Home » Newsroom » Voices in Healthcare

Voices in Healthcare


Lift the smoking age to 21 state-wide

I was thrilled to read in the current issue of CommonWealth Magazine that the city of Salem has joined a growing number of Massachusetts cities and towns to advance public health efforts in their communities by raising the legal age for cigarette purchases to 21*. The Massachusetts Hospital Association (MHA) fully supports making 21 the minimum age for cigarette purchases state-wide, a move that is currently under consideration in New Jersey, even though an earlier effort to do so here in the Bay State was not successful.

Increasing the age at which individuals can buy cigarettes – or any tobacco product – is a common sense way to promote population health. According to the US Surgeon General, almost no one starts smoking after age 25, and almost 90% of smokers started by age 18.

Massachusetts has a strong legacy of leadership in this area – the town of Needham, Massachusetts is widely recognized as the first municipality to boost its smoking age to 21 – back in 2005. The results have been dramatic: the smoking rate in Needham is now less than half the Massachusetts average of 18 percent.

Massachusetts hospitals have also led the way to serve and protect their communities by curbing tobacco use both inside and outside their facility walls.

In 2011, MHA launched a statewide tobacco free initiative and now 76% of our member hospitals completely ban the use of tobacco products anywhere on their campuses. In addition, some hospitals in Massachusetts, as well as MHA, have taken their commitment to public health a step beyond instituting a tobacco-free campus and have adopted tobacco-free hiring policies as well. MHA stopped hiring tobacco users as of January 1, 2011. These facilities have all earned inclusion on MHA's Tobacco-free Honor Roll.

Tobacco use remains the number one cause of preventable death in the nation, and hundreds of millions of dollars are lost each year in lost productivity due to illness and premature death caused by tobacco consumption. Raising the legal purchasing age across Massachusetts would be another good step in the right direction.

* (Along with Needham and Salem, the Massachusetts Municipal Association reports communities that have raised the legal cigarette purchasing age to 21 include Arlington, Ashland, Canton, Dedham, Dover, Hudson, Norwood, Reading, Scituate, Sharon, Wakefield, Wellesley and Winchester; and communities that raised the minimum age to 19 are Brookline, Belmont, Newburyport Sudbury, Walpole, Watertown and Westwood.)

Mass Insight Poll Shows Progress and Work to Be Done

There's some encouraging news as well as a call to action for insurers and providers from the recent public opinion poll conducted by Mass Insight. The poll was the subject of a story in The Boston Globe last weekend.

First, the good news. I was heartened to see that Massachusetts residents are feeling less burdened by healthcare costs compared to last year, and that they continue to support the state and the federal government's healthcare reform laws. MHA has always maintained that persistent efforts by hospitals to become lean and more efficient in providing high-quality care would eventually begin to bend the cost curve downwards. We knew reforming a major part of our state's economy wouldn’t happen overnight but I’m hopeful our reform efforts will continue and consumer confidence will keep rising.

More than 90% of consumers polled said quality of care is more important than anything else, including price, when making healthcare decisions. In this we are all aligned – Massachusetts hospitals have always made quality and patient safety priority #1.

But the Mass Insight poll also found that more than six in 10 respondents said they were not aware of new publicly available sources of information for cost and quality data, and nearly 75% didn't know that insurance companies, hospitals, and physicians must now provide cost information within two days of a consumer request. Payers and providers need to do more to spread the word about pricing information that's now required for many procedures.

Hopefully the Mass Insight poll and its findings will help boost public awareness of these latest transparency requirements as hospitals and other healthcare stakeholders continue to improve patient satisfaction and confidence in our dynamic healthcare system.

Time is Now to Act on Behavioral Health and Federal Healthcare Funding

An impressive collection of healthcare stakeholders have joined with MHA in calling for the state to support two extremely important reform efforts in the upcoming FY 2015 budget.

First, policymakers should address desperately needed behavioral health reform measures.

Five of Massachusetts' largest care provider organizations are jointly calling on the Legislature to support vital behavioral health reform measures in next year's budget. In addition to MHA, the Massachusetts Association of Behavioral Health Systems, Massachusetts Medical Society, Massachusetts College of Emergency Physicians and the Massachusetts Psychiatric Society are urging the adoption of both budgetary action and vital administrative steps needed to bolster timely access to behavioral health care services.

