Category Archives: Health Insurance Industry

Foundational Steps Vital on the Road to Universal Health Care

Posted on by • Posted in ACA, Financialization of Health, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Insurance Denial, Health Insurance Industry, Healthcare Reform, Medical Debt, Medical-Financial-Industrial Complex (MFIC), Medical-Industrial Complex, Medicare for All, Pandemic, Physicians for a National Health Program, Profit Motive, Universal Coverage, Universal Healthcare System • Leave a comment
https://wendellpotter.substack.com/p/foundational-steps-vital-on-the-road?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=255152&post_id=144470044&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=59t65&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

“Incrementalism.” The word is perceived as the enemy of hope for universal health care in the United States.

Those who advocate for single-payer, expanded Medicare for all tend to be on the left side of the political spectrum, and we have advanced the movement while pushing back on incremental change. But the profit-taking health industry giants in what’s been called the medical-industrial complex are pursuing their own incremental agenda, designed to sustain the outrageously expensive and unfair status quo.

In recent years, as the financial sector of the U.S. economy has joined that unholy alliance, scholars have begun writing about the “financialization” of health care.

It has morphed into the medical-financial-industrial complex (MFIC) so vast and deeply entrenched in our economy that a single piece of legislation to achieve our goal–even with growing support in Congress–remains far short of enough votes to enact.

If we are to see the day when all Americans can access care without significant financial barriers, policy changes that move us closer to that goal must be pursued as aggressively as we fight against the changes that push universal health care into the distant future. Labeling all positive steps toward universal health care as unacceptable “incrementalism” could have the effect of aiding and abetting the MFIC and increase the chances of a worst-case scenario: Medicare Advantage for all, a goal of the giants in the private insurance business. But words matter. Instead of “incremental,” let’s call the essential positive steps forward as “foundational” and not undermine them.

The pandemic crisis exposed the weaknesses of our health system. When millions of emergencies in the form of COVID-19 infections overtook the system, most providers were ill-prepared and understaffed. More than 1.1 million U.S. citizens died of COVID-19-related illness, according to the Centers for Disease Control. 

For years, the MFIC had been advancing its agenda, even as the U.S. was losing ground in life expectancy and major measures of health outcomes. While health care profits soared in the years leading up to and during the pandemic, those of us in the single-payer movement demanded improved, expanded Medicare for all.  And we were right to do so. Progress came through almost every effort. The number of advocates grew, and more newly elected leaders supported a single-payer plan. Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential bid proved that millions of Americans were fed up with having to delay or avoid care altogether because it simply cost too much or because insurance companies refused to cover needed tests, treatments and medications.

But as the demand for systemic overhaul grew, the health care industry was making strategic political contributions and finding ways to gain even more control of health policy and the political process itself. 

Over the years, many in the universal health care movement have opposed foundational change for strategic reasons. Some movement leaders believed that backing small changes or tweaks to the current system at best deflected from our ultimate goal. And when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was passed, many on the left viewed it as a Band-Aid if not an outright gift to the MFIC. While many physicians in our movement knew that the law’s Medicaid expansion and the provisions making it illegal for insurers to refuse coverage to people with preexisting conditions would save many thousands of lives, they worried that the ACA would further empower big insurance companies. Both positions were valid.

After the passage of the ACA, more of us had insurance cards in our wallets and access to needed care for the first time, although high premiums and out-of-pocket costs have become insurmountable barriers for many. Meanwhile, industry profits soared. 

The industry expanded its turf. Hospitals grew larger, stand-alone urgent care clinics, often owned by corporate conglomerates, opened on street corners in cities across the country, private insurance rolls grew, disease management schemes proliferated, and hospital and drug prices continued the march upward. The money flowing into the campaign coffers of political candidates made industry-favored incremental changes an easier lift.

The MFIC now enjoys a hold on nearly one-fifth of our GDP. Almost one of every five dollars flowing through our economy does so because of that ever-expanding, profit-focused complex.  

To change this “system” would require an overhaul of the whole economy. Single-payer advocates must consider that herculean task as they continue their work. We must understand that the true system of universal health care we envision would also disrupt the financial industry – banks, collection agencies, investors – an often-forgotten but extraordinarily powerful segment of the corporate-run complex.  

Even if the research and data show that improved, expanded Medicare for all would save money and lives (and they do show that), that is not motivating for the finance folks, who fear that without unfettered control of health care, they might profit less. Eliminating medical bills and debt would be marvelous for patients but not for a large segment of the financial community, including bankruptcy attorneys.

Following the money in U.S. health care means understanding how deep and far the tentacles of profit reach, and how embedded they are now.

We know the MFIC positioned itself to continue growing profits and building more capacity. The industry made steady, incremental progress toward that goal. There is no illusion that better overall health for Americans is the mission of the stockholders who drive this industry. No matter what the marketers tell us, patients are not their priority. If too many of us get healthier, we might not use as much care and generate as much money for the owners and providers. Private insurers want enough premiums and government perks to keep flowing their way to keep the C-Suite and Wall Street happy.

More than health insurers

Health insurers are far from the only rapidly expanding component of the MFIC. A recent documentary, “American Hospitals: Healing a Broken System,” for example, explores a segment of the U.S. health industry that is often overlooked by policymakers and the media. Though they were unprepared for the national health crisis, hospitals endured the pandemic in this country largely because the dedicated doctors, nurses and ancillary staff risked their own lives to keep caring for COVID-19 patients while everything from masks, gowns and gloves to thermometers and respirators were in short supply. But make no mistake, many hospitals were still making money through the pandemic. In fact, some boosted their already high profits, and private insurance companies had practically found profit-making nirvana. Patients put off everything from colonoscopies to knee replacements, physical therapy to MRIs. Procedures not done meant claims not submitted, while monthly insurance premiums kept right on coming and right on increasing. 

