Acquisition of Medicaid at the time of injury: An opportunity for sustainable insurance coverage.

INTRODUCTION: Uninsured trauma patients are at higher risk of mortality, limited access to postdischarge resources, and catastrophic health expenditure. Hospital Presumptive Eligibility (HPE), enacted with the 2014 Affordable Care Act, enables uninsured patients to be screened and acquired emergency Medicaid at the time of hospitalization. We sought to identify factors associated with successful acquisition of HPE insurance at the time of injury, hypothesizing that patients with higher Injury Severity Score (ISS) (ISS >15) would be more likely to be approved for HPE. METHODS: We identified Medicaid and uninsured patients aged 18 to 64 years with a primary trauma diagnosis (International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision) in a large level I trauma center between 2015 and 2019. We combined trauma registry data with review of electronic medical records, to determine our primary outcome, HPE acquisition. Descriptive and multivariate analyses were performed. RESULTS: Among 2,320 trauma patients, 1,374 (59%) were already enrolled in Medicaid at the time of hospitalization. Among those uninsured at arrival, 386 (40.8%) acquired HPE before discharge, and 560 (59.2%) remained uninsured. Hospital Presumptive Eligibility patients had higher ISS (ISS >15, 14.8% vs. 5.7%; p < 0.001), longer median length of stay (2 days [interquartile range, 0-5 days] vs. 0 [0-1] days, p < 0.001), were more frequently admitted as inpatients (64.5% vs. 33.6%, p < 0.001), and discharged to postacute services (11.9% vs. 0.9%, p < 0.001). Patient, hospital, and policy factors contributed to HPE nonapproval. In adjusted analyses, Hispanic ethnicity (vs. non-Hispanic Whites: aOR, 1.58; p = 0.02) and increasing ISS (p ≤ 0.001) were associated with increased likelihood of HPE approval. CONCLUSION: The time of hospitalization due to injury is an underused opportunity for intervention, whereby uninsured patients can acquire sustainable insurance coverage. Opportunities to increase HPE acquisition merit further study nationally across trauma centers. As administrative and trauma registries do not capture information to compare HPE and traditional Medicaid patients, prospective insurance data collection would help to identify targets for intervention. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic, level IV.

Health Insurance Coverage Mandates: Colorectal Cancer Screening in the Post-ACA Era.

Building a culture of precision public health requires research that includes health delivery model with innovative systems, health policies, and programs that support this vision. Health insurance mandates are effective mechanisms that many state policymakers use to increase the utilization of preventive health services, such as colorectal cancer screening. This study estimated the effects of health insurance mandate variations on colorectal cancer screening post Affordable Care Act (ACA) era. The study analyzed secondary data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) and the NCI State Cancer Legislative Database (SCLD) from 1997 to 2014. BRFSS data were merged with SCLD data by state ID. The target population was U.S. adults, age 50 to 74, who lived in states where health insurance was mandated or nonmandated before and after the implementation of ACA. Using a difference-in-differences (DD) approach with a time-series analysis, we evaluated the effects of health insurance mandates on colorectal cancer screening status based on U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines. The adjusted average marginal effects from the DD model indicate that health insurance mandates increased the probability of up-to-date screenings versus noncompliance by 2.8% points, suggesting that an estimated 2.37 million additional age-eligible persons would receive a screening with such health insurance mandates. Compliant participants' mean age was 65 years and 57% were women (n = 32,569). Our findings are robust for various model specifications. Health insurance mandates that lower out-of-pocket expenses constitute an effective approach to increase colorectal cancer screenings for the population, as a whole. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: The value added includes future health care reforms that increase access to preventive services, such as CRC screening, are likely with lower out-of-pocket costs and will increase the number of people who are considered "up-to-date". Such policies have been used historically to improve health outcomes, and they are currently being used as public health strategies to increase access to preventive health services in an effort to improve the nation's health.

Association of State Certificate of Need Regulation With Procedural Volume, Market Share, and Outcomes Among Medicare Beneficiaries.

