For better mental health coverage, help with the paperwork

By Arielle Levin Becker

Talk to people involved the mental health system and it won’t be long before you hear complaints about the difficulty of getting private insurance to pay for mental health services.

Some advocates say the answer is to better enforce state and federal laws requiring equal coverage for mental health and medical services. Some clinicians and lawmakers want the state to take over insurance coverage for mental health care, billing insurance carriers for the cost.

The Connecticut Insurance Department has another approach: Help patients get the right paperwork to their carriers, to avoid problems that can lead to claims being denied.

The department is working with psychiatrists at the UConn Health Center to develop a plain-language guide for consumers and behavioral health providers to make it clear what they’ll need to submit to get insurance coverage. The “claims tool kit” is expected to be completed this summer, and is intended to help people get their claims approved on the first try.

Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, in a statement, called it “a common-sense approach to what can be a profoundly frustrating process.”

The effort originated last summer, when insurance department officials began looking into disparities between insurance carriers in denial rates for behavioral health claims.

Many people have raised concerns that insurers aren’t complying with state and federal parity laws, which prohibit insurers from placing restrictions on mental health or substance abuse services that don’t apply to medical services, or that regulators aren’t enforcing them.

But Deputy Insurance Commissioner Anne Melissa Dowling said many of the problems getting insurers to pay for services appear to stem from issues in the claims process, including incomplete information, coding errors or documentation problems.

“A lot of things, we think, that have been chalked up to noncompliance with parity are not really that,” Dowling said. “We think a lot of it is procedural.”

One problem: Many behavioral health providers aren’t part of insurance company networks. That means they take payment from patients directly, leaving the patients and their families to try to get reimbursement from the insurance carrier. By contrast, most medical providers participate in insurers’ networks, so patients don’t have to deal with insurance billing issues.

Another challenge: With mental health issues, it’s not always clear-cut what the appropriate treatment is.

“If you break your leg, you repair it, cast it and send it off,” Dowling said. “Behavioral health and mental health, there are many different approaches depending on the individual, and so it’s not quite as straightforward.”

That leaves patients or their families to compile information so they can get paid back, often without a clear sense of what’s needed, at a time when they’re already facing the strain of a mental health crisis.

“We just think that’s way too much stress for them to bear,” Dowling said.

Dowling said the hope is that insurance carriers will be persuaded to use the tool kit as the standard for what’s required to get claims covered.

Dr. Ted Lawlor, who is working on the tool kit and is clinical chief of the UConn Health Center’s psychiatry department, said the idea is to create plain-language instructions for patients and providers so it’s clear what information they must submit to insurance companies to get claims approved the first time.

Critical to that process, Lawlor said, will be having access to the criteria insurers use in determining what services are medically necessary.

“If you don’t know what they want beforehand, then in some ways you’re shooting in the dark,” he said.

State Healthcare Advocate Victoria Veltri said she’s glad the department is developing a tool kit. It will be particularly helpful, she said, for people who are seeking reimbursement after receiving a service.

But Veltri said that in acute cases, when a person needs approval for coverage right away or is at risk of having to leave treatment because coverage is being cut off, people will most likely continue to rely on her office for advocacy. “In the urgent and emergent arena, I think that what people most need is someone to take the burden off of them and help them advocate,” she said, adding that it will be important to include consumers, advocates and insurance carriers in developing the tool kit.

And Veltri said she believes there are problems with insurers not following parity laws.

“The cases we are seeing are problems of denials with adequate information provided,” she said.

The tool kit is a great idea, said Carol McDaid, co-chairwoman of the Washington D.C.-based Parity Implementation Coalition, a group of addiction and mental health consumer and provider organizations. But she said there are other issues with coverage that will still need to be addressed.

“While there are some issues with claims processing, I think it’s bigger than that,” she said.

Keith Stover, a lobbyist for the Connecticut Association of Health Plans, said the department’s effort is likely to be valuable.

“Anything that makes the process smoother, and anything that makes it easier for patients to get access to mental health treatment is a good thing,” he said.

While there have been calls to more fundamentally remake the coverage system for mental health services, Stover said the insurance department’s approach is to ensure that the process for handling claims isn’t a barrier to medically necessary treatment.

Lawlor said he hopes the tool kit is “just the first part of a process.” Other things that need to be addressed, he said, are related to requirements that patients get pre-authorization for mental health or substance abuse treatment, authorization for continuing coverage, and whether patients have access to follow-up services after an acute episode in the same way a person who had a heart attack or stroke does.

The insurance department’s announcement comes on the heels of changes to insurance law made as part of the gun-control legislation passed last week in response to the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Those include shortening the time insurers have to issue a decision on whether to cover mental health or substance abuse treatment in urgent situations, and requiring insurers to make it clear what criteria they use in determining whether services are medically necessary.

