0 The Dilemma of Medicare Coverage of Reasonable and Necessary Care and Why Its Important

If you get sick, health insurance should cover all the "stuff" necessary to make you better, right?

While that sounds good in principle, Uncle Sam has made it a lot more complicated than that.  As we continue to struggle with health orm, this New England Journal article on "Medicares Enduring Struggle to Define Reasonable and Necessary Care" is very timely.

According to Drs. Neumann and Chambers, Medicare has always covered medical services that are "reasonable and necessary." As new approaches, drugs and medical technologies have been released, youd think coverage would be based on an objective analysis of outcomes and cost effectiveness.

Youd be wrong.

Years of differing interpretations, patient advocacy, Congressional meddling, regulatory carve-outs and case law have generated a miasma of bureaucratic complexity that will guarantee the incomes of thousands of lawyers for years to come.

Not that CMS hasnt tried to be reasonable about "reasonable and necessary." According to the article, in 1989 CMS specifically proposed that the words "cost effective" could be used to assess new technology. That proved too controversial. It later tried "least costly alternative language" for coverage of durable medical equipment and Part B medications.  This too was dismantled by the courts when plaintiffs argued that the term "reasonable and necessary" could only be applied to medical services, not to the costs of those services.

How ironic. Even though CMS is making "value-based purchasing" judgements for hospital payments and costs can be factored in the coverage of preventive services, that still doesnt apply to new technologies and drugs.

The latest dysfunction is CMS pretzel logic of "coverage with evidence  development" approach to medical devices, essentially agreeing to coverage that is conditional on CMS evaluation of additional outcomes data.  Unfortunately, CMS ability to collect and interpret these kinds of data in the current political environment remains an open question.

Outside of Medicares cost travails, why is all of this important?

1) Medicares price tag was $509 billion in 2010, taking 12% of the federal budget. While there are other drivers of cost, such as aging, coverage arrangements, income, pricing, administrative costs and defensive medicine, technology could account from 38% to more than 65% of the current growth (inflation) in spending.  Medicares historic inability to control this does not bode well for future cost projections.

2) This is not a partisan issue and there are no partisan solutions.

3) Commercial insurers generally use Medicares coverage criteria to define their own benefit structure.  Medicares problems are everyone elses.

4) This is another reason why Medicare is banking on ACOs.  By delegating management and the associated risk of all these thorny coverage issues, theyre hoping ACOs can do within three years what CMS couldnt do in three decades. Well see.

0 A Junk Food Tax Reasonable Public Health Measure or Evidence of a Nanny State

By now, you might have heard about the “junk food tax” or “fat tax.” No doubt, you’ve read a few articles and thought, “This is a wonderful idea!” or “Man, what are these people smoking?” At a potluck this past weekend, a few friends debated the notion, and reactions seemed to mirror those sentiments.

If you haven’t heard of the junk food tax, the idea is this: to help curb obesity, the government would add a tariff on to unhealthy foods, such as soda and pizza. While no concrete legislation has been passed (as far as I’m aware), the specter of the tax has ignited some debate. Will it really help our weight problems? Is it fair to tax people who can’t afford healthy food? Aren’t we capable of choosing what we eat? Where would it end?

I’m of two minds on this.

• When I consider the overall health of the nation, taxing junk food seems like a decent idea. Though education would ultimately be the best way of solving our obesity problem, it will take awhile. A tariff, on the other hand, is an immediate solution, and according to a recent study, might be more effective than subsidizing produce. Not to mention, the extra funds raised by the tax could go toward programs encouraging healthier behaviors. We tax booze and cigarettes, so why not junk food?

• When I consider me – just me – my answer is very, very different. I can control my own intake, and don’t think I should be punished financially for wanting the occasional Pepperidge Farm Mint Milano (a.k.a. What Cookies Must Be Like in Heaven).

I’m curious as to your opinions, though, sweet readers, and would love to read your thoughts. Based on the arguments, I’ll compose a piece for next week outlining the good and bad points of the idea in more depth, as well as the readers’ general consensus.

The comment section is open: What’s your opinion of a potential junk food tax?

(Needless to say, please keep it civil.)