Why Primary Care in Medicare Matters

Why should we care about primary care in Medicare?  Early in the reform discussions, preventive and primary care was emphasized; in addition to extending medical care to all, reform would also implement preventive measures to keep them well.  In the current reform scrum, some are back peddling pretty fast, and in the course of finding “consensus” points (often focusing on cost-savings), we might lose conceptual coherence.

Ken Thorpe’s new Health Affairs article on chronic care patients in Medicare offers sound research and helpful analysis.  Thorpe’s data point toward a subtle explanation for health inflation keyed not to the increased cost of high-tech interventions, but to a shift in the conditions for which treatment is provided:

Our results highlight important changes in the medical conditions accounting for the rise in spending among beneficiaries over time. The most notable changes were in spending on a handful of chronic conditions: diabetes, kidney disease, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, mental disorders, and arthritis.

Thorpe has long argued that our health care delivery and finance system is stuck in a 20^th Century of acute care, while our 21^st Century needs have migrated toward chronic care.  As he has argued previously, these chronic care needs call for care at a human scale, including care management and supportive community-based care.  But he also points out that many chronic conditions are at least partially preventable, and that attention and resources should not be directed only to treating these conditions, but also to forestalling their incidence.

Prevention is, then, vital to any health care system.  But haven’t studies repeatedly shown that preventive care is not cost-effective?   Sorting this out requires that we step back and assess not only what “prevention” means, but also what we value in health care.

Preventive care can usefully be separated into three categories, as Ron Goetzel  (an Emory University colleague of Thorpe’s) has described.

• Primary prevention: Health promotion measures focus on lifestyle and simple interventions such as vaccinations to keep people from developing sickness; often cost-saving.
• Secondary prevention: Targeting people with preconditions for illness, including genetic or lifestyle markers, with screening technology, maintenance drugs, in order to forestall or prevent the manifestation of the condition; rarely cost-saving, in part because it is often applied to low-risk populations. Worth it? That depends on the design of the intervention and one’s metric for assessing health care value.
• Tertiary prevention: In this context, coordinated care management for those with chronic illness.  Properly implemented, chronic car management could “flatten the curve,” but is unlikely to be “cost-saving.”

So, whether “prevention” can save money (a claim Thorpe’s paper doesn’t make) is a complicated question.  In addition, it is often a poorly framed one. Explicitly or implicitly, cost-based objections to prevention often suggest that preventing one illness simply means that the person will die of something else, or less simplistically, that keeping people alive longer is cost-increasing, not cost saving.  Steven Wolf has elegantly responded to both objections:

[S]keptics of prevention argue that everyone dies of something; preventing demise serves only to allow a different disease to generate illness and spending. However, the aim of health promotion and disease prevention is not to prevent the inevitable but to “compress” morbidity, maximizing health until death.

Another common criticism is that prevention rarely saves money; it costs society if people live longer. The same applies to disease treatments. Health is a good; it is not purchased to save money. Health is a good that costs too much under the current medical care system, a problem of inefficiency that calls for wiser resource use, such as spending less per health unit gained (lower cost-effectiveness ratio). Disease prevention offers a way to improve health with low cost-effectiveness ratios and to also modulate disease rates. To reject health promotion and disease prevention because they do not save money (i.e., cost-effectiveness ratios are not negative) misses the point. (citations omitted)

Advocates who would shift our systemic emphasis to prevention and management of chronic illness, then, are not naïve about cost implications.  To the contrary, they address the issue head-on, with a three-step argument:

• The purpose of our system is or should be the maintenance of or restoration to high levels of functioning consistent with a fulfilling life.
• Our needs have largely shifted from acute to chronic interventions, and our system should shift to meet those needs.
• In preventing or managing chronic illness, as with all interventions, we should carefully examine the capacity of methods to meet our needs, and to demand value for those being served.

Applying this sort of argument to primary care, Goetzel elsewhere advocates skepticism of attempts by medicine to turn prevention into a high-tech enterprise:

We have medicalized prevention and health promotion in this country so that most people believe that only doctors in clinical settings can deliver these services. Although effective in many cases, this approach is the most expensive method of delivering prevention. If we expand our arsenal of potential interventions to include environmental, ecological, and policy changes, in addition to individually focused counseling and coaching programs, we can change the cost-effectiveness equation.

Thorpe’s article has garnered much-deserved attention, although it is tempting to think of his data in only cost-benefit terms.  That is not true to Thorpe’s conclusion, which is consistent with efforts to redirect attention from the business enterprise of health care to the health needs of Americans:

The U.S. health system remains predicated on providing acute, episodic care that is inadequate to address the altered patterns of disease now facing the American public. Our results highlight the need for prevention and care outside doctors’ offices and hospitals designed to address the changing needs of patients at risk for or living with chronic disease and, often, multiple comorbidities. As [reformers] continue their efforts to reshape the U.S. health system, they must address these changed health needs through evidence-based preventive care in the community, care coordination, and support for patient self-management.

