A patient can do everything right and still face substantial surprise medical bills.
In his recent Oval Office speech, President Trump pledged that Americans won’t receive surprise bills for their coronavirus testing.
The goal is good; we need people who are lightly symptomatic to be tested without fear of high personal costs. But it was an empty promise. Unless swift action is taken, surprise bills are coming. And they could exacerbate a public health crisis that is already threatening to spiral out of control.
As demand for coronavirus testing surges and beds start to fill with the sick, hospitals and clinics will roll out contingency plans that call on any available resources in their communities. Test samples will be sent to whichever private laboratories have capacity, patients will be transferred from overloaded hospitals to less-crowded locations and physicians and nurses will make greater use of telemedicine.
Emergency rooms will be slammed with visits from the worried well and the dangerously sick alike. College students are already being sent home and will seek treatment far from the universities that offer them health insurance.
All of this will be chaotic.
To their credit, health insurers recognize the need to eliminate out-of-pocket spending that might discourage people from seeking care. At a meeting earlier this week with Vice President Mike Pence, they publicly committed to eliminating deductibles and co-pays for coronavirus testing. The federal government is also taking some needed steps to eliminate or ease cost-sharing.
But insurance companies aren’t the ones sending surprise bills. They’re coming from private labs and emergency-room doctors and other providers of health care services — and they weren’t at Vice President Pence’s meeting.
A patient with insurance through work or the health-insurance exchanges can be surprise-billed when she seeks medical care at a hospital or clinic that’s in her insurance “network” — but then receives medical care from a person or an institution that’s outside the network.
That out-of-network provider will first send a bill to the patient’s insurer. But if the insurer doesn’t pay the full amount, the provider may bill the patient directly for the remaining balance. Because the provider is basically free to name its own price, these surprise bills can be wildly inflated.
In a coronavirus pandemic, a patient can do everything right and still face substantial surprise bills. Take someone who fears that she may have contracted Covid-19. After self-quarantining for a week, she develops severe shortness of breath. Her partner rushes her to the nearest in-network emergency room. But she’s actually seen by an out-of-network doctor — who may soon send her a hefty bill for the visit.
Matters get worse if the in-network hospital is approaching capacity and the patient is healthy enough to be sent to a hospital across town with spare beds. If the second hospital is outside her insurance network, she could potentially receive a second surprise bill. A third could come from the ambulance that transfers her — it too might not be in-network, and no one will think to check during a crisis. She could get a fourth surprise bill if her coronavirus tests are sent to an out-of-network lab. And so on.
Even in normal times, patients with private insurance receive roughly one surprise bill for every 10 inpatient hospital admissions.
These are not normal times.
Federal law currently provides little protection. The Affordable Care Act does cap an individual’s out-of-pocket spending — but the cap only applies to in-network care. For surprise bills, the sky is the limit.
Reputable providers will appreciate that now is not the time for price gouging. But many won’t and will seek to exploit people’s medical needs for financial gain, much as they did before the coronavirus began to spread. They may calculate that can collect enough money charging exorbitant fees for out-of-network services — and still make it to an airport ahead of a mob carrying pitchforks and torches.
We need more than gauzy commitments from the president. We need a law to ban bills incurred from out-of-network providers for medical care associated with the coronavirus outbreak. Unless that commitment is ironclad, people may not believe it. And if they don’t believe it, they won’t get tested.
To date, Congress — cowed by a furious public relations campaign led by private equity and specialty physicians — has been unable to pass a law banning routine surprise billing. Though Congress has moved closer to a watered-down deal in recent months, neither the House nor the Senate has actually passed a bill.
The coronavirus should refocus Congress’s attention. At a minimum, the legislature should quickly pass a temporary measure to limit out-of-network charges for coronavirus testing and treatment.
In the meantime, states can take action. About half have already passed surprise-billing laws, including California and New York, two of the hardest-hit states. But the laws in many states are patchy: Some cover only emergency room care, others don’t contain a legal mechanism for cutting back on excessive bills, and none are tailored for the current outbreak.
