Thursday, 30 June 2016

The Macro View - Budget, Election  And Health News Relevant To E-Health And Health In General.

The Macro View - Budget, Election And Health News Relevant To E-Health And Health In General.

June 30  Edition.
There are two big issues this week.
First we have the Brexit which is still playing out in terms of impact. Right now no one is sure how all this will play out. I am not sure we will understand for years if this has been a good or bad move on the part of the UK public.
Second we have the election just a few days ahead.
Basically pretty much anything else has slipped into the background. A few articles I have found interesting follow.

General Budget Issues.

Bonds sink to new low as growth stagnates

  • The Australian
  • 12:00AM June 13, 2016

David Uren

World bond yields sank to new lows on Friday amid fears the global economy is losing further momentum, which will make it impossible for the US Federal Reserve to press ahead with planned rate rises.
The German government is now able to borrow 10-year funds for just 0.01 per cent while fresh record lows were set for bond yields from Australia, Japan and Britain among others.
Australian 10-year government bond yields also fell, ending the week at 2.09 per cent, compared with a low during the depths of the global financial crisis of 4 per cent. US 10-year bond yields dropped to 1.64 per cent, their lowest in three years.
-----

The biggest lie of the campaign: economy management does not trump all

Date June 12, 2016 - 10:31PM

Jessica Irvine

Senior Writer

I am consistently irritated to hear political pundits declare in serious tones that all elections ultimately come down to economic management.
Who do you trust to run the economy?
First, the statement reflects a quaint, Stalinist-like faith in the ability of politicians to run a command and control economy.
In case you missed it, Australia is a capitalist economy, where market forces decide most prices and transactions in the economy.
Individual businesses ultimately make the decision about whether to invest in expanding their operations. Bosses decide jobs and growth, not politicians.
-----
  • Updated Jun 13 2016 at 11:30 PM

Economists challenge Labor claim Coalition 'tripled the deficit'

Labor's accusation that the Coalition has tripled the budget deficit over the past two years makes as little sense as blaming the opposition for the global financial crisis that in 2009 wiped out the last surplus, say budget experts.
While it is true that the official forecast for the 2016-17 deficit has grown over the past two years from $10.6 billion in the 2014 budget to $37.1 billion in the May budget, about two-thirds of the deterioration is due to a collapse in revenue expectations. The remainder is because of policy decisions.
In the same way that former Labor treasurer Wayne Swan blamed his failure to deliver a surplus in 2012-13 on plunging commodity prices that eroded tax revenues, the current government has been unable to stop the deficits because the economy has been worse than forecast, the experts say.
-----

Federal election 2016: lack of ideas keeps budget in deficit

  • Simon Cowan
  • The Australian
  • 12:00AM June 25, 2016
This week saw the sixth anniver­sary of Julia Gillard’s challenge to Kevin Rudd. Though Gillard held on in the following election, Rudd soon would have his revenge and return. In 2013 Tony Abbott swept to a Rudd-style election victory, yet just two years later he suffered a Rudd-style fall to Malcolm Turnbull, the fifth Prime Minister in a little more than five years.
Less well known is the fact Australia also has had four treasurers during this period. Six years ago in May Wayne Swan delivered the first budget to promise a return to surplus after the global financial crisis. While Labor, notoriously, never delivered a surplus, for the budget handed down this May Scott Morrison stopped even promising one.
Next Saturday, the voters will decide whether the Prime Minister and Treasurer’s economic leadership is an irredeemable failure. Even if they judge it too soon to take such a drastic step, it is hard to argue Turnbull and Morrison have been a success thus far.
-----

Election 2016: We're in for a year of falling standards says BusinessDay forecasting panel

Date June 25, 2016 - 4:56PM

Peter Martin

Economics Editor, The Age

Economists predict feeble economy

The economy will fail to fire in the coming year and underperform government expectations, according to the Scope BusinessDay survey of 23 leading economists. Peter Martin explains.
Australian top economic forecasters expect living standards to fall in the year ahead as economic growth weakens and the budget deficit blows out.
The findings in the mid-year Scope economic survey are revealed in today's BusinessDay. The survey is Australia's longest running, aggregating the views of financial market economists, academics and industry researchers. It includes the chief economists of each of the four big banks.
------