The changes drew praise from both Veltri and Stover. But Veltri said no one should think that the changes made so far can, on their own, “make the kind of substantive real change that needs to be made on a systemwide level.” That’s because more than half of privately insured state residents have plans that are not subject to state law. Self-insured health plans, which are common among large companies, are governed by federal law, not state statute.

“We have a lot of work to do,” Veltri said.

Insurance and Freedom

By 

Published: April 7, 2013

President Obama will soon release a new budget, and the commentary is already flowing fast and furious. Progressives are angry (with good reason) over proposed cuts to Social Security; conservatives are denouncing the call for more revenues. But it’s all Kabuki. Since House Republicans will block anything Mr. Obama proposes, his budget is best seen not as policy but as positioning, an attempt to gain praise from “centrist” pundits.

Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times

No, the real policy action at this point is in the states, where the question is, How many Americans will be denied essential health care in the name of freedom?

I’m referring, of course, to the question of how many Republican governors will reject the Medicaid expansion that is a key part of Obamacare. What does that have to do with freedom? In reality, nothing. But when it comes to politics, it’s a different story.

It goes without saying that Republicans oppose any expansion of programs that help the less fortunate — along with tax cuts for the wealthy, such opposition is pretty much what defines modern conservatism. But they seem to be having more trouble than in the past defending their opposition without simply coming across as big meanies.

Specifically, the time-honored practice of attacking beneficiaries of government programs as undeserving malingerers doesn’t play the way it used to. When Ronald Reagan spoke about welfare queens driving Cadillacs, it resonated with many voters. When Mitt Romney was caught on tape sneering at the 47 percent, not so much.

There is, however, an alternative. From the enthusiastic reception American conservatives gave Friedrich Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom,” to Reagan, to the governors now standing in the way of Medicaid expansion, the U.S. right has sought to portray its position not as a matter of comforting the comfortable while afflicting the afflicted, but as a courageous defense of freedom.

Conservatives love, for example, to quote from a stirring speech Reagan gave in 1961, in which he warned of a grim future unless patriots took a stand. (Liz Cheney used it in a Wall Street Journal op-ed article just a few days ago.) “If you and I don’t do this,” Reagan declared, “then you and I may well spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it once was like in America when men were free.” What you might not guess from the lofty language is that “this” — the heroic act Reagan was calling on his listeners to perform — was a concerted effort to block the enactment of Medicare.

These days, conservatives make very similar arguments against Obamacare. For example, Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin has called it the “greatest assault on freedom in our lifetime.” And this kind of rhetoric matters, because when it comes to the main obstacle now remaining to more or less universal health coverage — the reluctance of Republican governors to allow the Medicaid expansion that is a key part of reform — it’s pretty much all the right has.

As I’ve already suggested, the old trick of blaming the needy for their need doesn’t seem to play the way it used to, and especially not on health care: perhaps because the experience of losing insurance is so common, Medicaid enjoys remarkably strong public support. And now that health reform is the law of the land, the economic and fiscal case for individual states to accept Medicaid expansion is overwhelming. That’s why business interests strongly support expansion just about everywhere — even in Texas.But such practical concerns can be set aside if you can successfully argue that insurance is slavery.

Of course, it isn’t. In fact, it’s hard to think of a proposition that has been more thoroughly refuted by history than the notion that social insurance undermines a free society. Almost 70 years have passed since Friedrich Hayek predicted (or at any rate was understood by his admirers to predict) that Britain’s welfare state would put the nation on the slippery slope to Stalinism; 46 years have passed since Medicare went into effect; as far as most of us can tell, freedom hasn’t died on either side of the Atlantic.

In fact, the real, lived experience of Obamacare is likely to be one of significantly increased individual freedom. For all our talk of being the land of liberty, those holding one of the dwindling number of jobs that carry decent health benefits often feel anything but free, knowing that if they leave or lose their job, for whatever reason, they may not be able to regain the coverage they need. Over time, as people come to realize that affordable coverage is now guaranteed, it will have a powerful liberating effect.

But what we still don’t know is how many Americans will be denied that kind of liberation — a denial all the crueler because it will be imposed in the name of freedom.

At NorthStar Care & Guidance, we are available to talk with you and your family about all of your live-in home care needs. NorthStar Care & Guidance is an elder care agency providing assistance to seniors with elder care in New York City and New Jersey. Call 1-888-288-6152 for more information.

Medicare Paid $5.1B for Poor Nursing Home Care

 

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Medicare paid billions in taxpayer dollars to nursing homes nationwide that were not meeting basic requirements to look after their residents, government investigators have found.

National Twitter Logo.

The report, released Thursday by the Department of Health and Human Services’ inspector general, said Medicare paid about $5.1 billion for patients to stay in skilled nursing facilities that failed to meet federal quality of care rules in 2009, in some cases resulting in dangerous and neglectful conditions.

One out of every three times patients wound up in nursing homes that year, they landed in facilities that failed to follow basic care requirements laid out by the federal agency that administers Medicare, investigators estimated.

