News, Analysis, Trends, Management Innovations for
Clinical Laboratories and Pathology Groups

Hosted by Robert Michel

News, Analysis, Trends, Management Innovations for
Clinical Laboratories and Pathology Groups

Hosted by Robert Michel
Sign In

Presidents of Roche Diagnostics and Mayo Clinic Laboratories Discuss PAMA Reform and Upcoming Deep Cuts to Reimbursement for Common Lab Test

Organizations representing clinical laboratories and other critical healthcare providers urged Congress to pass the Saving Access to Laboratory Services Act by January 1, 2023, to prevent deep cuts in reimbursements

Lessons about the essential role of clinical laboratories during a pandemic was the central theme in a significant publication released recently. The authors were the presidents of two of the nation’s largest healthcare companies and their goal was to connect the value clinical labs delivered during the COVID-19 pandemic to the financial threat labs face should the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 (PAMA) fee cuts coming to the Medicare Part B Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule (CLFS) be implemented.

The two healthcare executives are William G. Morice II, MD, PhD, CEO/President, Mayo Clinic Laboratories in Rochester, Minn., and Matt Sause, President of Roche Diagnostics North America in Indianapolis. On January 1, 2023, Sause will become Global CEO of Roche Diagnostics, Basel, Switzerland.

They published their article in RealClearPolicy titled, “Medicare Cuts for Diagnostic Tests Would Show the Government Has Taken the Wrong Lessons from COVID-19.”

William G. Morice II, MD, PhD and Matt Sause

In an article for RealClearPolicy, healthcare executives William G. Morice II, MD, PhD (left), CEO/President, Mayo Clinic Laboratories, and Matt Sause (right), President of Roche Diagnostics North America wrote, “Without PAMA reform, labs could face drastically reduced reimbursement for commonly performed lab tests for a host of diseases.” (Photo copyrights: Mayo Clinic Laboratories/Roche Diagnostics.)

IVD Companies and Clinical Laboratories Sound Alarm

Morice and Sause warn that—without PAMA reform—the nation’s vital medical laboratories will face “drastically reduced reimbursement” for commonly performed lab tests for diseases, including diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. Reimbursement cuts may cause clinical labs serving “the most vulnerable and homebound” to reduce services or close, they noted.

“To emerge from nearly three years of a pandemic by sending the signal that austerity is our nation’s health policy when it comes to testing and diagnostics would be a significant mistake,” they wrote.

“If the proposed cuts to reimbursements for diagnostic tests are allowed to take effect, disparities caused by challenges with accessing diagnostic tests will likely grow even further,” the authors continued.

However, they added, “The Saving Access to Laboratory Services Act [SALSA] would reform PAMA to require accurate and representative data from all laboratory segments that serve Medicare beneficiaries to be collected to support a commonsense Medicare fee schedule that truly represents the market.”

How PAMA Affects Clinical Laboratory Reimbursements

PAMA, which became law in 2014, was aimed at marrying Medicare Part B Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule (CLFS) reimbursement rates to rates medical laboratories receive from private payers, the National Independent Laboratory Association (NILA) explained in a news release.

But from the start, in its implementation of the PAMA statute, the methods used by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to collect data on lab test prices paid by private payers—which were the basis for calculating new lab test prices for the Medicare program—were criticized by many laboratory professionals and other health experts.

Critics frequently pointed out that several types of clinical laboratories were excluded from reporting their private payer lab test prices. Thus, the data collected and used by CMS did not accurately represent the true range of prices paid for clinical lab tests by private health insurance plans, said lab industry groups.

CMS regulations “exclude most hospital outreach laboratories and physician office laboratories from data collection. This approach depresses median prices and has led to deep cuts to lab reimbursement. Many tests were cut up to 30% in 2018 when the new system went into effect,” the America Association for Clinical Chemistry (AACC) noted in a statement.

On September 8, just weeks after publication of the article authored by Morice and Sause,  26 organizations representing clinical laboratories and diagnostics manufacturers sent a letter to Congressional leaders. In it they described the financial impact on labs due to the current law’s omission of some outreach and physician office lab testing, and they urged the passage of the SALSA legislation.

