Sep 29, 2017 | Coding, Billing, and Collections, Instruments & Equipment, Laboratory Instruments & Laboratory Equipment, Laboratory Management and Operations, Laboratory Operations, Laboratory Pathology, Laboratory Testing, Managed Care Contracts & Payer Reimbursement
Insurers might use blockchain technology to enable instantaneous verification and interoperability of healthcare records, which could impact clinical laboratory payment systems
Medical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups are keenly aware that connected, secure, interoperable health records are critical to smooth, efficient workflows. However, the current often dysfunctional state of health information technology (HIT) in America’s healthcare system often disrupts the security and functionality of information exchange between hospital and ancillary practice patient record systems.
One solution to this could be blockchain technology. With its big data and abundant touchpoints (typically: insurer, laboratory, physician, hospital, and home care), the healthcare industry could be ripe for blockchain information exchanges. Blockchain might enable secure and trusted linkage of payer, provider, and patient data. But what exactly is blockchain technology and how might it impact your laboratory?
Blockchains Could Transform Healthcare
Blockchain refers to a decentralized and distributed ledger that enables the interface of computer servers for the purpose of making, tracking, and storing linked transactions.
“At its core, blockchain is a distributed system recording and storing transaction records. More specifically, blockchain is a shared, immutable record of peer-to-peer transactions built from linked transaction blocks and stored in a digital ledger,” explained risk-management group Deloitte in a report, which goes on to state:
- “Blockchain technology has the potential to transform healthcare, placing the patient at the center of the healthcare ecosystem and increasing the security, privacy, and interoperability of health data. This technology could provide a new model for health information exchanges (HIE) by making electronic medical records more efficient, disintermediated, and secure.
- “Blockchain relies on established cryptographic techniques to allow each participant in a network to interact (e.g., store, exchange, and view information), without pre-existing trust between the parties.
- “In a blockchain system, there is no central authority; instead, transaction records are stored and distributed across all network participants. Interactions with the blockchain become known to all participants and require verification by the network before information is added, enabling trustless collaboration between network participants while recording an immutable audit trail of all interactions.”
Instant Verifications and Authorizations at Point-of-Care
In a Healthcare Finance News (HFN) article, insurers acknowledged blockchain’s potential for information verification and authorizations in real-time, fast payments, and access to patient databases that could fulfill population health goals.
“Everybody that is part of a transaction has access to the network. There’s no need for an intermediary. Blockchain allows for verification instantly,” noted Chris Kay, JD, Senior Vice President and Chief Innovation Officer at Humana, in the HFN article.
At clinical laboratories, blockchain could enable nearly instantaneous verification of a patient’s health insurance at time of service. Blockchain also could enable doctors to review a patient’s medical laboratory test results in real-time, even when multiple labs are involved in a person’s care.
“Everyone has to have a node on the blockchain and have a server linked to the blockchain. The servers are the ones talking to one another,” explained Kay. “What’s really transformative about this is it takes the friction out of the system. If I see a doctor, the doctor knows what insurance I have because it’s on the network. All this is verified through underlying security software.”
Healthcare Obstacles to Overcome
Breaking down data silos and loosening proprietary holds on information can help healthcare providers prepare for blockchain. However, in our highly regulated industry, blockchain is at least five years away, according to blockchain experts in a Healthcare IT News (HIT News) article.
“We’re hearing that blockchain is going to revolutionize the way we interact with and store data. But it’s not going to happen tomorrow. Let’s find smaller problems we can solve as a starting point—projects that don’t have the regulatory hurdles—and then take baby steps that don’t require breaking down all the walls,” advised Joe Guagliardo, JD, Intellectual Property/Technology Attorney and Chair of the Blockchain Technology Group at Pepper Hamilton, a Philadelphia-based law firm, in the HIT News article.
Healthcoin: Rewarding Patients for Improved Biomarkers
One company has already started to work with blockchain in healthcare. Healthcoin is a blockchain-based platform aimed at prevention of diabetes, heart disease, and obesity. The idea is for employers, insurers, and others to use Healthcoin (now in pre-launch) to reward people based on biomarker improvements shown in medical laboratory tests.
Healthcoin’s Chief Executive Officer Diego Espinosa and Chief Operating Officer Nick Gogerty, founded the company in 2016 after Espinosa, who had been diagnosed with diabetes, made diet changes to reverse it, according to an article in Bitcoin Magazine.
“When I saw my blood labs, the idea for Healthcoin was born—shifting the focus of prevention to ‘moving the needle’ on biomarkers, as opposed to just measuring steps,” Espinosa told Bitcoin Magazine.
Blockchain Provides Security
What does blockchain provide that isn’t available through other existing technologies? According to Deloitte, it’s security and trust.
“Today’s health records are typically stored within a single provider system. With blockchain, providers could either select which information to upload to a shared blockchain when a patient event occurs, or continuously upload to the blockchain,” Deloitte notes. “Blockchain’s security and ability to establish trust between entities are the reasons why it can help solve the interoperability problem better than today’s existing technologies.”
