Category Archives: Federal Government

Free Medical School Tuition Could Solve Physician Shortage

Earlier this week, Elizabeth Rosenthal , former correspondent of the New York Times, and now the editor in chief of Kaiser Health News, wrote an opinion piece in response to the announcement by New York University’s School of Medicine’s decision to eliminate tuition for all current and future medical students.

Rosenthal, an emergency room doctor who became a journalist, stated that the goal of the free tuition was to eliminate a financial barrier for medical school applicants, and to address a crucial imbalance in the country’s physician work force.

She indicated that research had proven that the burden of medical school debt discourages doctors from going into practices that are poorly paid, such as primary care, or working in places where many patients are on Medicaid.

Rosenthal notes that there is a shortage of doctors working in these areas. Readers will recall that I have posted several articles on the predicted physician shortage. Those articles suggested medical travel could be an alternative solution in workers’ comp cases.

Even though the US has about the same number of doctors for our population as does Canada, Britain, and Japan, Rosenthal noted — American doctors are more likely to be paid more in subspecialties such as orthopedic surgery, rather than primary care.

Rosenthal cites N.Y.U.’s Law School when she points out that the medical school got it wrong as having a better solution.

Instead of making medical school free for everyone, Rosenthal states, N.Y.U., and all medical schools, should waive tuition for those students who commit to work where they are needed most.

The law school is a model and has a program that attracts the best and brightest to the low-wage corners of the legal profession. Students who commit to a career in public service, pay no tuition; those who go to corporate law pay the full amount.

Rosenthal recommends that medical schools should commit to so that students entering medical school, and who are not sure of their path, is to forgive or paying back the loans of doctors who go into lower-paying fields or set up a practice in underserved areas.

The government, she writes, could demand a system from academic medical centers as a precondition for receiving subsidies and payments.

Also, if a doctor chooses to deliver babies in rural Oklahoma or practice pediatrics in the South Side of Chicago, they should keep their salary.

The government, military, and some states already subsidize tuition, or pay back loans in exchange for limited-time service commitments, as my younger brother did when he graduated medical school.

The real goal, Rosenthal says, is to enable and support young doctors who feel that medicine is a calling, not as we know it today — as a means to get to the top 1 percent.

As the idea for free tuition for public colleges and universities is debated, doing so for medical school will alleviate the predicted physician shortage, allow more lower income minority students to attend without debt hanging over them when they graduate, and will improve the health of those in underserved and poorer neighborhoods.

That will likely impact the overall cost of health care as more people can see a doctor in their neighborhood, and not in an emergency room.

P.S. I am a graduate of N.Y.U.’s Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, and took out loans that were paid back more than ten years later. Perhaps one day, that will also be a thing of the past.

Advertisements

Again, With the Models?

Today’s post from Don McCanne revives an old issue readers of this blog are familiar with — the introduction of new models or the revising of old models for value-based care such as Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) and the Medicare Shared Savings Program.

CMS Administrator Seema Verma attempts to defend these models and gives an overview of a new proposal called “Pathways to Success.” Don’t you just love these cute names they give to future failures? Instead of scraping them altogether and going to single payer, they keep re-inventing a broken wheel.

At any rate, I am posting Verma’s article from Health Affairs blog, along with Kip Sullivan’s response, and lastly, Don McCanne’s brief comments on both. Enjoy!


