Health care spending

Who Should Be Allowed to Help Patients Pay Health Costs?

By M2|2018-06-06T17:07:51+00:00June 6th, 2018|Health care spending, Health Care Trends, Health Reform, Insurance, Medicaid, Medicare, Out-of-pocket spending, Reimbursement, State Health Initiatives, Uncategorized|

Who Should Be Allowed to Help Patients Pay Health Costs?

If you can’t pay your health insurance premium, should you be allowed to have someone else pay it for you? What about your deductible? Your co-insurance or a copayment? These might seem like trick questions, but no. There really are circumstances when a person can’t receive help for health care costs. In the past few years, this has become a hot topic in health policy circles as health care costs continue to rise. At issue is a fundamental question we have considered before: whose health care costs should be managed, those of the healthy or the sick? Is it better to have sick people pay more so that healthy people who buy insurance can keep their premiums low? Or is it better to spread catastrophic health costs across larger pools of people so everyone pays a little in order to avoid ever paying a lot?

Third-party payments: Friend or foe?

When the Affordable Care Act was being debated nearly a decade ago, the American Enterprise Institute correctly pointed out, the entire U.S. health care system “relies on a third-party payment system.” That is, either individuals or employers make payments to insurers who in turn make payments to health care providers, or taxpayer money is used to pay health care providers who care for people covered by Medicaid, Medicare, TriCare or other public programs.

While the big picture debate of how to finance and provide health care services and for whom continues, this blog is focused on a more specific type of third-party payments (TPP). Right now, states and the feds are being asked to weigh in on which third parties should be allowed to pay insurance premiums or healthplan-required cost sharing, for example, a deductible or a health care service or product copayment. The debate at this moment is focused on people with chronic, severe, or expensive health care needs – people who need kidney dialysis, for example. The feds have been trying to work out guardrails since 2013 related to whether a third-party organization can pay for a person’s premiums in the state insurance exchanges. (For a deeper dive, go here). California has also joined the fray and is considering a bill, SB 1156, “Health care service plans: 3rd-party payments,” setting forth who will be allowed to make TPP for health insurance premiums.

Representing the “foe” side is America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP). A recent brief titled “How Third-Party Premium Payments Can Harm Consumers and Destabilize Markets” argues that TPPs from “entities steering Medicare and Medicaid eligible beneficiaries into qualified health plans (QHPs) sold through the Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplaces…can increase the number of older and less healthy individuals in the individual market risk pool, resulting in higher premiums for all consumers and further destabilizing the market.” In support of SB 1156, the California Labor Federation presents a similar point-of-view, arguing that allowing TPPs of premiums for individuals with chronic or severe illnesses “also shifts costs onto commercial plans, driving up health care spending and increasing premiums for Californians already struggling with rising costs.” Who should pay when a person is sick? Is it always the better choice to shift costs to taxpayers by requiring a person who needs dialysis to enroll in Medicaid or Medicare, as AHIP suggests? How should we balance the interests of individuals and employers who want low health care premiums with the needs of patients with high health care costs?

Representing the “friend” side is The Commonwealth Fund in “Assessing the Promise and Risks of Income-Based Third-Party Payment Programs.” Their brief acknowledges the policy debate outlined above regarding TPP programs serving patients with specific health diagnoses, but focuses on TPP programs that address health care costs for a different population, noting, “History suggests that TPP programs can address low-income consumers’ affordability concerns on a large scale.”

Many of the guardrails set forth by The Commonwealth Fund parallel the California bill, including basing eligibility for TPP on income and paying “consumers’ premium shares from the point of enrollment through the end of the coverage year, thus preventing short-term enrollment that ends once a course of treatment is complete.” These guardrails seem to address several of the foe’s concerns. First, basing TPP on income means both the healthy and the sick can gain access to health insurance, which makes it much less likely that premiums rise due to a sicker risk pool. Second, AHIP argues consumers can be harmed “particularly if the third party stops making premium and cost-sharing payments once initial treatment is received, which could result in serious or life-threatening interruptions in access to care.” Requiring entities that provide TPPs to pay for more than just initial treatment addresses the foe’s concern.

I’m an aunt. Can I pay for my nephew’s prescription drug cost sharing?

One of the remaining concerns at the heart of TPP for health insurance premiums or health plan required cost-sharing (such as co-payments) relates to whether the organization making the TPP is motivated by financial gain or is steering patients to specific health care products, services, or providers. Federal law prohibits most TPPs in federal health programs, for example, Medicaid and Medicare, considering the TPPs to be in violation of one or another fraud and abuse law, such as the Anti-Kickback Statute and the Physician Self-Referral Law (Stark law).

