Category Archives: Affordability

8 Reasons Hospitals must Re-think their Future

Posted on by • Posted in 2024 Election Issues, Affordability, Health Insurance Industry, Health Policy, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Inflation, Market Consolidation, Market Power, Media Backlash, Medical Debt, Medicare Funding, Medicare Payment, Operating Expenses, Operating Income, Operating Margin, Operating Margin Drivers, Operating Metrics, Operating Performance, Operating Revenue, Physician Compensation, Physician Discontent, Physician Shortage, Physician Workforce, Strategic Change, Strategy, Strategy and Transformation, Surprise Bills, Survival Mode, Sustainable, Value-Based Healthcare • Leave a comment
8 Reasons Hospitals must Re-think their Future

Today is the federal income Tax Day. In 43 states, it’s in addition to their own income tax requirements. Last year, the federal government took in $4.6 trillion and spent $6.2 trillion including $1.9 trillion for its health programs. Overall, 2023 federal revenue decreased 15.5% and spending was down 8.4% from 2022 and the deficit increased to $33.2 trillion. Healthcare spending exceeded social security ($1.351 trillion) and defense spending ($828 billion) and is the federal economy’s biggest expense.

Along with the fragile geopolitical landscape involving relationships with China, Russia and Middle East, federal spending and the economy frame the context for U.S. domestic policies which include its health system. That’s the big picture.

Today also marks the second day of the American Hospital Association annual meeting in DC. The backdrop for this year’s meeting is unusually harsh for its members:

Increased government oversight:

Five committees of Congress and three federal agencies (FTC, DOJ, HHS) are investigating competition and business practices in hospitals, with special attention to the roles of private equity ownership, debt collection policies, price transparency compliance, tax exemptions, workforce diversity, consumer prices and more.

Medicare payment shortfall: 

CMS just issued (last week) its IPPS rate adjustment for 2025: a 2.6% bump that falls short of medical inflation and is certain to exacerbate wage pressures in the hospital workforce. Per a Bank of American analysis last week, “it appears healthcare payrolls remain below pre-pandemic trend” with hospitals and nursing homes lagging ambulatory sectors in recovering.”

Persistent negative media coverage:

The financial challenges for Mission (Asheville), Steward (Massachusetts) and others have been attributed to mismanagement and greed by their corporate owners and reports from independent watchdogs (Lown, West Health, Arnold Ventures, Patient Rights Advocate) about hospital tax exemptions, patient safety, community benefits, executive compensation and charity care have amplified unflattering media attention to hospitals.

Physicians discontent: 

59% of physicians in the U.S. are employed by hospitals; 18% by private equity-backed investors and the rest are “independent”. All are worried about their income. All think hospitals are wasteful and inefficient. Most think hospital employment is the lesser of evils threatening the future of their profession. And those in private equity-backed settings hope regulators leave them alone so they can survive. As America’s Physician Group CEO Susan Dentzer observed: “we knew we’re always going to need hospitals; but they don’t have to look or operate the way they do now. And they don’t have to be predicated on a revenue model based on people getting more elective surgeries than they actually need. We don’t have to run the system that way; we do run the healthcare system that way currently.”

The Value Agenda in limbo:

Since the Affordable Care Act (2010), the CMS Center for Innovation has sponsored and ultimately disabled all but 6 of its 54+ alternative payment programs. As it turns out, those that have performed best were driven by physician organizations sans hospital control. Last week’s release of “Creating a Sustainable Future for Value-Based Care: A Playbook of Voluntary Best Practices for VBC Payment Arrangements.” By the American Medical Association, the National Association of ACOs (NAACOs) and AHIP, the trade group representing America’s health insurance payers is illustrative. Noticeably not included: the American Hospital Association because value-pursuers think for hospitals it’s all talk.

National insurers hostility:  

Large, corporate insurers have intensified reimbursement pressure on hospitals while successfully strengthening their collective grip on the U.S. health insurance sector. 5 insurers control 50% of the U.S. health insurance market: 4 are investor owned. By contrast, the 5 largest hospital systems control 17% of the hospital market: 1 is investor-owned. And bumpy insurer earnings post-pandemic has prompted robust price increases: in 2022 (the last year for complete data and first year post pandemic), medical inflation was 4.0%, hospital prices went up 2.2% but insurer prices increased 5.9%.

Costly capital: 

The U.S. economy is in a tricky place: inflation is stuck above 3%, consumer prices are stable and employment is strong. Thus, the Fed is not likely to drop interest rates making hospital debt more costly for hospitals—especially problematic for public, safety net and rural hospitals. The hospital business is capital intense: it needs $$ for technologies, facilities and clinical innovations that treat medical demand. For those dependent on federal funding (i.e. Medicare), it’s unrealistic to think its funding from taxpayers will be adequate.  Ditto state and local governments. For those that are credit worthy, capital is accessible from private investors and lenders. For at least half, it’s problematic and for all it’s certain to be more expensive.

Campaign 2024 spotlight:

In Campaign 2024, healthcare affordability is an issue to likely voters. It is noticeably missing among the priorities in the hospital-backed Coalition to Strengthen America’s Healthcare advocacy platform though 8 states have already created “affordability” boards to enact policies to protect consumers from medical debts, surprise hospital bills and more.

Understandably, hospitals argue they’re victims. They depend on AHA, its state associations, and its alliances with FAH, CHA, AEH and other like-minded collaborators to fight against policies that erode their finances i.e. 340B program participation, site-neutral payments and others. They rightfully assert that their 7/24/365 availability is uniquely qualifying for the greater good, but it’s not enough. These battles are fought with energy and resolve, but they do not win the war facing hospitals.

AHA spent more than $30 million last year to influence federal legislation but it’s an uphill battle. 70% of the U.S. population think the health system is flawed and in need of transformative change. Hospitals are its biggest player (30% of total spending), among its most visible and vulnerable to market change.

Some think hospitals can hunker down and weather the storm of these 8 challenges; others think transformative change is needed and many aren’t sure. And all recognize that the future is not a repeat of the past.

For hospitals, including those in DC this week, playing victim is not a strategy. A vision about the future of the health system that’s accessible, affordable and effective and a comprehensive plan inclusive of structural changes and funding is needed. Hospitals should play a leading, but not exclusive, role in this urgently needed effort.

Lacking this, hospitals will be public utilities in a system of health designed and implemented by others.

Is Private Equity the Solution or the Problem in Healthcare?

Posted on by • Posted in Affordability, Cherry Picking, Health Policy, Lobbyist, Market Consolidation, Market Power, Mergers & Acquisitions, Price Transparency, Pricing Leverage, Private Equity, Public Good, Public Health, Public Opinion, Public Perception • Leave a comment
Is Private Equity the Solution or the Problem in Healthcare?

Of late, private equity investors in healthcare services have faced intense criticism that their business practices have compromised patient safety and raised costs for consumers. March 5, the FTC, DOJ and HHS announced the launch of an investigation into the inner workings of PE in healthcare. It comes on the heels of U.S. Senate investigations in their Finance, HELP and Budget Committees to explore legislative levers they might pull to address their growing concerns about affordability, competition and accountability in the industry.

PE funds don’t welcome the spotlight. 

Their business model lends to misinformation and disinformation: company takeovers by new owners are rarely treated as good news unless the circumstance under prior ownership was dire. Even then, attention shifts quickly to the fairness of the PE business model playbook: acquire the asset on favorable terms, replace management, reduce operating costs, grow and the sell in 5-7 years at a profit using debt to finance the deal along the way. In exchange, the PE fund’s General Partner gets an annual management fee of 2% plus 20% of the value they create when they sell the company or take it public, and favorable tax treatment (carried interest) on their gain.

