Category Archives: Healthcare Reform

Handicapping the Players in the Quest for Healthcare Affordability

Posted on by • Posted in 2024 Election Issues, Affordability, Health Insurance Industry, Health System, Healthcare Reform, High Deductible Health Plans, High Drug Prices, High Premiums, High Prices, Medical Debt, Out of Pocket Expenses, Pharmaceutical Industry, Physician, Private Equity, Retail Healthcare • Leave a comment
Handicapping the Players in the Quest for Healthcare Affordability

As campaigns for November elections gear up for early voting and Congress considers bipartisan reforms to limit consolidation and enhance competition in U.S. healthcare, prospective voters are sending a cleat message to would-be office holders:

Healthcare Affordability must be addressed directly, transparently and now.

Polling by Gallup, Kaiser Family Foundation and Pew have consistently shown healthcare affordability among top concerns to voters alongside inflation, immigration and access to abortion. It is higher among Democratic-leaning voters but represents the majority in every socio-economic cohort–young and old, low and middle income and households with/without health insurance coverage., urban and rural and so on.  

It’s understandable: household economic security is declining: per the Federal Reserve’s latest household finances report:

  • 72% of US adults say they are doing well financially (down from 78% in 2021)
  • 54% say they have emergency savings to cover 3 months expenses ($400)—down from high of 59% in 2015.
  • 69% say their finances deteriorated in 2023. They’re paying more for groceries, fuel, insurance premiums and childcare.
  • Renters absorbed a 10% increase last year and mortgage interest spike has put home ownership beyond reach for 6 in 10 households

Thus, household financial security is the issue and healthcare expenses play a key role. Drug prices, hospital consolidation, price transparency and corporate greed will get frequent recognition in candidate rhetoric. “Reform” will be promised. And each sector in the industry will offer solutions that place the blame on others.

Granted, the U.S. health system lacks a uniform definition of healthcare affordability. It’s a flaw. In the Affordable Care Act, it was framed in the context of an individual’s eligibility for government-subsidized insurance coverage (8.39% adjusted gross income for households between 100% and 400% of the federal poverty level). But a broader application to the entire population was overlooked. Nonetheless, economists, regulators and consumers recognize the central role healthcare affordability plays in household financial security.

Handicapping the major players potential to win the hearts and minds of voters about healthcare affordability is tricky:

  • Each major sector has seen the ranks of its membership decrease and the influence (and visibility) of its bigger players increase. They’re easy targets for industry critics.
  • Each sector is seeing private equity and non-traditional players play bigger roles. The healthcare landscape is expanding beyond the traditional players.
  • Each sector is struggling to make their cases for incremental reforms while employers, legislators and consumers want more. Bipartisan support for anything is a rarity: an exception is antipathy toward healthcare consolidation and lack of price transparency.
  • All recognize that affordability is complicated. Unit cost and price increases for goods and services are the culprit: excess utilization is secondary.

Against this backdrop, here’s a scorecard on the current state of preparedness as each navigates affordability going into Campaign 2024:

