Medicare

You are currently browsing the archive for the Medicare category.

Do Disease Management and Value-Based Purchasing Programs Work?

February 15, 2012 in Medicare, P4P | 2 comments

In short, the answer is no. The CBO released an issue brief examining two types of demonstrations.

  • Disease management and care coordination demonstrations have sought to improve the quality of care of beneficiaries with chronic illnesses and those whose health care is expected to be particularly costly.
  • Value-based payment demonstrations have given health care providers financial incentives to improve the quality and efficiency of care rather than payments based strictly on the volume and intensity of services delivered.

“The evaluations show that most programs have not reduced Medicare spending: In nearly every program involving disease management and care coordination, spending was either unchanged or increased relative to the spending that would have occurred in the absence of the program, when the fees paid to the participating organizations were considered. Programs in which care managers had substantial direct interaction with physicians and significant in-person interaction with patients were more likely to reduce Medicare spending than other programs, but on average even those programs did not achieve enough savings to offset their fees.”

Today, the healthcare economist looks at these programs in more detail.

Disease Management Demonstrations

These demonstrations were made up of 34 programs operated by disease management companies. “The programs used nurses as care managers to educate patients about their chronic illnesses, encourage them to follow self-care regimens, monitor their health, and track whether they received recommended tests and treatments. In most programs, the care managers were not integrated into physicians’ practices, and their contact with patients was primarily by telephone.”

These programs targeted Medicare beneficiaries with specific chronic diseases. Most programs were not tailored to focus on chronically ill beneficiaries who were expected to have the highest cost of care. The results are displayed in the chart:

test

CBO found that the lack of integration into the physician practice and the lack of physical presence made most of these disease management programs not useful.

Value-Based Purchasing Demonstrations

The list below describes the four major VBP demonstration programs and their findings.

  • Physician Group Practice (PGP) Demonstration. 10 large practices were permitted to keep some of the estimated savings if they reduced total Medicare spending for their patients. In the second year of the demonstration, average Medicare spending excluding the bonuses paid to physician groups was about 1 percent below projections; with bonuses included, average
    Medicare spending was just 0.1 percent below projections—about $7 per beneficiary. Results for years 3 and 4 of the PGP demonstration are currently being analyzed.
  • Premier Hospital Quality Incentive Demonstration. 278 hospitals were offered bonuses if their scores on quality-of-care measures were in the top tier of participating hospitals.  This demonstration had no net effect on Medicare spending.
  • Home Health Pay-for-Performance Demonstration. This demonstration allowed 273 home health agencies to keep some of the estimated savings if they reduced total Medicare spending for their patients and met certain criteria regarding quality of care.  Initial results indicate that this demonstration had no net effect on Medicare spending.
  • Medicare Participating Heart Bypass Center Demonstration. Medicare made bundled payments to cover all inpatient hospital and physicians’ services for coronary artery bypass graft surgeries conducted at seven participating hospitals. Bundled payments reduced Medicare’s expenditures for heart bypass surgeries by about 10 percent, and there were no apparent
    adverse effects on patients’ outcomes.

Whereas the first three VBP programs aimed to give providers bonuses for reducing cost and increasing quality, the Heart Bypass Center demonstration relied on bundled payments to align the financial incentives offered to hospitals and physicians. The bundled payments reduced cost without decreasing quality. Of course, measuring quality is difficult and it is possible that the Bypass demonstration did not fully capture all important aspects of quality. Nevertheless, these initial results indicate that bundling may be a more promising cost-saving mechanism than provider bonuses.

Tags: , , , , ,

Will competitive bidding work in Medicare?

February 9, 2012 in Medicare | No comments

In my opinion the answer is yes.  A book by Coulam, Feldman and Dowd also would agree with me.

Recently, Medicare began a competitive bidding process for durable medical equipment.  Is it working?  According to the Wall Street Journal, the answer is no.

“Normally when the government wants to buy something, it asks companies how much they can provide and to name their price. Winners are selected from the lowest bid up until the government has what it needs at the lowest possible cost, and thereby finds competitive equilibrium prices.

Under Medicare’s highly unusual version of competitive bidding, it will pay the winners the median price of all the winning bids, rather than using the clearing price. Bids are also for some reason nonbinding.

This matters because it creates incentives for unscrupulous third-party companies to make low-ball “suicide bids.” If the median price shakes out high enough, they automatically win the contract, buy the medical products from manufacturers and turn a profit. If it isn’t, they can dump the contract since bidding involves no commitment.”

I still think competitive bidding in Medicare will work; the auctions just have to be set up in a more logical way.

