June 2010

You are currently browsing the monthly archive for June 2010.

Medicare and Innovation in the same sentence?  Yes indeed.

As part of Health Reform [i.e, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)], the government mandated the creation of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMI).

What does CMI do?  ”The stated purpose of the CMI is to test innovative payment and service delivery models to bring about a reduction in Medicare and Medicaid program expenditures while preserving or enhancing quality of care.”  Items that CMI might consider are implementing payment mechanisms using accountable care organizations, or pay-for-performance systems using episode grouping technology.  CMI will be especially interested in reforming coverage rules for “dual-eligibles,” beneficiaries who are both eligible for Medicare and Medicaid.  There are 9 million dual eligibles who are, by definition, both elderly and poor.

CMI shall be the research and development arm for CMS.  In addition, CMI will undertake the following roles as well:

  • Lead the design, implementation and evaluation of Medicare and Medicaid demonstrations and pilot programs to test the feasibility, cost effectiveness and quality outcomes of new health care delivery models.
  • Disseminate findings from literature reviews, basic research and program evaluations to inform law makers, academics, and industry about health care delivery issues, new innovative concepts, and demonstrations and pilot programs.
  • Sift through the information and evaluative findings to develop new objectives for basic research and new research demonstrations and provide guidance for the formulation of new program policy proposals and their implementation within the Medicare and Medicaid Programs.

According to Wikipedia, before CMI, “CMS historically has relied on several research and demonstration authorities: §1115(a) of the Social Security Act (which authorizes the HHS Secretary to undertake demonstrations related to Medicaid program design and administration); and other provisions of the Social Security Act which permit demonstrations related to payment, delivery systems, and benefits and coverage.”

Tags: , , , ,

CoR #108

The latest edition of the Cavalcade of Risk is up at Wenchypoo’s Mental Wastebasket.

Tags:

Yesterday, I mentioned that low-income individuals on Medicare can also qualify for Medicaid and, as full-beneift dual eligible beneficiaries, they have significantly lower cost sharing than the typical Part D beneficiary.  How does CMS identify these individuals?

For currently beneficiaries on Medicaid who ‘age’ into Medicare, this process is fairly easy.  CMS can auto-enroll these individuals prospectively into Medicare drug plans.  The “Medicaid–>Medicare” population makes up 25% of all new full benefit dual eligible (FBDE) individuals each month.

For individuals who are currently Medicare eligible who become poor, this process is more complex.  Oftentimes, these beneficiaries only receive the more generous coverage months after they are initially eligible.  Thus, CMS must retroactively reimburse these beneficiares for the additional incurred expense.

To eliminate the lag in identifciation of these new FBDE individuals, CMS has taken a number of steps such as: increasing the rate at which state data are reviewed and eligibility and provided additional guidance to states on how to backdate FBDE coverage already in Medicare Prescription Drug Plans (PDP).

In addition, a new demonstration aims to make the transition between regular beneficiary and dual-eligible state more transparent.  The Limited Income Newly Eligible Transition (LI NET) “will cover all claims during retroactive auto-enrollment periods for full-benefit dual eligible (FBDE) beneficiaries and Supplemental Security Income (SSI)-only beneficiaries plus immediate need claims for all Low- Income Subsidy (LIS)-eligible beneficiaries.”  Humana won this contract for 2 years.  In particular, the LI NET will do the following:

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , ,

Health insurers face a conundrum.  Increased cost sharing helps to reduce patient utilization of medical resources and–at least inititally–lowers the cost of care.  Too much cost sharing, however, can lead to decreased patient adherence.  In this case, the patients may get sick and require hospitalization,  which will actually increase cost.  Cost sharing’s affect on adherence will likely be especially acute for low-income individuals.

To not discourage low-income individuals from receiving the care they need, Medicare significantly reduces the cost sharing provisions for low-income individuals.  For example, for Part D drug coverage, most beneficiaries face the following benefit structure as of 2008:

  • $275 deductible
  • 25% copay up to an initial coverage limit of $2,510
  • Doughnut hole coverage between $2,510 and $4050
  • Catastrophic coverage above $4050 where he pays the greater of $2.25 for generic, $5.65 for brand drugs, or 5% coinsurance, whichever is greater.

Many low income individuals, however, incur much less cost sharing.   Many of these low-income Medicare beneficiaries are known as dual eligibles since they are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid coverage.  “…these beneficiaries—referred to as full subsidy beneficiaries—pay a small copayment (between $1.10 and $6.00 in 2009) and Medicare pays the difference between these amounts and the cost sharing required by the plans.”  Thus, by covering most of the cost of these poor, elderly individuals, Medicare hopes to avoid decreased adherence and–in the long run–save money and improve health outcomes.

Before January 2006, State Medicaid plans were responsible for paying for most drug coverage for these beneficiaries.  After this date, however, the drug costs for these beneficiaries was transitioned to Medicare’s newly enacted Part D program.

Tags: , , ,

As the baby boomers age, the responsibility for the care of many of these individuals will fall to their children.  For the elderly who have trouble running errands, dressing themselves, or even bathing themselves, having a family member as a caregiver can significantly improve the elderly’s quality of life.

Many of these caregivers get burnt out, however.  Taking care of a loved one day after day can be taxing.  Not only can the physical and mental strain wear on the caregiver, one cannot ignore the financial impact of directing one’s life to care for an elderly relative.  In fact, a study by Brenda Spillman, Sharon Long, and the Urban Institute (2007) found that higher levels caregiver stress increase the probability that the caregiver will decide to place their elderly relative into a nursing home.

