heal

Ebola is not the only health concern for Africans or Americans: how Egypt aims to improve its drug quality oversight

Posted by Roger Bate Cairo, Egypt – While its economy is still suffering from weak tourism, its new government is trying to do its best to bolster its modest regulatory structures to oversee medicines. With a population of approaching 90 million, Africa’s third most populous nation, is an important final destination for medicines, and a key transit point too. But it’s not just good medicines that Egypt needs to assess and ensure are procured, it has to prevent the bad &ndash [...]




heal

“Similar to Times of War”: The Staggering Toll of COVID-19 on Filipino Health Care Workers

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

When Alfredo Pabatao told his family that he had helped move a suspected coronavirus patient through the hospital where he’d worked as an orderly for nearly 20 years, he didn’t make a big deal out of it. “My parents are the type of parents who don’t like to make us worry,” his youngest daughter, Sheryl, recalled. But Sheryl was concerned that her father’s vulnerabilities weren’t being given more consideration as he toiled on the pandemic’s front lines in hard-hit northern New Jersey. “Why would they let a 68-year-old man with an underlying heart condition … transport a suspected COVID patient when there’s younger transporters in the hospital who could do it?”

Sheryl’s mother, Susana, was an assistant nurse in a long-term care facility where she often pulled double shifts, saving money for her annual trips back to the Philippines. At 64, she wasn’t much younger than the elderly patients she helped bathe and feed, and she had diabetes, which increased her risk of severe complications if she got sick. The nursing home wasn’t providing adequate personal protection equipment, Susana reported, so Sheryl brought home a stash of surgical masks for her mother to wear on the job. That didn’t go over well with Susana’s managers, Sheryl said: “They gave her a warning, saying she shouldn’t be wearing that. … She was really mad.”

Alfredo fell ill first, his symptoms flaring on March 17. Susana soon developed a fever. The couple had grown up on the same street in Manila and shared a romance that reminded their daughter of a telenovela; after 44 years of marriage and five children, they were all but inseparable. “Where mom goes, my dad goes. Where my dad goes, my mom goes. That’s the way they are,” Sheryl said. The day Alfredo was admitted to the ICU, his heart failing, Susana checked into the same hospital. They died four days apart.

Filipino American medical workers have suffered some of the most staggering losses in the coronavirus pandemic. In the New York-New Jersey region alone, ProPublica learned of at least 30 deaths of Filipino health care workers since the end of March and many more deaths in those peoples’ extended families. The virus has struck hardest where a huge concentration of the community lives and works. They are at “the epicenter of the epicenter,” said Bernadette Ellorin, a community organizer.

Some of the largest Filipino enclaves on the East Coast are in the New York City borough of Queens and northern New Jersey — the very places now being ravaged by COVID-19.

Filipinos are on the front lines there and across the country, four times more likely to be nurses than any other ethnic group in the U.S., experts say. In the New York-New Jersey region, nearly a quarter of adults with Filipino ancestry work in hospitals or other medical fields, a ProPublica analysis of 2017 U.S. census data found. The statistic bears repeating: Of every man and woman in the Filipino community there, one in four works in the health care industry.

“So many people can rattle off five, 10 relations that are working in the medical field,” said filmmaker Marissa Aroy, whose most recent documentary is about Filipino nurses. Her parents were registered nurses in California, and various relatives are in health care professions, including a cousin who works in a rehab center in the Bronx and recently recovered from COVID-19. “Think about all of those family members who are going to be affected,” Aroy said. “We’re talking about huge family structures here.”

The scale of the trauma and the way it is unfolding are “similar to times of war,” said Kevin Nadal, a professor of psychology at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and The Graduate Center of the City University of New York who has written extensively about Filipino American psychology and culture.

Pabatao lights a candle for her parents’ urn. (Rosem Morton, special to ProPublica)

The majority of the reported deaths have involved nurses, including Susan Sisgundo and Ernesto “Audie” DeLeon, who worked at Bellevue Hospital in New York City, and Marlino Cagas, who spent 40 years as a pharmacy tech at Harlem Hospital before embarking on a nursing career at the age of 60. A handful, including Jessie Ariel Ferreras, a family practitioner in Bergen County, were doctors. Others worked in support roles, like Louis Torres, 47, the director of food services at a nursing home in Woodside, Queens, and his 73-year-old mother, Lolita, or Lely, a clerk at a nearby hospital. They lived together and fell sick around the same time, both developing pneumonia. Lolita died on April 7, her son, the following day.

Don Ryan Batayola, a 40-year-old occupational therapist, was from a big, tight-knit family and lived in Springfield Township, New Jersey. He is believed to have caught the virus from a patient and was rushed to the hospital on March 31. By April 4, he had improved enough to FaceTime with his wife, also an occupational therapist who was sick and self-isolating at home, their children sheltering with relatives. Then, an hour later, he went into cardiac arrest.

One of the most wrenching aspects of the epidemic is the sense of disconnection and helplessness in a community that stakes its economic well-being on providing care and comfort and cherishes its closeness. So many members of Batayola’s extended family are health care workers, “we could almost open our own hospital,” said his oldest sister Aimee Canton, an oncology nurse in Northern California. But to protect each other, they’ve had to remain apart, with no idea when they’ll be able to come together again. “It’s so sad when you’re a nurse,” Canton said, “and you can’t even help your own family.”


Almost all the deaths of Filipino American health care workers that ProPublica found involve people, like the Batayolas, who immigrated during the 1970s to 2000s, when critical shortages created opportunities for medical personnel with the right training.

But the story of Filipino nurses in the U.S. goes back much further, to the end of the Spanish-American War in 1898, when the Philippines became a U.S. territory, said Catherine Ceniza Choy, a professor of ethnic studies at the University of California, Berkeley, and author of “Empire of Care: Nursing and Migration in Filipino American History.” One legacy of the colonial era is a network of hundreds of Americanized nursing schools that eventually produced tens of thousands of caregivers a year, making the country “the leading exporter of nurses in the world,” Choy said.

Nursing offered an escape route from economic and political instability and a path to the middle class for those who had few other options. It also appealed to deeply held cultural values: “kapwa,” Tagalog for “a feeling of interconnectedness to all people, putting others before yourself and taking care of the community,” Nadal said, and “utang ng loob,” the idea that people owe a debt to each other and to those who came before.

Most nurses trained in the Philippines who sought work abroad hoped to end up in the U.S. (They also migrated in large numbers to the Middle East and the U.K.) American immigration policies ebbed and flowed depending on labor shortages and political expediency. In the first third of the 20th century, the numbers of Filipino nurses were small; most workers from the islands were sent to the fields of California and the plantations of Hawaii. Then, in the wake of the Great Depression, Filipino immigrants were capped at just 50 per year, rising to 100 after World War II.

After the war, U.S. nursing shortages grew acute. Even as the passage of Medicare and Medicaid made health care more accessible to the elderly and poor, the rise of the feminist movement, which opened up professional opportunities for American women, made caregiver work less appealing, Choy said. The Immigration Act of 1965 swept aside the long-standing system of country-based quotas, instead giving preference to immigrants with professional degrees. Tens of thousands of Filipino nurses answered the call.

Caregivers on the Front Lines

The scale of losses among Filipino Americans from COVID-19 is only beginning to sink in. Clockwise from top left: Don Ryan Batayola, an occupational therapist; Alfredo Pabatao, a hospital orderly; Susan Sisgundo, a neonatal ICU nurse; Ernesto “Audie” DeLeon, a hospital nurse; Susana Pabatao, a long-term care nurse; Daisy Doronila, a correctional facility nurse.

Clockwise from top left: Courtesy of Aimee Canton, courtesy of Sheryl Pabatao, courtesy of New York State Nurses Association (both Sisgundo and DeLeon), courtesy of Sheryl Pabatao, courtesy of Denise Rendor.

Many ended up at inner-city and rural hospitals that had the greatest difficulty recruiting staff, often working the least desirable jobs and shifts, including, in the 1980s and ’90s, on the front lines of the AIDS epidemic. It was part of a historical pattern, said Nadal, of “immigrants doing a lot of the dirty work that people don’t want to do... being painted as heroes, when in reality they are only put in these positions because their lives are viewed as disposable.”

Yet it was a template for economic security that many of their American-born children and grandchildren embraced. “It’s like any kind of family dynamic,” Aroy said. “You see your parents do the job. And so then you know that that’s accessible to you. As a second- generation kid, I always knew that was a path for me if I wanted it.”

Today, people of Filipino ancestry comprise about 1% of the U.S. population but more than 7% of the hospital and health care workforce in the United States — nearly 500,000 workers, according to census data. They find themselves fighting not just a potentially lethal illness, but the scapegoating stoked by President Donald Trump and supporters who have taken to calling COVID-19 the “Chinese virus.” Since late March, civil rights organizations have received nearly 1,500 reports of anti-Asian hate incidents, mostly from California and New York, including against Filipino Americans.

“This anti-Asian racism that’s happening right now,” Aroy said, “what it makes me want to do is scream out: ‘How dare you treat us like the carriers? We are your caregivers.’”


A host of factors, from medical to cultural, have put large numbers of Filipinos in harm’s way and made them vulnerable to the types of severe complications that often turn deadly. They begin with the specific type of health care work they do.

A survey by the Philippine Nurses Association of America published in 2018 found that a large proportion of respondents were concentrated in bedside and critical care — “the opposite of social distancing,” said executive director Leo-Felix Jurado, who teaches nursing at William Paterson University in Wayne, New Jersey. Many of the organization’s members have contracted the virus, he said, including the current president, New Jersey-based registered nurse Madelyn Yu; she is recovering, but her husband died.

For Daisy Doronila, employed at the Hudson County Correctional Facility in northern New Jersey for more than two decades, the profession was almost a religious calling. “My mom had a very, very humble beginning,” said her only child, Denise Rendor. “She really wanted to take care of people that no one wanted to take care of.”

Doronila saw her responsibilities to her colleagues no less seriously. The single mother and devout Catholic “was always the most reliable person at the job,” Rendor said. “If there was a snowstorm, people called out, nope, not her: ‘I’ll be there.’” As a kid, Rendor sometimes resented the missed volleyball games and dance recitals. Looking back now, “I don’t think I would have the life that I had had my mom not worked so hard.”

It’s not clear how Doronila contracted the virus, though the Hudson County jail has had at least four deaths. Once she fell ill in mid-March, she was turned away for testing by clinics and doctors on three occasions because her symptoms didn’t meet the criteria at the time, Rendor said. On March 21, Doronila started feeling breathless and drove herself to urgent care, which sent her by ambulance to the hospital. She died on April 5 at the age of 60.