By law, nursing homes need to write up care plans specially tailored for each resident, so doctors, nurses, therapists and all other caregivers are on the same page about how to help residents reach the highest possible levels of physical, mental and psychological well-being.

Not only are residents often going without the crucial help they need, but the government could be spending taxpayer money on facilities that could endanger people’s health, the report concluded. The findings come as concerns about health care quality and cost are garnering heightened attention as the Obama administration implements the nation’s sweeping health care overhaul.

“These findings raise concerns about what Medicare is paying for,” the report said.

Investigators estimate that in one out of five stays, patients’ health problems weren’t addressed in the care plans, falling far short of government directives. For example, one home made no plans to monitor a patient’s use of two anti-psychotic drugs and one depression medication, even though the drugs could have serious side effects.

In other cases, residents got therapy they didn’t need, which the report said was in the nursing homes’ financial interest because they would be reimbursed at a higher rate by Medicare.

In one example, a patient kept getting physical and occupational therapy even though the care plan said all the health goals had been met, the report said.

The Office of Inspector General’s report was based on medical records from 190 patient visits to nursing homes in 42 states that lasted at least three weeks, which investigators said gave them a statistically valid sample of Medicare beneficiaries’ experiences in skilled nursing facilities.

That sample represents about 1.1 million patient visits to nursing homes nationwide in 2009, the most recent year for which data was available, according to the review.

Overall, the review raises questions about whether the system is allowing homes to get paid for poor quality services that may be harming residents, investigators said, and recommended that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services tie payments to homes’ abilities to meet basic care requirements. The report also recommended that the agency strengthen its regulations and ramp up its oversight. The review did not name individual homes, nor did it estimate the number of patients who had been mistreated, but instead looked at the overall number of stays in which problems arose.

In response, the agency agreed that it should consider tying Medicare reimbursements to homes’ provision of good care. CMS also said in written comments that it is reviewing its own regulations to improve enforcement at the homes.

“Medicare has made significant changes to the way we pay providers thanks to the health care law, to reward better quality care,” Medicare spokesman Brian Cook said in a statement to AP. “We are taking steps to make sure these facilities have the resources to improve the quality of their care, and make sure Medicare is paying for the quality of care that beneficiaries are entitled to.”

CMS hires state-level agencies to survey the homes and make sure they are complying with federal law, and can require correction plans, deny payment or end a contract with a home if major deficiencies come to light. The agency also said it would follow up on potential enforcement at the homes featured in the report.

Greg Crist, a Washington-based spokeswoman for the American Health Care Association, which represents the largest share of skilled nursing facilities nationwide, said overall nursing home operators are well regulated and follow federal guidelines but added that he could not fully comment on the report’s conclusions without having had the chance to read it.

“Our members begin every treatment with the individual’s personal health needs at the forefront. This is a hands-on process, involving doctors and even family members in an effort to enhance the health outcome of the patient,” Crist said.

Virginia Fichera, who has relatives in two nursing homes in New York, said she would welcome a greater push for accountability at skilled nursing facilities.

“Once you’re in a nursing home, if things don’t go right, you’re really a prisoner,” said Fichera, a retired professor in Sterling, NY. “As a concerned relative, you just want to know the care is good, and if there are problems, why they are happening and when they’ll be fixed.”

Once residents are ready to go back home or transfer to another facility, federal law also requires that the homes write special plans to make sure patients are safely discharged.

Investigators found the homes didn’t always do what was needed to ensure a smooth transition.

In nearly one-third of cases, facilities also did not provide enough information when the patient moved to another setting, the report found.

Key Long-Term-Care Insurer To Raise Women’s Premiums

By Michelle Andrews

FEB 26, 2013

 

Starting next year, the Affordable Care Act will largely prohibit insurers who sell individual and small-group health policies from charging women higher premiums than men for the same coverage.

Long-term-care insurance, however, isn’t bound by that law, and the country’s largest provider of such coverage has announced it will begin setting its prices based on sex this spring.

“Gender pricing is good for insurance companies,” said Bonnie Burns, a policy specialist at California Health Advocates, a Medicare advocacy and education organization, “but it’s bad public policy and it’s bad for women.”

Genworth Financial says the new pricing reflects the fact that women receive two of every three claims dollars. The change will affect only women who buy new individual policies, or about 10 percent of all purchasers, according to the company. The new rates won’t be applied to existing policyholders or those who apply as a couple with their husbands.

More From This SeriesInsuring Your Health

“This change is being made now to reflect our actual claims experience and help stabilize pricing,” Genworth Financial spokeman Thomas Topinka said in an e-mail.

Women’s premiums may increase by 20 to 40 percent under the new pricing policy, said Jesse Slome, executive director of the American Association for Long-Term Care Insurance. The average annual premium for a 55-year-old who qualified for preferred health discounts and bought between $165,000 and $200,000 of coverage was $1,720 last year, according to the association.

