The Institute of Medicine (IOM) has identified 20 key indicators that together "reflect the overall health of the nation and the efficiency and efficacy of U.S. health systems."

Each of the 20 indicators can be readily measured over time using existing, publicly collected, reasonably high quality data. In addition to supporting nationwide snapshots, they permit drill-down views based on geography, population subgroups, and socioeconomic status.

Here are the IOM's key indicators:

Health Outcomes:

1. Life Expectancy at Birth (number of years that a newborn is expected to live if current mortality rates continue to apply).

2. Infant Mortality (deaths of infants aged under 1 year per 1,000 live births).

3. Life Expectancy at Age 65 (number of years of life remaining to a person at age 65 if current mortality rates continue to apply).

4. Injury Related Mortality (age-adjusted mortality rates due to intentional and unintentional injuries).

5. Self-Reported Health Status (percentage of adults reporting fair or poor health).

6. Unhealthy Days Physical and Mental (mean number of physically or mentally unhealthy days in past 30 days).

7. Chronic Disease Prevalence (percentage of adults reporting one or more of six chronic diseases [diabetes, cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, cancer, and arthritis]).

8. Serious Psychological Distress (percentage of adults with serious psychological distress as indicated by a score of > 13 on the K6 scale, with scores ranging from 0-24).

Health Related Behaviors:

9. Smoking (percentage of adults who have smoked > 100 cigarettes in their lifetime and who currently smoke some days or every day).

10. Physical Activity (percentage of adults meeting the recommendation for moderate physical activity [at least 5 days a week for 30 minutes a day of moderate intensity activity or at least 3 days a week for 20 minutes a day of vigorous intensity activity]).

11. Excessive Drinking (percentage of adults consuming four [women] or five [men] or more drinks on one occasion and/or consuming more than an average of one [women] or two [men] drinks per day during the past 30 days)

12. Nutrition (percentage of adults with a good diet [conformance to federal dietary guidance] as indicated by a score of > 80 on the Healthy Eating Index)

13. Obesity (percentage of adults with a body mass index > 30).

14. Condom Use (proportion of youth in grades 9-12 who are sexually active and do not use condoms, placing them at risk for sexually transmitted infections).

Health Systems:

15. Health Care Expenditures (per capita health care spending).

16. Insurance Coverage (percentage of adults without health coverage via insurance or entitlement).

17. Unmet Medical, Dental, and Prescription Drug Needs (percentage of [non-institutionalized] people who did not receive or delayed receiving needed medical services, dental services, or prescription drugs during the previous year).

18. Preventive Services (percentage of adults who are up-to-date with age-appropriate screening services and flu vaccination).

19. Childhood Immunization (percentage of children aged 19-35 months who are up-to-date with recommended immunizations).

20. Preventable Hospitalizations (hospitalization rate for ambulatory care-sensitive conditions).

State of the USA - a new non-profit endeavor developed under the auspices of The National Academy of Sciences and funded by several major foundations - sponsored the IOM project to identify the indicators. The IOM committee of experts was asked to (a) select indicators that, taken together, give "a broad view of health in America, covering health care, health status, and health determinants" and (b) choose only 20 indicators to ensure "maximum clarity and focus."

To aid the incoming 111th Congress and Obama Administration, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a 235-page report outlining 115 budget options for health care reform. The report catalogs most of the hottest legislative ideas on Capitol Hill, with useful background information and scores of costs and savings. Here's the list of reform ideas in the report:

The Private Health Insurance Market:

The Tax Treatment of Health Insurance:

Changing the Availability of Health Insurance Through Existing Federal Programs:

The Quality and Efficiency of Health Care:

Geographic Variation in Spending for Medicare:

Paying for Medicare Services:

Financing and Paying for Services in Medicaid and State Children's Health Insurance Program:

Premiums and Cost Sharing in Federal Health Programs:

Long-Term Care:

Health Behavior and Health Promotion:

In health policy, bad ideas never go away. Case in point is the proposal in California to require that health plans spend at least 85% of premium revenue on provider payments. Specifically, as part of his $12 billion Stay Healthy California package of reforms, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger proposes to set a new minimum medical loss ratio for health plans.

In a nutshell, a health insurer's medical loss ratio (MLR) is an accounting construct and relative differences from one health plan to another has absolutely nothing to do with affordability of premiums, access to care, quality of care, patient satisfaction, adequacy of provider networks, or virtually anything else of interest to policy makers.

Further, it is based on a staggering array of faulty assumptions about health care delivery, insurance markets, and the uninsured, and ignorance of the difference between price and value. And artificial medical loss ratio standards result in many unintended consequences, including less competition, fewer consumer options, pushing more people into taxpayer-financed Medicaid and SCHIP, and restricting resources needed to improve quality and reduce medical errors.

Jamie Robinson, Ph.D., professor of economics and chair of the health policy program at the University of California, Berkeley, put it best in a definitive article in Health Affairs:

The medical loss ratio is an accounting monstrosity that enthralls the unsophisticated observer and distorts the policy discourse.

Juxtaposition of low medical loss ratio with forprofit status has fed the flames of HMO bashing but is completely without substance.

