Why Aren't the Candidates Talking About Health Care?

This may well be the strangest Presidential Election Campaign in U.S. history, but excuse me, what happened to any meaningful discussion of health care reform?  Obviously, the economy and energy issues have caused health care to drop below the radar screen (see Modern Healthcare, Sept. 8, 2008, page 9), but how can this really be an election about "change" if we sweep health care under the rug?  Neither of the major candidates gave any prominence to this issue in his acceptance speech.  Does that mean we have to wait another four years to begin an honest discussion about something as vital as the health and well being of our citizenry?

While others may be tuned into the Gaffe of the Day, it is worth studying what the candidates (or more accurately their campaigns) have said about health policy reform.  This entry and the next two will focus on three aspects of reform:  1) cost, 2) quality and 3) fairness.  Let's begin with cost.

Barack Obama proposes to lower costs by modernizing the U.S. Health Care System. John McCain proposes to lower costs by restoring control of the system to patients and their families.

Obama's proposal involves four major components:  1) moving the cost of underwriting the risk of catastrophic illness from the private sector to the public sector, e.g., a universal risk pool for the most costly cases; 2) requiring providers to participate in a new public disease management plan, 3) supporting programs that improve the coordination and integration of care for those with chronic illnesses, and 4) requiring of providers full transparency about the quality and cost of the services they provide, and requiring payers to show how much of the premiums they collect go to administrative costs.

McCain's proposal primarily uses marketplace forces to drive down prices.  His plan uncouples health insurance from employment and in so doing intends to make it easier for patients to buy affordable coverage and take it with them wherever they go.  Refundable tax credits fo $2500 for individuals and $5000 for families, which would be sent directly to the insurer, would be the primary means to do this, along with expanded Health Savings Accounts.  The McCain plan would also work with the states to establish guaranteed access plans as well financial incentives to foster disease management and preventive care programs.

Both candidates have additional action plans to implement these concepts (which are generally described at their websites).  Not surprisingly, they share some of the same tactics but approach reform from different directions.  The Obama plan expects the federal governement to play a bigger role than it already does.  The McCain puts most of the burden on individuals and state governments.  Neither plan is what anyone would call universal health care, but clearly the Obama plan moves closer to that objective.

What these proposals mean for the health care industry is difficult to determine without much more detail.  Obama's plan would certainly result in greater regulation of providers than McCain's, but neither would leave the industry unchanged.  This is something the American people need to hear much more about in the coming weeks.  We can only hope that  the candidates will seriously address this important topic in their series of debates.

More Trouble for Medicaid Providers

Medicaid providers who learn their employees, agents or owners are under investigation for health care fraud can't afford to wait for the criminal process to take its course before mounting a defense.  The indictment  alone of an employee, agent, or owner could be a financial death sentence for the provider.

The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services  ("ODJFS") has always been required to terminate a Medicaid provider agreement if the provider is convicted of certain criminal offenses.  As of September 27, 2007, ODJFS is now required to suspend a provider agreement based only on an indictment for certain offenses.  The statute applies to "noninstitutional providers," which means any person or entity with a Medicaid provider agreement other than a hospital, nursing facility, or intermediate care facility for the mentally retarded.  The indictment can be against the provider, as well as an owner, officer, authorized agent, associate, manager, or even employee of the provider. The suspension continues until the proceedings in the criminal case are completed through conviction, dismissal of the indictment, plea, or finding of not guilty.  In addition to suspending the provider agreement, ODJFS must terminate Medicaid reimbursement to the provider for services rendered.

The statute permits the provider to request a reconsideration of the suspension.  The grounds for requesting reconsideration are limited.  The important ground is whether the provider, owner, or owners can demonstrate that they did not directly or indirectly sanction the action of the authorized agent, associate, manager, or employee that resulted in the indictment.

The statute is particularly troublesome for providers because the indictment of an employee or agent  triggers the suspension.  The provider is then forced to demonstrate to ODJFS that it did not directly or indirectly sanction the illegal conduct. All the while, Medicaid reimbursement has stopped.  In addition, the Medicaid suspension may result in the suspension or termination of other third-party payer agreements.  Unless the suspension is lifted, the provider may be out of business by the time the criminal case concludes.

The statute is Ohio Revised Code Section 5111.031 and the corresponding regulation is Ohio Administrative Code Section 5101:3-1-17.5

Seven Indicted in Cleveland on Health Care Fraud

DOJ Press Release -  On May 29, 2008, the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio announced the indictment of seven individuals on various offenses in connection with the transportation of Medicaid beneficiaries in vehicles called ambulettes.  The charges include mail fraud, wire fraud, health care fraud, and conspiracy.  According to the press releases, ambulette services contract with the Ohio Medicaid program to transport patients in vehicles known as ambulettes.  An ambulette is a specially equipped van designed for wheelchair passengers.  Medicaid pays ambulette operators for driving Medicaid beneficiaries to and from Medicaid-covered appointments, so long as:  (1) the patient rides in a wheelchair; (2) a medical doctor certifies the need for the wheelchair and ambulette; and (3) the ambulette itself otherwise meets safety specifications.  The defendants are charged with scheming to defraud Medicaid by charging Medicaid for rides of patients who did not use wheelchairs or require the need for wheelchairs.