Experts say they expect other long-term-care insurers will soon follow suit.

Long-term-care insurance provides protection for people who need help with basic daily tasks such as bathing and dressing. It typically pays a set amount for a certain number of years — say, $150 daily for three years — for care provided in a nursing home, assisted living facility or at home. Never a very popular product with consumers, many of whom found it unaffordable, in recent years the industry has struggled and many carriers have raised premiums by double digits or left the market.

Consumer health advocates say they aren’t surprised that women’s claims for long-term-care insurance are higher than men’s.

Because women typically live longer than men, they frequently act as caregivers when their husbands need long-term care, advocates say, thus reducing the need for nursing help that insurance might otherwise pay for. Once a woman needs care, however, there may be no one left to provide it.

“Women live longer alone than men,” Burns said. “If you don’t have a live-in caregiver when you start needing this kind of care, you’re in big trouble.”

LuMarie Polivka-West knows the potential problems all too well. Polivka-West, 64, is the senior director of policy and program development for the Florida Health Care Association, a trade organization for nursing homes and assisted living facilities. (I first spoke with Polivka-West two years ago, when she discussed the financial challengesshe and her two brothers faced caring for their aging parents.)

About 15 years ago, she bought a long-term-care policy. The company went out of business after five years, and she let her policy lapse rather than switch to another plan with higher premiums and less comprehensive coverage. But she’s reconsidering that decision. Polivka-West’s husband is four years older than she is. Her mother died of Alzheimer’s disease at age 89 after struggling with it for eight years. What if a similar fate awaits her?

Polivka-West thinks insurers shouldn’t be allowed to charge her more just because she’s a woman.

“The Affordable Care Act recognized the gender bias in health insurance,” she said. “The same [rules] should apply to long-term-care insurance.”

The federal health overhaul sought to eliminate the coverage and price discrepancies in the larger health insurance market. A 2012 study by the National Women’s Law Centerfound that 92 percent of top-selling health plans in the individual market practiced sex-based pricing in states where the practice was allowed. (Fourteen states banned or limited the practice, according to the report.) Nearly a third of plans charged women at least 30 percent more than men for the same coverage, even plans that did not include maternity benefits, the study found.

Insurers that sell individual and small-group health policies on the state-based health insurance exchanges or outside them on the private market in 2014 will be able to vary premiums based only on geography, family size, age and tobacco use. (Plans that have grandfathered status under the law are exempt from these requirements.)

Under federal laws against sex discrimination in the workplace, employers are generally prohibited from charging women more than men for the same health insurance coverage.

Meanwhile, Genworth Financial says it won’t switch to gender-based pricing for long-term care in two states—Colorado and Montana–that prohibit varying premiums based on gender in all health insurance products.

As states move to bring their laws into conformance with the gender rating requirements under the Affordable Care Act, some advocates see an opportunity.

“Any state with a strong advocacy group could be advocating for a very broad-based prohibition against gender rating” in all insurance products, says Donna Wagner, the associate dean for academic affairs at the College of Health and Social Services at New Mexico State University who also chairs the policy committee for the Older Women’s League, an advocacy group.

This article was produced by Kaiser Health News with support from The SCAN Foundation.

Please send comments or ideas for future topics for the Insuring Your Health column toquestions@kaiserhealthnews.org.

 

At NorthStar Care & Guidance, we are available to talk with you and your family about all of your live-in home care needs. NorthStar Care & Guidance is an elder care agency providing assistance to seniors with elder care in New York City and New Jersey. Call 888-288-6152 for more information.

Medigap: Spotlight on Enrollment, Premiums and Recent Trends

Nearly one in four people with Medicare have private Medicare supplemental insurance plans, known as “Medigap” plans that help with health care expenses not otherwise covered by Medicare. This analysis provides a detailed look at the Medigap market, including national and state trends in enrollment and premiums for the various Medigap plans.

Though Medigap policies by law must offer a set of standardized benefits, the analysis finds that monthly premiums for identical plans vary greatly both across the country and within states. Also, more than half of all Medigap enrollees in 2010 were in plans that cover Medicare’s entire Part A and B deductibles, according to this analysis. These enrollees could potentially be affected by policy changes to discourage or prohibit “first dollar” Medigap coverage, as proposed in some of the recent debt-reduction recommendations.

The report is authored by researchers at the Kaiser Family Foundation and the University of California at Los Angeles.

Reports,  Studies  and Toplines Icon Report (.pdf)

 

At NorthStar Care & Guidance, we are available to talk with you and your family about all of your live-in home care needs. NorthStar Care & Guidance is an elder care agency providing assistance to seniors with elder care in New York City and New Jersey. Call     888-288-6152 for more information.

