Health Affairs: "The Impact Of The Election On Health Policy And The Courts"

The nonpartisan and highly respected journal, Health Affairs, today posted an analysis of some of the more conspicuous (and worrying) changes to the health care scene we might expect to see once Donald Trump's administration is in place. It is, as usual, well worth reading in whole.

The areas that are discussed include:

• the Affordable Care Act (ACA) (primary concern: allowing premium tax credit enhancements to expire entirely after 2025, which could result in 4 million people losing their health insurance coverage; also -- whether by statute, agency regulation, or executive order -- any number of the ACA's protections are at risk)
• Medicaid (during the campaign Trump vowed to leave Social Security and Medicare alone; "experts noted that Medicaid was conspicuously absent from the conversation")
• reproductive health care (abortion, LGBTQ nondiscrimination, reviving the Comstock Act, changing the Administration's position in state and federal lawsuits)
• nondiscrimination and health equity ("Health care is a civil rights issue. . . . Anti-discrimination protections in health are also likely to suffer major blows going forward."
• Medicare Drug Negotiation Program (hard to believe that a program that will save the government and citizens billions will be watered down, but Big Pharma has hated this law from the beginning and it has some attentive allies in the new administration)
• public health (RFK, Jr. -- need I say more? He was named as Trump's nominee for Secretary of HHS; the mind reels)
• the courts (Yup. From the Supreme Court on down, expect change)

The end. (Take that any way you want.)

New England Journal of Medicine: "The Failing U.S. Health System"

It should come as a shock to no one that our health care "system" is only a "system" in the loosest sense of the word. "System" implies a set of common goals, a comprehensive design, and coordination of effort toward achieving the system's purposes. The result is about what you would expect with a largely profit-based set of arrangements among participants who are often working at cross-purposes.

The recent report from the Commonwealth Fund ("Mirror, Mirror 2024: A Portrait of the Failing U.S. Health System") paints a dismal picture. The website has the report and useful chartpacks in PowerPoint and PDF. Here's the executive summary:

• Goal: Compare health system performance in 10 countries, including the United States, to glean insights for U.S. improvement.
• Methods: Analysis of 70 health system performance measures in five areas: access to care, care process, administrative efficiency, equity, and health outcomes.
• Key Findings: The top three countries are Australia, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, although differences in overall performance between most countries are relatively small. The only clear outlier is the U.S., where health system performance is dramatically lower.
• Conclusion: The U.S. continues to be in a class by itself in the underperformance of its health care sector. While the other nine countries differ in the details of their systems and in their performance on domains, unlike the U.S., they all have found a way to meet their residents’ most basic health care needs, including universal coverage.

Three of the authors provide an expanded version of this abstract in this week's edition of the New England Journal of Medicine (apparently for free). Here are some of the main points:

• We can be proud of our process for delivering care. Compared to nine peer countries, we are ranked #2, quite close behind New Zealand.
• But the cost of this care is astronomically high and the results place our health outcomes dead last among this peer group:
  
  
  
  
  
  
• "Many of the U.S. health system’s shortfalls result from persistent economic barriers to obtaining essential care. The Affordable Care Act and related policies reduced the proportion of uninsured people to its current level of 7 to 8%. But 26 million Americans still lack insurance. . . . Substantial progress toward this goal could be made by building on existing programs, such as the Affordable Care Act, Medicare, and Medicaid." Note to self: This strategy requires political will and adequate financing at the state and federal levels. I'm not optimistic.
• "The U.S. health care delivery system has profound problems that result in huge inefficiencies and excessive costs that would limit the benefits of expanded coverage. One such problem is the country’s worsening shortage of primary care clinicians . . . . Improved compensation and reductions in administrative burdens for primary care clinicians would help the health system recruit and retain such clinicians and build desperately needed capacity." See Note to self above.
• "A second delivery-system failure is the high prices charged by U.S. health care facilities and professionals, which far exceed prices in other health systems. These high prices largely account for the extraordinary costs of care in the United States, which would make expanded coverage less affordable and which drive employers, who purchase insurance for more than half of Americans younger than 65 years of age, to impose high deductibles and copayments." The authors suggest scrutiny of the extensive consolidation of providers -- institutional and individual -- underway. But: The the premium-price train left the station far earlier than the consolidation boom. Consolidation may be exacerbating the problem, but the problem goes back decades, is cultural,  and it runs deep.
• "Improvements in coverage and the delivery system will need to be complemented by policies targeting critical influences on health outside the health sector. The United States lags behind comparator countries when it comes to addressing the social determinants of health, such as poverty, homelessness, inequality, and hunger. . . . The toll of gun violence in the United States also demands policy attention." See Note to self above.

