barrier is the lawsuits, and the big institutions like Dana-Farber who are implementing programs and seeing them succeed,” she said. “I think providers are going to feel kind of bullied into a corner. They’re going to continue to hear from families and they are going to have to do something about it.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).



from Health Industry Archives - KFF Health News

Related Posts:

After Appalachian Hospitals Merged Into a Monopoly, Their ERs Slowed to a Crawl

In the small Appalachian city of Bristol, Virginia, City Council member Neal Osborne left a meeting on the morning of Jan. 3 and rushed himself to the hospital.

Osborne, 36, has Type 1 diabetes. His insulin pump had malfunctioned, and without a steady supply of this essential hormone, Osborne’s blood sugar skyrocketed and his body was shutting down.

Osborne went to the nearest hospital, Bristol Regional Medical Center. He said he settled into a wheelchair in the emergency room waiting area, where over the next few hours he drifted in and out of consciousness and retched up vomit, then bile, then blood. After 12 hours in the waiting room, Osborne said, he was moved to an ER bed, where he stayed until he was sent to the intensive care unit the next day. In total, the council member was in the ER for about 30 hours, he said.

Osborne said his ordeal echoes stories he’s heard from constituents for years. In his next crisis, Osborne said, he plans to leave Bristol for an ER about two hours away.

“I want to go to Knoxville or I want to go to Roanoke, because I do not want to further risk my life and die at a Ballad hospital,” he said. “The wait times just to get in and see a doctor in the ER have grown exponentially.”

Ballad Health, a 20-hospital system in the Tri-Cities region of Tennessee and Virginia, benefits from the largest state-sanctioned hospital monopoly in the United States. In the six years since lawmakers in both states waived anti-monopoly laws and Ballad was formed, ER visits for patients sick enough to be hospitalized grew more than three times as long and now far exceed the criteria set by state officials, according to Ballad reports released by the Tennessee Department of Health.

Tennessee and Virginia have so far announced no steps to reduce time spent in Ballad ERs. The Tennessee health department, which has a more direct role in regulating Ballad, has each year issued a report saying the agreement that gave Ballad a monopoly “continues to provide a Public Advantage.” Department officials have twice declined to comment to KFF Health News on Ballad’s performance.

According to Ballad’s latest annual report, which was released this month and spans from July 2022 to June 2023, the median time that patients spend in Ballad ERs before being admitted to the hospital is nearly 11 hours. This statistic includes both time spent waiting and time being treated in the ER and excludes patients who weren’t admitted or left the ER without receiving care.

The federal government once tracked ER speed the same way. When compared against the latest corresponding federal data from 2019, which includes more than 4,000 hospitals but predates the covid-19 pandemic, Ballad ranks among the 100 hospitals with the slowest ERs. More current federal data is not available because the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services retired this statistic in 2020 in favor of other measurements.

Newer data tells a similar story. The Joint Commission, a nonprofit that accredits health care organizations, collected this same measurement for 2022 from about 250 hospitals that volunteered the data, finding a median ER speed of five hours and 41 minutes — or about five hours faster than Ballad’s latest annual report.

Ballad Health spokesperson Molly Luton said in an email statement that, by holding patients in the ER, where they are observed while waiting for a bed, Ballad avoids “overwhelming” its staff. Luton said ER delays are also caused by two nationwide crises: a nursing shortage and fewer admissions at nursing homes and similar facilities, which can create a backlog of patients awaiting discharge from the hospital.

Luton added that Ballad’s ER time for admitted patients has dropped to about 7½ hours in the months since the company’s latest annual report.

“On those issues Ballad Health can directly control, our performance has rebounded from 2022, and is now among the best in the nation,” Luton said.

Luton also noted that Ballad performs better than or close to the national average on several other measurements of ER performance, including having fewer patients who leave without being treated. CMS data shows the national average is about 3%. Ballad reported 1.4% in its latest annual report.

Osborne, the Bristol council member, attributed this statistic to Ballad’s monopoly.

“Just because they aren’t leaving the ER doesn’t mean they are happy where they are,” he said. “It just means they don’t have anywhere else they could be.”

Ballad’s Big Monopoly

Ballad Health was formed in 2018 after state officials approved the nation’s biggest hospital merger based on a so-called Certificate of Public Advantage, or COPA, agreement. COPAs have been used in about 10 hospital mergers over the past three decades, but none has involved as many hospitals as Ballad’s.

State lawmakers in Tennessee and Virginia waived federal anti-monopoly laws so rival hospital systems — Mountain States Health Alliance and Wellmont Health System — could merge into a single company with no competition. Ballad is now the only option for hospital care for most of about 1.1 million residents in a 29-county region at the nexus of Tennessee, Virginia, Kentucky, and North Carolina.

The Federal Trade Commission warns that hospital monopolies lead to increased prices and decreased quality of care. To offset the perils of Ballad’s monopoly, officials required the new company to commit to a long list of special conditions, including dozens of quality-care metrics spelled out with specific benchmarks.

In its latest annual report, Ballad improved on many quality-of-care metrics over the prior year, including several that the company prioritized, but still fell short on 56 of 75 benchmarks.

ER time for admitted patients is one of those. The benchmark was set at three hours and 47 minutes in the original COPA agreement. Ballad met or nearly met this goal for three years, according to its annual reports. Then the ERs slowed.

In 2022, Ballad reported a median ER time for admitted patients of about six hours.

In 2023, it reported the same statistic at seven hours and 40 minutes.

In the latest report, ER time for admitted patients had reached 10 hours and 45 minutes.

CMS, which grades thousands of hospitals nationwide, warns on its website that timely ER care is “essential for good patient outcomes,” and that more time spent in the ER has been linked to higher complication rates and delays in patients getting pain medication and antibiotics.

