Category Archives: Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy

More choices and stable premiums for ‘Obamacare’ next year

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, ACA, Dept of Health and Human Services (HHS), Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Insurance Industry, Underinsured, Uninsured • Leave a comment

https://apnews.com/2843740a7cb84d8f8e0df0307abe5dde

Image result for More choices and stable premiums for ‘Obamacare’ next year

Consumers will have more health insurance choices next year under the much-debated Obama health care law and premiums will dip slightly for many, the Trump administration announced Tuesday.

President Donald Trump was elected on a promise to repeal “Obamacare.” But despite his repeated efforts the program has stabilized three years into his administration. That may be short-lived.

The administration is asking a federal appeals court in New Orleans to overturn the entire Affordable Care Act as unconstitutional, an overhang of uncertainty clouding its future.

For now, the Department of Health and Human Services is touting a second consecutive year of positive-sounding numbers. An additional 20 insurers will participate for 2020, expanding consumer choice in many states, officials said. Nearly 70 percent of customers will have three or more insurers from which to pick a plan.

About 10 million people are covered through the health law’s insurance markets, which offer taxpayer-subsidized private plans for people who aren’t covered on the job. Former President Barack Obama’s namesake law will be 10 years old next year.

Premiums for a hypothetical 27-year-old choosing a standard plan will decline 4% on average in 2020 for states served by the federal HealthCare.gov website, the Trump administration said. About a dozen states run their own sign-up websites, but most rely on HealthCare.gov.

A low-cost midrange plan for that hypothetical 27-year-old will charge monthly premiums of $374 next year, officials said. The law’s income-based subsidies can drop that to around $50.

However, people who don’t qualify for income-based assistance must pay full price, and that’s before any deductibles and copays. Unsubsidized customers may just decide to go uninsured, particularly if they’re healthy.

A previous Republican Congress repealed the law’s unpopular penalty to get more people signed up — fines for going without coverage.

Six states will see premiums decline by 10% or more, officials said. They are Delaware, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma and Utah.

Three states — Indiana, Louisiana and New Jersey — will see premiums increase 10% or more.

Even as it pursues “Obamacare’s” demise in the courts, the Trump administration is trying to take credit for the program’s current stability.

“Until Congress gets around to replacing it, the president will do what he can to fix the problems created by this system for millions of Americans,” HHS Secretary Alex Azar said. “The president who was supposedly trying to sabotage this law has been better at running it than the guy who wrote it.”

Independent experts say it’s more complicated than that.

They credit the Trump administration for working with a dozen states to approve waivers that can bring down premiums by setting up a backstop system to pay bills from the costliest patients.

However, experts say the original design of the law’s subsidies is probably the major stabilizing force. People eligible for financial assistance are insulated from price spikes because they pay only a fixed percentage of their income. Because their own costs didn’t change much, customers with subsidies kept coming back to the market through years of double-digit increases in list-price premiums.

“As long as the subsidies are in place the changes that are happening … are not going to push this market off a cliff,” Standard & Poor’s director and lead analyst Deep Banerjee said.

Experts say yet another factor is that insurers that have stuck with the program have learned over time how to operate profitably.

Although the program is stable, enrollment has been slowly eroding since Trump took office, from 12.2 million in 2017 to 11.4 million this year. The slippage has come mainly in the HealthCare.gov states, where the federal government runs sign-up season. Slashing the ad budget was one of the Trump administration’s early actions.

The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office has recommended that the administration follow standard federal practices by setting sign-up goals and actively managing the program to meet enrollment targets. Seema Verma, head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said the administration doesn’t believe such targets are needed and instead her agency has focused on keeping the HealthCare.gov website running smoothly and improving the enrollment experience for customers.

Verma also disclosed that the administration has made some “minor” changes in how it reports data about the program. While those tweaks appear to be in the weeds, they’re likely to get close attention from Democrats who accuse Trump of “sabotage” of the health law.

Sign-up season starts Nov. 1 in most states and runs through Dec. 15. States that run their own open enrollment may have different dates. Coverage starts Jan. 1.

The appeals court in New Orleans could issue its ruling during this time, but Azar said he’s not concerned even if the judges say the whole program should be tossed.