This report gives us a good differential diagnosis and then prescribes the policy equivalent of "lose weight, exercise more, cut back on meat and dairy, reduce stress in your life, and start getting enough sleep." We all know this is the Path to Enlightenment (or at least to health maintenance), but how many patients take this advice? 

Health Care Policy and the 2024 Election

The presidential campaign hasn't been much about health law, and up to two-thirds of adults are concerned about the lack of discussion. Perhaps to remedy this situation -- or to keep the candidates honest if and when they deign to discuss health care -- the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) has just posted a new tool; here's their announcement:

A new KFF tool generates data-driven fact sheets that lay out the health care landscape in every state against the backdrop of the 2024 election.

These state “snapshots” provide information on a variety of health care topics that may be the focus of campaign and policy debates. Topics include

• health costs; 
• medical debt;
•  women’s health policy, including state abortion, contraception and maternity laws and policies;
•  health coverage, including the Affordable Care Act, Medicare and prescription drug coverage, Medicaid, and employer-sponsored insurance;
•  gender affirming care; and
•  basic information on health status, population and income. 

The new tool is part of KFF’s broader collection of Election 2024-related resources, including our side-by-side comparison of the candidates’ positions and records on health policy issues. 

Other election-related features include:

• Springfield, Ohio: How Candidates Amplify Misinformation, by KFF President and CEO Drew Altman
•  How Campaign Rhetoric Harms Immigrants, by Mollyann Brodie, executive vice president and chief operating officer of KFF and executive director of the Public Opinion and Survey Research Program
• Misinformation vs. Immigrant Experiences Using Health Insurance and Other Programs, by Samantha Artiga, a vice president at KFF and director of the Racial Equity and Health Policy Program
• Protecting People with Pre-Existing Conditions, by Cynthia Cox, a vice president at KFF and director of the Program on the ACA.
• The VP Debate May Focus on the “Working Class,” But Will They Discuss Medicaid?, by Robin Rudowitz, a vice president at KFF and director of the Program on Medicaid and the Uninsured
• A Brief History of the Affordable Care Act, by Rakesh Singh, vice president of Health Policy Initiatives at KFF
• Protecting People with Pre-Existing Conditions 

Texas Governor Abbott Weaponizes Charity Care

Uncompensated care is a serious issue that requires a serious response from serious politicians. On Thursday, rather than doing something to alleviate the crisis in Texas, Governor Greg Abbott chose to weaponize the issue in his ongoing battle with the Biden Administration over control of the Texas-Mexico border.

Texas's nonprofit and for-profit hospitals alike can be challenged by the volume of uncompensated care they provide. The federal Emergency Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) requires all hospitals that receive Medicare funds to provide emergency care without regard to the patient's ability to pay. Added to that, if the patient needs to be admitted as an in-patient in order to stabilize their emergency medical condition, the cost of the hospital's EMTALA obligation can really sky-rocket.

Add to that Texas's requirement that nonprofit hospitals must provide a certain amount of uncompensated care in order to maintain their nonprofit status as well as their state tax-exempt status. 

Beginning in 1954 a hospital's federal tax-exempt status required the provision of charity care to the extent of its financial ability, but that requirement ended in 1969. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) does require hospitals to provide charity care, though it does require tax-exempt hospitals to report on community needs, including uncompensated care, and on the hospital's own level of uncompensated care (26 USC § 501(r)). My hope is that the hospital reports, as well as the IRS summaries that the ACA required be sent to Congress, will result in the reinstatement of a charity-care requirement. Time will tell.

As a result of these state and federal rules, the distribution of uncompensated care is spread unevenly among hospitals across the state. There are some for-profit hospitals that report higher levels of uncompensated care than nonprofit providers. And among the nonprofit hospitals, the cost of charity care as a percentage of net revenues varies wildly. This is often a function of location. Residents of wealthier communities tend to have decent health insurance (and other assets to pay for care that is not covered by their insurance policies), while poorer communities have a higher percentage of uninsured and under-insured residents. 

The Affordable Care Act expanded insurance coverage, to be sure, but the uninsured rate in the U.S. is still hovering around 9%, slightly better than our poverty rate of around 11%. Texas's numbers aren't just higher than the national average; they are alarmingly, embarrassingly so. Poverty: 14% (33% higher than the national rate). Uninsured: 16.6% (about twice the national rate). If Texas cared about doing something to improve the health of our poorest residents, it could expand Medicaid eligibility (with matching federal dollars picking up the lion's share of the cost) with the stroke of a pen. 

