Author Archives: Margo Bergman

About Margo Bergman

I am many things. I am a Ph.D. Economist with an emphasis in indivdiual behavior, experimental and compuational economics. I am a Master of Public Health in Public Health Genetics. I am a mom of two wonderful boys, the younger of whom I am lucky enough to be at home with right now.

Subtitle E – Ensuring Medicare Stability

I’m desperate to finish reading this thing. I can totally understand why the Supremes didn’t want to touch it.

Section 3401 of the PPACA alters Market Baskets and incorporates Productivity Improvements. These things have to do with some complicated accounting that the government does to determine how they pay for things. Now, I’m not an account, but the gist of this section is that the government wants to pay less for higher productivity. Hey – don’t we all?!?

Section 3402 (notable for its brevity in contrast to the verbosity of the previous section) make temporary adjustments to the calculation of Part B premiums by making the income thresholds for these premiums the same as the ones in 2010 for the period 2011-2019.

Section 3403 (amended by section 10320 to change its name) sets up an Independent Medicare Advisory Payment Board. This advisory board is supposed to help reduce per capita spending by making recommendations on how to do so. It links the ideal growth of Medicare to the growth of GDP, which is interesting. It also gives a list of procedural rules on how changes to Medicare, as advised by the Board, should be implemented.

 

And that’s all they got for ensuring Medicare Stability. Leeches and blood-letting anyone?

 

Leave a Comment

Filed under General

Subtitle D

Subtitle D is about Medicare Part D. Maybe they were being subtly ironic, but maybe they just didn’t notice. Who knows!

Section 3301 looks at the Medicare Coverage Gap Discount Program. This is the so called “Medicare Doughnut Hole” where after a certain point, participants were expected to pay 100% of drug costs, up to a catastrophic point. This section changes that to only 50%.

Section 3302 improves the determination of Medicare Part D’s low income benchmark premium. That’s pretty much what it does.

Section 3303 will allow a waiver of monthly premium for those people who are subsidy eligible, if the premium is de minimis, which is fancy Latin for trifling or minimal. It doesn’t actually say how much that it is though.

Section 3304 makes special rules for widows and widowers regarding eligibility for low-income assistance which basically extends the eligibility period for a year after their death.

Section 3305 improves information for subsidy eligible individuals reassigned to prescription drug plans. Specially formulary differences, and coverage determination.

Section 3306 increases funding and outreach for low-income programs.

Section 3307 improves formulary requirements for Medicare Part D, specifically requiring the inclusion of anticonvulsants, antidepressants, antineoplastic, antipsychotics, antiretroviral and immunosuppressants for treatment of transplant rejection. I wonder why there aren’t more pro-drugs. They seem so….negative.

Section 3308 reduces Part D subsidies for higher income individuals.

Section 3309 eliminates cost-sharing for dual eligible individuals (specifically here dual eligible for Medicaid and Medicare).

Section 3310 reduces wasteful dispensing of outpatient prescription
drugs in long-term care facilities. Or at least it tries to by allowing drugs to be prescribed in weekly or daily doses, rather than 30 days.

Section 3311 tries to improve Medicare prescription drug plans by creating a complaint system for problems with this plan.

Section 3312 creates uniform exceptions and appeals process for prescription drug plans including an Internet Website and a toll-free telephone number!

Section 3313 sets up another study! Of Prescription Drug plans!

Section 3314 allows for the inclusion of costs incurred by AIDS drug assistance programs and the Indian Health Service towards the annual out-of-pocket threshold.

Section 3315 was repealed and replaced. So no section 3315 for you!

 

 

Leave a Comment

Filed under General

Fashion Friday

I’m doing a guest post, on my friend Angélique’s blog – Sappho’s Torque.

I moved to Seattle almost exactly 4 years ago. One of the hardest changes, in addition to leaving my friends, was getting used to the new fashion of the city. I was used to sundresses and sandals, having lived in Houston since I was 4. Seattle has those – for about 2 months between July 5th and September 5th. The rest of the year is rainy.