Should Clinical Laboratories Prepare for Blockchain?
It’s important to note that insurers are contemplating blockchain and making relevant plans and strategies. Dark Daily believes the potential exists for blockchain technology to both disrupt existing business relationships, including those requiring access to patient test data, and to create new opportunities to leverage patient test data in real-time that could generate new revenue sources for labs. Thus, to ensure smooth payments, medical laboratory managers and pathology group stakeholders should explore blockchain’s value to their practices.
—Donna Marie Pocius
Related Information:
Blockchain Opportunities for Health Care: A New Model for Health Information Exchanges
Blockchain Will Link Payer, Provider, Patient Data Like Never Before
Old Ways of Thinking Won’t Work for Blockchain, Experts Say
Blockchain-Styled Solutions for Healthcare on the Rise
Can Blockchain Give Healthcare Payers Better Analytical Insight?
Blockchain in Health and Life Insurance: Turning a Buzzword into a Breakthrough
Does Blockchain Have a Place in Healthcare?
Sep 22, 2017 | Coding, Billing, and Collections, Laboratory Management and Operations, Laboratory News, Laboratory Operations, Laboratory Pathology, Managed Care Contracts & Payer Reimbursement
Medical laboratories and pathology groups should expect point-of-service collection strategies to become increasingly important to their overall success
Not only is patient bad debt a growing problem for the nation’s hospitals, but it is now getting national attention within the hospital industry. This is bad news for clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups, because the same trends causing increased patient bad debt at hospitals are doing the same thing within the lab industry.
Much of the blame can be attributed to the increase number of patients with high-deductible health plans (HDHPs). The latest statistics reveal that patients’ out-of-pocket payments now make up 30% of hospital revenues. That is why hospitals desperately need strategies for successfully collecting payments from patients. And they’re not alone.
Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) reported that more than half of all workers have deductibles and out-of-pocket liability of greater than $1,000. That is the reason why clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups also need a formula for collecting the total bill from their patients.
Jase DuRard, Chief Revenue Officer for revenue-cycle technology company AccuReg, told Modern Healthcare the increase in patient self-pay represents a seismic shift from roughly five years ago. At that time, patients paid only 10% of their hospital bills out-of-pocket and insurers paid about 90% of hospital claims.
Patient Responsibility to Blame for Revenue Loss at Nation’s Hospitals
A November 2016 study of 660 hospitals conducted by Crowe Horwath—an international public accounting, consulting, and technology firm—stated that “patient responsibility” was to blame for an overall managed care net revenue decline of 2.5% for outpatient care and 1.4% for inpatient care. Self-pay-after-insurance (SPAI) collection rates have improved slightly during the past 12 months—with the inpatient median rising 0.2% and outpatient median increasing 0.7%.
However, according to the Horwath report, “While seemingly a good sign for providers in the face of rising patient copays and deductibles, slight increases in patient collection rates are not enough to counter the larger increase in self-pay-after-insurance patient responsibilities.”
High-deductible health plans (HDHPs) are becoming the coverage of choice for healthcare consumers struggling to pay medical bills in full. The net effect is that revenues are declining at hospitals, clinical laboratories, and pathology groups, as well as other providers. (Graphic copyright: Consumer Reports.)
In a Modern Healthcare article, Crowe Horwath’s Managing Partner of Healthcare Services, Brian Sanderson, noted, “It’s imperative that healthcare organizations establish effective point-of-service collection programs by training and educating front-line staff.”
Complicating matters is that many patients faced with self-pay are unable to pay their medical bills at time of service.
“Higher deductibles and the increase in patient responsibility are causing a decrease in patient payments to providers for patient care services rendered,” John Yount, TransUnion Vice President for Healthcare Products, told RevCycle Intelligence. “While uncompensated care has declined, it appears to be primarily due to the increased number of individuals with Medicaid and commercial insurance coverage.”
Hospitals Offer Patients Financial Options for Paying Bills
Some hospitals are responding to this trend by rolling out programs that offer patients financing options for their out-of-pocket costs. A recent article in Modern Healthcare outlined the steps taken by Missouri hospital system Mosaic Life Care, as it realized the full impact that $23 million worth of self-pay patient care had on its bottom line. Though the hospital posted record census and gross revenue during the first four months of 2017, net revenue was flat because patient self-pay didn’t keep pace.
“We win all kinds of awards for patient quality, but our revenue cycle didn’t match that performance,” Deborah Vancleave, Mosaic’s Vice President of Revenue Cycle, told Modern Healthcare.
Since then, Mosaic has taken steps to improve the accuracy of information it gets at registration and how it makes determinations on patients’ ability to pay. In addition, it has joined forces with ClearBalance— a provider of patient loan programs to US hospitals and health systems—to offer zero-interest or low-interest revolving lines of credit to patients for their out-of-pocket medical costs.