The commonwealth's behavioral health system is broken, and immediate supports are needed to reinforce critical mental health and substance abuse services while we all work toward comprehensive, systemic reform. The multi-step plan advanced by our collective organizations' calls for important investments in community-based placement services, outpatient and community-based diversionary services, and inpatient hospital level services. It also urges the legislature to adopt operational reforms that advance patient access to appropriate services on a timely basis and reduce emergency department delays.

The House version of the budget is expected later this week. To that end, the persistent call for comprehensive reform of the commonwealth's behavioral health system from this broad coalition of healthcare providers, along with many others, is gaining traction throughout the state. In recent weeks, several Democratic gubernatorial candidates and Massachusetts House Speaker Robert DeLeo (D-Winthrop) have all expressed public support for addressing the serious challenges that are currently impeding timely access to behavioral healthcare in Massachusetts.

While thorough and systemic reform may take some time, it's essential that policymakers move forward on some immediate interim steps that will preserve access and advance true parity for behavioral health coverage and services. We hope this growing call from healthcare, public advocacy and civic leaders will result in meaningful improvements for all patients in the very near future.

Second, new federal healthcare funding should be dedicated to its intended purpose – to support both low-income health coverage programs and those who provide the care.

Hospitals, home care providers, physicians, community health centers, advocates for patients and organizations devoted to fighting major diseases are all calling on the state to ensure that the use of federal healthcare funding coming to Massachusetts through the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is set aside to support the funding of Medicaid and other low-income healthcare programs in a transparent manner. Governor Patrick's budget created the "Health Insurance Expansion Fund" to house the enhanced federal Medicaid revenues the state receives and dedicate the funding to "support the financing of health insurance coverage for low-income residents." 

This approach is supported by MHA, Health Care For All; Health Law Advocates; Home Care Alliance of Massachusetts;  Massachusetts League of Community Health Centers;  Massachusetts Association of Behavioral Health Systems;  Massachusetts Law Reform Institute;  American Heart/American Stroke Association;  Massachusetts Medical Society; Massachusetts Health Council; American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network; and Conference of Boston Teaching Hospitals.

This coalition has urged the legislature to carry the Governor's recommendation forward while adding language that increases transparency - so that the amount of revenues in the fund, as well as expected additions and expenditures, are reported regularly – and that explicitly authorizes one of the uses for the funding to be to support those who provide care to Medicaid patients. 

This federal money was intended to shore up and support the important healthcare programs that have been developed under the state's reform effort. By connecting the funding directly to these important programs, the legislature can create true transparency and accountability and help preserve the many collective successes we have achieved since the passage of the first reform efforts back in 2006.

Nurse staffing ratios: still a bad idea after all these years.

The latest event in the nurse staffing ratios and hospital margins/executive compensation ballot issue occurred Monday, when testimony on both proposed legislation and the union's ballot initiatives was heard by the Joint Committee on Healthcare Financing at the State House.

I'm proud to have been among the many members of the hospital and nursing communities who testified in opposition to the proposals. Any and all of them would significantly set back the progress we have made with healthcare reform in Massachusetts.

There can be no doubt that care starts with the actual needs of every patient. And while registered nurses are invaluable members of the caregiving team, that doesn't mean others on the team should not be valued, too. There are cases where more registered nurses can improve care, but not in every case. Sometimes the best patient care calls for the skills and talents of others on the team, as well as other resources including technology. Ratios have been a bad idea for years. They're still a bad idea. And The Boston Herald agrees – the paper issued this editorial in strong opposition to nurse staffing ratios the day of the hearing.

There's also a proposal before the committee that calls for caps on hospital operating margins and executive compensation. This proposal certainly appears to be more about politics than sound policy. Under state and federal reform, hospital financials are already transparent. The "transparency" provisions called for in this proposal are duplicative. As for the proposed caps – operating margins alone are inadequate measures of hospital financial well-being. They are snapshots that often fail to illustrate true fiscal health. Operating margins may be positive one year and negative the next, and they do not reflect the debt a hospital may be carrying or its difficulties in accessing capital needed for critical investment in facilities and equipment. As the saying goes, a hospital will have an operating margin until the day it closes. This week's announcement by North Adams Regional Hospital that it's shuttering its doors at the end of this week is stark proof of that.

Simply put, the proposals under review by the Joint Committee on Healthcare Financing would be harmful to the state's healthcare system and patient care. For a state known for innovation and progressive thinking, adopting or advancing any of these proposals would be a clear step back.

Bravo CVS Caremark!

CVS Caremark's ground breaking decision to stop selling tobacco products at its stores nationwide is a major public service and health advance. The pharmacy chain is to be applauded and supported for its smart and right decision. By "calling it quits" on tobacco sales, which netted the company more than $2 billion annually, CVS sends a clear message that the company values  its customers' good health.

