PNHP

Managed care needs a better watchdog

Managed care needs a better watchdog

The Star Tribune failed that role in a story about UnitedHealth

By Kip Sullivan
Star Tribune (Minneapolis), Jan. 23, 2013

So UnitedHealth Group has figured out a way to cut Medicare’s costs “without cutting services”? That is how the Star Tribune characterized the organization’s self-serving claims in a recent story (“UnitedHealth says Medicare can save big without big cuts,” Jan. 20).

The Star Tribune has long had a policy of clearly distinguishing advertisements from news reporting. That policy was violated by the story on United, which characterized the firm’s claims as a fresh perspective in the debate about how to cut Medicare’s costs. In fact, United and every other large health insurance company has been peddling similar hype for decades.

The reader had to wade through 15 paragraphs to find a dissenting view, expressed by the Congressional Budget Office. The Star Tribune relegated the CBO’s views to this single sentence: “The Congressional Budget Office … tends to downplay or even ignore numbers like the ones UnitedHealth now offers, experts said.” It would have been helpful if the article had gone on to explain why.

The reason is that CBO requires supporting evidence before it will report back to Congress that a health care reform proposal will save money. The evidence the CBO looks for is not news releases and “studies” from health insurance companies but papers based on the principles of science and published in peer-reviewed journals. To date, the scientific literature does not support the cost-containment claims made by United and the rest of the managed-care insurance industry.

Neither the CBO nor professional journals are infallible. But they have no financial stake in the debate.

United thinks “private success stories need to drive public reforms.” In other words, that self-serving anecdotes from the health insurance industry should mean more to lawmakers than the scientific literature does. How does the state’s largest newspaper let such nonsense go unexamined?

Minnesota badly needs the equivalent of a CBO. I urge the Star Tribune to consider playing the role. That would require regular reporting on the evidence for the cost-containment claims made for “payment reform,” “pay for performance,” “report cards,” “bundled payments,” “disease management,” and the other health care reform fads collectively known as “managed care.”

Here are two questions to investigate:

First, how can United claim to have discovered methods that will lower Medicare costs when the health insurance industry, including United, has a long track record of raising, not lowering, Medicare’s costs? A steady stream of research has shown that it costs more to insure seniors through health insurance companies than it does through the traditional fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare program.

The current name for the private-sector branch of Medicare is Medicare Advantage (MA). The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, which is very sympathetic to managed care, had this to say in a recent report to Congress: “Currently, Medicare spends more under the MA program for similar beneficiaries than it does under FFS.”

The second question to investigate is United’s claim that “health improvement programs such as diabetes prevention and weight control could save $53 billion” for Medicare and Medicaid. The peer-reviewed literature on this claim currently supports the opposite conclusion — that the cost of administering “disease management” programs in general, and diabetes and obesity prevention programs in particular, exceeds the savings in medical costs achieved by these programs.

There are a few exceptions to this rule, but diabetes and obesity are not among them. It remains possible that such programs targeted at a very small number of diabetics and overweight people (for example, those who are highly motivated to get well) will someday prove to save more than they cost the health care system, but in that event the total savings will be small compared with total health care spending.

The Star Tribune is capable of good reporting on managed-care hype. It has done so infrequently in the past. But it needs to do so regularly.

Kip Sullivan is a member of the steering committee of Physicians for a National Health Program, Minnesota chapter.

http://m.startribune.com/opinion/?id=188131581&c=y

Profit-Driven Health Care

By Leonard Rodberg
The New York Times, Letters, Jan. 21, 2013

Re “Health Care and Profits, a Poor Mix,” by Eduardo Porter (Economic Scene, Jan. 9):

The way we Americans provide health care is actually far worse than Mr. Porter suggests. It is not just that for-profit health insurance is more costly and less efficient than the nonprofit or government alternatives; it is inherently contradictory. The more health care the insurance companies provide — the more they respond to the needs of patients — the less profit they make. That’s why they cherry-pick the healthy and avoid the sick. That’s why we patients face denials and delays when we try to receive care.

The results are predictable; we have some of the worst health statistics of any advanced country. Other countries make health care a government responsibility, with the result that their people are healthier and they spend far less.

When will we learn, as your headline suggested, that health care and profits don’t mix?

Leonard Rodberg is a professor and chairman of the urban studies department, Queens College, CUNY. He resides in Flushing, Queens.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/22/opinion/profit-driven-health-care.html?ref=opinion

The second managed care revolution

HMO-Like Plans May Be Poised To Make Comeback In Online Insurance Markets

By Julie Appleby
Kaiser Health News, January 22, 2013

It’s back to the future for insurers, which plan to sharply limit the choice of doctors and hospitals in some policies marketed to consumers under the health law, starting next fall.

Such plans, similar to the HMOs of old, fell into disfavor with consumers in the 1980s and 1990s, when they rebelled against a lack of choice.

But limited network plans — which have begun a comeback among employers looking to slow rising premiums — are expected to play a prominent role in new online markets, called exchanges, where individuals and small businesses will shop for coverage starting Oct. 1. That trend worries consumer advocates, who fear skimpy networks could translate into inadequate care or big bills for those who develop complicated health problems.

Because such policies can offer lower premiums, insurers are betting they will appeal to some consumers, especially younger and healthier people who might see little need for more expensive policies.

Insurers, who are currently designing their plans for next fall, “will start with as tight a network control as they can,” says Ana Gupte, a managed care analyst with Sanford Bernstein.

Plans may also benefit from offering such policies because they are less attractive to those with medical problems, who can no longer be turned away beginning in January 2014.

Driven by consumer and employer demand for lower-cost plans, insurers are already rolling out narrow network policies that have shaved premiums 10 percent or more. A recent survey by benefit firm Mercer found that 23 percent of large employers offered such plans this year, usually among a choice of plans, up from 14 percent in 2011.

