Today’s Managing Health Care Costs Indicator is $385 Billion
The Center for American Progress, a liberal-leaning think
tank, produced a 49 page summary of how to reduce Medicare spending by $385
billion without leaving beneficiaries with dramatically higher out-of-pocket
costs. The group strongly opposes
converting Medicare into a voucher program (the initial Paul Ryan GOP House
budget), and opposes raising the Medicare eligibility age, pointing out that it’s pretty
hard for a sick 65 year old to purchase insurance even in a well-functioning
market. CAP also opposes proposals to
slash Medicaid spending on seniors in nursing homes.
I’ve summarized the CAP recommendations below. Many of these are similar to a plan published
in the New England Journal of Medicine last month (and some of the authors are
shared). I’d noted who the “losers” are
for each proposed initiative – since decreased Medicare spending does mean less
income for someone.
Recommendation
|
Savings (Billion $ over 10 years)
|
Loser
|
Use competitive bidding for commodities, including durable medical
equipment, supplies, lab tests, and imaging
|
$38
|
Ancillary vendors
|
Require exchanges to offer tiered insurance plans (to push patients
to lower cost higher quality providers)
|
$10
|
Hospitals and physicians (who have high prices or low quality)
|
Use competitive bidding for Medicare Advantage plans
|
$10
|
Health Plans
|
Use competitive bidding for Medicaid plans
|
None
|
Health Plans
|
Require private insurers to make prices transparent, and publicly
release claims data
|
None
|
High priced hospitals and physicians
|
Set global health care budgets (including education and training) for
states
|
None
|
|
Accelerate move to bundled payments
|
$10
|
Providers
|
Coordinate Federal Employees Health Benefit program reform efforts
with Medicare efforts
|
None
|
|
Coordinate care for dual eligible, and share savings with states
|
None
|
Providers
|
Expand ban on physician self-referrals
|
$1.5
|
Providers
|
Promote shared decision-making in Medicare
|
$3.8
|
Providers
|
Lower payment to hospitals with readmissions and complications
|
None
|
Hospitals
|
Lower payment to nursing facilities with high rates of
rehospitalization
|
$1.4
|
Nursing Homes
|
Value based payment for ambulatory surgery centers
|
None
|
Ambulatory Surgery Centers
|
Repeal the Sustainable Growth Rate mechanism (that leads to automatic
physician pay cuts each year). Incentivize alternatives to fee for service
|
None stated
|
|
Increase Medicare primary care payment by 10%
|
None
|
Hospitals (through lower hospitalizations)
|
Protect low and moderate income beneficiaries from premium increases
that could stem from SGR repeal
|
None stated
|
|
Do away with the AMA Relative Update Committee (RUC) on which
specialists are overrepresented
|
None
|
|
Reduce Medicare payments to hospitals for graduate medical education
(GME)
|
$28
|
Hospitals
|
Require private insurers to pay their fair share for GME
|
$3.6
|
Private insurers and employers
|
Expand use of nonphysician providers
|
None
|
|
Reform Medicare premiums and cost sharing
|
None
|
|
Increase Medicare premiums for high income beneficiaries
|
$25
|
Medicare beneficiaries
|
Extend Medicare drug rebates to the dual eligible
|
$137.4
|
Pharmaceutical companies
|
Maximize use of generics in Medicare Part D
|
$4.5
|
Pharmaceutical companies
|
Require FEBHP to reduce drug costs
|
$10
|
Pharmaceutical companies
|
Prohibit “pay for delay” tactics which prevent timely introduction of
generics.
|
$5
|
Pharmaceutical companies
|
Reduce exclusivity period for biologics
|
$3.4
|
Pharmaceutical companies
|
Reduce excessive Medicare payments to home health care companies
|
$15
|
Home health care companies
|
Reduce excessive Medicare payments to skilled nursing facilities
|
$15
|
Skilled nursing facilities
|
Reduce excessive Medicare payments for hospital bad debt
|
$10
|
Hospitals
|
Reduce excessive Medicare payments for end stage renal disease
treatment
|
$3.6
|
Dialysis centers
|
Simplify administrative processes
|
$10
|
Intermediaries
|
Better Medicare risk adjustments
|
$5
|
Providers
|
Reduce hospital “disproportionate share” payments for safety net
hospitals
|
$4
|
Hospitals
|
Chase third parties that should reimburse Medicaid
|
$1.8
|
Private insurers and employers
|
Decrease Medicare fraud
|
None
|
|
Tort reform to decrease defensive medicine
|
$5
|
Providers
|
Limit tax exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance
|
None
|
|
Increase cigarette tax and close loopholes
|
$46
|
Smokers, providers
|
A few observations:
1)
Many of the savings claims seem modest, and some
initiatives that would surely lower costs are associated with no claimed
savings.
2)
Initiatives that would increase Medicare costs
(like paying primary care physicians more or eliminating the SGR) are scored as
“$0 savings,” rather than being subtracted. The SGR fix would cost between $93
and $194 billion over 10 years according to the Congressional
Budget Office
3)
Big losers are the pharmaceutical companies,
which would forfeit $160 billion (41% - although drugs represent only 10% of
all medical costs)
4 comments:
After coming off my nephrology rotation, do you think dialysis would be a perfect service to be part of a competitive bidding system?
Yes - I think dialysis should be competitively bid. There is a clear evidence base, and good data on quality. Perhaps those who want to charge more would have the ability to do that but patients would have cost share so that Medicare is "paying for value." OR - part of the bidding would be to guarantee quality and there would be guarantees that would lower rates if a provider failed to meet quality levels.
Even with no patient cost share, why not set the price at the second lowest bid- rather than setting the price as we do now, which leads to too-high margins.
I would be averse to raising copays on dialysis patients because I am not worried about moral hazard in dialysis. It seems to me an inelastic service, so any welfare loss from moral hazard would be minimal with insurance coverage. I simply do not know anyone who wants more dialysis!
Agreed that there is no such thing as recreational dialysis. The choice is either to impose a simgle price - lower than current one -- or if different prices are tolerated provide incentive to use less expensive providers. Given the importance of relationships and geography I agree that dialysis is not a good candidate for differential cost share
Post a Comment