The pandemic was a time of turmoil for most businesses and families, yet the MFIC took its share of profits. It was pure gold for many hospitals until staffing pressures and supply issues grew more dire, COVID patients were still in need of care, and more general patient care needs started to reemerge.

We might be forgiven for thinking there wasn’t much regulating or legislating done around health care during the pandemic years. We’d be wrong. There was a flurry of legislation at the state level as some states took on the abuses of the private insurance industry and hospital billing practices. 

And the movement to improve and expand traditional Medicare to cover all of us stayed active, though somewhat muted. The bills before Congress that expanded access to Medicaid during the pandemic through a continuous enrollment provision offered access to care for millions of people. Yet as that COVID-era expansion ended, many of those patients were left without coverage or access to care. This might have been a chance to raise the issue loudly, but the social justice movement did not sufficiently activate national support for maintaining continuous enrollment in Medicaid. Is that the kind of foundational change worth fighting for? I would argue it most certainly is.

As those previously covered by Medicaid enter this “unwinding” phase, many will be unable to secure equivalent or adequate health insurance coverage. The money folks began to worry as coverage waned. After all, sick people will show up needing care and they will not be able to pay for it. As of this writing, patient advocacy groups are largely on the sidelines.

 But Allina Health took action. The hospital chain announced it would no longer treat patients with medical debt. After days of negative press, the company did an about-face. 

Throughout the country, even as the pandemic loomed, the universal, single-payer movement focused on explaining to candidates and elected officials why improving and expanding Medicare to cover all of us not only is a moral imperative but also makes economic sense. In many ways, the movement has been tremendously effective: More than 130 city and county governing bodies have passed resolutions in support of Medicare for all, including in Seattle, Denver, Cincinnati, Washington, D.C., Tampa, Sacramento, Los Angeles, St. Louis, Atlanta, Duluth, Baltimore, and Cook County (Chicago). 

The Medicare for All Act, sponsored by Rep Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Sanders (I-Vt.) has 113 co-sponsors in the House and 14 in the Senate. Another bill allowing states to establish their own universal health care programs has been introduced in the House and will be introduced soon in the Senate.

Moving us closer

The late Dr. Quentin Young was a young Barack Obama’s doctor in Chicago. Young spoke to his president-in-the-making patient about universal health care and Obama, then a state legislator, famously answered that he would support a single-payer plan if we were starting from scratch. Many in the Medicare–for-all movement dismissed that statement as accepting corporate control of health care. 

But Young would steadfastly advocate for single-payer health care for years to come and as one of the founding forces behind Physicians for a National Health Program. Once Dr. Young was asked if the movement should support incremental changes. He answered, “If a measure makes it easier and moves us closer to achieving health care for all of us, we should support that wholeheartedly. And if a measure makes it harder to get to single-payer, we need to oppose it and work to defeat that measure.”  Many people liked that response. Others were not persuaded.

But in recent years, PHNP has become a national leader in a broad-based effort to halt the privatization of Medicare through so-called Medicare Advantage plans and other means. A case can be made that those are incremental/foundational but essential steps to achieving the ultimate goal.

We must fight incrementally sometimes, for instance when traditional Medicare is threatened with further privatization. Bit by painful bit, a program that has served this nation so well for more than 50 years will be carved up and given over to the private insurance industry unless the foundational steps taken by the industry are met with resistance and facts at every turn. We can achieve our goal by playing the short game as well as the long game. Foundational change can be and has been powerful. It just has to be focused on the health and well-being of every person.

CVS CEO to Wall Street: People in Medicare Advantage Are in for a World of Hurt as We Focus on Profits

Posted on by • Posted in 2024 Election Issues, CVS Health, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Insurance Denial, Health Insurance Industry, Health Insurance Premiums, High Deductible Health Plans, Investor Expectations, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Out of Pocket Expenses, Privatization, Wall Street • Leave a comment
https://wendellpotter.substack.com/p/cvs-ceo-to-wall-street-people-in?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=255152&post_id=144587223&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=59t65&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

ALSO: We’re premiering our Magic Translation Box to help you decipher corporate jargon and understand what’s coming down the pike.

If you are enrolled in an Aetna Medicare Advantage plan, now might be a good time to get more nervous than usual.

Wall Street is not happy with Aetna’s parent, CVS Health. In response to that unhappiness, triggered by the company’s admission that it has been paying more claims than usual, CVS execs have promised to do whatever it takes to get profit margins back to a level investors deem suitable. 

That means the odds have increased that Aetna will refuse to cover the treatments and medications your doctor says you need. It also means CVS/Aetna likely will increase your premiums next year and might dump you altogether. The company has a long history of doing just that, as you’ll see below. 

Medicare Advantage companies in general are facing what Wall Street financial analysts call headwinds, and those winds are now coming from several sources: increased Congressional scrutiny of insurers’ business practices, Biden administration efforts to end years of overpayments that have cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars, enrollee discontent, and a gathering storm of negative press. 

To understand the pressures CVS CEO Karen Lynch and her C-Suite team are under to satisfy the company’s remaining shareholders (many have fled), you need to know and understand what they told them in recent weeks–and what she undoubtedly will have to say again, with conviction, this coming Thursday when CVS holds its annual meeting of shareholders. You can be certain Lynch’s staff has prepared a binder chock full of the rudest questions she could face from rich folks (mostly institutional investors) who’ve become a little less rich in recent months as the golden calf calf called Medicare Advantage has lost some of its luster. (My former colleagues and I used to put together such a CEO-briefing binder during my Cigna days, which coincided with Lynch’s years at Cigna.)

To help with that understanding, we’re introducing the HEALTH CARE un-covered Magic Translation Box (MTB). We’ll fire it up occasionally to decipher the coded language executives use when they have to deal with analysts and investors in a public setting. We’ll start with what Lynch and her team told analysts on May 1 when CVS announced first-quarter 2024 results that caused a stampede at the New York Stock Exchange.

