Category Archives: transparency
April 18, 2017 | Chip Kahn
Category: Health Care Delivery, Quality, Transparency
Measures that matter, return on investment, and meaningful reporting – these are three things our industry needs to focus on as we look to the future of value based payments.
October 09, 2015 | FAH Hospital Policy Blog Team
Category: Affordable Care Act, HIT, Medicaid, Medicare, Transparency
On Wednesday, FAH President & CEO Chip Kahn gave the keynote speech at the HIMSS Policy Summit during National Health IT Week. Healthcare IT News spotlighted Kahn’s health care expertise in a piece this week: 8 healthcare insights from a longtime Washington insider. Kahn offered key observations on challenges facing the industry both politically and internationally:
June 05, 2014 | FAH Hospital Policy Blog
The letter submitted by the FAH in response to the Federal Trade Commission’s March 2014 Examining Health Care Competition workshop centers on price and quality transparency. It also includes our recommendations on a third, critically important issue: the corporate practice of medicine. The FAH believes the FTC should reexamine the anti-competitive effects of the corporate practice of medicine doctrine.
Defined as “the practice of corporations hiring physicians for purposes of generating profits”, state corporate practice of medicine restrictions have been in place since the turn of the 20th century. While these restrictions are intended to protect the public from corporate interference with medical care and restrictions on physicians’ autonomy and discretion, they also prevent the development of new competitive models of care delivery.
Given the changes in the health care landscape, the need for and effectiveness of corporate practice of medicine protection are increasingly being called into question. With the rise of managed care and the advent of increasingly integrated care delivery, we must examine whether the public benefit of ensuring greater physician autonomy outweighs the public benefit of enabling providers the flexibility to form more effective care models.
In many instances, state corporate practice of medicine policies contain exceptions or unintended loopholes that cannot be justified as creating a public benefit when weighed against the costs. These exceptions and loopholes create a very uneven playing field among competing providers, that doesn’t add up to sound public policy
At the same time, the corporate practice restrictions that originally drew the FTC’s attention to the doctrine in the 1970s largely remain in place. They continue to create significant and unwarranted anticompetitive effects and obstacles to innovation. More broadly, they raise a fundamental question: whether old regulatory models serve the goals of modern reform.
Health care providers actively are implementing the “Triple Aim” imperatives of increasing quality, lowering costs, and improving access. Yet in certain states, these goals are stymied by a corporate practice of medicine doctrine that is archaic, outdated, and which stifles market competition and innovation.This is why we believe this doctrine should be reevaluated and deserves the renewed attention of the FTC.
Refocusing attention on this issue will help promote competition and innovation through:
* Flexibility in creating better models of care delivery;
* Innovation in creating new payment models;
* A level playing field for providers; and,
* Better care for patients.
As healthcare markets evolve and move increasingly toward greater integration and more managed care systems, providers must have the freedom to evolve with the marketplace. Stipulations put in place ostensibly to protect consumers but which ultimately drive competition out of the marketplace must be reassessed and revised. Consumers are best protected by marketplace-based competition and innovation allowing the transition to a new healthcare system and its potential to bring better, more efficient and value-driven care to patients.
May 30, 2014 | FAH Hospital Policy Blog
Category: Media, Transparency
The FAH has been very active in the past few weeks, as current FAH Chairman David T. Vandewater (President and CEO of Ardent Health Systems) and FAH Chair-Elect Keith B. Pitts (Vice Chairman of Tenet Healthcare Corporation) participated individually in separate panel discussions. Both of these panels were based primarily upon critical policy journal articles addressing hospital realignment and market competition and authored by several academicians also participating as panelists.
Additionally, FAH President and CEO Chip Kahn recently was interviewed for a Q&A feature article by reporter Nathaniel Weixel of Bloomberg BNA. The Q&A, published today, covers a broad number of pertinent topics in health care including SGR reform, mounting cuts to hospitals and transparency.
When asked about his biggest concern for the coming year, Kahn emphasized “enough is enough” when it comes to hospital cuts:
“We support SGR reform. We think it would be good policy. . . All that being said, enough is enough from a hospital standpoint. Since [the Affordable Care Act was passed] it’s now up to almost $122 billion that’s been taken from hospitals over 10 years. We gave at the office…In terms of pay-fors, they need to look elsewhere. We believe that further cuts to hospitals would be completely counterproductive and not in the interest of access to services of Medicare beneficiaries at this point”
In response to a question about paying for SGR reform, Kahn continued to highlight that cutting hospital payments to pay for SGR reform is bad policy that punishes hospitals for a problem they did not create:
“Personally, I think the notion of robbing Peter to pay Paul to fund programs is a problem and not good public policy. . . This problem of (the) SGR wasn’t created by hospitals, home health or [Medicare] Part D. It was created by Congress.
Finally, when asked about transparency and hospital charges, Kahn supported transparency but cautioned that releasing information that is not useful to the consumer is counter-productive to the goal of transparency, a distinction that the FAH reiterated recently in a letter to the Federal Trade Commission.
“Transparency is a good thing. I think transparency needs to be designed in a way that’s actually useful for patients to make decisions or for their caregivers. I think you need information that can be digested, and releasing [hospital] chargemaster data, or even releasing physician data, I don’t know how helpful that is for any particular consumer.”
The FAH is grateful for having multiple opportunities to publicly present the perspective of the investor-owned hospital community when it comes to health care policy, and we are hopeful that these perspectives will contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the landscape in which hospitals must operate.