Many policies that currently offer a limited network of doctors and hospitals generally allow patients to go to out-of-network providers, with whom they do not have negotiated prices. But patients who seek such care face significant co-payments, which often start at 30 percent of the bill and can go as high as 50 percent.

It is often hard for consumers to figure out how much they might be charged if they go out of network, says Lynn Quincy, senior policy analyst at Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports magazine. In addition to meeting separate annual deductibles for out-of-network care, patients can be “balance-billed” by doctors or hospitals for the difference between what the insurer pays them and their total charges.

That doesn’t change under the federal health law, so consumers could be left on the hook for tens of thousands of dollars.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2013/January/23/HMO-limited-networks-comeback-in-exchanges.aspx

Comment:

By Don McCanne, M.D.

So we didn’t get single payer, but at least we got a bill that brought us an end to insurance company abuses, so they say. But did we really?

Most people purchasing plans through the insurance exchanges will select plans with lower premiums which means the bronze and silver plans that have actuarial values of 60 or 70 percent. To achieve these low values, the plans will require large deductibles and other cost sharing  – expenses that may not be affordable for many who actually need health care.

This article and others have reported on the strategy of insurers to rely more heavily on “narrow network” plans – plans that greatly limit your choice of health care professionals and institutions. Obtaining care outside of the network can result in greater cost sharing plus balance-billing for charges that normally would be disallowed. Current networks are already restrictive enough, but these new super skimpy networks will leave patients even more dissatisfied than they were at the peak of the managed care revolution. And we thought we got away from that.

Although insurers would be prohibited from deliberately excluding more costly, sicker patients, the very design of these plans motivates the healthy to buy them and the sick to shun them. Thus cherry picking and lemon dropping will still be with us, even if not overt.

Can you imagine the celebrations in the board rooms of the insurance and pharmaceutical firms? Officers and directors dancing around the table Don McNeill-style, singing, “Happy days are here again!”

The second managed care revolution

HMO-Like Plans May Be Poised To Make Comeback In Online Insurance Markets

By Julie Appleby
Kaiser Health News, January 22, 2013
It’s back to the future for insurers, which plan to sharply limit the choice of doctors and hospitals in some policies marketed to consumers under the health law, starting next fall.
Such plans, similar to the HMOs of old, fell into disfavor with consumers in the 1980s and 1990s, when they rebelled against a lack of choice.
But limited network plans — which have begun a comeback among employers looking to slow rising premiums — are expected to play a prominent role in new online markets, called exchanges, where individuals and small businesses will shop for coverage starting Oct. 1. That trend worries consumer advocates, who fear skimpy networks could translate into inadequate care or big bills for those who develop complicated health problems.
Because such policies can offer lower premiums, insurers are betting they will appeal to some consumers, especially younger and healthier people who might see little need for more expensive policies.
Insurers, who are currently designing their plans for next fall, “will start with as tight a network control as they can,” says Ana Gupte, a managed care analyst with Sanford Bernstein.
Plans may also benefit from offering such policies because they are less attractive to those with medical problems, who can no longer be turned away beginning in January 2014.
Driven by consumer and employer demand for lower-cost plans, insurers are already rolling out narrow network policies that have shaved premiums 10 percent or more. A recent survey by benefit firm Mercer found that 23 percent of large employers offered such plans this year, usually among a choice of plans, up from 14 percent in 2011.
Many policies that currently offer a limited network of doctors and hospitals generally allow patients to go to out-of-network providers, with whom they do not have negotiated prices. But patients who seek such care face significant co-payments, which often start at 30 percent of the bill and can go as high as 50 percent.
It is often hard for consumers to figure out how much they might be charged if they go out of network, says Lynn Quincy, senior policy analyst at Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports magazine. In addition to meeting separate annual deductibles for out-of-network care, patients can be “balance-billed” by doctors or hospitals for the difference between what the insurer pays them and their total charges.
That doesn’t change under the federal health law, so consumers could be left on the hook for tens of thousands of dollars.
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2013/January/23/HMO-limited-netw…

So we didn’t get single payer, but at least we got a bill that brought us an end to insurance company abuses, so they say. But did we really?
Most people purchasing plans through the insurance exchanges will select plans with lower premiums which means the bronze and silver plans that have actuarial values of 60 or 70 percent. To achieve these low values, the plans will require large deductibles and other cost sharing  – expenses that may not be affordable for many who actually need health care.
This article and others have reported on the strategy of insurers to rely more heavily on “narrow network” plans – plans that greatly limit your choice of health care professionals and institutions. Obtaining care outside of the network can result in greater cost sharing plus balance-billing for charges that normally would be disallowed. Current networks are already restrictive enough, but these new super skimpy networks will leave patients even more dissatisfied than they were at the peak of the managed care revolution. And we thought we got away from that.
Although insurers would be prohibited from deliberately excluding more costly, sicker patients, the very design of these plans motivates the healthy to buy them and the sick to shun them. Thus cherry picking and lemon dropping will still be with us, even if not overt.
Can you imagine the celebrations in the board rooms of the insurance and pharmaceutical firms? Officers and directors dancing around the table Don McNeill-style, singing, “Happy days are here again!”

Proposed Rule on Medicaid Premiums and Cost Sharing

A Proposed Rule by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

Federal Register, January 22, 2013

Medicaid, Children’s Health Insurance Programs, and Exchanges: Essential Health Benefits in Alternative Benefit Plans, Eligibility Notices, Fair Hearing and Appeal Processes for Medicaid and Exchange Eligibility Appeals and Other Provisions Related to Eligibility and Enrollment for Exchanges, Medicaid and CHIP, and Medicaid Premiums and Cost Sharing

This proposed rule would implement provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (collectively referred to as the Affordable Care Act), and the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009 (CHIPRA).