Ben Harder, chief of health analysis for U.S. News & World Report, said extensive ER times can be a symptom of slowdowns throughout a hospital, including in the operating room.

“A long delay in getting patients admitted is both a risk in itself, in that a test may not get conducted as promptly,” Harder said. “But it’s also an indication that the hospital is backed up, and that there are problems getting patients moved from one unit to another.”

Bill Christian, a spokesperson for the Tennessee Department of Health, said Ballad’s rising ER times had been “noted” but did not say if the agency had taken or was considering any action. Christian directed questions about Ballad’s latest stats to the company itself.

‘A Nightmare for Community Members’

Ballad has also fallen short — by about $191 million over the past five years — of its obligation to Tennessee to provide charity care, which is free or discounted care for low-income patients, according to health department documents and Ballad’s latest report. The health department waived this obligation in each of the past four fiscal years. Ballad has said it would ask for another this year.

In a two-hour interview last year, Ballad CEO Alan Levine defended his company and said that because the Tri-Cities region could not support two competing hospital companies, the COPA merger had likely prevented at least three hospital closures. Levine attributed Ballad’s failure to meet quality benchmarks to the pressure of the covid pandemic and said charity care shortfalls were partly caused by Medicaid changes beyond Ballad’s control.

“Our critics say, ‘No Ballad. We don’t want Ballad.’ Well, then what?” Levine said. “Because the hospitals were on their way to being closed.”

Some residents see Ballad as a savior. John King, who runs a physical therapy clinic in the core of Ballad’s region, said at a public hearing last June that in multiple visits to Ballad ERs, including one for a stroke, he found their care to be quick and compassionate.

“If it weren’t for Ballad Health, I literally would not be here today,” King said, according to a hearing transcript.

Ballad’s failures to live up to the terms of the COPA agreement were detailed in a KFF Health News investigation last September, and the company faced a new wave of criticism in the months that followed.

Local leaders in Carter County, Tennessee, in October debated but did not pass a resolution calling for Ballad to be better regulated or broken up. Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, a Republican, said in an interview with the Tennessee Lookout published in November that Ballad must be constantly monitored in light of community complaints. Earlier this month, Tennessee state Rep. David Hawk (R-Greeneville), who represents a region within Ballad’s monopoly, called for Levine’s resignation, according to wjhl.com.

In response, Ballad Health said in a statement it has “strong relationships with the majority of elected officials” in Carter County and welcomed scrutiny from the Tennessee attorney general. Ballad said Hawk’s “opinion certainly does not reflect our broader relationships” within the area. Tennessee lawmakers are also considering legislation to forbid future COPA mergers in the state, which Ballad said “risks putting more hospitals at risk for closure.”

The bill was introduced by state Sen. Heidi Campbell (D-Nashville) and state Rep. Gloria Johnson (D-Knoxville), who is running for the U.S. Senate. Johnson said the bill would end Ballad’s protection from antitrust laws.

“It’s just been a nightmare for community members out there,” Johnson said. “And they have no other option.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).



from Health Industry Archives - KFF Health News

Related Posts:

KFF Health News' 'What the Health?': The ACA Turns 14

The Host

Julie Rovner KFF Health News @jrovner Read Julie's stories. Julie Rovner is chief Washington correspondent and host of KFF Health News’ 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.

The Affordable Care Act was signed into law 14 years ago this week, and Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra joined KFF Health News’ Julie Rovner on this week’s “What the Health?” podcast to discuss its accomplishments so far — and the challenges that remain for the health law.

Meanwhile, Congress appears on its way to, finally, finishing the fiscal 2024 spending bills, including funding for HHS — without many of the reproductive or gender-affirming health care restrictions Republicans had sought.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Mary Agnes Carey of KFF Health News, Tami Luhby of CNN, and Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Panelists

Mary Agnes Carey KFF Health News @maryagnescarey Read Mary Agnes' stories. Tami Luhby CNN @Luhby Read Tami's stories. Alice Miranda Ollstein Politico @AliceOllstein Read Alice's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

  • The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments next week in a case that could decide whether the abortion pill mifepristone will remain easily accessible. The case itself deals with national restrictions rather than an outright ban. But, depending on how the court rules, it could have far-reaching results — for instance, preventing people from getting the pills in the mail and limiting how far into pregnancy the treatment can be used.
  • The case is about more than abortion. Drug companies and medical groups are concerned about the precedent it would set for courts to substitute their judgment for that of the FDA regarding drug approvals.
  • Abortion-related ballot questions are in play in several states. The total number ultimately depends on the success of citizen-led efforts to collect signatures to gain a spot. Such efforts face opposition from anti-abortion groups and elected officials who don’t want the questions to reach the ballot box. Their fear, based on precedents, is that abortion protections tend to pass.
  • The Biden administration issued an executive order this week to improve research on women’s health across the federal government. It has multiple components, including provisions intended to increase research on illnesses and diseases associated with postmenopausal women. It also aims to increase the number of women participating in clinical trials.
  • This Week in Medical Misinformation: The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case Murthy v. Missouri. At issue is whether Biden administration officials overstepped their authority when asking companies like Meta, Google, and X to remove or downgrade content flagged as covid-19 misinformation.

Plus, for “extra credit,” the panelists suggest health policy stories they read this week that they think you should read, too:

Julie Rovner: The Washington Post’s “Arizona Lawmaker Tells Her Abortion Story to Show ‘Reality’ of Restrictions,” by Praveena Somasundaram. (Full speech here.)

Alice Miranda Ollstein: CNN’s “Why Your Doctor’s Office Is Spamming You With Appointment Reminders,” by Nathaniel Meyersohn.

