Out-of-pocket spending

Is this the year we finally talk about all health care costs?

By M2|2020-01-13T18:48:48+00:00January 13th, 2020|Health care spending, Health Care Trends, Out-of-pocket spending, Providers, Uncategorized|

Is this the year we finally talk about all health care costs?

While patients, families and employers have been talking about rising (and in many cases, unmanageable) health care costs for years, it appears researchers finally may be getting on board with the issue as well.

Three notable reports came out in the past few weeks comparing what the U.S. spends on health care to other countries.

The U.S. System Costs More to Administer than Other Countries

The Annals of Internal Medicine published a study on January 7, putting new numbers to an old question. How much does the U.S. spend on the administration of health care? About four times more than Canada spends, evidently. Administering care is much cheaper in Canada, for example, because there are standardized forms and processes for providers, facilities, and families to use to access and pay for care. The study authors estimate $600 billion a year is spent in the U.S. on administrative bureaucracy instead of clinical care. On a per person basis, this amounts to $844 spent per person for health insurance plan overhead in the U.S., versus $146 per person in Canada.

The U.S. System Pays Physicians More than Other Countries Do

It’s not just health plan administrative costs that drives U.S. spending higher, though as we have written , streamlining forms and processes seems like an obvious place to start cutting costs. The U.S. also pays physicians more than other countries do. Anne Case and Angus Deaton – the economists who called attention to the rising number of “deaths of despair” in 2015 (and won a Nobel prize for their work that year) made headlines this week at the annual American Economic Association’s annual meeting when they said physicians are driving U.S. health care costs:

“We have half as many physicians per head as most European countries, yet they get paid two times as much, on average…” says Deaton. “Physicians are a giant rent-seeking conspiracy that’s taking money away from the rest of us, and yet everybody loves physicians. You can’t touch them.” (source: Washington Post).

Is this a Good Thing or a Bad Thing? (I ask in jest…)

Maybe the Internet coordinated these news reports, but the same day the Case/Deaton comments came out, several news outlets reported: Health care positions top 2020 list of best (paying) jobs! Indeed, 12 of the top 20 best paying jobs for 2020 are in health care. Here is the list from US News and World Report:

Best-Paying Jobs

Anesthesiologist
Surgeon
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeon
Obstetrician and Gynecologist
Orthodontist
Psychiatrist
Physician
Prosthodontist
Pediatrician
Dentist
Nurse Anesthetist
Petroleum Engineer
IT Manager
Podiatrist
Marketing Manager
Financial Manager
Pilot
Lawyer
Sales Manager
Business Operations Manager

It’s good to see more attention being paid to costs, and it’s especially good to see research and data behind the alarming stories. We all know that health care costs are going up but if we really want to do something about it, we have to look at ALL health care costs. This kind of data is the first step toward policy making; let’s see what happens next.

0

Can Price Transparency in Health Care Really Lower Costs?

By M2|2019-08-21T14:53:39+00:00August 20th, 2019|Health care spending, Health Care Trends, Hospitals, Insurance, Out-of-pocket spending, Physician-patient communication, Providers, Reimbursement, Uncategorized|

Can Price Transparency in Health Care Really Lower Costs?

Telling patients what they will pay for their health care services is a key stepping stone to more efficient use of health care dollars. Consumers, employers, payers, and the system as a whole would likely benefit if the true cost to the patient were made available before a patient receives a health care service or product.

Several states already have laws on the books requiring health care providers to make at least some price information available on at least some procedures. Some states also run centralized databases where different payers report what they get paid for different services. Additionally, the federal government requires hospitals to post a list of standard charges on the internet.

The Trump Administration wants providers to further expand the price and quality information to consumers, and issued an Executive Order (EO) on Improving Price and Quality Transparency in American Healthcare to Put Patients First in late June. The order aims to help consumers make “well-informed decisions” and expand transparency efforts that provide information “which patients can research and compare before making informed choices based on price and quality.”

