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
Jul 17, 2017 | Compliance, Legal, and Malpractice, Laboratory Management and Operations, Laboratory News, Laboratory Operations, Laboratory Pathology, Uncategorized
Another big question is whether the lobbying of medical laboratory and pathology societies can educate and convince members of Congress to delay and reform the PAMA Final Rule that uses the market price study of what private payers pay for lab tests
Coming in just five months are the deepest, most painful clinical laboratory test price cuts ever implemented by Medicare officials. During calendar 2018 alone, both the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Office of Inspector General US Department of Health and Human Services (OIG) expect the price cuts to the Medicare Part B Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule (CLFS) to lower spending on lab tests by $400 million!
The bad news doesn’t stop there. Lab industry observers say that significant numbers of hospital laboratories and independent lab companies are unprepared for the drop in revenue they will experience once the Medicare price cuts take effect. And, with only 157 days remaining before Jan. 1, 2018, medical laboratory executives and pathologists have precious little time to prepare their labs to operate on significantly less Medicare revenue.
PAMA Market Study of What Private Payers Pay for Clinical Laboratory Tests
Blame it on the Protecting Access to Medicare Act (PAMA) of 2014! PAMA directed CMS to conduct a market study of the lab test prices paid by private health insurers, and then use this data to set the prices of the CLFS. As many lab professionals know, CMS spent the last 24 months publishing a final price reporting rule that defined which medical laboratories must report the prices they are paid by private payers, and then collecting that data.
The data reporting period ended on May 31. In coming months, CMS will publish the new CLFS test prices and allow time for public comment.
Recognizing the need to help lab executives and pathologists understand the scale and scope of the Medicare lab test price cuts coming their way, Dark Daily and its sister publication, The Dark Report, have asked two experts with unique knowledge about this issue to give interested lab managers an up-to-the-minute intelligence briefing during an important webinar. It’s titled, “Deep Medicare Fee Cuts Are Coming to Your Clinical Laboratory in 157 Days: What You Must Do Now, Why Congress Might Intervene, and Action Steps to Protect Your Lab’s Financial Integrity,” and it happens later this week on Thursday, July 20, at 1 PM Eastern.
First Opportunity to See What Private Payers Pay for Medical Laboratory Tests
The first expert to speak is Lâle White, Executive Chairman and CEO of XIFIN, Inc., a health information technology (HIT) company headquartered in San Diego. Annually, White and her colleagues handle as many as 300 million lab test claims for hundreds of their clinical laboratory clients. Also, XIFIN is electronically interfaced with every health insurance plan in the US. These two facts mean that White has essentially the same data their lab clients reported to CMS.
During her presentation, White will show you how her company analyzed the real information from hundreds of millions of medical lab test claims that were reimbursed by thousands of private payers. You are in for a big surprise!
Learn Why Medicare Lab Test Fee Cuts Will Be Deep and Painful
XIFIN’s conclusions are based on real-world data. They demonstrate how the CMS final rule was written to direct the way federal officials calculate and set the 2018 Part B clinical laboratory test prices, and reveal why the fee cuts will be deep and painful for the lab industry’s highest-volume tests. You’ll hear facts about XIFIN’s analysis and learn to use that knowledge to model and predict precisely how deep Medicare’s revenue cuts to your lab will be when the new price schedule becomes effective on Jan. 1.
Lâle White (above left), CEO of XIFIN, Inc., spoke at the Executive War College on Laboratory and Pathology Management last May, where she shared insights about the coming price cuts to the Medicare Part B Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule (CLFS). Julie Scott Allen (above right) is Senior Vice President of the District Policy Group, Drinker Biddle, and represents the National Independent Laboratory Association (NILA) in Washington, DC. White and Allen will be speaking at a special Dark Daily webinar later this week on the current status of the Medicare fee cuts and how lab executives should respond to protect the financial integrity of their labs. (White photo copyright: The Dark Report. White photo by Linda Reineke. Allen photo copyright: Drinker Biddle.)
Because it is generally agreed that CMS officials will target the top 20 lab tests by volume for the deepest price cuts, the actual revenue drop will depend on your mix of tests and the volume of Medicare patients associated with each test. CMS says it will use the weighted median of the private payer lab test price data to determine its new Part B fees.