“Our messaging would be to keep calm and carry on,” he said, noting that the case is expected to go to the Supreme Court. “There will be no immediate disruption to anyone.”

 

 

NY Local employers predict 3.6% increase in health benefit costs in 2020

Posted on by • Posted in Chronic Care Management, Chronic Diseases, Consumerism, Cost Management, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Insurance Industry, Health System, High Deductible Health Plans, High Drug Prices, High Premiums, High Prices, Highly Specialized Drugs, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Out of Pocket Expenses, Telemedicine • Leave a comment

https://www.crainsnewyork.com/health-pulse/local-employers-predict-36-increase-health-benefit-costs-2020?utm_source=health-pulse-tuesday&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20191028&utm_content=hero-readmore

Image result for chronic care management

Employers in the metro area expect their spending on benefits to rise 3.6% next year after accounting for changes designed to hold down costs, according to an analysis by Mercer.

That trend would be lower than the 3.9% increase employers experienced this year, with local organizations spending $16,059 per active employee. That’s more than 20% higher than the average cost per employee nationwide.

The benefits consultant broke out the responses of 170 employers in New York City, its surrounding counties, northern New Jersey and southern Connecticut for Crain’s from its 2019 National Survey of Employer-Sponsored Health Plans.

In the area, the average contribution to premiums for an individual employee is $199 a month in a PPO plan, $169 a month in an HMO and $107 a month in a consumer-directed health plan, which tends to have a higher deductible.

The median deductible for members in a PPO plan was $500 locally.

Nationwide, there was a split, with the average deductible for businesses between 10 and 499 employees increasing nearly 13%, to $2,285, while employers with 500 or more workers raised the average deductible in a PPO plan just $10, or 1%, to $992.

Companies are looking to telemedicine and management programs for their highest-cost members as ways to keep fees down, said Mary Lamattina, a senior consultant at Mercer. She said most clients she works with have at least one beneficiary with $1 million in annual medical expenses.

“Employers are getting away from cost shifting and looking at other ways to tackle affordability,” she said.

Nationwide, employers spent 3% more on health costs this year, driven in part by specialty drug spending. Costs for specialty drugs rose 10.5% this year.

Ninety percent of employers with 500 workers or more said they viewed monitoring or managing high-cost claimants as important or very important. One strategy companies reported using was introducing a tech-enabled chronic care management program for conditions such as diabetes.

About 88% of large employers said they offer telemedicine as an option, but only 9% of eligible employees had taken advantage of the programs.

Lamattina pointed out that utilization was nearly four times higher at organizations that waived a copay for telemedicine use, compared with employers that charged a $40 copay. “

“Utilization can be driven by the cost,” she said. “Convenience is really key to getting people to use the benefit.” —Jonathan LaMantia

 

Gainesville health system paying patients’ out-of-network costs

Posted on by • Posted in Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Insurance Industry, Health Plan, Health Policy, Health System, High Deductible Health Plans, High Prices, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Out of Pocket Expenses, Out-of-Network, Physician, Surprise Bills • Leave a comment

https://www.albanyherald.com/news/gainesville-health-system-paying-patients-out-of-network-costs/article_5a82d58a-f4f1-11e9-b7b5-8bebc4253708.html

gainesville hospital.jpg

With a contract impasse in its third week, a Gainesville-based health system is spending millions of dollars so that thousands of patients are not having to pay more when visiting the system’s doctors and hospitals.

Northeast Georgia Health System’s contract with Anthem ended Sept. 30, which means that since then, Georgians with Anthem insurance have been out of network for NGHS facilities and physicians.

But in an unusual move, the Northeast Georgia system is making up the financial difference between in-network and out-of-network prices through Dec. 31. That way, Anthem patients won’t pay higher fees when visiting NGHS medical providers, the system said.

“While it will cost millions of dollars per month to protect our patients from out-of-network costs, we’d rather do that than agree to a proposal that would jeopardize the health of our community for years to come,’’ Steve McNeilly, vice president of managed care for NGHS, said.

Most contract disputes between health systems and insurers get resolved before the end of the previous deal, although some agreements come just hours before the end of the expiring pact. The terminated contract between NGHS and Anthem is an exception, and this particular stalemate doesn’t show any sign of progress. Neither side has mentioned any negotiations or even indicated that talks are being scheduled.

