Category Archives: High Deductible Health Plans

Health care is getting more and more expensive, and low-wage workers are bearing more of the cost

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Cost Management, Cost Reduction, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, High Deductible Health Plans, High Drug Prices, High Premiums, High Prices, Leadership, Market Trends, Market Uncertainty, Out of Network, Out of Pocket Expenses • Leave a comment

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/30/20891305/health-care-employer-sponsored-premiums-cost-voxcare

Is the rapidly rising cost of employer-sponsored health insurance sustainable?

Half of all Americans get their health insurance through work. Trouble is, doing so is becoming less and less affordable — especially for already low-wage workers.

In 2019, the Kaiser Family Foundation Employer Health Benefits Survey — an annual account of roughly 2,000 small and large businesses’ employer-sponsored insurance — found the average annual premium to cover a family through work was a whopping $20,576, and $7,188 for an individual. Employers cover most of that, but families still contributed an average of $6,015 in premiums, and single Americans covered about $1,242 of the annual cost.

The kicker? Over the past 10 years, the cost of the portion of employer-sponsored health insurance premiums that falls on American families has increased by 71 percent. Overall, premiums have gone up 54 percent since 2009. That’s faster than the rate of inflation and faster than the average wage growth.

Nearly half of all Americans get their health insurance through work, a system that covers roughly 153 million people. And for lower-wage workers it’s a system that is increasingly unaffordable.

Workers at companies with a significant number of low-wage employees (which the Kaiser Family survey quantifies as a company in which at least 35 percent of employees are making an annual salary of $25,000 or less) have lower premiums than those who work at companies with fewer low-wage workers, probably because their plans cover less. But at the same time, workers at firms with a significant number of low-wage employees are faced with high-deductible plans, and also pay a larger share of the premium cost than workers at companies with fewer lower-wage employees.

According to the survey, workers at lower-wage companies pay an average of $7,000 a year family plan — $1,000 more than employees at companies with higher salaried workers.

“When workers making $25,000 a year have to shell out $7,000 a year just for their share of family premiums,” Drew Altman, the president of Kaiser Family Foundation, said in a statement, that’s where cost becomes prohibitive. Such employees are putting almost 30 percent of their salaries toward premiums.

The takeaway is clear. Health care is getting more and more expensive, and families and employers are having to bear more of the cost, which research has shown not only has an effect on how much workers are actually getting paid, but how many workers are hired.

As Sarah Kliff reported for Vox, there are a lot of studies spanning decades that show how a rapid rise in health insurance premiums has unfavorable outcomes for workers. This is in large part because employers think of compensation in totality; they lump together an employee’s salary, as well as their benefits as one total cost. So if covering a worker’s health insurance gets more and more expensive, employers see less room to give the worker a raise.

For example, a 2006 study from Katherine Baicker and Amitabh Chandra, both with the National Bureau of Economic Research, found that an overall 10 percent increase in health insurance premiums reduced wages by 2.3 percent and actually reduced the probability of becoming employed by 1.2 percent.

Results such as these, and the high premiums low-wage workers must pay, led the Kaiser survey’s authors to explicitly question the tenability of employer-sponsored insurance: “the national debate about expanding Medicare or creating public program options provides an opportunity to step back and evaluate how well employer­-based coverage is doing in achieving national goals relating to costs and affordability,” the report reads.

The United States is unique in its reliance on employers to provide health insurance. And, as Democratic candidates for president continue to go in circles debating health care, employer-sponsored insurance is often the biggest sticking point.

Several candidates, like Sen. Bernie Sanders, who popularized a plan for Medicare-for-all, a single government-run program, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who supports Sanders’s plan, have called for getting rid of the employer-based system, and private insurance, all together.

But their critics always bring up the same talking point: that the people who like their health insurance plans through work, should be able to keep it. The Kaiser survey raises questions as to how affordable those plans really are, and, as Democrats debate ideas like Medicare-for-all, how sustainable the current trajectory is.

 

 

 

Time To Talk About Healthcare Total Cost Of Ownership

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Cost Management, Cost Reduction, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, High Deductible Health Plans, High Drug Prices, High Premiums, High Prices, Out of Network, Out of Pocket Expenses, Total Cost of Ownership • Leave a comment

https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2019/09/29/time-to-healthcare-total-cost-ownership/#31eefe931a43

On the Money Insurance Enrollment Finding Help

The debate over healthcare and how it should proceed has apparently come down to either keeping what we’ve got, going back to what we had, or Medicare for All. At least, that’s how things are being framed for a coming presidential election. At stake is the cost and delivery of 17.9% of the country’s entire gross domestic product—$3.5 trillion in 2017 and heading north from there.

There have been previous attempts, of course, to change healthcare, whether the addition of Medicare and Medicaid under Lyndon Johnson, Bill and Hillary Clinton’s unsuccessful attempt to reshape the healthcare system, the addition of prescription drug coverage to Medicare signed by George W. Bush, or the Affordable Care Act under Barack Obama.

As a country, we periodically seek a better approach to healthcare—this way, that way, but not straying far from where we were. Understandable, to a (small, these days) degree. There is no guarantee that a quick change won’t cause more problems than it solves. Some people like their coverage, it’s true. But a great many do not.

