A Medicare Drug Incentive That Leads to Greater Hospitalizations

Many studies have demonstrated what economics theory tells us must be true: When consumers have to pay more for their prescriptions, they take fewer drugs. That can be a big problem.

For some conditions — diabetes and asthma, to name a few — certain drugs are necessary to avoid more costly care, like hospitalizations. This simple principle gives rise to a little-recognized problem with Medicare’s prescription drug benefit.

For sicker Medicare beneficiaries, the Harvard economist Amitabh Chandra and colleagues found, increased Medicare hospital spending exceeded any savings from reduced drug prescriptions and doctor’s visits. Consider patients who need a drug but skip it because they feel the co-payment is too high. This could increase hospitalizations and their costs, which would make them worse off than if they’d selected a higher-premium plan with a lower co-payment.

Though just a simplified example, this is analogous to what Medicare stand-alone prescription drug plans do. They achieve lower premiums by raising co-payments. This acts to discourage the use of drugs that would help protect against other, more disruptive and serious health care use, like hospitalization.

Studies show that insurers, many of which are for-profit companies after all, are using such incentives to dissuade high-cost patients from enrolling or using the benefit. There’s evidence this occurs for Medicare’s drug benefit, as well as in the Affordable Care Act’s marketplaces.

 The most popular type of Medicare drug coverage is through a stand-alone prescription drug plan. A stand-alone plan never has to pay for hospital or physician visits — those are covered by traditional Medicare. Another way to get drug benefits from Medicare is through a Medicare Advantage plan that also covers those other forms of health care and is subsidized by the government to do so.

Because of this difference, stand-alone drug plans are less invested than Medicare Advantage plans in keeping people healthy enough to avoid some hospital visits.

A study by the economists Kurt Lavetti, of Ohio State University, and Kosali Simon, of Indiana University, quantifies the cost. Compared with Medicare Advantage plans, stand-alone drug plans charge enrollees about 13 percent more in cost sharing for drugs that are highly likely to help patients avoid an adverse health event within two months. They charge up to 6 percent more for drugs that help avoid adverse health events within a year.

Of course, people have choices about plans. Those who have selected a stand-alone drug plan, as opposed to a Medicare Advantage plan, have done so voluntarily. Why do some make this choice?

One answer is that some people are not comfortable with the more narrow networks Medicare Advantage plans offer, with their fewer choices of doctors and hospitals. By choosing a stand-alone drug plan, they can remain in traditional Medicare, which has an open network.

In addition, consumers are generally more attracted to lower-premium plans than higher ones, even if the difference is exactly made up in co-payments. This may be because premiums are easier to understand than cost sharing. Moreover, premiums reflect a sure loss — you must pay the premium to remain in the plan. A higher co-payment, on the other hand, won’t necessarily lead to a loss because you may not use a service.

The appeal of lower premiums is an incentive for stand-alone drug plans to reduce them and increase co-payments. But that can dissuade those who need medications from filling prescriptions and taking them.

Part of the purpose of Medicare’s drug benefit is to encourage enrollees to take prescription drugs that can keep them out of the hospital. In July 2003, promoting the legislation that created Medicare’s drug benefit, President George W. Bush articulated this point. “Drug coverage under Medicare will allow seniors to replace more expensive surgeries and hospitalizations with less expensive prescription medicine,” he said.

But the design of Medicare’s drug benefit includes stand-alone plans that aren’t liable for hospital costs, so they don’t work as hard to avoid them. Encouraging more beneficiaries into comprehensive plans — through Medicare Advantage — or offering a drug plan as part of traditional Medicare itself would address this limitation.

 

 

Enrollment in a Health Plan with a Tiered Provider Network Decreased Medical Spending by 5 Percent

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/in-the-literature/2017/may/tiered-provider-network-enrollment?omnicid=EALERT1207817&mid=henrykotula@yahoo.com

Synopsis

Employers and health plans are increasingly using tiered provider networks to steer patients to doctors and hospitals that provide higher-quality care at a lower cost. An analysis of tiered network plans in Massachusetts found that they were associated with a 5 percent decrease in spending—$43.36 less per member per quarter compared with per-member spending in similar plans not offering tiered networks.

The Issue

“Tiered-network benefit designs have the potential to deliver higher value and be a tool that employers and other payers can use to decrease spending in the U.S. health care system.”