While it makes sense that a health care provider should not be allowed to accept bribes, it is much less clear who should be allowed to help patients pay health costs. The way the U.S. health care system works today, if a person is not eligible for government-sponsored health care (for example, through Veterans Affairs, Medicare, or Medicaid) and they cannot pay for individual health care costs, whether premiums or cost-sharing such as copayments or deductibles, the person can usually be denied care. To be clear, AHIP is arguing that private entities, or groups of people, cannot come together and help such an individual make the health plan-required payments. The California bill says, “Any member of the individual’s family” can make a TPP, but then goes on to define “family” only to “include the individual’s spouse, domestic partner, child, parent, grandparent and siblings.”

This begs the question of what should be allowed when it comes to TPPs. What entities should be allowed to pay for patient’s health care costs?

Medical crowdfunding, such GoFundMe campaigns?
Health care sharing ministries?
Contributions gathered voluntarily by employees to help a co-worker with cost-sharing requirements? Or by a congregation to help a fellow churchgoer?
Employer emergency funds?
Family members helping family members, (let’s say Aunts, for example…)

It is quite clear that the alternative to the TPP being made is no payment being made, which certainly would cause an interruption in access to care for the patient who needs it. Like most health policy issues, TPPs can be either friend or foe and a one size fits all policy won’t work. Creating guardrails focused on allowing entities, including those in the list above, help patients pay their medical bills should be paramount.

Paying to Address Social Determinants of Health: Medicare Advantage to Offer “Supplemental Benefits”

By M2|2018-05-07T14:32:50+00:00May 4th, 2018|Health care spending, Health Care Trends, Medicare, Social Determinants of Health, Uncategorized, What do we pay for and why|

Paying to Address Social Determinants of Health: Medicare Advantage to Offer “Supplemental Benefits”

CMS recently announced it will change its policy regarding Medicare Advantage plans and the scope of “supplemental benefits” these plans may offer. As of the 2019 plan year, CMS says it is reinterpreting existing law and expanding the options that Medicare Advantage plans may offer to enrollees.

In the past, CMS has not allowed an item or service to be eligible as a supplemental benefit – an additional benefit beyond the standard benefits under traditional Medicare – “if the primary purpose includes daily maintenance,” the agency says.

However, in the 2019 final Call Letter for Medicare Advantage, CMS says the policy change will “expand the scope of the primarily health-related supplemental benefit standard” to allow benefits used to “diagnose, prevent, or treat an illness or injury, compensate for physical impairments, act to ameliorate the functional/psychological impact of injuries or health conditions, or reduce avoidable emergency and healthcare utilization.”

Items and services under this expanded scope could include things like “air conditioners for people with asthma, healthy groceries, rides to medical appointments and home-delivered meals,” a recent article in Kaiser Health News notes.

Transportation, different food options, and items such as grab bars in bathrooms might be covered options now. While a physician’s order or prescription is not necessary, the new benefits must still be “medically appropriate” and recommended by a licensed health care provider.

While public health types (me included) often focus on explaining what a social determinant of health is and how it could be addressed in order to improve health equity, this policy change is significant in that it attaches payment to interventions – even if they are not clinical – that could lead to improved health.

Separately, the most recent federal budget agreement lifts the annual caps on the amount Medicare pays for physical, occupational, or speech therapy, and streamlines the medical review process. This policy change will apply to both traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage enrollees.

As of Jan. 1, Medicare beneficiaries will be eligible for therapy indefinitely as long as their provider confirms their need for therapy and they continue to meet other requirements. Also, under a 2013 court settlement, enrollees will not lose coverage “simply because they have a chronic disease that doesn’t get better,” KHN says.

In an interview with KHN, Judith Stein, executive director, Center for Medicare Advocacy, said, “Put those two things together and it means that if the care is ordered by a doctor and it is medically necessary to have a skilled person provide the services to maintain the patient’s condition, prevent or slow decline, there is not an arbitrary limit on how long or how much Medicare will pay for that.”

These are innovative moves on CMS’s part; they show the agency recognizes the need for a more holistic approach to health care for Medicare enrollees and that it’s willing to address the social determinants of health, such as the impact of the home environment on a patient’s health.

CMS is now moving beyond purely “medical” treatments for Medicare Advantage enrollees and addressing broader aspects of health. We get what we pay for, and by covering different types of care, CMS is encouraging actions that may lead to improved health outcomes and avoidance of some preventable health events for patients.

It’s a Hospital, It’s a Health Plan, It’s Both!

By M2|2018-04-20T18:55:42+00:00April 20th, 2018|Health care spending, Health Plans, Hospitals, Insurance, Medicaid, Medicare, Uncategorized|

It’s a Hospital, It’s a Health Plan, It’s Both!

Tufts Health Plan (Watertown, MA) and hospital company Hartford HealthCare (Hartford, CT) have announced a joint venture to form an insurance company, which will focus on providing those over 65 who qualify for Medicare the alternative of purchasing a Medicare Advantage plan.