Health Affairs Blog
August 9, 2018
Pathways To Success: A New Start For Medicare’s Accountable Care Organizations
By Seema Verma
For many years we have heard health care policymakers from both political parties opine about the need to move to a health care system that pays for the value of care delivered to patients, rather than the mere volume of services.
From the moment I became Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), I have been committed to using every tool at my disposal to move our health care system towards value-based care.
One set of value-based payment models that CMS has been closely reviewing are initiatives involving Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs).
In this post I will unpack key features of Medicare’s ACO initiatives and provide an overview of CMS’s new proposal for the Medicare Shared Savings Program, called “Pathways to Success.”
Upside-Only Versus Two-Sided ACOs
The majority of Medicare’s ACOs – 460 of the 561 or 82% of Shared Savings Program ACOs in 2018 – are in the upside-only “Track 1” of the Shared Savings Program, meaning that they share in savings but do not share in losses.  Currently, ACOs are allowed to remain in the one-sided track for up to six years.
The results show that ACOs that take on greater levels of risk show better results for cost and quality over time. (See Kip’s comments.)
The current combination of six years of upside-only risk, which involves bonus payments if spending is low but no risk of losses if spending goes up, along with the provision of waivers may be encouraging consolidation.  Such consolidation reduces choices for patients without controlling costs.  This is unacceptable.
The proposed changes included in Pathways to Success would shorten the maximum amount of time permitted in upside-only risk to allow a maximum of two years, or one year for ACOs identified as having previously participated in the Shared Savings Program under upside-only risk.
Streamlining the program, extending the length of agreements, and accelerating the transition to two-sided risk would result in reduced administrative burden and greater savings for patients and taxpayers.
Looking Forward
ACOs can be an important component of the move to a value-based system, but after six years of experience, the program must evolve to deliver value.  The time has come to put real “accountability” in Accountable Care Organizations.
—————————————————————————————————————————————–
The Health Care Blog
August 21, 2018
Seema Verma Hyperventilates About Tiny Differences Between ACOs Exposed to One-and Two-Sided Risk
By Kip Sullivan, JD
There is no meaningful difference between the performance of Medicare ACOs that accept only upside risk (the chance to make money) and ACOs that accept both up- and downside risk (the risk of losing money). But CMS’s administrator, Seema Verma, thinks otherwise. According to her, one-sided ACOs are raising Medicare’s costs while two-sided ACOs are saving “significant” amounts of money. She is so sure of this that she is altering the rules of the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP). Currently only 18 percent of MSSP ACOs accept two-sided risk. That will change next year. According to a proposed rule CMS published on August 9, ACOs will have at most two years to participate in the MSSP exposed to upside risk only, and after that they must accept two-sided risk.
That same day, Verma published an essay on the Health Affairs blog in which she revealed, presumably unwittingly, how little evidence she has to support her decision. The data Verma published in that essay revealed that one-sided ACOs are raising Medicare’s costs by six-one-hundredths of a percent while two-sided ACOs are cutting Medicare’s costs by seven-tenths of a percent. Because these figures do not consider the expenses ACOs incur, and because the algorithms CMS uses to assign patients to ACOs and to calculate ACO expenditure targets and actual performance are so complex, this microscopic difference is meaningless.
As pathetic as these figures are, they fail to take into account ACO start-up and operating costs. CMS doesn’t know or care what those costs are. The only relevant information we have are some undocumented statements by the staff of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) to the effect that ACO overhead is about 2 percent of their benchmarks (their predicted spending). I suspect 2 percent is low, but let’s take it at face value and do the math. If, as Verna’s data indicates, two-sided ACOs save Medicare seven-tenths of a percent net (that is, considering both CMS’s shared-savings payments to some ACOs and penalties other ACOs that lose money pay to CMS), but these ACOs spend 2 percent doing whatever it is ACOs do, that means the average two-sided ACO is losing one percent.
The good news is that Verma may have hastened the demise of a program that isn’t working. Whether Congress ultimately pulls the plug on the ACO project will depend on whether ACO advocates will concede at some point that the ACO fad was based on faith, not evidence, and has failed to work. I predict they will refuse to admit failure and will instead peddle another equally ineffective solution, for example, overpaying ACOs (as the Medicare Advantage insurers and their predecessors have been for the last half-century). I base my prediction on the behavior of ACO advocates. The history of the ACO movement indicates ACO proponents don’t make decisions based on evidence.
Facing the Evidence
Evidence that the ACO project is failing is piling up. All three of CMS’s two-sided ACO programs – the PGP demo, the Pioneer demo, and the Next Generation program – saved only a few tenths of a percent, while CMS’s mostly two-sided program, the MSSP, raised costs by a smidgeon. All four programs have raised costs if we take into account the ACOs’ start-up and operating costs and CMS’s cost of administering these complex programs. Evidence indicting the other major “value-based payment” fads – medical homes, bundled payments, and pay-for-performance schemes – is also piling up. The simultaneous failure of all these fads to cut costs spells trouble ahead for the Affordable Care Act (because it relies on “value-based payment reforms” for cost containment), MACRA (because it also relies on “value-based payment” theology), and our entire health care system (because the big insurance companies and the major hospital-clinic chains are spending more money on “value-based payment” fads than those fads are saving, and because these 1,000-pound gorillas are using the establishment’s endorsement of ACOs, medical homes etc. as an excuse to become 2,000-pound gorillas).
The root cause of our nation’s chronic inability to adopt effective cost-containment policies is the chronic inability of the American health policy establishment to make decisions based on evidence, not groupthink. Seema Verma’s decision to bet the farm on two-sided-risk ACOs is the latest example of this problem.
——————————————————————————————————————————————
Comment by Don McCanne
We can thank Seema Verma for showing us that all of the talk about value-based payment – paying for value instead of volume through the establishment of accountable care organizations – was never really about value. Her insistence in shoving providers into downside risk reveals that it was always about reducing federal spending on Medicare. But that hasn’t changed her deceptive rhetoric about value and accountability.
Thank goodness we have astute analysts such as Kip Sullivan. The excerpts from his critique of Verma’s views as expressed in her Health Affairs Blog article should tempt you to read his entire critique at The Health Care Blog (link above).
The nonsense about ACOs has to go so we can get down to fixing the real problems with our health care financing system – the inequities, lack of universality, and lack of affordability for far too many individual patients. So let’s turn up the volume on a well designed, single payer, improved Medicare for all.

