SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Lane3 who wrote (13807)10/25/2003 4:00:07 PM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793672
 
This article illustrates why I hate to see medicare expanded.
_________________________________________

October 26, 2003
Generous Medicare Payments Spur Specialty Hospital Boom
By REED ABELSON

NDIANAPOLIS — The hospitals here — hospitals across the United States, for that matter — covet patients like Robert E. Wilson. Mr. Wilson, 79, has had two open-heart operations, five angioplasties, three cardiac catheterizations and an implanted defibrillator. Just last month, he checked into the Heart Center of Indiana to get his first stent, a tiny bit of wire scaffolding that helps keep arteries open.

Mr. Wilson's primary health insurance is Medicare, and Medicare pays generously for cardiac care — so generously that hospitals and doctors scramble after the business.

The Heart Center, a 60-bed hospital that cost $60 million and boasts not just the most sophisticated new imaging technology but an executive chef and what it calls "room service," opened last December. Indeed, all four major hospital groups in Indianapolis are investing in new heart hospitals, collectively spending $215 million on multistory buildings with catheterization labs and bedside computers.

Cranes have been raised over construction sites in places like Milwaukee, Phoenix and Houston, too, with money flowing into new hospitals specializing not just in cardiac care, but in other well-reimbursed specialties like orthopedics and surgery. In a report this month, the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, counted at least 26 specialty hospitals under construction across the country.

Medicare — which pays for some $100 billion of inpatient hospital care annually, and sets the pattern for many private insurers, as well — is not the sole driver of this investment. But health executives say that Medicare's payment system for hospitals, with its emphasis on procedures and its weak ties to the actual costs of providing care, exerts a strong influence on which medical needs in a community are met.

Amid the building boom here in Indianapolis, some hospitals are laying off employees or scaling back programs, like psychiatric care, that are less generously reimbursed. Preventive care and case management, health experts add, get short shrift.

"The incentives are terribly misaligned," said Samuel R. Nussbaum, a doctor and former hospital executive who is now the chief medical officer of Anthem, a large health insurer here.

Creating Excess Demand A study of Indianapolis health care last year concluded that the construction of so many new heart hospitals could create excess demand for treatment rather than produce better cardiac care.

"Improving clinical quality did not appear to be a driving force for new facilities or services," said the report, by the Center for Studying Health System Change, a nonprofit research group. "Given these market conditions, provider competition could, alternatively, result in higher use rates and costs."

In Washington, lawmakers rushing to complete a compromise bill that would establish a Medicare prescription drug benefit are now turning their attention to the growth of specialty hospitals. The Senate version of the Medicare bill would make it harder for doctors to invest in and refer patients to such hospitals, and full-service hospitals are lobbying hard for the provision.

Hospitals will typically not disclose how much they profit from a particular procedure, like a coronary bypass or angioplasty. And Medicare — with little information about the cost of treatment — cannot say, either. But one full-service medical center that is leading the lobbying campaign against specialty hospitals, Sioux Valley Hospital in South Dakota, estimates that it makes nearly $1,500 for a typical coronary bypass under Medicare, while it loses almost $1,800 treating a case of simple pneumonia and $2,500 on a patient with kidney failure.

Cardiac procedures "are absolutely our highest margin business," said Becky Nelson, the president of Sioux Valley, who estimates that they account for 13 percent of the hospital's patient volume but 28 percent of its profits. Costs and payment levels vary so widely around the country that Dr. John Birkmeyer, a surgeon who studies health care at Dartmouth Medical School, estimates that some hospitals may make nearly $20,000 on a coronary bypass.

In Indianapolis, there is recognition that reimbursement levels have influenced hospitals' behavior.

"We're working on a payment system that has been jerry-rigged so many times, we've been looking for the loopholes," said Jack C. Frank, an executive at Community Health Network, which opened the Indiana Heart Hospital this year in partnership with local doctors.

Hospital Building Boom Just 20 minutes southeast of the Heart Center of Indiana, Mr. Frank's $60 million center says it is the nation's first all-digital heart hospital, using electronic patient records to track care. Roughly 45 minutes to the south, construction is well under way on the latest — and most expensive — competitor here, the St. Francis Cardiac and Vascular Care Center, expected to cost about $65 million when it opens next year.

Even some of the people building the hospitals worry that Indianapolis may not be able to support them all, though heart disease is the leading cause of death among Indiana residents.

"It can't work," said Daniel F. Evans Jr., the chief executive of Clarian Health Partners, whose Clarian Cardiovascular Center is the most modest of the undertakings, at $30 million, and the only one built within a full-service hospital.

Executives, of course, vigorously defend the decisions to build their own facilities. Heart hospitals, they say, help pay for money-losing cases, like accident victims or patients with congestive heart failure.

