Insurance

CVS Health Just Upended the U.S. Health Insurance Market

By M2|2018-08-15T13:38:07+00:00August 14th, 2018|Health care spending, Health Care Trends, Health Plans, Health Reform, Innovation, Insurance, Out-of-pocket spending, Retail Health, telehealth, Uncategorized|

CVS Health Just Upended the U.S. Health Insurance Market

For $59, CVS Health will now offer telehealth video visits through the company’s retail medical clinic, MinuteClinic. The video visits will be available through the CVS Pharmacy App to anyone interested who lives in Arizona, California, Florida, Idaho, Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, New Hampshire, and Virginia – and Washington D.C.

This move will significantly change the health insurance market, and CVS’s merger with giant insurer Aetna isn’t even final, though reportedly, the “Justice Department’s antitrust division hasn’t turned up vertical competition concerns from the merger,” increasing the odds significantly that the deal closes before the end of the year.

What does CVS Health see that is driving this strategy? A shifting private health insurance market that requires people to pay up front for routine care, making consumers more sensitive to costs and less obligated to use a provider that is “in-network.” In the olden days (2006!), as the chart below shows, patients paid the majority of their cost-sharing payments in the form of copayments or coinsurance, that is, payments to providers who had an agreement with a health insurer. In 2016, for the first time, more than half of cost-sharing payments were in the form of a deductible, as the chart below from the Peterson-Kaiser Health System Tracker shows.

MinuteClinic video visits for $59 (paid for directly by the consumer) capitalize on three ongoing trends: 1) Patients have to pay more, before insurance starts to pay for claims, making consumers more sensitive to cost; 2) Patients want more convenience and CVS can deliver it more cheaply, in no small part because there are no insurance forms or administrative costs; and 3) Payers are reluctant to pay for virtual visits.

First, CVS Health is looking to serve people with routine health needs who are shopping for lower costs.

According to FAIR Health, the median charge for a new patient office visit at a retail clinic in 2016 was $109, compared to $294 in an office setting. The average charges and allowed amounts for the most typical retail clinic visits are shown in the chart below from the FH Healthcare Indicators™ and FH Medical Price Index.™

Simply put, the video visits will be cheaper than retail clinic visits. And, even if a patient is referred from the MinuteClinic video visit to one of the 1,100 MinuteClinic physical locations, that patient is likely to save more than $100 for the visit compared to going to a physician visit.

Second, CVS is looking to leverage the steep rise of people seeking care in retail clinics, by offering a clear value proposition to use a MinuteClinic virtually because it’s cheaper and more convenient. As the chart from FH Healthcare Indicators™ and FH Medical Price Index™ below shows, retail clinic visits increased by 847% from 2011 to 2016 with growth in rural areas increasing by 704% and in urban areas by 865%.

Clearly, CVS Health knows their potential customer well. A survey of 5,000 virtual visit users published by the Advisory Board in April shows more than 33% of people who had a virtual visit lived in a city, compared to 9% who lived in the suburbs or rural areas. Virtual visit users are also high earners – 52% “make more than $71,000 a year,” and are more likely to have private insurance.

Third, CVS Health sees that getting insurance companies to pay for virtual visits is hard. Forbes recently touted telehealth in article titled, “Lower Cost Higher Quality Health Care Is Right At Our Fingertips“ but the author was blunt in his explanation of what is holding telehealth back:

“The biggest obstacles? Government. Insurance companies. Employers. They pay the bills. Not only have they been slow to take advantage of telemedicine, they are refusing to pay for most of it…”

Getting a virtual visit via the free CVS/pharmacy app for just $59 means a person can go around his or her insurance company – and CVS avoids that hassle, too. Here are just a few ways that CVS Health’s approach differs from regular health insurance: You don’t need a referral. You don’t need to wait days for an appointment. You probably don’t have to take time off work because the virtual visits are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

If you are one of the 40% of people who has employer-sponsored insurance but is enrolled in a high deductible health plan (HDHP), you probably love the idea of a cheaper alternative to a retail clinic since you are accustomed to paying out-of-pocket for your basic care now. Even if you have insurance, it doesn’t matter, because the virtual visits can only be paid for with a credit or debit card (CVS Health said they will add insurance coverage and national coverage by the end of the year).

Insurers have been offering limited products, in limited geographies, with limited providers, their “network,” for years. The launch of MinuteClinic video visits will be trumpeted as a huge value for consumers. That is only half the story. How will health care providers convince people who are mostly healthy that they have to wait for appointments between 10am and 3pm at a complex, integrated health system where they have to pay to park? How will insurers convince people to continue to buy the expensive, comprehensive coverage on offer today? This move will start to change the way people think about what insurance is even for. Now THAT is disruptive.