Concern about PE in healthcare services comes at a particularly delicate time: hospitals. nursing homes, outpatient care, medical practices, clinics et al) are still feeling the after-effects of the pandemic, proposed reimbursement bumps by Medicare for hospitals and physicians do not offset medical inflation and the Change Healthcare cybersecurity breach February 21 has created cash flow issues for all.

Concern about PE ownership was high already.

Innovations funded through PE-backed organizations have been drowned out by the steady drip of peer reviewed and industry-sponsored studies a causal relationship between PE ownership decreased quality and patient safety and increased prices and worker discontent. Nonetheless, PE-owns 4% of hospitals (among 36% that are investor-owned, 13% of medical practices and 6% of nursing homes today and they’re increasing in all cohorts of health services.

Here are the facts:

Private equity enjoys significant influence in public policy including healthcare. Direct lobbying activity by PE funds in Congress and state legislatures is well-funded and effective, especially by the It is increasingly 20 global fund sponsors that control 46% of assets under management. Cash on hand and fund-raising by PE are strong and healthcare remains an important but non-exclusive target of PE investing.

2023 was a down year for PE, 2024 will be strong: the IPO market and sponsor- to sponsor transactions dipped, and deal values shrank. Even with interest rates remaining high, returns exceeded overall growth in the stock market for deals consummated. At the same time, PE raised $1.2 trillion last year and has $2.6 trillion of dry powder to invest. Healthcare services will be a target as PE deal activity increases in 2024.

In U.S. healthcare, PE investments are significant and increasing.  Technology-enabled services that lower unit costs and AI-based solutions that enable standardization and workforce efficiency will garner higher valuations and greater PE interest than traditional services. Valuations will recover from record 2023 lows and dry powder will be deployed for roll-ups despite antitrust concerns and government investigations. Congress will investigate the impact on PE on patient safety, prices and competition and, in tandem with FTC and DOJ issue guidance: compliance will be mandated and financial penalties added. But displacement of PE in health services is unlikely.

Some notable data:

  • Private equity funds have $2.49 trillion of cash on hand to invest—up 7% from 2022. They raised $1.2 trillion globally in 2023. 26% of its global dry powder is more than 4 years old—undeployed.
  • Private equity groups globally are sitting on a record 28,000 unsold companies worth more than $3tn. 40% of the companies waiting to be sold are at least four years old. Last year, the combined value of companies that the industry sold privately or on public markets fell 44% and the value of companies sold to other buyout groups fell 47%.
  • Private equity investments in almost every sector in healthcare are significant, and until lately, increasing. Last year, deals were down 16.2% (from 940 to 788) cutting across every sector. In some sectors, like physician services, PE deals were tuck-in’s to their previous platform investments increasing from 75 deals in 2012 to 484 deals in 2021.
  • PE investments in US healthcare exceeded $1 trillion in the last 10 years. Investments in healthcare services i.e. acute, long-term, ambulatory and physician services– have been less profitable to investors than PE investments in technology, devices and therapeutics (based on the ratio of Enterprise Value to EBITDA) but exceed equity-market returns overall.
  • Peer reviewed studies have shown causal relationships between private equity ownership of hospitals, nursing homes and medical practices with lower operating costs, higher staff turnover, high prices and higher profits.

My take:

Like it or not, private equity investment in healthcare is here to stay. The likelihood of higher taxes paid by employers and individuals to fund the health system is nil. The majority (69%) of the public think it wasteful and inefficient (See Polling below). The majority believe it puts its profits above all else. The majority think it needs major change. That’s not new, but it’s felt more intensely and more widely than ever.

That means accommodation for private capital, including private equity, is not a major concern to voters: the prices they pay matters more than who owns the organization.

Tighter regulation of private equity, including more rights given to the Limited Partners who invest in the PE funds and limitations on public officials who become fund advisors, are likely. Bad actors will be vilified by regulators and elected officials. Media scrutiny of specific PE funds and their GPs will intensify as PE public reporting regulations commence. And investments made by not-for-profit multi-hospital systems and independent hospitals will be critical elements in upcoming Congressional and regulatory policy setting about their community benefit accountability and tax exemptions.

The public’s major concern about its healthcare industry is affordability. To the extent PE-backed solutions offer lower-cost, higher-value alternatives on a playing field that’s level with respect to equitable access and demand-management, they will be at the table.

To the extent PE-backed solutions cherry-pick the system’s low-hanging fruit at the expense of patient safety and affordability sans any regulatory restriction, they’ll breed public discontent from those they choose to ignore.

So, the reality is this: PE’s focus is generating profits for its GP and their LPs. Doing business in a socially responsible way is a fund’s prerogative. Some do it better than others.

PE is part of healthcare’s solution to its poorly structured, perpetually inadequate and mal-distributed funding. But creating a level playing field through meaningful regulatory reform is necessary first.

PS Among the stickier issues facing hospitals is site-neutral payments. Hospitals oppose the proposal reasoning the overhead structure for their outpatient services (HOPD) include indirect & direct costs for services provided those unable to pay i.e. emergency services. Proponents of the change argue that what’s done is the key, not where it’s done, and uniform pricing is common sense. Leavitt Partners has advanced a compromise: a Unified Ambulatory Payment System for HOPDs, ASCs and physician clinics that would be applied to 66 services starting

Has U.S. Healthcare reached its Tipping Point?

Posted on by • Posted in Affordability, Cost Management, Dept of Justice (DOJ), Disruption, Disruptive Technology, Federal Trade Commission, Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Health Insurance Industry, Health Policy, Health System, Healthcare Industry, Healthcare Reform, High Drug Prices, Inflation, Innovation, Innovative Care Models, Integrated Delivery System, Meaningful, Price Transparency, Private Equity, Tipping Point, Transformation, Transformational Change • Leave a comment
Has U.S. Healthcare reached its Tipping Point?

Last week was significant for healthcare:

  • Tuesday, the, FTC, and DOJ announced creation of a task force focused on tackling “unfair and illegal pricing” in healthcare. The same day, HHS joined FTC and DOJ regulators in launching an investigation with the DOJ and FTC probing private equity’ investments in healthcare expressing concern these deals may generate profits for corporate investors at the expense of patients’ health, workers’ safety and affordable care.
  • Thursday’s State of the Union address by President Biden (SOTU) and the Republican response by Alabama Senator Katey Britt put the spotlight on women’s reproductive health, drug prices and healthcare affordability.
  • Friday, the Senate passed a $468 billion spending bill (75-22) that had passed in the House Wednesday (339-85) averting a government shutdown. The bill postpones an $8 billion reduction in Medicaid disproportionate share hospital payments for a year, allocates $4.27 billion to federally qualified health centers through the end of the year and rolls back a significant portion of a Medicare physician pay cut that kicked in on Jan. 1. Next, Congress must pass appropriations for HHS and other agencies before the March 22 shutdown.
  • And all week, the cyberattack on Optum’s Change Healthcare discovered February 21 hovered as hospitals, clinics, pharmacies and others scrambled to manage gaps in transaction processing. Notably, the American Hospital Association and others have amplified criticism of UnitedHealth Group’s handling of the disruption, having, bought Change for $13 billion in October, 2022 after a lengthy Department of Justice anti-trust review. This week, UHG indicates partial service of CH support will be restored. Stay tuned.

Just another week for healthcare: Congressional infighting about healthcare spending. Regulator announcements of new rules to stimulate competition and protect consumers in the healthcare market.  Lobbying by leading trade groups to protect funding and disable threats from rivals. And so on.

