Private Equity & British Care Homes

In earlier posts I have discussed the “care/profit tradeoff in nursing homes,” focusing on the role of private equity firms in reducing costs by limiting the liability of their enterprises. Cutting nursing staff and increasing the risk of elder neglect isn’t so costly for private equity barons when “complex corporate structures . . . obscure who controls their nursing homes.” One firm constructed a particularly notable series of corporate moats between itself and the nursing home which it first controlled, and then rented land to.

Daniel JH Greenwood has called a good deal of private equity activity a form of looting, and I have explored its shortcomings in a review of a book on the topic. Sadly, it appears that the private equity influence in Britain is undermining a key part of its health care system. Having stacked various care homes with debt in order to buy them, many private equity firms have abandoned (or are about to abandon) the homes:

[A new] report, delving into the running and funding of the care industry, reveals that the collapse of Southern Cross may not be a one-off, as a number of other social care companies are also on the brink. Private equity takeovers of public services that use similar high risk business models, could leave taxpayers picking up the bill for more company failures. The in-depth study of privatisation shows that the second largest care provider, Four Season, is also in severe financial difficulties and others may follow. If both Southern Cross and Four Seasons were to collapse, around 1,150 nursing and residential care homes would be at risk of closure, affecting nearly 50,000 vulnerable people and their families and hitting over 60,000 staff.

Another of the top four largest residential care home operators is Barchester Healthcare — a sister company to Castlebeck, the operators of the Bristol care home exposed by a Panorama documentary . . . for patient abuse. The home owners have admitted that serious wrongdoing took place at Bristol. The report shows that Barchester and other operators of care homes, have repeatedly changed ownership, often through private equity firms buying, consolidating and selling companies. The UK’s largest union is warning that the Government must tackle the crisis in the care industry.

However disruptive the private equity takeovers have been, they have fulfilled their main purpose: huge gains for a few entities that bought and sold at the right time:

Southern Cross was floated on the stock market by Blackstone, which obtained a 400% return in two years on its acquisition. Southern Cross is now at risk of collapse. Allianz Capital Partners made a return of 100% by acquiring Four Seasons in 2004 for £775 million, selling it four years later for £1.4bn - the business then collapsed in value.

3i private equity fund brought a 38% stake in Care Principles for £1.5m in 1997, the remaining amount in 2005 and sold to to Three Delta in 2007 for £270m — a return of 390%. Tunstall was acquired by Bridgepoint Capital in 2005 for £225m, merged with Bridgepoint Investment and sold on after three years for £514m.

Here are more details on Southern Cross. This story and other critical commentary suggest that the goal for owners has been rapid profit rather long term investment in more efficient processes. When the “music stopped” in the acquisition game, it was left with mounting debts.

Chris Sagers’ article “The Myth of Privatization” (59 Admin. L. Rev. 37) suggests that there is very little difference between “public” and “private” operationally, except that “one of them lacks even a nominal obligation toward the public interest.” I have seen little evidence to contradict that idea in the eldercare industry. Further research may reveal more support for Daniel JH Greenwood’s diagnosis of the rise of private equity:

The success of private equity firms challenges mainstream corporate governance theory: according to standard agency cost analysis, this should not have happened. Agency problems—the shorthand term for the tendency of fiduciaries in a capitalist system to work for themselves as well as, or instead of, their clients—cannot be solved by adding an additional layer of extremely highly paid agents supported by an ideology that justifies the most extreme forms of self-interestedness. Therefore, private equity is unlikely to be an innovative solution to the age-old agency problem.

Instead, it is better understood as a clever bit of legal arbitrage: by reclassifying agents as principals, it allows former fiduciaries to instead view themselves, and be viewed by others, as entitled to look out only for themselves. And look out for themselves they have: the private equity managers have extracted hitherto unseen sums from our corporations, appropriating for the private benefit of a handful of individuals surplus that otherwise might have gone to other corporate participants, including consumers, ordinary employees, taxpayers and investors in the public securities markets, or might have been devoted to increasing productivity or innovation for the benefit of future generations.