It’s been quite a struggle to adjust to my new surroundings – I’ve purchased leggings to wear under my beloved dresses, tried (and failed) to embrace pants, and purchased at least three pairs of waterproof boots.

But the biggest change has been embracing the hoodie. I mentioned it rains – right? And people don’t use umbrellas (the rain is almost never that heavy). So instead, they wear an assortment of waterproof gear from REI. Or, apparently, if they are born here, they just walk out in the rain like my 20 month old son. I wasn’t, hence the hoodie. And they usually wear black. Never been a big fan of black for clothes.

I saw a hoodie at REI three years ago that I just loved. It was pink, and fuzzy on the inside, and beautiful and wonderful. I had just bought a bunch of other jackets so being a good economist, we didn’t buy it then. But I thought about it. My 10 year old son, who was 7 then, said repeatedly, “Don’t think about the pink fuzzy jacket!” Months went by. I would tease him about thinking about the pink fuzzy jacket. Finally, for my birthday, I received it, my beloved pink fuzzy jacket. It’s made me feel a little bit more like me as I wander through this dark and rainy land.

5 Comments

Filed under General

Subtitle C – Provisions relating to Part C

What a ridiculous title. They are clearly running out of steam here in the PPACA.

Ok, sorry for the delay. This document is really dull. Plus, I had other work to do. But mostly, this is dull. I really hope you appreciate the sacrifice I’m making for you all here. J

Section 3201 was repealed and replaced before it even got started. Oh boy! It relates to Medicare Advantage (MA) payments. This is a private insurance plan that provides both Medicare Part A (the hospital portion) and Part B (the doctor portion). The government pays the insurance company, which can then set the rules for out-of-pocket costs and referrals. Not everyone is eligible for these types of plans. Section 3201 adjusts the payments for it.

Section 3202 – Benefit Protection and Simplification – this specifically calls out a few benefits (such as chemotherapy, renal dialysis, ad skilled nursing) and limits the ability of plans to alter the cost-sharing for these benefits. It also adjusts the rebates for certain plans, and identifies some quality categories that adjust the percentage of rebates that a plan will receive.

Section 3203 regarding the Application of Coding Intensity During MA Payment Transition – this section adjusts some of the payment requirements of the MA plan.

Section 3204 changes the disenrollment period from MA to regular Medicare to the first 45 days of the calendar year, from whatever complicated version it was before. Since 3204 is supposed to simplify things.

Section 3205 extends certain specialized MA plans for special needs individuals. They were supposed to have transitioned by 2013, so I guess that’s done.

Section 3206 extended Reasonable Cost Contracts to January 1, 2013. I think we can all agree that Reason has fled Washington.

Section 3207 is a technical correction. The government calls a technical!

Section 3208 makes permanent the Senior Housing Facility Demonstration Project.

Section 3209 gives the DHHS the ability to deny MA plan bids.

Section 3210 creates new standards for Medigap plans. The new standards will attempt to use nominal cost sharing to encourage use of physician services.

Leave a Comment

Filed under PPACA

Accuracy! Of Payments!

Because Payment accuracy is important. Kidding aside, it is important that we pay what we owe, and not more.

Section 3131 concerns Home Health Care, including a Study! Of Important Things!

Section 3132 is about Hospice care. With more studies, to ensure accuracy.

Section 3133 is about improvements to the Medicare Disproportionate Share Hospital Payments (discussed here: Medicare Disproportionate Share). They will look at empirical data for this. WOW!

Section 3134 looks at Misvalued codes in the Physician Fee Schedule. It identifies them, and validates the correct ones. And then presumably, but not terribly explicitly, fixes that.

Section 3135 is the Modification of Equipment Utilization Factor for Advanced Imaging Services. One thing that means is that if you have an imaging session, and they look at more than one part of your body, they will be able to charge 50% less for each successive part, rather than 25% less.

Section 3136 is a Revision in the Payment for Power-Driven Wheelchairs. You guessed it – The Scooter Store! It changes the appropriate section to indicate complex, rehabilitative, rather than just any old thing. We’ll see if this impacts their ads.

Section 3137 is the Hospital Wage Index Improvement. It actually takes things like geographical location into account. Amazing!