Tami Luhby: KFF Health News’ “Georgia’s Medicaid Work Requirement Costing Taxpayers Millions Despite Low Enrollment,” by Andy Miller and Renuka Rayasam.

Mary Agnes Carey: The New York Times’ “When Medicaid Comes After the Family Home,” by Paula Span, and The AP’s “State Medicaid Offices Target Dead People’s Homes to Recoup Their Health Care Costs,” by Amanda Seitz.

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

Credits

Francis Ying Audio producer Stephanie Stapleton Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to KFF Health News’ “What the Health?” on SpotifyApple PodcastsPocket Casts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).



from Health Industry Archives - KFF Health News

Related Posts:

Social Security Chief Testifies in Senate About Plans to Stop ‘Clawback Cruelty’

The new chief of the Social Security Administration outlined for senators Wednesday a plan to tackle overpayments and clawbacks, which affect millions of beneficiaries and, he said, have caused “grave injustices” and left people “in dire financial straits.”

As a joint investigation by KFF Health News and Cox Media Group television stations reported in September, the agency has harmed people it is supposed to help by reducing or halting benefit checks to recoup billions of dollars in payments it sent them but later said they should never have received.

Testifying at two Senate hearings on March 20, Social Security Commissioner Martin O’Malley said he is taking several steps to address the problem.

Starting next week, O’Malley said, the agency will stop “that clawback cruelty” of intercepting 100% of a beneficiary’s monthly Social Security check if they fail to respond to a demand for repayment.

Instead, the agency will default to withholding 10% of the recipient’s monthly benefits to recoup the debt, he said.

That would have helped Denise Woods, a Savannah, Georgia, woman who ended up living in her car after the SSA clawed back her entire monthly benefit to recoup a $58,000 overpayment. The agency restored some of her benefits after KFF Health News-CMG reported her story in December.

“People like Denise and others shouldn’t be penalized for situations they did not create,” Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) said during one of the hearings. “I think it’s always important that we center the people as we discuss policy, remember the human face of the issues we talk about.”

On the question of who caused an overpayment — the beneficiary or someone at the agency — the burden of proof will shift from the beneficiary to the agency, O’Malley said.

The agency will make it much easier for people who believe they weren’t at fault or can’t repay the debt to seek a waiver, O’Malley said, which he later clarified means simplifying the form people must submit.

(WPXI-TV, Pittsburgh)

(WSB-TV, Atlanta)

O’Malley’s plan also includes making notices to beneficiaries easier to understand. Now, they’re “like Mad Libs designed by mad lawyers,” he testified.

In addition, the agency recently changed a policy to allow most beneficiaries to arrange repayment plans of as long as five years, up from three years, he said.

Millions of people a year have been hit with clawbacks, including retirees, people receiving Social Security disability benefits, and the poorest of the poor. The alleged debts can stretch back years or decades and reach tens of thousands of dollars or more.

At the end of the last fiscal year, uncollected overpayments totaled $23 billion.

In December, KFF Health News and Cox Media Group television stations obtained an internal agency document showing that more than 2 million Americans each year are subjected to overpayment demands, out of about 70 million beneficiaries.

O’Malley, a former Maryland governor who was sworn in as commissioner in December, had previewed his planned changes in a recent interview with KFF Health News.

On Wednesday, he appeared before the Senate Special Committee on Aging in the morning and the Finance Committee in the afternoon.

In hours of testimony, O’Malley said nothing about one of the reforms he heralded in the interview: limiting how far back in time the agency can reach to recover overpayments.

In an interview between the hearings, O’Malley said, “That’s still being unpacked and may well require a change in regulation.” He said he expected an announcement within a few months.

O’Malley said he didn’t know how far back the limit would go but noted that other agencies tend to have a look-back period of four years.

Establishing a statute of limitations is one of the most important steps the government can take to address overpayments, Boston University economist Laurence Kotlikoff, who has studied and written about clawbacks, said in an interview.

“If Social Security can’t figure out its mistakes within 18 months, it should be on them,” Kotlikoff said.

Having to repay a year and a half of benefits could cost people their homes, Kotlikoff said.

Rebecca Vallas, who has helped beneficiaries navigate overpayments as a legal aid attorney and has called for reform of clawbacks, said the steps O’Malley announced “are nothing short of historic.”

Shifting the burden of proof “is a dramatic change,” said David Camp, chief executive of the National Organization of Social Security Claimants’ Representatives. While a lot is riding on the details and how O’Malley’s plans are implemented, that change alone should lead to “a very different experience” for anyone challenging a clawback, Camp added.

(WSOC-TV, Charlotte)

In the past, there has been a gap between what the agency says and what it does. O’Malley said 10% has been the default withholding rate in one of the Social Security programs, Supplemental Security Income. But KFF Health News and Cox Media Group have found people whose entire SSI benefit checks were suspended on account of alleged overpayments.

The changes announced won’t apply automatically to people already on a repayment plan or whose monthly benefits are already being docked, O’Malley said outside the hearings. To take advantage of the new terms, beneficiaries would have to contact the agency and request relief, he said. The agency will notify people that they have that option, he added.

O’Malley implored lawmakers to increase funding for the agency. On average, customers trying to reach the agency by phone wait 38 minutes, he said. Most who call the 800 number “hang up in disgust after waiting far too long,” he said in written testimony.

Trouble getting through to anyone at the agency can contribute to overpayments and make it harder for recipients to resolve them.

Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.), chair of the Special Committee on Aging, said that unless Congress provides adequate funding for the agency, fixing problems “will be really difficult.”