Lynch: We recently received the final 2025 (Medicare Advantage) rate notice (from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services), and when combined with the Part D changes prescribed by the Inflation Reduction Act, we believe the rate is insufficient. This update will result in significant added disruption to benefit levels and choice for seniors across the country. While we strive to deliver benefit stability to seniors, we will be adjusting plan-level benefits and exiting counties as we construct our bid for 2025. We are committed to improving margins.

Magic Translation Box: Can you believe it? CMS did not bend to industry pressure to pay MA plans what we demanded for next year. We only got a modest increase, not enough, in our opinion, to protect our profit margins. To make matters worse, starting next year we won’t be able to make people enrolled in Medicare prescription drug plans (Part D) pay more than $2,000 out of their own pockets, thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act President Biden signed in 2022. So, to make sure you, our most important stakeholder, once again have a good return on your investment, we will notify CMS next month that we will slash the value of Medicare Advantage plans by reducing or eliminating some benefits, like dental, hearing and vision, that attract people to MA plans in the first place. And, for good measure, we’ll be dumping Medicare Advantage enrollees who live in zip codes where we can’t make as much money as we’d like. For them: too bad, so sad. For you: more money in your bank account. And for extra good measure, to keep seniors from blaming greedy us for what we have in store for them, our industry will be bankrolling dark money ads to persuade voters that Biden and the Democrats are the bad guys cutting Medicare. 

Later during CVS’s earnings call, CFO Thomas Cowhey reiterated Lynch’s remarks about reducing benefits.

Cowhey: So, we’ve given you all the pieces to kind of understand why we think it (Medicare Advantage) will lose a significant amount of money this year. But as you think about improvement there, obviously there’s a lot of work that we still need to do to understand what benefits we’re going to adjust and what ones we can and can’t…To the extent that we don’t believe we can credibly recapture margin in a reasonable period of time, we will exit those counties…(And) as we’ve all mentioned we’re going to be taking significant pricing actions and really it’s going to depend on what our competitors do.

Magic Translation Box: We’re under the gun to figure this out because we have to notify CMS by June 3 how much we will increase Medicare Advantage premiums and cut benefits next year and which counties we’ll abandon altogether. We’ll also be watching what our competitors do, but we know from what they’ve been telling you guys that they, too, will be dumping enrollees, hiking premiums and slashing benefits. 

To make sure investors couldn’t miss what they were saying, Lynch jumped back into the conversation to make clear they knew they were #1 in her book:

Lynch: I’m just going to reiterate what I said in my prepared remarks. (You can bet what follows were prepared, too.) We are committed to improving margin in Medicare Advantage [emphasis added] and we will do so by pricing for the expected trends. We will do so by adjusting benefits and exiting service counties. And we are committed to doing that.

Magic Translation Box: Have I made myself clear? We will do whatever it takes to deliver the profits you expect. We will keep a closer eye on how much care people are trying to get and we’ll swing into action faster next time if we see evidence of an uptick. There will be carnage, but you guys rule. You mean a lot more to us than those old and disabled people who don’t have nearly as much money as you do in their bank accounts. 

This will not be the first time Aetna has dumped health plan enrollees who were a drain on profits. In 2000, when Medicare Advantage was called Medicare+Choice, Aetna notified the Clinton administration it would stop offering Medicare plans in 14 states, affecting 355,000 people, more than half of Aetna’s total Medicare enrollment at the time. Other companies, including Cigna, did the same thing. My team and I wrote a press release to announce that Cigna would be bailing from almost all the markets where we sold private Medicare plans.

We of course blamed the federal government (i.e., the Democrats) for being the skinflints that made it necessary to bail. Our CEO at the time, Ed Hanway, said the government just couldn’t be relied upon to be a reliable “partner.” 

Back then, just a relatively small percentage of Medicare beneficiaries were in private plans. Today, more than half of Medicare-eligible Americans are enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan, which means the disruption could be much worse this time. Some people in counties where Aetna and other companies stop offering plans likely will not find a replacement plan with the same provider network, premiums and benefits.

But in most places, those who get dumped will be stuck in the volatile, often nightmarish Medicare Advantage world, unable to return to traditional Medicare and buy a Medicare supplement policy to cover their out-of-pocket obligations.

That’s because in all but a handful of states, seniors and disabled people will not be able to buy a Medicare supplement policy as cheaply as they could within six months of becoming eligible for Medicare benefits. After that, Medicare supplement insurers, including Aetna, get their underwriters involved. If your health isn’t excellent, expect to pay a king’s ransom for a Medigap policy.

Medicare Advantage extras on the chopping block in 2025

Posted on by • Posted in Health Insurance Industry, Medicare Advantage, Operating Margin, Operating Margin Drivers, Operating Metrics, Operating Performance • Leave a comment
https://www.beckerspayer.com/payer/medicare-advantage-extras-on-the-chopping-block-in-2025.html?origin=BHRE&utm_source=BHRE&utm_medium=email&utm_content=newsletter&oly_enc_id=2893H2397267F7G

Medicare Advantage insurers are planning to pare down their plan offerings in 2025. 

Facing lower reimbursement rates from CMS and higher medical costs, many plan executives said they will prioritize margins over growing their membership numbers. 

Brian Kane, CEO of Aetna, told investors May 1 that the company will prioritize “margins over membership” in 2025. The company will exit counties where it believes it can’t be profitable, Mr. Kane said.  

“It’s hard to say right now that we won’t have a meaningful decrease in membership,” Mr. Kane said. “It’s certainly possible.” 

Aetna’s competitors will be faced with the same choices, Mr. Kane said. 

Humana executives also said the company is eyeing market exits in 2025. Susan Diamond, Humana’s CFO, said the company is expecting a net decline in its MA membership next year. 

“Whether that is incrementally larger or smaller based on the other plans will be very dependent on what we see across the competitive landscape,” Ms. Diamond said April 24. 

On first-quarter earnings calls, payer executives told investors they are disappointed in CMS’ 2025 rate notice. The notice will decrease benchmark payments, which insurers say amounts to a cut in funding for the program. 