In health insurance plans featuring tiered provider networks, providers (e.g., physicians and hospitals) are categorized by the quality and cost of their patient care. Providers with higher quality and lower costs are typically placed in the most-preferred tier rankings. Plans furnish their enrollees with information about providers’ relative value and use financial incentives like lower cost-sharing to steer them to preferred providers. In this Commonwealth Fund–supported study, researchers examined the impact of tiered primary care physician groups and hospitals—offered through Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts (BCBSMA)—on inpatient care, outpatient care, outpatient radiology, and total health care spending.

Key Findings

  • The tiered network plans offered by BCBSMA were associated with lower total adjusted medical spending of $43.36 per member per quarter relative to enrollee spending in similar plans without a tiered network ($830.07 vs. $873.43). This represents a 5 percent decrease in spending.
  • The tiered network plans were also associated with 4.6 percent lower spending on outpatient care per member per quarter compared with nontiered network plans ($576.89 vs. $604.76) and 6.5 percent lower spending on outpatient radiology ($93.71 vs. $100.23). Savings for inpatient care were not significant.
  • Results were similar when the researchers compared spending only within large-group plans, and only within small-group plans.

The Big Picture

Tiered network plans may be more palatable to consumers than narrow-network plans, the authors say, since they cover care from nonpreferred providers, albeit with higher cost-sharing. These findings also suggest that tiered network plans may be a valuable tool for providers that are under pressure to decrease spending. Provider groups could mirror their referral patterns to match tiered networks.

About the Study

The study population consisted of 184,385 nonelderly enrollees (age 64 and younger) who were enrolled in a Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts smallor large-group tiered network plan for at least one quarter in 2008–2012 and 927,491 nonelderly enrollees in health plans with matched benefit designs, except for no tiered network, in the same period. Enrollees in the tiered network plans paid different cost-sharing levels depending on the tier ranking of their provider.

The Bottom Line

Tiered provider networks have the potential to reduce overall health care spending.

The countdown is on for the 2017 opening of the new Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital Stanford

http://www.stanfordchildrens.org/en/about/news/releases/2017/countdown-for-opening-of-new-hospital?source=homepage-banner#.WRIvnTcFKhI.facebook

Lucile Packard Children's Hospital Stanford - New Hospital

More than doubling its current size, the expanded children’s hospital will transform the patient experience through family-centered design and technological innovation, while setting new standards for sustainability in hospital design

Palo Alto, Calif. – Nearly a decade in the making, Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital Stanford announces its countdown to the debut of its new pediatric and obstetric hospital campus, slated to open in December 2017.  With a mission to lead the way in family-centered care, the Packard Children’s expansion will more than double the size of the existing campus by linking the original hospital with a new main building, bringing the total hospital space to measure 844,000 square feet.

“This will be the nation’s most technologically advanced, environmentally sustainable and family-friendly hospital for children and expectant mothers,” said Christopher G. Dawes, chief executive officer. The top-ranked children’s hospital in Northern California is at the center of the Stanford Children’s Health enterprise, which is the largest in the Bay Area exclusively dedicated to pediatric and obstetric care.

The new, 521,000 square foot facility and surrounding 3.5 acres of healing green space and gardens were designed in partnership with patients, families, and every level of hospital staff and faculty to ensure all areas of need were accounted for.

“When my mother founded this hospital, she envisioned a place where children and families could receive truly healing care,” said Susan Packard Orr. “She saw the power that nature had to heal and uplift. I’m proud that we have carried her vision forward, with world-class sustainability and holistic elements throughout the new hospital. Everything we do at this hospital will have an eye to ensuring that generations to come will be healthier.”

The ‘Oracle of Omaha’ Condemns Republican Health Care Bill At Berkshire Meeting

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/05/06/527193477/the-oracle-of-omaha-condemns-republican-health-care-bill-at-berkshire-meeting?utm_content=buffer46568&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Billionaire investor Warren Buffett fielded questions at the annual shareholders meeting for his company Berkshire Hathaway. He offered thoughts and insights on everything from Republicans voting to repeal Obamacare, to the Wells Fargo scandal, to how artificial intelligence and technology might reshape America. Here are some highlights:

Repealing Obamacare is “a huge tax cut for guys like me”

When asked about the bill Republicans in Congress just voted to pass to repeal and replace Obamacare, Buffett signaled his distaste for a tax cut provision. Obamacare pays for health care for Americans in part by taxing wealthier people. The Republican bill scraps that tax on the wealthy.