However, that is a flawed approach and the source of much criticism.
White will show why the weighted median generates a lower price than the use of a weighted average calculation. You’ll see the direct impact that CMS’ use of the weighted median will have on your lab’s Medicare revenue, beginning on Jan. 1.
Understanding Current Developments at CMS and Within Congress
Julie Scott Allen will be the second speaker on the July 20 webinar. She is Senior Vice President, District Policy Group, Drinker Biddle, and represents the National Independent Laboratory Association (NILA) in Washington, DC. In this role, Allen works with officials at CMS, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and with members of Congress on issues relevant to the clinical laboratory members of NILA. She regularly participates as part of the Clinical Laboratory Coalition on these matters.
Allen will give you an up-to-the minute perspective on efforts by the clinical laboratory industry to educate officials within Congress, HHS, and CMS about the consequences of allowing the PAMA final rule price cuts to become effective on January 1, 2018. This is important information you can use to craft strategies to protect your lab’s financial stability. You’ll also recognize opportunities to contact your elected officials in Congress at the time when your input can make an important difference.
The message of many in the Clinical Laboratory Coalition to members of Congress is that, if the PAMA Medicare fee cuts happen as planned, many hospital lab outreach programs and community lab companies in the states and districts of the various Senators and Representatives will probably end up going out of business, filing bankruptcy, or selling to a national lab company.
Behind the Scenes on PAMA Fee Cuts, ACA Repeal-and-Replace
Allen will take you behind the scenes of the inside-the-beltway developments that relate to the coming Medicare Part B clinical laboratory fee cuts. Different players from the clinical laboratory community are in discussions with CMS officials about the need to delay and reform the implementation of these price cuts.
Meanwhile, there are several developments unfolding within Congress that affect clinical laboratories. Yes, one of them is the PAMA final rule on lab price cuts. However, congressional efforts to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA) are creating opportunities for different medical specialties—including the profession of laboratory medicine—to advocate for needed reforms in their areas of clinical services.
When clinical laboratory and anatomic pathology leaders are informed, they are more effective in two roles:
- Protecting the clinical excellence and financial sustainability of their respective laboratories;
- Advocating with government officials and lawmakers on the issues that are important to keeping the nation’s laboratories financially viable and key contributors to improving the quality of patient care.
Full details about this important webinar are at this link. Or copy and paste this URL into your browser: https://ddaily.wpengine.com/webinar/deep-medicare-fee-cuts-are-coming-to-your-clinical-laboratory-in-157-days-what-you-must-do-now-why-congress-might-intervene-and-action-steps-to-protect-your-labs-financial-integrity to register.
—Michael McBride
Related Information:
NILA and Other Stakeholders Ask HHS to Delay the Medicare Laboratory Payment Reform Rule
Nation’s Most Vulnerable Clinical Laboratories Fear Financial Failure If Medicare Officials Cut Part B Lab Fees Using PAMA Market Price Data Final Rule
Overview of CMS-1621-F Medicare Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Test Payment System Final Rule
Dark Report Cracks the Mystery on PAMA Pricing; Genetic Coverage Still Tough Going
XIFIN Analysis of Its Real Price Data Shows Hospital Lab Price Effect: Study Based on Hundreds of Millions of Lab Test Claims
10% PAMA Fee Cut Would Lower Medicare Pay to Laboratories by $400 Million: New OIG Report Provides Clues as to How Cuts to CLFS Prices Will Reduce Payments to Clinical Labs
CMS Issues PAMA Final Rule That Aims to Cut Medicare’s Clinical Laboratory Test Price Schedule Sharply Beginning in 2018
Deep Medicare Fee Cuts Are Coming to Your Clinical Laboratory in 157 Days: What You Must Do Now, Why Congress Might Intervene, and Action Steps to Protect Your Lab’s Financial Integrity
Jul 14, 2017 | Compliance, Legal, and Malpractice, Laboratory Management and Operations, Laboratory Pathology, Laboratory Testing
Experts concerned people will be unable to judge a true emergency from a minor health concern; patients could be left with a big ER bill if they are wrong
Here’s a groundbreaking way payers are keeping healthcare costs down: Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield (BCBS) of Georgia sent letters to its members in May informing them that they will no longer be reimbursed by the insurer for “non-emergency” related services obtained in emergency rooms (ERs).
