What the Reform Law Fails to Reform
Qualify for a free subscription to HealthLeaders magazine.
"Honestly, it's had no impact. We think that what needs to happen is fairly clear regardless of the legislation," he says. "We need higher-quality care at a lower cost and to design systems with our patients to make that happen. Some reimbursement gymnastics come into play, but the law didn't enact payment reform and wasn't helpful in making financial decisions."
Hospital and health system CEOs seem happy that the individual mandate was upheld, yet convinced that the most important work remains to be addressed: rising costs.
So if you thought the legislative work surrounding healthcare is over, you're in for a rude awakening.
Connelly says he believes it's good public policy to have an individual mandate and credits the law's insurance eligibility reform elements as "well done," but he says the most important threats to healthcare and the economy at large have been ignored. In other words, the "affordable" part of the title of the act, which, as I've written about before, is false advertising.
"The most important thing we needed to do—which is changing the payment model—the law didn't do," Connelly says.
- Readmissions: No Quick Fix to Costly Hospital Challenge
- How Top-Ranked MA Plans Earn Their Stars
- House Calls Key to Pioneer ACO Success
- How Telehealth Pays Off for Providers, Patients
- Ebola: Health Officials Try to Quell Front Line Fears
- Defensive Medicine Still Prevalent Despite Tort Reform
- 4 Ways to Lower the Cost to Collect from Self-Pay Patients
- 'Overtreatment' Debate Circles Back to Lung Cancer Screening
- How Hospitals Can Become 'Upstreamists'
- Partners HealthCare M&A Deal Under Scrutiny