Cost, Choice, and Value

The Massachusetts Massacre has everyone stepping back a bit.  The President says that we should “coalesce around those elements of the package that people agree on,” but it is unclear just which elements those might be, given the extreme polarization that has defined the debate.  He suggests that points of agreement might center on insurance reform and cost containment, which are both important goals.  I’m skeptical that a sudden flowering of bipartisanship will allow such agreement, however.  Ezra Klein, on the other hand, has a paring proposal that goes in another direction, and reminds us of why we got into this in the first place: to extend coverage to the uninsured.  If we must narrow our focus, Klein says we should extend Medicare to those over 50, and expand Medicaid to those under 200% of poverty.  This would get lots of people insured, and could well be accomplished through budget reconciliation if no Congressional coalescing is to be had.

However the parsing, paring, and palavering goes, cost control is and will be at or near the health reform debate for years to come.  Two recent articles are worth a look for those interested in analysis of cost-containment strategies.

In his health care speech to Congress, the President suggested that one component of an effort to lower health care costs should be to empower a commission of “doctors and medical experts” to identify and,

encourage the adoption of  . . . common-sense best practices by doctors and medical professionals throughout the system. Wrapped up in that suggestion are notions of adhering to expert guidance in treatment decisions.

The stimulus bill passed in February pushed for scientific assessment of modes of care, providing $1.1 billion for comparative effectiveness research.  The current reform bills further emphasize CER, and would encourage the adoption of proven and promising treatments through professional education and some payment reform.  Harvard Medical School professor Jerome Groopman writes on evidence-based medicine in the latest New York Review of Books.   In his 2007 book, How Doctors Think, Groopman did a great job of explaining the complex and fraught process by which doctors make decisions, and he is fully on board with the notion that there is ample room for improvement.  His new article, however, cautions that the use of panels of experts with authority to impose or even recommend best practices is a dangerous way to go.

Groopman acknowledges the need for health policy folks to consider the bounded rationality of both doctor and patient.  He examines the Obama Administration’s policies on evidence-based practice by contrasting the views of two key advisors: Cass Sunstein, whose view of “libertarian paternalism” incline him to favor gentle “nudges” that may encourage certain behavior while leaving people free to reject the advice if they wish, and Peter Orszag, who is more inclined to employ forceful regulatory standards and financial incentives to achieve cost effective medical practice.  Groopman is compellingly  skeptical of expert claims of definitive standards on what “works” in health care, and cautions that such standards can result in harm to patients who fit uncomfortably into the hard categories defined in such best practices.

Groopman’s analysis seems incomplete for two closely intertwined reasons, and surely as a result of space constraints.  First, he suggests that the administration is faced with a stark choice between

aggressively pushing doctors and patients to do what the government defines as best, or [being] respectful of their own autonomy in making decisions.

Surely there is much middle ground between tying doctors’ hands and respecting complete clinical independence.  And it is not enough to say, as does Groopman, that

Most physicians seek data and views on treatments from peers and, as needed, specialists, and then present information and opinion to patients who ultimately decide.

Maybe so, but physicians are sometimes self-interested, and patients’ choices  are sometimes influenced by advertisements or other considerations disconnected from quality concerns.  For these and other reasons, spending decisions are no longer consigned to the doctor/patient dyad, but increasingly must accommodate the cost-containment interests of third party payers — government, employers, or insurers.

Second, Groopman describes two exclusive categories of procedures: “mechanical procedures” such as the  insertion an intravenous catheter (where he argues that enforcing standards to avoid infections is proper) and all other procedures, where the individual patient’s condition becomes relevant, and where he argues that coercing clinical choices is out of bounds.  It is not obvious that the universe of procedures is so divisible; it is even less clear that the dividing line between the two categories is uncontroversial.

Many questions remain.  Groopman is surely right that we must be cautious in enforcing categorical “best practices;” it is important to create public processes for vetting their accuracy and usefulness.  He is also surely right that public and private health finance rules must accommodate variation in medical needs, and must bend readily when a “best practice” is not suitable for a particular case.  But cost is relevant, and encouraging efficient practice can reduce the cost (and therefore the extent) of coverage.

So, how might a balance between financial constraints and patient protection work?  In a Health Affairs article posted  yesterday, Michael Chernew and coauthors examine the growing phenomenon of “value-based insurance” — a structuring of insurance co-payments responsive to the needs of people with chronic illness.  The co-payments imposed by insurers are, of course, intended to reduce demand for health care services (an Orszag, not a Sunstein tool, you might say).  Value based insurance reduces or eliminates these co-payments for services of “high clinical value.”  That is, if an insurer determines that it would rather not discourage utilization for a particular service, it reduces or removes the patient cost-sharing, presumably increasing usage, for cost as well as clinical reasons.  As the authors explain,

The belief that a value-based insurance program will lower health care spending rests on the recognition that the use of high-value health care services reduces the probability of adverse events related to chronic disease and that on a population basis, these events are much more costly than the services aimed at preventing them.

The authors found some evidence that such programs are cost effective, even in the narrow sense of reducing a plan’s health care expenditures.  They suggest that widening the economic lens to consider broader societal goals would only strengthen those conclusions.