Thanks to the hard work of Secretary Kim Belshe and her excellent team, Governor Schwarzenegger's health reform initiative has many components worthy of serious consideration. However, further regulation of medical loss ratios - a long discredited idea that will only hinder the Governor's coverage objectives - is not one of them.

In health care, states serve as the nation's laboratories of reform - able to test innovations in financing, coverage, regulation, and care delivery. In 2007, states are leading the way on health insurance coverage expansion, leveraging a mix of policies including universal coverage, individual mandates, tax credits and Section 125 plans, and insurance "exchanges" or "connectors" to facilitate buying of affordable health plans.

Because so much is going on and since I do a fair amount of workin this area, several readers of the Piper Report asked me to post some resources on what's going on in the states. So here you go.

State Health Reform Commissions:

Several states have created task forces or study committees to examine options for coverage expansion and make recommendations. Most are appointed by the governor or governor and legislative leaders. A few are special committees of the legislature. Here are states with health reform commissions:

Governors' Health Care Reform Initiatives:

Several governors have announced detailed health reform proposals. Most focus largely or entirely on coverage expansion but several also thankfully include initiatives to improve quality of care, combat medical errors, and/or increase transparency of provider prices and performance.

More Resources on State-Based Health Reform:

Massachusetts, of course, started the ball rolling with its groundbreaking, bipartisan reform initiative in 2006. To learn more, here's an excellent article from BNA's Health Policy Report on the impact of Massachusetts health reform on coverage expansion efforts in others states (PDF).

The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) maintains a helpful list of legislative bills on universal coverage proposed in states.

For the best books on health reform, Medicaid, and other hot topics in health care, please visit my book recommendations.

For latest state-specific data on health care coverage and spending, check out the free, easy-to-use tools on StateHealthFacts.org.

Questions on State Health Reform:

Feel free to contact me if you have questions on what's going on in the states.

President Bush has joined the health reform debate with a proposal of his own. The Bush approach is as intriguing as it is controversial.

First, the Administration seeks to reform the federal tax code to change the tax treatment of health insurance premiums and offer new tax deductions to help make coverage more affordable. Second, the White House wants to give states the ability to extend basic coverage to the uninsured by redirecting funds from uncompensated care pools.

Changes to Tax Deductibility of Health Insurance:

Today, most employees are not taxed on the value of employer-sponsored health insurance coverage. That is, the employer's share is not taxed and any employee contribution is taken out of income before taxes.

Many health economists believe this pre-tax treatment of health insurance tends, over time, to distort the market by giving a tax incentive to take income in the form of health coverage and insulating most working Americans from the cost of medical care. They argue this contributes to health inflation and creates a costly and unfair playing field for Americans without access to group coverage.

The Bush Administration proposes several major changes to the tax treatment of health insurance premiums:

If the tax changes are enacted, the Bush Administration estimates that about three million individuals who are now uninsured will gain health coverage. Of Americans with employer-sponsored coverage, about 80 percent (roughly 100 million taxpayers) would see a reduction in taxes. For example, a family with an annual income of $60,000 would see tax savings of about $4,500 annually. The other 20 percent - about 30 million, mostly higher income individuals - would see modest increase in their federal tax bill.

From a federal perspective, the proposal is expected to be budget neutral over the first ten years. In the early years, the proposal would cost the federal government $30-40 billion a year. However, by 2013 the changes are expected to increase net federal revenues. This is because it is structured to redistribute dollars in the system, over time taxpayers will tend to gravitate to health plans falling below the deductible amounts, and tax revenues will increase as more compensation shifts from benefits to wages.

Affordable Choices Grants to States:

The second component of the President's health reform package is called the Affordable Choices Initiative. Leveraging existing waiver authority and some likely legislative changes in Medicaid and Medicare, the Administration proposes to give states grants and new flexibility to offer basic, affordable health insurance coverage to the uninsured.

Specifically, the White House wants to allow states to redirect about $30 billion in dollars now used to help hospitals with uncompensated care. Both Medicaid and Medicare have disproportionate share hospital programs. While the methodologies differ, the federal Medicare program and state Medicaid programs use disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments to send additional dollars to hospitals that serve a disproportionate number of uninsured patients.

Given the large number of states engaged in health reform initiatives and the presence of the large pools of dollars, the White House sees a unique opportunity to foster state-based coverage expansions and move dollars to subsidize health plans for the uninsured.

The Administration has also hinted at an interest in using savings that would result from new proposed federal rules to cap Medicaid payments to publicly owned providers. Right now, if the final rules are issued this summer as expected, many states and public hospitals will lose and the feds will pocket the savings for budget purposes.

However, because of the dollars involved and the pressure it places on many states and public providers, the proposed cap on Medicaid payments could be used to sweeten the Affordable Choices Initiative. For some states, it could become a case of "use it or lose it." In addition to giving states and public hospitals an added incentive to come to the table and perhaps soften Congressional opposition, it would add several billion dollars to the pool of funds for state-based coverage expansions.

More Details Forthcoming:

More details on the tax deductibility proposal and the Affordable Choices grants are expected on Monday, February 5, when the White House releases President Bush's proposed budget for FY 2008.

