PPACA Impact and Opportunities : Health Care Lawyer & Attorney : Epstein Becker Green Law Firm : Insurance & Costs : Health Reform Musings Blog

Now that we have sweeping new health care legislation, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("the Act"), let's look at the rollout of the accountable care provisions--i.e., those changes to the payment and delivery system that hold the most long-term promise of improving quality and cost-efficiency. They are discussed in my most recent article: "The Timeline for Accountable Care: The Rollout of the Payment and Delivery Reform Provisions in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Implications for Accountable Care Organizations," published last week in the BNA's Health Law Reporter.  Click here to read the full article (PDF).

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

In my most recent article in the series I have been writing for the BNA's Health Law Reporter on payment and delivery system reform, accountable care organizations and bundled payments, I comment on where things are now that federal reform has stalled. The article, titled "Payment and Delivery System Reform: It's Only a Matter of Time," argues that changes in payment and delivery are on the horizon regardless of the pace of federal reform and that providers (and payers as well) should continue their efforts toward accountable care to meet the cost and quality challenges that are no less daunting today than they were a month ago. Please click here to view. I hope you find it of interest.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

With the rejection in the Senate Finance Committee of two separate proposals to create a substantial public health insurance option and, instead, the approval of the relatively weak co-op proposal (which the CBO estimates to be unlikely to establish a meaningful presence and will result in only half the budget amount of $6 billion will be spent) it seemed as though the public option had breathed its last breath.  However, new developments indicate that the public option, in various forms, is still alive. 

Senator Schumer (D-NY), having failed to pass his “level playing field” public health insurance option proposal in the Finance Committee, is pushing a new public health insurance option that would allow states to “opt out” of the public plan.  The opt-out proposal is gaining fans in the Democratic Caucus, even amongst conservative Democrats who are worried the effects a public plan could have on their state.   

Senator Carper (D-DE) meanwhile has been floating options that would allow states to “opt in” to a federal public insurance plan or for the states to create their own public options.  Under the second proposal, the federal government would provide seed funding. 

In the hope of gaining a “bipartisan” bill, Senator Snowe’s (R-ME) “trigger” public plan option is still being considered as well.   Under this option, a public plan would be introduced if the price of insurance did not decrease. 

Finally, although not discussed often, the fact remains that the Senate HELP bill being merged with the Senate Finance bill contains a nationwide public option for the uninsured and employers with less than 50 employees.  This option is somewhat weaker than the House Tri-Committee bill’s public option because its rates would not be based on Medicare and it would not require Medicare-participating physicians to participate in the new plan.

All of these options provide a menu of choices for those at the negotiating table merging the two bills in the Senate (Reid, Baucus, Dodd, Emanuel, and DeParle).  Estimates are that 52-54 Senators support some type of meaningful public option (more than the co-op proposal).  Supporters now seemingly include Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN), who explicitly endorsed Senator Carper’s state “opt-in” proposal, a sign that even the most conservative Senate Democrats are at least open to the issue.  

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

Perhaps in recognition of its benefits to areas affected by shortfalls in specialists and primary care physicians or the need for remote monitoring, telemedicine received significant funding in the ARRA. For instance, the Rural Utilities Service was allocated $2.5 billion to fund “shovel-ready” distance learning, telemedicine, and broadband program; the Indian Health Services received $85 million to fund telemedicine; and a portion of the $2 billion allocated to the Office of the National Coordinator is to be used to support the “infrastructure and tools for the promotion of telemedicine.” However, in contrast to the ARRA, the current reform proposals publicly available are missing language facilitating telemedicine which otherwise could be a key component to one of the goals of health reform, bending the cost curve. 

The only attention telemedicine receives in the House Tri-Committee Bill – the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 – is in the creation of the Telehealth Advisory Committee. This Committee will advise and make recommendations to the HHS Secretary regarding policies for payment of telemedicine services. However, the Senate HELP’s Bill – the Affordable Choices Act – does not even mention telemedicine. 