The article acknowledges the reality of economic coercion in the clinical setting, and measures attempts to shape the tools of cost containment in a way that protects patients while maintaining cost containment.  One doesn’t have to accept the general wisdom of patient cost-sharing to value attempts to protect patients from untoward effects of its use.

The need to obtain “value” for health care spending and to take steps to restrain health inflation will persist however we come out of the current reform debate.  The discussion will benefit from both the erudite analysis of Groopman and others warning us away from answers that are too easy, and that of Chernew and others who can shine a light on the efficacy of particular cost containing measures.

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.

New Jersey Legislature Passes Medical Marijuana Bill

Yesterday, the last day of its 2008-2009 legislative session, the New Jersey legislature voted to legalize the use of medical marijuana by New Jersey residents suffering from debilitating medical conditions.

The version of the New Jersey Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act passed yesterday represents a compromise between the version that the state Senate passed in February of 2009, which Seton Hall Law’s Center for Health & Pharmaceutical Law & Policy endorsed in a position paper distributed to key lawmakers, and the Assembly version, which included a number of amendments intended to bolster the Act’s already strict safeguards against abuse and diversion.  (The differences between the Assembly and Senate versions are outlined here; a summary of the changes made in the final legislation is posted here on the Legislature’s website.)   Governor Corzine is expected to sign the Act into law before he leaves office next week.

Among other changes, the final legislation:

• revises the definition of “debilitating medical condition” to specify that severe or chronic pain, severe nausea or vomiting, and cachexia or wasting syndrome qualify a patient to use medical marijuana if they are symptoms of cancer, HIV/AIDS, “or the treatment thereof.” The new definition also adds inflammatory bowel disease, including Crohn’s disease, muscular dystrophy, and terminal illnesses expected to cause death in 12 months or less to the list of debilitating conditions;

• deletes the Assembly provision that allowed patients to designate an individual to transport marijuana to them in an emergency, and reverts to the Senate language allowing patients to designate a primary caregiver to assist them with their use of medical marijuana on an ongoing basis; and

• preserves the Assembly version’s requirement that patients obtain their marijuana from “medical marijuana alternative treatment centers,” i.e., that they not be allowed to grow their own, but increases the amount of marijuana that patients can be dispensed in a 30-day period from one ounce to two ounces.

Interestingly, the final legislation also requires that the system the Division of Consumer Affairs in the Department of Law and Public Safety establishes to monitor the dispensation of marijuana for medical use must “serve the same purpose as, and be cross-referenced with” the Division’s system for monitoring the dispensation of certain prescription drugs with the potential for abuse.  This is further evidence that marijuana is slowly but surely, as Fordham Law Professor Kimani Paul-Emile writes, “migrating from the criminal regulatory regime into the public health regulatory regime.”

John V. Jacobi on Health Reform & Care for the Chronically Ill

In case you missed it: Health Reform Watch regular, Professor John V. Jacobi, interviewed by Lester Feder for Legal Issues in Health Reform, a publication of The O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown University. In part:

Covering the Chronically Ill: An Interview with John V. Jacobi

John V. Jacobi is Dorothea Dix Professor of Health Law and Policy at the Seton Hall University School of Law. The O’Neill Institute’s Lester Feder spoke with him about health reform and covering those with chronic illness.

Lester Feder: Generally speaking, what do you think of what it is looking like we’re going to get out of Congress?

John V. Jacobi: I think that there are two big clusters of issues: one is covering the uninsured, which has gotten most of the attention, for good reason. The other issues, which I’ve been most concerned about is access for the most vulnerable: people with chronic illness and disabilities. On the first part it’s anybody’s guess on how well we’re going to do at covering the uninsured. On the second part, there are lots of interesting structural pieces in the bills that will help people with chronic illness, but I think that the overall structure of the reform may end up undercutting that quite a bit.

The pieces in the bills that are helpful are the ones that create medical homes, or chronic care management, or assure coordination of care for people with chronic illness. It is the sort of change that our delivery system and our finance system really need to be looking at. The problem with getting those innovations to actually work is that much of the coverage under the plans for the chronically ill will be provided through the private marketplace.

And here’s the problem with that: Private insurance companies are more or less profitable  depending on the risks that they accept. They are much more likely to be profitable if they are good at risk selection than if they are efficient and provide good service in other ways. There is such a dramatic concentration of cost in any actuarial pool that if an insurance company can avoid the 10 percent of the sickest people it is going to be doing quite well, whether it’s good or bad at delivering its services. And the ones that attract those 10 percent of the sickest are going to be in trouble unless there’s quite a good risk-adjustment program for premiums, which doesn’t seem to be available yet.

Read More

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.