The organizations included the:

“The significant under-sampling led to nearly $4 billion in cuts to those labs providing the most commonly ordered test services for Medicare beneficiaries,” the organizations wrote in their letter. “For context, the total CLFS spend for 2020 was only $8 billion.”

Reimbursement Cuts to Lab Tests are Coming if SASLA Not Passed

“Without Congressional action, beginning on Jan. 1, 2023, laboratories will face additional cuts of as much as 15% to some of the most commonly ordered laboratory tests,” the NILA said.

“Enactment of the Saving Access to Laboratory Services Act (SALSA/H.R. 8188/S.4449) is urgently needed this year, to allow laboratories to focus on providing timely, high quality clinical laboratory services for patients, continuing to innovate, and building the infrastructure necessary to protect the public health,” NILA added.

In an editorial she wrote for Clinical Lab Products, titled, “Be a Labvocate: Help Pass SALSA Legislation,” Kristina Martin, Clinical Pathology Operations Director, Department of Pathology, University of Michigan Medicine said, “The SALSA legislation provides a permanent, pragmatic approach to evaluating the CLFS, eliminating huge swings, either positive or negative as it pertains to Medicare reimbursement. It also allows for a more comprehensive evaluation of data to be collected from a broader sampling of laboratory sectors.”

According to an ACLA fact sheet, SALSA:

  • Uses statistical sampling for widely available tests performed by a “representative pool of all clinical laboratory market segments.”
  • Introduces annual “guardrails” aimed at creating limits for reductions as well as increases in CLFS rates.
  • Excludes Medicaid managed care rates since they are not true “market rates.”
  • Gives labs the option to exclude mailed remittances from reporting if less than 10% of claims.
  • Eases clinical labs’ reporting requirements by changing data collection from three years to four.

Make Your Views Known

Proponents urge Congress to act on SALSA before the end of the year. Clinical laboratory leaders and pathologists who want to express their views on SALSA, test reimbursement, and the importance of access to medical laboratory testing can do so through Stop Lab Cuts.org. The website is sponsored by the ACLA.

Donna Marie Pocius

Related Information:

Medicare Cuts for Diagnostic Tests Would Show the Government Has Taken the Wrong Lessons from COVID-19

H.R.8188: Saving Access to Laboratory Services Act

S.4449: Saving Access to Laboratory Services Act

NILA Applauds Introduction of the Saving Access to Laboratory Services Act

AACC Supports Saving Access to Laboratory Services Act

Letter from Leading Provider Groups on Passing the Saving Access to Laboratory Services Act

Be a Labvocate: Help Pass SALSA Legislation

Set a Sustainable Path for Patient Access to Laboratory Services, and Keep Our Clinical Laboratory Infrastructure Healthy

Four Regulatory Developments Coming This Fall That Are Relevant for Clinical Laboratory Leaders and Pathology Group Managers

Regulators and lawmakers are considering proposed changes to CLIA and PAMA involving medical laboratory services

Clinical laboratories and pathology groups should monitor a series of federal regulatory developments underway this fall. The proposals and documents will potentially affect how lab managers and staff do their jobs and how much Medicare reimbursement medical laboratories receive for certain diagnostic tests next year.

Among the initiatives under consideration are the following:

Below are details about these laboratory-related federal bills and regulatory documents that observant laboratory managers will want to track in the coming months.

“Clinical laboratories need to make sure that they have proper requisitions and documentation for genetic testing that involves telemedicine.” Danielle Tangorre, JD (above), a partner at law firm Robinson and Cole LLP in Albany, NY, told Dark Daily. (Photo copyright: Robinson and Cole LLP.)

CLIA Fee Increases and Testing Personnel Changes

The federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is examining fee and personnel changes for CLIA. Officials from CMS are reviewing public comments on the proposal ahead of publishing a final rule.

