The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission released its recommendations for changes to Medicare, and they aren’t just playing around at the margins.
Key recommendations include –
–instituting a pay-for-performance scheme for hospitals, doctors, and home-care facilities (no details provided…)
–extend the moratorium on building specialty hospitals for an additional 18 months, which would end the prohibition at the end of 2006
–reduce hospital reimbursement below the overall increase of the market-basket 3.3% to just 2.9%.
Hospitals will certainly breathe a bit easier with the extension of the moratorium on construction, at least those hospitals facing competition from privately-funded ambulatory surgical, cancer, and orthopedic centers.
As suggested here before, prepare for a significant change in government-funded health care programs. And, prepare for the downstream effect of these changes as providers seek to recoup lost revenue from private payers.

Consolidation in geographic areas appears to increase hospital costs, without any apparent impact on quality. The latest issue of Health Affairs includes a report on an analysis that proves what many have thought for some time – the growth of health systems (as they acquire or eliminate independent hospitals) is associated with higher costs.
Note the wording – “is associated with”, not “results in”. Not that I’m trying to be circumspect, far from it – but the study stops short of proving a definitive linkage between consolidation and increased cost.
However, the study does conclude with the statement, “This analysis suggests that consumers were worse off as a result of hospital consolidations.”
The pace of consolidation has slowed, from over 300 hospitals merged or acuired in in 1997, to just over 100 in 2002. Thus, the consolidation wave may have peaked. That does not mean the impact has; oligopolies tend to test their pricing power carefully; the increased cost noted in the article may not be the final word.
One point that goes unmentioned – in all the rhetoric surrounding the typical hospital merger/acquisition, you always hear about how joint purchasing, contracting, and integration of IT and administration is going to save money.
When? and for whom?

The newly elected government has big plans for Medicare, Medicaid, and other entitlement programs. Well, perhaps we should say not-as-big plans.
In California HealthLine (an excellent daily news source) yesterday, the following appears:
“White House officials and congressional budget leaders last week indicated that President Bush in his budget request to Congress “will try to impose firm, enforceable limits on the growth of federal benefit programs” while continuing to “give priority to military operations and domestic security over social welfare programs,” the New York Times reports.”
To those readers who have been with us since the beginning (I know, only two plus months ago…), this will come as no surprise. Quite simply, we cannot afford tax cuts, guns, and health care; and the two that appear to be winning are tax cuts and guns.
Where does that leave Medicare?
“Bush has said that his new Medicare law will hold down costs, but a 2004 actuaries report — signed by three Cabinet secretaries, including Thompson — concluded that the program’s long-term liabilities had increased by more than one-third, or $17 trillion, in a single year.” The article went on to note that Bush claimed the $500 billion Medicare Drug bill will save money by “paying for medicine that would prevent the need for expensive heart surgery”.
Sounds like pharma’s DTP (direct to presidents) campaign is working…
But seriously, it is puzzling that the federal executive and legislative branches are focused on Social Security reform when Medicare is significantly more impaired.

Business Insurance magazine notes that health care costs are now over 15% of GDP – following is an excerpt from their article on same:
” In 2003, health expenditures in the United States climbed 7.7%, to $1.7 trillion, down substantially from a 9.3% growth rate in 2002, according to the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
Still, because health costs rose much more than the overall growth in the economy, health spending accounted for a record 15.3% of the GDP in 2003, up from 14.9% in 2002.
Of the nation’s $1.7 trillion health care tab, private payers, such as health insurers and self-funded employers, paid out $913.2 billion in 2003, an increase of 8.6%.
Hospital spending, which accounts for about one-third of national health care expenditures, climbed 6.5% in 2003, down from 8.5% in 2002. Spending growth for prescription drugs slowed significantly, with costs rising 10.7% in 2003, down from 14.9% in 2002. CMS attributed the slowdown in prescription drug costs increases to several drugs losing their patent protection and lower-cost generics becoming available and the expanded use of tiered co-payment plans, which give employees a financial incentive to use lower-cost generics. ”

Matthew Holt is a health care consultant, interested observer, and man of strongly held opinions, especially concerning health care and the payment for same. His latest missive is worth a read, regardless of your political leanings or views on socialized v. market-based health care.
Mr. Holt brings up several intriguing points around
— cost v. outcomes;
— the role of government v private payers; and
— who pays for innovation.
If you are pressed for time, print it for plane or train reading – it will get you thinking…

There are rumblings that a large number of Republican representatives are pushing to reform the Medicare Prescription Drug Program. Hallelujah.
There are several problems with this ill-conceived and poorly-executed program. They are all related to a core issue – the plan is voluntary and appears to be structured to promote adverse selection; that is, only the people that need drugs will sign up for it. Here’s why.
1. The deductible is very low – $250 annually – and cannot be changed by any health plan.
2. Monthly premiums are estimated to be $35 per senior.
3. There is a late enrollment penalty (that only starts in May of 2006) that is 1% per month. To quote Bob Laszewski of Health Policy and Strategy Associates, you can “wait 30 months until you can make money off the drug plan and it will only cost you $10.50 more per month than if you had enrolled at the beginning.”
What does all this add up to?
Well, seniors will run the numbers. They will calculate what they are paying for drugs today, then add up program’s the monthly premium cost, deductible, their co-pay (25% of the cost of their drugs), and compare the two. Seniors that will “make” money will enroll, seniors that won’t benefit, will stay away.
This is not insurance per se; it is just a terrible business proposition.
Bob’s prediction is not many health plans are going to jump at the opportunity to sell these programs; he’s undoubtedly right.
So, the news that some Congressman have decided they don’t like the program is welcome news. It is somewhat distressing, but wholly unsurprising, that they waited until after the election to have this “ah-hah” moment.