Already, reports of people who have received eye-popping bills for coronavirus testing or emergency room visits are circulating. As these stories proliferate, people will become even more reluctant to get tested or treated when they should. That will obscure the spread of the virus, complicate efforts to adopt measures for social distancing, and lead to unnecessary deaths.
It’s a national disgrace that the United States didn’t ban surprise bills in a time of relative prosperity and security. It could become a public health calamity if we do not end them in a world with coronavirus.
As the coronavirus pandemic exerts a tighter grip on the nation, critics of the Trump administration have repeatedly highlighted the administration’s changes to the nation’s pandemic response team in 2018 as a major contributor to the current crisis. This combines with a hiring freeze at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, leaving hundreds of positions unfilled. The administration also has repeatedly sought to reduce CDC funding by billions of dollars. Experts agree that the slow and uncoordinated response has been inadequate and has likely failed to mitigate the coming widespread outbreak in the U.S.
As a health policy expert, I agree with this assessment. However, it is also important to acknowledge that we have underfunded our public health system for decades, perpetuated a poorly working health care system and failed to bring our social safety nets in line with other developed nations. As a result, I expect significant repercussions for the country, much of which will disproportionately fall on those who can least afford it.
Spending on public health has historically proven to be one of humanity’s best investments. Indeed, some of the largest increases in life expectancy have come as the direct result of public health interventions, such as sanitation improvements and vaccinations.
Even today, return on investments for public health spending is substantial and tends to significantly outweigh many medical interventions. For example, one study found that every US$10 per person spent by local health departments reduces infectious disease morbidity by 7.4%.
However, despite their importance to national well-being, public health expenditures have been neglected at all levels. Since 2008, for example, local health departments have lost more than 55,000 staff. By 2016, only about 133,000 full-time equivalent staff remained. State funding for public health was lower in 2016-2017 than in 2008-2009. And the CDC’s prevention and public health budget has been flat and significantly underfunded for years. Overall, of the more than $3.5 trillion the U.S. spends annually on health care, a meager 2.5% goes to public health.
Not surprisingly, the nation has experienced a number of outbreaks of easily preventable diseases. Currently, we are in the middle of significant outbreaks of hepatitis A (more than 31,000 cases), syphilis (more than 35,000 cases), gonorrhea (more than 580,000 cases) and chlamydia (more than 1,750,000 cases). Our failure to contain known diseases bodes ill for our ability to rein in the emerging coronavirus pandemic.
Yet while we have underinvested in public health, we have been spending massive and growing amounts of money on our medical care system. Indeed, we are spending more than any other country for a system that is significantly underperforming.
To make things worse, it is also highly inequitable. Yet, the system is highly profitable for all players involved. And to maximize income, both for- and nonprofits have consistently pushed for greater privatization and the elimination of competitors.
As a result, thousands of public and private hospitals deemed “inefficient” because of unfilled beds have closed. This eliminated a significant cushion in the system to buffer spikes in demand.
At any given time, this decrease in capacity does not pose much of a problem for the nation. Yet in the middle of a global pandemic, communities will face significant challenges without this surge capacity. If the outbreak mirrors anything close to what we have seen in other countries, “there could be almost six seriously ill patients for every existing hospital bed.” A worst-case scenario from the same study puts the number at 17 to 1. To make things worse, there will likely be a particular shortage of unoccupied intensive care beds.
Of course, the lack of overall hospitals beds is not the most pressing issue. Hospitals also lack the levels of staffing and supplies needed to cope with a mass influx of patients. However, the lack of ventilators might prove the most daunting challenge.
While the U.S. spends trillions of dollars each year on medical care, our social safety net has increasingly come under strain. Even after the Affordable Care Act, almost 30 million Americans do not have health insurance coverage. Many others are struggling with high out-of-pocket payments.
To make things worse, spending on social programs, outside of those protecting the elderly, has been shrinking, and is significantly smaller than in other developed nations. Moreover, public assistance is highly uneven and differs significantly from state to state.