Sen. Mike Braun of Indiana, the top Republican on that committee, called for looking at how the agency is run “before we throw more money at it.” He suggested focusing on what can be done to prevent overpayments “rather than forgiving them once they occur” or trying to claw them back, “which is insult on top of injury.”

O’Malley noted that the Social Security Administration recently sought public comment on a long-delayed plan to reduce overpayments by automatically obtaining monthly wage and employment data on beneficiaries.

Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) praised O’Malley for tackling what Wyden called “the scourge of overpayments.”

“I think you’re really off to a strong start in terms of righting wrongs,” Wyden said.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).



from Health Industry Archives - KFF Health News

Related Posts:

Biden Said Medicare Drug Price Negotiations Cut the Deficit by $160B. That’s Years Away.

We cut the federal deficit by $160 billion because Medicare will no longer have to pay those exorbitant prices to Big Pharma.

President Joe Biden in his State of the Union address, March 7, 2024

President Joe Biden has been making his case for reelection to voters by telling them he is good for their pocketbooks, including at the pharmacy counter.

During his State of the Union address, Biden said legislation he signed gave Medicare the power to negotiate lower prescription drug prices.

“That’s not just saving seniors money and taxpayers money,” Biden said, a reference to the Inflation Reduction Act, which passed in 2022. “We cut the federal deficit by $160 billion because Medicare will no longer have to pay those exorbitant prices to Big Pharma.” 

Biden added, “This year, Medicare is negotiating lower prices for some of the costliest drugs.” He called for giving Medicare the power to negotiate prices for 500 drugs over the next decade.

In August, the federal government announced the first 10 drugs that it will negotiate for lower prices as part of the Inflation Reduction Act. A respected source of legislation analysis projects the change will save the government a lot of money, but those dollars haven’t been realized.

There is a reason Biden touted this legislation during his address: Polling by KFF shows that people, regardless of their political leanings, overwhelmingly support the idea of allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices. But most people don’t know that such negotiations are underway.

Impact of Inflation Reduction Act Will Take Many Years

In August 2022, Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act, which will allow the federal government to negotiate prices with drugmakers for Medicare. Biden kept his promise to repeal the law that barred Medicare from negotiating prices. 

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects a 10-year cumulative savings of $161.7 billion from two provisions of the Iaw: a phased-in effort to negotiate with drugmakers for lower prices and a rebate for price increases above the overall inflation rate. (The White House has previously pointed to this analysis.)

However, not all the savings will be permanent. About $44.3 billion over 10 years will be funneled into related provisions that expand access and lower out-of-pocket costs for Medicare beneficiaries.

“Negotiations are still ramping up, so the savings generated by the Inflation Reduction Act negotiation provisions are still in the future,” said Matthew Fiedler, a Brookings Institution expert on the economy and health studies. “The Congressional Budget Office did expect the inflation rebate provisions of the IRA (which are encompassed in the $160 billion) to begin generating modest savings during 2023 and 2024, but there, too, most of the savings are in the future.”

The legislation involves price negotiations for 10 brand-name medications that lack generic equivalents. Those drugs include the blood thinners Eliquis and Xarelto; the diabetes drugs Januvia, Jardiance, and NovoLog; Enbrel, for rheumatoid arthritis; the blood-cancer drug Imbruvica; Entresto, for heart failure; Stelara, for psoriasis and Crohn’s disease; and Farxiga, a drug for diabetes, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease.

The CBO has estimated that the negotiated prices will translate to nearly $100 billion in federal savings from 2026 to 2031.

“Biden is jumping the gun on claiming savings for seniors,” said Joe Antos, an expert on health care at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. “Price negotiations haven’t been completed; the new prices for selected drugs aren’t in place until 2026.”

Biden said the legislation is “saving seniors money and taxpayers money,” which could be interpreted to mean it is saving them money now on prescription drugs. But the negotiations for these drugs would define the prices to be paid for prescriptions starting in 2026. For 2027 and 2028, 15 more drugs per year will be chosen for price negotiations. Starting in 2029, 20 more will be chosen a year. 

That said, other provisions in the legislation have already led to savings for seniors, said Tricia Neuman, a senior vice president at KFF:

  • Certain recommended adult vaccines covered under Medicare Part D, such as shingles, are covered at no cost. 
  • The act established a cap on Part D spending that begins phasing in this year. This year, Part D enrollees will pay no more than $3,300 on brand-name drugs. In 2025, the cap for all covered Part D drugs drops to $2,000.
  • The Inflation Reduction Act included the $35-a-month insulin cap, improvements in coverage for low-income beneficiaries, and the inflation rebate.

When we pressed the White House to provide examples of savings that have already occurred, a spokesperson pointed to the insulin cap.

Meanwhile, Antos said that although the Part D rebate has kicked in, the savings come from a small subset of Part D drugs taken by older Americans and that the government reaps the savings, not older Americans.  

“There is no reason to expect that seniors will see significant savings since there’s no obligation for the feds to distribute savings to Part D enrollees,” Antos said.

Our Ruling

Biden said, “We cut the federal deficit by $160 billion because Medicare will no longer have to pay those exorbitant prices to Big Pharma.”

Biden’s statement omits the time frame; the savings have not been realized. The CBO projected 10-year cumulative savings of $161.7 billion from two provisions of the legislation. And as for saving older Americans money on their prescriptions, that hasn’t happened yet. The federal government is negotiating the first 10 drugs with the new prices set to take effect in 2026.

We rate this statement Half True.