According to Modern Healthcare, ClearBalance pays hospitals “upfront for the outstanding bills of patients who sign up for their financing program, but the hospital guarantees the money and repays lenders if patients default on their credit lines. The companies make their profit by getting a 10% to 15% fee for the outstanding amount of the loan.”
Medical Laboratories Slow to Respond to Consumer Demand for Price Transparency
As consumers shoulder more of the burden for their healthcare, they also will be demanding more price transparency from medical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups, which so far have been slow to respond to the trend.
“Patients expect cost estimates in every other retail industry, and are starting to demand them in healthcare as well. According to one recent study, for example, more than 90% of patients felt it was important to know their payment responsibility upfront,” TransUnion, a global risk information provider, stated in a white paper outlining the importance of precare cost estimates.
As hospitals struggle to collect from patients saddled with HDHPs, laboratory executives and other healthcare providers should take note. The change in payment mix means the ability to collect payments from patients at the point of service is becoming a critical success factor.
—Andrea Downing Peck
Related Information:
Hospitals Struggle with the Dilemma of Patients Hit by High Deductibles
Kaiser Family Foundation 2016 Employer Health Benefits Survey
The Impact of Consumerism on Provider Revenues
Patient Financial Responsibility On the Rise
Improve Revenue Cycles and Patient Engagement by Delivering Pre-Care Cost Estimates
68% of Consumers Did Not Pay Patient Financial Responsibility
Sep 20, 2017 | Coding, Billing, and Collections, Laboratory Management and Operations, Laboratory News, Laboratory Operations, Laboratory Pathology, Managed Care Contracts & Payer Reimbursement, Management & Operations, News From Dark Daily
To offset the loss of revenue from the price cuts to Medicare Part B clinical laboratory tests, labs will need to aggressively—but wisely—slash costs to balance their budgets
Any day now, Medicare officials will announce the Medicare Part B Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule (CLFS) for 2018. Both the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (OIG) have issued reports indicating that these fee cuts will total $400 million just during 2018, which Dark Daily reported on in July.
Many experienced industry executives expect this to be the single most financially disruptive event to hit the clinical laboratory profession in more than 20 years. This will not only have a substantial negative financial impact on all labs—large and small—but two sectors of the clinical lab industry are considered to be so financially vulnerable they could cease to exist.
At Greatest Risk of Financial Failure are Community Laboratories
The first sector is comprised of smaller community lab companies that operate in towns and rural areas. These labs are at the greatest risk because they are the primary providers of lab testing services to the nursing homes and skilled nursing facilities in their neighborhoods. And because they have a high proportion of Medicare Part B revenue.
Thus, the expected Medicare price cuts to the high-volume automated lab tests—such as chemistry panels and CBCs (complete blood count) that are the bread-and-butter tests for these labs—will swiftly move them from minimal profit margins to substantial losses. Since these labs have a cost-per-test that is significantly higher than the nation’s largest public lab companies, they will be unable to financially survive the 2018 Medicare fee cuts.
The second sector at risk is comprised of rural hospitals and modest-sized community hospitals. What officials at CMS and their consulting companies overlooked when they created the PAMA (Protecting Access to Medicare Act) private payer market price reporting rule is that these hospitals provide lab testing services to nursing homes and office-based physicians in their service areas.
Because of the low volumes of testing in these hospital labs, they also have a larger average cost-per-test than the big public labs. Thus, the 2018 cuts to Medicare Part B lab test prices will erode or erase any extra margin from this testing that now accrues to these hospitals.
Rural and Small Community Hospitals Rely on Lab Outreach Revenue
The financial disruption these Medicare lab test price cuts will cause to rural and community hospitals is a real thing. These hospitals rely on outreach lab test revenues to subsidize many other clinical services within the hospital. One rural hospital CEO confirmed the importance of lab outreach revenue to her organization. Michelle McEwen, FACHE, CEO of Speare Memorial Hospital in Plymouth, N.H., spoke to The Dark Report in 2012 about the financial disruption that was happening when a major health insurer excluded her hospital’s laboratory from its network.
Speare Memorial is a 25-bed critical access hospital in the central part of the state between the lakes region and the White Mountain National Forest. McEwen was blunt in her assessment of the importance of clinical laboratory outreach revenues to her hospital. “The funds generated by performing these [outreach] lab tests are used to support the cost of providing laboratory services to all patients 24/7, including stat labs for emergency patients and inpatients,” McEwen explained. “These funds also help support other services in the hospital where losses are typically incurred, such as the emergency room and obstetric programs.” (See “Critical Access Hospitals Losing Lab Test Work,” The Dark Report, April 2, 2012.)
