Monday, September 10, 2012

Fwd: qotd: Herding dual eligibles into low quality plans

_______________________________________________
Quote-of-the-day mailing list
Quote-of-the-day@mccanne.org
http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/quote-of-the-day

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: qotd: Herding dual eligibles into low quality plans
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 10:51:44 -0700
From: Don McCanne <don@mccanne.org>
To: Quote-of-the-Day <quote-of-the-day@mccanne.org>



NationalJournal
September 8, 2012
Obama More Flexible on Medicare Than Rhetoric Suggests
By Margot Sanger-Katz

In his convention speech in Charlotte, President Obama vowed to block
the Republican Medicare reform plan because "no American should ever
have to spend their golden years at the mercy of insurance companies."

But back in Washington, his Health and Human Services Department is
launching a pilot program that would shift up to 2 million of the
poorest and most-vulnerable seniors out of the federal Medicare program
and into private health insurance plans overseen by the states.

The administration has accepted applications from 18 states to
participate in the program, which would give states money to purchase
managed-care plans for people who are either disabled or poor enough to
qualify for both Medicare and Medicaid.

Obama's 2010 health reform law allows experimentation in delivering
health care at lower cost through demonstration projects. Many states
would like permission to shift their entire population of so-called
dual-eligible beneficiaries into the new plans. HHS has indicated that
it will enroll about 2 million beneficiaries, out of about 7 million who
qualify for full benefits from both government health programs.

California is already counting on more than $500 million in budget
savings from its own program this year.

Potential cost savings are a big incentive for states. Patients who
qualify for both federal health programs are a costly population and
include many who need nursing-home care or other expensive services.
About 40 percent of Medicaid's costs go toward patients who are also
eligible for Medicare. Advocates of the pilot program also say it could
lead to better coordination of care for patients who often struggle to
navigate the two different programs.

To get approval, states must guarantee that both Medicare and Medicaid
would save money. They must also agree to accept a fixed payment to
cover all care for each patient. While rules say the private plans must
cover all standard Medicare benefits, they also waive many Medicare
rules and leave insurer selection to the states.

Still, there is powerful opposition to the pilots among doctors,
hospitals, nursing homes, patient groups, and key lawmakers, including
Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., who wrote the provision in the health law
that created the office in charge of the pilot program.

"I urge you to take immediate steps to halt this initiative as currently
structured and to take the time necessary to develop a well-designed and
thoroughly evaluated care coordination model for dual eligibles that
meets the standards outlined in the law," Rockefeller wrote in a letter
to HHS.

The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, a group of experts who advise
Congress on Medicare policy, has also weighed in with an 11-page letter
to HHS, warning that the speed and scope of the program raised questions
about whether patients would receive the care they need.

The managed-care industry is gearing up for the expansion. Three large
insurers have purchased companies that insure Medicaid beneficiaries.
For years, states have been moving Medicaid patients into managed-care
plans, with mixed results. But this pilot represents a new market: It is
the first large program that would pool Medicare and Medicaid benefits
in a single, state-administered plan.

"The problem with this population is that all the strategies that the
health plans have been used to using historically are going to
backfire," said Chris Duff, executive director of the Disability
Practice Institute, an umbrella organization for small programs that
provide coordinated care to dual-eligibles. He warned that slashing
provider rates, limiting visits, and using other conventional
cost-control measures could lead to expensive hospitalizations for frail
dual-eligible patients.

But the states are enthusiastic about the pilot programs and believe
they will be able to provide better care at lower cost.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/healthcare/obama-more-flexible-on-medicare-than-rhetoric-suggests-20120908

And...

National Senior Citizens Law Center
May 2012
Assessing the Quality of California Dual Eligible Demonstration Health Plans

California has proposed a three-year demonstration project to enroll
individuals dually eligible for Medicare and Medi-Cal (dual eligibles)
into managed care. An analysis of both Medicare and Medi-Cal quality
ratings for the eight health plans selected by the California Department
of Health Care Services (DHCS) for the first phase of the project raises
cause for concern.

Approved health plans in participating counties would be responsible for
providing enrolled dual eligibles with all Medicare and Medi-Cal
benefits and services, including all needed medical care, long-term
services and supports, and behavioral health care, beginning in January
2013.

According to a DHCS report assessing the quality of health plans in the
Medi-Cal Managed Care (MCMC) Program, seven of the eight plans received
a global health plan rating of 1 out of 5 stars.