Consumer Protection Under the Health Reform “Deal”

News of the Senate “deal” on the public option is trickling out.  It appears to comprise a swap, in which the public option will be dropped in favor of the creation of a nationwide program mimicking the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan (FEHBP) (along with a Medicare buy-in for people 55 years of age or older).  Will the FEHBP model (for those under 55) accomplish what the public option would have done?  Tim Greaney’s post here yesterday raises well-founded concerns that it will be less likely to increase competition in concentrated markets.   But we had additional hopes for the public option.  I’ve previously argued that the public option could help assure adequate coverage of people with chronic conditions.  They’re the most vulnerable and increasingly the most costly; sound coordination of their care is necessary to serve their complex needs and to contain costs.   Whether this nascent deal will do that work depends on how the FEHBP model translates to an open exchange model, and in particular on benefits design and process rights components.  The new enrollees are likely to be more vulnerable than the FEHBP’s membership, and sound consumer protections are necessary to assure that their needs are met.  Two components of the program will be critical here: benefits design and process rights.

The FEHBP is mostly a mechanism for contracting with and managing private health insurers.  This deal would, therefore, likely create a form of private health insurance exchange, piggy-backing on private plans’ benefits design.  Congress should be aware of private insurers’ history with coverage of chronic care services.  It is widely documented, for example, that children with special health care needs have more sharply restricted access to necessary therapies through private than public coverage.  Ruth Benedict, of the University of Wisconsin, described access problems for children with functional limitations in 2006:

Public health insurance predicted greater use of supportive services and therapeutic services outside the school setting, a finding that may be attributable to the commitment of public programs to serve vulnerable populations such as children with special needs.  * * *   In contrast to public insurance, private insurance provided children no advantage in accessing therapeutic and supportive services relative to their uninsured counterparts.

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has historically addressed benefits design with a broad brush, negotiating and contracting directly with insurers, and balancing premium level against benefits richness.  Unless the bill directs OPM to incorporate the needs of people with chronic illness — physical and speech therapy, home care services, and case management, for example — the sickest of the newly covered will find only coverage that poorly matches their needs.  And state law that would otherwise benefit the private insurers’ benefits design is specifically preempted in the FEHBP statute:

The terms of any contract under this chapter which relate to the nature, provision, or extent of coverage or benefits (including payments with respect to benefits) shall supersede and preempt any State or local law, or any regulation issued thereunder, which relates to health insurance or plans.

Unless the bill mandates that the OPM protect vulnerable populations in its benefits design contracting, people with chronic illness will likely be left without coverage for vital services that they might have obtained through a public option.

What of process rights under the FEHBP?  Suppose a plan participating in the new national exchange were to deny coverage for a service with the benefits design on, say, medical necessity grounds.   As Nan Hunter described in her 2006 article, Managed Process, Due Care: Structures of Accountability in Health Care, the process by which covered persons may vindicate their rights of access to covered health care is fractured and often frustrating to participants.  Two features of the FEHBP bear note in this regard.  First, it allows participants “an independent system of external review,” which Nan Hunter argues can assist individuals and society by improving plans’ accountability and enhancing the deliberative process by which coverage decisions are made.  She also identifies, however, the pervasive lack of effective member notice of review options.  Second, judicial appeal from the administrative and independent review process is quite limited.  It is available only after exhaustion of internal plan review, external review independent review, and OPM review, and the scope of the judicial review itself is quite limited:

A covered individual may seek judicial review of OPM’s final action on the denial of a health benefits claim. A legal action to review final action by OPM involving such denial of health benefits must be brought against OPM and not against the Carrier or the Carrier’s subcontractors. The recovery in such a suit shall be limited to a court order directing OPM to require the Carrier to pay the amount of benefits in dispute.

The adequacy and accuracy of the administrative process, then, must be protected by thoughtful and specific statutory and regulatory language.

Insurance coverage does not equate to access to care.  Necessary benefits must be contractually covered, and the insurer must follow through where required.  The benefits design and due process provisions in the FEHBP in many ways mirror those of large, self-funded employers.   The population newly covered by this bill will, however, not be employees of large firms and federal agencies, and instead will be a more economically and medically marginal population with a higher percentage of people with disabilities and chronic illness.  The bill should, then, anticipate the issue directing OPM to set benefits design and review standards serving all, including those with chronic conditions.   If Congress hopes to contract out the responsibility of serving a vulnerable population, it needs to ensure that its contracting partners are charged clearly on the nature of their responsibilities.

Taking Steps Toward Reform

Should an imperfect health reform bill be passed?  Health reform should be about four things: 1) expanding coverage to all; 2) providing health security for those already insured; 3) ending the fragmentation of health care delivery in favor of sound coordination of care; and, 4) constraining cost to ensure that we can afford appropriate care in the future.

The House leadership bill (HR 3962) does a good job on the first, reaching a large proportion of the uninsured — although it will not achieve universal coverage.  It also gets good marks for reforming insurance regulations — although its weak version of the public plan will make true insurance reform more difficult to achieve.  It makes some tentative progress on care coordination, mostly through pilots and demonstrations in public insurance programs.  It provides some cost saving measures in Medicare and through encouraging alignment of financing systems — but cost containment is clearly the weakest aspect of the bill.   So, should the reform be passed, warts and all?