If she hadn’t gotten sick, Rendor is sure she would have been volunteering for extra shifts. “That’s just who my mother was. She was just always willing to help.”

That selflessness is common among Filipino immigrants, said Zenei Cortez, a registered nurse in the San Francisco Bay Area who is the president of the California Nurses Association/National Nurses United. “They have such a profound willingness to work that they would forget their own well-being,” she said. “They would think of their loved ones in the Philippines — if they don’t work, then they can’t send money back home.”

In 2019, Filipinos abroad sent $35 billion back to the Philippines, making it the fourth-largest recipient of overseas remittances in the world; many are also helping to support networks of relatives in the U.S. “That’s the economic factor that is on the minds of a lot of Filipino nurses,” Cortez said. “If we miss work, there will be no income.”

It’s a worry that keeps many Filipinos doing sometimes-grueling labor well into their 70s. Doronila’s colleague at the Hudson County jail, nurse Edwin Montanano, was 73 when he died in early April. Jesus Villaluz, a much-beloved patient transporter at Holy Name Medical Center in Teaneck, one of the worst-hit hospitals in northern New Jersey, was 75. “They cannot in their conscience walk away from patients who need them,” said Maria Castaneda, a registered nurse and the secretary-treasurer of 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East, who immigrated from the Philippines in 1984. “At the same time, they are there in solidarity with other co-workers. If they are not there, it adds to the burden of those who are working.”

COVID-19 risks are magnified in people who are older or suffer underlying chronic conditions. Filipinos have very high rates of Type II diabetes and cardiovascular disease, both of which render the virus more dangerous. “They’re doing amazing things and helping others to survive,” Nadal said. “But they’re putting themselves at risk because they have immuno-compromised traits that make them susceptible to severe sickness and death.”

And in many situations, they’ve been forced to do that work without proper PPE and other safeguards, said Ellorin, the Queens-based community organizer and executive director of the advocacy group Mission to End Modern-Day Slavery. They are “being infected and not being protected, and then their families, or whoever they live with, are getting infected.”

Sheryl Pabatao thinks of the many people she knows who are working in hospitals and other medical settings and feel unable to speak out. “Even though they don’t want to do things, they still do it because they don’t want to lose their jobs.”


When they first applied to immigrate to the U.S. in the 1980s, Alfredo Pabatao was in the car business; Susana was a former nursing student turned housewife and mother of two. By the time their petition was approved about 14 years later, their two eldest children were too old to qualify to come to the U.S. with their parents, so the Pabataos were forced to leave them behind, bringing only their youngest two daughters and son. “To this day, that was one of the hardest things — being separated from everyone,” Sheryl said.

One of the few photos of Susana and Alfredo Pabatao and all five of their children. (Rosem Morton, special to ProPublica)

They arrived in the U.S. a few weeks after 9/11. One of Alfredo’s sisters, a registered nurse, helped him get a job transporting patients at her hospital, now known as Hackensack Meridian Health Palisades Medical Center, in North Bergen, New Jersey. “My father grew up with wealth, and when he came here, he had to be modest and humble,” Sheryl said. Susana earned her assistant nursing certification while working as a grocery store cashier, then went to work at what is now called Bergen New Bridge Medical Center in Paramus, the largest hospital and licensed nursing home in the state. Taking care of elderly people helped ease the sadness and guilt at what she had left behind. “She was not able to take care of her own mother,” Sheryl said. “So when she does her job here, she cares for them like her own.”

America proved to be both generous and hard. The couple prospered enough to buy a house, then lost it in the Great Recession. They managed to rebuild their lives and gained their U.S. citizenship, the kids choosing careers in the pharmaceutical side of health care. After 18 years in the same job, Alfredo was waiting for Susana to retire so he could, too.

Then came the pandemic.

Sheryl had been following the news reports from China since early February and was concerned enough about her family to procure a small supply of masks before vendors ran out; “I’d put my parents in a bubble if I can,” she said. Her father was more easygoing: “He has survived so many things in his life. His attitude is: ‘If I get it, I get it. I’ll be OK with it.’”

Sheryl doesn’t know how the responsibility fell to him to transport a patient suspected of having COVID-19 during the second week in March. “But knowing my dad, he agrees to anything. He has that work ethic: ‘This is my job. If I can do it, l do it.’ Knowing him, if one of the other [orderlies] didn’t want to transfer the patient, they asked him and he said yes.”

When Susana found out her husband had been exposed to the virus that way, she was not happy, Sheryl said. Susana was having her own issues at the nursing home. In mid-March, she received an email from her bosses that warned in boldface, “Facemasks are to be used only by staff who have an authorized or clinical reason to use them. Do not wear non-hospital issued facemasks.” It was a policy Susana complained was being made by people who weren’t doing bedside care and didn’t understand the real risks. She was also told the masks would scare patients. She pretended to obey the directive when her managers were around, Sheryl said, “but my mom was stubborn, so when they left, she put [her mask] back on.”

Before she died, Susana gave her children a black notebook filled with the essential information they need to put their parents’ affairs in order. (Rosem Morton, special to ProPublica)

Bergen New Bridge called Susana a “valued” employee who is “greatly missed.” The hospital denied that it has experienced any PPE shortages, but it noted that “guidance from federal and state health officials regarding the use of PPE has been evolving.” Early on, “it was recommended that masks were to be worn only by those individuals who were sick or those who were caring for COVID-19 patients.” Once the virus began spreading within the community, “we quickly moved to universal masking of all employees,” the hospital said. “Like all healthcare facilities, our Medical Center has stressed the importance of using hospital-issued PPE, as guided by the CDC.”

As of April 29, New Bridge’s long-term care facility had recorded 120 confirmed COVID-19 cases and 26 deaths. Hackensack Meridian Health didn’t respond to ProPublica’s requests for comment about Alfredo’s case.

It wasn’t just Alfredo and Susana who fell ill. Sheryl and her brother, both living at home, caught the virus, too. The weekend before Alfredo’s symptoms emerged, he and the rest of the family attended a gathering in honor of a relative who had died in January from cancer. Alfredo spent much of the party talking to his younger brother; later, the brother ended up with COVID-19 and on a ventilator for nearly three weeks. An aunt of Sheryl’s who is a housekeeper in the same hospital system as Alfredo wasn’t at the gathering but fell ill anyway and was out sick for two weeks. Her symptoms weren’t as severe as those of some of the others; she’s already back at work.

The spread of the virus has been unrelenting for Sheryl. When she returned to her own job as a pharmacy tech this past week, a month after her parents died, she learned that someone who worked at her company — who was also Filipino — had died during her absence. “You have no idea about the extent of this,” she said, “until it hits you.”

Sophie Chou contributed reporting.

Correction, May 5, 2020: This story originally misspelled the first name of the president of the California Nurses Association/National Nurses United. She is Zenei Cortez, not Zeine.


Correction, May 5, 2020: This story originally misspelled the first name of the president of the California Nurses Association/National Nurses United. She is Zenei Cortez, not Zeine.




heal

What Happened When Health Officials Wanted to Close a Meatpacking Plant, but the Governor Said No

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

On Tuesday, March 31, an emergency room doctor at the main hospital in Grand Island, Nebraska, sent an urgent email to the regional health department: “Numerous patients” from the JBS beef packing plant had tested positive for COVID-19. The plant, he feared, was becoming a coronavirus “hot spot.”

The town’s medical clinics were also reporting a rapid increase in cases among JBS workers. The next day, Dr. Rebecca Steinke, a family medicine doctor at one of the clinics, wrote to the department’s director: “Our message is really that JBS should shut down for 2 weeks and have a solid screening plan before re-opening.”

Teresa Anderson, the regional health director, immediately drafted a letter to the governor.

But during a conference call that Sunday, Gov. Pete Ricketts made it clear that the plant, which produces nearly 1 billion pounds of beef a year and is the town’s largest employer, would not be shut down.

Since then, Nebraska has become one of the fastest-growing hot spots for the novel coronavirus in the United States, and Grand Island has led the way. Cases in the city of 50,000 people have skyrocketed from a few dozen when local health officials first reported their concerns to more than 1,200 this week as the virus spread to workers, their families and the community.

The dismissed warnings in Grand Island, documented in emails that ProPublica obtained under the state’s public records law, show how quickly the virus can spread when politicians overrule local health officials. But on a broader scale, the events unfolding in Nebraska provide an alarming case study of what may come now that President Donald Trump has used the Defense Production Act to try to ensure meat processing plants remain open, severely weakening public health officials’ leverage to stop the spread of the virus in their communities.

Ricketts spokesman Taylor Gage said the governor explained on the call with local officials that the plant would stay open because it was declared an essential industry by the federal government. Two and a half weeks later, as cases were rising among the state’s meatpacking workers, Ricketts, a Republican businessman whose father founded the brokerage TD Ameritrade, held a news conference and said he couldn’t foresee a scenario where he would tell the meatpacking plants to close because of their importance to the nation’s food supply.

“Can you imagine what would happen if people could not go to the store and get food?” he asked. “Think about how mad people were when they couldn’t get paper products.”

“Trust me,” he added, “this would cause civil unrest.”

In the last two weeks, small meatpacking towns across Nebraska have experienced outbreaks, including at a Tyson Foods beef plant in Dakota City, a Costco chicken plant in Fremont and a Smithfield Foods pork plant in Crete. With the governor vowing to keep plants open, the companies have only in recent days decided to close for deep cleanings as cases have grown to staggering levels.

In Grand Island, two hours west of Omaha, the consequences of the governor’s decision came quickly. The CHI Health St. Francis hospital, which has 16 intensive care beds, was soon overwhelmed. At one point in April, it had so many critical patients that it had to call in three different helicopter companies to airlift patients to larger hospitals in Lincoln and Omaha, said Beth Bartlett, the hospital’s vice president for patient care.

JBS workers felt the strain, too. Under pressure to keep the food supply chain flowing, some of the plant’s 3,500 workers, many hailing from Latin America, Somalia and Sudan, said they were told to report for work regardless. In a letter to the governor last week, Nebraska Appleseed, a nonprofit advocacy group, said a JBS worker had been told by his supervisor that if he tested positive, he should come to work anyway and “keep it on the DL” or he’d be fired. Some workers who’d been told to quarantine after being exposed told ProPublica this week that they were called back to work before the 14-day window recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — even if they felt sick. One worker in the offal, or entrails, section recently fainted in the plant, they said, but was told he couldn’t go home.