The tax deductibility proposal already faces stiff opposition from key Democrats in Congress. And hospital industry groups are lining up to oppose the Affordable Choices Grants. However, the two proposals certainly contribute to the debate and improve the chances of some major health reform legislation in 2007.

Patient-centered care - one of the new buzz phrases in health care - is all about aligning the delivery of medical care with the needs and preferences of patients. Research shows that the practices and tools of patient-centered care result in:

Unfortunately, despite overwhelming support of the medical community and patient advocates, only 22 percent of physicians practice patient-centered care.

Patient-Centered Care Defined:

Patient-centered care is one of the six essential components of high quality medical care, according to the Institute of Medicine (IOM), the respected healthcare arm of the National Academy of Sciences. The IOM defines patient-centered care as:

Health care that establishes a partnership among practitioners, patients, and their families (when appropriate) to ensure that decisions respect patients' wants, needs, and preferences and that patients have the education and support they need to make decisions and participate in their own care.

Key Components of Patent-Centered Care:

At its core, patient-centered care is all about improved patient-provider communication, where patients and providers collaborate for the benefit of the patient. Ideally, patient-centered care delivery involves an array of tools and practices, including:

To learn more, check out these resources:

The Commonwealth Fund's excellent initiatives on patient-centered care.

Report from the Economic and Social Research Institute on the key components of patient-centered care that are unique to underserved populations.

Tools from the HHS Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ).

The world's leading guru of competitive strategy, Michael Porter, Ph.D., has turned his sights on explaining the fundamental cause of high costs, poor quality, consumer dissatisfaction, uneven access, and skyrocketing premiums in American health care.

In Redefining Health Care, Porter and innovation expert Elizabeth Teisberg, Ph.D. provide a thoughtful, groundbreaking framework to use competition to drive dramatic increases in quality and efficiency.

Unlike many wonks who foolishly believe that health care is not a market, Drs. Porter and Teisberg see competition " of a sort " in operation. They show us that the current competitive environment in health care is designed to "shift costs, accumulate bargaining power, and restrict services." That is, what we have now is dysfunctional, zero-sum competition serving to limit, even reduce value for patients. And they see all this taking place "...at the wrong level-among health plans, networks, and hospitals " rather than where it matters most, in the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of specific health conditions."

Focusing on how to move American health care to positive-sum competition based on economic and clinical value for patients, Redefining Health Care provides a series of specific recommendations for the key players " including physicians, hospitals, health plans, employers, Medicare, and Medicaid.

To learn about the Massachusetts health care reform initiative, here are two podcasts on this groundbreaking new program to cover virtually all the uninsured in the Commonwealth.

For Sellers, Feinberg and Associates, the lead consultants on the Massachusetts reform project, I host a biweekly podcast on hot issues in Medicaid. These concise audio briefings help state leaders and business executives keep tabs with Medicaid on Capitol Hill and CMS.

In Part 1 of the special audio briefing on the Massachusetts health reform initiative, Marty Sellers, President and founder of Sellers Feinberg, describes the key components of the Massachusetts initiative, how it was developed, and implications for other states and the healthcare market.

In Part 2, Peggy Handrich, the former Wisconsin Medicaid director and now leader of Sellers Feinberg's strategic Medicaid consulting practice, describes the key financial and programmatic characteristics of the Massachusetts health reform.

To listen directly on your computer, click here for Part 1 and here for Part 2. The podcasts are in the popular MP3 format, so you may also right-click to save and upload them to your iPod or other MP3 player for listening on the road.

For a useful two-page fact sheet on the Massachusetts health care reform plan, click here (PDF).

To subscribe to receive the free podcasts on Medicaid, please contact Sellers Feinberg. The folks there are working with a number of other states on health reform and Medicaid restructuring initiatives.

It is an immutable truth of economics. Transparency is an essential ingredient for a market to function with any semblance of efficiency or effectiveness. Lack of transparency - what economists call asynchronous information - leads to rapid inflation, gross inefficiency, gaming and abuse, ignorant consumers, poor quality, rampant error rates, and misaligned resources. In other words, you get America's $1.9 trillion health care system.

After years of behind the scenes work by top health care thought leaders, the White House and key Congressional leaders are jumping on board and calling for reforms to ensure transparency (read public reporting) of health care provider prices. While prices are only part of the information needs of patients, purchasers, and payors, nationwide transparency of medical prices is essential. Health Savings Accounts and other consumer-driven health reforms such as Medicaid Health Opportunity Accounts are largely pointless in a health care system otherwise rooted in incomplete, inaccurate, and inaccessible information.

As leaders contemplate specific measures to promote transparency of prices, they should also consider sending every Medicaid and Medicare beneficiary a quarterly report on the cost of their care. (I am not talking about Explanation of Benefits [EOB] notices. EOBs don't give a picture of their overall costs or utilization and offer no comparative, trend, or historical information.)

Using simple, colorful charts and tables and an emphasis on decision relevant information, a well-designed report would show them what care they received, what providers charged, what public programs paid, how much they paid in cost sharing, and how their medical costs compare to their peers (age group, sex, health status, and geography).