IV. Medicaid Premiums and Cost Sharing

A. Background

Section 1916 of the Act describes long-standing requirements for cost sharing, which apply broadly to all individuals who are not specifically exempted. Such cost sharing is limited to “nominal” amounts. Section 1916 of the Act also establishes authority for states to impose premiums on specific groups of beneficiaries with family income above 150 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL). The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA) established a new section 1916A of the Act, which gives states additional flexibility, allowing for alternative premiums and cost sharing, beyond what is allowed under section 1916 of the Act, for somewhat higher income beneficiaries. Such alternative cost sharing may be targeted to specific groups of beneficiaries and payment may be required as a condition of providing services. Alternative premiums and cost sharing imposed under section 1916A of the Act, cannot exceed five percent of family income.

B. Provisions of Proposed Rule

2. Update to Maximum Nominal Cost Sharing (§ 447.52)

Under the authority granted under sections 1916(a)(3) and (b)(3) of the Act for the Secretary to define nominal cost sharing, at § 447.52(b) we propose to revise the maximum amount of nominal cost sharing for outpatient services, which may be imposed on beneficiaries with incomes below 100 percent of the FPL.

To simplify the rules, we propose to remove the state payment as the basis for the cost sharing charge and replace it with a flat $4 maximum allowable charge for outpatient services.

Current rules permit cost sharing for institutional care, up to 50 percent of the cost for the first day of care, for individuals with incomes below 100 percent of the FPL. We are not proposing a change but are considering alternatives for the maximum allowable cost sharing related to an inpatient stay because this is a relatively high cost for very low income people and not a service that consumers have the ability to avoid or prevent. Options under consideration include the $4 maximum applied to outpatient services, $50, or $100, which would encompass the majority of hospital cost sharing currently in effect

3. Higher Cost Sharing Permitted for Individuals With Incomes Above 100 Percent of the FPL (§ 447.52)

Proposed § 447.52 consolidates the requirements for cost sharing established under sections 1916 and 1916A of the Act. Under the statute, states may impose cost sharing at higher than nominal levels for nonexempt individuals with incomes at or above 100 percent of the FPL. Section 1916A provides that states may establish cost sharing for nonexempt services, other than drugs and ED services, up to 10 percent of the cost paid by the state for such services, for individuals with incomes between 100 and 150 percent of the FPL.

4. Cost Sharing for Drugs (§ 447.53)

To provide additional flexibility to states, and to further encourage the use of preferred drugs, we are proposing to define nominal for this purpose so as to allow cost sharing of up to $8 for non-preferred drugs for individuals with income equal to or less than 150 percent of the FPL or who are otherwise exempt from cost sharing. States will have the flexibility to apply differential cost sharing for preferred and non-preferred drugs in whatever manner they consider most effective. For example, a state may charge $2 for preferred and $6 for non-preferred drugs or $0 for preferred and $8 for non-preferred drugs.

For individuals with family income above 150 percent of the FPL, per section 1916A(c) of the Act, cost sharing for non-preferred drugs may not exceed 20 percent of the cost the agency pays for the drug.

5. Cost Sharing for Emergency Department Services (§ 447.54)

In order to make it easier for states to utilize existing flexibilities to reduce non-emergency use of the ED, at § 447.54(a) we propose to allow cost sharing of up to $8 for non-emergency use of the ED no waiver will be required.

For individuals with family income above 150 percent of the FPL, per section 1916A(e) of the Act, there is no limit on the cost sharing that may be imposed for non-emergency use of the ED.

If an emergency condition does not exist, § 447.54(d) includes the requirements for hospital screening and referral currently codified at § 447.80(b)(2), to ensure that beneficiaries have appropriate access to other sources of care, before cost sharing is imposed. Hospitals must assess the individual clinically, identify an accessible and available alternative provider with lesser cost sharing, and establish a referral to coordinate scheduling. Examples of accessible alternative providers are those that are located within close proximity, accessible via public transportation, open extended hours, and able to serve individuals with LEP and disabilities.

5. Premiums (§ 447.55)

At proposed § 447.55, we consolidate and simplify the requirements for premiums established under sections 1916 and 1916A of the Act. Proposed § 447.56(a) describes the option to impose premiums on individuals with family income above 150 percent of the FPL, as established under section 1916A of the Act, while paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(5) describe the options to impose premiums for specific populations as established under section 1916 of the Act. Except for the minor revisions described below, we are not seeking to change current policy related to premiums.

At § 447.55(a)(5), we propose to revise requirements related to premiums imposed on medically needy individuals whose income is under 150 percent of the FPL. We removed the current income-related scale currently at § 447.52(b) and instead would provide states with the flexibility to determine their own sliding scale for establishing premiums for the medically needy up to maximum of $20 instead of the $19 in current regulation.

VII. Regulatory Impact Analysis

C. Estimated Impact of the Medicaid Premiums and Cost Sharing Provisions

1. Overall Impact

Based on our policy analysis, we do not anticipate significant costs or savings from these proposed changes at the program level given the targeted nature of the cost sharing. We believe these proposed policies would encourage less costly care and decreased use of unnecessary services, which may reduce state and federal costs for the specified services.

2. Anticipated Effects

As states better understand their options for imposing premiums and cost sharing, more states may take advantage of existing flexibilities, such as cost sharing of up to 20 percent of the cost of the service, and the option of allowing providers to deny services for unpaid cost sharing, both of which are targeted to somewhat higher income beneficiaries. Research has shown that higher-than-nominal cost sharing on very low-income individuals can have an adverse impact on access to servi
ces by discouraging or preventing such individuals from seeking needed care. However, such impacts are not likely to result from the changes proposed here as they are largely focused on services where there are more appropriate and less costly alternatives. Increased cost sharing may have a negative impact on providers, as uncollected cost sharing reduces provider reimbursement, to the extent that the beneficiary cannot or does not pay the cost sharing and services are nonetheless provided. Under the DRA provisions and this proposed rule, however, states may minimize this impact by allowing providers to deny services for failure to pay the required cost sharing in certain circumstances.

