Blog

Kaiser Health News published a short article about an entrepreneur buying distressed hospitals from local governments in order to turn them around. As the article underscores, the local governments have had such a difficult time operating the hospitals that they are willing to sell the hospital and equipment for $20,000 or even $100. Of course, the hospitals require substantial investment and must remain as hospitals or else revert back to the local governments.

Kaiser Health News published a short article about an entrepreneur buying distressed hospitals from local governments in order to turn them around. As the article underscores, the local governments have had such a difficult time operating the hospitals that they are willing to sell the hospital and equipment for $20,000 or even $100. Of course, the hospitals require substantial investment and must remain as hospitals or else revert back to the local governments.

This story could be a positive one about an unconventional industry insider successfully turning around ailing hospitals, or it could be yet another chapter in a string of setbacks for these hospitals. As expensive as patients might think it can be to visit hospitals for medical treatment, many of these hospitals -- particularly rural hospitals -- run on thin margins.

The Inflation Reduction Act has passed through Congress and Kaiser Health News discussed the provision in the legislation that will allow Medicare to negotiate some drug prices. Understandably, the pharmaceutical industry is keen to avoid any moves that can significantly reduce prices. Still, it is surprising to learn that the median list price for new drugs rose from $2,115 in 2008 to $180,007 in 2021, perhaps explaining an industry trade group's willingness to spend over $100 million in lobbying efforts this year. The article provides a nice overview of industry arguments against negotiations as well as some responses to those arguments.

The Inflation Reduction Act has passed through Congress and Kaiser Health News discussed the provision in the legislation that will allow Medicare to negotiate some drug prices. Understandably, the pharmaceutical industry is keen to avoid any moves that can significantly reduce prices. Still, it is surprising to learn that the median list price for new drugs rose from $2,115 in 2008 to $180,007 in 2021, perhaps explaining an industry trade group's willingness to spend over $100 million in lobbying efforts this year. The article provides a nice overview of industry arguments against negotiations as well as some responses to those arguments.

The pharmaceutical industry argues that reducing profits will reduce the funding that will be available to invest into innovation. The article points out that this line of reasoning has been presented for a long time, but there have been several counter-examples to this reasoning. For example, the article discusses how drug companies initially expressed reluctance towards paying FDA fees to have drugs reviewed. The government agreed to set deadlines on the reviews, and drug approvals subsequently increased, despite the industry initially characterize the fees as a "tax on innovation." The article also discussed some patient groups actually opposing the ability for Medicare to negotiate prices for fear of reduced investment. Overall, the discussion is helpful to understanding the politics and compromises that went into this part of the legislation.

Kaiser Health News published an article specifically about hospice care, although the article discusses a problem found throughout the healthcare industry: determining and measuring quality. The context for the article is that for-profit entities have been owning a greater percentage of hospice agencies (from 3.4% in 2011 to 7.3% in 2019). While the increase of for-profit ownership is not inherently problematic, the article discusses some of the ways that for-profit owners may be tempted to cut corners for greater profits.

Kaiser Health News published an article specifically about hospice care, although the article discusses a problem found throughout the healthcare industry: determining and measuring quality. The context for the article is that for-profit entities have been owning a greater percentage of hospice agencies (from 3.4% in 2011 to 7.3% in 2019). While the increase of for-profit ownership is not inherently problematic, the article discusses some of the ways that for-profit owners may be tempted to cut corners for greater profits.

For-profit institutions can be especially vulnerable to the profit motive and compromise on quality, especially in cases where owners come from a different industry background with the express intention of making a purely financial investment. This problem can be generalized to the healthcare industry in general. Rather than regulate who can own hospice agencies or hospitals, a longer-term solution would be to develop quality metrics that are gathered for each institution that provides care. After all, non-profit owners theoretically could operate their business less efficiently (e.g. on a smaller scale or without as substantial of a capital investment) or might pay their executive team unwarranted salaries, leading their institutions to provide a lower quality of care than corresponding for-profit institutions. However, determining quality metrics that the industry (and patients) agree on can be a very difficult task, and it is also possible that collecting data points for those metrics could be time-consuming. Nevertheless, with sufficient incentives in place, it seems that wrangling agreement for quality metrics is likely a more worthwhile struggle than arguing over which services can be owned by for-profit institutions.

Kaiser Health News published an article about inaccurate provider directories hosted by health insurers. The problems with accuracy in provider directories are not new; they have been enough of a problem that state and federal regulations have been crafted to address the problem. However, as this article points out, provider directories are still plagued by inaccuracies.

Kaiser Health News published an article about inaccurate provider directories hosted by health insurers. The problems with accuracy in provider directories are not new; they have been enough of a problem that state and federal regulations have been crafted to address the problem. However, as this article points out, provider directories are still plagued by inaccuracies.

The article helpfully explores some of the challenges that insurers face when trying to maintain their directories: providers might not prioritize responding to insurers' inquiries, allowing the insurers' information to get out-of-date. Although some third-parties have offered centralized solutions, this particular problem seems like it could be better addressed by the federal government. The federal government could implement a digital service that allows medical groups and individual providers to log in and declare which insurance networks they are part of, and that information can be published openly (similar to how the National Provider Identifier registry is published). Providers could be required to accept the consequences of their declarations such that if they accept a specific insurance plan, they cannot later then expect out-of-network rates for that plan. There could be unfortunate side effects like providers simply declaring themselves as not accepting any insurance plans, but that could likely be solved by fining insurers who offer plans without adequate coverage (measured in part by the number of providers who have declared that they accept their insurance plans). Since this information is used by multiple parties (including insurers and patients), it seems to make sense to centralize the functionality into a federal platform.

Kaiser Health News published an interesting discussion about the development of antimicrobial medications. The crux of the problem is that while new drugs can be effective against microbes, microbes can quickly develop resistance to the drugs. Consequently, hospitals try to reserve use of the new antibiotics for cases where older medications have proven ineffective. Making these new medications the last resort means that pharmaceutical companies will sell fewer of them, and therefore have less financial incentive to develop new ones. The status quo might be fine for a while, but if older medications lose their effectiveness altogether, society could be very vulnerable without newer medications to treat the microbes that have developed resistance against older antibiotics.

Kaiser Health News published an interesting discussion about the development of antimicrobial medications. The crux of the problem is that while new drugs can be effective against microbes, microbes can quickly develop resistance to the drugs. Consequently, hospitals try to reserve use of the new antibiotics for cases where older medications have proven ineffective. Making these new medications the last resort means that pharmaceutical companies will sell fewer of them, and therefore have less financial incentive to develop new ones. The status quo might be fine for a while, but if older medications lose their effectiveness altogether, society could be very vulnerable without newer medications to treat the microbes that have developed resistance against older antibiotics.

This scenario seems to hold some parallels with pandemic preparedness. It seems that at least some members of Congress understand the potential risks and are allocating some funds to encourage development of new antibiotics, even if they might not sell in high volume.