Date post: | 30-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | alden-barrera |
View: | 47 times |
Download: | 0 times |
© Mark McClellan. All rights reserved. No part of this presentation may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without permission in writing.
Financing LTSS:Health Care Reform Issues
Mark McClellan, MD, PhDDirector, Engelberg Center for Health Care Reform
Senior Fellow, Economic StudiesLeonard D. Schaeffer Chair in Health Policy Studies
Brookings Institution
2
Topics
• Budget and Health Care Fundamentals
• Health Care Reform Options: Traditional Cost Control vs Financial Alignment
• Connecting LTSS Support to Health Care Reform
3Source: 2011 CBO Long-Term Budget Outlook
Spending on health care driving federal deficits
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
19
70
19
74
19
78
19
82
19
86
19
90
19
94
19
98
20
02
20
06
20
10
20
14
20
18
20
22
20
26
20
30
20
34
20
38
20
42
20
46
20
50
20
54
20
58
20
62
20
66
20
70
20
74
20
78
20
82
20
86
% o
f G
DP
Fiscal Year
CBO Long-Term Federal Spending Projections as a Percentage of GDP, Extended Baseline Scenario, 1970-2087
Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and Exchange Subsidies Outlays
Social Security Outlays
Other Noninterest Outlays
Source: Congressional Budget Office, June 2011 and June 2012 Long-Term Budget Outlook.
4
Unprecedented slowdown in Medicare spending growth required under current law
Growth and Projected Growth in Per Capita Medicare Spending in Excess of Economic Growth*
Period Excess Rate of Spending Growth (% points)
1975-2007 2.4
1980-2007 2.2
1985-2007 1.4
1990-2007 1.6
2012-2021 -0.4
2020-2021 0.8
*Data are from the CBO Long-Term Budget Outlook 2011. Excess rate of spending growth measures the amount by which health spending per person exceeds GDP per capita, with adjustment for demographic factors such as the aging of the population.
Never achieved before
• Assumes physician payment reductions (SGR) and slowdowns in payment growth in ACA remain in effect
• If current law is maintained, the Independent Payment Advisory Board may not be important
• Doesn’t include recent savings proposals
5
Medicare Reform Options:“Traditional” Payment Reductions Don’t Help LTSS• Reduce payments in traditional Medicare
– Part B and Part D drugs– SNFs, home health, and other providers
• Subsidy Reductions– Across the board (eligibility age increase, higher share of B/D
premiums)– Income-related (not that much money)
• Medigap and Copay Reforms
6
Addressing Health Care Cost Challenges
• Traditional Approach (Balanced Budget Act of 1997, “scored" $716B health care savings in Affordable Care Act)• Squeeze payment rates - lower margin per service• Leads to reduction in costs per service but also cost shifting,
increased volume, increased intensity, quality and access issues
• Continued tightening of Part B/Medicaid drug pricing, specialty service reimbursement
• Continued obstacles to coverage of valuable but poorly-reimbursed services
• Alternative Approach: Reform care with aligned financing• Identify ways to reduce overall costs while improving outcomes• Reform financing to support care reforms – with accountability
for better results, lower costs• Delivery reform + supporting financial reform
7
Opportunities for real health care reform
Prevention
Management of chronic diseases and care coordination to prevent complications and avoidable costs
Management of advanced disease to achieve better patient experience
Personalized medicine: patient-focused support, based on targeting treatments to the individual patients for whom they work best – not traditional health care delivery
… Not easy to achieve real reforms in health care delivery
…. Policy changes can help improve care – and LTSS
Changes in health care delivery to improve health and lower costs:
8
Infrastructure: Better Electronic Data, Measures of Quality and Cost, Evidence
Provider Payment Reform
Benefit Reform
Insurance Choice Reform
“Bending the Curve” While Improving Value
Full-text available at: http://www.brookings.edu/health
Includes:• Additional context• Specific sub-
recommendations• Breakdown of legislative vs.