Section 3138 discusses the Treatment of Certain Cancer Hospital. Basically Cancer is expensive, so specialty hospitals might need more money. They will look into that.

Section 3139 is about Payment for Biosimilar Biological Products. These are things like insulin, interferon, growth hormone, etc. These are made within living cells, such as bacteria, or yeast. Because of this, they cannot be exactly reproduced, like a chemical drug. Therefore, you shouldn’t always substitute, like you should be able to for any other brand name and generic drug. This section just makes this explicit, and deals with how to properly pay for these.

Section 3140 is the Medicare Hospice Concurrent Care Demonstration Project. At this point, it is over, so, yeah.

Section 3141 is entitled APPLICATION OF BUDGET NEUTRALITY ON A NATIONAL BASIS IN THE CALCULATION OF THE MEDICARE HOSPITAL WAGE INDEX FLOOR. It is a short paragraph, but it would take a whole blog itself to explain well. In short, it has to do with the way they calculate whether something is budget neutral (doesn’t raise or lower the budget), and what year’s dollars to apply. Fun stuff.

Section 3142 is about a Study! On Urban Medicare Dependent Hospitals. Remember we discussed the Rural ones here: Rural Protections

Section 3143Protecting Home Health Benefits. They are protected. Rest easy.

Leave a Comment

Filed under PPACA

Rural Protections!

Is that for rural areas, or against them? JOKING!

Section 3121 extended the Outpatient Hold Harmless Provision of Medicare, which protects hospitals in case they provide higher cost treatments, or in the case of rural hospitals, don’t have much ability to lower certain costs. (For one year – don’t know if it is still in effect).

Section 3122 extended some outpatient payments in a similar way for rural area labs. (For one year – don’t know if it is still in effect).

Section 3123 extended a Community Hospital Demonstration Program for 5 years (so still in effect)

Section 3124 extended the Medicare-dependent hospital program, which is exactly what it sounds like.

Section 3125 improves Medicare payments to low-volume hospitals.

Section 3126 improves the demonstration project about community health integration models in rural counties by removing restrictions on the number of counties eligible.

Section 3127 creates a study on whether Medicare payments for rural providers are sufficient.

Section 3128 corrects a previous law that forgot to put “101%” in front of “the reasonable costs” Oops!

Section 3129 extends the Medicare Rural Hospital Flexibility Program by changing the law to specifically help those hospitals prepare for changes stemming from the PPACA.

That’s it, rural folks. Enjoy!

1 Comment

Filed under PPACA

Are we there yet?

No kids, no we aren’t. We are approaching halfway though, so that’s something to write home about.

The next Subtitle – B – Improving Medicare for Patients and Providers. You might ask yourself, weren’t we already doing that? Apparently not.

Poor section 3101 was repealed before she even got to become enacted. And it was apparently about physician pay. Sorry docs!

Section 3102 has a really long title. Extension of the Work Geographic Floor and Revisions to the Practice Expense Geographic Adjustment Under the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule. To summarize – they are changing how much they increase the payments to physicians who live in more expensive parts of the country. And then they will study whether they are doing the right thing on that. (You’ll be happy to know that this was continued in the recent “Fiscal Cliff” law.

Section 3103 extended for 1 year the exceptions process for Medicare therapy caps. But that was until December 31, 2010. So it could be moot at this point. Same for Section 3104, the extension of payment for technological component of certain physician pathology services. And 3105 – Ambulance Add-Ons. 3106 – extension of certain payment rules for long-term care hospital services and of moratorium on the establishment of certain hospitals and facilities. That one at least got until 2012. (All extended in the “Fiscal Cliff” Bill. )

3107 – Physican Fee Schedule Mental Health Add-On, we don’t know if you are still going strong. (You are! “Fiscal Cliff” Law to the rescue.)

3108 allows Physician Assistants to order post-hospital extended-care services.

3109 exempts certain pharmacies from accreditation requirements. These are pharmacies that don’t do much Medicare billing or only provide durable medical equipment, orthotics or prosthetics. So they don’t have to provide all of the things that other Medicare pharmacies would have to.

