With more people obtaining health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, places like Harborview Medical Center are providing much less “charity” (uncompensated) care. The Emergency Department there is as busy as ever, though.
UW officials say the study wildly over-estimated the cost per student to attend medical school at UW.
They also claim a new medical school would suck resources from the existing medical program known as WWAMI, which is named for the five states it operates in: Washington, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana and Idaho. Washington State University is part of the program.
Doctor shortages and economic development: Those were the two major issues Washington State University officials emphasized Monday after last week’s release of a feasibility study that examined the prospects for a new medical school in Spokane.
“We’re disappointed by WSU’s announcement today to pursue a separate, independent medical school aside from the existing Spokane medical school we’ve worked hard to build together in partnership with the Spokane community,” said UW Regent and spokesman Orin Smith in a statement Thursday.
Deaths involving heroin and prescription painkillers continued to rise in King County in 2013, according to a new annual report prepared by the King County Drug Trends Workgroup.
The lead author of the report is Caleb Banta-Green, a scientist and epidemiologist at the University of Washington’s Alcohol & Drug Abuse Institute.
The report found that deaths involving heroin in King County continue to steadily increase reaching 99 in 2013 up from 49 in 2009 though below the peak of 144 in 1998. Continue reading
Some heart surgeries have become so common — the angioplasty, for example, to open clogged arteries — you might think the charge for it wouldn’t vary much from hospital to hospital.
You might assume the same about hip or knee replacements, which now hold the top spot in this country as the reason for overnight hospital stays by Medicare patients.
You would be so wrong. Continue reading
Children and teens are more likely to wear life jackets when out on the water when adults onboard are wearing them as well — yet relatively few adult boaters in Washington state wear life jackets while boating, according to recently published studies by UW Medicine researchers at Seattle Children’s Hospital and Harborview’s Injury Prevention & Research Center.
The findings, the researchers write, underscore the important role adults can have in encouraging the young to wear life jackets when out on the water.
Wearing a life jacket has been shown to reduce a boaters risk of drowning by half. Nevertheless, nationwide only about 15% of boaters wear a life jacket or personal floatation device (PDF), and, as the new studies show, Washington state boaters do little better. Continue reading
At Seattle’s largest safety-net hospital, the proportion of uninsured patients fell from 12 percent last year to an unprecedented low of 2 percent this spring—a drop expected to boost Harborview Medical Center’s revenue by $20 million this year.
The share of uninsured patients was cut roughly in half this year at two other major safety net hospitals—Denver Health in Colorado and the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences Hospital (UAMS) in Little Rock, Ark.
One of the biggest beneficiaries of the health law’s expansion of coverage to more than 13 million people this year has been the nation’s safety-net hospitals, which treat a disproportionate share of poor and uninsured people and therefore face billions of dollars in unpaid bills. Continue reading
Seattle’s Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Institute is conducting a study that offers smokers free access to an online quick-smoking program.
Here’s the announcement from the Center about the study: Continue reading
By Britt Olsen
Cover King County
Public Health – Seattle & King County
With the blood flow finally stanched by gauze, glue and several hundred dollars’ worth of stitches, you now sit propped up in a stiff but comforting hospital bed.
Your family members survey the damage, and a hospital administrator enters the room, clasping a laptop in her hands.
She is there to sign you up for health insurance. Continue reading
Hospitals and medical groups in Washington state planning to merge or affiliate must now disclose how the proposed agreement will affect access to reproductive services, such as contraception and abortion, and end-of-life care, according to new rules announced Monday by the Washington State Department of Health.
Earlier this year, Gov. Jay Inslee directed the Department of Health to assess its rules governing such mergers in response to growing concerns that hospitals merging with hospital systems run by the Roman Catholic Church would no longer provide contraceptive prescriptions, contraceptive services, such as tubal ligation or vasectomy, and abortion or end-of-life care that the church considered to be euthanasia.
Under the new rules, before transfer of ownership can take place, the parties involved must submit copies of policies on admission, non-discrimination, end-of-life care, and reproductive health care services to state health officials. This information must then be posted on both the hospital and Department of Health websites for the public to see. The rules go into effect early next year.
“As hospitals look to join together, many people have asked for the opportunity to provide input into these mergers. Requiring the certificate of need process will allow the public to provide comments,” the Washington State Department of Health said in a statement announcing the new rules.
