tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14285110759645488902024-03-16T11:52:56.672-07:00Health InsuranceJustinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01230103344444491213noreply@blogger.comBlogger368125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1428511075964548890.post-60695438506071156252012-04-24T03:34:00.000-07:002012-04-25T06:48:18.444-07:00GAO Faults Medicare Advantage Bonuses<br /><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="background: #CCCCCC; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="background: #CCCCCC; text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Today’s Managing Health Care Costs Indicator is $8.35 billion<o:p></o:p></span></b></div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="background: #CCCCCC; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0Q0fT_ZeeMeHAg_sIR58RsuJgfU7nY-11XFgEDuIv9OdPzZrdS8B6KMX16o0XD96SpRZMl1E2kh-PtM7BY47pau5rWRCShyllrx_oqTo-U-GDoFQTUo4YEZOQHChy_cwgrz04BqIoZpug/s1600/MA+GAO+4-23-12.tiff" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="582" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0Q0fT_ZeeMeHAg_sIR58RsuJgfU7nY-11XFgEDuIv9OdPzZrdS8B6KMX16o0XD96SpRZMl1E2kh-PtM7BY47pau5rWRCShyllrx_oqTo-U-GDoFQTUo4YEZOQHChy_cwgrz04BqIoZpug/s640/MA+GAO+4-23-12.tiff" width="640" /></a></div><div class="MsoNormal">Yesterday the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a <a href="http://www.gao.gov/assets/590/589473.pdf">stinging report</a> on the CMS demonstration project that awards much higher quality bonuses to Medicare Advantage (MA) plans than were outlined in the Affordable Care Act. The total incremental cost of these bonuses will be $8.35 billion over 10 years. Most of the increased dollars will go to health plans with “average” three star ratings (in the five star system). The remainder of the dollars are spent because these bonuses will prevent loss of membership by MA plans. The GAO reports that the population covered by bonuses will increase from about 1/3 of beneficiaries to about 90%. This analysis is based on a <a href="http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/8151.pdf">Kaiser Family Foundation analysis,</a>which notes that 60% of MA beneficiaries were in 3 and 3.5 star plans in 2011. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">These quality bonuses will be based on past performance , in many instances performance that predated the announcement of the demonstration project. This means that it will be almost impossible to assess the quality impact. The demonstration project is not budget neutral, and wipes out about 1/3 of the savings that the Affordable Care Act obtained from cutting health plan payments. The total dollar amount exceeds all other CMS demonstration projects combined.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">It’s a scathing report –but the stock market reacted not at all. Humana, United Health Care, Aetna Cigna and Wellpoint all had just small changes in their stock price – not in a consistently downward direction. It’s possible that Wall Street already knew this information – since the KFF report came out last year. It’s likely that analysts believe that the Department of Health and Human Services will not follow the GAO recommendations, and this poorly-designed demonstration project with these extra payments will continue.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAVh0rO3vbUewhSFxctkVJaAtr6IWJ4cI3RsOKbzo90ujO-vpVD-lD_Tzi7Wyuy76sIZZZjOxVnrllhQ4f_Y8b-xbs4fQxmkP6-VjTmu5gVNevLaKRoMJBXQ_VeDVxrl6Urro2eK14dd8I/s1600/gao+mc+demo+projects.tiff" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="572" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAVh0rO3vbUewhSFxctkVJaAtr6IWJ4cI3RsOKbzo90ujO-vpVD-lD_Tzi7Wyuy76sIZZZjOxVnrllhQ4f_Y8b-xbs4fQxmkP6-VjTmu5gVNevLaKRoMJBXQ_VeDVxrl6Urro2eK14dd8I/s640/gao+mc+demo+projects.tiff" width="640" /></a></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><!--EndFragment-->Justinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01230103344444491213noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1428511075964548890.post-1840158823331610822012-04-23T06:15:00.000-07:002012-04-25T06:48:18.471-07:00Getting Savings from Decreasing Variation: Not as Easy as it Might Seem<br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="background-color: #cccccc; font-size: x-large;">Today’s Managing Health Care Costs Indicator is 45%</span></div><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBYIyXeY9G8niHwr5jnqyT075p9DlVidprpc0N5UFzurA_Hl3wNURzEFvse548h_aPJ5t9J_Tsc_OuEqRdcR3EWEvZFW2uz-UKbHh4vzoeODn0lEcLEVXRWRPjlmBSGMTl4Exs3PqU5su2/s1600/appr+vs+inapprop+prostate+imaging+.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="478" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBYIyXeY9G8niHwr5jnqyT075p9DlVidprpc0N5UFzurA_Hl3wNURzEFvse548h_aPJ5t9J_Tsc_OuEqRdcR3EWEvZFW2uz-UKbHh4vzoeODn0lEcLEVXRWRPjlmBSGMTl4Exs3PqU5su2/s640/appr+vs+inapprop+prostate+imaging+.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Click on image to enlarge. <a href="http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/31/4/730.full?sid=dfdcf82c-2cf0-426d-a59a-d85e7c1a3ebf">Source </a></i></td></tr></tbody></table>The <a href="http://www.dartmouthatlas.org/">Dartmouth Atlas</a> project has been identifying huge unexplained unwarranted variation in health care for decades – and variation as a cause of health care inflation became part of the broader health policy discussion with <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande">Atul Gawande’s Cost Conundrum published in the New Yorker </a>in 2009. <br />Decreasing variation is attractive as a source of medical savings because virtually all providers deeply believe that it’s others who are overutilizing. However, there are huge problems in harvesting the potential savings from decreasing unwarranted variation. The <a href="http://managinghealthcarecosts.blogspot.com/2011/03/variation-redux-iom-weighs-in.html">Institute of Medicine</a> has shown that much of the variation among different geographies is simply based on different Medicare fee schedules. That’s not all – the Dartmouth Atlas database uses Medicare only, and <a href="http://managinghealthcarecosts.blogspot.com/2009/01/warning-that-decreasing-variation-might.html">Cooper has shown</a> that there is a reverse relationship between Medicare and private payment rates, which offsets some of this variation). The Dartmouth Atlas also historically has not done any type of risk adjustment.<br /><br />This month’s<a href="http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/31/4/730"> Health Affairs</a> has another cautionary note. Makarov and colleagues show that in high utilization regions, low-risk patients with prostate cancer were more likely to get inappropriate imaging, but at the same time high risk patients were substantially more likely to get appropriate imaging. For example, men with low-risk prostate cancer in New Jersey were 4 times more likely to get inappropriate imaging compared to men with low-risk prostate cancer in San Francisco. However, men with high-risk prostate cancer in New Jersey were also three times more likely to get appropriate imaging compared to those in similar circumstances in San Francisco. <br /><i><span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></i><br /><i><span style="color: blue;">This concept, termed the “thermostat model,” posits that each region has a certain proclivity toward resource use that affects both appropriate and inappropriate use. Accordingly, although use varies by region, lower-use regions might not necessarily concentrate their resources on appropriate care.</span></i><br /><br />The likelihood that patients got imaging that was concordant with evidence-based guidelines was disappointing.<br /><br /><i><span style="color: blue;">More than 45 percent of men with low-risk prostate cancer underwent guideline-inappropriate imaging, and only two-thirds of men with high-risk disease had appropriate imaging evaluations.</span></i><br /><br /> It’s an elegant study, using the SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results) Medicare database. This means that the number in the study is large, 29,053, and there are not likely variations in coverage or plan design that could explain these differences. The authors segment the patients based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines that were in place during the time of the data collection. <br />Clearly, variation plays a role in elevated health care costs in high cost regions of the country. However, geographies with low utilization have heterogeneous providers – some of whom use resources wisely, and others who simply give too little care. Further, regions that tend to do a lot of imaging (or surgical procedures, or almost anything else) have more capacity- and use this capacity for both evidence based medicine (decreased undercare) and for unnecessary services (increased overutilization).<br /><br />We need to be careful not to promote undercare as we push to decrease variation.<br /><br /><br />Justinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01230103344444491213noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1428511075964548890.post-32133049358576031012012-04-19T12:21:00.000-07:002012-04-25T06:48:18.507-07:00The Market Works (when properly structured)<br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b style="background-color: #eeeeee;">Today's Managing Heath Care Costs Indicator is $42 Billion</b></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><br />Durable medical equipment has been a conundrum for Medicare for decades; cable tv ads for scooters give us a sense of the profit margin in this space. In many states, including Florida and Louisiana, fraud in home care and medical devices is a substantial underlying cause of high costs.<br /><br />The <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/19/health/policy/medicare-to-expand-competitive-bidding.html?_r=2&emc=tnt&tntemail0=y">New York Times </a>and <a href="http://tucsoncitizen.com/usa-today-news/2012/04/18/medicare-bidding-program-boosts-savings/">others</a> report today that a pilot program requiring durable medical equipment vendors to bid to provide services to Medicare beneficiaries has been a big success. This is a bold move -- restricting Medicare beneficiaries to a small number of suppliers who guarantee service levels and price. No surprise that there has been robust opposition, including a congressional ban on this bidding that was reversed by the Affordable Care Act. It's a bit distressing to see those promoting market forces opposing this program. Small, local, high-cost providers will advocate to maintain their business and their profit margins.<br /><br />The program in nine cities shaved costs by 42%. CMS projects that nationwide savings from expansion of this program could reach $42 billion, including over $17 billion in decreased out of pocket costs for Medicare beneficiaries. (Initial pilots probably focused on geographies with high costs, so savings rates from expansion will be lower than from the initial pilots).<br /><br />Competitive bidding could be applied to pharmaceuticals and other purchasing. Medicare is a large, high leverage purchaser, and we need CMS to vigorously use its leverage to increase value. Pharmaceuticals next? No one will go quietly!Justinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01230103344444491213noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1428511075964548890.post-8077773306042122102012-04-17T16:22:00.000-07:002012-04-25T06:48:18.521-07:00What's the Right Price for Drugs?