Should something be done regarding this missing health reform element? A group of experts have eloquently made the argument that the present infatuation with electronic health records (“EHRs”) should be expanded to focus on improving the quality of care and equities of care, while decreasing the cost and fragmentation of such care by encouraging the development of telemedicine (which includes, as a component, EHRs). 

Also, Intel CEO Paul Otellini provides a sensible guide for achieving comprehensive health reform – and two of his recommendations are reliant on telemedicine. First, he suggests paying providers for outcomes, not just face-to-face visits. If payment was outcome based – even if the correct outcome was achieved in part by utilizing email, the financial interests of the provider would be more closely aligned with the desired goal of the patient, i.e., better health. The other recommendation that involves telemedicine is the development of a nationally-licensed cadre of “virtual care clinicians” to provide care to patients in their home. In the case of an elderly individual with a chronic disease, this could be the difference between staying in their home and moving into a skilled nursing facility and, obviously, the cost between the two options is significant. 

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

As the “Three Tenors” (Chairmen Waxman, Miller and Rangel) struggle to finance the access enhancements that are central to the President’s health reform aspirations, the need for meaningful payment reform continues to challenge. This week House Speaker Nancy Pelosi urged the Chairmen to sharpen their pencils in this regard. Moreover, in a letter to the Speaker and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, the fiscally-conservative “Blue Dog” coalition of House Democrats has now said that the current drafts fail to include sufficient structural reforms likely to succeed in lowering costs and incenting “value” (in purchasing).

These House members would like to see strenuous efforts to capture the savings promised by the literature pointing out the significant disparities in regional health care practice/resource consumption patterns. To that end, the “Blue Dogs” and many analysts are placing a great deal of hope in the ability of payment incentives to trigger the ordering of only appropriate (cost effective) diagnostic tests and pharmaceuticals and the implementation of “evidence based” care paths. 

Intuitively there is great merit to the theme. However, testing of the concepts has been limited to date. Therefore, there is yet little science from which to judge the necessary “octane” of the incentives. Moreover, the amount of change to be engendered by Medicare payment reform is unknown—hence some of the enthusiasm for a public plan that might adopt payment methodologies that echo those of a reformed Medicare fee-for-service system thus putting more strength behind the effort the “bend the curve” of growth in health care expenditures. Finally, policy makers do not how much reinforcing discernment should or could be created among beneficiaries particularly during the statistically costly “last year of life.”

While some provider systems appropriately believe they are “ready, willing and able” to operate under new payment methodologies, most are not. Moreover, even provider systems that have a high degree of clinical integration, IT infrastructure and physician leadership, face significant challenges in operating during a transition stage where some payor customers will strongly reward utilization efficiencies and others will retain payment methodologies that continue to implicitly reward providing services without regard to clinical appropriateness. (These providers are likely to capture the empathy of lawyers like me who also are increasingly operated under mixed payment methodologies.)

Health care investors face concomitant uncertainties. How will the companies they are backing fare in an era where providers are incentivized to order fewer tests, labs and scans? Will the target’s product line continue to do well among providers who are scrutinizing costs to earn incentive payments? Similarly, are the company’s products on the short list for comparative effectiveness review and, if so, what are the likely results and how will such review affect provider system choices?  Therefore, as we watch the Congress adopt payment policy reform, we open up interesting new forecasting questions with regard to the nature of such reform, its pace and its impacts on market actors.

.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

For the last week or so, the health reform public policy debate has been keyed to the Senate HELP Committee’s draft and thus dominated by whether or not the “Exchange” to be employed in access reform should include a “public plan” and, if so, whether such a plan should have the power to access provider payment rates tied to Medicare and whether Medicare participating providers would be required to contract with it. With this week’s release of the Senate Finance Committee’s draft, it will be interesting to see whether payment reform can similarly capture the attention of the press. Frankly, we have low expectations in this regard insofar as the consequences that the prevalence of fee for service payment methodologies have on health care output are hard to grasp relative to the easier concept of “universal coverage”. Perhaps it is ultimately less important that payment reform capture the air waves than the degree to which payment reform is incorporated in whatever pieces of health reform make it through this session of Congress.