Importantly, the day is coming (if it’s not right here) that most people can’t afford reasonable care. Average annual premiums for employer-sponsored healthcare for a family have reached $20,576, according to a survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation. Of that, $6,015 are paid by the employee and $14,561 by the employer.

The problem of cost is immense, especially when overall healthcare in the U.S. ranks as mediocre at best (which doesn’t mean good care isn’t available, but more likely is an indication of how relatively few people obtain it).

But many who have a vested interest in the system as it exists, whether for political or financial gain, loudly exclaim that any sort of solution that involves government as an insurer—like Medicare, which many participants prize given much lower rates than typical market-based programs—becomes untenable. “Can you afford how much taxes will go up?” they say.

Some voices have pushed back and we need more, because the question is a loaded one. Government-sponsored insurance would reduce the need for and expense of private insurance.

At issue is an analytic approach often used in business: the total cost of ownership. When taking up a new technology or operational strategy, a smart company analyzes the full costs. Not just the obvious price tag, but all that accompanying costs. It’s the corporate equivalent of an informed car buyer, who, beyond sticker price, is interested in the likely costs of fuel and maintenance, how well the vehicle maintains price in the used or trade-in markets, reliability, and other factors that represent accompanying expenses.

Taxes under a Medicare for All approach would go up. But, at the same time, commercial premiums come down (even if, as with Medicare, many people buy supplemental insurance to expand coverage). There may lower out-of-pocket costs, as is true in many countries with some sort of national coverage.

There is also an argument for resulting higher worker pay. Companies no longer be paying that $14,561 could shift that savings, or at least some, into additional wages or salary. Not increasing pay would effectively be a tax cut, as benefits are part of compensation.

The thought behind healthcare reform like Medicare for All is that it should be possible for the U.S. to do better. To gain improved coverage across the board at lower per-capita prices, as the rest of the developed world has managed to do for decades. People with better care can live better lives, which—and I take this as an article of faith—eventually comes back to communities and the country.

Consideration of changes requires a full understanding of the costs and financial gains throughout the system. Taxes go up, premiums go down, maybe pay increases (should increase), and a sudden illness doesn’t cause automatic financial stress for an individual or a family. Whenever someone makes sweeping claims like “taxes will go up” without context, others should step up and note that it’s like complaining about investing in mass transit without acknowledging that using an automobile to make the same commute will be much more expensive and that one may mean you don’t need the other.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Can Washington deliver on drug costs amid impeachment probe?

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Health Policy, High Deductible Health Plans, High Drug Prices, High Premiums, High Prices, Medicare, Out of Pocket Expenses, Out-of-Network • Leave a comment

https://apnews.com/1c5c5dc43950421a9ab4ff7edb9fe678?omnicid=CFC1688174&mid=henrykotula@yahoo.com

Major legislation to reduce prescription drug costs for millions of people may get sidelined now that House Democrats have begun an impeachment inquiry of President Donald Trump. Proposals had been moving in Congress, but there are more ways for the process to break down than to succeed. Still, nobody says they’re giving up.

Some questions and answers about the legislation and its uncertain prospects:

 

Q: Why, now, is there a big push to lower drug prices?

A: Some would say it’s overdue. Drug prices emerged as the public’s top health care concern near the end of the Obama administration as people with health insurance got increasingly worried about their costs.

In the 2016 campaign, Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton called for authorizing Medicare to negotiate prices. But after Trump won the White House, his focus shifted to the failed Republican drive to repeal the Affordable Care Act. A year went by before the administration reengaged on prescription drugs .

Now, facing the 2020 election, Trump and lawmakers of both parties in Congress have little to show for all their rhetoric about high drug prices. For there to be a deal , enough Democrats and Republicans have to decide they’re better off delivering results instead of election-year talking points.

 

Q: What are the major plans on the table?

A: On the political left is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s plan authorizing Medicare to negotiate prices for the costliest drugs. In the middle is bipartisan legislation from Sens. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Ron Wyden, D-Ore., to restrain drug price increases. The wild card is Trump. He doesn’t share the traditional Republican aversion to government as price negotiator and keeps complaining that it’s unfair for Americans to pay more than patients in other countries.

There’s significant overlap among the major approaches.

Trump, the Senate bill, and Pelosi would all limit what Medicare enrollees pay annually in prescription copays. That would be a major change benefiting more than 1 million seniors with high costs.

Pelosi and the Senate bill would require drugmakers to pay rebates if they raise their prices to Medicare beyond the inflation rate. Long-available medicines like insulin have seen steep price hikes.

Pelosi and the administration would use lower international prices to determine what Medicare pays for at least some drugs. Pelosi is echoing Trump’s complaint that prices are unfair for Americans.

“If they wanted to do a deal, it’s sitting right there in front of them,” said John Rother, president of the National Coalition on Health Care, an umbrella group representing a cross-section of organizations.

 

Q: How would any of these plans reduce what I pay for prescription drugs?