Importance: Certificate of need laws provide state-level regulation of health system expenditure. These laws are intended to limit spending and control hospital expansion in order to prevent excess capacity and improve quality of care. Several states have recently introduced legislation to modify or repeal these regulations, as encouraged by executive order 13813, issued in October 2017 by the Trump administration. Objective: To evaluate the difference in markers of hospital activity and quality by state certificate of need status. These markers include hospital procedural volume, hospital market share, county-level procedures per 10 000 persons, and patient-level postoperative outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional study involving Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older who underwent 1 of the following 10 procedures from January 1, 2016, through November 30, 2018: total knee or hip arthroplasty, coronary artery bypass grafting, colectomy, ventral hernia repair, lower extremity vascular bypass, lung resection, pancreatic resection, cystectomy, or esophagectomy. Exposures: State certificate of need regulation status as determined by data from the National Conference of State Legislatures. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes of interest included hospital procedural volume; hospital market share (range, 0-1; reflecting 0%-100% of market share); county-level procedures per 10 000 persons; and patient-level postoperative 30-day mortality, surgical site infection, and readmission. Results: A total of 1 545 952 patients (58.0% women; median age 72 years; interquartile range, 68-77 years) at 3631 hospitals underwent 1 of the 10 operations. Of these patients, 468 236 (30.3%) underwent procedures in the 15 states without certificate of need regulations and 1 077 716 (69.7%) in the 35 states with certificate of need regulations. The total number of procedures ranged between 729 855 total knee arthroplasties (47.21%) and 4558 esophagectomies (0.29%). When comparing states without vs with certificate of need regulations, there were no significant differences in overall hospital procedural volume (median hospital procedure volume, 241 vs 272 operations per hospital for 3 years; absolute difference, 31; 95% CI, -27.64 to 89.64; P = .30). There were no statistically significant differences between states without vs with certificate of need regulations for median hospital market share (median, 28% vs 52%; absolute difference, 24%; 95% CI, -5% to 55%; P = .11); procedure rates per 10 000 Medicare-eligible population (median, 239.23 vs 205.41 operations per Medicare-eligible population in 3 years; absolute difference, 33.82; 95% CI, -84.08 to 16.43; P = .19); or 30-day mortality (1.17% vs 1.33%, odds ratio [OR], 1.04; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.16; P = .52), surgical site infection (1.24% vs 1.25%; OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.04; P = .21), or readmission rate (9.69% vs 8.40%; OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.12; P = .19). Conclusions and Relevance: Among Medicare beneficiaries who underwent a range of surgical procedures from 2016 through 2018, there were no significant differences in markers of hospital volume or quality between states without vs with certificate of need laws. Policy makers should consider reevaluating whether the current approach to certificate of need regulation is achieving the intended objectives and whether those objectives should be updated.

The Economic Burden of Out-of-Pocket Expenses for Plastic Surgery Procedures.

BACKGROUND: Health insurance reimbursement structure has evolved, with patients becoming increasingly responsible for their health care costs through rising out-of-pocket expenses. High levels of cost sharing can lead to delays in access to care, influence treatment decisions, and cause financial distress for patients. METHODS: Patients undergoing the most common outpatient reconstructive plastic surgery operations were identified using Truven MarketScan databases from 2009 to 2017. Total cost of the surgery paid to the insurer and out-of-pocket expenses, including deductible, copayment, and coinsurance, were calculated. Multivariable generalized linear modeling with log link and gamma distribution was used to predict adjusted total and out-of-pocket expenses. All costs were inflation-adjusted to 2017 dollars. RESULTS: The authors evaluated 3,165,913 outpatient plastic and reconstructive surgical procedures between 2009 and 2017. From 2009 to 2017, total costs had a significant increase of 25 percent, and out-of-pocket expenses had a significant increase of 54 percent. Using generalized linear modeling, procedures performed in outpatient hospitals conferred an additional $1999 in total costs (95 percent CI, $1978 to $2020) and $259 in out-of-pocket expenses (95 percent CI, $254 to $264) compared with office procedures. Ambulatory surgical center procedures conferred an additional $1698 in total costs (95 percent CI, $1677 to $1718) and $279 in out-of-pocket expenses (95 percent CI, $273 to $285) compared with office procedures. CONCLUSIONS: For outpatient plastic surgery procedures, out-of-pocket expenses are increasing at a faster rate than total costs, which may have implications for access to care and timing of surgery. Providers should realize the increasing burden of out-of-pocket expenses and the effect of surgical location on patients' costs when possible.

Single-Payer Health Care in the United States: Implications for Plastic Surgery.

Health care reform continues to be a topic of debate among lawmakers, politicians, physicians, and citizens of the United States. In recent years, proposed changes to the health care industry have grown in both granularity and popularity, with the possibility of adapting a single-payer health insurance system reaching an all-time high. The implications of such a policy are far-reaching and can be challenging to conceptualize, especially in isolation. The purpose of this article is to review some of the anticipated changes under this new system, specifically as they pertain to the field of plastic surgery.

The impact of Medicaid expansion on trauma-related emergency department utilization: A national evaluation of policy implications.

