Author Archives: henrykotula

Benefit design, higher deductibles will increase bad debt for hospitals

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Bad Debt Expense, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Insurance Industry, Health Plan, Health Policy, Health System, High Deductible Health Plans, High Drug Prices, High Premiums, High Prices, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Out of Pocket Expenses, Underinsured, Uninsured • Leave a comment

https://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/node/139468

Legislative proposals could reduce bad debt, but would likely introduce additional complexity to billing processes.

Changes in insurance benefit design that shift greater financial responsibility to the patient, rising healthcare costs and confusing medical bills will continue to drive growth in bad debt — often faster than net patient revenue, according to a new report from Moody’s.

Legislative proposals to simplify billing have the potential to reduce bad debt, but the downside for hospitals is that they’ll likely introduce additional complexity to billing processes and complicate relationships with contracted physician groups. A recent accounting change will reduce transparency around reporting bad debt.

Higher cost sharing and rising deductibles are the main contributors to the trend of patients assuming greater financial responsibility, a trend that’s been occurring for more than a decade, and that will further increase the amount of uncollected payments. Hospitals and providers are responsible for collecting copays and deductibles from patients, which may not always be possible at the time of service; the longer the delay between providing service and collecting payment, the less likely a hospital is to collect payment.

On top of that, the higher an individual’s deductible is, the greater the share of reimbursement that a hospital has to collect. The prevalence of general deductibles increased to 85% of covered workers in 2018, up from 55% in 2006, and the amount of the annual deductible almost tripled in that time to an average of $1,573.

Multiple factors are driving the trend toward higher cost sharing, including a desire among employees and employers for stable premium growth despite steadily rising healthcare costs and the growing popularity of high deductible health plans.

WHAT’S THE IMPACT

Hospitals face an uphill battle when it comes to reducing bad debt. Strategies include point-of-service collections, enhanced technology to better estimate a patient’s responsibility for a medical bill, and offering low-cost financing or payment plans.

A common feature of these approaches is educating patients about what portion of a medical bill is their responsibility, after taking into account the specifics of their insurance plan. But hospitals often find it hard to provide reliable cost estimates for a given service, which can thwart efforts to provide patients with an accurate estimate of their financial responsibility.

One difficulty is that medical bills partly depend on the complexity of service and amount of resources consumed — which may not be known ahead of time. There’s also the need to incorporate specific benefits of the patient’s own insurance plan. A certain amount of bad debt is likely to arise from patients accessing emergency care given the insufficient time to determine insurance coverage.

Another difficulty in billing is surprise medical bills, received by insured patients who inadvertently receive care from providers outside their insurance networks, usually in emergency situations. While the term “surprise medical bills” refers to a specific, narrow slice of healthcare costs, they have become part of the broader debate about the affordability and accessibility of U.S. healthcare.

THE LARGER TREND

To minimize surprise bills, Congress is considering proposals to essentially “bundle” all of the services a patient receives in an emergency room into a single bill. Under a bundled billing approach, the hospital would negotiate a set charges for a single or “bundled” episode of care in the emergency room. The hospital would then allocate payments to the providers involved.

This approach, which major hospital and physician trade groups oppose, has the potential to significantly affect hospitals and disrupt the business models of physician staffing companies, according to Moody’s. Many hospitals outsource the operations and billing of their emergency rooms or other departments to staffing companies. Bundling services would require a change in the contractual relationship between hospitals and staffing companies.

Another recent proposal in Congress would require in-network hospitals to guarantee that all providers operating at their facilities are also in network. This approach adds significant complexity because many physicians and ancillary service providers are not employed or controlled by the hospitals where they work. Some hospitals would likely seek to employ more physicians, leading to increases in salaries, benefits and wages expense.

 

A stunning indictment of the U.S. health-care system, in one chart

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Access, Access & Quality of Healthcare, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, High Deductible Health Plans, High Drug Prices, High Premiums, High Prices, Out of Pocket Expenses, Underinsured, Uninsured • Leave a comment

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/12/10/stunning-indictment-us-health-care-system-one-chart/?fbclid=IwAR35UzHd8LQexhBxPukkwmBAmGGyxhagBfTR6CINomsJcSM-IkjiC26x10c

Americans are putting off medical treatment in record numbers because of cost, Gallup data shows

Image result for A stunning indictment of the U.S. health-care system, in one chart

One quarter of American adults say they or a family member has put off treatment for a serious medical condition because of cost, according to data released this week by Gallup. That number is the highest it’s been in nearly three decades of Gallup polling.

An additional 8 percent have made the same choice for less serious ailments, the survey showed. That means a collective 33 percent of those polled have prioritized financial considerations over their health, tying the high set in 2014.

The report also shows a growing income gap in cost-related delays. In 2016, for instance, one-fourth of U.S. households earning less than $40,000 a year reported cost-related delays, vs. 13 percent for households making more than $100,000. In 2019, the rate of cost-related delays among poorer households shot up to 36 percent, while the rate for the richer group remained at 13 percent.