Study: Older People to See Lower Rates Under Health Law

By Julie Appleby, Senior Correspondent, Kaiser Health News

How the federal health law will affect premiums is among the most asked – and most controversial – questions in the final months before new rules kick in requiring most Americans to carry coverage.

white paper out Wednesday considers how the law will affect premiums for people who buy their own coverage because they don’t get it through their jobs. The answer?  It all depends, said the analysts at the Kaiser Family Foundation. (KHN is an editorially independent program of the foundation.)

The paper says the law’s provision that limits premiums for older consumers to no more than three times what younger people pay will mean those younger beneficiaries, particularly men, will pay more than they do now.  Older people and many women will see lower rates, the paper says.

At the same time, broader benefit packages than are often purchased by individuals today, limits on deductibles and other costs and rules that bar insurers from rejecting people with pre-existing medical conditions will also cause premiums to rise compared with what they would have done without the law.

Starting in 2014, for example, policies must include coverage for maternity care, prescription drugs and mental health treatment, benefits that often are not included in policies purchased by individuals today .

“The more complete benefits will increase premiums when compared to current nongroup policies because there is more coverage,” the paper says.

“It’s not that we should not be concerned about how much some people will have to pay for insurance under reform, but concerns about sweeping rate shock are exaggerated,” said Larry Levitt, a senior vice president at the foundation and one of the co-authors of the report. “Subsidies are by far the biggest factor that cushions the impact of any increases in premiums people might see.”

The paper does not estimate how much premiums will increase. Reports from the Congressional Budget Office in 2009, however, projected that premiums for individuals who buy their own coverage could go up 10 to 30 percent because of the law’s rules. More recent surveys by consultants and insurers have speculated that premiums could rise far higher than that, depending on a person’s age and health. A 27-year-old, for example, could see an average increase of 169 percent in five markets surveyed by the conservative American Action Forum.

Still, Kaiser Family Foundation researchers and others have said that federal subsidies available to low- and moderate-income Americans are likely to offset the increases for many consumers.  The rules on how much premiums can vary among younger and older consumers, for example, are likely to be offset by subsidies for about 80 percent of those currently in the individual market, according to the paper.

“While many younger enrollees would see higher premiums under the three-to-one age limit, they would not pay more because they would receive a tax credit that caps their premium obligation as a percentage of their income,” the paper says.

But that solution raises other concerns, said consultant Robert Laszewski, a former insurance industry executive.

“A lot is made of the fact that federal subsidies will offset [the increases], but there is no Santa Claus,” he said. “Consumers will have much of these increases mitigated and taxpayers will pay for them.”

Insurers, along with some lawmakers and advocacy groups for young people, are urging that the ratio rule be phased in slowly. Most states allow wider variations now – or set no limits at all.

bill formally introduced Wednesday by Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.) would allow states to set their own ratio.  It has already drawn opposition from AARP, which represents older Americans and which argues it would “be a huge step backward” to allows insurers to continue “the discriminatory practice of charging exorbitant premiums to older Americans.”

The federal health law does allow insurers to sell special policies to Americans under 30 that would provide limited catastrophic coverage in exchange for what are expected to be lower premiums than other types of policies. People buying those policies, however, would pay higher deductibles and are not eligible for federal subsidies.

 

At NorthStar Care & Guidance, we are available to talk with you and your family about all of your live-in home care needs. NorthStar Care & Guidance is an elder care agency providing assistance to seniors with elder care in New York City and New Jersey. Call    888-288-6152 for more information.

 

Therapy Plateau No Longer Ends Coverage

By SUSAN JAFFE

Glenda Jimmo, of Lincoln, Vt., was one of the plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit challenging the cutoff of Medicare payments for physical therapy and other treatments for patients who were not improving.
Glenda Jimmo, of Lincoln, Vt., was one of the plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit challenging the cutoff of Medicare payments for physical therapy and other treatments for patients who were not improving.
(QUICK NOTE: This link is to a self-help packet designed to allow one to take advantage of this new Medicare development talked about in the following article)

Ellen Gorman, 72, a New York psychotherapist, can’t walk very far and gets around the city mainly by taxi, “which is really expensive,” she said. Twice since 2008 her physical therapy was discontinued because she wasn’t progressing. But after a knee replacement last year, she is getting physical therapy again, exercising with her therapist and building up her endurance by walking in the hallway of her Manhattan apartment building.

“Before this, I was getting weaker and weaker, and I just kept caving in,” she said.

Because of an action by Congress and a recent court settlement, Medicare probably won’t cut off Ms. Gorman’s physical therapy again should her progress level off — as long as her doctor says it is medically necessary.

Congress continued for another year a little-known process that allows exceptions to what Medicare pays for physical, occupational and speech therapy. The Medicare limits before the exceptions are $1,900 for physical and speech therapy this year, and $1,900 for occupational therapy.

In addition, the settlement of a class-action lawsuit last month now means that Medicare is prohibited from denying patients coverage for skilled nursing care, home health services or outpatient therapy because they had reached a “plateau,” and their conditions were not improving. That will allow people with Medicare who have chronic health problems and disabilities to get the therapy and other skilled care that they need for as long as they need it, if they meet other coverage criteria.

