Nov 29, 2017 | Coding, Billing, and Collections, Compliance, Legal, and Malpractice, Laboratory Management and Operations, Laboratory News, Laboratory Operations, Laboratory Pathology, Laboratory Sales and Marketing, Laboratory Testing, Management & Operations
Medical laboratories today struggle to submit clean claims and be promptly and adequately reimbursed as health insurers institute burdensome requirements and audit more labs
Across the nation, clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups of all sizes struggle to get payment for lab test claims. Veteran lab executives say they cannot remember any time in the past when medical laboratories were challenged on the front-end with getting lab test claims paid while also dealing on the back-end with ever-tougher audits and unprecedented recoupment demands.
These issues center upon the new policies adopted by the Medicare program and private health insurers that make it more difficult for many clinical laboratories to be in-network providers, to obtain favorable coverage guidelines for their tests, and to have the documentation requested when auditors show up to inspect lab test claims. This is true whether the audit is conducted by a Medicare Recovery Audit Contractor (RAC) or a team from a private health insurer.
Source of Financial Pressure on Medical Laboratories in US
Another source of financial pressure on medical laboratories in the United States today is the ongoing increase in the number of patients who have high-deductible health plans—whether from their employer or from the Affordable Care Act’s Health Insurance Marketplace (AKA, health exchanges). The individual and family annual deductibles for these plans typically start at around $5,000 and go to $10,000 or more. Many labs are experiencing big increases in patient bad debt because they don’t have the capability to collect payment from patients when they show up in patient service centers (PSCs) to provide specimens.
Some of these developments make it timely to ask the question: Is it a trend for payers to gang up on clinical laboratories and pathology groups and make it tougher for them to be paid for the lab tests they perform? Multiple factors can be identified to support this thesis.
“Is it a coincidence that, in recent years, so many payers are initiating numerous requirements that add complexity to how labs submit claims for lab tests and how they get paid?” asked Richard Faherty of RLF Consulting LLC. Faherty was formerly Executive Vice President, Administration, with BioReference Laboratories, Inc. “I can track four distinct developments that, collectively, mean that fewer lab claims get paid, expose clinical laboratories to extremely rigorous audits with larger recoupment demands, and heighten the risk of fraud and abuse allegations due to use of contract or third-party sales and marketing representatives who represent independent medical lab companies.”
Faherty described the first of his four developments as prior-authorization requirements for molecular and genetic tests. “Health insurers are reacting to the explosion in molecular and genetic testing—both in the number of unique assays that a doctor can order and the volume of orders for these often-expensive tests—by establishing stringent prior-authorization requirements,” he noted.
More Prior-Authorization Requirements for Molecular, Genetic Tests
“At the moment, many clinical lab companies and pathology groups are attempting to understand the prior-authorization programs established by Anthem (which became effective on July 1) and UnitedHealthcare (which became effective on November 1),” explained Faherty. “Just these two prior-authorization programs now cover as many as 80 million beneficiaries. There are plenty of complaints from physicians and lab companies because the systems payers require them to use are not well-designed and quite time-consuming.
“One consequence is that many lab executives complain that they are not getting paid for genetic tests because their client physicians are unable to get the necessary prior authorization—yet the lab decides to perform the test to support good patient care even though it knows it won’t be paid.”
Richard Faherty (left), CEO, RLF Consulting LLC, and formerly with Bio-Reference Laboratories, Inc., will moderate this critical webinar. Joining him will be Rina Wolf (center), Vice President, Commercialization Strategies, Consulting and Industry Affairs, XIFIN, Inc., and Karen S. Lovitch (right), JD, Practice Leader, Health Law Practice, Mintz Levin, PC, Washington, DC. The webinar takes place Wednesday, December 6, 2017, at 2 p.m. EST; 1 p.m. CST; 12 p.m. MST; 11 a.m. PST. Click here to register. (Photo copyright: Dark Intelligence Group.)
Payers Checking on How Clinical Laboratories Bill, Collect from Patients
Faherty’s second trend involves how medical lab companies are billing and collecting the amounts due from patients. “Most payers now pay close attention to how clinical laboratories bill patients for co-pays, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket amounts that are required by the patients’ health plans,” he commented. “Labs struggle with this for two reasons.