SectorAdvantagesDisadvantagesHandicap Score1=Unprepared to5=Well Prepared
HospitalsCommunity presence (employer, safety net)
Economic impact
Influence in Congress
Scale: 30% of spending + direct employment of 52% of physicians
Access to capital		Lack of costs & price transparency Unit costs inflation due to wage, supply chain & admin
Shifting demand for core services.
Low entry barriers for key services
Regulator headwind (state, federal).
Operating, governing culture
Value proposition erosion with employers, pre-Medicare populations
Consumer orientation 		3
PhysiciansConsumer trust
Influence in Congress
Shared savings (Medicare)
Essentiality
Specialization
Access to technology 		Care continuity
Inadequacy of primary care
Disorganization (fragmentation)
Value of shared savings to general population (beyond Medicare)
Culture: change-averse (education, licensing performance measurement, et al)
Data: costs, outcomes 		2
Drug ManufacturersIncreasing product demand
Influence in Congress
Public trust in drug efficacy
Insurance structure that limits consumer price sensitivity to OOP
Potential for AI -enabled discovery, market access
Access to private capital
Congress’ constraint on PBMs		Unit cost escalation
Lack of price transparency
Growing disaffection for FDA
Long-term Basic Research Funding
State Price Control Momentum
Market access
Restrictive Formulary Growth
Transparency in Distributor-PBM business relationships
Public perception of corporate greed 		2
Health InsurersAvailability of claims, cost data
Employer tax exemptions
Growing government market
Plan design: OOP, provider access
Public association: coverage = financial security
Access to private capital  		Escalating premiums
Declining group market
Growing regulatory scrutiny (consolidation, data protection)
Tension with health systems
Value proposition erosion among government, employers, consumers   		4
Retail HealthNon-incumbrance of restrictive regulatory framework
Consumer acceptance
Breadth of product opportunities
Access to private capital
Opportunity for care management (i.e. CVS- Epic)
Operational orientation to consumers (convenience, pricing, et al)
Potential with employers,  		Lack of access, coordination with needed specialty care
Threat of regulatory restraint on growth
Risks associated with care management models   		3

The biggest, investor-owned health insurers own the advantage today. As in other sectors, they’re growing faster than their smaller peers and enjoy advantages of scale and private capital access to fund their growth. A handful of big players in the other sectors stand-out, but their affordability solutions are, to date, not readily active.

In each sector above, there is consensus that a fundamental change in the structure, function and oversight of the U.S. health is eminent. In all, tribalism is an issue: publicly-owned, not for profits vs. investor-owned, independent vs. affiliated, big vs. small and so on.

Getting consensus to address affordability head on is hard, so not much is done by the sectors themselves. And none is approaching the solution in its necessary context—the financial security of a households facing unprecedented pressures to make ends meet. In all likelihood, the bigger, more prominent organizations in their ranks of these sectors will deliver affordability solutions well-above the lowest common denominators that are comfortable for most Thus, health care affordability will be associated with organizational brands and differentiated services, not the sectors from which their trace their origins. And it will be based on specified utilization, costs, outcome and spending guarantees to consumers and employers that are reasonable and transparent.

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.

Hospitals at a Crossroad: Reactive Navigation or Proactive Orchestration?

Posted on by • Posted in 2024 Election Issues, American Hospital Association (AHA), Bankruptcy, Board, Financial Stewardship, Financial Viability, Financially Distressed, Health System, Healthcare Reform, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Leadership, Leadership Investment, Leadership Problem Solving, Leadership Transformation, Leadership Vision, Medicaid, Medicare, Public Opinion, Public Perception, Utilization Trends • Leave a comment
Hospitals at a Crossroad: Reactive Navigation or Proactive Orchestration?

This is National Hospital week. It comes at a critical time for hospitals:

The U.S. economy is strong but growing numbers in the population face financial insecurity and economic despair. Increased out-of-pocket costs for food, fuel and housing (especially rent) have squeezed household budgets and contributed to increased medical debt—a problem in 41% of U.S. households today. Hospital bills are a factor.

The capital market for hospitals is tightening: interest rates for debt are increasing, private investments in healthcare services have slowed and valuations for key sectors—hospitals, home care, physician practices, et al—have dropped. It’s a buyer’s market for investors who hold record assets under management (AUM) but concerns about the harsh regulatory and competitive environment facing hospitals persist. Betting capital on hospitals is a tough call when other sectors appear less risky.

Utilization levels for hospital services have recovered from pandemic disruption and operating margins are above breakeven for more than half but medical inflation, insurer reimbursement, wage increases and Medicare payment cuts guarantee operating deficits for all. Complicating matters, regulators are keen to limit consolidation and force not-for-profits to justify their tax exemptions. Not a pretty picture.