For that to happen, we would need leaders who are serious about helping our uninsured poor population to get the health care they need. This past week, however, Gov. Abbott demonstrated his lack of seriousness and instead chose to turn uncompensated care into a political football in his on-going battle with the federal government over control of our border with Mexico. On Thursday (Aug. 8) the governor issued an executive order calling upon hospitals to report their costs of providing uncompensated care to patients who are in the country illegally. Abbott's plan is clear: 

"Texans should not have to shoulder the burden of financially supporting medical care for illegal immigrants," Mr. Abbott said in an Aug. 8 news release. "Texas will hold the Biden-Harris Administration accountable for the consequences of their open border policies, and we will fight to ensure that they pay back Texas for their costly and dangerous policies."

Political point: scored. Human suffering: unchanged. 

Mark Hall on HCA's Acquisition of Tax-Exempt Health System

Wake Forest law professor Mark Hall has released the latest chapter in his exhaustive preliminary report on the 2019 acquisition of Asheville, North Carolina's tax-exempt Mission Health System. As he writes in this new chapter: "As a result, Mission’s flagship facility became the fifth largest for-profit hospital in the country. Prior to HCA’s purchase, Mission had been operated as a nonprofit “charitable” organization ever since its founding in 1885." Prof. Hall's goal is to describe in as much detail as possible the decision-making process that led to the acquisition, how Mission Health performed before the acquisition, and how the system has performed over the next 5 years. (McKenzie Wicker wrote a comprehensive piece for the Asheville Citizen Times in 2020. Mission Health has been a major news story for the five years since the acquisition. See also NBC News, Nov. 13, 2023 and related stories.)

 

The hospital world is divided into three types of entity: public hospitals, private for-profit hospitals, and private nonprofit (and almost always tax-exempt) hospitals. For-profits are expected to generate net revenues that may be put to various uses but are also expected to be distributed to investors (increased share values, dividends, etc.). Nonprofits are also expected to generate net revenues, but are barred from benefitting private interests by state and federal laws (including § 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, which is applicable to most nonprofit hospitals). A major question that garners the attention of state courts and legislatures as well as members of Congress from time to time is whether the tax subsidies that flow to tax-exempt hospitals are justified by a corresponding benefit to the public (principally but not exclusively improved access to care, higher quality of care, lower prices for that care, medical education, medical research, and charity care). Across the country, the answer appears to be mixed: sometimes yes, sometimes no.

These three categories are not impermeable spheres. Various combinations are permitted and mostly take the form of joint ventures, mergers, or acquisitions. These different arrangements raise all sorts of legal and public-policy issues. To perform any sort of useful analysis, however, we need facts. 

With mergers and joint ventures, policy-makers tend to be most concerned with making sure the nonprofit/tax-exempt entity doesn't become a profit-making (and profit-distributing) arm of its for-profit partner. 

With outright acquisitions, the issues are different because the acquired tax-exempt entity will be operated as a for-profit business. Prof. Hall is analyzing each one in a separate release. As described by the Nonprofit Law Blog (as of May 30, 2024), the entries so far are these:

• Mission Hospital’s Financial Performance Under HCA. Working Draft (2024).
by Professor Mark Hall
• Mission Hospital’s Quality Ratings Following HCA’s Acquisition. Working Draft (2024).
by Professor Mark Hall
• Mission Hospital Charity Care Following HCA’s Acquisition. Working Draft (2024).
by Professor Mark Hall
• Private Equity and the Corporatization of Health Care (abstract). Stanford Law Review (2024).
by Professors Erin Brown and Mark Hall ("These investors seek to earn handsome profits by rapidly increasing revenues before selling off the investment. Private equity’s incursion into health care is especially concerning. The drive for quick revenue generation threatens to increase costs, lower health care quality, and contribute to physician burnout and moral distress. These harms stem from market consolidation, overutilization and up-coding, constraints on physicians’ clinical autonomy, and compromises in patient care."). My recent blog post on this topic is here.
• Rediscovering the Importance of Free and Charitable Clinics. New England Journal of Medicine (202[3]; abstract).
by Professor Mark Hall

To this list we can now add Thursday's entry, Mission Hospital’s Decision to Sell to HCA. Working Draft (2024). by Professor Mark Hall.