The basic private equity technique, like the basic hedge fund technique, appears to be to borrow money in order to increase potential returns or losses. If the loans were correctly priced, this would not create new value under standard valuation theories, nor would it be a service that could possibly warrant the high fees typically charged in the hedge fund and private equity worlds. The simplest explanation is that either lenders or fund investors are mispricing risk and have done so for several years at a stretch, contrary to the claims of the efficient market theorists.

This explanation suggests, moreover, that private equity is simply the modern equivalent of the pyramid schemes, margin loans and highly leveraged utility holding companies of the 1920s. Like those earlier edifices built on borrowed money, the contemporary schemes are likely to be highly unstable: if the underlying assets decline in value or fail to provide expected income by even small margins, the lenders are likely to take losses out of scale with their potential profits. Once lenders wake up to this possibility—most likely only after losses have begun—they are likely to cut back lending rapidly, which will, in turn, make the underlying assets both less valuable and less saleable still, thus beginning a new round of lender panic. Any minor downturn, in short, runs the risk of starting a self-reinforcing cycle of credit and business contraction. The rise of private equity in its present form, then, appears to be another step towards the pre-New Deal world of inequality and instability.

And don’t forget about the role of private equity in influencing our political process. Blackstone billionaire Pete Peterson helped fuel concerns about government spending, while doing very little to advocate for increased taxes on the wealthy. And now we see that the CLASS Act—an innovative program to promote full funding for future long-term-care in the US–is likely to be on the chopping block. The primary value of both care homes and care plans to P/E firms appears to be their susceptibility to rapid sales and purchases. The P/E firm’s employees can earn massive bonuses if the value of entities goes up, and can’t lose those bonuses even if things eventually fall apart. It is a heads they win, tails they win scenario. The losers include all the other stakeholders in firms which are treated primarily as ATMs for fleeting owners.

Community Health Law Project to Assist New Jersey’s Elderly and Disabled Save Money on Their Healthcare Costs

The Community Health Law Project (CHLP) has been awarded a grant to help seniors and individuals with disabilities save money on their healthcare costs. Founded in 1976, the Community Health Law Project (CHLP) is a non-profit advocacy and legal services organization with 10 offices located throughout New Jersey. CHLP President/ Executive Director, Harold Garwin said, “We are pleased to spearhead this initiative. It augments the Law Project’s mission to provide services to the elderly and disabled throughout the State of NJ, where so many people are eligible for benefits, but so few apply.”

The grant, made possible by the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008 (MIPPA), will be used to conduct community outreach activities and help eligible individuals apply for programs that can help them save money on their Medicare premiums, deductibles, coinsurance and/or co-pay costs.

Seton Hall Law Professor and CHLP Chairperson of the Board, Paula Franzese said “Like so many government programs, the eligibility and paperwork can be a little confusing. Fortunately this grant will allow us to get seniors and the disabled the help they need and are entitled to. The benefits can literally add up to hundreds of dollars per month.”

The programs promoted by the grant include the Medicare Savings Programs known as QMB, SLMB and QI-1; the Medicare prescription drug program’s Low Income Subsidy(LIS) (also known as Extra Help), and the state’s Pharmaceutical Assistance to the Aged and Disabled Program (PAAD).

It is estimated that only 33% of individuals eligible for QMB and 13% of those eligible for SLMB or QI-1 have actually signed up for benefits. Likewise only 53% of those eligible for LIS who are not automatically enrolled through their participation in Medicaid or SSI are believed to receive the subsidy.

Seniors and people with disabilities, especially those who now receive Medicare are encouraged to call the CHLP Hotline at 1-888-838-3180 to see if they might be eligible. Advocates are available 5 days each week from 9-5 to answer questions and provide assistance in applying. Staff is also available to make presentations to community groups and organizations who are interested in learning more about these cost saving benefit programs.

Rebalancing Long-Term Care

Will efforts to modernize home health programs survive insurance reform’s end game?  Providing insurance coverage to as many low-income uninsureds as possible has been an organizing principle in 2009’s health reform discussions, and reconciliation of the House and Senate versions will require satisfying some members that sufficient subsidies will be available to permit the promise of extended coverage to reach the neediest.  The ripple effects of those discussions may reach other reform issues, as leadership attempts to meet budgetary targets.  It would be a shame if this process led to a retreat from the current bills’ innovative long-term care provisions.