Medical costs are also on the rise in Medicare Advantage. CVS Health told its investors that Medicare Advantage costs keep climbing, partly driven by seasonal inpatient admissions. Outpatient services, including mental health and pharmacy, and dental spending also increased costs, CVS said. 

In its final rate notice published April 1, CMS said it was aware Medicare Advantage organizations were reporting rising costs but was “not aware of all of the specific drivers accounting for the experience of these MA organizations. We have reviewed incomplete fourth quarter 2023 Medicare FFS incurred experience and it is consistent with our projections.” 

Payers have also said they will cut back on supplemental benefits to account for lower rates. 

CVS Health CEO Karen Lynch said it wil adjust plan-level benefits in 2025. The company led the industry in growth in 2024 but was a “notable outlier” compared to its peers in adding on supplemental benefits to entice members, The Wall Street Journal reported May 1.

Some Aetna plans offer a fitness reimbursement, according to The Wall Street Journal. Members could cash in the benefit for pickleball paddles, golf clubs and other sports equipment — but these extras could be a thing of the past in a tougher rate environment. 

While every payer criticized CMS’s proposed rates, some executives said they would hold off on discussing their specific strategy until final bids are due. Insurers must send their MA plan proposals for 2025 to CMS by early June. 

“It’s too early to provide specifics for the 2025 bid at this stage,” Elevance Health CEO Gail Boudreaux told investors. “I’m going to repeat, we’re looking to really balance growth and margins.” 

Wall Street Yawned as Congress Grilled UnitedHealth’s CEO but Went Ballistic on CVS/Aetna Over Medicare Advantage Claims

Posted on by • Posted in Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission, CVS Health, Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Health Insurance Industry, Lobbyist, Market Consolidation, Market Power, Market Share, Medicare Advantage, Monopoly Behavior, Pharmaceutical Industry, Pharmacy Benefits Management, UnitedHealth Group, UnitedHealthcare, Vertical Consolidation, Vertical Integration • Leave a comment
https://wendellpotter.substack.com/p/wall-street-yawned-as-congress-grilled?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=255152&post_id=144401506&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=59t65&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

After UnitedHealth Group CEO Andrew Witty’s appearances at two congressional committee hearings last week, I had planned to write a story about what the lawmakers had to say. One idea I considered was to publish a compilation of some of the best zingers, and there were plenty, from Democrats and Republicans alike. 

I reconsidered that idea because I know from the nearly half-century I have spent on or around Capitol Hill in one capacity or another that those zingers were carefully crafted by staffers who know how to write talking points to make them irresistible to the media. As a young Washington correspondent in the mid-to-late’70s, I included countless talking points in the stories I wrote for Scripps-Howard newspapers. After that, I wrote talking points for a gubernatorial candidate in Tennessee. I would go from there to write scads of them for CEOs and lobbyists to use with politicians and reporters during my 20 years in the health insurance business. 

I know the game. And I know that despite all the arrows 40 members of Congress on both sides of the Hill shot at Witty last Wednesday, little if anything that could significantly change how UnitedHealth and the other big insurers do business will be enacted this year. 

Some reforms that would force their pharmacy benefit managers to be more “transparent” and that would ban some of the many fees they charge might wind up in a funding bill in the coming months, but you can be sure Big Insurance will spend millions of your premium dollars to keep anything from passing that might shrink profit margins even slightly.

Money in politics is the elephant in any Congressional hearing room or executive branch office you might find yourself in (and it’s why I coauthored Nation on the Take with Nick Penniman).

You will hear plenty of sound and fury in those rooms but don’t hold your breath waiting for relief from ever-increasing premiums and out-of-pocket requirements and the many other barriers Big Insurance has erected to keep you from getting the care you need.

It is those same barriers doctors and nurses cite when they acknowledge the “moral injury” they incur trying to care for their patients under the tightening constraints imposed on them by profit-obsessed insurers, investors and giant hospital-based systems. 

Funny not funny

Cartoonist Stephan Pastis captured the consequences of the corporate takeover of our government, accelerated by the Supreme Court’s 2010 landmark Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission ruling, in his Pearls Before Swine cartoon strip Sunday. 

Rat: Where are you going, Pig?

Pig: To a politician’s rally. I’m taking my magic translation box.

Rat: He doesn’t speak English?

Pig: He speaks politicianish. This translates it into the truth. Come see.

Politician: In conclusion, if you send me to Washington, I’ll clean up this corrupt system and fight for you everyday hard-working Americans. God bless you. God bless the troops. And God bless America.

Magic translation box: I am given millions of dollars by the rich and the powerful to keep this rigged system exactly as it is. Until you change that, none of this will ever change and we’ll keep hoping you’re too distracted to notice. 

Politician’s campaign goon: We’re gonna need a word with you.

Magic translation box: This is too much truth for one comic strip. Prepare to be disappeared.

Rat: I don’t know him.   

Back to Sir Witty’s time on the hot seat. It attracted a fair amount of media coverage, chock full of politicians’ talking points, including in The New York Times and The Washington Post. (You can read this short Reuters story for free.) Witty, of course, came equipped with his own talking points, and he followed his PR and legal teams’ counsel: to be contrite at every opportunity; to extol the supposed benefits of bigness in health care (UnitedHealth being by far the world’s largest health care corporation) all the while stressing that his company is not really all that big because it doesn’t, you know, own hospitals and pharmaceutical companies [yet]; and to assure us all that the fixes to its hacked claims-handling subsidiary Change Healthcare are all but in.

Congress? Meh. Paying for care? WTF!

Wall Street was relieved and impressed that Witty acquitted himself so well. Investors shrugged off the many barbs aimed at him and his vast international empire. By the end of the day Wednesday, the company’s stock price had actually inched up a few cents, to $484.11. A modest 2.7 million shares of UnitedHealth’s stock were traded that day, considerably fewer than usual. 

