By Richard M. Scheffler and Surina A. Khurana | Published October 1, 2020 in Health Affairs Blog | Link to Full Article
Health policy, like most public policy, is autoregressive: The past is usually the best predictor of the future. Democratic vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris’ position on national health policy issues is well known from presidential debates and public statements; less is known about what she actually did while serving as the attorney general for the state of California from 2010 to 2017. Most of her record in health policy as attorney general was in three areas: antitrust (especially mergers and consolidation), pharmaceuticals, and support of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). It is fair to say that she has been very active and effective in all three areas.
By Daniel R. Arnold, Surina Khurana, and Brent D. Fulton | Published August 3, 2020 | Link to Report
This report provides a summary of the loans that the largest health systems in California received through Medicare Accelerated and Advance Payment Program. The financial health of these health systems should continue to be monitored during the duration of this pandemic.
By Richard M. Scheffler, Daniel R. Arnold, Surina Khurana, and Brent D. Fulton | Published July 9, 2020 | Link to Report
California Governor Gavin Newsom issued an executive order on March 19, 2020 that effectively prevented hospitals from performing elective procedures to free capacity for a possible surge of COVID-19 patients (order lifted on April 22, 2020). This report examines the financial status of the largest health systems in California, with a particular focus on their liquid assets for financial solvency. It then reports the amount they have received in CARES Act provider relief payments. Overall, 24% of the estimated reduction in net patient revenue was offset by direct CARES Act grants, but the offset varied widely by hospital. The report then presents the correlation between provider relief payments and a hospital’s private insurance share of patient revenue, operating margin, and the hospital market concentration of the county in which it resides. We find hospitals with a larger share of net patient revenue from private insurers and hospitals residing in highly concentrated hospital markets received larger payments per adjusted patient day. The results suggest that careful monitoring of future relief payments is needed.
By Richard M. Scheffler, Daniel R. Arnold, Brent D. Fulton, Alexandra Peltz, Taylor L. Wang, and John Swartzberg | Published June 25, 2020 | Link to Report
Based on recent antibody studies that report about a 5% prevalence in California, we estimate the health care costs of treating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) to be $2.4 billion in California — six times the annual cost of influenza in the state. Costs vary dramatically across counties due to significant differences in population size, health care prices, and payer mix. Estimated costs are $617 million in Los Angeles, $64 million in San Francisco, and $204 million in San Diego. The cost per infected person is $1,326, $1,774, $289, and $629 for commercial, Medicare, Medi-Cal/CHIP, and uninsured enrollees, respectively. We also calculate the costs under scenarios of 15%, 30% and 60% prevalence — the latter being a lower threshold of the prevalence generally assumed to be needed before herd immunity is achieved. Our costing model will be updated as new information about the prevalence and health care utilization and costs are reported for California.
By Stephen M. Shortell, Richard M. Scheffler, Shivi Anand, and Daniel Arnold | Published May 8, 2019 | Link to Report
This Brief highlights 1) California’s comparative advantage in having a large number of integrated care model physician organizations; 2) provides evidence on their ability to provide lower cost, higher quality value-based care; and 3) proposes a plan for expanding such models across the state to meet the ongoing needs and preferences of all Californians that will have universal health insurance coverage.
By Richard M. Scheffler and Stephen M. Shortell | Published February 24, 2019 | Link to Full Report
As of 2017, California’s uninsured rate stands at just over 7 percent. Moving towards universal health coverage in California for the 3.72 million projected to be uninsured in 2020, of which about 1.5 million are undocumented, is a significant challenge but has considerable benefits. A healthier workforce will be more productive and absenteeism will decline.4 Moreover, taxes collected from these healthier workers will increase. All Californians will have their risk of disease lowered. Universal coverage will allow all Californians to have improved access to care so they can prevent and treat illnesses that can be passed on to others. Children will have a better start to life and there will be less absenteeism in schools. In addition, the expensive treatment in emergency rooms would surely decline. Beyond these benefits for all Californians, it is the right thing to do. Most Californians support universal coverage, but have reservations about the cost of doing so.
By Richard M. Scheffler and Stephen M. Shortell | Published February 8, 2019 | Link to White Paper | Link to Attendee List
Building on California’s distinct integrated health system we show how expanding it and using risk adjusted capitation payments are able to reduce spending and improve quality. Moreover, this approach puts California on a path that will achieve universal coverage. Finally, we provide a new plan to finance universal coverage in California.
A Report by the Petris Center | Published March 26, 2018 | Link to Full Report
This report details the rapid consolidation of the hospital, physician, and insurance markets in California from 2010 to 2016. It finds that the vast majority of counties in California warrant concern and scrutiny according to the DOJ/FTC Guidelines. It also finds that consumers are paying higher health care prices and ACA premiums as a result of market consolidation. The significant variation in prices and ACA premiums across the state – particularly the large discrepancy between Northern and Southern California – suggests regulatory and legislative solutions need to be implemented to address health care market concentration in California.
By Richard M. Scheffler, Brent D. Fulton, Donald D. Hoang, and Stephen M. Shortell | Published March 28, 2018 | Link to Full Report
Health expenditures in California continue to grow with respect to the state’s gross domestic product, resulting in healthcare becoming more unaffordable to the state, employers, and individuals. In this report, we project health spending in the California from 2015 to 2022. We then estimate potential reductions in spending from the Berkeley Forum for Improving California’s Healthcare Delivery System’s initiatives to increase the use of global budgets/integrated care systems, patient-centered medical homes, and palliative care. By 2022, these initiatives generate an estimated $15.4 billion in health spending reductions, an amount sufficient to provide universal health insurance coverage in the state at a cost of $7.2 billion. The State of California, the federal government, and the private sector should consider accelerating their programs related to these initiatives to help achieve these health expenditure reductions. A companion article “Financing Universal Coverage in California: A Berkeley Forum Roadmap” to this report was published on the Health Affairs Blog on March 29, 2018.
By Richard M. Scheffler, Daniel R. Arnold, Brent D. Fulton, and Sherry A. Glied | Published May 2016 in Health Affairs | Link to Full Article
Recent increases in market concentration among health plans, hospitals, and medical groups raise questions about what impact such mergers are having on costs to consumers. We examined the impact of market concentration on the growth of health insurance premiums between 2014 and 2015 in two Affordable Care Act state-based Marketplaces: Covered California and NY State of Health. We measured health plan, hospital, and medical group market concentration using the well-known Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) and used a multivariate regression model to relate these measures to premium growth. Both states exhibited a positive association between hospital concentration and premium growth and a positive (but not statistically significant) association between medical group concentration and premium growth. Our results for health plan concentration differed between the two states: it was positively associated with premium growth in New York but negatively associated with premium growth in California. The health plan concentration finding in Covered California may be the result of its selectively contracting with health plans.