After months of criticism of the majority’s plans and promises of the production of a better plan, House Republicans proposed a substitute to the House leadership bill.   How does it stack up?  The CBO finds that the Republican substitute would reduce the deficit over the next ten years by about $68 billion, which is about $40 billion less than the reduction the CBO projects from the Democratic version.   The CBO also estimates that the Republican bill would reduce the number of uninsured over the next ten years by “about 3 million relative to current law, leaving about 52 million nonelderly residents uninsured,”  compared with its assessment that HR 3962 would reduce the number of nonelderly uninsured by 36 million during that time period.  So, the GOP substitute would do less to reduce the deficit, and cover 33 million fewer uninsured.   It includes some insurance reform provisions, many based on consumer-directed models that tend to further fragment, rather than coordinate care.  HR 3962 is far from perfect, and the CBO’s estimates have been subject to criticism, but the reports provide food for thought for those who hoped that the Republican plan would offer a meaningful alternative.

Sometimes proceeding in steps is necessary, particularly with complex systemic reform.  Massachusetts has in many ways been a model for drafters of federal reform plans, and stands as an example of incremental steps toward full reform.  It enacted sweeping health insurance reforms in 2006, creating a marketplace for regulated private insurance, the addition of public plans, and responsibility shared among businesses, individuals, and providers.  It has been remarkably successful at expanding access, driving the uninsurance rate down to 2.6% as of the spring of this year, and enjoying continuing strong support within Massachusetts.    Costs are a growing concern.  But the coalition of business, consumer, and provider groups behind the reform anticipated the need to circle back and tackle finance.  Cost concerns have only grown with the economic downturn, as tax receipts lag and countercyclical demand for Medicaid coverage strains budgets.  Resolve to push forward appears strong.  Representatives of several stakeholders reported last year that,

Since passage, all stakeholder groups have remained deeply engaged in implementation.  Despite news reports of higher-than-expected costs, the governor, legislative leaders, and stakeholders have repeatedly reiterated support for full implementation.  This consensus, crucial to enactment, has proved equally vital to implementation.

Massachusetts reformers made the decision to proceed in two steps: coverage first, cost control second.   While no one is proposing a two-step process for federal reform, expanding coverage and reforming insurance practices have been the overriding emphases in Washington.  And HR 3962 does advance the cause of care coordination for the chronically ill.  It was interesting to see the Dutch Health Minister in a recent interview emphasize coordinated care as a central feature of reform.  In describing his country’s reforms (from which some draw lessons for our country), he explained:

We are trying to make sure that no one receives health care that is not coordinated. And [we intend] that the general practitioners cannot negotiate any longer with insurance companies unless they are part of a coherent group that is offering coherent care.

What does the GOP bill do for people with chronic illness?   The CBO found that provisions in the proposed substitute would “tend to increase the premiums paid by less healthy enrollees.”   The substitute, then, entails fiscal benefits for the well at the expense of those who most need care and coverage.

HR 3962 reforms the insurance market to safeguard coverage for those who have it now; expands coverage for the uninsured; and begins the arduous task of shifting care delivery from fragmentation to coordination.  The GOP alternative covers one-twelfth as many uninsured, makes coverage for the chronically ill harder to maintain, and does less to reduce the deficit.  Common sense tells us that taking positive steps toward reform is vital, and that the GOP substitute is no reform at all.

Reform Rodeo

1. Kaiser Health News discusses the details of the House’s latest iteration of their Health bill.

2.  Ezra Klein analyzes whether the public plan will cost insureds more than private insurance.

3.  The New England Journal of Medicine circles back to a reform issue that is often overlooked: primary care and accountable care.

4. Jonathan Cohn at The New Republic looks at how two of the biggest players in the U.S. health care system–the medical device industry and the pharmaceutical industry–are affected by the House bill.

5.  The Healthcare Economist reports on a study released by the Urban Institute that breaks down how the House Bill will affect the number of uninsured.

6.  Wild Card: Eugene Volokh highlights on a case involving one company’s desire to patent a physician’s thought process.

7. In Case You Missed It: The Cost of (Not) Implementing Chronic Care Management by Professor John V. Jacobi.

Reforming Medical Treatment for People with Serious Mental Illness

What group could health reform help most?  The obvious choice (maybe the right one) would be people with no insurance, or lousy insurance.  It is clear that un- or underinsurance is bad for your physical and fiscal health.  How about people in need of skilled nursing care and assistance with activities of daily living?  Some provisions of pending bills would allow these folks to avoid the Hobson’s choice of institutional care or too little care.  But the cohort that might stand to gain the most from reform is the population of people with serious mental illness.

People with serious mental illness have long been known to have excess morbidity and mortality as compared to people without serious mental illness.  Although much of this excess is attributable to “unnatural causes” - e.g., suicide – studies have identified in this population substantially elevated natural causes of illness and early death from conditions such as cardiovascular and respiratory disease.    Some of these conditions are caused or exacerbated by side effects of newer atypical antipsychotics.    Much of this excess morbidity and mortality is preventable, and some causes (e.g., poorly controlled diabetes) could be addressed through sound chronic care management techniques I’ve described in an earlier post.    Inadequate attention to the management of the medical concerns of people with severe mental illness could be a particularly attractive goal of health delivery reform.

