Accounting for socioeconomic status in risk adjustment can avoid penalizing hospitals with more low-income patients, according to Ashish K. Jha, MD, MPH, the K.T. Li Professor of Health Policy at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and the director of the Harvard Global Health Institute.
Accounting for socioeconomic status in risk adjustment can avoid penalizing hospitals with more low-income patients, according to Ashish K. Jha, MD, MPH, the K.T. Li Professor of Health Policy at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and the director of the Harvard Global Health Institute.
Transcript (slightly modified)
Why do you think CMS did not factor in the economic well-being of patients as part of the Medicare star ratings program for hospitals? What’s the argument for including that into the rating system?
So there’s been this, I think at times really misguided, debate between some people who think we shouldn’t be adjusting for socioeconomic status, because their argument is that somehow that’s giving hospitals credit for providing bad care to poor people. I think that’s just a misunderstanding of how risk adjustment works. We do risk adjustment, when we do risk adjustment we account for age, but we’re not saying we’re going to give hospitals credit for providing bad care to older people.
What you want to do is—it’s fine to penalize hospitals that provide bad care to poor people, we just don’t want to be penalizing hospitals that take care of more poor people. So if 2 organizations are exactly the same in terms of how well they do for their poor patients, but one hospital has twice as many poor patients as the other, you don’t want to penalize that hospital just because they have more poor people. That’s what the risk adjustment, or the lack of risk adjustment, for socioeconomic status is doing. And I think there are some people within CMS, the people who’ve developed the measures, who have just misunderstood this issue, and I think are really fixated on this idea that we’d be creating 2 different standards of care, which is not necessarily the case.
The Supreme Court seems likely to reject a challenge to the abortion pill mifepristone; the FDA is inspecting far fewer pharmaceutical companies conducting clinical research; AstraZeneca has sued to block an Arkansas law that it said would unlawfully expand the 340B program to include for profit-pharmacy chains.
Read More
Exploring Medicare Advantage Prior Authorization Variations
March 26th 2024On this episode of Managed Care Cast, we're talking with the authors of a study published in the March 2024 issue of The American Journal of Managed Care® about their findings on variations in prior authorization use across Medicare Advantage plans.
Listen
Dr Al Benson on Reimbursement for Supportive Care When Treating Patients With Cancer
March 22nd 2024Al Benson, MD, FACP, FACCC, FASCO, medical oncologist at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and associate director of the Robert E. Tillery Comprehensive Cancer Center, discussed findings from a national survey assessing barriers to comprehensive cancer care delivery.
Read More
Navigating Health Literacy, Social Determinants, and Discrimination in National Health Plans
February 13th 2024On this episode of Managed Care Cast, we're talking with the authors of a study published in the February 2024 issue of The American Journal of Managed Care® about their findings on how health plans can screen for health literacy, social determinants of health, and perceived health care discrimination.
Listen
Covered Preventive Services at Risk: V-BID Summit Breaks Down the Braidwood v Becerra Case
March 20th 2024For more than a decade, certain high-value preventive care services have been covered at no cost to patients under the Affordable Care Act, but a current legal challenge has the coverage at risk.
Read More