Sources

KFF, “3 Charts: Medicare Drug Price Negotiations,” Jan. 31, 2024

White House, “Budget Cuts Wasteful Spending on Big Pharma, Big Oil, and Other Special Interests, Cracks Down on Systemic Fraud, and Makes Programs More Cost Effective,” March 9, 2023

Email interview, Matthew Fiedler, senior fellow in economic studies, Center on Health Policy at The Brookings Institution, March 8, 2024

Email interview, Tricia Neuman, a senior vice president of KFF and the executive director of its Program on Medicare Policy, March 8, 2024

Email interview, Joe Antos, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, March 8, 2024

White House, statement to PolitiFact, March 8, 2024

President Joe Biden, remarks on health care costs, Aug. 29, 2023

Congressional Budget Office, “Estimated Budgetary Effects of Public Law 117-169, to Provide for Reconciliation Pursuant to Title II of S. Con. Res. 14,” Sept. 7, 2022

Congressional Budget Office, “How CBO Estimated the Budgetary Impact of Key Prescription Drug Provisions in the 2022 Reconciliation Act,” February 2023

KFF, “Explaining the Prescription Drug Provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act,” Jan. 24, 2023

NBC News, “Medicare Names First 10 Drugs up for Price Negotiations With the Government,” Aug. 29, 2023

PolitiFact, “Democrats’ Inflation Reduction Act Will Allow Medicare to Negotiate Drug Prices,” Aug. 10, 2022

READ ABOUT OUR PROCESS:

The Principles of the Truth-o-Meter

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).



from Health Industry Archives - KFF Health News

Related Posts:

Georgia’s Medicaid Work Requirements Costing Taxpayers Millions Despite Low Enrollment

Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp’s plan for a conservative alternative to Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion has cost taxpayers at least $26 million so far, with more than 90% going toward administrative and consulting costs rather than medical care for low-income people.

Kemp’s Georgia Pathways to Coverage offers government health insurance to people earning up to the federal poverty level — $15,060 for an individual adult — if they can document that they’re working, in school, or performing other qualifying activities.

Since July, when the program began, about 3,500 people have signed up, according to state officials. That’s a small fraction of the Georgians who could enroll if the state expanded Medicaid without such requirements.

Republican leaders in several states have sought to require that people who are eligible for Medicaid through expansion work, arguing the health program for low-income Americans shouldn’t be a handout. Kemp’s experiment, aimed at single adults with low incomes who aren’t already eligible for Medicaid, is the only current effort to survive legal challenges. But critics say it creates obstacles for people in need of health care while wasting taxpayer dollars on technology, consultants, and attorney’s fees.

The Pathways program is “fiscally foolish and anti-family,” said Joan Alker, executive director and co-founder of Georgetown University’s Center for Children and Families. She noted that full-time caregiving does not qualify someone for eligibility into the program. “A lot of taxpayer money has been wasted,” she said, “and not on health care for people who need it.”

The state projected that administrative costs will increase to $122 million over four years, mostly in federal spending, as it rolls out key features of the program, including the collection of premiums and verifying enrollees’ eligibility, according to an internal planning document dated December 2022 obtained by KFF Health News. The primary consultant for the project is Deloitte, which is collecting hefty fees.

Georgia’s GOP-led state legislature has rejected what Democrats say would be a far simpler way to cover the state’s low-income workers: expanding Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. That could make at least 359,000 uninsured people in Georgia newly eligible for Medicaid, according to KFF data. In addition, Georgia could reduce state spending by $710 million over two years, according to KFF research from 2021.

Despite Georgia’s rocky implementation experience, state Republican leaders have put off considering a full Medicaid expansion. And such conservative states as Mississippi, Idaho, and South Dakota are weighing similar work requirements.

“You’re spending money, primarily here, to put people through an extra set of hoops before they get coverage,” said Benjamin Sommers, a professor of health care economics at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

The low enrollment for Pathways has disappointed supporters, as the state projected more than 25,000 residents would enroll during its first year and 52,000 by the end of five years, according to its application to the federal government.

Chris Denson, director of policy and research at the conservative Georgia Public Policy Foundation, which supports Pathways, said the low enrollment numbers are “just part of the ramping up.”

The program was intended to start in July 2021 but was delayed two years due to legal wrangling. In December 2022, Georgia officials told the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services that it would cost at least $51 million over two years to design, develop, and implement an eligibility system, funds that would largely be channeled to Deloitte Consulting, according to the documents KFF Health News obtained.

About 45% of Pathways applications were still waiting to be processed, based on the state’s most recent monthly reports, said Leah Chan, director of health justice at the Georgia Budget and Policy Institute, a nonprofit research organization that supports full Medicaid expansion.

The eligibility system, she said, “the thing that we’ve spent the most money on, is actually one of the things standing in the way of the program seeing higher enrollment.”

The state Department of Community Health reported $26.6 million in Pathways spending through Dec. 31, of which more than 80% was paid for using federal funds. Deloitte was paid $2.4 million to prepare and submit the application to the federal government. Just $2 million was paid to insurers to cover medical care. In the fourth quarter, administrative costs alone rose by more than $6 million.

The total costs do not include legal fees for defending the Pathways program. The state attorney general’s office said that as of Feb. 7 those costs surpass $230,000.

In striking contrast, North Carolina has enrolled 380,000 beneficiaries in its Medicaid expansion as of March 1, according to that state’s Department of Health and Human Services. North Carolina became the 40th state to expand Medicaid under the ACA on Dec. 1, a move that has prompted fresh debate over expansion in a handful of other Southern holdout states.

Georgia, which has one of the highest uninsured rates among states, is currently the only state that requires people in its Medicaid expansion population to prove they are working or doing other qualifying activities to gain health coverage.

A spokesperson for Kemp, Carter Chapman, told KFF Health News that the governor “remains committed to implementing Georgia Pathways, an innovative program expanding coverage to tens of thousands of otherwise ineligible, low-income Georgians, despite the Biden administration’s continued efforts to disrupt its rollout.”