A: Under Pelosi’s bill, private purchasers such as health insurers and employer-sponsored plans would be able to get the same price that Medicare negotiates. Medicare would focus on the costliest medications for individual patients and the health care system as whole.

People on Medicare could be the biggest winners. There’s consensus that seniors should get an annual limit on out-of-pocket costs for medications — $2,000 in the Pelosi bill or $3,100 in the Senate bill. Older people are the main consumers of prescription medicines.

 

Q: What would “Medicare for All” do about drug prices?

A: Under Medicare for All, the government would negotiate prices for prescription drugs.

Whether or not they support Medicare for All, Democratic presidential candidates are calling for Medicare to negotiate prices.

 

Q: Why are drug prices so much higher in the U.S. than in other countries?

A: It’s not the case for all drugs. U.S. generics are affordable for the most part.

The biggest concern is over cutting-edge brand-name drugs that can effectively manage life-changing diseases, or even cure them. Drugs with a $100,000 cost are not unusual any more. In other countries, governments take a leading role in setting prices.

In the U.S., some government programs such as Medicaid and the veterans’ health system get special discounts. But insurers and pharmacy benefit managers negotiate on behalf of Medicare and private health plans. Federal law protects the makers of a new drug from generic competition, which gives the manufacturer a lot of leverage.

Pharmaceutical companies say high initial prices are justified to recoup the costs of research and development.

However, a major case study — the 2015 Senate investigation of costly breakthrough drugs for hepatitis C infection — found that drugmaker Gilead Sciences priced the medication to maximize profits, not to foster access.

 

Q: What’s the outlook for drug pricing legislation?

A: Impeachment could suck the air out of the room.

“It is extremely difficult to get things done in that type of environment, and certainly for a president who is largely incapable of compartmentalizing,” said longtime Democratic health care adviser Chris Jennings. “Having said that, the work of policymakers in power must include being responsive to here-and-now domestic problems.”

Trump has pointedly refrained from criticizing Pelosi’s bill even as other Republicans called it “socialist.”

Pelosi’s legislation had its first committee consideration last week, and the leading Democrat on that committee promoted it using Trump-like rhetoric that it’s unfair for Americans to pay more. The bill will get a floor vote, and it could gain political momentum if a pending budget analysis finds big savings.

Democrats would be hard-pressed to drop their demand for Medicare negotiations. But could Trump agree to a more limited form of negotiations than what’s now in Pelosi’s bill? Could he sell that to Senate Republicans?

“It boils down to the crude political calculus of whether in the end this will help my side,” said health economist Joe Antos of the business-oriented American Enterprise Institute. “Will Democrats be able to stomach Donald Trump taking credit for all of this? On the Trump side, it is going to be more of a legacy issue for him.”

 

 

 

 

Americans need more convincing on Medicare for All, poll says

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, ACA, Essential Health Benefits, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, High Deductible Health Plans, High Drug Prices, High Premiums, High Prices, Medicare, Medicare for All, Out of Network, Out of Pocket Expenses, Preexisting Conditions • Leave a comment

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/americans-need-more-convincing-on-medicare-for-all-poll-says?omnicid=CFC1688174&mid=henrykotula@yahoo.com

Americans need to know more before they can make up their minds about proposed overhauls to the nation’s health care system, according to a survey released Thursday.

When asked if they wanted to wipe out private health insurance for a so-called Medicare for All public insurance program, 40 percent of U.S. adults between the ages of 19 to 64 said they did not know enough to offer an opinion.

A few Democratic presidential candidates have put forward their proposed health care plans, including Medicare for All. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass. have advocated for Medicare for All models that replace private insurance with a national health insurance plan. And Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., released a health care proposal that covered 330 million Americans under one government health care plan. According to the candidates, these plans would make health care affordable for more Americans. It could help reduce the number of uninsured Americans, which currently amounted to 27.5 million people nationwide in 2018, according to the Census Bureau, marking a rise of 1.9 million people over the previous year.

According to a July 22 poll from the PBS NewsHour, NPR and Marist, 70 percent of U.S. adults said they supported Medicare for All proposals as long as they maintain an option to keep private health insurance. A system like this has been proposed by Pete Buttigieg. By comparison, when asked in a separate question, only 41 percent of survey respondents said they wanted to scrap private health insurance for a government-run plan.

In this latest poll from the Commonwealth Fund, another 32 percent of Americans said they opposed the idea, while 27 percent of Americans favored such a plan, according to the survey results published by the Commonwealth Fund, which researches health policy. The survey polled 4,914 U.S. adults ages 19 to 64 from March 19 to June 9.

“People are confused about what this might mean for them, and what it might mean for the health system and what it might mean in terms of trade-offs,” said Sara Collins, vice president of Health Care Coverage and Access at the Commonwealth Fund, during a call with reporters Wednesday.

Americans are largely satisfied with their health insurance, but lacked confidence that their health care coverage could protect them financially if they fell seriously ill and required medical care.

“These satisfaction rates reflect the fact that most people don’t use their insurance a ton,” said Sabrina Corlette, a research professor and co-founder of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University. “It’s sporadic interactions.”