The Drugs Aren’t Working for Australia’s Economy as Reform Lags

June 15, 2016 — 6:00 AM AEST
  • Pharmacies’ political clout insulates industry from reform
  • Central bank has called for more competition in economy
In downtown Sydney, adults can buy a pack of 30 painkiller tablets for less than A$10 ($7.33) that are banned over-the-counter in most developed nations, because they partially convert into morphine after taken.
Futile attempts to regulate the sale of codeine despite addiction risks, and the lack of debate on the issue in the run-up to next month’s election, illustrates the strength of the pharmacy lobby. It’s also an example of a wider impasse on structural reforms that’s put a brake on Australia’s productivity.
Changing the rules on codeine sales would be a small step compared with the broader overhaul of the industry that economists say would boost competition and spur the kind of efficiency gains that Australia’s economy needs. Pharmacy-ownership restrictions, along with protection within the taxi, shipping, medical and legal industries, have been cited as priorities for reform by an independent government-chartered group.
In an increasingly tight July 2 election contest, neither side in politics is carving out regulatory change as an issue. While voters haven’t experienced a recession for 25 years, economists are increasingly worried that the drivers for growth are diminishing. With commodity prices in retreat and national income sliding, one way to reverse the trend is by bolstering competition in industries like pharmacies. 
-----

Federal election 2016: surplus delays risk budget’s AAA rating

  • The Australian
  • 12:00AM June 16, 2016

Michael Bennet

widgetDavid Uren

Standard & Poor’s, the most powerful credit ratings agency, has fired a fresh warning shot to both major political parties that the budget must be brought back into surplus as forecast or they risk losing the coveted AAA rating.
Craig Michaels, director of sovereign ratings at Standard & Poor’s, yesterday expressed concern about the “quite considerable fiscal slippage” in recent years, noting how the forecast to return the budget to balance had drifted from 2012-13 to 2020-21 “at the earliest”.
“We think there isn’t much more scope for that to keep occurring if the rating is to remain consistent with the AAA,” he told an S&P conference in Sydney yesterday.
-----

Health Budget Issues.

Federal election 2016: Consultants suck up savings from MBS review

  • The Australian
  • 12:00AM June 23, 2016

Sean Parnell

A much-lauded review of the Medical Benefits Schedule banked its first prospective savings of $5.1 million in the federal budget — and then had to spend $4.95m hiring consultants to help out.
In another illustration of the complexities of reform, The Australian can reveal the Department of Health engaged experts at management consulting firm McKinsey to provide secretariat and research support to the MBS ­review through to July next year.
The review, launched by the Coalition government and headed by former Sydney Medical School dean Bruce Robinson, is examining the evidence base and usage of about 5700 items on the $21 billion MBS. Targeting obsolete MBS items has brought savings of $5.1m over four years. The next round of recommendations will cover the specialties of ear, nose and throat surgery, obstetrics, thoracic medicine and gastroenterology.
-----
  • Updated Jun 22 2016 at 5:50 PM

Election 2016: Christine Bennett slams Labor's Medicare scare

Former Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's handpicked top health reform adviser has criticised current Labor leader Bill Shorten's Medicare privatisation scare campaign as misleading and missing the main game.
Christine Bennett, the academic doctor who led the first Rudd government's 2009 health and hospitals review process, said the Turnbull government's now abandoned plan to contract out Medicare's payments function was "just a business efficiency process in government - it's not the privatisation of Medicare".
Professor Bennett,  now dean of medicine at the University of Notre Dame Australia and chair of the Sydney Children's Hospital Network, compared outsourcing of Medicare payments to hospitals outsourcing food and laundry operations and said it was not the main game of health reform. 
-----

Labor continues its attack on Malcolm Turnbull over Medicare

June 22, 2016 9:01am
Malcolm Farrnews.com.au
LABOR is today is defending its contested claim Liberals want to privatise Medicare by pointing to the extended freeze on rebates for GP visits.
The freeze, extended by two years to six in the Budget in May, could result in doctors charging more for consultations.
Labor is today arguing that means more private money — that of patients — will be needed for Medicare to operate.
This is being billed as “another form of privatisation” after Labor was challenged to produce hard evidence Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull wanted to sell off parts of Medicare to private interests.
-----

Election 2016: AMA rebukes Labor on Medicare privatisation claims

Date June 22, 2016 - 5:42PM

Michael Koziol

National political reporter

Labor claims the coalition wants to privatise Medicare; the government vehemently denies it. But what do voters think?
The newly-elected head of the Australian Medical Association says there is "no evidence at all" that the Turnbull government wants to privatise Medicare, rebuking a Labor scare campaign that has come to dominate the penultimate week of the election campaign.
Michael Gannon, who took charge of the high-profile doctors' organisation last month, said that although there were several elements of Labor's health policy the AMA supported, Opposition Leader Bill Shorten had overreached on his claims about privatisation.
-----

Federal Election: Labor promises to continue funding bulk-billing incentives for pathology, radiology

Date June 19, 2016

Jane Lee

Labor has pledged not to introduce the Coalition's planned cuts to bonus-payments for pathologists and radiologists who bulk-bill, in a move expected to cost $884 million.
The Turnbull government last year vowed to cut bulk-billing incentives in both sectors, to save $650 million for the Medical Research Future Fund over four years, sparking a public row with both. But it reached separate deals with Pathology Australia and the Australian Diagnostic Imaging Association, with both agreeing to absorb the planned cuts in exchange for reduced rental regulation and a review of Medicare rebates respectively.
Labor leader Bill Shorten will promise to continue funding the incentives if elected, at the launch of the party's official campaign on Sunday.  A spokeswoman said the Parliamentary Budget Office had estimated this would cost about $884.2 million over the next four years and $2.9 billion over the decade to 2026-27. 
-----
12:20pm June 18, 2016