Instead of punishing UnitedHealth, investors inflicted massive pain on its chief rival, CVS, which owns Aetna. On the same day Witty went to Washington, CVS had to disclose that it missed Wall Street financial analyst’s earnings-per-share expectations for the first quarter of 2024 by several cents. Shareholders’ furor sent CVS’ stock price tumbling from $67.71 to a 15-year low of $54 at one point Wednesday before settling at $56.31 by the time the New York Stock Exchange closed. An astonishing 65.7 million shares of CVS stock were traded that day. 

The company’s sin: paying too many claims for seniors and disabled people enrolled in its Medicare Advantage plans. CVS’s stock price continued to slide throughout the week, ending at $55.90 on Friday afternoon. UnitedHealth’s stock price kept going up, closing at $492.45 on Friday. CVS gained a bit on Monday, closing at $55.97. UnitedHealth was up to $494.38.

Postscript: I do want to bring to your attention one exchange between Witty and Rep. Buddy Carter (R-Ga.) during the House Energy and Commerce committee hearing. Carter is a pharmacist who has seen firsthand how UnitedHealth’s virtual integration–operating health insurance companies with one hand and racking up physician practices and clinics with the other–and its PBM’s business practices have contributed to the closure of hundreds of independent pharmacies in recent years. He’s also seen patients walk away from the pharmacy counter without their medications because of PBMs’ out-of-pocket demands (often hundreds and thousands of dollars). And he’s seen other patients face life-threatenng delays because of industry prior authorization requirements. Carter was instrumental in persuading the Federal Trade Commission to investigate PBMs’ ownership and business practices. He told Witty: 

I’m going to continue to bust this up…This vertical integration in health care in general has got to end.

More power to you, Mr. Carter. 

Insurers brace for continued Medicare Advantage medical costs

Posted on by • Posted in Health Insurance Industry, Medical Loss Ratio (MLR), Medicare Advantage, Utilization Trends • Leave a comment

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/health-insurer-medicare-advantage-utilization-2024/707360

The big question coming out of the health insurance earnings season is how much elevated utilization among seniors is carrying over into 2024.

Medicare Advantage medical costs dominated fourth-quarter discussions between health insurers and investors, after higher healthcare utilization popped up like weeds in some segments of each payers’ business.

Yet health insurers’ forecasts for how higher utilization will affect their performance in 2024 are night and day.

Some payers controlled medical costs more effectively than analysts expected, said rising spending shouldn’t affect their outlooks for this year or guided to a stronger 2024 than previously forecast. That group includes UnitedHealth, Centene, Elevance and Cigna.

However, Humana and CVS cut their 2024 earnings outlooks on the heels of last year’s results, and said they expect elevated medical costs to continue this year.

Humana’s outlook is especially grim: The Kentucky-based payer’s earnings expectations for 2024 came in about half as low as analysts had expected.

Even payers that emerged from 2023 with their financial outlooks unscathed said they plan to cut benefits or raise premiums this year. The plan redesigns are to protect margins in MA — a business that historically generates significant profits, but is facing challenges that threaten to kill the golden goose.

Why didn’t payers see medical costs coming?

MA plans have skyrocketed in popularity. More than half of Medicare seniors are currently signed up for the plans, attracted by benefits like lower monthly premiums and dental and vision coverage. An onslaught of marketing by insurers didn’t hurt, either, as payers jockey for members. Competition is fierce, as MA margins per enrollee can be twice as high as those in other types of plans.

Yet, more members are creating more problems for some insurers because of rising medical utilization. Starting in the second quarter last year, seniors sought out medical care they had delayed during the COVID-19 pandemic, hiking insurers’ spending.

For example, CVS added 800,000 MA enrollees for 2024, mostly nabbed from other payers after CVS aggressively expanded its benefits. But that’s coming back to haunt the Rhode Island-based insurer, which cut its earnings per share outlook for this year due to high medical costs.

There are a few potential explanations for what’s driving the elevated utilization, and why insurers might not have properly forecast the uptick in trend, according to J.P. Morgan analyst Lisa Gill.

Enrollees in MA tend to be healthier than those in traditional Medicare. But as more seniors join MA, the program’s risk population could be skewing sicker, Gill wrote in an early February research note. Insurers could have missed early warning signs of higher acuity as seniors avoided doctor’s offices during the pandemic.

Higher demand could have also existed earlier, but providers might not have been able to address it because of labor shortages that have now ameliorated, Gill said. Similarly, insurers could have added new MA enrollees with less diagnosis history relative to the rest of their population, resulting in lower visibility into their conditions.

Medical loss ratio is a useful metric for understanding how unexpectedly high utilization is affecting insurers.

Medical loss ratio, or MLR, is a percentage of how much in healthcare premiums insurers spend on clinical services and quality improvement. The higher the MLR, the less in premiums insurers are spending on administration or marketing — or retaining as profit. As such, insurers generally try to keep their MLRs low (though within regulatory bounds to avoid sanctions).

MLRs soared in payers’ Medicare businesses in the fourth quarter, as the utilization trends that emerged earlier in 2023 conflated with a typical seasonal rise in medical spending during the winter months.

Utilization inflation

Insurers chalked the increase in medical costs up to different drivers.

Seniors covered by UnitedHealth and Humana, which together hold almost half of the total MA market share, continued to seek outpatient care in droves in the fourth quarter, including procedures like orthopedic surgeries.

UnitedHealth’s members required more spending on seasonal diseases like the flu, COVID or respiratory virus RSV. Elevance, Centene and CVS also reported elevated outpatient care overall for things like elective procedures, along with higher spend on seasonal needs.

That wasn’t the case for Cigna — which had lower than expected spending on seasonal diseases — and Humana. Humana’s uptick in care was “not respiratory driven,” said CFO Susan Diamond on the payer’s fourth-quarter earnings call in January.

“We don’t have any clear indicators that it is something you can reasonably assume is seasonal,” Diamond said.