For the second consecutive year, Lab Quality Confab (LQC) is offering an extended session on clinical laboratory accreditation and certification in New Orleans on October 24-25. CMS has indicated it will participate in this year’s session. It was an historic first for the clinical laboratory industry when last year’s Lab Quality Confab convened a panel that included experts in CLIA laboratory inspection and compliance from the four deeming organizations. From left to right: Moderator Nora L. Hess, MBA, MT(ASCP), PMP, Senior Consultant, Operations Management, Chi Solutions, Inc., Ann Arbor, Mich.; Kathy Nucifora, MPH, MT(ASCP), Director of Accreditation, COLA, Columbia, Md.; Stacy Olea, MBA, MT(ASCP), FACHE, Executive Director of Laboratory Accreditation Program, The Joint Commission, Oakbrook Terrace, Ill.; Randall Querry, Accreditation Manager, Clinical, American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA), Frederick, Md.; Robert L. Michel, Editor-in-Chief, The Dark Report, Spicewood, Texas; and Denise Driscoll, MS, MT(ASCP)SBB, Senior Director, Laboratory Accreditation and Regulatory Affairs, College of American Pathologists, Northfield, IL. (Photo by Linda Reineke of Riverview Photography. Copyright: The Dark Report.)
All Medical Laboratories Will Suffer Financial Pain from Medicare Price Cuts
But it is not just community lab companies and rural hospitals that are at risk of financial failure as the Medicare Part B cuts are implemented by CMS on Jan. 1, 2018. Any clinical laboratory serving Medicare patients will experience a meaningful drop in revenue. Many larger hospital and health system laboratories are recasting their financial projections for 2018 to identify how big a drop in revenue they will experience and what cost-cutting strategies will be needed to at least break even on their lab outreach business.
This explains why the first big trend of 2018 will be substantial revenue cuts from the Medicare program. It also explains why the second big trend of 2018 will be smart cost-cutting as labs attempt to balance their books and lower spending proportional to the reduced income they project.
Labs Have a Decade of Successful Cost-Cutting, More Cuts are Difficult
Aggressive cost-cutting, however, puts the nation’s medical laboratories at risk for a different reason. For the past decade, most well-run labs have already harvested the low-hanging fruit from obvious sources of cost reduction. They installed latest-generation automation. They re-engineered workflows using the techniques of Lean, Six Sigma, and process improvement.
During these same years, most medical laboratories also reduced technical staff and trimmed management ranks. That has created two new problems:
- First, there are not enough managers in many labs to both handle the daily flow of work while also tackling specific projects to cut costs and boost productivity. Basically, these labs are already at their management limit, with no excess capacity for their lab managers to initiate and implement cost-cutting projects.
- Second, technical staffs are already working at near peak capacity. Increased use of automation at these labs has reduced lab costs because labs were able to do the same volume of testing with fewer staff. However, the reduced staffs that oversee the lab automation are now working at their own peak capacity. Not only are they highly stressed from the daily routine, they also do not have spare time to devote to new projects designed to further cut costs.
Each Year Will Bring Additional Cuts to Medicare Part B Lab Prices
This is why all clinical laboratories in the United States will find it difficult to deal with the Medicare Part lab test fee cuts that will total $400 million during 2018. And what must be remembered is that, in 2019 and beyond, CMS officials will use the PAMA private payer market price reporting rule to make additional fee cuts. Over 10 years, CMS expects these cuts will reduce spending by $5.4 billion from the current spending level.
Taken collectively, all these factors indicate that many medical laboratories in the United States will not survive these Medicare fee cuts. The basic economics of operating a clinical laboratory say that less volume equals a higher average cost per test and higher volume equals a lower average cost per test.
Medical Labs with Highest Costs Most at Risk of Failure from Price Cuts
What this means in the marketplace is that labs with the highest average cost per test make the least profit margin on a fee-for-service payment. The opposite is true for labs with the lowest average cost per test. They will make a greater profit margin on that same fee-for-service payment.
Carry this fundamental economic principle of medical laboratory operations forward as Medicare Part B lab test fee cuts happen in 2018. Labs with the highest average cost per test will be first to go from a modest profit or break-even to a loss. As noted earlier, the clinical lab sectors that have the highest average cost per test are smaller community labs, along with rural and community hospitals. That is why they will be first to go out of business—whether by sale, bankruptcy, or by simply closing their doors.
Learning How to Cut Lab Costs While Protecting Quality
Every pathologist and lab administrator seeking the right strategies to further cut costs in their lab, while protecting quality and enhancing patient services, will want to consider sending a team from their laboratory to the 11th Annual Lab Quality Confab that takes place in New Orleans on October 24-25, 2018.
Anticipating the greater need for shrewd cost-cutting that also protects the quality of the lab’s testing services, this year’s Lab Quality Confab has lined up more than 51 speakers and 39 sessions. Of particular interest are these extended workshops that come with certifications:
- Lean Six Sigma Yellow Belt Training and Certification, led by Maureen Harte, MT(ASCP), LSSBB, Master Black Belt, of HartePro Consulting.