<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="background-color: #cccccc; font-size: x-large;">Today's Managing Health Care Costs indicator is $93,000</span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><br />Pharmaceuticals are one of the great bargains in health care. Drug inflation has been low for years, with more and more blockbusters going generic. When drugs lose their patent protection, prices often drop by as much as 90% in just a year. <br /><br /><br />But a tiny portion of all prescriptions represent a startling portion of all costs. Brand name drugs that retain<a href="http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMhle1101722"> patent protection represent only about 20% of all prescriptions, but 70% of total pharmacy costs</a>. Specialty drugs, which can cost hundreds of thousands per year, are going up in price rapidly. Provenge, a prostate cancer vaccine treatment, costs $93,000 There are no choices- the payer pays the price, or the patient is denied the medication. <br /><br />What can we do to lower the price of branded medications? <br /><br /><b>Price control</b><br /><br />The US is one of the few developed countries which does not regulate brand name drug prices. We also have the highest unit costs for drugs around – which makes sense since prices are associated with wealth, and we have the highest GDP. However, our prices are even higher than our GDP alone would suggest they should be. We are ideologically opposed to price controls - and not likely to adopt them soon.<br /><br /><b>Bargaining</b><br /><br />It’s tough to bargain when there is only a single product, and no substitutes. In many classes of drugs, there are reasonable substitutes (that are not chemically identical.) It’s easier to get a lower price if the purchaser can restrict coverage of drugs not chosen, called a “closed formulary.” This is an instance where full consumer choice and affordability don't easily cohabit.<br /><br />Bargaining got substantially less effective in the United States with <a href="http://managinghealthcarecosts.blogspot.com/2011/08/pharmacy-medicaid-rebates-and.html">OBRA 1990, which mandated that Medicaid get the lowest prices.</a> This made pharmaceutical companies much more reluctant to give deep discounts to high leverage purchasers. The Medicare Part D enabling legislation also prohibited the federal government from negotiating pharmaceutical pricing for Medicare beneficiaries. We could get the lowest prices by negotiating with the largest leverage. It’s no surprise the pharmas oppose this!<br /><br /><b>Patient cost sharing</b><br /><br />Patients use less of a good or service when they have to pay more for it. There’s been dramatically more cost-sharing with patients in recent years, and this has increased consumer price sensitivity. Pharmaceutical companies have countered by offering discounts and copay waiver cards – which sound like a good idea at first, but do end up raising costs for everyone by making higher prices sustainable. http://managinghealthcarecosts.blogspot.com/2010/10/drug-discounts-which-raise-health-care_17.html . Pharmas are now sponsoring legislation to limit patient out-of-pocket spending on ‘tier four’ medications where health plans have made patients responsible for a percentage of acquisition cost rather than a copayment. This sounds good –but will help pharmaceutical companies maintain high prices. <br /><br /><br /><b>Evidence based prescribing</b><br /><br />We can lower the cost of drugs by simply only prescribing them when they are actually necessary. A huge portion of antibiotics prescribed are unnecessary – and recent evidence suggests that we’re even overprescribing statins. Many diabetics are on very expensive second line medications, when they should be on insulin. <br /><br /><b>Substitution</b><br /><br /><a href="http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe1103334">Avastin </a>is a chemotherapy agent that can be split into small doses (cost $50 per dose) to treat macular degeneration. The manufacturer would rather sell small doses of Lucentis, an equivalent medication – for $2000. The drugs are not identical, and only Lucentis has FDA approval for ophthalmologic use. But can we really afford to spend 40 times the cost to get equivalent outcomes?<br />Disease prevention<br /><br />Of course, if we could get Americans exercising and eating fewer calories, we could have a lot fewer lifestyle related diseases that lead us to use medications in the first place. Many of the interventions to make Americans healthier are public health interventions that are relatively low cost. The payback for this will be long term, but the benefits go far beyond lower drug costs.<br /><br />For the short term, price regulation is almost inconceivable in the US. We should seek to advantage generic medications wherever possible, and position health plans (and the government) to get the best possible prices. We should promote cost-effective substitution, and review pharmaceutical industry promotions and try to prevent those that improperly promote the use of cost-ineffective medications. <br /><br /><br />We should keep our eyes on specialty drugs, especially those custom-manufactured using the patients’ or her cancer’s genetic material. For these drugs, it’s hard to know what the “right” price really is.Justinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01230103344444491213noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1428511075964548890.post-61578672103893771052012-04-17T14:59:00.000-07:002012-04-25T06:48:18.539-07:00Another Graphic Way to Show Cost of Health Care Reform in MA<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-MentV6i76Ij9ah9W_Afxl5FLmxrQ9_eth6HYsPimHAjnPeeV-ZpJqrNLepTq-aPHwKkhqPW884BuHmesAniFzNsh5EOnruOO-PDvL0AdGIOMw6eXWGJG_AjYnW3NiqxhsYy-zNP2VXyQ/s1600/HCR+in+MA+-+another+way+to+show.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="440" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-MentV6i76Ij9ah9W_Afxl5FLmxrQ9_eth6HYsPimHAjnPeeV-ZpJqrNLepTq-aPHwKkhqPW884BuHmesAniFzNsh5EOnruOO-PDvL0AdGIOMw6eXWGJG_AjYnW3NiqxhsYy-zNP2VXyQ/s640/HCR+in+MA+-+another+way+to+show.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.masstaxpayers.org/sites/masstaxpayers.org/files/Health%20Reform%20Report.pdf"><i>Reference </i></a></td></tr></tbody></table>Justinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01230103344444491213noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1428511075964548890.post-4059438308868810982012-04-16T16:12:00.000-07:002012-04-25T06:48:18.554-07:00More Good News from Massachusetts<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="background-color: #eeeeee; font-size: x-large;">Today’s Managing Health Care Costs Indicator is $453 Million</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9JSDOshlMf5R4_aC3UYKxcou73RIecuHtoNnjkfVTH-bBvZlXa3sFsOITJqLEu72oK2bzDW3Gb2saTbnSGTbFzAfCY5U5VsesAmGvo1n2mr9WxSzWOwbyj_Ymefz2UED3yQ_VJGMxLWrC/s1600/MA+health+reform+mtf.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="470" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9JSDOshlMf5R4_aC3UYKxcou73RIecuHtoNnjkfVTH-bBvZlXa3sFsOITJqLEu72oK2bzDW3Gb2saTbnSGTbFzAfCY5U5VsesAmGvo1n2mr9WxSzWOwbyj_Ymefz2UED3yQ_VJGMxLWrC/s640/MA+health+reform+mtf.JPG" width="640" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div>The blogosphere has focused a lot of attention on Massachusetts, where almost everyone (97+%) has health insurance as a result of health care reform that looks almost exactly like the Affordable Care Act. Our costs in this state are exceptionally high – although they are rising more slowly than costs in other states.<br /><br />A study released last week by the <a href="http://www.masstaxpayers.org/sites/masstaxpayers.org/files/Health%20Reform%20Report.pdf">Massachusetts Taxpayer Foundation </a> – a nonpartisan group that advocates for good government (including promoting prudence in spending) – shows that it cost the state an additional $453 million, or an incremental $91 million on the average for each of the last five years to extend coverage to <a href="http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/31/2/444.full">another 7.6% of the population</a>. The total cost was a bit over $900 million –the additional amount was spent by the federal government for Medicaid and waivers, employers who increased the portion of the population insured during this time period despite the recession, and individuals who purchased insurance and who would have otherwise gone “naked.”<br /><br />It’s not perfect for states to go this alone. Massachusetts hospitals on the New Hampshire border are already seeing higher rates of bad debt due to the difficulty of obtaining affordable insurance to the north. <br /><br />And the total dollars being spent are not inconsequential. However, incremental spending to support expanded coverage is equivalent to 1.4% of the total state budget. Seems like a good deal.Justinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01230103344444491213noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1428511075964548890.post-61696307724510890132012-04-13T06:11:00.000-07:002012-04-25T06:48:18.569-07:00When Health Care Employment Rises, Health Care Costs Will Go Up<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="background-color: #cccccc; font-size: x-large;">Today’s Managing Health Care Cost Indicator is 2.8 million</span></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjT7yGETzJBESJZYydfC8_GF5xZzTjJWrWmK_izBMMob-SyZPsK5OcO65RlGL8veGtyLgTSbl5_LF5UB6tYVz_H_ZcixZRRgTdL8PwUJPInb2XwdDu0gd8tbbEaDWyba8uGO50fJ_-OnqyE/s1600/health+care+employment+4-13-12.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="456" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjT7yGETzJBESJZYydfC8_GF5xZzTjJWrWmK_izBMMob-SyZPsK5OcO65RlGL8veGtyLgTSbl5_LF5UB6tYVz_H_ZcixZRRgTdL8PwUJPInb2XwdDu0gd8tbbEaDWyba8uGO50fJ_-OnqyE/s640/health+care+employment+4-13-12.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Click image to enlarge </i></td></tr></tbody></table><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div>Research from the <a href="http://chws.albany.edu/download.php?f=a5dc7651c68c31725fd788cb515a6ed2">Center for Health Workforce Studies</a> (Albany) shows that between 2000-2010 the health care workforce represented more than 100% of the increase in employment for the entire country. Overall number of jobs decreased by 2%, while health care jobs increased by 25%. The non-HC sector lost 6 million jobs from 2000-2010, while the health care sector gained 2.8 million jobs. <br /><br />Health care jobs are well-paying, good jobs. That’s why health care can represent 18% of the GDP but less than 10% of total employment. Low skilled jobs (janitorial and food service) were the only place where there were fewer jobs in health care in 2010 compared to 2000.<br /><br />The calculations, derived from Department of Labor/ Bureau of Labor Statistics, suggest that we will create net new jobs over this decade –but again health care will represent a disproportionate share of these jobs. Health care represented 9.8% of jobs in 2010, and is projected to represent 11.2% of jobs in 2020.<br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXkI3NSP7go_RvUhWw3OvJ8eivAWASd-9ueYKZoArcyzOCUjbXj50zMiUw2Ny_m0VVdBFMn_zD4XWGfFjanWr9RJ_CwZczCfWXqBZnLi-zILoHAmSyB5ysz11cNXTSfpSXgwEPTN6m-6rb/s1600/health+care+employment+4-13-12+to+2020.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="464" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXkI3NSP7go_RvUhWw3OvJ8eivAWASd-9ueYKZoArcyzOCUjbXj50zMiUw2Ny_m0VVdBFMn_zD4XWGfFjanWr9RJ_CwZczCfWXqBZnLi-zILoHAmSyB5ysz11cNXTSfpSXgwEPTN6m-6rb/s640/health+care+employment+4-13-12+to+2020.