Showing posts with label Would. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Would. Show all posts

Friday, 16 August 2013

Would Medicaid expansion have saved hospital jobs?

An alert reader asked a good question earlier this month about the painful expense cuts local hospitals are undergoing right now.

Would these cuts be so deep, or even necessary at all, if the state of Indiana had already committed to expand the Medicaid program to insure more Hoosiers? Indiana Gov. Mike Pence has refused to expand Medicaid to Hoosiers with incomes up to 138 percent of the federal poverty limit, as called for by Obamacare, unless the Obama administration agrees to let Indiana use health-savings account to do it.

But when I posed this question to a variety of hospital sources, none of them said the lack of Medicaid expansion has played any significant role in their decisions to cut expenses. Instead, hospital executives have been more focused on cutting expenses to the point that they can make money on Medicare payments, which are usually higher and never less than Medicaid payments.

One reason for that is that the Medicaid expansion, even if it had been approved by Pence, would not yet have taken effect. It was scheduled to kick in in 2014, and slowly ramp up to cover an additional 232,000 Hoosiers.

Still, I think the question is a good one. Since uninsured patients, on average, pay roughly 12 cents on the dollar of what hospitals say it costs them to provide care, having more of those patients pay via Medicaid could certainly shrink those losses.

Medicaid is a money-losing program for hospitals, too. According to the American Hospital Association, Medicaid pays 95 cents for every dollar it costs to treat Medicaid patient. That figure, however, includes disproportionate share dollars--special payments to hospitals, such as Indianapolis-based Wishard Health Services, that treat a large percentage of the poor and uninsured.

So hospitals that do not receive such payments lose even more money on Medicaid. And under Obamacare, the Disproportionate Share payments are effectively going away.

A strong assurance by Pence that Indiana would expand Medicaid would have given these hospitals some confidence that the loss of Disproportionate Share money would be offset by newly insured patients on Medicaid. But for hospitals that never have been receiving Disproportionate Share payments, they typically lost about 40 cents for every dollar they spend to treat Medicaid patients, according to local hospital accountants.

For Indiana hospitals, those losses were recently cut in half by a new hospital assessment fee program, which was created by the Legislature in 2012. It raised Medicaid rates for inpatient procedures to match Medicare rates, which draws down extra money from the federal government. The hospitals then pay a fee to the state government to offset its costs, but the fee is smaller than the extra federal revenue, giving the hospitals a boost.

But the hospital officials I talked to said that the gains in Medicaid funding affect only a portion of hospital budgets, and are simply not enough to offset the other pressures they face.

Consider St. Vincent Health, which laid off more than 850 people last month. In its most recently reported fiscal year, it lost $95.4 million on payments from Medicare and Medicaid that were below its costs. That amount was more than 4 percent of St. Vincent's total revenue from patients. If St. Vincent served more Medicaid patients, those losses would grow.

What might shrink is the amount of charity care St. Vincent provides, which totaled nearly $60 million, or less than 3 percent of its patient revenue in its most recently reported year. St. Vincent might also see a reduction in its bad debt expenses, which totaled more than $120 million in its most recent year, or 5.5 percent of its patient revenue.

Odds are, shifting from patients paying 12 cents on the dollar to patients paying 60 cents or even 80 cents on the dollar would provide a big boost to the balance sheet. But since we're talking, at least in the case of St. Vincent, about only 12 percent of its budget, it just doesn't seem to move the needle that much.

Still, if, as hospital accountant Ed Abel recently predicted, the recent cuts at St. Vincent and its peers were just the 'first pass', perhaps Hoosier hospitals will be clamoring for Pence to expand Medicaid.


View the original article here

Friday, 2 August 2013

Study shows that in the face of an epidemic, even moderate government-mandated travel restrictions would slow contagion

Main Category: Infectious Diseases / Bacteria / Viruses
Also Included In: Public Health
Article Date: 01 Aug 2013 - 1:00 PDT Current ratings for:
Study shows that in the face of an epidemic, even moderate government-mandated travel restrictions would slow contagion
not yet ratednot yet rated

In an epidemic or a bioterrorist attack, the response of government officials could range from a drastic restriction of mobility - imposed isolation or total lockdown of a city - to moderate travel restrictions in some areas or simple suggestions that people remain at home. Deciding to institute any measure would require officials to weigh the costs and benefits of action, but at present there's little data to guide them on the question of how disease spreads through transportation networks.

However, a new MIT study comparing contagion rates in two scenarios - with and without travel restrictions - shows that even moderate measures of mobility restriction would be effective in controlling contagion in densely populated areas with highly interconnected road and transit networks. The researchers called the difference between infection rates in the two scenarios the "price of anarchy," a concept from game theory that's frequently used as a metric in studies of the controlled use of transportation networks.

The study, published online July 31 in the Journal of the Royal Society Interface, is the first to link the concept of price of anarchy to the spread of contagion. It assumes that transmission of the news of the epidemic (which influences how people select travel routes) and the epidemic itself follow the same mobility network, and uses standard epidemiological models to simulate the flow of contagion.

The researchers - Ruben Juanes, the ARCO Associate Professor in Energy Studies in MIT's Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, graduate student Christos Nicolaides and research associate Luis Cueto-Felgueroso - used data from the 2000 U.S. census to establish the aggregate daily flux of people commuting between counties.