At the macro level, it’s understandable: healthcare is an attractive market, especially in its services sectors. Since the pandemic, prices for services (i.e. physicians, hospitals et al) have steadily increased and remain elevated despite the pressures of transparency mandates and insurer pushback. By contrast, prices for most products (drugs, disposables, technologies et al) have followed the broader market pricing trends where prices for some escalated fast and then dipped.

While some branded prescription medicines are exceptions, it is health services that have driven the majority of health cost inflation since the pandemic.

UnitedHealth Group’s financial success is illustrative: 

it’s big, high profile and vertically integrated across all major services sectors. In its year end 2023 financial report (January 12, 2024) it reported revenues of $371.6 Billion (up 15% Year-Over-Year), earnings from operations up 14%, cash flows from operations of $29.1 Billion (1.3x Net Income), medical care ratio at 83.2% up from 82% last year, net earnings of $23.86/share and adjusted net earnings of $25.12/share and guidance its 2024 revenues of $400-403 billion. They buy products using their scale and scope leverage to  pay less for services they don’t own less and products needed to support them. It’s a big business in a buyer’s market and that’s unsettling to many.

Big business is not new to healthcare:

it’s been dominant in every sector but of late more a focus of unflattering regulator and media attention. Coupled with growing public discontent about the system’s effectiveness and affordability, it seems it’s near a tipping point.

David Johnson, one of the most thoughtful analysts of the health industry, reminded his readers last week that the current state of affairs in U.S. healthcare is not new citing the January 1970 Fortune cover story “Our Ailing Medical System”

 “American medicine, the pride of the nation for many years, stands now on the brink of chaos. To be sure, our medical practitioners have their great moments of drama and triumph. But much of U.S. medical care, particularly the everyday business of preventing and treating routine illnesses, is inferior in quality, wastefully dispensed, and inequitably financed…

Whether poor or not, most Americans are badly served by the obsolete, overstrained medical system that has grown up around them helter-skelter. … The time has come for radical change.”

Johnson added: “The healthcare industry, however, cannot fight gravity forever. Consumerism, technological advances and pro-market regulatory reforms are so powerful and coming so fast that status-quo healthcare cannot forestall their ascendance. Properly harnessed, these disruptive forces have the collective power necessary for U.S. healthcare to finally achieve the 1970 Fortune magazine goal of delivering “good care to every American with little increase in cost.”

He’s right.

I believe the U.S. health system as we know it has reached its tipping point. The big-name organizations in every sector see it and have nominal contingency plans in place; the smaller players are buying time until the shoe drops. But I am worried.

I am worried the system’s future is in the hands of hyper-partisanship by both parties seeking political advantage in election cycles over meaningful creation of a health system that functions for the greater good.

I am worried that the industry’s aversion to price transparency, meaningful discussion about affordability and consistency in defining quality, safety and value will precipitate short-term gamesmanship for reputational advantage and nullify systemness and interoperability requisite to its transformation.

I am worried that understandably frustrated employers will drop employee health benefits to force the system to needed accountability.

I am worried that the growing armies of under-served and dissatisfied populations will revolt.

I am worried that its workforce is ill-prepared for a future that’s technology-enabled and consumer centric.

I am worried that the industry’s most prominent trade groups are concentrating more on “warfare” against their rivals and less about the long-term future of the system.

I am worried that transformational change is all talk.

It’s time to start an adult conversation about the future of the system. The starting point: acknowledging that it’s not about bad people; it’s about systemic flaws in its design and functioning. Fixing it requires balancing lag indicators about its use, costs and demand with assumptions about innovations that hold promise to shift its trajectory long-term. It requires employers to actively participate: in 2009-2010, Big Business mistakenly chose to sit out deliberations about the Affordable Care Act. And it requires independent, visionary facilitation free from bias and input beyond the DC talking heads that have dominated reform thought leadership for 6 decades.

Or, collectively, we can watch events like last week’s roll by and witness the emergence of a large public utility serving most and a smaller private option for those that afford it. Or something worse.

P.S. Today, thousands will make the pilgrimage to Orlando for HIMSS24 kicking off with a keynote by Robert Garrett, CEO of Hackensack Meridian Health tomorrow about ‘transformational change’ and closing Friday with a keynote by Nick Saban, legendary Alabama football coach on leadership. In between, the meeting’s 24 premier supporters and hundreds of exhibitors will push their latest solutions to prospects and customers keenly aware healthcare’s future is not a repeat of its past primarily due to technology. Information-driven healthcare is dependent on technologies that enable cost-effective, customized evidence-based care that’s readily accessible to individuals where and when they want it and with whom.

And many will be anticipating HCA Mission Health’s (Asheville NC) Plan of Action response due to CMS this Wednesday addressing deficiencies in 6 areas including CMS Deficiency 482.12 “which ensures that hospitals have a responsible governing body overseeing critical aspects of patient care and medical staff appointments.” Interest is high outside the region as the nation’s largest investor-owned system was put in “immediate jeopardy” of losing its Medicare participation status last year at Mission. FYI: HCA reported operating income of $7.7 billion (11.8% operating margin) on revenues of $65 billion in 2023.

Healthcare Spending 2000-2022: Key Trends, Five Important Questions

Posted on by • Posted in Affordability, Aging Population, Dept of Justice (DOJ), Health Plan, Health Policy, Health System, Healthcare Reform, Healthcare Sector, Inflation Reduction Act, Market Consolidation, Market Trends, Medicare, Medicare Funding, Monopoly Behavior, Operating Margin, Operating Margin Drivers, Out of Pocket Expenses, Underinsured, Uninsured, UnitedHealth Group, UnitedHealthcare • Leave a comment
Healthcare Spending 2000-2022: Key Trends, Five Important Questions

Last week, Congress avoided a partial federal shutdown by passing a stop-gap spending bill and now faces March 8 and March 22 deadlines for authorizations including key healthcare programs.

This week, lawmakers’ political antenna will be directed at Super Tuesday GOP Presidential Primary results which prognosticators predict sets the stage for the Biden-Trump re-match in November. And President Biden will deliver his 3rd State of the Union Address Thursday in which he is certain to tout the economy’s post-pandemic strength and recovery.

The common denominator of these activities in Congress is their short-term focus: a longer-term view about the direction of the country, its priorities and its funding is not on its radar anytime soon. 

The healthcare system, which is nation’s biggest employer and 17.3% of its GDP, suffers from neglect as a result of chronic near-sightedness by its elected officials. A retrospective about its funding should prompt Congress to prepare otherwise.

U.S. Healthcare Spending 2000-2022

Year-over-year changes in U.S. healthcare spending reflect shifting demand for services and their underlying costs, changes in the healthiness of the population and the regulatory framework in which the U.S. health system operates to receive payments. Fluctuations are apparent year-to-year, but a multiyear retrospective on health spending is necessary to a longer-term view of its future.

The period from 2000 to 2022 (the last year for which U.S. spending data is available) spans two economic downturns (2008–2010 and 2020–2021); four presidencies; shifts in the composition of Congress, the Supreme Court, state legislatures and governors’ offices; and the passage of two major healthcare laws (the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 and the Affordable Care Act of 2010).

