Over at Kaiser Health News, staff writer Julie Appleby produced an illuminating story about ongoing consolidation among hospitals and physician groups, an unintended consequence of the country’s last attempt to contain medical costs—the push to managed care in the 1990s. But Appleby reports that the medical mergers taking place, particularly in the Mid-Atlantic region, are part of a trend resulting in fewer independent hospitals and doctors that “will only grow because of the health reform law.”
It was good to see Appleby’s story, because the media pretty much gave hospitals a bye during the reform debate, instead making insurance companies the saga’s primary villains. Quietly, though, it seems the hospitals were up to the same thing as the insurers—organizing themselves into larger and larger groups with tons of market power to keep insurance premiums in the stratosphere. Appleby quotes Martin Gaynor, an economist at Carnegie Mellon (a new voice in the health reportage, which is always good to see):
All the evidence very clearly shows consolidation leads to higher prices. Guess who pays for those higher prices? One might think insurers would eat them. No, they don’t. It goes into higher premiums. When premiums go up, employers just pass them right on to their workers, either in the form of lower wages or reduced benefits.
Appleby tells us that health reform will give hospitals even more reason to swallow up their rivals, like United Health Group. She shows how that is taking place in the Washington, D.C. area, where mighty Johns Hopkins Hospital snagged a hospital in suburban Maryland and is now waiting for approval to add Washington’s Sibley Memorial to the family. If that happens, there will be only two independent hospitals left in the District. Washington’s other hospitals are owned by MedStar Health in Columbia, Maryland, or by other big systems.
Appleby reported that the consolidation bug has infected the provider marketplace in other places like Washington state, where insurers are “playing hardball,” says Chrissy Yamada, who heads the finance department at Evergreen Hospital Medical Center. The hospital remains independent for now. Yamada says the insurers are demanding rate decreases and backing their demands with threats. Earlier this summer in New York City, Continuum Health Partners Care, a big system controlling such hospitals as Beth Israel and New York Eye & and Ear Infirmary, battled Aetna over prices. Continuum asked for a forty percent increase in payments; Aetna said no, and told its policyholders that they could no longer go to these facilities. Later, Aetna apparently backed down, and the combatants reached an agreement.
What does this mean for the premiums charged by Aetna et al, and for price competition? It seems to me it’s a case of the irresistible force meeting the unmovable object. Affordable health care? For whom?
Regarding hospitals "pretty much getting a bye from the "media". Not exactly true. Neither did the industry get off scot-free from health reform. Hospitals, and other post-acute providers, face steep, ongoing direct and indirect cuts from Medicare that will result in billions being diverted from hospital coffers over the next 10 years. Could this play into the consolidation "trend"?
CMS Actuaries Suggest House Productivity Policy Could Hurt Access
Inside Health Policy, November 26, 2009
Hospitals, nursing homes and home health agencies will be hard pressed to increase the productivity of care givers to the level necessary to generate billions of dollars in savings contained in the House-passed health reform bill and could eventually be forced to turn away Medicare patients, according to CMS' non-partisan actuaries. The finding has fueled efforts by House Republicans to quash the House bill's proposed Medicare cuts.
The CMS actuaries, who had been generating spending models for various policies over the last year, were asked by House Ways and Means Republicans to turn over their estimates of various provisions of the House bill (HR 3962), including provisions that impose permanent negative market basket updates and a new productivity factor on acute care hospitals, nursing homes and home health agencies as part of a plan to save the federal government $282 billion over 10 years.
This is nearly half of the total net savings of $571 billion which the House lays on the doorstep of Medicare, according to the actuaries.
The idea is that if you ask these industries, year after year, to improve provider productivity to match that of the wider economy, their costs will increase faster than Medicare payments and "eventually something has to give," explains an expert in the field who spoke with Inside CMS on background.
"This is a permanent proposal to cut the market basket and increase productivity. Eventually, hospitals would be in a very tough position, and eventually would have to get out of the business," the source said.
Under two modeling methods, the CMS actuary found that the multi-factor productivity of hospitals was less than one half of economy-wide productivity. The findings were based on a recent analysis of the policy over a 10-year period ending in 2005.
The basis of the analysis focuses on the fact that, while the manufacturing industry is able to make consistent large improvements in productivity, the service sector cannot. "The provision of most health services tends to be very labor-intensive. Economy-wide productivity gains reflect relatively modest improvements in the service sector together with much larger improvements in manufacturing," a footnote to the actuaries memo states.
"Except in the case of physician services, we are not aware of any empirical evidence demonstrating the medical community's ability to achieve productivity improvements equal to those of the overall economy," the memo states.
The actuaries predicted a dim outlook for the three industries affected by the provision in the memo, requested by Ways and Means ranking Republican Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) and widely distributed prior to the House passage of the bill.
"Providers for whom Medicare constitutes a substantive portion of their business could find it difficult to remain profitable and might end their participation in the program (possibly jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries)," the memo states.
Furthermore, the actuaries at CMS determined that the bill as a whole "would not have a significant impact on future health care cost growth rates" with the exception being the cuts to institutional providers.
The question is whether Congress could really hold off and watch the cuts unfold for a decade and not intervene. The actuaries don't take a position on that, but they do suggest that the ability of the industry to absorb t
#1 Posted by Brett Coughlin, CJR on Wed 6 Oct 2010 at 12:04 PM
Sheesh.
Copy and pasted stuff in comment threads always make me think that some lobbyist's assistant is getting carpel tunnel from all that ctrl-c and ctrl-v'ing.
#2 Posted by F. Murray Rumpelstiltskin, CJR on Wed 6 Oct 2010 at 03:24 PM