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.
Biotech / Medical : Biotech Valuation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: software salesperson who wrote (52040)3/23/2023 12:55:44 PM
From: DewDiligence_on_SI  Respond to of 52153
 
Today’s NYT has an article on doctor burnout:

nytimes.com



To: software salesperson who wrote (52040)3/23/2023 1:12:39 PM
From: Art Bechhoefer1 Recommendation

Recommended By
sjemmeri

  Respond to of 52153
 
For at least 20 years, the administrative costs associated with health care in the U.S. have been about four times higher than the average for other industrialized countries. You can see how this is possible by looking at Medicare billings. First, the health care provider – doctor, hospital, etc. – bills Medicare. Medicare may pay all, a portion, or none. Then the remainder of the bill goes to the patient's insurer, which may pay some or none. And then the final remainder goes to the patient, all of which can take more than a month, during which time the provider gets little or none of the actual costs (forget the overbilling).

Countries like the Netherlands or Finland, which don't have the resources to support such inefficiency, handle the situation better. The Netherlands uses a single payer system, supported by income tax revenues and administered by insurance firms. Finland has no need of corporate health insurance programs, as everything is handled by the government, leaving corporations to deal with their own business, not the health of others.

The extraordinary inefficiency of the U.S. system has been researched by the likes of the American Medical Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science in peer reviewed articles.

Art



To: software salesperson who wrote (52040)11/28/2023 1:22:47 PM
From: software salesperson1 Recommendation

Recommended By
Lance Bredvold

  Respond to of 52153
 
here is a follow-up freakonomics podcast on how PE firms operate in general rather than specifically in healthcare:

DUBNER: So, we’ve been doing occasional episodes on this show about private equity over the last several years. Often the downsides, not exclusively. We recently ran a two-part series on how private-equity firms have been buying up veterinary and other pet-care facilities. Now, I have several friends and acquaintances who work in private equity, and they complain to me that I’ve been alarmist, and that the negative associations with private equity are overstated. Of course, it’s in their interest to say that. But when I listened to their explanations — these are nice, prosocial, well-educated people who don’t beat their children or anything like that ( did he really just say this??) — I thought, “Well, maybe, maybe they’re right. Maybe I am becoming a little bit hyper about it, or paranoid or panicked.” And then, Brendan, I read your book and I thought, “Oh, my — I’m not nearly paranoid enough.” So let me hear just a sort of opening statement from you about the state of private equity in the U.S.

Ballou: Ultimately, at least one person died in ManorCare’s care, a woman named Annie Salley. And when her family tried to sue ManorCare and Carlyle, a really interesting thing happened. In court filings, the private-equity firm said, “Oh, no, no. We are not technically the owner of ManorCare. We, in fact, merely advise a series of funds whose limited partners through a series of shell corporations ultimately own the assets of ManorCare. We’re not the ones to blame here.” Now, that’s sort of a legal sleight of hand, because in public statements, Carlyle had said it bought it. In effect, it seems to have had operational control over the nursing home, and it certainly loaded up the nursing home with all the debt that led to the kinds of consequences that resulted in Ms. Salley’s death. But because of fairly obscure legal doctrines, like piercing the corporate veil, they were able to get the case against it dismissed. And so what I hope that example shows is that there are lots of laws out there, lots of regulations that essentially give private-equity firms operational control over the companies they buy but very little responsibility when things go poorly.

BALLOU: So, we already described what private equity is, or what the business model is. Let me try to lay out what the basic problem with that business model is. There are three issues with it. First is that private-equity firms tend to buy companies and hold them only for a few years. Second is that they tend to load the companies up they buy with a lot of debt, and then they extract a lot of transaction and management fees from the company. And then the third thing is they tend to be insulated — financially and legally — from the consequences of their actions. When the portfolio firm does something illegal or does something wrong, the private-equity firm itself is rarely held liable. What this means is, when you’ve got short-term thinking, when you’ve got a lot of debt, and a lot of fees, and when you’ve got insulation from responsibility — it leads to all sorts of bad consequences. And you were talking about the series that you’ve been doing on veterinary clinics. Well, my girlfriend actually is a veterinarian and she’s talking about — all these private-equity firms are buying up all the veterinary clinics in the area in which we live. And it leads to — at least as alleged by her friends and folks that I know — leads to diminished quality of care for pets, it leads to increased prices, it leads to less flexibility for workers. And all those are the sorts of things that happen when you own a business only for a few short years, and you don’t have responsibility for what happens in the long term.

