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…)
Apr 10, 2017 | Compliance, Legal, and Malpractice, Laboratory Management and Operations, Laboratory News, Laboratory Pathology, Laboratory Testing, Managed Care Contracts & Payer Reimbursement, Management & Operations
Aetna’s CEO Mark Bertolini highlights how the current system increases costs for both insurers and consumers
At the moment, probably no issue is more politicized than that of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), often called Obamacare. Because it controls the design of health insurance coverage, it also influences the way health plans pay hospitals, physicians, clinical laboratories, and anatomic pathology groups.
However, understanding the truth about what is working and what is not with the Affordable Care Act is a complex undertaking. That is because both the advocates and critics of this law are engaged in highly-partisan rhetoric, despite the fact that most have no intimate knowledge of how healthcare works in the United States. (more…)
Mar 27, 2017 | Compliance, Legal, and Malpractice, Laboratory News, Laboratory Operations, Laboratory Pathology, Laboratory Sales and Marketing, Laboratory Testing, Management & Operations
CMS Director speaks at ACLA meeting; acknowledges that labs are alerting the agency to problems with Protecting Access to Medicare Act (PAMA) private payer market reporting, but did not say whether a delay in implementing either reporting or lab test fee cuts would be possible
WASHINGTON, DC—Last week, it was symbolic that, as members of the American Clinical Laboratory Association (ACLA) assembled for their annual meeting, members of the House of Representatives were preparing to vote on the first of several bills intended to “repeal and replace” the Affordable Care Act.
The symbolism comes from the fact that the nation’s medical laboratories and the United States Congress find themselves at major crossroad. For medical laboratories, the issue is the substantial cuts to Medicare Part B clinical laboratory test fees that are scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2018. Predicted by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to be a total cut of $400 million in 2018 alone, many expect these Medicare fee cuts to be the single most financially-disruptive event to hit the medical laboratory profession in 25 years.
There’s a similar make-or-break issue unfolding in Congress. Republicans in the House and Senate are caught up in battles to design and pass a series of bills intended to “repeal and replace” the ACA. At their respective crossroads, it remains unclear which path forward each group will follow. (more…)
Mar 20, 2017 | Compliance, Legal, and Malpractice, Laboratory Management and Operations, Laboratory News, Laboratory Operations, Laboratory Pathology
Critics claim the bill would remove genetic privacy and discrimination protections provided by the 2008 GINA Act and other federal laws and might cause medical laboratories performing these tests to become embroiled in employee-employer disputes
Pathology groups and clinical laboratories are closely watching how society reacts to information that comes from genetic testing. Thus, the groundswell of opposition against a House bill that would require employees participating in workplace wellness programs to undergo genetic testing, and to share the results with their employers or face higher healthcare premiums, will be of particular interest and could impact the pathology industry as a whole.
Could Clinical Laboratories Become Entangled in Employee-Employer Disputes?
The fast-forming public outcry against lifting privacy protections for genetic testing in the workplace provides the medical laboratory testing industry with more evidence that concerns over genetic discrimination remain at the forefront among healthcare consumers, scientists, and medical professionals, despite growing understanding about the medical applications of genetics tests.
“What this bill would do is completely take away the protections of existing laws,” said Jennifer Mathis, JD, Director of Policy and Legal Advocacy at the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, in an article published in STAT, a Boston-based life science news site. She says protections provided by the 2008 Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), as well as those included in the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), “would be pretty much eviscerated.”
Privacy versus Healthcare Control
The Preserving Employee Wellness Programs Act (HR 1313¬) is part of the effort by the Republican-led Congress to repeal and replace the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as Obamacare.
The House Committee on Education and the Workforce, which passed the bill on a straight party-line vote on March 8, 2017, said in a statement that HR 1313 would “bring uniformity to the regulation of wellness programs and clarify” that such programs are consistent with existing federal laws.
“All these proposals reflect the principle that individuals should have greater control over their healthcare and the freedom to do what’s best for their families,” Committee Chairperson Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) said in a statement.
Jennifer Mathis, JD, Deputy Legal Director and Director of Policy and Legal Advocacy at the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, charges that privacy and other protections for genetic and health information provided by the 2008 Genetic Information and Nondiscrimination Act (Gina) and the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) “would be pretty much eviscerated” by HR 1313. (Photo copyright: Center for Disabilities Studies, University of Delaware.)