“One reason is the fact that tens of millions of Americans currently have high-deductible health insurance plans,” said Faherty. “In these cases, medical laboratories often must collect 100% of the cost of lab testing directly from the patients. The second reason is the failure of many independent lab companies to properly and diligently balance-bill their patients. This puts these labs at risk of multiple fraud and abuse issues.”
Many Medical Lab Companies Undergoing More Rigorous Audits by Payers
Faherty considers trend number three to be payers’ expanding use of rigorous audits of lab test claims. “In the past, it was relatively uncommon for a clinical lab company or pathology group to undergo audits of their lab test claims,” he observed. “That has changed in a dramatic way. Today, the Medicare program has increased the number of private auditors that visit labs to inspect lab test claims. At the same time, private health insurers are ramping up the number and intensity of the audits they conduct of lab test claims and substantially increasing their demands for recoupment without audit.
“One consequence of these audits is that medical laboratories are being hit with substantial claims for recoupment,” noted Faherty. “I am aware of multiple genetic testing companies that have been hit with a Medicare recoupment amount equal to two or three years of the lab’s annual revenue. Some have filed bankruptcy because the appeals process can take three to four years.”
Are Contract Lab Sales Reps More Likely to Offer Physicians Inducements?
Faherty’s fourth significant trend involves the greater use of independent contractors that handle lab test sales and marketing for clinical lab companies. “This trend affects both labs that use third-party lab sales reps and labs that don’t,” he said. “Labs that use contract sales and marketing representatives do not have direct control over the sales practices of these contractors. There is ample evidence that some independent lab sales contractors are willing to pay inducements to physicians in exchange for their lab test referrals.
“This is a problem in two dimensions,” noted Faherty. “On one hand, clinical lab companies that use third-party sales contractors don’t have full control over the marketing practices of these sales representatives. Yet, if federal and state prosecutors can show violations of anti-kickback and self-referral laws, then the lab company is equally liable. In certain cases, government attorneys have even gone after executives on a personal basis.
“On the other hand, I am hearing lab executives complain now that a substantial number of office-based physicians are so used to various forms of inducement offered by third-party sales representatives that the lab’s in-house sales force cannot convince those physicians to use their lab company without a comparable inducement. If true, this is a fundamental shift in the competitive market for lab testing services and it puts labs unwilling to pay similar inducements to physicians at a disadvantage.”
These four trends describe the challenges faced by every clinical laboratory, hospital laboratory outreach program, and pathology group when attempting to provide lab testing services to office-based physicians in a fully-compliant manner and be paid adequately and on time by health insurers.
Why Some Labs Continue to Be Successful and What They Can Teach You
These four trends may also explain why many medical lab companies are dealing with falling revenue and encountering financial difficulty. However, there continue to be independent lab companies that have consistent success with their coding, billing, and collections effort. These labs put extra effort into aligning their business practices with the requirements of the Medicare program and private health insurers.
To help pathologists and managers running clinical laboratory companies, hospital lab outreach programs, and pathology groups improve collected revenue from lab test claims and to improve lab compliance, Pathology Webinars, LLC, is presenting a timely webinar, titled, “How to Prepare Your Lab for 2018: Essential Insights into New Payer Challenges with Lab Audits, Patient Billing, Out-of-Network Claims, and Heightened Scrutiny of Lab Sales Practices.” It takes place on Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 2:00 PM EDT.
Three esteemed experts in the field will provide you with the inside scoop on the best responses and actions your clinical lab and pathology group can take to address these major changes and unwelcome developments. Presenting will be:
· Rina Wolf, Vice President, Commercialization Strategies, Consulting and Industry Affairs, XIFIN, Inc. in San Diego; and,
· Karen S. Lovitch, JD, Practice Leader, Health Law Practice, Mintz Levin, PC, in Washington, DC;
· Moderating will be Richard Faherty of RLF Consulting LLC, and formerly with Bio-Reference Laboratories, Inc.
Special Webinar with Insights on How Your Lab Can Collect the Money It’s Due
To register for the webinar and see details about the topics to be discussed, use this link (or copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://pathologywebinars.com/how-to-prepare-your-lab-for-2018-essential-insights-into-new-payer-challenges-with-lab-audits-patient-billing-out-of-network-claims-and-heightened-scrutiny-of-lab-sales-practices/).