As for inpatient care, Centene and CVS didn’t report higher utilization of hospital services than expected. Elevance also didn’t say that inpatient trends were contributing to growing costs.

Yet, UnitedHealth and Humana warned investors about rising inpatient costs, which is concerning for insurers given hospital care is more expensive to cover. UnitedHealth blamed pricey COVID admissions, while Humana said it was seeing more short stays in hospitals across the board.

Humana’s Diamond said recent government regulations requiring MA payers to comply with coverage determinations in traditional Medicare could be a potential driver of the higher inpatient spend. The rule requires insurers to cover an inpatient admission if the patient is expected to require hospital care for at least two midnights.

Other insurers said they had planned for the so-called “two-midnight rule.”

On Feb. 6, Centene CFO Drew Asher told investors that the payer had factored the rule into its planning for 2024. Meanwhile, CVS CFO Tom Cowhey said one day later the company had adjusted internally in response to the rule.

Looking forward

The increase in utilization — combined with weaker payment rates, changes to MA quality ratings and a shifting risk adjustment model — have created an updraft for MLRs, especially for insurers with high exposure to MA like Humana and UnitedHealth.

The big question is how much of this utilization will carry over into this year, and whether payers have properly accounted for utilization changes in their plan designs.

Every major insurer besides Elevance expects to record a higher MLR in 2024 than in 2023. Though, the size of the growth ranges from a 0.8 percentage point increase for UnitedHealth to a 2.7 percentage point increase for Humana.

The outlier, Elevance, expects its MLR to remain flat.

In response to the challenging financial environment, payers — even those that excelled in controlling medical costs last year — said they’ve been pulling back benefits, raising premiums or exiting underperforming markets to boost profitability.

That’s true for insurers that expect their MA membership to grow this year (UnitedHealth, CVS), and those that expect it to fall (Cigna) or stay flat (Elevance).

As a result, further growth could be curtailed as payers prioritize margins.

“We are first and foremost focused on recovering margin, and market share gains is a secondary consideration,” Brian Kane, who leads CVS’ health benefits division, told investors during its February earnings call.

“I look at next year as a year that I think the whole industry will possibly reprice. I don’t know how the industry can take this kind of increase in utilization along with regulatory changes that will continue to persist in 2025 and 2026,” Humana CEO Bruce Broussard said on the payer’s earnings call.

Insurers said they could revise plans further in light of MA rates for 2025 that the government proposed midway through the earnings reporting season. The rates represent a renewed effort by regulators to rein in growing spending in Medicare.

Executives with Humana, Centene and CVS all said the payment changes are insufficient to cover cost trends. Humana and Centene said the rule would result in a 1.6% and 1.3% drop in rates, respectively. (That’s before risk scoring, which should result in an overall increase in reimbursement in 2025).

Insurers warned regulators that seniors could see their benefits reduced if they finalize the rates as proposed.

“We’ll just adjust the bids accordingly,” Asher said on Centene’s call. “The products may be a little less attractive for seniors from an industry standpoint if we don’t make a lot of progress on the final rates.”

CVS slashes 2024 outlook — again — as Medicare seniors drive spending

Posted on by • Posted in CVS Health, Health Insurance Industry, Medical Loss Ratio (MLR), Medicare Advantage, Utilization Trends • Leave a comment
https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/cvs-2024-forecast-cut-medicare-inpatient-q1/714807/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Issue:%202024-05-02%20Healthcare%20Dive%20%5Bissue:61689%5D&utm_term=Healthcare%20Dive

Runaway inpatient spending in particular caused CVS’ insurance costs to snowball after returning “to patterns we have not seen since the start of the pandemic,” its CFO said.

Dive Brief:

  • CVS had a significantly worse first quarter than the healthcare giant — or Wall Street — expected, after its insurance arm failed to adequately prepare for seniors’ high use of medical care, especially in inpatient facilities.
  • The Rhode Island-based company’s health services segment — usually a reliable driver of growth — also saw its revenue and income fall in the quarter as its pharmacy benefit manager adjusted to the loss of a major contract with insurer Centene.
  • CVS slashed its earnings expectations for 2024 on Wednesday following the results. It’s the second time the company has lowered financial expectations this calendar year. “Clearly this is a disappointing result for us,” CFO Tom Cowhey said on a Wednesday call with investors, after which CVS’ stock fell more than 19%.

Dive Insight:

CVS brought in revenue of $88.4 billion in the quarter, up 4% year over year but significantly below analysts’ expectations. Net income was slashed by almost half compared to the prior-year quarter, to $1.1 billion.

The quarter was “burdened by utilization pressures in Medicare Advantage,” CEO Karen Lynch said on the call.

Starting last year, MA seniors began using higher levels of medical services after a long dry spell during the COVID-19 pandemic. The trend has continued into this year, leaving private insurers that manage the plans scrambling to contain costs.

CVS assumed utilization would moderate somewhat coming into the first quarter, but instead it was “notably above” expectations, according to Lynch.

Outpatient services, like mental health and medical pharmacy, along with supplemental benefits like dental continued to be elevated in the first quarter. However, inpatient utilization was particularly to blame for runaway spending.

Inpatient admissions per thousand in the quarter were up “high-single digits” compared to the same time last year, Cowhey said. A small portion of the growth was expected due to implementation of the CMS’ two-midnight rule that’s resulted in insurers having to cover more inpatient admissions. But overall, admissions “meaningfully exceeded” expectations for the quarter, according to the CFO.

“Inpatient seasonality returned to patterns we have not seen since the start of the pandemic,” Cowhey said.

Executives stressed that some of those costs appear to be seasonal and shouldn’t carry into the rest of the year. Inpatient utilization patterns are similar to what CVS’ insurance arm Aetna saw in normal years before the COVID-19 pandemic, and appear to be moderating in April, according to Lynch.