Immigrants and Health – Two Studies

The following two articles come from Dr. Don McCanne’s Quote of the Day blog.

International Journal of Health Services
August 8, 2018
Medical Expenditures on and by Immigrant Populations in the United States: A Systematic Review
By Lila Flavin, Leah Zallman, Danny McCormick, and J. Wesley Boyd

Abstract

In health care policy debates, discussion centers around the often-misperceived costs of providing medical care to immigrants. This review seeks to compare health care expenditures of U.S. immigrants to those of U.S.-born individuals and evaluate the role which immigrants play in the rising cost of health care. We systematically examined all post-2000, peer-reviewed studies in PubMed related to health care expenditures by immigrants written in English in the United States. The reviewers extracted data independently using a standardized approach. Immigrants’ overall expenditures were one-half to two-thirds those of U.S.-born individuals, across all assessed age groups, regardless of immigration status. Per capita expenditures from private and public insurance sources were lower for immigrants, particularly expenditures for undocumented immigrants. Immigrant individuals made larger out-of-pocket health care payments compared to U.S.-born individuals. Overall, immigrants almost certainly paid more toward medical expenses than they withdrew, providing a low-risk pool that subsidized the public and private health insurance markets. We conclude that insurance and medical
care should be made more available to immigrants rather than less so.

From the Discussion

Many Americans, including some in the health care sector, mistakenly believe that immigrants are a financial drain on the U.S. health care system, costing society disproportionately more than the U.S.-born population, i.e., themselves. Our review of the literature overwhelmingly showed that immigrants spend less on health care, including publicly funded health care, compared to their U.S.-born counterparts. Moreover, immigrants contributed more towards Medicare than they withdrew; they are net contributors to Medicare’s trust fund.

Our research categorized immigrants into different groups, but in all categories, these studies found that immigrants accrued fewer health care expenditures than U.S.-born individuals. Among the different payment sources – public, private, or out-of-pocket – public and private expenditures were lower for immigrants, with immigrants spending more out-of-pocket. Differences decreased the longer immigrants resided in the United States.