- Mastering Strategic Leadership in Pursuit of Clinical Lab 2.0, led by Karan Arora, Senior Global Marketing Director, Digital Health, Abbott Laboratories.
- Getting More from Lean for Lab Leaders: Henry Ford Production System Lean Gold Certification, led by Richard J. Zarbo, MD, DMD, System Chairman, Pathology and Laboratory Medicine at Henry Ford Hospital.
Sessions will address proven ways to:
- Use real-time analytics to improve workflow in molecular laboratories;
- Introduce automation in microbiology; as well as
- New breakthroughs in core lab automation; and
- Success stories in reducing lab test utilization.
Lab Quality Confab is recognized for its use of lab case studies—taught by the nation’s early adopter lab organizations. Certification classes are available to gain proficiency in the use of Lean methods and Six Sigma tools, such as:
Given the strong interest in smart ways to cut costs, boost productivity, and balance revenue-versus-cost, registrations for this year’s Lab Quality Confab is running at a record pace. The full agenda can be viewed at this link (or copy this URL and paste into your browser: http://www.labqualityconfab.com/agenda).
Of special interest to lab leaders preparing to stay ahead of the financial impact of the Medicare Part B fee cuts, Lab Quality Confab offers deep discounts for four or more attendees from the same lab organization. This allows your lab’s most effective cost-cutters to see, hear, and learn together, so that when they return they can get a flying start helping you align your lab’s costs to the expected declines in revenue that will happen on Jan. 1, 2018.
Reserve your place today and register now http://www.labqualityconfab.com/register.
—Robert L. Michel, Editor-in-Chief
Related Information:
Information, Agenda, and to Register for Lab Quality Confab Taking Place on October 24-25, 2017
In 2017, to Offset Declining Reimbursement and Shrinking Budgets, Savvy Clinical Laboratories Are Using LEAN to Improve Service and Intelligently Cut Costs
Lean-Six Sigma Medical Laboratories Begin to Innovate in Ways That Add Value to Physicians, Payers, and Patients
An Interview with Robert Michel, Editor-in-Chief of The Dark Report
At Lab Quality Confab in New Orleans this Week, Speakers Addressed Major Issues Faced by Medical Laboratories, including the Need for Labs to Deliver More Diagnostic Value to Physicians
Sep 13, 2017 | Coding, Billing, and Collections, Laboratory News, Laboratory Operations, Laboratory Pathology, Laboratory Testing
While multiple studies show reference pricing is an effective approach to reduce the cost of testing and procedures, medical laboratories and consumers alike must continue to focus on quality to ensure positive outcomes
The Dark Report in its September 2016 issue highlighted how reference pricing is positioned to become one of the biggest contributors to price erosion medical laboratories and pathology groups have faced in more than a decade. The issue featured details of a 2016 study published in JAMA Internal Medicine outlining how Safeway’s use of reference pricing for clinical laboratory tests decreased laboratory spending for itself and employees by 32% between 2011 and 2013—a total savings of more than $2.5-million.
That issue of The Dark Report also highlights a similar use of reference pricing by CalPERS (California Public Retirement System) that involved hip and knee replacement surgeries. CalPERS saw a 30% reduction in the cost of these surgeries after 12 months.
These highly publicized efforts have fueled interest in how reference pricing might work for other businesses, insurers, and the US government. The 2014 Protecting Access to Medicare Act (PAMA) is already collecting private payer rates paid to laboratories for tests. This data will then be used to create new rate-based fee schedules in 2018.
Speaking with Joseph Burns, Managing Editor of The Dark Report, about the outcome and potential rise of reference pricing, study author James C. Robinson, PhD, of University of California Berkeley noted that, “Any discussion about how to contain inappropriate healthcare utilization is challenging. By contrast, significant price variation is the low-hanging fruit. Employers would much rather save money by having patients travel to cheaper clinical labs than get into some esoteric discussion about whether a clinical procedure is appropriate or not.”
Quality is Key to Both Avoiding Price Erosion and Improving Patient Outcomes
There’s no question that reference pricing has forever changed the landscape of clinical laboratory pricing. Paired with increased pricing transparency and easier access to pricing information through platforms such as Castlight Health, Healthcare Blue Book, and Change Healthcare Corporation, consumers and businesses can quickly compare prices across a range of service providers.
However, in April, Leah Binder, President and CEO of The Leapfrog Group, published an article in Forbes that highlights the potential downsides to price shopping for laboratory testing and medical care.
“Differences among providers in quality can eliminate any cost advantages,” stated Binder in the Forbes article. “Some purchasers assume they can get around this problem by targeting reference pricing only for procedures that don’t vary in quality. When quality is all the same, decisions can pivot on price alone. Unfortunately, no such procedures exist. Extreme variation is the hallmark of our healthcare system.”
As reference pricing continues to force more consumers to shoulder a portion of medical laboratory testing costs, prices for more expensive laboratories are likely to continue eroding unless they can convince consumers that their services are higher quality or produce better results. (Graphic copyright: California Public Retirement System.)