As I’ve described previously, the reform effort has contemplated an interesting mix of Medicare and Medicaid improvements to expand access to community based care for people with disabilities and chronic illness.  And the CLASS Act’s inclusion in the mix gives some hope  to those with needs for assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), as well as their family caregivers.  Those involved in caregiving for a chronically ill family member can testify that they’re not looking to dodge responsibility; to the contrary, they’re hoping to gain assistance to continue providing assistance in the community, to avoid the need for isolating and expensive institutional care for their loved ones.

Health Affairs’ January 2010, Volume 29, Number 1 — “Advancing Long-Term Services & Supports” - (subscription required for some content) is a welcome source of information and analysis in this area.   H. Stephen Kaye and coauthors provide timely data filling out our understanding of who is served, and where.  It is clear that people in need of nursing and personal care assistance prefer to live at home rather than in a nursing home.  About 8.4 million people of all ages with ADL difficulties receive services in their communities, while about 1.6 million receive services in nursing homes.  The median monthly cost in the home care setting, in 2009 dollars, is $928, compared to $5,243 in nursing homes.  About 75% of those in the community live with relatives.  90% have mobility impairments, 55% have cognitive impairments, and 31% have sensory impairments.  Other articles shed some light on programmatic and financial barriers to improving access to home services.

• Terrence Ng and coauthors describe the gaps, overlaps, and regional variation in long term care coverage provided by Medicaid and Medicare. In particular, they report wide variation in states’ adoption of Medicaid waivers and other mechanisms for extending community-based home care. For example, Iowa’s participation rate in Medicaid home and community-based care is 16.8 per 1,000, while Virginia’s rate is only 3.21 per 1,000. The authors also highlight the effects of the failure to coordinate Medicare and Medicaid for long-term care, and the cost-increasing effect of hospital readmissions, traceable in part to Medicare’s poor coverage of long-term care. The current Senate bill, at Sections 2401- 2406, would encourage expansion of Medicaid rebalancing efforts.
• The Public Policy Institute’s Susan Reinhardt discusses programs supporting the community preference of people with nursing and home care needs. She describes diversion and transition programs. Transition (”downstream”) programs are dedicated to moving to appropriate community settings those who would like to leave nursing homes. Diversion (”downstream”) programs fund home and community based services, to forestall or prevent institutionalization in the first place. She points to the reform bills’ support for the Community Living and Money Follows the Person Demonstrations.
• Two pieces do an excellent job of introducing us to those who provide home care. Carol Levine and others describe the plight of family caregivers, traditionally thought of as “informal” caregivers, but clearly the foundation of home health care.  Howard Gleckman provides case studies of non-family member home care workers, highlighting the physical and financial difficulties under which they labor. As needs for chronic care in general and home care in particular increase in coming years, the long-neglected needs of these family and non-family caregivers will have to be addressed. Congress is famously solicitous of the financial concerns of physicians, our most highly compensated caregivers. It is time to focus on the needs of those millions of direct caregivers who every day provide compassionate personal services to our most vulnerable friends and family members.

The January issue of Health Affairs helps to highlight the growing importance of the financing of long-term care.  As we age, and as our needs shift from acute to chronic care, we must wean ourselves from a financing perspective that emphasizes dazzling high-tech interventions and instead embrace the human-scale care offered by home health aides, visiting nurses, and physical therapists.  The pending bills don’t make this shift, but they nudge the battleship a bit.  They leave long-term care financing fragmented among various public and private programs, but they do support some promising programs.

The CLASS Act (Senate bill Section 8002) is a voluntary, opt out social insurance program that would provide some support for home care services.  For the reasons described last year by Howard Gleckman, the CLASS Act is incomplete; among other things, its voluntary nature could create selection problems.  It is a start, however, and would put a useful if imperfect patch on a torn system.  I’ll cite to one final article from the Health Affairs issue to point to a better way.  John Creighton Campbell and coauthors‘ discussion of public long-term care insurance in Germany and Japan contains the germ of a solution to the woes our system suffers.  Both the German and Japanese systems have universal coverage, support family caregivers, and accord beneficiaries a large degree of control over services received.  And they do so at a cost roughly comparable to that experienced by American public payers (Germany a bit less, Japan a bit more).  Organizing long-term care financing through one social insurance program yields efficiency dividends, eliminates stigma concerns, and encourages care at the level and location preferred by recipients.  Maybe it’s too early to be pushing for the next step in long-term care reform, but why can’t we do what the Germans and Japanese have done?  At the very least, let’s not cut back on the progress made in the current bills as we strain for the finish line.