During this span of time, there were notable changes in healthcare spending:

  • In 2000, national health expenditures were $1.4 trillion (13.3% of gross domestic product); in 2022, they were $4.5 trillion (17.3% of the GDP)—a 4.1% increase overall, a 321% increase in nominal spending and a 30% increase in the relative percentage of the nation’s GDP devoted to healthcare. No other sector in the economy has increased as much.
  • In the same period, the population increased 17% from 282 million to 333 million, per capita healthcare spending increased 178% from $4,845 to $13,493 due primarily to inflation-impacted higher unit costs for , facilities, technologies and specialty provider costs and increased utilization by consumers due to escalating chronic diseases.
  • There were notable changes where dollars were spent: Hospitals remained relatively unchanged (from $415 billion/30.4% of total spending to $1.355 trillion/31.4%), physician services shrank (from $288.2 billion/21.1% to $884.8/19.6%) and prescription drugs were unchanged (from $122.3 billion/8.95% to $405.9 billion/9.0%).
  • And significant changes in funding Out-of-pocket shrank from 14.2% ($193.6 billion in 2020) to (10.5% ($471 billion) in 2020, private insurance shrank from $441 billion/32.3% to $1.289 trillion/29%, Medicare spending grew from $224.8 billion/16.5% to $944.3billion/21%; Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program spending grew from $203.4 billion/14.9% to $7805.7billion/18%; and Department of Veterans Affairs healthcare spending grew from $19.1 billion/1.4% to $98 billion/2.2%.

Looking ahead (2022-2031), CMS forecasts average National Health Expenditures (NHE) will grow at 5.4% per year outpacing average GDP growth (4.6%) and resulting in an increase in the health spending share of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) from 17.3% in 2021 to 19.6% in 2031.

The agency’s actuaries assume

“The insured share of the population is projected to reach a historic high of 92.3% in 2022… Medicaid enrollment will decline from its 2022 peak of 90.4M to 81.1M by 2025 as states disenroll beneficiaries no longer eligible for coverage. By 2031, the insured share of the population is projected to be 90.5 percent. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) is projected to result in lower out-of-pocket spending on prescription drugs for 2024 and beyond as Medicare beneficiaries incur savings associated with several provisions from the legislation including the $2,000 annual out-of-pocket spending cap and lower gross prices resulting from negotiations with manufacturers.”

My take:

The reality is this: no one knows for sure what the U.S. health economy will be in 2025 much less 2035 and beyond. There are too many moving parts, too much invested capital seeking near-term profits, too many compensation packages tied to near-term profits, too many unknowns like the impact of artificial intelligence and court decisions about consolidation and too much political risk for state and federal politicians to change anything.

One trend stands out in the data from 2000-2022: The healthcare economy is increasingly dependent on indirect funding by taxpayers and less dependent on direct payments by users. 

In the last 22 years, local, state and federal government programs like Medicare, Medicaid and others have become the major sources of funding to the system while direct payments by consumers and employers, vis-à-vis premium out-of-pocket costs, increased nominally but not at the same rate as government programs. And total spending has increased more than the overall economy (GDP), household wages and  costs of living almost every year.

Thus, given the trends, five questions must be addressed in the context of the system’s long-term solvency and effectiveness looking to 2031 and beyond:

  • Should its total spending and public funding be capped?
  • Should the allocation of funds be better adapted to innovations in technology and clinical evidence?
  • Should the financing and delivery of health services be integrated to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the system?
  • Should its structure be a dual public-private system akin to public-private designations in education?
  • Should consumers play a more direct role in its oversight and funding?

Answers will not be forthcoming in Campaign 2024 despite the growing significance of healthcare in the minds of voters. But they require attention now despite political neglect.

PS: The month of February might be remembered as the month two stalwarts in the industry faced troubles:

United HealthGroup, the biggest health insurer, saw fallout from a cyberattack against its recently acquired (2/22) insurance transaction processor by ALPHV/Blackcat, creating havoc for the 6000 hospitals, 1 million physicians, and 39,000 pharmacies seeking payments and/or authorizations. Then, news circulated about the DOJ’s investigation about its anti-competitive behavior with respect to the 90,000 physicians it employs. Its stock price ended the week at 489.53, down from 507.14 February 1.

And HCA, the biggest hospital operator, faced continued fallout from lawsuits for its handling of Mission Health (Asheville) where last Tuesday, a North Carolina federal court refused to dismiss a lawsuit accusing it of scheming to restrict competition and artificially drive-up costs for health plans. closed at 311.59 last week, down from 314.66 February 1.

What a Biden-Trump Re-Match means for Healthcare Politics: How the Campaigns will Position their Differences to Voters

Posted on by • Posted in 2024 Election Issues, ACA, Access & Quality of Healthcare, Access to IVF Treatments, Affordability, Antitrust, Competition, Federal Trade Commission, Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, High Drug Prices, Market Consolidation, Market Power, Medicaid, Medicare, Monopoly Behavior, Out of Pocket Expenses, Price Transparency, Public Health • Leave a comment
What a Biden-Trump Re-Match means for Healthcare Politics: How the Campaigns will Position their Differences to Voters

With the South Carolina Republican primary results in over the weekend, it seems a Biden-Trump re-match is inevitable. Given the legacies associated with Presidencies of the two and the healthcare platforms espoused by their political parties, the landscape for healthcare politics seems clear:

Healthcare IssueBiden PolicyTrump Policy
Access to Abortion‘It’s a basic right for women protected by the Federal Government’‘It’s up to the states and should be safe and rare. A 16-week ban should be the national standard.’
Ageism‘President Biden is alert and capable. It’s a non-issue.’‘President Biden is senile and unlikely to finish a second term is elected. President Trump is active and prepared.’
Access to IVF Treatments‘It’s a basic right and should be universally accessible in every state and protected’‘It’s a complex issue that should be considered in every state.’
Affordability‘The system is unaffordable because it’s dominated by profit-focused corporations. It needs increased regulation including price controls.’‘The system is unaffordable to some because it’s overly regulated and lacks competition and price transparency.’
Access to Health Insurance Coverage‘It’s necessary for access to needed services & should be universally accessible and affordable.’‘It’s a personal choice. Government should play a limited role.’
Public health‘Underfunded and increasingly important.’‘Fragmented and suboptimal. States should take the lead.’
Drug prices‘Drug companies take advantage of the system to keep prices high. Price controls are necessary to lower costs.’‘Drug prices are too high. Allowing importation and increased price transparency are keys to reducing costs.’
Medicare‘It’s foundational to seniors’ wellbeing & should be protected. But demand is growing requiring modernization (aka the value agenda) and additional revenues (taxes + appropriations).’‘It’s foundational to senior health & in need of modernization thru privatization. Waste and fraud are problematic to its future.’
Medicaid‘Medicaid Managed Care is its future with increased enrollment and standardization of eligibility & benefits across states.’‘Medicaid is a state program allowing modernization & innovation. The federal role should be subordinate to the states.’
Competition‘The federal government (FTC, DOJ) should enhance protections against vertical and horizontal consolidation that reduce choices and increase prices in every sector of healthcare.’‘Current anti-trust and consumer protections are adequate to address consolidation in healthcare.’
Price Transparency‘Necessary and essential to protect consumers. Needs expansion.’‘Necessary to drive competition in markets. Needs more attention.’
The Affordable Care Act‘A necessary foundation for health system modernization that appropriately balances public and private responsibilities. Fix and Repair’‘An unnecessary government takeover of the health system that’s harmful and wasteful. Repeal and Replace.’
Role of federal government‘The federal government should enable equitable access and affordability. The private sector is focused more on profit than the public good.’‘Market forces will drive better value. States should play a bigger role’

My take:

Polls indicate Campaign 2024 will be decided based on economic conditions in the fall 2024 as voters zero in on their choice. Per KFF’s latest poll, 74% of adults say an unexpected healthcare bill is their number-one financial concern—above their fears about food, energy and housing. So, if you’re handicapping healthcare in Campaign 2024, bet on its emergence as an economic issue, especially in the swing states (Michigan, Florida, North Carolina, Georgia and Arizona) where there are sharp health policy differences and the healthcare systems in these states are dominated by consolidated hospitals and national insurers.