Still, the higher utilization caused the insurer’s medical loss ratio — a marker of spending on patient care — to soar to 90.4% in the first quarter, compared to 84.6% during the same time last year.

Overall, medical costs in the quarter were about $900 million higher than CVS expected, Cowhey said.

CVS’ results suggest the insurer “severely underestimated utilization of new members,” TD Cowen analyst Charles Rhyee wrote in a Wednesday morning note. “Investors already had lowered expectations for MA, but actual results and impact to guidance is likely way worse than expected.” 

CVS added more MA members coming into 2024 than any other U.S. health insurer, according to an analysis by consultancy Chartis. That growth caused CVS’ membership to grow 1.1 million members in the first quarter compared to the end of 2023, to 26.8 million individuals.

Revenue in CVS’ health benefits segment, which houses its insurer Aetna, subsequently inflated to $32.2 billion, up 21% compared to the fourth quarter of 2023.

Despite the boom, higher medical costs slashed the segment’s operating income, as did the impact of lower quality ratings in MA.

Lower quality or “star” ratings for 2024 cut steeply into CVS’ reimbursement. Aetna’s largest contract fell from 4.5 stars to 3.5 stars for 2024, causing the payer to lose out on about $800 million in revenue.

As a result of the pressures, “we think [MA] will lose a significant amount of money this year,” Cowhey said.

Following the quarter, CVS lowered its full-year financial expectations for earnings per share on a GAAP and adjusted basis, and for cash flow from operations.

CVS expects to notch an MLR of 89.8% in 2024, up 2.1 percentage points from its previous guidance, because of continued medical utilization pressures, Cowhey said.

Moving into 2025, CVS does expect to recover most of what it lost this year from the star ratings changes. But the insurer faces another setback: MA payment rates recently finalized for 2025 that insurers are slamming as a cut, despite only a modest decrease in base rates.

On the call, Lynch maligned the rates as “insufficient” and a “significant added disruption” in the program.

Like its other peers with major MA footprints, CVS plans to focus on improving profits at the potential expense of members. That includes hiking premiums and exiting counties where Aetna thinks it can’t improve profits in the near term. Aetna could lose members as a result, but the size of eventual losses will in large part depend on what the insurer’s competitors do, according to CVS executives.

Other major MA payers have said they will take similar steps to hike profits.

CVS also dealt with lower visibility into its claims in the quarter because of the massive cyberattack on claims clearinghouse Change Healthcare earlier this year. Change took its systems offline as a result, hamstringing providers’ payments across the U.S. and making it harder for insurers to predict how much they might have to spend on their members’ medical costs.

CVS established a reserve of nearly $500 million for claims it estimates were lodged in the quarter but it has yet to receive. Cowhey said the insurer is “confident” about the adequacy of its reserves.

Empowering healthcare providers against rising payer denials

Posted on by • Posted in Clinical Documentation Improvement (CDI), Denial Management, Denial Rates, Health Insurance Denial, Health Insurance Industry, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Rev Cycle Management, Revenue Cycle • Leave a comment

https://www.healthcaredive.com/spons/empowering-healthcare-providers-against-rising-payer-denials/712098

In the rapidly evolving landscape of U.S. healthcare, the tug-of-war between payers and providers is continually intensifying, raising the stakes on the strategic maneuvers that shape the industry’s financial and operational dynamics.

The crux of the issue lies in the increasingly sophisticated strategies employed by insurance companies to deny claims: a move that ostensibly aims to safeguard their bottom lines, often at the expense of provider sustainability and patient access.

The rise in denial rates is more than a mere statistic; it’s a symptom of a broader systemic challenge that calls for strategic foresight and robust expertise. In this intricate environment, providers face numerous administrative challenges, working to balance clinical decisions with financial sustainability. 

Drawn from in-depth proprietary analytics, clinical regulatory expertise and decades of experience, CorroHealth addresses what is needed to successfully combat payer denial tactics. Broader industry trends, such as the shift towards value-based care and the increasing emphasis on patient-centric models, will continue to disrupt the historic provider business model. CorroHealth’s insights offer a beacon for steering through these turbulent waters. Their strategic recommendations, from optimizing contract negotiations to leveraging data analytics to managing payer denials, to formalizing escalation paths, reflect a comprehensive approach to mitigating the adverse effects of ever-shifting payer denial tactics.

Delving deeper into the anatomy of payer denials reveals a long-term pattern of deliberate complexity designed to wear down provider resilience. By dissecting the layers of denial management, from initial claim submission to final resolution, CorroHealth uncovers pivotal areas where targeted interventions dramatically shift outcomes in favor of healthcare providers.

This process involves a granular analysis of denial codes, predictive analytics to pre-empt possible denials and rigorous training staff to maneuver through the intricate appeals process effectively. 

Taking a proactive stance towards payer contract management, their approach emphasizes the importance of scrutinizing the fine print and negotiating terms that anticipate and mitigate denial strategies. CorroHealth advocates on the providers’ behalf for clearer definitions of medical necessity, timely filing limits and transparent appeal processes. By equipping providers with negotiation tactics grounded in comprehensive data analysis and a deep understanding of payer methodologies, their contracts become a tool for protection against denials, rather than a source of vulnerability.

Woven throughout this work is CorroHealth’s commitment to advancing the dialogue between payers and providers toward a more equitable healthcare system. Through forums, partnerships and collaborative initiatives, CorroHealth bridges the gap between these two entities, fostering an environment where mutual understanding and respect pave the way for innovative solutions to longstanding challenges.

Hospitals and health systems require an experienced partner to navigate the complexities of the healthcare landscape, balancing financial sustainability with top-tier patient care. CorroHealth offers a comprehensive suite of solutions to address challenges associated with payer denials, enabling providers to recover lost revenues and uphold the fundamental goal of accessible, high-quality patient care. Beyond financial strategies and operational adjustments, the narrative calls for a more productive and transparent dialogue between payers and providers. This aims to encourage an ecosystem where financial sustainability and high-quality patient care are complementary facets of holistic healthcare delivery.