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/01/22/2013-00659/medicaid-childrens-health-insurance-programs-and-exchanges-essential-health-benefits-in-alternative#h-186

Comment:

By Don McCanne, M.D.

Why do patients go on the Medicaid program? Because they’re dirt poor, that’s why. To even bring up a discussion of premiums and cost sharing on these down-and-out people represents the ultimate of bureaucratic insensitivity.

Admittedly, there was some effort to target the cost sharing to encourage more appropriate and less costly alternatives, but permitting states to require up to five percent of family income for out-of-pocket costs is truly unaffordable for most of these families.

This shows how much traction the make-them-shop-with-their-own-money crowd has gained – the moral hazard freaks who are hazardous to our health care morals. There are more effective and humane means of controlling health care costs, single payer being the most obvious. We do not need to erect financial barriers that can impair access to beneficial services, for the poor or for anyone else.

Perhaps the most disturbing statement in this Proposed Rule is the following: States may allow providers “to deny services for failure to pay the required cost sharing in certain circumstances.” Deny services for failure to pay “nominal” cost sharing?! What does that say about health care justice in America?

Proposed Rule on Medicaid Premiums and Cost Sharing

A Proposed Rule by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

Federal Register, January 22, 2013
Medicaid, Children’s Health Insurance Programs, and Exchanges: Essential Health Benefits in Alternative Benefit Plans, Eligibility Notices, Fair Hearing and Appeal Processes for Medicaid and Exchange Eligibility Appeals and Other Provisions Related to Eligibility and Enrollment for Exchanges, Medicaid and CHIP, and Medicaid Premiums and Cost Sharing
This proposed rule would implement provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (collectively referred to as the Affordable Care Act), and the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009 (CHIPRA).
IV. Medicaid Premiums and Cost Sharing
A. Background
Section 1916 of the Act describes long-standing requirements for cost sharing, which apply broadly to all individuals who are not specifically exempted. Such cost sharing is limited to “nominal” amounts. Section 1916 of the Act also establishes authority for states to impose premiums on specific groups of beneficiaries with family income above 150 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL). The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA) established a new section 1916A of the Act, which gives states additional flexibility, allowing for alternative premiums and cost sharing, beyond what is allowed under section 1916 of the Act, for somewhat higher income beneficiaries. Such alternative cost sharing may be targeted to specific groups of beneficiaries and payment may be required as a condition of providing services. Alternative premiums and cost sharing imposed under section 1916A of the Act, cannot exceed five percent of family income.
B. Provisions of Proposed Rule
2. Update to Maximum Nominal Cost Sharing (§ 447.52)
Under the authority granted under sections 1916(a)(3) and (b)(3) of the Act for the Secretary to define nominal cost sharing, at § 447.52(b) we propose to revise the maximum amount of nominal cost sharing for outpatient services, which may be imposed on beneficiaries with incomes below 100 percent of the FPL.
To simplify the rules, we propose to remove the state payment as the basis for the cost sharing charge and replace it with a flat $4 maximum allowable charge for outpatient services.
Current rules permit cost sharing for institutional care, up to 50 percent of the cost for the first day of care, for individuals with incomes below 100 percent of the FPL. We are not proposing a change but are considering alternatives for the maximum allowable cost sharing related to an inpatient stay because this is a relatively high cost for very low income people and not a service that consumers have the ability to avoid or prevent. Options under consideration include the $4 maximum applied to outpatient services, $50, or $100, which would encompass the majority of hospital cost sharing currently in effect
3. Higher Cost Sharing Permitted for Individuals With Incomes Above 100 Percent of the FPL (§ 447.52)
Proposed § 447.52 consolidates the requirements for cost sharing established under sections 1916 and 1916A of the Act. Under the statute, states may impose cost sharing at higher than nominal levels for nonexempt individuals with incomes at or above 100 percent of the FPL. Section 1916A provides that states may establish cost sharing for nonexempt services, other than drugs and ED services, up to 10 percent of the cost paid by the state for such services, for individuals with incomes between 100 and 150 percent of the FPL.
4. Cost Sharing for Drugs (§ 447.53)
To provide additional flexibility to states, and to further encourage the use of preferred drugs, we are proposing to define nominal for this purpose so as to allow cost sharing of up to $8 for non-preferred drugs for individuals with income equal to or less than 150 percent of the FPL or who are otherwise exempt from cost sharing. States will have the flexibility to apply differential cost sharing for preferred and non-preferred drugs in whatever manner they consider most effective. For example, a state may charge $2 for preferred and $6 for non-preferred drugs or $0 for preferred and $8 for non-preferred drugs.
For individuals with family income above 150 percent of the FPL, per section 1916A(c) of the Act, cost sharing for non-preferred drugs may not exceed 20 percent of the cost the agency pays for the drug.
5. Cost Sharing for Emergency Department Services (§ 447.54)
In order to make it easier for states to utilize existing flexibilities to reduce non-emergency use of the ED, at § 447.54(a) we propose to allow cost sharing of up to $8 for non-emergency use of the ED no waiver will be required.
For individuals with family income above 150 percent of the FPL, per section 1916A(e) of the Act, there is no limit on the cost sharing that may be imposed for non-emergency use of the ED.
If an emergency condition does not exist, § 447.54(d) includes the requirements for hospital screening and referral currently codified at § 447.80(b)(2), to ensure that beneficiaries have appropriate access to other sources of care, before cost sharing is imposed. Hospitals must assess the individual clinically, identify an accessible and available alternative provider with lesser cost sharing, and establish a referral to coordinate scheduling. Examples of accessible alternative providers are those that are located within close proximity, accessible via public transportation, open extended hours, and able to serve individuals with LEP and disabilities.
5. Premiums (§ 447.55)
At proposed § 447.55, we consolidate and simplify the requirements for premiums established under sections 1916 and 1916A of the Act. Proposed § 447.56(a) describes the option to impose premiums on individuals with family income above 150 percent of the FPL, as established under section 1916A of the Act, while paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(5) describe the options to impose premiums for specific populations as established under section 1916 of the Act. Except for the minor revisions described below, we are not seeking to change current policy related to premiums.
At § 447.55(a)(5), we propose to revise requirements related to premiums imposed on medically needy individuals whose income is under 150 percent of the FPL. We removed the current income-related scale currently at § 447.52(b) and instead would provide states with the flexibility to determine their own sliding scale for establishing premiums for the medically needy up to maximum of $20 instead of the $19 in current regulation.
VII. Regulatory Impact Analysis
C. Estimated Impact of the Medicaid Premiums and Cost Sharing Provisions
1. Overall Impact
Based on our policy analysis, we do not anticipate significant costs or savings from these proposed changes at the program level given the targeted nature of the cost sharing. We believe these proposed policies would encourage less costly care and decreased use of unnecessary services, which may reduce state and federal costs for the specified services.
2. Anticipated Effects
As states better understand their options for imposing premiums and cost sharing, more states may take advantage of existing flexibilities, such as cost sharing of up to 20 percent of the cost of the service, and the option of allowing providers to deny services for unpaid cost sharing, both of which are targeted to somewhat higher income beneficiaries. Research has shown that higher-than-nominal cost sharing on very low-income individuals can have an adverse impact on access to services by discouraging or preventing such individuals from seeking needed care. However, such impacts are not likely to result from the changes proposed here as they are largely focused on services where there are more appropriate and less costly alternatives. Increased cost sharing may have a negative impact on providers, as uncollected cost sharing reduces provider reimbursement, to the extent that the beneficiary cannot or does not pay the cost sharing and services are nonetheless provided. Under the DRA provisions and this proposed rule, however, states may minimize this impact by allowing providers to deny services for failure to pay the required cost sharing in certain circumstances.
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/01/22/2013-00659/medicaid-…