While annual U.S. medical spending in 2016 was a staggering $3.3 trillion, immigrants accounted for less than 10% of the overall spending – and recent immigrants were responsible for only 1% of total spending. Given these figures, it is unlikely that restrictions on immigration into the United States would result in a meaningful decrease in health care spending. To the contrary, restricting immigration would financially destabilize some parts of the health care economy, as suggested by Zallman and colleagues, who found that immigrants contributed $14 billion more to the Medicare trust fund than they withdrew.

Fiscal responsibility is an important reason for the United States to provide insurance for newly arrived immigrants, as they could continue to enlarge the low-risk pool of healthy individuals that helps offset the cost of insuring high-risk individuals. Currently, under the ACA, undocumented immigrants cannot enroll in the state health care exchanges. If we are seeking to minimize costs, which would seem a major factor in the reasoning of policymakers who would deny immigrants care, then it makes financial sense to enroll individuals who will (on average) contribute more to the health care system than they withdraw. Healthy, young immigrants are precisely whom we should target for Medicaid enrollment, state exchanges, or private health insurance.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0020731418791963

===

The New England Journal of Medicine
August 1, 2018
A New Threat to Immigrants’ Health — The Public-Charge Rule
By Krista M. Perreira, Ph.D., Hirokazu Yoshikawa, Ph.D., and Jonathan Oberlander, Ph.D.

The United States is making major changes to its immigration policies that are spilling over into health policy. In one such change, the Trump administration is drafting a rule on “public charges” that could have important consequences for access to medical care and the health of millions of immigrants and their families. The concept of a public charge dates back to 19th-century immigration law. Under current guidelines, persons labeled as potential public charges can be denied legal entry to the United States. They can also be prevented from adjusting their status from a nonimmigrant visa category (e.g., a student or work visa) to legal permanent resident status. In addition, if they become public charges within the first 5 years after their admission to the United States, for reasons that existed before they came to the country, in rare cases they can be arrested and deported. Immigrants and their families consequently have strong incentives to avoid being deemed public charges.

In evaluating whether a person is likely to become a public charge, immigration officials take account of factors such as age, health, financial status, education, and skills. The use of cash assistance for income maintenance (e.g., Supplemental Security Income or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) and government-funded long-term care are considered in making these determinations. Other noncash benefits such as health and nutrition programs are specifically excluded from consideration, and use of cash-assistance benefits by the immigrant’s dependents is not currently factored in.

The Trump administration is proposing sweeping changes to these guidelines. A draft rule from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) would substantially expand the definition of a public charge to include any immigrant who “uses or receives one or more public benefits.” Not just cash assistance but nearly all public benefits from federal, state, or local governments would be considered in public-charge determinations, including nonemergency Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and subsidized health insurance through the marketplaces created by the Affordable Care Act (ACA); Medicare would be excluded. The DHS draft notes that in making these determinations, “having subsidized insurance will generally be considered a heavily weighted negative factor.” The broadened definition of public charge would also encompass food assistance (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program [SNAP] and the Women, Infants, and Children Program [WIC]), programs designed to assist low-income workers (e.g., the Earned Income Tax Credit [EITC]), housing assistance (Section 8 vouchers), and the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. Moreover, not only immigrants’ use of public assistance but use of these programs by any dependents, including U.S.-born citizen spouses and children, would also be considered.

The potential impact of these changes is enormous. In 2016, about 43.7 million immigrants lived in the United States. If enacted, the new regulations would affect people seeking to move to the United States to be reunified with family members and to work, as well as lawfully present immigrants who hope to become legal permanent residents (green-card holders). One estimate suggests that nearly one third of U.S.-born persons could have their use of public benefits considered in the public-charge determination of a family member. This includes “10.4 million citizen children with at least one noncitizen parent.” Notably, unauthorized immigrants are not the primary target of the draft rule, since they are already ineligible for most federally funded public assistance. Instead, lawfully present immigrants would bear the brunt, as well as persons living in “mixed-status” families (those in which some members are citizens and others are not) and persons living abroad who wish to immigrate to the United States.