In February, citing the delays in implementation, Georgia filed a suit against the federal government to ensure the work requirement program could continue running through 2028 instead of 2025, when it was originally scheduled to end. CMS refused to comment because of pending litigation.

Georgia’s cost estimates are in line with what other states anticipated for administrative spending for Medicaid work requirement programs, including Kentucky’s projected spending of $272 million, according to a 2019 report from the Government Accountability Office, a federal agency that recommended CMS consider administrative costs in such applications.

In Arkansas, administrative costs for the state’s work requirement program were nearly 30% higher than costs of running standard Medicaid in 2016, according to a report from the Arkansas Center for Health Improvement, a nonpartisan health policy group in the state. People struggled to prove they qualified because setting up online accounts was difficult and confusing and many had limited access to the internet, said Robin Rudowitz, a vice president at KFF and director of the Program on Medicaid and the Uninsured. Arkansas’ work requirement program ended in 2019 after a judge blocked it, but not before 18,000 people lost coverage. Unlike Arkansas, which placed a work requirement on a population already receiving Medicaid expansion benefits, Georgia is offering coverage to new people who qualify. But the program’s expense may not be worth sustaining it, Sommers said.

Typically, in Medicaid, administrative costs range from 12% to 16% of overall program spending, said Laura Colbert, executive director of the advocacy group Georgians for a Healthy Future, which supports full Medicaid expansion.

“It’s reasonable to expect that at least 80% of costs of a public or private health insurance plan to go toward health care and services,” she said.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).



from Health Industry Archives - KFF Health News

Related Posts:

Needle Pain Is a Big Problem for Kids. One California Doctor Has a Plan.

Almost all new parents go through it: the distress of hearing their child scream at the doctor’s office. They endure the emotional torture of having to hold their child down as the clinician sticks them with one vaccine after another.

“The first shots he got, I probably cried more than he did,” said Remy Anthes, who was pushing her 6-month-old son, Dorian, back and forth in his stroller in Oakland, California.

“The look in her eyes, it’s hard to take,” said Jill Lovitt, recalling how her infant daughter Jenna reacted to some recent vaccines. “Like, ‘What are you letting them do to me? Why?’”

Some children remember the needle pain and quickly start to internalize the fear. That’s the fear Julia Cramer witnessed when her 3-year-old daughter, Maya, had to get blood drawn for an allergy test at age 2.

“After that, she had a fear of blue gloves,” Cramer said. “I went to the grocery store and she saw someone wearing blue gloves, stocking the vegetables, and she started freaking out and crying.”

Pain management research suggests that needle pokes may be children’s biggest source of pain in the health care system. The problem isn’t confined to childhood vaccinations either. Studies looking at sources of pediatric pain have included children who are being treated for serious illness, have undergone heart surgeries or bone marrow transplants, or have landed in the emergency room.

“This is so bad that many children and many parents decide not to continue the treatment,” said Stefan Friedrichsdorf, a specialist at the University of California-San Francisco’s Stad Center for Pediatric Pain, speaking at the End Well conference in Los Angeles in November.

The distress of needle pain can follow children as they grow and interfere with important preventive care. It is estimated that a quarter of all adults have a fear of needles that began in childhood. Sixteen percent of adults refuse flu vaccinations because of a fear of needles.

Friedrichsdorf said it doesn’t have to be this bad. “This is not rocket science,” he said.

He outlined simple steps that clinicians and parents can follow:

  • Apply an over-the-counter lidocaine, which is a numbing cream, 30 minutes before a shot.
  • Breastfeed babies, or give them a pacifier dipped in sugar water, to comfort them while they’re getting a shot.
  • Use distractions like teddy bears, pinwheels, or bubbles to divert attention away from the needle.
  • Don’t pin kids down on an exam table. Parents should hold children in their laps instead.

At Children’s Minnesota, Friedrichsdorf practiced the “Children’s Comfort Promise.” Now he and other health care providers are rolling out these new protocols for children at UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospitals in San Francisco and Oakland. He’s calling it the “Ouchless Jab Challenge.”

If a child at UCSF needs to get poked for a blood draw, a vaccine, or an IV treatment, Friedrichsdorf promises, the clinicians will do everything possible to follow these pain management steps.

“Every child, every time,” he said.

It seems unlikely that the ouchless effort will make a dent in vaccine hesitancy and refusal driven by the anti-vaccine movement, since the beliefs that drive it are often rooted in conspiracies and deeply held. But that isn’t necessarily Friedrichsdorf’s goal. He hopes that making routine health care less painful can help sway parents who may be hesitant to get their children vaccinated because of how hard it is to see them in pain. In turn, children who grow into adults without a fear of needles might be more likely to get preventive care, including their yearly flu shot.

In general, the onus will likely be on parents to take a leading role in demanding these measures at medical centers, Friedrichsdorf said, because the tolerance and acceptance of children’s pain is so entrenched among clinicians.

Diane Meier, a palliative care specialist at Mount Sinai, agrees. She said this tolerance is a major problem, stemming from how doctors are usually trained.

“We are taught to see pain as an unfortunate, but inevitable side effect of good treatment,” Meier said. “We learn to repress that feeling of distress at the pain we are causing because otherwise we can’t do our jobs.”

During her medical training, Meier had to hold children down for procedures, which she described as torture for them and for her. It drove her out of pediatrics. She went into geriatrics instead and later helped lead the modern movement to promote palliative care in medicine, which became an accredited specialty in the United States only in 2006.

Meier said she thinks the campaign to reduce needle pain and anxiety should be applied to everyone, not just to children.

