Demographic shifts are most acute in Europe and East Asia but could be a harbinger of things to come for US healthcare as well
Across the globe, major shifts in many countries’ demographics are starting to drive notable changes in how healthcare is delivered in these nations. Having fewer pediatric patients and more senior citizens is fundamentally altering what types of tests are in greatest demand from the medical laboratories in these countries. It is the population trend writ large on a global scale.
For example, in countries as diverse as Sweden, Hungary, Japan, and South Korea, birthrates are declining as fewer young people decide to have kids, or they choose to have smaller families. Thus, demand for pediatric care is declining in those countries.
Meanwhile, populations around the world continue to age as greater numbers of people reach their retirement years. Not only does this create the need to expand medical services designed to serve the elderly, but there are important economic consequences. That’s because each wave of retirees leaves fewer people in the workforce to support the healthcare of ever-growing numbers of senior citizens.
According to The New York Times (NYT), this trend is likely to accelerate. In “Long Slide Looms for World Population, with Sweeping Ramifications,” the paper reported that “All over the world, countries are confronting population stagnation and a fertility bust, a dizzying reversal unmatched in recorded history that will make first-birthday parties a rarer sight than funerals, and empty homes a common eyesore.”
The NYT added that, “With fewer births, fewer girls grow up to have children, and if they have smaller families than their parents did—which is happening in dozens of countries—the drop starts to look like a rock thrown off a cliff.”
In countries such as the US, Canada, and Australia, this is partially mitigated by immigration, the NYT reports. However, some nations, such as Germany and South Korea, have instituted programs aimed at boosting birthrates, though with varying degrees of success.
According to demographer Frank Swiaczny, Dr. rer. nat., Senior Research Fellow at the Federal Institute for Population Research in Germany, countries around the world—especially in Europe and East Asia—“need to learn to live with and adapt to decline.”
“A paradigm shift is necessary,” he told the NYT.
The graphic above, taken from the US Census Bureau’s 2018 report, “The Graying of America: More Older Adults than Kids by 2035,” illustrates the rate at which America’s elder population is catching up with the rest of the world. It will soon exceed younger portions of the population, thus shifting demand for healthcare from pediatrics to geriatrics. Anatomic pathology groups and clinical laboratories will be impacted by this trend. (Graphic copyright: US Census Bureau.)
The authors, which included Terry Fulmer PhD, RN, FAAN, and John Auerbach, Director of Intergovernmental and Strategic Affairs at the CDC, noted that in 2018, adults 65 or older were 15.6% of the population. This will rise to 20% by 2030, when, according to the authors, seniors will outnumber the portion of the population that is younger than age five.
Foster an “expanded and better-trained workforce” to care for older adults, through enhanced training as well as “scholarships, loan forgiveness, and clinical internships.”
Adapt the public health system to account more for the needs of an aging population, such as by “improved coordination and collaboration with Area Agencies on Aging and key healthcare providers.”
Address disparities and inequities in healthcare access, such as social isolation “caused or exacerbated by social, economic, and environmental conditions.”
Facilitate advances in telehealth and other technologies to improve care delivery. “The lack of access to technology, low digital health literacy, and design barriers in patient portals and apps have disproportionately affected older adults, especially those in underserved communities,” the authors wrote.
Improve palliative and end-of-life care. “Many older adults are living with serious illness,” the authors wrote, and “most will live for years with their illnesses, resulting in a high burden of physical and psychological distress, functional dependence, poor quality of life, high acute care use, loss of savings, and caregiver distress.”
Reform long-term care, by improving conditions in long-term care facilities and making it easier for older adults to stay at home.
A perspective in the journal NPJ Urban Sustainability, titled “Ageing and Population Shrinking: Implications for Sustainability in the Urban Century,” notes that these trends have led some cities or countries to adopt technological innovations in healthcare, such as “socially assistive robots and virtual entertainment for mental health, roadside AI services for healthcare, and a series of innovations for house-based healthcare, digital nursing, and monitoring.”
The graphic above, taken from PopulationPyramid.net, illustrates the stark differences in the age of populations in two countries at opposite ends of the progressing demographic shift. Italy’s population pyramid (left) shows how the senior population makes up a substantial proportion of total population, while Nigeria’s 2030 population pyramid (right) shows the classic pyramid of a wide base of younger people trailing off to a small number of the elderly at the top of the pyramid. Medical laboratories in those nations will continue to be affected by how these demographic shifts taking place worldwide are changing the type of healthcare in highest demand. (Graphic copyright: PopulationPyramid.net.)
Impact on Pediatrics
At the other end of the age spectrum, a recent presentation from the American Academy of Pediatrics noted a 13% decline in the US birthrate between 2007 and 2019. But a white paper from physician search firm Merritt Hawkins suggests this has not necessarily resulted in reduced demand for pediatric services, at least not in the US.
Despite the decline, “there are still about four million births in the US annually, and immigration adds to the number of children in the population,” the white paper notes. Even rural areas with aging populations “have far fewer pediatricians per capita than they require.”
However, according to The New York Times, in South Korea, “expectant mothers in many areas can no longer find obstetricians or postnatal care centers.” And the town of Agnone, Italy, no longer has a maternity ward because the number of births—just six this year—is below the national minimum.