Cameron Bruett, head of corporate affairs for JBS, said the company has worked in partnership with local officials to prevent the spread of the coronavirus and did not influence the governor’s decision to keep the plant open. He pointed to comments made recently by University of Nebraska Medical Center officials who toured the plant, who said JBS has put in place some “best practices,” including installing barriers on the meat cutting line, communicating new precautions in multiple languages and ensuring the proper use of masks.

Bruett said no one is forced to come to work or punished for calling in sick. “Such actions, if true, would be grotesque and a clear violation of our culture,” he said.

The emails obtained by ProPublica show that local health officials have traced 260 cases to the JBS plant. But that was nearly two weeks ago and almost certainly underestimates the total. Anderson, who directs the Central District Health Department, said she hasn’t had enough tests to do targeted testing of JBS employees and is only testing people when they’re symptomatic. In Grand Island and its surrounding county, 32 people have died from the virus. According to workers, at least one of those was a JBS employee.

Across the country, more than 10,000 COVID-19 cases have been linked to meatpacking plants, and at least three dozen workers are known to have died, a ProPublica review of news reports and government health data shows.

While cases in the worst hit urban areas like New York appear to have plateaued, the nation’s meatpacking towns have continued to see spikes. A few large outbreaks have dominated public attention, but COVID-19 cases have popped up in well over 100 plants in mostly rural communities. There the virus’s impact is magnified by the workers’ sometimes cramped living conditions, with multiple generations of immigrant and refugee families often residing together in apartments, houses and trailers.

Before Trump’s order, more than 30 plants had shut down at least briefly to increase cleaning and control the spread among their workforces. The various closures have cut beef and pork production by more than a third compared with last year, causing supply chain disruptions for some supermarkets and fast-food chains.

Some of those closures show the role public health officials have had in the actions of large meatpacking companies like JBS, which has beef, pork and poultry plants in 27 states.

In Colorado, Dr. Mark Wallace of the Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment and state health director Jill Hunsaker Ryan grew worried that that if the coronavirus spread at JBS’ Greeley plant, it would have a “devastating” effect on the community that “would quickly overwhelm the medical resources available in the hospitals.”

Unlike Nebraska, Colorado’s health officials eventually ordered the JBS plant to close. But documents obtained by ProPublica show the protracted debate that came before that decision, with JBS invoking the governor to question the formal closure order. By the time the order was issued, some public officials felt the virus had been given too big a head start.

Like Grand Island, Greeley officials were already hearing by the end of March that hospital emergency rooms were seeing a “high number of JBS employees,” according to an email Wallace sent April 1 to the plant’s occupational health director.

“Their concern, and mine, is far too many employees must be working when sick and spreading infection to others,” Wallace wrote, urging the plant to take additional safety measures.

Three days later, Wallace wrote a more detailed letter to JBS’ human resources director, Chris Gaddis, documenting the virus’s spread and threatening to shut the plant down if it didn’t screen employees and ensure they could work 6 feet apart.

But as days passed, the situation in Greeley didn’t improve.

“Want you to know my colleagues are not reassured by what I’m sharing about measures being implemented,” Wallace wrote to Gaddis. “‘The cat’s out of the bag’ is what all health care providers are saying — too many sick people already, too much spread already, etc.”

After nine days of back-and-forth, JBS agreed to close the plant and Hunsaker Ryan and Wallace issued a formal shutdown order. But negotiations seemed to stretch until the last minute, emails show.

After Hunsaker Ryan sent JBS the order on the afternoon of April 10, Gaddis appeared confused. “It is our understanding from the telephone conversation that the governor did not want this letter sent,” Gaddis wrote. “Please confirm it was properly sent.”

Bruett said the company’s impression was that the governor didn’t feel a formal order “was necessary given our voluntary decision to shut down.” But Conor Cahill, a spokesman for Gov. Jared Polis, said: “Of course the governor wanted the health order sent. The governor has been clear that JBS needs to be more transparent with their staff and the public about the situation at their plant.”

Notified of the shutdown by his staff, Greeley Mayor John Gates wrote in an email, “In my opinion, that should have happened a week ago for the health and safety of their employees.”

On Wednesday, the state announced the latest numbers on the JBS outbreak: 280 employees had tested positive for COVID-19, and seven of them had died.

The Grand Island beef plant opened in 1965 in a sugar beet farming area. In recent decades, the plant has drawn immigrants from Mexico and Central America, and more recently refugees from Somalia and Sudan. In a sign of the area’s shifting workforce, Somali residents have opened a mosque in the old El Diamante nightclub and a community center in the former Lucky 7 Saloon next to a Salvadoran restaurant named El Tazumal.

Members of those communities became among the first to hit the area’s medical clinics as the virus began to spread. By the last week in March, the Family Practice of Grand Island, where Steinke works, had opened a special respiratory clinic to handle COVID-19 patients. That week, six of the patients had come from JBS. But over three days from March 30 to April 1, the clinic saw 25 patients that carried JBS insurance, indicating they were either employees or their dependents.

Danny Lemos’ father was one of the first JBS workers to get sick from the virus in late March. The 62-year-old, who’d worked at the plant for a year, had developed a fever and a cough.

“One day, he was laying in the living room on a chair, wrapped up in a blanket, shivering,” Lemos said. “My mom takes his temperature, and he had a temperature of 105 and he was really having trouble breathing.”

His father was rushed to the hospital and put on a ventilator.

Within days, Lemos said he also started having trouble breathing and joined his father in the ICU. Lemos, 39, was put in a medically induced coma and given a 20% chance of living, he said.

Danny Lemos’ father was one of the first JBS workers to contract COVID-19. Lemos, above, contracted it shortly thereafter and was put in a medically induced coma and given a 20% chance of living. (Courtesy of Danny Lemos)

Surprisingly, he said, he eventually recovered and was released from the hospital in late April. His father, Danny Lemos Sr., has been in the hospital for more than a month, most of the time on a ventilator, and is only now starting to recover.

Lemos said JBS should have taken better precautions.

“Shutting down right away, I think, probably would have helped a ton,” he said. “Do I think it would have kept everybody from getting sick? No, because those same people are still going to be out and about in the community. But just being so many people in one building, it was like a ticking time bomb.”

In an interview this week, Steinke said that it was hard to get the message across to JBS that more needed to be done.

“Even if they did not stop or shut down, if they would have put in better protections right from the start,” she said, “we would not have seen such a rapid rise in cases.”

At one point before the governor’s decision, the emails ProPublica obtained show, officials found language on the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s website that said local authorities could close a plant and the USDA would follow those decisions, potentially giving the health district some leverage.

“I guess I will send it to … HR there and maybe he will take us more seriously,” Anderson, the local health director, wrote in an email to the city administrator.

Under Trump’s executive order, that guidance has been reversed: The USDA could try to overrule local decisions if federal officials disagree.

That could pose a risk to the USDA’s own workforce of federal food inspectors, who work inside the plants to ensure the meat is safe to eat. According to the emails, some inspectors at the JBS plant also tested positive. Because inspectors sometimes monitor multiple sites, one inspector noted that she had recently worked in two other plants that have also had outbreaks, potentially spreading the virus within other plants.

“From my perspective,” temporarily closing the JBS plant “would have reduced the transmission,” Anderson said in an interview this week. “But if you shut down a plant and your 3,700 employees have nowhere to go, where are they going to go and how far is the spread going to be outside the plant vs. inside the plant? And if you end up going a month, what happens to their ability to feed their families?”

Anderson said that the “general feeling” she got from the call with the governor was that they needed to do more testing. So after the governor blocked the effort to close the plant, she continued to try to work collaboratively with JBS to encourage more testing of their employees.

In the emails, JBS officials said they were open to testing but repeatedly expressed concern about public disclosure of the results. “We want to make sure that testing is conducted in a way that does not foment fear or panic among our employees or the community,” JBS chief ethics and compliance officer Nicholas White wrote in an email to Anderson on April 15.

A week later, after the number of JBS cases was released by Anderson, Tim Schellpeper, president of the company’s U.S. beef processing operations, emailed her that he was worried about the amount of national attention it was attracting. “Have you given more thought to adding clarity/correction around this in your comments today?” he asked.

As JBS officials fretted about the optics of testing their employees, tensions within the families of the workers mounted. As the number of sick workers grew, the daughter of one worker, Miriam, said she was panicking about what would happen to her mother, who worked on the plant’s kill floor. At the end of every shift, she said, she called her mother to make sure she was okay.

“It was dreadful,” said Miriam, who asked that her last name not be used to protect her mother from retaliation. “It was just kind of living in fear waiting for the day she would have a fever. We knew it was going to happen because she’s a JBS employee. We didn’t think it was preventable anymore.”

Then, one day, she got a call from her mother, telling her that she had developed a fever and was being sent home.

“As she was changing in the locker room, she calls me and you can just hear the fear in her voice,” Miriam said.

Shortly after, her father tested positive for the virus too. Thankfully, she said, both her parents had only mild symptoms and have since recovered. But JBS and the governor should have done more, Miriam said.

“It just seemed like they were kind of careless,” she said. “I think it would have been a smart idea if not to close down the plant, to take more action to help the employees. They’re essential, but they need protection. They need to be kept safe.”

In the meantime, Ricketts has said that his approach of keeping the state “open for business” worked. And at a news conference Friday, he underscored the importance of the meatpacking industry to the state’s economy, proclaiming May as “Beef Month” in Nebraska.





heal

Months after closing $617M life sciences fund, Frazier Healthcare nabs biopharma vets

Venture capital firm Frazier Healthcare has grabbed Scott Byrd, Ian Mills, and Gordon McMurray as its new Entrepreneur-in-Residence consultants.




heal

CRN’s Mister: ‘This could be a sea change for the industry as consumers take more interest in their health’

Consumers are turning to dietary supplements in record numbers, but the industry must deliver on the results the products are promising if the industry is to convert them to long term customers, says Steve Mister.




heal

Blood: Underappreciated Resource in the Health/Disease?