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.

Want to Fix the Opioid Crisis? First, Think Structurally

By M2|2018-05-17T16:49:16+00:00May 17th, 2018|Chronic pain, Evidence-Based Medicine, Insurance, Public Health, Social Determinants of Health, Uncategorized, What do we pay for and why|

Want to Fix the Opioid Crisis? First, Think Structurally

I am often asked to come up with creative ways to address various health care problems. When I was asked by a client a few years ago to come up with some ideas to address the opioid crisis, I dove in to the latest academic literature, news reports, and books (if you haven’t read it yet, and are interested in the bigger picture of opioids, check out Dreamland by Sam Quinones). Thousands of pages later, I came to what seemed an obvious conclusion: opioid misuse and abuse is not a singular crisis, but the effect of a huge set of policy decisions that have occurred over years.

In a recent commentary in the American Journal of Public Health, author Nabarun Dasgupta of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and colleagues are blunt – “The structural and social determinants of health framework is widely understood to be critical in responding to public health challenges. Until we adopt this framework, we will continue to fail in our efforts to turn the tide of the opioid crisis.”

Using a structural framework to analyze causes of the opioid crisis generates “an alternate hypothesis…that an environment that increasingly promotes obesity coupled with widespread opioid use may be the underlying drivers of increasing White middle-class mortality,” the authors point out. “Complex interconnections between obesity, disability, chronic pain, depression, and substance use have not been adequately explored.” Also, suicides “may be undercounted among overdose deaths,” they say. “Under both frameworks, social distress is a likely upstream explanatory factor.”

In order to “turn the tide” on the opioid crisis, the authors urge a focus on patient suffering, tied to things like social disadvantage, isolation, and pain. However, one of the challenges is that the U.S. health care system is “unprepared to meet the demands elucidated by a structural factors analysis.”

Again, seems obvious, but still bears repeating: the health care delivery system is not built to deal with structural problems.

Addressing these types of factors requires “meaningful clinical attention that is difficult to deliver in high-throughput primary care.” Indeed, the current “institutional, legal, and insurance architecture have robbed clinicians of time and incentives to continue care for these patients,” the authors say.

Incorporating social determinants of health (SDH) into care plans also highlights the need to “integrate clinical care with efforts to improve patients’ structural environment,” the commentary says. While the commentary authors recommend, “Training health care providers in ‘structural competency’” as promising, as the system scales up “partnerships that begin to address upstream structural factors such as economic opportunity, social cohesion, racial disadvantage, and life satisfaction,” I’m not as inclined to think health provider training alone will suffice. When I was first taught the basic premises of SDH and structural thinking as a young graduate student, the discipline was already decades old.

Knowing the importance of SDH is not enough. Until the evidence base is deeper, it is difficult to get payers to reimburse such as activities. (See next week’s blog for a great example though!)

Thinking structurally is not so difficult to learn, but acting structurally is extremely difficult. Still, the opioid crisis – like so many health care conundrums – can’t be solved without it. Let’s get to it.

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.

An Alternative to Opioids? Other Interventions Show Significant Improvements in Pain and Physical Function For Disadvantaged Populations

By M2|2018-04-10T19:27:24+00:00April 10th, 2018|Chronic pain, Evidence-Based Medicine, Health Disparities, Insurance, Social Determinants of Health, Uncategorized, What do we pay for and why|

An Alternative to Opioids? Other Interventions Show Significant Improvements in Pain and Physical Function For Disadvantaged Populations

Pain is a common, yet difficult to treat condition; it is one of the top reasons people go to the doctor. Opioids are commonly prescribed to treat pain; opioids are quite effective but addictive. The use of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is known to be efficacious in addressing chronic pain; however, its benefit in disadvantaged populations is not well understood.

To help shed light on this question, a team led by Beverly Thorn, University of Alabama, conducted a study to evaluate the efficacy of literacy-adapted and simplified group CBT versus group pain education (EDU) versus usual care.

The randomized controlled trial enrolled 290 adults with chronic pain symptoms. Most had incomes at or below the poverty level, and about one-third read below a fifth grade level. Many participants were taking opioids at the beginning of the study.

Both the CBT and EDU were delivered in ten weekly 90-minute group sessions. Participants in all three groups reported their pain levels and physical functioning via questionnaires at baseline, ten weeks, and six months.

The study, funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, found that patients in the CBT and EDU groups had greater decreases in pain intensity scores between baseline and post-treatment than participants receiving usual care.