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Click Image to Enlarge</i></td></tr></tbody></table><br />These are only projections, and there are some good reasons for increased employment in health care. Our population is aging, which leads to higher health care costs. Projections are also usually wrong; few projected in 2002 that the last decade would have concluded with fewer jobs. The Bureau of Labor clearly doesn’t see technology leading to displacement of labor in health care. I’d guess that there will be more savings due to increased use of technology than these estimates suggest. <br /><br />There is a straightforward relationship between health care job creation and health care inflation. As long as we are predicting more jobs in health care, we have to conclude that health care costs will continue to rise. <br /><br />Previous posts on this subject <a href="http://managinghealthcarecosts.blogspot.com/2010/08/bad-news-good-news-bad-news.html">here </a>and <a href="http://managinghealthcarecosts.blogspot.com/2011/08/health-care-adds-jobs.html">here </a>Justinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01230103344444491213noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1428511075964548890.post-66344048066971948682012-04-12T07:21:00.000-07:002012-04-25T06:48:18.586-07:00Misleading Reporting<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="background-color: #cccccc;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="background-color: #cccccc; font-size: x-large;">Today’s Managing Health Care Costs Indicator is $6,058</span></div><br />Here’s the first paragraph of an article from the<a href="http://bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/20220410experts_obamacare_could_hit_paycheck"> Boston Herald </a> abstracted by <a href="http://commonhealth.wbur.org/roundup/daily-round-4">Commonhealth </a> yesterday:<br /><br /><i><span style="color: blue;">The nation’s anemic economic recovery could suffer a brutal blow at the hands of Obamacare, critics say, as a new study shows mandated health care in Massachusetts cut $6,000 from some Bay State residents’ annual pay.</span></i><br /><i><span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></i><br />Here’s the conclusion from the<a href="http://www.nber.org/papers/w17933.pdf?new_window=1"> actual paper</a>.<br /><i><span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></i><br /><i><span style="color: blue;">Our results suggest that mandate-based reform has the potential to be a very efficient approach</span></i><br /><i><span style="color: blue;">for expanding health insurance coverage nationally.</span></i><br /><br />The same <a href="http://hc.wharton.upenn.edu/jkolstad/w16012.pdf">researchers previously reported</a> that health care reform in Massachusetts decreased the number of uninsured, and<br /><i><span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></i><br /><i><span style="color: blue;">Using new measures of preventive care, we find some evidence that hospitalizations for preventable conditions were reduced. The reform affected nearly all age, gender, income, and race categories. We also examine costs on the hospital level and find that hospital cost growth did not increase after the reform in Massachusetts</span></i><br /><br />So – the researchers conclude that there is less “dead weight loss” from a mandate than from a broad-based tax to cover health care costs. Further, Massachusetts iscovering more people and not spending appreciably more. The Connector Authority (our health insurance exchange) is set to announce a<a href="http://bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/health-wellness/2012/04/11/massachusetts-save-million-health-insurance-costs-regulators-say/ffonIPfHj3kUCMlHvMpPTL/story.html"> second year of premium decreases</a>. <br /><br />Health Care Reform in Massachusetts is working – the Herald headline notwithstanding.Justinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01230103344444491213noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1428511075964548890.post-79392145071903524092012-04-10T21:36:00.000-07:002012-04-25T06:48:18.612-07:00Infographic: How We Spend Our GDP<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><span style="background-color: #cccccc; font-size: x-large;">Today's Managing Health Care Costs Indicator is 13%</span><br /><div style="text-align: left;">This month's <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/04/how-we-spend/8906/">Atlantic Monthly</a> has two interesting infographics about how we spend our GDP in the United States. We spent 4.8% on health care in 1947, 8.1% in 1967, and it's up to 18% as of 2007. It's also striking how much less of the GDP we spent in 2007 on government services. In fairness, this has gone up through the Great Recession with increases in government services for those who faced financial hardship.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">This doesn't all represent 'crowd out.' Far fewer Americans grow or process food - so no surprise we're spending less on this. The <a href="http://managinghealthcarecosts.blogspot.com/2010/12/health-care-is-robbing-our-childrens.html">decrease in percentage of GDP going to education </a>is especially scary, though. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjoSoje6TH9iATcVO85BI34j2hmWFXdW0t7ZLJd2RVjVcbF18RUrBuJ5vwlj4t2msqVubb1beKQq0Av5yvcrmZb2Ou4P_VVBCIcPQ_hqF_MqCF_NgaCud3r9bEYqR7xolOfePHQ1BM88A9d/s1600/gdp+breakdown+67+-07.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="364" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjoSoje6TH9iATcVO85BI34j2hmWFXdW0t7ZLJd2RVjVcbF18RUrBuJ5vwlj4t2msqVubb1beKQq0Av5yvcrmZb2Ou4P_VVBCIcPQ_hqF_MqCF_NgaCud3r9bEYqR7xolOfePHQ1BM88A9d/s640/gdp+breakdown+67+-07.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Click image to enlarge. <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/">Source</a></i></td></tr></tbody></table><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjb5XhALnUFfTsoDqIhfsvM7RTAftnrP_mNYhQ2-16-mYeG7b8gN71-9CI6hiGDTWb4P8VbiUqoS56hcUtZdEOmGs8F74f-By-l1Oo1ld370RNuRFliymxwW4nJN8lvHVUJoeCgdqxFGH0E/s1600/gdp+spend+2.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="382" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjb5XhALnUFfTsoDqIhfsvM7RTAftnrP_mNYhQ2-16-mYeG7b8gN71-9CI6hiGDTWb4P8VbiUqoS56hcUtZdEOmGs8F74f-By-l1Oo1ld370RNuRFliymxwW4nJN8lvHVUJoeCgdqxFGH0E/s640/gdp+spend+2.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Click image to enlarge. <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/04/how-we-spend/8906/"> Source </a></i></td></tr></tbody></table>Justinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01230103344444491213noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1428511075964548890.post-16218824566115114292012-04-09T22:35:00.000-07:002012-04-25T06:48:18.623-07:00The Cautionary Tale of Fenofibrate<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="background-color: #cccccc; font-size: x-large;">Today's Managing Health Care Costs Indicator is $700 million </span></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://archinte.ama-assn.org/content/vol0/issue2012/images/medium/isa120002f2.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="284" src="http://archinte.ama-assn.org/content/vol0/issue2012/images/medium/isa120002f2.gif" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i><a href="http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/archinternmed.2012.187v1/ISA120002F2">Source</a>. Click image to enlarge </i></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><br />The <a href="http://fda%2C%20abbott%20pharmaceuticals%2C%20fenofibrate%2C%20generics%2C%20archives%20of%20internal%20medicine/">Archives of Internal Medicine</a> has an illuminating narrative today about how Abbott Pharmaceuticals managed to maintain effective brand name pricing for this questionably-effective lipid medication for over TEN YEARS after its patent expiry. The authors had an earlier paper showing the striking different use of fenofibrate in Canada compared to the US - <a href="http://managinghealthcarecosts.blogspot.com/2011/03/canada-us-and-cost-of-cholesterol.html">which I linked to in 2011</a>. The annual cost to health care consumers and purchasers: $700 million!<br /><br />Abbott’s plan, called “a novel and especially clever approach” in the a<a href="http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/archinternmed.2012.382v1">ccompanying editorial:</a> <br /><br />1)<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Sue potential generic manufacturers for patent infringement. This netted Abbott 30 additional months without generic competition<br />2)<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>During this 30 month window, Abbott filed for a new formulation – with a slightly different number of milligrams per pill. The drugmaker did no new studies to show clinical efficacy –but rather simply showing that the new formulation was equivalent to the older formulation<br />3)<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Before the generic came out – Abbott moved 97% of all patients off the drug that would be substitutable, and to the “new” drug for which a generic had not yet been approved. <br /><br /><i>Although the new drug was equivalent to the old one, generics could not be substituted.</i><br /><br />4)<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>When a generic was just about to come out for the second formulation – voila – Abbott introduced a third formulation – again showing only equivalency to the old formulation, and again preventing generic substitution. The company only convinced 96% of patients to switch to the new, equivalent, nonsubstitutable brand name medication this time.<br /><br />During this time, large studies failed to show survival or cardiac benefit to treatment with fenofibrate, which nonetheless was aggressively marketed. Rates of use of this medication continued to rise!<br /><br />The authors suggest a number of solutions to this problem – which could have been addressed by better regulatory efforts, a mandate to allow substitution for equivalent drugs, or prescribing physician unwillingness to go along with this decade-long charade. <br /><br />H/T to<a href="http://marilynmann.wordpress.com/"> Marilyn Mann </a>for pointing out this article.Justinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01230103344444491213noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1428511075964548890.post-2734278988033537952012-04-08T22:06:00.000-07:002012-04-25T06:48:18.640-07:00Medical Claims: Don’t Always Believe the Numbers<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="background-color: #cccccc; font-size: x-large;">Today’s Managing Health Care Cost Indicator is 17,000</span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDV12WgeQ6qo1thVOenzfGL3SxO_mRt_oLEZpXO7XIl47siqPuaZ1DULwtQVXgj4VFIt8HSqKAJUlkglpbYW4Nr4GCcX2nSq_WqeOzXxMmoy5Zp84J3SH-aCzOJ_Eq55oFpKAU3ll1fEL0/s1600/pneumonia+4-8=12.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="414" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDV12WgeQ6qo1thVOenzfGL3SxO_mRt_oLEZpXO7XIl47siqPuaZ1DULwtQVXgj4VFIt8HSqKAJUlkglpbYW4Nr4GCcX2nSq_WqeOzXxMmoy5Zp84J3SH-aCzOJ_Eq55oFpKAU3ll1fEL0/s640/pneumonia+4-8=12.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Click on image to enlarge. <a href="http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/307/13/1405.full">Source</a>: </i></td></tr></tbody></table>Two articles that have caught my attention over the last few days demonstrate that claims data doesn’t always tell the truth.