The National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors issued a Technical Report last year on this issue.  Its literature review rendered the following judgment:

Recent data indicates that, on average, persons with serious mental illness die 25 years earlier than the general population.  Eighty-seven percent of years of life lost to premature death are due to chronic disease, especially infectious, pulmonary, and cardiovascular diseases, and diabetes.  Cardiac events alone account for more deaths than suicide.

The data are emerging; more work needs to be done to evaluate comprehensively the connection between incidence of severe mental illness and lack of appropriate, coordinated medical care.  Whatever exact relationship is revealed, the situation is clearly dire: the fragmentation of our health care system causes particularly severe problems for people with serious mental illness.  The Association noted that emerging chronic care management techniques offer a way out of this unconscionable mess.  It advocates the adoption and application of patient-centered medical home programs that bring together primary care, mental health care, and care for chronic medical conditions in a patient- and community-centered environment.

The current bills offer some funding for such measures, at least as pilots.  The House bill, for example, contains language supporting Medicaid medical home demonstrations with initial funding tilted to the federal, in order to encourage states to try these programs out.  Let’s hope these and similar measures, which offer hope for the correction of terrible health disparities in a cost effective manner, survive the production of final legislation.

Consumer Protection in a Reformed Health Care & Insurance System

Implementation is critical to the success of translating universal coverage into access to appropriate health care for all.  Sound follow-through demands the design and execution of well-tailored consumer protection regulations. The first step is a prohibition of underwriting or rating decisions based on preexisting illness.  Insurers have agreed to this reform, as a quid pro quo for the millions of new customers they’ll get from coverage mandates.  Universal coverage and this prohibition of discrimination go together.  Insurers are right that it doesn’t make business sense to ignore preexisting illnesses if consumers can wait for illness to appear before contributing to the insurance pool.  They seem to agree that coverage mandates can adequately do the work of preexisting illness exclusions, rendering them superfluous.

Insurers’ position on non-discrimination would clearly change if folks like Rep. Tom Price (R. Ga.) have their way.  Price objects to mandates because they would allow the government to define “insurance” thereby disadvantaging some forms of currently-marketed coverage, such as bare-bones and HSA-linked consumer-driven products.  But underinsurance has been devastating the American middle class for years; real reform must establish basic levels of fiscal security, as well as medical coverage.  Representative Price’s attack on standards is, then, merely a back door attack on universal coverage.  It is a necessary package deal: either we have universal coverage with an end to preexisting illness exclusions, or markets will continue slicing and dicing “insurance,” leaving huge gaps in coverage. Read more

Implementing Reform: Children with Special Health Care Needs

The public option took a hit on Tuesday, as the Senate Finance Committee rejected amendments adding it to the Chairman’s Mark of the Baucus bill. As I have written previously, a public plan could improve care for the most vulnerable, including those with chronic illness, who tend to struggle for appropriate care under commercial plans. If the public option is dropped, the implementation of the resulting private plan-based system, including enforcement and regulatory design at the federal and state levels, becomes that much more critical to the task of assuring access to appropriate care.

The bills build on the benefits design of the private insurance market, as did Medicare and SCHIP before them. Those programs adopted familiar, private-sector benefits design and payment methods for political and pragmatic reasons: powerful stake-holders were comforted, and implementation was simplified. The bills build on this lineage. The Baucus bill, for example, requires all plans offered by the insurance exchanges to provide:

preventive and primary care, emergency services, hospitalization, physician services, outpatient services, day surgery and related anesthesia, diagnostic imaging and screenings (including x-rays), maternity and newborn care, pediatric services (including dental and vision), medical/surgical care, prescription drugs, radiation and chemotherapy, and mental health and substance abuse services that at least meet minimum standards set by Federal and state laws.

Pretty standard stuff. But describing a slate of covered benefits, and ensuring that that care is properly delivered by private, mostly for-profit firms, are different things entirely.

Take the example of children with special health care needs (”CSHCN”). The Maternal and Child Health Bureau of DHSS defines CSHCN as “…those who have or are at increased risk for a chronic physical, developmental, behavioral, or emotional condition and who also require health and related services of a type or amount beyond that required by children generally.” The Catalyst Center at Boston University identifies these children’s health conditions as including:

chronic illnesses such as diabetes, sickle cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, and heart disease; developmental disabilities such as mental retardation, sensory impairments, and autism spectrum disorders; emotional or behavioral health needs including ADHD and mental health conditions; and physical disabilities such as cerebral palsy, spina bifida, or muscular dystrophy.

Simply providing “health insurance” to children with these conditions is no guarantee that they’ll receive appropriate services. A 2002 study by Harriette Fox and others for HRSA reported that insurers have interpreted contract terms to exclude categorically some conditions such as mental retardation or “inorganic disorders.” Others have limited medically necessary services such as speech therapy or habilitation therapy because they are not curative or restorative, but merely needed to maximize a child’s ability to function.