Tags: , , , ,

How much is rent in your area?

February 1, 2012 in Data, Medicare, Physician Compensation | No comments

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is responsible for answering just that question.  To determine what level Section 8 vouchers should be set, HUD measures the rents for every county across the nation.  Specifically, they measure the 40th percentile and 50th percentile (i.e., median) rents in each area.  They choose to use the median so that high prices for luxury residences do not skew the measure of rent for a “typical” person in each area.  How does HUD calculate these Fair Market Rents (FMR)?  Today I will explain.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , ,

Medicare Payments for Hospitals in Under-served Areas

January 23, 2012 in Hospitals, Medicare | No comments

One of the goals of Medicare is to provide its beneficiaries access to quality care regardless of where they live.  Thus, the Medicare program provides financial incentives to providers located in these remote areas.

Whereas most Medicare pays most hospitals through the inpatient prospective payment system (IPPS), it pays certain rural hospitals based on their reported costs.  Medicare pays Critical Access Hospitals (CAH), for instance, 101 percent of its report cost for inpatient, outpatient, laboratory, and therapy services.  It also pays this providers 101 percent of their cost for post-acute care for CAH beds are “swing beds” (which are beds that can be used for either acute or post-acute care).

However, how should Medicare define ‘critical’? The simplest definition is just whether a hospital is in a rural (i.e., non-metropolitan) area. However, there are various gradations of ‘rural’. A rural hospital on the outskirts of a big city would be far less ‘critical’ then one very far from distant areas. One could define ‘critical’ based on facility volume. If the low volume is due to poor quality, however, defining these hospitals as critical could just reward poor hospitals. Third, could define a hospital as isolated based on its distance from other facilities who could provide comparable care. Alternatively, one could identify critical hospitals based on demographic factors such as population density in the surrounding areas.

Below, I provide more information on other types of types of rural hospital designations in Medicare.
Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , ,

Medicare reducing reimbursement for low-quality docs

January 16, 2012 in Medicare, P4P, Physician Compensation | 4 comments

In 2015, Medicare will begin implementing a value-based purchasing (VPB) program for physicians.  Initially the program will target only certain physicians and groups of physicians, but by 2017 all physicians is participate in this program.

The VBP program will evaluate physicians along two broad dimensions: quality and cost.  In the final rule:

Section 1848(p) of the Act requires the Secretary to ‘‘establish a payment modifier that provides for differential payment to a physician or a group of physicians’’ under the physician fee schedule ‘‘based upon the quality of care furnished compared to cost *** during a performance period.’’ The provision requires that ‘‘such payment modifier be separate from the geographic adjustment factors’’ established for the physician fee schedule. In addition, section 1848(p)(4)(C) of the Act requires that the value modifier be implemented in a budget-neutral manner.

 

Quality

The current quality measures to be used include:

  1. The measures in the core set of the Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS);
  2. All measures in the Group Practice Reporting Option (GPRO) of the Physician Quality Reporting System; and
  3. the core measures, alternate core, and 38 additional measures in the Electronic Health Records (EHR) Incentive Program measures.

Cost

The current measures of cost CMS is using are total per capita cost measures and per capita cost measures for beneficiaries with four chronic conditions (COPD; heart failure; coronary artery disease; and diabetes).

By January 2012, however, CMS will choose an episode grouper which can evaluate physicians based on episodes of care. Specifically:

Section 1848(n)(9)(A) of the Act requires us to develop by January 1, 2012, an episode grouper that combines separate, but clinically related items and services into an episode of care for an
individual, as appropriate.

Other Issues

One of the main problems of the physician VBP is attribution of patients to doctors. In managed care organizations, patients are assigned a primary care doctor or gatekeeper who are responsible for the patient’s overall care. In Medicare, the patient can see any willing provider; because the primary care doctor cannot restrict the patient’s choice of care, it is more difficult to hold them responsible for the care. Specifically, Medicare beneficiaries never have to choose a primary care doctor, so identifying the doctor to be ultimately responsible for each patient’s overall care is difficult.

Physicians require additional information to understand why the received the VBP scores they did. For this purpose, CMS will create Physician Feedback Reports, confidential reports providing more detailed information of the underlying factors which produce these scores.

For the VBP modifier in 2015, CMS will use 2013 as the initial performance period 2013. This means that payment adjustments in 2015 will be on care provided 2 years ago. Although evaluating physician performance, allowing for appeals and adjusting payments takes time; two years is a long lead time.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Why Doctors Don’t Like Medicare

January 3, 2012 in Medicare, Physician Compensation | 7 comments

Being a doctor is difficult.  You need to graduate from medical school and learn a ton of difficult scientific concepts.  You need to stay up to date on the latest medical developments.  You need to cater to sick, needy patients (and their family).  Any you need to get paid.