The settlement is expected to affect thousands, and possibly millions, of Medicare beneficiaries with chronic health problems like Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s disease, stroke, multiple sclerosis and spinal cord injuries. It could also help families, as well as the overburdened Medicare budget, delay costly nursing home care by enabling seniors to live longer in their own homes.

“Under this settlement, Medicare policy will be clarified to ensure that claims from providers are reimbursed consistently and appropriately and not denied solely based on a rule-of-thumb determination that a beneficiary’s condition is not improving,” said Fabien Levy, a spokesman for the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, which includes the Medicare program.

The lawsuit was filed by the Center for Medicare Advocacy and Vermont Legal Aid on behalf of four Medicare patients and five national organizations, including the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, Parkinson’s Action Network and the Alzheimer’s Association. A tentative settlement had been reached in October and on Jan. 24 a federal judge in Vermont approved the deal.

For seniors getting skilled services at home under a doctor’s order, the settlement means Medicare’s home health coverage has no time limit, Margaret Murphy told lawyers attending the annual meeting of the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys in Washington, D. C., shortly after the then-tentative settlement was announced.

The coverage “can go on for years and years, if your doctor orders it,” said Ms. Murphy, the center’s associate director, who added that patients must be homebound (though not bedbound) and need intermittent care — every couple of days or weeks – that can only be provided by a physical therapist, nurse or other trained health care professional. When physical therapy is provided as part of Medicare’s home health benefit, the therapy dollar limits may not apply.

The settlement ensures that nursing home residents will also get coverage for skilled care regardless of improvement, but does not change the duration, which is still limited to up to 100 days per “benefit period.” That begins when a patient is admitted as an inpatient to a hospital or a nursing home for skilled care and ends after 60 days without skilled care. The agreement preserves the requirement that they must also have spent at least three days as inpatients in a hospital.

Federal officials say the settlement is not a change in Medicare coverage rules, but that statement may surprise many beneficiaries and providers.

“If someone isn’t making progress, I say, ‘Listen, I’m sorry but Medicare’s not going to cover this so you can come in for a few more sessions but then I have to let you go,’ ” said Greg Babiec, a physical therapist and one of the owners of Evolve, a private therapy practice with offices in Manhattan and Brooklyn. He had not heard about the settlement.

Beneficiaries also often lose Medicare coverage for outpatient therapy because they hit the payment limit. But under the exceptions process Congress continued for another year, the health care provider can put an additional code on the claim that indicates further treatment above the $1,900 limit is medically necessary. When treatment costs reach $3,700, the provider can submit medical documentation to support a request for another exception to cover 20 more sessions. (A Medicare fact sheet provides some additional details, but has not been updated for 2013.)

In 2011, nearly five million seniors received therapy services at a cost of $5.7 billion, and about one out of every four received an exception to the then-$1,870 limit, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, an independent government agency that advises Congress.

Just a few hours before the settlement was approved, Rachel DeGolia learned that her 87-year-old father in Chicago was going to have to stop therapy because he stopped showing improvement — again.

“Every time he stops going to physical therapy, he starts to backslide in terms of his balance, his strength and his mobility,” said Ms. DeGolia, executive director of the Universal Health Care Action Network, a national advocacy group in Cleveland. His physical therapist did not know Medicare will cover therapy to prevent her father’s condition from getting worse.

Under the settlement, Medicare officials have until next January to straighten things out by notifying health care providers. Beneficiaries are not among those to be contacted, and so far the federal officials have not issued a formal statement on the settlement.

But patients don’t have to wait for their provider to get the official word, said Judith Stein, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs and executive director of the Center for Medicare Advocacy. “This isn’t a clandestine settlement,” she said.

The center’s Web site offers free “self-help” packets explaining how to challenge a denial of coverage that is based on the lack of improvement. Ms. Stein also advises beneficiaries to show a copy of the settlement — also available from the Web site — to your health care provider at your next physical therapy appointment if you are concerned about losing Medicare coverage. (If you follow this advice, let us know what happens.)

The Web site also explains how beneficiaries can request a review of their case if they received skilled nursing or therapy services in a skilled nursing facility, at home or as outpatients and were denied Medicare coverage because of a lack of progress after Jan. 18, 2011, when the lawsuit was filed.

Dean Lerner relied on the settlement last month to ensure that his brother-in-law would continue to receive Medicare physical therapy coverage.

“My brother-in-law in St. Louis suffers from Parkinson’s disease, and has for many years, and my sister is having a devil of a time helping him as his disease progresses,” said Mr. Lerner, a retired lawyer and state health official in Des Moines, who is also a Medicaid consultant.

A physical therapist teaches his brother-in-law to stand, turn and use a walker and maintain what little strength he still has. But because his condition hasn’t improved, the therapist said Medicare would not pay for additional sessions.