These contract terms and their interpretations have not often been challenged by state departments of insurance, because those terms and interpretations have the power of custom and industry practice behind them. These customs and practices, however, can deny care that children desperately need to live socially integrated and healthy lives. Amy Davidoff and coauthors in 2004 examined the difference in children’s coverage experiences when covered by Medicaid on one hand, or by private plan-mimicking SCHIP on the other, with respect to denial of access to needed services, including medically necessary ancillary services. They reported that,

Medicaid-eligible children tend not to face these concerns, in part because Medicaid explicitly covers medically necessary services not covered by private insurers. To the extent states pattern their SCHIP programs on private insurance and not Medicaid, the children lose that benefit.

The Baucus bill adds to Medicaid’s strength in this regard. At Title II, Subtitle B of the Chairman’s Mark (after the acceptance of an amendment from Senator Debbie Stabenow), a new Medicaid state plan option will permit states to offer, for children with at least two chronic conditions or one serious and persistent mental health condition,

Comprehensive care management; care coordination and health promotion; comprehensive transitional care, including appropriate follow-up, from inpatient to other settings; patient and family support; and referral to community and social support services, if relevant…

What of families covered by the private competitive marketplace of health insurance or SCHIP? The bills speak in general terms of the power of federal and state regulators to ensure adequate and appropriate coverage. This enforcement power should be used to ensure that coverage applies to chronic and disabling conditions as it does to run-of-the-mill medical/surgical cases. Future posts will examine some of the specific enforcement language, which will be key to the realization of the promise of reform to CSHCNs and others with chronic and disabling conditions.

Public plans and chronic care

 

The public plan question continues to permeate health reform discussions.   Last week, surprising analysis from the CBO seemed to be leading some Democrats to support stripped-down reform.  On Sunday, polling data was published showing overwhelming support for a public plan that could compete with private plans in a reformed marketplace.  Senator Conrad has proposed a “health cooperative” as a “compromise” between those for and against public plans, suggesting that a plan operated by and for its members could serve many of the functions of a public plan, without presenting the political problems presented by public plans - which he regarded as insurmountable.

Tim Jost and Tim Greaney in previous posts here and here have raised important concerns about cooperatives.  Cooperatives, as they point out, are not new; in the form of mutual insurers, non-profits, and Blues, things very like what Senator Conrad describes existed for decades.  Unfortunately, they have mostly wandered from their community mission to mimic the business practices of for-profit insurers.  Senator Conrad may be agreeing on forms of oversight and organization of a “cooperative” that may lessen the gulf between his original proposal and those of public plan proponents.

What does this have to do with chronic care?  Reform 2009 has focused on access and the uninsured, although cost is certainly another driver.  It is now well-known that health costs are not homogeneously spread; instead, a small number of people need most of the expensive care each year.  Many of these people need expensive care because they are living with multiple chronic illnesses.   Care for chronic conditions is often poorly coordinated, and the costs of care are increasingly shifted to the patient in the form of copayments, coinsurance, and deductibles.

Current draft reform bills gesture to the need to coordinate chronic care.  The House June 19^th House version, at section 1178, would create “fully integrated dual eligible special needs plans” to “optimize” the health and well-being of people eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid, with serious chronic illnesses, and at section 1302, would create a Medicare medical home pilot program for people with chronic illness.  What about those covered in the private marketplace?  Section 1441 would add as a “consideration” in the Secretary’s setting of health priorities “health care provided to patients with prevalent, high-cost chronic diseases.”        The Senate version would directly address the chronically ill in private insurance.  Section 101 would amend the National Health Service Act to require health coverage to contain  ”care coordination and chronic disease management” activities, as well as “medical home” provisions which, as described further in section 212 of the draft bill, would require the plans to provide for medical teams to coordinate chronic  care.

Adding chronic care management provisions to Medicare and Medicaid is a good step.  Nudging private plans to provide appropriate chronic care is also a good thing.  As Robert Kane (University of Minnesota), Edward Wagner (MacColl Institute), Thomas Bodenheimer (UCSF), and others have increasingly demonstrated, patient-centered, clinically-based chronic care coordination has the potential to greatly improve care and patients’ quality of life.  There is increasing evidence that chronic care management can save money, as well.

Private plans - for-profit and non-profit - are aware of advances in chronic care, and to varying degrees have adopted innovative care coordination methods.  But they don’t do enough, for two entirely rational reasons.  First, employers and individuals switch health insurers frequently, for a variety of reasons, leading insurers to regard members as “theirs” for only a few years.  Paying for expensive care (e.g., bariatric surgery for obesity) that pays dividends over a longer time frame, then, pays dividends for their competitors.  Second, insurers who do an excellent job maintaining panels of chronic care specialists, and coordinating care among them, risk becoming “sick people magnets,” attracting exactly those people their actuaries tell them will hurt their bottom line.  Risk adjustment is a partial corrective, but clearly does not level the playing field enough in a market where marginal profits spell success or failure.  Mandating that insurers act against their interests is the right thing to do in this case, but we should not be surprised if they react with less than dizzying zeal.