For Medicare beneficiaries, the reports could help bust a core myth of Medicare financing by showing what Medicare has paid for their care compared to what as an individual they paid in Medicare taxes and cost-sharing to date. In Medicaid, the reports would be invaluable to state efforts to move toward consumer-directed models where chronically ill or disabled patients and their families take active control of their medical lives. It would also help low-income families better understand the health care system. For dual eligibles - the 6.3 million Americans with annual health costs of a quarter trillion dollars - these personalized reports would be truly eye opening for patients and their families.

Over time, the reports could help Medicaid and Medicare beneficiaries see how their providers, health plans, and drug plans compare on measures of quality, errors, and cost effectiveness. And they could include simple health reminders.

Of course, not every benie would read the reports much less change their behavior based on the information. But the vary act of creating the reports would require Medicare and Medicaid to modernize information systems, turn transaction data into genuine decision-relevant information, and begin thinking of program beneficiaries as consumers in need of more than monstrously dull doorstops masquerading as handbooks.

Americans, including Medicaid and Medicare beneficiaries, are not stupid. But when it comes to health care costs, they are too often ignorant or oblivious. That must stop. Yes, there is a learning curve and some people prefer the bliss of ignorance to the dilemmas of judgment. Nonetheless, as consumers, as Americans, as human beings we are entitled to the information we need to make decisions. Keeping Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries and their families in the dark is as costly as it is insulting.

There's a hot debate over the pros and cons of health savings accounts (HSAs). Like most other health policy issues these days, the debate is based more on differences in political and economic ideology than on facts. While on its face it may appear as a debate between Republicans and Democrats, in reality its a classic debate between Capitalists and Socialists, between believers in the power of markets and belivers in the power of government.

HSAs were made possible by the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 and build on the earlier concept of medical savings accounts. In his State of the Union address, President Bush proposed several reforms to increase the availability of HSAs. While only three million Americans now have coverage through HSAs and the linked high-deductible health plans, many market watchers expect dramatic growth over the next couple years.

Here are some resources to understand health savings accounts (HSAs) and high-deductible health plans:

Fundamentals of Health Savings Accounts: Briefing paper from National Health Policy Forum (NHPF).

Primer on Health Savings Accounts for Consumers: Presentation by National Association of Health Underwriters (NAHU).

Health Savings Accounts as a Tool for Market Change: Issue brief from the HCFO program at AcademyHealth.

High Deductible Health Plans and Health Savings Accounts - For Better or Worse? From By Dr. Karen Davis, president of The Commonwealth Fund.

Health Savings Accounts - Health Care Reform's Best Kept Secret: By Robert F. Hamilton, MD, FACS

What High-Deductible Plans Look Like - Findings From A National Survey of Employers: Shows availability, enrollment, premiums, and cost sharing for high-deductible health plans offered with HSAs, from Kaiser Family Foundation and Center for Studying Health System Change.

Turning Medicaid Beneficiaries into Purchasers of Health Care: Critical success factors for using consumer-driven health plans in Medicaid, by Chuck Milligan, JD and colleagues.

HSA Information from U.S. Department of the Treasury: Includes directory of organizations, tax information, frequently asked questions, online resources, and glossary of terms.

Online Tools for Consumer-Directed Health Plans: The Kaiser Family Foundation hosted a demonstration of some online tools made available to enrollees in consumer-directed health plans.

Health care reform is a hot topic again. President Bush is rolling out a series of initiatives to improve health insurance coverage. Congress is poised to approve a 1,000-page budget reconciliation bill with dozens of key changes to Medicaid and Medicare. CMS continues to work hard to implement the Medicare drug benefit. And the national Medicaid reform commission is holding meetings to construct a package of long-range reforms to the world's most complex health program.

Through all of this, states remain the nation's laboratories for genuine health reform. One of the many advantages of our Federalist system is the ability of states to design and test new approaches. State-based reforms are inherently more pragmatic - allowing for faster, less risky implementations and designs that reflect local political and market needs. Compared to federal agencies, states are closer to the ground level, more nimble in responding to inevitable problems, better positioned to partner with employers, and tend to have a deeper bench of real-world, operational expertise.

In Massachusetts, Governor Mitt Romney's health reform plan will cover virtually all of the Commonwealth's uninsured by 2009. It's an ingenious mix of Medicaid financing, market reforms, and public-private partnerships. In Michigan, Governor Jennifer M. Granholm has proposed her own innovative health reform initiative - Michigan First Health Care Plan - to cover over a half million uninsured Michiganders. The good folks at Sellers Feinberg, experts in Medicaid restructuring and super waivers, are advisors to both states.

Governors Romney and Granholm differ in many respects, most notably politics and state situations. However, they share the same goal and have the courage to think out of the box and take action.

When enacted in 1996, the federal Medical Health Parity Act (MHPA) was expected to increase health insurance premiums by 3.2% to 8.7%. For employers with 50 or more employees, the Act required parity between annual and lifetime dollar limits for mental health and physical health services.

Specifically, the MHPA:

1. Requires parity of mental health benefits with medical and surgical benefits with respect to aggregate lifetime and annual dollar limits under a group health plan.