Biden's State of the Union Address: 13 Health Care Take-aways

Becker's Hospital Review takes a look at "13 healthcare takeaways" from President Biden's State of the Union address last evening. They include:

1. Expanding Medicare's drug price negotiation scope
2. Limiting drug costs
3. Expanding rebate requirement
4. Closing Medicaid coverage gap [for 10 states, including Texas, that haven't expanded eligibility]
5. Capping the cost of insulin
6. Abortion access
7. COVID-19
8. Affordable Care Act
9. Women's health
10. Taxes
11. Gun violence
12. PACT Act [Resources for Veterans]
13. ARPA-H (Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health ) 

Public Health Law Priorities to Pursue While Congress Recesses

The American Public Health Association (APHA) sent out its call to action during the current Congressional recess. In addition to providing advice on how to press your views on public-health issues while the Senators and Representatives are away, the APHA missive provides links to a wealth of policy papers, reports, and the like across a broad spectrum of public health. And its not only about Congress. As the APHA suggests, state and local officials -- traditional wielders of "police powers" -- also need to be educated about public health, about which so much misinformation and disinformation emerged during COVID. And there are op-ed opportunities. The list goes on . . . .

Congressional recess is here (July 31 – Sept. 11 for the House and July 31 – Sept. 4 for the Senate) which makes this month the perfect time to raise your public health voice and urge your members of Congress to take action. Join the Speak for Health campaign with APHA’s suggested advocacy activities:

•  Got a minute? Head over to APHA’s action alerts and send a quick message to your elected officials on a variety of topics including environmental health, reproductive rights, gun violence and public health funding.
• Schedule a meeting with your members of Congress, virtually or in person, to discuss public health priorities. You can call their local offices for details on scheduling a meeting.
• When speaking to elected officials, point to APHA’s 2023 advocacy priorities as key areas for action.
• Boost your advocacy efforts with issue fact sheets that summarize priority advocacy issues and state fact sheets that break down public health in each state.
• Write and submit an op-ed to your local paper. APHA offers op-ed writing tips and sample op-eds on gun violence, climate change, public health funding and reproductive health which you can request by emailing speakforhealth@apha.org.
• Engage elected officials on social media about their support for public health. You can include social media shareable images found on the Speak for Health page, and make sure you use the hashtag #SpeakForHealth!
• Attend a town hall and ask your elected official key questions about their commitment to supporting public health. You can contact their office to ask when the next town hall is scheduled.

Your voice helps shape how members of Congress view critical public health issues, and your community’s public health concerns deserve to be heard by our nation’s leaders. Join us and Speak for Health — for today and for future generations.

The APHA 2023 advocacy priorities cover a lot of territory and offer something for everybody:

• Increase and protect funding for vital public health agencies and programs and strengthen the nation’s public health infrastructure. 
• Uphold the Affordable Care Act and expand access to health coverage and services. 
• Address the health impacts of climate change. 
• Protect access to reproductive health care. 
• Pass a 2023 Farm Bill to protect nutrition security. 
• Protect nutrition standards for children. 
• Uphold and strengthen critical public health laws and regulations and reverse damaging rollbacks. 
• Address the nation’s gun violence epidemic.

For more information on APHA’s advocacy priorities, visit https://www.apha.org/advocacy or contact Don Hoppert at Donald.Hoppert@apha.org or Jordan Wolfe at Jordan.Wolfe@apha.org.   

American Indian/Alaska Native Health Equity; Private Sector Opportunities

Health Affairs' fourth installment (July 21) of the past week in its Forefront series, "Private Sector Solutions For Health Equity," is written by two principals in Indigenous Pact, a public-benefit corporation whose mission is "[to] provide health care benefits and reimbursement to American Indians and Alaska Native and promote the autonomy and sovereignty of American Indian tribal government over the health of their people.”

The article is a comprehensive review of the hurdles currently faced by indigenous peoples in obtaining health care goods and services, which they introduce with this observation:

The story of American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) health is fractured by genocide and systematic, forced migration away from lands that nourished good health. What existed unsullied for thousands of years was essentially wiped away when colonial settlers stepped foot onto the land that is now called the United States. And what exists now are pieces of brokenness and transgenerational trauma that pervade nearly every aspect of indigenous health.

There’s a well-known, albeit sardonic, pronouncement in Indian Country that admonishes, “You’d better get sick by June or there won’t be any money left—and if you do need medical intervention, it’d better be life or limb because those are the only things that will get authorized.” Unfortunately, it’s funny because it’s true.

The solutions are broad, ambitious, and unflinching. It's way past time to address the needs of this country's original occupants. 

Employers Can Improve Reproductive Health Equity

This is the third in this week's Health Affairs short series on Private Sector Solutions For Health Equity: "Employers Can Help Raise The Bar For Reproductive Health Equity" (July 20) by Sinsi Hernández-Cancio, JD,  vice president for health justice at the National Partnership for Women & Families.

