According to an August 2015 survey, 72 percent of Americans find drug costs unreasonable, with 83 percent believing that the federal government should be able to negotiate prices for Medicare. Recently, Acting Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Andy Slavitt commented that spending on medicines increased 13 percent in 2014 while health care spending growth overall was only 5 percent, the highest rate of drug spending growth since 2001.

Some of the most expensive drugs are covered under Medicare’s medical benefit, Part B, because they are administered by a physician. They are often administered in hospital outpatient departments and physician offices, and most commonly used to treat conditions like cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, and macular degeneration. Between 2005 and 2014, spending on Part B drugs has increased annually by 7.7 percent, with the top 20 drugs by total amount of Medicare payments accounting for 57 percent of total Part B drug costs. While overall Part B drug spending is a small portion of Medicare drug spending, the high growth rate is a concern, especially as new expensive breakthrough cancer drugs enter the market and have a negative effect on consumers’ pockets.

Unlike Part D, the prescription drug benefit, there are fewer incentives built in to Part B for providers to consider lower cost treatments for patients even if the lower cost drug may be clinically equivalent to the more expensive drug, because prior to budget sequestration, providers received 6 percent on top of the Average Sales Price (ASP) of the drug. Larger providers and hospitals often receive discounts on these drugs as well, increasing the amount they receive directly on top of the out-of-pocket cost of the drug.

This leads to more out-of-pocket costs for the consumer, as patients usually pay 20 percent of Part B services. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) estimated that in 2013, among new drugs covered under Part B, nearly two-thirds had per beneficiary costs of over $9,000 per year, leading to out-of-pocket costs for consumers of amounts between $1,900 and $107,000 over the year. On top of these high costs, this can lead to problems with medication adherence, even for serious conditions such as cancer.

A New Payment Model

To help change these incentives and control costs, CMS has proposed a new demonstration program, which offers a few different reimbursement methods for Part B drugs. The program includes a geographically stratified design methodology to test and evaluate the different methods. One of the methods garnering a lot of attention is a proposal to lower the administration add-on payment to providers, from current 6 percent of ASP, to 2.5 percent plus a flat fee of $16.80 per administration day.

Policymakers, physician organizations, and patient advocacy organizations have voiced major concerns raising the alarm that this initiative will negatively affect patient access to vital drugs and therefore produce poorer patient outcomes. The sequester will also have a significant impact on the percentage add on, reducing it to closer to an estimated .86 percent plus the flat fee. But we believe the goals of the program and its potential to reduce costs represent an important step in the right direction. We hope the details can be further shaped by the important communities of providers and patients who will deliver and receive medical care.

Geographic Variation

Last year, we wrote a Health Affairs Blog that highlighted some of the uses and limitations of publicly available Part B physician payment data. One major use was to show the geographic variation in practice patterns and drug administration, and we particularly looked at the difference across states in Lucentis v. Avastin usage. As seen in Exhibit 1, variation in administration is wide among states, even though both are drugs used to treat the same condition, age-related macular degeneration, and were proven to have clinically similar outcomes, but the cost of Lucentis was $2,000 per dose, while Avastin was only $50 per dose.

Using the same price estimates from our previous research, which are from 2012, we found that physician reimbursement under the proposed demonstration would potentially change from $120 to $66.80 for Lucentis, and increase from $3 to $18.05 for Avastin. Under the first payment model, providers were receiving 40 times as much to administer Lucentis instead of Avastin, while under the new proposed payment model, they would only receive 3.7 times as much.

While still a formidable gap, this new policy would have decreased financial reimbursement for providers to administer Lucentis, a costly, clinically similar drug to the much cheaper Avastin. As seen in Exhibit 1, a majority of physicians prescribe Avastin, thus this policy will allow for increased reimbursement in those cases, but in states where Lucentis is prescribed in higher proportions, prescribing patterns might start to change as a result of the proposed demonstration.

Source: Author’s estimates using 2012 CMS Cost Data and Sequestration Estimates from DrugAbacus.org

The proposed demonstration program includes much more than the ASP modifications in its second phase, including:

• discounting or eliminating beneficiary copays,
• indication-based pricing that would vary payments based on the clinical effectiveness,
• reference pricing for similar drugs,
• risk-sharing agreements with drug manufacturers based on clinical outcomes of the drug, and
• creating clinical decision tools for providers to help develop best practices.

This is all at the same time that a new model in oncology care (OCM) is being launched, which could help to draw attention to total cost of care. It is important that CMS try to address rising drug costs, but also be sure to consider all relevant considerations during the comment period to fine-tune the proposal to avoid negative effects on beneficiaries’ care.