2. Says that employers still have discretion regarding the scope of mental health benefits offered to employees and their dependents (e.g., cost sharing, limits on number of visits, and medical necessity).

3. Does not apply to benefits for substance abuse or chemical dependency.

4. Does not apply to a coverage if the parity provisions result in an increase in the cost one percent or more.

An excellent new analysis by Steve P. Melek, a principal and consulting actuary with Milliman, shows that the federal mandate did not increase costs as expected. In fact, MHPA had little effect on overall health costs and, in some cases, may have helped save dollars. This is at least partially due to the fact that MHPA came at the same time as a big increase in the use of managed behavioral health care.

Coverage mandates are rarely a good idea, are driven largely by political expediency and health system naivete, and often generate unintended consequences. But Mr. Melek's analysis shows how health policy and market interventions by the government are not made in a vacuum. Indirectly, it also suggests that employers, health plans, and legislators should focus their attention on what patients need - not on arbitrary or discriminatory limits on access.

As promised, here's my list of likely losers under the new Medicare prescription drug benefit:

● Dual Eligibles: These 6.5 million highly vulnerable beneficiaries will lose their Medicaid drug benefit and be enrolled in the less generous, slightly more expensive, far more complex Medicare drug benefit. They also face the likelihood of a dangerous transition in drug therapy. If there is a silver lining here, it's the prospect of Medicare Advantage Special Needs Plans (MA-SNPs). That is, the hope that over time dual Medicare-Medicaid beneficiaries will sign up to get all their Medicare benefits from health plans tailored to their needs. Even better states work with MA-SNPs to bundle all Medicaid services with Medicare Part A, Part B, and Part D. See my earlier post on this idea and other stories on dual eligible issues.

● Retirees with Employer-Sponsored Drug Coverage: The trend has certainly been toward employers reducing retiree health coverage. With $100 billion in new taxpayer-financed incentives and an array of options to cost shift, Medicare Part D ensures that millions of retirees will move - slowly but inevitably - from relatively generous employer-sponsored drug coverage to more limited, more costly taxpayer-subsidized coverage. Employers are in a bind, to be sure, so don't blame them for taking advantage of this gift horse. It's anyone's guess whether Part D and the $100 billion in subsidies for employers will serve to slow or hasten the death of employer-sponsored drug coverage for retirees.

● States: Because of the now notorious "clawback" and variety of other factors, including a likely strong woodwork effect, loss of supplemental rebates, and unfunded mandates, drug benefits for dual eligibles will cost cash-stripped state governments more under federal management. Under Part D and the resulting fragmentation of benefits across multiple, uncoordinated programs, state Medicaid programs also lose critically important data and face greater challenges to managing the health costs of the most expensive, most vulnerable Medicaid beneficiaries. Since it's highly likely that many dual eligibles will have problems getting their prescriptions in the early months of Part D, states may be forced to step in and use their own money to cover drugs as the bugs are worked out.

● Community Pharmacies: The shift of dual eligibles to Medicare for their prescription drugs also means a large chunk of retail pharmacy business is moving from Medicaid (which, in most states, is the highest payor of pharmacy services) to private drug plans (which are the lowest payors). Specifically, state Medicaid programs commonly pay much higher dispensing fees and pay a higher rate for a pharmacy's drug acquisition costs. Commercial insurers, including those offering Medicare drug plans, are just the opposite. States do get better deals from drug manufacturers because of rebates and the Medicaid "best price" law, but those dollars are on the backend and pharmacies don't benefit. The large drug store chains have some flexibility to juggle the business impact of Part D. However, many small independent pharmacies face significant financial losses.

● Big Pharma: Some, perhaps most, pharmaceutical manufacturers will see a temporary boost in their top lines. Yet, most will experience a significant and likely steady, long-lasting hit to the bottom line. Yes, some drug makers will benefit from the pent-up demand released by the Medicare drug benefit. But the potential for increased sales in the short term is nothing compared to pricing pressures generated by the confluence of market dynamics, including drug plan competition, price transparency, and price sensitivity of at-risk drug plans. Add to this the likelihood of a massive increase in government oversight, substantially higher compliance risks, and challenges of shifting from a sales-based to research-based strategy. Some drug makers will win but it will depend on how quickly and deftly they can adapt to a brave new world of Part D.

Please check out my previous post on the Medicare drug benefit, including post on the likely winners in the business of Part D.

Under the Medicare Modernization Act, employers will receive about $124 billion in tax-free subsidies to encourage them to continue prescription drug coverage for retirees. Because of a long history of taxpayer-funded health benefits "crowding out" employer-sponsored coverage, Congress wanted to reduce the incentive for employers to drop retirees into the new Medicare drug benefit (Medicare Part D).

The subsidy works out to roughly 28 percent of what Medicare would pay under the Part D benefit and is available as long as the employer can show that their retiree drug coverage is actuarially equivalent or better than the federal program. Per retiree, it'll work out to $668 on average in 2006. According to a survey of large employers by Mercer Human Resource Consulting, about 60 percent of employers plan to take the subsidy.