Looking at Medicare evaluations, two of the plans selected have received
a notice of non-compliance from the Medicare program. One of those has
been marked as a low-performing plan for three consecutive years and is
at risk for termination of its Medicare contract. Another plan was
recently sanctioned by Medicare as a result of beneficiary access
problems. Medicare continues to restrict enrollment of dual eligibles
into that plan. All eight proposed demonstration plans were found to be
low-performing on a least one composite Medicare quality measure.

http://dualsdemoadvocacy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Plan-Ratings-Report-May-2012.pdf


Comment: President Obama is currently campaigning against the
Republican proposal to privatize Medicare through a voucher program that
would move Medicare patients into private plans. Yet, based on
provisions in the Affordable Care Act, the administration is moving
Medicare patients whose coverage also is supplemented with Medicaid
(dual eligibles) into private managed care plans.

California has been a leader in health care financing innovations. Look
at the head start that they have on this program. Seven of the eight
plans they have selected to initiate the program have a global health
plan rating of only 1 star out of 5!

These plans greatly limit patients' choices of their providers and will
undoubtedly impair access by eliminating choices of most other health
care providers within the state. Having to transfer buses three times
when you are very ill can make you question whether you have the access
that the state has promised to you. And quality ratings? Forget it.

These low-income patients, under the law, have more coverage than do
traditional Medicare patients... more, but worse. We can do far better.
We can improve Medicare so that it includes the additional benefits
provided by Medicaid. Then you wouldn't need a special "dual eligible"
program.

If the improved Medicare program included everyone, then you wouldn't
have to herd patients into inferior managed care programs just to save
money (precisely what this new dual eligible program is designed to do).
As a beneficent public monopsony, the improved Medicare program would
save us all money while being in a position to demand quality throughout
the health care delivery system. We couldn't ask for more - for all of us!

Friday, September 7, 2012

Fwd: qotd: Institute of Medicine's "Best Care at Lower Cost"

_______________________________________________
Quote-of-the-day mailing list
Quote-of-the-day@mccanne.org
http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/quote-of-the-day

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: qotd: Institute of Medicine's "Best Care at Lower Cost"
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 13:43:08 -0700
From: Don McCanne <don@mccanne.org>
To: Quote-of-the-Day <quote-of-the-day@mccanne.org>



The National Academies
Institute of Medicine
September 6, 2012
Transformation of Health System Needed to Improve Care and Reduce Costs

America's health care system has become too complex and costly to
continue business as usual, says a new report from the Institute of
Medicine (Best Care at Lower Cost: The Path to Continuously Learning
Health Care in America).

The costs of the system's current inefficiency underscore the urgent
need for a systemwide transformation. The committee calculated that
about 30 percent of health spending in 2009 -- roughly $750 billion --
was wasted on unnecessary services, excessive administrative costs,
fraud, and other problems. Moreover, inefficiencies cause needless
suffering. By one estimate, roughly 75,000 deaths might have been
averted in 2005 if every state had delivered care at the quality level
of the best performing state.

"The threats to Americans' health and economic security are clear and
compelling, and it's time to get all hands on deck," said committee
chair Mark D. Smith, president and CEO, California HealthCare
Foundation, Oakland. "Our health care system lags in its ability to
adapt, affordably meet patients' needs, and consistently achieve better
outcomes. But we have the know-how and technology to make substantial
improvement on costs and quality. Our report offers the vision and road
map to create a learning health care system that will provide higher
quality and greater value."

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=13444

And...

Institute of Medicine
Best Care at Lower Cost: The Path to Continuously Learning Health Care
in America

Recommendations

Recommendation 1: The Digital Infrastructure
Improve the capacity to capture clinical, care delivery process, and
financial data for better care, system improvement, and the generation
of new knowledge.
Recommendation 2: The Data Utility
Streamline and revise research regulations to improve care, promote the
capture of clinical data, and generate knowledge.

Recommendation 3: Clinical Decision Support
Accelerate integration of the best clinical knowledge into care decisions.

Recommendation 4: Patient-Centered Care
Involve patients and families in decisions regarding health and health
care, tailored to fit their preferences.

Recommendation 5: Community Links
Promote community-clinical partnerships and services aimed at managing
and improving health at the community level.
Recommendation 6: Care Continuity
Improve coordination and communication within and across organizations.

Recommendation 7: Optimized Operations
Continuously improve health care operations to reduce waste, streamline
care delivery, and focus on activities that improve patient health.