<br /><br />A report in the <a href="http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/307/13/1405.full">April 4 JAMA</a> shows that while claims data suggests that there has been a dramatic decline in hospital admissions for pneumonia – much of that decline is accounted for by a coding change More hospitals are billing sepsis with pneumonia. There’s still a decline –it’s just not nearly as impressive. The implication – the accuracy of claims data over sequential time periods can be undermined by changing coding incentives. I’m sure you can imagine which of these diagnoses has a higher associated payment!<br /><br />Sarah Kliff of the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/why-britain-has-17000-pregnant-men/2012/04/06/gIQAC2oJ0S_blog.html">Washington Post’s WonkBlog</a> picked up a letter to the editor from <a href="http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e2432.full#ref-1">BMJ </a>which pointed out a series of absurd conclusions one could draw from billing statistics. The NHS data set suggests that there were 1700 MEN in the UK who received services associated with…. Pregnancy.<br /><br />Claims data is critical for health services research and policy. The advantages of claims data over chart review include:<br />-<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Well structured with agreed-upon definitions<br />-<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Includes all billed services, regardless of where these services are delivered.<br />-<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Inexpensive to obtain and to analyze<br /><br />Here’s why claims data doesn’t always give us the right answer, though<br /><br />-<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Plain carelessness. <br />o<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>A number of years ago I saw a contention that claims for vaginal births for women who had a Caesarian section represented fraud. Not really – just careless billing practices.<br /><br />-<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Gaming. <br />o<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Remember – providers bill to get paid. They tend to adapt their billing practices to maximize the amount they will get paid. If sepsis with pneumonia pays more than pneumonia with sepsis – well, you know what happens. <br />o<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>It’s likely that full coverage for preventive care will convert many previous problem-oriented visits to preventive visits. The content of care will not necessarily change – but the way it’s covered will.<br /><br />-<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Local area variation<br />o<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>In Eastern Massachusetts, pediatricians historically didn’t bill for vaccinations, since the serum was supplied by the state. The state usually had one of the highest rates of childhood vaccination in the country according to the CDC, but you couldn’t have guessed this from reviewing claims data!<br /><br />Claims data will continue to play a critical role in helping us evaluate the impact health care policy. When the data doesn't make sense, though, we'll have to question it.Justinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01230103344444491213noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1428511075964548890.post-74314348807264703122012-04-07T18:56:00.000-07:002012-04-25T06:48:18.728-07:00Hepatitis C: A Growing Threat, and a Missed Opportunity<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b style="background-color: #eeeeee;"><br /></b></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b style="background-color: #eeeeee;">Today's Managing Health Care Costs Indicator is 3.2 million</b></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b style="background-color: #eeeeee;"><br /></b></span></div><div style="text-align: left;">Imagine that there is an infection which can be detected through screening. There is an effective but expensive treatment, and many of those who suffer from the disease will die prematurely without detection and treatment. Further, imagine that those who don’t know they have the disease will transmit the infection through sex or through shared needles – leading to preventable deaths and disabilities of hundreds of thousands more. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">This sounds like South Africa under Thabo Mbeke in the late 1990s - where the government denied that HIV was the cause of AIDS, and refused to fund screening or treatment. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/26/world/africa/26aids.html?_r=2&hp"> Researchers believe that 365,000 died due to the inaction of the South African government.</a><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">An article in <a href="http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/307/12/1259.full">JAMA last month </a>reminds me that we don’t have to look very far to see a similar avoidable tragedy unfolding. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">In the United States, Hepatis C is a scourge. About three quarters of those infected get chronic hepatitis. Two thirds of these have active liver disease and a quarter of those get cirrhosis. The viral infection causes liver cancer, and is the largest cause of liver failure (and transplantation) in the US. There is no vaccine, but a handful of (expensive) antiviral medications have recently been shown to be effective in lowering viral count, reducing new infections. There are recent reports that antiviral therapy has led to actual cures – a result we still haven’t achieved with highly active antiretroviral therapy for HIV infection. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">There are 3.2 million Americans with Hepatitis C – and most of them (66-75%) don’t know they have it. About a million of those with Hepatitis C pass through the US correctional system each year – so we could diagnose many of these cases through voluntary testing. We could also treat newly-found cases of Hepatitis C – which could prevent future liver failure and prevent infection of others. It wouldn’t be easy, of course. The current drugs cost $30-60,000 for a 12 week course of treatment – it’s hard to imagine coming up with that kind of money in the prison system. Just like high drug prices make it hard to imagine South Africa treating all of its HIV-infected individuals with expensive HIV drugs in the days before generics were available. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">We should start diagnosing and treating prisoners who have Hepatitis C. We also need to negotiate aggressively with the pharmaceutical industry to lower the prices of these lifesaving medications when they are purchased in bulk. <a href="http://managinghealthcarecosts.blogspot.com/2012/01/day-four-of-good-news-hiv-therapy.html"> Hepatitis C killed more Americans than HIV last year! </a> We should not stand by and watch a public health failure like that of South Africa in the late 1990s. </div>Justinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01230103344444491213noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1428511075964548890.post-262822028519879692012-04-05T18:04:00.000-07:002012-04-25T06:48:18.816-07:00Affordable Care Act Insurance Company Rebates<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #cccccc; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: 20pt; line-height: 31px;"><br /></span></div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #cccccc; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: 20pt; line-height: 31px;">Today’s Managing Health Care Costs Indicator is $1.93 billion<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #cccccc; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; text-align: left;">The <a href="http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Publications/Issue-Briefs/2012/Apr/Estimating-Rebates.aspx">Commonwealth Fund released a study today</a> estimating that insurers would have had to refund almost $2 billion to employers and consumers in 2010 if the Affordable Care Act provisions requiring “medical loss ratios” of at least 80-85% were in place.<span> </span><span> </span><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; text-align: left;">The paper reviews MLR methodology<span> </span>-and points out that the Affordable Care Act has a broader definition of medical cost than that traditionally used by actuaries – including quality and antifraud programs, excluding tax payments from consideration, and allowing for additional administrative cost for plans with very few members.<span> </span>A number of states have received waivers – and the decreased rebates due to waivers is modeled in the calculations.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; text-align: left;">The rebates would have been highest in the individual market (53%; an average of $183 per policy), but lower for small group (24%; $85 per policy) and lowest for large group (15%; $72 per policy).<span> </span>This is not necessarily because health insurance plans are fleecing individuals.<span> </span>The MLR includes everything besides for claims costs paid to providers, and the marketing and administration costs are much higher for policies sold to individuals compared to policies where a single signature arranges insurance for hundreds or thousands of policyholders.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; text-align: left;">Some states already regulate MLR – and no insurers would have owed rebates for individual insurance in Hawaii, Rhode Island and Vermont, while 98% of the market would be owed rebates in Kentucky, and 95% in Arizona. Insurers representing 12% of the Minnesota market would have owed rebates, even though that state prohibits for-profit insurers.<span> </span><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; text-align: left;">I wouldn’t expect that health care costs would have been $2 billion lower if the ACA had been in place in 2010.<span> </span>There is considerable judgment in determining what is a medical cost and what is a nonmedical cost.<span> </span>When insurer stock price soared with low MLRs, health plans were more likely to count slightly clinical services as nonmedical.<span> </span>With regulations to prevent low MLRs, health plans will do all they can to move arguably nonclinical costs into the medical loss ratio. <span> </span><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; text-align: left;">While the MLR ratio requirements won’t save as much money as suggested in this white paper – it does put pressure on health plans to reduce nonmedical costs.<span> </span>That pressure will force tiny plans to consolidate, which will help them increase efficiency. It discourages health plan arms races that lead to inordinate investments in expensive marketing.<span> </span>It is likely to put downward pressure on brokers’ fees– and lead to health plan products that are simpler to administer and need fewer explanations.<span> This regulation pressures the individual health insurance market to deliver health care products that have far more value to health care consumers (aka patients.) </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; text-align: left;">That seems like a great idea to me.<o:p></o:p></div><div><br /></div><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Publications/Issue-Briefs/2012/Apr/~/media/Images/Publications/Issue%20Brief/2012/commonwealth_mlr_graphic_040412.