“People with dementia have no idea why human beings are approaching them to stick needles in them,” she said. And the experience can be painful and distressing.

Friedrichsdorf’s techniques would likely work with dementia patients, too, she said. Numbing cream, distraction, something sweet in the mouth, and perhaps music from the patient’s youth that they remember and can sing along to.

“It’s worthy of study and it’s worthy of serious attention,” Meier said.

This article is from a partnership that includes KQED, NPR, and KFF Health News.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).



from Health Industry Archives - KFF Health News

Related Posts:

Under Fire for Massive Health System Hack, Biden Team Leans on Insurers

The Biden administration has hit on a strategy to deal with the massive, industry-paralyzing cyberattack on a UnitedHealth Group unit: pressuring insurers to fix it.

Federal officials have been in constant conversation with senior leaders at UnitedHealth and across the industry, including at a Monday meeting where Department of Health and Human Services and White House officials again pressed UnitedHealth to be more transparent about its timeline for restoring services.

Many insurers have committed to “making accelerated or advance payments,” an HHS official told reporters on a media call after yesterday’s meeting, declining to specify which plans had done so. The plans have also committed to making interim payments to Medicaid providers, a second official added, as well as providing other support, including payment for pending claims, loans and assistance switching to other electronic clearinghouses when needed.

“We have seen significant improvement between last week and this week,” a third official told reporters, but “we have a last mile to go — we are still hearing from small, rural safety-net providers who need cash assistance.”

UnitedHealth’s Change Healthcare is still struggling to recover from a ransomware attack by hackers believed to be part of a Russia-based group called ALPHV, or Blackcat. Change, little known outside the health-care industry, processes billions of transactions a year on behalf of hospitals, physician practices, pharmacies and the insurers that pay them.

Both UnitedHealth and the federal government have come under fire from health-care providers and lawmakers for being unprepared for the attack and too slow to respond. 

“Neither UnitedHealth Group nor federal agencies were prepared for the attack on Change Healthcare and its fallout,” Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, said last Thursday.

The byzantine structure of the U.S. health-care system has created obstacles for regulators to navigate as they help the industry recover. For example, said Chip Kahn, president of the Federation of American Hospitals, which represents for-profit hospitals: Because hospitals and doctors receive many payments from commercial insurers operating Medicare Advantage plans, over which HHS has limited authority, the agency can’t necessarily force those payers to make the providers whole.

Instead, the administration is applying public pressure — including a tense White House meeting with UnitedHealth CEO Andrew Witty and other insurers last week. (HHS’ Office for Civil Rights, which enforces some of the agency’s privacy and security regulations, has also announced an investigation of the hack.)

HHS has “taken the actions they can, within the constraints of the law,” Kahn said in an interview.

Accelerated payments from Medicare may also make a difference. Brad van Pelt, president of the Palm Beach Institute of Sports Medicine, a physical therapy group in South Florida, told me those patients are about half his caseload.

The payments “will make us a little bit whole,” he said, though he took out a loan on Monday to cover payroll. The federal money hadn’t yet arrived.

Longer-term, HHS has signaled it wants mandatory cybersecurity standards imposed through Medicare and Medicaid. That’s not popular with hospitals.

“The trouble with penalties is that at the end of the day, you could penalize institutions that are mission-critical to a community,” Kahn said.

Wyden floated his own more populist approaches on Thursday. Health-care companies, he argued, have become too large.

A federal judge appointed by then-President Donald Trump ruled in September 2022 that UnitedHealth’s $13 billion acquisition of Change could proceed over the Biden administration’s opposition.

“Negligent CEOs” should be held accountable for the mess, Wyden said.

The Washington Post’s Dan Diamond contributed to this report.

This article is not available for syndication due to republishing restrictions. If you have questions about the availability of this or other content for republication, please contact NewsWeb@kff.org.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).



from Health Industry Archives - KFF Health News

Related Posts:

Cuando tu cobertura de salud dentro de la red… simplemente se esfuma

Sarah Feldman, de 35 años, recibió las primeras cartas amenazantes del Centro Médico Mount Sinai en noviembre pasado. El sistema hospitalario de Nueva York le advirtió que tenía problemas para negociar un acuerdo de precios con UnitedHealthcare, que incluye los planes de salud de Oxford, la aseguradora de Feldman.

“Estamos trabajando de buena fe con Oxford para alcanzar un nuevo acuerdo justo”, decía la carta, continuando con la frase tranquilizadora: “Sus médicos seguirán siendo parte de la red y debería mantener sus citas con sus proveedores”.

En los meses siguientes, llegaron una avalancha de comunicaciones sobre la disputa tanto del hospital como de la aseguradora. Pasaban de “tienes que preocuparte” a “no tienes que preocuparte'”, contó Feldman.

A fines de febrero, finalmente cayó la bomba: desde el 1 de marzo, el Mount Sinai ya no estaría en la red de la aseguradora de Feldman.

“De repente tuve que cambiar todos mis médicos, gran estrés”, dijo Feldman. Eso incluía no solo a un querido médico de atención primaria, sino también a un ginecólogo, un ortopedista y un fisioterapeuta.

Uno de los aspectos más injustos del seguro médico, en un sistema que a menudo parece diseñado para la frustración, es este: los pacientes solo pueden cambiar de seguro durante los períodos de inscripción abierta al final del año o cuando experimentan “eventos de vida” que califican para una inscripción especial, como un divorcio o un cambio de trabajo.

Pero los contratos de las aseguradoras con médicos, hospitales y farmacéuticas (o sus intermediarios, los llamados administradores de beneficios farmacéuticos) pueden cambiar abruptamente de la noche a la mañana.