Here is the full text of the announcement:
Hospital mergers/expansion rules amended to give the public a voice
OLYMPIA – Rules filed with the state code reviser today will improve access to information on services hospitals provide and give people a voice on proposed hospital affiliations.
The state Department of Health filed the rule revision after Gov. Jay Inslee directed the agency to assess rules about when a certificate of need review should be required with regard to changes in hospital control. The governor also asked the agency to consider ways to improve how information about medical facilities is made available to the public.
The certificate of need review process supports planned and orderly development of health care services and facilities. Certificate of need work includes developing new hospitals and expanding existing hospitals; the sale, purchase, or lease of all or part of a hospital; adding bed capacity in a nursing home; and more.
The rules filed today require a certificate of need application for any sale, purchase, or lease of a medical facility. That includes when a hospital enters into an arrangement that transfers control of the facility from one entity to another.
Before a transfer of ownership can take place, facilities must submit copies of policies on admission, non-discrimination, end-of-life care, and reproductive health care services to state health officials. All of that information will be posted on both the hospital and Department of Health websites for public access.
As hospitals look to join together, many people have asked for the opportunity to provide input into these mergers. Requiring the certificate of need process will allow the public to provide comments. The rule also makes important information about the facilities available to everyone.
The new rules go into effect Jan. 23, 2014 – 31 days after filing with the code reviser. After that date, all hospitals have an additional 60 days to submit policies to the department.
The updated certificate of need process helps ensure transparency with health care facilities and those who use them, and helps people make informed decisions on where to get medical care.
by Lena Groeger
Some medical conditions require and receive immediate care. People who are having heart attacks or who have suffered life-threatening injuries are typically seen by doctors as soon as they arrive at the hospital.
But in less urgent cases, patients arriving at the emergency room can wait for hours before seeing a doctor, receiving pain medication, having tests, or being admitted to the hospital.
And unless you had the foresight to call ahead, there is little way to know how long your visit will take.
Today ProPublica launching an interactive news application called ER Wait Watcher, which gives you a little more information to work with.
The app, which uses nationwide data recently released by the federal government, shows you how long it takes, on average, to see a doctor or other licensed professional at hospitals near you, plus the time it takes to drive there.
In many cases, the hospital closest to you may not be your best bet, because of long waiting times. Traveling farther may get you in front of a doctor sooner.
If you think you’re having a heart attack, or if you’ve suffered a serious injury, you should not use ER Wait Watcher. Please call 911. The ambulance will take you to the closest hospital, and won’t be as affected by traffic because it can speed and run red lights.
The app uses data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services on measures of “Timely and Effective Care.” These measures are based on a year’s worth of data that CMS updates quarterly (the last update was Dec. 12, 2013).
It includes averages for:
- How long patients tend to wait before seeing a doctor,
- how long they spend in the emergency department before being sent home or admitted to the hospital,
- and how many leave without being seen at all.
All data is reported voluntarily by hospitals, which have a financial incentive to participate.
ER Wait Watcher also estimates in real time how long it would take to drive to nearby hospitals based on current traffic conditions. It fetches this data directly from Google, so travel times will change throughout the day.
While minutes matter when you’re having a medical emergency, longer wait times are not always an indicator of worse care. For example, emergency rooms that see more patients with behavioral health problems like alcohol abuse may have much longer wait times; it may take hours for a patient to sober up enough to be safely discharged.
And time is not the only important factor, of course, so the app also includes patient satisfaction scores and other hospital quality measures to help you make an informed decision about which emergency room to go to.
The federal data includes what researchers say are important quality metrics for the nation’s emergency departments. According to Dr. Jeremiah Schuur, an emergency physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, the most useful measure from a patient’s perspective is waiting time — the time from when a patient walks in the door to when he sees a doctor.
Other emergency room measures, such as total length of stay at the hospital, may vary more depending on condition (a head fracture may take longer than a dislocated elbow) or on other patients (some hospitals treat sicker patients).
But whether or not a patient is seen quickly is a measure that can be compared across hospitals, says Schuur.
CMS’s move to standardize how to measure the quality of emergency care is especially needed now. In the last two decades an increase in ER patients, many of them older and sicker, has led to overcrowding.
Nationwide, ambulances are now turned away once a minute from overcrowded ERs and hospitals have difficulties in finding specialists to take emergency calls.