Radiologists sold out, Shorten says

By AAP
Opposition Leader Bill Shorten has accused radiologists of "selling out" to the federal government after the industry labelled his policies an insult.
The Australian Diagnostic Imaging Association says it's been left out of Labor's $2.4 billion commitment to unfreeze indexation on the Medicare rebate.
It says Labor's policy ignores the 18-year funding freeze diagnostic imaging has endured, which has seen patient gap payments for scans and x-rays double in the past decade.
-----

Election 2016: Who's Medicare's friend? Examine bulk-billing

Date June 23, 2016

Peter Martin

Economics Editor, The Age

Medicare or Medi-scare?

The coalition will 'never ever sell Medicare' declares Malcolm Turnbull, but Labor asserts the government can't be trusted. Courtesy ABC News 24.
The key to examining whether one side or the other wants to destroy Medicare is the baked-in feature that makes it work: bulk-billing.
The Coalition twice knocked it back in the Senate, forcing Whitlam to call a double dissolution. 
It's far more clever than is widely realised, far more than a convenience.
-----

Federal election 2016: Medicare reform falls victim to ALP scare campaign

  • The Australian
  • 12:00AM June 25, 2016

Judith Sloan

Evidently Malcolm Turnbull has a secret plan to privatise Medicare. It’s so secret that even he hasn’t heard about it. One can just imagine all the buyers sharpening their pencils to bid for Medicare.
Or can one? Medicare hands out over $20 billion each year to healthcare providers under the Medicare Benefits Schedule, it costs more than $2bn to run and doesn’t make a cent of profit. Medicare is not exactly Telstra or the Commonwealth Bank.
It’s not just the case that Medicare won’t be privatised by a Coalition government; it can’t be privatised. Of course, Bill Shorten knows this, but the Opposition Leader thinks there are votes in creating misinformation about Medicare and peddling fear among voters who like Medicare but dislike privatisation.
-----

The two main political parties unveil their health policies

AAP | 14 June, 2016 |
Two different health policies with two very different priorities have been unveiled by the major parties (see table below). The question is, which one matters more to voters?
Labor on Sunday pledged a $2 billion boost for public hospitals, returning to the 2011 agreement the previous Labor Government made with states and territories.
The Coalition hit back with its plan to reform private health insurance, stamping out junk policies and creating gold, silver and bronze categories to help consumers work out what they are and aren't covered for.
-----

Health Insurance Issues.

ACCC accuses Medibank of deliberately misleading customers

June 16, 2016
Sue Dunlevy News Corp Australia Network
THE consumer watchdog will take Australia’s largest health fund to court, claiming it engaged in false, misleading and unconscionable conduct by failing to inform members it limited benefits for in-hospital blood tests and scans in 2014.
And it alleges it kept consumers in the dark about the change because it wanted to ensure the highest price when the government privatised the health fund.
News Corp revealed how Medibank had limited the benefits it paid for in hospital pathology and radiology services in 2014 but did not tell its members about the change.
It was a change that increased the out of pocket charges for its members.
-----

Medibank chief Craig Drummond faces calls for private health overhaul

  • The Australian
  • 12:00AM June 17, 2016

John Durie

New Medibank boss Craig Drummond faces an industry-wide reputational problem of similar proportions to that he encountered in his days at NAB, with the ACCC backing government calls for a major overhaul of the private health industry.
This will be a fight in which the industry has few friends ­because it has led the campaign for lower costs while maintaining a chronic lack of transparency on its own pricing.
Yesterday’s action by the ACCC against Medibank alleging misleading misrepresentations and unconscionable conduct is but the first of many actions the regulator has lined up against the industry.
-----

Medibank shareholders in rude health as sick customers cough up

  • Michael Roddan
  • The Australian
  • 12:00AM June 18, 2016
The way private health insurers treat their customers could be enough to send you to the doctor, but as these things always seem to play out, the situation for shareholders is much healthier.
The latest scandal to rock the industry comes from recently listed Medibank Private, the country’s biggest health insurer, which has been accused of covering up policy changes. The hidden changes left patients with unexpectedly large bills for radiology and pathology services, for which they had been previously covered.
The timing of this week’s Australian Competition & Consumer Commission’s legal action against Medibank is likely to cause significant reputational damage to the insurer.
-----

ACCC allegations: Medibank ‘trying to stop doctors overcharging’

