Relentless Health Value

This show was one of the most popular episodes in the past 12 months, so enjoy this encore while I am in Chicago moderating a panel on pharmacy benefit management at the WTW Conference Board. But while I have you, I just wanted to thank everyone for listening. You really are a part of our Relentless Tribe, and I could not thank you enough for your commitment to doing the right thing for patients and for this country—and that dedication is evidenced by you listening as often as you do to Relentless Health Value. Our show has the largest following of individuals who are truly pushing hard for patients over profits, and since, according to LinkedIn anyway, 40% of our listeners are at the “highest level of seniority in their organization,” I’m guessing that we have the muscle to do this thing. Thanks for being part of the Relentless Tribe and for all that you do. In this healthcare podcast, I’m talking with Brian Klepper. If you haven’t heard of him, Brian’s a longtime healthcare analyst and former CEO of the Nat

I saw a Tweet from Farzad Mostashari, MD, the other day; and I’m gonna rewrite it in the context of today’s show: This is why we can’t have nice things! As soon as someone comes up with something that might accomplish some good things when done in moderation and with good intent, it gets exploited for revenue maximization. I have to admit, this conversation with Aaron Mitchell, MD, MPH, and actually the one with Mark Miller, PhD (EP380), from two episodes ago were both kind of painful for me—and let me tell you why. It’s the same reason I find conversations painful about hospitals or leading cancer centers or even some self-insured employers and EBCs (employee benefit consultants): It hurts my heart when some percentage of healthcare industry peeps who have the opportunity to produce so much good in the world instead choose to do stuff that is financially or otherwise toxic. But let me get to the point of today’s show. Dr. Aaron Mitchell and I are talking about conflicts of interest (COI), and we’re talking a

I was at the PanAgora Pharma Customer Experience (CX) Summit earlier this summer. Let me tell you one of my big takeaways. Many at pharma companies who are trying to convince their organizations of the need to be provider- and/or patient-centric are having a tough go of it. Heard that coming from every direction. Seems there are quite a few pharma organizations out there who are not actually customer/patient-centric. Say it isn’t so. Turns out, they continue to be pretty darn brand-centric whether or not anyone besides the CX team and the most successful KAMs (key account managers) realize this hard truth. This matters because, from a provider organization, physician, or patient standpoint, it’s not what’s written on the walls … it’s what goes on in the halls. It’s what a company actually does in their interactions with the rest of the healthcare ecosystem that matters and that builds their reputation. You see this lack of customer centricity and, et cetera et cetera, there are certainly other things going on

It’s been said that healthcare in this country will not be transformed because of some incremental government policy, nor will this industry transform because of some tech company who techs the crap out of healthcare. It’s been said that the only way the healthcare industry in this country is going to fundamentally change is vis-à-vis a seismic shift in the way Americans view the healthcare industry in their understanding of what is going on and the extent to which it directly impacts lives. You and I, all of us, have heard pundits say every year for a decade (at least) that this revolution is a-comin’ and that this year … no más. Americans cannot afford to pay any more in premiums or out of pocket. We have reached the brink. And year after year, we’ve discovered that, in fact, Americans as patients, members, and taxpayers can pay more and are willing to do so. Well, maybe right now we are actually cresting the chop. Medicare can now negotiate drug prices legislation. Maybe it’s a bit of a watershed moment he

This show with AJ Loiacono is different than others you may have heard with him because in this healthcare podcast, we are not talking about PBMs (pharmacy benefit managers). We’re talking about brokers and EBCs (employee benefit consultants). So, say I’m a self-insured employer. Here’s the big question: Is my broker or EBC helping me make the right decisions, or is he or she helping me make decisions that will make them the most money? While there are some amazing and totally above-board EBCs and brokers out there, unfortunately, caveat emptor is a thing. Buyer beware, that is. Too many self-serving and I’m sure very charming sharks are out there circling plan sponsors. It is currently a fact that some EBCs and brokers and even TPAs (third-party administrators) or PBMs or others take hidden kickbacks or fees or percentages. They make a lot of money, maybe the most money, in these secret ways. All this money, money paid in secret backroom deals—let’s not lose track, these dollars increase the total prices pai