Why do patients go on the Medicaid program? Because they’re dirt poor, that’s why. To even bring up a discussion of premiums and cost sharing on these down-and-out people represents the ultimate of bureaucratic insensitivity.
Admittedly, there was some effort to target the cost sharing to encourage more appropriate and less costly alternatives, but permitting states to require up to five percent of family income for out-of-pocket costs is truly unaffordable for most of these families.
This shows how much traction the make-them-shop-with-their-own-money crowd has gained – the moral hazard freaks who are hazardous to our health care morals. There are more effective and humane means of controlling health care costs, single payer being the most obvious. We do not need to erect financial barriers that can impair access to beneficial services, for the poor or for anyone else.
Perhaps the most disturbing statement in this Proposed Rule is the following: States may allow providers “to deny services for failure to pay the required cost sharing in certain circumstances.” Deny services for failure to pay “nominal” cost sharing?! What does that say about health care justice in America?

Baucus/Hatch taxpayer gift to Amgen

Fiscal Footnote: Big Senate Gift to Drug Maker

By Eric Lipton and Kevin Sack
The New York Times, January 19, 2013

Just two weeks after pleading guilty in a major federal fraud case, Amgen, the world’s largest biotechnology firm, scored a largely unnoticed coup on Capitol Hill: Lawmakers inserted a paragraph into the “fiscal cliff” bill that did not mention the company by name but strongly favored one of its drugs.

The language buried in Section 632 of the law delays a set of Medicare price restraints on a class of drugs that includes Sensipar, a lucrative Amgen pill used by kidney dialysis patients.

The provision gives Amgen an additional two years to sell Sensipar without government controls. The news was so welcome that the company’s chief executive quickly relayed it to investment analysts. But it is projected to cost Medicare up to $500 million over that period.

Supporters of the delay, primarily leaders of the Senate Finance Committee who have long benefited from Amgen’s political largess, said it was necessary to allow regulators to prepare properly for the pricing change.

But critics, including several Congressional aides who were stunned to find the measure in the final bill, pointed out that Amgen had already won a previous two-year delay, and they depicted a second one as an unnecessary giveaway.

Amgen has deep financial and political ties to lawmakers like Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, and Senators Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, and Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, who hold heavy sway over Medicare payment policy as the leaders of the Finance Committee.

Amgen’s success also shows that even a significant federal criminal investigation may pose little threat to a company’s influence on Capitol Hill. On Dec. 19, as Congressional negotiations over the fiscal bill reached a frenzy, Amgen pleaded guilty to marketing one of its anti-anemia drugs, Aranesp, illegally. It agreed to pay criminal and civil penalties totaling $762 million, a record settlement for a biotechnology company, according to the Justice Department.

Amgen, whose headquarters is near Los Angeles and which had $15.6 billion in revenue in 2011, has a deep bench of Washington lobbyists that includes Jeff Forbes, the former chief of staff to Mr. Baucus; Hunter Bates, the former chief of staff for Mr. McConnell; and Tony Podesta, whose fast-growing lobbying firm has unusually close ties to the White House.

In some cases, the company’s former employees have found important posts inside the Capitol. They include Dan Todd, one of Mr. Hatch’s top Finance Committee staff members on health and Medicare policy, who worked as a health policy analyst for Amgen’s government affairs office from 2005 to 2009. Mr. Todd, who joined Mr. Hatch’s staff in 2011, was directly involved in negotiating the dialysis components of the fiscal bill, and he met with “all the stakeholders,” Mr. Hatch’s spokeswoman said, not disputing when asked that this included Amgen lobbyists.