The standoff comes at a time when many Georgians are entering their open enrollment period for the 2020 health plan year.

Anthem is by far the state’s biggest health insurer. Northeast Georgia’s hospitals in Gainesville, Braselton, Winder and Dahlonega, as well as its urgent care facilities and many physician group locations, are now out of network for Anthem patients.

“Anthem has only contacted NGHS once since the end of September – and that was only to inform us that they would be processing all claims as out-of-network,’’ McNeilly said. He said Northeast Georgia has proposed a contract with concessions, but that Anthem “refuses to take any meaningful action.’’

“Unfortunately, it appears that Anthem intends for us to be out of network for an extended period of time, so we’re urging patients to switch to a different health insurance plan during open enrollment,’’ McNeilly added.

Northeast Georgia said patients can call its Patient Access Service Center at (770) 219-7678 to get a personalized estimate of hospital charges for upcoming surgeries or procedures. If patients have questions about charges for physician office visits, they can call their physician’s office for more information, NGHS said.

Anthem said Monday that it is “standing firm for our consumers who need greater affordability.’’

The latest proposals from NGHS would increase costs “well above other health systems in the state,’’ Christina Gaines, an Anthem spokeswoman, said. “These increases place a significant burden on consumers because any substantial price increase in the services at these facilities would be directly reflected in increases in medical expenses covered by employer-sponsored group health plans, as well as to member premiums and cost share amounts.’’

What NGHS proposed “was simply not sustainable’’ for Anthem members, she said.

“We provided a revised proposal to them two days before the contract expired and did not receive a response,’’ Gaines said. “We are willing to resume talks so we can come to a new agreement that is fair, provides flexibility and protects affordability.”

Anthem said it can’t guarantee that Northeast Georgia will continue to charge patients the same rates as under the previous contract.

“To protect against unexpected balance billing, and other expenses associated with out-of-network providers, we are urging members to use in-network physicians and facilities,’’ Gaines said. “Anthem continues to have a broad, statewide provider network that delivers access to other quality health care options that remain in-network for our consumers.” Anthem directed consumers to visit www.anthem.com/nghs for information.

Craig Savage, a consultant with CMBC Advisors in North Carolina, said he had not heard previously of a hospital-based system covering the cost gap for patients who are forced out of network by a contract dispute.

“I think it’s a demonstration of good faith to patients,’’ Savage said. “It puts a little marketing pressure on Anthem.’’

But he added that even losing the business of 40,000 patients is “not going to have a huge [financial] impact on Anthem in Georgia.’’

And Savage said the contract standoff may put pressure on local physicians who could lose many patients to another insurer during open enrollment season.

 

 

 

New Legislation to Control Drug Prices: How Do House and Senate Bills Compare?

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, High Deductible Health Plans, High Drug Prices, Out of Pocket Expenses, Pharmaceutical Industry • Leave a comment

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/blog/2019/new-legislation-control-drug-prices-how-do-house-and-senate-bills-compare

drug pricing and legislation

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D–Calif.) long-anticipated drug pricing plan — the Lower Drug Costs Now Act of 2019 (H.R. 3) — has shaken up the drug pricing debate. It gives Medicare the ability to negotiate drug prices, further fueling the partisan divide between Democrats and Republicans, but also includes policies similar to those championed by Senate Finance Committee Chair Chuck Grassley (R–Iowa), such as caps on price increases in Medicare Parts B and D, as well as changes to the Part D benefit design. The way the bill approaches drug price negotiation is similar to the Trump administration’s supposedly soon-to-be-released international price index (IPI) proposal, which has been under review at the Office of Management and Budget since June.

The following tables compare H.R. 3 based on the legislative text advanced by key committees of jurisdiction and key provisions of related proposals: the Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act of 2019 (S. 2543), advanced by the Senate Finance Committee in July; and the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM): Medicare Program, IPI Model for Medicare Part B Drugs, issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services last October.