Pathology groups and medical laboratory leaders, will want to monitor and potentially respond to this important emergency coverage development. Hospital-based medical laboratories receive high volumes of test orders from the ER. Any decline in ER visits from a payer policy like this will have staffing and budget implications for hospital labs.
Medical Groups Warn of Dire Consequences
The new policy garnered national media coverage in addition to local exposure in Georgia, where it went into effect on July 1. BCBS affiliates in New York, Missouri, and Kentucky are considering similar policies as well, noted an article in The Fiscal Times.
“Anthem believes that primary care doctors are in the best position to have a comprehensive view of their patient’s health status and should be the first medical professionals patients see with any non-emergency medical concerns,” Anthem stated in the Fiscal Times article.
In its letter, BCBS of Georgia defines an emergency as a “medical or behavioral health condition of recent onset” that a “prudent layperson” deems health-threatening. However, many symptoms, such as chest pain, can lead to sudden death. How is the average person to know if what they are experiencing will turn out to be angina, a painful but often non-fatal condition, and not a life-threatening embolism?
“The prudent layperson standard requires that insurance coverage is based on a patient’s symptoms, not their final diagnosis,” the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) in Georgia explained in its own statement.
“Anyone who seeks emergency care suffering from symptoms that appear to be an emergency, such as chest pain, should not be denied coverage if the final diagnosis does not turn out to be an emergency,” the ACEP concluded.
Are Patients Able to Judge Where They Should Go?
Some experts warn that many people might be unable to judge the true nature of their conditions when under stress.
The ACEP and its Missouri Chapter said in a statement that Anthem BCBS lists almost 2,000 diagnoses it considers to be “non-urgent” and not covered in the ER. The professional organization contends, however, that some of the diagnoses on the insurer’s list have the propensity to be medical emergency symptoms as well.
Two examples ACEP noted are:
However, cold symptoms, sore throat, physical exams, and minor injuries are among the complaints best addressed by walk-in clinics or urgent care centers, BCBS explained in a blog article.
Nevertheless, Debbie Diamond, Public Relations Director for BCBS of Georgia, told The Fiscal Times that a person who mistakes indigestion for chest pain is likely to be covered for ER care (in keeping with prudent layperson guidance).
Distinguishing Between Necessary and Unnecessary ER Visits
It’s not always simple to recognize an emergency from a non-emergency. Even emergency medicine professionals often have difficulty doing so.
In a Los Angeles Times article, Renee Hsia, MD, Professor and Director of Health Policy Studies, Department of Emergency Medicine at the University of California San Francisco School of Medicine, noted that, “People don’t come with a sticker on their forehead saying what the diagnosis is. We as physicians can’t always distinguish necessary from unnecessary visits.”
Renee Hsia, MD (above), is Professor and Director of Health Policy Studies, Department of Emergency Medicine at the University of California School of Medicine, San Francisco (UCSF). She told the Los Angeles Times that the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Georgia emergency coverage policy is a “well-intentioned policy with dangerous consequences.” (Photo copyright: Angie’s List/Adm Golub.)
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there are 130.4 million emergency department visits each year in the US. A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Journal of Internal Medicine found that six of the 10 top symptoms that send people to non-emergency care settings match those driving decisions to head to emergency departments as well. They include:
- Back symptoms;
- Abdominal pain;
- Sore throat;
- Headache;
- Chest pain; and
- Low back pain.
“Our findings indicate that either patients or healthcare professionals do entertain a degree of uncertainty that requires further evaluation before diagnosis,” the authors wrote in JAMA.
Where Next? Who’s Next?
Despite the discord over the reduction in non-emergency coverage, more BCBS affiliates may soon adopt the same policy. And what of other large insurers? Might they be watching and considering whether to alter their emergency coverage, as well, to save money?