Aides to the senators said some heavy donors had won and others had lost in the Medicare negotiations — proof that the legislative outcome was based on the merits. “What is the best policy for Montanans and people across the country lies at the heart of every decision Chairman Baucus makes,” said Meaghan Smith, a spokeswoman for Mr. Baucus. “It’s as simple as that.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/20/us/medicare-pricing-delay-is-political-win-for-amgen-drug-maker.html

Comment:

By Don McCanne, MD

With appropriate anger, we can point our fingers toward Sen. Baucus and his colleagues for their involvement in this corrupt half billion dollar taxpayer gift to Amgen, a biotechnology company that has already paid over three-quarters of a billion dollars in penalties for prior criminal acts to which they pled guilty. Sen. Baucus especially deserves our ire since he led the process in bringing us the Affordable Care Act – an act that was designed specifically to serve the financial interests of the private insurance and pharmaceutical industries, at a consequential cost to patients and taxpayers.

Of course, Sen. Baucus is not alone in accepting payment in exchange for favorable legislation. All members of Congress have fundraising challenges. If you check OpenSecrets.org, you will find that most members of Congress are tainted, though they vary in their egregiousness.

Who is ultimately to blame? We elect these people. Health care justice doesn’t stand a chance when displaced by the power of greed and corruption, and we simply turn our backs on it.

Medicare pricing delay is political win for drug maker

By Eric Lipton and Kevin Sack
The New York Times, Jan. 19, 2013

WASHINGTON — Just two weeks after pleading guilty in a major federal fraud case, Amgen, the world’s largest biotechnology firm, scored a largely unnoticed coup on Capitol Hill: Lawmakers inserted a paragraph into the “fiscal cliff” bill that did not mention the company by name but strongly favored one of its drugs.

The language buried in Section 632 of the law delays a set of Medicare price restraints on a class of drugs that includes Sensipar, a lucrative Amgen pill used by kidney dialysis patients.

The provision gives Amgen an additional two years to sell Sensipar without government controls. The news was so welcome that the company’s chief executive quickly relayed it to investment analysts. But it is projected to cost Medicare up to $500 million over that period.

Amgen, which has a small army of 74 lobbyists in the capital, was the only company to argue aggressively for the delay, according to several Congressional aides of both parties.

Supporters of the delay, primarily leaders of the Senate Finance Committee who have long benefited from Amgen’s political largess, said it was necessary to allow regulators to prepare properly for the pricing change.

But critics, including several Congressional aides who were stunned to find the measure in the final bill, pointed out that Amgen had already won a previous two-year delay, and they depicted a second one as an unnecessary giveaway.

“That is why we are in the trouble we are in,” said Dennis J. Cotter, a health policy researcher who studies the cost and efficacy of dialysis drugs. “Everybody is carving out their own turf and getting it protected, and we pass the bill on to the taxpayer.”

The provision’s inclusion in the legislation to avert the tax increases and spending cuts that made up the so-called fiscal cliff shows the enduring power of special interests in Washington, even as Congress faces a critical test of its ability to balance the budget.

Amgen has deep financial and political ties to lawmakers like Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, and Senators Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, and Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, who hold heavy sway over Medicare payment policy as the leaders of the Finance Committee.

It also has worked hard to build close ties with the Obama administration, with its lobbyists showing up more than a dozen times since 2009 on logs of visits to the White House, although a company official said Saturday that it had not appealed to the administration during the debate over the fiscal legislation.

Aides to Mr. Hatch and Mr. Baucus, and a spokeswoman for Amgen, said the delay would give the Medicare system and medical providers the time they needed to accommodate other complicated changes in how federal reimbursements for kidney care were determined.

“Sometimes when you try to do too much and too quickly, you screw up,” said Antonia Ferrier, a spokeswoman for Mr. Hatch. The goal, an Amgen spokeswoman said in a written statement, is “to ensure that quality of care is not compromised for dialysis patients.”

But the measure runs counter to a five-year effort in Washington to control the enormous expense of dialysis for the Medicare program by reversing incentives to overprescribe medication.

Amgen’s success also shows that even a significant federal criminal investigation may pose little threat to a company’s influence on Capitol Hill. On Dec. 19, as Congressional negotiations over the fiscal bill reached a frenzy, Amgen pleaded guilty to marketing one of its anti-anemia drugs, Aranesp, illegally. It agreed to pay criminal and civil penalties totaling $762 million, a record settlement for a biotechnology company, according to the Justice Department.

Amgen, whose headquarters is near Los Angeles and which had $15.6 billion in revenue in 2011, has a deep bench of Washington lobbyists that includes Jeff Forbes, the former chief of staff to Mr. Baucus; Hunter Bates, the former chief of staff for Mr. McConnell; and Tony Podesta, whose fast-growing lobbying firm has unusually close ties to the White House.

Amgen’s employees and political action committee have distributed nearly $5 million in contributions to political candidates and committees since 2007, including $67,750 to Mr. Baucus, the Finance Committee chairman, and $59,000 to Mr. Hatch, the committee’s ranking Republican. They gave an additional $73,000 to Mr. McConnell, some of it at a fund-raising event for him that it helped sponsor in December while the debate over the fiscal legislation was under way. More than $141,000 has also gone from Amgen employees to President Obama’s campaigns.

What distinguishes the company’s efforts in Washington is the diversity and intensity of its public policy campaigns. Amgen and its foundation have directed hundreds of thousands of dollars in charitable contributions to influential groups like the Congressional Black Caucus and to lesser-known groups like the Utah Families Foundation, which was founded by Mr. Hatch and brings the senator positive coverage in his state’s news media.