The “twist” with this joint venture is that it will bring together an insurer and a hospital firm in one company and “it’s a first for Connecticut.”

Like many of the new health care collaborations sprouting up, such as Aetna-CVS and Berkshire Hathaway, Amazon and JPMorgan, the name of the game right now is using data better to try to lower costs.

Hartford is looking to Tufts Health Plan to bring “insights around closing gaps in care, identifying members who have needs they may not even be aware of and better coordination of care,” James Cardon, Hartford’s chief integration officer, told the Hartford Courant. Tufts has 1.1 million members across New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island.

Collaborations between health plans and providers are not unknown; however, they are in “relative infancy, and many of the approaches don’t involve as extensive as a commitment that is implied and inherent in a joint venture,” according to Tufts CEO Thomas Croswell.

A key advantage of the joint venture is that it will combine clinical data from Hartford with claims data from Tufts Health Plan, giving the partners the ability to reach out to members. Inherent in these concepts is reaching patients before they have serious health care needs.

Hartford HealthCare CEO Elliot Joseph explained the joint venture was built specifically to address both organizations’ realization that there’s room for improvement in care for patients with chronic conditions, especially in helping seniors manage their care in order to avoid hospitalizations. If reducing costs is the goal, it makes sense that Tufts and Hartford HealthCare are focusing initially on seniors, given their high use of health care services; however, such a strategy is unlikely to work for other populations.

In another example of provider-insurer consolidation, Centene Corp., a Medicaid managed care insurer and the “dominant health plan on the Affordable Care Act exchanges,” plans to buy Florida-based primary-care provider Community Medical Group.

Community Medical will boost Centene’s scale and capabilities around care delivery, and Centene will gain access to the provider’s patient population.

Community Medical Group operates 13 medical centers and two specialty centers serving more than 70,000 Medicaid, Medicare Advantage, and Affordable Care Act exchange patients in Miami-Dade County, FL. As of the end of last year, Centene had 848,000 Florida plan members, and that number is expected to increase as it grows membership in the ACA exchange in Florida.

Centene also announced recently that it has agreed to buy MHM Services, a provider of health care and staffing services to correctional facilities and government agencies, serving 330,000 people.

This strategic approach is all about controlling where plan members receive care, similar to previous deals where an insurer buys a provider group. UnitedHealth Group’s Optum subsidiary bought DaVita’s medical group and acquired Surgical Care Affiliates last year. Humana also bought home healthcare provider Kindred Healthcare last year.

The health care system in the U.S. is changing rapidly. With less direction (or interference, depending on your point of view) from the federal government, health plans and provider groups are leading the way in creating new approaches for care delivery. Whether payers, including employers and consumers are better off, is yet to be seen.

Both Patients and Hospitals Tend to Avoid Care that Costs More – One Health Plan in MA is Trying to Address This

By M2|2018-03-01T20:30:49+00:00March 1st, 2018|Evidence-Based Medicine, Health care spending, Health Plans, Hospitals, Insurance, Out-of-pocket spending, Uncategorized, What do we pay for and why|

Both Patients and Hospitals Tend to Avoid Care that Costs More – One Health Plan in MA is Trying to Address This

Despite evidence that cervical cancer is most effectively treated with brachytherapy (a form of radiation), Medicare reimbursement for a less effective treatment, external beam radiation, is higher, according to an article in Healthcare Finance News. Additionally, the delivery costs of brachytherapy in hospitals is greater than for external beam radiation.

The lower cost of delivery combined with higher Medicare reimbursement means external beam radiation is four times more profitable than brachytherapy for a hospital – despite being the less effective treatment.

The study by Kristine Bauer-Nilsen, University of Virginia School of Medicine, et al., published in Radiation Oncology, evaluated the delivery costs, using time-driven activity-based costing, and reimbursement for definitive radiation therapy for locally advanced cervical cancer.

Brachytherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer “ends up costing hospitals money because it takes 80-plus percent more physician personnel time to administer brachytherapy than it does to deliver the increasingly popular external beam radiation,” the article says. Even though it costs more for hospitals to provide brachytherapy than it does to provide external-beam radiation, the reimbursement doesn’t reflect the difference. Which in turn means, “the comparatively poor reimbursement rates may mean some hospitals simply don’t offer brachytherapy or commit physician time to it” as Jeff Lagasse, the author of the Healthcare Finance News piece succinctly concludes.

Businesses naturally do the things that pay them more. This study highlights how reimbursement has to change before health providers will change. “Value based care,” envisioned by policymakers mean the system as a whole only pays for health interventions that are valuable. But what is of value to the system is different than what is of value to a health care business, for example, a hospital or physician group.