Among other changes, the proposal would:

  • Institute a 20% across-the-board increase on existing fees.
  • Establish a biennial increase of CLIA fees for follow-up surveys, substantiated complaint surveys, and revised certificates.
  • Add doctoral, master’s, and bachelor’s degrees in nursing to qualify testing personnel for high and moderate complexity testing.

As The Dark Report noted in “Clinical Laboratories Face 20% Increase in CLIA Fees,” opposition to the new nurse qualifications is coming from the American Hospital Association (AHA) and other groups. (If you are not a subscriber to The Dark Report, you can start a free trial by clicking here.)

Seven Characteristics of Potential Telemedicine Fraud That Affect Clinical Laboratories

In July, on the heels of federal prosecutors indicting 13 defendants for alleged genetic testing and telemedicine fraud, the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a warning about telemedicine fraud.

The Special Fraud Alert, “OIG Alerts Practitioners to Exercise Caution When Entering into Arrangements with Purported Telemedicine Companies,” outlines seven “suspect characteristics” of telemedicine that might point to fraudulent Medicare billing.

The characteristics include:

  • “The Practitioner does not have sufficient contact with or information from the purported patient to meaningfully assess the medical necessity of the items or services ordered or prescribed.
  • “The Telemedicine Company compensates the Practitioner based on the volume of items or services ordered or prescribed, which may be characterized to the Practitioner as compensation based on the number of purported medical records that the Practitioner reviewed.
  • “The Telemedicine Company only furnishes items and services to Federal health care program beneficiaries and does not accept insurance from any other payor.
  • “The Telemedicine Company does not expect Practitioners (or another Practitioner) to follow up with purported patients nor does it provide Practitioners with the information required to follow up with purported patients (e.g., the Telemedicine Company does not require Practitioners to discuss genetic testing results with each purported patient).”
  • And more.

“In the telehealth space, the issue the OIG has flagged is that genetic tests are being ordered without patient interaction or with only brief telephonic conversations,” Danielle Tangorre, JD, a partner at law firm Robinson & Cole LLP in Albany, N.Y., told Dark Daily.

New Bill May Eliminate 2023 Medical Laboratory Payment Cuts Under PAMA

Medical labs and pathology groups face payment cuts of up to 15% for 800 lab tests on the Medicare Clinical Lab Fee Schedule (CLFS) on Jan. 1, 2023, as part of PAMA.

However, a bipartisan bill is before Congress that may change things. The Saving Access to Laboratory Services Act (SALSA) seeks to accomplish three things:

  • Eliminate the scheduled Jan. 1 price cuts.
  • Reduce future payment decreases to the Medicare CLFS under PAMA.
  • Reconfigure how CMS calculates lab test payments for the CLFS.

At last check, the bill was before the Senate Finance Committee. Proponents are hopeful a vote will come before PAMA’s Jan. 1 cuts occur.

The Dark Report explored the SALSA Act in detail in “PAMA Cuts Might Be Reduced to Zero for 2023.”

Changes to LDT Oversight in VALID Act Sidelined for Now

In “Proposed FDA Approval of Laboratory Developed Tests Will Reduce Innovation,” Dark Daily reported on the Verifying Accurate Leading-Edge IVCT Development Act (VALID Act) and why its opponents believe it stifles diagnostic innovation.

The bill proposes to move regulatory oversight of LDTs from CLIA to the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Champions of the bill argue that FDA regulation is needed for in vitro clinical tests (IVCTs) because they are similar to medical devices and bring with them patient safety concerns.

The bill seemed ready for a Senate vote over the summer but stalled. On Sept. 30, Congress passed a short-term resolution to keep the federal government funded. During negotiation, the VALID Act was removed from the larger spending package, according to Boston law firm Ropes and Gray.

Expect discussion to renew in Congress about the VALID Act after the mid-term elections.

Clinical laboratory leaders and pathology group managers will want to closely monitor the progress of these four federal legislative and regulatory developments. Each of the possible actions described above would significantly change the status quo in the compliance requirements and reimbursement arrangements for both clinical laboratory testing and anatomic pathology services.