  • The Australian
  • 12:00AM June 18, 2016

Michael Roddan

Medibank is facing claims it intentionally misled customers
Medibank Private is likely to argue its alleged “unconscionable conduct”, involving keeping customers in the dark over policy changes, stemmed from a legitimate attempt to clamp down on doctors overcharging for pathology tests.
While Australia’s largest private health insurer puts itself on a war footing after the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission launched legal action against the company on Thursday, analysts believe any reputational damage from the scandal will likely blow over, minimising any financial blow to the insurer.
The ACCC alleged Medibank failed to inform members that it would limit benefits paid on in-house pathology and radiology services, meaning patients had to cover the “gap” between Medicare Benefit Schedule and the doctor’s charge for the service, known as the “Medigap”.
-----

Health insurers could be due for an overhaul

  • The Australian
  • 12:00AM June 21, 2016

Michael Roddan

The ACCC says Medibank failed to inform members of new limits on benefits.
Private health insurers have largely escaped the regulatory overhaul the scandal-ridden financial advice sector has been dragged through, but Medibank Private’s stoush with the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission could change that.
The increased complexity and number of health insurance products means that customers are often presented with hundreds of products by salespeople who aren’t held to the same standard as financial advisers.
“Health insurance is now quite complex and almost requires advice, but it’s basically being sold under a general advice operation,” said Simon Swanson, managing director at financial services firm ClearView.
The ACCC last week alleged Medibank purposely failed to inform members of new limits on the benefits paid to patients, amid concerns of industry-wide lack of communication between insurers and their customers over policy changes. The revelations of Medibank’s quiet withdrawal of gap payments come as federal Health Minister Sussan Ley reviews the $20 billion private health industry and Labor and the Greens ramp up calls for a royal commission into the financial services industry.
-----

Health insurance: can anyone be trusted?

  • James Kirby
  • The Australian
  • 5:59PM June 17, 2016
ASIC is bringing Medibank Private to court over “misleading and unconscionable conduct”
It may not be that hard to pick a health insurance stock — after all, there are only two: NIB and ­Medibank Private. But try picking a health insurer — that’s a whole different exercise.
There are at least 20,000 policies in the market among more than 30 providers, and the extreme deficiencies of the sector have just been dramatically brought to light with the Australian Securities & Investments Commission’s audacious announcement it is bringing Medibank Private to court over “misleading and unconscionable conduct”.
ASIC’s dramatic move might just be the start of a long-awaited crackdown in this sector, which most investors must access each year, whether they like to or not, as failing to take out private health insurance means you may face an elevated Medicare levy.
-----

Superannuation Issues.

  • Updated Jun 16 2016 at 6:00 PM

Middle Australia no better off from super changes

by Sally Patten
Many low and middle-income earners will be no better off from the superannuation changes unveiled in the May budget, despite the Coalition's promise that half of the $6 billion saved from the proposed reforms will be ploughed back into helping "the other 96 per cent".
New modelling shows that measures aimed at improving the retirement savings of middle Australia, such as more favourable terms for spouse contributions and allowing catch-up contributions, will have little impact on the target market.
If the budget reforms are adopted, the bottom 90 per cent of full-time wage earners will receive no additional government support from the super system, analysis by the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees and consultancy firm Mercer shows.
-----

Scott Morrison concedes ground on super reform

Date June 26, 2016 - 12:15AM

Noel Whittaker

Money columnist

Just one week out from the election, Treasurer Scott Morrison has taken steps to remove some of the retrospective aspects of the proposal in last month's budget to limit non-concessional caps. The original proposal was a lifetime limit of $500,000 on such contributions, to take effect from budget night – it was to be backdated so as to include all non-concessional contributions made in the preceding 10 years.
A situation where the proposal was undoubtedly retrospective is where the trustee of a self-managed superannuation fund had entered into a contract for the purchase of an asset using a limited recourse borrowing arrangement prior to budget night, with the settlement of the contract due after budget night. In these types of transactions, it would be normal for part of the sales proceeds to be provided by the fund members making non-concessional contributions to the fund to enable the fund to complete the contract.
As I pointed out in previous columns, this could put the purchaser of the assets in an impossible position: if their non-concessional contributions before budget night had already exceeded $500,000 in the last 10 years they may well be unable to contribute the funds to allow the purchase to proceed. Consequently, the contract could be rescinded and the deposit forfeited.
-----
I look forward to comments on all this!
-----
David.
Baca selengkapnya
This Is Something We Don’t Want So See Become Too Common - But There Are Some Issues That Need Airing!

This Is Something We Don’t Want So See Become Too Common - But There Are Some Issues That Need Airing!