  • Three issues will be the primary focus of both campaigns: women’s health and access to abortion, affordability and competition. On women’s health, there are sharp differences; on affordability and competition, the distinctions between the campaigns will be less clear to voters. Both will opine support for policy changes without offering details on what, when and how.
  • The Affordable Care Act will surface in rhetoric contrasting a ‘government run system’ to a ‘market driven system.’ In reality, both campaigns will favor changes to the ACA rather than repeal.
  • Both campaigns will voice support for state leadership in resolving abortion, drug pricing and consolidation. State cost containment laws and actions taken by state attorneys general to limit hospital consolidation and private equity ownership will get support from both campaigns.
  • Neither campaign will propose transformative policy changes: they’re too risky. integrating health & social services, capping total spending, reforms of drug patient laws, restricting tax exemptions for ‘not for profit’ hospitals, federalizing Medicaid, and others will not be on the table. There’s safety in promoting populist themes (price transparency, competition) and steering away from anything more.

As the primary season wears on (in Michigan tomorrow and 23 others on/before March 5), how the health system is positioned in the court of public opinion will come into focus.

Abortion rights will garner votes; affordability, price transparency, Medicare solvency and system consolidation will emerge as wedge issues alongside.

PS: Re: federal budgeting for key healthcare agencies, two deadlines are eminent: March 1 for funding for the FDA and the VA and March 8 for HHS funding.

How GoFundMe use demonstrates the problem of healthcare affordability

Posted on by • Posted in Affordability, Bankruptcy, Crowdfunding, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, High Deductible Health Plans, High Prices, Medical Debt, Out of Pocket Expenses • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/1e28b32fc32e/gist-weekly-february-9-2024?e=d1e747d2d8

Published this week in The Atlantic, this piece chronicles the increase in Americans using crowdfunding sites like GoFundMe to cover—or at least attempt to cover—their catastrophic medical expenses. Envisioned as a tool to fund “ideas and dreams,” the GoFundMe platform saw a 25-fold increase in the number of campaigns dedicated to medical care from 2011 to 2020.

Medical campaigns have garnered at least one third of all donations and raised $650M in contributions.

The article’s accounts of life-saving care leading to bankrupting medical bills are heartbreaking and familiar, and despite some success stories, the average GoFundMe medical campaign falls well short of its target donation goal. 

The Gist: 

Although unfortunately not surprising, these crowdfunding stats reflect our nation’s healthcare affordability crisis. 

Online campaigns can alleviate real financial burdens for some people; however, they come at the costs of publicly exposing personal medical information, potentially offering false hope, and financially imposing on friends and family. 

The majority of personal bankruptcies are caused by medical expenses, and recent changes like removing some levels of medical debt from credit reports are only a small step toward reducing the personal financial effects of medical debt. 

Absent larger-scale healthcare payment and coverage reform, healthcare industry leaders continue to be challenged with finding ways to decouple the provision of essential medical care from the risk of financial ruin for patients.

The Three In-bound Truth Bombs set to Explode in U.S. Healthcare

Posted on by • Posted in ACA, Administrative Burden, Affordability, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health System, Healthcare Reform, High Deductible Health Plans, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Medicare Advantage, Outcomes, Pharmaceutical Industry, Primary Care, Quality of Care, Regulation, Tax Exempt Status, Truth, Truth Unvarnished, Underinsured, Uninsured • Leave a comment
The Three In-bound Truth Bombs set to Explode in U.S. Healthcare

In Sunday’s Axios’ AM, Mike Allen observed “Republicans know immigration alone could sink Biden. So, Trump and House Republicans will kill anything, even if it meets or exceeds their wishes. Biden knows immigration alone could sink him. So he’s willing to accept what he once considered unacceptable — to save himself.”

Mike called this a “truth Bomb” and he’s probably right: the polarizing issue of immigration is tantamount to a bomb falling on the political system forcing well-entrenched factions to re-think and alter their strategies.

In 2024, in U.S. healthcare, three truth bombs are in-bound. They’re the culmination of shifts in the U.S.’ economic, demographic, social and political environment and fueled by accelerants in social media and Big Data.

Truth bomb: The regulatory protections that have buoyed the industry’s growth are no longer secure. 

Despite years of effectively lobbying for protections and money, the industry’s major trade groups face increasingly hostile audiences in city hall, state houses and the U.S. Congress.

The focus of these: the business practices that regulators think protect the status quo at the public’s expense. Example: while the U.S. House spent last week in their districts, Senate Committees held high profile hearings about Medicare Advantage marketing tactics (Finance Committee), consumer protections in assisted living (Special Committee on Aging), drug addiction and the opioid misuse (Banking) and drug pricing (HELP). In states, legislators are rationalizing budgets for Medicaid and public health against education, crime and cybersecurity and lifting scope of practice constraints that limit access.

Drug makers face challenges to patents (“march in rights”) and state-imposed price controls. The FTC and DOJ are challenging hospital consolidation they think potentially harmful to consumer choice and so. Regulators and lawmakers are less receptive to sector-specific wish lists and more supportive of populist-popular rules that advance transparency, disable business relationships that limit consumer choices and cede more control to individuals. Given that the industry is built on a business-to-business (B2B) chassis, preparing for a business to consumer (B2C) time bomb will be uncomfortable for most.

Truth bomb: Affordability in U.S. is not its priority.

The Patient Protection and Affordability Act 2010 advanced the notion that annual healthcare spending growth should not exceed more than 1% of the annual GDP.  It also advanced the premise that spending should not exceed 9.5% of household adjusted gross income (AGI) and associated affordability with access to insurance coverage offering subsidies and Medicaid expansion incentives to achieve near-universal coverage. In 2024, that percentage is 8.39%.

Like many elements of the ACA, these constructs fell short: coverage became its focus; affordability secondary.

The ranks of the uninsured shrank to 9% even as annual aggregate spending increased more than 4%/year. But employers and privately insured individuals saw their costs increase at a double-digit pace: in the process, 41% of the U.S. population now have unpaid medical debt: 45% of these have income above $90,000 and 61% have health insurance coverage. As it turns out, having insurance is no panacea for affordability: premiums increase just as hospital, drug and other costs increase and many lower- and middle-income consumers opt for high-deductible plans that expose them to financial insecurity. While lowering spending through value-based purchasing and alternative payments have shown promise, medical inflation in the healthcare supply chain, unrestricted pricing in many sectors, the influx of private equity investing seeking profit maximization for their GPs, and dependence on high-deductible insurance coverage have negated affordability gains for consumers and increasingly employers. Benign neglect for affordability is seemingly hardwired in the system psyche, more aligned with soundbites than substance.

Truth bomb: The effectiveness of the system is overblown.

Numerous peer reviewed studies have quantified clinical and administrative flaws in the system.  For instance, a recent peer reviewed analysis in the British Medical Journal concluded “An estimated 795 000 Americans become permanently disabled or die annually across care settings because dangerous diseases are misdiagnosed. Just 15 diseases account for about 50.7% of all serious harms, so the problem may be more tractable than previously imagined.”

The inadequacy of personnel and funding in primary and preventive health services is well-documented as the administrative burden of the system—almost 20% of its spending.  Satisfaction is low. Outcomes are impressive for hard-to-diagnose and treat conditions but modest at best for routine care. It’s easier to talk about value than define and measure it in our system: that allows everyone to declare their value propositions without challenge.