The main focus of the article is on maternal health, which the author frames this way:

We need to solve the maternal health crisis for three main reasons. First and foremost, we must put an end to our status as the most dangerous place to give birth among high-income countries. Second, this crisis is the clearest example of the impact of racism and other structural inequities on the lives and well-being of women and their families. Finally, we know that the healthiest start possible for every person supports a positive life trajectory, while poor maternal and infant health can have long-reaching negative consequences on the health and well-being of both mom and baby.

 Her solutions are multi-tiered, mostly long-term, and hard to read without feeling some despair, e.g.:

• "expand[] their employee health coverage to include out-of-state services for those seeking reproductive care, and also gender-affirming care"
• "invest[] philanthropic dollars in reproductive health advocacy groups such as Planned Parenthood" and in general increase advocacy efforts aimed at improving, not destroying, their employees health care option
• "focus on improving clinical care–especially providing culturally centered, whole-person care that considers the patient’s life context. But health care institutions can and should do more, including aligning their hiring and workplace policies with equity goals, collaboratively partnering with community-based organizations, and pushing for improved policies at various decision making tables"
• diversify "their workforce, especially at leadership levels. According to a 2020 report from Mercer, a business consulting company, 64 percent of corporate entry-level positions were held by white employees; at the executive level that number jumped to 85 percent. The health care industry is no exception. Roughly nine out of ten hospital CEOs are white. Only 15 percent of health care CEOs are women, despite women comprising a large majority of health care workers, including the maternal health workforce."
• "focus[] on the dignity, personal agency, and bodily autonomy of birthing people. Among the recommendations: screening for and helping to meet patients’ physical, mental, and social health needs, and measuring respectful care for internal improvement and accountability. This includes understanding and addressing how structural inequities undermine people’s health."
• "collaborate and co-create with community-based partners"

The basic lesson here is that maternal health won't get significantly better if we wait for initiatives and funding to come from the public sector, nor can it happen without the public sector. One engine for change is companies that are willing to put resources -- including time and money -- into improving health for their employees.

Almost four years ago, Texans Care for Children (TCC) issued a report, Healthy Moms Raising Healthy Babies: Central Texas and Statewide Challenges and Opportunities to Support Maternal Behavioral Health During the First Year After Childbirth (Oct. 2019). One section addressed "What Factors Contribute to Racial Disparities in Maternal Health Outcomes?" The factors include:

• Implicit biases in our health care system can affect the quality of health care provided, decision making, and how health programs are carried out. 
• Chronic stress, including the physical toll of stress related to structural racism, increases health risks for mothers and babies. 
• Discrimination, both past and present, negatively affects social determinants of health — such as housing, food scarcity, and education, among others. 
• Lack of access to health insurance disproportionately affects people of color and limits the ability to manage health conditions before and after pregnancy. 

The depth and complexity of social and cultural roots of the problem reinforce the conclusion I drew from Ms. Hernández-Cancio's article: It's going to take a lot of work, a lot of investment, and a lot of time to improve maternal health in this country. 

One thing the legislature and Governor Abbott could do with the stroke of a pen and at almost no cost to the state is take up the federal government's invitation to expand Medicaid eligibility and let the United States pay for nearly all of the additional cost. As the TCC report noted:

In Texas, Black and Hispanic women are more likely to be uninsured than White women. Seventeen percent of nonelderly Black adults in Texas, 29 percent of nonelderly Hispanic adults, and 12 percent of nonelderly White adults in the state were uninsured in 2017.

Recent research found that states that offer Medicaid insurance to cover low-wage adults who do not have insurance through their job experienced a decrease in disparities for Black families with respect to maternal mortality, infant death, preterm birth, and low birth weight babies. Specifically:

Analysis of data from 2010 to 2016 found that infant deaths have declined across most states, but the decline was more than 50 percent greater in states that offer health coverage before, during, and after pregnancy — with the decline in infant deaths greatest among Black infants.

Research found that coverage for low-wage workers before, during, and after pregnancy was associated with “significant improvements in disparities for black infants relative to white infants for the four outcomes studied: preterm birth, very preterm birth, low birth weight, and very low birth weight.” 

Is a drop of empathy too much to ask of our state leaders? This is the question I've been asking on this blog for years (here, here, here, here, and here). When we find that our leaders are unmoved by the deaths of women who need life-saving abortions and women dying during and after childbirth, it ought to be a question that decides elections.

Private-Sector Strategies to Address Disparities in Access to Mental Health Resources

Health Affairs just published the second of four articles on private-sector strategies to address disparities in access to health care: "Addressing The Mental Health Equity Crisis: Can The Private Sector Lead?" The author is Wizdom Powell, Ph.D., M.P.H. (recently named one of the 25 Essential Voices on Black Mental Health). 