Eighty-five percent of working-age Americans said they were satisfied with their health insurance. That included private health insurance, Medicaid, and coverage purchased on the individual marketplace established under the Affordable Care Act. Another 14 percent said they were dissatisfied with their current health insurance.

In contrast, 61 percent of U.S. adults age 16 to 64 said they were confident that they would be able to afford the cost of care if they became seriously ill, while 38 percent of Americans said they were not confident.

These survey results come as Democratic presidential candidates promote their health care plans going into the 2020 election. Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress and the Trump administration have promised to replace the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare, with “something better,” although it is unclear what that would be. To date, they have eliminated some policies put into place under Obamacare, including dismantling the individual mandate.

Health care will be one of the most important issues among voters going into the next presidential election. Health care costs for Americans are the highest among industrialized nations. Meanwhile, life expectancy has dropped nationwide in recent years, in part due to the rise in drug overdose deaths, many of which are tied to the opioid crisis. Among developed nations the OECD ranked for infant mortality, the U.S. was among the bottom 11, after Russia.

This survey suggests that all the campaigns have their work cut out for them if they want to ramp up public awareness of proposals on the table to fix health care, Corlette said. She said the public needs more education and discussion about possible solutions aimed at problems in the U.S. health care system.

“It strikes me as a really good opportunity for people on both sides of the debate,” Corlette said. “There’s clearly a lot of people who have just not made up their mind.”

But she said the lack of confidence in how much protection health coverage affords people tugs at the reality that “the system doesn’t work really well for people who are very sick.”

New analysis from the Kaiser Family Foundation supports that notion. Annual family premiums for employer-based health insurance rose 5 percent to $20,576 on average, faster than wage growth, which increased by 3.4 percent, according to the study, published in Health Affairs. And since 2009, those premiums jumped 54 percent.

Health insurance costs and coverage only provide part of the picture of what troubles Americans, said Thomas Miller, a resident fellow with the conservative American Enterprise Institute.

Policymakers need to think about more than tinkering with “incremental expansions of coverage on the margins beyond where we already are,” Miller said. “It’s important to remember that people need most of all economic growth, job security and reasons to be optimistic about managing their lives.”

 

 

 

Can Washington deliver on drug costs amid impeachment probe?

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

https://apnews.com/1c5c5dc43950421a9ab4ff7edb9fe678?omnicid=CFC1688174&mid=henrykotula@yahoo.com

Major legislation to reduce prescription drug costs for millions of people may get sidelined now that House Democrats have begun an impeachment inquiry of President Donald Trump. Proposals had been moving in Congress, but there are more ways for the process to break down than to succeed. Still, nobody says they’re giving up.

Some questions and answers about the legislation and its uncertain prospects:

 

Q: Why, now, is there a big push to lower drug prices?

A: Some would say it’s overdue. Drug prices emerged as the public’s top health care concern near the end of the Obama administration as people with health insurance got increasingly worried about their costs.

In the 2016 campaign, Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton called for authorizing Medicare to negotiate prices. But after Trump won the White House, his focus shifted to the failed Republican drive to repeal the Affordable Care Act. A year went by before the administration reengaged on prescription drugs .

Now, facing the 2020 election, Trump and lawmakers of both parties in Congress have little to show for all their rhetoric about high drug prices. For there to be a deal , enough Democrats and Republicans have to decide they’re better off delivering results instead of election-year talking points.

 

Q: What are the major plans on the table?

A: On the political left is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s plan authorizing Medicare to negotiate prices for the costliest drugs. In the middle is bipartisan legislation from Sens. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Ron Wyden, D-Ore., to restrain drug price increases. The wild card is Trump. He doesn’t share the traditional Republican aversion to government as price negotiator and keeps complaining that it’s unfair for Americans to pay more than patients in other countries.

There’s significant overlap among the major approaches.

Trump, the Senate bill, and Pelosi would all limit what Medicare enrollees pay annually in prescription copays. That would be a major change benefiting more than 1 million seniors with high costs.

Pelosi and the Senate bill would require drugmakers to pay rebates if they raise their prices to Medicare beyond the inflation rate. Long-available medicines like insulin have seen steep price hikes.

Pelosi and the administration would use lower international prices to determine what Medicare pays for at least some drugs. Pelosi is echoing Trump’s complaint that prices are unfair for Americans.

“If they wanted to do a deal, it’s sitting right there in front of them,” said John Rother, president of the National Coalition on Health Care, an umbrella group representing a cross-section of organizations.

 

Q: How would any of these plans reduce what I pay for prescription drugs?

A: Under Pelosi’s bill, private purchasers such as health insurers and employer-sponsored plans would be able to get the same price that Medicare negotiates. Medicare would focus on the costliest medications for individual patients and the health care system as whole.

People on Medicare could be the biggest winners. There’s consensus that seniors should get an annual limit on out-of-pocket costs for medications — $2,000 in the Pelosi bill or $3,100 in the Senate bill. Older people are the main consumers of prescription medicines.

 

Q: What would “Medicare for All” do about drug prices?

A: Under Medicare for All, the government would negotiate prices for prescription drugs.