And of course, the U.S. heavily relies on private entities, mostly employers, to offer benefits taken for granted in other developed countries, including paid sick leave and child care. This arrangement leaves 1 in 4 American workers without paid sick leave, resulting in highly inequitable coverage. As a result, many low-income families struggle to make ends meet even when times are good.
I believe that the limitations of the U.S. public health response and a potentially overwhelmed medical care system are likely going to be exacerbated by the blatant limitations of the U.S. welfare state. However, after weathering the current storm, I expect us to go back to business as usual relatively quickly. After all, that’s what happened after every previous pandemic, such as H1N1 in 2009 or even the 1918 flu epidemic.
The problems are in the incentive structure for elected officials. I expect that policymakers will remain hesitant to invest in public health, let alone revamp our safety net. While the costs are high, particularly for the latter, there are no buildings to be named, and no quick victories to be had. The few advocates for greater investments lack resources compared to the trillion-dollar interests from the medical sector.
Yet, if altruism is not enough, we should keep reminding policymakers that outbreaks of communicable diseases pose tremendous challenges for local health care systems and communities. They also create remarkable societal costs. The coronavirus serves as a stark reminder.
https://mailchi.mp/325cd862d7a7/the-weekly-gist-march-13-2020?e=d1e747d2d8
Now that the Democratic primary campaign has produced a clear front runner, it’s worth examining Joe Biden’s healthcare plan, which aims to expand the Affordable Care Act (ACA) by increasing access and affordability. As the graphic above highlights, former Vice President Biden has a broad—if at this point, still fairly high-level—proposal that includes a Medicare-like public option along with a variety of other ACA tweaks that aim to offer consumers more options and lower their healthcare costs.
These include allowing individuals in states without Medicaid expansion to join the pubic option premium-free, providing unlimited subsidy eligibility, and limiting drug price increases to the level of consumer inflation.
An independent analysis projects Biden’s plan would cost $2.25T and add an additional $800B to the deficit over 10 years. While large at first blush, these costs pale in comparison to Sen. Bernie Sanders’ Medicare for All plan, which would add a projected $12.95T to the deficit over the same period.
Of course, there are still many unanswered questions in Biden’s proposal, including how much consumers would pay under the public option, how much the public option plan would reimburse providers as a percentage of Medicare, and how the public option would impact competition among private insurers.
A public option offered at a significant discount has the potential to drive private plans out of business, which some project could eventually result in Medicare for All as an ultimate consequence. The devil will, as always, be in the details.
US Supreme Court Agrees to Review Affordable Care Act — for the Third Time
The fate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is once again in the hands of the US Supreme Court. On March 2, the court announced that it would hear a case challenging the health law, a wide-ranging measure that “touches the lives of most Americans, from nursing mothers to people eating at chain restaurants,” wrote Reed Abelson, Abby Goodnough, and Robert Pear in the New York Times. This will be the third time the court will rule on the ACA since President Barack Obama signed it on March 23, 2010.
“The justices will review a federal appeals court decision that found part of the law . . . unconstitutional and raised questions about whether the law in its entirety must fall,” reported Robert Barnes in the Washington Post. He noted that it is one of the first cases accepted for the Supreme Court term beginning October 5, which means a decision is not likely until spring or summer of 2021.
Should the court overturn the ACA, many Americans would lose the benefits afforded under the law. As Dylan Scott wrote in Vox, “everything would go: protections for preexisting conditions, subsidies that help people purchase insurance, the Medicaid expansion.”
Let’s break down each of those categories.
Before the ACA, people with preexisting conditions, which included common medical conditions like asthma, diabetes, and cancer, were denied health insurance or charged higher insurance premiums. Important benefits like maternity care and mental health services frequently were carved out of the benefit packages in health plans sold in the individual market — that is, outside of employer-sponsored coverage. An issue brief (PDF) by the Department of Health and Human Services estimated that up to 133 million nonelderly Americans have a preexisting condition.
As Andy Slavitt, the former administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services under President Obama, wrote on Twitter, examples of being charged more included “$4,270 more for asthma, $17,060 for pregnancy, and $160,510 for metastatic cancer.”