Truth bombs are falling in U.S. healthcare. They’re well-documented and financed. They take no prisoners and exact mass casualties.

Most healthcare organizations default to comfortable defenses. That’s not enough. Cyberwarfare, precision-guided drones and dirty bombs require a modernized defense. Lacking that, the system will be a commoditized public utility for most in 15 years.

PS: Last week’s report, “The Holy War between Hospitals and Insurers…” (The Keckley Report – Paul Keckley) prompted understandable frustration from hospitals that believe insurers do not serve the public good at a level commensurate with the advantages they enjoy in the industry. However, justified, pushback by hospitals against insurers should be framed in the longer-term context of the role and scope of services each should play in the system long-term. There are good people in both sectors attempting to serve the public good. It’s not about bad people; it’s about a flawed system.

One third of hospitals take legal action against patients with outstanding medical bills, study finds

Posted on by • Posted in Accountability, Affordability, Collection Agency, Health Equity, Health Policy, Healthcare Reform, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Medical Debt, Rev Cycle Management, Revenue Cycle • Leave a comment
One third of hospitals take legal action against patients with outstanding medical bills, study finds

Nearly 50% of U.S. adults report struggling to keep up with the cost of healthcare, with four in ten ringing in the new year with medical debt. Medical debt is a major burden that often forces people to delay–and sometimes forgo–access to care. Not only do outstanding medical bills undermine health, but they also represent the most common type of collections, with estimates ranging anywhere from $81 to $140 billion. 

With problematic hospital practices gaining national media attention – including rejecting appointments for patients with outstanding medical bills and going so far as to sue such patients – the issue of medical debt is front and center for many Americans.

A glimpse into the state of hospital billing practices

Hospital watchdogs have started collecting valuable data on hospital billing practices to inform patients about these practices and potentially put pressure on hospitals to improve.

In an effort to capture the varied nature of hospital billing and collection practices, the Lown Institute is building a database of financial assistance policies and billing and collection practices across 2,500 hospitals with the support of Arnold Ventures. Initial results are expected to be available in mid-2024 with a full report issued in 2025. 

Also interested in evaluating the current state of hospital’s financial practices, in 2021, the Leapfrog Group added questions to their hospital survey around billing and collections. Researchers from the Leapfrog Group, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, and Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine published a recent analysis of this data in JAMA where they found that many hospitals are still falling short when it comes to billing ethics. Although the data set of 2,270 hospitals was not nationally representative, it provides an interesting glimpse into the billing practices of some U.S. hospitals.  

Here are the key takeaways: 

  • 754 hospitals (33.2%) reported that they “take legal action against patients for late payment or insufficient payment of a medical bill.” Rural hospitals were 38% more likely than urban hospitals to take legal action against patients. 
  • 1,020 (44.9%) hospitals did not routinely send patients itemized bills within 30 days of final claims adjudication or date of service for patients without insurance.
  • 125 (5.5%) hospitals did not provide access to billing representatives capable of investigating billing errors, offering price adjustment, and establishing payment plans.

Ultimately, only 38% of surveyed hospitals reported meeting all three proposed billing quality standards. Interestingly, hospitals with worse Leapfrog safety grades were less likely to meet all three billing standards compared to hospitals with better grades. It’s not clear what’s behind this pattern, but it could be an issue of capacity (hospitals with more resources and staff have an easier time abiding by safety protocol and billing standards), or potentially profiteering (hospitals more concerned with making money may be both understaffing hospitals and suing patients).

So, how can we encourage better billing practices and reduce harm caused by medical debt?

The JAMA study authors recommend standardizing measurement and reporting of hospital billing practices to “increase accountability, reduce variation in billing practices, and reduce barriers in access to care in the US.” 

Some states are taking these recommendations to the policy-level, working to make healthcare more affordable for patients. To date, eight states limit medical debt interest and two states restrict credit reporting of medical debt. Current policy proposals on the docket include New York’s Senate Bill S5909B, which seeks to ban hospitals from suing patients making less than 400% of the federal poverty level (FPL).

This research is important to not only provide further insight into how hospitals financially support, or undermine, their patients, but also inform policy efforts to improve healthcare affordability and hospital accountability moving forward.

3 huge healthcare battles being fought in 2024

Posted on by • Posted in Abortion, Abortion Rights, Affordability, Artificial Intelligence Generative, Big Pharma, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), High Drug Prices, High Premiums, High Prices, Market Outlook, Market Trends, Mifepristone, Modern Medicine, Pharmaceutical Industry, Physician Patient Relationship, Physician Practice Acquisition, Price Transparency, Private Equity, Roe v. Wade, Supreme Court • Leave a comment

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/3-huge-healthcare-battles-being-fought-2024-robert-pearl-m-d–aguvc/?trackingId=z4TxTDG7TKq%2BJqfF6Tieug%3D%3D

Three critical healthcare struggles will define the year to come with cutthroat competition and intense disputes being played out in public:

1. A Nation Divided Over Abortion Rights

2. The Generative AI Revolution In Medicine

3. The Tug-Of-War Over Healthcare Pricing American healthcare, much like any battlefield, is fraught with conflict and turmoil. As we navigate 2024, the wars ahead seem destined to intensify before any semblance of peace can be attained. Let me know your thoughts once you read mine.

Modern medicine, for most of its history, has operated within a collegial environment—an industry of civility where physicians, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies and others stayed in their lanes and out of each other’s business.

It used to be that clinicians made patient-centric decisions, drugmakers and hospitals calculated care/treatment costs and added a modest profit, while insurers set rates based on those figures. Businesses and the government, hoping to save a little money, negotiated coverage rates but not at the expense of a favored doctor or hospital. Disputes, if any, were resolved quietly and behind the scenes.

Times have changed as healthcare has taken a 180-degree turn. This year will be characterized by cutthroat competition and intense disputes played out in public. And as the once harmonious world of healthcare braces for battle, three critical struggles take centerstage. Each one promises controversy and profound implications for the future of medicine:

1. A Nation Divided Over Abortion Rights

For nearly 50 years, from the landmark Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 to its overruling by the 2022 Dobbs case, abortion decisions were the province of women and their doctors. This dynamic has changed in nearly half the states.

This spring, the Supreme Court is set to hear another pivotal case, this one on mifepristone, an important drug for medical abortions. The ruling, expected in June, will significantly impact women’s rights and federal regulatory bodies like the FDA.

Traditionally, abortions were surgical procedures. Today, over half of all terminations are medically induced, primarily using a two-drug combination, including mifepristone. Since its approval in 2000, mifepristone has been prescribed to over 5 million women, and it boasts an excellent safety record. But anti-abortion groups, now challenging this method, have proposed stringent legal restrictions: reducing the administration window from 10 to seven weeks post-conception, banning distribution of the drug by mail, and mandating three in-person doctor visits, a burdensome requirement for many. While physicians could still prescribe misoprostol, the second drug in the regimen, its effectiveness alone pales in comparison to the two-drug combo.

Should the Supreme Court overrule and overturn the FDA’s clinical expertise on these matters, abortion activists fear the floodgates will open, inviting new challenges against other established medications like birth control.

In response, several states have fortified abortion rights through ballot initiatives, a trend expected to gain momentum in the November elections. This legislative action underscores a significant public-opinion divide from the Supreme Court’s stance. In fact, a survey published in Nature Human Behavior reveals that 60% of Americans support legal abortion.