"Crisis" is not hyperbole. As inequitable as access to health care is in general, access to mental health care is even more problematic. Helping a friend or family member to be seen, evaluated, and into appropriate treatment is the medical equivalent of banging your head against a brick wall over and over again. As Dr. Powell writes, "By any measure, an all-hands-on-deck approach is needed." She continues:

Health disparities, or preventable differences in the burden of chronic disease and health outcomes, are a driving force behind mental health inequities. Our health equity problem is of our own making, created by artificial caste distinctions, persistent racism, and how we structure our economy and investments in health care; the status of health care disparities is determined, largely, in the ways that the private sector either confronts them or looks away. It is also valuable to recognize that the wicked problem of health inequity is not immutable and that our lack of sustained advancement has more to do with internalized myths of complexity than with our societal capacity.

Wicked problems aren’t unsolvable; instead, they offer many paths to a solution. Just as we have created the problems, we can create the solutions as well. This requires the private sector to do what can prove difficult for public sector leaders—invest resources in pursuing a mental health equity moonshot. The private sector is uniquely positioned and resourced to take the lead in marshaling solutions that will deliver the rapidity and scale necessary to address these troubling trends and ultimately advance health equity. 

Read the article and learn about DEIBJ (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, Belonging & Justice) and SDGs (the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals). The article is a quick read and well worth your time. 

JAMA: SCOTUS Decision on Race in College Admissions Will Worsen Health Care Inequities

New online and free article in JAMA: "The Supreme Court’s Rulings on Race Neutrality Threaten Progress in Medicine and Health," by public health scholars Harald Schmidt, Lawrence O. Gostin, and  Michelle A. Williams.

The first paragraph should whet your appetite for more:

In landmark rulings, the US Supreme Court significantly restricted race-conscious admissions policies in higher education, a chilling echo of its evisceration of settled law on abortion. In principle, race neutrality is desirable—but it is one thing to set aside race in a society with genuine equal opportunity, and another to do so where stark differences persist in opportunities and outcomes, fueled by a 400-year history of systemic racism. While the Court focused on education, its rulings could have broad and pernicious implications for health. They could upend programs designed to achieve equity and actively harm population health.

Private Solutions to Address Disparities in Access to Health Care

The excellent journal Health Affairs has kicked off another series of articles in their Forefront feature "Private Sector Solutions for Health Equity." Today's essay is "Public-Private Partnerships To Advance Cardiovascular Health Equity: The Million Hearts Initiative" by Yvonne Commodore-Mensah (Johns Hopkins), Oluwabunmi Ogungbe (Johns Hopkins), and Lisa A. Cooper (Johns Hopkins, 2007 MacArthur Fellow, elected member of National Academy of Medicine). 

There will apparently be four articles this week running through Friday, July 18. Stay tuned . . . 

FDR's Four Freedoms on the 4th of July 2023

In his State of the Union speech on Jan. 6, 1941, FDR famously offered up "the Four Freedoms" to explain why the United States was at war abroad and on a war footing at home. He introduced the Four Freedoms with this eerily familiar list of goals for the country: 

[T]here is nothing mysterious about the foundations of a healthy and strong democracy. The basic things expected by our people of their political and economic systems are simple. They are:

Equality of opportunity for youth and for others.

Jobs for those who can work.

Security for those who need it.

The ending of special privilege for the few.

The preservation of civil liberties for all.

The enjoyment of the fruits of scientific progress in a wider and constantly rising standard of living.

These are the simple, basic things that must never be lost sight of in the turmoil and unbelievable complexity of our modern world. The inner and abiding strength of our economic and political systems is dependent upon the degree to which they fulfill these expectations.

Many subjects connected with our social economy call for immediate improvement.

As examples:

We should bring more citizens under the coverage of old-age pensions and unemployment insurance.

We should widen the opportunities for adequate medical care. [emphasis added -- this is a HealthLawBlog, after all]

We should plan a better system by which persons deserving or needing gainful employment may obtain it.

Then FDR got to the part of his speech that made it so enduring:

In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.

The first is freedom of speech and expression--everywhere in the world.

The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way--everywhere in the world.

The third is freedom from want--which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants-everywhere in the world.

The fourth is freedom from fear--which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor--anywhere in the world. 

As the Smithsonian has noted:

The public response? Crickets. Congress barely applauded. The next day most newspapers didn't even mention the “Four Freedoms.” Those who were still talking about the phrase in the weeks and months that followed did so to lambaste its “hollow, empty sound.” The government hired [E.B.] White and other A-list scribes to drum up some buzz, but White’s boss called his pamphlet “dull.” The “Four Freedoms,” in the words of one federal administrator, were a “flop.”

