UK: Health Care Policy Mayhem…and a Very Public Scandal

Robert Royce

Those seeking some clarity regarding the future of health care policy in the UK will be forgiven for being baffled by recent events. First up was an abortive attempt by the government to introduce a requirement for National Health Service commissioners (known as clinical commissioning groups – see my article on “Health Care Reform in England” in the August, 2012 issue of Managed Care to undertake formal market testing of services. This may not seem unduly controversial – indeed in many countries it’s a legal requirement, especially as these can be multi-million dollar contracts  – but the announcement was greeted by uproar from a wide variety of groups  – including doctors  – as heralding the privatization of the NHS.

A rapid U-turn followed, perhaps revealing the fragile nature of the current Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition and its lack of conviction on the matter of ensuring that more competition is introduced into the NHS. The offending paragraphs have been rewritten but the issue will continue to bubble along, not least because there is a view that anything other than formal competitive tendering will eventually be deemed illegal.

There was further disappointment for those hoping for more private sector involvement in the running of NHS hospitals with the result of a review of three hospitals that made up an organization known as South London NHS Trust (SLHT). When it was declared no longer financially viable (it had been running massive deficits), there was some expectation that one or more of the hospitals would be run/taken over by a private health care company. Despite some expressions of interest by the private sector, it was recommended that the three hospitals be acquired by neighbouring NHS organizations. One reason given for that decision was that an open procurement process would take too long.

As a further illustration of how far this process departed from a “normal” insolvency regime, you have a key recommendation to downgrade the services of a neighbouring hospital to the three that formed SLHT. This action is akin to a bankruptcy of a firm where the administrators solve that firm’s problem by deciding to shut down a rival enterprise. Unsurprisingly, this is now subject to a legal challenge —which will delay implementation of all the proposals, thus undermining the reason given for not going to a procurement process to see who should run these hospitals!

All of this has taken place against a backdrop of unparalleled criticism of the managerial culture of the NHS and the quality of care being delivered. The catalyst for this has been a long-awaited report of a public inquiry into poor care delivered by Mid Staffordshire NHS trust. The Francis Report, after the judge, Robert Francis who conducted the inquiry, has severely criticized the way the two hospitals were run and the wider managerial culture of an NHS seen as obsessed with hitting financial and performance targets at the expense of individual patient care. There have been widespread public and media demands for the head of the NHS in England, Sir David Nicholson, to resign, and considerable dismay about a perceived wider lack of accountability for what went on.

A recent survey of chairmen of NHS Trusts in England has revealed that 74 percent think there are other hospitals with similar problems to Mid Staffs. Given the catalogue of neglect documented in the Francis Report, one hopes they are wrong. It is very likely that the next few years will bring a whole raft of failing NHS hospitals into the headlights. What to do about them remains less than clear….

Robert Royce, PhD, is an independent health care consultant and writer in the United Kingdom. Twitter:DRROBERTROYCE

Managed Care’s Top Ten Articles of 2016

There’s a lot more going on in health care than mergers (Aetna-Humana, Anthem-Cigna) creating huge players. Hundreds of insurers operate in 50 different states. Self-insured employers, ACA public exchanges, Medicare Advantage, and Medicaid managed care plans crowd an increasingly complex market.

Major health care players are determined to make health information exchanges (HIEs) work. The push toward value-based payment alone almost guarantees that HIEs will be tweaked, poked, prodded, and overhauled until they deliver on their promise. The goal: straight talk from and among tech systems.

They bring a different mindset. They’re willing to work in teams and focus on the sort of evidence-based medicine that can guide health care’s transformation into a system based on value. One question: How well will this new generation of data-driven MDs deal with patients?

The surge of new MS treatments have been for the relapsing-remitting form of the disease. There’s hope for sufferers of a different form of MS. By homing in on CD20-positive B cells, ocrelizumab is able to knock them out and other aberrant B cells circulating in the bloodstream.

A flood of tests have insurers ramping up prior authorization and utilization review. Information overload is a problem. As doctors struggle to keep up, health plans need to get ahead of the development of the technology in order to successfully manage genetic testing appropriately.

Having the data is one thing. Knowing how to use it is another. Applying its computational power to the data, a company called RowdMap puts providers into high-, medium-, and low-value buckets compared with peers in their markets, using specific benchmarks to show why outliers differ from the norm.
Competition among manufacturers, industry consolidation, and capitalization on me-too drugs are cranking up generic and branded drug prices. This increase has compelled PBMs, health plan sponsors, and retail pharmacies to find novel ways to turn a profit, often at the expense of the consumer.
The development of recombinant DNA and other technologies has added a new dimension to care. These medications have revolutionized the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and many of the other 80 or so autoimmune diseases. But they can be budget busters and have a tricky side effect profile.

Shelley Slade
Vogel, Slade & Goldstein

Hub programs have emerged as a profitable new line of business in the sales and distribution side of the pharmaceutical industry that has got more than its fair share of wheeling and dealing. But they spell trouble if they spark collusion, threaten patients, or waste federal dollars.

More companies are self-insuring—and it’s not just large employers that are striking out on their own. The percentage of employers who fully self-insure increased by 44% in 1999 to 63% in 2015. Self-insurance may give employers more control over benefit packages, and stop-loss protects them against uncapped liability.