Tuesday, December 20, 2016

HHS Finalizes New Medicare Alternative Payment Models to Reward Better Care at Lower Cost


 
HHS News Release
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, December 20, 2016
 

 

HHS Finalizes New Medicare Alternative Payment Models to Reward Better Care at Lower Cost

Bundled payments for cardiac and orthopedic care, small-practice Accountable Care Organization opportunities to continue health care system’s shift toward value

 

Today, the Department of Health & Human Services finalized new Medicare alternative payment models that continue the Administration’s progress in reforming how the health care system pays for care. These new approaches will shift Medicare payments from rewarding quantity to rewarding quality by creating incentives for hospitals and clinicians to work together to avoid complications, avoid preventable hospital readmissions, and speed patient recovery. 

Today’s announcement finalizes new policies that: 

·         Improve cardiac care: Three new payment models will support clinicians in providing care to patients who receive treatment for heart attacks, heart surgery to bypass blocked coronary arteries, or cardiac rehabilitation. 

·         Further improve orthopedic care: One new payment model will support clinicians in providing care to patients who receive surgery after a hip fracture beyond hip replacement. In addition, HHS is finalizing updates to the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement Model, which began in April 2016. 

·         Provides an Accountable Care Organization opportunity for small practices: In order to encourage more practices, especially small practices, to advance to performance-based risk, the new Medicare ACO Track 1+ Model will have more limited downside risk than in Tracks 2 or 3 of the Medicare Shared Savings Program. The model also allows hospitals, including small rural hospitals, to participate in this new ACO model. Stakeholders, including physician groups, have requested this type of ACO model be added to the portfolio of options. This approach will provide opportunities for an estimated 70,000 clinicians to qualify for Advanced Alternative Payment Model (APM) incentive payments in 2018. 

“Today, we’re proud to continue progress strengthening Medicare for beneficiaries, providers, and taxpayers with alternative payment models that reward the quality of care over quantity of services,” said HHS Secretary Sylvia M. Burwell. “These models give providers and hospitals the tools they need to provide the kind of high-quality patient-centered care we all want for our own families, while also driving down costs for the nation.” 

Improving Patient Outcomes through Cardiac and Orthopedic Care Coordination 

The cardiac and orthopedic episode payment models being finalized today provide opportunities to improve care coordination and quality. The focus of these approaches is to reduce unnecessary variation in care, improve patient results, and reduce preventable readmissions. In 2014, more than 200,000 Medicare beneficiaries were hospitalized for heart attack treatment or underwent bypass surgery, costing Medicare over $6 billion. But the cost of treating patients for bypass surgery, hospitalization, and recovery varied by 50 percent across hospitals, and the share of heart attack patients readmitted to the hospital within 30 days varied by more than 50 percent. In addition, only 15 percent of heart attack patients receive cardiac rehabilitation, even though clinical studies have found that completing a rehabilitation program can lower the risk of a second heart attack or death. 

“As a practicing doctor, I know the importance of hospitals, doctors, nurses and others working together to support a patient from heart attack or surgery all the way through recovery. These bundled payment models support coordinated care and can reward clinicians through the Quality Payment Program,” said Patrick Conway, M.D., CMS acting principal deputy administrator. “The new ACO Track 1+ was developed based on heavy stakeholder input and will enable many more physician practices to progress to an advanced model that receives incentive payments. The model allows doctors and other clinicians to practice the way they want to – working with patients to redesign care and provide the best outcomes possible.” 

Under the new approaches, the hospital in which a Medicare patient is admitted for care for a heart attack, bypass surgery, or a hip or femur procedure will be accountable for the quality and cost of care provided to Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries during the inpatient stay and for 90 days after discharge. The new models will operate over a period of five years beginning July 1, 2017. The cardiac models will apply to hospitals located in the 98 metro areas participating in the model (about one-quarter of all metro areas in the nation). The surgical hip fracture treatment model will apply to hospitals in 67 metro areas, which are the same metro areas currently included in the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement Model. 

The cardiac rehabilitation incentive payment model will test the impact of providing payment to hospitals to incentivize referral and coordination of cardiac rehabilitation following discharge from the hospital for a heart attack or bypass surgery. These payments will cover the same five-year period as the cardiac care bundled payment models and will be available to hospital participants in 45 geographic areas that were not selected for the cardiac care bundled payment models, and 45 geographic areas that were selected for the cardiac care bundled payment models. 