Alternative title: Pitching a VC on Disruption of Blood Testing You may have seen some recent editorials about the necessary frequency of blood tests for healthy individuals, many of them prompted by a series of tweets from Mark Cuban: Although there are certainly potential dangers in expecting any and all test results to be immediately

Read More




heal

What Happened Today: Health Care System Crumbles, Testing Questions

Marc Lipsitch, a professor of epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health, answers questions about access to testing for COVID-19, false-negative results and the challenges of mass testing.




heal

Public Health Experts Say Many States Are Opening Too Soon To Do So Safely

By Monday at least 31 states will be open or partially open. This as President Trump pushed for the country to get back to work despite public health experts warning that it's too soon.




heal

So, You're Not Talking Much In Quarantine. Here's How To Keep Your Voice Healthy

With social distancing, many people are speaking less and their voices sound raggedy. NPR's Scott Simon talks with speech pathologist Sandy Hirsch, about keeping the voice sounding as it should.




heal

Day Three Notes – JP Morgan Healthcare Conference, San Francisco

Yesterday’s conference sessions surfaced interesting questions and approaches regarding the post-acute sector, bundled payment, emergency medicine and anesthesia. Post-Acute Focus: With more and more focus on the need to rationalize and re-organize the post-acute sector, we have seen multiple industry leaders start to evolve their strategies.  I blogged yesterday about AccentCare’s interesting strategy in the...… Continue Reading




heal

Looking Forward/Looking Backward – Day 1 Notes from the JPMorgan Healthcare Conference

A large amount of wind, much discussion about the U.S healthcare, and the public getting soaked again – if you were thinking about Washington, DC and the new Congress, you’re 3,000 miles away from the action. This is the week of the annual JP Morgan Healthcare conference in San Francisco, with many thousands of healthcare...… Continue Reading




heal

Food for Thought (and Health): Day 2 Notes from the JP Morgan Healthcare Conference

Addressing the Social Determinants of Health:  Is the healthcare industry pushing a rock up a hill?  We collectively are trying to provide healthcare with improved quality and reduced cost, but the structure of the nation’s healthcare system remains heavily siloed with the social determinants of health often falling wholly or partly outside the mandate and...… Continue Reading




heal

The Old and the New – Day 3 Notes from the JPMorgan Healthcare Conference

Day 3 of the JPMorgan healthcare conference was one of striking contrasts between the old and the new. (And, by the way, the rain finally stopped for a day, but it will be back tomorrow to finish off the last day of the conference). The Old:  Sitting in the Community Health Systems (CHS) presentation and...… Continue Reading




heal

Notes on Day 4 of the JPMorgan Healthcare Conference

Some interesting presentations on the last day of the JPMorgan Healthcare Conference that concentrated on common themes – the increasing importance of ancillary business line to bolster core business revenue and of filling in holes to achieve scale and full-service offerings. Genesis Healthcare – The largest U.S. skilled nursing facility (SNF) provider, which also is...… Continue Reading




heal

Healthcare needs immigrants



  • in the news

heal

10 Predictions for healthcare



  • in the news

heal

Riverside County officials vote to rescind all local coronavirus public health orders

After nearly seven hours of debate, Riverside County officials voted unanimously late Friday to rescind all of the county's stay-at-home orders that go beyond the governor's restrictions.




heal

Meet the Ohio health expert who has a fan club — and Republicans trying to stop her

Some Buckeyes are not comfortable being told by a "woman in power" to quarantine, one expert said.




heal

Laparoscopic treatment of pudendal nerve and artery entrapment improves erectile dysfunction in healthy young males




heal

UPSC (IAS) Prelims 2020: Ministry-Wise Important Government Schemes (Ministry of Health & Family Welfare)

Check important government schemes launched by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare which are important to study for the UPSC (IAS) Prelims 2020 exam.





heal

The Health-Wealth Gap

The growing gulf between rich and poor inflicts biological damage on bodies and brains




heal

COVID-19 mental-health responses neglect social realities




heal

Statin drugs might boost healthy gut microbes




heal

Blood pressure control and complex health conditions in older adults: impact of recent hypertension management guidelines




heal

Gamma-glutamyltransferase, arterial remodeling and prehypertension in a healthy population at low cardiometabolic risk




heal

A questionnaire study on the impact on oral health-related quality of life by conventional rehabilitation of edentulous patient




heal

African-American men with low-risk prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy in an equal-access health care system: implications for active surveillance




heal

Oral health in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cells transplantation survivors




heal

Ironing out mucosal healing




heal

Obesity and impaired metabolic health in patients with COVID-19




heal

A more accurate incidence of acute spinal cord injury in South Korea can be estimated by the national health insurance system




heal

Keep mental health in mind




heal

Promoting healthy lifestyle in Chinese college students: evaluation of a social media-based intervention applying the RE-AIM framework




heal

Do malocclusions affect oral health related quality of life?




heal

Associations between the activity of placental nutrient-sensing pathways and neonatal and postnatal metabolic health: the ECHO Healthy Start cohort




heal

Active travelling to school is not associated with increased total daily physical activity levels, or reduced obesity and cardiovascular/pulmonary health parameters in 10–12-year olds: a cross-sectional cohort study




heal

Kidney dendritic cells: fundamental biology and functional roles in health and disease




heal

Africa in the news: Updates on Togo, Guinea-Bissau, South Sudan, and health challenges

Guinea-Bissau and TOGO election updates Leadership in Guinea-Bissau remains unclear as the results of the December 29 runoff presidential election are being challenged in the country’s supreme court. Late last month, the country’s National Election Commission declared former Prime Minister Umaro Sissoco Embalo of the Movement of Democratic Change the winner with about 54 percent…

       




heal

Figure of the week: Poverty and health care SDG projections in sub-Saharan Africa

On January 8, the Africa Growth Initiative at Brookings released its annual Foresight Africa publication. This year’s special edition focuses on six key priorities for the next decade. The first chapter, Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals: The state of play and policy options, highlights recent progress and challenges facing the continent in achieving Agenda 2030. In his essay,…

       




heal

Removing regulatory barriers to telehealth before and after COVID-19

Introduction A combination of escalating costs, an aging population, and rising chronic health-care conditions that account for 75% of the nation’s health-care costs paint a bleak picture of the current state of American health care.1 In 2018, national health expenditures grew to $3.6 trillion and accounted for 17.7% of GDP.2 Under current laws, national health…

       




heal

The economic foundation of the poor's poor health decisions


Rumor has it that an economist started hitting the gym after finishing two milestone research papers, in expectation of a Nobel Prize, which is only rewarded to a living person. Almost no one denies that greater expectations translate into healthier behaviors, while the converse rarely enters the health policy discussion: expectations of a less-than-desirable future may lead to unhealthy behaviors, including smoking, excessive drinking, sedentary lifestyles, and drug abuse. The health issues of the deprived may have a deeper root in economics.

Professor Zhu Xi from Shanghai Jiao Tong University and I found evidence of this in our working paper “Affordable Care Encourages Healthy Living: Theory and Evidence from China's New Cooperative Medical Scheme”. Standard economic theory predicts that providing medical insurance encourages unhealthy behavior by mitigating economic consequences. We developed a novel theoretical framework in which the opposite is possible because insurance makes longevity more affordable and thus desirable.

We test the theory utilizing a unique experiment of China introducing the New Cooperative Medical Scheme, unique in its long-term credibility necessary for their proposed channel. This scheme reduces cigarette use by around 9% and bolsters subjective perception of the importance of physical exercise and healthy diet. These effects depend significantly on the number of children and the local culture of elderly care. We can rule out alternative explanations of these robust results. The empirical evidence affirms a causal link between concerns about negative bequest and unhealthy behavior, and how to break it.

Breaking the causal link would not be an easy task, because bringing a brighter future to the deprived would not be. But this does not revoke the necessity of considering this “expectation” mechanism in designing health policies. For example, it is trendy to study how smokers may substitute other tobacco products for cigarettes and the ensuing health consequences. According to our analytical framework, the substitution could be broader, that is, a person expecting a miserable future would consciously or unconsciously resort to other means of shortening life. Case and Deaton, in their sensational paper, pinned down drug and alcohol poisonings, suicide, and chronic liver diseases and cirrhosis as the causes of the rising mortality in midlife among white Americans. The war against tobacco use may be complicated by this potential substitution.

In general, recognizing the source of a problem is the first step in solving it. The association between income and life expectancy in the United States is well identified by a Brookings study by Bosworth and Burke and a paper by Chetty et al. The hypothesis that poverty may rationally trigger unhealthy behaviors and thus shorter life expectancy is under-explored.

Our research suggests that constructing a social safety net – by subsidizing health or old-age insurance, for example – brightens the future and thus promotes healthy living. Libertarians who believe in “from each as they choose, to each as they are chosen” may frown upon the idea of expanding the government for the sake of saving people from their own poor choices. As usual, an argument could be made that the positive externality outweighs the cost. In this case, a better social safety net can make a person more forward-looking and thus more beneficial to the society.

Discovering hidden incentives and mechanisms is one of the primal tasks of economists. Our research suggests, surprisingly, that both the Center of Disease Control and Prevention and the Department of the Treasury are important players in promoting healthy living. Let them be.



Authors

  • Yu Ning
Image Source: Reuters
      
 
 




heal

Priorities for India’s health policy


India’s health care sector is poised at a crossroads, and the direction taken now will be critical in determining its trajectory for years to come. In a recent Brookings India paper on the Indian government’s health care policy, we argue that it should prioritize expanding and effectively delivering those aspects of health that fall under the definition of “public goods’” for example, vaccination, health education, sanitation, public health, primary care and screening, family planning through empowering women, and reproductive and child health. 
  


Reuters/Adnan Abidi - Doctors look at the ultrasound scan of a patient at Janakpuri Super Speciality Hospital in New Delhi, January 19, 2015

These are all aspects of health with significant externalities and thus cannot be efficiently provided by markets. Large gains in the nation’s health, and particularly the health of the poorest and most marginalized, can be made with this limited focus. As just one estimate, a 2010 World Bank study showed that India lost 53.8 billion USD annually in premature mortality, lost productivity, health care provision and other losses due to inadequate sanitation.

Not about the money: Reforming India’s management systems

Importantly, these gains can come very cost effectively, as demonstrated by India’s neighbors Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, which spend less as a percentage of GDP on health than India, but have better outcomes. It is not an expansion in spending that is critical for improving health outcomes. Instead, India needs to set appropriate goals and reform the public health care sector’s governance and management systems so that it is able to deliver on those goals. Evidence gathered globally and within India suggests that without good governance, additional spending would be worth little. One potential model to adopt is to set up publicly owned corporations at the state level that can take over the existing state health infrastructure and health delivery operations, thus permitting greater flexibility in management than the government’s notoriously inefficient and hidebound administrative systems. 

India needs to set appropriate goals and reform the public health care sector’s governance and management systems so that they are able to deliver against those goals.