While the subsidy payments are exempt from federal taxation, nothing stops a state from considering it as taxable income. Looks like some states are noodling about it. Nationwide, it could generate several billion dollars in new state tax revenue over the next ten years. And it might serve as modest form of policy revenge for the $100 billion clawback. However, it may encourage employers to cost shift retiree drug costs to federal taxpayers and retirees themselves...at least faster than they would otherwise.

For cash-strapped state governments, the "clawback" is the most controversial and costly provisions of the Medicare Modernization Act (MMA) and the new Medicare prescription drug benefit.

Now, as state begin new fiscal years and grapple with the latest Medicaid spending projections, some state leaders are balking at paying the federal treasury $124 billion over the next ten years to cover the drug costs of a federal benefit. Most state fiscal gurus also predict MMA will impose other costs on state taxpayers. California, for example, projects that Medicare Part D will cost the state $215 million more next year. And many legal experts believe the clawback is simply unconstitutional.

The feds maintain that MMA will save states money but to achieve any savings states must drop drug coverage for their retirees - this is only possible for states that make direct contributions to fund Rx coverage and if the state decides to renege on union contracts. This scenario is not available or practical for many, perhaps most, states.

Is Medicare facing a modern-day version of the Boston Tea Party? Leaders in Texas and New Hampshire reportedly intend to not pay the clawback. And the National Governors' Association's national Medicaid reform proposal calls on Congress to modify MMA, saying that "The clawback provisions should not be a further financial burden on states..."

The fireworks have just begun.

By Michael H. Bailit, MBA
President of Bailit Health Purchasing, LLC

Introduction

The serious problems in our health care system have been more than adequately documented in this journal and many others over the two past decades. Rates of uninsurance rise with a steadiness fueled by costs that seemingly know no bound. Quality varies with little or any relationship to cost, and ill-informed consumers cannot be confident that they are receiving the care that they need.

It initially appears astounding that that these problems are not getting resolved despite the well-intended efforts of many, many people. In fact with respect to cost growth and insurance coverage, the problems with our health care system are getting worse. Much worse. We who work in the field of health policy have failed.

Yet, the reasons for this failure are not difficult to understand. The health care industry represents a whopping 14.9% of the GDP (Levit, Smith, Cowan, Sensenig, and Catlin, 2004). It is an economic monolith, that becomes larger and, hence, more difficult to change every day. There are two sectors which foot the growing health care bill, neither of which is up to the challenge of curbing the expansion: government and employers.

Government

"One person's waste is another person's income.' (Wasson, 2004)

Federal and state government pay the largest share of the health care bill. They fight valiantly to control health expenditure growth, but rarely, if ever, by addressing the problem. Instead government purchasers often end up shifting costs to private payers. States and the federal government also reduce covered health care services in times of profound economic hardship. Finally, state and federal government assume loans (especially the federal government) and cut other service expenditures to meet the growing demand for health care dollars.

Ultimately, however, government fails to manage the growth of health care costs for two primary reasons. First, constituting a large economic sector, health care employs many Americans, thus creating a mission conflict for those elected and appointed to serve us. Reductions in healthcare expenditures result in lower income and potentially reduced employment for many Americans, including some who are politically influential. Second, most Americans don't want health cost growth restricted since the impact of costs is not directly visible to most Americans. That is, American taxpayers don't appear to appreciate how growing health care costs reduce available funds for other government programs and contribute to government debt.

To continue reading, click here.

States continue to serve as laboratories for health care reform. In recent years, many of these state-based efforts have focused on:

1. Leveraging Employer-Based Coverage: With the goal of making health insurance coverage more affordable to small businesses and their employees, state tools include (a) premium assistance, (b) reinsurance to moderate high-risk cases, (c) state negotiated health plan options, and (d) hybrids mixing taxpayer and employer-sponsored models.

2. Pharmaceutical Purchasing: To improve the cost-effectiveness of prescription drug benefits, state-based reforms include (a) intra-state and multi-state purchasing pools, (b) negotiated discounts for low-income populations, and (c) evidence-based coverage combining preferred drug lists (PDLs) and supplemental rebates from pharmaceutical manufacturers.

3. Care Management for High-Cost Patients: With over 75 percent of Medicaid costs driven by a small proportion of patients, states are developing new programs based on the latest care and disease management techniques.

4. Modernizing Uncompensated Care Programs: While taxpayers invest billions of dollars each year to help compensate hospitals for serving uninsured patients, most of these efforts are blunt, highly inefficient programs with misaligned incentives. Therefore, some states are exploring alternatives designed to leverage these funds to promote primary care.

To learn more about state-based reforms, including lessons learned, check out the work of our friends at the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI). ESRI�s excellent team, with support from the Commonwealth Fund, has a series of informative reports.

Community hospitals outperform teaching hospitals, according to a new study that compares cost and quality of hospitals in six states. The researchers conclude that patients served by lower-cost community hospital for secondary care receive care of similar quality to that provided in academic health centers.

Findings include:

- Inpatient costs per case are 19 percent higher in teaching hospitals, even after even after adjusting for patient case mix, severity, and other controllable characteristics.

