Category Archives: transparency
March 23, 2018 | FAH Policy Blog Team
Today, FAH submitted a letter in response to a request from Senators Cassidy, Bennet, Grassley, Carper, Young, and McCaskill. The Senators recently launched a bipartisan effort to increase health care price and information transparency to empower patients, improve quality, and lower costs.
April 18, 2017 | Chip Kahn
Category: Health Care Delivery, Quality, Transparency
Measures that matter, return on investment, and meaningful reporting – these are three things our industry needs to focus on as we look to the future of value based payments.
October 09, 2015 | FAH Hospital Policy Blog Team
Category: Affordable Care Act, HIT, Medicaid, Medicare, Transparency
On Wednesday, FAH President & CEO Chip Kahn gave the keynote speech at the HIMSS Policy Summit during National Health IT Week. Healthcare IT News spotlighted Kahn’s health care expertise in a piece this week: 8 healthcare insights from a longtime Washington insider. Kahn offered key observations on challenges facing the industry both politically and internationally:
June 05, 2014 | FAH Hospital Policy Blog
The letter submitted by the FAH in response to the Federal Trade Commission’s March 2014 Examining Health Care Competition workshop centers on price and quality transparency. It also includes our recommendations on a third, critically important issue: the corporate practice of medicine. The FAH believes the FTC should reexamine the anti-competitive effects of the corporate practice of medicine doctrine.
Defined as “the practice of corporations hiring physicians for purposes of generating profits”, state corporate practice of medicine restrictions have been in place since the turn of the 20th century. While these restrictions are intended to protect the public from corporate interference with medical care and restrictions on physicians’ autonomy and discretion, they also prevent the development of new competitive models of care delivery.
Given the changes in the health care landscape, the need for and effectiveness of corporate practice of medicine protection are increasingly being called into question. With the rise of managed care and the advent of increasingly integrated care delivery, we must examine whether the public benefit of ensuring greater physician autonomy outweighs the public benefit of enabling providers the flexibility to form more effective care models.
In many instances, state corporate practice of medicine policies contain exceptions or unintended loopholes that cannot be justified as creating a public benefit when weighed against the costs. These exceptions and loopholes create a very uneven playing field among competing providers, that doesn’t add up to sound public policy
At the same time, the corporate practice restrictions that originally drew the FTC’s attention to the doctrine in the 1970s largely remain in place. They continue to create significant and unwarranted anticompetitive effects and obstacles to innovation. More broadly, they raise a fundamental question: whether old regulatory models serve the goals of modern reform.
Health care providers actively are implementing the “Triple Aim” imperatives of increasing quality, lowering costs, and improving access. Yet in certain states, these goals are stymied by a corporate practice of medicine doctrine that is archaic, outdated, and which stifles market competition and innovation.This is why we believe this doctrine should be reevaluated and deserves the renewed attention of the FTC.
Refocusing attention on this issue will help promote competition and innovation through:
* Flexibility in creating better models of care delivery;
* Innovation in creating new payment models;
* A level playing field for providers; and,
* Better care for patients.
As healthcare markets evolve and move increasingly toward greater integration and more managed care systems, providers must have the freedom to evolve with the marketplace. Stipulations put in place ostensibly to protect consumers but which ultimately drive competition out of the marketplace must be reassessed and revised. Consumers are best protected by marketplace-based competition and innovation allowing the transition to a new healthcare system and its potential to bring better, more efficient and value-driven care to patients.
- Public Charge Rule Could Have Chilling Effect on Access to Care
- REPORT: A Medicare Public Option Puts Majority of Rural Hospitals at Risk
- In the News – FAH’s Study on Modernizing the HCAHPS Patient Experience Survey
- Joint Statement from National Hospitals Associations on Proposed CY 2020 OPPS Rule