Path to resolution: Uncertain. Traditionally, SCOTUS rulings have mirrored public opinion on key social issues, but its deviation on abortion rights has failed to shift public sentiment, setting the stage for an even fiercer clash in years to come. A Supreme Court ruling that renders abortion unconstitutional would contradict the principles outlined in the Dobbs decision, but not all states will enact protective measures. As a result, America’s divide on abortion rights is poised to deepen.

2. The Generative AI Revolution In Medicine

A year after ChatGPT’s release, an arms race in generative AI is reshaping industries from finance to healthcare. Organizations are investing billions to get a technological leg up on the competition, but this budding revolution has sparked widespread concern.

In Hollywood, screenwriters recently emerged victorious from a 150-day strike, partially focused on the threat of AI as a replacement for human workers. In the media realm, prominent organizations like The New York Times, along with a bevy of celebs and influencers, have initiated copyright infringement lawsuits against OpenAI, the developer of ChatGPT.

The healthcare sector faces its own unique battles. Insurers are leveraging AI to speed up and intensify claim denials, prompting providers to counter with AI-assisted appeals.

But beyond corporate skirmishes, the most profound conflict involves the doctor-patient relationship. Physicians, already vexed by patients who self-diagnose with “Dr. Google,” find themselves unsure whether generative AI will be friend or foe. Unlike traditional search engines, GenAI doesn’t just spit out information. It provides nuanced medical insights based on extensive, up-to-date research. Studies suggest that AI can already diagnose and recommend treatments with remarkable accuracy and empathy, surpassing human doctors in ever-more ways.

Path to resolution: Unfolding. While doctors are already taking advantage of AI’s administrative benefits (billing, notetaking and data entry), they’re apprehensive that ChatGPT will lead to errors if used for patient care. In this case, time will heal most concerns and eliminate most fears. Five years from now, with ChatGPT predicted to be 30 times more powerful, generative AI systems will become integral to medical care. Advanced tools, interfacing with wearables and electronic health records, will aid in disease management, diagnosis and chronic-condition monitoring, enhancing clinical outcomes and overall health.

3. The Tug-Of-War Over Healthcare Pricing

From routine doctor visits to complex hospital stays and drug prescriptions, every aspect of U.S. healthcare is getting more expensive. That’s not news to most Americans, half of whom say it is very or somewhat difficult to afford healthcare costs.

But people may be surprised to learn how the pricing wars will play out this year—and how the winners will affect the overall cost of healthcare.

Throughout U.S. healthcare, nurses are striking as doctors are unionizing. After a year of soaring inflation, healthcare supply-chain costs and wage expectations are through the roof. A notable example emerged in California, where a proposed $25 hourly minimum wage for healthcare workers was later retracted by Governor Newsom amid budget constraints.

Financial pressures are increasing. In response, thousands of doctors have sold their medical practices to private equity firms. This trend will continue in 2024 and likely drive up prices, as much as 30% higher for many specialties.

Meanwhile, drug spending will soar in 2024 as weight-loss drugs (costing roughly $12,000 a year) become increasingly available. A groundbreaking sickle cell disease treatment, which uses the controversial CRISPR technology, is projected to cost nearly $3 million upon release.

To help tame runaway prices, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will reduce out-of-pocket costs for dozens of Part B medications “by $1 to as much as $2,786 per average dose,” according to White House officials. However, the move, one of many price-busting measures under the Inflation Reduction Act, has ignited a series of legal challenges from the pharmaceutical industry.

Big Pharma seeks to delay or overturn legislation that would allow CMS to negotiate prices for 10 of the most expensive outpatient drugs starting in 2026.

Path to resolution: Up to voters. With national healthcare spending expected to leap from $4 trillion to $7 trillion by 2031, the pricing debate will only intensify. The upcoming election will be pivotal in steering the financial strategy for healthcare. A Republican surge could mean tighter controls on Medicare and Medicaid and relaxed insurance regulations, whereas a Democratic sweep could lead to increased taxes, especially on the wealthy. A divided government, however, would stall significant reforms, exacerbating the crisis of unaffordability into 2025.

Is Peace Possible?

American healthcare, much like any battlefield, is fraught with conflict and turmoil. As we navigate 2024, the wars ahead seem destined to intensify before any semblance of peace can be attained.

Yet, amidst the strife, hope glimmers: The rise of ChatGPT and other generative AI technologies holds promise for revolutionizing patient empowerment and systemic efficiency, making healthcare more accessible while mitigating the burden of chronic diseases. The debate over abortion rights, while deeply polarizing, might eventually find resolution in a legislative middle ground that echoes Roe’s protections with some restrictions on how late in pregnancy procedures can be performed.

Unfortunately, some problems need to get worse before they can get better. I predict the affordability of healthcare will be one of them this year. My New Year’s request is not to shoot the messenger.

The Affordable Care Act is Back on Stage: What to Expect

Posted on by • Posted in 2024 Election Issues, ACA, Affordability, American Recovery and Reconstruction Act (ARRA), District Court, District Court of Appeals, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Healthcare Reform, Medical Loss Ratio (MLR), Misinformation, Mislead, Misleading, Preexisting Conditions, Public Opinion, Public Perception, Supreme Court, Triple Aim • Leave a comment
The Affordable Care Act is Back on Stage: What to Expect

In the last 2 weeks, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has been inserted itself in Campaign 2024 by Republican aspirants for the White House:

  • On Truth Social November 28, former President Trump promised to replace it with something better: “Getting much better Healthcare than Obamacare for the American people will be a priority of the Trump Administration. It is not a matter of cost; it is a matter of HEALTH. America will have one of the best Healthcare Plans anywhere in the world. Right now, it has one of the WORST! I don’t want to terminate Obamacare, I want to REPLACE IT with MUCH BETTER HEALTHCARE. Obamacare Sucks!!!!” 
  • Then, on NBC’s Meet the Press December 3, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis offered “We need to have a healthcare plan that works,” Obamacare hasn’t worked. We are going to replace and supersede with a better plan….a totally different healthcare plan… big institutions that are causing prices to be high: big pharma, big insurance and big government.”

It’s no surprise. Health costs and affordability rank behind the economy as top issues for Republican voters per the latest Kaiser Tracking Poll. And distaste with the status quo is widespread and bipartisan: per the Keckley Poll (October 2023), 70% of Americans including majorities in both parties and age-cohorts under 65 think “the system is fundamentally flawed and needs major change.” To GOP voters, the ACA is to blame.

Background:

The Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare aka the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) was passed into law March 23, 2013. It is the most sweeping and controversial health industry legislation passed by Congress since Lyndon Johnson’s Medicare and Medicaid Act (1965). Opinions about the law haven’t changed much in almost 14 years: when passed in 2010, 46% were favorable toward the law vs. 40% who were opposed. Today, those favorable has increased to 59% while opposition has stayed at 40% (Kaiser Tracking Poll).

Few elected officials and even fewer voters have actually read the law. It’s understandable: 955 pages, 10 major sections (Titles) and a plethora of administrative actions, executive orders, amendments and legal challenges that have followed. It continues to be under-reported in media and misrepresented in campaign rhetoric by both sides. Campaign 2024 seems likely to be more of the same.

In 2009, I facilitated discussions about health reform between the White House Office of Health Reform and the leading private sector players in the system (the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, America’s Health Insurance Plans, AdvaMed, PhRMA, and BIO). The impetus for these deliberations was the Obama administration’s directive that systemic reform was necessary with three-aims:  reduce cost, increase access via insurance coverage and improve the quality of care provided by a private system. In parallel, key Committees in the House and Senate held hearings ultimately resulting in passage of separate House and Senate versions with the Senate’s becoming the substance of the final legislation. Think tanks on the left (I.e. the Center for American Progress et al.) and on the right (i.e. the Heritage Foundation) weighed in with members of Congress and DC influencers as the legislation morphed. And new ‘coalitions, centers and institutes’ formed to advocate for and against certain ACA provisions on behalf of their members while maintaining a degree of anonymity.