Under all of these approaches, beneficiaries retain their freedom to choose services and their hospital or physician. CMS will monitor and evaluate the impact of the approaches on care quality and value. An ombudsman will also be monitoring the models and be available for beneficiaries. More information about the structure of these models is available in the fact sheet

 

Continual Feedback and Support for Participating Clinicians 

CMS plans to offer education and training to support and prepare clinicians in these models. These activities will include webinars about each model as well as qualification criteria for the Quality Payment Program incentive payments, fact sheets explaining what model participants will need to do to be successful in the models, and open door forums where CMS staff will be able to answer questions about the models. 

With the Affordable Care Act, HHS gained new tools to build a health care system that works better for everyone, put individuals at the center of their own care and unlock access to health care data for patients and their clinicians. Doctors, patients, and health care experts across the country support these models because they have seen firsthand their potential for delivering better and more cost-effective care. Stakeholder input is vital for the success of these models, and HHS welcomes feedback on today’s announcement at epmrule@cms.hhs.gov

The final rule can be viewed at: https://downloads.cms.gov/files/cmmi/epm-finalrule.pdf

For more information on the models, please visit: https://www.cms.gov/Newsroom/MediaReleaseDatabase/Fact-sheets/2016-Fact-sheets-items/2016-12-20.html

 

 Payment Modles

Cost of Care in Minnesota Increased 5.6% from 2014-2015


Minnesota Community Measurement recently released their 2016 Cost & Utilization Report for the state of Minnesota. Here are some key findings from the report:

1.5 million patients accrued over $8 billion in health care costs during 2015.
Males had a lower overall cost of care ($437 compared to $505 for females).
The overall increase in total cost of care was 5.6% from 2014 to 2015.
Males accounted for 11.9% of the dollars spent compared to females at 7.6%.
The cost of a 15-minute office visit ranges from $75 to $210.
A blood glucose test ranges from $6 to $51 for commercially insured patients.


Source: Minnesota Community Measurement, November 2016

Monday, December 19, 2016

The Twelve Sites of Social Security

Posted on by
      
Gathering with family and friends during the holiday season reminds us we’re part of a strong community. And sometimes, in the spirit of the season, we break into song. Our take on “The Twelve Days of Christmas” — a holiday favorite since 1780 — highlights the national community we care for all year long. We call it “The Twelve Sites of Social Security.”
 
For the first site of Social Security, we give to you: our home page, www.socialsecurity.gov. It’s the place to go for all things Social Security. Everything you could want — from online services and benefit screening tools to publications and frequently asked questions — you can find all these and more on this site.
 
For the second site of Social Security, we give to you: our hub for Social Security news and updates at our blog, Social Security Matters at blog.socialsecurity.gov.
 
For the third site of Social Security, we give to you: an easy way to learn how to replace your Social Security card at www.socialsecurity.gov/ssnumber. And in some states, you can replace it online at www.socialsecurity.gov/myaccount!
 
For the fourth site of Social Security, we give to you: an online application for retirement benefits that you can complete and submit in as little as 15 minutes at www.socialsecurity.gov/applytoretire.
 
For the fifth site of Social Security, we give to you: five estimates of your future Social Security benefits! Or as many estimates as you would like using different scenarios. Get instant, personalized estimates of your future benefits at www.socialsecurity.gov/estimator.

For the sixth site of Social Security, we give to you: a convenient way to apply for disability benefits at www.socialsecurity.gov/applyfordisability.

For the seventh site of Social Security, we give to you: fun and informative videos on our YouTube channel at www.youtube.com/user/socialsecurityonline.

For the eighth site of Social Security, we give to you: Extra Help with Medicare prescription drug plan costs. You can learn more and apply for a subsidy online at www.socialsecurity.gov/prescriptionhelp.

For the ninth site of Social Security, we give to you: our convenient publication library with online booklets and pamphlets on numerous subjects, at www.socialsecurity.gov/pubs.

For the tenth site of Social Security, we give to you: one of our most popular social media outlets, our Facebook page. This is where we engage thousands of customers and you can join the conversation at www.facebook.com/socialsecurity.

For the eleventh site of Social Security, we give to you: answers to your Social Security related questions at our Frequently Asked Questions page at www.socialsecurity.gov/faq.

On the twelfth site of Social Security (and we saved the best for last): open your own personal my Social Security account, which will enable you to verify your earnings, get future benefit estimates, obtain benefit verification letters, update your Social Security information, and more at www.socialsecurity.gov/myaccount.