And, despite all this, the public’s view of hospitals remains positive though tarnished by headlines like these about Steward Health’s bankruptcy filing last Monday:

The public is inclined to hold hospitals in high regard, at least for the time being. When asked how much trust and confidence they have in key institutions to “to develop a plan for the U.S. health system that maximizes what it has done well and corrects its major flaws,” consumers prefer for solutions physicians and hospitals over others but over half still have reservations:

A Great DealSomeNot Much/None
Health Insurers18%43%39%
Hospitals27%52%21%
Physicians32%53%15%
Federal Government14%42%44%
Retail Health Org’s21%51%28%

The American Hospital Association (AHA) is rightfully concerned that hospitals get fair treatment from regulators, adequate reimbursement from Medicare and Medicaid and protection against competitors that cherry-pick profits from the health system.

It can rightfully assert that declining operating margins in hospitals are symptoms of larger problems in the health system: flawed incentives, inadequate funding for preventive and primary care, the growing intensity of chronic diseases, medical inflation for wages, drugs, supplies and technologies, the dominance of ‘Big Insurance’ whose revenues have grown 12.1% annually since the pandemic and more. And it can correctly prove that annual hospital spending has slowed since the pandemic from 6.2% (2019) to 2.2% (2022) in stark contrast to prescription drugs (up from 4% to 8.4% and insurance costs (from -5.4% to +8.5%). Nonetheless, hospital costs, prices and spending are concerns to economists, regulators and elected officials.

National health spending data illustrate the conundrum for hospitals: relative to the overall CPI, healthcare prices and spending—especially outpatient hospital services– are increasing faster than prices and spending in other sectors and it’s getting attention: that’s problematic for hospitals at a time when 5 committees in Congress and 3 Cabinet level departments have their sights set on regulatory changes that are unwelcome to most hospitals.

My take:

The U.S. market for healthcare spending is growing—exceeding 5% per year through the next decade. With annual inflation targeted to 2.0% by the Fed and the GDP expected to grow 3.5-4.0% annually in the same period, something’s gotta’ give. Hospitals represent 30.4% of overall spending today (virtually unchanged for the past 5 years) and above 50% of total spending when their employed physicians and outside activities are included, so it’s obvious they’ll draw attention.

Today, however, most are consumed by near-term concerns– reimbursement issues with insurers, workforce adequacy and discontent, government mandates– and few have the luxury to look 10-20 years ahead.

I believe hospitals should play a vital role in orchestrating the health system’s future and the role they’ll play in it. Some will be specialty hubs. Some will operate without beds. Some will be regional. Some will close. And all will face increased demands from regulators, community leaders and consumers for affordable, convenient and effective whole-person care.

For most hospitals, a decision to invest and behave as if the future is a repeat of the past is a calculated risk. Others with less stake in community health and wellbeing and greater access to capital will seize this opportunity and, in the process, disable hospitals might play in the process.

Near-term reactive navigation vs. long-term proactive orchestration–that’s the crossroad in front of hospitals today. Hopefully, during National Hospital Week, it will get the attention it needs in every hospital board room and C suite.

PS: Last week, I wrote about the inclination of the 18 million college kids to protest against the healthcare status quo (“Is the Health System the Next Target for Campus Unrest?” The Keckley Report May 6, 2024 www.paulkeckley.com). This new survey caught my attention:

According to the Generation Lab’s survey of 1250 college students released last week, healthcare reform is a concern. When asked to choose 3 “issues most important to you” from its list of 13 issues, healthcare reform topped the list. The top 5:

  1. Health Reform (40%)
  2. Education Funding and access (38%)
  3. Economic fairness and opportunity (37%)
  4. Social justice and civil rights (36%)
  5. Climate change (35%)

If college kids today are tomorrow’s healthcare workforce and influencers to their peers, addressing the future of health system with their input seems shortsighted. Most hospital boards are comprised of older adults—community leaders, physicians, et al.

And most of the mechanisms hospitals use to assess their long-term sustainability is tethered to assumptions about an aging population and Medicare. 

College kids today are sending powerful messages about the society in which they aspire to be a part. They’re tech savvy, independent politically and increasingly spiritual but not religious. And the health system is on their radar.