Recommendation 8: Financial Incentives
Structure payment to reward continuous learning and improvement in the
provision of best care at lower cost.
Recommendation 9: Performance Transparency
Increase transparency on health care system performance.

Recommendation 10: Broad Leadership
Expand commitment to the goals of a continuously learning health care
system.

http://www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Report%20Files/2012/Best-Care/Best%20Care%20at%20Lower%20Cost_Recs.pdf

Best Care at Lower Cost: The Path to Continuously Learning Health Care
in America (Full report - 360 pages):
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13444


Comment: On release yesterday of the Institute of Medicine's new
report, "Best Care at Lower Cost: The Path to Continuously Learning
Health Care in America," headlines throughout the nation proclaimed that
the U.S. health system wastes about $765 billion a year. The articles
reported that the Institute of Medicine has recommended an overhaul to
recover this waste. So what is it that they recommend?

When you read their ten recommendations listed above, it is difficult to
come to any other conclusion than that the efforts to produce this 360
page report have resulted in not much more than, well... platitudes.

The report does list strategies for each of the ten recommendations,
but, perhaps oversimplified, much of it depends on information
technology and really offers little hope that most of this waste could
be recovered.

Instead of stumbling along towards trying to achieve a "learning health
care system," we should first adopt a single payer national health
program. We would then have an efficient infrastructure to which the
recommended strategies that are potentially beneficial could be applied.

Thursday, September 6, 2012

Fwd: qotd: McCanne on free markets in health care

_______________________________________________
Quote-of-the-day mailing list
Quote-of-the-day@mccanne.org
http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/quote-of-the-day

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: qotd: McCanne on free markets in health care
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 08:02:30 -0700
From: Don McCanne <don@mccanne.org>
To: Quote-of-the-Day <quote-of-the-day@mccanne.org>



The Orange County Register
August 19, 2012
First, do no harm; second, nationalize
By Teryl Zarnow

(Dr. Don) McCanne, now 74, volunteers as a policy fellow for Physicians
for a National Health Program, where he was a past president. His group
favors a single-payer national health program often called "Improved
Medicare for All."

It's not socialized medicine, just socialized insurance.

I can't decide if the doctor is out of touch with reality or a prophet
in blue jeans.

Link for full article:
http://www.ocregister.com/news/-183873-ocprint--.html

And...

The Orange County Register
August 25, 2012
Health care cure is an Rx for economic ruin

NEWPORT COAST, Anita Boyd:

Columnist Teryl Zarnow failed to do her homework. "First, do no harm;
second, nationalize" [Aug. 19] would be better titled, "No choice for
patients." What was presented as a "news" article was a one-sided
promotional piece for socialized medicine.

Perusing the online mission statement of "Physicians for a National
Health Care Program," one notes that "the program should be financed by
truly progressive taxation," and "views this campaign as part of the
campaign for social justice in the United States." Among its allied
groups are All Unions Committee for Single Payer Healthcare, Progressive
Democrats of America, and Healthcare-NOW!

The leadership, membership and network are particularly illustrative of
those wishing to "change" America, including Kim Gandy and Terry
O'Neill, past and present presidents of NOW, respectively; Medea
Benjamin of Code Pink San Francisco. The California Nurses Association
participates to "provide leadership in winning organized labor support
for HR676," which is the single-payer bill sponsored by John Conyers,
D-Mich., in the House of Representatives.

The smiling Dr. Don McCanne and his cadre of liberal progressives
speciously suggest that the "cure" for health care in America is another
entitlement to be paid for through the income tax system, as if this
country is not already $16 trillion in debt (not counting unfunded
liabilities.) The state of our entitlement system is completely ignored:
Social Security is operating in the red with more funds flowing out than
in for the first time in our nation's history, propped up by a "trust
fund" consisting of IOU's from the Treasury. Medicare will follow that
scenario sooner, rather than later, now that Obamacare has siphoned $716
billion in funding from Medicare over the next 10 years. All of this
while Dr. McCanne proposes to place yet another burden on the barely 50
percent of Americans who pay taxes, mostly to be borne on the backs of
the middle class, for that is where one finds the real wealth of this
country. McCanne's "cure" for health care is a prescription for the
financial collapse of this country.

Using Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman's logic, a medical system that
provides the best quality to the most must necessarily embrace
free-market principles, but the free market is absent in our health care
industry today. In 1945 Congress passed the McCarran-Ferguson Act, which
exempted the business of medical insurance from federal antitrust laws.