The pharmacy chain now joins a growing group of hospitals, clinics and physician practices in Massachusetts that are committed to population health management through the elimination of tobacco products from their workplaces and in some cases, from their workforces themselves with hiring bans on smokers. Only last month the nation marked the 50th anniversary of the Surgeon General's first warning about the dangers of tobacco. Today smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in this country. We have come a long way but we still have a long way to go, which makes the CVS ban a major win in the right direction.

In 2011, the Massachusetts Hospital Association (MHA) launched a statewide tobacco free initiative and now more than 76% of our member hospitals completely ban the use of tobacco products anywhere on their campuses. Some hospitals in Massachusetts, as well as MHA, have taken their commitment to public health a step beyond instituting tobacco-free hiring policies as well. These facilities have all earned inclusion on MHA's Tobacco-free Honor Roll.

CVS may have an easier time implementing their ban here in Massachusetts than in many other states, since some 79 cities and towns here – covering roughly half the population – have already banned drugstores from selling tobacco products, according to The Boston Globe. Massachusetts is also home to Tobacco-Free Mass., a coalition seeking to reduce tobacco use across the state (MHA is a proud member).

As CVS moves forward with this health initiative, MHA offers its unqualified support. I hope more healthcare retailers follow their excellent example.

MA Hospitals Continue to Lead Anti-Tobacco Efforts 50 Years after Surgeon General's Report

As the country recently marked the 50th anniversary of the groundbreaking US Surgeon General's Report warning the public of the dangers of tobacco use – including this week's release of a follow-up report from the current Surgeon General that updates smoking's devastating health effects – Massachusetts hospitals continue to advance this important public health effort through the third year of their statewide tobacco-free campaign. Under the Massachusetts Hospital Association (MHA)'s HEALING Inside and Out: Tobacco-Free Hospitals initiative, more than 76% of member hospitals now completely ban the use of tobacco products anywhere on their campuses.

These facilities have earned inclusion on MHA's Tobacco-free Honor Roll, and have self-reported they ban the use of tobacco across their campus including parking lots and garages, with absolutely no exceptions. Tobacco-Free hospitals also have policies that eliminate employee, patient and visitor exposure to tobacco smoke and assist employees and patients to quit smoking.

Then Surgeon General Luther Terry, who had been a smoker himself, issued the tobacco findings on January 11, 1964, just weeks after the assassination President John F. Kennedy, who had appointed Terry. The report stated unequivocally that smoking causes illness and death.

Many of us can hardly imagine the prevalence of tobacco products in American society at the time Dr. Terry's report came out, but tobacco use was rampant 50 years ago. At that time, more than 42 percent of adult Americans smoked, and smoking was permitted almost everywhere – including in hospitals. To come from that point to a complete ban of all tobacco on 76% of our member hospitals' campuses is an incredible achievement. And I'm extremely proud of MHA's role in support of such important and life-saving work.

In addition, some hospitals in Massachusetts, as well as MHA, have taken their commitment to public health a step beyond instituting a tobacco-free campus and have adopted tobacco-free hiring policies as well. MHA stopped hiring tobacco users as of January 1, 2011. The Boston Business Journal just wrote about this latest advance on its healthcare blog.

A list of hospitals in Massachusetts that no longer hire tobacco users and MHA's Tobacco-Free Hospitals Honor Roll is below. To learn more about MHA's HEALING: Inside & Out initiative, visit MHA's web pages dedicated to the effort.

The following hospitals no longer hire tobacco users:

  • Anna Jaques Hospital
  • Cooley Dickinson Hospital
  • Heywood Hospital
  • MetroWest Medical Center
  • New England Baptist Hospital
  • Saint Vincent Hospital

Health Policy Commission's Report Makes Some Good Points… And Creates Some Wrong Impressions

The state's Health Policy Commission (HPC) just released its latest Cost Trends Report, in which it claims Massachusetts healthcare providers – primarily hospitals – waste somewhere on the order of $14.7 billion to $26.9 billion by providing "unnecessary" medical care. While we are still delving into details of the report, I wanted to share some initial reactions. Some of the report's concerns regarding "unnecessary" medical care are valid, but the report glosses over some of the non-hospital systemic problems that help drive "unnecessary" care and many of the very real improvements that hospitals in Massachusetts have already achieved. Some of the report's claims also foster misunderstanding about cost variations among different kinds of hospitals, which makes for provocative sound bites but ultimately fails to shed light on the true issues in the cost debate.