Thus, clinical laboratories in Georgia hospitals will want to closely monitor their institution’s ER test volume. It could take a while for Blue Cross patients in Georgia to realize that some ER visits (and the clinical laboratory tests associated with them) might not be covered by their insurance. This will happen in instances where their insurer denies claims for services that, in Anthem’s opinion, were better suited for primary care doctors and urgent care centers rather than ERs.
—Donna Marie Pocius
Related Information:
Got Chess Pain? This Insurer May Not Cover Your Emergency Room Visit
Blue Cross in Georgia to Limit Emergency Room Coverage
Choosing Between ER and Urgent Care
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Georgia Launch Emergency Room Policy
Emergency Physicians: Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield Policy Violates Federal Law
Emergency Physicians: Georgia Blue Cross Blue Shield Policy Violates Federal Law
A Big Health Insurer is Planning to Punish Patients for Unnecessary ER Visits
Urgent Care Needs Among Non-Urgent Visits to the Emergency Department
Jun 23, 2017 | Laboratory Management and Operations, Laboratory News, Laboratory Operations, Laboratory Pathology, Management & Operations
Medical laboratory inpatient test volume may continue to decline as the Medicare hospital readmission reduction program expands in 2017 and state population health programs garner funding
We are now several years into the Medicare program that is designed to reduce hospital readmissions. Statistics from these years show encouraging progress in reducing the readmission rate of Medicare patients. This is a trend that has important implications for all hospital-based clinical laboratories.
Hospitals are the most expensive site of care in the entire healthcare system. In its ongoing battle to reduce healthcare costs, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) implemented a carrot-and-stick program called the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP) aimed at lowering hospital readmission rates nationwide.
Established in 2013 by the Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare), the HRRP lowers reimbursements to acute care hospitals that have high rates of Medicare readmissions within 30 days of initial discharge, and increases reimbursements to hospitals that lower their readmission rates, a March 2017 Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) Issue Brief explained.
And, according to the KFF, these programs are having an impact. Readmission rates dropped by 8% nationwide as hospitals found ways to avoid the stiff financial penalties and earn the financial rewards. Additionally, patients are increasingly choosing ambulatory care settings, or to receive care at home, rather than re-entering hospitals. This has lowered states’ readmission rates even further.
From a healthcare cost perspective, this is good news. However, these programs have had unintentional consequences as well. The federal initiatives and state population health programs responsible for lowering readmission rates also directly impact medical laboratories by simultaneously reducing the flow of inpatient testing volume.
At the same time, clinicians at the nation’s hospitals—in their efforts to avoid readmissions—have a motive to become more effective at ordering the right medical laboratory test at the right time, and to use the lab test results to more effectively treat the patient. Thus, for the nation’s hospital labs, the Medicare program to reduce readmissions has both an upside and a downside.
Programs, Data Mining That Help Providers Avoid Readmissions
Hospitals nationwide are operating programs aimed at attracting federal financial rewards for keeping people healthy, and from being admitted to hospitals due to conditions that could have been prevented, USA Today reported.
One such program involves Christiana Care Health System (Christiana Care) of Wilmington, DE. Christiana Care implemented CMS’ Care Link transitions program through the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI), also known as The Innovation Center, which, “supports the development and testing of innovative healthcare payment and service delivery models.”
The provider experienced a 20% drop in patients being readmitted within 30 days of surgery, due to its “bundled payment” plan for heart failure, the USA Today article noted. Hip and knee replacement readmissions were down 25% 30 days after discharge as well.
“Without the funding we got through CMMI, it’s hard to imagine we’d be in the position we’re in today,” stated Janice Nevin, MD, CEO of Christiana Care.
Janice Nevin, MD (above), CEO of Christiana Care Health System, Wilmington, DE, is concerned that the upcoming changes to the ACA will affect the funding the healthcare provider has received from the CMS Innovation Center. “I would strongly urge that we keep the commitment to CMMI (because) you have to innovate to learn,” she told USA Today. (Photo copyright: Christiana Care Health System.)
Changes to HRRP for Dual-Eligibles Could Affect Penalties
Some patients are more expensive than others. Patients who draw both Medicare and Medicaid funding simultaneously, for example. These “dual-eligibles” are disproportionately expensive for hospitals to treat, reported Modern Healthcare.