Supporting Family Caregivers

Many of our hardest-working caregivers are not professionals, but parents, spouses, and children of people with serious chronic conditions, limited in their ability to engage in activities of daily living (ADLs) or instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs).  A new report from the National Alliance for Caregiving and the AARP opens up this informal, but absolutely essential, world of unpaid caregiving (h/t: Howard Gleckman ).

Some basic facts on the caregivers:

• They’re usually (66%) women;
• On average, they provide over 20 hours of care each week;
• They’re of all income levels, with an average income of about $60,000
• About one-third care for more than one person.

Some basic facts about those receiving the care:

• They’re mostly over 50 years of age, and 44% are over the age of 75;
• Most (51%) live in their own homes;
• Most (69%) require care due to long-term physical condition;
• 34% receive informal caregiving for 5 years or more.

In many cases, informal caregivers enable people with significant care needs to avoid nursing home or other institutional care.  Patients are better off, and so is the health budget: the avoided costs of expensive hospitalizations and nursing home care are enormous.   I have previously described the reform bills’ provisions that would support in-place care for people with chronic illness and disabilities.  Medicaid amendments would expand home care services, including such Cash & Counseling programs that give consumers substantial control over the mix of home services, and permit support for kinship caregiving.  And the Senate bill incorporates the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Act (the “CLASS Act”), which provides for a new source of funding for personal assistance services for those not Medicaid-eligible.  A move supported by the insurance industry to strip it from the reform bill was narrowly defeated on December 4^th.

The insurance industry, of course, is vigorously trying to protect its own nascent long term care insurance business.  The long term care insurance industry has faced its share of horror stories about bureaucratic double-talk, denied claims, high prices, and limited benefits. The CLASS Act would provide an optional source of coverage, creating a voluntary program of member-supported public insurance for home care costs.  Like Medicaid’s Cash & Counseling system, it provides consumers with flexibility to choose the mix of supportive care when his or her health status triggers eligibility for coverage.

Why do we need such a program?  After all, there are many willing attorneys ready to help people spend down their assets — achieving “Medicaid impoverishment” — in order to qualify for Medicaid’s richer coverage.  Georgetown scholar Judy Feder was asked just that question for a recent Time Magazine article on the CLASS Act.  Her response was dead-on:

“Medicaid is invaluable,” says Judy Feder, a health policy expert at Georgetown University and a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. “But it’s not insurance. It doesn’t protect you from catastrophe. It takes care of you after catastrophe.”

The long-term care financing mix in the Senate bill is far from perfect.  As a panel of experts surveyed by the Commonwealth Fund overwhelmingly agreed last year, the best solution would be to add a premium-financed long-term care component to Medicare, allowing the cost to be shared by government and consumers, without the trouble or expense of creating a new programmatic structure.  In the alternative, Congress could cobble together a better integrated “system” of long term/home care financing.  Such a system could virtually integrate a long-term care financing continuum, including Medicaid, Medicare, and voluntary insurance (such as that created by the CLASS Act) that could support consumers with chronic illness in the most appropriate setting for supportive care, reducing the discontinuities in coverage, perverse incentives for institutionalization, and counterproductive limits on services.  Either actual integration of all long term care services in Medicare, or the virtual integration (through smooth eligibility and service interfaces) in Medicare, Medicaid, and CLASS Act coverage could improve care and reduce costs.  But that won’t happen this year.

Instead, the best hope for expansion of access to personal assistance services will be the strengthening of Medicaid’s home care provisions and the creation of the CLASS Act program.  The overwhelming reform focus has been on very traditional “medical” insurance run through private, risk bearing insurance companies.  Only at the margins will the reform address the growing need for financing  appropriate health care for chronic illness.  Keeping the CLASS Act is a small step, but it at least acknowledges the obligation to support the personal assistance needs of those with serious chronic illnesses or disabilities, who are not (yet) impoverished, and who prefer to remain in their communities.  The CLASS Act will provide a new funding source for patient-directed personal assistance services.   Family caregivers will continue to devote themselves to their loved ones, but they need help.

