Americans Deserve the Full Truth About Medicare-For-All and its Ramifications for their Healthcare

So much of the nation’s discussion about the Medicare-for-all concept takes place through a political prism.  It’s important, though, to fully understand what such a drastic change to our healthcare system would mean for patients and the care on which they depend.  We welcome Barclay Berdan, the chief executive officer of Texas Health Resources, a faith-based non-profit healthcare system, to share his expertise on the subject.

Americans Deserve the Full Truth About Medicare-For-All and its Ramifications for their Healthcare

by Barclay Berdan, chief executive officer, Texas Health Resources

Everyone, advocates and opponents alike, acknowledges that changing our healthcare system from the status quo to a Medicare-for-all concept would bring about a seismic transformation in the way Americans receive care. Given that such an idea has become a frequent talking point in policy and political circles, it’s critical that the public understand the full ramifications of such a complete remake of American healthcare.

Today, roughly 160 million people in this country have private health insurance that is sponsored by an employer. Almost 14 million have purchased private health plans through the Affordable Care Act marketplaces. Even within the Medicare program, 26 million beneficiaries have elected to enroll in private Medicare Advantage plans. Under the predominant Medicare-for-all proposals we’ve seen, these private plans would all go away and be replaced by a single government-run health coverage infrastructure. We would be remiss if we didn’t give thought to how this could affect patient access to hospitals and physicians.

Hospitals are required to think about what we call payer mix. Private health insurance reimburses at a higher rate for healthcare services than Medicare and Medicaid do.  In fact, historically, Medicare and Medicaid payments are less than the actual cost hospitals absorb in providing those services. (According to one study, in 2017, those combined Medicare and Medicaid underpayments totaled nearly $77 billion.).  Hospitals, which generally operate on very thin margins, can afford to keep their doors open and provide care to Medicare and Medicaid patients because of those comparatively-higher private plan reimbursements.

So what happens if every single American becomes a Medicare beneficiary?  Our first concern has to be those communities that are in greatest risk of losing their hospitals even under the current healthcare financing system.  According to the Center for Healthcare Quality and Payment Reform, 130 rural hospitals have closed in the past decade and another 900 are in danger of ceasing operations in the near future.  Many of these healthcare providers have low financial reserves and could not absorb a significant revenue loss.

Then, there are the current and future healthcare workforce shortages that were only exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.  A Mercer study tells us that, just four years from now, we will have a shortage of 3.2 million healthcare workers. Within a system financed entirely by the federal government, how will salary rates be set for healthcare professions and will they be sufficient to encourage more people to pursue health-related jobs?  And will we have enough personnel to meet what will be an expected rise in utilization under a system in which presumably everyone is covered for every healthcare service (or, will a Medicare-for-all system have to impose restrictions on utilization, a topic that has been severely under-discussed up to now).

Of course, it is always possible that, in creating a Medicare-for-all program, Congress could establish reimbursement rates that are sufficiently high to fully replace the loss of private plan payment levels.  That would, however, raise a plethora of questions about total cost for a Medicare-for-all program and the taxes required to pay for it.

The point being that we are likely to hear a lot about Medicare-for-all in the weeks and months ahead. We need more than political rhetoric, though, to rationalize completely overturning a healthcare system that is currently utilized by most Americans.  Tough questions about ramifications and possible consequences need to be asked and answered before we even consider moving from point A to a radically different point B. In the meantime, we should look at how to improve the current system to provide better care to those who don’t currently have access to it, roughly 10 million uninsured individuals without access to subsidies. Also, the administration’s action this month to improve the Affordable Care Act’s coverage affordability for families was an important step.  It is abundantly clear that we can improve both health care and health by improving what we have.

CATEGORIES: Access, Health, Medicare  |   Link  |   Trackback  |   Comments (77)

The Problematic Push to Slow Medicare Advantage’s Positive Health Impact

In the complex deliberations on Capitol Hill to assemble a social spending package that can pass both houses, one of the prominent proposals being discussed is the expansion of Medicare benefits to include dental, vision, and hearing coverage.  The cost would be significant, over $300 billion over 10 years based on an earlier estimate.  There are valid arguments to be made for closing gaps in current Medicare coverage. Where millions of Medicare beneficiaries need to be concerned, though, is in one of the ideas being tossed around to pay for this coverage expansion, placing the financial burden on Medicare Advantage (MA) plans and those who rely on them for their healthcare.

Some have suggested financing these additional benefits by excluding them from the benchmark that Medicare uses to determine payment rates for Medicare Advantage plans.  The USC-Brookings Schaeffer Initiative for Public Policy, in fact, published an essay advocating this approach.

Let’s break down exactly what this means and clarify the ramifications of such a step.  Under this approach, Congress would be creating new defined benefits for Medicare beneficiaries, but it would not be funding those benefits for MA plans.  MA plans receive rebates from the government by submitting bids for the coming plan year that are lower than the benchmark.  Those rebates are generally funneled back into additional benefits for enrollees and initiatives to address social determinants of health (more on that in a moment).  If the range of defined Medicare benefits expands but that is not reflected in the benchmark, that will mean a significant shrinkage of rebates to MA plans.