Some patients leave in frustration without being seen at all, while others can wait many hours for a hospital bed to become available. This confluence of problems led the Institute of Medicine to warn that emergency rooms in the United States are “at a breaking point.”
Overcrowding is not just an annoyance, and doesn’t just affect the people who come in complaining of a headache. A study of almost a million admissions to 187 California hospitals found that patients who were admitted after going through a very crowded emergency room were at 5 percent greater odds of dying than those admitted after passing through a less-crowded emergency room.
To tackle the problem, some experts advocate more measurement. Publicly releasing quality metrics can drive meaningful improvements in emergency care, according to a recent article in Health Affairs, a health policy journal. And the strategy has had some success in the past.
In 2004 hospitals began to publicly report a quality measure called “door-to-balloon time.” It refers to the time between a heart attack patient’s arrival at the emergency room and the moment of surgical intervention (which can sometimes involve inflating a thin balloon inside a heart artery).
CMS used door-to-balloon time to determine a portion of a hospital’s Medicare payment. Since then, emergency departments have focused a great deal of effort and money on identifying patients with heart attacks by screening them at triage. This has led to improvements in care for heart attack patients.
But not all measurements have had the same success. In 2005, England tried implementing another measure — a “four-hour rule” for the length of time a patient could stay in the emergency room before being sent home or admitted to the hospital. The country’s health service mandated that hospitals reach this four-hour time limit for 98 percent of their patients.
While nearly all hospitals met the goal, many also found ways to game the system, for example transferring patients to another doctor right before the clock ran out.
Since 2010, England has relaxed this measure and introduced new ones such as time to triage and percentage of patients who left without being seen.
Some U.S. emergency departments advertise their own quality care metrics, for example by posting waiting times on their websites, on billboards or on smartphone apps.
For people with conditions that are not life-threatening, this information allows them to postpone their trip or avoid a busy hospital altogether.
Theoretically this could help distribute patients more effectively and avoid pockets of crowding, improve patient satisfaction and serve as an incentive for hospitals to speed up their services.
But that information may not be reliable, or useful for comparing hospitals. On their own websites, hospitals are free to advertise any definition of “waiting time” they choose.
While one hospital could choose to count the time from when a patient arrives to when she is evaluated by a doctor, another could decide it’s when a patient is seen by a triage nurse, or receives a welcome from the hospital greeter.
In order to solve these discrepancies, CMS established standard definitions and a common metric with which to accurately compare different hospitals.
The agency defines its own “waiting time” measure as the time from when a patient walks in the door to when he is evaluated by a licensed provider (a doctor, physician assistant or nurse practitioner). CMS says its specifications state clearly who qualifies, to avoid confusion.
A caveat: Hospitals may record these times inaccurately. In most cases someone must manually write down the time a patient was seen, so the times are not always precise. To combat this, some emergency rooms outfit doctors and nurses with electronic badges that wirelessly record exact times.
According to CMS, hospitals have 30 days to review their data before submitting it to the government. The agency places most of the responsibility on hospitals for making sure their data is correct before doing so.
Instead of emphasizing timeliness, future measures could look at effectiveness of care or how well emergency departments utilize resources, according to Dr. Schuur. While the newly released data is extremely important to enable individual hospitals to improve their operations, he said, “consumers should be aware that there is much more to the quality of an emergency room than how quickly they see you.”
by Nina Martin
The past few years have been a period of unprecedented turmoil for the hospital industry.Now, a new report confirms that Catholic hospitals are emerging as one of the few clear winners — and the study adds its voice to a growing chorus of warnings about how church doctrine could affect women’s reproductive health care.
The report is by MergerWatch, a New York–based nonprofit that tracks hospital consolidations, and the American Civil Liberties Union. It traces the growth of Catholic hospitals across the U.S. from 2001 to 2011, the most recent year for which complete data is available.
It focuses on full-service, acute-care hospitals with emergency rooms and maternity units —settings in which Catholic religious teachings are most likely to come into conflict with otherwise accepted standards of reproductive care.
The report’s major finding is illustrated in the chart below: At a time when other types of nonprofit hospitals have been disappearing, the number of Catholic-sponsored hospitals has jumped 16 percent.
Over the last decade, only for-profit hospitals have fared better. The gains by Catholic providers are especially striking considering the sharp decline in the number of other religious-owned hospitals during the same period.