Earning a living is not as simple for doctors as other professions.  Sure doctors make a lot of money.  But knowing how much they get paid for a particular service is complex.

I provide an overview of the physician reimbursement system here.  That overview does not take into account all the payment modifiers in the Medicare’s physician reimbursement system.  Consider the following payment modifiers:

  • For many procedures, Medicare pays providers for the professional and technical component.  The professional component is the physician’s work and expertise; the technical component provides reimbursement for equipment and supplemental staff needed to perform the procedure.  If the procedure is billed globally, then the physician receives both components.  If another entity performed the technical component, then the physician is only paid for the professional component.  For instance, for lab tests, the lab may run the test (technical component) but the physician would be the one interpreting the test (professional component).
  • If you assist in a surgery, you receive 16% of the fee the primary surgeon does.Under some circumstances, the individual skills of two surgeons are required to perform surgery on the same patient during the same operative session.  If you are a co-surgeon (rather than an assistant at surgery), you receive 62.5% of the typical reimbursement for that surgery.
  • If you perform a bilateral surgery–a surgery done on both sides of the body (e.g., right arm and left arm)–then you receive 150% of the payment you would have received from doing a unilateral surgery.
  • When multiple procedures are performed through the same endoscope, payment will be made for the highest valued endoscopy (100% of the allowance) plus the difference between the next highest and the base endoscopy.
  • If you perform multiple surgeries in the same day on the same patient, you do not get paid the same amount as if these were performed on multiple days.  The highest valued procedure is paid 100% of the allowance.  For the second through the fifth highest valued procedures, the physician receives 50% of the typical payment amount.
  • If you are a physician assistant, nurse practitioner, or a registered dietitian or nutritionists; you receive 85% of the payment an MD would receive for performing the same service.
  • If you are a clinical social worker, you receive 75% of the payment an MD would receive for performing the same service.
  • If you are a certified nurse midwife, you receive 85% of the payment an MD would receive for performing the same service.  If you are a midwife, you only receive 65%.
  • Participating providers receive the full Medicare Part B allowed amount as payment in full for services and bill the beneficiary only for any coinsurance or deductible that may apply. Payment for nonparticipating physicians (i.e., those who have not signed a Participating Payment Agreement) is 5 percent below the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule amount, but these physicians are permitted to bill patients up to 15 percent in excess of the fee schedule amount.

If you don’t think Medicare is bureaucratic, just take a look at those rules.

Tags: ,

Doc Fix Fixed…for Two Months

January 2, 2012 in Medicare, Physician Compensation | No comments

Kaiser Health News reports:
The House GOP leadership’s agreement to a Senate proposal averts a 27 percent paycut to doctors scheduled to take effect in January. The deal delays the cut until March 1, and lawmakers hope to hammer out an agreement on a longer-term fix to the payment formula before then.

As I previously noted, this delaying the cut to physician payment is not a long term fix. Either Medicare should remove the sustainable growth rate (SGR) provision and acknowledge the fiscal impact of paying doctors more or they should impose the SGR or (more likely) a modified SGR.

The current two month delay makes it seem as if Congress will cut Medicare payments to physicians by 27 percent on March 1, 2012, even though this will of course not happen.

With respect to the ‘doc fix’ issue, more transparency is needed.

Tags: , , ,

Will the Doc Fix happen this year?

December 26, 2011 in Medicare, Physician Compensation | 2 comments

The Healthcare Economist is going on vacation for the next week.

In the meantime, I pose to you, my reader, a bet.  Do you think the ‘doc fix’ gets passed?  Before you read on, make your predictions in the comments section below.

Healthcare Economist’s Prediction

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , ,

Bring Market Prices to Medicare

December 16, 2011 in Books, Health Insurance, Managed Care, Medicare, Medicare Advantage | 5 comments

Medicare is a government-run insurance program.  Can policy changes be made to add competition to Medicare, maintain quality and reduce cost?  A book titled Bring Market Prices to Medicare argues that it can through a competitive bidding process. This book makes a number of sensible arguments which I review today.

The main proposal of the book is a competitive bidding process for all Medicare plans. Currently, there is a form of competitive bidding only for Medicare Advantage (MA) managed care plans. The authors also argues for competitive bidding for fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare (i.e., Parts A and B).  There is already a competitive bidding process for Medicare’s prescription drug program (Part D) which has worked well.