3110 gives a special enrollment period for Medicare Part B to Disabled Tricare Beneficiaries. They are very particular about stating that this is only open to you once in a lifetime. Tricare, for those of you who don’t know, is the military health insurance.

3111 pays for Bone Density Tests.

3112 takes $22,290,000,000 out of the Medicare Improvement Fund. No explanation given there.

3113 is a demonstration project for complex laboratory testing namely gene protein expression, topographic genotyping, or a cancer chemotherapy sensitivity assay.

3114 improves access for nurse-midwife services by increasing payment from 65% to 100%. You might be wondering why Medicare pays for nurse-midwives in the first place, but you would then be reminded that Medicare covers people under 65 who have been determined to have a disability.

Leave a Comment

Filed under PPACA

Patient Care Models

Part 3 of Title III of the PPACA creates incentive for the development of new Patient Care Models. I bet you didn’t know that people already had models of how to care for you, or that perhaps they weren’t good enough. But they do – and given the GDP spent on health care in the US versus the outcomes measures, they aren’t good enough.

Section 3021 creates Centers of Innovation within Medicare and Medicaid. It’s important to keep in mind that we spend ~23% of the US Federal Budget on these two services (2011), and that this is estimated to double in the next 15 years. Innovation is key – and the bureaucracy of a large government is not often known for its incentive in this department. As with all innovation in health care, this center is supposed to come up with ways to make care cheaper while maintaining or increasing quality. You know, no pressure.

One interesting note is that this section explicitly calls out the idea of moving away from a fee-for-service basis to a salary one. Certainly an interesting, and likely, outcome, but also controversial. Most everything else is your current chestnut of efficiencies, best practices identification and dissemination, and team-based care.

Section 3022 creates something called a Medicare Shared Savings program. This creates accountable care organizations out of partnerships between providers, hospitals, suppliers, and other interested stakeholders. The organizations have to have a minimum of 5,000 Medicare beneficiaries. Assuming they meet the quality standards for care, if they can save money doing so, then the ACO is eligible for an unspecified share of the cost-savings.

Section 3023 pilots a program of cost bundling. This is another switch from a fee-for-service model to something called an episode of care. An example of an episode of care would be: Patient feels dizzy and short of breath, goes into the ER. Patient is determined to be having a heart attack, and has a cardiac procedure performed, spends a few days recovering in the hospital. Follow up care is then provided by the surgeon and the cardiologist. Rather than paying for every person, room, and supply individually, the hospital would receive a single payment for that person’s care for this incident, and then dole out the necessary payments to staff and suppliers. By statue, it includes 3 days before the hospitalization, the duration of the stay, and 30 days following.

Clearly this type of payment plan is a departure from the way people are used to doing things, both the patient and the provider. It requires the providers to be paid by the hospital – true in some cases, but certainly not all.

Section 3024 is a pilot program to increase home-based care and change payment structures to benefit it.

Section 3025 introduces a program to reduce hospital readmissions by creating financial incentives for the hospitals to lower them. It’s a stick, rather than a carrot, in that the hospitals will get less money for more readmissions, rather than more money for fewer readmissions.

Section 3026 creates a carrot incentive for increased community-based care transitions programs.

Section 3027 extends the Gainsharing Demonstration of the Deficit Reduction of 2005. You know exactly what that is, right? Oh, you don’t. Well, maybe I’ll tell you. Ok, Ok, I’ll tell you. Related to the Accountable Care Organizations, it is direct payments to physicians and practitioners for improving quality and efficiency. It originally ended in 2009, but is now good through at least 2013.

Leave a Comment

Filed under PPACA

Debt Ceiling Silliness

Since we didn’t drive off the ‘fiscal cliff’ we are treated to another ridiculous gambit on the part of our elected officials – the ‘debt ceiling’. For those of you not in the know, the debt ceiling is a limit placed on public borrowing, by Congress. We, and by we, I mean they, reached their current limit on December 31, 2012. Since the government currently doesn’t have enough revenue to pay its designated expenditures, it has to borrow.

