The cost of private health insurance is out of control, compared to Medicare and Medicaid. You see that clearly if you take a long-term view of recently released federal data on health spending.
Why it matters: This is why the health care industry — not just insurers, but also hospitals and drug companies — is so opposed to proposals that would expand the government’s purchasing power. And it’s why some progressives are so determined to curb, or even eliminate, private coverage.
https://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/node/139468
Changes in insurance benefit design that shift greater financial responsibility to the patient, rising healthcare costs and confusing medical bills will continue to drive growth in bad debt — often faster than net patient revenue, according to a new report from Moody’s.
Legislative proposals to simplify billing have the potential to reduce bad debt, but the downside for hospitals is that they’ll likely introduce additional complexity to billing processes and complicate relationships with contracted physician groups. A recent accounting change will reduce transparency around reporting bad debt.
Higher cost sharing and rising deductibles are the main contributors to the trend of patients assuming greater financial responsibility, a trend that’s been occurring for more than a decade, and that will further increase the amount of uncollected payments. Hospitals and providers are responsible for collecting copays and deductibles from patients, which may not always be possible at the time of service; the longer the delay between providing service and collecting payment, the less likely a hospital is to collect payment.
On top of that, the higher an individual’s deductible is, the greater the share of reimbursement that a hospital has to collect. The prevalence of general deductibles increased to 85% of covered workers in 2018, up from 55% in 2006, and the amount of the annual deductible almost tripled in that time to an average of $1,573.
Multiple factors are driving the trend toward higher cost sharing, including a desire among employees and employers for stable premium growth despite steadily rising healthcare costs and the growing popularity of high deductible health plans.
WHAT’S THE IMPACT
Hospitals face an uphill battle when it comes to reducing bad debt. Strategies include point-of-service collections, enhanced technology to better estimate a patient’s responsibility for a medical bill, and offering low-cost financing or payment plans.
A common feature of these approaches is educating patients about what portion of a medical bill is their responsibility, after taking into account the specifics of their insurance plan. But hospitals often find it hard to provide reliable cost estimates for a given service, which can thwart efforts to provide patients with an accurate estimate of their financial responsibility.
One difficulty is that medical bills partly depend on the complexity of service and amount of resources consumed — which may not be known ahead of time. There’s also the need to incorporate specific benefits of the patient’s own insurance plan. A certain amount of bad debt is likely to arise from patients accessing emergency care given the insufficient time to determine insurance coverage.
Another difficulty in billing is surprise medical bills, received by insured patients who inadvertently receive care from providers outside their insurance networks, usually in emergency situations. While the term “surprise medical bills” refers to a specific, narrow slice of healthcare costs, they have become part of the broader debate about the affordability and accessibility of U.S. healthcare.
THE LARGER TREND
To minimize surprise bills, Congress is considering proposals to essentially “bundle” all of the services a patient receives in an emergency room into a single bill. Under a bundled billing approach, the hospital would negotiate a set charges for a single or “bundled” episode of care in the emergency room. The hospital would then allocate payments to the providers involved.
This approach, which major hospital and physician trade groups oppose, has the potential to significantly affect hospitals and disrupt the business models of physician staffing companies, according to Moody’s. Many hospitals outsource the operations and billing of their emergency rooms or other departments to staffing companies. Bundling services would require a change in the contractual relationship between hospitals and staffing companies.
Another recent proposal in Congress would require in-network hospitals to guarantee that all providers operating at their facilities are also in network. This approach adds significant complexity because many physicians and ancillary service providers are not employed or controlled by the hospitals where they work. Some hospitals would likely seek to employ more physicians, leading to increases in salaries, benefits and wages expense.
The report also shows a growing income gap in cost-related delays. In 2016, for instance, one-fourth of U.S. households earning less than $40,000 a year reported cost-related delays, vs. 13 percent for households making more than $100,000. In 2019, the rate of cost-related delays among poorer households shot up to 36 percent, while the rate for the richer group remained at 13 percent.