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="640" src="http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Publications/Issue-Briefs/2012/Apr/~/media/Images/Publications/Issue%20Brief/2012/colmonwealth_mlr_graphic_040412.jpg" width="514" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Click on image to enlarge. <a href="http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Publications/Issue-Briefs/2012/Apr/~/media/Images/Publications/Issue%20Brief/2012/commonwealth_mlr_graphic_040412.jpg">Source</a> </i></td></tr></tbody></table><!--EndFragment-->Justinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01230103344444491213noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1428511075964548890.post-73298935695716311882012-04-04T15:52:00.000-07:002012-04-25T06:48:18.916-07:00Medical Societies Identify Unnecessary Tests and Procedures<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b style="background-color: #cccccc;">Today’s Managing Health Care Cost Indicator is 45</b></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><br />The American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation published its compendium of five tests that each of nine specialty societies have agreed don’t usually offer any value to patients, and that we should not routinely order. Each list can be accessed at this <a href="http://choosingvisely.org/?page_id=13">link</a>.<br /><br />I’ve mentioned the <a href="http://managinghealthcarecosts.blogspot.com/2011/06/changes-oncologists-could-make-that.html">oncologist </a>and <a href="http://managinghealthcarecosts.blogspot.com/2012/01/internists-step-up-to-plate-and.html">internal medicine</a> recommendations in past posts. Some of my colleagues feel that the recommendations are not enough – but I think they’re a GREAT first step. Once we have agreement about what tests and procedures aren’t worth doing, we can start measuring how often we’re doing them. We can improve what we measure – and it’s terribly hard to decrease variation and decrease waste when we can’t measure it because we don’t agree about definitions. <br /><br />There are things missing in this set of unnecessary tests. For instance the otolaryngologists didn’t finger the inappropriate and highly remunerative upper respiratory endoscopies. Still, most of us know some gastroenterologists who recommend followup colonoscopies at too short an interval – and having the American Gastroenterologic Association explicitly say that this is inappropriate can save money, can save time, and can save potential iatrogenic harm.<br /><br />Social norms are important, and the ABIM Foundation has made it tough for specialty societies NOT to participate. Eight more specialty societies will come up with their “top five” list of tests and procedures that physicians and patients should question this fall.<br /><br />Public transparency is also important, and the ABIM Foundation is collaborating with a group of consumer organizations including Consumer Union (publisher of Consumer Reports) to let our patients know about these recommendations. It’s nice to see providers taking on the critical issue of overutilization of tests and procedures with little or no incremental value.Justinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01230103344444491213noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1428511075964548890.post-70198670517292571522012-04-03T06:42:00.000-07:002012-04-25T06:48:19.010-07:00Diabetes Care: The Spectrum of Success<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b style="background-color: #cccccc;">Today’s Managing Health Care Costs Indicator is 8.3%</b></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div>Diabetes is a major killer in the US – the disease strikes about one in twelve Americans ( 8.3% in the entire population; one in four over age 65), is responsible for over 70,000 deaths, and is the leading cause of blindness and kidney failure. The <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pubs/pdf/ndfs_2011.pdf">Centers for Disease Control and Prevention</a> estimates that the annual cost of diabetes in the US is $168 billion in medical treatment, and $58 billion in lost productivity. <br /><br />I’m struck by two studies published in the last week that use diametrically opposed approaches –and both appear to work. (<a href="http://managinghealthcarecosts.blogspot.com/2011/01/why-very-positive-results-in-early.html">Both studies are small, though , so it’s possible that the results will not be sustained in larger samples</a>).<br /><br />The <a href="http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe1202443">NEJM </a>published two studies showing that intensive surgical intervention helps. Italian researchers showed that bariatric surgery (the most invasive surgical treatments) could “cure” diabetes in 75-95% of those treated, compared to NO cures in the medically treated group. American researchers showed that those who had less-invasive surgical treatments were three times as likely to have an excellent diabetes control (Hemoglobin AIC of <6). The conclusion –for diabetics with morbid obesity, surgical treatment is strikingly effective. Other studies have shown that bariatric surgery can pay off in a few years in the general population – this set of studies provides further evidence that we should cover this expensive ($11-$26,000) procedure for those with morbid obesity.<br /><br />The <a href="http://www.annals.org/content/156/6/416.full.pdf+html">Annals of Internal Medicine</a> published an elegant study which randomized 118 African American veterans with diabetes to usual care, financial rewards ($100-$200), and peer mentoring. The financial reward for better HbAIC led to a 0.4% average decrease in HbAIC, while the peer mentoring led to a 1.1% decrease in HbAIC. <br /><br />There are often many roads that lead to the right outcome in health care – and these studies are all small and did not include similar groups – so shouldn’t be compared. It’s nice to know that both high tech and low tech solutions can have a substantial impact, and have the potential to decrease diabetic complications in our increasingly-obese population.Justinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01230103344444491213noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1428511075964548890.post-64224978200080368012012-04-01T07:54:00.000-07:002012-04-25T06:48:19.099-07:00A Tough Week<div class="MsoNormal"></div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="background: #CCCCCC; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: 22pt;"><br /></span></div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="background: #CCCCCC; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: 22pt;">Today’s Managing Health Care Costs Indicator is Five<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="background: #CCCCCC;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">It’s been a tough week for health care wonks of my persuasion. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The Supremes – or at least the all-important Anthony Kennedy – suggested that the individual mandate could be toast, which would mean that the Affordable Care Act would insure millions fewer Americans. Scalia et al suggested that if the mandate fell, the Court should invalidate the entire law, which would mean years or decades before we start trying the many good ideas embodied in this bill – including a path to generic biologic drugs, more comparative effectiveness research, and pilots to bundle payment. The ACA is imperfect – but is chock full of good ideas for how to improve value in health care. Many of these ideas won’t work as well as we would hope – but if we aren’t experimenting responsibly, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/we-cant-afford-another-18-years-of-health-care-drift/2011/08/25/gIQAXNjLcS_blog.html">our health care cost crisis will just continue to get worse and worse.</a> <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">We need five justices to uphold the mandate, or at least to fail to declare the entire ACA unconstitutional. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Two studies that came out this week also heightened my sense of malaise. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The <a href="http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1112351">Premier Medicare Pay for Performance </a>pilot – in which a group of 252 hospitals could earn bonus payments for improving certain quality metrics – showed no effectiveness whatsoever in lowering 30 day mortality. NOW- this project wasn’t aiming to lower mortality. The bonuses were to encourage higher scores in certain evidence-based quality metrics – such as use of beta blockers and aspirin for heart attacks and rapid antibiotics for pneumonias. The reasoning was that this could improve quality and lower costs.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhw14xo79oOh3kEfJcSiW_L_Ww7yR2w2p2BV2ZSr30aynxV5gmidwYLixeDdPhxf18PySqgjn_kNyvZDPwqjkXyfYQxOIZpgu0ZOAYK0vd7bfOVMwcY9lDrDhM654M45RSEYLvgNvGhNx5X/s1600/premier+demo+.tiff" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="384" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhw14xo79oOh3kEfJcSiW_L_Ww7yR2w2p2BV2ZSr30aynxV5gmidwYLixeDdPhxf18PySqgjn_kNyvZDPwqjkXyfYQxOIZpgu0ZOAYK0vd7bfOVMwcY9lDrDhM654M45RSEYLvgNvGhNx5X/s640/premier+demo+.tiff" width="640" /></a></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><o:p> <i>Click Image to Enlarge. <a href="http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1112351?query=featured_home">Source </a></i></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><o:p><br /></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal">There are a lot of reasons why the Premier Medicare project might not have worked<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><span style="font-family: Symbol;">·<span style="font: normal normal normal 7pt/normal 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span>The quality metrics might not actually be associated with lower mortality (good ideas –but not effective at diminishing death rates)<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><span style="font-family: Symbol;">·<span style="font: normal normal normal 7pt/normal 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span>30 day mortality might be a bad metric itself – perhaps the hospital has more control over 15 day mortality, or 45 day mortality<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 ldvel1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><span style="font-family: Symbol;">·<span style="font: normal normal normal 7pt/normal 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span>The risk adjustment could have been flawed<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><span style="font-family: Symbol;">·<span style="font: normal normal normal 7pt/normal 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span>The incentive might not have been large enough. The incentive was distant from the action, and although there was a potential penalty, hospitals could drop out if they faced a penalty. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><span style="font-family: Symbol;">·<span style="font: normal normal normal 7pt/normal 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span>The communication with the thousands of medical staff of these hospitals might have been ineffective<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">But all of this is whining. Bottom line – this is a deeply disappointing study. Kudos to CMS, Premier, and Jha et al for publishing these negative results. The only way to move forward effectively is to publish both positive AND negative results. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Ashish Jha had a <a href="http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1201598">double header in the NEJM </a>last week – he also had an editorial suggesting that the emphasis on preventing hospital readmissions might be misdirected. Hospital readmissions are staggering in the US Medicare population (almost one in five in 30 days). However, readmissions are much lower in those under 65. Further, Jha points to a literature review from the <a href="http://www.cmaj.ca/content/183/7/E391.full">Canadian Medical Association Journal</a> (The JAMA of the North) that showed that with clinical record review less than 12% of readmissions were judged to be preventable. Overall only 2.2% of discharges led to a preventable readmission in this literature review. Jha points out that penalties for high readmission rates could inadvertently penalize hospitals with lower mortality rates (who discharge patients who are by definition sicker). Emphasizing the “wrong” measure draws our attention from other areas that may lead to better outcomes or more cost savings. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Now that we see coherent arguments against focusing too much attention on the “core measures” in the Premier demonstration and readmission rates, we just have to identify on which metrics we SHOULD focus our attention.<o:p></o:p></div>Justinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01230103344444491213noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1428511075964548890.post-83161976888321950392012-03-30T06:01:00.000-07:002012-04-25T06:48:19.193-07:00Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts Annual Report: Conversations on Health Care CostsThe Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts Foundation has a different format for its 2011 Annual Report - six health care experts ask and answer questions. The six are MA Governor Deval Patrick, recent CMS Chief Don Berwick, Neighborhood Health Plan chief Deb Enos, Boston Medical Center CEO Kate Walsh, Associated Industries of MA President Rick Lord, and me. <br /><br />Here's <a href="http://annualreport.bluecrossmafoundation.org/home">the link</a>.Justinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01230103344444491213noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1428511075964548890.post-14461690385472091112012-03-28T05:29:00.000-07:002012-04-25T06:48:19.283-07:00The Supremes Strike a Blow for Health Care Affordability<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>Today’s Managing Health Care Costs Indicator is $3000</b></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div>All eyes are on the Supreme Court’s six hours of oral arguments on the Affordable Care Act this week – but we shouldn’t lose sight of a hugely important decision last week to limit the ability of biotechnology companies to patent “natural laws.” <br /><br /><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/21/business/justices-reject-patents-for-medical-tests-relying-on-drug-dosages.html?scp=2&sq=prometheus%20&st=cse">The Supreme Court last week ruled</a> that Prometheus Pharmaceuticals could not patent a test that suggests medication dose changes based on amount of metabolites in the patient’s blood. Mayo Clinic had developed a similar test – with its own validated normal range, but Prometheus sued to stop Mayo from marketing its test. Now there can be competition in this field, which is likely to lead to more innovation and lower price. <br /><br />This has led the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/27/business/high-court-orders-new-look-at-gene-patents.html?_r=1&src=recg">Supreme Court to ask an appeals court to review its earlier</a> finding that Myriad Pharmaceuticals and the University of Utah could continue to be the sole owners of a patent for BRCA 1 and 2 – the genes that are associated with heightened risk of breast and ovarian cancer, especially among Ashkenazi Jews. The genetic test for these genes now costs $3000 – and many insurers are reluctant to provide coverage.<br /><br /><a href="http://managinghealthcarecosts.blogspot.com/2009/01/genomic-medicine-impact-on-overall.html">Advocates periodically assert</a> that “personalized medicine” can improve quality and outcomes while lowering overall resource costs, and point to tests that can protect patients from drugs that would offer them no benefits, and help determine the best dose based on genes rather than trial and error. There is no question that genetic testing is already saving and improving lives. The current high expense of genetic tests makes it unlikely we can achieve the goal of cost savings - and single source manufacturers would fight hard to maintain high “brand name” prices. These Supreme Court decisions can inject competition in the biotechnology market, offering the prospect of price relief in the all-important market of genetic tests and gene therapies.Justinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01230103344444491213noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1428511075964548890.post-55096363125444275192012-03-27T03:11:00.000-07:002012-04-25T06:48:19.371-07:00The Perils of Low Cost Medicine<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="background: #CCCCCC; text-align: center;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: 22pt;"><o:p><br /></o:p></span></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: 22pt;">Today’s Managing Health Care Costs Indicator is 128,000</span></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: 22pt;"><o:p><br /></o:p></span></b></div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="background: #CCCCCC; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">I’ve often posted about “accretive innovation,” new medical technologies that cost a lot, and offer only a small portion of patients what is often only a tiny benefit. I've talked less about the consequences of when prices are too low - which means we'll not obtain the potential societal benefits of a new drug. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">First, an example of accretive innovation.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">In 2001, Xigris (human activated protein C, Lilly) was approved for use in severe sepsis based on a small study. The drug was heavily marketed by Lilly – including hiring a PR firm and <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6298643">secretly funding an ethics task force</a> which came up with guidelines that promoted Xigris use. Subsequent studies showed that the drug was associated with a higher risk of brain bleeding and did not improve survival rates. The drug was withdrawn from the market last fall. The result of all of this marketing is that a wildly expensive drug ($8000 per dose) gained high market acceptance; sales were $200 million per year. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">I’m reminded of the Xigris story by the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/21/health/tranexamic-acid-cheap-drug-is-found-to-staunch-bleeding.html?_r=1">New York Times last week</a>, which reported that tranxemic acid, a dirt-cheap generic medication, could save up to 128,000 lives a year, 4000 of them in the US.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">From the Times report:<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">For months, a simple generic drug has been saving lives on America’s battlefields by slowing the <a href="http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/injury/bleeding/overview.html?inline=nyt-classifier"><span style="color: #003064;">bleeding</span></a> of even gravely wounded soldiers.<o:p></o:p></i></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Even better, it is cheap. But its very inexpensiveness has slowed its entry into American emergency rooms, where it might save the lives of bleeding victims of car crashes, shootings and stabbings — up to 4,000 Americans a year, according to a recent study.<o:p></o:p></i></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Because there is so little profit in it, the companies that make it do not champion it. <o:p></o:p></i></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">This isn’t the first time we’re seeing the ugly side to drugs costing too little. We have <a href="http://managinghealthcarecosts.blogspot.com/2011/08/generic-cancer-drug-shortage.html">serious shortages of generic oncology medications </a>and generic attention deficit disorder medications right now. We need effective drug company marketing to bring pharmaceutical innovations to physicians – but disseminating knowledge about drugs is difficult if there is no one with a profit motive to do so. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">I was aghast at the <a href="http://managinghealthcarecosts.blogspot.com/2010/04/when-is-old-drug-worth-5-per-pill.html">FDA approval of brand name colchicine</a>, a drug that cost pennies, was well-accepted for gout and other indications, and which skyrocketed in price to over $5. I felt rage when the Wall Street Journal reported that a pharmaceutical would charge <a href="http://managinghealthcarecosts.blogspot.com/2011/03/drug-prices-still-climbing.html">$1500 for a previously-generic $20 progesterone injection</a> to prevent premature deliveries. But perhaps my anger is at least partially misdirected. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">It’s obvious that we can’t afford ridiculously high prices for drugs. It's a bit less obvious but no less true that we need<b> high enough</b> prices for effective drugs that their makers will manufacture them and market them for appropriate use.</div>Justinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01230103344444491213noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1428511075964548890.post-82034905383070256402012-03-26T08:56:00.000-07:002012-04-25T06:48:19.480-07:00Doc Dude Gives in to High Tech Medicine<div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><a href="http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/13212424/the-triumph-of-high-tech-health-care" style="font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold;" target="_blank">The triumph of high-tech health care</a><br />by: <a href="http://www.xtranormal.com/profile/7934483" target="_blank">costguy</a><br /><iframe border="0" frameborder="0" id="xtranormal_The triumph of high-tech health care" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" name="xtranormal_The triumph of high-tech health care" scrolling="auto" src="http://www.xtranormal.com/xtraplayr/13212424/the-triumph-of-high-tech-health-care" style="height: 299px; width: 480px;"></iframe><br /><br /><br /><div class="MsoNormal">Be sure to read a blog about <a href="http://managinghealthcarecosts.blogspot.com/2011/07/one-image-american-medicine-believes-in.html">GE’s effort to position ahandheld cardiac ultrasound to displace the stethoscope</a>, rather than to disrupt the expensive fixed ultrasound machine.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">H/T Healthcaresavvy.wbur.org</div>Justinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01230103344444491213noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1428511075964548890.post-40740657547562917402012-03-24T19:14:00.000-07:002012-04-25T06:48:19.576-07:00We’re Number One<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:DocumentProperties> <o:Revision>0</o:Revision> <o:TotalTime>0</o:TotalTime> <o:Pages>1</o:Pages> <o:Words>465</o:Words> <o:Characters>2652</o:Characters> <o:Company>self</o:Company> <o:Lines>22</o:Lines> <o:Paragraphs>6</o:Paragraphs> <o:CharactersWithSpaces>3111</o:CharactersWithSpaces> <o:Version>14.0</o:Version> </o:DocumentProperties> <o:OfficeDocumentSettings> <o:AllowPNG/> </o:OfficeDocumentSettings> </xml><![endif]--> <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves/> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:DoNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>JA</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/> <w:DontFlipMirrorIndents/> <w:OverrideTableStyleHps/> <w:UseFELayout/> </w:Compatibility> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true" DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99" LatentStyleCount="276"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--> <!