- Community hospitals and academic health centers are comparable in their frequency of poor clinical outcomes.

- In terms of the likelihood seven adverse outcomes, the teaching hospitals were best on two and the community hospitals outperformed on three. There was no meaningful difference in two of the adverse outcomes.

- Lengths of stay in the two kinds of facilities are virtually the same.

The study, released by the Pioneer Institute for Public Policy Research, has implications for consumer-driven health plans. As consumers become more sensitive to the cost of care, the superior performance of community hospitals - at least for common secondary conditions that represent the greatest volume of inpatient care - will present new challenges to teaching hospitals and their affiliated clinical programs.

The study was authored by Nancy M. Kane, DBA of the Harvard School of Public Health, Jack Needleman, Ph.D. of the UCLA School of Public Health, and Liza Rudell of MassHealth.

Under Medicare's new prescription drug benefit, employers will have several options for maintaining drug coverage for their retirees. Staff at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) created a detailed briefing for employers, unions, health benefit consultants, and others interested in understanding the options, including the new retiree drug subsidy.

For the CMS briefing in PDF format, click here. For it in PowerPoint format (1 Mb), email the editor.

Under the Medicare Modernization Act (MMA), the new Medicare prescription drug benefit (aka, Medicare Part D) includes a retiree subsidy to encourage the continuation of employer-sponsored drug plans for retired Americans.

Here are some excellent resources to help employers understand the Medicare retiree subsidy:

- White Paper on Retiree Drug Coverage Under Medicare. From Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). CMS also provides a brief summary of the purpose of the retiree subsidy.

- Covington & Burling provides an excellent, reader-friendly summary of the retiree subsidy and the relevant provisions of the CMS proposed rule (PDF).

- Hewitt Associates has an detailed overview and analysis of the retiree drug subsidy (PDF).

- Aon Consulting Worldwide offers a brief summary of the issues for employers (PDF).

- Last year, the American Academy of Actuaries and the Society of Actuaries held an excellent briefing for Congressional staff on how to determine the actuarial equivalence of Medicare prescription drug plans (PDF).

- For folks needing background on the bigger picture, the National Business Coalition on Health (NBCH) provides an excellent guide for employers on managing prescription drug benefits (PDF) and an informative white paper on trends in pharmaceutical benefits (PDF).

Rick Wagoner, chairman and CEO of General Motors, is calling on both political parties to work together to solve the nation’s crisis of health care costs. US manufacturers, especially in the heavily unionized auto industry, are at a severe competitive disadvantage to their European and Asian counterparts. Foreign manufacturers benefit from taxpayer-financed health insurance, fewer retirees, and a younger workforce.

General Motors will spend $4.8 billion this year on health care for its one million retirees, employees, and their dependents. While unions are pushing for government-run, taxpayer-financed health care, Wagoner appears to favor a middle path that includes transparency of provider performance, a greater role for consumers, and incremental, yet major reforms to existing health programs.

To address the enormous deficiencies in quality of health care, health care organizations need to make a business care for improvement. That is, they need to demonstrate a compelling rationale for the significant financial investments necessary to improve quality and reduce medical errors.

To make decisions, businesses traditionally look at the potential return on investment (ROI). However, ROI projections are tough to make in health care. Data sources are limited and decision support tools are often outdated or nonexistent. Most health services research is purely academic, offering no actionable or timely advice to decision makers. The fragmented delivery system means that organizations that invest in performance improvement benefit other players more than themselves. Finally and most critically, incentives are terribly misaligned. Providers are paid for how much they do, not how well they do it. When patient care improves and medical mistakes decline, provider revenues can drop like a stone.

The savvy folks at Bailit Health Purchasing LLC offer a new framework for building a business care to invest in quality improvement. In an excellent new issue brief published by The Commonwealth Fund, Michael Bailit, MBA and Mary Beth Dyer, MPP provide “a mechanism for an organization to consider a broad set of factors affecting a business case for quality.”

Taking into account key financial, strategic, and organization factors, they offer 10 practical business care arguments. By looking beyond bankable dollars, hospitals, clinics, and other providers can create compelling business cases to improve their performance.

In a new study, HealthGrades, a respected leader in measuring and reporting health care quality, estimates that preventable hospital mistakes kill 195,000 Americans each year. That's twice the Institute of Medicine's 1999 estimate, which many experts observed was conservative.

Fortunately, some courageous hospitals are showing their peers how to improve clinical outcomes at reasonable cost. A new report describes the key factors contributing to the success of four high-performing hospitals. In it, my friend Jack A. Meyer, Ph.D. and his colleagues at the Economic and Social Research Institute and The Severyn Group offer an outstanding blueprint for improving patient care and safety in hospitals.

The study, which was commissioned by The Commonwealth Fund, recommends 18 specific actions hospitals should take to improve patient care and save lives.

In Consumer-Driven Health Care, Regina E. Herzlinger, a leading health care thought leader and a professor at the Harvard Business School, provides a thought-provoking look inside a new, powerful force transforming America's dysfunctional health care industry. Consumer-Driven Health Care builds on her popular 1997 book Market-Driven Health Care: Who Wins, Who Loses in the Transformation of America's Largest Service Industry.