Despite the poor prospects of H.R. 3 as currently drafted gaining traction in the Republican-controlled Senate, House Democratic leaders are moving full-steam ahead. The House Energy and Commerce, Education and Labor, and Ways and Means committees recently advanced similarly amended versions of H.R. 3 that will need to be reconciled before a floor vote that will likely occur after the recess in early November. The advanced bills raise the minimum number of drugs subject to negotiation from 25 to 35; retain drugs on the negotiation list until two generic or biosimilar products are available; and require price negotiation of drugs with launch prices in excess of the median household income, among other policy changes.

Even with these new revisions, House progressives are pushing for policies that would go further. The Ways and Means committee rejected a series of amendments offered by Health Subcommittee Chair Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D–Texas) that included extending government-negotiated prices to uninsured individuals and increasing the minimum number of drugs subject to negotiation to 50 after five years and to 100 after 10 years. In contrast, moderate Democrats are calling for a vote on stand-alone drug pricing legislation that can pass muster in the Senate — a talking point reiterated by Republicans throughout the markups. Despite cracks in Democratic support, House leadership is expected to continue backing Medicare negotiation, especially with the initial analysis from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) — projecting $345 billion in savings over 2023–29 — further bolstering their position.

In the face of the ongoing impeachment inquiry, President Trump remains open to drug pricing talks with the Speaker, emphasizing his desire to pass drug pricing legislation. Notably, he endorsed government negotiations on drug pricing prior to taking office. Viewing the president’s interest in H.R. 3 as a viable threat, Chairman Grassley pushed his Republican colleagues to support what Grassley calls the “less aggressive, but strongly pharma-opposed drug pricing bill passed by the Senate Finance Committee.” Taxpayer savings of $100 billion, preliminarily projected by CBO, makes S. 2543 an attractive offset for other health care policy priorities. However, the chairman has already signaled the possibility of delaying floor action on drug pricing until early next year, giving him more time to win Republican support but perhaps also lowering the odds of ultimately passing significant legislation in an election year.

Both parties are intent on getting something done on drug pricing ahead of the 2020 elections. Amid escalating partisan tensions, the competing yet overlapping proposals from House Democrats and the Senate Finance Committee may create a scenario in which bipartisan, bicameral compromise may still be possible.

 

 

 

Premiums for ACA Health Plans Drop in 2020

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, ACA, Essential Health Benefits, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, High Premiums, Preexisting Conditions, Underinsured, Uninsured • Leave a comment

https://www.realclearhealth.com/2019/10/23/premiums_for_aca_health_plans_drop_in_2020_279468.html?utm_source=morning-scan&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mailchimp-newsletter&utm_source=RC+Health+Morning+Scan&utm_campaign=dfd654c92e-MAILCHIMP_RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b4baf6b587-dfd654c92e-84752421&mc_cid=dfd654c92e&mc_eid=cb200f8a98

Image result for Premiums for ACA Health Plans Drop in 2020

Premiums for the most popular health plans sold under the Affordable Care Act will drop for the second consecutive year, the Trump administration said Tuesday, as the law enters its 10th year and shows further signs of stabilizing.

 

 

 

A group of Republicans has unveiled its healthcare plan. Here is what’s new and what isn’t

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, ACA, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Insurance Industry, Health Policy, Health Savings Accounts, Health System, High Deductible Health Plans, High Drug Prices, High Premiums, High Prices, High Risk Pools, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Medicaid, Medicaid Block Grants, Medicaid Expansion, Out of Pocket Expenses, Preexisting Conditions • Leave a comment

https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/payer/a-group-republicans-have-a-new-healthcare-plan-here-what-new-and-what-isn-t?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiT0RZNE4yTm1PV1psTmpNeSIsInQiOiJ5R3gxMEwrdUhPWUdZVlBTZ3NWWkdMV08xOCtObDdFaGdHaE1hN0o4Z2p5WnBaN3hjd2lDVm5ybnBhWUtUNFdlTW1LcndtaTN1WUtNVzg1NmUrQjJmWEhqTWpJR3BkUmVuZmVNS2FzdmRWdENuMEtNT0tJMXozUW93N0lVQmZ5WSJ9&mrkid=959610

Capitol building in Washington

The Republican Study Committee (RSC), a group of 145 House GOP lawmakers, rolled out a new healthcare plan to counter Democrats’ call for “Medicare for All.”