Amgen has sent large donations to Glacier PAC, sponsored by Mr. Baucus in Montana, and OrrinPAC, a political action committee controlled by Mr. Hatch in Utah.

And when Mr. Hatch faced a rare primary challenge last year, a nonprofit group calling itself Freedom Path sponsored advertisements in Utah that attacked his opponent, an effort that tax records released in November show was financed in large part by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, a trade group that includes Amgen.

In some cases, the company’s former employees have found important posts inside the Capitol. They include Dan Todd, one of Mr. Hatch’s top Finance Committee staff members on health and Medicare policy, who worked as a health policy analyst for Amgen’s government affairs office from 2005 to 2009. Mr. Todd, who joined Mr. Hatch’s staff in 2011, was directly involved in negotiating the dialysis components of the fiscal bill, and he met with “all the stakeholders,” Mr. Hatch’s spokeswoman said, not disputing when asked that this included Amgen lobbyists.

For years, Amgen used its clout in Washington to lobby for generous Medicare payments for its blockbuster drug, Epogen, which fends off anemia in dialysis patients.

The Medicare program covers most costs associated with treating severe renal disease, regardless of a patient’s age, and the dialysis market continues to grow steadily. In 2010, the government’s kidney program was spending $1.9 billion on injectable anti-anemia drugs like Epogen.

But nearly a decade ago, evidence started to surface that questioned the effectiveness and safety of Epogen at the levels being used.

Researchers found that Medicare’s practice of reimbursing providers with separate payments for the drugs and for dialysis treatments encouraged overprescription because the providers made healthy profits with each dose. They also found that high doses posed cardiovascular risks to patients.

Congress reversed the incentive in 2008 by requiring Medicare to pay a single, bundled rate for a dialysis treatment and related medications starting in 2011. With providers potentially profiting more by prescribing less Epogen, use of dialysis drugs dropped by nearly 25 percent.

But the blow was softened for Amgen and other kidney care companies with a few favors from Congress. Among them was a two-year delay in the inclusion of certain oral drugs, Sensipar among them, in the new bundled payment system. That meant demand for Sensipar would not decline and Amgen would maintain control over pricing.

With that two-year exclusion set to expire in 2014, Amgen’s lobbyists began making rounds again o
n Capitol Hill last fall. In private meetings with staff members of the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committees, they argued for another two-year delay, several Congressional aides said.

Committee staff members had been meeting regularly in Room S-124 of the Capitol to negotiate a package of Medicare cuts needed to prevent a large scheduled reduction in doctors’ fees. The kidney program was on the table because a new report by the Government Accountability Office had found that Medicare had overpaid for dialysis by up to $880 million in 2011.

The discussions about cutting dialysis reimbursement began late last fall with little focus on a delay for oral drugs, but it was eventually endorsed by leading staff members for Mr. Baucus and Mr. Hatch, Congressional aides said.

Aides to the senators said the delay made sense because the Government Accountability Office had warned in early 2011 that federal regulators should take care in setting compensation levels for the drugs.

But others on Capitol Hill saw no justification for further delay.

“It is disappointing,” said a Democratic Congressional aide who declined to be named because of the issue’s sensitivity, “since the status quo encourages prescribing of oral drugs based on financial incentives rather than on best clinical practices.”

Mr. Hatch’s spokeswoman, Ms. Ferrier, said the involvement of Mr. Todd, the former Amgen employee, had not been inappropriate and that dozens of staff members on Capitol Hill handled matters that might benefit former employers.

“They have to leave their previous lives behind,” Ms. Ferrier said. “And Dan has done just that.”

After the House was sidelined late in the fiscal negotiations, the Senate gained control of the final bill-writing process, and the provision requested by Amgen was inserted into the legislation by Senate staff members.

Aides to Mr. Baucus and Mr. Hatch emphasized that the White House and Senate leadership, including Mr. McConnell, had the final word on the bill.

A spokesman for Mr. McConnell praised the parts of the legislation related to Medicare, while a White House spokesman declined to comment, saying the matter was decided by players on Capitol Hill.

Many lobbyists and Congressional aides said they first learned of the language when the final bill was posted publicly, only hours before being approved. It called for cutting $4.9 billion over 10 years by lowering Medicare payments for dialysis, but left hundreds of millions on the table by extending the oral drug delay.

At this point, opponents had no way to challenge the provision, as there was a single vote on the entire fiscal package. Mr. Baucus and Mr. Hatch voted in favor.

Aides to the senators said some heavy donors had won and others had lost in the Medicare negotiations — proof that the legislative outcome was based on the merits. “What is the best policy for Montanans and people across the country lies at the heart of every decision Chairman Baucus makes,” said Meaghan Smith, a spokeswoman for Mr. Baucus. “It’s as simple as that.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/20/us/medicare-pricing-delay-is-political-win-for-amgen-drug-maker.html

Create Medicare for all

By Harvey Fernbach, M.D.
The Washington Post, Letters, Jan. 21, 2013

Harold Meyerson [“America flunks its checkup,” op-ed, Jan. 16], citing the recent report of the Institute of Medicine, provides an excellent commentary on the failings of our health-care system — failings that will, in too many cases, persist under the Affordable Care Act. While Mr. Meyerson’s diagnosis of the problem hits a home run, however, his prescription for a remedy unfortunately stops at third base.

Until we establish an “improved Medicare for all” — a single-payer system that ends the flagrant waste, inefficiency and injustice associated with the private insurance industry — we won’t get to home plate. As the institute’s report makes plain, such systems are more equitable, economical and user-friendly for patients, practitioners and businesses than are our current arrangements, even as they deliver better medical outcomes.

In 2009, a majority of Americans told pollsters that they wanted the simplicity, portability, increased choice of doctors and peace of mind that an improved Medicare for all would bring. Why should we settle for less?