This appeared a few days ago:

EHR safety goes to court

By Lisa Schencker  | June 25, 2016
One patient's blood pressure plummeted dangerously after he was allegedly discharged with the wrong medications. In another instance, a physician couldn't place a pharmacy order for a newborn to receive vitamin K, which is given to babies to prevent serious bleeding.
On several other occasions, patients weren't accurately tracked, creating potential problems getting drugs to them.
Each of these alleged mishaps occurred at PinnacleHealth, a three-hospital system based in Harrisburg, Pa. PinnacleHealth blames each of the mishaps on its electronic health records vendor, Siemens; Cerner Corp. purchased Siemens' health IT business in February 2015.
The incidents came to light as part of a breach-of-contract lawsuit Cerner filed against PinnacleHealth last year after the system, which had used Siemens as a vendor for 20 years, sharply curtailed its relationship and entered into a contract with a competing EHR vendor, Epic Systems Corp. PinnacleHealth related the incidents in its counterclaim; the counterclaim was filed in March of this year in state court in Pennsylvania, where it is seeking damages for Cerner's alleged fraud and breach of contract.
Cerner spokesman Dan Smith declined to comment on pending litigation, but did say “patient safety is of the utmost importance to us.”
Some experts say the PinnacleHealth-Cerner battle is among the first of what could become an avalanche of legal battles over EHRs and patient safety. For years, many patient safety advocates have warned that EHR systems carry numerous potential risks due to their poor design and the ease with which data entry errors can lead to medical mistakes.
Vastly more details and discussion is found here:
While I am no fan of litigation – if a few law suits could focus the minds of developers to work harder on safety that might be a good thing – but not too many as the pain and cost could rapidly rise.
David.
Baca selengkapnya

Wednesday, 29 June 2016

Still No Questions Asked - Journalists Fail to Challenge Talking Points Used to Justify Million Dollar Plus Executive Compensation at New York Non-Profit Hospitals

Still No Questions Asked - Journalists Fail to Challenge Talking Points Used to Justify Million Dollar Plus Executive Compensation at New York Non-Profit Hospitals

It's deja vu all over again. I even get to reuse the introduction of a post from one month ago.  As I wrote in May, 2016,...

 The problem of ever rising, amazingly generous pay for top health care managers is a frequent topic for Health Care Renewal.  We have suggested that the ability of top managers to command ever increasing pay uncorrelated with their organizations' contributions to patients' or the public's health, and often despite major organizational shortcomings indicates fundamental structural problems with US health, and provides perverse incentives for these managers to defend the current system, no matter how bad its dysfunction.

In particular, we have written a series of posts about the lack of logical justification for huge executive  compensation by non-profit hospitals and hospital systems.  When journalists inquire why the pay of a particular leader is so high, the leader, his or her public relations spokespeople, or hospital trustees can be relied on to cite the same now hackneyed talking points.

As I wrote last year,  and last month,
It seems nearly every attempt made to defend the outsize compensation given hospital and health system executives involves the same arguments, thus suggesting they are talking points, possibly crafted as a public relations ploy. We first listed the talking points here, and then provided additional examples of their use. here, here here, here, here, and here, here and here

They are:
- We have to pay competitive rates
- We have to pay enough to retain at least competent executives, given how hard it is to be an executive
- Our executives are not merely competitive, but brilliant (and have to be to do such a difficult job).

Yet as we discussed recently, these talking points are easily debunked.  Additionally, rarely do those who mouth the talking points in support of a particular leader provide any evidence to support their applicability to that leader.

Bit at least most journalists who inquire into hospital executive compensation used to make an attempt to be "fair and balanced" by also quoting experts who question the talking points.

But not so much lately,...

Million Dollar Plus Hospital CEOs in New York

The Journal News, based in the northern New York City suburbs, ran a series of articles about executive pay and perks at NY hospitals and hospital systems.  The main aricle in the series is here.  A listing of the five highest paid hospital officials is here.  A listing of executive perks, and conflicts of interests affecting the hospitals' and hospital systems' board members is here.  The main article began,

New York's nonprofit hospitals paid millions in bonuses to executives and doctors despite a high-stakes battle to reduce health care spending.

As patients struggled to afford rising medical bills, incentive packages for top hospital executives reached seven figures and approached payouts at Wall Street banks, The Journal News/lohud has found.

Perks at the nonprofit hospitals included first-class plane tickets, chauffeurs and country club memberships. Severance and retirement payments mirrored golden parachutes awarded to for-profit corporate executives.

The article noted that 112 people who worked for non-profit hospitals in the Lower Hudson valley earned more than $1 million.  The biggest pay went to the top executives of the biggest systems:

Bonuses and payments spiked the highest among executives at the helm of major hospital consolidations, data show.

North Shore University Hospital’s President/Chief Executive Officer Michael Dowling topped the list in 2014. He was paid $10.1 million in salary, bonuses and other pay. That is compared to $3 million in 2010.

Dowling’s payments came as the Long Island hospital and its affiliated organization, then North Shore-LIJ, began its ongoing expansion.

The health system, now Northwell Health, has pushed into the Lower Hudson Valley, partnering with Northern Westchester Hospital in Mount Kisco and other regional providers.

Also,
Dr. Steven Safyer, president and CEO of Montefiore Medical Center in the Bronx, was paid nearly $4.9 million in 2014, including a bonus of $1.3 million.