Gallup cautions that the Trump presidency may be influencing these numbers on a partisan level: From 2018 to 2019, the share of Democrats reporting cost-related delays for serious conditions jumped from 22 percent to 34 percent. Among Republicans, the year-over-year increase was more subdued, from 12 percent to 15 percent.

Gallup data also show Democrats (31 percent) self-report higher rates of preexisting conditions than Republicans (22 percent).

“Whether these gaps are indicative of real differences in the severity of medical and financial problems faced by Democrats compared with Republicans or Democrats’ greater propensity to perceive problems in these areas isn’t entirely clear,” according to Gallup’s Lydia Saad. “But it’s notable that the partisan gap on putting off care for serious medical treatment is currently the widest it’s been in two decades.”

Data from the Kaiser Family Foundation’s Employer Health Survey underscores the severity of the health-care spending problem. In 2019, 82 percent of covered workers must meet a deductible before health-care coverage kicks in, up from 63 percent a decade ago. “The average single deductible now stands at $1,655 for workers who have one,” according to KFF, “similar to last year’s $1,573 average but up sharply from the $826 average of a decade ago.”

Deductibles have surged 162 percent since 2009, data show — more than six times the 26 percent climb in earnings over the same period.

There are many factors driving up the cost of care for most American families. Administrative costs are a big part of the issue: Health insurance is largely a for-profit industry, meaning insurance companies and their shareholders are reaping a percentage of your deductibles and co-pays as profit.

Many hospitals, too, are raking in profits. In recent years, surprise billing practices and outrageous markups for simple drugs and services have drawn the ire of lawmakers looking for ways to reduce health-care spending.

Physician pay is another significant expense. The Commonwealth Fund, a health-care research group, estimates American doctors earn “nearly double the average salary” of doctors in other wealthy nations. The American Medical Association, a trade group representing doctors, has a long history of opposing efforts to implement European-style single-payer health-care systems in the United States.

The American health-care system, in other words, works pretty well for the powerful players in the health-care industry. Hospitals and insurance companies are reaping significant profits. Doctors are earning high salaries. But what are the rest of us getting in return for our ever-growing co-pays and deductibles?

The national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has an answer, and it’s an indictment of our health-care system: The United States is in the midst of the longest sustained drop in life expectancy in at least 100 years. Relative to other wealthy countries, lives in America are short and getting shorter.

The disparities domestically are perhaps even more shocking: In the nation’s wealthiest places, where the high cost of modern health care remains within relatively easy reach, life expectancies are literally decades longer than in America’s poorest places.

As health care becomes more expensive and economywide inequalities more pronounced, these disparities in life span are likely to get worse — and the share of Americans skipping out on much-needed medical care only likely to grow.

 

 

 

 

Elevator Pitch for Fixing U.S. Healthcare

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Cost Management, Cost Reduction, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Health Policy, Imperfect Markets, Single Payer Health System, Single Payer Healthcare System • Leave a comment

Fixing U.S. Healthcare – Annual Review & Summary

2019.12.10 Clipboard_flat_3D

 

Fixing U.S. Healthcare blog’s two-year anniversary is a good time to take stock of what has changed in our approach to fixing U.S. healthcare.  And a good time to review highlights of the last year.

Elevator Pitch for Fixing U.S. Healthcare

Let’s start with an “elevator pitch” summary:

The U.S. healthcare system has outgrown itself, now comprising almost 20% of the gross domestic product and still rising. It delivers ever more treatments that have diminishing “marginal benefit.” It does so at a cost far beyond the treatments’ true value to either individuals or to society, in all too many cases. And at prices double those in other developed countries. Now these costs are biting into the average family’s wallets. In 1994, the Oregon Health Plan took control of healthcare and managed its costs for 8 years by combining cost-benefit analysis with well-cultivated public engagement.  This would be a good starting place for fixing U.S. healthcare. But 25 years later, this approach alone would not be sufficient.  Powerful interests have now rigged the healthcare system for profits, not health. I conclude that only a grassroots movement to harness the full political, social, legal, economic and ethical weight of the federal government can encircle these entrenched interests and rein them in. There are several models for U.S. healthcare reform that could fall squarely within American tradition and pragmatism.

 

Changes in this Blog’s Approach

Let’s look at how this blog’s messages have evolved this year.

  • Original message: Relentless increases in U.S. healthcare spending puts a drag on economic growth and household spending.

Updated message:  Relentless increases in U.S. spending on healthcare do indeed reduce individual households’ disposable income, especially as households pay ever more of the share of healthcare costs. Healthcare costs also do eat into corporate profits, and blunt international competitiveness. However, healthcare spending is not necessarily a drag on the economy. Rather, it is now a major component of our national economy, accounting for 18.3% of total gross domestic product. This is because the U.S. has evolved into a post-industrial services-oriented economy. There is nothing inherently problematic about healthcare services in this kind of economy. The problem, however, is that excessive healthcare spending is diverting human and financial resources away from other priorities, such as education, research, infrastructure, housing. Furthermore, the marginal benefit of more healthcare spending is dwindling, while the unrealized value of deferred investment in these other priorities is growing – mounting opportunity costs.

 

  • Original message: Relentless increases in U.S. healthcare spending will seriously weaken the nation over time.