DEATH BY PAPERWORK: Watch NYT Opinion video on health insurers’ “prior authorization” practices

Posted on by • Posted in Administrative Burden, Deferred Healthcare, Do No Harm, Health Insurance Denial, Health Insurance Industry, Health Policy, Healthcare Reform, Medical Ethics, Prior Authorization, Profit Motive, Red Tape • Leave a comment
https://wendellpotter.substack.com/p/death-by-paperwork-watch-nyt-opinion?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=255152&post_id=142644246&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=59t65&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

If a picture is worth a thousand words, a video, if done well, can be worth thousands more. 

Regular readers of HEALTH CARE un-covered know we have published lots of words about the barriers health insurance companies have erected that make it harder and harder for patients to get the care their doctors know they need.

Well, the New York Times has put together one of the best videos I’ve come across to describe one of those barriers–prior authorization. I hope you’ll take a few minute to watch it.

As a former health insurance executive, I’ve seen firsthand how the health insurance industry’s use of prior authorization inflicts harm on patients.

It’s a perfect example of how something that was designed to protect patients from inappropriate and unnecessary care has been weaponized by health insurers to pad their bottom lines.

Prior authorization in today’s world all too often serves as a bureaucratic barrier, requiring patients and their doctors to obtain approval in advance from insurers before certain treatments, medications, or procedures will be covered.

While insurance companies argue that prior authorization helps control costs and ensure appropriate care, the reality is far grimmer.

Both patients and their health care providers suffer the consequences. Patients frequently face delays in receiving necessary treatments or medications, exacerbating their health conditions and causing unnecessary stress and anxiety. Many forgo needed care altogether due to the complexities and frustrations of navigating the prior authorization process. This practice not only undermines patients’ trust in their health care providers but also compromises their health, often leading to worsened conditions and, tragically, sometimes irreversible harm.

The burden of prior authorization falls heavily on clinicians and their office staff who must spend valuable time and resources navigating the bureaucratic red tape imposed by insurers. This administrative burden not only detracts from patient care but also contributes to physician burnout, dissatisfaction and moral crisis, according to many doctors.

Ultimately, the health insurance industry’s prioritization of profit over patient well-being is evident in its insistence on maintaining these barriers to care, perpetuating a system that defaults to financial gain at the expense of human lives.

The New York Times video cuts to the chase. Prior authorization, as practiced today by insurance companies, is “medical injustice disguised as paperwork.”

Has U.S. Healthcare reached its Tipping Point?

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

Last week was significant for healthcare:

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

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

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

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

UnitedHealth Group’s financial success is illustrative: 

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

Big business is not new to healthcare:

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

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

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

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

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

He’s right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am worried that transformational change is all talk.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

U.S. Healthcare Spending 2000-2022

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

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

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

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

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

The agency’s actuaries assume

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

My take:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Five Medicare Advantage fixes we can all get behind (except the health insurance industry, of course)

Posted on by • Posted in Clinical Documentation Improvement (CDI), Health Insurance Broker Commissions, Health Insurance Industry, Health Policy, Healthcare Reform, Marketing Deceptive, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Advantage Denials, Medicare Advantage Supplemental Benefits, Network Adequacy, Network Design, Payor Authorizations, Prior Authorization, Profit Margin, Profit Motive, Rev Cycle Management, Rural Health, Rural Hospital • Leave a comment
https://wendellpotter.substack.com/p/five-medicare-advantage-fixes-we?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=255152&post_id=142173912&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=59t65&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

It’s no secret I feel strongly that “Medicare Advantage for All” is not a healthy end goal for universal health care coverage in our country. But I also recognize there are many folks, across the political spectrum, who see the program as one that has some merit. And it’s not going away anytime soon. To say the insurance industry has clout in Washington is an understatement. 

As politicians in both parties increase their scrutiny of Medicare Advantage, and the Biden administration reviews proposed reforms to the program, I think it’s important to highlight common-sense, achievable changes with broad appeal that would address the many problems with MA and begin leveling the playing field with the traditional Medicare program. 