In fact, they are just 18% of CMS beneficiaries, but accounted for one-third of all Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) spending in 2013, according to a Medicare Payment Advisory Commission June 2016 demographic report.
CMS is proposing to adjust penalties in the HRRP to reflect the proportion of patients who are dual-eligible, presumably hoping the change will both lower costs and reduce penalties on healthcare providers.
Hospital Readmissions Data from 49 States
CMS data show that between 2010 and 2015 hospital readmission rates fell by 8%, reported Healthcare Finance News. Other key data recently released by CMS and reported by Healthcare Finance News:
· 49 states reduced avoidable hospital readmission rates since 2010;
· Vermont’s readmission rate rose slightly from 15.3% in 2010 to 15.4% in 2015;
· In 43 states, readmission rates fell by more than 5%;
· 11 states had a more than 10% drop in readmission rates;
· The fall in readmission rate translates to about 104,000 hospital readmissions avoided for Medicare beneficiaries in 2015 and 565,000 readmissions averted since 2010; and
· Avoidable admissions, occurring within 30 days of initial discharges, account for more than $17 billion in Medicare annual expenditures.
Action Steps for Clinical Laboratories
Pathologists and lab leaders need to efficiently work with colleagues, especially when caring for hospitalized patients with conditions relative to the HRRP. Clear and patient-friendly discharge instructions for diagnostics are important. And, the lab’s coordination with post-acute-care providers, such as skilled nursing facilities, on follow-up testing is key to avoiding unnecessary readmissions.
Regardless, medical laboratory inpatient test volume will likely continue to decline. As Dark Daily readers know, the decline in inpatient testing is associated with more than just the HRRP. The transition to new models of integrated care that has taken place over the last few years is also a factor, as Dark Daily reported in “Falling Inpatient Revenues at Many Hospitals is Sign of Healthcare’s Transition to New Models of Integrated Care and Changes in Medical Laboratory Test Utilization.”
Medical laboratory directors and sales teams are advised to continue their efforts at boosting outpatient volume to fill the inpatient void.
—Donna Marie Pocius
Related Information:
Hospitals Work to Keep Patients from Being Admitted
Aiming for Fewer Hospital U-Turns: The Medicare Hospital Readmission Reduction Program
49 States, DC Reduce Avoidable Hospital Readmissions
Dual-eligibles: The Next Target in Hospital Readmissions Penalties
June 2016 Data Book, Section 2: Medicare Beneficiary Demographics
Hospitals Mine Clinical Data to Help Reduce Costs and Avoid Readmissions, Creating Opportunities for Clinical Laboratories and Pathologists to Contribute to Improved Patient Outcomes
Falling Inpatient Revenues at Many Hospitals is Sign of Healthcare’s Transition to New Models of Integrated Care and Changes in Medical Laboratory Test Utilization
Apr 24, 2017 | Compliance, Legal, and Malpractice, Laboratory Management and Operations, Laboratory News, Laboratory Operations, Laboratory Pathology, Laboratory Testing, Management & Operations
Pathologists and clinical laboratory managers need to understand the reasons why different consumers have entirely different financial experiences with the health insurance obtained under the ACA
One of the interesting consequences of the Affordable Care Act is that there are different classes of consumers who have completely different experiences with the health insurance coverage obtained through the ACA’s health insurance exchanges. It is important for pathologists as well as clinical laboratory managers to understand this fascinating outcome from the Affordable Care Act.
On one end of the spectrum are consumers who—because their income is at or just above the poverty line—get ACA health insurance coverage with full or nearly all of the premium subsidized be the federal government. They are the happiest with the law. That is, until they need to pay deductibles of as much as $5,000 per year for individuals and $10,000 per year for a family.
At the other end of the spectrum are the consumers with incomes at or above the 400% of the poverty level. Because these individuals get little or no federal premium subsidy, they are stuck paying the full price of their health insurance coverage. It is this group that is most unhappy with the ACA. And, not only are they paying hefty monthly premiums for coverage, they are also stuck with the $5,000 and $10,000 annual deductible requirements. (more…)