One of the main advantages of Medicare FFS is that beneficiaries do not need a referral for any services and are not limited to certain provider networks. However, Medicare beneficiaries do not pay for these added benefits. In addition, even if HMOs are more efficient than Medicare FFS, Medicare FFS beneficiaries still pay the same Part B premiums.

The authors want beneficiaries to face the true price differentials between the lowest cost plans and less efficient plans., regardless if the plan is Medicare FFS or an MA plan. Thus, beneficiaries would be responsible for any premium differences due to choosing a more expensive plan.

Currently, MA plans receive a variant of the average bid in their service area. The authors propose that Medicare would only pay for the lowest cost plan. This proposal would in essence be a transfer from plans and beneficiaries (who would have to pay the cost differential between the plan they choose and the lowest cost plan) to the government. Given the fiscal hole the federal government is facing, this is a good idea.

Authors also propose to eliminate the 25% tax on premiums. According to MedPAC, “Plans that bid below the benchmark also receive payment from Medicare in the form of a “rebate.” The law defines the rebate as 75 percent of the difference between the plan’s actual bid (not standardized) and its case mix-adjusted benchmark. The plan must then return the rebate to its enrollees in the form of supplemental benefits or lower premiums” The rebate structure gives plans a disincentive from lowering their bids since they only recover a share of the cost decreases.

Another issue focuses on regional adjustments. Living in New York is expensive and health care is more expensive in New York than in rural Mississippi. However, should Medicare subsidize New Yorkers because their health care is more expensive. The authors argue no, but poor individuals in high cost areas will be adversely affected by this policy choice.

A major issue is controlling quality. Plans could create low cost plans by providing low-quality care or failing to provide mandated services. Thus, CMS will need to regulate the plans. Plans with quality levels below a specific level would be barred from enrolling individuals or the government could force beneficiaries to pay additional premiums to enroll in these low quality plans. Public reporting of plan quality is also needed.

Strategic bidding is also a problem. Plans could collude to raise the bid price. However, by having Medicare FFS as an option will cap the amount colluding firms could increase prices. Further, a small firm could bid a very low amount and set the market. Medicare could set the benchmark at the lowest cost plan which meets a minimum size requirement.

Source:

Another Review of the Book:

Tags: , , , , , ,

What’s a ‘dual’?

December 15, 2011 in Medicaid, Medicaid/Medicare, Medicare | No comments

Nine million individuals qualify for both Medicare and Medicaid health insurance.  These individuals, known as dual-eligibles, rank among the most expensive Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries.  Duals are frequently hospitalized and often need long-term care.  In fact, most state spending for dual eligibles focuses on long-term care supports and services.

The federal government pays the bulk of care costs for dual eligibles. Of the $319.5 billion estimated as spent on duals in 2011, 80 percent ($256.6 billion) are federal dollars, more than two-thirds of which flowed through Medicare.

Unnecessary hospital use is one of the main drivers of inflated Medicare spending on duals.  One reason for this is that Medicare pays for all hospitalizations.  Thus, State Medicaid Agencies have less of an incentive to prevent costly hospitalizations.  Further, nursing homes also have an incentive to hospitalize duals.  Nursing home who care for an individual after they are hospitalized receive a higher Medicare skilled nursing facility (SNF) rates rather than the lower Medicaid long-term care rates.  Thus, nursing homes can increase their rates just by admitting their residents to teh hospital periodically.

Additionally: Dual eligibles experience far higher rates of “potentially preventable hospital admissions” than other Medicare beneficiaries: more than twice as high for pressure ulcers, asthma and diabetes; 52 percent higher for urinary tract infection; and over 30 percent higher for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and bacterial pneumonia.

Many dual eligible individuals are enrolled in Medicare Special Needs Plans (SNP).  [Dual eligibles constitute about a million of the 1.3 million people enrolled in SNPs.]  Medicare pays these pays a capitated rate in exchange for providing a host of services to these beneficiaries.

The Affordable Care Act established of the Medicare-Medicaid Coordinated Care Office (known internally at CMS as the Office of the Duals), which has launched a number of initiatives to better align the programs.  A paper by Feder et al. makes the following recommendations:

  1. finance nurse practitioners in nursing homes to coordinate frail residents’ care (United Healthcare’s Evercare program has already demonstrated, relative to control groups, that this strategy can cut hospitalizations and emergency room use in half);
  2. apply performance standards, like those now applied to hospitals, to penalize SNFs with excessive rates of preventable hospitalizations for their residents (whether or not they are receiving SNF care).

Source:

Tags: , , , ,

« Older entries § Newer entries »