“But for my being an attorney, the outcome may well have been very different, and that shouldn’t be,” he said. “Why should you have to fight?”

At NorthStar Care & Guidance, we are available to talk with you and your family about all of your live-in home care needs. NorthStar Care & Guidance is an elder care agency providing assistance to seniors with elder care in New York City and New Jersey. Call    888-288-6152 for more information.

 

How to Pay for In-Home Care | 8 Ways to Afford Homecare | Caring.com

Have a look at this very helpful article about a topic I know you’re all concerned about.

How to Pay for In-Home Care | 8 Ways to Afford Homecare | Caring.com.

Insurance-free doctor prefers quality over quantity

By Keith Farner

DULUTH, GA [January 3, 2013] — Until recently, Robert Devillier had never heard of having a membership with a doctor.

But if he continues his recent health improvement, Devillier might not need to return to a traditional doctor.

The Stone Mountain handyman, who doesn’t have insurance, said he is a diabetic with high blood pressure and a heart attack in his medical history. Before this fall, Devillier hadn’t visited a doctor in 10 years, he said, and the only reason he showed up at Dr. Ravin Talati’s office was the payment setup.

“It would a great program for the doctors to get into that way of practice, especially the way the things are going now,” Devillier said. “I couldn’t afford to go to doctors, and pay $120 a visit. It benefits me. Thirty-five dollars a month, I can afford that.”

Talati doesn’t accept insurance, and charges $35 per month, $15 per visit for “members,” and has discounted rates for lab work. A chest X-ray is $45, flu vaccine $20 and an adult physical is $99. But what Talati also stresses is he only books one patient per 45 minutes, another contrast to a traditional doctor’s office. Talati said he can handle 95 percent of primary care needs, and about the only things he can’t do himself are surgeries and MRIs.

His goal is to reach 500 patients, and then bring in another doctor; Talati said he can maintain this kind of practice because of low overhead costs, and two employees: himself and a receptionist.

“This model is beginning to really pick up, especially in primary care,” Talati said. “It’s actually called direct pay. The whole idea is to get rid of the middle man. Before, traditionally, you would have the patient, the doctor and the insurance agency. So we said let’s get rid of that insurance agency and put the medical decisions and the health back into the hands of the patient and the physician. Nobody knows you better than your personal physician.”

Talati joined the medical profession after he earned a business degree from Texas Tech University, worked for a company manufacturing apps, then for an accounting firm before his father became sick.

At 26, after he watched his father undergo a heart transplant where he was in a hospital for 14 months, and eventually led to a two-year “ordeal,” Talati became inspired by the doctors that helped his father.

“It fascinated me,” he said recently, six years after he made his career-changing decision. “I thought it was just fantastic that these guys could do what they do. A lot of respect for them. They helped me, my Dad, that way, so I felt like I could give back that way.”

Talati previously worked in Youngstown, Ohio, but moved to Gwinnett when his wife enrolled in a doctoral program at the University of Georgia. He’s worked in emergency rooms and a traditional practice, and currently works 12 shifts per month at ERs in north Georgia to offset bills.

The popularity of direct pay practices is rising, Talati said, including companies like IBM converting their employee benefits package to make them accessible.

In 2007, Procter and Gamble acquired a large minority stake in company called “MDVIP,” where members pay $1,800 per year, and doctors are limited to 600 patients.

Talati said these setups have far less paperwork than a traditional one. Talati said he used to work exclusively on paperwork from 6 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. each day.

“It got very frustrating very quick,” he said. “That’s time away from your family, that’s time away from you making revenue to make money to sustain, and keep your practice open.”

Doctors in traditional practices are aware of the rising popularity, Talati said, but are waiting to see long term results, and if they can be supported.

“I think a lot of them are still waiting to see how successful these practices become,” Talati said. “They’re still a little scared, that if this doesn’t work, what’s going to happen?”

The appeal to be a primary care doctor is to help people of all ages in the family, Talati said. Because as a youngster his own doctor had a personal relationship, Talati also wants to administer healthcare to newborns, grandparents and everyone in between.

To develop that relationship, Talati said he needs more time than the seven and a half minutes that insurance companies allow per patient.

“It’s an unwritten rule, seven and a half minutes per patient,” he said. “There’s only so much you can do in seven and a half minutes. We wanted to get away from the idea of you waiting in the waiting room for two hours, and then seeing the doctor for five minutes, or seeing a (physician’s assistant) or nurse practitioner. When you go to a doctor’s office, I feel like you should see a physician.”

For patients like Devillier, Talati said he couldn’t explain and treat diabetes in that short amount of time, which is why many doctors write a lot of referrals.

“As far as working with you and taking the time, it’s not like rushing you in and rushing you out,” Devillier said. “He wants to take the time with the patient. I like that.”

Talati said referrals aren’t necessary for something he can do himself. But because doctors are pressured by insurance companies to see “50 or 60″ patients each day, doctors become “a referring machine.”

