Posts Tagged cost

Analysis: Pulling Back Curtain on Hospital Prices Adds New Wrinkle in Cost Control

Analysis: Pulling Back Curtain on Hospital Prices Adds New Wrinkle in Cost Control

As President Donald Trump was fighting with Congress over the shutdown and funding for a border wall, his administration implemented a new rule that could be a game changer for health care.

Starting this month, hospitals must publicly reveal the contents of their master price lists — called “chargemasters” — online. These are the prices that most patients never notice because their insurers negotiate them down or they appear buried as line items on hospital bills. What has long been shrouded in darkness is now being thrown into the light.

For the moment, these lists won’t seem very useful to the average patient — and they have been criticized for that reason. They are often hundreds of pages long, filled with medical codes and abbreviations. Each document is an overwhelming compendium listing a rack rate for every little item a hospital dispenses and every service it performs: a blood test for anemia. The price of lying in the operating suite and recovery room (billed in 15-minute intervals). The scalpel. The drill bit. The bag of IV salt water. The Tylenol pill. No item is too small to be barcoded and charged.

But don’t dismiss the lists as useless. Think of them as raw material to be mined for billing transparency and patient rights. For years, these prices have been a tightly guarded industrial secret. When advocates have tried to wrest them free, hospitals have argued that they are proprietary information. And, hospitals claim, these rates are irrelevant, since — after insurers whittle them down — no one actually pays them.

Of course, the argument is false, and our wallets know it.

First of all, hospitals routinely go after patients without insurance or whose insurer is not in their network. When Wanda Wickizer had a brain hemorrhage in 2013, a Virginia hospital billed her $286,000 after a 20 percent “uninsured” discount on a hospital bill of $357,000 — the list price, according to chargemaster charges. Medicare would have paid less than $100,000 for her treatment.

Second, those list prices form the starting point for negotiations, allowing hospitals and insurers to take credit for beneficence when there is none.

I recently received an insurance statement for blood tests that were priced at $788.04; my insurer negotiated a “discount” of $725.35, for an agreed-upon price of $62.69 “to help save you money.” My insurer’s price was around 8 percent of the charge. Since my 10 percent copayment amounted to $6.27, my insurer happily informed me, “you saved 99 percent.”

Not!

If a supposedly $1,000 TV is “on sale” for $80, it’s not really a discount. It’s an absurd list price.

Just as airlines have been shown to exaggerate flight times so they can boast about on-time arrivals, hospitals set prices crazy high so they can tout their generous discounts (while insurers tout their negotiating prowess).

Another rationale for those prices is just plain greed. Dr. Warren Browner, the chief executive of California Pacific Medical Center, describes this as the “Saudi sheikh problem”: “You don’t really want to change your charges if you have a Saudi sheikh come in with a suitcase full of cash who’s going to pay full charges,” he said.

But in an era when American patients are expected to be good consumers and are paying more of their bills in the form of copays and deductibles, they have a right to the information on list prices. They have a right to make sure they are reasonable.

Although making chargemaster pricing public will not, by itself, reform our high-priced medical system, it is an important first step. Maybe, just maybe, a hospital will think twice before charging a $6,000 “operating room fee” for a routine colonoscopy if its competitor down the street is listing its price at $1,000. Making this information public should bring list prices more in line with what is actually paid by an insurer, a far better measure of value.

And while the lists are far from user-friendly, researchers and entrepreneurs can now create apps to make it easier for patients to match procedures to their codes and crunch the numbers. With access to list prices on your phone, you could reject the $300 sling in the emergency room and instead order one for one-tenth of the price on Amazon. You could see in advance the $399 rate your hospital charges for each allergen it applies in a skin test and avoid the $48,000 allergy test — with an $8,000 deductible.

As a next step, regulators should insist that these prices be easily accessible on hospitals’ home pages — perhaps in the place of “PAY YOUR BILL NOW” — and translated into plain English. Seema Verma, the head of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, has suggested that she may well do so.

Patients can help, too: Check out your hospital’s price list. If it’s not detailed or complete enough, demand more. For discrete items, like an MRI of the brain or a vitamin D blood test, take the trouble to scan the chargemaster for the item. Reject an overpriced procedure (even if your insurer is paying the bulk of the bill) and take your business elsewhere.

Justice Louis Brandeis famously said, “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman.” But, in this case, the reform will work only if people take the trouble to look — and to act — now that the lights are turned on.

Posted in: Insurance

Leave a Comment (0) →

What Can Physicians Charge for Medical Records?

What Can Physicians Charge for Medical Records?