This is important to note. If there are developed countries around the world where demographics point to a steady decline in population, then the type of healthcare provided will be different than what is currently used. Clinical laboratories and pathology groups in those regions can expect changes and should prepare for them.
Also called a ‘bundled payment’ model, under this plan, hospitals and clinical laboratories will receive ‘lump sums’ for certain healthcare procedures
Employers and insurers continue to move healthcare providers away from fee-for-service (FFS) payment models and toward value-based reimbursement arrangements, also called Pay for Performance or bundled-payment models. While intended to save money, such payment models can have adverse financial consequences for clinical laboratories that are dependent on billing for each individual procedure.
Medical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups should closely monitor these moves. Labs are increasingly being asked to participate in contracts where they are not paid for specific services, but instead required to participate in per-member-per-month-fee arrangements with the lab assuming at least some utilization risk. This is coming.
The latest example involves Connecticut and Maine. Both states recently announced plans to use bundled payments for certain health services as part of their state employee health plans.
Incentivizing Quality in Connecticut
With an FFS model, healthcare providers bill insurance companies, government agencies, and consumers for all individual healthcare services rendered. Under the fee-for-service payment model, every visit to a medical provider, every procedure, every test and every drug administered for a particular health issue are itemized and billed separately.
However, in an interview with Connecticut Public Radio (WNPR), Josh Wojcik, Policy Director, Connecticut Office of the State Comptroller, said, “The incentives in that [FFS] model are problematic. It incentivizes volume. It does not incentivize quality.”
By contrast, with a bundled or episode-of-care payment model, providers and healthcare facilities are paid a lump sum for all services performed to treat a patient for a particular health issue or episode within a certain time frame. Some believe this type of payment model could help curtail skyrocketing medical costs, while delivering a high level of care for patients. But it is not an easy change.
“It’s heavy lifting, and it’s important because we are talking about realigning the incentives in the healthcare system,” Kevin Lembo, Connecticut State Comptroller, told WNPR.
Connecticut Centers of Excellence for Healthcare Services
Connecticut also introduced a plan to identify certain hospitals and medical facilities as “Centers of Excellence” and encourage their state employees to utilize those facilities for medical procedures. In addition, the state has negotiated a 5% to 10% discount on procedures performed at these facilities.
“We’re not just telling them what we are going to pay them. We’re negotiating. We expect savings,” Wojcik told WNPR.
The state of Connecticut has approximately 250,000 employees and retirees who are currently covered under the state’s health insurance plan. The Comptroller’s office estimates that these changes will result in a savings of about $95 million annually.
“What makes me even more excited is, if we can get this right with a quarter million people, pretty soon quality of care increases and cost increases slow not just for our folks, but for everyone,” Lembo said.
Maine Implements Bundled-Payment Model for Surgical Care
The state of Maine also introduced a healthcare plan where state employees, their dependents, and early retirees are encouraged to use designated facilities for some surgical procedures under the state’s Center-of-Excellence (COE) program.
Through a partnership with the Healthcare Purchaser Alliance of Maine, a non-profit collaborative of private employers and public trusts, Carrum Health, a cloud-based platform that connects employers and employees with COEs for surgical procedures, pairs the state’s patients with selected providers and bundled-payment options for more than 100 musculoskeletal, bariatric, and cardiovascular procedures.
In a news release, Sachin Jain (above), Founder and CEO of Carrum Health, said, “Carrum Health is excited to partner with the state of Maine to improve employee benefits while reducing the cost of care. This partnership further demonstrates our continuing ability to meet the needs of large public sector employers.” While Maine’s bundled-payment model for surgical care may indeed save the state money, might clinical laboratories soon be required to give up billing for all individual services? (Photo copyright: Carrum Health.)
Patients who utilize the health plan in Maine will not have to pay a deductible or any cost sharing and may receive medical services at any healthcare facility in the Carrum network nationwide. Self-insured employers who use the Carrum network typically pay up to 35% less for services, Modern Healthcare reported.
Under Carrum’s bundled-payment plan, the company pays a fixed price for medical procedures and clinical care associated with each episode of care. This fee covers consultation, the cost of any procedures, facility costs, and all professional expenses. Any readmissions or complications related to the treatment will also be covered for a period of 30 days after the initial date of the procedure.
Jain hopes the new agreements—such as the one with the state of Maine—will serve as a catalyst for more companies and organizations to change to bundled-payment methods for episodes of care.
“Before, hardly any providers in Maine were interested in bundles,” Jain told Modern Healthcare. “But now that a large, sophisticated employer like the state of Maine is seeing the potential, providers there are very interested in working with us. It greases the wheels for more providers to adopt bundled payments.”
Bundled-payment plans continue to gain in popularity as employers, health insurers, and Medicare officials seek ways to lower costs while simultaneously providing high-quality care and improving patient outcomes. However, clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups have long depended on fee-for-service billing and may find it difficult to receive payments as part of an episode-of-care or bundled-payment arrangement.