1. Align prior authorization MA standards with traditional Medicare 

Since my mother entered into an MA plan more than a decade ago, I’ve watched how health insurers have applied practices from traditional employer-based plans to MA beneficiaries. For many years, insurers have made doctors submit a proposed course of treatment for a patient to the insurance company for payment pre-approval — widely known as “prior authorization.” 

While most prior authorization requests are approved, and most of those denied are approved if they are appealed, prior authorization accomplishes two things that increase insurers’ margins.

The practice adds a hurdle between diagnosis and treatment and increases the likelihood that a patient or doctor won’t follow through, which decreases the odds that the insurer will ultimately have to pay a claim. In addition, prior authorization increases the length of time insurers can hold on to premium dollars, which they invest to drive higher earnings. (A considerable percentage of insurers’ profits come from the investments they make using the premiums you pay.)

Last year, the Kaiser Family Foundation found the level of prior authorization requests in MA plans increased significantly in recent years, which is partially the result of the share of services subject to prior authorization increasing dramatically. While most requests were ultimately approved (as they were with employer-based insurance plans), the process delayed care and kept dollars in insurers’ coffers longer. 

The outrage generated by older Americans in MA plans waiting for prior authorization approvals has moved the Biden administration to action. 

Beginning in 2024, MA plans may be no more restrictive with prior authorization requirements than traditional Medicare.

That’s a significant change and one for which Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra should be lauded. 

But as large provider groups like the American Hospital Association have pointed out, the federal government must remain vigilant in its enforcement of this rule. As I wrote about recently with the implementation of the No Surprises Act, well-intentioned legislation and implementation rules put in place by regulators can have little real-world impact if insurers are not held accountable. It’s important to note, though, that federal regulatory agencies must be adequately staffed and resourced to be able to police the industry and address insurers’ relentless efforts to find loopholes in federal policy to maximize profits. Congress needs to provide the Department of Health and Human Services with additional funding for enforcement activities, for HHS to require transparency and reporting by insurers on their practices, and for stakeholders, especially providers and patients, to have an avenue to raise concerns with insurers’ practices as they become apparent.

2. Protect seniors from marketing scams 

If it’s fall, it’s football season. And that means it’s time for former NFL quarterback Joe Namath’s annual call to action on the airwaves for MA enrollment. 

As Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky and I wrote about more than a year ago, these innocent-appearing advertisements are misleading at their best and fraudulent at their worst. Thankfully, this is another area the Biden administration has also been watching over the past year. 

CMS now prohibits the use of ads that do not mention a specific plan name or that use the Medicare name and logos in a misleading way, the marketing of benefits in a service area where they are not available, and the use of superlatives (e.g., “best” or “most”) in marketing when not substantiated by data from the current or prior year.

As part of its efforts to enforce the new marketing restrictions, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services for the first time evaluated more than 3,000 MA ads before they ran in advance of 2024 open enrollment. It rejected more than 1,000 for being misleading, confusing, or otherwise non-compliant with the new requirements. These types of reviews will, I hope, continue.

CMS has proposed a fixed payment to brokers of MA plans that, if implemented, would significantly improve the problem of steering seniors to the highest-paying plan — with the highest compensation for the insurance broker. I think we can all agree brokers should be required to direct their clients to the best product, not the one that pays the broker the most. (That has been established practice for financial advisors for many years.) CMS should see this rule through, and send MA brokers profiteering off seniors packing. 

A bonus regulation in this space to consider: banning MA plan brokers from selling the contact information of MA beneficiaries. Ever wonder why grandma and grandpa get so many spam calls targeting their health conditions? This practice has a lot to do with it. And there’s bipartisan support in Congress for banning sales of beneficiary contact information. 

In addition, just as drug companies have to mention the potential side effects of their medications, MA plans should also be required to be forthcoming about their restrictions, including prior authorization requirements, limited networks, and potentially high out-of-pocket costs, in their ads and marketing materials.