More specifically, the EO directs the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to require hospitals to publish negotiated rates in a searchable, consumer-friendly format for 300 “shoppable” services.

You Can Shop if You Want To

Consumers are being asked to make more of these decisions on their own, as we’ve described in previous posts. My home state of Colorado has a shopping tool like the one the EO has in mind. It took me less than a minute to get the result below from the Colorado Center for Improving Value in Health Care (CIVHC) for an MRI scan of a leg joint within 15 miles of my ZIP code:

Shop for Health Care Services – MRI Scan, Leg joint (CPT 73721)

Seems pretty obvious that while the closest option, seven miles away, is Centura Health St Anthony Hospital, they would charge me $510 for the scan. If I drive another five miles, I would only have to pay $150 at Denver Health Medical Center.

“Shoppable,” but Perhaps Not “Buyable”

According to the Health Care Cost Institute (HCCI), “For a health care service to be ‘shoppable’, it must be a common health care service that can be researched (“shopped”) in advance; multiple providers of that service must be available in a market (i.e., competition); and sufficient data about the prices and quality of services must be available.” HCCI estimates that approximately half of out-of-pocket spending is spent on “shoppable ambulatory doctor services.”

The problem is, you might be able to research and compare certain services with upgraded information, thus improving your shopping experience, but you might really struggle to buy the service that is lower in cost.

Using the example of lower-limb MRIs, a 2018 study titled Are Health Care Services Shoppable? Evidence from the Consumption of Lower-Limb MRI Scans found that people typically drive by multiple lower-priced providers to get to their final treatment location. Why? Because that is where the patient’s referring provider sends them. The study shows “the influence of referring physicians is dramatically greater than the influence of patient cost-sharing or patients’ home ZIP code fixed effects.”

In particular, “physicians who are vertically integrated with hospitals are more likely to refer patients to hospitals for lower-limb MRI scans.” We’ve written previously about how costs vary dramatically by site of care. That also means patient cost-sharing varies. We are asked to pay more out-of-pocket for a service we could get elsewhere. But that would mean 1) shopping and 2) acting against the advice of a provider. Not impossible tasks, but difficult for sure.

Increased transparency means you can shop for services, but that is only half of the problem. Yes, it is important to have price and quality information. If the problem were a technical one, more information would lead to different decision making. But in fact, changing the way a consumer selects a health care service – even a “shoppable” service – is an adaptive problem. That is, it requires a change in the way people think, prioritize, and behave.

Additional information on quality and price is definitely necessary, but if I drive by two Centura Health facilities with lower cost MRIs to get to the HealthOne facility my referring provider recommended, I would also need some encouragement, at least, to go against my physician’s recommendation.

It looks like we health policy types have more work to do.

0

“Medicare-for-All” Understood as Lower Premiums for Me?

By M2|2019-05-07T20:39:01+00:00May 7th, 2019|Health care spending, Health Care Trends, Health Plans, Health Reform, Insurance, Medicare, Medicare For All, Out-of-pocket spending, Uncategorized|

“Medicare-for-All” Understood as Lower Premiums for Me?

Proposals for Medicare-for-All, or more accurately, universal health coverage, are being introduced by both Congress and state legislatures at a rapid pace (see this useful interactive tool, The Many Varieties of Universal Coverage from The Commonwealth Fund). While policy types argue over how such a plan would be funded and how to set reimbursement rates for providers, and Wall Street frets about what single payer health coverage would do to health insurance companies, state legislators and regular people seem to have a different perspective. In my many conversations with people across the country about the idea of “Medicare-for-All,” I have found it striking how often people say they favor such an approach because they want lower health insurance premiums.

I think we may have a language problem. When health policy people hear “Medicare-for-All”, they think “change the health care delivery and insurance infrastructure from employer contributions to taxpayer contributions,” but maybe when regular people say “Medicare-for-All”, they mean “please find a way to lower my premiums”. The Kaiser Family Foundation Health Tracking Poll conducted in early January hints at the importance of lower premiums as a reason to support “Medicare-for-All” type proposals. As shown in the figure below, nearly 50% of people polled strongly favored proposals that allow people between 50 and 64 years of age to buy in to Medicare, or allow people to buy in to Medicaid, or create a plan like Medicare that is available to anyone. Getting insurance from a single government plan is strongly favored by only 34% of respondents.