There are, of course, a few helpful signs. The New York Times gave front page treatment to the President’s public embrace of the payment reform issue and his distribution of the Gawande article on health care incentives in the New Yorker. The New America foundation released a report on delivery system change which White House Health leader Nancy Anne DeParle also applauded. These may, however, faint notes against a cacophony of sound around the easier to enunciate (though themselves ill understood) concepts around public plan and access.

Gawande, Len Nichols, Peter Orszag and others are of course right that changing the predominant fee for service incentives that power the health care delivery system is vital to improving both the cost and quality of American health care. Using “medical home”, “accountable care organization”, and episode payments will begin to inject new incentives into the planning and care paths chosen by providers. We expect that Senator Baucus’ Committee draft will begin to increase the content of these payment methodologies into the fuel that powers our enormous health care engine. They are the crucial elements to the much lauded quest to “bend the health care cost curve”. Therefore, even if they do not capture the attention of CNN and MSNBC, the strength of these reform elements in the Senate Finance Committee’s bill, and their survival, bears watching by all who invest in as well as receive health care.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

Although there are some big issues that remain unresolved, such as the "public plan" component, it appears that we will see reform legislation pass in 2009. Drafts of the legislation are being prepared now by various members of Congress and their staffs.

The focus on medical homes, physician hospital organizations and accountable care organizations is very real, as is the focus on payment reform, including bundled payments and other forms of capitation-like reimbursement. A key element of the debate relates to "how integrated" a provider organization will need to be to qualify for bundled payments. Can it be virtual? Can it be physician only or must a hospital be involved? What should be the role of private payors?

We wrestled with many of these questions in the 1990s, but there are new aspects now, greater data and organizational capabilities in both the purchaser and provider sectors and much more urgency to move forward with payment and delivery system reform to accompany legislation aimed at increasing access. 

One fear is that the access component will get done without payment and delivery system reform, causing costs to skyrocket and leading, potentially, to future cost controls. It is important that health care providers add their voices, individually and collectively, to this national debate. The making of major legislation is always messy, but there is real momentum right now. Whatever passes will inevitably be incomplete, and there will be unintended consequences.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

Written by Paul Campbell and Maura Farrell

The Washington Post has reported that Congressional Democrats have reached a tentative agreement on President Obama’s $3.5 trillion budget, including reconciliation instructions which would allow health reform legislation to pass the Senate with only 51 votes. The agreement would charge each of the Committees with jurisdiction over authorization of healthcare legislation to find $1 billion in savings. If the agreement moves forward and is passed by the full House and the Senate (as expected), these “instructions” would allow for the Senate to bypass normal Senate parliamentary rules requiring 60 votes for approval. The tentative conference agreement would also extend for two years the Medicare physician payment “fix”. The extension reduces a budget savings needed for a complete repeal of the current payment methodology, which applies a sustainable growth rate (SGR) limit.  

Reconciliation represents a win for House Speaker Pelosi, who shepherded the inclusion of the reconciliation provision in the House Budget. Pelosi’s hope was that reconciliation be included in the conference committee agreement, despite the fact that the Senate Budget Committee did not include the measure. The win also increases the House’s leverage in negotiations of health reform legislation. This process will be unlike the House Leadership’s experience with negotiations on a compromise for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), when Majority Leader Reid needed to get the help of three Republican Senators to ensure passage of the stimulus bill in the Senate. 

Unlike the Senate, which will move two health reform bills concurrently, the House has agreed to develop a unified plan. Notably, both Speaker Pelosi and Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel are strong supporters of a public plan. 

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link