Ever the optimist, FDR concluded the list with this: "That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our own time and generation." Eighty-two years later the Four Freedoms are still aspirational, not real, for much of the world and for many of our fellow citizens. 

Hot Topics in Health Law from AHLA's Annual Meeting

The American Health Law Association (AHLA) wrapped up its annual meeting on June 28 with a presentation on hot topics. Speakers were from DHHS/OIG (Susan Edwards), DOJ (Kelley Hauser), and private practice (Scott Hasselman, Reed Smith).

Take-aways:

• According to Edwards, OIG plans to release a general Compliance Program Guidance (CPG) by the end of this year that will help providers develop and maintain an effective compliance program. OIG will then issue by the end of next year managed care and nursing facility CPGs, Edwards said.
• The informative session also covered fraud issues related to the end of the COVID-19 public health emergency. Hauser, noting that fraud enforcement always lags behind implementation of new reimbursement, assured the audience that more enforcement actions would be coming. Hauser also said that given the sensitivity of the emergency funds, DOJ would likely look harder at use of the funds and will pursue enforcement actions even if the recovery is not a big dollar amount.
• Edwards also mentioned the OIG final rule on information blocking that was released early on June 27 and noted that a separate rule that will apply to providers will list “disincentives” for information blocking.
• Hauser reviewed recent fraud case law, such as the SuperValu case on scienter—if there’s evidence that a defendant is questioning the accuracy of certain statements or billing, you’re probably going to hear from DOJ.
• The speakers also discussed the use of AI and questioned whether it could be used to create clinical notes. Hauser noted that the government is generally in favor of any technology that could improve accuracy and predicted that more widespread use of AI will likely lead to a certification process of some sort to ensure that such programs work as intended.
• Each speaker then chose an emerging topic to discuss. Hauser picked parallel criminal and civil investigations, highlighting that such investigations are advantageous to the government and he has seen a steady increase in them during his tenure at DOJ.
• Edwards talked about managed care oversight and its increasing importance amid explosive growth in managed care. And Hasselman highlighted the corporate practice of medicine doctrine (and here) and urged lawyers to be aware of it while structuring transactions.

Allina Health Suspends Policy to Deny Care to Patients with Unpaid Bills

One week ago (see Becker Health (no paywall), June 1), the N.Y. Times reported that Allina Health's policy was to deny clinic care to patients with unpaid bills. Emergency room visits were not part of the policy, and the unpaid balance had to exceed $4,500. This may be a smart business decision, but -- as the refrain goes throughout the semester in my health law class -- health care is different, and it's not a good look for a major nonprofit health care provider. The policy is apparently quite widespread. A 2022 study found that about 20% of hospitals deny nonemergency care for the same reason (Kaiser Health, Dec. 2022).

Today, the Star Tribune reported that Allina has suspended its policy, presumably in no small part because the Minnesota AG was inviting patients to submit reports of denials to his office as he considers launching an investigation into the policy.

More on Consolidation within the Health Care Industry

Fortune's team of Maria Aspan and Erika Fry have focused their analytical lens on the growth of health care firms in their recent article, "Companies like CVS and UnitedHealth are now some of the world’s biggest businesses. Is that healthy for the rest of us?" (May 24, 2023). It's a good read.

Let's start some context. Despite a recent minor dip, health care is the largest single sector that contributes to our Gross Domestic Product, the equal of defense and education (at all levels) combined. 

Although this number -- whether expressed in absolute dollars, as a percentage of GDP, or as expenditures per capita -- is vastly larger than the expenditures of every other developed country in the world. And by almost any measure, the results -- in terms of life span, infant and maternal mortality, etc. --  pale in comparison to the same countries and many developing countries, as well. Much has been written about this conundrum. After all, we are a rich country and if we want to spend a lot of our wealth on health care, well, why not? The counter-argument is multifaceted. Are we as a society making smart decisions about those health care expenditures? Are there better strategies than "throw a ton of money at what ails you and hope that something works"? Are we doing all we reasonably can to root out waste and fraud? As COVID vividly and catastrophically demonstrated, expenditures for health care goods and services are not equitably distributed to racial and ethnic minorities, economically disadvantaged individuals and households, or the under- and uninsured, a group that persists despites the reforms of Obamacare.

This is Aspan and Fry's concern, too. They are looking at the rapid and extensive increase in firm size and the consolidation of disparate providers (hospitals, pharmacies, clinics, physician practices) into behemoths of unimaginable market power see at least a correlative relationship with GDP. Much of the merger activity in the health care sector is fueled by debt and venture capital, all of which demands cash flow to service. In other words, relentless growth in net revenues, year over year and quarter over quarter. Where's the incentive to keep patients healthy and out of hospital beds or to provide the most cost-effective care?