In an attempt to save money by decreasing the rate at which elderly are admitted into nursing homes, the government established the National Family Caregiver Support Program (NFCSP) in 2000.  The NFCSP “provides grants to States and Territories, based on their share of the population aged 70 and over, to fund a range of supports that assist family and informal caregivers to care for their loved ones at home for as long as possible.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , ,

The latest edition of the Health Wonk Review is up at Wright on Health.

Tags:

Why do placebo’s work?  They work because the patient’s mind believes they offer relief and thus patient perception of pain decreases after taking a placebo.  A study by Dan Ariely finds that the more expensive the placebo, the more pain relief it offers.  In particular, a $2.50 placebo works better one that costs 10 cents.

Medical News reports the following:

With pain, Dr. Ariely said, “if you expect it to be worse, it could be worse. So what can we do in the marketplace so people don’t expect it to be worse?”  For instance, he added, poor people are often offered medicines at a discount. “Maybe we don’t want to advertise that it’s discounted,” he said.

One reason that more expensive medical treatments when work better in practice in randomized trials is that patients believe that these treatments will be the most beneficial. Further, treatments that patients perceive to be “high tech” or using big fancy machines may offer better health outcomes due to patient perspectives.

The question is, should physicians lie to patients and tell them that the treatment is expensive or cutting edge when in fact it is not?  Without even considering the moral implications of this strategy, the answer is no.  Although this strategy could be used intermittently to reduce cost and improve patient outcomes, if patients found out that physicians were lying to them about the technical sophistical or price of the treatment, then the pronouncements that a treatment was cutting edge would have much less of an effect on the patient (since they knew it was false).

Thus, knowing that high priced medicine improves outcomes still many not give the medical community an attractive means to improve quality and reduce cost.

Tags: , , ,

With a magical goal scored in penalty time time, the U.S. advances outside of the group stage of the World Cup.  In honor of this emotional victory, today’s links are themed red, white and blue.

Tags:

Here is my earlier review on Norway.  The information below on Sweden and Finland has not yet been presented before in my blog.

SWEDEN

Hospitals

  • There are 4 types of medical facilities: local health centers, county level hospitals, district level hospitals, and regional teaching hospitals.
  • Local health centers are staffed by GPs, nurses, midwives, occupational therapists, social workers and psychologists.
  • Citizens can pick their own local health center and their own physician.

HIT

  • 98% of Swedish GPs have computerized practices
  • 90% use electronic medical records.
  • Patients can provide physicians with necessary information before the visit using the patient’s Smart card.

Malpractice

  • The Scandinavian model is built on the premise of no-fault liability.
  • About 3 patients file a malpractice claim for every 1 in the U.S.
  • Awards payments come from a compensation fund supported by tax revenues.

FINLAND

Hospitals

  • Finland is divided into 20 hospital districts, each with 1 central hospital with more sophisticated technology and several satellite hospitals.
  • Of the central hospitals, 4 are university hospitals with the most specialized care.
  • Municipal health centers serve the majority of each community’s health needs. 

Funding

  • Funding is very decentralized.  The central government only paid for 18% of care in 2000.  The municipalities pay for the majority of care.

Malpractice

  • Similar to the Swedish system

NORWAY

Insurance

  • Has a centralized system, like Canada.
  • The National Insurance scheme covers all citizens.
  • No private insurance exists

Funding

  • The National Insurance Scheme is funded by general tax revenues. 

Physicians

  • Most physicians work are paid via capitation.  The capitation rate is based on the number of patients who have chosen a doctor to be their primary physician. 
  • Some specialists do work on a fee-for-service basis.

Malpractice

  • Similar to the Swedish system

Source: Roth, WF (2010) Comprehensive Healthcare for the U.S.: An Idealized Model. Productivity Press, 174 pages.

Tags: , , ,

Here is my earlier review of the Japanese healthcare system.  Additional information on medical care in Japan is below.

Funding

  • The system is largely funded through payroll taxes.  Employees pay a larger share of the payroll tax than employers.    
  • Insurance is bought from public sector sources.
  • There is no private sector insurance companies.
  • Co-pays are generally 30%.

Insurance

  • Government managed plans cover 30% of workers.
  • Society plans cover 25% of workers.
  • Mutual Aid Association Insurers cover government employees and teachers.
  • There are separate insurance plans for certain groups of workers (e.g., day laborers, seamen).

Physicians

  • Physicians generally work on a fee-for-service basis.  Physicians with positions in a hospital, however, are on salary.
  • Physicians can sell prescriptions directly to patients.  Unsurprisingly, Japan has the highest consumption rate of pharmaceuticals per capita in the world.
  • There is no private sector practice.
  • There are no GPs.  All physicians are specialized, (except for physicians in rural areas)
  • Physicians do not emphasize prevention (e.g., periodic physical exams are not encouraged).  The government is the institution that takes the lead in providing preventive education.
  • Students move immediately to their internship following 6 years of college with no medical school in between.
  • Physician ratio: 1:500.

Malpractice

  • The Japanese Medical Association provides malpractice insurance for 45% of Japanese physicians.
  • Few claims are filed (less than 1 per 100 physicians).  Because of this, malpractice insurance is only about $500/year

Hospitals:

  • There are no community health centers, only clinics offering specialized services.
  • Patients entering a hospital have been required to find a sponsor who will agree to pay for the services delivered when the patient cannot.
  • When patients seek treatment in a hospital, they are expected to pay part of the bill in advance, with their insurance reimbursing them later.

Regulation:

  • All fees for all procedures are set by a government-organized panel including insurers, providers and citizens.

Source: Roth, WF (2010) Comprehensive Healthcare for the U.S.: An Idealized Model. Productivity Press, 174 pages.

Tags: ,

« Older entries