Despite critics' claims to the contrary, there are some valid and necessary reasons for higher costs at academic medical centers, though it's also true that some of the cost disparities warrant much closer scrutiny and should require justification if they are to continue. That is all part of the reform that is underway in Massachusetts. Ultimately what should guide the decision-making process is a commitment that each patient should receive the right care in the right setting.

It's hard to keep a score card on the progress of healthcare reform in Massachusetts. This is partly because there is so much happening and because a lot of it's not yet visible to the public. Add to that reality the fact that current data to measure progress is not available. Data from 2009 that is extensively relied upon in the HPC report doesn’t fully reveal the hard work that is being done to improve both the way care is delivered and is paid for. But what's most important is that even as we study the report, Massachusetts hospitals are working collaboratively with each other, non-hospital providers, government, and other stakeholders to improve care while becoming even more cost efficient, including in the areas identified in the HPC report as examples of 'wasteful spending.'

For example, 10 Massachusetts hospitals have hosted an MHA educational program on Lean continuous improvement techniques since 2010. As a result, more than 240 healthcare leaders have joined other Lean experts in deploying these techniques in hospitals.

The Massachusetts hospital community has also been making quality and patient safety improvements on many fronts. MHA's Board of Trustees and all our member hospitals' boards unanimously endorsed an association-wide initiative to make measurable, concrete improvements in hospitals' performance, focusing on reducing readmissions and hospital acquired infections. In addition, most Massachusetts hospitals are enrolled in a national quality improvement collaborative aimed at improvements in 10 patient safety areas. And the 29 Massachusetts hospitals that are enrolled in the MHA-coordinated Hospital Engagement Network (HEN) have collectively experienced a 30% reduction in four adverse healthcare events: catheter-associated urinary tract infections, central line-associated blood stream infections, pressure ulcers, ventilator-associated events, and early elective deliveries.

It is true that hospitals can become more efficient and improve the delivery of care – but that's only one piece of the overall healthcare costs scenario – hospitals comprise less than 40 percent of overall healthcare expenditures. There is ample evidence that underinvestment in behavioral health issues adds to the cost of the overall healthcare system, with preventable readmissions being just one example.

The HPC report is correct in its conclusion that prime areas of opportunity for improvement moving forward include:

  • fostering a value-based market
  • promoting an efficient high-quality healthcare delivery system,
  • advancing alternative payment methods, and
  • enhancing transparency and data availability.

But there are market practices that impede progress. An example is the PPO market's growth at the expense of the HMO market, which makes transition to global payment and other alternative payment systems more difficult. In particular, more attention needs to be paid to advancing alternative payment methods, because in Massachusetts the health plan offerings are increasingly in contrast with this strategy, because employers are now promoting direct contribution, high deductible plans. Payment reform is the single biggest opportunity here because it makes the improvement of care quality, patient safety and efficiency an absolute priority.

But the PPO development is only one example of impediments to more rapid reform. There are others, like the broken behavioral health system that takes such a toll on our families and communities. Its impact on cost can be seen readily in the number of patients who are readmitted to hospitals with behavioral health diagnoses. These problems are mentioned not as excuses but rather as challenges that can and must be addressed in order to achieve truly comprehensive improvements in healthcare.

It's important to realize that hospitals are already pursuing many of the strategies cited in the HPC report as opportunities to reduce costs and improve efficiency, although more certainly can and will be done. But cost isn't solely a problem of care providers, and not all cost differences among providers are 'wasteful.'

Moving Forward on a "Lock Box" for Federal Medicaid Matching Funds

On Tuesday I testified before the state's Joint Committee on Health Care Financing to add MHA's voice to the strong support for two bills entitled "An Act of Protect Health Care Reform Funding" Senate Bill 554 and House Bill 1023. This legislation would establish the "MassHealth and Health Care Reform FMAP Trust Fund" to ensure that new federal Medicaid funding received by the state is dedicated to support Medicaid and other low-income healthcare programs. I am extremely proud that MHA is part of a 12-organization coalition that is urging Massachusetts lawmakers to create this FMAP Trust Fund.

Beginning January 1, 2014, and continuing for decades, Massachusetts will receive additional federal Medicaid funding (known as FMAP funds) totaling $350-$500 million per year. Our Congressional delegation fought hard to ensure that this funding was included for the commonwealth, because as a national leader in healthcare reform, we do not qualify for many of the federal benefits offered to other states under the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

There is no shortage of state trust funds and many may wonder why we need another. Or why we should put strings on such a significant sum of money. There are number of good reasons: First and foremost, all of us in the Massachusetts healthcare community greatly value what we have accomplished through the 2006 healthcare reform law and we want to see those successes sustained as we implement the ACA nationally. The Massachusetts effort took many years to debate and build, and it's something we believe deserves to be protected.