And a partridge in a pear tree! Find all of this and more (except the partridge and pear tree) at www.socialsecurity.gov.

Pharma Companies Paid 618,000 Physicians $2 Billion in 2015


ProPublica recently released updated statistics for their Dollars for Docs database on pharmaceutical industry payments to US physicians. Here are some key findings from the report:

From 2013-2015, companies paid $600 million a year to teaching hospitals.
Companies made $2 billion in general payments to 618,000 physicians each year.
1 in 4 doctors who received a payment in 2015 didn't receive one in 2014.
Blood thinner Xarelto ($28.4 million) was the top payer to physicians in 2015.
Arthritis drug Humira made $24.9 million in payments to physicians in 2015.
Diabetes drug Invokana made $20.9 million in payments to physicians in 2015.
 

Source: ProPublica, December 13, 2016

Thursday, December 15, 2016

Seniors Get Destroyed by Medical Bills for this Medicare Mistake


December 14, 2016 By Greg Allen

COBRA, Retiree Plans, VA Benefits Don’t Alleviate Need To Sign Up For Medicare


When Cindy Hunter received her Medicare card in the mail last spring, she said she “didn’t know a lot about Medicare.” She and her husband, retired teachers who live in a Philadelphia suburb, decided she didn’t need it because she shared his retiree health insurance, which covered her treatment for ovarian cancer.

“We were so thankful we had good insurance,” she said. So she sent back the card, telling officials she would keep Medicare Part A, which is free for most older or disabled Americans and covers hospitalization, some nursing home stays and home health care. But she turned down Part B, which covers doctor visits and other outpatient care and comes with a monthly premium charge. A new Medicare card arrived that says she only has Part A.

When Stan Withers left a job at a medical device company to become vice president of a small start-up near Sacramento, Calif., he took his health insurance with him. Under a federal law known as COBRA, he paid the full cost to continue his coverage from his previous employer. A few years earlier, when he turned 65, he signed up for Medicare’s Part A. With the addition of a COBRA plan, he thought he didn’t need Medicare Part B.

Hunter and Withers now know they were wrong and are stuck with medical bills their insurance won’t cover. Hunter called it “an honest mistake” and said there was nothing in the written materials she and her husband received indicating that if they had Medicare Part A, his retiree coverage could not replace Medicare Part B. Withers had no idea he made a bad choice.

Thousands of seniors unwittingly make similar mistakes every year, believing that because they have some type of health insurance, they don’t have to worry about signing up for Medicare Part B. Generally, insurance other than that provided by a current employer will not exempt them from Medicare’s strict enrollment requirements. Seniors’ advocates and some members of Congress want to fix the problem, backed by a broad, unlikely group of unions, health insurers, patient organizations, health care providers and even eight former Medicare administrators.

Medicare’s Part B enrollment rules haven’t changed since the program was created in 1965. Seniors can enroll only when they first become eligible — usually three months before and after the month they turn 65 — or when their job-based insurance ends. If they miss this opportunity, they have to wait until the months of January through March to enroll and then coverage only begins July 1. Most won’t be allowed to buy any other health insurance policy during that time.

And if they delay signing up for 12 or more months after becoming eligible, many will be hit with a permanent penalty added to their Part B monthly premium. In 2014, about 750,000 beneficiaries paid late penalties, raising their Part B premiums an average of 29 percent, according to the Congressional Research Service.

“The rules have not changed, but our lives have,” said Joe Baker, president of the Medicare Rights Center, an advocacy group that is leading the effort to update the enrollment process. When Medicare began, the government wanted seniors, especially younger and healthier people, to sign up quickly and so the deadlines and late penalties were incentives to get them in the program.

But these days more seniors work past the Medicare eligibility age, get health insurance through their employer or their spouse’s, or have coverage through the health insurance marketplaces, Baker said. The problem isn’t that people are going without insurance. “The confusion that we really see is with how Medicare interacts with other insurance coverage,” he said.

Hunter, 62, became eligible for Medicare earlier than 65 because she gets Social Security disability benefits. She’s receiving two chemotherapy drugs to control a second reoccurrence of ovarian cancer. This fall her oncologist’s office told her there’s “something going on with your insurance,” she recalled. After many calls to her husband’s retiree plan, Social Security, Medicare and even her congressman, she learned that her insurance would only pay a share of the bills for her cancer treatment after deducting the amount the insurer said was Medicare’s responsibility. “But Medicare isn’t paying because I don’t have Part B,” she said. So Hunter is probably responsible for that portion.