Where secondary and tertiary care are concerned, we believe that the government’s role should be to provide a different public good—sensible and responsive regulation that allows a health care market to develop. The government’s regulatory mechanism will need to address issues of information asymmetry between doctors and patients, for which we recommend government action to supplement market solutions for doctor discovery and quality appraisal that are already springing up. Hospital accreditation, increased importance for patient safety standards and guidelines, standardized, and, in time, mandated, Electronic Medical Records are all measures that will go toward ameliorating market failures that arise from information asymmetry in health care. Increased focus on patient safety in medical curriculums will help, but providing regulation that balances the twin objectives of improving monitoring, reporting and prevention of adverse events while disincentivizing the events themselves will be a key challenge for regulators. 

Addressing the shortage of qualified medical professionals

Human resource expansion in health care is an area where transparent and responsive government regulation on the supply side is a public good of fundamental importance. The paucity of qualified health workers in India is well documented. The distribution, too, is skewed – the public health system, particularly in rural areas, is very short of qualified personnel. As many as 18 percent of government Primary Health Centers (PHCs) were entirely without doctors, and many others faced shortages. One promising way forward is offered by Indian state Chhattisgarh’s experience with a 3 year long medical training course. While the course was shut down in a few years after opposition from doctors, its graduates were hired as Rural Medical Assistants (RMAs) in PHCs. A Public Health Foundation of India (PHFI) study in 2010 evaluated PHCs across the state, focusing on diseases and conditions that PHCs most need to treat. They found that PHCs run by RMAs were just as good as those run by regular MBBS doctors in terms of provider competence, prescription practices and patient and community satisfaction. Practitioners with training in traditional medicine can also be potentially mainstreamed into such roles. Such avenues toward overcoming the shortage of medical personnel in rural areas must be explored.

As many as 18 percent of government Primary Health Centers (PHCs) were entirely without doctors, and many others faced shortages.

Health care financing is another area where government can play a large role. Medical insurance has proved to be a poor model for financing health care. It faces several theoretical pitfalls and has been one of the major factors behind the expensive and unsustainable healthcare system in the U.S. One approach that circumvents the adverse selection and moral hazard issues of medical insurance is that of introducing Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs). MSAs can be encouraged by tax deductions that would apply if the accounts were used to pay for medical expenses, and equity concerns can be alleviated by direct payments for those that cannot pay for themselves. 


Reuters/Babu - Pharmacists dispense free medication, provided by the government, to patients at Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, July 12, 2012

These methods can help us accomplish the task of building a health care system that places its principal public spending focus on making and keeping large swathes of our population healthy, and its principal regulatory focus on creating an efficient market for health care. 

Authors

Image Source: © Babu Babu / Reuters
      




heal

The impossible (pipe) dream—single-payer health reform


Led by presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, one-time supporters of ‘single-payer’ health reform are rekindling their romance with a health reform idea that was, is, and will remain a dream.  Single-payer health reform is a dream because, as the old joke goes, ‘you can’t get there from here.

Let’s be clear: opposing a proposal only because one believes it cannot be passed is usually a dodge.One should judge the merits. Strong leaders prove their skill by persuading people to embrace their visions. But single-payer is different. It is radical in a way that no legislation has ever been in the United States.

Not so, you may be thinking. Remember such transformative laws as the Social Security Act, Medicare, the Homestead Act, and the Interstate Highway Act. And, yes, remember the Affordable Care Act. Those and many other inspired legislative acts seemed revolutionary enough at the time. But none really was. None overturned entrenched and valued contractual and legislative arrangements. None reshuffled trillions—or in less inflated days, billions—of dollars devoted to the same general purpose as the new legislation. All either extended services previously available to only a few, or created wholly new arrangements.

To understand the difference between those past achievements and the idea of replacing current health insurance arrangements with a single-payer system, compare the Affordable Care Act with Sanders’ single-payer proposal.

Criticized by some for alleged radicalism, the ACA is actually stunningly incremental. Most of the ACA’s expanded coverage comes through extension of Medicaid, an existing public program that serves more than 60 million people. The rest comes through purchase of private insurance in “exchanges,” which embody the conservative ideal of a market that promotes competition among private venders, or through regulations that extended the ability of adult offspring to remain covered under parental plans. The ACA minimally altered insurance coverage for the 170 million people covered through employment-based health insurance. The ACA added a few small benefits to Medicare but left it otherwise untouched. It left unaltered the tax breaks that support group insurance coverage for most working age Americans and their families. It also left alone the military health programs serving 14 million people. Private nonprofit and for-profit hospitals, other vendors, and privately employed professionals continue to deliver most care.

In contrast, Senator Sanders’ plan, like the earlier proposal sponsored by Representative John Conyers (D-Michigan) which Sanders co-sponsored, would scrap all of those arrangements. Instead, people would simply go to the medical care provider of their choice and bills would be paid from a national trust fund. That sounds simple and attractive, but it raises vexatious questions.

  • How much would it cost the federal government? Where would the money to cover the costs come from?
  • What would happen to the $700 billion that employers now spend on health insurance?
  • How would the $600 billion a year reductions in total health spending that Sanders says his plan would generate come from?
  • What would happen to special facilities for veterans and families of members of the armed services?

Sanders has answers for some of these questions, but not for others. Both the answers and non-answers show why single payer is unlike past major social legislation.

The answer to the question of how much single payer would cost the federal government is simple: $4.1 trillion a year, or $1.4 trillion more than the federal government now spends on programs that the Sanders plan would replace. The money would come from new taxes. Half the added revenue would come from doubling the payroll tax that employers now pay for Social Security. This tax approximates what employers now collectively spend on health insurance for their employees...if they provide health insurance. But many don’t. Some employers would face large tax increases. Others would reap windfall gains.

The cost question is particularly knotty, as Sanders assumes a 20 percent cut in spending averaged over ten years, even as roughly 30 million currently uninsured people would gain coverage. Those savings, even if actually realized, would start slowly, which means cuts of 30 percent or more by Year 10. Where would they come from? Savings from reduced red-tape associated with individual insurance would cover a small fraction of this target. The major source would have to be fewer services or reduced prices. Who would determine which of the services physicians regard as desirable -- and patients have come to expect -- are no longer ‘needed’? How would those be achieved without massive bankruptcies among hospitals, as columnist Ezra Klein has suggested, and would follow such spending cuts? What would be the reaction to the prospect of drastic cuts in salaries of health care personnel – would we have a shortage of doctors and nurses? Would patients tolerate a reduction in services? If people thought that services under the Sanders plan were inadequate, would they be allowed to ‘top up’ with private insurance? If so, what happens to simplicity? If not, why not?

Let me be clear: we know that high quality health care can be delivered at much lower cost than is the U.S. norm. We know because other countries do it. In fact, some of them have plans not unlike the one Senator Sanders is proposing. We know that single-payer mechanisms work in some countries. But those systems evolved over decades, based on gradual and incremental change from what existed before. That is the way that public policy is made in democracies. Radical change may occur after a catastrophic economic collapse or a major war. But in normal times, democracies do not tolerate radical discontinuity. If you doubt me, consider the tumult precipitated by the really quite conservative Affordable Care Act.


Editor's note: This piece originally appeared in Newsweek.

Authors

Publication: Newsweek
Image Source: © Jim Young / Reuters
      




heal

Spend less on seniors’ health care!


It’s time to spend less money on health care for older Americans. There, I’ve said it. But I’m not saying this because I’m some self-centered millennial – I’m turning 69 this summer. I’m saying it because, for older Americans especially, our health system has become a giant, expensive repair shop. It’s not a set of programs and supports to help us age the best way we can – mentally as well as physically.

Here’s what I mean. Thanks to American physicians’ training and financial incentives, the first thing most doctors will ask an elderly patient is “What’s the matter with you?” not “What matters to you?” In other words, they focus on the ailments they can try to fix with expensive technology, surgery or drugs, rather than ask what is important to you and how can they help enhance the quality of your life. 

If you do have a medical problem, it is not always best to concentrate exclusively on fixing it. Sometimes it is better to avoid “cures” that have severe side-effects that can reduce your quality of life. And sometimes the physician should really be calling a local social service agency or volunteer organization to figure out how you can continue living close to your friends of all ages, rather than steering you to a well-equipped nursing home that only houses seniors.

It’s not that physicians are bad people. It’s that for multiple reasons we tend to “over medicalize” aging in America by focusing too much on repairing people and not enough on preventive actions or maintenance care. For instance, Medicare and also Medicaid (for which low-income seniors qualify) will spend tens of thousands of dollars to repair a hip fracture, or to cover the cost of nursing home care. But there are few public resources available to modify a home to reduce the likelihood of ever having a fall, such as by replacing a bathtub with a walk-in shower. 

One reason for this pattern is our tendency as Americans to want to throw money at fixing problems once they become crises rather than to take prudent steps earlier to avoid the problem. Some would say that explains many of our foreign policy mishaps. It certainly explains our infrastructure problems, from poisoned water in Flint, Michigan, to deteriorating bridges on our interstates. 

But there’s another key reason. Unlike most other major countries, we spend a lot on medical care and proportionately much less on a range of other services, from transportation and in-home care to nutrition assistance – ongoing services that can both improve quality of life and reduce the likelihood of later medical problems. Other industrialized countries spend an average of roughly $2 in social services for every $1 on health care. We spend about 90 cents per health dollar. Sure, we can do medical wonders, but for many older Americans the balance is wrong. Too much expensive surgery and drug therapy. Too little on making aging easier and safer.

So what can we do to focus more on “what matters?” rather than on “what’s the matter?”

For starters we can encourage physicians and hospitals that look beyond their office walls at the things needed for a better life. The Affordable Care Act – or Obamacare – did take a step in this direction by penalizing hospitals if certain elderly discharged patients are readmitted within 30 days. The result? Hospitals are starting to look at improving the home safety of elderly patients rather than functioning simply as a repair shop. That could mean fewer falls and other incidents resulting in calls to 911.

We also need to encourage physicians to spend more time talking with older patients about their life goals and planning for possible health setbacks, just as prudent Americans talk to planners about their financial future. Medicare is helping this by now paying physicians for conversations about end-of-life planning. But Medicare and private insurance ought to cover time spent in much broader conversations about patients’ goals in aging. Perhaps even more important, medical schools need to provide much better training for physicians on how to conduct those conversations – today few physicians do that well.

The other step needed is to give government agencies and programs much greater leeway to “braid” together health, housing, social service and other funds so that we can age more safely – and happily – in our community. If we did that, we’d likely end up spending much less on medical procedures and much more on other things that actually improve physical and mental health. 

In this election year, those are “Medicare cuts” all seniors should embrace.


Editor's note: This piece originally appeared in Inside Sources.