Under the ACA, insurers are no longer allowed to deny coverage or charge higher prices to people with preexisting conditions. But if the Supreme Court rules against the ACA, these protections would vanish.
A key provision of the ACA is expanded eligibility for enrollment in Medicaid, a federally funded state option adopted so far by 36 states and the District of Columbia. More than 12 million adults with low incomes have gained Medicaid coverage through this provision, and research comparing expansion and nonexpansion states has linked expanded Medicaid access to better health outcomes.
According to the Urban Institute, if the ACA is repealed, “the uninsurance rate across all expansion states would increase from 9% of the nonelderly under current law to 17% under repeal. In nonexpansion states, the uninsurance rate would increase from 15% of the nonelderly to 21%.” Many of the newly uninsured would be the result of losing the Medicaid coverage the ACA provided.
“The uninsured rate for Black Americans would increase from 11% to 20% without Obamacare,” Scott reported. “There would also be a dramatic spike in uninsurance among Hispanics.”
To expand access to affordable health insurance for those who can’t get it through their jobs, the ACA offers federal subsidies to people with low and moderate incomes who buy insurance through the ACA insurance exchanges. The subsidies take the form of premium tax credits and cost-sharing subsidies.
Approximately 9.2 million Americans receive federal subsidies, reported Abelson, Goodnough, and Pear. “On average, the subsidies covered $525 of a $612 monthly premium for customers in the 39 states that use the federal marketplace,” they wrote.
If the ACA is overturned and the subsidies are eliminated, the cost of health insurance would become unaffordable for many of those 9.2 million people, and the uninsured population would soar.
According to the February 2020 KFF Health Tracking Poll, 55% of Americans say they now favor the ACA, a new high compared to approval ratings below 40% as recently as 2016. Today 85% of Democrats express favorable views of the law, compared to 53% of independents and 18% of Republicans.
Though overall support for the health law remains partisan, many of its provisions have broad bipartisan support, KFF staff wrote in Health Affairs. For instance, large majorities of Democrats (94%), independents (88%), and Republicans (77%) have a favorable view of the ACA’s health insurance exchanges, and most Democrats (80%), independents (71%), and Republicans (54%) view the Medicaid expansion favorably.
The global spread of the novel coronavirus disease known as COVID-19 puts threats to the ACA into perspective. Despite the coverage gains made under the ACA, nearly 28 million Americans remain uninsured, and that number would rise if the law were overturned. As Chris Sloan, associate principal at the consulting firm Avalere Health, told Caitlin Owens in Axios, we “could see uninsured or underinsured patients . . . skipping necessary treatment because they believe they can’t afford it.”
“Some lawmakers are concerned that the tens of millions who are underinsured — Americans with high deductibles or limited insurance — may also be at risk of unexpected expenses as more and more people are exposed to the virus,” Reed Abelson and Sarah Kliff reported in the New York Times.
Kristof Stremikis, director of CHCF’s market analysis and insight team, wrote in a recent blog post, “In an era when the average deductible facing a working family in California now exceeds $2,700, it’s not hard to imagine how many people missed detection and treatment opportunities because they could not afford to pay for them.”
To address some of these concerns, the California Department of Insurance (PDF) and the Department of Managed Health Care (PDF) directed all commercial health plans and Medi-Cal plans to “immediately reduce cost-sharing (including, but not limited to, co-pays, deductibles, or co-insurance) to zero for all medically necessary screening and testing for COVID-19, including hospital, emergency department, urgent care, and provider office visits where the purpose of the visit is to be screened and/or tested for COVID-19.”
Similar policies have been announced by state regulators in Washington and New York, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Ron Wyden, D-Ore., are demanding Optum and Express Scripts turn over documents on how they determine insulin prices.
Leaders of the Senate Finance Committee demanded Cigna and Optum produce critical documents over the pricing of insulin, with a subpoena threat looming.
Cigna failed to produce any documents related to the committee’s request back in April 2019 and Optum didn’t produce essential documents, according to letters to both companies sent earlier this week by committee leaders. The documents would relate to the actions of pharmacy benefit managers such as Cigna’s Express Scripts on the rising costs of insulin.