KHAJURIA : And so I think you have to be a lot more nuanced than that, and say, look, if the argument is, “We found that in this, this, and this deal, that all happened to be private-equity deals, these practices were happening that didn’t benefit consumers, communities” — that should not happen. But it should not happen not as a function of being a private-equity investment, one hopes, but more as a matter of corporate life, in the same way that whether you look at Enron or whether you look at A.I.G. or whether you look at Lehman Brothers — none of these things are private-equity, and these things have caused enormous problems over the years. And so you’ve got to be pretty open about it and say, if you find a particular set of individuals or firms doing things they shouldn’t do — of course, that shouldn’t happen, and that should be addressed in the normal course of things. But I don’t think it’s the industry overall. I’ve never been in a meeting where somebody said, “Well, let’s do that. It’s good for us, but it’s bad for somebody else.” No way. ( uh, - - how many examples can be cited in each category?)



To: software salesperson who wrote (52040)12/27/2023 10:50:10 AM
From: software salesperson2 Recommendations

Recommended By
Lance Bredvold
OldAIMGuy

  Respond to of 52153
 
nytimes.com

Serious Medical Errors Rose After Private Equity Firms Bought Hospitals
A new study shows an increase in the rate of inpatient complications, including infections and falls, though patients were no more likely to die.

Dec. 26, 2023

The rate of serious medical complications increased in hospitals after they were purchased by private equity investment firms, according to a major study of the effects of such acquisitions on patient care in recent years.

The study, published in JAMA on Tuesday, found that, in the three years after a private equity fund bought a hospital, adverse events including surgical infections and bed sores rose by 25 percent among Medicare patients when compared with similar hospitals that were not bought by such investors. The researchers reported a nearly 38 percent increase in central line infections, a dangerous kind of infection that medical authorities say should never happen, and a 27 percent increase in falls by patients while staying in the hospital.

“We were not surprised there was a signal,” said Dr. Sneha Kannan, a health care researcher and physician at the division of pulmonary and critical care at Massachusetts General Hospital, who was the paper’s lead author. “I will say we were surprised at how strong it was.”

Although the researchers found a significant rise in medical errors, they also saw a slight decrease (of nearly 5 percent) in the rate of patients who died during their hospital stay. The researchers believe other changes, like a shift toward healthier patients admitted to the hospitals, could explain that decline. And by 30 days after patients were discharged, there was no significant difference in the death rates between hospitals.

Other researchers who reviewed the study said that while it didn’t provide a complete picture of private equity’s effects, it did raise important questions about the quality of care in hospitals that had been taken over by private equity owners.

“This is a big deal because it’s the first piece of data that I think pretty strongly suggests that there is a quality problem when private equity takes over,” said Dr. Ashish Jha, the dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, who has also studied hospital safety extensively.

Over the last two decades, private equity firms have become major players in health care, purchasing not just hospitals but also a growing number of nursing homes, physician practices and home health care companies. The firms pool money from institutional investors and individuals to form investment funds, often buying hospitals and other entities through high levels of debt, with an eye to reselling them in a few years. A separate recent study suggested the firms were consolidating physician groups in certain local markets, potentially leading to higher prices.

So far, these firms own a small share of hospitals in the United States, though the numbers are hard to measure because the transactions are not always public.

Several media reports have shown that some of the acquired hospitals have been forced to close because of financial distress, and some have come under regulatory scrutiny for quality problems. But such examples are not necessarily typical.

“The private equity industry plays an essential role in providing local hospitals with the capital they need to improve patient care, expand access and drive innovation,” said Drew Maloney, the chief executive of the American Investment Council, a trade group for the industry. “This research doesn’t reflect private equity’s full record of strengthening health care across the country.”

The industry has recently come under scrutiny. This month the Senate Budget Committee began a bipartisan investigation into private equity ownership of hospitals. And bills from several Democrats in Congress have pushed for more public reporting of private equity deals in health care, and for broader reforms on ways the firms can acquire companies and earn profits.