However, while treatment gains were still present in the EDU group at six-month follow-up, these gains were not maintained in the CBT group, Thorn, et al., say.

Regarding the secondary outcome of physical function, those in the CBT and EDU interventions had greater post-treatment improvement than patients who received usual care; this progress was maintained at six-month follow-up. Changes in depression, another secondary outcome, did not differ between either the CBT or EDU group and those receiving usual care, the researchers state.

This study highlights the fact that when done correctly, i.e., when materials are adjusted and tailored to a patient’s reading level, there are non-opioid interventions like behavioral therapy and education that work. While it is probably easier to prescribe opioids for pain, given the increasing severity of the opioid addiction epidemic, insurers really should consider these effective alternative treatments which positively impact pain. Why NOT prescribe effective, non-addictive treatment whenever possible?

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.

Rising obesity rates indicate the need for improved insurance coverage of proven effective treatment options, both medical and surgical

By M2|2018-02-21T15:54:35+00:00February 21st, 2018|Health Care Trends, Health Plans, Insurance, Reimbursement, Uncategorized, What do we pay for and why|

Rising obesity rates indicate the need for improved insurance coverage of proven effective treatment options, both medical and surgical

Mortality improvements in the U.S. have declined relative to other wealthy countries, and a new study points to obesity as the culprit.

“Rising levels of body mass index [BMI] have prevented the United States from enjoying the full benefits of factors working to improve mortality,” according to study author Samuel Preston, professor of sociology at the University of Pennsylvania, et al. The study is published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, as noted in a recent article in HealthDay.

In addition, according to the article, rising BMI has “reduced the annual rate of improvement in U.S. death rates between 1988 and 2011 by more than half a percentage point—equivalent to a 23% relative reduction in the rate of mortality decline—a large amount by international standards.”

“Heart disease deaths had declined consistently for nearly 40 years,” the article notes. “These declines have slowed or stopped altogether” and “rates of decline in cancer deaths have also slowed,” the article says. “At the same time, rates of obesity have been rising in the United States. From 1976 to 1980, 15 percent of Americans were obese. By 2014, 38 percent of Americans were classified as obese.”

The study’s researchers evaluated how much of the change in the death rate trend could be explained by rising BMI, and found that the increase in BMI reduced life expectancy by 0.9 years, almost 11 months, at age 40, and accounted for 186,000 excess deaths in 2011.

Despite rising obesity rates, another new study finds that many obese patients are not receiving antiobesity medications – and patients who are being prescribed medicines may be getting them because of provider bias. 80 percent are women, although obesity rates are similar for men and women in the U.S.

Fewer than 1 in 50 people in the U.S. eligible for antiobesity medications are receiving them, according to an evaluation of electronic records conducted by University of Colorado endocrinologist David Saxon, MD. Patients above a specific BMI threshold are eligible for weight-loss medication, but only 1.3% had received any prescription from 2009 to 2015, a recent Medscape article notes.

In addition, among patients who had received a prescription, 85% of the prescriptions were for phentermine, as opposed to newer agents. Primary care providers were most likely to prescribe these drugs.

Patients want “more information from their physicians about these medication options but there’s rarely the conversation,” Saxon says in the article. “Patients are probably more interested in them than the 1.3% who are receiving them.”

My friend and colleague, Scott Kahan, MD, is the director of the National Center for Weight and Wellness, and the medical director of Strategies To Overcome and Prevent (STOP) Obesity Alliance at George Washington University. Kahan explains that physicians historically have received little training in obesity management, and may hold misperceptions about obesity medications, including that they are unsafe, ineffective, or not well-studied.

“These misconceptions are likely a legacy of older medications that had lesser requirements for approval and were likely misused,” Kahan says. Another issue is lack of insurance coverage.

Yet another successful obesity treatment option is surgery. Two recent studies published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) compared Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and sleeve gastrectomy in morbidly obese patients.

First, researchers at St. Claraspital in Basel, Switzerland, conducted a randomized trial of morbidly obese patients to determine whether there are differences between the two surgical options, in terms of weight loss, changes in comorbidities, increase in quality of life, and adverse events, as noted in an article in The Clinical Advisor. Excess BMI loss was not significantly different at 5 years: 61.1%, with sleeve gastrectomy vs 68.3% with RYGB.

In the second study, researchers in Finland also studied morbidly obese patients to examine the clinical equivalence of the two surgeries. The trial found the estimated mean percentage excess weight loss at 5 years was 49% with sleeve gastrectomy and 57% with RYGB, with no statistically significant difference in quality of life between groups and no treatment-related mortality. At 5 years, the overall morbidity rate was 19% and 26%.