“Cigna’s unwillingness to provide the documents we requested fits an industry-wide pattern of fighting efforts to shed light on PBMs’ practices,” the letter (PDF) to the insurer read.
Sens. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Ron Wyden, D-Ore., the committee’s chairman and ranking member respectively, wrote that Cigna’s failure to comply has “reached an endpoint.” The insurer has until March 10 to provide more information or face a subpoena.
UnitedHealth Group’s Optum did produce thousands of pages for the committee, but a majority of them were irrelevant, already publicly available or duplicative.
“For example, Optum has produced more than 4,000 pages of publicly available formulary information guides and internal formulary drug lists that contain virtually no information related to the insulin therapeutic class,” the senators’ letter (PDF) to Optum said.
The original request for documentation had called for internal communications that would help the committee understand how Optum made decisions on “the out-of-pocket price patients pay for their insulin,” the letter said.
Grassley and Wyden launched the investigation last February into the price of insulin, which has increased up to 500%. The senators sent letters to leading insulin manufacturers Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk and Sanofi regarding the spike.
The senators also wanted to learn the process used for negotiations and agreements between PBMs and large plans on patient cost-sharing.
Cigna-Express Scripts said that it takes the committee’s inquiry “very seriously and have been engaged with them on this request. We are committed to being cooperative.”
Optum said that it share’s the committee’s concens regarding the high prices for insulin set by manufacturers.
“We have provided thousands of pages of documents in response to the committee’s request, and will continue to work with them on this important issue,” the company said.
https://theconversation.com/high-priced-specialty-drugs-exposing-the-flaws-in-the-system-129598
My husband, Andy, has Parkinson’s disease. A year ago, his neurologist recommended a new pill that he was to take at bedtime. We quickly learned that the medication would cost US$1,300 for a one-month supply of 30 pills. In addition, Andy could obtain the drug from only one specialty pharmacy and would have to use mail order.
This was our introduction to specialty drugs.
These medications are becoming increasingly common, though many Americans are unfamiliar with the term. In 2018, the Food and Drug Administration approved 59 new medications, of which 39 are considered specialty drugs.
Specialty drugs are generally high-cost drugs requiring special handling such as refrigeration or injection, though Andy’s did not. They treat complex conditions such as cancer and multiple sclerosis.
Specialty drugs are often available only through specialty pharmacies. In addition to filling prescriptions, these outlets provide educational and support services to patients. For example, they provide refill reminders and help patients learn how to inject their drugs.
In a forthcoming article, professor Isaac Buck and I argue that specialty drugs raise significant legal and ethical questions. These merit attention from the public and policymakers.
First, the term “specialty drug” is somewhat elusive and has no clear definition. In addition, government authorities and medical experts are not the ones who decide whether a medication is designated a specialty drug. Rather, the decision is entirely up to pharmacy benefit managers, or PBMs.
PBMs administer health plans’ drug benefit programs and thereby serve insurers. PBMs have been criticized for driving up health care costs. Drugs that are specialty drugs under one insurance policy are sometimes classified differently in other policies. Furthermore, some specialty drugs are simple pills that do not involve complicated instructions, and thus, it is unclear why they are categorized as specialty drugs.
The second problem is the very high cost of specialty drugs. The average price tag of the more than 300 medications that are considered specialty drugs is approximately $79,000 per year. Almost half of the dollars that Americans pay for medications are spent on specialty drugs. In fact, Medicare spent $32.8 billion on specialty drugs in 2015.
Because of these exorbitant costs, some insurers have created what they call a “specialty tier” in their health plans. In this tier, patients’ cost-sharing responsibilities are higher than they are for medications in other tiers. If your drug is placed in a specialty tier, your coinsurance payment, or the percentage of cost that you pay, may be 25% to 33% of the drug’s price.
This leads to a situation in which you may have the least generous insurance coverage for your most expensive drugs. Under some plans you might pay $10 per month for generic drugs but hundreds of dollars per month for specialty drugs. This can translate into many thousands of dollars in annual out-of-pocket costs, even for consumers with good health insurance. There are no federal regulations in the U.S. that limit drug prices or insurers’ tiering practices.