Thus insurance companies may freely conspire to price-fix without legal
repercussion, and consumers cannot readily compare prices for products
and services. Coupled with expensive and unnecessary tests defensively
prescribed to ward off meritless malpractice suits, our system is
certainly sick, but it is not incurable. Just as the computer evolved
from a slow, clunky but pricey desktop to a sleek, fast laptop at less
than one-fourth the price of the original 30 years ago, competition and
innovation can bring down the cost of health care, improve quality and
enhance affordability. A free-market prescription begins with the
embrace of free-market principles: repealing McCarran-Ferguson, posting
prices for services and products, competition across state lines, tort
reform and empowering the consumer.

The inevitable result of McCanne's alternative is all too evident in the
United Kingdom's single-payer system, where months-long waits for simple
surgeries are commonplace, and breast cancer patients were denied the
use of life-saving Tamoxifen until public outrage became so loud that
the government caved. How many lives were lost before this concession?
There was no choice for patients under this plan. There will be none
under Dr. McCanne's.

http://letters.ocregister.com/2012/08/25/health-care-cure-is-an-rx-for-economic-ruin/

And...

The Orange County Register
September 5, 2012
How the U.S. should fix health care

SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, Don McCanne, M.D., Senior Health Policy Fellow,
Physicians for a National Health Program:

Letter-writer Anita Boyd ["Health care cure is an Rx for economic ruin,"
Aug, 23], in responding to Teryl Zarnow's column on me and my advocacy
for single-payer reform ["First, do no harm; second, nationalize," Aug.
19], stated, "Using Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman's logic, a medical
system that provides the best quality to the most must necessarily
embrace free-market principles, but the free market is absent in our
health-care industry today."

She then proposes a "free-market prescription." In doing so, she ignores
Nobel Laureate Kenneth Arrow's seminal work of a half century ago
demonstrating that health care fails competitive market preconditions,
and "when the market fails to achieve an optimal state, society will, to
some extent at least, recognize the gap and nonmarket social
institutions will arise attempting to bridge it."

In 2004, I was on a panel debate with Milton Friedman discussing
prescription drugs. In that debate he said, regarding the government's
defense of patents, "My initial reaction was to say, of course we want
to let the market completely work, and instead of having the government
defend the patent, let the patent owner defend it. But the more you look
at it, the more you see that's inconsistent." He also acknowledged the
importance of government in drug research. Even in Friedman's view, pure
free markets are an illusion.

Further, the oracle of free markets, Noble Laureate Friedrich A. Hayek,
in "The Road to Serfdom," wrote, "There is no reason why, in a society
which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, (the certainty
of a given minimum of sustenance) should not be guaranteed to all
without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food,
shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any
reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system
of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life
against which few can make adequate provision."

Every other wealthy nation provides comprehensive health care to
virtually everyone, and they do it at a per person cost that averages
close to half of what we spend. The secret is that they all use some
form of social insurance, acknowledging the fact that health care
markets inevitably fail for far too many with significant health care needs.

The Affordable Care Act of President Barack Obama supposedly relies on
market principles by expanding competition of private health plans.
Under the act, 30 million people will remain uninsured, inadequate
health plans with low actuarial values will become the new standard and
costs will continue to increase out of control. This is the most
expensive of all possible models of health care reform, and yet falls
miserably short of achieving a high-performance system. It is a mistake
to pretend that markets will work since free markets do not and cannot
possibly ever exist in health care, as the current reform effort once
again demonstrates.

As Herbert Stein would say, the current status cannot continue. It is
absolutely inevitable that eventually we will enact some form of social
insurance. Although there are several possible models, the most likely
for the United States will be our popular Medicare program, in an
improved version. It would cover everyone. It would rely on progressive
taxes to make it affordable based on ability to pay. It would improve
efficiency, especially by eliminating the profound administrative waste
that characterizes our current, fragmented, dysfunctional financing
system. It would remove private insurer intrusions, returning choice in
actual health care to the patient. Though a public social insurance
program, it would perpetuate our private health care delivery system
(i.e., it is not socialized medicine). Especially important is that it
would exercise its purchasing power as a public monopsony, finally
bending the cost curve to sustainable levels.

Much of the debate today includes distortions and exaggerations, driven
by ideology. In this information age, the true facts are readily
available. Instead of chasing after the ever-elusive fantasy of free
markets in health care, we should join together in supporting the
crafting of a bona fide social insurance program that works for all of
us, based on solid health policy science.

http://letters.ocregister.com/2012/09/05/how-the-u-s-should-fix-health-care/