This is an essential webinar for any pathologist or lab manager wanting to improve collected revenue from lab test claims and to improve lab compliance. During the webinar, any single idea or action your lab can take away could result in increasing collected revenue by tens of thousands even hundreds of thousands of dollars. That makes this webinar the smartest investment you can make for your lab’s legal and billing/collection teams.
—Michael McBride
Related Information:
How to Prepare Your Lab for 2018: Essential Insights into New Payer Challenges with Lab Audits, Patient Billing, Out-of-Network Claims, and Heightened Scrutiny of Lab Sales Practices
Risk, Compliance, Pay—A Juggling Act for Labs
Continued ‘Aggressive Audit Tactics’ by Private Payers and Government Regulators Following 2018 Medicare Part B Price Cuts Will Strain Profitability of Clinical Laboratories, Pathology Groups
Threats to Profitability Causing Clinical Laboratories, Pathology Groups to Take on Added Risk by Entering into ‘Problematic’ Business Relationships and Risky Pricing Plans
Payers Hit Medical Laboratories with More and Tougher Audits: Why Even Highly-Compliant Clinical Labs and Pathology Groups Are at Risk of Unexpected Recoupment Demands
‘Death by 1,000 Knives’ Could Be in Store for Clinical Laboratories, Pathology Groups Not Prepared to Comply with New Medicare Part B Regulations
Sep 6, 2017 | Laboratory Management and Operations, Laboratory News, Laboratory Pathology, Managed Care Contracts & Payer Reimbursement, Management & Operations
Challenges getting paid likely to continue as high deductibles make patients responsible for paying much more of their healthcare bills
Rising out-of-pocket costs for healthcare consumers is translating into increasing amounts of red ink for hospitals and healthcare providers struggling to collect bills from patients with high-deductible health plans (HDHPs). Clinical laboratories and pathology groups are unlikely to be immune from these challenges, as increasing numbers of patients with smaller healthcare debts also are failing to pay their bills in full.
That’s according to a recent TransUnion Healthcare analysis of patient data from across the country. It revealed that 99% of hospital bills of $3,000 or more were not paid in full by the end 2016. For bills under $500, more than two-thirds of patients (68%) didn’t pay the full balance by year’s end (an increase from 53% in 2015 and 49% in 2014). The study also revealed that the percentage of patients that have made partial payments toward their hospital bills has fallen dramatically from nearly 90% in 2015 to 77% in 2016.
Increased Patient Responsibility Causing Decrease in Patient Payments
“The shift in healthcare payments has been taking place for well over a decade, but we are seeing more pronounced changes in how hospital bills are paid during just the last few years,” Jonathan Wilk, Principal for Healthcare Revenue Cycle Management at TransUnion (NYSE:TRU), said in a statement.
Millions of Americans are in high-deductible health plans. And, as the graphic above illustrates, that number has been increasing since the ACA was signed into law in 2010. (Graphic copyright: Reuters.)
While the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has increased the number of Americans receiving medical coverage through Medicaid or commercial insurance, TransUnion noted in its statement that hospitals still wrote off roughly $35.7 billion in bad debt in 2015. By 2020, TransUnion predicts that figure will continue to rise, with an estimated 95% of patients unable to pay their healthcare bills in full by the start of the next decade.
“Higher deductibles and the increase in patient responsibility are causing a decrease in patient payments to providers for patient care services rendered. While uncompensated care has declined, it appears to be primarily due to the increased number of individuals with Medicaid and commercial insurance coverage,” John Yount, Vice President for Healthcare Products at TransUnion, said in the TransUnion statement.
Collecting Patients’ Out-of-Pocket Costs Upfront
According to Reuters, hospitals in states that did not expand Medicaid under Obamacare have witnessed a more than 14% increase in unpaid bills as the number of people using health plans with high out-of-pocket costs increased. For hospitals in those states, HDHPs are impacting their bottom lines.
“It feels like a sucker punch,” declared Chief Executive Officer John Henderson of Childress Regional Medical Center, Texas Panhandle Region, in a Bloomberg Business article. “When someone has a really high deductible, effectively they’re still uninsured, and most people in Childress don’t have $5,000 lying around to pay their bills.”