Scott Wallask

Related Information:

Clinical Laboratories Face 20% Increase in CLIA Fees

OIG Alerts Practitioners to Exercise Caution when Entering into Arrangements with Purported Telemedicine Companies

PAMA Cuts Might Be Reduced to Zero for 2023

Proposed FDA Approval of Laboratory Developed Tests Will Reduce Innovation

Congress Enacts Clean Reauthorization of FDA User Fees, Leaving Uncertain Future for Important Policy Reforms

CMS Pauses Plans to Limit Public Knowledge of Medical and Surgical Harm at Hospitals During COVID-19 Pandemic

Healthcare industry watchdog Group Leapfrog says that if CMS suppresses the data “all of us will be in the dark on which hospitals put us most at risk”

For some time, hospitals and clinical laboratories have struggled with transparency regulation when it comes to patient outcomes, test prices, and costs. So, it is perplexing that while that Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) pushes for more transparency in the cost of hospital care and quality, the federal agency also sought to limit public knowledge of 10 types of medical and surgical harm that occurred in hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic.

And even though the CMS announced in its August 1 final rule (CMS-1771-F) that it was “pausing” its plans to suppress data relating to 10 measures that make up the Patient Safety and Adverse Events Composite (PSI 90), a part of the Hospital-Acquired Condition (HAC) Reduction Program, it is valuable for hospital and medical laboratory leaders to understand what the federal agency was seeking to accomplish.

COVID-19’s Impact on Measure Data

Within its lengthy 2023 Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment System and Long Term Care Hospitals Proposed Rule (CMS-1771-P), the federal agency cites the COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE) as a reason for the adjustment in public access to certain data.

According to USA Today, medical complications at hospitals such as pressure ulcers and falls leading to fractures would be suppressed in reports starting next year. Additionally, CMS “also would halt a program to dock the pay of the worst performers on a list of safety measures, pausing a years-long effort that links hospitals’ skill in preventing such complications to reimbursement,” Kaiser Health News reported.

The proposed rule’s executive summary reads in part, “Due to the impact of the COVID-19 PHE on measure data used in our value-based purchasing (VBP) programs, we are proposing to suppress several measures in the Hospital VBP Program and HAC Reduction Program … If finalized as proposed, for the FY 2023 program year, hospitals participating in the HAC Reduction Program will not be given a measure score, a Total HAC score, nor will hospitals receive a payment penalty.”

These 10 measures include:

  • PSI 03-Pressure Ulcer Rate
  • PSI 06-Iatrogenic Pneumothorax Rate
  • PSI 08-In Hospital Fall with Hip Fracture Rate
  • PSI 09-Perioperative Hemorrhage or Hematoma Rate
  • PSI 10-Postoperative Acute Kidney Injury Requiring Dialysis Rate
  • PSI 11-Postoperative Respiratory Failure Rate
  • PSI 12-Perioperative Pulmonary Embolism or Deep Vein Thrombosis Rate
  • PSI 13-Postoperative Sepsis Rate
  • PSI 14-Postoperative Wound Dehiscence Rate
  • PSI 15-Abdominopelvic Accidental Puncture/Laceration Rate

The measures would not be accessible to the public or appear on the CMS Hospital Compare website, MedPage Today added.

“Those 10 events account for 25,000 preventable deaths and 94,000 incidents of patient harm in the US annually, according to recent analyses,” Fortune reported.

In a fact sheet, CMS noted that its intent in proposing the rule was neither to reward nor penalize providers at a time when they were dealing with the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak, new safety protocols for staff and patients, and an unprecedented rise in inpatient cases.

Lee Fleisher, MD
“We want the public to have complete trust in the data and will only be providing data we have determined has a high confidence of credibility and accuracy,” said CMS Chief Medical Officer Lee Fleisher, MD (above), Director of the CMS Center for Clinical Standards and Quality in a statement, Axios reported. Clinical laboratory leaders would find it more difficult to compare the performance of their hospitals against peer hospitals, should this proposed rule take effect as written. (Photo copyright: Lee Fleisher.)
 