BACKGROUND: The impact of the 2014 Affordable Care Act (ACA) upon national trauma-related emergency department (ED) utilization is unknown. We assessed ACA-related changes in ED use and payer mix, hypothesizing that post-ACA ED visits would decline and Medicaid coverage would increase disproportionately in regions of widespread policy adoption. METHODS: We queried the National Emergency Department Sample (NEDS) for those with a primary trauma diagnosis, aged 18 to 64. Comparing pre-ACA (2012) to post-ACA (10/2014 to 09/2015), primary outcomes were change in ED visits and payer status; secondary outcomes were change in costs, discharge disposition and inpatient length of stay. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed, including difference-in-differences analyses. We compared changes in ED trauma visits by payer in the West (91% in a Medicaid expansion state) versus the South (12%). RESULTS: Among 21.2 million trauma-related ED visits, there was a 13.3% decrease post-ACA. Overall, there was a 7.2% decrease in uninsured ED visits (25.5% vs. 18.3%, p < 0.001) and a 6.6% increase in Medicaid coverage (17.6% vs. 24.2%, p < 0.001). Trauma patients had 40% increased odds of having Medicaid post-ACA (vs. pre-ACA: aOR 1.40, p < 0.001). Patients in the West had 31% greater odds of having Medicaid (vs. South: aOR 1.31, p < 0.001). The post-ACA increase in Medicaid was greater in the West (vs. South: aOR 1.60, p < 0.001). Post-ACA, inpatients were more likely to have Medicaid (vs. ED discharge: aOR 1.20, p < 0.001) and there was a 25% increase in inpatient discharge to rehabilitation (aOR 1.24, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Post-ACA, there was a significant increase in insured trauma patients and a decrease in injury-related ED visits, possibly resulting from access to other outpatient services. Ensuring sustainability of expanded coverage will benefit injured patients and trauma systems. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic, level III.

Ordinance 3992/2017: challenges and advances for resource management in the Brazilian Unified Health System (SUS).

To advance in order to overcome the challenge of enabling greater autonomy in the use of financial resources in the Unified Health System (SUS), system managers agreed that transfers from the Union to other federated entities will be carried out through a financial investment account and a costing account. Over the past few years, states and municipalities managed more than 34,000 bank accounts dedicated to the Union's on-lendings, in which balance exceeded R$8 billion. However, from 2018, Ordinance 3,992/2017 unequivocally separated the budget flow from the financial flow, and the fund-to-fund transfers started to be carried out in only 11,190 bank accounts. Since then, managers have had financial autonomy in the management of financial resources received from the Union, if in accordance with the parameters established in their respective budget items at the end of each fiscal year.

Ordinance 3992/2017: challenges and advances for resource management in the Brazilian Unified Health System (SUS) / Portaria 3992/2017: desafios e avanços para gestão dos recursos no Sistema Único de Saúde

ABSTRACT To advance in order to overcome the challenge of enabling greater autonomy in the use of financial resources in the Unified Health System (SUS), system managers agreed that transfers from the Union to other federated entities will be carried out through a financial investment account and a costing account. Over the past few years, states and municipalities managed more than 34,000 bank accounts dedicated to the Union's on-lendings, in which balance exceeded R$8 billion. However, from 2018, Ordinance 3,992/2017 unequivocally separated the budget flow from the financial flow, and the fund-to-fund transfers started to be carried out in only 11,190 bank accounts. Since then, managers have had financial autonomy in the management of financial resources received from the Union, if in accordance with the parameters established in their respective budget items at the end of each fiscal year.

RESUMO A fim de avançar na superação do desafio de viabilizar maior autonomia na utilização dos recursos financeiros no Sistema Único de Saúde, os gestores do sistema pactuaram que as transferências da União aos demais entes federados passam a ser realizadas por meio de uma conta financeira de investimento e uma conta de custeio. Ao longo dos últimos anos, estados e municípios chegaram a gerenciar mais de 34 mil contas bancárias dedicadas somente aos repasses da União, nas quais foram acumulados saldos acima de R$8 bilhões. Entretanto, a partir de 2018, a Portaria 3.992/2017 separou de forma inequívoca o fluxo orçamentário do fluxo financeiro e as transferências fundo a fundo passaram a ser realizadas em apenas 11.190 contas bancárias. Desde então, os gestores passaram a ter autonomia financeira na gestão dos recursos financeiros recebidos da União, desde que obedecidos os parâmetros estabelecidos em suas respectivas peças orçamentárias ao final de cada exercício.

Reframing Medicare Physician Payment Policy for 2019: A Look at Proposed Policy.