“They are preventable adverse events that everyone thinks shouldn’t happen in hospitals,” one analyst said.Credit...Monica Jorge for The New York Times

Several studies have examined private equity firms’ financial effects on hospitals. The new paper, which examines 51 hospitals between 2009 and 2019, provides new evidence that those changes may result in more dangerous conditions for patients. The researchers, who also include Dr. Zirui Song from Harvard and Joseph Dov Bruch from the University of Chicago, received funding from Arnold Ventures, a group that supports a wide array of health care research and has been critical of the private equity industry.

Previous research found that patients were less likely to die after visiting a private equity-backed hospital. But the researchers said they wanted to focus their study on specific measures like medical errors that more directly reflected the care in a hospital instead of patient deaths, which are more likely to be influenced by the health status of the patients entering the hospital.

The researchers examined a range of errors that Medicare tracks and that Medicare encourages hospitals to minimize. Hospitals with high levels of some of these problems — like central line infections — must pay financial penalties to the government. Though not all of the errors happened often enough to be measured with precision, and the complications occurred rarely overall, all of the eight individual measures studied in the paper worsened in the hospitals purchased by private equity funds.

Rates of these complications have generally been declining for about 15 years, as hospitals have worked to reduce them and as best practices for avoiding them have become more widespread.

“They are preventable adverse events that everyone thinks shouldn’t happen in hospitals,” said Dr. David Blumenthal, the former president of the Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit health care research group, who reviewed the study.

Some private equity owners may be overly eager to cut costs, leading to a decline in the quality of care, he said. “It’s about the style of investing,” he said. “It’s about the aggressiveness and short-time-frame profits and returns on investment that are sought.” In the cases where they do not pursue this strategy, private equity can be positive, Dr. Blumenthal added: “It brings capital. It brings innovation.”

The researchers said the most likely explanation for the increased errors was fewer hospital employees, an effect that has been measured in other studies of private equity. “Reductions in staffing after acquisition could explain all of these findings,” Dr. Song said.

But this paper did not directly measure staffing levels in the hospitals it examined.

Dr. Song has advocated more government oversight of private equity firms in health care. But several scholars who have studied the firms said that while the new paper raises serious concerns, it still leaves some important questions unanswered for policymakers.

“This should make us lean forward and pay attention to what’s happening,” said Zack Cooper, a professor of public health and economics at Yale, who has examined the industry. “It shouldn’t cause us to introduce wholesale policies yet.”

Vivian Ho, a professor of economics at Rice, was a coauthor on a paper that documented reductions in staffing after the firms bought hospitals, including small cuts to nursing. Professor Ho noted that it’s hard to be sure whether the reductions were the result of the change in leadership, or ownership by a private equity firm specifically, but she said the results were alarming enough that she was eager to see more evidence.

“I’m willing to believe that it is because of the staffing issues,” she said. “You just combine that with the anecdotal reports of what is going on in some of these hospitals, and it is a consistent story.”

----------------

now that i understand better how PE operates, i always check ownership when evaluating a new vendor or deciding whether to stay with an existing one. i typically try to engage physicians so that they feel free to describe their practice's environment and changes thereto. what one can learn is pretty amazing.

PE has all their bases covered and is too cagey and a lot smarter than i. so i try to avoid them. i'm interested to see how these lawsuits are resolved.

- - ---
APPELBAUM: Well, when you say corporate, let me just back up for a minute and tell you that the vast majority of states in the U.S. have laws against the corporate practice of medicine. And so there are real problems here. When you have a situation where healthcare is being provided by a company whose first responsibility is to maximize profit, you’re going to see profit prioritized over the treatment of the doctors or the vets and the treatment of the patients. And it is illegal in most states, but private equity at least has figured out a way around it.

DUBNER: How do they do that?

APPELBAUM: They set up a sham company that is run by a doctor. And they say to the doctors, “Your practice is owned by this.” But here’s the thing. That sham company has absolutely no assets. All of the assets of the doctors’ practices — the technology, the building, the accounts receivable, the chairs in the waiting room and so on — all of these are owned by a management-services company that is owned by private equity.

DUBNER: So does that make it quasi-legal.

APPELBAUM: No, it makes it quasi-illegal. And in fact, there is a case now out in California that is challenging private-equity ownership of doctors’ practices in hospitals. It’s being brought by the emergency-room doctors. They feel they’re being forced to not use their best judgment when they treat people. They’re under enormous pressure to stabilize the poor patients and get them out of there, whether that’s the right thing to do or not, and they are just fighting back. Let’s see what happens.

plus,

kffhealthnews.org


good health to all.