Publication: Inside Sources
Image Source: © Mariana Bazo / Reuters
      




heal

3 ways to move the conversation on public health forward


Editor's note: This piece was written in response to John McDonough's article in the American Journal of Public Health titled "Shorter lives and poorer health on the campaign trail." Read McDonough's article here


McDonough is right about two very important things. First, that in America we have quite dismal outcomes for the enormous amount we spend on health care. And second, that there is a real opportunity for a new political dialog between left and right to take root—though perhaps one that is more of a quiet agreement than a high-profile grand bargain. 

McDonough wisely draws attention in Figure 3 of his editorial to the sharp distinction between the United States and other Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development countries in the relative proportions of gross domestic product spent on health services and social services. The United States is a lonely outlier because we overmedicalize our approach to health conditions and community health. Generally a blend of social, housing, public health, and other preventive strategies would yield better health results than calling an ambulance—and at a fraction of the cost. Even our higher survival rates after age 75 years is a mixed blessing, as Gawande points out, because expensive and frequent medical interventions may extend age but often not the quality of life.1 

The good news, both substantively and politically in this election year, is the growing recognition that addressing the social determinants of health is a key—perhaps the key—to improving health outcomes while slowing the growth in health spending as a proportion of gross domestic product and public spending. McDonough and I agree on that, despite his affection for Bernie Sanders’ utopian Medicare-for-all, which likely would do little to address the underlying cost and outcomes problem. 

So how could a new conversation develop, of the kind both we both would like to see? I think on several fronts. 

First, building on existing collaboration, serious analysts and policymakers on both sides of the political spectrum should explain more extensively how resources currently restricted to either health care or social services and housing should and could be more routinely braided together. Despite some interesting experiments and demonstrations that allow certain health and housing money to be mixed and used creatively, budget restrictions and payment systems generally make this dif- ficult. We could seek to agree on a mixture of legislative action on payments and budgets, and using Medicaid (Section 1115) waivers, to permit money currently available only for medical services to be used instead for housing and social services where that could be shown to improve the health of individuals in a community. 

Second, we could agree on bipartisan steps to allow states to experiment with more creative approaches to alter the blend of strategies they have available to achieve improved health outcomes. Section 1332 of the Affordable Care Act (Pub L No. 111–148) is a start, since it will allow states to propose alternatives to some Affordable Care Act provisions to improve coverage and outcomes without increasing federal costs. McDonough and I agree on using 1332 waivers in this way. But a further step would be legislation to allow states to seek even broader waivers to shift money between health and social service programs. For that to happen, conservatives would have to accept increases in total spending on some social service programs. Progressives would have to accept reductions in health programs and reduce their reluctance to granting states more flexibility. Both would have to accept rigorous evaluation to determine what works and what does not. 

And third, there is an opportunity for agreement on empowering intermediary institutions2 in neighborhoods, including charter and community schools, as well as health systems,3 to serve as hubs for integrated approaches to achieving health communities. That approach combines the conservative emphasis on the importance of nongovernmental institutions with the progressive emphasis on community action. Again, systematic evaluation is needed. 

Hopefully there can be cross-party congressional support agreement on these themes, as McDonough notes has occurred in alternative sentencing. But it is unlikely in the election season that such themes will be seized upon by presidential candidates. In my view, that is probably good, because presidential elections are about differences, not path-breaking agreements. Better, during this election cycle, to foster positive conversations that cause such themes to be taken out of the election debates, so that they will have broad support for enactment after the Election Day dust has settled. 


1. Gawande A. Being Mortal. New York, NY: Metropolitan Books; 2015. 

2. Singh P, Butler SM. Intermediaries in Integrated Approaches to Health and Economic Mobility. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution; 2015. 

3. Butler SM, Grabinsky J, Masi D. Hospitals as Hubs to Create Healthy Communities: Lessons From Washington Adventist Hospital. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution; 2015.


Editor's note: This piece originally appeared in the American Journal of Public Health

Publication: American Journal of Public Health
Image Source: © Mike Segar / Reuters
      




heal

Hospitals as community hubs: Integrating community benefit spending, community health needs assessment, and community health improvement


Much public focus is being given to a broader role for hospitals in improving the health of their communities. This focus parallels a growing interest in addressing the social determinants of health as well as health care policy reforms designed to increase the efficiency and quality of care while improving health outcomes.

This interest in the community role of hospitals has drawn attention to the federal legal standards and requirements for nonprofit hospitals seeking federal tax exemption. Tax-exempt hospitals are required to provide community benefits. And while financial assistance to patients unable to pay for care is a basic requirement of tax-exemption, IRS guidelines define the concept of community benefit to include a range of community health improvement efforts.

At the same time, the IRS draws a distinction between community health improvement spending–which it automatically considers a community benefit–and certain “community-building” activities where additional information is required in order to be compliant with IRS rules. In addition, community benefit obligations are included in the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

Specifically, the ACA requires nonprofit hospitals periodically to complete a community health needs assessment (CHNA), which means the hospital must conduct a review of health conditions in its community and develop a plan to address concerns. While these requirements are causing hospitals to look more closely at their role in the community, challenges remain. For instance, complex language in the rules can mean hospitals are unclear what activities and expenditures count as a “community benefit.” Hospitals must take additional steps in order to report community building as community health improvement.

These policies can discourage creative approaches. Moreover, transparency rules and competing hospital priorities can also weaken hospital-community partnerships. To encourage more effective partnerships in community investments by nonprofit hospitals:

  • The IRS needs to clarify the relationship between community spending and the requirements of the CHNA. 
  • There needs to be greater transparency in the implementation strategy phase of the CHNA. 
  • The IRS needs to broaden the definition of community health improvement to encourage innovation and upstream investment by hospitals.

Download "Hospitals as Community Hubs: Integrating Community Benefit Spending, Community Health Needs Assessment, and Community Health Improvement" »

Downloads

Authors

  • Sara Rosenbaum
      




heal

Health care market consolidations: Impacts on costs, quality and access


Editor's note: On March 16, Paul B. Ginsburg testified before the California Senate Committee on Health on fostering competition in consolidated markets. Download the full testimony here.

Mr. Chairman, Madame Vice Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am honored to be invited to testify before this committee on this very important topic. I am a professor of health policy at the University of Southern California and director of public policy at the USC Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics. I am also a Senior Fellow and the Leonard D. Schaeffer Chair in Health Policy Studies at The Brookings Institution, where I direct the Center for Health Policy. Much of my time is now devoted to leading the new Schaeffer Initiative for Innovation in Health Policy, which is a partnership between USC and the Brookings Institution. I am best known in California for the numerous community site visits over many years that I led in the state while I was president of the Center for Studying Health System Change; most of those studies were funded by the California HealthCare Foundation.

The key points in my testimony today are:

    • Health care markets are becoming more consolidated, causing price increases for purchasers of health services, and this trend will continue for the foreseeable future despite anti-trust enforcement; 
    • Government can still play an effective role in addressing higher prices that come from consolidation by pursuing policies that foster increased competition in health care markets. Many of these policies can be effective even in markets with high degrees of concentration, such as in Northern California.

Consolidation in health care has been increasing for some time and is now quite extensive in many markets. Some of this comes from mergers and acquisitions, but an important part also comes from larger organizations gaining market share from smaller competitors. The degree of consolidation varies by market. In California, most observers believe that metropolitan areas in the northern part of the state have provider markets that are far more consolidated than those in the southern part of the state. Insurer markets tend to be statewide and are less consolidated than those in many other states. The research literature on hospital mergers is now substantial and shows that mergers lead to higher prices, although without any measured impact on quality.[1]

The trend is accelerating for reasons that are apparent. For providers, it is becoming an increasingly challenging environment to be a small hospital or medical practice. There is more pressure on payment rates. New contracting models, such as Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs), tend to require more scale. The system is going through a challenging transition to electronic medical records, which is expensive and requires specialized expertise to avoid pitfalls. Lifestyle choices by younger physicians lead them to pursue employment in large organizations rather than solo ownerships or partnerships in small practices.

The environment is also challenging for small insurers. Multi-state employers prefer to contract with insurers that can serve all of their employees throughout the country. Scale economies are important in building the analytic capabilities that hold so much promise for effectively managing care. Insurer scale is important to make it worthwhile for providers to contract with them under alternative payment models. The implication of these trends is an expectation of increasing consolidation. There is need for both public and private sector initiatives in addition to anti-trust enforcement to foster greater competition on price and quality.

How can competition be fostered? For the insurance market, public exchanges created under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and private insurance exchanges that serve employers can foster competition among insurers in a number of ways. Exchanges reduce entry barriers by reducing the fixed costs of getting an insurer’s products in front of potential customers. Building a brand is less important when your products will be presented to consumers on an exchange along with information on the benefit design, the actuarial value and the provider network. Exchanges make it easier for consumers to make informed choices across plans. This, in turn, makes the insurance market more competitive. Among public exchanges, Covered California has stood out for making this segment of the insurance market more competitive and helping consumers make choices that are better informed.

The rest of my statement is devoted to fostering competition among providers. I believe that fostering competition among providers is a higher priority because the consequences of lack of competition are potentially larger. In addition, a significant regulatory tool, minimum medical loss ratios, part of the ACA, is now in place and can limit the degree to which purchasers pay too much for health insurance in markets with insufficient competition.

Fostering competition in provider markets involves two prongs—broadened anti-trust policy and other policies to foster market forces. Anti-trust policy, at least at the federal level, to date has not addressed hospital acquisitions of physician practices. These acquisitions lead to higher prices to physicians because hospitals can negotiate higher prices for their employed physicians than the physicians were getting in small practices. Although not yet extensive, a developing research literature is measuring the price impact.[2] Hospital employment of physicians can also be a barrier to physicians steering patients to high-value providers (another hospital or a freestanding provider). To the degree that it reduces the chance of larger physician groups or independent practice associations forming, hospital employment of physicians reduces potential competitors in contracting under alternative payment models.

Another area not addressed by anti-trust policy is cross-market mergers. The concern is that a “must have” hospital in a multi-market system could lead to higher rates for system hospitals elsewhere. Anti-trust enforcement agencies have tended to look at markets separately, so this issue tends not to enter their analyses.

Many have seen price and quality transparency as a tool to foster competition among providers. Clearly, transparency has become a societal value and people increasingly expect more information about organizations that are important to them in both the public and private sector. But transparency is often oversold as a strategy to foster competition in health care provider markets. For one thing, many benefit designs have few incentives to favor providers with lower prices. Copays are the same for all providers and with coinsurance, the insurer covers most of the price difference. Even high deductibles are limited in their incentives because almost all in-patient stays exceed large deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums also come into play for many who are hospitalized. Another issue is that the complexity of comparing prices is a “heavy lift” for many consumers. Insurers and employers now have excellent web tools designed to make it easier for patients to compare prices, but indications are that the tools do not get a lot of use.