Gallup cautions that the Trump presidency may be influencing these numbers on a partisan level: From 2018 to 2019, the share of Democrats reporting cost-related delays for serious conditions jumped from 22 percent to 34 percent. Among Republicans, the year-over-year increase was more subdued, from 12 percent to 15 percent.
Gallup data also show Democrats (31 percent) self-report higher rates of preexisting conditions than Republicans (22 percent).
“Whether these gaps are indicative of real differences in the severity of medical and financial problems faced by Democrats compared with Republicans or Democrats’ greater propensity to perceive problems in these areas isn’t entirely clear,” according to Gallup’s Lydia Saad. “But it’s notable that the partisan gap on putting off care for serious medical treatment is currently the widest it’s been in two decades.”
Data from the Kaiser Family Foundation’s Employer Health Survey underscores the severity of the health-care spending problem. In 2019, 82 percent of covered workers must meet a deductible before health-care coverage kicks in, up from 63 percent a decade ago. “The average single deductible now stands at $1,655 for workers who have one,” according to KFF, “similar to last year’s $1,573 average but up sharply from the $826 average of a decade ago.”
Deductibles have surged 162 percent since 2009, data show — more than six times the 26 percent climb in earnings over the same period.
There are many factors driving up the cost of care for most American families. Administrative costs are a big part of the issue: Health insurance is largely a for-profit industry, meaning insurance companies and their shareholders are reaping a percentage of your deductibles and co-pays as profit.
Many hospitals, too, are raking in profits. In recent years, surprise billing practices and outrageous markups for simple drugs and services have drawn the ire of lawmakers looking for ways to reduce health-care spending.
Physician pay is another significant expense. The Commonwealth Fund, a health-care research group, estimates American doctors earn “nearly double the average salary” of doctors in other wealthy nations. The American Medical Association, a trade group representing doctors, has a long history of opposing efforts to implement European-style single-payer health-care systems in the United States.
The American health-care system, in other words, works pretty well for the powerful players in the health-care industry. Hospitals and insurance companies are reaping significant profits. Doctors are earning high salaries. But what are the rest of us getting in return for our ever-growing co-pays and deductibles?
The national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has an answer, and it’s an indictment of our health-care system: The United States is in the midst of the longest sustained drop in life expectancy in at least 100 years. Relative to other wealthy countries, lives in America are short and getting shorter.
The disparities domestically are perhaps even more shocking: In the nation’s wealthiest places, where the high cost of modern health care remains within relatively easy reach, life expectancies are literally decades longer than in America’s poorest places.
As health care becomes more expensive and economywide inequalities more pronounced, these disparities in life span are likely to get worse — and the share of Americans skipping out on much-needed medical care only likely to grow.
Americans spent $3.65 trillion on health care in 2018 — 4.6% more than the year before. That growth also was higher than the 4.2% rate from 2017, according to revised figures from independent federal actuaries, Axios’ Bob Herman reports.
Between the lines: U.S. health care spending climbed again not because people went to the doctor or hospital more frequently, but because the industry charged higher prices. And private health insurers didn’t do a particularly good job negotiating lower rates.
The intrigue: The number of people with private health plans — which mostly consists of the coverage people get through their jobs — dipped in 2018, yet the amount spent per person soared 6.7%.
Medicare and Medicaid had much lower per-enrollee spending growth rates in 2018 than private insurance, but those figures were the highest they’ve been since 2015 — again due to higher costs for the private insurers that are increasingly running those government programs.
Americans rarely switch to new health plans when the annual insurance-shopping season comes around, even if they could have gotten a better deal, Axios’ Bob Herman reports.
The bottom line: People loathe shopping for health plans, and many are bad at it, for one major reason: “It’s just too hard,” Tricia Neuman, a Medicare expert at the Kaiser Family Foundation, told Bob last year.
Reality check: During any insurance program’s annual enrollment period, most people end up staying with the status quo, if it’s an option, instead of picking a new plan.
Between the lines: Buying health insurance — a $20,000 decision for the average family — is more complicated than buying furniture.