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation is considering adding clinical laboratory services to bundled payments in its proposed Oncology Care First model
CMMI, an organization within the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), is charged with developing and testing new healthcare delivery and payment models as alternatives to the traditional fee-for-service (FFS) model. On November 1, 2019, CMMI released an informal Request for Information (RFI) seeking comments for the proposed Oncology Care First (OCF) model, which would be the successor to the Oncology Care Model (OCM) launched in 2016.
“The inefficiency and variation in oncology care in the
United States is well documented, with avoidable hospitalizations and emergency
department visits occurring frequently, high service utilization at the end of
life, and use of high-cost drugs and biologicals when lower-cost, clinically
equivalent options exist,” the CMMI RFI states.
With the proposed new model, “the Innovation Center aims to build on the lessons learned to date in OCM and incorporate feedback from stakeholders,” the RFI notes.
How the Oncology Care First Model Works
The OCF program, which is voluntary, will be open to
physician groups and hospital outpatient departments. CMMI anticipates that
testing of the model will run from January 2021 through December 2025.
It will offer two payment mechanisms for providers that
choose to participate:
A Monthly Population Payment (MPP) would apply
to a provider’s Medicare beneficiaries with “cancer or a cancer-related
diagnosis,” the RFI states. It would cover Evaluation and Management (EM)
services as well as drug administration services and a set of “Enhanced
Services,” including 24/7 access to medical records.
Of particular interest to medical laboratories, the RFI also
states that “we are considering the inclusion of additional services in the monthly
population payment, such as imaging or medical laboratory services, and seek
feedback on adding these or other services.”
In addition, providers could receive a
Performance-Based Payment (PBP) if they reduce expenditures for patients
receiving chemotherapy below a “target amount” determined by past Medicare
payments. If providers don’t meet the threshold, they could be required to
repay CMS.
Practices that wish to participate in the OCF model must go through an application process. It is also open to participation by private payers. CMS reports that 175 practices and 10 payers are currently participating in the 2016 Oncology Care Model (OCM).
“We want better quality care for patients,” explained Lara Strawbridge, MPH (above), Director of the CMMI Division of Ambulatory Payment Models, during a US Department of Health and Human Services public listening session on Nov. 8. “We hope that at the same time, costs are maintained or reduced.” The new OCF payment model will feature a Monthly Population Payment mechanism that could include reimbursements for medical laboratory services, which has some medical laboratory organizations concerned. (Photo copyright: Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation.)
Medical Lab Leaders Concerned about the CMMI OCF Model
One group raising concerns about the inclusion of medical laboratory service reimbursements in the Monthly Population Payment scheme is the Personalized Medicine Coalition. “Laboratory services are crucial to the diagnosis and management of many cancers and are an essential component of personalized medicine,” wrote Cynthia A. Bens, the organization’s senior VP for public policy, in an open letter to CMMI Acting Director Amy Bassano. “We are concerned that adding laboratory service fees to the MPP may cause providers to view them as expenses that are part of the total cost of delivering care, rather than an integral part of the solution to attain high-value care,” Bens wrote.
She advised CMMI to “seek further input from the laboratory
and provider communities on how best to contain costs within the OCF model,
while ensuring the proper deployment of diagnostics and other laboratory
services.”
Members of the coalition include biopharma companies, diagnostic companies, patient advocacy groups, and clinical laboratory testing services. Lab testing heavyweights Quest Diagnostics (NYSE:DGX) and Laboratory Corporation of America (NYSE:LH) are both members.
CMS ‘Doubles Down’ on OCM
The proposal received criticism from other quarters as well. “While private- and public-sector payers would be well served to adopt and support a VBP [value-based payment] program for cancer care, we need to better understand some of the shortcomings of the original OCM design and adopt lessons learned from other successful VBP models to ensure uptake by providers and ultimately better oncology care for patients,” wrote members of the Oncology Care Model Work Group in a Health Affairs blog post. They added that with the new model, “CMS seems to double down on the same design as the OCM.”
Separately, CMMI has proposed a controversial Radiation
Oncology (RO) alternative payment model (APM) that would be mandatory for
practices in randomly-selected metro areas. The agency estimates that it would
apply to approximately 40% of the radiotherapy practices in the US.
These recent actions should serve to remind pathologists and
clinical laboratories that CMS continues to move away from fee-for-service and
toward value-based care payment models, and that it is critical to plan for
changing reimbursement strategies.
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:
“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.
Clinical laboratories must stay informed about the success of bundled-payment initiatives because they will need to negotiate a share of these payments where medical laboratory testing is involved
Research published this year concluded that bundled payments for joint replacement services performed on Medicare patients reduce Medicare’s costs without negatively affecting patient outcomes. Because these types of surgeries do not generally utilize many lab tests, the question is still out as to whether bundled payments allow clinical laboratories to be adequately reimbursed for their services.
The study of the bundled payment program was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). The researchers sought to determine the cause of the reduction in Medicare payments and hospital savings when bundled payment models for joint replacement surgeries were used.
The research was performed by staff at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania (UPenn). They examined hospital costs and Medicare claims for patients requiring hip and knee replacements at the 5-hospital Baptist Health System (BHS) in San Antonio. (more…)