Binder cites a study in Spine Journal’s April 2017 issue regarding diagnostic error rates for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The study involved a 63-year-old woman seeking relief from low back pain. Over a three-week span, she received 10 different scans. These scans resulted in 49 different findings. Of these findings, none were repeated across all 10 scan reports provided to her physician.
“As a result,” the study’s authors concluded, “where a patient obtains his or her MRI examination, and which radiologist interprets the examination, may have a direct impact on radiological diagnosis, subsequent choice of treatment, and clinical outcome.”
Binder reinforced this, stating, “Purchasers should still pursue reference pricing and try to incorporate considerations of utilization and quality to the extent they have the data. Never assume any procedure is like a commodity—largely the same quality everywhere.”
High-Cost Medical Laboratories Likely to Face a Decision Between Volume or Price Erosion
A 2016 study by Health Care Cost Institute found the average pricing of 240 common medical services varied by as much as 200% between states. Within states, prices fluctuated as much as 300%.
Thus, for pathology groups and medical laboratories in the upper percentiles for their region, referencing pricing is likely to impact volume. Even if adoption of reference pricing by payers or self-insured business groups remains stable, price cuts due to PAMA loom on the horizon. As reported by Dark Daily in December 2016, price cuts to the Part B clinical laboratory fee schedule could add up to $400 million in reduced Medicare payments in 2018 alone.
This is particularly troublesome for hospital laboratory outreach programs, where Medicare patients commonly represent 40% to 70% of outreach lab volumes. The combination of reduced volume and reduced Medicare pricing could have dire financial consequences.
It will remain essential for medical laboratories to differentiate their services from those of lower-cost competitors to avoid volume and price erosion. Continuing to optimize test utilization, improving laboratory efficiency, and emphasizing the value of services rendered will help to further strengthen lab positions and reduce the impact of coming change.
—Jon Stone
Related Information:
Price Shopping Could Cut Employer Health Costs by 20%, but There’s a Catch
Variability in Diagnostic Error Rates of 10 MRI Centers Performing Lumbar Spine MRI Examinations on the Same Patient Within a 3-week Period
The Striking Variation of Commercial Healthcare Prices
Some States Pay Twice the Price for Health Care, Finds New Report
Association of Reference Pricing for Diagnostic Laboratory Testing with Changes in Patient Choices, Prices, and Total Spending for Diagnostic Tests
Coming PAMA Price Cuts to Medicare Clinical Lab Fees Expected to Be Heavy Financial Blow to Hospital Laboratory Outreach Programs
Volume XXIII No. 12 – September 6, 2016
Consumers Now Use Medical Cost Websites to Price Shop for Clinical Pathology Laboratory Tests and Other Medical Procedures
Jun 2, 2017 | Coding, Billing, and Collections, Laboratory Operations, Laboratory Pathology, Laboratory Testing, Management & Operations
Aetna expects 75% to 80% of its medical spending will be value-based by 2020
Many pathologists and medical laboratory executives may be surprised to learn how quickly private health insurers are moving away from fee-for-service payment arrangements. According to Forbes, the nation’s largest health insurance companies now associate nearly 50% of reimbursements they make to value-based insurance initiatives.
This is a sign that value-based managed care contracting continues to gain momentum. And that interest remains strong in this form of reimbursement, which associates payment-for-care to quality and rewards efficient providers.
UnitedHealth Group (NYSE:UNH) and Aetna (NYSE:AET) are the fastest adopters of value-based payment models, with Anthem (NYSE:ANTM) close behind, the Forbes article noted.
Moreover, UnitedHealth and Aetna intend to increase their percentage of value-based contracts. For example, Aetna, which now ties 45% of its reimbursements to value, says its goal is to have 75% to 80% of its medical spending in value-based relationships by 2020, Healthcare Finance News pointed out.
These compelling data should motivate pathology groups and medical laboratory leaders to adopt strategies for value-based contracting. That’s because payment schemes based on clinical laboratory performance will likely grow quickly, as compared to traditional fee-for-service reimbursement models, which are being phased out.
Aetna: Lowering Acute Admits
Aetna and other insurance companies are rewarding in-network hospitals, medical laboratories, and physicians who help them keep their customers healthy.
“One way we measure our success is by how well we are able to keep our members out of the hospital and in their homes and communities,” stated Mark Bertolini, Aetna’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, in the Healthcare Finance News article.
“I think value-based contracting is going to continue to be encouraged by even the current [federal] administration as a way of getting a handle on healthcare costs,” he continued. In fact, Aetna lowered acute admissions by 4% in 2016 and reduced readmission rates by 27%, reported Healthcare Finance News.
UnitedHealth: Outpatient Care a Focal Point
Meanwhile, UnitedHealth Group spends $52 billion (or about 45%) of a $115 billion annual budget on value-based initiatives, Forbes noted.