A recent report from payment network InstaMed found that 72% of healthcare providers reported an increase in patient financial responsibility in 2016, a trend that coincides with a rise in the average deductible for a single worker to $1,478, more than double the $735 total in 2010.
In response to the increase in patient responsibility, hospitals and other providers are turning to new tactics for collecting money directly from patients, including estimating patients’ out-of-pocket payments and collecting those amounts upfront.
Hospital Systems Offer Patients Payment Options
Venanzio Arquilla is the Managing Director of the healthcare practice at The Claro Group, a financial management consultancy in Chicago. In an interview with Crain’s Chicago Business, he stated that hospitals are working overtime to get money from patients, particularly at the point of service.
“Hospitals have gotten much more aggressive in trying to collect at time of service, because their ability to collect on self-pay amounts decreases significantly when the patient leaves the building,” Arquilla noted. “You can’t say, ‘Give me your credit card’ to someone in the emergency room bleeding from a gunshot wound, but you can to someone going in for an elective procedure.”
Revenue loss due to unpaid medical bills among states that complied with Medicaid Expansion under the ACA has increase so dramatically, some hospitals are now offering patients prepayment discounts and no-interest loans to ensure payments. Clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups should develop strategies to respond to the increase collections from patients at the time of service. (Graphic copyright: Reuters.)
Richard Gundling, a Senior Vice President at the Healthcare Financial Management Association (HFMA), told Kaiser Health News that an estimated 75% of healthcare and hospital systems now ask for payment at the time services are provided. To soften the blow, some healthcare systems are providing patients with a range of payment options, from prepayment discounts to no-interest loans.
Novant Health, headquartered in North Carolina, is among those healthcare systems offering patients new payment strategies. Offering no interest loans to patients has enabled Novant to lower its patient default rate from 32% to 12%.
“To remain financially stable, we had to do something,” April York, Senior Director of Patient Finance at Novant Health, told Reuters. “Patients needed longer to pay. They needed a variety of options.”
Providers Must Adapt to New Patient Procedures
“Doctors need to understand the landscape has changed. A doctor’s primary concern use
to be whether a patient had insurance. Now, it’s the type of insurance,” Devon M. Herrick, PhD, a Senior Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) in Dallas, told Medical Economics.
While clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups traditionally have not collected money directly from patients, Herrick says healthcare providers must accept that the rules of the game have changed. “Patients are more cost-conscious now. That means patients will question their physicians about costs for procedures,” he adds.
Dark Daily has advised clinical laboratories in the past to develop tools and workflow processes for collecting payments upfront from patients with high-deductible health plans (See, “Growth in High Deductible Health Plans Cause Savvy Clinical Labs and Pathology Groups to Collect Full Payment at Time of Service,” Dark Daily, July 28, 2014). Not doing so can amount to millions of dollars in lost revenue to the medical laboratory industry.
—Andrea Downing Peck
Related Information:
Bad Debt Is the Pain Hospitals Can’t Heal as Patients Don’t Pay
Out of More Pockets
Patients May be the New Payers, But Two in Three Do Not Pay Their Hospital Bills in Full
Feel Like the Hospital Is Shaking You Down Over that Bill? It Probably Is
The Seventh Annual Trends in Healthcare Payments Report Is Here
Doctors and Hospitals Say, ‘Show Me the Money’ before Treating Patients
Ballooning Bills: More US Hospitals Pushing Patients to Pay before Care
Growth in High Deductible Health Plans Cause Savvy Clinical Labs and Pathology Groups to Collect Full Payment at Time of Service
Higher Annual Deductibles and Co-Payments Cause Hospitals to Intensify Efforts to Collect Directly from Patients; Medical Laboratories Now Feel Similar Financial Squeeze
Because of Sizeable Deductibles, More Patients Owe More Money to Clinical Pathology Laboratories, Spurring Labs to Get Smarter about Collecting from Patients
Sep 1, 2017 | Laboratory Management and Operations, Laboratory News, Laboratory Pathology, Laboratory Testing, Managed Care Contracts & Payer Reimbursement
Price transparency trend is altering decision-making in many aspects of healthcare and providing lesson for medical laboratory executives
Medical laboratory executives are well aware that price transparency is an increasingly powerful trend in healthcare. Now, as consumers increasingly opt for lower-cost options when making healthcare decisions, the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA) provides a notable example of this new reality, with consumers making cost, not choice, their top concern when selecting health plans through the federal health insurance marketplace exchanges.