Facing these challenges, the importance of strategic partnerships becomes increasingly vital for healthcare providers. Such alliances are indispensable in maneuvering through the complex healthcare landscape and are strengthened by CorroHealth’s comprehensive understanding of the payer-provider dynamic and dedication to fostering innovation. A collaborative approach is essential for progressing towards a healthcare system characterized by greater equity and efficiency.

The industry stands at an existential crossroads. The insights and strategies shared by CorroHealth serve as a testament to the company’s expertise and its dedication to shaping a future where healthcare is accessible, affordable and effective for all. 

Cigna writes down VillageMD investment amid shrinking value

Posted on by • Posted in Cigna, Health Insurance Industry, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Primary Care, Primary Care Delivery Model, Retail Clinic, Retail Healthcare, Walgreens • Leave a comment
https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/cigna-villagemd-writedown-walgreens-q1-2024/714966/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Issue:%202024-05-02%20Healthcare%20Dive%20%5Bissue:61689%5D&utm_term=Healthcare%20Dive

Walgreens’ decision to slash VillageMD’s clinical footprint has reverberated to the financial accounts of the primary care chain’s minority owner — Cigna.

Dive Brief:

  • Cigna has written off more than half of its multibillion-dollar investment in VillageMD amid the declining value of the primary care chain.
  • Cigna invested $2.5 billion into VillageMD in late 2022, with the goal of accelerating value-based care arrangements for employer clients by tying VillageMD’s physician network with Cigna’s health services business, Evernorth — hopefully reaping profits from shared savings as a result.
  • But on Thursday, Cigna wrote off $1.8 billion of that investment, citing VillageMD’s lackluster growth after its majority owner Walgreens elected to close underperforming clinics. The writedown drove Cigna’s shareholder earnings down to a net loss of almost $300 million, compared to profit of $1.3 billion in the same time last year.

Dive Insight:

Overall, Cigna’s first-quarter performance was solid, especially amid the mixed results of its insurer peers, analysts said. The Connecticut-based payer grew its revenue 23% year over year to $57.3 billion.

Yet Cigna’s bet on VillageMD is a new thorn in its side, as the investment’s value becomes increasingly bogged down by Walgreens’ operational decisions, along with broader challenges in the primary care sector.

Walgreens began closing underperforming VillageMD centers last year in a bid to force the segment to profitability, and quickly blew past its initial goal of 60 closures. Now, the retailer expects to close 160 clinics overall, majorly downsizing VillageMD’s footprint.

That decision is reverberating to the financial accounts of VillageMD’s minority owner — Cigna.

“The writedown was largely driven by some broader market dislocation that is hitting the space … as well as Village determining that they are going to pull in supply lines and constrain some of the growth in some of the new clinics that they were establishing,” CEO David Cordani told investors on a Thursday morning call.

However Cigna’s priorities for VillageMD remain unchanged, management said. Cigna is still aiming to link VillageMD’s primary care centers to its own clinical assets to build a high-quality provider network that can serve its own patients, and those of health plan and employer clients.

The partnership has already launched in four markets, and the companies plan to continue scaling, according to Cordani.

“At the macro level our strategic direction in terms of what we are seeking to innovate with Village has not changed despite the writedown of the asset,” Cordani said, though “no one likes a writedown of the asset.”

In the quarter, Cigna’s health benefits segment emerged unscathed by headwinds that buffeted other major payers: notably, spending and regulatory pressure in Medicare Advantage.

Seniors in the privately-run Medicare plans began returning for medical care in droves starting last year, sending insurer spending soaring. Meanwhile, the government is tamping down on reimbursement growth.

Yet the majority of Cigna’s business is with employer clients, which served as a “well-underwritten shelter from the MA storms,” TD Cowen analyst Gary Taylor wrote in a Thursday morning note.

Cigna is planning on getting out of Medicare coverage altogether, having agreed in January to sell its Medicare business to Chicago-based insurer Health Care Service Corporation. That deal remains on track, executives said, after a key waiting period for antitrust regulators to challenge the deal came and went in mid-April. The divestiture is expected to close in early 2025.

Cigna’s medical loss ratio — a marker of how much in premiums insurers spend on patient care — was 79.9% in the quarter, better than analysts had expected. Cigna did see higher utilization in areas like inpatient care for employer-sponsored members in the quarter, but the payer’s pricing decisions for its plans covered the trend, executives said.

Cigna cut its MLR guidance for 2024, along with raising earnings expectations. The insurer now expects an MLR between 81.7% and 82.5% this year, suggesting management is confident in their ability to control medical costs, J.P. Morgan analyst Lisa Gill wrote in a Thursday note.

Meanwhile, Evernorth’s revenue increased by more than a third year over year in the first quarter thanks to the migration of Centene’s lucrative prescription drug contract.

CVS, which previously held the contract, cited its loss as a factor in declining revenue and income for its pharmacy benefit management business on Wednesday.

Cordani specifically called out specialty pharmacy — which already represents a major portion of Evernorth’s revenue — as an “accelerated growth opportunity” for the business.

Roughly a week ago, Evernorth announced it will have an interchangeable Humira biosimilar for $0 out-of-pocket cost for eligible patients of its specialty pharmacy arm, Accredo.

Currently, 100,000 Accredo patients use Humira or a biosimilar for the frequently prescribed immune disease drug, which has long been the top-selling drug for its manufacturer AbbVie. In addition, all of its PBM clients and patients will have access to the biosimilars, according to Cordani.

Evernorth has also taken steps to ramp up coverage of GLP-1s, expensive diabetes drugs that have soared in popularity for weight loss. In March, the company announced cost-sharing agreement for GLP-1s covered in a condition management program, to insulate health plan and employer clients from the soaring costs of the medication.

The program has seen “strong interest,” and Evernorth has enrolled more than 1 million people in it to date, Cordani said.