Similarly, what a patient values, might be different from every other entity in the health care system. Just as financial incentives may drive hospitals’ choice of therapies, they also affect patients’ decision making when it comes to managing chronic conditions. Now, a health plan in Massachusetts is aiming to remove the financial incentives that lead patients to avoid needed care. In order to incentivize patients to “manage their conditions optimally and proactively,” Neighborhood Health Plan (NHP) is waiving out-of-pocket costs for chronic conditions.

The new comprehensive benefit design, called Care Complement, eliminates copays for 11 common prescription medications that treat conditions like high cholesterol, diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, and depression. The program also waives cost sharing associated with cardiac rehabilitation therapy and screenings to prevent diabetes complications, according to a recent AHIP (America’s Health Insurance Plans) blog.

“With certain chronic conditions, such as diabetes, there are often many recommended services to fully control the condition and reduce the risk of complications,” Dr. Anton Dodek, chief medical officer at NHP, says in the blog. “For diabetes, these recommendations include an annual routine eye exam, diabetic education, and nutritional counseling. Each of these office visits typically require a co-payment from the member, and can create a barrier to receiving care.”

The program also offers “affordable alternatives to opioids for chronic pain.” For example, it waives cost-sharing for medication-assisted therapies (MAT), as well as expenses for recovery coaches. And it gives physicians the resources needed to “help determine if their patients would benefit from alternative pain management treatments, such as physical therapy/occupational therapy sessions, chiropractic visits, and acupuncture visits.”

“By eliminating cost sharing, we hope that members will be encouraged to work with their doctors to manage their conditions optimally and proactively, which will result in healthier outcomes in the long run,” Dr. Dodek says.

Neighborhood Health Plan’s approach is exactly the kind of approach that we need more of; by adjusting financial incentives for patients to choose the most “valued” care for their chronic conditions, this plan is moving beyond looking at short-term costs, and instead is looking at the big picture. By helping patients with what they value – lower costs and higher quality – the health plan is likely to improve health outcomes in the long term.

Value based payment is harder than it looks. These examples shed light on what doesn’t work, and what does. Policymakers need to both copy success, and halt failure if they want to bend the cost curve.

Health Care Expenditures and You. Know Your Numbers.

By M2|2018-02-16T16:58:12+00:00February 15th, 2018|Health care spending, Health Care Trends, Medicaid, Uncategorized|

Health Care Expenditures and You.

Know Your Numbers.

As a Valentine’s Day gift to health policy types, the economists in the Office of the Actuary at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) published the National Health Expenditure Projections for 2017–26 and Health Affairs published an insightful analysis, as well. The storyline has been pretty consistent for the past few years and looking forward to 2026, several trends are intact:

The U.S. population is aging, which is pushing health cost trends higher.
Medicare spending is growing faster than private spending as Baby Boomers age out of private insurance plans through their employers and into Medicare.
A “higher share of aged and disabled enrollees” continues to contribute to faster growth in Medicaid spending.

The topline is that health spending growth, provided there are no significant policy changes, is expected to increase around 5 to 6 percent per year from 2017-2026. If this is estimate is correct, by 2026 health care will account for nearly 20 percent of the U.S. economy, compared to 17.9 percent in 2016. Digging deeper into the estimates reveals some items that may not have crossed your radar yet:

The rate of 5.5 percent per year from 2017-2016 is much less than the 7.3 percent average increase per year the U.S. experienced from 1990-2007.
Prices for medical goods and services saw historically low growth rates of just 1.1 percent per year between 2014 and 2016, and will average 2.5 percent per year in 2017–26.
The projected price increases for medical goods and services at 2.5 percent is much lower than the 3.3 percent average annual growth rate in 1990–2007.

These low price increases might seem surprising if you rely on general news reports, but it is really just a matter of thinking about which numbers are being reported, by whom, and about which group of people. For example, earlier this month, Express Scripts, a pharmaceutical benefits manager with more than 34 million members, published their annual Drug Trend Cost Report announcing a Record-Low Increase in Rx Spending in 2017. “Commercial plans saw the lowest increase in drug spending in 24 years – just 1.5%, compared with 3.8% in 2016,” explained the report. In Medicare, “total per-person spending increased 2.3%, with diabetes leading all classes.” In Medicaid, “total per-person spending increased 3.7%, with HIV leading all classes.” For the health insurance exchanges, “total per-person spending decreased 3.3%.” These numbers are just about drug spending.

If you look at yet another set of data, you get yet another picture. The Health Care Cost Institute (HCCI) 2016 Health Care Cost and Utilization Report explained, “Total spending per person is now growing at faster rates than prior years, with 4.6% growth in 2016.” The HCCI report is based on claims in employer-sponsored insurance sponsored by Aetna, Humana, Kaiser Permanente, and United Healthcare for 39 million members. The report produces a “per-person health care spending estimate” that only includes the amount the insurance companies paid and the cost-sharing amount the patients paid for those services. It does not include the premiums that consumers or employers paid, however.