To: software salesperson who wrote (52040)12/13/2024 9:45:24 AM
From: software salesperson1 Recommendation

Recommended By
OldAIMGuy

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 52153
 
Healthcare musings

I’ll present a few articles i have been reading and then discuss billing misadventures after a recent hospital stay. Then i’ll conclude with how important it is to understand the basics of medicare billing and how doing so will save you $.

Previously i presented the freakonomics podcast Message 34233866 that dealt with private equity’s takeover of 20- 30% of the healthcare system. Dubner concluded that it was a negative. So let’s start there.

Here is a conservative rebuttal:

cremieux.xyz

Here is a nyt article by Helen Ouyang claiming that healthcare billing systems are destroying doctor/ patient trust. I don’t think the conclusion follows from the premise.

What Doctors Like Me Know About Americans’ Health Care Anger

I rushed around the patient as he lay motionless with his eyes closed in the emergency room. He was pale and sweaty, his T-shirt stained with vomit. You didn’t have to be a health-care worker to know that he was in a dire state. The beeps on the monitor told me his heart rate was dangerously slow. I told the man that he was going to be admitted to the hospital overnight.

After a pause, he beckoned me closer. His forehead furrowed with concern. I thought he would ask if he was going to be OK or if he needed surgery — questions I’m comfortable fielding. But instead he asked, “Will my insurance cover my stay?”

This is a question I can’t answer with certainty. Patients often believe that since I’m part of the health-care system, I would know. But I don’t, not as a doctor — and not even when I’m a patient myself. In the United States, health insurance is so extraordinarily complicated, with different insurers offering different plans, covering certain things and denying others (sometimes in spite of what they say initially they cover). I could never guarantee anything.

I didn’t say all this to the man, though, because I needed him to stay in the hospital and accept inpatient treatment. So instead I hedged. “You’re very sick,” I told him. “You shouldn’t worry about your insurance right now.” I should have been able to give him a better answer, under a better system.

The killing of Brian Thompson, the chief executive of UnitedHealthcare, the country’s largest health insurer, has reignited people’s contempt for their health plans. It’s unknown if Mr. Thompson’s tragic death was related to health care, and the gleeful responses have been horrifying. But that reaction, even in its objectionable vitriol, matters for how it lays bare Americans’ deep-seated anger toward health care. Around the country, anecdotes were unleashed with furor.

Among these grievances is the great unknown of whether a treatment recommended by a doctor will be covered. It’s critical for me as a physician to build trust with my patients by giving them clear answers. But the conversations we’re seeing now about health care remind me that insurance unknowns don’t just compromise the care I can deliver to my patients — they also undermine the fragile doctor-patient trust. It’s an unsustainable dynamic.

Unsurprisingly, despite my platitudes, my patient did worry. Instead of resting on the stretcher, he and his wife began calling his insurance company. To keep him from leaving, I tried to be more persuasive, even though I didn’t know what kind of health plan he had: “I’m sure your insurance will pay. I’ll document carefully how medically necessary this admission is.” I added that social workers and other advocates could also assist in sorting out his insurance once he was admitted. And worst-case scenario, if they couldn’t, I crossed my fingers that the hospital’s charity care would help.

I said what I could to get him to stay, but I understood why he wanted to be certain. The average cost of a three-day hospital stay is $30,000. He had heard the health insurance horror stories. Maybe he had lived through one himself.

One of my first lessons as a new attending physician in a hospital serving a working-class community was in insurance. I saw my colleagues prescribing suboptimal drugs and thought they weren’t practicing evidence-based medicine. In reality, they were doing something better: practicing patient-based medicine. When people said they couldn’t afford a medication that their insurance didn’t cover, they would prescribe an alternative, even if it wasn’t the best available option.

As a young doctor, I struggled with this. Studies show this drug is the most effective treatment, I would say. Of course the insurer will cover it. My more seasoned colleague gently chided me that if I practiced this way, my patients wouldn’t fill their prescriptions at all. And he was right.

I’ve been on the other side of the American health insurance quagmire, too, as a patient. Recently, my primary care physician recommended I undergo additional testing to assess my risk for certain diseases. The patient in me instinctively asked if my insurance covered it, even though I knew she wouldn’t know the answer. “They should,” she said. “It seems most insurers are paying for it.” I recognized her response — it’s the same optimistic but vague one I often give.