Groups Opposed to the CMS Proposal

Like healthcare costs, quality data need to be accessible to the public, according to a health insurance industry representative. “Cost data, in the absence of quality data, are at best meaningless, and at worst, harmful. We see this limitation on collection and publication of data about these very serious safety issues as a step backward,” Robert Andrews, JD, CEO, Health Transformation Alliance, told Fortune.

The Leapfrog Group, a Washington, DC-based non-profit watchdog organization focused on healthcare quality and safety, urged CMS to reverse the proposal. The organization said on its website that it had collected 270 signatures on letters to CMS.

“Dangerous complications, such as sepsis, kidney harm, deep bedsores, and lung collapse, are largely preventable yet kill 25,000 people a year and harm 94,000,” wrote the Leapfrog Group in a statement. “Data on these complications is not available to the public from any other source. If CMS suppresses this data, all of us will be in the dark on which hospitals put us most at risk.”

Leah Binder, Leapfrog President/CEO, told MedPage Today she is concerned the suppression of public reporting of safety data may continue “indefinitely” because CMS does not want “to make hospitals unhappy with them.”

AHA Voices Support

Meanwhile, the American Hospital Association noted that the CMS “has made this proposal to forgo calculating certain hospital bonuses and penalties due to the impact of the pandemic,” Healthcare Dive reported.

“We agree with CMS that it would be unfair to base hospital incentives and penalties on data that have been skewed by the unprecedented impacts of the pandemic,” said Akin Demehin, AHA Senior Director, Quality and Safety Policy, in a statement to Healthcare Dive.

Though CMS’ plans to limit public knowledge of medical and surgical complications have been put on hold, medical laboratory leaders will want to stay abreast of CMS’ next steps with this final rule. Suppression of hospital harm during a period of increased demand for hospital transparency could trigger a backlash with healthcare consumers.

Donna Marie Pocius

 

Related Information:

CMS Final Rule CMS-1771-F

CMS Announces Continued Public Reporting of PSI 90 and Commitment to Transparency

Patient Safety Advocate Cheers CMS’ Reversal on Quality Reporting, But Hospitals Say the Data Are No Good

Medicare Ditches Plan to Bury Hospital Safety Data Next Year

FY 2023 Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment System and Long-Term Care Hospitals Proposed Rule (CMS-1771-P)

Groups Object to Medicare Push to Suppress Reporting of Harm Done to Patients at Hospitals

CMS Proposal to Suppress Hospital Safety Data Angers Advocates

Fact Sheet: FY 2023 Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment System and Long-Term Care Hospitals Proposed Rule (CMS-1771-P)

Biden Administration Seeks to Suppress Hospital Safety Data

Lives Lost, Lives Saved: An Updated Comparative Analysis of Avoidable Deaths at Hospitals Graded by The Leapfrog Group

Patient Safety Indicators (PSI) Benchmark Data Tables, v2021

Hospitals Have Become Less Safe During the Pandemic; So Why Does the Government Want to Suppress Hospital Safety Data?

We Need Your Help: Don’t Let CMS Suppress 25,000 Deaths a Year in Hospitals

Leapfrog Raises Concerns About CMS Proposal to Suppress Patient Safety Data

CMS Ready to Add Three More Items to Never Events No-Pay Policy for Medical Errors

Despite the Coronavirus Pandemic, Medicare Officials Continue Push for Price Transparency by Pressuring Hospitals to Disclose Rates Negotiated with Private Payers

Two Georgia Hospitals First to Be Fined by CMS for Failure to Comply with Hospital Price Transparency Law

Nearly two years after passage of price transparency law, only a small number of the nation’s hospitals are fully compliant, according to two separate reports

Price transparency is a major trend in the US healthcare system. Yet, hospitals, physicians, clinical laboratories, and other providers have been reticent to design their websites so it is easy for patients to find prices in advance of clinical care. Now comes news that federal officials are ready to issue fines to hospitals that fail to comply with regulations mandating price transparency for patients. 