3. Be real about supplemental benefits 

Tell me if this one sounds familiar. The federal government introduced flexibility to MA plans to offer seniors benefits beyond what they can receive in traditional Medicare funded primarily through taxpayer dollars.

Those “supplemental” benefits were intended to keep seniors active and healthy. Instead, insurers have manipulated the program to offer benefits seniors are less likely to use, so more of the dollars CMS doles out to pay for those benefits stay with payers. 

Many seniors in MA plans will see options to enroll in wellness plans, access gym memberships, acquire food vouchers, pick out new sneakers, and even help pay for pet care, believe it or not — all included under their MA plan. Those benefits are paid for by a pot of “rebate” dollars that CMS passes through to plans, with the presumed goal of improving health outcomes through innovative uses. 

There is a growing sense, though, that insurers have figured out how to game this system. While some of these offerings seem appealing and are certainly a focus of marketing by insurers, how heavily are they being used? How heavily do insurers communicate to seniors that they have these benefits, once seniors have signed up for them? Are insurers offering things people are actually using? Or are insurers strategically offering benefits that are rarely used?

Those answers are important because MA plans do not have to pay unused rebate dollars back to the federal government. 

CMS in 2024 is requiring insurers to submit detailed data for the first time on how seniors are using these benefits. The agency should lean into this effort and ensure plan compliance with the reporting. And as this year rolls on, CMS should be prepared to make the case to Congress that we expect the data to show that plans are pocketing many of these dollars, and they are not significantly improving health outcomes of older Americans. 

4. Addressing coding intensity  

If you’re a regular reader, you probably know one of my core views on traditional Medicare vs. Medicare Advantage plans. Traditional Medicare has straightforward, transparent payment, while Medicare Advantage presents more avenues for insurers to arbitrarily raise what they charge the government. A good example of this is in higher coding per patient found in MA plans relative to Traditional Medicare. 

An older patient goes in to see their doctor. They are diagnosed, and prescribed a course of treatment. Under Traditional Medicare, that service performed by the doctor is coded and reimbursed. The payment is generally the same no matter what conditions or health history that patient brought into the exam room. Straightforward. 

MA plans, however, pay more when more codes are added to a diagnosis.

Plans have advertised this to doctors, incentivizing the providers to add every possible code to a submission for reimbursement. So, if that same patient described above has diabetes, but they’re being treated for an unrelated flu diagnosis, the doctor is incentivized by MA to add a code for diabetes treatment. MA plans, in turn, get paid more by the government based on their enrollee’s health status, as determined based on the diagnoses associated with that individual.

Extrapolate that out across tens of millions of seniors with MA plans, and it’s clear MA plans are significantly overcharging the federal government because of over-coding. 

One solution I find appealing: similar to fee-for-service, create a new baseline for payments in MA plans to remove the incentive to add more codes to submissions. Proposals I’ve seen would pay providers more than traditional Medicare but without creating the plan-driven incentive for doctors to over-code.  

5. Focusing in on Medicare Advantage network cuts in rural areas 

Rural America is older and unhealthier than the national average. This should be the area where MA plans should experience the highest utilization. 

Instead, we’re seeing that the aggressive practices insurers use to maximize profits force many rural hospitals to cancel their contracts with MA plans. As we wrote about at length in December, MA is becoming a ghost benefit for seniors living in rural communities. The reimbursement rates these plans pay hospitals in rural communities are significantly lower than traditional Medicare. That has further stressed the low margins rural hospitals face. 

As Congressional focus on MA grows, I predict more bipartisan recommendations to come forth that address the growing gap between MA plan payments and what hospitals need to be paid in rural areas.

If MA is not accepted by providers in older, rural America, then truly, what purpose does it serve? 