“Get a physical, diagnose you, treat you. Go to an endocronologist,” he said. “I wanted to change that. I want to sit down and treat you, because we can. We’re MDs. We’re capable of treating diabetes, I don’t need to throw you to a referral. I have time to sit down with you and treat you.”

Talati doesn’t suggest not having insurance at all. For his own family, Talati said he has a high deductible insurance plan, and recommends similar plans for his patients in case they are in a car wreck, or need an emergency appendectomy, for example.

Devillier said his blood sugar has dropped at least 200 points, and Talati did it in an affordable way.

“He’s willing to try and get your medicine cheaper,” Devillier said. “Just like some of the medicines he wanted me to get on, I couldn’t afford, (they were) $200 to $300. We worked together for something that’s reasonable. It’s a little more work on my part. He works with you on that, and he’s willing to call the drug stores and talk to them. He’s very sincere.”

At NorthStar Care & Guidance, we are available to talk with you and your family about all of your live-in home care needs. NorthStar Care & Guidance is an elder care agency providing assistance to seniors with elder care in New York City and New Jersey. Call   888-288-6152 for more information.

Better, if Not Cheaper, Care in New York and New Jersey

Ezekiel J. Emanuel

 

IT is conventional wisdom that end-of-life care is an increasingly huge proportion of health care spending. I’ve often heard it said that people spend more on health care in the year before they die than they do in the entire rest of their lives. If we don’t address these costs, the story goes, we can never control health care inflation.

Wrong. Here are the real numbers. The roughly 6 percent of Medicare patients who die each year do make up a large proportion of Medicare costs: 27 to 30 percent. But this figure has not changed significantly in decades. And the total number of Americans, not just older people, who die every year — less than 1 percent of the population — account for much less of total health care spending, just 10 to 12 percent.

MSMDNYC

The more important issue is that just because we spend a lot on end-of-life care does not mean we can save a lot. We do know that costs for dying patients vary widely among hospitals, which suggests that we can do better. And yet no one can reliably say what specific changes would significantly lower costs. There is no body of well-conducted research studies that has proved how to save 5, 10, much less 20 percent.

Recent studies find that hospice may reduce costs in the last year of life for cancer patients by 10 to 20 percent. But they find no savings from hospice care for patients who die of other conditions, like emphysema or heart failure. No one is sure why hospice care doesn’t save more. It may be because patients are enrolled in hospice care too late, or because hospice services themselves are labor-intensive and not cheap.

Even if we can never save a dime, however, there are good reasons to think about changing end-of-life care practices. While end-of-life care has improved considerably over the last 30 years, many Americans still die in hospitals when they would rather die at home. Nearly 20 percent of deaths occur in an intensive care unit or immediately after discharge, and too many patients experience symptoms like pain that are controllable with appropriate palliative care.

Here are four things the health care system should do to try to improve care for the dying, even if they won’t save money.

First, all doctors and nurses should be trained in how to talk to patients and families about end-of-life care. When I was starting out, I was lucky enough to be able to witness how a great oncologist communicated with patients and their families when it was clear they were going to die, but I received no formal training whatsoever. It is hard to improve care for the dying if health professionals don’t know how to talk about it. Fortunately, there are excellent communication techniques and training programs available — they don’t have to be invented from scratch.

A related intervention — an idea that never actually was in the Affordable Care Act but inspired the death panel accusation — is that physicians should be paid a one-time fee to talk with patients about their preferences for end-of-life care. Even if physicians are well trained in communication, these conversations take time and are emotionally draining. This should be recognized through compensation.

Third, every hospital should be required to have palliative care services available both in the hospital and at the homes of dying patients who are discharged. Over 40 percent of hospitals with more than 50 beds do not have palliative care services. And we don’t know how many actually have palliative care services once patients are sent home. These services should be delivered by trained experts in diagnosing and managing common symptoms of the dying, like pain, nausea, insomnia, shortness of breath, fatigue and depression.

Finally, we need to revise eligibility for hospice care. Right now doctors must certify that patients have six months or less to live and patients must agree to forgo life-sustaining treatments. The decision about whether to put a patient in hospice care should not be based on unreliable predictions about how long he has left to live but rather on his needs for specialized care, like morphine infusions.

These changes could be made in at least two ways. The Joint Commission — the nonprofit group that certifies health care organizations — could make training physicians and nurses to talk about end-of-life care and having palliative care available a requirement for hospital accreditation. Alternatively, Medicare, private insurers and, after 2014, state exchanges could require hospitals to provide communication training and palliative services as a condition for payment.

Unfortunately, there is no evidence that these interventions will save money. And I can’t definitively prove they will make the care of dying patients better. But doing nothing to try to help the dying when the rest of the health care system is improving care is not an option.

Northstar Care and Guidance is here to help your family with all of your  elder care needs. We are an elder care agency providing assistance to seniors in New York City and New Jersey. Call  888-288-6152 for more information.

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.