The numbers reflect the huge wave of hospital consolidations triggered by health care reform. For reasons that the report doesn’t delve into, Catholic hospitals have weathered those market upheavals better than other types of community hospitals—so well that they now make up 10 of the 25 largest health-care networks in the U.S.
Not surprisingly, the number of hospital beds at Catholic providers has also increased faster than at other types of nonprofit hospitals.
According to the report, Catholic acute-care hospitals now account for 1 in 9 hospital beds around the country, with much higher concentrations in some states, including Washington (the subject of this ProPublica story), Wisconsin, and Iowa.
(When other types of facilities are included, the Catholic share of hospital beds is closer to 1 in 6, according to this fact sheet.)
Keep in mind that these numbers are from 2011. Since then, according to the report, the largest Catholic health hospital networks, Ascension Health and Catholic Health Initiatives, have grown by another 30 percent or more.
“The trend we’ve identified is continuing and perhaps even accelerating,” Lois Uttley, MergerWatch’s director, said in an interview. “These large Catholic health systems are expanding aggressively, taking over other hospitals and smaller health systems, gobbling up non-Catholic hospitals, and gaining more financial power.”
However, the report’s immediate concern isn’t the hospitals’ economic clout, but rather the impact of Catholic health care policy, as embodied by controversial guidelines known as The Ethical and Religious Directives.
Issued by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the ERDs govern medical care at all Catholic hospitals — and influence care at secular hospitals that merge or affiliate with Catholic providers.
The directives ban elective abortion, sterilization, and birth control and restrict fertility treatments, genetic testing, and end-of-life options.
Depending on the hospital and the local bishop, they may also be interpreted to limit crisis care for women suffering miscarriages or ectopic pregnancies, emergency contraception for sexual assault, and even the ability of doctors and nurses to discuss treatment options or make referrals.
A spokesman for the Catholic Health Association of the United States said he had not seen the report and could not comment. But in a statement responding to a recent New York Times editorial, the association provided a spirited defense of its member hospitals.
“Catholic hospitals in the United States have a stellar history of caring for mothers and infants. Hundreds of thousands of patients have received extraordinary care …There is nothing in the Ethical and Religious Directives that prevents the provision of quality clinical care for mothers and infants in obstetrical emergencies. Their experience in hundreds of Catholic hospitals over centuries is outstanding testimony to that.”
But Louise Melling, the ACLU’s deputy legal director and a coauthor of the new study, sees danger as Catholic hospitals expand their market share and the ERDs extend their reach as well.
She cites the case of a Michigan woman who was allegedly denied proper care for a miscarriage at a Catholic hospital in Muskegon because of its interpretation of the directives banning abortion.
In that case — the centerpiece of a high-profile lawsuit by the ACLU against the Catholic bishops last month — the hospital in question had been secular until 2008, when it was merged with a Catholic health care system.
“Ordinary people are not following hospital mergers and acquisitions,” Uttley said. “They don’t know who runs their hospital, especially if it doesn’t have a Catholic name. Even if it does have a Catholic name, people don’t know what that means.”
Archbishop Joseph Kurtz of Louisville, Ky., the newly elected president of the bishops conference, has called the lawsuit “baseless” and “misguided.” “A robust Catholic presence in health care helps build a society where medical providers show a fierce devotion to the life and health of each patient, including those most marginalized and in need,” he said.
The authors of the new report, titled “Miscarriage of Medicine: The Growth of Catholic Hospitals and the Threat to Reproductive Health Care,” assert that the risk to patients is especially great in areas where a Catholic hospital is the sole provider for an entire region.
The report also looks at how much money Catholic hospitals take in from Medicare and Medicaid—a total of $115 billion in gross patient revenues in 2011 — and urges the federal government to enforce laws that protect patients under those programs. (Back in 1999, when MergerWatch issued its first report on the role of religion in health care, the total billed by all religious hospitals — not just Catholic-sponsored ones—was $41 billion.)
One of the more surprising findings is the slightly below-average amount of charity care provided by Catholic acute-care facilities. The numbers are based on Medicare Cost Reports, financial and utilization data filed annually by every hospital, the report said.
ProPublica requested comment from the Catholic Health Association, and we’ll post it if it comes.
But the shift, if true, is a big change from the past, when Catholic hospitals were founded by nuns and brothers to minister to the poor, the report says.
Washington’s highest-paid public-hospital executive has won a new two-year employment contract that will pay him more than $1 million a year in salary and bonuses.