Harvey Fernbach, M.D., M.P.H., is co-director of the District of Columbia chapter of Physicians for a National Health Program. He resides in College Park, Md.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/create-medicare-for-all/2013/01/21/f1906f66-6185-11e2-8f16-7b37a1341b04_story.html

Baucus/Hatch taxpayer gift to Amgen

Fiscal Footnote: Big Senate Gift to Drug Maker

By Eric Lipton and Kevin Sack
The New York Times, January 19, 2013
Just two weeks after pleading guilty in a major federal fraud case, Amgen, the world’s largest biotechnology firm, scored a largely unnoticed coup on Capitol Hill: Lawmakers inserted a paragraph into the “fiscal cliff” bill that did not mention the company by name but strongly favored one of its drugs.
The language buried in Section 632 of the law delays a set of Medicare price restraints on a class of drugs that includes Sensipar, a lucrative Amgen pill used by kidney dialysis patients.
The provision gives Amgen an additional two years to sell Sensipar without government controls. The news was so welcome that the company’s chief executive quickly relayed it to investment analysts. But it is projected to cost Medicare up to $500 million over that period.
Supporters of the delay, primarily leaders of the Senate Finance Committee who have long benefited from Amgen’s political largess, said it was necessary to allow regulators to prepare properly for the pricing change.
But critics, including several Congressional aides who were stunned to find the measure in the final bill, pointed out that Amgen had already won a previous two-year delay, and they depicted a second one as an unnecessary giveaway.
Amgen has deep financial and political ties to lawmakers like Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, and Senators Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, and Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, who hold heavy sway over Medicare payment policy as the leaders of the Finance Committee.
Amgen’s success also shows that even a significant federal criminal investigation may pose little threat to a company’s influence on Capitol Hill. On Dec. 19, as Congressional negotiations over the fiscal bill reached a frenzy, Amgen pleaded guilty to marketing one of its anti-anemia drugs, Aranesp, illegally. It agreed to pay criminal and civil penalties totaling $762 million, a record settlement for a biotechnology company, according to the Justice Department.
Amgen, whose headquarters is near Los Angeles and which had $15.6 billion in revenue in 2011, has a deep bench of Washington lobbyists that includes Jeff Forbes, the former chief of staff to Mr. Baucus; Hunter Bates, the former chief of staff for Mr. McConnell; and Tony Podesta, whose fast-growing lobbying firm has unusually close ties to the White House.
In some cases, the company’s former employees have found important posts inside the Capitol. They include Dan Todd, one of Mr. Hatch’s top Finance Committee staff members on health and Medicare policy, who worked as a health policy analyst for Amgen’s government affairs office from 2005 to 2009. Mr. Todd, who joined Mr. Hatch’s staff in 2011, was directly involved in negotiating the dialysis components of the fiscal bill, and he met with “all the stakeholders,” Mr. Hatch’s spokeswoman said, not disputing when asked that this included Amgen lobbyists.
Aides to the senators said some heavy donors had won and others had lost in the Medicare negotiations — proof that the legislative outcome was based on the merits. “What is the best policy for Montanans and people across the country lies at the heart of every decision Chairman Baucus makes,” said Meaghan Smith, a spokeswoman for Mr. Baucus. “It’s as simple as that.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/20/us/medicare-pricing-delay-is-political…

With appropriate anger, we can point our fingers toward Sen. Baucus and his colleagues for their involvement in this corrupt half billion dollar taxpayer gift to Amgen, a biotechnology company that has already paid over three-quarters of a billion dollars in penalties for prior criminal acts to which they pled guilty. Sen. Baucus especially deserves our ire since he led the process in bringing us the Affordable Care Act – an act that was designed specifically to serve the financial interests of the private insurance and pharmaceutical industries, at a consequential cost to patients and taxpayers.
Of course, Sen. Baucus is not alone in accepting payment in exchange for favorable legislation. All members of Congress have fundraising challenges. If you check OpenSecrets.org, you will find that most members of Congress are tainted, though they vary in their egregiousness.
Who is ultimately to blame? We elect these people. Health care justice doesn’t stand a chance when displaced by the power of greed and corruption, and we simply turn our backs on it.

Second Inaugural of President Barack Obama

Second Inaugural Speech

President Barack H. Obama, January 21, 2013

We, the people, still believe that every citizen deserves a basic measure of security and dignity. We must make the hard choices to reduce the cost of health care and the size of our deficit. But we reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future. For we remember the lessons of our past, when twilight years were spent in poverty, and parents of a child with a disability had nowhere to turn. We do not believe that in this country, freedom is reserved for the lucky, or happiness for the few. We recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, any one of us, at any time, may face a job loss, or a sudden illness, or a home swept away in a terrible storm. The commitments we make to each other – through Medicare, and Medicaid, and Social Security – these things do not sap our initiative; they strengthen us. They do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/21/us/politics/obamas-second-inaugural-speech.html?_r=0&pagewanted=all

Second Inaugural of President Barack Obama

Second Inaugural Speech

President Barack H. Obama, January 21, 2013
We, the people, still believe that every citizen deserves a basic measure of security and dignity. We must make the hard choices to reduce the cost of health care and the size of our deficit. But we reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future. For we remember the lessons of our past, when twilight years were spent in poverty, and parents of a child with a disability had nowhere to turn. We do not believe that in this country, freedom is reserved for the lucky, or happiness for the few. We recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, any one of us, at any time, may face a job loss, or a sudden illness, or a home swept away in a terrible storm. The commitments we make to each other – through Medicare, and Medicaid, and Social Security – these things do not sap our initiative; they strengthen us. They do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/21/us/politics/obamas-second-inaugural-speech.html?_r=0&pagewanted=all