We believe CMS should consider offering a waiver for organizations already participating in Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) models like the OCM, because financial benchmarks are based on past performance and any savings recognized in the future could be artificial, attributable to this demonstration rather than to better care coordination and some of the other practice requirements that are part of the proposed OCM. Furthermore, because this demonstration sets a new research precedent and because it is mandatory in the selected study areas rather than voluntary, CMS must try to anticipate and avoid unintended consequences related to geographic stratification.

For example, it is possible to imagine organizations with multiple locations directing patients to optimal sites for their business. Also, without a control group, some findings may be unreliable. The proposed rule currently lacks much detail, and there does not seem to be enough time for organizations to evaluate the impact of the proposed rule on their operations. Having said that, it will be important for stakeholders of all types to submit comments to the proposed rule in an effort to improve the final rule prior to implementation.

The critical question for the policymakers and stakeholders is whether this model can align with the multitude of other payment model reforms — unintended consequences could mitigate all the positive outcomes that a CMMI model offers to beneficiaries. Helping beneficiaries is and should be CMS’ ultimate obligation.

Editor’s Note: This analysis is part of The Leonard D. Schaeffer Initiative for Innovation in Health Policy, which is a partnership between the Center for Health Policy at Brookings and the USC Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics. The Initiative aims to inform the national health care debate with rigorous, evidence-based analysis leading to practical recommendations using the collaborative strengths of USC and Brookings.

The passage of the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) just over a year ago signaled a strong and unique bipartisan agreement to move towards value-based care, but until recently, many of the details surrounding how it would be implemented remained unknown. But last week, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Studies (CMS) released roughly 1,000 pages that shed more light on how physician payment will hopefully dramatically change for the better.

Some Historical Context

Prior to MACRA, how doctors were paid for providing care to Medicare patients was subject to a reimbursement formula known as the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR). Established in 1997 to control the rate of increase in spending on physician services, the SGR pegged total spending among all Medicare-participating physicians to an overall budget target. Yet in this “tragedy of the commons,” no one physician benefitted from her good stewardship of health care resources. Total physician spending often exceeded the overall budget target, triggering reimbursement rate cuts. However, lawmakers chose to push them off into the future through what were called “doc fixes,” deferring the rate cuts temporarily. The pending cut rose to over 21 percent before MACRA’s passage as a result of compounding doc fixes.

Moving Forward with MACRA

When it was signed into law on April 16, 2015, MACRA ended the SGR, its cuts, and many previous payment incentive programs. In their place, MACRA established two overarching payment incentive schemes for providers to choose from:

1. the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) program, which supplants three previous payment incentives and makes positive or negative adjustments to a physician’s payment based on her performance; or


2. the Alternative Payment Model (APM) program, which awards a 5 percent bonus through 2024—with higher annual payment updates thereafter—for having a minimum percentage of Medicare and/or all-payer revenue through eligible APMs. Base physician fee rates for all Medicare providers would be updated 0.5 percent for each of the first four years, followed by no increases until 2026, when base fees would increase at different rates depending on the payment incentive program in which a physician participates.

MIPS addresses providers’ longstanding complaints that reporting that reporting under the existing programs—the Physician Quality Reporting System, the Value-Based Modifier, and Meaningful Use — is duplicative and cumbersome. Under the new MIPS program, physicians report to the government payer directly (CMS) and receive a bonus or penalty based on performance on measures of quality, resource use, meaningful use of electronic health records, and clinical practice improvement activities. The bonus or penalty physicians may see starts at 4 percent of the fee schedule in 2019 (based on their performance two years prior—in this case 2017) and increases successively to 5 percent in 2020, 7 percent in 2021, and 9 percent from 2022 onward. From 2026 onward, MIPS providers would receive an annual increase of 0.25 percent on their base fee schedules rates.

In contrast, the APM incentive program awards qualifying physicians a fixed, annual bonus of 5 percent of their reimbursement from 2019- – 2024, and provides that their fee schedule rates grow 0.5 percentage points faster than those of MIPS in 2026 and beyond, in recognition of the risk they assume in these contracts.

Yet, according to MACRA, not all APMs are created equal. APMs eligible for this track must use quality measures similar to those of MIPS, ensure electronic health records are used, and either be an approved patient-centered medical home (PCMH) or require that the participating entity “bears more than nominal financial risk” for excessive costs. Then, in order to receive the APM track bonus, physicians must have a minimum of 25 percent of their revenue from Medicare come through eligible APMs in 2019, with the minimum increasing through 2023 up to 75 percent. In 2021, a new all-payer Advanced APM option becomes available, allowing providers in APM contracts with other payers to participate in the Advanced APM incentive. To do so, they must meet the same minimum thresholds—50 percent in 2021, 75 percent in 2023—but through all provider contracts, not solely Medicare revenue, while still meeting a significantly lower Medicare-specific threshold. By creating an all-payer option, CMS hopes to enable greater provider participation by allowing all payer revenue to count toward the same minimum threshold. Under the all-payer model in 2021, for example, providers must have no less than 25 percent of Medicare revenue through Advanced APMs and 50 percent of all revenue through Advanced APMs.