A recent New York Times article reported that millions of people purchasing insurance in ACA marketplaces are motivated by how little they can pay in premiums, not the size of the physician and hospital networks, or an insurer’s reputation.
This economic reality may help explain why cost containment is a focus of healthcare reform bills currently under discussion in Congress. Whether you agree or disagree with the American Health Care Act (HR1628), the Republican Party’s plan to repeal and replace the ACA, it should be viewed in this broader context: Healthcare consumers are avoiding higher-priced healthcare plans in droves, and millions of younger Americans are finding the cost of coverage a barrier to entry. This is the challenge facing politicians of both parties, whether they will admit it publicly or not.
Obamacare Enrollee Numbers Dropping
A 2015 report by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation in the Department of Health and Human Services, found that “the premium is the most important factor in consumers’ decision-making when shopping for insurance.” In 2014, 64% of people shopping in the marketplaces choose the lowest cost or second lowest cost plan in their metal tier, while 48% did so in 2015.
Perhaps more significantly, millions of people fewer than expected have enrolled in Obamacare. A CNN Money report noted that 10.3-million people enrolled in an ACA marketplace as of mid-March 2017, down from the 12.2-million who signed up for coverage when enrollment ended on January 31.
Mark T. Bertolini (left), Chief Executive of Aetna, and Joseph R. Swedish (right), Anthem’s Chief Executive, testified before a House committee hearing last fall. Major insurers are struggling to find a business model that works in the marketplaces created by the federal healthcare law. (Caption and photo copyright: New York Times/Jacquelyn Martin/Associated Press.)
Those numbers fall short of recent federal government projections for Obamacare and are dramatically less than original estimates. A 2015 report from Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected marketplace enrollment would increase to 15-million in 2017, before rising to between 18-million and 19-million people a year from 2018 to 2026.
Shortly after Congress passed the ACA, the CBO projected that by 2016, 32-million people would gain healthcare coverage overall.
As a New York Times article pointed out, not only are young and healthy people selecting the cheapest ACA marketplace plans, but also many are opting to risk tax penalties and go without healthcare coverage.
“The unexpected laser focus on price has contributed to hundreds of millions of dollars in losses among the country’s top insurers, as fewer healthy people than expected have signed up,” the New York Times article noted.
ACA Marketplace Unsustainable, Says Anthem Chief Executive
Healthy younger people were expected to join the ranks of the insured and provide an essential counter balance that would offset insurers’ cost of care for newly insured unhealthy people. That prediction also has failed to materialize, forcing major insurance companies to re-evaluate their role in the marketplace or to exit Obamacare completely.
“The marketplace has been and continues to be unsustainable,” stated Joseph R. Swedish, Chairman, President and Chief Executive of Anthem, a Blue Cross and Blue Shield company, in the New York Times article.
In a CNN Money article, Anthem announced it would not participate in Ohio’s Obamacare exchange in 2018 and added that it was evaluating its participation in all 14 states where it currently offers plans.
“A stable insurance market is dependent on products that create value for consumers through the broad spreading of risk and a known set of conditions upon which rates can be developed,” Anthem stated in a press statement. “Today, planning and pricing for ACA-compliant health plans has become increasingly difficult due to the shrinking individual market as well as continual changes in federal operations, rules, and guidance.”
Inaccurate CBO Predictions Impact Clinical Laboratories and Pathology Groups
Anthem is not the only large insurer losing money selling insurance in the marketplaces. Humana and Aetna also this year scaled back their involvement with Obamacare, with Aetna citing $430-million in losses selling insurance to individuals since January 2014.
“Providing affordable, high-quality healthcare options to consumers is not possible without a balanced risk pool,” Aetna Chairman and CEO Mark T. Bertolini declared in an Aetna statement.
How this plays out may matter a great deal to the nation’s clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology practices. As noted above, in 2010, at the time that the Affordable Care Act was passed, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that as many as 32-million additional people would have health insurance in 2016 because of the ACA. The reality is much different. Less than a third of that number have health insurance policies because of the Affordable Care Act.