That's an $800,000 increase from the $4.1 million he was paid in 2010. It came as Montefiore bought bankrupt hospitals in Mount Vernon and New Rochelle, and pushed its expansion northward into Westchester County, which now includes a partnership with White Plains Hospital.

Note that Dr Sayfer also was given a hospital-paid car and driver.  

An accompanying article noted the three other highly paid CEOs in New York state, Warren Hern, CEO of Unity Health Systems in Rochester, $7,490,213;  Mark Clement, CEO of Rochester General Hospital, $5,323,856; and Dr Steven Crowin, CEO, New York Presbyterian Hospital, $4,591,728 [who also benefited from a policy allowing first-class or business airfare for flights over 6 hours, and some form of housing allowance.)

Other million dollar plus CEOs in the Lower Hudson valley included John Federspeil, president, Hudson Valley Hospital Center, $2,055,377; Joel Seligman, CEO, Northern Westchester Hospital, $2,043,289; Dr Cary Hirsch, CEO, Bon Secours Charity Health System (Good Samaritan Hospital in Suffern), $1,170,575; Keith Safian,  CEO, Phelps Memorial Hospital Center, Sleepy Hollow, $1,494,760; Lawrence Levine, CEO, Blythedale Children's Hospital, $1,701,471, Edward Dinan, CEO, Lawrence Hospital Center, $1,707,780; Dr Craig Thompson, CEO, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, $2,944,926 (who also got first-class or coach airfare for flights over 6 hours, and some form of housing allowance); and Jon Schandler, CEO, White Plains Hospital, $1.799,952.

The Usual Talking Points to Justify Executive Compensation

The Journal News article also included justifications for this munificent pay by hospital officials that used the usual talking points. 

We have to pay competitive rates

We have to pay enough to retain at least competitive executives


The spokesman for Northwell Health asserted,

The fact that we're located in the New York market ... only increases the competitive pressures on compensation.

Then,

Julius Green, a partner at Baker Tilly, a New Jersey-based accounting firm advising 100 hospitals in the Northwest, attributed expansions and higher pay to growing competition nationwide.

Also, from Blythedale Children's Hospital,

As the [Affordable Care Act] mandates take effect, and the number of insured individuals rise, the need for skilled healthcare workers will surely increase as will the competition for that talent.

Our executives are brilliant

Said Michael West, senior attorney for the New York Council of Nonprofits,

If you're running an organization that has a $500 million budget, you have to have someone with the wherewithal to run it and you have to pay for that.

Said Rachael McCallen, a Montefiore spokeswoman,

Our executives navigate a complex healthcare environment making appropriate investments to ensure a forward-thinking, innovative and responsive care model that provides higher value, lower cost integrated care services.

Furthermore, the next week the Journal News publised an op-ed by William Mooney, CEO of the Westchester County Association, which was devoted to defending the pay of his fellow CEOs.  It started with indignation against anyone who would question the pay of our fearless leaders,

While it is fashionable to cast aspersions on high-income earners, the arguments set forth about the compensation levels of area health-care CEOs are misguided and erroneous.

Then Mr Mooney again hit the talking points.

We have to pay competitive rates

We have to pay enough to retain at least competitive executives
Given that a hospital is a community organization, the compensation of their executives is decided by boards made up of community members who base their decisions on research, competitive market analyses and responsible financial projections.

Our executives are brilliant
Running a hospital is a business unlike any other. First and foremost, hospitals are complex organizations that are about protecting and promoting health, and saving lives.

Also,
A hospital CEO is responsible for overseeing and guiding his or her staff through a maze of financial and regulatory challenges while making sure safety and performance standards are at the highest possible levels.

Third, the technology and infrastructure enhancements that today’s hospital CEO must manage are vast and rapidly changing. The staffing required to support all of these disparate functions encompasses a wide range of skill sets and education. A hospital CEO must understand and manage all of those roles, and must keep an eye on the demands and responsibilities of maintaining new technology.

In addition, the op-ed concluded with the argument:
your readers would be better served by reporting on the qualitative and quantitative benefits our community derives from having the best health-care leaders in the nation at the helm of our local hospitals.

And these leaders to more than manage finances. The op-ed implied that hospital CEOs are personally responsible for savings lives. This can be seen in the quote above under the brilliance argument, and later:
Non-profit status is conferred upon an organization that does something for the public good. Saving lives clearly is in the public’s best interests!

This despite the fact that the majority of CEOs in the article above, and indeed the majority of top managers of hospitals and hospital systems are not health care professionals, and cannot take any direct responsibility for patient care.  This also despite the assertion by Mr West, the senior attorney for the New York Council of Nonprofits, that "hospitals are run like a business,..."suggesting that the people running them might put money, not "doing something for the public good," first.