Previous research had shown that when individuals become aware of an epidemic, they travel not by taking the shortest route, but by taking the shortest route that avoids infected areas - even if they're already infected - a strategy that exposes people in uninfected areas to disease. Such "selfish behavior," as it's called in game theory, is in direct opposition to the strategy of policymakers, who presumably would act in the benefit of the greater social good by routing infected individuals through areas where infection rates were already high.

The MIT study shows that the price of anarchy in some regions of the United States, such as along Interstate 95 in the Northeast, would be considerable. For a moderately contagious disease - one in which every infected person infects, on average, two others - restricting individuals to specific travel routes would decrease infection rates by as much as 50 percent.

"In an area with high connectivity, the outcome of action coordinated by officials is going to be better than selfish action, but the economic and social costs of disruption could sometimes be too high," Juanes says. "In other cases, there would be an enormous benefit to having authorities impose travel restrictions. The price of anarchy is a quantitative measure that identifies areas where intervention might pay off."

"Although the study is an idealized scenario, it does give insight to authorities about when and where it would be important to impose route restrictions on human mobility in the case of an emergent outbreak or in the extreme case of bioterrorism," says Nicolaides, the paper's first author, who was funded by a Vergottis Fellowship from the MIT School of Engineering. "But you have to take into account the structure of the underlying mobility network and its traffic properties. Imposing policy-initiated action in areas with low traffic would not render substantial benefits for the containment of an epidemic."

In their models, the researchers tracked an infectious disease as it spread via commuting networks in the contiguous United States, and found that the price of anarchy for contagion varies depending on the proximity of a network to major commuting corridors.

"A commuting network may be very local, but some contagion is related to more distant travel networks," Cueto-Felgueroso says. "That's why we see a higher price of anarchy near major arteries, like Interstate 95 in the northeastern United States."

The researchers had previously studied the spread of disease through the air transportation network and found that the interconnectivity and location of an airport in the network, not just the number of travelers moving through it, were key to its ability to spread disease.

Juanes says the next step in this work is to measure the price of anarchy for contagion in the world's 7,000 airports.

Written by Denise Brehm

Article adapted by Medical News Today from original press release. Click 'references' tab above for source.
Visit our infectious diseases / bacteria / viruses section for the latest news on this subject. Please use one of the following formats to cite this article in your essay, paper or report:

MLA

Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "Study shows that in the face of an epidemic, even moderate government-mandated travel restrictions would slow contagion." Medical News Today. MediLexicon, Intl., 1 Aug. 2013. Web.
1 Aug. 2013. APA
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (2013, August 1). "Study shows that in the face of an epidemic, even moderate government-mandated travel restrictions would slow contagion." Medical News Today. Retrieved from
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/264172.php.

Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.


'Study shows that in the face of an epidemic, even moderate government-mandated travel restrictions would slow contagion'

Please note that we publish your name, but we do not publish your email address. It is only used to let you know when your message is published. We do not use it for any other purpose. Please see our privacy policy for more information.

If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.

All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam). We reserve the right to amend opinions where we deem necessary.

Contact Our News Editors

For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.

Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:

Note: Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.



View the original article here

Sunday, 14 July 2013

Brazil’s Plan Isn’t What Doctors Would Order

New York Times Sunday 14th July, 2013

Dr. Antnio Augusto Dall'Agnol Modesto at a public clinic in So Paulo. Doctors in Brazil say the health system needs resources, not foreign recruits.

Read more

share this story reader comments

View the original article here

Wednesday, 10 July 2013

Would You Wear This Booze-Filled Bracelet?!

Cynthia Rowley is out with a bangle that doubles as a flask

By Alesandra Dubin - July 10, 2013

We're starting to feel like Cynthia Rowley just… gets us.

The designer is out with a new accessory that's both easy on the eyes (a major statement piece for summer parties) and highly functional (it stores a little something to help you be more sociable at those parties): It's a bangle bracelet that doubles as a flask.

The stainless steel, patent-pending piece is available for $225 on the designer's website, and the product description reveals her simple thinking behind the innovation: "Necessity is the mother of invention."

As to when it's appropriate to wear it? "Drinking at work has never been this much fun," Rowley told Yahoo! Shine. (We were thinking weekend beach day, but OK!)

The ingenious piece is already proving to be a fan favorite on social media — and among celebrities. As Yahoo Shine! noted, Gwyneth Paltrow recently posted a photo on her lifestyle site Goop with the caption: "Who doesn't need a covert flask?"

Granted, we can think of some things we need more than a covert flask — our family's health and safety, money to cover our bills... stuff like that. But we admit it would be a ton of fun to rock this designer novelty, or one of the more affordable versions out there. 

So let's hear from you: Would you wear a booze-filled accessory?

Alesandra Dubin is a Los Angeles-based writer and the founder of home and travel blog Homebody in Motion. Follow her on Facebook, Google+ and Twitter.

Connect with Us Follow Our Pins

Yummy recipes, DIY projects, home decor, fashion and more curated by iVillage staffers.

The very dirty truth about fashion internships... DUN DUN @srslytheshow http://t.co/wfewf

On Instagram

Behind-the-scenes pics from iVillage.


View the original article here