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-language:JA;} </style> <![endif]--> <!--StartFragment--> <br /><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="background: #CCCCCC; text-align: center;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: 22.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p><br /></o:p></span></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: 22.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Today’s Managing Health Care Costs Indicator is One</span></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: 22.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p><br /></o:p></span></b></div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="background: #CCCCCC; text-align: center;"><br /></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtIsSUN_giVja3V-4x9Q42e4feLbV4qwG5mtr9piJ3wjv4uncALHkBSBHjtFrYnpJfQvXhbbNBirZYC6aGmvdoa2FQOp8OKTyxvklxe6EPOwEhfDL3SU6F1_FGWHCwLKlnBvUr7xtM3L2T/s1600/ma+health+reform+didn't+increase+costs+more+than+us.tiff" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="472" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtIsSUN_giVja3V-4x9Q42e4feLbV4qwG5mtr9piJ3wjv4uncALHkBSBHjtFrYnpJfQvXhbbNBirZYC6aGmvdoa2FQOp8OKTyxvklxe6EPOwEhfDL3SU6F1_FGWHCwLKlnBvUr7xtM3L2T/s640/ma+health+reform+didn't+increase+costs+more+than+us.tiff" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Click on image to enlarge. <a href="http://bluecrossmafoundation.org/Policy-and-Research/Reports-By-Topic/Health-Care-Costs-and-Affordability/Cost-Deck.aspx">Source</a> </i></td></tr></tbody></table><div class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p>The eyes of the nation have been focused on Massachusetts, as the Affordable Care Act is modeled on health care reform in Massachusetts.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When it comes to cost, We’re Number One!</div><div class="MsoNormal"> <br />The <a href="http://bluecrossmafoundation.org/Policy-and-Research/Reports-By-Topic/Health-Care-Costs-and-Affordability/Cost-Deck.aspx">Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts Foundation</a> just published a great 50-slide deck of graphics comparing <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>health care cost and utilization in Massachusetts with the rest of the country.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Massachusetts has the highest cost of health care in the country, and the largest number of physicians per capita.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Our physicians are more likely to be specialists than in the rest of the country. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Our hospitals are more than twice as likely to be academic medical centers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Our health insurance designs are among the richest around, with low average deductibles. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Most of the increased cost of care since Massachusetts’s health care reform has been cost per unit, not increased utilization.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The rate of cost increase in Massachusetts has been lower than the rest of the country since we passed our health care reform, although of course we started at a much higher base. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Implications of Massachusetts experience for the post-ACA American health care system: <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-left: 75.0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Increasing access doesn’t lead to an instant onslaught of new utilization<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 75.0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Health care is regional –and structural issues (not health care reform) make health care in Massachusetts spectacularly expensive<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-left: 75.0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->We need to keep our eyes on price – not just utilization – if we want to control the rate of health care inflation</div><div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-left: 75.0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -.25in;">* Health care inflation crowds out other important societal priorities (see graphic at the bottom of this post. That's why health care reform, and control of health care costs are so important. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />The <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Blue Cross Blue Shield Foundation conclusions:<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><ul style="margin-top: 0in;" type="square"><li class="MsoNormal" style="background: #99CCFF; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in;">Massachusetts spends more on health care than any other state.<o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="background: #99CCFF; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in;">Higher costs were not caused or markedly accelerated by health reform, as Massachusetts has been a high spending state for years. <o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="background: #99CCFF; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in;">The underlying difference in spending between Massachusetts and the U.S. overall is rooted in the state’s demographics, insurance coverage, and health care market structure, which includes disproportionately many specialists and teaching hospitals and some very large and powerful hospital systems.<o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="background: #99CCFF; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in;">Though the amount of most services used increases every year, the majority of the growth in health spending comes from increased prices. <o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="background: #99CCFF; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in;">There is enormous variation in total health care spending across the state, stemming from variations in both price and utilization.<o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="background: #99CCFF; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in;">However, neither higher prices nor higher utilization of services is associated with higher quality or better health outcomes, suggesting that there is a significant amount of waste in the Massachusetts health care system. It also suggests that costs can be lowered without decreasing overall quality or health outcomes.</li></ul><div class="MsoNormal"><i>Source: <a href="http://bluecrossmafoundation.org/Policy-and-Research/Reports-By-Topic/Health-Care-Costs-and-Affordability/Cost-Deck.aspx">Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts Foundation</a></i><o:p></o:p></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgocg3rKEhlvpi9_I5WGaVfLzVuoP-YufJVWkYPLIEA5s69K6tyWKlFk_qlOZ34sFjcg0ywoSA-XpnPmODIHtxTRft9nH9psyrBYcf-mjQnZE876IZ5F2mli5-TwpTg8s7eCX6Chqizfk8k/s1600/impact+on+state+budget.tiff" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="354" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgocg3rKEhlvpi9_I5WGaVfLzVuoP-YufJVWkYPLIEA5s69K6tyWKlFk_qlOZ34sFjcg0ywoSA-XpnPmODIHtxTRft9nH9psyrBYcf-mjQnZE876IZ5F2mli5-TwpTg8s7eCX6Chqizfk8k/s640/impact+on+state+budget.tiff" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Click image to enlarge. <a href="http://BCBSMA, Blue Cross Blue Shield Of Massachusetts Foundation, Massachusetts, health care reform, prices">Source</a> </i></td></tr></tbody></table><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><!--EndFragment-->Justinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01230103344444491213noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1428511075964548890.post-40698992998261003202012-03-21T19:43:00.000-07:002012-04-25T06:48:19.671-07:00Commonwealth Fund Sees Medicare Savings From PCP Fee Increases<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"></div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #bfbfbf; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; text-align: center;"><br class="Apple-interchange-newline" /></div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #bfbfbf; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; text-align: center;"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: silver; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; font-size: 16pt; line-height: 24px;">Today’s Managing Health Care Costs Indicator is </span><span style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 24px;">2%<o:p></o:p></span></div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #bfbfbf; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;"><span style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 24px;"> </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 18px;"><o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 18px;"><a href="http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Issue%20Brief/2012/Mar/1585_Reschovsky_paying_more_for_primary_care_FINALv2.pdf">The Commonwealth Fund </a></span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 18px;"> projects that Medicare investing through maintaining the Affordable Care Act’s 10% primary care physician increase beyond expiration in 2016, Medicare could save almost two percent of total costs. In this simulation, primary care costs would go up by $89 per person per year (about equally distributed between increased unit costs and increased utilization), while total costs would decrease by $539 – a whopping 6:1 return on investment.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 18px;">The authors posit that savings would come from hospitals and outpatient hospital facility fees and specialist care. Imaging and diagnostic costs increase in this simulation, which seems unlikely, as specialists seem as happy to order tests as primary care physicians. Outpatient medications and other Part B services also increase.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 18px;">The authors make a powerful case to make more investments in primary care. The savings could presumably increase further if the primary method of payment was not fee for service.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;"><br class="Apple-interchange-newline" /></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEvlEtZo_mTyeFPjENG4gGyBvSePYi5HWVCyPl9ORPH6rIxeECYK8Zc29lbsOxw9IU7sKp8DMc6kd0E53Szkz6ZawVrYR0r05n_QfdDxPPUjmFaCcfBcXTeHX5MaSYgosTnj-LcKGEa3Q8/s1600/actuarial+cmwf+pcp+pay+bump.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="510" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEvlEtZo_mTyeFPjENG4gGyBvSePYi5HWVCyPl9ORPH6rIxeECYK8Zc29lbsOxw9IU7sKp8DMc6kd0E53Szkz6ZawVrYR0r05n_QfdDxPPUjmFaCcfBcXTeHX5MaSYgosTnj-LcKGEa3Q8/s640/actuarial+cmwf+pcp+pay+bump.JPG" width="640" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><br /><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></span></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsM1qV-L6ObKEiLRFNEtvEb4lifoY1b63-TYJQGLzfN87uc8ioevGNF6gZ3Ee4KzzsOlalYRirZ_8IFrAGfUEavZ7LGU39dhZsMEuTdUS7SqoQa_NWgmSkmuN1TAzQ9yP02Gpb8aEeLOBI/s1600/dollar+savings+from+paying+PCPs+more+cmwf+3-12.