So, as the ACA resurfaces in political discourse in coming months, it’s important it be framed objectively. To that end, 3 major considerations are necessary to have a ‘fair and balanced’ view of the ACA:

1-The ACA was intended as a comprehensive health reform legislative platform. It was designed to be implemented between 2010 and 2019 in a private system prompted by new federal and state policies to address cost, access and quality. It allowed states latitude in implementing certain elements (like Medicaid expansion, healthcare marketplaces) but few exceptions in other areas (i.e.individual and employer mandates to purchase insurance, minimum requirements for qualified health plans, et al). The CBO estimated it would add $1.1 trillion to overall healthcare spending over the decade but pay for itself by reducing demand, administrative red-tape and leveraging better data for decision-making. The law included provisions to…

  • To improve quality by modernizing of the workforce, creating an Annual Quality Report obligation by HHS, creating the Patient Centered Outcome Research Institute and expanding the the National Quality Forum, adding requirements that approved preventive care be accessible at no cost, expanding community health centers, increasing residency programs in primary care and general surgery, implementing comparative effectiveness assessments to enable clinical transparency and more.
  • To increase access to health insurance by subsidizing coverage for small businesses and low income individuals (up to 400% of the Federal poverty level), funding 90% of the added costs in states choosing to expand their Medicaid enrollments for households earning up to 138% of the poverty level, extending household coverage so ‘young invincibles’ under 26 years of age could stay on their parent’s insurance plan, requiring insurers to provide “essential benefits” in their offerings, imposing medical loss ratio (MLR) mandates (80% individual, 85% group) and more.
  • To lower costs by creating the CMS Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation to construct 5-year demonstration pilots and value-based purchasing programs that shift provider incentives from volume to value, imposing price and quality reporting and transparency requirements and more.

The ACA was ambitious: it was modeled after Romneycare in MA and premised on the presumption that meaningful results could be achieved in a decade. But Romneycare (2006) was about near-universal insurance coverage for all in the Commonwealth, not the triple aim, and the resistance calcified quickly among special interests threatened by its potential.

2-The ACA passed at a time of economic insecurity and hyper-partisan rancor and before many of the industry’s most significant innovations had taken hold. The ACA was the second major legislation passed in the first term of the Obama administration (2009-2012); the first was the $831 billion American Recovery and Reconstruction Act (ARRA) stimulus package that targeted “shovel ready jobs” as a means of economic recovery from the 2008-2010 Great Recession. But notably, it included $138 billion for healthcare including requirements for hospitals and physicians to computerize their medical records, extension of medical insurance to laid off workers and additional funding for states to offset their Medicaid program expenses. The Obama-Biden team came to power with populist momentum behind their promises to lower health costs while keeping the doctors and insurance plans they had. Its rollout was plagued by miscues and the administration’s most popular assurances (‘keep your doctor and hospitals’) were not kept. The Republican Majority in the 111th Congress’ (247-193)) seized on the administration’s miss fueling anti-ACA rhetoric among critics and misinformation.

3-Support for the ACA has grown but its results are mixed. It has survived 7 Supreme Court challenges and more than 70 failed repeal votes in Congress.  It enjoys vigorous support in the Biden administration and among the industry’s major trade groups but remains problematic to outsiders who believe it harmful to their interests. For example, under the framework of the ACA, the administration is pushing for larger provider networks in the 18 states and DC that run their own marketplaces, expanded dental and mental health coverage, extended open enrollment for Marketplace coverage and restoration of restrictions on “junk insurance’ but its results to date are mixed: access to insurance coverage has increased. Improvements in quality have been significant as a result of innovations in care coordination and technology-enabled diagnostic accuracy. But costs have soared: between 2010 and 2021, total health spending increased 64% while the U.S. population increased only 7%.

So, as the ACA takes center stage in Campaign 2024, here are 4 things to watch:

1-Media attention to elements of the ACA other than health insurance coverage. My bet: attention from critics will be its unanticipated costs in addition to its federal abortion protections now in the hands of states. The ACA’s embrace of price and quality transparency is of particular interest to media and speculation that industry consolidation was an unintended negative result of the law will energize calls for its replacement. Thus, the law will get more attention. Misinformation and disinformation by special interests about its original intent as a “government takeover of the health system” will be low hanging fruit for antagonists.

2- Changes to the law necessary intended to correct/mitigate its unintended consequences, modernize it to industry best practice standards and responses to court challenges will lend to the law’s complex compliance challenges for each player in the system. New ways of prompting Medicaid expansion, integration of mental health and social determinants with traditional care, the impact of tools like ChatGPT, quantum computing, generative AI not imagined as the law was built, the consequences of private equity investments on prices and spending, and much more.

3-Public confusion. The ACA is a massive law in a massive industry. Cliff’s Notes are accessible but opinions about it are rarely based on a studied view of its intent and structure. It lends itself to soundbites intended to obscure, generalize or misdirect the public’s attention.  

4-The ACA price tag. In 2010, the CBO estimated its added cost to health spending at $1.1 trillion (2010-2019) but its latest estimate is at least $3 trillion for its added insurance subsidies alone. The fact is no one knows for sure what its costs are nor the value of the changes it has induced into the health system. The ranks of those with insurance coverage has been cut in half. Hospitals, physicians, post-acute providers, drug manufacturers and insurers are implementing value-based care strategies and price transparency (though reluctantly) but annual health cost increases have consistently exceeded 4% annually as the cumulative impact of medical inflation, utilization, consolidation and price increases are felt.

Final thought:

I have studied the ACA, and the enabling laws, executive orders, administrative and regulatory actions, court rulings and state referenda that have followed its passage. Despite promises to ‘repeal and replace’ by some, it is more likely foundational to bipartisan “fix and repair’ regulatory reforms that focus more attention to systemness, technology-enabled self-care, health and wellbeing and more.

It will be interesting to see how the ACA plays in Campaign 2024 and how moderators for the CNN-hosted debates January 10 in Des Moines and January 21 in New Hampshire address it. In the 2-hour Tuscaloosa debate last Wednesday, it was referenced in response to a question directed to Gov. DeSantis about ‘reforming the system’ 101 minutes into the News Nation broadcast. It’s certain to get more attention going forward and it’s certain to play a more prominent role in the future of the system.

The ACA is back on the radar in U.S. healthcare. Stay tuned.

PS The resignations under pressure of Penn President Elizabeth Magill and Board Chair Scott Bok over inappropriate characterization of Hamas’ genocidal actions toward Jews are not surprising. Her response to Congressional questioning was unfortunate. The eventuality turned in 4 days, sparked by student outrage and adverse media attention that tarnished the reputations of otherwise venerable institutions like Penn, MIT and Harvard.

The lessons for every organization, including the big names in healthcare, are not to be dismissed: Beyond the issues of genocide, our industry is home to a widening number of incendiary issues like Hamas.

They’re increasingly exposed to public smell tests that often lead to more: Workforce strikes. CEO compensation. Fraud and abuse. Tax exemptions and community benefits. Prior authorization and coverage denial. Corporate profit. Patient collection and benevolent use policies. Board independence and competence and many more are ripe for detractors and activist seeking attention. 

Public opinion matters. Reputations matter. Boards of Directors are directly accountable for both.