The HCCI report agrees with the Express Scripts report, however, by noting, “In 2016, increased spending on outpatient services was the biggest contributor to the annual growth in total spending. This is a change from prior years. In 2014 and 2015, prescription drug spending was the biggest contributor to total spending growth.”

You can see that different reports, written for different audiences and looking at different cuts of the data, reflect different truths – and all are based in fact.

One Thing is For Sure, Patients Aren’t the Problem

The State Of Health Care Today: How Physicians, Consumers, and Employers View Health Care Costs, Outcomes, and Reform Efforts, a survey of more than 600 physicians, 500 employers, and 5,000 consumers published in January 2018 by Leavitt Partners, explains these dueling data sets fairly well, though my guess is that was not their intention. The report explains, “In general, physicians, employers, and consumers agree that the health care system requires change; however, they disagree on what changes are needed, who is responsible for making changes, and which reform efforts hold the most promise.” This makes sense because most people’s experience and understanding of health care is personal. It’s about my health care provider, my insurance coverage, my health care costs.

As this chart from the Leavitt report shows, when asked who or what is responsible for the problems with the U.S. health care system, patients mostly blame the government, physicians primarily blame insurance companies, and employers blame both government and insurance companies nearly equally. Patients seem to have escaped blame, however, at least for the more than 7,000 people in the Leavitt survey. Keep that in mind the next time you see a news report about health care expenditures and a recommended policy change. Know your numbers. It might change your policy life!

While Most Consumers Want to Discuss Costs Before Receiving Treatment, Most Providers Do Not Bring Up Financing Options with Patients

By M2|2018-01-24T21:41:19+00:00January 24th, 2018|Health care spending, Health Care Trends, Insurance, Out-of-pocket spending, Physician-patient communication, Uncategorized|

While Most Consumers Want to Discuss Costs Before Receiving Treatment, Most Providers Do Not Bring Up Financing Options with Patients

Seventy-seven percent of health care consumers say it’s “important” or “very important” to know their costs before treatment; however, most providers are not satisfying these demands, according to a recent article in Healthcare Finance.

Only 18% of health care consumers said that “any of their providers had spoken to them, at any time, about patient financing options in the past two years.” The article summarizes the results of a survey conducted by ORC International and commissioned by patient financing company HealthFirst Financial.

The survey highlights consumers’ interest in financing options for health care services: 53% of the 1,011 U.S. adults surveyed would like to discuss financing options before they receive care, and 57% consider it important or very important that their provider offer ways to extend payments over time with no interest.

However, only 8% received zero- or low-interest financing from a provider. “These findings highlight a huge gap in what patients want and what hospitals, medical groups and other healthcare providers are delivering,” KaLynn Gates, HealthFirst Financial president and corporate counsel, says in the article. “Providers that care for the financial as well as clinical needs of their communities are much more likely to thrive in this era of rising out-of-pockets costs and growing competition for patients among traditional and non-traditional providers.”

Furthermore, “a full 40% of millennials 18 to 36 years old said they’d be very likely or likely to switch providers if a competitor offered low- or zero- interest financing for medical bills.” And among survey participants overall, 29% “said they’d move to different providers that offer attractive payment programs.”

Concerns about covering the cost of care exist in all income brackets; 42% are very concerned or concerned about their ability to pay out-of-pocket medical bills in the next two years, and the number increases to 54% for those with incomes of less than $35,000 a year. Among those with incomes of $100,000 or more annually, the number drops, but still, 24% in this bracket are very concerned or concerned.

Consumers are worried about their ability to pay for unexpected medical expenses; 53% of those surveyed expressed concern about the ability to pay a medical bill of less than $1,000; 35% worry about the ability to pay a bill of less than $500, and 16% are concerned about the ability to pay a bill of less than $250.

The survey was commissioned in order to “learn more about how consumers are coping with their medical expenses,” Gates says in the article. “Without providing and communicating these viable financing options, they are likely to delay care or switch providers to find financial help. In either case, providers will be hurt by those choices, and they need to develop a strategy to meet these consumers’ needs.”

Despite these findings, however, another survey, published recently in Health Affairs, finds that while most U.S. consumers support price shopping for health care services, most do not actually seek out information on pricing.

The findings also come at a time when states are taking various measures to improve price transparency for consumers. For example, Ohio has enacted a law aimed at informing patients what health care procedures will cost prior to receiving care. However, the law is currently in limbo, after criticism from hospital and physician groups, who claim the law would slow down access to care.

This HealthFirst survey reinforces what we’ve said in the past and what other studies have shown; for example, we blogged earlier this year about a study published in Health Affairs showing that physicians are missing opportunities for communication to help reduce patient costs. We’ve also written about employers sending patients to high-quality, bargain-priced providers; sometimes these providers are out of town, or out of state, yet employers are still able to save money with this approach, which points to inefficiencies in the health care system.

