Home » Newsroom » Voices in Healthcare

Voices in Healthcare


The Governor's Rate Oversight Bill

Here is a copy of a blog I posted on WBUR's "Commonhealth" today. Happy reading!

In today's tough economic environment, addressing small business healthcare costs is a must. Governor Deval Patrick's new proposal to have the state regulate healthcare rates from insurers and providers aims to do just that, but is a dramatic and difficult step even if done on a temporary basis and some of what the Governor proposes isn't temporary. The Governor has said that his proposal is meant to start the conversation and he deserves credit for that.  Starting the conversation is good because there is a lot to talk about and a lot to do.

The governor's "Job Creation Bill for Small Business" calls for any contract for payment between an insurance company and a hospital, physician group practice, or imaging service to be submitted to the Division of Health Care Finance and Policy (DHCFP).  If DHCFP finds that the payments - adjusted for volume and patient acuity- increase by a rate greater than the previous year's rate of medical inflation, the increase would be presumed to be excessive and disapproved, pending a hearing to justify the increase. The bill also places some limits on insurers, but far less challenging.

There are important questions to be asked in this "conversation" including questions about the feasibility of implementing what is proposed, the administrative complexity and cost of implementing what is proposed, the impact of many providers who are struggling to survive today, whether there is a need to address demands for medical services if one is proposing to limit provider costs, which provisions are sunset and which provisions continue, will the proposal actually lower small business premiums and if so at what cost, what effect will increased regulation have upon our economy and jobs, what is the impact upon long-term reform of adding greater complexity to the payment system, does the proposal take into account costs that providers can't control - such as an aging population and the high level of coverage benefits in Massachusetts, how do providers account for the government not paying the costs for caring for MassHealth patients?

Because something is complicated doesn't mean that it can't work, but when it is this important, we better understand how it will really work or not work before buying it.

The disproportionately high premiums that small businesses pay are a legitimate concern.  The rapidly rising premiums result from business decisions being made by the state's insurers. Under current Division of Insurance regulations, insurers can charge small businesses as much as 76 percent more in premiums than they charge their 'big business' counterparts. But hospitals and other providers get paid exactly the same regardless of whether a patient works for a large or small employer. The Governor's bill authorizes the Commissioner of Insurance to limit these so-called rating decisions.

It is high time to ask tough questions about the cost of insurers' red-tape, cost in terms of dollars spent and in terms of providers and beneficiaries running in circles. Their administrative costs add significantly to providers' medical costs. Their billing and claims processes account for billions of dollars in our state's healthcare system.

There are steps we can take together. We should look carefully at new ideas such as allowing small business to join together to get lower insurance premiums while not excluding businesses from joining such networks.  And increased transparency if handled responsibly and applied to all stakeholders can contribute to a more effective and efficient healthcare system.

MHA is committed to basic reform of the healthcare payment system and to participating in the conversation that the Governor started.

Budgets Still Need to Address Government Underpayment for Care

Governor Deval Patrick's proposed 2011 budget assumes another challenging year for Massachusetts and calls for program cuts throughout state government, including MassHealth. The budget maintains eligibility for both MassHealth and Commonwealth Care and assumes both programs will grow in terms of covered lives. While the proposal demonstrates the administration's continued commitment to healthcare reform, hospital reimbursement will again suffer further reductions through the elimination of inpatient acute outlier payments, which cover complex adult patients requiring lengthy hospital stays.

MHA appreciates the governor's recommendations on the Health Safety Net (HSN) that: 1) re-establishes a general fund contribution of $30 million in FY2011 and 2) call for the FY2010 HSN account to receive prior year HSN surpluses to help alleviate an existing $70 million shortfall. However,  the strain on hospital finances remains significant and MHA projects that the FY2011 HSN could experience a shortfall of close to $100 million. Contributing factors to the shortfall include eligibility restrictions on the Commonwealth Care Bridge program for legal immigrants, which force patients to utilize the Health Safety Net, and the elimination of restorative dental care for most MassHealth and Commonwealth Care adults.

The inclusion of new revenues to mitigate the potential depth of possible cuts is important. These revenues include taxes on candy and sugared drinks which are supported by MHA, both for the revenue potential and the contribution to improving public health. In addition, the budget assumes an extension of enhanced Federal Medicaid Assistance Program (FMAP) which is an important priority for Massachusetts and every other state. Even with these important steps, MHA remains deeply concerned about continued and worsening government underfunding of care to patients.

Massachusetts hospitals are committed to working with the state's elected and appointed officials to implement meaningful and sustainable payment reform in the Commonwealth to mitigate increases in healthcare costs. But true reform will still require hospitals to be adequately paid for care provided to our most vulnerable residents. Short-changing providers through government reimbursements that are
substantially below costs only exacerbates these problems, rather than ease them, and potentially threatens the ability of hospitals to pursue their critical care-giving missions.

The Governor's support for sustaining health care reform is clear. While the economic downturn has stalled the Commonwealth's commitment to close the Medicaid payment gap, the state must pursue the full funding of care provided to our most vulnerable populations.  This would demonstrate the same "shared responsibility" that was shown by providers, employers, and insurers when the Commonwealth tackled coverage reform in 2006. MHA and its member hospitals pledge to continue to work with our fellow healthcare leaders throughout Commonwealth to achieve an appropriate balance of revenue and cost containment.