But for longtime Valley Medical Center Chief Executive Rich Roodman, the deal amounts to a pay cut.
Roodman’s contract was the focus of a Kaiser Health News story last June, which looked at how incentives for hospital CEOS were driving the kind of hospital profits and expansion that many say are no longer affordable for patients, employers and taxpayers.
The 30-year CEO of the Renton hospital — whose soaring pay has stirred local controversy for years — won unanimous approval for the contract extension Tuesday from the Valley Medical board of trustees.
“We need strong leadership during this period of health-care change,” trustee Bernie Dochnahl said before the vote. Other trustees said the contract represented a good compromise that recognized Roodman’s service but paved the way for new leadership.
Dr. Paul Joos, an outspoken critic of Roodman’s, said the negotiation process revealed possible past errors and “struck a good compromise for the future.”
He noted the search for Roodman’s successor will begin immediately.
Roodman, who attended Tuesday’s board meeting, slipped out without comment after it concluded.
Tuesday’s approval ensures Roodman, 65, will continue working as the top executive of taxpayer-funded Valley Medical Center —- the centerpiece of King County Public Hospital District No. 1 — through at least Jan. 1, 2016. It also signals that his time is coming to an end.
The current contract for Roodman, who earned $1.3 million in total pay last year, expires at month’s end.
Under the new contract, Roodman’s current base salary of about $769,000 will be frozen. He will still get up to $238,341 in annual incentives, but contributions to his supplemental retirement plans stop, as do “retention” bonuses that have recently garnered him more than $235,000 per year.
The contract includes five weeks of annual vacation, standard health benefits provided to hospital executives and physicians, and a car allowance. It also offers Roodman the possibility to work for another year.
Once Roodman retires, he’ll walk away with a $7.5 million retirement package, records show. The amount includes a standard hospital-executive retirement plan valued at $1.6 million, plus supplemental retirement plans worth $3.4 million and two life-insurance policies valued at $2.5 million.
Valley Medical Center, a 303-bed acute-care hospital, serves more than 400,000 South King County residents as part of the state’s largest public hospital district, which encompasses the cities of Kent and Renton and includes parts of Tukwila, Auburn, Black Diamond, Covington, Federal Way, Maple Valley, Newcastle and Seattle.
In 2013, the owner of a typical home in the district assessed at $210,000 paid about $105 in property taxes under the district’s tax rate of 50 cents per $1,000 of assessed value, according to the King County Assessor’s Office.
Seattle Times reporter Christine Clarridge contributed.
This article was reprinted from kaiserhealthnews.org with permission from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Kaiser Health News, an editorially independent news service, is a program of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health care policy research organization unaffiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
By Jordan Rau
KHN Staff Writer
More hospitals are receiving penalties than bonuses in the second year of Medicare’s quality incentive program, and the average penalty is steeper than it was last year, government records show.
Medicare has raised payment rates to 1,231 hospitals based on two-dozen quality measurements, including surveys of patient satisfaction and—for the first time—death rates.
Another 1,451 hospitals are being paid less for each Medicare patient they treat.
For half the hospitals, the financial changes that started last month are negligible: they are gaining or losing less than a fifth of one percent what Medicare otherwise would have paid. Others are experiencing greater swings.
Gallup Indian Medical Center in New Mexico, a federal government hospital on the border of the Navajo Reservation, will be paid 1.14 percent less for each patient. Arkansas Heart Hospital in Little Rock, a physician-owned hospital that only handles cardiovascular cases, will get the largest bonus, 0.88 percent.
The bonuses and penalties are one piece of the health care law’s efforts to create financial incentives for doctors and hospitals to provide better care. They come at a tumultuous time as the technical problems of the healthcare.gov insurance portal and premium prices are stoking questions about the law’s viability. The incentives are among the law’s few cost-control provisions that have kicked in, but it is too early to tell how effective they will be in making hospitals operate more efficiently.
“This program is driving what we want in health care,” said Dr. Patrick Conway, Medicare’s chief medical officer. He said most hospitals have improved since the program began a year ago. However, even some hospitals that have gotten better are still losing money because they are not scoring as well as others or have not improved as much.
Across the country, hospital executives say they have put renewed focus on excellence in the areas that are judged. Some have clamped down on nighttime noise, one of the questions patients are asked about, by replacing squeaky wheels on food carts and discouraging nurses and workers from chatting on cell phones outside of rooms.