The great Medicare Advantage marketing scam: How for-profit health insurers convince seniors to enroll in private Medicare plans

Posted on by • Posted in Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Insurance Industry, Health Policy, Healthcare Reform, Marketing Deceptive, Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Advantage Insurance Brokers, Private Equity • Leave a comment

https://wendellpotter.substack.com/p/the-great-medicare-advantage-marketing

Jayne Kleinman is bombarded with Medicare Advantage promotions every open enrollment period — even though she has no interest in leaving traditional Medicare, which allows seniors to choose their doctors and get the care they want without interference from multi-billion-dollar insurance companies. 

“My biggest problem with being barraged is that so many of the ads were inaccurate,” Kleinman, a retired social services professional in New Haven County, Connecticut, told HEALTH CARE un-covered.

“They neglect to say that the amount of coverage you get is limited. They don’t talk about what you are losing by leaving traditional Medicare. It feels like insurance companies are manipulating us to get Medicare Advantage plans sold so that they can control the system, as opposed to treating us like human beings.” 

Seniors face a torrent of Medicare Advantage advertising: an analysis by KFF found 9,500 daily TV ads during open enrollment in 2022. A recent survey by the Commonwealth Fund found that 30% of seniors received seven or more phone calls weekly from Medicare Advantage marketers during the most recent open enrollment (Oct. 15 to Dec. 7) for 2024 coverage.

In 2023, a critical milestone was passed: over half of seniors are now enrolled in privatized Medicare Advantage plans. The marketing for these plans nearly always fails to mention how hard it is to return to traditional Medicare once you are in Medicare Advantage, and that the MA plans have closed provider networks and require prior authorization for medical procedures. Instead, the marketing emphasizes the fringe benefits offered by Medicare Advantage plans like gym memberships. 

U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, criticized the widespread and predatory marketing of Medicare Advantage in a report in November 2022 and has continued to pressure the Biden administration to do more to address the problem. 

The report said that consumer complaints about Medicare Advantage marketing more than doubled from 2020 to 2021 to 41,000. It cites cases such as that of an Oregon man whose switch to Medicare Advantage meant he could no longer afford his prescription drugs, as well as a 94-year-old woman with dementia in a rural area who bought a Medicare Advantage plan that required her to obtain care miles further from her residence than she had to travel before. 

When open enrollment began last fall, it was “the start of a marketing barrage as marketing middlemen look to collect seniors’ information in order to bombard them with direct mail, emails, and phone calls to get them to enroll,” Wyden stated in a letter to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), which was signed by the other Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee. 

Just three weeks after Wyden sent the letter, CMS released a proposed rule reforming Medicare Advantage practices that the main lobby group for Medicare Advantage plans, the Better Medicare Alliance, endorsed. 

But key recommendations by Wyden were missing, including a ban on list acquisition by Medicare Advantage third-party marketing organizations, which includes brokers, and banning brokers that call beneficiaries multiple times a day for days in a row.

Among the prominent third-party marketing organizations is TogetherHealth, a subsidiary of Benefytt Technologies, which runs ads featuring former football star Joe Namath.

In August 2022, the Federal Trade Commission forced Benefytt to repay $100 million for fraudulent activities. The month before, the Securities and Exchange Commission levied more than $12 million in fines against Benefytt.

But CMS continues to allow Benefytt to work as a broker. Benefytt is owned by Madison Dearborn Partners, a Chicago-based private equity firm with ties to former Chicago mayor and current Ambassador to Japan Rahm Emanuel. Benefytt collects leads on potential customers, which they then sell to brokers and insurers to aggressively target seniors. CMS did not provide comment as to why they had not blocked Benefytt’s continuing work as a third-party marketing organization for Medicare. 

Two different rounds of rule-making on Medicare Advantage marketing in 2023 instead focused on such reforms as reining in exaggerated claims and excessive broker compensation. 

The enormous profits generated by Medicare Advantage plans — costing the federal government as much as $140 billion annually in overpayments to private companies — explains what drives the aggressive and often unethical marketing practices, said David Lipschutz, an associate director at the Center for Medicare Advocacy. 

“The fact is, there is an increasingly imbalanced playing field between Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare,” he said. “Medicare Advantage is being favored in many ways. Medicare Advantage plans are paid more than what traditional Medicare spends on a given beneficiary.