We believe that the draft public-charge regulation represents a substantial threat to lawfully present immigrants’ access to public programs and health care services. What modifications may be made is uncertain — after the rule is formally proposed, there will be a public comment period, and revisions could be made before it is finalized. But if this rule takes effect, it will most likely harm the health of millions of people and undo decades of work by providers nationwide to increase access to medical care for immigrants and their families.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1808020?query=featured_secondary

Medicaid Work Requirements Worsen Health

Back in May, I posted a link to a Health Affairs blog article, Social Determinants Of Health: A Public Health Concept In Conflict in which it was reported that the current regime was seeking to impose work requirements for people on Medicaid.

As reported then, and on Monday in a follow-up article, CMS approved the first waiver to implement a work requirement for Medicaid beneficiaries in Kentucky on January 12th.

The article stated that a couple of weeks ago, a district court found the approval of these work requirements to be “arbitrary and capricious”, and in direct violation of the Administrative Procedures Act of 1996.

According to the article, CMS failed to consider whether the waiver’s estimated removal of 95,000 Kentuckians was in line with the program’s goals of furnishing medical assistance, and the judge ordered the waiver to be returned to CMS.

It was the government’s argument, the article states, that new research into the social determinants of health demonstrate that income and employment are associated with improved health, and so a work requirement thereby fits within the goals of the program.

The case in Kentucky hinged on the fact that work requirements worsened financial assistance, which the judge pointed out is a main tenet of the program.

The author then writes that if CMS wants to use research within the social determinants of health, then he will analyze Medicaid work requirements through this lens. A recent post in Health Affairs focused on the perversion of social determinants of health as a concept, and the current post builds off that one, to demonstrate that this regime’s justification for Medicaid work requirements is misguided at best.

To illustrate this, he follows a theoretical low-income worker, a 50-year-old from Louisville, who could no longer work in his job as a longshoreman due to cardiovascular disease and suffered chest pain whenever he exerted himself. He is uninsured, has a wife and three adult children. And is also trying to find a job.

The author continues by examining the following issues: Unemployment and Health, Medicaid Improves Health, Medicaid Work Requirements Harm Those With Jobs, and concludes by stating that Medicaid Work Requirements Worsen Health.

The theoretical case of the 50-year-old longshoreman is not so theoretical, as each of the 16 Kentucky plaintiffs in the case demonstrated. One is a graduating student with endometriosis, another is a mother of four with congenital hip dysplasia, and another is a partly blind mortician (no jokes, please) with chronic lung disease. All would have risked losing their coverage as a result of work requirements.

And to make the case more clearly, your humble blogger, while not currently on Medicaid, but eventually will be, has end-stage renal disease, and does peritoneal dialysis every night at home, and goes to the clinic twice a month for blood work and to see the nephrologist. In addition, every two weeks on a Monday, as will happen this coming Monday, I have to be home to receive my supplies, and this Friday must call in another order. Working a full-time job, if one were available that matched my experience, would prevent me from doing so.

This is another reason why our health care system is broken and needs to be replaced by a single payer system that does not separate out older beneficiaries, as Medicare does, poorer ones as Medicaid does, and children and military personnel, as the other programs do.

One system for all Americans.

The Cry of the Children

Taking a break from writing about health care, workers’ comp, and medical travel, I want to talk about something I saw, or rather heard yesterday afternoon on MSNBC.

It was an audio (furnished by ProPublica) of children crying at a detention center (more like Concentration Camp) that broke my heart. I was in tears, and very seldom do so. But those cries went right to me.

If they did to you, then you are a good human being. If not, then you have no soul. And please, don’t quote me that that’s the law, or it is in the Bible, or they are illegal and have no rights.

EVERY HUMAN BEING HAS RIGHTS.

And as for whether or not they are “illegal”, I guess you forgot that when your ancestors arrived on the Mayflower or whatever ship they sailed on, the landlords here for thousands of years knew you were “illegal” too.

The ancestors of all of these people now streaming to our border came to this hemisphere some 20,000 years ago, so by those standards, you, me, and all the rest of us are undocumented aliens. But no one tells us to leave. Or yanks our kids from our arms.