MACRA Implementation Details Revealed

The newly released proposed rule provides answers to significant questions that had been left unanswered in the law surrounding the specifics of implementation of MIPS and the APM incentives. At long last, providers are gleaning insight into how CMS intends to implement MIPS and the APM track. Given the fast-approaching MIPS performance period in January 2017, here are three key highlights providers need to know:

1. Qualifying for the APM incentive track—and getting out of MIPS—will be difficult. In order to qualify for the bonus-awarding Advanced APM designation, APMs must meet the “nominal financial risk” criteria, which will be measured in three ways: an APM’s marginal rate sharing for losses, minimum loss ratio (the threshold above which providers would begin sharing in losses), and total potential risk as a percent of expected costs. Clinicians must further have a minimum share of revenue that comes in through the designated APMs.


2. Providers will have fewer opportunities to see and improve their performance on MIPS. Despite calls from provider groups for more frequent reporting and feedback periods, MIPS reporting periods will be annual, not quarterly. This is true for performance feedback from CMS, as well, though they may explore more frequent feedback cycles in the future. Quarterly reporting and feedback periods could have made the incentive programs more “actionable” for providers, alerting them to their performance closer to the time the services were rendered and providing more opportunities to improve performance.


3. MIPS allows greater flexibility than previous programs. Put simply, MIPS is the performance incentive program clinicians will participate in if not on the Advanced APM track. While compelling participation, the proposed MIPS implementation also responds to stakeholder concerns that earlier performance incentive programs were onerous and sometimes irrelevant—MIPS reduces the number of measures required in some categories and allows physicians to select from a set of measures to report on based on relevancy to their practice.

With last week’s release of the proposed rule, the Leonard D. Schaeffer Initiative for Innovation in Health Policy is kicking off a series of work products that will focus dually on further MACRA implementation issues and on translating complex policy into providers’ experience. In the blogs and publications to follow, we will dive into greater detail and discussion of the pieces of MACRA implementation highlighted here, as well as many other emerging physician payment reform issues, as the law’s implementation unfolds.

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.

Event Information

An American Enterprise Institute-Brookings/USC Schaeffer Initiative Event
 

For most of the last five decades, the most-discussed finding by the Medicare trustees has been the insolvency date, when Medicare’s trust fund would no longer be able to pay all of the program’s costs. Last year’s report projected that the hospital insurance trust fund would be depleted by 2030 – just 14 years from now. The report also predicted a more immediate and controversial event: the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), famously nicknamed “death panels,” would be required to submit proposals to reduce Medicare spending in 2018, with the reductions taking place in 2019. Do we remain on this path to automatic Medicare cuts next year?

The American Enterprise Institute and the Schaeffer Initiative for Innovation in Health Policy, a collaboration between the USC Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics and the Brookings Institution, hosted a discussion of the new 2016 trustees report on June 23. Medicare’s Chief Actuary Paul Spitalnic summarized the key findings followed by a panel of experts who discussed the potential consequences of the report for policy actions that might be taken to improve the program’s fiscal condition. You can join the conversation at #MedicareReport.

Video

• Introduction and keynote address
• Panel discussion

Audio

• The 2016 Medicare Trustees Report: One year closer to IPAB cuts?

Event Materials

• AEI TR16 final
• 20160623_medicaretrusteesreport_transcript

The full story of the killing of Michael Brown, a young, black, unarmed man shot by a policeman in Ferguson, Missouri, is still unfolding—and the truth will not be known for some time. It is only after full investigations are completed that an objective evaluation of the incident can be made. Nonetheless, there is no doubt that the killing of the young man was unfortunate and has generated a serious debate about race relations in America, and on the relations between police and the communities that they are supposed to protect. The riots and massive looting portrayed not only the extent of criminality in America’s inner cities, but also the economic marginalization of the minority communities.

Coming not long after the successful U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit held in Washington, the Ferguson incident and the follow-up demonstrations have been rather unfortunate in as far as how Africans view America—in a way questioning America’s standing as a protector of human rights. The hostility towards the United States in regard to its treatment of African-Americans has dominated social media with claims that the incident shows that America should not claim leadership when it comes to human rights. Such criticisms by many other countries, including Russia and China, are widespread.

I was particularly surprised by the comments in the Kenyan media coverage of this topic. Here are some statements on the topic by readers of the most popular paper there—the Daily Nation:

(This is an apparent reference to the fact that the United States government issues travel advisories to countries like Kenya when such incidents occur and there are riots.)

(This statement is in reference to the U.S. government’s actions following the 2007-2008 post-election violence in Kenya.)