These “buy-in” proposals may be gaining in popularity as people lose access to employer-sponsored insurance. Here is the math: “if the coverage rate for employer-sponsored insurance was the same in 2017 as it was in 1999 (67.3%), almost 24 million (or 23.8 million) additional people would be covered through an employer plan in 2017.”

It’s easy to understand why people would focus on lower health care premiums; rising premiums are having a big impact on household incomes. As fewer people are receiving health insurance through their employer, they are also being exposed to higher costs for health care premiums. We pulled recent information on employer and worker contributions for health insurance, the average national premium for a person earning just over 400% of FPL ($49,000) to buy a health plan on the ACA Exchange at various ages, and Medicare premiums. We then created a rough comparison chart of what premiums an individual might have to pay for health insurance based on how they accessed coverage. Below is what we found:

Notably, the average annual premium for employer-sponsored coverage of an individual was about $6,900 last year. But employees usually paid just 18% of that amount. For people who may have been covered by their employer for years, and then have to buy insurance in the ACA Exchange, the loss of that employer-sponsored contribution to their health insurance coverage could be quite a shock.

It’s a catchy phrase and easy to hashtag in social media, but is the appeal of Medicare-for-All driven largely by the hope that a person’s premiums will be lower? Is Medicare-for-All the best or only way to achieve lower premiums? As with all policy issues, we should probably start with the key question, “what problem are we trying to solve” and then go from there, always checking to see that we are, in fact, addressing the problem we are trying to solve with a workable solution.

0

Even Employed People with Health Insurance are Worried about Health Care Costs

By M2|2019-04-17T20:59:33+00:00April 17th, 2019|Health care spending, Health Plans, Insurance, Out-of-pocket spending, Uncategorized|

Even Employed People with Health Insurance are Worried about Health Care Costs

Gallup published survey results in April showing health care was American’s top concern. According to the poll, 55% of Americans worried “a great deal” about “the availability and affordability of health care,” and another 25% worried a “fair amount.” Notably, only 23% worried a great deal about unemployment and 33% worried about the economy in general.

Keep in mind when Gallup asked the same questions in 2011 and 2012, 71% of people worried “a great deal” about the economy, but about the same percentage worried about health care costs a great deal as are worried today.

This implies people are feeling flush and have jobs, but still worried about affording health care. Why is that?

In part this is because across roughly the same time period, both health insurance premiums and deductibles have risen, even for people with employer-sponsored insurance (ESI). A study by the University of Pennsylvania Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics and the United States of Care, also published in April, found that between 2010 and 2016 incomes only grew by about 20%, but premiums grew by approximately 30%, and deductibles grew by more than 55%, nationally. The study provides a state-by-state breakdown but the graphics below give a snapshot of how premiums and deductibles have jumped.

It is no wonder then, that in another Gallup survey released this month, participants said, “Given the choice between a 10% increase in income or a complete five year freeze of health care costs, 61% of people said they’d choose the latter.”

At both the federal and state levels, policymakers are being asked by constituents to come up with ways to make health care more affordable. While some might hear the phrase health care costs and think hospitals or prescription drugs, these survey results and state-by-state data show the cost of health insurance – even for those receiving coverage through their employer – is becoming unmanageable.

When the people who everyone thinks have the “best coverage” are complaining about that coverage, we would do well to broaden the debate. Policy solutions need to focus on the cost of health insurance in order to address people’s concerns. Elected officials, are you listening?