Network strategies have the potential to be more effective. The concept behind them is that the insurer is acting as a purchasing agent for enrollees. To the extent that they have the potential to shift volume from high-priced providers to low-priced providers, money can be saved in three distinct ways. The first is the higher proportion of services coming from lower-priced providers. The second is the additional discounts from providers seeking to become part of the limited or preferred network. Finally, if a large enough proportion of patients are enrolled in plans with these incentives, providers will likely increase the priority given to cost containment. In creating networks, insurers are increasingly using broader and more sophisticated measures of price as well as some measures of quality. Cost per patient per year or cost for all services involved in an episode is likely to have more relevance than unit prices. Using such measures to judge providers for networks has strong analytic parallels to reformed payment approaches, such as ACOs and bundled payments for episodes of care. Network strategies also create more opportunities for integration of care. For example, a limited network or a preferred tier in a broader network could be mostly limited to providers affiliated with a large health care system. Indeed, some health systems are developing their own health plan or partnering with an insurer to offer plans that favor their own providers.

In this testimony, I discuss two distinct network strategies. One is the limited network, which includes fewer providers than has been the norm in private insurance. The other is the tiered network, where the network is broad but a subset of providers are included in a preferred tier. Patients pay less in cost sharing when they use the preferred providers. Limited networks are a more powerful tool to obtain lower prices because patient incentives are stronger. If patients opt for a provider not in the limited network, they are subject to higher cost sharing and might have to pay the provider the difference between the charge and what the plan allows. Results of these stronger incentives are seen in a number of studies by McKinsey and Co. that have shown that on the public exchanges, limited network plans have premiums about 15 percent lower than plans with broader networks.

Public and private exchanges are an ideal environment for limited network plans. The fixed contributions or subsidies to purchase coverage mean that consumers’ incentives to choose a plan with a lower premium are not diluted—they save the full difference in premium. Exchanges do not have the “one size fits all” requirement that constrains many employers in using this strategy. If an employer is offering only one or two plans, it is important that an overwhelming majority of employees find the network acceptable. But a limited network on an exchange could appeal to fewer than half of those purchasing on the exchange and still be very successful. In addition, tools provided by exchanges to support consumers facilitate comparisons of plans by having each plan’s network accessible on a single web site.

In contrast, tiered networks have the potential to appeal to a larger consumer audience. Rather than making annual choices of which providers can be accessed in network, tiered networks allow these decisions on a point-of-service basis. So the consumer always has the option to draw on the full network. Considering the greater popularity of PPOs than HMOs and the fact that tiered formularies for prescription drugs are far more popular than closed formularies, the potential market for tiered networks might be much larger. But this has not happened. In many markets, dominant providers have blocked the offering of tiered networks by refusal to contract with insurers that do not place them in the preferred tier. This phenomenon was seen in Massachusetts, where 2010 legislation prohibiting this practice led to rapid growth in insurance products with tiered networks.

Some Californians are familiar with a related approach of reference pricing due to the pioneering work that CalPERS has done in this area for state and local employees. Reference pricing is really an “extra strength” version of the tiered network approach. An insurer sets a reference price and patients using providers that charge more are responsible for the difference (although providers sometimes do not charge patients in such plans any more than the reference price). So the incentive to avoid providers whose price exceeds the reference price is quite strong. While CalPERS has had success with joint replacements and some other procedures, a key question is what proportion of medical spending might be suitable to this approach. For reference pricing to be suitable, the services must be “shoppable,” meaning that they must be discretionary with the patient and can be planned in advance. One analysis estimates that only one third of health spending is “shoppable.”[3]

While network approaches have a lot of potential for fostering competition in health care markets, including those that are consolidated, they face a number of challenges that must be addressed. First, transparency about networks must be improved. Consumers need accurate information on which providers are in a network when they choose plans and when they choose providers for care. Accommodation is needed for patients under treatment if their provider should drop out of a network or be dropped from one. Network adequacy regulations are needed to protect consumers from networks that lack access to some specialties or do not have providers close enough to their residence. They are also important to preclude strategies that create networks unlikely to be attractive to patients with expensive, chronic diseases. But if network adequacy regulation is too aggressive, it risks seriously undermining a very promising tool for cost saving. So regulators must very carefully balance consumer protection with cost containment.

Some consider the problem of “surprise” balance bills, charges by out-of-network providers that patients do not choose, to be more significant in limited networks. This may be the case, but the problem is substantial in broader networks as well, and its policy response should apply throughout private insurance.

Another approach to foster competition in provider markets involves steps to foster independent medical practices. Medicare has taken steps to ease requirements for medical practices to contract as ACOs. It recently took some steps to limit the circumstances in which hospital-employed physicians get higher Medicare rates than those in office-based practice. Private insurers have provided support to some practices to incorporate electronic medical records into their practices. To the degree that independent practice can be made more attractive relative to hospital employment, competition in provider markets is likely to increase.

Additional restrictions on anti-competitive behavior by providers can also foster competition. These behaviors include “all or nothing” contracting requirements in which a hospital system requires insurers to contract with all hospitals in the system and “most favored nation” clauses in which insurers get providers to agree not to establish lower rates for other insurers.

Although the focus of discussion about policy in this testimony has been about fostering competition, regulatory alternatives that substitute for competition should not be ignored. At this time, two states—Maryland and West Virginia—regulate hospital rates. Some states, mostly in the Northeast, have been looking at this approach. Although I respect what some states have accomplished with this approach in the past, I need to point out that the current environment poses additional challenges for rate setting. The notion that rates would be the same for all payers, a longstanding component in Maryland, is unlikely to be practical today because rate differences between private insurance, Medicare and Medicaid are so large. So differences would likely have to be “grandfathered.” More practical would be to limit regulation to commercial rates, as West Virginia has done since the 1980s.

Another challenge is that with broad enthusiasm about the prospects for reformed payment, those contemplating rate setting need to make sure that the mechanism encourages payment reform rather than blocks it. Maryland has been quite careful about this and its recent initiative to broaden its program seems promising. But with the recent emphasis on multi-provider approaches to payment, such as ACOs and bundled payment, the limitation of regulatory authority to hospital rates could be a problem.

So what are my bottom lines for legislative priorities? I have two. States should address restrictions on anti-competitive practices such as anti-tiering restrictions, all-or-none contracting restrictions, and most favored nation clauses. My second is to regulate network adequacy wisely. It is a potent tool for fostering competition, even in consolidated markets. Network strategies do have problems that need to be addressed, but it must be done while preserving much of the potency of the approach.

A concluding thought involves acknowledging that provider payment reform approaches are likely to contribute to consolidation. Small hospitals and medical practices are not well positioned to participate, although virtual approaches can often be used in place of mergers, for example as California’s independent practice associations have enabled many small practices to participate. But I see payment reform as having major potential over time to reduce costs and increase quality. So my advice is to proceed with payment reform but also take steps to foster competition. Rate setting is best seen as a “stick in the closet” to use if market approaches should fail to control costs.


[1] Gaynor, M., and R. Town, The Impact of Hospital Consolidation – Update, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Synthesis Report (June 2012).

[2] Baker, L. C., M.K Bundorf and D.P. Kessler, “Vertical Integration: Hospital Ownership Of Physician Practices Is Associated With Higher Prices And Spending,” Health Affairs, Vol. 35, No 5 (May 2014).

[3] Chapin White and Megan Egouchi, Reference Pricing: A Small Piece of the Health Care Pricing and Quality Puzzle. National Institute for Health Care Reform, Research Brief No. 18, October 2014.

Downloads

Authors

      




heal

The next stage in health reform


Health reform (aka Obamacare) is entering a new stage. The recent announcement by United Health Care that it will stop selling insurance to individuals and families through most health insurance exchanges marks the transition. In the next stage, federal and state policy makers must decide how to use broad regulatory powers they have under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to stabilize, expand, and diversify risk pools, improve local market competition, encourage insurers to compete on product quality rather than premium alone, and promote effective risk management. In addition, insurance companies must master rate setting, plan design, and network management and effectively manage the health risk of their enrollees in order to stay profitable, and consumers must learn how to choose and use the best plan for their circumstances.

Six months ago, United Health Care (UHC) announced that it was thinking about pulling out of the ACA exchanges. Now, they are pulling out of all but a “handful” of marketplaces. UHC is the largest private vendor of health insurance in the nation. Nonetheless, the impact on people who buy insurance through the ACA exchanges will be modest, according to careful analyses from the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Urban Institute. The effect is modest for three reasons. One is that in some states UHC focuses on group insurance, not on insurance sold to individuals, where they are not always a major presence. Secondly, premiums of UHC products in individual markets are relatively high. Third, in most states and counties ACA purchasers will still have a choice of two or more other options. In addition, UHC’s departure may coincide with or actually cause the entry of other insurers, as seems to be happening in Iowa.

The announcement by UHC is noteworthy, however. It signals the beginning for ACA exchanges of a new stage in their development, with challenges and opportunities different from and in many ways more important than those they faced during the first three years of operation, when the challenge was just to get up and running. From the time when HealthCare.Gov and the various state exchanges opened their doors until now, administrators grappled non-stop with administrative challenges—how to enroll people, helping them make an informed choice among insurance offerings, computing the right amount of assistance each individual or family should receive, modifying plans when income or family circumstances change, and performing various ‘back office’ tasks such as transferring data to and from insurance companies. The chaotic first weeks after the exchanges opened on October 1, 2013 have been well documented, not least by critics of the ACA. Less well known are the countless behind-the-scenes crises, patches, and work-arounds that harried exchange administrators used for years afterwards to keep the exchanges open and functioning.

The ACA forced not just exchange administrators but also insurers to cope with a new system and with new enrollees. Many new exchange customers were uninsured prior to signing up for marketplace coverage. Insurers had little or no information on what their use of health care would be. That meant that insurers could not be sure where to set premiums or how aggressively to try to control costs, for example by limiting networks of physicians and hospitals enrollees could use. Some did the job well or got lucky. Some didn’t. United seems to have fallen in the second category. United could have stayed in the 30 or so state markets they are leaving and tried to figure out ways to compete more effectively, but since their marketplace premiums were often not competitive and most of their business was with large groups, management decided to focus on that highly profitable segment of the insurance market. Some insurers, are seeking sizeable premium increases for insurance year 2017, in part because of unexpectedly high usage of health care by new exchange enrollees.