Also, note that while Mr Mooney extolled the community based boards whose members made such discerning decisions about executive pay, he did not address these members' numerous conflicts of interests.  For example, re some of hospitals and hospital systems with the most highly paid CEOs,
Stephen Friedman was a board member of Memorial Sloan-Kettering in 2014 when the cancer center paid $10.5 million for architectural services from Perkins/Eastman. Friedman’s brother-in-law, identified as Mr. Perkins, is affiliated with the firm, tax filing show. Bradford Perkins is listed as the co-founder and chairman of Perkins/Eastman, according to its website.

Jamie Nicholls was a Memorial Sloan-Kettering board member in 2014. Her spouse was a co-founder of King Street Capital Management, which the hospital paid nearly $700,000 for management fees, tax filings show.

And,
White Plains Hospital disclosed one business transaction involving an interested person. The filing has few details. It reported the name of the interested person as 'Donor #24' and the relationship with the hospital as a 'substantial contributor.' The amount of the transaction was $15,350,345, and the description is 'BUS TRANS.'

And,
New York-Presbyterian paid $440,225 for investment management fees to Coatue Management, which listed its founder and chief executive officer as Philippe Laffont, a hospital trustee, tax filings show.

And,
Kaleida Health in Buffalo paid $121,660 to the Greater New York Hospital Association for participation dues in 2014. James Kaskie, former president and chief executive officer at Kaleida, was also a board member at the association, tax filings show.

Finally, note that neither the main article nor Mr Mooney's op-ed cited any evidence, even anecdotal, that these particular leaders are so brilliant, or that their hospitals are better than average, even in terms of finance, much less actual care of patients.   

No Challenges to the Talking Points

The main article did not include any dissenters who questioned expansive executive pay.  An accompanying editorial in the Journal News could only muster some anemic concern.  It called multi-million dollar compensation for local non-profit hospital system executives "unsettling."  It did contrast ever rising executive pay with the difficulty patients have paying their bills.  But it could only muster conclusions that mirror the talking points:

Hospitals are quick to defend their executives' rising compensation, and their arguments are good ones. Chief among them is that hospitals must compete for the best top officials, including with for-profit hospitals across the U.S. They say they need to attract and keep leaders who can competently oversee growing health-care systems, meet ever-changing government regulations and improve patient care and satisfaction.

So, all they called for was disclosure of compensation:

Hospital executives deserve fair pay for hard work; taxpayers deserve to know that resources are being used to attain quality care for all.

Although Mr Mooney seemed to see "aspersions" in the article,  and thought "the article implies that hospital CEO compensation is somehow responsible for the continued rise in healthcare costs," and argued that "hospitals do not deserve to have nonprofit status," I could find no such challenges in the Journal News series to the notion that top non-profit hospital managers deserved every penny they got.

Conclusion

Sadly, the ever rising compensation of top health care managers seems to inspiring less, rather than more skepticism in the media.  No more is it true that  nearly all articles that try to delve into executive compensation at all at least quote some experts who are skeptical of current practices.

The Journal News series included no such attempts at balance.  In my humble opinion, while it reported on useful facts, the opinions it contained leaned towards propaganda for managers' current privileged position in health care. 

Despite all the blather about how top hospital executives deserve millions of dallars, there are real reasons to be skeptical.  As we discussed here, there is a strong argument that huge executive compensation is more a function of executives' political influence within the organization than their brilliance or the likelihood they are likely to be fickle and jump ship for even bigger pay.  This influence is partially generated by their control over their institutions' marketers, public relations flacks, and lawyers.  It is partially generated by their control over the make up of the boards of trustees who are supposed to exert governance, especially when these boards are subject to conflicts of interest and  are stacked with hired managers of other organizations. 

While Mr Mooney was indignant that high executive pay may be considered a reason that hospital charges and health care costs are rising, he did not even discuss the argument that the current method of determining such pay may provide perverse incentives to grow hospital systems to achieve market domination, raise charges, and increase administrative bloat.  As an op-ed in US News and World Report put it about executive pay in general,

But the executive pay decisions made inside corporate boardrooms have an enormous impact in the outside world. Outrageous pay gives top executives an incentive to behave outrageously. To hit the pay jackpot, they'll do most anything. They'll outsource and downsize and make all sorts of reckless decisions that pump up the short-term corporate bottom line at the expense of long-term prosperity and stability.



So I get to recycle my conclusions from my last post in this series....

We will not make any progress reducing current health care dysfunction if we cannot have an honest conversation about what causes it and who profits from it.  In a democracy, we depend on journalists and the news media to provide the information needed to inform such a discussion.  When the news media becomes an outlet for  propaganda in support of the status quo, the anechoic effect is magnified, honest discussion is inhibited, and out democracy is further damaged.

