The American Hospital Association (AHA) has opposed legislation that could lead to site-neutral payment cuts and threaten access to patient care. The AHA senior vice president stated that hospitals have more comprehensive requirements, and emergency care needs that other healthcare settings don’t have. The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health discussed 17 bills and discussion drafts, including price transparency, the 340B Drug Pricing Program, physician-owned hospitals, and Medicaid disproportionate share hospital reductions. AHA opposes any measures that would increase site-neutral payment cuts and support a two-year delay to Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital cuts.
The American Hospital Association (AHA) is opposing legislation that could lead to additional site-neutral payment cuts and put access to patient care in jeopardy. Ashley Thompson, the AHA senior vice president of public policy analysis and development, expressed this opposition during a recent hearing before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health. The hearing focused on several legislative proposals that could affect hospitals and other parts of the healthcare system.
Thompson emphasized that site-neutral policies are not neutral at all. Hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs) treat patients who are often older, poorer, sicker, and have more complex medical conditions than in other healthcare settings. Additionally, hospitals are subject to more comprehensive licensing, accreditation, and regulatory requirements, and they are required to maintain standby capacity for disasters, public health emergencies, and unexpected traumatic events, as well as deliver emergency care regardless of insurance status.
The subcommittee released 17 bills and discussion drafts covering a range of topics, including price transparency, the 340B Drug Pricing Program, physician-owned hospitals, and Medicaid disproportionate share hospital reductions, among others.
Price transparency has been an area of focus for hospitals, and they have made significant progress in complying with the regulations. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services report that 70% of hospitals have complied with both parts of the regulation. According to Thompson, hospitals are keen to keep up their compliance efforts, and the Transparent PRICE Act gives them a chance to do so.
The 340B program is essential for assisting hospitals in making the most of scarce federal funds and increasing access to healthcare for citizens. 340B hospitals are already required to certify that they have met all program requirements, recertify their eligibility every year, take part in audits carried out by the Health Resources and Services Administration and pharmaceutical companies, and keep track of all 340B and non-340B prescription drug inventories. According to Thompson, any initiatives that promote transparency for 340B providers should also increase transparency for pharma corporations. The AHA would oppose any efforts to impose significant additional reporting requirements for 340B hospitals.
The AHA opposes changes that would either expand the number of physician-owned hospitals or ease restrictions on the growth of existing facilities. Studies show that physician-owned hospitals cherry-pick patients who are less medically complex and more financially lucrative and provide limited or no emergency services.
The AHA strongly supports legislation that would delay for two years cuts to Medicaid DSH hospitals scheduled to begin Oct. 1. Hospitals care for a significant number of low-income, uninsured, and Medicaid patients, and the Medicaid DSH program is critical to maintaining access to essential services for these individuals, according to Thompson.
Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and other witnesses spoke at the session.