Okay, so … telehealth for Medicare patients. Currently, there’s payment parity, meaning a clinician gets paid the same amount for a Medicare patient visit regardless of whether that patient comes in the office or has a telehealth encounter. Right? Or did that end already? And if it didn’t end, how much longer will payment parity continue? Also, is it the same for commercial and Medicaid patients? Congress makes rules for Medicare patients, but is it Congress that makes the rules for commercial and/or Medicaid telehealth reimbursement rates? Or how do those reimbursement decisions get made? What about the doing telehealth across state lines thing … the idea that if I’m a doc in New York, I can take a telehealth appointment with a patient in Arizona even though I am technically not licensed in Arizona? And who’s in charge of that? Yeah, I went into today’s conversation with Josh LaRosa, VP at Wynne Health Group, with a lot of questions. As you may suspect, this program is about telehealth. But just to level set

Late in May of this year, three-ish months ago, I did an inbetweenisode that explores the “why with the no collaboration” amongst healthcare stakeholders and what the lack of collaboration signifies. That episode got a lot of traction and engagement.   This episode that follows is a pretty good approximation of a presentation that I made at the MTVA (Moving to Value Alliance) symposium that happened in Connecticut this past June. If you listened to the earlier show about collaboration, this one is slightly different, shorter, and more to the point. So, let’s start here: When you listen to any patient with a chronic condition talk about their challenges with the healthcare industry—and yes, if a patient has a chronic condition, more often than not, that is what they will talk about, their challenges … I went on Twitter just now, and it took me literally 13 minutes to collect what I’m going to say are 300+ Tweets written by patients and their caregivers complaining about their chronic care journey. That’s the s

I wanted to resurface this episode because when it originally aired over a year ago, the topic may have been ever so slightly ahead of its time. Look, here we are right now with everybody trying to do three big things relative to measuring PCP (primary care provider) performance: Come up with a fair measure for PCP performance. Account for diverse populations with diverse risks so that some docs don’t get dinged because their patient populations have lots of comorbidities or behavioral health challenges or live in food deserts, or any one of the other social determinants of health. Not make measuring performance a total procedural nightmare. Right? We want fair measures, we want to account for equity issues essentially, and we want this whole measurement fandango to be as easy as possible. Enter Rebecca Etz, PhD, and The Larry A. Green Center with a really well-validated “instrument,” as she calls it, to measure primary care performance. I can think of more than one PCP frankly right off the top of my head

This encore episode seemed really apropos at this moment in time, since we’ve just basically published a course in the specialty pharmacy ecosystem, including who all of the various stakeholders are and what their vested interests are. Weirdly, in many of the episodes in the series/course, you’ll find the word patient in short supply. And that’s not a weird oversight in our podcast production. It is actually an egregious oversight in the specialty pharmacy market, an oversight with real human consequences, which I talk about with Olivia Webb in this encore. Check out a playlist of all of the specialty pharmacy episodes that comprise our series here.   If you listen to them all, let me know; and also let me know what you think and, I don’t know, maybe we’ll create a special certificate for you because at that point you will know more than 99.9% of the industry (even industry insiders) if you listen to the whole thing. Here’s the cold hard truth: The whole specialty pharmacy operational model is not built to se

Members taking specialty drugs represent about 2% of any given employer’s population but often consume as much as 30% of an employer’s total cost of care. As Pramod John, PhD, in EP353 has said, this isn’t just small companies we’re talking about here. Some of the largest employers in the US are dropping big bucks on specialty drugs, and they are obviously overpaying and don’t need to.  No employer or plan really need pay any more than the pharmacy’s acquisition price plus a reasonable professional fee. But so many employers pay way more than that. Let’s just keep in mind that specialty pharmacy spend extends beyond just pharmacy spend. Medical claims for pharma drugs that are infused, for example, can be more than 50% of an employer or plan’s specialty pharmacy spend. What I’m talking about now is buy and bill–type stuff where a hospital or physician practice bills for an infused pharmaceutical product under a patient’s medical benefit. Listen to EP370 with Autumn Yongchu and Erik Davis about how some hospit