Pathologists and medical laboratory managers may want to consider how wrong that 2010 CBO estimate of coverage was. If the CBO’s estimate could be off by 66% in 2016, how reliable are CBO estimates when the federal agency scores the various “repeal and replace” bills that Republicans have proposed during the current Congress?
—Andrea Downing Peck
Related Information:
Federal Subsidies for Health Insurance Coverage for People Under Age 65: 2016 to 2026
Cost, Not Choice, Is Top Concern of Health Insurance Customers
Health Plan Choice and Premiums in the 2016 Health Insurance Marketplace
CBO’s Analysis of the Major Health Care Legislation Enacted in March 2010
Obamacare Enrollment Slides to 10.3 Million
Anthem Statement on Individual Market Participation in Ohio
Aetna to Narrow Individual Public Exchange Participation
Aug 28, 2017 | Laboratory Management and Operations, Laboratory News, Laboratory Operations, Laboratory Pathology, Laboratory Testing, Managed Care Contracts & Payer Reimbursement, Management & Operations
Two different deals aim to bring a new style of healthcare insurance to individuals and small businesses
Designed to be a new model for health insurance, the much-watched Oscar Health (Oscar), founded in 2012, has just inked deals with both the Cleveland Clinic and Humana, Inc. What makes Oscar worth watching by pathologists and clinical laboratory managers is that the innovative insurer was founded and is run by Gen X and Gen Y (Millennial) executives.
Oscar Health is billed by its Millennial cofounders as a new type of health insurance—one that “curates” or coordinates members’ care with the help of health information technology (HIT) on the Internet, a smartphone app, and personalized services by concierge teams. So, it is interesting for pathologists and medical laboratory leaders to note that New York-based Oscar is partnering, through two different deals, with well-established Cleveland Clinic and rival Humana to enter the Ohio and Tennessee healthcare markets.
As Dark Daily reported in a previous e-briefing, Oscar aims to leverage sophisticated technology solutions and data to challenge complexity and costs associated with traditional healthcare insurance. An approach no doubt driven by the modern thinking of the company’s young founders. We alerted lab leaders that the insurance startup could be the latest example of technology’s power in the hands of Gen Y and Gen X entrepreneurs.
And while Oscar has reportedly experienced financial challenges, it is moving forward with the widely publicized new partnerships, as well as additional plans to expand insurance coverage in more states. Therefore, it’s important for clinical laboratory professionals to follow Oscar, which soon could be a healthcare payer of clinical laboratory and anatomic pathology services in more regions of the country.
Why Is Oscar Teaming Up with Cleveland Clinic, Humana?
In short, Cleveland Clinic is making its debut into the health insurance market with Oscar. And Oscar is moving into Ohio on the coat tails of this nationally prominent healthcare provider. The co-branded Cleveland Clinic/Oscar Health insurance plan will be offered to northeast Ohio residents in the fall for coverage effective Jan. 1, according to a Cleveland Clinic news release.
“This is a rare opportunity to work with the Cleveland Clinic to deliver the simpler, better, and affordable healthcare experience that consumers want,” said Mario Schlosser, Oscar’s Chief Executive Officer and cofounder in the news release.
Josh Kushner (left) and Mario Schlosser (right) cofounded Oscar Health, a New York-based health insurer that employs computer technologies, a mobile app, and concierge-style healthcare teams to provide members with a modern health plan experience and easy access to quality healthcare providers. (Photo copyright: Los Angeles Times.)
The coverage will be sold on and off the Ohio Affordable Care Act state exchange. Here’s what consumers will receive, noted statements by the Cleveland Clinic and Oscar Health:
- Access to primary care providers affiliated with the Cleveland Clinic, and an Oscar Health concierge team (a nurse and three care guides) that can refer patients based on their needs to other providers in the care continuum;
- Virtual care visits enabled by Cleveland Clinic Express Care Online and Oscar’s Virtual Visits;
- Smartphone technology to make it possible for members to explore their health needs, find options, and review costs.
“We are looking to build a new relationship among payers, providers, and patients. This relationship goes beyond the traditional approach of getting sick and seeing the doctor,” noted Brian Donley, MD, Cleveland Clinic’s Chief of Staff.