Many of the largest healthcare networks claim that complying with federal hospital price transparency regulation is costly, time consuming, and provides no return on investment. Nevertheless, the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is quite serious about enforcing price transparency laws, and to that end the agency has, for the first time, levied fines against two hospitals in Georgia that have not complied with the regulations.

As many pathologists and medical laboratory managers know, on January 1, 2021, a federal rule on price transparency for medical facilities went into effect. The rule requires hospitals—as well as clinical laboratories and other healthcare providers—to post a comprehensive list of their services and the pricing for those services on their websites, and to provide access to a patient-friendly tool to help consumers shop for 300 common services.

The CMS recently issued its first penalties to two hospitals located in Georgia for violating the law by not updating their websites or replying to the agency’s warning letters. The letters CMS sent to the two hospitals alleged there were several violations of the transparency rules, including the failure to post a listing of their charges on their websites and requested corrective action plans by the hospitals.

In November 2021, Northside Hospital Atlanta informed regulators that consumers should call or email the facility to obtain price estimates for services. Later in January 2022, during a “technical assistance call,” a hospital representative told CMS “the previous violations had not been corrected and, in fact, the hospital system had intentionally removed all previously posted pricing files,” according to a Notice of Imposition of a Civil Monetary Penalty letter CMS sent to Robert Quattrocchi, President and Chief Executive Officer, Northside Hospital Atlanta.

Under the rules of the Hospital Price Transparency law, each hospital operating in the US is required to provide clear, accessible pricing information online about the items and services they provide in two ways:

  • As a comprehensive machine-readable file listing all items and services.
  • In a display of shoppable services in a consumer-friendly format.

CMS fined Northside Hospital Atlanta $883,180 and Northside Cherokee Hospital $214,320 for noncompliance with the law. The penalties are calculated based on the size of the hospital and the length of time of the noncompliance—up to $300 per day. In addition, the facilities could endure further monetary penalties if they continue to fail to comply. The organizations will have 30 days to appeal the charges or have 60 days to remit payment for the fines.

Both hospitals are owned by Northside, a Georgia health system with five acute care hospitals, more than 250 outpatient facilities, over 4,100 providers, and 25,500 employees, according to the provider’s website.

Meena Seshamani, MD, PhD
“CMS expects hospitals to comply with the Hospital Price Transparency regulations that require providing clear, accessible pricing information online about the items and services they provide,” said Meena Seshamani, MD, PhD, Director of CMS, in a statement provided to Fierce Healthcare. “This enforcement action affirms the Biden-Harris Administration’s commitment to making healthcare pricing information accessible to people across the country and we are committed to ensuring that consumers have the information they need to make fully informed decisions regarding their healthcare.” Clinical laboratories also are required to comply with federal price transparency regulations. (Photo copyright: Modern Healthcare.)

Compliance with Price Transparency Laws Low

Analysis of the healthcare industry shows that many facilities are not in compliance with the transparency rules. In April, a report released by health IT firm KLAS Research, found that hospitals believe the transparency rule is too costly to implement and confusing to consumers, which helps explain the low compliance issues. KLAS surveyed 66 hospital revenue cycle leaders for their report.

“There are concerns about cost, data accuracy, and patient options of pricing tools; some respondents worry about patients’ ability to understand the displayed pricing data, and today, most patients are unaware online pricing information exists,” the report states. In addition, the report notes that “many organizations are not investing beyond the bare minimum requirements, and they don’t plan to do more until there is further clarity around the regulations and the expectations going forward.”

The KLAS report also noted that organizations are struggling to find the resources to comply with the price transparency rule and consider it a financial burden to continually add new employees and technology to become and remain in compliance. Many organizations see no merit in investing in a regulation that provides no return on that investment.

Another compliance report released in February by Patient Rights Advocate maintained that only 14.3% of the 1,000 hospitals they reviewed were in full compliance with the Hospital Price Transparency regulation. About 37.9% of the hospitals posted a sufficient detailing of service rates, but over half of those hospitals were noncompliant in other criteria of the rule, such as rates by insurer and insurance plans.