Clearly consumers need price options, and talking with physicians beforehand about costs would help inform patient decision-making. However, it’s noteworthy that this new survey emphasizes consumers’ desire for financing options; thus, consumers appear to be seeking to base their costs decisions not on actual total costs of services, but on monthly payment options. They are therefore not necessarily taking a savvy approach to overall costs.

One area of cost concern that the survey did not cover, but which is coming up soon for most patients, is the annual deductible that most health plan enrollees must meet. Each year, consumers must consider the re-setting of the deductible on January 1, and factor that into health care choices. This is a particular concern for patients with chronic illness, and it points all the more to the need for consumers to know their costs upfront, before services are provided.

Insurer Bargaining Power: Markets With High Insurer Concentration and High Provider Concentration Show Decreased Hospital, Physician Fees – Health Affairs Study

By M2|2017-12-14T02:47:07+00:00December 13th, 2017|Health care spending, Hospitals, Insurance, Out-of-pocket spending, Uncategorized|

**Insurer Bargaining Power: Markets With High Insurer Concentration and High Provider Concentration Show Decreased Hospital, Physician Fees – Health Affairs Study**

In a recently published study in Health Affairs, the authors set out to determine whether insurers had the bargaining power to reduce prices for hospital admissions and physician visits (among five types of physicians).

The results confirm what the authors, had anticipated – that insurer bargaining power is strongest in markets with both high provider concentration and high insurer concentration.

The authors found that in markets where both insurers and providers were highly concentrated, insurers were able to reduce hospital admissions prices by 5%, and were able to reduce physician visit prices as well – e.g., cardiologist, radiologist and hematologist/oncologist visit prices were reduced by 4%, 7%, and 19%, respectively.

However, the study did not find evidence of insurer bargaining power on prices of visits to primary care physicians or orthopedists. This lack of effect is “likely because prices for those specialties are not far out of line, so it’s very hard for payers to negotiate from a price that is not far out of competitive range,” according to comments made by study one of the study’s authors, Richard Scheffler, University of California, Berkeley, in a Medscape Medical News article (Scheffler co-authored the study with fellow UC-Berkeley health economist Daniel Arnold).

Conversely, the authors found that insurer bargaining power in markets with low provider concentration was not significant, because providers in those markets are already near the competitive level, thus leaving very little room for downward negotiation of prices.

The study examined the association between provider and insurer market concentration and provider prices, calculated from the Health Care Cost Institute’s medical claims database, from 2010 to 2014. Measures of market concentration were computed using the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI), a common measure of market competitiveness used in the Horizontal Merger Guidelines of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

The authors note the rapid pace of consolidation of hospitals; from 1998 to 2015, there were over 1,400 hospital mergers in the U.S., 40% of which occurred between 2010 and 2015. Similarly, physician markets are also becoming concentrated “at an accelerated pace, with primary care physicians making the move from smaller to larger group practices faster than specialists.”

“The increased consolidation of provider (hospital and physician) markets and health insurance markets has garnered significant attention and led to calls for policy action to maintain and enhance the competitiveness of health care markets,” they note.

“Our results…suggest that insurers can bargain the prices down in highly concentrated provider markets,” the authors conclude.

However, “what is missing is a market mechanism that will pass these reduced prices on to consumers in the form of lower insurance premiums,” the authors note.

“Given the extreme concentration of the health insurer market, it is hard to imagine that many markets will be contestable and that competition will work to reduce premiums. Significant premium increases and the profits of the health insurance industry in recent years suggest that little if any of the benefits of insurer bargaining power are being passed along to consumers,” Scheffler and Arnold say. Nonetheless, “in the ACA Marketplaces, there is evidence that active-purchaser states are able to keep premiums down and stabilize their markets,” they note.

Overall, aside from insurers in some of the Affordable Care Act exchanges, insurers “are making a huge amount of money,” Scheffler says in the Medscape article. With market concentration, “medicine doesn’t improve, the quality doesn’t get any better, consumers don’t benefit, but the insurance companies’ stock prices go up.”

Thus, “it would seem to be only a matter of time before further intervention in and regulation of the health insurance market by state and federal legislatures, as well as private market innovation will accelerate.”

In the Medscape article, Scheffler proposes three potential avenues for change: First, the Federal Trade Commission should get more involved in investigating the pricing practices of highly concentrated markets. Second, states should more aggressively regulate premiums that insurance companies charge and ensure that savings are passed on to consumers. Third, large companies could bypass insurers and self-insure.

Hoping for increased competition in the insurance market is unlikely to be a fruitful option here, in light of increasing consolidation; as the authors rightly point out, other measures will be needed in order to bring relief to consumers. In particular, states should follow the lead of those that have moved to more aggressively regulate insurance premiums and ensure that savings resulting from increased bargaining power are passed on to consumers. Sky-high premiums continue to burden consumers; it’s time to hold insurers’ feet to the fire and make sure consumers aren’t the only ones still paying inflated prices.