In an article on the partnership, Forbes suggested that narrow healthcare networks like the Cleveland Clinic/Oscar model might be just what the ACA exchanges need to remain operational.
However, a Business Insider article suggests that Oscar—already active in New York, Texas, and California health exchanges—could be adversely affected by a successful replacement of the ACA, currently being debated by Congressional lawmakers.
Nevertheless, Alan Warren, PhD, Oscar’s Chief Technology Officer, told Business Insider that the Cleveland Clinic/Oscar Health insurance plan would go forward even if Obamacare did not.
Formal Rival Humana Now Oscar’s Partner in Small Business Insurance
Meanwhile, the partnership with Humana takes Oscar, which launched Oscar for Business in April, 2017, further into the small business health insurance market. Humana and Oscar will sell commercial health insurance to small businesses in a nine-county Nashville, Tenn., area effective in the fall, according to a joint Oscar/Humana news release.
“The individual market was a good starting point. But it was clear from the beginning that the majority of insurance in the US is delivered through employers,” Schlosser stated in a New York Times article.
As to who does what, Beth Bierbower, Humana’s Group and Specialty Segment President, explained in an article in the Tennessean that Humana will contract with hospitals and doctors for small business insurance, while Oscar’s technology solutions will help small businesses and their employees manage healthcare benefits and gain access to providers. “These people [at Oscar] are on to something,” she noted. “They are doing something a little different. Maybe this is a situation where one plus one, together, might equal three.”
Future Growth Planned by Oscar
The New York Times called Nashville “a new step for Oscar,” and noted that it follows Oscar’s recent loss of $25.8 million during the first three months of 2017—47% less than Oscar lost during the same period in 2016. Since its inception, however, Oscar has raised $350 million in investment capital, much of it from Silicon Valley investors.
Also, Oscar’s small-business health insurance plans, which started in the spring in New York, might launch in New Jersey and California as well, an Oscar spokesperson stated in a Modern Healthcare article that also reported on Oscar’s intent to increase individual plans sold in the ACA Marketplace from three states to six in 2018.
Clinical Laboratories Benefit from Increased Consumer Access to Health Providers
Could Oscar succeed with its new Cleveland Clinic and Humana partners? Possibly. Both deals are pending regulatory approval as of this writing.
In any case, the whole idea of making insurance more palatable for consumers is something clinical laboratories, which are gateways to healthcare, should applaud and support. It is good to know that insurers like Oscar are using technology and personal outreach to ease consumers’ access to providers and help them explore options and costs.
—Donna Marie Pocius
Related Information:
Cleveland Clinic, Oscar Health to Offer Individual Health Insurance Plans in Northeast Ohio
Introducing Cleveland Clinic Oscar Health Plans
Oscar Health Partners with Cleveland Clinic on Obamacare Exchange
Oscar Health Partners with Cleveland Clinic
Oscar Health to Join Human in Small-Business Venture
Humana Oscar Health Pilot Small Business Insurance Partnership in Nashville
Oscar and Humana Team up to Sell Small-Business Plans
Insurance Start-Up Oscar Seeks to Shake Up Healthcare Through Its App
Gen Y Entrepreneurs Launch Oscar, A Consumer-Friendly Health Insurance Company in Bid to Disrupt Traditional Health Insurers
Aug 11, 2017 | Laboratory Operations, Laboratory Pathology, Laboratory Testing, Management & Operations
Meaningful use, accountable care organizations, and bundled payment initiatives work best together to reduce readmissions, UM research suggests
Ever since the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) implemented the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP) in 2012, healthcare organizations all over America have sought to prevent unnecessary hospital readmissions within 30 days of discharge. For some clinical laboratories, this meant performing precise microbiology testing to ensure patients are discharged with prescriptions for oral antibiotics in-hand to combat possible infections. Now, a recent study reports that the effort could be paying off, and clinical laboratories played a critical role.
Research performed at the University of Michigan (UM) has linked lower readmission rates under the HRRP to voluntary value-based programs. The three value-based programs the UM researchers identified as contributing to the successful lowering of hospital readmission rates are:
The UM researchers published their findings in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Internal Medicine. It could be the first study to demonstrate that synergistic value-based reward programs facilitate healthcare improvement and efficiency. As opposed to HRRP financial penalties alone that is, according to a UM news release.