The State of Alabama Board of Medical Examiners amended its rules that govern the fees physicians may charge to provide patients with copies of their medical records.2 The rules are set forth in Section 540-X-9-.10(2) of the Alabama Administrative Code, and the new rules became effective April 13, 2018.

Here are the key dos and don’ts physicians should take into account to determine how much (and whether) they should charge patients for copies of their records.

Don’t charge anything other than a “reasonable, cost-based fee” for necessary supplies, labor and postage.

As in the past, the new rules permit a physician to recover a reasonable, cost-based fee to comply with a patient’s request for copies of his medical records, subject to the prohibitions, requirements and recommendations below. Federal law and applicable U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) guidance specify that a reasonable, cost-based fee may include (i) certain costs for the labor required to copy the medical record (subject to certain limitations, as noted below); (ii) the physician’s costs reasonably incurred for supplies (e.g., costs for paper, toner and the like for paper copies, or for CDs, USB drives, or similar electronic media, if requested); and (iii) the physician’s costs reasonably incurred for postage, if the patient requests mail delivery to him or his designee. Only charge postage if the patient specifically requests mail delivery (and agrees to be responsible for the cost).

Don’t charge a “search” fee or other labor costs not specifically authorized by law.

Physicians may recover only certain, limited costs for labor required to copy a patient’s record. The fee may not include the physician’s costs, if any, to verify or document the patient’s request, costs to search for or retrieve the record, or costs to access, store and maintain electronic or paper records, or similar infrastructure costs. Among other things, this means that “search fees,” authorized by state law, are prohibited following the issuance of the new ALBME rules.3

In determining a reasonable, cost-based fee, labor generally may be calculated using either of two methods: (a) the physician’s actual labor cost to respond to the patient’s request; or (b) the average cost to respond to a similar request, based on a schedule.

Don’t charge more than the statutory limits, no matter what.

In contrast to prior rules, the new rules include additional nuance pertaining to the permissible charge for copying electronic medical records.

If the patient requests a paper copy of his medical record, whether the record is maintained in electronic or paper form, or an electronic copy of his paper record, the physician may charge a reasonable, cost-based fee, calculated using the factors listed above. The fee may be a per-page fee, so long as it is a reasonable, cost-based fee.4 As in the past, the new rules limit the amount a physician may charge for copies to $1.00 per page for the first 25 pages and $.50 per page for additional pages, plus the actual cost of mailing the record.5

However, if the patient requests an electronic copy of his electronic record, (i) the physician may not charge a per-page fee (regardless of amount); and (ii) the physician may either charge (a) a reasonable, cost-based fee, as determined above (subject to the prohibition on per-page fees) or (b) a flat fee of $6.50.

Don’t charge patients for copies if they can’t afford it.

Significantly, recent changes in federal and Alabama laws (i.e., HIPAA and the new ALBME rules) prohibit a physician from charging any fee to make copies of the medical record of a patient who is not able to pay.6 Unfortunately, there is no specific guidance to help physicians determine whether a patient is able to pay a reasonable, cost-based fee. The new rules indicate that, in making this determination, physicians “should give primary consideration to the ethical and professional duties owed to other physicians and to their patients.”

Don’t charge for access via an online patient portal.

Likewise, physicians may not charge a fee to a patient to access his electronic health record. Specifically, HIPAA precludes physicians and other covered entities from charging a fee to the patient to access his record using the View, Download and Transmit functionality of a certified electronic health record (“CEHRT”).

Notify the patient about any charges in advance.

Laws also prohibit a physician from charging a fee for copies unless the physician notifies the patient about the fee in advance (i.e., when the patient makes the request). The physician must also provide the patient with a breakdown of the fee, upon request. In fact, HHS recommends the physician make its normal charges for copies available to the public on its website or by other means.

Discussion

The new ALBME rules include some limitations not before instituted in previous rules. It is important to note the limitations discussed in this article only apply to a request made by the patient.7 So, for example, if a patient needs to provide copies of his medical record to an attorney, a physician may be permitted to charge a different (read: greater) fee if the attorney makes the request (by subpoena, for example), as opposed to the patient requesting the physician transfer the records to the attorney.

The new rules also include provisions intended to bring the Alabama rules into compliance with applicable provisions of the federal HIPAA rules.8 While the new rules provide needed clarity as to certain matters, questions remain. Likewise, HIPAA imposes certain additional limitations on permissible charges that must be taken into account, even though they are not mentioned in the ALBME rules.