Policy Making from a Chinese Menu

By M2|2017-11-28T01:59:48+00:00November 27th, 2017|Health care spending, Health Reform, Uncategorized, What do we pay for and why|

Policy Making from a Chinese Menu

The dueling Congressional tax plans are the latest exhibit in policy making by Chinese menu. Instead of thinking through issues and starting with the core question of: What problem are we trying to solve? –both the House and Senate have engaged in choosing their favorite items from a menu with no coherent point of view about why those singular items might come together to form a whole policy.

Merriam-Webster dictionary defines policy as “a definite course or method of action selected from among alternatives and in light of given conditions to guide and determine present and future decisions.” Choosing eggrolls, spicy kung pao chicken, house fried rice, and vegetable lo-mein for dinner is a definite course of action from among alternatives in light of the given condition that you are hungry. It might even guide future decisions not to have Chinese food for a couple days because you are ready to move on to steak or spaghetti.

I was formally trained in philosophy and debate. Clients engage my firm to think through policy issues. I’m essentially paid to argue, but not like a lawyer, more like a philosopher. We are well aware of the trade-offs policy decisions entail. Argumentation is the art of thinking through those trade-offs. The stasis theory is ingrained in my thinking and approach to issues, even now as I work with corporate clients on business issues and run my own business. Developed by the Ancient Greeks, honed by the Romans, and used for centuries hence, the four core questions of stasis theory are those most of us were taught regarding how to think about problems.

When faced with an issue, we ask: First, what are the facts, or, is there really a problem? Second, what kind of problem is it? Third, how serious is this problem, who is affected, what are the costs of solving the problem? Fourth, and finally, we ask, should we take action, who should we include in solving the problem, and what needs to happen to solve the problem?

As you can see with the fourth question, policy questions often begin with a “should” – at least in concept. Should local tax dollars be used to build parks? Should individuals be required to have automobile insurance? How should free speech be weighed against public safety? There is a method being used to determine present and future decisions. Stepping through the core questions of the stasis theory helps us as individuals, communities, and as a society think about alternatives to solving a problem, and be clear-minded about what we are not choosing, as much as what we are choosing to do.

When the government is involved, it is essential that reasoning for choices is clear. Lawrence O. Gostin, a Professor at Georgetown Law, explains, “government should justify interventions because, almost invariably, they intrude on individual rights and interests and incur economic costs.”

Commentators and tax experts are writing and speaking about the winners and losers in the tax cut passed by the House this week and the Senate bill under consideration, so if you are following the issue, you have a pretty good idea of what is in the proposals. What we have very little idea of is why. Is there really a problem? What kind of problem is it?

Will lowering the corporate tax rate for large companies fix this problem? Will raising the tax rate for small businesses who are accountants, dentists, or consultants fix this problem? Is raising the deficit an acceptable cost of solving the problem?

During this holiday season, as families and friends gather, I would ask anyone who is willing to engage in a discussion that asks as many of the four questions above as possible. Like the health bills that passed, but eventually failed to become law earlier this year, the tax proposals before us are a result of Chinese menu-style policy making. A definite course of action is being selected, but without much input or thoughtfulness about what problems we are trying to solve, the costs of solving the problem, and whether the solutions will actually work.

If we want coherent policy, that is, policy that addresses a clearly defined problem and is likely to produce the desired outcome, we need to discuss amongst ourselves, and then engage with our representatives. We elected them but they still need to know how we want them to solve these problems. Discuss, argue, engage – better policy is on us.

Anthem Steers Members Away from Hospitals for MRIs, CT Scans, in Favor of Freestanding Facilities

By M2|2017-11-12T22:41:42+00:00November 10th, 2017|Health care spending, Hospitals, Insurance, Uncategorized, What do we pay for and why|

Anthem Steers Members Away from Hospitals for MRIs, CT Scans, in Favor of Freestanding Facilities

Anthem is expanding its recently launched program that cuts hospital outpatient payments for MRIs and CT scans in order to steer patients toward freestanding facilities that provide these imaging services at lower cost. The program began in July with four states, and is now growing to include a total of nine states, including Colorado, New York, and Ohio.

Under its Imaging Clinical Site of Care program, Anthem no longer pays hospitals in the affected states for outpatient imaging services for MRIs or CT scans. Imaging is a large part of hospital revenue, and Anthem said it costs more to have the service done in a hospital outpatient setting than at a freestanding facility, according to a recent article in Healthcare Finance.

According to Anthem, imaging services can be just as safely provided in a lower cost, free-standing center as in a hospital outpatient setting. The cost for MRIs and CT scans can vary from $350 to $2,000 as Anthem noted when it began educating members about their options related to imaging services in 2010.