However, the plan itself closely resembles the Affordable Care Act (ACA) repeal bill called the American Health Care Act (AHCA) that the House passed in 2017 and contributed greatly to the loss of the GOP House majority in 2018.

For the plan to become law, Republicans would have to retake the House in 2020, and President Donald Trump would need to be reelected. However, if those victories happen, the plan could be a blueprint for how a GOP-controlled Congress would move forward on healthcare, as the committee counts among its members both GOP leadership and rank and file.

Here are three takeaways from the plan:

Shifting to high-risk pools

The plan would retain the ACA’s requirement that individual market plans cover pre-existing conditions. However, it takes out provisions that ensure patients with pre-existing conditions get affordable coverage such as requirements that prevent plans from charging sicker people higher premiums than healthy customers.

The plan does introduce high-risk pools that would be used by people with high healthcare costs, a commonly deployed tactic by states for the individual market before the ACA. The high-risk pools would be funded by repackaging the funding used for the ACA’s subsidies and the Medicaid expansion.

However, the plan doesn’t identify the full amount that should be devoted to high-risk pools, which segregate high-cost customers on the individual market.

The plan cites a 2017 report from consulting firm Milliman that estimated a federally supported high-risk pool could require $3.3 billion to $16.7 billion a year. The AHCA also called for high-risk pools but only gave $2.5 billion a year to help states fund them.

While the “$17 billion annual price tag may not seem ideal, it sets up a sustainable path for the individual market,” the RSC report said.

The desire for more funding for high-risk pools is likely a nod to Democratic attacks during the 2018 midterms that the AHCA threatened pre-existing condition protections. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the AHCA, which let states waive pre-existing condition protections, would lead to people in those states not getting affordable coverage for their pre-existing conditions.

While the AHCA had funding for high-risk pools, experts across the healthcare spectrum said that it wasn’t enough. It would remain to be seen how much more funding would be needed.

Doubling down again on health savings accounts

Bolstering health savings accounts has been a very popular reform idea among Republicans, and that enthusiasm is clear in the RSC plan.

The plan proposes to increase how much an employee can contribute to a health savings account. Currently, an individual can contribute $3,500 and a family can contribute $7,000.

A 2018 bill that passed out of the House but didn’t make it through Congress increased the contribution cap to $6,650 for an individual and $13,300 for a family.

Now, the RSC plan wants to increase the figures again, this time to $9,000 per individual and $18,000 for families, in line with a proposal from libertarian think tank Cato Institute.

“The RSC plan would also expand health savings accounts so that they could be used for a number of health services and products that currently must be paid for with after-tax dollars,” the plan said.

Replace Medicaid expansion with a block grant

This is another common reform in ACA repeal plans. The bill would phase out the enhanced federal matching rate for the Medicaid expansion to pre-expansion levels.

In addition, the bill would replace the existing open-ended federal match with a fixed amount in a block grant.

But the plan has a new twist in a new “flex-grant” that would give more funding to states that adopt a work requirement. However, half of the funding for any flex-grant must go toward supporting the purchase of private plans for low-income individuals.

So far, 12 states have gotten approval from the Trump administration to install work requirements for their Medicaid expansion population. But of those 12 states, three have had their work requirement programs struck down by legal challenges.

Some states are also considering installing their own block grants. Tennessee has released a draft proposal for a block grant but has yet to get federal approval.

 

 

 

If there’s a turning point on health costs, it’ll come from employers

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Cost Management, Cost Reduction, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, Underinsured, Uninsured • Leave a comment

https://www.axios.com/health-care-employers-cost-expensive–778f9435-7dd5-4562-8df6-5d252f1c6ff4.html

Illustration of a pill bottle casting a shadow of a businessman

Employers are the linchpin of the U.S. health care system. But they don’t always act like it.

The big picture: Employers play a minor role in the political debate over health care costs, but they have a lot on the line — and a lot more political muscle than they’re choosing to flex. An increasingly bipartisan cadre of policy experts is trying to tell them that staying on the sidelines is both counterproductive and unsustainable.

Collectively, private-sector employers are one of the biggest and most politically powerful stakeholder groups in the health care debate. They cover more people than any other source, and account for about 20% of all health care spending — almost $700 billion in 2017.

  • “You would think that employers have a ton to gain by engaging in these discussions” around cost, said Dan Mendelson, the founder of the consulting firm Avalere Health. But they have consistently “failed to realize those expectations.”

The catch: Even though businesses are the core of the health care system, health care typically isn’t the core of what they do. They have similar structural interests, but they’re not necessarily organized around those interests.

  • For years, businesses have responded to rising health care costs primarily by shifting more of those costs onto their workers, through higher deductibles and other cost-sharing. The average deductible is now 212% higher than it was in 2008.
  • If employers ever reach the conclusion that they’ve taken this kind of cost-shifting as far as it can go, they could be powerful voices in the political debate over more aggressive cost-control measures — and they do want to control costs. But for now, they’re still on the sidelines.
  • “The frustration is definitely rising, but I would be hesitant to predict a breaking point,” Mendelson said. “It would be great if they were more engaged, but at the same time it’s rational that they are trying to reduce their exposure.”

There are exceptions. Walmart, for example, has undertaken an especially aggressive effort to overhaul its health benefits, even ditching traditional insurers and bargaining directly with health systems that have reputations for high-quality care.

  • Then there’s Haven, the joint effort from Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway and JPMorgan Chase. But it’s still not clear whether that project will try to affect systemwide change, or simply a better deal for its many employees, more similar to Walmart’s direct-purchasing goals. Those tools are only available to the largest companies.

Most employers still rely on their insurers to negotiate the best prices, preferring to stay out the weeds themselves. But insurers are becoming increasingly vocal about the difficulty of negotiating big discounts on hospital care, as hospitals consolidate, and for new prescription drugs that don’t have any competition.

  • Government-led efforts to directly control those costs run into fierce industry opposition. But if anything could help them break through politically, the most likely inflection point would likely be some kind of “enough is enough” moment from employers.
  • “I think you’re going to see more and more pressure, and even openness to public policy interventions that take advantage of negotiations” — for example, tying some private payment rates to Medicare’s, Democratic health care strategist Chris Jennings said.

It’s not just Democrats.

  • John Bardis, a former Trump administration health care official, said in a speech this week that employers need to take more aggressive stances toward cost containment.
  • Avik Roy, a conservative policy analyst who advised Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign on health care, has also endorsed more direct intervention. In the most concentrated, least competitive markets, the government should cap how much hospitals can charge private insurers, using Medicare rates as a baseline, he says.

The bottom line: If there’s ever going to be a turning point that would make cost containment more politically attainable, employers would probably need to be the ones who drive it.

 

 

 

Employers aren’t changing their health benefits

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Employee Benefits, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, High Deductible Health Plans, High Drug Prices, High Premiums, High Prices, Out of Pocket Expenses • Leave a comment

https://www.axios.com/employers-health-care-coverage-insurance-2020-election-e0ce92cf-c106-44fe-bb35-1c3c6e452712.html

Image result for Employers aren't changing their health benefits

Companies rarely switch the health plans they offer to their workers, and seem to be especially cautious in the 2020 election year.

The big picture: Medical and drug costs are crushing employers and workers alike. But altering benefits — which could require employees to change their doctors — could provoke even more anger.

By the numbers: Roughly half of employers offering health benefits did not shop around for new plans or insurance companies for 2019, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation’s latest employer benefit survey.

  • Of the half that did shop, just 18% changed to a new insurance carrier.
  • That means fewer than 10% of all employers switched carriers.
  • Large corporations, like GM, are much less likely to tinker with coverage than smaller firms.

“Disruption is the enemy,” Mike Turpin, an employer health care consultant at the brokerage USI Insurance Services, said on a call with Wall Street investors last week.

  • Turpin said he has seen even less switching for 2020 because employers don’t want to make waves over health care in an election year — “which buys another year” for the large, incumbent health insurance companies.

Between the lines: More companies have moved workers into less comprehensive plans since the Affordable Care Act was passed, but those changes often have been met with either immediate condemnation (like Harvard in 2015) or delayed outrage as workers shoulder more costs.