Interoperability. Let’s just review a few key points that probably everybody listening knows but certainly bear repeating because they matter. I don’t want to dig into the technical or regulatory details of interoperability. That is above my pay grade. But I want to talk about the really important stuff that maybe doesn’t get talked about a whole lot because you say the word interoperability and it’s like the magic word that transports the unwary into the land of shadow and smoke and mist. It’s like a self-published YA (young adult) novel half the time. But let’s start here: First of all, consider that a lot of healthcare these days is conceived of as a scattering of micro-moments. It’s not even like we think of patients one at a time. We think about patients one ICD-10 code at a time. And we think about those ICD-10 codes in 20-minute increments whenever a patient happens to show up in clinic. The average Medicare patient these days sees five specialists and more than one PCP a lot of times. So, we’re not on

Medicare Advantage (MA), otherwise known as the “money machine,” is often the most profitable parts of many payers’ business lines. Medicare Advantage plans can make a lot of cash if they are good at what they do. Look at any of these large, consolidated carriers’ financial statements to get the magnitude of that statement. Also, in 2022, Medicare Advantage plans have enrolled 28 million participants between them, which represents 45% of all Medicare beneficiaries. This marks a three-point improvement in penetration over 2021 and a total program enrollment growth of 9%.   All of this is not a secret. So, what’s happening right now is that this administration is looking carefully at Medicare Advantage plans and what they have been up to. We have had an amping up of government oversight, including regulatory actions and program audits. In this healthcare podcast, I am speaking with Betsy Seals, who is CEO and cofounder of Rebellis Group, which is a managed care consulting firm working with Medicare Advantage pl

So, let’s put the last, I don’t know, 300 episodes of Relentless Health Value into perspective here. The USA wastes about $1.5 trillion a year on some combination of paying way too much for low-value care, fraud, and waste—$1.5 trillion down the drain. As my guest, Dave Chase, says in this healthcare podcast, if this was a country, what we waste would be the 11th biggest GDP in the world. We could call it Healthcare-istan. Meanwhile, outcomes aren’t anything to brag about on the world stage, and 41% of American adults have medical debt in this country. Also, all across the country, people making all kinds of healthcare decisions to save money that are clinically toxic. Financial toxicity is clinical toxicity, right? You know this already. You listen to this show. I just saw yet another study the other day—actually this one about cancer outcomes and how they are appreciably worse when patients are worried about how much money their treatment will cost. And a lot of people in this country—many people with a Par

In this healthcare podcast, I am speaking with Cora Opsahl, who directs the 32BJ Health Fund. This is the second conversation I’m having with Cora (last one was EP372), but these two conversations are not really linear—so listen in whatever order you want to.   Important to know about Cora’s background, in previous roles, she has worked deep in the inner sanctums of the healthcare industry. So, she came to 32BJ armed with a BS meter that’s finely tuned, which is, as I said last week, an unfortunately essential skill for anyone trying to help patients and members relying on them to successfully navigate the healthcare industry. Here’s a pivotal fact: 56% of total spend at the 32BJ Health Fund goes to hospitals. So, from a “making the juice worth the squeeze” perspective, focusing on hospital prices can have a lot of impact. This is doubly true because of the seriously huge price variations for the same exact types of services at different hospitals, even in the same local market. Because the 32BJ Health Fund d

In this healthcare podcast, I am speaking with Cora Opsahl, who directs the 32BJ Health Fund. Important to know about Cora’s background is this: In previous roles, she’s worked deep in the inner workings of the healthcare industry. So, she came to 32BJ armed with a BS meter that is finely tuned, which is, unfortunately, an essential skill for anyone trying to help the patients and members relying on them to successfully navigate the healthcare industry. So sorry to have to say that, but employers and unions, your employees and members need your help. If you do not help them, then your employees can find themselves defenseless against so many pit traps of financial toxicity and also clinical decision-making that is not made by patients and their clinicians in the service of improving patient outcomes but made by some other party in the service of financial maximization. It is really frightening what goes on in some cases. I really appreciated this interview with Cora Opsahl, which will be two shows, this week