Whether or not they support Medicare for All, Democratic presidential candidates are calling for Medicare to negotiate prices.

 

Q: Why are drug prices so much higher in the U.S. than in other countries?

A: It’s not the case for all drugs. U.S. generics are affordable for the most part.

The biggest concern is over cutting-edge brand-name drugs that can effectively manage life-changing diseases, or even cure them. Drugs with a $100,000 cost are not unusual any more. In other countries, governments take a leading role in setting prices.

In the U.S., some government programs such as Medicaid and the veterans’ health system get special discounts. But insurers and pharmacy benefit managers negotiate on behalf of Medicare and private health plans. Federal law protects the makers of a new drug from generic competition, which gives the manufacturer a lot of leverage.

Pharmaceutical companies say high initial prices are justified to recoup the costs of research and development.

However, a major case study — the 2015 Senate investigation of costly breakthrough drugs for hepatitis C infection — found that drugmaker Gilead Sciences priced the medication to maximize profits, not to foster access.

 

Q: What’s the outlook for drug pricing legislation?

A: Impeachment could suck the air out of the room.

“It is extremely difficult to get things done in that type of environment, and certainly for a president who is largely incapable of compartmentalizing,” said longtime Democratic health care adviser Chris Jennings. “Having said that, the work of policymakers in power must include being responsive to here-and-now domestic problems.”

Trump has pointedly refrained from criticizing Pelosi’s bill even as other Republicans called it “socialist.”

Pelosi’s legislation had its first committee consideration last week, and the leading Democrat on that committee promoted it using Trump-like rhetoric that it’s unfair for Americans to pay more. The bill will get a floor vote, and it could gain political momentum if a pending budget analysis finds big savings.

Democrats would be hard-pressed to drop their demand for Medicare negotiations. But could Trump agree to a more limited form of negotiations than what’s now in Pelosi’s bill? Could he sell that to Senate Republicans?

“It boils down to the crude political calculus of whether in the end this will help my side,” said health economist Joe Antos of the business-oriented American Enterprise Institute. “Will Democrats be able to stomach Donald Trump taking credit for all of this? On the Trump side, it is going to be more of a legacy issue for him.”

 

 

 

 

New Hampshire AG rebuffs Partners acquisition

Posted on by • Posted in Antitrust, Attorney General, Competition, Health System, High Deductible Health Plans, High Premiums, High Prices, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Market Consolidation, Market Power, Mergers & Acquisitions • Leave a comment

https://www.modernhealthcare.com/mergers-acquisitions/new-hampshire-ag-rebuffs-partners-acquisition?utm_source=modern-healthcare-daily-dose-tuesday&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20190924&utm_content=article6-readmore

New Hampshire officials opposed Partners HealthCare‘s continued expansion into the state, claiming that the health system’s proposed acquisition of Exeter Health Resources would diminish competition.

Partners’ Massachusetts General Hospital’s plans to acquire Exeter (N.H.) Health Resources, an independent system that includes a hospital, a physician group, home health and hospice agency, and a real estate management subsidiary. Exeter would merge with Dover, N.H.-based Wentworth-Douglass Hospital, which Mass General acquired in 2017, to create NewCo, a New Hampshire not-for-profit entity. NewCo was also the name used for the first iteration of what is now Beth Israel Lahey Health.

After a year-long review by the Consumer Protection and Antitrust Bureau, Attorney General Gordon MacDonald said the combination would violate state law requiring free and fair competition.

“New Hampshire patients already pay some of the highest prices for health care in the country,” he said in prepared remarks. “Based on our investigation, we have concluded that this transaction implicates our laws protecting free and fair competition and therefore threatens even higher health care costs to be borne by New Hampshire consumers.”

The AG’s Charitable Trusts Unit report followed a notice of intent to take civil enforcement action issued on Sept. 13 by the Consumer Protection and Antitrust Bureau.

Partners officials said they look to continue talks with the attorney general to allay antitrust concerns.

“We remain fully committed to seeing this transaction through and are confident that the Attorney General’s Office will ultimately determine that our affiliation will pass antitrust review based on the thorough review that the expert economists have completed on this proposal,” Dr. Peter Slavin, Massachusetts General Hospital president, said in prepared remarks.

In a public forum last year, Exeter officials said that the new regional health system would bolster their electronic health record capabilities and streamline care, offer scale to grow services, and enhance care quality.

Economists counter that hospital consolidation often inflates prices thanks to reduced competition and that so-called efficiencies don’t often reach expectations.

Under the deal, NewCo would be substituted as the sole member of Exeter Health Resources and Wentworth-Douglass Hospital. Mass General would become the sole member of NewCo, giving it significant control over the governance and operations, which is a matter of “considerable interest to this state,” the report said.

Exeter Hospital, a 100-bed hospital with outpatient programs in surgery, radiation, oncology and cardiac catheterization, and Wentworth-Douglass Hospital are within 18 miles of each other and provide similar inpatient and outpatient services, according to the report. Both Exeter and Wentworth-Douglass own a significant number of physician practices, such as Exeter’s 140-doctor group that offers primary care, pediatrics, orthopedics, gastroenterology and other specialties. Within the seacoast region, there are a limited number of healthcare entities of size and breadth similar to Exeter and Wentworth-Douglass that also own physician practices, the report said.