0

What the Midterms Mean for State Health Policy

By M2|2018-11-09T20:29:48+00:00November 8th, 2018|Health care spending, Health Plans, Health Reform, Insurance, Medicaid, Out-of-pocket spending, State Health Initiatives, Uncategorized|

What the Midterms Mean for State Health Policy

The midterm elections have happened and all signs point to health care as a top issue in state legislatures in 2019. We have been telling our readers (and clients) this for several months, and Drew Altman, President and CEO of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, wrote in a guest post for Axios today: “most of the real action affecting people will be in the states.”

Approximately 4 in 10 voters told exit pollsters health care was the top issue for their voting choices. This isn’t surprising as health care costs are going up by about 5% a year, and consumers are being asked to pay a higher share of those costs, which is clearly putting pressure on state policymakers to do something.

States are under particular pressure because they are responsible for overseeing the individual and small group health insurance markets and Medicaid. Why does this matter? Because an increasing proportion of people are working, but don’t have access to employer-sponsored insurance, and can’t afford health insurance being offered in their state.

That is, people have jobs, but the jobs don’t offer health insurance.

In The Rise and Nature of Alternative Work Arrangements in the United States, 1995-2015, researchers at the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), Lawrence Katz from Harvard University and Alan Krueger of Princeton University, estimate:

…all of the net employment growth in the U.S. economy from 2005 to 2015 appears to have occurred in alternative work arrangements.

The researchers found between 2005 and 2015 workers in alternative work arrangements, such as “temporary help agency workers, on-call workers, contract workers, and independent contractors or freelancers – rose from 10.1 percent in February 2005 to 15.8 percent in late 2015.”

For these “gig workers,” buying health insurance coverage, for example in the Obamacare exchanges, means high premiums (see ) and very high deductibles, as the chart below from Avalere shows.

Deductibles of $4,000, $5,000, $6,000 are rarely seen in large employer insurance offerings. Only 20% of covered workers in large firms in 2018 had an annual deductible of $2,000 or more. Compare that to 42% of workers with a deductible of $2,000 or more in small firms (fewer than 199 workers), as the Kaiser Family Foundation chart below shows.

For the parts of the health care market states oversee, including the individual and small group insurance markets, state employees, and Medicaid, states will have their hands full in 2019 as they try to manage health costs for constituents who are working but can’t afford the health insurance options available to them.

It’s hard to understand why it’s reasonable that a freelancer or person working in a small firm can’t have access to the same affordable, robust health coverage as their counterparts in large firms.

0

States Help Drive National Solution to Help Patients Pay Less for Drugs

By M2|2018-10-15T16:42:41+00:00October 12th, 2018|Health Care Trends, Out-of-pocket spending, State Health Initiatives, Uncategorized|

States Help Drive National Solution to Help Patients Pay Less for Drugs

This week, President Trump signed two bills to help consumers choose lower priced drugs, the Patient Right to Know Drug Prices Act and the Know the Lowest Price Act of 2018. As state health policy people, we are glad to see the work of the past several years gaining the attention of policymakers everywhere, and improving access to health care for patients.

Between 2015 and 2018, 28 states passed laws banning a practice that prevented pharmacists from telling patients whether a lower price drug was available to them at the pharmacy counter. (See map from National Conference of State Legislatures below).

The so-called “gag clauses” were a common feature of contracts between pharmacies and pharmacy benefit managers until pharmacists started to speak out – usually in violation of the contract – that they were being banned from telling patients when a drug might cost less if they didn’t use their insurance. It seems simple on its face that a pharmacist, or any health care provider, should be able to give information to patients related to what the patient will have to pay for treatment.

We are proud to have been a part of state leadership on this issue in our role as state health policy advisors, and we are pleased to see this common sense approach is now the law of the land.

0

The Rising Cost of Health Care – a 360 Degree Perspective

By M2|2018-09-21T20:19:20+00:00September 21st, 2018|Health care spending, Health Reform, Insurance, Out-of-pocket spending, Uncategorized|

The Rising Cost of Health Care – a 360 Degree Perspective

The Colorado Women’s Alliance surveyed 2,000 swing women voters in Colorado earlier this year and asked them to identify their top issues of concern, as well as what they hoped the new Governor (who will be elected in November) and Colorado legislature will focus on in the coming session.