The big picture: Shopping for insurance is difficult enough for most people. Shopping for actual doctors, tests and services is even more difficult and less widespread, and likely won’t change if prices are unlocked.
Many 2020 Democrats’ health care proposals feature aggressive price regulations, either as a feature or a byproduct — a sign the party has largely given up on the idea that competition alone can keep costs in check.
Between the lines: It’s not just Democrats. As public outrage has grown over prescription drug prices and surprise medical bills, there’s been bipartisan congressional interest in regulating prices.
“The two big trends are increasing out-of-pocket costs to consumers and increasing disparity between public and commercial rates — and therefore consumer and employer pushback on those dynamics — and policymakers are now attempting to respond.”
— Chris Jennings, a Democratic health care consultant
The big picture: “Medicare for All” brings all provider and drug reimbursements under the federal government’s control.
Even the more moderate candidates’ public-option plans would enroll more Americans in government health care plans that set rates. And some have pitched ideas like limiting how much providers can charge for out-of-network care.
All of the leading 2020 candidates have proposed drug policies, ranging from limiting how much drug companies can increase their prices to allowing the federal government to strip the patent from drugs that are deemed too expensive.
The other side: The industry hates all of these ideas.
It’s Thanksgiving Eve. Which for Health 202 begs this question: What is everyone thankful for this year when it comes to health policy?
We suspect that maybe – just maybe –you’d get vastly different answers from doctors versus insurers versus drugmakers versus consumers versus any other stakeholder in the $3.6 trillion U.S. health-care industry complex. Everyone has competing interests, which is a prime reason why the country’s besetting problems of ever-rising costs and subpar medical outcomes never quite seem to get solved.
So before you tune out the news cycle for Turkey Day, here’s our best guess at what’s giving each health-care stakeholder an attitude of gratitude.
—The White House and Republicans: Democrats are fixated on Medicare-for-all.
The GOP could hardly be more eager to focus on Medicare-for-all proposals from the Democratic presidential candidates. They view it as a way to veer the political conversation away from their own, unpopular actions on health-care policy and to depict Democrats as out-of-touch with voters.
President Trump and his top health officials have repeatedly decried Medicare-for-all, including during an October speech where the president announced an executive order boosting the role of private plans in the Medicare program.
“Every major Democrat in Washington has backed a massive government health care takeover that would totally obliterate Medicare,” the president said during that address. “These Democratic policy proposals … may go by different names, whether it’s single payer or the so-called public option, but they’re all based on the totally same terrible idea: They want to raid Medicare to fund a thing called socialism.”
—Democrats: The Trump administration is refusing to defend the Affordable Care Act.
Democrats are well aware that the refusal by Trump’s Justice Department to defend the Affordable Care Act from a challenge by GOP-led states is a political gift. They spent the 2018 election castigating the administration for not standing by the health-care law’s protections for patients with preexisting conditions – and it helped them win the House majority.
They plan to hammer that message again in 2020, as they seek the White House.
—The Department of Health and Human Services: Obamacare hasn’t been struck down (yet).
A federal appeals court is expected to rule any time now on the challenge to the ACA, which was upheld by a lower court last year. As The Health 202 has written, the decision against defending the law was a deeply controversial one inside the administration.
HHS Secretary Alex Azar and Seema Verma, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, tried to persuade the White House to defend the law. If the courts ultimately strike down the ACA, the administration will be on the hook to propose a replacement that would preserve health coverage for millions of Americans who gained it under the health-care law.
—Health-care advocates: Marketplace premiums are somewhat more affordable.
After several rough years for the ACA’s individual marketplaces, they got some good news this year. Average premiums for mid-level “silver” plans fell four percent for 2020 – a marked shift from the double-digit increases shoppers have typically seen.
That doesn’t mean plans are suddenly affordable for consumers ineligible for government subsidies. But it does mean insurers have found a sustainable way to keep participating in the marketplaces – and the marketplaces are here to stay for people without access to employer-sponsored coverage.
—Drugmakers: Chances for a major, bipartisan drug pricing deal this year are fading.