In any event, the fact is, as in most legal and regulatory matters, the answer to the seemingly simple question, “What can I charge to make a copy of the patient’s record?” is it depends on a number of factors. In addition, federal and State of Alabama authorities have made it clear they intend to target physicians who charge excessive fees in future enforcement actions. Consequently, it is vital physicians have a proper understanding of the issues addressed above and promptly take appropriate action to comply.

Nothing in this article should be considered legal advice. In the event you need legal advice in respect to the matters above, or other matters, please contact appropriate legal counsel.

Article contributed by D. Brent Wills, Esq., and Mazie Bryant1 of Gilpin Givhan, PC. Gilpin Givhan, PC, is an official partner with the Medical Association.

References
1 Ms. Bryant is a Juris Doctor candidate at the University of Alabama School of Law.

2 See Ala. Admin. Code § 540-x-9-.10(2).

3 Note Section 12-21-6.1 of the Alabama Code still permits a $5.00 “search fee” to be charged. HIPAA explicitly pre-empts Alabama law on this issue. It is not clear whether or when the Alabama Legislature will update the statute.

4 Although HIPAA does not specify a per-page fee that constitutes a reasonable, cost-based fee, there is no indication that the (maximum) per-page fees specified in the new ALBME rules would not pass muster.

5 See Ala. Admin. Code § 540-x-9-.10(2).

6 Ala. Admin. Code 540-X-9.10(2).

7 Note HIPAA treats a request by the patient’s personal representative (as defined in the Privacy Rule) as a request made by the patient.

8 “HIPAA” means, in this context, the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, together the privacy, security and breach notification rules promulgated thereunder, as set forth at 42 CFR Part 160 and Part 164, as modified by the Health Information and Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009 (“HITECH”).

Posted in: Legal Watch

Leave a Comment (0) →

Judge Rejects Bid to Revive ACA Subsidies

Judge Rejects Bid to Revive ACA Subsidies

A federal judge has denied several states’ attempt to compel the Trump administration to continue paying cost-sharing reduction payments. Attorney generals from 18 states and the District of Columbia had filed a motion in the U.S. District Court seeking a temporary injunction that would reinstate the payments, which the administration decided to end earlier this month.

Judge Vince Chhabria was skeptical of the states’ argument during a hearing on the motion earlier this week, noting many states have already taken steps to diffuse the impact of CSR uncertainty. In his order denying the states’ request for a temporary injunction, Chhabria said although a federal judge did previously rule that CSR payments should end because they were not properly appropriated by Congress, in this instance, the Trump administration has the stronger legal argument. Chhabria also noted any emergency relief requested by the states would be counterproductive as state insurance regulators have been working for months to prepare for the possibility the subsidies would end.

Many states, he continued, have therefore “devised responses that give millions of lower-income people better health coverage options than they would otherwise have had.”

The Trump administration this month terminated the payments to the insurers, which help cover medical expenses for low-income Americans, as part of several moves to dismantle Obama’s signature healthcare law formally known as the Affordable Care Act. The subsidies were due to cost $7 billion this year and were estimated at $10 billion for 2018, according to congressional analysts.

Insurers have argued they do not profit from the subsidies under the Affordable Care Act, but pass them on directly to consumers to reduce deductibles, co-payments and other out-of-pocket medical expenses for low-income people. Because insurers would raise premiums on policies in the absence of the subsidies, the government would be compelled to spend more on financial assistance to low-income Americans. The Congressional Budget Office has found that a bipartisan Senate proposal to shore up Obamacare insurance marketplaces by reviving the subsidies would cut the U.S. deficit by $3.8 billion over the next decade.

Posted in: Advocacy

Leave a Comment (0) →

Tentative Bipartisan Deal Reached to Restore CSR Payments

Tentative Bipartisan Deal Reached to Restore CSR Payments

Earlier this week, the U.S. Senate reached a bipartisan deal “in principle” to restore Obamacare cost-sharing reduction payments for two years in exchange for more state flexibility in the health care act. The proposed plan would also restore more than $100 million in funding for health care outreach.

The bipartisan bill gained momentum later in the week with 24 co-sponsors to the legislation. President Trump has suggested he was “open” to authorizing payments to insurers that help offset out-of-pocket health costs in the short term — but had not given up his goal of repealing the ACA.

The short-term solution would allow insurers to offer catastrophic insurance plans to consumers ages 30 and older on the exchanges, while maintaining a single-risk pool, meanwhile also making it easier for states to obtain waivers to customize health plan rules to their needs by speeding up administration approval of the waivers and allow states to copy provisions in waivers that were already approved. This could also provide a reprieve for the Affordable Care Act that would prevent 2018 premiums from increasing as much as previously predicted. However, consumers in many states will still face double-digit rate increases, and in many counties, health plans will be available from only one insurance company.