Others have scrambled to ensure heart attack patients always get an angioplasty within 90 minutes of arrival because that is part of the scoring. Some private insurers have adopted similar incentives.
“The thing about the government, if they start paying attention to it, we have to scramble around to pay attention to it,” said Dr. Leigh Hamby, chief medical officer at Piedmont Healthcare, a hospital system in Georgia. “It gets us moving.”
Hospitals in Maine, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Utah and Wisconsin are faring the best, with 60 percent or more of hospitals getting higher payments, according to a Kaiser Health News analysis.
Medicare is reducing reimbursement rates for at least two-thirds of hospitals in 17 states, including California, Connecticut, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Washington and Wyoming, as well as the District of Columbia.
How A Hospital Is Rated
Under the program, known as Hospital Value-Based Purchasing, Medicare reduced payment rates to all hospitals by 1.25 percent. It set the money aside in a $1.1 billion pot for incentives. While every hospital is getting something back, more than half are not recouping the 1.25 payment they initially forfeited, making them net losers.
The payment adjustments are applied to each Medicare patient stay over the federal fiscal year that started Oct. 1 and runs through September 2014. The potential bonuses and penalties were higher than they were last year, when the maximum at stake was 1 percent.
To assess quality, Medicare looked not only at how hospitals scored in comparison with each other, but also how much each improved from two years ago compared to other hospitals.
A hospital is judged on whichever score is higher, so some hospitals with subpar quality rankings are still getting more money because they showed vast improvement.
It won’t be clear how much any hospital’s bonuses and penalties amount to in dollar figures until next October because it depends on how much a hospital ultimately bills Medicare.
This year, 45 percent of a hospital’s score is based on how frequently it followed basic clinical standards of care, such as removing urinary catheters from surgery patients within two days to decrease the chance of infections. Thirty percent of the score is based on how patients rate the way they felt they were treated in the hospital, such as whether the doctors and nurses communicated well.
Medicare added its first measure of a medical outcome, looking at death rates of patients admitted for heart attacks, heart failure or pneumonia.Those mortality rates, calculated from the number of Medicare patients who died in the hospital or within a month of discharge, count for 25 percent of a hospital’s score.
The incentive program has received a mixed reception among hospital executives. Some complain that patients’ views sometimes are swayed by the swankiness of the hospital, and that hospitals that treat the very sickest patients often get the worst evaluations.
Physician-owned hospitals that focus on just a few specialties have tended to do particularly well in the program, as evidenced by the Arkansas Heart Hospital’s record bonus this year. Some leaders also object that even if they show improvements, their hospital can lose money if the improvements are not as great as others.
Will Penalties Bring Change?
Researchers are unsure whether the penalties are significant enough to trigger major improvements, especially in areas such as mortality, where there’s no definitive explanation for why some hospitals do such a better job than others in keeping patients alive.
“Shame and penalties, I don’t know if that’s the best way to get organizations to change,” said Leslie Curry, a researcher at the Yale School of Public Health. Her work has found that hospitals with low mortality rates are the ones where it is a priority of executives and where there is a culture where front-line workers such as nurses and lab technicians feel comfortable raising concerns to doctors and devising better methods.
“The fiscal penalties are nominal, frankly, in the scheme of things,” she said.
Others say even small differences in payments provide strong encouragement for hospitals to improve. “Sometimes institutions may think they’re performing excellently until they see outside data that compares to your peers,” said Dr. Richard Bankowitz, the chief medical officer of Premier, a group that works with hospitals to improve quality. “People are motivated to excel. Nobody wants to be in the bottom quartile anymore.”
The addition of mortality rates into the scores provides hospitals with their biggest challenge yet. Amanda Berra, a consultant at The Advisory Board, a Washington health care consulting firm, interviewed 40 chief medical officers at hospitals about mortality rates.
“They were very split. About half of them said you could not have a more powerful measure. On the other side we heard people who were really unenthusiastic,” she said. “We heard that the data is not super meaningful. They felt they had drastically improved in recent years and have kind of gotten where they could go.”
The average penalty grew to 0.26 percent, up from 0.21 percent in the first year of the program. North Georgia Medical Center in Ellijay is the only hospital besides Gallup to lose more than 1 percent of its reimbursements: it will lose 1.04 percent. Denver Health Medical Center, a highly respected safety-net hospital, is losing 0.71 percent of its reimbursements.