A Brief Foray into Macroeconomics

Each year the Federal government has a certain amount of revenue, in the form of taxes and fees, and a certain amount of expenditures, in form of salaries, purchases, and transfer payments (things like Medicare and Social Security). If the first number is bigger than the second, the governments is said to have a surplus. If, and this is more common, the second number is bigger, then the government has a deficit. The government borrows the money to make up the deficit. The total amount of deficits minus surpluses over time is called the debt, or the national debt.

Where did the concept of the debt ceiling come from? Before 1917, every time the Congress chose to spend more than it made, it would create a statute that authorized the borrowing. This became somewhat tedious as the numbers got bigger, along with the country, so instead it choose to authorize a certain spending limit (kind of like your credit card, if it was that super awesome American Express made out of Unobtanium or something). They then had to increase the debt limit every time we, and I still meant they, went passed that. It’s also worth noting that most other countries don’t have debt limits.

But see, here is the thing. The debt ceiling is usually reached AFTER a budget is passed. So, Congress says, “I want to spend 2 Trillion dollars”. Everyone agrees, President signs, world keeps turning. Then, at some point, they realize, “Oops, we only made 1.5 Trillion this year!”. So they go to borrow the rest. Unless they have told themselves “No more borrowing! Live within your means!” After, of course, they already allocated their spending. So then people use it as a tool to make some vacuous point about fiscal responsibility that no elected official (with rare exceptions) has ever thought applied to themselves. And then they threaten to, or actually, shut down the government, causing regular Joes and Joettes (but not themselves, as there are provisions that ensure that the Congress is still paid if the government shuts down) to miss paychecks, and have to take on more debt themselves, national parks to close, and generally make a mess of everyone else’s life while causing no trouble for themselves.

That isn’t to say that we shouldn’t have serious and difficult conversations about what the role of government is in society, what tax rates are appropriate, what incentives should people have in a capitalistic society, and what checks on the natural tendency to self-centeredness should be in place. But having it when the clock is ticking on whether the custodian at the Submarine Force Library and Museum gets to eat next week isn’t the right way to make a complicated decision.

 

2 Comments

Filed under Economics

Sorry for the break

I’ll have to remember that the fall doesn’t lend itself well to writing. Between all of the holidays, and the doldrums of the weather in my city, it’s hard to get motivated.

I’ve decided to try for a more realistic schedule of twice a week. The PPACA is likely to be with us for a while, so it’s probably ok to actually post, rather than trying to kill myself and not post at all.

Part 2 of Title III of the PPACA calls for a National Strategy to Improve Health Care Quality. It should be obvious that the easiest way to cut costs is to just provide substandard care. It should be equally obvious that is a ridiculous idea. Recognizing this, we must continue to improve quality while reducing cost.

Section 3011 calls for the creation of mechanisms to identify what would improve the quality of health care in the US. It also calls for improving the outcomes, efficiency and patient-centeredness of health care. It is an assumption that these things will relate positively to quality, but it seems a reasonable one.

Section 3012 creates an interagency working group on health care quality. The agencies are listed in the Act, so I won’t repeat them here, but they include everyone you would think of, like the CDC, FDA, and CMS (Medicare and Medicaid) and some agencies you probably didn’t know existed, like the Agency for HealthCare Research and Quality (a real stretch for those guys to be in on this J ) , and some you might not have thought of being involved, like the Federal Bureau of Prisons. They have been meeting since 2010, and you can find their reports here: http://www.ahrq.gov/workingforquality/

Section 3013 calls for the development of a measure of quality of healthcare. The measure should be based on health outcomes, management of care, quality of information and decision making, meaningful use of health technology, safety, efficiency, equity, patient experience, and innovation.

Section 3014 also discussed quality measurements. In this case, it solicits stakeholder input. Not sure why that needed its own whole section, but whatever.

Section 3015 creates a framework to collect the necessary data for these measures and then disseminate it to the public.

Not a lot of substance there, but then it was intended to create working groups. The reports those groups produced contain much more information, but I’ll let you read those yourself.

Leave a Comment

Filed under PPACA