regulatory actions
9
Measurement of quality and cost enables support for valuable reforms in health care delivery: pay more for measurably better care, lower costs
Shared savings, shared risk, and redirection of payments to accountable care
ACA encourages Medicare to adopt a range of accountable care reforms – following private-sector initiatives
Reform payments based on value: accountable care
10
ACO implementation accelerating across the country
{Not exhaustive}
ACO implementation is now accelerating across the country
*More than 350 self-identified ACOs*
Private Sector
= Beacon Communities= PGP Transition, MHCQ
Public Sector
= Pioneer
= MSSP
= Private Sector ACO’s
= *195 new ACOs participating in the MSSP
11
Moving forward: alignment across payment reforms
Medical Homes for Primary Care
• Supports care coord, prevention, chronic disease mgmt, and other key primary-care activities
• Rewards reductions in primary care-related cost trends
Payment Bundling for Specialty/Intensive Care and Postacute
Care• “Specialty home” or
episode payments for specialty services
• Combine payments across providers/ settings to promote coordination
Accountable Care (System-wide)• Reimburses population-level improvements in
quality and overall per-capita costs• Encourages coordination across the continuum of
care• Can reinforce/ support “piecewise” accountable-
care reforms
• Common core performance measures across reforms and a rapid but feasible pathway for improving measures and the underlying outcomes of care
• Timely and consistent methods for sharing underlying data with providers to improve performance
• Evolve and integrate rapid evaluation methods based on common measures
12
Review of current-law Medicaid reform for dual-eligible beneficiaries
CMS has outlined 3-year demos for states to test coordinated delivery and payment models for duals
1. Capitated Integration Model: three-way contract between state, CMS and health plan – Plan would receive blended
prospective payment to provide a comprehensive set of services
– Allows passive enrollment with opt-out available on month-to-month basis
2. FFS Integrated Model: states would be responsible for duals’ care coordination in return states would be eligible for retrospective performance payment if quality and cost targets are met
State proposals for launch in 2013 (3) or 2014 (16)
E.g. Massachusetts proposal:• Fully-integrates the delivery and financing of
Medicare and Medicaid services for dual-eligibles ages 21-64
• Uses combined Medicare and Medicaid funding to contract with Integrated Care Organizations (ICOs)–ICOs receive blended prospective
payments to provide integrated, comprehensive care for duals under are 65
• ICOs will contract with providers functioning as PCHMs and arrange for all covered hospital, specialty and LTSS
• Enrollment will be voluntary and facilitated by neutral enrollment brokers
• Eligible members will have wide choice of ICOs and ability to change plans or opt out at any time
13
Reform benefits for greater value
Medicare Part D Experience
• Broad range of benefit design and coverage options allowed (subject to minimum standards for “actuarial equivalence”)
• Comparative cost and quality information available
• Fixed subsidies based on income and health status: strong incentives for beneficiaries to choose lower-cost plans that met their needs
• Steps to address adverse selection: subsidies; risk adjustment; reinsurance; risk corridors; late enrollment penalties
• Around 40% lower costs than projected• Beneficiaries chose “tiered” benefits
that enabled much more savings based on their drug choices, not traditional Medicare insurance design
14
15
Reform benefits for greater value
Medicare Part D “Exchange” Experience
• Broad range of benefit design and coverage options allowed (subject to minimum standards for “actuarial equivalence”)
• Comparative cost and quality information available
• Fixed subsidies based on income and health status: strong incentives for beneficiaries to choose lower-cost plans that met their needs
• Steps to address adverse selection: subsidies; risk adjustment; reinsurance; risk corridors; late enrollment penalties
• 45% lower costs than projected• Beneficiaries chose “tiered” benefits
that enabled much more savings based on their drug choices, not traditional Medicare insurance design
Implications for Health Care Reform
• More attention to steps to address adverse selection, especially without strong mandate
• Expect more comprehensive application of benefit tiers, and more changes in behavior
• Opportunities to align payment and benefit reform
16
Medicare Reform Options: Defined Contributions?
• Key issues:• Support/defined contribution level: based on average plan cost?
low-cost plan? Traditional Medicare?• Indexing: with health care costs? GDP? Inflation?
• Similar approaches in other programs?• ACA exchange subsidies: defined contributions based on second
least-expensive plan• Medicaid capitated contracts?
• Supporting steps• Meaningful price transparency: comparable information on
premiums, total out-of-pocket payments for common services• Comparable quality measures matched to price measures• Flexibility with minimum standards in benefit design• Addressing adverse selection
17
Implications for LTSS Financing Reform
• Movement in health care financing away from FFS and toward person-level payments tied to quality likely to be helpful for LTSS financial support, diminishing pressures to reduce LTSS rates and shift costs
• Need relevant performance measures for LTSS impact (e.g.,patient functional outcomes, caregiver experience measures)
• Risk adjustment, other steps to address adverse selection (diminishes LTSS insurance market problems)
• LTSS Financing Ideas Can Align with Health Care Reform• Needs-based LTSS payments (i.e., risk-adjusted perdiem
payments as in CLASS) or personal savings could complement reformed health care financing and delivery
• Better LTSS performance measures could improve competition and reduce costs in providing LTSS