Withers thought the health plan he purchased through his old employer would count as job-based coverage, but COBRA is not a substitute for Medicare Part B, a point no one mentioned when he submitted his paperwork. He should have signed up for Part B when he left his previous job.

“How could there be a rule that no one knows about?” Withers asked.

In addition, the private plan has refused to pay thousands of dollars in medical bills because the company argued that he should have had Part B and those are Medicare’s responsibility.

Confusion over COBRA is just one of many reasons that people miss their opportunity to enroll in Part B. Others think, incorrectly, that getting Veterans Health Administration benefits, job-based health insurance from a company with less than 20 workers, retiree coverage from a former employer, or coverage from the health law’s insurance marketplace exempts them from Part B’s lifetime late penalties and waiting periods with no insurance.

To help seniors avoid such mistakes, bipartisan legislation has been introduced in both the House and Senate that would allow people who miss their initial Part B enrollment deadline to sign up in the fall, when millions of seniors already in Medicare are choosing private drug or medical policies. Part B coverage would begin the month after they enroll, said Stacy Sanders, federal policy director at the Medicare Rights Center. It would also allow most people who enroll late to apply for retroactive coverage to their initial eligibility date and request a waiver of the late penalties if they can prove they were misled by an employer, health plan, insurance broker or state official (currently, an exemption may be based only on misinformation from a federal government representative).

“Because I didn’t ask Social Security and they didn’t give me the wrong information, there was nothing they could do,” Hunter said. “They said if they had given me the wrong information, they might be able to do something.”

Seniors “shouldn’t face penalties or gaps in their Part B coverage simply due to bureaucratic snafu,” said Rep. Patrick Meehan, R-Pa., who co-sponsored the House bill. “I’ve had seniors contact my office and say they simply had no idea of existing deadlines — or that they faced penalties down the road for missing them.”

The legislation also would require Medicare officials to notify all Americans prior to their 65th birthday about signing up for Medicare. Currently, the federal government and some states notify only those 64-year-olds who have health insurance though the Affordable Care Act’s marketplaces.

Although the bill appears unlikely to see action before the end of the current congressional session, Meehan said he will reintroduce it in 2017.

Getting an official government notice before turning 65 explaining when to sign up for Part B would “absolutely” help, said Withers. “There should be something that tells people what they need to do.”

KHN’s coverage related to aging & improving care of older adults is supported by The John A. Hartford Foundation.

Kaiser Health News (KHN) is a national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

This is a guest post by Susan Jaffe of Kaiser Health News a national health policy news service that is part of the nonpartisan Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.
http://senioramericansassociation.com/2016/12/14/seniors-get-destroyed-medical-bills-medicare-mistake/?utm_source=161215SAAMRLUCKYSHOT5&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=161215SAAMRLUCKYSHOT5

December 2016 preview: Increased transparency and quality information via new Compare sites and data updates


CMS BLOG


 

December 14, 2016

By: Patrick Conway, MD, MSc, CMS Acting Principal Deputy Administrator and Chief Medical Officer and

      Kate Goodrich, M.D., M.H.S., Director, Center for Clinical Standards & Quality, CMS

 

December 2016 preview: Increased transparency and quality information via new Compare sites and data updates

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) continues to work diligently to make health care quality information more transparent and understandable for consumers. At CMS, one of our top priorities is to help individuals make informed health care decisions for themselves or their loved ones based on objective measures of quality. The CMS Compare websites are reliable sources of information where individuals can compare the quality of health care providers, facilities, and health plans, highlighting that people have a choice in their care.

Here’s a brief overview of some important new updates to CMS Compare websites:

Launching Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility Compare and Long-Term Care Hospital Compare websites

Today, as part of our continuing commitment to greater data transparency, CMS unveiled new Compare websites for both Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities (IRFs) and Long-Term Care Hospitals (LTCHs). IRFs are free standing rehabilitation hospitals and rehabilitation units in acute care hospitals (and critical access hospitals). They provide intensive rehabilitation services using an interdisciplinary team approach.  LTCHs are certified as acute‑care hospitals, but focus on patients who, on average, stay more than 25 days and need extended hospital-level care. Many of the patients in LTCHs are transferred there from an intensive or critical care unit.