Esto es particularmente irritante para los pacientes porque, ya sea que tengan cobertura a través de un empleador o compren un seguro en el mercado, generalmente eligen un plan en función de si cubre a sus médicos y hospitales preferidos, o a un medicamento costoso que necesitan.

Resulta que esa cobertura particular podría desaparecer en cualquier momento durante el término de la póliza.

Los consumidores están en riesgo, según un informe reciente de la Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, en la creciente guerra de precios entre grandes sistemas hospitalarios y mega aseguradoras en un mercado despiadado.

Estas disputas de contratos están aumentando rápidamente, el sitio web Becker’s Hospital Review cita 21 enfrentamientos entre aseguradoras y proveedores en el tercer trimestre de 2023, un aumento del 91% comparado con el mismo período el año anterior.

Por ejemplo, en septiembre pasado, los médicos de Baptist Health en Kentucky cortaron abruptamente la relación con los pacientes inscritos en los planes de Medicare Advantage de Humana, y los médicos de Vanderbilt Health en Tennessee rompieron los contratos lo hicieron con varios planes de Humana, en abril.

En ambos casos los pacientes desesperados tuvieron que buscar frenéticamente nuevos médicos dentro de la red en otros sistemas hospitalarios.

Y expertos predicen más cancelaciones de contratos en un mercado cruel. (las cancelaciones que ocurren dentro del período de inscripción, generalmente entre noviembre y enero por lo menos permite que los pacientes abandonados busquen un nuevo plan que cubra sus médicos y medicamentos).

“La respuesta humana correcta es que esto es horrible”, dijo Allison Hoffman, profesora de derecho de la Universidad de Pennsylvania, incluso si la práctica, por ahora, es “probablemente legal”.

Hoffman dijo que encontró una cláusula “enterrada” en la página 32 de su propio plan médico, de 60 páginas, que sugería que los contratos entre proveedores y aseguradoras pueden cambiar en cualquier momento.

Los reguladores estatales y federales tienen la autoridad para regular las redes de aseguradoras y podrían poner fin a la práctica, dijo Hoffman. Pero hasta ahora “no ha habido regulación federal sobre la continuidad de la cobertura”, especialmente sobre cómo definirla. Sospecha que el aparente aumento en disputas de contratos entre aseguradoras y proveedores se deriva de las regulaciones sobre la transparencia de los precios hospitalarios, que entraron en vigencia en 2022 y han permitido a los hospitales comparar tasas de reembolso entre sí.

De hecho, el Mount Sinai dijo que exigía un mejor reembolso de UnitedHealthcare porque descubrió que estaba recibiendo pagos considerablemente más bajos que otras “instituciones similares”.

Muchas aseguradoras dicen que continuarán pagando por un período después de que termine un contrato —en general de entre 60 a 90 días— o para completar un “episodio de atención” particular, como un embarazo.

Pero, por ejemplo, con el cáncer, ¿eso significaría una ronda de quimioterapia o el curso completo de un tratamiento, que podría durar muchos años? ¿Es continuidad de cobertura si un paciente debe cambiar de oncólogo en medio de una terapia, o si tiene que dejar a un terapeuta eficaz?

Erin Moses, que trabaja para una pequeña organización sin fines de lucro, encontró a un nuevo terapeuta que le gustó después que ella y su esposo se mudaron a la Costa Central de California en febrero del año pasado. En septiembre, recibió una factura de la práctica que decía que había terminado su contrato con Anthem porque la aseguradora era lenta con sus reembolsos. Esto la dejó con una factura de $814.

“No es que no pudiéramos pagarlo, pero mi esposo y yo estamos tratando de ahorrar para una casa, y eso es mucho dinero”, dijo.

A menudo, a los pacientes los toma desprevenidos, sin saber qué hacer. Cuando Laura Alley se cayó de una escalera en septiembre de 2020 y necesitó cirugía para reparar su pelvis quebrada, el hospital y el cirujano estaban en la red.

Alley escribió al proyecto “Bill of the Month” de KFF Health News y NPR y dijo: “Lo que no podía saber de ninguna manera era que el grupo que proporcionaba la anestesia estaba en disputa con el proveedor de seguros de nuestra firma, y que desde el 30 de julio de 2020, ya no estaban en la red”.

Se sintió “como un títere”, dijo. “Mientras trabajo para recuperarme de una lesión traumática, estoy atrapada en medio de una disputa entre una enorme compañía de seguros y un gran grupo de médicos”.

Alley es dueña de una pequeña firma de arquitectura con su esposo, y terminaron pagando “casi $10,000” por servicios de anestesia fuera de la red. (Este tipo de factura fuera de la red para el paciente ahora estaría prohibido por el No Surprises Act, vigente desde 2022).

Nada de esto será noticia para Feldman, la paciente del Mount Sinai que fue una inocente espectadora en la disputa del sistema hospitalario con Oxford Health Plans. Los padres de Feldman la llamaron recientemente, diciendo que recibieron una carta de su aseguradora, Anthem, diciendo que el 1 de mayo podría terminar su contrato con el Hospital NewYork-Presbyterian, en donde la madrastra de Feldman recibe tratamiento por un cáncer de mama.

Es malo para la salud —y para la cordura— de los pacientes que las promesas percibidas de atención en sus planes de seguro puedan desaparecer repentinamente a mitad de año. Y los reguladores pueden hacer algo al respecto: obligar a los proveedores y aseguradoras a mantener sus contratos entre sí durante todo el término de las pólizas de los pacientes, para que ninguno quedé atrapado en una guerra con la que no tienen nada que ver.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).



from Health Industry Archives - KFF Health News

Related Posts: