Health affairs
-
Identifying policies that will cut or constrain US health care spending and spending growth dominates reform efforts, yet little is known about whether the drivers of spending levels and of spending growth are the same. Policies that produce a one-time reduction in the level of spending, for example by making hospitals more efficient, may do little to reduce subsequent annual spending growth. ⋯ During that period average spending for postacute care doubled for patients with hip fractures, more than doubled for those with congestive heart failure, and more than tripled for those with heart attacks. We conclude that policies aimed at controlling acute care spending, such as bundled payments for short-term hospital spending and physician services, are likely to be more effective if they include postacute care, as is currently being tested under Medicare's Bundled Payment for Care Improvement Initiative.
-
The best opportunity to pursue cost containment in the next five to ten years is through reforming provider payment to gradually diminish the role of fee-for-service reimbursement. Public and private payers have launched many promising payment reform pilots aimed at blending fee-for-service with payment approaches based on broader units of care, such as an episode or patients' total needs over a period of time, a crucial first step. But meaningful cost containment from payment reform will not be achieved until Medicare and Medicaid establish stronger incentives for providers to contract in this way, with discouragement of nonparticipation increasing over time. In addition, the models need to evolve to engage beneficiaries, perhaps through incentives for patients to enroll in an accountable care organization and to seek care within that organization's network of providers.
-
Medicare's core benefit design reflects private insurance as of 1965, with separate coverage for hospital and physician services (and now prescription drugs) and no protection against catastrophic costs. Modernizing Medicare's benefit design to offer comprehensive benefits, financial protection, and incentives to choose high-value care could improve coverage and lower beneficiary costs. We describe a new option we call Medicare Essential, which would combine Medicare's hospital, physician, and prescription drug coverage into an integrated benefit with an annual limit on out-of-pocket expenses for covered benefits. ⋯ Out-of-pocket savings from lower premiums and health care costs for a Medicare Essential enrollee could be $173 per month, compared to what an enrollee would pay with traditional Medicare, prescription drug and private supplemental coverage. Financed by a budget-neutral premium, we estimate that this new plan choice could reduce total health spending relative to current projections by $180 billion and reduce employer retiree spending by $90 billion during 2014-23. Given its potential, such an alternative should be a part of the debate over the future of Medicare.
-
Many policy makers believe that when Medicare constrains its payment rates for hospital inpatient care, private insurers end up paying higher rates as a result. I tested this "cost-shifting" theory using a unique new data set that combines MarketScan private claims data with Medicare hospital cost reports. Contrary to the theory, I found that hospital markets with relatively slow growth in Medicare inpatient hospital payment rates also had relatively slow growth in private hospital payment rates during 1995-2009. ⋯ These payment rate spillovers may reflect an effort by hospitals to rein in their operating costs in the face of lower Medicare payment rates. Alternatively, hospitals facing cuts in Medicare payment rates may also cut the payment rates they seek from private payers to attract more privately insured patients. My findings indicate that repealing cuts in Medicare payment rates would not slow the growth in spending on hospital care by private insurers and would in fact be likely to accelerate the growth in private insurers' costs and premiums.
-
Policy makers have considerable interest in reducing Medicare spending growth. Clarity in the debate on reducing Medicare spending growth requires recognition of three important distinctions: the difference between public and total spending on health, the difference between the level of health spending and rate of health spending growth, and the difference between growth per beneficiary and growth in the number of beneficiaries in Medicare. ⋯ The Affordable Care Act created a projected trajectory for Medicare spending per beneficiary that is lower than historical growth rates. Although opportunities for one-time savings exist, any long-term savings from Medicare, beyond those already forecast, will probably require a shift in spending from taxpayers to beneficiaries via higher beneficiary premium contributions (overall or via means testing), changes in eligibility, or greater cost sharing at the point of service.