Updated message:  Economist Larry Summers dismisses the idea of an impending fiscal calamity. He explains that the “real” interest rate (nominal minus inflation) has been at historic low levels for the last two decades, resulting in no increase on the actual proportionate amount paid to service the debt.  Nevertheless, he cautions federal budgeters not to deepen the debt any further, but rather pay as we go for any new programs. Thus, the reasons to fix U.S. healthcare are not to avoid national disaster, but rather to improve worker productivity, rebalance fiscal priorities, and promote societal cohesion and business climate.

 

  • Original message: Excessive healthcare spending is principally driven by low-marginal-benefit services and inefficient, overly complex administration.

Updated message:  Excessive healthcare spending is indeed driven by administrative complexity (estimated at $265.6 billion annually) and to a lesser degree by low-marginal-benefit treatments (estimated at $75.7 billion to $101.2 billion) (2012-2019 data). Other elements of non-costworthy, wasted spending are:

  • Failures of Care Delivery: $102.4 billion to $165.7 billion
  • Failures of Care Coordination: $27.2 billion to $78.2 billion
  • Fraud and abuse: $58.5 billion to $83.9 billion

But the other big driver of over-spending is pricing failure in imperfect markets, amounting to $230.7 billion to $240.5 billion.

 

  • Original message: Excessive healthcare spending was caused by health professionals who, in good faith, overvalued healthcare services and lost their perspective on their value relative to other societal priorities.

Updated message:  Given the prominence of market and pricing failures, this blog concludes that healthcare business interests, and their professional and political allies, have knowingly and willfully coopted healthcare for the purpose of profits. These interests have superseded the health of the public, often undermine patient-centered care, and, at times, result in actual harm.

 

  • Original message: Healthcare can be fixed by a common-sense, practical approach informed by cost-benefit analysis.

Updated message:  Since the system is rigged by powerful, well-financed interests, it can be fixed only by the full faith and clout of the federal government responding to an informed grassroots movement. The most likely format for healthcare reform would be gradual but deliberate transition to a single-payer system. This would then be followed by systematic remedies to the 6 categories of unjustified “wasteful” spending, including technology assessment using cost-benefit analysis.

 

 

 

9 health systems with strong finances

Posted on by • Posted in Balance Sheet, Credit Quality, Credit Ratings, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Net Income, Operating Margin, Operating Performance • Leave a comment

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/9-health-systems-with-strong-finances-120919.html

Here are nine health systems with strong operational metrics and solid financial positions, according to recent reports from Fitch Ratings, Moody’s Investors Service and S&P Global Ratings.

Note: This is not an exhaustive list. Health system names were compiled from recent credit rating reports and are listed in alphabetical order.

1. Advocate Aurora Health, a 27-hospital system with dual headquarters in Downers Grove, Ill., and Milwaukee, has an “Aa3” rating and positive outlook with Moody’s. The health system has a favorable liquidity position, low leverage, and healthy margins, according to Moody’s. The credit rating agency expects the health system to continue to benefit from its position as a market leader within two large service areas.

2. Morristown, N.J.-based Atlantic Health System has an “Aa3” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The five-hospital system has healthy liquidity and solid operating margins, according to Moody’s. The credit rating agency expects strong patient volume, low reliance on governmental funding and other factors to continue to support Atlantic Health System’s financial metrics.

3. Fountain Valley, Calif.-based MemorialCare has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch and S&P. The health system has a strong balance sheet and financial profile, according to Fitch. The credit rating agency expects MemorialCare’s cash flow to improve due to its market strategy, which focuses on revenue diversification.

4. Portland-based Oregon Health & Science University has an “Aa3” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s and an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with S&P. OHSU, which is the only academic medical center in Oregon, has favorable operating performance, strong philanthropy and its clinical offerings draw patients from across Oregon and neighboring states, according to Moody’s. The credit rating agency expects OHSU’s revenue to continue to grow.

5. Albuquerque, N.M.-based Presbyterian Healthcare Services has an “Aa3” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The health system has strong revenue growth, good market share for acute care services and a favorable balance sheet. The credit rating agency expects the health system’s insurance plan, which is already a dominant health plan in New Mexico, to continue to grow.

6. Appleton, Wis.-based ThedaCare has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The health system has solid cash flow and a leading market position in a stable service area, according to Fitch. The credit rating agency expects ThedaCare’s operating performance to continue to improve.

7. Livonia, Mich.-based Trinity Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch and S&P. The health system has a significant market presence in several states and a strong financial profile, according to Fitch. The credit rating agency expects the health system’s operating margins to continue to improve.

8. Chapel Hill-based University of North Carolina Hospitals has an “Aa3” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. UNC Hospitals, part of UNC Health Care System, has an excellent market position and strong financial performance, according to Moody’s. The credit rating agency expects UNC Hospitals to continue to grow patient volumes and maintain strong financial performance.

9. Philadelphia-based University of Pennsylvania Health System has an “Aa3” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The health system has a strong market position, and substantial investments in facilities will allow the health system to capitalize on its prominent reputation and wide patient draw, according to Moody’s.