“We are now entering the second year since the Hospital Price Transparency rule became law, and compliance remains at very low levels,” according to the report. “The largest hospital systems are effectively ignoring the law, with no consequences.”

The Patient Rights Advocate analysis also found that a mere 0.5% of hospitals owned by the three largest hospital systems in the country—HCA Healthcare, CommonSpirit Health, and Ascension—were in full compliance of the law.

Notably, only two of the 361 hospitals owned by these three hospital systems were fully compliant. In addition, none of the 188 hospitals owned by HCA Healthcare, the largest for-profit hospital system in the country, were in compliance.

Hospitals Fail to Provide Consumers with Critical Information

The Patient Rights Advocate report found that the most significant reason for noncompliance was failure to post all payer-specific and plan-specific negotiated rates on their websites. They estimated that 85.7% of the 1,000 hospitals reviewed did not post a complete machine-readable file of standard charges, as required by the law.

“The lack of compliance by hospitals is about more than simply the failure to follow the legal requirements,” the report states. “It is also about the failure of hospitals to provide critically needed information to consumers so they can make better health decisions. Empowered with comparative price and quality information in advance of care, consumers, including employers and unions, can improve health outcomes while lowering costs by taking advantage of the benefits of competitive market efficiencies.”

With the CMS starting to issue fines for noncompliance, it is probable that more healthcare organizations will focus on adhering to the Hospital Price Transparency law. Since the transparency rules also apply to clinical laboratories, lab managers should be aware of the regulations and any further enforcement actions taken by the CMS.   

JP Schlingman

Related Information:

Hospitals Face Penalties for First Time for Failing to Make Prices Public

CMS Issues First Price Transparency Fines to Two Georgia Hospitals

After Months of Warnings, CMS Hands Out Its First Fines to Hospitals Failing on Price Transparency

KLAS: Hospitals Say Price Transparency Remains Too Confusing and Pricey to Implement

Price Transparency 2022: Hospital Perceptions of CMS Regulation

Semi-Annual Hospital Price Transparency Compliance Report: February 2022

Report: Only 14.3% of Hospitals Compliant with Price Transparency Rules One Year In

Hospital Associations and Healthcare Groups Battle HHS Efforts to Expand Pricing Transparency Rules to Include Negotiated Rates with Payers

Health Insurers and Hospital Groups Argue Price Transparency Rules on Hospitals, Clinical Laboratories, and Other Providers Will Add Costs and ‘Confuse’ Consumers

New Report Reveals That Medicare Part A Fund May Be Tapped Out By 2028, Triggering Calls for Congress to Address This Problem

Experts say it is time to change Medicare financing, even as large numbers of baby boomers continue to enroll in the program each year

Medicare’s fund for payment of inpatient hospital care is expected to be tapped out in 2028. That’s according to a new report from Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance and Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds (2022 Medicare Trustees Report). That’s somewhat better than running out of money for inpatient care in 2026, which was what Medicare announced in last year’s Medicare Trustees Report.

Either way, if Medicare is allowed to run dry, millions of patients (most among the elderly) may be unable to receive critical care, including clinical laboratory testing and pathology.

“The Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund, or Medicare Part A, which helps pay for services such as inpatient hospital care, will be able to pay scheduled benefits until 2028, two years later than reported last year. At that time, the fund’s reserves will become depleted,” the 2022 Medicare Trustees Report states, which draws its data from a US Treasury Department fact sheet.

Catastrophe in the Making

Kerry Weems, Executive Chairman at Value Based Healthcare Investors Alliance and former Administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) said federal lawmakers are apparently waiting to deal with a “catastrophe” in 2028 instead of a “crisis” in 2026. Weems shared his views in an article he penned for 4Sight Health, a Chicago-based healthcare strategy company, titled, “Dead Seniors Save Congress from Tough Decisions.”