"Cardiac care has been a source of some margin, which has been very important in subsidizing some services," said Robert J. Brody, the chief executive of St. Francis Hospital and Health Centers.

Nothing in the Medicare legislation before Congress would directly alter the hospital payment system. But advocates, mainly Republicans, for provisions aimed at encouraging more beneficiaries to enroll in private health plans say that bigger plans would have more leverage to negotiate better prices.

"The prices are being fixed" by the government, said Thomas A. Scully, who runs Medicare as administrator of the government's Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Local insurance companies would be much better at deciding how to pay doctors and hospitals to deliver quality care, he said.

Payment System Is Dated The current system was adopted in 1983, in an effort by the federal government to control costs. Until then, Medicare basically reimbursed hospitals for their costs of delivering care, an arrangement that offered them no incentive to keep hospital stays short. The new plan established fixed prices for treating a specific disease or performing a given procedure. Some cases might cost more and some less, but the price Medicare paid was supposed to represent the average.

As a cost-control mechanism, the system has been largely successful. The problem, say hospital executives and industry analysts, is that after 20 years, the payments are out of whack: Medicare frequently pays too much for some kinds of care and too little for others.

To take account of the rapid changes in medicine, like new technologies and treatments, Medicare collects data on hospital charges — essentially list prices for everything from a cardiac catheterization to bypass surgery to treatment for pneumonia. The agency then tweaks prices relative to one another, updating its payment schedule once a year.

But charges often bear little relation to a hospital's actual costs, any more than a car's sticker price directly indicates what it costs to build the car. And hospitals rarely, if ever, lower their charges, say industry analysts, even when their costs fall significantly.

"Administered price systems tend to break down over time," said Joseph P. Newhouse, a Harvard University professor of health policy who is a member of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. "If you're overpaid, everybody smiles on the way to the bank, and you may induce more services."

Just how overpaid is unclear. Many hospitals lack the accounting systems to determine their exact expenses for specific procedures. Hospitals also have tremendous discretion in allocating expenses across departments, let alone procedures.

In the case of a coronary bypass, for example, hospital charges increased nearly 30 percent from 1993 to 2001, even as the average hospitalization decreased to 9 days from nearly 12 days, according to data from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, a government group in Rockville, Md.

Profitability Varies Widely What seems certain is that there are wide variations in the profitability of different hospital services under Medicare. Mark Wietecha, who directs health care consulting for Kurt Salmon Associates, estimates that the profit margin for surgery, including cardiovascular cases, is about 15 percent for some hospitals, compared to just 2 percent for gastrointestinal care.

"People build their business plans and facilities on these profitabilities," he said.

In Indianapolis, the rush to build heart hospitals is leading to what appears to be significant duplication of services.

Heart transplants are offered only by St. Vincent and Clarian, which is affiliated with Indiana University, but many services are available at all four heart hospitals. In fact, St. Vincent's new heart hospital, the Heart Center of Indiana, competes directly with its parent hospital for patients. And some doctors at Clarian who have invested in the Heart Center are sending profitable cases there, according to Mr. Evans, Clarian's chief executive, working on only the most difficult — and expensive — cases at his hospital.

The construction boom here was influenced by the threat of a new competitor, the MedCath Corporation, a for-profit chain with 11 heart hospitals in nine states that opened discussions with some local doctors. To avert MedCath's entry into the market, Community Health and St. Vincent made deals of their own with doctors to build facilities.

Hospital executives here are quick to agree that more needs to be done to help people stop smoking or lose weight — steps that could help prevent the diseases they make money treating. "Our reimbursement is all around acute care," said Sister Sharon Richardt, a St. Vincent executive. "I think where the flaw is we need to keep people well. We need to start reimbursing for prevention."

But Medicare was created nearly four decades ago to prevent the financial catastrophe that often occurred when an older person suffered a heart attack or when a disease like cancer was diagnosed. Payments are therefore "episodic" rather than intended to encourage hospitals and doctors to prevent disease or coordinate care, said Dr. Gerard F. Anderson, a former federal health official who helped develop the system and now teaches at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

Patients Can Lose Patients like Corinne Walker, an 83-year-old Indianapolis woman who suffers from congestive heart failure, are not always well served. In late 2000, she developed cellulitis, a serious bacterial infection, in her legs, and spent months in three hospitals. No one bothered talking to her personal doctor, Ms. Walker said. To her, it seemed as if the people treating her virtually ignored her heart condition, although it contributed to her cellulitis.

"They were working on my legs, period," Ms. Walker said. Only after she was sent home, with a nurse orchestrating her care, was she finally able to get better, Ms. Walker said.