In the first part of her new 900-page book, Dr. Herzlinger makes a convincing case about how and why health care is broken and why market-based solutions - which empower consumers - are best. She restates the case she made in Market-Driven Health Care for putting consumers directly in charge of their own decisions (picking insurance plans, making medical decisions).

Through transparency of information, a realignment of incentives, and new tools to support decision-making, the consumer-driven model gives individuals a clear stake in their own health care. While not unique to other parts of the US economy, the approach is a radical departure for the $1.7 trillion health care market. As Dr. Herzlinger makes clear in her energetic analysis, the absence of these proven market-based tools goes a long to explain how health care became our most inefficient, outdated, and error-prone industry.

The second part – 80 percent of the book - is a collection of 73 think pieces written by 92 other experts. With short introductions by Dr. Herzlinger, these articles serve as a useful initial knowledge base for a growing field with an uncertain future.

Consumer-Driven Health Care has its limitations. For example, Dr. Herzlinger's case for the consumer-driven model fails to address the Medicare and Medicaid systems. It also leaves a variety of practical transition and execution issues unaddressed, although these are beyond the purpose of this volume. Because articles were written several years ago as part of a conference and most of the writers lack purchaser-side experience, the book also does not deal with the growing list of market-based reforms underway by large employers and innovative health plans.

In addition, since the field is still in its infancy, Dr. Herzlinger is a business researcher, and the contributors are largely wide-eyed entrepreneurs, the book will likely frustrate health policy wonks and others stuck in the technical minutia and ideological fights that characterize most health care discussions. But then, that’s just as well. Too often analysts forget that health care is a business and operates as a market, albeit a flawed one insulated from tools proven to drive quality and efficiency.

Dr. Herzlinger also has her detractors. It reminds me of the old joke that there are two kinds of people in the world – people who like Wayne Newton and people who don’t. Well, it seems that health care wonkdom is divided by those who like Reggie Herzlinger’s ideas and those who don’t. However, given the massive problems in American health care, her contributions remain as useful as they are provocative.

For a primer on consumer-driven health care, I recommend Let's Put Consumers in Charge of Health Care, a concise article by Dr. Herzlinger in Harvard Business Review (July 2002 issue).

Preventable medication mistakes in hospitals is a leading causing of death. Top patient safety experts and The Leapfrog Group have called upon hospitals to replace risky, paper-based prescriptions with computerized physician order entry (CPOE) systems.

If installed in every major hospital, CPOE systems would save tens of thousands of lives each year. However, few hospitals have CPOE systems and few plan to get them any time soon. In addition to costing $3-10 million per facility, hospital execs often face stiff resistance from docs unwilling to learn, replace their Rx pads with Palm Pilots, and work as teams. Even worse, because facilities are paid for quantity and not quality, improved patient safety often lowers a hospital's revenue (fewer errors = fewer patient days = lower revenue).

Harvard Medical School researchers Eric G. Poon, David Blumenthal, and colleagues recently interviewed senior managers in 26 hospitals to identify ways to overcome barriers to adopting and implementing CPOE. Their thoughtful, on-target recommendations appear in the latest issue of Health Affairs.

Solutions, not unexpectedly, include financial incentives to hospitals, stronger hospital and physician leadership, greater public attention to patient safety, establishing more uniform data standards, and modernizing hospital IT infrastructures.

For further reading on savings lives through improved technology, check out my reading lists on:

- Health care quality.

- Medical errors.

- Health care information technology.

- Electronic medical records.

The June 2004 issue of the Harvard Business Review contains an outstanding article on Redefining Competition in Health Care by Michael E. Porter, Ph.D. of the Harvard Business School and Elizabeth Olmsted Teisberg, Ph.D. of the University of Virginia's Darden School of Business.

Their carefully researched, well-argued, actionable recommendations include:

- Standardized information about individual diseases and treatments should be collected and disseminated widely so patients can make informed choices.

- Purchasers, providers, and health plans should establish transparent billing and pricing to reduce cost shifting, confusion, pricing discrimination, and a host of other inefficiencies.

- Providers should be experts in specific conditions and treatments rather than try to be all things to all patients.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that re-importing prescription drugs from Canada will save virtually nothing.

Many will find this counter intuitive, especially in light of all the misinformation and political rhetoric - and the uneven reporting on the issue. As with so many of the "Taste Great vs. Less Filling" debates in health policy, perceptions are overly simplistic and out of touch with economic reality.

CBO - an independent, skilled, and studiously nonpartisan arm of Congress - examined the real-world economic dynamics. Read the CBO report here (PDF). It's a quick, eye-opening read.

Consumer-driven health care - new models and technologies to empower consumers to make informed choices - is growing in popularity. At it's core, consumer-driven health care is all about transparency of costs and quality of care, and giving consumers the tools and information they need.

To learn more, check out the best books on consumer-driven health care, including Regina E. Herzlinger's excellent new book. Read it first.

Preventable medical mistakes and inappropriate, outdated medical care is the third leading cause of death in America, according to the Institute of Medicine and other experts.