“The progressively worse imbalance of expenditures versus revenues will exhaust the trust funds in 2028,” Weems wrote, adding that one of two payment scenarios will likely happen:

  • Medicare may pay bills on a “discounted basis,” which means if expected revenues are 85% of expenditures, then Medicare would pay bills at 85% of the amount, or
  • Medicare may put bills aside until it has the money from tax dollars.

“And then (Medicare would) pay them on a first-in-first-out basis,” Weems wrote, adding, “At the time of insolvency, that current Administration would have to pick its poison.”

For hospital clinical laboratory leaders and pathologists who provide care to Medicare beneficiaries, neither approach would be satisfactory. And a solution for funding Medicare Part A beyond 2028 needs to be crafted to ensure hospitals are paid on a timely basis.

But what should it be?

James Capretta, Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute
 
“Medicare’s two-part insurance and trust fund design may have made sense in the mid-1960s, but it no longer does. Modern coverage is not bifurcated in this way and imposing stricter financial control over facility spending than clinician and outpatient services can distort the policy-making process, and thus also patient care,” wrote James Capretta (above), Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, in his analysis of the 2022 Medicare trustees report, published in Health Affairs. If Medicare truly does run out of money, millions of elderly people may lose access to critical healthcare services, including clinical laboratory testing. (Photo copyright: American Enterprise Institute.)

Medicare Funding Scheme is ‘Flawed’

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF), the amount of money Medicare needs to cover the deficit between 2028 through 2031 (the period studied in the trustees’ projections), is estimated at $247.4 billion.

Medicare is supported by employers and employees, who each pay a 1.45% tax on earnings, KFF explained. Balancing the fund supporting Medicare Part A requires either an increase of .70% of taxable payroll or a 15% reduction in benefits, KFF estimated.

“Medicare will not cease to operate if assets are fully depleted, because revenue will continue flowing into the fund from payroll taxes and other sources,” KFF noted.

However, the current set-up of Medicare trust funds (one for Part A and another funded differently for Medicare Part B, which includes outpatient coverage such as medical laboratory tests), is “flawed” and needs updating to enable reform.

That’s according to analysis written by James Capretta, a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and Member of the Advisory Board of the National Institute for Health Care Management in Washington, DC, published in Health Affairs. He added that by dividing its coverage, Medicare may not be addressing the big picture in patient care.

Baby Boomers, COVID Challenge Medicare

Furthermore, Medicare faces challenges brought on by an aging population and increasing enrollees.

Baby Boomers (born between 1946 and 1964) will qualify for Medicare by 2030 and potentially leave the workforce, depleting their payroll tax contributions to the program, KFF pointed out.

Also, Medicare reform needs to reflect the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. An analysis of 114,000 COVID-19-associated deaths from May to August 2020 showed 78% of the people were age 65 and older, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

“Medicare beneficiaries whose deaths were identified as related to COVID-19 had costs that were much higher than the average Medicare beneficiary prior to the onset of the pandemic,” the 2022 Medicare Trustees report noted.

“The surviving Medicare population had lower morbidity, on average, reducing costs by an estimated 1.5% in 2020 and 2.9% in 2021. This morbidity effect is expected to continue over the next few years but is assumed to decrease over time before ending in 2028.”

In his 4Sight Health article, Weems suggested that the Medicare reform deadline was bumped to 2028 from 2026 due to fewer people living and able to access Medicare in coming years.

“Let’s honor those seniors by using the time for real Medicare reform,” Weems wrote.

Hospital laboratory managers and pathologists will want to keep a watchful eye on Congress’ handling of the 2022 Medicare Trustees Report. Though it is unlikely the nation’s decision-makers will act on the report during an election year, pressure to develop a solution to meet the funding needs of Medicare Part A hospital care beyond 2028 will start to build in 2023.

Donna Marie Pocius

Related Information:

2022 Medicare Trustees Report

2021 Medicare Trustees Report

Fact Sheet: 2022 Social Security and Medicare Trustees Reports

Dead Seniors Save Congress from Tough Decisions

FAQs on Medicare Financing and Trust Fund Solvency

Medicare’s Supplementary Medical Insurance Fund: A Growing Burden on Taxpayers

;