“Should EHR, WDH and MGH take further steps to consummate the transaction despite the objection set forth in this report, the Charitable Trusts Unit will bring judicial proceedings and seek injunctive relief,” New Hampshire authorities said in the report.

Partners has continued to try to expand into neighboring states, with varying success. The Boston-based integrated health system was targeting an entry point into the Rhode Island market through a deal with Care New England, adding Lifespan to the proposed talks early last year. It later dropped Lifespan and ultimately nixed the entire deal in June.

Establishing a presence in Rhode Island was an emphasis of Dr. David Torchiana, former president and CEO of Partners. Torchiana retired in April, making way for Dr. Anne Klibanski, who took on the interim CEO role in February and officially became the system’s first female chief executive in June.

Partners has been criticized for its high prices stemming from higher than average inpatient and academic medical center utilization. Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Lahey Health said that a significant driver behind their merger late last year was to keep Partners in check.

Partners reported operating income of $309.9 million on operating revenue of $13.31 billion in 2018, up from $52.6 million in operating income on $13.37 billion of operating revenue in 2017, according to Modern Healthcare’s Health System Financials database.

Through three quarters of its fiscal 2019, Partners reported operating income of $450 million on total operating revenue of to $10.4 billion. That was up from $275 million of operating income on $10 billion of total operating revenue over the same period the year prior.

 

 

 

Sutter Antitrust Class Action Could Upend Industry Consolidation

Posted on by • Posted in Antitrust, Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Health Policy, Health System, High Deductible Health Plans, High Premiums, High Prices, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Lawsuit, Market Consolidation, Market Power, Monopoly, Monopoly Behavior, Out of Pocket Expenses, Out-of-Network • Leave a comment

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/health-law-and-business/sutter-antitrust-class-action-could-upend-industry-consolidation

Health-care consolidation and antitrust allegations are the focus of litigation that alleges Sutter Health Systems uses its Northern California dominance to force higher fees out of employer-funded health plans and consumers.

Jury selection begins Sept. 23 in San Francisco in a case that could translate into more than a billion-dollar liability for California’s third-largest hospital system. Sutter denies the allegations.

Employers, payors, and the health-care industry are closely watching the case. Success in California could spill into other states and undermine consolidation efforts by other health-care providers, observers said.

“If I’m a system somewhere else and these guys lose, these class-action lawyers I assume are going to start putting pins in the map around the country and say, ‘OK let’s go look at Utah, Florida, other parts of California’” that have dominant players, said Glenn Melnick, a health-care economist at the University of Southern California. “They have a template now.”

Total Revenue Hit $13 Billion in 2018

Sutter Health is a California behemoth, consisting of 24 acute care hospital facilities, 36 ambulatory surgery centers, nine cancer centers, six specialty care centers, nine major physician organizations, with 12,000 physicians and 53,000 employees located in 19 counties in Northern California. The system reported $13 billion in revenue in 2018.

“There is no evidence that Sutter has hurt competition, as demonstrated by the fact that new hospitals continue to open and existing facilities continue to expand in markets that Sutter Health serves, including in the San Francisco Bay Area and the greater Sacramento region,” Sutter said in a statement.

Northern California has experienced more rapid consolidation of hospital, physician, and insurance markets from 2010 to 2016 than Southern California, University of California Berkeley researchers found. And inpatient prices were 70% higher, outpatient prices 17%-55% higher depending on physician specialty, and Affordable Care Act premiums 35% higher in the northern part of the state.

Sutter inflated prices by an average 15.5% between 2003 and 2016, a United Food & Commercial Workers & Employers Benefit Trust expert analysis said. The UFCW trust sued Sutter first, followed by the state. For trial purposes, the court joined California’s lawsuit with the UFCW class action.

The inflated prices translated into $756 million in overcharges, the state and class members allege. More than 90% of class members for which measurements were available paid higher average prices at Sutter than class members paid for services at other California hospitals, they said.

Patients Protected, Sutter Says

The hospital system says its offerings shield patients from unforeseen expenses.

“Our broad provider network gives patients greater choice and predictability and protects patients from surprise billing. It also prevents patients from paying more in co-pays and deductibles for out-of-network doctor and hospital visits,” Sutter’s statement said.

Treble damages and attorneys’ fees are available if the UFCW and state win under the Cartwright Act, California’s antitrust law. The union trust fund, representing a class of large California employers who self insure their health-care costs, seeks damages from the jury while the California Attorney General wants to stop the practices alleged.

Jury selection is set for Sept. 23-24 with a two-week break while the parties argue over issues including sealing contracts negotiated with third parties including Anthem Inc., Blue Shield of California Inc., United Healthcare Services Inc., Teamsters Benefit Trust, Apple Inc., and HealthNet of California Inc. The trial is expected to last 60-90 days.

Consolidation Concerns

Health-care costs are one of the most important concerns in the U.S., said Jaime King, associate dean of the University of California Hastings School of Law and director of the Concentration on Law and Health Sciences.