One of the pharmaceutical industry’s biggest fears is that Congress passes legislation allowing the federal government to directly negotiate lower prices in the Medicare program – a move the industry describes as government “price-fixing.”
Trump used to support allowing direct negotiations, and his staff was even in discussions with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) office earlier this fall over the potential for a bipartisan effort along these lines.
But the president and his aides have increasingly distanced themselves from Pelosi’s bill to allow direct negotiations. Now it looks like House Democrats will pass that measure as a messaging tactic, only to see it blocked in the GOP-led Senate. A bipartisan Senate bill capping how much drugmakers can annually raise prices has somewhat better prospects, but even that measure has made many Republicans suspicious.
In the end, only minor and less-controversial drug pricing measures may end up being attached to a longer-term spending bill.
—Doctors and hospitals: Any legislation protecting patients from “surprise” medical bills will almost certainly include arbitration – an approach that means higher payments for them.
Virtually every member of Congress agrees American patients should be protected from the surprise bills that can result when they visit an emergency department outside their health plan’s provider network or get care from an out-of-network provider at an in-network hospital.
But how to solve that has turned into an insurers-versus-doctors food fight.
Insurers and the Trump administration want to use a benchmarking approach to resolve out-of-network bills, in which the payments are tied to average prices in the same geographic area. That approach would save the government money, the Congressional Budget Office has said.
But doctors – and some dark-money groups that represent their interests – have been spending millions of dollars to push Congress toward adopting an approach called arbitration. In arbitration, which CBO has said would cost the government more money, the medical provider and the insurer each submit a bid to a third party arbiter, who then make a final decision.
Doctors believe arbitration would translate to beefier payments for them – and outcomes from New York’s arbitration system supports that notion. So if Congress passes surprise billing legislation, it will likely include some element of arbitration given the heavy influence by the doctor lobby.
—Regular Americans: Not much.
We hate to say it, readers, but there’s little for you to be thankful for this year when it comes to health-care policy. Costs for employer-sponsored coverage are going up and coverage plans are getting less generous. Congress appears unable to pass major reforms on the biggest consumer concerns. And the next election is likely to result in a government severely split over how to improve health-care – making it likely the status quo will prevail for some time.
But Happy Thanksgiving, anyway!
More Americans have high deductible plans than ever before, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
“More than a quarter (28%) of all covered workers, including nearly half (45%) of those at small employers with fewer than 200 employees, are now in plans with a deductible of at least $2,000, almost four times the share who faced such deductibles in 2009,” KFF said in a recent report.
But when patients with high deductibles seek care, hospitals typically have to collect from the patient first. And as more Americans struggle to afford treatment, it’s harder to collect from patients right away.
“The longer the delay between providing service and collecting payment, the less likely a hospital is to collect payment,” Moody’s said.
Many patients don’t have enough saved to cover the cost of their deductible, according to a survey from accounting firm PwC. At least a third of those with employer-based coverage and HDHPs don’t have enough on hand to pay for their deductible, the company reported.
It will be difficult for hospitals to reduce bad debt, according to Moody’s, which characterized it as an “uphill battle.” Collecting on unpaid bills requires “constant vigilance,” the ratings agency said.
In 2014, bad debt clocked in at roughly 5.6% of net patient revenue for nonprofit health systems, and then fell below 4.5% in 2016 and 2017. But in 2018, bad debt climbed again above 4.5%, Moody’s said.
The idea of “Medicare for all” advanced another step with the recent release of Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s more detailed health proposal. It is expansive and bold, and has brought some excitement to the progressive core of the Democratic Party. While policy mavens can delight in the details, the enormity of the proposal is a sign that this debate has clearly gone off the rails.
There is no question that healthcare cost is a pocketbook challenge for all of us. Employer and employee premiums for private health insurance for a household now average $20,576, before deductibles and copayments, and before payroll and state and local taxes to pay for healthcare for the elderly and the poor.