And Buffett has apparently done the math here. If the Republican bill had been law last year, he said, “my federal taxes would have gone down 17 percent last year, so it’s a huge tax cut for guys like me.”

“That is in the law that was passed a couple days ago,” he added. “Anybody with $250,000 a year of adjusted gross income and a lot of investment income is going to have a huge tax cut.”

In the past, Buffett has bristled at tax policy that he sees as favoring the wealthy — famously saying it’s not fair that he pays taxes at a lower rate than his secretary.

The medical cost “tapeworm”

Buffett said at the meeting that health care costs have become a bigger issue for American businesses than taxes.

He said if you go back to about 1960, corporate taxes were about 4 percent of GDP and now they’re about 2 percent of GDP. At that time, healthcare was 5 percent of GDP and now it’s 17 percent of GDP. “So when American business talks about taxes strangling our competitiveness,” he said, “they’re talking about something that as a percentage of GDP has gone down from 4 to 2.” Meanwhile, medical costs have exploded. “So medical costs are the tapeworm of American economic competitiveness,” he said.

He argued against the tax system crippling competitiveness “or anything of the sort.” He also noted that other developed countries appear to have found better ways to contain medical costs.

These 50 Health Issues Count as Pre-Existing Conditions

http://fortune.com/2017/05/04/ahca-pre-existing-conditions/

Image result for pre existing conditions

The Republican plan to repeal and replace the the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which narrowly passed a vote in the House today, rolls back protections for people with pre-existing conditions, which could increase health care costs for an estimated 130 million Americans.

The American Health Care Act stipulates that states can allow insurers to charge people with pre-existing conditions more for health insurance (which is banned under the ACA) if the states meet certain conditions, such as setting up high-risk insurance pools. Insurers still cannot deny people coverage outright, as was a common practice before the ACA’s passage, but they can hike up premiums to an unaffordable amount, effectively pricing people out of the market.

In fact, premiums could reach as high as $25,700 per year for people in high-risk pools, according to a report from AARP. People who receive insurance through their employer would not be affected, unless they lost their job or moved to the individual insurance market for some other reason.

But what counts as a pre-existing condition? While it depends on the insurer—they have the right to choose what counts as “pre-existing”—these ailments and conditions were universally used to deny people coverage, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit focusing on health care research.

  • AIDS/HIV
  • Alcohol or drug abuse with recent treatment
  • Alzheimer’s/dementia
  • Anorexia
  • Arthritis
  • Bulimia
  • Cancer
  • Cerebral palsy
  • Congestive heart failure
  • Coronary artery/heart disease, bypass surgery
  • Crohn’s disease
  • Diabetes
  • Epilepsy
  • Hemophilia
  • Hepatitis
  • Kidney disease, renal failure
  • Lupus
  • Mental disorders (including Anxiety, Bipolar Disorder, Depression, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, Schizophrenia)
  • Multiple sclerosis
  • Muscular dystrophy
  • Obesity
  • Organ transplant
  • Paraplegia
  • Paralysis
  • Parkinson’s disease
  • Pending surgery or hospitalization
  • Pneumocystic pneumonia
  • Pregnancy or expectant parent (includes men)
  • Sleep apnea
  • Stroke
  • Transsexualism

But Cynthia Cox, Kaiser’s associate director, notes that the above list is a conservative sampling of all of the issues and maladies that insurers could count as pre-existing conditions. ” There are plenty of other conditions, even acne or high blood pressure, that could have gotten people denied from some insurers but accepted and charged a higher premium by other insurers” says Cox.

Here are some examples of those other conditions that experts have noted could hike premiums:

  • Acid Reflux
  • Acne
  • Asthma
  • C-Section
  • Celiac Disease
  • Heart burn
  • High cholesterol
  • Hysterectomy
  • Kidney Stones
  • Knee surgery
  • Lyme Disease
  • Migraines
  • Narcolepsy
  • Pacemaker
  • Postpartum depression
  • Seasonal Affective Disorder
  • Seizures
  • “Sexual deviation or disorder”
  • Ulcers

The left-leaning Center for American Progress notes that high blood pressure, behavioral health disorders, high cholesterol, asthma and chronic lung disease, and osteoarthritis and other joint disorders are the most common types of pre-existing conditions.

Just how expensive are pre-existing conditions? A recent report from the Center for American Progress found that insurers could charge people with metastatic cancer as much as $142,650 more for their coverage, a 3,500% increase.