Put succinctly, for the first time ever, Medicare would be segmenting its beneficiary population into different groups with different levels of benefits. Medicare Advantage plans and enrollees will be paying for expanded benefits for those in conventional fee-for-service Medicare, and there will be consequences for doing that.

Today, more than four of every 10 Medicare beneficiaries – over 26 million in all – are enrolled in an MA plan, with that number growing annually.  And as more seniors enroll in these plans, the collective health of the over-65 population improves.  Research has shown that MA plans surpass conventional fee-for-service Medicare on multiple clinical quality measures and patient experience standards.

Just as importantly, as health experts come to the increasing realization that non-clinical social determinants can have an even greater impact on health than clinical care, more Medicare Advantage plans are providing coverage for transportation, housing, nutrition and social support services. This can make a profound difference in the lives of at-risk seniors. If, however, lawmakers choose to take dollars out of Medicare Advantage in order to fund proposed dental, hearing and vision benefits, something has to give.

No one is suggesting that Congress shouldn’t address existing gaps in Medicare coverage, but there needs to be greater foresight in determining how to pay for it.  It makes little sense to undermine a program that is providing quality healthcare to our most vulnerable age group and is addressing the social determinants that affect lives and health.

CATEGORIES: Health, Health Reform, Healthcare Costs and Value, Medicare  |   Link  |   Trackback  |   Comments (188)

Improving Patient Care by Applying Lessons Learned from a Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic and its social distancing requirements have necessitated changes in the delivery of healthcare over the past 14 months.  As we begin to transition back to normalcy, policymakers and health system leaders are assessing the lessons learned during this period to determine what kind of short-term changes should become permanent healthcare reforms.

At a Senate Finance Committee hearing this week dedicated to this topic, executives from two Healthcare Leadership Council member companies discussed steps that need to be taken to enable individuals to continue receiving quality care in their own homes.

Linda DeCherrie, M.D., clinical director of Mount Sinai at Home, a program developed by New York’s Mount Sinai health system, discussed the benefits found through an innovative care delivery model that provides treatment to patients in home settings.  According to Dr. DeCherrie, the Hospital at Home model reduced the average hospital stay from 5.5 days to 3.2 days while also cutting the percentage of patients who require readmissions nearly in half.

Dr. DeCherrie said the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services approved waivers to allow healthcare providers to offer these services to Medicare beneficiaries, but that some health systems are reluctant to establish Hospital at Home programs unless they are assured those waivers will be made permanent or at least extended.

Similar regulatory action is needed to strengthen telehealth access, according to Narayana Murali, M.D., executive vice president of care delivery and chief strategy officer for Marshfield Clinic Health System in Wisconsin.  She told senators that telehealth has increased access to care for vulnerable communities. Marshfield, she said, performed 240,000 telehealth encounters in 2020 compared to 12,500 in 2019.

Dr. Murali said, though, that access to telehealth services remains limited by existing regulatory barriers determining where telehealth can be offered.  She also said telehealth won’t reach its full potential until greater investments are made in broadband access.

I want to give credit to the Senate Finance Committee for scheduling this hearing.  We can’t undo the tragic devastation created by COVID-19, but we can utilize the lessons learned from the pandemic to provide better healthcare to the American people.

CATEGORIES: Health  |   Link  |   Trackback  |   Comments (74)

Time to Discuss a “Health Equity Moonshot”

This month, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee held a hearing on the health inequities witnessed during the COVID-19 pandemic.  The topics discussed in that hearing warrant our sustained attention.

I’m particularly focused on the testimony of Eugene Woods, the president and CEO of Atrium Health (a Healthcare Leadership Council member), a North Carolina-based health system. Out of the tragedies we have witnessed during COVID-19, which have disproportionately affected racial and ethnic populations as well as areas with high rates of poverty and comparably limited healthcare access, Mr. Woods sees an opportunity to do something significant and transformative.

As he put it, “The COVID-19 pandemic has come at a great cost to the world. We should view this reality as an investment that allows us to emerge stronger.  Through unity and collaboration, government and industry are capable of great things. This has been, and still is, a core tenet of American exceptionalism.”

In his testimony, Mr. Woods offered the notion of a private-public collaboration not unlike the efforts that put astronauts on the moon or the Cancer Moonshot Initiative of a few years ago.  In fact, he referred to it as a “health equity moonshot” and suggested four priorities to address the equity gaps that have existed for too long but were made glaringly obvious during the pandemic.  They are:

• Extending health coverage access beyond the current Public Health Emergency by utilizing innovative private models and government-based structures.

• Creating worldwide standards for data collection and full data interoperability to enable real-time analytics.

• Making broadband available to every rural and urban community in the country.

• Using technology to support sustained well-being, particularly in underserved communities.

If we truly believe in the goal of accessible, high-quality healthcare for every American, then this is an idea that should receive extensive attention and discussion.  To quote Mr. Woods again, “While COVID-19 and the public health emergency we have faced may fade over time, the health inequities the pandemic uncovered will persist if we don’t take this moment to come together around an ambitious goal.”

CATEGORIES: Access, Health  |   Link  |   Trackback  |   Comments (77)

An Innovative Approach in Minnesota to Close the Gap Between Mental Health Needs and Treatment

CATEGORIES: Access, Adherence, Health, Healthcare Costs and Value, opioid  |   Link  |   Trackback  |   Comments (345)