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsM1qV-L6ObKEiLRFNEtvEb4lifoY1b63-TYJQGLzfN87uc8ioevGNF6gZ3Ee4KzzsOlalYRirZ_8IFrAGfUEavZ7LGU39dhZsMEuTdUS7SqoQa_NWgmSkmuN1TAzQ9yP02Gpb8aEeLOBI/s640/dollar+savings+from+paying+PCPs+more+cmwf+3-12.JPG" width="522" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Click on image to enlarge. Source link above<br /><br /></i></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><br /><br /><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>Justinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01230103344444491213noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1428511075964548890.post-68757633451713306572012-03-21T13:50:00.000-07:002012-04-25T06:48:19.763-07:00CBO Weighs In: Insurance Costs Up and Coverage Down Without Individual Mandate<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="background-color: #cccccc;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">Today’s Managing Health Care Costs Indicator is 16 milllion</span></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div>The CBO put forward its estimates of the impact of eliminating the individual mandate – the slides are at<a href="http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43117"> this URL</a><br /><br />The CBO estimates that 16 million fewer people would have health care coverage in 2021 if the individual mandate is eliminated . The deficit would be $282 billion lower over the decade (the net of $149 billion less Medicaid spending, business and exchange subsidies, loss of penalties, and higher tax revenue as there are fewer claiming health care deductions.<br /><br />However, the cost of purchasing insurance in the nongroup pool would go up a whopping 15-20% - largely because those likely to opt out of health insurance are likely to be the healthiest.<br /><br />Two observations. Some have suggested that the cost of health care reform has gone up substantially (as much as doubled) since the last estimates. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/no-the-cbo-hasnt-doubled-its-cost-estimate-for-health-care-reform/2011/08/25/gIQAZj7FPS_blog.html">Ezra KIein</a> shows that this is false - the only increased cost is higher subsidies due to just how bad the Great Recession has been. Beware comparisons of different years, especially when the earlier estimate included pre-implementation years!<br /><br />The second observation is that government expenditures of $282 billion to have 16 million additional insured Americans at the end of 10 years is a good deal. (I’d like to calculate how much this is per person insured per year, but I can’t find the year-by-year information among the CBO publications.) Some of those who will be insured under the mandate but would go “naked” absent the penalty will be healthy. But remember that health insurance is wealth transfer from the healthy to those with illnesses – so we NEED to get healthy people to participate in health insurance. Health insurance cannot be affordable if only the sick participate. <br /><br />The mandate is associated with very low opt-out rates in Massachusetts, despite a very small penalty. Supreme Court has oral arguments in just a few days.Justinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01230103344444491213noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1428511075964548890.post-26202226822478619472012-03-20T06:47:00.000-07:002012-04-25T06:48:19.853-07:00New England Journal at 200, and Disruptive vs. Accretive Innovation<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="background-color: #cccccc; font-size: x-large;">Today’s Managing Health Care Costs Indicator is 200</span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div>The <a href="http://www.nejm.org/">New England Journal</a> is celebrating its 200th birthday, and the<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/20/science/a-drumbeat-on-profit-takers.html?_r=1&hpw"> New York Times </a> has a touching article about two former editors, Arnold Relman and Marcia Angell, who have been tireless advocates against for-profit health care, and have become a couple late in life.<br /><br />From the Times:<br /><br /><i>In [Relman’s] ideal health care system, doctors would be salaried and organized into large multispecialty group practices similar to the Mayo Clinic and other private clinics; care would be delivered by a single-payer nonprofit system, financed by the taxpayers. “You’d save an enormous amount of money,” he said, much of it by eliminating the private insurance industry, “a parasite on the health care system.”</i><br /><br />There is more nuance to the role of profit in health care than Relman and Angell would allow. The pharmaceutical industry might have many profiteers – and the return on capital for the pharmas has historically been high. Further, it often seems that the pharmaceutical industry spends more energy on marketing “me too” drugs and promoting new medications that are much more expensive but only a tiny bit more effective than existing generics. BUT – and it’s a big but – most of the major improvements in medical care in my professional lifetime have come from pharmas. This includes highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) for HIV, gleevec for chronic myelocytic leukemia, and drugs that aim at specific genetic targets for breast and lung cancer. For-profit companies have led the way in <a href="http://managinghealthcarecosts.blogspot.com/2012/02/accretive-vs-disruptive-innovation-in.html">accretive innovation</a> – the innovation that layers on new technology or new approaches to increase quality (often just a little), and also to increase revenue and cost (often a lot).<br /><br />Can for-profit companies play a meaningful role in disruptive innovation, where there are large increases in value – often associated with small initial sacrifices in quality? I’d suggest the answer is unequivocally “yes,” as long as the market will reward disruptive innovation. Toshiba (a for-profit company) created the MRI machine that profitably performs <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120545569">$100 MRI scans</a> for the Japanese market where price regulation didn’t allow for $1000 scans. <a href="http://hbr.org/2009/10/how-ge-is-disrupting-itself/ar/1">General Electric </a> has developed in its labs (in India) inexpensive PC-based EKG machines and a low-cost hand-held cardiac ultrasound. Ironically, of course, in the US GE would like to position the handheld cardiac ultrasound to replace the stethoscope (thus increasing cost) rather than the fixed ultrasound. In the US, where higher payment is possible for improvements in quality that often have little or no clinical value, even potentially disruptive innovation is transformed into accretive innovation. See<a href="http://managinghealthcarecosts.blogspot.com/2011/07/one-image-american-medicine-believes-in.html"> this post</a> for more ruminations on this example. <br /><br />I’m not convinced that the profit status of a company alone determines how effective it will be at delivering value in health care. There are plenty of high-priced not-for-profit hospital systems and there are plenty of high value physician-owned offices. I do think that how the company is paid – including the price-sensitivity of purchasers and public knowledge of quality – plays a substantial role in determining whether companies increase value, or merely increase revenue. I think we need to focus on effective payment reform to increase value in health care, and then encourage competition of both for-profits and not-for-profits.<br /><br />I blogged about<a href="http://managinghealthcarecosts.blogspot.com/2011/10/arnold-relman-doctors-can-fix-health.html"> Arnold Relman’s complaints</a> about the Affordable Care Act last fall. <br /><br />There’s more about the NEJM’s 200th anniversary. For the skeptical, check out <a href="http://www.onthemedia.org/2012/feb/17/new-england-journal-medicines-200th-anniversary/">On the Media’s</a> interview with Jeffrey Drazen, the current editor, who talks about the many nostrums that were at one time promoted in its pages. The Journal at one point supported eugenics, pathologized homosexuality, and editorialized against women in medicine. It was published for almost a half century before the germ theory of disease became popular. Drazen notes<br /><br /><i>The key thing is to recognize you made a mistake and try to make progress. </i><br /><i><br /></i><br />The New England Journal has also been a market leader in making its articles available for no cost to those logging in from developing countries, and making articles with important clinical or public policy implications free immediately to all. Happy Birthday. <i> </i>Justinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01230103344444491213noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1428511075964548890.post-52424894831325339432012-03-19T20:31:00.000-07:002012-04-25T06:48:19.947-07:00CDC Chief and Graphic Antismoking Ads<span style="color: black;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/"></a><span id="goog_981425388"></span><span id="goog_981425389"></span></span><br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="background-color: #cccccc; font-size: x-large;">Today’s Managing Health Care Costs Indicator is $200 billion</span></b></div><br /><br />Thomas Frieden, the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is interviewed in this weekend’s<a href="http://www.onthemedia.org/2012/mar/16/cdcs-graphic-anti-smoking-campaign/"> On The Media,</a> where he talks about the federal government’s upcoming graphic anticigarette ad campaign. He quotes freely from the most recent <a href="http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/preventing-youth-tobacco-use/full-report.pdf">Surgeon General’s Report on Smoking,</a> which focuses on preventing smoking among youth.<br /><br />Smoking continues to be the leading cause of preventable death in the US – almost a half-century after the first Surgeon General’s report. Still – the rate of adult cigarette smoking in the US has plummeted by half, and the huge drop in death from heart disease is likely largely due to smoking cessation (rather than cholesterol medications or heart surgery or angioplasty).<br /><br />A few facts mentioned by Dr. Frieden:<br />-<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>For each person who dies of a smoking-related disease, 20 are disabled or made ill from smoking<br />-<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The annual cost of smoking to the national economy is estimated to be $200 billion. (This is loss of productivity – not only health care claims costs)<br />-<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>2/3 of smokers want to quit<br />-<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Most people who ever smoked have already quit<br />-<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Most smokers try to quit each year.<br /><br />He hopes the ad campaign will help convince 50,000 smokers to quit.<br /><br />Here’s what this campaign is up against (From the <a href="http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/preventing-youth-tobacco-use/full-report.pdf">2012 Surgeon General’s Report</a>, p10)<br /><i><br /></i><br /><i>In 2008, tobacco companies spent $9.94 billion on the marketing of cigarettes and $547 million on the marketing of smokeless tobacco. Spending on cigarette marketing is 48% higher than in 1998, the year of the Master Settlement Agreement. Expenditures for marketing smokeless tobacco are 277% higher than in 1998.</i>Justinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01230103344444491213noreply@blogger.com0