We all have a chronically ill parent, child, grandparent, or friend whose health has spiraled down because our current delivery and finance systems have failed them.  There are many barriers to reversing the trend away from patient-centered, humane, chronic care.  One barrier that must be addressed is the structural failure of our competitive health insurance market in this regard.  It doesn’t pay to be good at chronic care, and things that don’t pay are, for perfectly understandable reasons, problematic in that marketplace.

President Obama said yesterday that competition from public plans can be “an important tool to discipline insurance companies.”  Others have argued that the public plans can serve as a benchmark, or a compass setting, for private plans.  In chronic care management, here’s what that might get us.  A public plan can be charged with doing an excellent job coordinating chronic care.  Private plans can be similarly charged, but, for the reasons described above, they will have strong market interests to avoid that charge.  The public plan in this area (as in others) can allow us to recognize, by comparison, how well private insurers are doing at the task we most need them to do: provide care for the ill — for those who really need health coverage and care.

More Prescriptions Go Unfilled, is Uncle Sam “Penny Wise?”

The New York Times reports that “One in seven Americans under age 65 went without prescribed medicines in 2007″ and that “that figure is up substantially since 2003, when one in 10 people under 65 went without a prescription drug because they couldn’t afford it, according to the Center for Studying Health System Change in Washington, D.C.”

The Times also reported that Laurie E. Felland, a senior health researcher at the center and lead author of the study, noted that because these numbers are from 2007, they may well be higher now due to the recession.

“The people who were least able to afford medicine were often those who needed it most, Ms. Felland said: uninsured, working-age adults suffering from at least one chronic medical condition. Almost two-thirds of them in the survey said they had gone without filling a prescription.”

The affect among those with chronic conditions is particularly disturbing in light of the data on the relative expense of treating chronic conditions, and the additional expense that neglect in treatment can cause. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has reported that

Chronic Conditions Contribute to Higher Health Care Costs

Twenty-five percent of the U.S. community population were reported to have one or more of five major chronic conditions: ·

• Mood disorders
• Diabetes
• Heart disease
• Asthma
• Hypertension

Spending to treat these five conditions alone amounted to $62.3 billion in 1996. Moreover, people with chronic conditions tend to have other conditions and illnesses. , according to 1996 MEPS data. On an individual level, treatment for the average patient with asthma was $663 per year in 1996, but when the full cost of care for asthma and other coexistent illnesses is taken into account, the average cost was $2,779.

When the other illnesses are added in, total expenses for people with these five major chronic conditions rise to $270 billion, or 49 percent of total health care costs

Expenses for people with one chronic condition were twice as great as for those without any chronic conditions. Spending for those with five or more chronic conditions was about 14 times greater than spending for those without any chronic conditions. Persons with five or more conditions also have high hospital expenditures. In New York State during 2002, of the 1.3 million different persons admitted to the hospital, the 27 percent with five or more chronic conditions accounted for 47 percent of all inpatient costs. (emphasis added, footnotes omitted).
Perhaps as we consider the large number of persons with chronic conditions who are not taking prescribed medications, we should also consider a recent five-year retrospective study of almost 5 million California residents which found that “People who have spotty Medicaid coverage are more than three times likelier than those who maintain continuous coverage to be hospitalized for an illness that could have been managed outside the hospital with doctors’ visits and medication.”

Hospitalization is expensive.

Also, as we noted in a recent post, the Kaiser Foundation has shown that many seniors , who account for a great deal of the health expense in this country (but are not included in the the Center for Studying Health System Change report), also cease or diminish the use of their medications as a result of “the donut hole” in Medicare prescription drug coverage-a gap in coverage which leaves many seniors “on their own” for payments of thousands of dollars per year.

Alaskan “Medical Home” Approach

A recent piece in the Anchorage Daily News highlights some health care successes worth noting. Southcentral Foundation serves the medical and other needs of Alaska Natives. Its network includes a primary care clinic and some specialty services and it jointly runs the Alaska Native Medical Center with the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium.

Southcentral’s approach is one version of the “medical home” model that is said to have piqued the interest of members of the Obama administration. It is a “comprehensive” approach to health care which distinguishes acute and traumatic maladies from chronic conditions. The Southcentral system is premised on the belief that the “mechanical-repair model” (it’s broke, let’s fix it with a procedure and/or medication) “is great if you are in an accident and need trauma care….But the vast majority of health care deals with chronic conditions and the fallout from behavioral choices people make.”

For these chronic issues, Southcentral offers a team which “includes a doctor, nurse, and case manager, as well as access to a nutritionist, traditional healers and a behavioral counselor,” and “follow-up services - pharmacy for drugs, labs for testing - are right on the same campus, making access easy.” Southcentral’s Karen McIntire has stated that “70 percent of primary care does not require a doctor,” and that “In our system, who you see depends on what you need.” The Anchorage Daily News reports that “With this comprehensive approach, Southcentral reports major changes for the better. Writing in the January 2008 issue of Family Practice Management, CEO Gottlieb reported that emergency room and urgent care visits have dropped by more than 40 percent, while use of specialists fell 50 percent and the number of hospital days shrank by 30 percent.” Read full story here.