I believe we will need to specifically designate the FMAP funds for this endeavor because even though we're making important changes in the way we deliver care, changes that will help make healthcare more affordable, covering hundreds of thousands of lives with comprehensive health insurance and adequately reimbursing the healthcare providers who care for them will still require a solid financing plan in the years ahead.

We also recognize no one can predict that future. There certainly will be future budget challenges, state priorities will evolve, and there will be different leaders in all of branches of state government in the years to come. Maintaining expanded coverage, providing sound benefits, and paying adequately for services rendered by those who provide care to low-income patients — these are all challenges that could be addressed to a significant degree if we ensure the new federal healthcare dollars are used as intended.

While the "Trust Fund" secures the federal funding for Medicaid and other low-income healthcare programs, it does allow the flexibility from year-to-year that will be needed to meet the evolving needs of those programs. And there will be the ability each year to determine how to allocate funding within the parameters established by the Trust Fund.

So today, we have a unique opportunity to provide a long-term funding source to protect and sustain what we have cultivated since 2006. It's a step that could allow us to sustain our lofty goals from 2006 when it's 2020 – and beyond. As tough choices will almost certainly need to be made in the years to come, it will be important to recall the values and promises that we made though Massachusetts' groundbreaking initial healthcare reform law, to use them to determine how to finance health coverage for those that cannot afford it, and to ensure that those who care for low-income patients can receive the support they need to do their jobs as best they can. This is a unique opportunity that can't be wasted.

PatientCareLink Quality and Patient Safety Website Expands to Include Home Care Agency Information

I'm delighted that The Home Care Alliance of Massachusetts (HCA) has joined forces with the Massachusetts Hospital Association (MHA) and Organization of Nurse Leaders of Massachusetts & Rhode Island (ONL) to expand the scope of PatientCareLink (PCL) the innovative and public quality and patient safety website – to now include important quality-of-care information from hundreds of home care agencies and providers in Massachusetts. The three organizations launched the updated version of the website yesterday, including this introductory video.

MHA and ONL were co-sponsors of PatientsFirst – the 2005 groundbreaking healthcare transparency effort to improve patient care quality and safety – and now enthusiastically welcome the Home Care Alliance of Massachusetts as the PCL site's latest co-sponsor and participant. Like its predecessor, PatientCareLink is dedicated to providing patients, families and caregivers with the most transparent information available on care provided by Massachusetts hospitals, and now home care providers as well.

Healthcare is increasingly delivered across a continuum of care, and by adding home health agency quality reporting to the PatientCareLink site, we hope to make it even easier for patients and their families to become more engaged in their care choices. In addition, we know from experience that the act of voluntarily making all of this information so visible helps drive performance improvement even further.

A trust fund for new Medicaid revenues

Ben Franklin's old idiom "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" was actually fire-fighting advice, but here in Massachusetts we can avoid a fiscal inferno later if we take precautionary action now to protect an expected influx of Medicaid funding to the state.

The Patrick administration estimates Massachusetts will add another 220,000 Medicaid enrollees in 2014, and Congress provided support for these new enrollees in the form of increased Medicaid matching funds. But the funding is currently slated for the state's General Fund, where it could be spent for unintended purposes down the road.

My op-ed that appeared in Saturday’s Boston Globe highlights a simple yet vitally important opportunity we should take – right now – to ensure that Massachusetts is both fiscally and socially responsible with the additional Medicaid funding that is headed our way: We need to put those funds in a separate, targeted account designated solely to paying for healthcare for the lower-income population. That's what Congress intended, and it's the right thing to do.

Such a trust fund will also ensure transparency and accountability on the use of the new Medicaid funding for years to come. If those dollars simply disappear into the state's General Fund and are not used to support Medicaid and other low-income healthcare programs, we're inviting a funding crisis down the road. Such a crisis is 100 percent avoidable if we take this common sense step and set the funds apart now – An ounce of prevention.

The Medicaid trust fund is an idea that's easy to overlook in all the frenzy of state budget negotiations and work to align Massachusetts' ahead-of-the-curve healthcare reform with the federal Affordable Care Act. But it's an opportunity and a safeguard we absolutely cannot afford to miss.

More Entries