When doctors can’t give a straight or accurate answer, patients may lose faith in them. What’s more, when insurers reject claims, they usually blame the provider — the medical code used was wrong, the diagnosis wasn’t specific enough — which can further erode the relationship between patients and their doctors.

I saw this happen with my mother. She got her annual flu shot, which is part of her preventive care — a proactive step we want patients to take — but her insurance said it wasn’t covered because her doctor supposedly used the wrong code. The clinic resubmitted the claim, but it continued to be denied. Each time my mother called her insurance company, an agent blamed her doctor. Eventually, my mother grudgingly returned to her physician for her annual exam, but her relationship with the primary care practice has frayed. She no longer gets her vaccines there.

My one family member with solid insurance is my dog. He got elective surgery recently, and I was astounded by the straightforward nature of his insurance. Once we meet the deductible, everything is simply covered by 80 percent. This is clearly described in a packet I received when I first signed him up. It’s an imperfect comparison to insurance for humans — I pay in full first, then get reimbursed — but it’s incredible to think that insurance for pets and possessions is easier to navigate and more consumer-friendly than insurance for people.

The country is not heading toward a single-payer system, but that doesn’t mean we have to continue leaving patients and their doctors in the dark. I loathe the fact that patients can’t automatically get the care they need without thinking about costs. But they at least deserve clarity about what’s covered before they acquiesce to expensive tests and treatments. Health insurance shouldn’t be so opaque, up to the whims of different companies. Coverage shouldn’t be so convoluted, mired in rigid codes and obfuscating wording. I should be able to tell my patient in the E.R. if his hospital stay will definitely be paid for. I know exactly how much of my dog’s care will be covered; why can’t I know the same for my patients?

In the end, my patient in the E.R. decided to go home that day. I reiterated how sick he was. I showed him the results that concerned me, and even tried to tell him that he could possibly die if he left the hospital. But I’m not sure how much he trusted me after my overconfident assurances that his insurance would pay; when he finally got through to an agent, he was told coverage would depend on the specifics of his care.

He couldn’t risk a big hospital bill right now, he told me, matter-of-factly. He promised to come back if he felt worse.

—---------------

What she fails to mention is the fact that some providers are unreachable by phone and if you can, they generally know little or nothing about how bills are calculated. If bills are incorrect, i write them a short note explaining why i’m not paying them until they are corrected. Billing patients is the easiest course of action. Some people actually pay them because they don’t understand them.

A recent 4 day hospitalization of mine had ~ $ 40,000 contractual medicare writeoff and a few hundred dollar sequestration writeoff. No wonder there is antagonism and people have “encounters” with the system.

So if you don’t understand the basics of medicare billing, i suggest you learn one day at a time and question all invoices. This point applies to everyone involved in the process - - hospitals, doctors, ambulances, etc. Since billing is the easiest course and no one in the system talks to anyone else, often the problem is they don’t even have your correct address or medicare number.

In my case, i exceeded my annual medicare part A deductible of 1632 and part B deductible of 240.

Oh, they wanted to have an “encounter”. Ok. so I sent them this letter:

—-- hospital final reconciliation

  1. You recently sent me a revised letter because medicare made an error and didn’t charge me a cash deductible of 1632 for claim #----------. You then rebilled them. This is the correct amount so i will pay it. Medicare had initially said their claim was bogus and that i owed 0.

  2. Any associated —----hospital doctor practices have been paid out of ~ $45,000 or my secondary insurance, —---- So they will not be paid again by me.

  3. You have also billed me ~ 54 for claim # —----This is incorrect.

You should be billing my secondary insurance, —------. Thus, i will not be paying you ~ 54.

This concludes our recent business.

—------------------------------------------------------

Update - - re: your late incorrect charges for drs. —------, you should also be billing my secondary insurance, —----, not me. Thus, i will not be paying you for these incorrect invoices.

This concludes our recent business.

—--------------------

Since there is a lag in the hospital’s receipt of payments from secondary insurance, i continued to receive bills, collection notices and other “threatening” letters. eventually they must have gotten paid since the letters stopped.

Moreover, my secondary insurance pays for all medical invoices unrelated to this hospital stay through 2024 since i exceeded my annual deductible. So i’ve sent similar letters to those providers as well and toss their invoices.

As you can see, the system is rife with errors by medicare, and the hospital. Also ambulances, more doctors, etc.

So buyer beware and good health to all.