That we do this and many other things to minorities is a symptom of our greed, ignorance, and stupidity that never seems to die out. Take for example, our Confederate-era Attorney General, Jeff “Foghorn Leghorn” Sessions. That refugee from the set of “Gone With the Wind” is not only a religious zealot, but a full-out bigot and racist from a region of the nation that still has not given up its racism and hatred of non-whites, and non-Christians. In this case, non-Protestants from Catholic Latin America.

Too many of our fellow Americans have been poisoned by talk radio, Fox News, and local politicians to see that we are all immigrants and that at times in the long history of the human species, we were migrants too. Our prehistoric ancestors migrated, as did many more recent peoples. But none ever subjected to such cruelty, except during the 1930’s and 1940’s.

We were all taught in school to believe in the ideals of America as a shining city on a hill (incidentally, an idea the Puritans created), and was more about a religious view than a secular one. We were all taught about why we fought a revolution, why we have a Declaration of Independence, and why we have a Constitution that secures our rights and liberties.

And now we are throwing all that away because of a clique of neo-fascist, racist bullies and bigots, headed by a pathological liar and con man, who has conned a large segment of the American people (by which I mean White people) that he can make America great again, all the while cozying up to dictators and dissing our friends.

Folks, this is how Hitler and the Nazis began. And it ended with 6 million dead (my maternal great-uncle, aunt and their six children among them), so don’t tell me it is legal or biblical. You know where you can put that.

And those of you who say they have stolen our jobs or they are criminals and rapists, I have news for you…next time you are in a restaurant, or a family member is in a hospital, bus your own table, and clean up your family member’s dirty linen. Because if Herr Miller (Stephen) gets his way, there won’t be any bus boys, nurses’ aides, home health aides, janitors, and other occupations Americans won’t be filling begging for workers. Oh, and you can come to Florida and pick your own fruits and vegetables, because there won’t be anyone to do it for you.

AMERICA IS A NATION OF IMMIGRANTS, SO WE NEED THESE PEOPLE.

 

Mad Dog Attacks Public Transport

Tom Lynch of LynchRyan’s Workers’ Comp Insider blog, wrote an article this morning that follows on the heels of my post from yesterday about the Justice Department not defending portion of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

According to Tom, the GOP finally figured out how to fight the ACA, and he discusses three events beginning with February of last year in which the GOP-led Congress attacked the ACA. The three events are:

February 2017 – tax cut law that zeroed out the penalty for not having insurance.

February 2018 – getting 20 states to sue the federal government and contend that repeal of the penalty obviates the individual mandate making the entirety of the ACA unconstitutional.

And just last month, as I wrote yesterday, got the Justice Department to not defend the government in the suit.

Tom continues to say that if the 20 states win, pre-existing conditions, which the ACA protects, goes out the window. There are about 133 million Americans under the age of 65 who fall into that category. I am one of them.

Insurance companies are not happy either, Tom reports, and the trade association for the health insurance companies, America’s Health Insurance Plans, supports the provision under the ACA, and is quoted thus: “Removing those provisions will result in renewed uncertainty in the individual market, create a patchwork of requirements in the states, cause rates to go even higher for older Americans and sicker patients, and make it challenging to introduce products and rates for 2019,” according to a statement released by AHIP.

Finally, Tom asks the question — what happens if the 20 states win their suit? His answer, the 1.25 million Americans with Type 1 diabetes are waiting for an answer.

Yet, they and others don’t really have to wait for an answer, because the answer is staring us right in the face, but we refuse to see it, or even acknowledge its presence. Instead, we keep doing the same things over and over again, thinking the free market has the answer.

That is patently not true. A real, comprehensive, universal single payer system or an improved Medicare for All system that does not force those who are ill and don’t have a lot of money to pay for parts of the coverage, either the medical portion, or the 20% not now covered by Medicare, is the answer. Anything less is just a dog chasing a bus, catching that bus, and the dog and bus getting hurt.

Social Determinants Of Health: A Public Health Concept In Conflict

Source: Social Determinants Of Health: A Public Health Concept In Conflict