I wanted to remind everyone about this show from last year because it’s becoming increasingly relevant. We have this weird thing going on where everybody seems to be talking about physician incentives and payments and financial implications but so often disregards patient incentives and payments and financial implications. Consider that we’re at a place in the time-space continuum where it is inarguable that financial toxicity has become clinical toxicity. Patients are increasingly in huge numbers abandoning care, splitting pills, doing all kinds of things to save money that are clinically toxic. And these are patients with “good insurance” that we are talking about here. So, here’s a role play: Provider organization is actually paying doctors for outcomes. In wanders a patient with a huge deductible. Doc says, “Wow, Patient … so important that you take your insulin or med as directed or get a follow-up on that scary colonoscopy finding.” Patient says, “Sorry, Doc. Can’t afford it.” And the doc gets dinged be

So, this is a 400-level episode in specialty pharmacy options for plan sponsors, meaning here are your prerequisites: You gotta know what buy and bill is, and you gotta know what pharmacy bagging is, meaning white bagging, for example. If you do not, I would listen to Encore! EP282 with Aaron Mitchell, MD, MPH, where we go deep on buy and bill. And then listen to EP369 for the skinny on pharmacy bagging. If you already know what buy and bill is and you already know what white bagging is, then not only do you know more than 98% of the people in the healthcare industry, but also, you’re going to get as much out of this conversation with Erik Davis and Autumn Yongchu as I did.   Last week’s show was also with Erik Davis and Autumn Yongchu. Last week, we talked about how some hospitals and cancer centers are managing to ring up up to six times the cost of an expensive-already injected or infused drug through buy and bill. This is why pharmacy bagging became a thing, if we want to talk about this in historical per

I have been on a mission to figure out why some health systems, particularly in the oncology space but not limited to the oncology space, could manage to mark up the price of infused specialty pharmacy drugs up to 6x. Some employers and patients are paying six times the cost of a specialty pharmacy drug in markup for some already incredibly expensive specialty pharmacy drug at some oncology centers. Read more about this in a study by Roy Xiao, MD, and colleagues. Let’s not forget now or ever that financial toxicity is clinical toxicity. This 6x is exactly how financial toxicity is operationalized. Many patients are charged a coinsurance percentage based on their cost of care, after all; and like 20% of 6x is a huge number, it is a huge bankrupting bill for some patients—maybe many patients. That, plus their premiums go up because, of course, their employers are picking up the remaining 80% of that 600% markup. Families are already, on average, paying I think it’s $22,000 in premium; and the trend line on that

Last week’s show was an encore episode with Dr. Aaron Mitchell (Encore! EP282), and we talked about buy and bill. To continue our exploration of specialty pharmacy intrigue, let’s talk about so-called “bagging.” I wanted to get an overview of all of the different kinds of specialty pharmacy bagging. Bagging is a big deal. If you have anything to do with trying to control pharmacy costs or the clinical outcomes of specialty pharmacy patients, you too are going to want to understand what’s going on here with bagging. I was thrilled to have a chance to chat with Keith Hartman, who is my guest in this healthcare podcast. He is the CEO of ContinuumRx. He’s a pharmacist by education and has been in the pharmacy space for over 25 years now, touching just about every aspect of pharmacy from retail operations to long-term care and now, most recently, home infusion. This makes him an ideal person to chat with about this topic. And FYI, it was not easy to find someone to do so to clearly see the actions and reactions go

After that recent episode with Scott Haas (EP365), where we talked about the real deal with PBM contracting, I kicked into high gear trying to untangle this whole apocalyptic honky-tonk we call benefits for prescription drugs. Notice I did not say prescription drug benefits because that would imply that pharmaceuticals are only charged for under the umbrella of pharmacy benefits. Ha ha, that would be just too easy. No, some pharma drugs are charged as part of patients’ medical benefits. An amazing primer for what that looks like in the real world follows.   Just pointing out that any self-respecting healthcare market distortion deserves another, and if anything qualifies as a market distortion, it’s buy and bill—what I talk about with Dr. Mitchell in this healthcare podcast. In the following weeks, we’ll chat about how the market has responded to this buy and bill market distortion that we talk about in this episode. So, next week, we’re gonna get into all the different kinds of bagging: the so-called brown b