True health care reform requires ending the anechoic effect, exposing the web of conflicts of interest that entangle health care, publicizing who benefits most from the current dysfunction, and how and why.  But it is painfully obvious that the people who have gotten so rich from the current status quo will use every tool at their disposal, paying for them with the money they have extracted from patients and taxpayers, to defend their position.  It will take grit, persistence, and courage to persevere in the cause of better health for patients and the public. 

Baca selengkapnya
Talk About Kicking The Can Down The Road! NEHTA Goes Out With A Whimper.

Talk About Kicking The Can Down The Road! NEHTA Goes Out With A Whimper.

We had a few releases from NEHTA last week:

NEHTA Software Developer Community announcement - Updates of Sample Code Libraries for Clinical Documents, Secure Messaging and My Health Record system

Created on Thursday, 23 June 2016
NEHTA Integration Products are pleased to announce the publication of maintenance updates for the following sample code libraries.
  • Clinical Document Library - .NET Sample Code v4.3.0
  • My Health Record B2B Client Library - .NET Sample Code v1.0.5
  • My Health Record B2B Client Library – Schema WSDL v4.0.0
  • HL7™ MDM Library - .NET Sample Code v1.0.7
The updates address a number of known issues that are detailed in their respective release notes.
Vendors are encouraged to incorporate the updated versions of these libraries into their software, as this can prevent a number of potential issues.
Download
The updated sample code libraries and associated release notes are included in the following updated end products:
Feedback
We value your feedback and encourage questions, comments or suggestions about our products. Please email Help Centre, or call us on 1300 901 001.

NEHTA Software Developer Community Announcement - Personal Health Notes, Advance Care Document Custodian and Personal Health Summary

Created on Monday, 20 June 2016
The National E-Health Transition Authority (NEHTA) has published updates to the following consumer end products.
Personal Health Notes, Advance Care Document Custodian and Personal Health Summary are documents that may be created by consumer portals such as the national consumer portal for the My Health Record system.
The My Health Record programme has identified specific use cases where the author of consumer documents may not have an individual healthcare identifier (IHI). For example, a care agency worker may add an advance care document to the My Health Record system on behalf of a healthcare consumer. The revised conformance profiles allow for the use of a care agency employee identifier in these circumstances. That identifier is a 16 digit identifier similar to an IHI. Product components of these end products have been updated to support this.
The related template package libraries and the template package directory have been updated to refer to the new versions of the conformance profiles.
These changes have also resulted in the archiving of the Common – Consumer Entered Information.
Further, the Common – Continuity of Care end product has been archived. The content of this product has been transferred to Common – Clinical Documents.
Who does this affect?
Developers should consider if their software needs to be tested or revised to allow for consumer documents containing a care agency employee identifier instead of an IHI for the document author.
There are no new document rendering requirements associated with care agency employee identifiers and software systems using version 1.2.9 of NEHTA's generic clinical document style sheet, published here, will render documents containing a care agency employee identifier.
If you have any questions or require further information, please call the NEHTA Help Centre on 1300 901 001.
Thank you for your continued support.

NEHTA Releases Version 6 of the eHealth Integration Sample Code

Created on Monday, 20 June 2016
NEHTA Integration Products is pleased to announce this version of the eHealth Integration Sample Code (eHISC) lets you upload pathology and diagnostic imaging reports to the My Health Record system without needing to generate CDA™ documents.
eHISC v6.0 automatically converts HL7™ v2 ORU messages into eHealth Pathology Report and eHealth Diagnostic Imaging Report CDA documents and uploads them to the My Health Record system.
The conversion capability supports ORU messages containing a PDF version of the diagnostic report. The resulting CDA documents do not contain any structured report information but instead refer to the PDF document, which is extracted from the ORU message and attached to the CDA document.
eHISC accepts ORU messages via both its SOAP web service interface and its new low-level MLLP interface. MLLP offers an easy-to-use integration path, as it is already widely supported by existing laboratory and radiology information system implementations.
Download
eHISC v6.0 is available for download from the NEHTA website, subject to the licence terms in the Source Code Software Package and the Binary Software Package.
Please download the new release from the NEHTA website:
Feedback
We value your feedback and encourage questions, comments or suggestions about our products. Please email the NEHTA Help Centre, or call us on 1300 901 001.
Kind regards,
NEHTA Integration Products
*Join the My Health Record developer community today by subscribing to the My Health Record Developer Mailing List here and registering with the My Health Record Developer Website here.
----- End Extracts:
The second item is amazing to me. I thought we were all issued with an IHI when the Health Identifier system started. If this is the case – then why do carers need another one? Besides I am rather keen on the idea that we are pretty certain just who is entering material into the myHR – rather than just allowing a new number to be created. This all seems like a huge, and potentially a medico-legally messy and unsafe solution – or am I missing the point.
In the third outing NEHTA just confirms that they have given up and that pathology and radiology in the myHR will be a pile of .pdfs.
Really just hopeless! I wonder will the ADHA do any better – having inherited all this nonsense.
David.
Baca selengkapnya