National health expenditures increased 179% between 2000 and 2019 to $3.8 trillion, and 50% of this increase was directly due to increases in unit prices and service intensity by hospital systems and physicians. In the U.S., healthcare is 28% more expensive than the next highest cost system, Switzerland, and 78% more expensive than in Germany. For a primary care doctor in the U.S., submitting invoices to insurers and collecting payments costs almost $100,000 per year.
What we should be debating — instead of the politics around Medicare for all — is how this market evolved in such a malignant direction, and whether anything can be done to change these trends.
Hospital consolidation has been shown to drive up healthcare costs, and yet 90% of U.S. hospital markets are highly consolidated. Physician employment by hospitals and health systems has increased from 26% to 44% of the market from 2012 to 2018, increasing the pricing leverage of consolidated systems even further.
These changes directly result in higher prices for commercial health insurance as hospitals use their exaggerated hospital “charges,” often many multiples of their costs or of the market price, to drive up their reimbursement rates for in-network care and especially for out-of-network care, where there is no price negotiation. Further, even at most not-for-profit healthcare systems, hospital leaders are compensated based on the profits they generate, not premiums they reduce, as is the case with leaders of for-profit hospital systems.
The pharmaceutical market has also come under scrutiny for the enormous prices of newly approved medications, and for price increases of existing medicines such as insulin. Behind the scenes are layers of businesses that further exploit this market. For example, one pharmaceutical benefit manager (a company hired by a health plan or employer to oversee prescription drug benefits) reported profits of $1.8 billion in 2013 that rose to $4.5 billion in 2017 despite a 4% reduction in revenue reported over this period.
It’s easy to see that consumers need relief from this market. One might imagine that politicians from both political parties would band together in a search for actionable solutions. Yet the debate has migrated from a discussion of why costs are spiraling out of control to a simple and unrealistic answer — Medicare for all. Here are some ideas on how to frame a meaningful discussion about costs.
Reducing administrative costs has been a stated policy goal of the federal government since the passage of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) in 1996, yet these costs continue to increase. To reduce these costs, we have to simplify the complexity of the billing process for hospitals and physicians across the multiple different health plans in the market, and we need to transform the expensive set of public data reporting mandates into a model in which we are assured these data are used by providers internally to improve the quality of care they provide.
We need to rebalance negotiating power between hospitals and physicians and insurers. Hospitals and other providers have been allowed to set their list prices without any relationship to the cost of care they provide. These inflated prices are then imposed on out-of-network patients, most egregiously in the practice of surprise medical billing in which patients encounter deliberately out-of-network air ambulances and independent anesthesiologists. In billing disputes, state law should offer these patients a default of a market price closer to Medicare payments than to hospital charges.
Finally, it’s time to stop the practices that are driving up prescription drug costs for all of us. Secret payments between pharmaceutical manufacturers and pharmaceutical benefit managers and distributors totaled over $100 billion in 2016. This business model needlessly inflates drug prices for the benefit of intermediaries in the market. We need laws requiring price transparency at the pharmacy for brand and generic drugs, and price competition for medications at the retail level.
The problem with focusing on Medicare for all is that rather than developing practical approaches, the debate is heading down a path likely to leave us without any tenable solutions to address healthcare costs — the issue that ignited the public’s interest in the first place.
Almost all of the major health insurance companies are spending more on medical care this year than they have in the past, Axios’ Bob Herman reports.
The big picture: Rising prices and more services for some sicker patients are among the many reasons why this is happening. That uptick in spending has freaked out Wall Street, even though insurers are still quite profitable.
Driving the news: Almost all of the eight major publicly traded insurers have shown their medical loss ratio — the percentage of premium revenues they’re spending on medical claims — is rising this year.
Between the lines: Medical loss ratios are often higher for health plans that cover more older adults, the disabled and the poor, because those groups typically need more care or are in the hospital more frequently.
But costs have been climbing in some commercial markets, too.
The bottom line: Health insurance companies closely track their medical loss ratios and aim to hit those targets most often by charging higher premiums, denying care, forcing people to use lower-priced providers or declining to cover people they deem to be too expensive.
HENRY KOTULA 