Third Circuit Recognizes Federal Civil Rights Action for Death Caused by Substandard Nursing Home Care

[Ed. note: Today's post comes from Danielle Y. Alvarez. She is a Seton Hall Law student and a graduate of NYU, where she majored in Political Science. Ms. Alvarez is a research assistant to Dean Kathleen M. Boozang, and a former legal assistant to the Augulius Law firm.]

State and federal legislatures won’t fix the health care system by themselves, which is why a recent Third Circuit decision is a welcome tool to fight substandard long-term residential care.  A few enforcement officials have been aggressively creative in using false claims act theories to pursue providers of substandard health care (See here and here).  In short, the government claims that the submission of a bill to Medicare for services that were so bad they were the equivalent of no care at all is a false claim for which the government should be reimbursed and recover penalties.  And now the Third Circuit has recognized that the provision of such substandard care violates an individual’s civil rights.

In Grammer v. Kane, a nursing home resident’s child sued the nursing home, operated by Allegheny County in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, alleging the home’s failure to provide adequate care caused her mother to develop ulcers, become malnourished and develop sepsis, from which she died. Plaintiff invoked  42 U.S.C. §1983 to argue that the nursing home had violated decedent’s civil rights by breaching a duty to provide the standards of care delineated by the Federal Nursing Home Reform Amendments (FNRA), contained in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 (OBRA). The district court granted the nursing home’s  motion to dismiss, finding that FNRA merely sets forth requirements for nursing homes to comply with but does not grant the deceased rights that are enforceable under §1983. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed and remanded, concluding that FNRA grants Medicaid recipients like the deceased rights whose violation can be remedied under §1983.

Congress passed FNRA in 1987 to address the substandard conditions in nursing homes that participated in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. FNRA sets forth various quality and residents’ rights standards to which the nursing homes must adhere in order to be paid by the federal government.  And yet, as everyone knows, the problems persist. And so it should be a welcome outcome that the Third Circuit held that FNRA unambiguously confers federal rights upon Medicaid recipients in nursing homes, which gives rise to an action under §1983 which imposes liability on every person who, under color of state law, deprives another of “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.” 42 U.S.C. §1983 (2009).

To determine that FNRA affords protection under §1983, the court applied a three factor test set forth by the Supreme Court in Blessing: first, the court determined that Congress intended FNRA to protect personal rights of Medicaid beneficiaries and nursing home residents rather than the nursing homes themselves; second, the court found that the rights asserted are not so “vague or amorphous” that their enforcement would strain judicial resources; third, the court concluded that the statutory language is sufficiently mandatory in nature with its repeated use of “must” such as “a nursing facility must provide services and activities to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental and psychosocial well-being of each resident.” See Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U.S. 329 (1997); 42 U.S.C. §1396r(b)(2)(A) (emphasis added). Furthermore, the court found Congressional intent to create a right of action through rights-creating language, legislative history, statutory structure and Congress’ failure to set forth a more comprehensive remedial scheme. Thus, the Third Circuit recognized individual rights conferred by FNRA that are presumably enforceable under §1983.

District Judge Stafford, sitting by designation, wrote a dissenting opinion finding that FNRA is Spending Clause legislation which does not confer upon funding beneficiaries individual rights to sue funding recipients. The dissent highlighted specific statutory language to conclude that FNRA focuses on what nursing homes must do in order to receive federal funds rather than focusing on the individuals who benefit from the federal funds. Absent unambiguous Congressional intent to the contrary, FNRA does not grant nursing home residents individual rights to sue nursing homes under §1983 for alleged violations of FNRA. As such, the dissent argued that the District Court properly granted Appellee’s motion to dismiss.

Kaiser Health News, New Jersey Gets a New Hospital?, & Kicking Medicaid Grandma to the Curb

In the wake of declining newspaper presence, the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit private operating foundation known for its health care concerns, has started Kaiser Health News. In the present issue, there are two articles of special note for New Jerseyans. The one regards the plans of Hackensack University Medical Center, a 775-bed teaching and research hospital that is one of New Jersey’s most prestigious, [which] requested state permission to open a new hospital in Pascack Valley’s empty [hospital] buildings. Although Hackensack is a nonprofit, it announced that Westwood would be getting a for-profit facility financed by a private equity firm from Texas.