In an accompanying editorial, David Arterburn, MD, MPH, and Anirban Gupta, MD, state that “these and other studies suggest that sleeve gastrectomy and bypass are overall quite similar in terms of their effects on weight and comorbid conditions through 5 years.” They also note that “these procedures may be associated with improved long-term survival compared with usual medical care. Overall, it seems that both procedures are excellent options for surgeons and patients to consider in the treatment of obesity.”

With the slowing gains in life expectancy in the US linked to obesity, patients need their insurance plans to cover effective treatment options. If these options are going to be accessible for patients, insurers will need to have reasonable coverage and reimbursement policies in place; today, with FDA-approved drugs available to treat obesity and promising research showing that the sleeve and bypass surgeries are two excellent options, we need policies that encourage use of both drug and surgical approaches.

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.

ICYMI: The CVS-Aetna Proposed Merger Could be Public Health Rocket Fuel

By M2|2017-12-07T01:22:04+00:00December 6th, 2017|Health Care Trends, Health Disparities, Insurance, Public Health, Retail Health, Social Determinants of Health, Uncategorized|

ICYMI: The CVS-Aetna Proposed Merger Could be Public Health Rocket Fuel

Sunday, December 3, CVS Health announced it will acquire health insurer Aetna for $69 billion. Lowering the cost of care by enabling a broader range of treatment in retail clinic settings, of which CVS Health has more than 1,100 in 33 states, is one of the obvious rationales of the combination. But what struck me in the comments of the merging companies’ CEOs was how much they sound like public health professors. Social determinants of health? Health as a path to fulfillment? What have they done with the business people? In case you missed it…

Mark Bertolini Really Cares About the Whole Person

Aetna Chairman and CEO Mark T. Bertolini has been talking publicly for quite some time about the importance of thinking about people not as patients, but more holistically. In September, in an interview with Dennis Berman, the Wall Street Journal financial editor, he said, “We believe the only way to truly disrupt the cost of health care … is to go into the homes and meet the social determinants that are now driving as much as 60 percent of life expectancy of Americans.”

What Bertolini has had to say now that the merger is official is straight-up public health speak. On CNBC Monday morning, when explaining the vision of the merger, Bertolini sounded like a philosopher: “Most people,” he explained, “find their health is a barrier to the life they want to live.” Indeed.

Larry Merlo is Fixated on Unmet Need

Larry J. Merlo, President and CEO of CVS Health, reminded anyone who was paying attention something that we in public health have known for a long time, but surprised the CNBC reporters, “You look at chronic disease in this country today, about half of all Americans have at least one of those chronic diseases. It’s accounting for 80% of the health care costs.”

Merlo further explains, “there’s billions of dollars every year on unnecessary and avoidable spending because people are not following…care plans.” Merlo’s solution, to be executed in part with the announced merger, is to address the unmet need the traditional health care system is creating, but CVS Health knows first-hand because patients come through its doors with health care needs that aren’t being met.

We “lack the element of convenience and coordination…that is the unmet need we are talking about,” says Merlo.

We Are All Public Health

As a public health student, educator and professional, I am public health. This merger discussion shows we are all public health. Georges C. Benjamin, M.D. Executive Director, American Public Health Association wrote in 2015, “Today, the biggest threats to the health and longevity of Americans are preventable diseases. These are the diseases that are burying us in preventable suffering, as well as crippling our communities with mountains of avoidable medical bills. The root causes of many of these health threats are inextricably linked to the social determinants of health and the conditions that shape a person’s opportunity to attain good health and adopt healthy behaviors. These social determinants include access to safe housing, good jobs with living wages, quality education, affordable health care, nutritious foods, and safe places to be physically active. They also include racism, discrimination, and bias.”

To see such similar language from Mark Bertolini and Larry Merlo in the CVS-Aetna merger discussion to date shows that the leaders of what could become the largest health care company in the U.S. are thinking differently about the broken U.S. health care system. Near the end of the investor call about the merger, an analyst asked whether the combined entity planned to be a person’s primary care physician. Bertolini answered: “The real important part here is that you have to understand that almost 60% of Americans don’t have a regular doctor.”

When you connect these dots, you can really see the big picture come together. The CVS-AET vision is bigger than managing the pharmacy benefit.

Will it work? Hard to say at this early stage. Should consumers want it to work? Absolutely. A health care company with a public health lens that focuses on health well before a person shows up at the doctor and prioritizes convenience, coordination, and social determinants of health would be a welcome change for individuals, families, and employers. Score one for public health.

Previous 123 Next