The hospital that was penalized the most last year, Auburn Community Hospital in upstate New York, reduced its 0.90 penalty, but will still lose 0.55 percent.
The average bonus was 0.24 percent, almost the same as last year’s 0.23 percent. Large bonuses are going to some major teaching hospitals, such as Thomas Jefferson University Hospital in Philadelphia and Duke University Hospital in Durham, N.C. Most are being distributed among smaller institutions, such as Pikeville Medical Center in Kentucky.
“The dollars are less important in terms of impact than the fact that the nation is sending a signal through the payment mechanism that there’s something to be worked on in the care we deliver,” said Nancy Foster, an executive at the American Hospital Association. “It’s a national symbol to health care providers that here is an area where you can do better.”
Many Past Winners Continue To Get Bonuses
Most winners from last year stayed winners and losers stayed losers. But there were some switches. Oaklawn Hospital in Marshall, Mich., improved its score the most from last year. In place of a 0.26 penalty, Oaklawn will receive a 0.65 percent bonus. A number of prominent academic medical centers also turned around their scores.
Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, New York-Presbyterian Hospital in Manhattan, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, both in Los Angeles, and Yale-New Haven Hospital were among the 300 places that went from a penalty to a bonus.
A total of 416 hospitals that won bonuses last year will be penalized this year. Centura Health-St. Thomas More Hospital in Canon City, Colo., dropped from a 0.08 percent bonus to a 0.72 percent penalty, the largest decrease.
This program is one of several Medicare has launched to make hospitals and doctors pay more attention to how their treatments compare with other hospitals, and to be more careful with public money.
Medicare gives bonuses to the private Medicare Advantage insurance plans that score well on quality metrics. In 2015, the health law calls for the government to begin a quality payment program for physician groups of 100 professionals or more, and that is to be expanded to all doctors by 2017.
The goal of all these programs is to replace the current financial incentive in Medicare, in which the only way for a hospital to get paid more is to perform more procedures and take on more patients.
For hospitals, the quality payments come on top of Medicare’s penalties on 2,205 hospitals with higher than expected readmission rates. The agency is doling out a maximum punishment this year of 2 percent.
As a result two out of three hospitals are losing money starting last month from the combined effects of the quality and readmissions programs. Pineville Community Hospital in Kentucky is losing 2.57 percent of its reimbursements, the largest penalty in the country.
Twenty-one other hospitals are losing 2 percent or more. These cuts come on top of reductions in special payments that go to hospitals that treat large numbers of low-income people.
Only 729 hospitals will end up with an increase in payments from the combined readmissions and value-based programs. Maine Coast Memorial Hospital in Ellsworth fared the best, gaining 0.80 percent.
Hospitals that are designated as critical access facilities, certain cancer hospitals and places with too few cases to be accurately measured were excluded from both programs.
Maryland hospitals are exempt because that state has a unique payment arrangement with Medicare.
Medicare relies on information found on hospital bills to determine the quality of care. In judging death rates, Medicare looked at patients admitted from July 2011 through June 2012, and compared those rates with how the hospitals performed between July 2009 and June 2010.
For the clinical and patient satisfaction measures, Medicare assessed hospital performances from April 2012 through December 2012, and compared them with scores during the same months in 2010.
The amount of money at stake increases to 1.5 percent of payments in October 2014, and continues to grow by a quarter percent until it reaches 2 percent.
Medicare is planning to add new measures next year, including comparisons of how much patients cost Medicare at different hospitals and rates of medical mishaps and infections from catheters.
In addition, the maximum readmission penalties grow to 3 percent next year, and Medicare is launching a third incentive program that takes an additional 1 percent of payments away from hospitals with the most patients who suffered injury or infection during their stay.
Combined, these three quality programs have the potential to strip away as much as 5.5 percent of Medicare payments from the worst performing hospitals starting next October.
“We’re moving more toward outcomes measures,” Conway said. “We’re moving away from volume and toward quality.”
- Data For Individual Hospitals (interactive chart)
- Downloadable CSV spreadsheet
- State Averages
This article was produced by Kaiser Health News with support from The SCAN Foundation.
This article was reprinted from kaiserhealthnews.org with permission from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Kaiser Health News, an editorially independent news service, is a program of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health care policy research organization unaffiliated with Kaiser Permanente.