The rising cost of health care was the number one issue.

In response, Joni Inman, the Executive Director of the Alliance, in partnership with the Summit Chamber, organized a series of events, including a panel discussion in Frisco, Colorado last week titled “The Rising Cost of Healthcare – a 360 Degree Perspective.” I was honored to serve as a panelist alongside Colorado House Representatives Millie Hamner (D) and Bob Rankin (R), and professionals from the local hospital, a statewide health insurer and the Summit County Care Clinic.

While I am often asked to share policy ideas, for this panel, we were asked to share thoughts on what the consumer can already do that they might not realize is a good strategy available to them to lower their health care costs.

This is of particular relevance in Summit County as it is one of the healthiest places in the U.S., but also has some of the highest health insurance premiums in the country. Not surprisingly, Summit County health care consumers, as the audience quickly proved once the panel discussion started, are highly informed and interested in being proactive about their health care and the health care of their families.

My primary message was simple. When it comes to health care, we need to be much more demanding.

Be a demanding constituent

Sharing the stage with elected officials, I acknowledged the state legislature and Governor’s administration has some ability to make changes to how health care, and health insurance is financed and delivered. With that in mind, yes, it is important to advocate for policy changes. Vote. Call your representative. Send letters. Participate in hearings. Get involved in local politics. Make your opinion and preferences known.

This seems simple, but Reps. Hamner and Rankin were clear that they wanted to hear more from constituents, and individuals in particular, not just from lobbyists. Still, this can be hard to do. We all have busy lives and sometimes it is hard even to know what is happening regarding legislation or proposed policy ideas.

Be a demanding consumer

In addition to being a demanding constituent, it is important to be a demanding consumer. What can consumers already do that are good strategies to lower costs? Know more and ask questions.

First, know as much as you can about what your health insurance costs. What is the premium amount? What is the deductible? What types of services are covered at what levels? What are your rights to appeal a denial? Lots of resources exist. A great place to start is this compilation of websites from the Institute for Healthcare Improvement.

Second, as a consumer and as a patient, it is important to ask questions. Especially about how much a health care service will cost you. Of course, if you have been transported by ambulance to the emergency department, you aren’t going to be able to demand pricing information, but in the many instances you can ask, you should.

For example, as of May of 2018, 26 states, including Colorado (see map) have passed laws banning a practice that forbid pharmacies from informing consumers if and when the drug they were seeking to buy would be cheaper if they paid out-of-pocket instead of using their insurance. Yes, you read that right! Before these laws, many pharmacists were contractually forbidden by so-called “gag clauses,” from answering a direct question from a consumer at the pharmacy counter about the purchase price of a drug.

Ask this question: What is the price of this medicine, or this procedure, or this lab test, if I don’t use my insurance?

This strategy works outside of the pharmacy too. A consumer in the audience at the Summit County event gave an example of going to a local hospital with her husband over the fourth of July after he broke his elbow. When they asked the hospital about the price for the scan a provider recommended, they were told they could receive a 50% discount if they paid cash or used their credit card instead of using their insurance.

When I went to my dermatologist recently, I signed a document saying I wouldn’t submit a claim to my insurer if I agreed to use a specific pathology lab that would only charge $65 for lab tests. While my dermatology office wouldn’t tell me exactly how much I was saving (I was saving it since I was out-of-network and have a $7,600 deductible even in-network), they implied the insured rate for these pathology labs was hundreds of dollars more.

Demand more

Yes, call your legislator. Participate. Organize. Vote. But, we should all demand more of our employers, our health plans, and our health care providers, too. Ask for price lists. Ask for discounts. Ask what care options you have. Ask whether cheaper alternatives exist and how you can access them. Tell your employer you want choices.

We are all health care consumers, even if we aren’t all patients. Make your voice heard and your preferences known. Consumers can change the way the system works, but we have to demand that change.

0

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.

0

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.

0

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.

0