In Indianapolis, the treatment of chronic conditions "has fallen through the cracks," acknowledged Mr. Frank, the Community Health Network executive. With long hospital stays and few options for aggressive intervention, congestive heart failure is a particularly money-losing diagnosis, executives say; the Sioux Falls hospital says it loses $1,200 on the average case.

Even so, there is little constituency — outside a circle of policy analysts — for overhauling a payment system that produces such results.

Many hospitals have figured out how to make the most of the status quo. Tenet Healthcare has been formally accused of abusing the system by which Medicare pays for the most expensive cases. But hospitals generally try to fit their care into the most lucrative billing codes.

"In fact, you see a great deal of gaming going on," said David Butz, a health economist at the University of Michigan.

Lawmakers, meanwhile, focus on small fixes to the system. With cuts in spending on cancer or heart disease politically unpalatable, they tend, under lobbying pressure, to expand coverage or increase payments.

Impetus to refine the existing system has also been blunted by the unwillingness of Congress to better analyze the cost of care, policy analysts say. Some experts say that Medicare's administrative expenses — 2 to 3 percent of its overall budget — have been kept too low.

Armed with more information, they say, Congress could realign the incentives to cut costs and improve care.

"We have a limited budget," Dr. Christopher M. Callahan, the director of the Indiana University Center for Aging Research, said. "From a public health perspective," he added, the question is: "Where would those dollars best be spent?"

nytimes.com



To: Lane3 who wrote (13807)10/25/2003 4:32:43 PM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793672
 
Good people to listen to in these "two bit" Third World Countries. The Evangelicals have a lot of Missionary "boots on the ground" and have a better feel for the people than the Embassy cookie pushers.
___________________________________________

October 26, 2003
Evangelicals Sway White House on Human Rights Issues Abroad
By ELISABETH BUMILLER - NEW YORK TIMES

WASHINGTON, Oct. 25 — Shortly after George W. Bush took office, an odd coalition came to the White House to see Karl Rove, the president's powerful political adviser, to ask that the United States intercede in the civil war in Sudan. The group included Charles W. Colson, the born-again Christian who spent seven months in jail for his role in Watergate, and David Saperstein, a reform rabbi and a longtime lobbyist for liberal causes in Washington.

The two-decades-old war in Sudan was not a front-burner problem for the new administration, and Mr. Rove was not a foreign policy adviser. But the religious strife between Christians and Muslims in a conflict that had killed two million people was of enormous concern to American religious groups, particularly the evangelicals who make up a major portion of President Bush's electoral base.

Mr. Rove, the participants in the meeting recalled, was unusually receptive during a nearly hourlong conversation. "He made it clear how seriously the administration was going to engage on this," said Rabbi Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism.

Close to three years later, the White House has lived up to Mr. Rove's promise to engage not only in peace talks in Sudan, but on other human rights issues of critical importance to American religious groups, most notably sex trafficking and AIDS.

Administration officials and members of Congress say the religious coalition has had an unusual influence on one of the most religious White Houses in American history. The groups have driven aspects of foreign policy and won major appointments, and they were instrumental in making sure that the president included extensive remarks on sex trafficking in his speech to the United Nations General Assembly in September.

No one disputes that Mr. Bush already cares deeply about these issues and has a personal faith that his advisers say brings a moral dimension to a foreign policy better known for war. "To put it simply, it's a fairly radical belief that a child in an African village whose parents are dying of AIDS has the same importance before God as the president of the United States," said Michael Gerson, Mr. Bush's chief speechwriter and an important White House policy adviser who is a born-again Christian.

But it is also true, religious leaders and administration officials note, that white evangelicals accounted for about 40 percent of the votes that Mr. Bush received in the 2000 presidential election. In 2004, political analysts say, he is unlikely to be re-elected without the strong support of this constituency, which is predominately but not wholly Republican, and which in other years has thrown significant support to southern Democrats like Bill Clinton. Mr. Rove is now tending to the constituency with great care.

"You're not going to run into too many people who are smarter than Karl," said Dr. Richard D. Land, the president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, who is in regular contact with Mr. Rove. "Karl understands the importance of this segment of his coalition, and I think the president understands it. The president feels that one of the contributory factors to his father's loss is that he didn't get as many evangelical votes as Reagan did."

The human rights issues offer a politically safe way for the president to appeal to his base of white evangelicals, who leading scholars and pollsters define by their membership in historically white evangelical denominations, like the Southern Baptists and the Assemblies of God. Evangelical churches believe that the Bible is truth, that members have an imperative to proselytize and convert and that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation.