Granted, providers prosper by delivering more goods and services. And insurers prosper by paying for less care. As the authors point out, there is a conflict of interest at a fundamental level of this business model. Meanwhile, it's the wild, west out there, and the big firms seem to be doing just fine, at least for now. Whether that translates into better health outcomes for the rest of us is still very much in doubt.

"Preauthorization" and why your insurer is out to get you

I am not saying health insurers are evil. Or that their policies are evil. But their claims-handling practices are very often ill-advised, are calculated to maximize corporate revenues at the expense of the health of their insureds, and too often produce results that are, well, evil.

One of the defining characteristics of "managed care" -- which used to be this funky little thing over in the corner of our system of healthcare finance and delivery and now is everywhere -- is the notion of preauthorization by your insurance company before you can get almost anything: a visit to a specialist, hospitalization, a prescription drug, etc. The craziness that sometimes marks this process is hard to fathom (other than the aforementioned profit motive). Dr. Amy Faith Ho has taken this on over on Twitter and her posts are well worth following.

ChatGPT Summary of Congressional Testimony on “Innovation and Patient Access”

I'm re-posting the latest entry from Jason Shafrin's blog, "Healthcare Economist," for two reasons. 

First, "innovation and access" is and always will be an important health law and policy topic. The testimony on May 10 covered Alzheimer's, cancer, FDA regulatory issues, Big Pharma R&D, and NIH research support. Important stuff.

Second, the blog post consists of summaries of testimony that were generated, in whole or in part, by ChatGPT. 'Nuff said? I could have waded through the testimony and written my own summaries or paid a research assistant to do the same. And I would certainly read the testimony if I were citing it, relying on it, etc. I am guess, though, that these summaries are serviceable enough as background reading (and a way of determining whether the testimony appears interesting enough to invest more of my time reading it).

Don't Deny COVID Care to the Unvaccinated

1. It's bad policy.

2. It's not feasible.

3. It's unethical.

These are the messages from Ed Yong's latest piece in The Atlantic: "It’s a Terrible Idea to Deny Medical Care to Unvaccinated People." To which I'd add:

4. Tort law will not support your decision. My first-year Torts students read a case in which the Tennessee Supreme Court reversed a trial court decision to allow the jury to compare the degree of fault of a hospital and two employees (whose provision respiratory support left the patient with permanent brain damage) with the degree of fault of the plaintiff (who had been driving with a blood alcohol level of .20% at the time of the accident). The American Law Institute's Third Restatement of Torts supports the rule that a patient's prior conduct (whether tortious or criminal) -- conduct that necessitate the medical treatment in issue -- does not diminish a health care provider's duty to treat or the duty to meet a professional standard of care. Restatement (Third) of Torts, Apportionment of Liability § 7, cmt. m (2000).

Yong concedes that this "debate" is theoretical: 

Health-care workers are not denying care to unvaccinated patients, even though, ironically, many told me they’ve been accused of doing so by not prescribing ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine, which are ineffective against COVID but are often wrongly billed as lifesavers. Still, I ran this argument past several ethicists, clinicians, and public-health practitioners. Many of them sympathized with the exasperation and fear behind the sentiment. But all of them said that it was an awful idea—unethical, impractical, and founded on a shallow understanding of why some people remain unvaccinated.

Bad news for transgender kids: Genecis program is no more

A story in the Dallas Morning News (Dec. 6) by reporters Marin Wolf and Lauren McGaughy provides extremely useful details and context for the decision to shutter the Genecis ("Gender Education and Care, Interdisciplinary Support") program that was jointly run by UT-Southwestern Medical Center and Children's Health. Transgender and gender-diverse minors will now have a harder time than ever getting "health care, including mental health counseling and hormone therapy":

Last month, the hospitals said they would no longer be taking on new patients for hormone or puberty suppression therapy. They also removed all online references to the program, saying the care previously provided through the program will now be managed and coordinated through different specialty departments at the two hospitals.

According to the DMN article, the Genecis clinic was "the only program specifically for transgender children living in Texas and its surrounding states."

UT-Southwestern hasn't commented on the decision to shutter Genecis, but others haven't been so reticent. The article quotes Steve Rosenthal, medical director of the child and adolescent gender center for the University of California, San Francisco Benioff Children’s Hospitals: “It almost goes without saying that this seems inequitable and flatly wrong. Where are these patients going to go? And what’s the reason you’re not going to do it anymore?”