Those factors combined with the fact that they generate such profits for insurance companies, leads to those companies doing everything they can to maximize enrollment.”

Adding to the problem, Lipschutz argued, was the enormous influence of the health insurance industry in Washington. Health insurers spent more than $33 million lobbying Washington in just the first three quarters of 2023 alone. 

“There is no real organized lobby for traditional Medicare, or organized advertising efforts,” he said. “During open enrollment, 80% of Medicare-related ads have to do with Medicare Advantage. We regularly encounter very well-educated and savvy folks who are tripped up by advertising and lured in by the bells and whistles. The deck is stacked against the consumer.”

Private equity firms have made a large investment in the Medicare Advantage brokerage and marketing sector, in addition to Madison Dearborn’s acquisition of Benefytt. Bain Capital, which Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) co-founded, invested $150 million in Enhance Health, a Medicare Advantage broker, in 2021.

The CEO of EasyHealth, another private equity-backed brokerage, told Modern Healthcare in 2021 that “Insurance distribution is our Trojan horse into healthcare services.”

As federal law requires truth in advertising, a group of advocacy organizations–led by the Center for Medicare Advocacy, Disability Rights Connecticut, and the National Health Law Project–cited what they considered blatantly deceptive marketing by UnitedHealthcare to people who are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid, in a complaint to CMS. 

UnitedHealthcare had purchased ads in the Hartford Courant asking seniors in large bold-faced type: “Eligible for Medicare and Medicaid? You could get more with UnitedHealthcare.” 

People who are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid due to their income level are better off in traditional Medicare than Medicare Advantage given that Medicaid covers their out-of-pocket costs, meaning that they have wide latitude to choose their doctors, hospitals and medical procedures.

Sheldon Toubman, an attorney with Disability Rights Connecticut who worked to draft the complaint, framed the ad in the broader context of poor marketing practices by the Medicare Advantage industry. 

“I have been aware for a long time of basically fraudulent advertising in the MA insurance industry,” Toubman told HEALTH CARE un-covered. “There’s an overriding misrepresentation — they tell you how great Medicare Advantage is, and never the downsides. 

“There are two big downsides of going out of traditional Medicare:

They don’t tell you that you give up the broad Medicare provider network, which has nearly every doctor. And should you need expensive medical care in Medicare Advantage, you will learn there are prior authorization requirements. Traditional Medicare does almost no prior authorization, so you don’t have that obstacle. They don’t ever tell you any of that,” he said.

But it is marketing to dual-eligible individuals that is arguably the most problematic, Toubman argued. “They have Medicare and they are also low income. Because they are low-income, they also have Medicaid.

“Medicaid is a broader program — it covers a lot of things that Medicare doesn’t cover.

In Connecticut, 92,000 dual-eligible seniors have been ‘persuaded’ to sign up for Medicare Advantage. What’s outrageous about the marketing is they get you to sign up by offering extra services. … If you look at the ad in the Hartford Courant, it says you could get more, with the only real benefit being $130 per month toward food. But you now have this problem of a more limited provider network and prior authorization. UnitedHealth is doing false advertising.”

It’s a nationwide problem, Toubman said. “All insurers are doing this everywhere. We’re asking CMS and the Federal Trade Commission to conduct a nationwide investigation of this kind of problem. The failure to tell people that they give up their broader Medicare network — they don’t tell anybody that.”

For Jayne Kleinman, the unending ads are about one thing only: insurance industry profits. “Medicare Advantage has been strictly based on the people who make millions of dollars at the top of the company making more,” she said. “It’s all about money, not about you as an individual. Every time I saw an ad I’d get angry every single time — because I felt they were misleading people. The Medicare Advantage insurers are trying to scam people out of an interest of making money.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Truth bomb: The effectiveness of the system is overblown.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A glimpse into the state of hospital billing practices

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

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

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

Here are the key takeaways: 

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

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

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

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

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

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