In March, UnitedHealth Group joined Optum, its health services company, to Surgical Care Associates, an ambulatory (outpatient) surgery provider with 205 sites nationwide.
As surgical cases (such as total joint replacements) continue their migration to ambulatory surgery center sites, UnitedHealth Group expects this merger to offer value to patients, payers, and physicians, a statement pointed out.
“We’ve been able to drive down on a per capita basis inpatient, and inside that we’ve focused a lot in those early years around the conversion of inpatient to outpatient. And I think this is sort of the continued evolution as we focus more on the side of service to how do we get that outpatient into the ambulatory setting,” said Dan Schumacher, UnitedHealthcare Chief Financial Officer, in the Healthcare Finance News story.
The graphic above is from a slide presentation given by Eleanor Herriman, MD, MBA, Chief Medical Informatics Officer with Viewics, a provider of big-data management solutions for hospitals and clinical laboratories. Because of healthcare’s drive toward value-based payment models, clinical labs must focus on “operational efficiencies” and “testing utilization management,” and be prepared to “demonstrate value of testing to payers and health organizations,” Herriman’s presentation notes. (Image copyright: Viewics, Inc.)
Also, in 2016, OptumRx (pharmacy benefit management) announced partnerships with Walgreens and CVS Pharmacy. The joint pharmacy care agreements are intended to improve patient outcomes, connect platforms for health data leverage, and address costs of care, UnitedHealth Group stated in dual press releases (Walgreens and CVS) announcing the strategic partnerships.
Anthem: Planning for 50% Value-Based Care by Next Year
For its part, Anthem now has 43% of its operating budget focused on shared savings programs. Furthermore, the company reportedly has a plan to associate at least 50% of its budget with value-based care by 2018.
“When you combine this with our pay for performance programs, we will have well over half our spend in collaborative arrangements over the next five years,” Jill Becher, Anthem Staff Vice President of Communications, told Forbes.
Clinical Laboratories Need Value-Based Strategy
The rise of value-based care should motivate clinical laboratory leaders to create and implement novel and responsive strategies as soon as possible. Without a focus on value, labs could be denied entry into provider networks.
In a Clinical Laboratory Daily News article, Danielle Freedman, MD, noted that value-based clinical laboratory strategies could entail the following:
- Working with physicians on appropriate retesting intervals;
- Adding clinical decision support tools; and
- Vetting testing requests.
Freedman is Director of Pathology at Luton and Dunstable University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust in the United Kingdom (UK).
Clinical laboratory executives and pathology practice administrators should take note of the fact that some large healthcare insurers already have nearly half of their reimbursement under value-based contracts, with plans to grow their investment in value-based relationships in the future.
Already facing the challenges of narrowing healthcare networks, it is imperative that lab leaders also get their lab team to focus on value (and not just volume). It can be expected that, as health insurers look to partner with labs in different regions and communities, they will want medical laboratories that are creative in developing high-value diagnostic testing services.
—Donna Marie Pocius
Related Information:
United Health, Aetna, Anthem Near 50% of Value-Based Care Spending
Aetna, UnitedHealth Show Increasing Appetite for Value-Based Care Contracts
Aetna Premier Care Network Plus Helps Reduce Costs for National Employers and Members Through Simple Access to Value-Based Care
Surgical Care Associates/OptumCare to Combine
OptumRx and Walgreens to Expand Consumer Choice, Reduce Costs, and Improve Health Outcomes
OptumRx and CVS Pharmacy to Expand Consumer Choice, Reduce Costs, and Improve Health Outcomes
“V” is for Value, Not Volume
Advanced Laboratory Analytics—A Disruptive Solution for Health Systems
May 31, 2017 | Coding, Billing, and Collections, Laboratory Management and Operations, Laboratory News, Laboratory Operations, Laboratory Pathology, Laboratory Testing
As the latest attempts to replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA) generate increased debate over protections for pre-existing conditions, Kaiser Family Foundation highlights that using pre-ACA underwriting guidelines would result in an estimated 52-million Americans unable to obtain coverage
With the American Health Care Act (AHCA) clearing the House on the way to the Senate, the public and media are scrutinizing key points. One highly-contested topic is insurance availability for people with pre-existing conditions.
Unfortunately, as most pathologists and medical laboratory managers know, media coverage—whether from the left or the right—tends to play up points that are sensational and resonate with their core audiences, but often fail to provide a full and accurate picture of the subject being covered. Thus, it is refreshing when useful information and insights about aspects of healthcare in America are presented in a fair and measured way.
Biased media coverage is certainly true on the issue of health insurance coverage for individuals who are considered to have pre-existing conditions. However, as a December 2016 Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) study highlights, protections for pre-existing conditions were not always guaranteed. In fact, if insurers currently used the medical underwriting practices in place prior to implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or ACA (also known as Obamacare), the study estimates that 52-million adults under the age of 65 would likely be denied coverage on the individual market.