Under the Affordable Care Act, both IRFs and LTCHs are required to report quality data to CMS on a number of quality measures and health outcomes. These new tools take this data and put it into a format that can be used more readily by the public to get a snapshot of the quality of care each hospital provides. For instance, these tools will help families compare some key quality metrics, such as pressure ulcers and readmissions, for over 1,100 IRFs and 420 LTCHs across the nation. Specifically, the following quality measures will be reported on the new Compare sites for IRFs and LTCHs, respectively:

IRFs

  • Percent of Residents or Patients with Pressure Ulcers that are New or Worsened (Short Stay) (National Quality Forum #0678)
  • All-Cause Unplanned Readmission Measure for 30 Days Post-Discharge From Inpatient

Rehabilitation Facilities (National Quality Forum #2502)

LTCHs

  • Percent of Residents or Patients with Pressure Ulcers That Are New or Worsened (Short Stay) (National Quality Forum #0678)
  • All-Cause Unplanned Readmission Measure for 30 Days Post-Discharge from Long-Term Care Hospital (National Quality Forum #2512)

These websites reflect current industry best practices for consumer-facing websites and will be optimized for mobile use. Visit https://www.medicare.gov/inpatientrehabilitationfacilitycompare/ and https://www.medicare.gov/longtermcarehospitalcompare/ to view the new Compare sites.

For more information on IRFs and LTCHs, visit the IRF Quality Public Reporting and the LTCH Quality Public Reporting webpages.

Other CMS Compare websites include: Hospital Compare; Physician Compare; Nursing Home Compare; Medicare Plan Finder; Dialysis Compare; and Home Health Compare.

Hospice Care Quality Data

National averages of the quality measure scores of Medicare-certified hospices will be available soon on the Hospice Data Directory on data.medicare.gov as public use files. National average data will be available for two quality of care datasets – the Hospice Item Set and the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) Hospice Survey. The Hospice Item Set reflects provider performance on the seven National Quality Forum-endorsed quality measures from July 2015 through June 2016. The national CAHPS® Hospice Survey scores are calculated from survey responses that reflect care experiences of informal caregivers (i.e., family members or friends) of patients who died while in hospice care from April 2015 through March 2016.

For more information, visit the Hospice Quality Reporting webpage.

Hospital Compare Updates

After releasing the Overall Hospital Quality Star Rating for the Hospital Compare website in July, we will be updating that overall data to reflect refreshed measure data. This update includes a refresh of the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers & Systems (HCAHPS) data; five new oncology care measures that were added to the Prospective Payment System-Exempt Cancer Hospital Reporting Program; and the addition of a readmission after coronary artery bypass graft surgery measure to Hospital Readmission Reduction Program. In addition to other new measures, and the removal of several measures from Hospital CompareVeterans Health Administration (VHA) data is now available on data.medicare.gov. 

Physician Compare Update and Redesign

Finally, CMS will also be adding new quality data and other information to the Physician Compare website. As part of a phased approach to public reporting, CMS is now preparing to include a significantly larger and more diverse set of quality information for group practices, individual clinicians, and Accountable Care Organizations on the Physician Compare website. This will help people with Medicare coverage to better evaluate data for more group practices and clinicians across a range of specialties.

Additionally, CMS will be releasing a new user-focused redesign of Physician Compare. The look and feel will be similar to the newly launched IRF Compare and LTCH Compare websites.

The redesign is based on extensive consumer testing and reflects current industry best practices for consumer-facing websites to make them more user friendly and intuitive. The website will be more streamlined and also be optimized for mobile use.

 Screenshot of Medicare.gov Physician Compare website home

 * * *

Consumers have many options when choosing a health care provider. Providers vary in the quality of the care they give, and everyone wants to choose the provider who will be best for themselves or their loved ones. Yet frequently the choice must be made quickly and without the time for consumers to locate and review a wide range of information sources. Our goal with these Compare websites is to provide the public with information that they can use when making important decisions about care.

Life Expectancy was 78.8 Years in 2015


The National Center for Health Statistics recently released an analysis of mortality rates in the U.S. Here are some key findings from the report:

In 2015, life expectancy at birth was 78.8 years for the U.S. population.
For males, life expectancy changed from 76.5 in 2014 to 76.3 in 2015.
Female life expectancy decreased from 81.3 in 2014 to 81.2 in 2015.
The difference in life expectancy between females and males increased 0.1 year.
In 2015, life expectancy at age 65 for the total population was 19.4 years.
Life expectancy at age 65 was 20.6 years for females and 18.0 years for males.

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, December, 2016