“I know that attorneys general in other states are paying very close attention to what’s happening because concentration is not something that is just happening in California—it’s happening all over the country. If successful we will start to see a rollout of lots of similar cases across country,” King said.

“I think we will see ripple effects that go well into the future,” she said.

The case has implications especially in Northern California and could have legs elsewhere, Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D) said.

“Does this have an impact outside California? I would say that most everything that California does has an impact on this country and dare say the world. We hope that in our effort to pursue lower costs and higher quality of care in health care that the beneficiaries are not just Californians but people throughout the country,” Becerra said.

 

 

 

Hospital Giant Sutter Health Faces Legal Reckoning Over Medical Pricing

Posted on by • Posted in ACA, Antitrust, Competition, Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Health Policy, Health System, High Deductible Health Plans, High Premiums, High Prices, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Lawsuit, Limited Competition, Market Consolidation, Market Power, Monopoly, Monopoly Behavior, Out of Network, Out of Pocket Expenses, Out-of-Network, Payer Contracting • Leave a comment

https://khn.org/news/sutter-health-antitrust-lawsuit-hospital-consolidation-medical-pricing/?fbclid=IwAR25Fe5xyq6Ne2lq_tuTo-r5ft4mUaLBLN7TLaMIo_cl5gJ59lMBNXwB33A

Economists and researchers long have blamed the high cost of health care in Northern California on the giant medical systems that have gobbled up hospitals and physician practices — most notably Sutter Health, a nonprofit chain with 24 hospitals, 34 surgery centers and 5,000 physicians across the region.

Now, those arguments will have their day in court: A long-awaited class-action lawsuit against Sutter is set to open Sept. 23 in San Francisco Superior Court.

The hospital giant, with $13 billion in operating revenue in 2018, stands accused of violating California’s antitrust laws by leveraging its market power to drive out competition and overcharge patients. Health care costs in Northern California, where Sutter is dominant, are 20% to 30% higher than in Southern California, even after adjusting for cost of living, according to a 2018 study from the Nicholas C. Petris Center at the University of California-Berkeley cited in the complaint.

The case was initiated in 2014 by self-funded employers and union trusts that pay for worker health care. It since has been joined with a similar case brought last year by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra. The plaintiffs seek up to $900 million in damages for overpayments that they attribute to Sutter; under California’s antitrust law, the award can be tripled, leaving Sutter liable for up to $2.7 billion.

The case is being followed closely by industry leaders and academics alike.

“This case could be huge. It could be existential,” said Glenn Melnick, a health care economist at the University of Southern California. If the case is successful, he predicted, health care prices could drop significantly in Northern California. It also could have a “chilling effect” nationally for large health systems that have adopted similar negotiating tactics, he said.

The case already has proved controversial: In November 2017, San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Curtis E.A. Karnow sanctioned Sutter after finding it had intentionally destroyed 192 boxes of documents sought by plaintiffs, “knowing that the evidence was relevant to antitrust issues.” He wrote: “There is no good explanation for the specific and unusual destruction here.”

Antitrust enforcement is more commonly within the purview of the Federal Trade Commission and U.S. Department of Justice. “One of the reasons we have such a big problem [with consolidation] is that they’ve done very little. Enforcement has been very weak,” said Richard Scheffler, director of the Nicholas C. Petris Center. From 2010 to 2017, there were more than 800 hospital mergers, and the federal government has challenged just a handful.

“We feel very confident,” said Richard Grossman, lead counsel for the plaintiffs. “Sutter has been able to elevate their prices above market to the tune of many hundreds of millions of dollars.”

Or, as Attorney General Becerra put it at a news conference unveiling his 2018 lawsuit: “This is a big ‘F’ deal.”

Sutter vigorously denies the allegations, saying its large, integrated health system offers tangible benefits for patients, including more consistent high-quality care. Sutter also disputes that its prices are higher than other major health care providers in California, saying its internal analyses tell a different story.

“This lawsuit irresponsibly targets Sutter’s integrated system of hospitals, clinics, urgent care centers and affiliated doctors serving millions of patients throughout Northern California,” spokeswoman Amy Thoma Tan wrote in an emailed statement. “While insurance companies want to sell narrow networks to employers, integrated networks like Sutter’s benefit patient care and experience, which leads to greater patient choice and reduces surprise out-of-network bills to our patients.”

There’s no dispute that for years Sutter has worked aggressively to buy up hospitals and doctor practices in communities throughout Northern California. At issue in the case is how it has used that market dominance.

According to the lawsuit, Sutter has exploited its market power by using an “all-or-none” approach to contracting with insurance companies. The tactic — known as the “Sutter Model” — involves sitting down at the negotiating table with a demand: If an insurer wants to include any one of the Sutter hospitals or clinics in its network, it must include all of them. In Sutter’s case, several of its 24 hospitals are “must-haves,” meaning it would be almost impossible for an insurer to sell an insurance plan in a given community without including those facilities in the network.

“All-or-none” contracting allows hospital systems to demand higher prices from an insurer with little choice but to acquiesce, even if it might be cheaper to exclude some of the system’s hospitals that are more expensive than a competitor’s. Those higher prices trickle down to consumers in the form of higher premiums.