The proposed legislation would not allow states to change the essential benefits insurers are now required to offer individuals and small businesses under the ACA or let insurers discriminate against consumers with preexisting conditions for the next two years.

The Medical Association will continue to monitor the progress of this proposed legislation and is eager to work with lawmakers toward a positive solution.

Posted in: Advocacy

Leave a Comment (0) →

Congress Squares Off Over Drug Pricing and a Controversial Drug Discount Program

Congress Squares Off Over Drug Pricing and a Controversial Drug Discount Program

House Democrats are calling foul on Republican assertions that cuts to a little-known discount drug program will eventually reduce skyrocketing drug prices. At a hearing Tuesday, Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) said high drug prices should be investigated separately from the focus on oversight of the drug discount program, known as 340B.

“I think we need an investigation, a robust investigation, and a series of hearings that explore in-depth the reasons for the exorbitant cost of drugs and why the prices continue to rise,” DeGette said.

Last week, Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price proposed steep cuts in what Medicare reimburses some hospitals for outpatient drugs under the 340B program. In a release, Price said such cuts would be “a significant step toward fulfilling President [Donald] Trump’s promise to address rising drug prices.”

DeGette countered Tuesday that the proposal “would do nothing” to address high drug prices and said making that connection “seems more like fantasy than reality.”

Also on Tuesday, there were other hints at Trump administration efforts to address drug pricing. Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Scott Gottlieb talked in a public meeting about lowering drug prices on a different front — saying that the agency needs to increase generic-drug competition.

Trump routinely criticized high drug prices on the campaign trail last year and promised to take action during his presidency. In June, a leaked draft of an executive order on drug prices, first reported by The New York Times, spoke of facilitating more drug competition but also targeted the 340B program. That strategy immediately drew criticism from Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.), who said scaling back the program would drive up what hospital patients pay for drugs and force Americans “to choose between health and other basic life necessities, like putting food on the table and a roof overhead for the family.”

The federal 340B program requires pharmaceutical manufacturers to provide outpatient drugs at a significant discount to hospitals and clinics that serve a largely low-income population.

After buying the discounted drugs, the hospitals and clinics can bill Medicare or other insurers at their regular rate, pocketing the difference.

About 40 percent of hospitals nationwide participate in the program and, as House members pointed out Tuesday, the program has grown dramatically in recent years to become a significant force in the pharmaceutical marketplace. The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission estimated that hospitals and other participating entities spent more than $7 billion to buy 340B drugs in 2013, three times the amount spent in 2005.

Advocates of the program say the discounts — and the money hospitals make on payments from Medicare — are necessary to combat skyrocketing drug prices.

But federal reports in recent years from the Medicare advisory board, as well as the Government Accountability Office and the Office of Inspector General, have raised concerns about oversight and abuse of the 340B program.

Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) noted “this is a difficult hearing” because while the program was created with good intent, its complexity makes it challenging to understand. For example, hospitals and clinics aren’t required to pass any discounts they receive on to patients — they can direct the money to their general fund.

Looking at his colleagues, Barton said: “We all support the program but it has grown topsy-turvy. We need to put the best minds on this.”

Republican lawmakers are not the only ones raising concerns about 340B oversight. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, which represents drugmakers, advocates ensuring hospitals are “good stewards” of the money they gain from the program’s discounts.

Peggy Tighe, who represents hospitals in the 340B program as a principal at the D.C. law firm Powers, said “PhRMA has done a particularly good job of getting the attention of the administration. … They haven’t let up on 340B.”

The rule that Price proposed last week would cut what hospitals are paid for drugs from the Medicare Part B program, which covers outpatient drugs including those delivered through infusion.

Currently, Medicare pays hospitals an average sales price plus 6 percent for most of the Part B drugs they purchase. The administration’s proposal is to cut that to average sales price minus 22.5 percent.

340B Health, a coalition that represents hospitals, immediately responded to the proposal saying the cuts would be “devastating” to hospitals and would “lead to cuts in patient services.”

 

sjtribble@kff.org | @SJTribble | Kaiser Health News, a nonprofit health newsroom whose stories appear in news outlets nationwide, is an editorially independent part of the Kaiser Family Foundation. KHN’s coverage of prescription drug development, costs and pricing are supported in part by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation.

Posted in: Advocacy

Leave a Comment (0) →