"There are these issues below the radar screen that are of deep concern to the evangelical community, and while they are sincerely held by the administration, they also have the benefit of allowing the president to say, `I have responded to what you wanted me to do,' " Rabbi Saperstein said. "But they're not issues that will alienate large segments of the center in America. These are all-win issues for the administration."

The religious dynamic at the White House reflects a larger change within American evangelicals themselves, and their interest over the last decade in moving beyond the divisive domestic issues that consumed them a generation ago — abortion, school prayer, homosexuality, pornography — into an international arena.

The change is taking place in part because of a new focus on what evangelicals call "the persecuted church," or fellow Christians in other regions of the world who face abuse. The change also stems from leaders' concluding that evangelical groups made little headway on domestic social issues in the 1980's.

"Evangelicals today are more interested in making a difference than in making a statement," said the Rev. Richard Cizik, the vice president for governmental affairs of the National Association of Evangelicals, which represents 43,000 congregations. "We made a lot of statements in the 1980's and got zip."

Mr. Cizik said that evangelicals were now more willing to work with Jewish and feminist groups on certain foreign policy issues and that the failure of evangelicals in the 1980's to meet their goals was in part a failure to collaborate. "Evangelicals have thought historically, `Well, we'll do politics the way we do faith — we'll just convert the opposition,' " he said. "But you can't do politics the same way you do religion."

The groups now find the Bush White House to have an open door, particularly with a president who uses evangelical language in his speeches and credits his faith with helping him to give up drinking.

"There was no movement under Clinton," said Mr. Colson, the founder and chairman of Prison Fellowship Ministries, who once Mr. Gerson's boss. "We couldn't get anyone to talk to us."

Other religious leaders say that this White House far surpasses the administrations of Ronald Reagan and Mr. Bush's father in its attentiveness.

"Under previous Republican administrations, they would take our calls and often return them," Dr. Land said. "In this administration, they call us. They say, you know, `What do you think about this?' "

The closeness has led to collaboration on policy, most recently on human trafficking. Religious leaders like Dr. Land and Mr. Colson pushed the White House for months to have the president denounce the coercion of women into prostitution around the world and the forcing of men and children into modern-day slavery.

"We certainly encouraged the White House to make it a prominent issue," Dr. Land said, adding that the United Nations speech "was one place we suggested it could be done."

The issue had also risen within the administration, which, as Dr. Land put it, "has a lot more evangelicals in it, and traditional Catholics," than previous administrations. Mr. Gerson, for one, said that he had been talking about international human trafficking for nearly a year, and that it was "bubbling up" on the National Security Council. It was of interest, Mr. Gerson said, to Elliott Abrams, a senior director for Middle East affairs, and to Stephen J. Hadley, the deputy national security adviser. Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, and Andrew H. Card Jr., the White House chief of staff, were also focused on the issue, Mr. Gerson said.

About three weeks before Mr. Bush's United Nations address, Mr. Gerson said, "we went in and talked to the president in the Oval Office — Steve, Condi, Andy and myself. He was very interested and supportive of the idea of having trafficking in the speech. And that became the major topic of discussion in the meeting — where it's happening, how large. And he had a lot of questions."

Earlier in the year, religious groups say they successfully lobbied for a new director of the State Department's Trafficking in Persons Office, which was created in 2000 by legislation aggressively pushed by a coalition of evangelicals, Catholics, Jewish groups and feminists. John Miller, a former Republican member of Congress from Seattle who had worked on human rights issues on Capitol Hill, was the group's choice. Mr. Rove is said to have raised concerns that Mr. Miller supported Senator John McCain in the 2000 presidential campaign, but the groups held fast.

"Essentially a variety of people let out the word that this is not the hill you want to die on — this is the guy we want," said Allen Hertzke, the director of religious studies at the University of Oklahoma and the author of a forthcoming book, "Freeing God's Children: The Faith-based Movement for International Human Rights."

Mr. Miller, for his part, said the influence of the groups on human trafficking had been substantial. "They're consumed by this issue," he said. "I think it's great. It helped get the legislation passed, it helped spur me, I think it keeps the whole government focused."

The groups were also influential in the development of the president's commitment to fight global AIDS, particularly the part of the policy based on Uganda's A.B.C. campaign, which promotes, in order, abstinence, being faithful and condoms.

Mr. Colson, who has enormous influence among evangelicals because of his books, lectures and radio program, said that President Bush personally told religious leaders that he was supporting them on the A.B.C. campaign in a meeting at the White House this spring.

After the meeting, Mr. Colson said he went up to Mr. Bush and said emphatically that faith-based policy worked. "He said, `You don't have to tell me,' " Mr. Colson said the president replied. "He said, `I'd still be drinking if it weren't for what Christ did in my life. I know faith-based works.' "
nytimes.com