A third problem is conflict of interest. PBMs own or co-own the top four specialty pharmacies in the U.S., which are responsible for two-thirds of nationwide specialty drug prescription revenues.
PBMs frequently require patients to purchase their medications from the specific specialty pharmacy that they own. Thus, PBMs have much to gain from designating medications as specialty drugs. Doing so may lead to significant revenues in the form of purchases at PBM-owned specialty pharmacies.
A related problem is the limiting of patient choice. Many specialty pharmacies fill prescriptions only through mail order. Consequently, patients may be restricted to using just one pharmacy and be forced to rely on the mail for delivery.
Some patients enjoy the convenience of home delivery. Others, however, prefer the traditional approach of visiting a drugstore in person. They may worry that the mail will be late, their package will be stolen, or they will be out of town when the drugs arrive. Yet, such patients do not have the option of a brick and mortar pharmacy.
Both political parties have stated that health care costs are a priority for them. However, they have shown a limited appetite for tackling this herculean problem.
The House recently passed a bill that would enable the federal government to negotiate prices with drug manufacturers. Such negotiations could well lower specialty drug prices. The Senate, however, is unlikely to approve the bill, and Congress is unlikely to pass sweeping legislation in a divisive election year.
There has been more success at the federal level in promoting consumer choice. Medicare rules establish that Medicare plans may not force participants to use mail-order pharmacies.
In the meantime, individual states offer useful solutions. For example, some have provided patients with relief in the form of capping out-of-pocket costs. California limits consumers’ expenditures to $250 or $500 for a 30-day supply, depending on the drug type.
At least 15 states also have pharmacy choice statutes. Several ban PBM mandates that prevent patients from freely selecting their preferred qualified pharmacy. Many ban mail-order only requirements.
Some states have recognized that PBMs should not be entirely free to designate medications as specialty drugs. Because such designations can significantly disadvantage patients and may increase patients’ costs, such states have statutory definitions for the term “specialty drug.”
They generally mandate that the drug require special administration, delivery, storage or oversight. Such requirements may justify purchase from a specialty pharmacy. However, drugs without complicated instructions should not be deemed specialty drugs.
One more option that some insurers have already adopted is allowing patients to obtain just a few pills or doses for an initial trial period. Sometimes individuals quickly learn that they cannot tolerate a medication or that it is ineffective. Such “partial fill” programs can spare patients the exorbitant cost of a full 30-day specialty drug supply.
Specialty drugs contribute significantly to the American health care cost crisis. Additional state, or better yet, federal laws should be enacted to constrain PBMs’ authority over specialty drugs. We need further regulation concerning drug classification, pricing, conflicts of interest and patient choice.
/GettyImages-9509623962-5b9c5e5d46e0fb002583bc07.jpg)
In a given year by 2016, almost 50 percent of adults with commercial insurance hadn’t visited a primary care physician, according to a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
For the study, researchers from Harvard Medical School in Boston, the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City and the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine wanted to better characterize primary care declines among adults. To do so, the study authors analyzed deidentified claims data from a national private insurer that covers roughly 20 million members each year, according to NPR.
They found from 2008-16, adult visits to primary care physicians fell by nearly 25 percent. The decline was largest among younger adults. The proportion of adults with no visits to primary care physicians in a given year climbed from 38.1 percent to 46.4 percent within the same period.
While the number of preventive checkups rose — likely because the ACA made the appointments cost-free — problem-based visits, such as going to a primary care physician for sickness or injury, declined more than 30 percent, according to NPR.
Problem-based visits saw out-of-pocket costs increase 31.5 percent during the study period, which could have affected the decline, according to researchers. Additionally, visits to alternative sites like urgent care clinics grew by 46.9 percent in the study period.
“Our results suggest that this decline may be explained by decreased real or perceived visit needs, financial deterrents, and use of alternative sources of care,” the study authors concluded.
HENRY KOTULA 