On July 12, 2018, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released the proposed 2019 Medicare physician fee schedule and quality payment program, combining these 2 rules for the first time. This occurred in a milieu of changing regulations that have been challenging for interventional pain management specialists. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) continuous to be amended by multiple administrative changes. This July 12th rule proposes substantial payment changes for evaluation and management (E&M) services, with documentation requirements, and blending of Level II to V CPT codes for E&M into a single payment. In addition, various changes in the quality payment program with liberalization of some metrics have been published. Recognizing that there are differing impacts based on specialty and practice type, as a whole interventional pain management specialists would likely see favorable reimbursement trends for E&M services as a result of this proposal. Moreover, in comparison with recent CMS final ruling, this proposed rule has relatively limited changes in procedural reimbursement performed in a facility or in-office setting.CMS, in the new rule, has proposed an overhaul of the E&M documentation and coding system ostensibly to reduce the amount of time physicians are required to spend inputting information into patients' records. The new proposed rule blends Level II to V codes for E&M services into a single payment of $93 for office outpatient visits for established patients and $135 for new patient visits. This will also have an effect with blended payments for services provided in hospital outpatients. CMS also has provided additional codes to increase the reimbursement when prolonged services are provided with total reimbursement coming to Level V payments. Interventional pain management-centered care has been identified as a specialty with complexity inherent to E&M associated with these services. Among the procedural payments, there exist significant discrepancies for the services performed in hospitals, ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs), and offices. A particularly egregious example is peripheral neurolytic blocks, which is reimbursed at 1,800% higher in hospital outpatient department (HOPD) settings as compared with procedures done in the office. The majority of hospital based procedures have faced relatively small cuts as compared with office based practice. The only significant change noted is for spinal cord stimulator implant leads when performed in office setting with 19.2% increase. However, epidural codes, which have been initiated with a lower payment, continue to face small reductions for physician portion.This review describes the effects of the proposed policy on interventional pain management reimbursement for E&M services, procedural services by physicians and procedures performed in office settings. KEY WORDS: Physician payment policy, physician fee schedule, Medicare, Merit-Based Incentive Payment System, interventional pain management, regulatory tsunami, Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015.

Breaking bread: examining the impact of policy changes in access to state-funded provisions of gluten-free foods in England.

BACKGROUND: Coeliac disease affects approximately 1% of the population and is increasingly diagnosed in the United Kingdom. A nationwide consultation in England has recommend that state-funded provisions for gluten-free (GF) food should be restricted to bread and mixes but not banned, yet financial strain has prompted regions of England to begin partially or fully ceasing access to these provisions. The impact of these policy changes on different stakeholders remains unclear. METHODS: Prescription data were collected for general practice services across England (n = 7176) to explore changes in National Health Service (NHS) expenditure on GF foods over time (2012-2017). The effects of sex, age, deprivation and rurality on GF product expenditure were estimated using a multi-level gamma regression model. Spending rate within NHS regions that had introduced a 'complete ban' or a 'complete ban with age-related exceptions' was compared to spending in the same time periods amongst NHS regions which continued to fund prescriptions for GF products. RESULTS: Annual expenditure on GF products in 2012 (before bans were introduced in any area) was £25.1 million. Higher levels of GF product expenditure were found in general practices in areas with lower levels of deprivation, higher levels of rurality and higher proportions of patients aged under 18 and over 75. Expenditure on GF food within localities that introduced a 'complete ban' or a 'complete ban with age-related exceptions' were reduced by approximately 80% within the 3 months following policy changes. If all regions had introduced a 'complete ban' policy in 2014, the NHS in England would have made an annual cost-saving of £21.1 million (equivalent to 0.24% of the total primary care medicines expenditure), assuming no negative sequelae. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of more restrictive GF prescribing policies has been associated with 'quick wins' for NHS regions under extreme financial pressure. However, these initial savings will be largely negated if GF product policies revert to recently published national recommendations. Better evidence of the long-term impact of restricting GF prescribing on patient health, expenses and use of NHS services is needed to inform policy.

MACRA 2.5: the legislation moves forward.

The Medicare and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 remains the payment policy law of the land. 2017 was the first year in which performance reporting will tangibly impact future physician payments. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) considers 2017 and 2018 transitional years before full implementation in 2019. As such, 2018 increases the reporting requirements over 2017 in the form of a gradual phase-in while introducing several key changes and new elements. Indeed, it is the nature of the transition itself that led to the somewhat unique title of this manuscript, i.e., MACRA 2.5. Stakeholder feedback to the CMS regarding the program has ranged widely from the elimination of core components to expanding reporting to non-government payers. This article explores the potential impact on neurointerventional physicians.

[Evolution, determinants and regulation of drug expenditures in France]. / Évolution, déterminants et régulation des dépenses de médicaments en France.

According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), drug expenditures account for about 20 % of all health expenditures in high-income countries. The increase of these drug expenditures which has been observed in all these countries over a long period is due to the combination of aging populations, changes in medical practices and the dynamics of the pharmaceutical market, in particular the hospital market. France is no exception. Its consumption of drugs (which accounted for 17.5 % of health expenditures in 2014), historically among the highest in volume, has grown slower in the last decade than in other OECD countries. However, the particularly rapid and wide adoption of pharmaceutical innovations, which has always characterized France, has had in recent years a very significant effect on the soaring drug expenditures covered by the social protection system (plus 1.1 billion in 2014, a year marked by the introduction of new therapies against hepatitis C). This significant effect should continue with the introduction of new and very expensive therapies, particularly in oncology.