Bundling Hospital Pay Without Bungling Patient Care

Bundling Hospital Pay Without Bungling Patient Care Pic
Photo Credit: nwadealpiggy.com

Paying someone to mow your lawn is a pretty straightforward affair. Ryan the lawn guy will look at the lawn size and maybe the hilliness of your yard and you’ll settle on a price for mowing and trimming it. When you decide to contract for Ryan’s services on a more regular basis, payment might get a little more complicated. If you pay Ryan every time he mows your lawn he might mow it more often than necessary. But that problem is easily addressed by paying him a fee to take care of your lawn for the entire growing season.
Paying a hospital to care for someone who had a stroke is not so straightforward. Imagine you are an insurance company and you decide to pay the hospital for each day the patient is in residence. With that kind of payment scheme the hospital visit might drag on indefinitely. Indeed several decades ago insurance companies in the United States primarily reimbursed hospitals on a “per diem” basis, cool kid lingo for per day. Incentivized by this reimbursement scheme, the length of stay in American hospitals was often surprisingly long for even relatively mild conditions. Think of the parallel to lawn care: pay per mowing and you can expect lots of mowings!
Healthcare payers have developed several methods to overcome this per diem/per mowing problem. I will explain these methods shortly, but first the bottom line. Figuring out how to pay for hospital care is a hell of a lot more complicated than figuring out how to pay your lawn service.
To combat the unintended consequences of per diem payment coverage, Medicare switched to per diagnosis payments in the 80s, and the insurance companies followed shortly thereafter. Under this DRG program, a hospital taking care of a patient with a severe stroke would receive appropriate payment for that diagnosis, while a hospital taking care of someone with mild pneumonia would receive a smaller payment appropriate for the typical costs of paying for that condition. Following the implementation of this type of prospective payment, length of stay in American hospitals plummeted. In response, much of medical care was shifted to post-acute care, to rehabilitation hospitals, for instance, for stroke patients, or to outpatient clinics for people with pneumonia. These non-hospital services were not covered by the diagnosis-based DRG payments, so healthcare providers had little incentive to practice parsimoniously once their patients left the hospital.
Enter bundled payments. In 2013, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, henceforth CMS, launched its Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Initiatives, henceforth BPCI (in case your life needs more acronyms). In the BPCI, CMS identified 48 clinical conditions that qualify for bundled payments, meaning participating healthcare providers would receive payments designed to cover not only hospital care for the condition in question, but money to pay for all healthcare related services they receive for the next 30 days. Unsurprisingly, not all hospitals are eager to join this program. For starters, the hospitals have to be financially integrated with post hospital providers. If patients receiving stroke care at Our Lady of Acute Care Hospital receive post-acute care from a hodgepodge of rehabilitation facilities, many of which have no connection to the hospital, then coordinating payments will be a disaster. (To read the rest of this article, please visit Forbes.)

Similar Posts

  • Do the Obamacare Subsidies Make the Individual Mandate Unnecessary?

    Lost in all the confusion about Obamacare is the fact that the law relies on more than just the individual mandate to encourage people to buy health insurance. It also makes health insurance more affordable, especially for people at or below 400% of the federal poverty limit by subsidizing insurance for those folks. So do…

  • Out of Control Physicians: Too Many Doctors Doing Too Many Things to Too Many Patients

    My father is 92 years old, and I am beginning to wonder whether the best thing for his health would be to stay away from doctors. That’s because well intentioned physicians often expose their elderly patients to harmful and unnecessary services out of habit. That’s certainly the message I absorbed after reading a recent issue…

  • 150,000 Walt Disney Employees Denied Mental Health Coverage – A Headline from the Future

    Newswire Services, April 11, 2015: Breaking News


    Since purchasing the Walt Disney Company six months ago, the Church of Scientologyhas been slowly remaking that venerable institution, in an effort to promote their ambitious religious mission. In the pipeline are an unprecedented number of science fiction films and John Travolta/Tom Cruise buddy movies, changes that have been surprisingly popular among movie fans.
    But now the church is making a change that is not so popular. It has decided that Disney employees will no longer receive insurance coverage for psychiatric care or any medications used to treat mental illness: “Psychiatrists are the enemy of the people,” stated Church spokesperson Walter McGee. “The church opposes their brutal, inhumane treatments and refuses to pay for such services because they collide with our religious beliefs.”
    Many Disney employees are up in arms over this decision. But the church is unrelenting in its position: “If people want to receive devil-care, they can either pay their own money or find a job somewhere else,” said McGee.
    Critics blame the situation on a decision made by President Obama in February of 2012. Early that month, he had announced regulations that would require health insurance companies to cover contraception, with exceptions for churches that oppose birth control but not for larger church run organizations such as hospitals or universities. The Roman Catholic Church cried foul, claiming that their religious freedom was being violated. In response to pressure, the Obama administration quickly backed off on its policy, broadening the religious exception to any church owned business that was run as part of the church’s broader religious mission.
    That shift in policy opened an opportunity for religious organizations to carve a broader set of services out of their health insurance plans. The Jehovah’s Witnesses had gained ownership of Wal-Mart in late 2013, and soon employees of that company (at least the ones who get health insurance) no longer received coverage for blood transfusions. An Orthodox Jewish organization became majority owners of Ace Hardware in early 2014, and now employees of that company no longer receive insurance coverage for insulin products that are derived from pork.
    The Church of Scientology is undeterred by critics who claim that treatments like antipsychotic medications and antidepressants ought to be part of any basic health insurance plan. “America is the land of religious freedom,” he explains “a place where the government has no right to stand between a church and its employees.”
    Who could argue with that logic?

Leave a Reply