Opponents of the legislation claim the bill undermines GINA—which when enacted in 2008 was celebrated as the “first major new civil rights bill of the new century”—by removing genetic privacy and nondiscrimination protections. GINA prohibits employers from using genetic information to hire, fire, or promote an employee. And it bars health plans and insurers from using results to deny coverage or charge higher premiums.
Sixty-nine consumer, health, and medical advocacy organizations¬ have banded together to oppose HR 1313 and ask that “the nondiscrimination protections afforded to all Americans by GINA and the ADA” be preserved. They include:
• The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP);
• The Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP); and
• The Genetics Society of America (GSA).
“We strongly oppose any legislation that would allow employers to inquire about employees’ private genetic information, or medical information unrelated to their ability to do their jobs, and to impose draconian penalties on employees who choose to keep that information private,” the organizations stated in their March 7 letter to the House Committee.
Prior to the committee approving the bill, The American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) also went on record opposing HR 1313 for “fundamentally undermining the privacy provisions” of GINA and the ADA.
Law Would Allow Penalties on Employees for Not Cooperating
Privacy concerns are just one issue dogging the legislation. The bill also would allow employers to impose financial penalties of up to 30% of the total cost of an employee’s health insurance plan on workers who do not participate in genetic testing required by their workplace wellness program. Using the Kaiser Family Foundation’s 2016 Employer Health Benefits Survey as a guide, in a press release the ASHG estimated employees could be charged an extra $5,443 in annual premiums if they chose not to share their genetic information.
“If enacted, this bill would force Americans to choose between access to affordable healthcare and keeping their personal genetic and health information private,” Derek Scholes, PhD, Director of Science Policy at ASHG, said in the press release. “Employers would be able to coerce employees into providing their genetic and health information and that of their families, even their children.”
A unnamed spokesperson for the House Committee on Education and the Workforce defended the legislation in an interview with CNBC, claiming opponents were intentionally misrepresenting the bill’s intent.
“Those who are opposed to the bill are spreading false information in a desperate attempt to deny employees the choice to participate in a voluntary program that can reduce health insurance costs and encourage healthy lifestyle choices,” she told CNBC. She pointed to the HR 1313 fact sheet, which states the legislation “reaffirms existing law to allow employee wellness programs to be tied to responsible financial incentives.”
The “existing law” the source is referring to is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), which the Obama administration made law in 2010 in support of employer wellness programs as part of its push to encourage American’s to take responsibility for their healthcare. As written, the ACA already empowers employers to require employees who wish to participate in their company’s wellness programs to undergo genetic testing, the spokesperson reiterated.
Why Medical Laboratories Should Track the Progress of This Proposed Law
Clinical laboratory managers will want to watch the progress of this proposed legislation. The possibility exists that, if a lab performed a genetic test for a patient, and that patient later got into a dispute with the employer wanting access to those genetic test results, the lab could find itself embroiled in that dispute if the employer took legal action to compel the laboratory to reveal those test results. That scenario is a long way from becoming reality, but it does illustrate why this law, if enacted, could prove troublesome for the nation’s medical laboratories.
At this year’s Executive War College (EWC), which takes place on May 2-3 in New Orleans, a special panel discussion with four attorneys experienced in lab and pathology law will discuss emerging legal and compliance issues that involve medical laboratory testing. This proposed bill and other new genetic testing issues will be among the topics addressed by the attorneys on this panel.
—Andrea Downing Peck
Related Information:
Executive War College Conference on Laboratory and Pathology Management Agenda
H.R.1313-Preserving Employee Wellness Programs Act
Preserving Employee Wellness Programs Act Fact Sheet
Group Opposition Letter
Committee Advances Reforms to Expand Affordable Health Care Coverage for Working Families
House Republicans Would Let Employers Demand Workers’ Genetic Test Results
ASHG Opposes HR 1313, the Preserving Employee Wellness Programs Act Bill would Undermine Genetic Privacy Protections
2016 Employer Health Benefits Survey
Employers Could Demand Genetic Testing Under Congressional Bill