According to US Census Bureau figures, at the start of 2017 there were 324-million Americans. Using KFF’s figures, this means that 16% of the population are considered to have pre-existing conditions.
Who is Impacted by the Individual Market?
KFF was quick to point out that many of the 52-million people with pre-existing conditions have always qualified for insurance through their employer or a public program such as Medicaid. The foundation’s estimates show that in 2015, only 8% of the non-elderly population relied on individual market insurance plans, such as those plans offered on the ACA healthcare exchange.
The graph above shows the percentage of American’s with pre-existing conditions who “most likely” would have been denied insurance in the Individual Marketplace prior to the Affordable Care Act (ACA). According to the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF), while the proposed American Health Care Act (AHCA) does not enable insurance companies to deny coverage for these conditions, coverage premiums could increase if a state seeks a community rating waiver. (Image copyright: Kaiser Family Foundation.)
For many patients, obtaining health insurance through individual plans is often temporary and driven by a life event, such as job loss, divorce, marriage, or reaching the threshold of an age bracket for coverage through other programs. However, for some individuals—such as the self-employed, low wage earners, or early retirees—the individual market is the only option for obtaining health insurance. For this population, pre-ACA underwriting made coverage difficult to obtain and more expensive for patients with pre-existing conditions.
Pre-Existing Conditions Cover More than Just Conditions
Study authors also note that the estimate of 52-million individuals considered to have pre-existing conditions is conservative due to other factors considered in the underwriting process. Insurance companies also based denial and uprating on a range of other factors—such as:
- Prescription medication;
- Doctor visits or procedures;
- Mental health conditions; and
- Family history.
They list a table of 30 conditions, including pregnancy and eating disorders, that might qualify as a pre-existing condition along with a list of 40 medications that might also result in a denial of coverage.
Despite the already growing list of reasons for insurance denials, there’s yet another list with job occupations that might result in ineligibility. This means that even healthy individuals could find themselves without coverage due to how they earn their income.
Neither medications nor professions were considered in KFF’s estimates due to a lack of data.
Uncertainty and Instability in Individual Market Pricing
A 2001 KFF report showed yet another hurdle faced by enrollees in the individual market.
In this KFF study, researchers created seven hypothetical applicants and compared their conditions to the underwriting practices at major insurance companies. Even if applicants cleared the underwriting process, the premiums offered by the various insurance companies differed greatly. Prices for each applicant fluctuated between hundreds and thousands of dollars per month when coverage was available. Benefits changed between plans as well, with many plans exempting coverage for pre-existing conditions.
Even with insurance, coverage for maternity care, prescriptions, or mental health fell behind the options available through most group plans. Yet, these conditions are some that might facilitate the events mentioned in the 2016 study for entering the individual market.
In the study’s conclusion, the authors found, “Insurance carriers seek to avoid covering people who have pre-existing medical conditions, and when they offer coverage, often impose limitations on the coverage they sell. This can price insurance out of the reach of many consumers in poor health or create significant gaps in coverage that could result in being underinsured.”
Decreased Demand for Clinical Laboratory Tests
Both studies show similarities to many of the concerns cited for the new AHCA. Time Magazine recently published a list of pre-existing conditions under the new proposal. The list bears striking similarity to the list offered in the 2016 KFF study. Speaking with Time, Cynthia Cox, Associate Director at KFF said, “There are plenty of other conditions, even acne or high blood pressure, that could have gotten people denied from some insurers, but accepted and charged a higher premium by other insurers.”
If fewer people can access affordable preventative care, prescriptions, and medical laboratory services, disease diagnosis is delayed. In a 2013 KFF study into the impact a lack of insurance has on healthcare, study authors noted, “Consequently, uninsured patients have increased risk being diagnosed in later stages of diseases, including cancer, and have higher mortality rates than those with insurance.”
Supporters of the proposed AHCA legislation are quick to point out that it does not eliminate protections for people with pre-existing conditions. It simply provides a process for state governments to provide an alternative solution to the federal framework and regulations.
Regardless of the outcome, KFF’s studies make it clear that a decrease in access to insurance means patients skip medical procedures they do not see as essential or cannot afford. This could result in decreased demand for screening and prevention diagnostics, such as those offered by pathology groups and clinical laboratories.
—Jon Stone
Related Information:
An Estimated 52 Million Adults Have Pre-existing Conditions That Would Make Them Uninsurable Pre-Obamacare
50 Health Issues That Count as a Pre-existing Condition
The Uninsured a Primer 2013 – 4: How Does Lack of Insurance Affect Access to Health Care?
How Accessible Is Individual Health Insurance for Consumers in Less-Than-Perfect Health?
GOP Health Bill Leaves Many ‘Pre-existing Condition’ Protections Up to States
Key Facts About the Uninsured Population
Gaps in Coverage Among People with Pre-Existing Conditions