  • “It is telling that brokers perform an analysis for employers that’s called ‘disruption analysis’ — the goal of which is not to be disruptive, but to minimize disruption,” said Katherine Hempstead, a health policy adviser at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Yes, but: Millions of people still switch health plans every year when they buy it on their own, change jobs, get laid off or retire.

 

 

 

How Pending Decision on Obamacare Could Upend 2020 Campaign

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, ACA, Appellate Court, Essential Health Benefits, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, Medicaid Expansion, Medical Loss Ratio (MLR), Open Enrollment, Preexisting Conditions, Underinsured, Uninsured • Leave a comment

Supporters of expanding Medicare at a town hall meeting this summer in Forked River, N.J.  Health care registers as a top priority for voters in poll after poll.

A federal appeals court’s ruling on the Affordable Care Act could be a huge headache for the president and take Democrats’ focus off Medicare for all.

 A federal appeals court in New Orleans is preparing a ruling on the Affordable Care Act that could put the law’s future front and center in the presidential race, overwhelming the current Democratic debate over Medicare for all and reigniting the health care-driven worries that helped Democrats win back the House last year.

Three judges on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals are weighing whether to uphold a Texas judge’s ruling that the law’s requirement for most Americans to have health insurance is unconstitutional, and that the rest of the sprawling law cannot function without it. It is hard to imagine a thornier domestic issue for President Trump, whose administration not only refused to defend the law in the case filed by Texas and 19 other states but sided with the plaintiffs, asking the court to invalidate it.

A ruling against Barack Obama’s signature domestic achievement as president, which provides health coverage for about 24 million Americans, would almost certainly be stayed pending further appeal.

But if it comes in the next few weeks, it could create significant confusion during open enrollment for the Obamacare plans offered through the law’s online marketplaces. And it would open a huge vulnerability for Mr. Trump, whose health care platform largely consists of attacking as socialism Democratic plans to expand government health care, either through Medicare for all or a government-run health care option that would be offered through the Affordable Care Act’s marketplaces.

A ruling against the health law would probably reframe the Democratic conversation on health policy away from moving beyond the Affordable Care Act toward Republican efforts to take health care away. That message, a driving force in the 2018 midterm campaigns, could resonate more broadly than the party’s current arguments over expanding coverage.

“Democrats will do better talking about what Trump can take away than about their new policy visions,” said Chris Jennings, a longtime Democratic adviser on health care. “The Texas case may reframe discourse around health policy more toward that type of discussion, which of course Republicans will hate.”

The law’s most popular provision is protections for people with pre-existing medical conditions, but it includes much more, such as health insurance exchanges where people can buy private coverage with subsidies, an expansion of Medicaid and requirements for what insurance must cover, from emergency services to prescription drugs.

The appeals court panel could decide to partly reverse Judge Reed O’Connor of the Federal District Court in Fort Worth, affirming that the mandate that most Americans have health insurance is unconstitutional but rejecting Judge O’Connor’s ruling that the rest of the law cannot stand without it. That would cause barely a ripple, because the tax penalty for not having insurance was reduced to zero in the 2017 tax overhaul and the effects have been negligible.

But a ruling that upheld his decision in full, or even one that said the mandate and pre-existing condition protections had to go, would send shock waves through the health care and political systems. Either outcome would probably play into Democratic hands, especially in contests against vulnerable Republicans like Senators Martha McSally of Arizona, Cory Gardner of Colorado, Susan Collins of Maine and Thom Tillis of North Carolina.

Republicans are not conceding that possibility. Asked how a ruling against the law might affect members of the party seeking re-election, the spokesman for the House Republican campaign arm, Chris Pack, said: “Both Democrats and Republicans oppose Obamacare. The only difference is that Democrats want to replace it with socialized single-payer health care that makes private health insurance illegal.”

In fact, most Democrats would welcome a renewed debate over the Affordable Care Act. Many Democrats in Congress have resisted Medicare for all; instead they have sought to shore up the existing health law and trap Republicans on pre-existing conditions. Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, intends to force a floor vote as soon as next week on a resolution to overturn a Trump rule that lets states promote skimpy-but-inexpensive insurance plans that do not meet the law’s coverage standards.

The vote, Mr. Schumer said Tuesday on the Senate floor, “will present our Republican colleagues with a choice: whether to protect Americans with pre-existing conditions or not to protect them.”