Not everyone approves.

The other regards measures that New Jersey legislators are considering in response to a recent investigation of assisted living facilities. KFN reports

Associated Press/Philadelphia Inquirer reports that “lawmakers this week will consider measures to enhance protections for assisted living residents in New Jersey to ensure they aren’t discharged simply because they pay with Medicaid.” The legislation comes in response to an investigation that found a Wisconsin-based assisted living firm called Assisted Living Concepts, which has eight facilities in New Jersey and more than 200 nationwide, “wrongly showed New Jersey residents the door once they exhausted their savings and were about to go on Medicaid, despite promises to allow them to stay.”

Both stories are worth reading.

Health Care Costs for Retirees Equals Second Mortgage

Often, the costs of health care can seem abstract: we speak in the aggregate of billions and co-pays and deductibles and the labyrinth which is the “donut hole” formula for Medicare prescription drug payments. But sometimes we get to a number which instantly makes sense and allows us to have some grasp of the actual cost and the impact that health care costs can have. Fidelity Investments has just released such a number. Kaiser.org reports that

Couples Retiring This Year Need $240,000 To Cover Medical Expenses, Study Finds

A 65-year-old retired couple this year would need $240,000 on average to cover medical expenses, according to a recent study by Fidelity Investments, the AP/Long Island Newsday reports. The study assumed that the couple is covered by Medicare and has no employer-provided insurance. It also assumed that the male partner would have a life expectancy of 17 years, while the female partner would have a life expectancy of 20 years. The estimate includes Medicare deductibles, copayments and certain services that might not be covered by Medicare.

That’s out of pocket. That’s a house.

Or at least a house mortgage (not for a particularly big house here in metro New Jersey, but a house nonetheless). And to think that one would have to face that expense– equivalent to the mortgage on a whole other house–after presumably realizing (though the presumption is not as solid as it once may have been)  the American dream of having fully paid off that 30 year mortgage on the “first” house– is daunting to say the least, and arguably unconscionable as part of a social compact.

Kaiser reports that

The $240,000 estimate is a 6.7% increase from last year’s projection. Since Fidelity first released its annual report in 2002, projected medical expenses have increased by 50% (AP/Long Island Newsday, 3/31).

Alzheimer’s, Dementia Triple Individual Health Care Costs

According to U.S. News & World Report, a recent Alzheimer’s Association report estimates that Alzheimer’s disease and dementia triple health care costs for afflicted seniors.

In its report, the Alzheimer’s Association found that:

The average annual health-care cost for someone older than 65 with Alzheimer’s or another form of dementia was $33,007 in 2004 — three times more than the $10,603 for people that age without the conditions.

Deaths from Alzheimer’s disease rose by 47 percent from 2000 to 2006 while the number of deaths from several other major diseases — including heart attack, stroke, breast cancer and prostate cancer — fell during that period.

States in the Rocky Mountains and Northwest will see the number of people with Alzheimer’s disease increase by at least 81 percent between 2000 and 2025.

By 2025, California and Florida will each be home to more than a half-million people with Alzheimer’s disease.

Experts agree that the U.S. needs to invest more into Alzheimer’s research to keep costs low in the future. Some even advocate that the U.S. Government double its annual budget for Alzheimer’s research to $1 billion.

The aging of the Baby Boom Generation is one of the major reasons for the growing concern over the costs of living with Alzheimer’s disease. Said Dr. P. Murali Doraiswamy, a psychiatry professor at Duke University Medical Center,

The bottom line is that we are an aging society, and if we don’t find a cure to delay or halt the disease, we are soon going to become an Alzheimer’s nation.

Surprise, Surprise: Older Americans are Sicker than their European Counterparts

In this international study, we found that US adults of all wealth levels reported worse health than did Europeans at comparable wealth levels.  Poor Americans were at particularly worse health compared with their English or other European counterparts, but even well-off Americans reported health comparable to substantially poorer Europeans.  Differences in behavioral risk factors accounted for only a fraction of these disparities.

As behavioral factors were insufficient to account for this disparity, Avendano et al. distinguish between national health care systems.