Researchers Had No Expectations of Payment Reform Programs
Researchers at UM found that all three programs operating together in 2015 (the last year included in the longitudinal study) resulted in about 2,400 fewer readmissions and a $32-million savings to Medicare, the UM release noted.
The team analyzed data on patients treated at 2,877 hospitals from 2008 through 2015 for:
Their source of information was publicly available Hospital Compare readmission data.
“We had no real expectations that hospitals’ participation in voluntary reforms would be associated with additional reductions in readmissions. We thought that it was just as likely that hospital participation in meaningful use, accountable care organization programs, or the Bundled Payment for Care [Improvement] Initiative may be distracting to hospitals, limiting readmissions reduction,” stated Andrew Ryan, PhD, in ACEPNow, a publication of the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) in Irving, Texas. Ryan is an Associate Professor, Health Management and Policy, at UM’s School of Public Health.
More Participation Leads to Greater Reduction in Readmissions
Nevertheless, the UM researchers linked more reductions in readmissions based on common diagnoses to value-based “reward-style” programs than to HRRP financial penalties. And the more value-based programs a provider implemented, the greater reduction in hospital readmission rates, the study found.
Nearly all hospitals studied were participating in at least one of the value-based programs by 2015, as compared to no program participants in 2010, when the Affordable Care Act was signed into law, noted a Healthcare Dive article.
The chart above from the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) illustrates the reduction in hospital readmissions starting in 2012, which multiple studies have linked to the CMS Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP). The rates, according to the KFF, are risk adjusted to account for age and certain medical conditions. (Image copyright: Kaiser Family Foundation.
For 56 providers that were not participating in value-based care programs by 2015, researchers found the following readmission reductions also were associated with HRRP:
- 3% drop in heart failure readmissions;
- 76% drop in heart attack readmissions; and
- 82% decline in pneumonia readmissions.
For the majority of providers, however, escalating value-based care program participation resulted in greater readmission rate reductions, the study noted.
Readmission Reductions for Heart Failure Patients
Noting the influence of value-based programs, HealthcareDIVE and FierceHealthcare reported the following results for the heart-failure patients studied:
- ACOs result in 2.1% annual readmission reduction;
- MU participation attributed to a 2.3% drop in annual readmission reduction;
- Involvement in all three programs (ACOs, MU, and bundled payments) result in the largest annual readmission declines for hospitals of 2.9%.
Readmission Reductions for Heart Attack, Pneumonia Patients
For myocardial infarction patients, the study showed these effects from value-based programs on readmission declines:
- 7% from ACO launch;
- 5% associated with MU; and
- 2% readmission reductions when all programs were in effect.
For pneumonia patients, the research suggested these changes in readmission declines were associated with value-based programs:
- 4% from ACO launch;
- 4% due to MU; and
- 9% when all programs were in effect.
The researchers advise that providers, aiming for quality improvement and cost savings, should leverage as many of these programs as possible.
“There is a reason to believe these [value-based] programs are reinforcing the broader push to value-based care. Our findings show the importance of a multi-pronged Medicare strategy to improve quality and value,” noted Ryan in the UM news release.
Clinical Laboratories Play Key Role in Reducing Readmissions
Accurate medical laboratory testing plays a critical role in the success of these hospital readmission reduction programs. Thus, all pathologists and laboratory personnel should congratulate themselves for a job well done. And commit to continuing their outstanding performance.
—Donna Marie Pocius
Related Information:
Association Between Hospitals’ Engagement in Value-Based Reforms and Readmission Reduction in the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program
Voluntary Value-Based Health Programs Dramatically Reduce Hospital Readmissions
Value-Based Reforms Linked to Readmission Reductions
Hospitals Participating in Value-Based Programs Have Lower Readmission Rates
Study: Value-Based Care Programs Reduce Readmissions
Involving Patient’s Family in Discharge Process Linked to 25% Reduction in Hospital Readmissions
Integrating Caregivers at Discharge Significantly Cuts Patient Readmissions, Pitt Study Finds
Hospitals with Lowest 30-Day Readmission Rates Succeed at Reducing Rates by Improving Care Coordination and Monitoring of Patients After Discharge