Mr. Trump is in a box on health care, the issue that registers as a top priority for voters in poll after poll. He wants deals on ending surprise medical bills and lowering prescription drug prices, but the Senate and House are far apart on what drug price legislation they would agree to, and impeachment proceedings could derail any chance of bipartisan measures.

Public support for the health law remains high, driven in part by swing voters. And few Americans believe Mr. Trump will offer details of a new health care plan before the end of the year, according to a Kaiser poll released this week. They also doubt any plan he releases would offer “better care at lower costs,” as he has promised.

Alex M. Azar II, the secretary of health and human services, has repeatedly played down the importance of expanding coverage to the remaining uninsured; instead, he has said, Mr. Trump wants to improve the health care system for all Americans. His efforts thus far have mostly been directed at discrete groups of patients: a plan to reduce new H.I.V. infections by 75 percent over five years, for example, and another to move people with advanced kidney disease to home-based, instead of clinic-based, dialysis.

At oral arguments before the appeals court panel in July, a lawyer from the Justice Department indicated the Trump administration would seek a stay if the panel upheld Judge O’Connor’s decision. The losing side could appeal directly to the Supreme Court, increasing the chances of a ruling or at least oral arguments before that court in the final months of the presidential campaign. Alternatively, it could first ask for a hearing by the full appeals court, which would slow down the process.

The appeals panel could also send the case back to Judge O’Connor to reconsider, an option that August Flentje, a lawyer for the Justice Department, embraced during oral arguments. That would also draw out the court fight.

When the six-week open enrollment period starts next month, there will be more insurers offering plans through the Affordable Care Act markets. Premiums have stabilized, too, after a few years of price increases. But it will be a much lower-profile effort than in past years; the Trump administration has cut the budget for both advertising and enrollment help. As a result, a court ruling against the law would paralyze open enrollment if people assume there is no use buying or renewing coverage under a law that was ruled unconstitutional, and if no effort is mounted to counter that misunderstanding.

“It will require a doubling down, a dramatic increase in education — which is exactly the opposite of what this administration has done,” said Leslie Dach, executive director of Protect Our Care, a consumer advocacy group aligned with Democrats. “Someone will need to educate people that low-cost, quality health insurance is still available to them.”

 

 

 

 

UnitedHealthcare’s policy will limit outpatient surgery payments to hospitals

Posted on by • Posted in Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Plan, Health System, Hospital, Outpatient Surgery, Payer Contracting, Payment Models • Leave a comment

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/unitedhealthcare-s-policy-will-limit-outpatient-surgery-payments-to-hospitals.html?oly_enc_id=2893H2397267F7G

Related image

UnitedHealthcare has expanded prior authorization requirements and site of service medical necessity reviews for certain surgeries in an effort to shift surgical procedures to less expensive locations, according to Modern Healthcare.

The outpatient surgery policy will limit the circumstances under which UnitedHealthcare will pay for certain surgeries in a hospital outpatient setting.

Taking effect in November for fully insured groups in most states, UnitedHealthcare will only pay for a surgical procedure performed in an outpatient hospital setting if the insurer determines the site of service for the procedure is medically necessary, UnitedHealthcare told Becker’s Hospital Review.

“Medical necessity reviews for site of service occur during our prior authorization process and are only conducted if the surgical procedure will be performed in an outpatient hospital setting,” UnitedHealthcare said. “We utilize our Outpatient Surgical Procedures – Site of Service Utilization Review Guideline to help make our site of service medical necessity determinations. Site of service medical necessity reviews are currently being conducted for certain surgical procedures and will apply to additional surgical procedures beginning on Nov. 1, 2019 for most states.”

In California, Colorado, Connecticut, New Jersey and New York, medical necessity reviews will begin for certain surgeries occurring on or after Dec. 1, according to a UnitedHealthcare bulletin. Site of service medical necessity reviews do not apply to providers in Alaska, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Maryland and Texas.  

With the outpatient surgery policy, the insurer said it hopes to reduce healthcare spending by guiding patients toward ambulatory surgery centers, where care may be cheaper when there isn’t a substantial medical reason for the surgery to be performed in a hospital outpatient setting.