Features of the US health care system may contribute to the worse health of Americans compared with Europeans.  In particular, most European countries have a stronger primary care orientation than does the United States.  Previous evidence suggests that a strong primary care system is associated with better health outcomes, partly because it entails a stronger focus on primary prevention, a more equitable distribution of resources, and a higher efficacy of the health system.

Investing less at the primary care stage where prevention is key, necessarily means that there is a greater focus on disease maintenance or amelioration after its onset.  Which is to say that Americans, for the most part, are not afforded significant medical attention until they are sick.

In addition to having a stronger focus on primary care than the United States, European countries have greater protections for their poor.  European countries offer virtually universal health care coverage, so even the poor have relatively unfettered access to necessary care.  The United States on the other hand, has an uninsured population totaling 41 million (or over 45 million by some estimates).

The fact that health disparities in England still persists despite access to care,

suggests that mechanisms outside the health care system may also be involved.  Wealth enhances access to material resources such as housing, and is a source of immediate consumption in periods of economic strain. Wealth may also increase sense of control over life and other psychosocial resources that can enhance health.

This study gives further credence to the notion that America has at least something to learn from the European health care system.  Universal health care is one component, but focusing more keenly on primary care and easing the social burdens of the poor are another.  Racial health disparities is also an issue that has to be addressed in the United States, but this study restricted its study population to non-Hispanic Whites in order to determine what factors beyond those attributable to race are at issue in the United States’ lag behind its European peers.  Given the fact that racial health disparities are prevalent in the United States, it would not strain reason to conclude that the gap between Americans and Europeans would be exacerbated if racial minorities were included.  The correlation between economic status, residential segregation and well being may help explain why this is the case.

The United States health care system clearly demonstrates that dollars spent is no indication of the quality or efficacy of health care actually received.  Moving into a more cost-effective health care  paradigm that provides access to comprehensive care at a stage where it can impact long-term health is essential.  The Avendano study offers proof of this.

Pilot Program Seeks to Educate Patients, Prevent Illness, and Save Billions

A pilot program aimed at reducing Medicare costs by “stopping the revolving door of hospital admissions by some chronically ill elderly” is taking shape in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.  According to the Baton Rouge Advocate, the program, called the Care Transitions Project, could be a model for U.S. health care reform if it is successful in Baton Rouge and 13 other participating communities.

The program seeks to provide patients and caregivers with information before they leave the hospital in order to prevent problems that could lead to readmission.  Fundamental to the program is the use of a “transition coach” who helps the patient put together a list of questions for their primary care physician, discusses questions about medications, and puts together a plan for “self-care.”  This allows the patient to be mindful of preventive measures and symptoms to be on the lookout for.

The patient signs a consent form in which they agree to meet with the transition coach before leaving the hospital and again within 48 hours of leaving. There is an additional follow-up at a week, two weeks, and a month.

Gary Curtis, head of Louisiana Health Care Review, says that:

In Louisiana, two out of every 10 chronically ill elderly patients are back in the hospital within 30 days of their release.

However, the problem is not confined to Louisiana.  According to statistics from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services,

Nationally, the readmissions and subsequent treatment contribute to a $12 billion annual increase in Medicare costs.

Other communities engaging in the pilot program include Denver, Colorado and Miami, Florida.  Click here for more information about the Care Transitions Program.

Baucus’ Baby Boom Buy-In

There are over 5.1 million uninsured Americans between the ages of 55 and 64.  Given the current economic climate and increasing unemployment rate, that number is sure to increase as employers lay off baby-boomers to cut the costs of providing them with benefits.

Senate Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus (D-Mont.) proposed a plan for health care reform last November that allows Americans ages 55 through 64 to buy into Medicare.  Baucus’ plan would allow members of that age group who are currently uninsured or who have lost their employment to pay a monthly premium and receive Medicare benefits.

Sunday’s Charleston Gazette examined Baucus’ plan to allow 55- to 64-year-olds to buy into Medicare.

The idea has been around for years, but it has gained new currency as the recession deepens and a Democrat-run Congress and White House begin to discuss health-care reform.

Advocates of an early Medicare buy-in say it would complement other entitlement reforms because it would keep older workers healthy and productive longer and help rein in government spending over the long haul,

said The Gazette.

Read more