Regulating the medical loss ratio: implications for the individual market.
(49/252)
OBJECTIVE: To provide state-level estimates of the size and structure of the US individual market for health insurance and to investigate the potential impact of new medical loss ratio (MLR) regulation in 2011, as indicated by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). STUDY DESIGN: Using data from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, we provided state-level estimates of the size and structure of the US individual market from 2002 to 2009. We estimated the number of insurers expected to have MLRs below the legislated minimum and their corresponding enrollment. In the case of noncompliant insurers exiting the market, we estimated the number of enrollees that may be vulnerable to major coverage disruption given poor health status. RESULTS: In 2009, using a PPACA-adjusted MLR definition, we estimated that 29% of insurer-state observations in the individual market would have MLRs below the 80% minimum, corresponding to 32% of total enrollment. Nine states would have at least one-half of their health insurers below the threshold. If insurers below the MLR threshold exit the market, major coverage disruption could occur for those in poor health; we estimated the range to be between 104,624 and 158,736 member-years. CONCLUSION: The introduction of MLR regulation as part of the PPACA has the potential to significantly affect the functioning of the individual market for health insurance. (+info)
Medicare program; changes to the Medicare Advantage and the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Programs for contract year 2012 and other changes. Final rule.
(50/252)
This final rule makes revisions to the Medicare Advantage (MA) program (Part C) and Prescription Drug Benefit Program (Part D) to implement provisions specified in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (collectively referred to as the Affordable Care Act) (ACA) and make other changes to the regulations based on our experience in the administration of the Part C and Part D programs. These latter revisions clarify various program participation requirements; make changes to strengthen beneficiary protections; strengthen our ability to identify strong applicants for Part C and Part D program participation and remove consistently poor performers; and make other clarifications and technical changes. (+info)
How the Affordable Care Act will strengthen the nation's primary care foundation.
(51/252)
Medicare program; hospital inpatient value-based purchasing program. Final rule.
(52/252)
This final rule implements a Hospital Inpatient Value-Based Purchasing program (Hospital VBP program or the program) under section 1886(o) of the Social Security Act (the Act), under which value-based incentive payments will be made in a fiscal year to hospitals that meet performance standards with respect to a performance period for the fiscal year involved. The program will apply to payments for discharges occurring on or after October 1, 2012, in accordance with section 1886(o) (as added by section 3001(a) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (collectively known as the Affordable Care Act)). Scoring in the Hospital VBP program will be based on whether a hospital meets or exceeds the performance standards established with respect to the measures. By adopting this program, we will reward hospitals based on actual quality performance on measures, rather than simply reporting data for those measures. (+info)
Policy implications of first-dollar coverage: a qualitative examination from the payer perspective.
(53/252)
OBJECTIVES: Immunization against potentially life-threatening illnesses for children and adults has proved to be one of the great public health successes of the 20th century and is extremely cost-effective. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act includes a number of provisions to increase coverage and access to immunizations for the consumer, including a provision for health plans to cover all Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices-recommended vaccines at first dollar, or without cost sharing. In this study, we examined payers' perspectives on first-dollar coverage of vaccines and strategies to improve vaccination rates. METHODS: This was a qualitative study, using a literature review and semistructured expert interviews with payers. RESULTS: Four key themes emerged, including (1) the cost implications of the first-dollar change; (2) the importance of examining barriers to children, adolescents, and adults separately to focus interventions more strategically; (3) the importance of provider knowledge and education in increasing immunization; and (4) the effect of first-dollar coverage on those who decline vaccination for personal reasons. CONCLUSIONS: We determined that, while reducing financial barriers through first-dollar coverage is an important first step to increasing immunization rates, there are structural and cultural barriers that also will require collaborative, strategic work among all vaccine stakeholders. (+info)
Making the case for talking to patients about the costs of end-of-life care.
(54/252)
The impact of comparative effectiveness research on interventional pain management: evolution from Medicare Modernization Act to Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.
(55/252)
The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) was established by the Affordable Care Act of 2010 to promote comparative effectiveness research (CER) to assist patients, clinicians, purchasers, and policy-makers in making informed health decisions by advancing the quality and relevance of evidence concerning the manner in which diseases, disorders, and other health conditions can effectively and appropriately be prevented, diagnosed, treated, monitored, and managed through research and evidence synthesis. The development of PCORI is vested in the Medicare Modernization Act (MMA) and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The framework of CER and PCORI describes multiple elements which are vested in all 3 regulations including stakeholder involvement, public participation, and open transparent decision-making process. Overall, PCORI is much more elaborate with significant involvement of stakeholders, transparency, public participation, and open decision-making. However, there are multiple issues concerning the operation of such agencies in the United States including the predecessor of Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), the Agency for Healthcare Policy and Research (AHCPR), AHRQ Effectiveness Health Care programs, and others. The CER in the United States may be described at cross-roads or at the beginnings of a scientific era of CER and evidence-based medicine (EBM). However the United States suffers as other countries, including the United Kingdom with its National Health Services (NHS) and National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), with major misunderstandings of methodology, an inordinate focus on methodological assessment, lack of understanding of the study design (placebo versus active control), lack of involvement of clinicians, and misinterpretation of the evidence which continues to be disseminated. Consequently, PCORI and CER have been described as government-driven solutions without following the principles of EBM with an extensive focus on costs rather than quality. It also has been stated that the central planning which has been described for PCORI and CER, a term devised to be acceptable, will be used by third party payors to override the physician's best medical judgement and patient's best interest. Further, stakeholders in PCORI are not scientists, are not balanced, and will set an agenda with an ultimate problem of comparative effectiveness and PCORI that it is not based on medical science, but rather on political science and not even under congressional authority, leading to unprecedented negative changes to health care. Thus, PCORI is operating in an ad hoc manner that is incompatible with the principles of evidence-based practice.This manuscript describes the framework of PCORI, and the role of CER and its impact on interventional pain management. (+info)
The pragmatist's guide to comparative effectiveness research.
(56/252)
Following an acrimonious health care reform debate involving charges of "death panels," in 2010, Congress explicitly forbade the use of cost-effectiveness analysis in government programs of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. In this context, comparative effectiveness research emerged as an alternative strategy to understand better what works in health care. Put simply, comparative effectiveness research compares the efficacy of two or more diagnostic tests, treatments, or health care delivery methods without any explicit consideration of costs. To economists, the omission of costs from an assessment might seem nonsensical, but we argue that comparative effectiveness research still holds promise. First, it sidesteps one problem facing cost-effectiveness analysis--the widespread political resistance to the idea of using prices in health care. Second, there is little or no evidence on comparative effectiveness for a vast array of treatments: for example, we don't know whether proton-beam therapy, a very expensive treatment for prostate cancer (which requires building a cyclotron and a facility the size of a football field) offers any advantage over conventional approaches. Most drug studies compare new drugs to placebos, rather than "head-to-head" with other drugs on the market, leaving a vacuum as to which drug works best. Finally, the comparative effectiveness research can prove a useful first step even in the absence of cost information if it provides key estimates of treatment effects. After all, such effects are typically expensive to determine and require years or even decades of data. Costs are much easier to measure, and can be appended at a later date as financial Armageddon draws closer. (+info)