Anthem is willing to share the cost-savings with its members. In cases where it is not medically necessary to receive services from a hospital, consumers who go to a freestanding facility can save close to $1,000 out-of-pocket for some imaging services for those who have not met their deductible, and up to $200 for those whose plans require only a copay, the article notes, based on Anthem data.

Helping patients understand cost differences and sharing savings from changing the site of care is important as a recent report in Health Affairs, notes many consumers do not make any attempt to compare prices for health care services. “Most survey respondents said they didn’t comparison shop or even ask how much they would owe in copayments or other cost-sharing expenses before they turned up for an appointment.”

With a large insurer such as Anthem leading the way, other private insurers may follow suit on reimbursement for imaging services. “Hospitals need to recognize they are competing in a market already delivering on convenience, quality and affordability,” Anthem spokesperson Lori McLaughlin said.

Similar moves have been made on the public payer side as well.

Under Medicare, procedures performed in the hospital outpatient department are paid at a higher rate under the hospital outpatient prospective payment system compared to freestanding clinics, which are paid on the Medicare physician fee schedule. In July 2017, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid (CMS) said it plans to continue implementing reductions to the outpatient prospective payment system spending in CY 2018, as it had begun in CY 2017. CMS estimated it would save approximately $500 million in 2017 by reimbursing services provided at certain outpatient provider-based departments at 50% of the Outpatient Prospective Payment System; this percentage is proposed to change to 25% in CY 2018.

This is a great example of the kind of approach that’s needed to lower health care costs. As I’ve noted in prior blogs (for example, here), we get what we pay for. If we want to move the needle on costs, we need a lot more of this type of approach, incentivizing patients to take advantage of lower cost, high quality alternatives to the way things have traditionally been done.

Employers sending patients to top-performing providers with bargain prices for routine surgeries

By M2|2017-11-01T19:11:22+00:00October 31st, 2017|Health care spending, Hospitals, Uncategorized, What do we pay for and why|

Employers sending patients to top-performing providers with bargain prices for routine surgeries

In the face of high hospital bills, lack of local competition, and wild variations in surgical costs among different providers, some employers are responding by steering patients toward high-quality, bargain-priced providers. While this is happening primarily among some large private employers, a “handful” of public employers are also taking these steps, according to a recent article in Kaiser Health News.

Employers are striking deals for bundled payments for routine surgeries, with one fixed price covering tests, physician fees, and hospital charges; in some cases, the best-quality, lowest-cost provider is out of town. In addition, the providers are on the hook financially if any complications arise, the article notes.

Cost is not the only factor; the company also makes its choices based on quality, including data on complications and readmissions. “Not all surgeons are equal,” Carrum CEO Sachin Jain says in the article.

As an example, the article notes that Santa Barbara County is among about 400 employers on the west coast working with Carrum Health, a company that negotiates the bundled prices.

While the Santa Barbara County bundled payment program is voluntary for covered employees, the county has saved “nearly 50 percent on four surgery cases” since starting its program last year, the article says.

The article profiles one patient who received an all-expenses-paid trip to a luxury resort, over a thousand dollars in spending money, and a personal concierge during her stay in San Diego. The county provides further incentives to covered employees to participate in the program by waiving copays and deductibles.

However, “it was money well spent,” the article notes. Sending the patient 250 miles away for knee replacement surgery saved Santa Barbara County $30,000.

“If that doesn’t speak to the inefficiencies in our health care system, I don’t know what does,” Andreas Pyper, assistant director of human resources for Santa Barbara County, says in the piece. “It’s almost like buying a Toyota Corolla for $50,000 and then going to San Diego to buy the same Corolla for $16,000. How long would the more expensive Toyota dealership last?”

Some companies have gone so far as to send patients overseas for cheaper care, but most employers favor a more regional approach, according to the article. Local physicians are still relied upon for follow-up care.

For some hospitals, the advantages of offering deep discounts include that “they get patients they otherwise would never see and are paid in full right after the patient is discharged, avoiding the onerous billing and collections process,” the article says.

Some hospitals also have the financial capacity to offer such sharply reduced prices; “most hospitals significantly mark up their commercial rates for orthopedic procedures and cardiac surgeries to compensate for lower government reimbursements,” Michael Bark, assistant vice president of payer relations at Scripps Health, an integrated health system, says.

This is another great example of how it is possible to drive lower-cost, higher-quality care. We need more leaders, whether payers or employers, to take these kinds of steps to reimburse for increased value in health care services. As I’ve said in previous blogs such as , we get what we pay for; the more we direct our reimbursement dollars toward high-value care, the more we’ll get. The interesting thing in this case is that it’s employers who are demanding high value; with 50% of Americans receiving their insurance through their employers, if employers start demanding this type of approach, we might see change.

Previous 123 Next