The California Hospital Association contends such negotiations are crucial for hospitals struggling financially. “It can be a great benefit to small hospitals and rural hospitals that don’t have a lot of bargaining power to have a larger group that can negotiate on their behalf,” said Jackie Garman, the CHA’s legal counsel.

Sutter also is accused of preventing insurers and employers from tiering benefits, a technique used to steer patients to more cost-effective options. For example, an insurer might charge $100 out-of-pocket for a procedure at a preferred surgery center, but $200 at a more expensive facility. In addition, the lawsuit alleges that for years Sutter restricted insurers from sharing information about its prices with employers and workers, making it nearly impossible to compare prices when selecting a provider.

Altogether, the plaintiffs allege, such tactics are anti-competitive and have allowed Sutter to drive up the cost of care in Northern California.

Hospitals in California and other regions across the country have watched the success of such tactics and taken note. “All the other hospitals want to emulate [Sutter] to get those rates,” said Anthony Wright, executive director of the advocacy group Health Access.

A verdict that finds such tactics illegal would “send a signal to the market that the way to compete is not to be the next Sutter,” said Wright. “You want them to compete instead by providing better quality service at a lower price, not just by who can get bigger and thus leverage a higher price.”

Along with damages, Becerra’s complaint calls for dismantling the Sutter Model. It asks that Sutter be required to negotiate prices separately for each of its hospitals — and prohibit officials at different hospitals from sharing details of their negotiations. While leaving Sutter intact, the approach would give insurers more negotiating room, particularly in communities with competing providers.

Consolidation in the health care industry is likely here to stay: Two-thirds of hospitals across the nation are part of larger medical systems. “It’s very hard to unscramble the egg,” said Melnick.

California legislators have attempted to limit the “all or nothing” contracting terms several times, but the legislation has stalled amid opposition from the hospital industry.

Now the courts will weigh in.

 

 

 

Paying for healthcare shouldn’t bankrupt families

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, ACA, Bad Debt Expense, Bankruptcy, Essential Health Benefits, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, High Deductible Health Plans, High Premiums, High Prices, Out of Pocket Expenses, Out-of-Network, Preexisting Conditions, Short Term Health Insurance, Surprise Bills • Leave a comment

https://www.modernhealthcare.com/opinion-editorial/paying-healthcare-shouldnt-bankrupt-families?utm_source=modern-healthcare-daily-finance&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20190923&utm_content=article4-readmore

Image result for medical bills bankruptcy

Healthcare costs in the U.S. are too high. Americans struggle to afford basic needs like prescription drugs and too often face crushing surprise bills after undergoing necessary medical procedures. Seniors in particular feel the weight of health expenses when they discover that the Medicare benefits they earned don’t always provide sufficient coverage.

While the Affordable Care Act instituted protections for Americans with pre-existing conditions, guaranteed essential health benefits and made some progress in lowering patients’ costs, those advancements are under attack in the courts and through regulatory actions. I chair the House Ways and Means Committee, which has jurisdiction over a great deal of our nation’s healthcare system, including Medicare. Under Democratic leadership, we are fighting to bring down healthcare costs and preserve critical existing health protections.

Our committee hit the ground running this year. The first hearing I convened as chairman focused on protecting Americans with pre-existing conditions. Nearly 130 million Americans have a pre-existing condition—anything from asthma to cancer to diabetes. Thanks to the ACA, insurance companies can no longer refuse to cover these individuals. The hearing shed light on the importance of this safeguard and the ways it provides Americans with greater peace of mind and financial security.

We also highlighted the immense pain families will endure if 18 Republican state attorneys general succeed in their case to repeal the law.

House Democrats, along with Democratic state attorneys general, jumped into this court battle and continue to defend the millions of Americans with health conditions from discrimination and financial ruin.

We also took concrete steps to increase transparency and lower drug prices. Ways and Means advanced legislation that sheds light across the healthcare supply chain—from pharmaceutical manufacturers to pharmacy benefit managers—to help reduce costs for families. More can be done. In the coming months, the committee will consider legislation to improve the Medicare Part D program, establishing an out-of-pocket cap on expenses for beneficiaries. This would lower costs for seniors and save taxpayers money.

Part D reform is just one way to improve Medicare for beneficiaries. Many seniors aren’t aware that Medicare does not cover routine vision, hearing or dental exams. I will work to change that. Helping seniors access the glasses, hearing aids or dental care they need will save them money on the front end. This coverage will also prevent the trauma and expense of falls or other related health problems that could arise down the road as a result of inadequate services.

Some of the most jarring and devastating medical costs Americans encounter are surprise medical bills. Ways and Means plans to tackle this problem too. We are crafting legislation now that will help patients avoid the huge expenses that follow inadvertently being treated by out-of-network providers.

Healthcare is a necessity and it’s a human right. Paying for it shouldn’t bankrupt families. We can lower patient costs without stifling medical innovation or throwing hospitals into turmoil. It’s possible to achieve commonsense solutions that strengthen our nation’s healthcare system while reducing the burden on consumers.