United is not alone in having a rough time in the exchanges. So did most of the cooperative plans that were set up under the ACA. Of the 23 cooperative plans that were established, more than half have gone out of business and more may follow. These developments do not signal the end of the ACA or even indicate a crisis. They do mark the end of an initial period when exchanges were learning how best to cope with clerical challenges posed by a quite complicated law and when insurance companies were breaking into new markets. In the next phase of ACA implementation, federal and state policy makers will face different challenges: how to stabilize, expand, and diversify marketplace risk pools, promote local market competition, and encourage insurers to compete on product quality rather than premium alone. Insurance company executives will have to figure out how to master rate setting, plan design, and network management and manage risk for customers with different characteristics than those to which they have become accustomed.

Achieving these goals will require state and federal authorities to go beyond the core implementation decisions that have absorbed most of their attention to date and exercise powers the ACA gives them. For example, section 1332 of the ACA authorizes states to apply for waivers starting in 2017 under which they can seek to achieve the goals of the 2010 law in ways different from those specified in the original legislation. Along quite different lines, efforts are already underway in many state-based marketplaces, such as the District of Columbia, to expand and diversify the individual market risk pool by expanding marketing efforts to enroll new consumers, especially young adults. Minnesota’s Health Care Task Force recently recommended options to stabilize marketplace premiums, including reinsurance, maximum limits on the excess capital reserves or surpluses of health plans, and the merger of individual and small group markets, as Massachusetts and Vermont have done.

In normal markets, prices must cover costs, and while some companies prosper, some do not. In that respect, ACA markets are quite normal. Some regional and national insurers, along with a number of new entrants, have experienced losses in their marketplace business in 2016. One reason seems to be that insurers priced their plans aggressively in 2014 and 2015 to gain customers and then held steady in 2016. Now, many are proposing significant premium hikes for 2017.

Others, like United, are withdrawing from some states. ACA exchange administrators and state insurance officials must now take steps to encourage continued or new insurer participation, including by new entrants such as Medicaid managed care organizations (MCOs). For example, in New Mexico, where in 2016 Blue Cross Blue Shield withdrew from the state exchange, state officials now need to work with that insurer to ensure a smooth transition as it re-enters the New Mexico marketplace and to encourage other insurers to join it. In addition, state insurance regulators can use their rate review authority to benefit enrollees by promoting fair and competitive pricing among marketplace insurers. During the rate review process, which sometimes evolves into a bargaining process, insurance regulators often have the ability to put downward pressure on rates, although they must be careful to avoid the risk of underpricing of marketplace plans which could compromise the financial viability of insurers and cause them to withdraw from the market. Exchanges have an important role in the affordability of marketplace plans too. For example ACA marketplace officials in the District of Columbia and Connecticut work closely with state regulators during the rate review process in an effort to keep rates affordable and adequate to assure insurers a fair rate of return.

Several studies now indicate that in selecting among health insurance plans people tend to give disproportionate weight to premium price, and insufficient attention to other cost provisions—deductibles and cost sharing—and to quality of service and care. A core objective of the ACA is to encourage insurance customers to evaluate plans comprehensively. This objective will be hard to achieve, as health insurance is perhaps the most complicated product most people buy. But it will be next to impossible unless customers have tools that help them take account of the cost implications of all plan features and report accurately and understandably on plan quality and service. HealthCare.gov and state-based marketplaces, to varying degrees, are already offering consumers access to a number of decision support tools, such as total cost calculators, integrated provider directories, and formulary look-ups, along with tools that indicate provider network size. These should be refined over time. In addition, efforts are now underway at the federal and state level to provide more data to consumers so that they can make quality-driven plan choices. In 2018, the marketplaces will be required to display federally developed quality ratings and enrollee satisfaction information. The District of Columbia is examining the possibility of adding additional measures. California has proposed that starting in 2018 plans may only contract with providers and hospitals that have met state-specified metrics of quality care and promote safety of enrollees at a reasonable price. Such efforts will proliferate, even if not all succeed.

Beyond regulatory efforts noted above, insurance companies themselves have a critical role to play in contributing to the continued success of the ACA. As insurers come to understand the risk profiles of marketplace enrollees, they will be better able to set rates, design plans, and manage networks and thereby stay profitable. In addition, insurers are best positioned to maintain the stability of their individual market risk pools by developing and financing marketing plans to increase the volume and diversity of their exchange enrollments. It is important, in addition, that insurers, such as UHC, stop creaming off good risks from the ACA marketplaces by marketing limited coverage insurance products, such as dread disease policies and short term plans. If they do not do so voluntarily, state insurance regulators and the exchanges should join in stopping them from doing so.

Most of the attention paid to the ACA to date has focused on efforts to extend health coverage to the previously uninsured and to the administrative stumbles associated with that effort. While insurance coverage will broaden further, the period of rapid growth in coverage is at an end. And while administrative challenges remain, the basics are now in place. Now, the exchanges face the hard work of promoting vigorous and sustainable competition among insurers and of providing their customers with information so that insurers compete on what matters: cost, service, and quality of health care.

Editor's note: This piece originally appeared in Real Clear Markets. Kevin Lucia and Justin Giovannelli contributed to this article with generous support from The Commonwealth Fund.

Authors

Image Source: © Brian Snyder / Reuters
       




heal

Using intermediaries to improve health


As we explore the social determinants of health, we are discovering some very important things. One is that compared with other developed countries, the United States spends a much higher proportion of resources on medical services to treat people than on social services that improve the prospects for good health. Research shows that countries placing a greater emphasis on social services rather than medical care have better health outcomes. Recent research comparing spending on health and social services among US states also found that spending relatively more on social services is significantly related to better health outcomes.

But getting the health system to “prescribe” social services is hard. Hospitals, in particular, do not easily cooperate with social service organizations in trying to improve community health. There are many reasons for this. Institutional culture can get in the way; the health care sector’s business model is not exactly based on reducing the volume of medical services. Shifting substantial resources from medical services to social services threatens the financial interests of a major industry.

In addition, data systems of medical, educational, and social service organizations often are not compatible, and privacy concerns add to that barrier. Budget and payment systems generally don’t encourage multisector cooperation either, and community organizations often feel their independence is threatened by partnering with a large local hospital.

These problems are not unique to the health care and social services worlds. When 2 sectors seek to cooperate, the ideal is to harmonize all systems so that they can interact seamlessly. But that is an enormous task, usually requiring daunting changes for organizations in each sector.

A Role for Intermediaries

One way to enable collaboration between large institutions and sectors that find it hard to cooperate directly is to introduce intermediaries to serve as bridges. By intermediaries we mean organizations that operate in the space between institutions or people and help link them together. Successful intermediaries have the trust of each institution, and so they fulfill a “diplomatic” function. They provide skills and capacities that are lacking in the organizations they connect together. In addition to helping us achieve a better combination of medical care and social services to produce improved health, they can help health care and other sectors to work together more seamlessly.

As health care institutions seek to work with other sectors to address social determinants of health, we are beginning to see certain types of intermediaries that will be particularly helpful.

Data Intermediaries

Sharing data on patients and households is necessary to coordinate multisector services, but it also raises technical, governance, and privacy concerns. Some intermediary organizations are addressing these issues by making it easier for institutions to share data and cooperate. For instance, to make service data more available to institutions trying to work together, an initiative called Actionable Intelligence for Social Policy (AISP) works with counties and other jurisdictions to address technical and governance concerns. With the assistance of the nonprofit and nonpartisan advocacy organization Data Quality Campaign as a technical intermediary, many states and counties are tackling the privacy and other issues needed to create integrated data systems—or “data warehouses”—that can enable health systems, schools, and other sectors to coordinate services for each student. Meanwhile the National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership (NNIP) helps develop neighborhood-level data to help organizations design policy plans for addressing social and health needs.

Embedded “Extenders”

Another interesting approach is for institutions, particularly some hospitals, to bring intermediary institutions onto their premises to address social service needs for discharged patients. For instance, the nonprofit organization Health Leads trains and funds individuals to be embedded in hospitals and link patients to an array of social services and community organizations, thereby bringing skills the hospital typically does not possess in-house. Washington Adventist Hospital contracts with Seedco, a national nonprofit focused on work and family supports, to coordinate such services for its patients.

In reverse, some other institutions have an embedded staff that can link them more effectively with the health care system. School-based nurses are an example. In some states, a nonprofit organization called Communities in Schools embeds teams in schools to link students with health care services and with social service agencies that can improve their students’ health and help them succeed academically.

Budget Blenders

Restrictions on who can receive federal and state program money create funding silos that make it hard for health systems to partner with community social service organizations. A 3-track Accountable Health Communities model, which the Obama Administration will be implementing and testing over a 5-year period, may be a step towards resolving that issue. But meanwhile, some intermediaries are helping to address the problem.

One interesting example is made possible by the state of Maryland’s use of Local Management Boards (LMBs). These county-level public or nonprofit entities have the legal ability to deploy certain federal grants and programs administered by the state, as well as state resources, to local organizations with the aim of improving the health and educational success of children. In some cases the boards are governmental institutions, but in other cases, such as the Family League of Baltimore, they are intermediary organizations that coordinate and oversee funds and grantees. In this way, intermediaries that are close to the community and have trusted links with a range of health and social service organizations can help social service and health care institutions concentrate on social determinants of health.

Connectors

Some intermediaries function almost as entrepreneurs, developing creative ways to facilitate relationships between health care institutions and other sectors. The National Collaborative on Education and Health, for instance, brings together multiple organizations focused on steps to create a culture of health within schools. City Health Works, in New York’s Harlem, uses personal coaches to connect households with hospital partners and social service providers to improve health in the community.

This rich tapestry of intermediaries can help the health system collaborate more effectively and seamlessly with social services and community institutions as we focus on social determinants of health. So we can take steps to foster the use of intermediaries. For instance, states can emulate Maryland’s LMB’s, by creating county or city bodies to coordinate funding streams and steer support to innovative community organizations.

Governments and foundations can also provide the modest seed capital needed for intermediaries to develop data systems, so that they can play a more sophisticated role. The federal government can tweak the community benefit requirements for nonprofit hospitals to encourage them to invest in nonmedical services that promote health. Most important and starting at the local level, health plan administrators, health care professionals and facilities, government, school districts, and social service agencies need to sit down together to identify how to improve community health by changing patterns of spending.


Editor's note: This piece originally appeared in JAMA Forum.

Publication: JAMA Forum