High-Cost Hospitals Perhaps Thorniest Issue in Health Reform 2.0

cactus thorns

If i had to vote right now on what’s shaping up to be the thorniest, stickiest, trickiest issue as Massachusetts moves toward the cost-cutting phase of health reform, I’d say “High-cost hospitals.” Or to use the lingo, “Price disparities.”

I snitched the evocative adjective “thorny” from our amazing State House News Service colleagues in the political trenches of Beacon Hill, who wrote today about “one of the thornier issues” — “whether to charge high-cost providers a luxury tax to support cash-strapped safety net hospitals.”

They describe clearly contradictory views. On one side is Rep. Steve Walsh, the House point person on health reform, whose bill proposes the luxury tax of 10% on hospitals that charge more than 20% above the median price for their services and cannot justify the mark-up. On the other is Senate President Therese Murray, who “recently told the News Service she would not entertain the idea in eventual negotiations with the House.”

Sounds like a very definite no. The governor seems to be siding with President Murray; he has said he’s not convinced of the need for a luxury tax. At the other end, there are some who think even Rep. Walsh’s bill doesn’t go far enough, given repeated findings that the high prices at some hospitals do much to drive up health costs in Massachusetts, and that the high prices stem from “market clout,” not measurably better quality.

From State House News:

Walsh called Tuesday’s announcement of $628 million in federal support for new care and payment models at seven Massachusetts safety net hospital systems a “nice story,” but he said it did not change his thinking around a House proposal to tax high-cost providers and redistribute the money to hospitals that serve disproportionately high percentages of Medicaid patients. “There’s no tax in our bill. It’s a surcharge on high-cost hospitals that can’t show unique service or higher quality,” Walsh said, adding, “It’s doesn’t change my thinking. No.”

Following passage last week in the Senate of a health care cost containment bill, Senate President Therese Murray gave a short answer of “no” when asked whether she would entertain the idea of a so-called luxury tax on high-cost providers in eventual negotiations with the House. Walsh declined to comment on Murray’s position. “Didn’t see that,” he said.

  • Paul Levy

    How many times does this need to be documented by the Attorney General and others before it is taken seriously by the Legislature and the Governor.  Bravo to the House for trying to wrestle with it.  Even if the Senate does not agree with the House formulation, their approach to study the problem — again — is not sufficient.

    The current pricing regime is characterized by secret negotiations
    between the dominant insurance company and the dominant provider group,
    which  has led to persistent and pervasive over-pricing of
    that system’s services. This
    has imposed a tax on Massachusetts employers and individuals, in an
    amount that I would conservatively estimate as $200 million a year.

    There are lots of ways to have a regulatory regime in place
    that is not overly obtrusive.  We need to think about those because we
    can’t just hope the problem
    away.  My view is that there should be a rebuttable presumption that
    rates should be equal, unless the insurer can demonstrate to a
    rate-setting body that a differential is warranted.  This is different
    from normal public utility rate-setting or what existed before in the
    insurance world, but it would offer independent oversight over parties
    that clearly are not interested in solving the problem.

    • Reasonable?

       I would like to know Mr. Levy’s thoughts on vertical organizations like Steward and BMC being able to demonstrate Partner’s costs are way out of line.  It seems to me that those organizations could undercut  Partners on quality and cost on many of the more common conditions and proceedures. 

      I’m looking for something like US Airways vs. Southwest adn AirTran.

      Is the MA martket not big enough for that dynamic to unfold?