With the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Price Index (CPI) report revealing the 12-month inflation rate in April 2023 rose again after hitting a recent low in March, we’re using this week’s graphic to show the cumulative picture on price and consumer sentiment changes across the last five years.
Since 2018, the CPI for all goods has risen 21 percent, while medical services have become 15 percent more expensive, in terms of consumer out-of-pocket spending. Leading into COVID, medical service prices were rising faster than general inflation, but the cumulative rise in the price of all goods caught up to medical services in early 2022.
Since December of last year, the price of medical services has actually experienced some deflation, partly due to a lagging decline in insurer profits. Reports of easing inflation had elicited a slight rebound in consumer sentiment, but last month’s 9 percent drop, the largest since June 2022, suggests this confidence is easily shaken.
Unfortunately for healthcare providers, according to a recent poll, fewer consumers worrying about elevated grocery and gas prices means that healthcare has reclaimed the top spot for household financial concerns.
The film “American Hospitals: Healing a Broken System” premiered in Washington, D.C., on March 29. This documentary exposes the inconvenient truths embedded within the U.S. healthcare system. Here is a dirty dozen of them:
Hospitals are largely unaccountable for poor clinical outcomes.
The cost of commercially insured care is multiples higher than the cost of government-insured care for identical procedures.
Customer service at hospitals is dreadful.
Frontline clinicians are overburdened and leaving the profession in droves.
Healthcare still operates the same way it has for the last one hundred years — delivering hierarchical, fragmented, hospital-centric, disease-centric, physician-centric “sick” care. Accordingly, healthcare business models optimize revenue generation and profitability rather than health outcomes. These factors explain, in part, why U.S. life expectancy has declined four of the five years and maternal deaths are higher today than a generation ago.
It’s hard to imagine that the devil itself could create a more inhumane, ineffective, costly and change-resistant system. Hospitals consume more and more societal resources to maintain an inadequate status quo. They’re a major part of America’s healthcare problem, certainly not its solution. Even so, hospitals have largely avoided scrutiny and the public’s wrath. Until now.
“American Hospitals” is now playing in theaters throughout the nation. It chronicles the pervasive and chronic dysfunction plaguing America’s hospitals. It portrays the devastating emotional, financial and physical toll that hospitals impose on both consumers and caregivers.
Despite its critical lens, “American Hospitals” is not a diatribe against hospitals. Its contributors include some of healthcare’s most prominent and respected industry leaders, including Donald Berwick, Elizabeth Rosenthal, Shannon Brownlee and Stephen Klasko. The film explores payment and regulatory reforms that would deliver higher-value care. It profiles Maryland’s all-payer system as an example of how constructive reforms can constrain healthcare spending and direct resources into more effective, community-based care.
The United States already spends more than enough on healthcare. It doesn’t need to spend more. It needs to spend more wisely. The system must downsize its acute and specialty care footprint and invest more in primary care, behavioral health, chronic disease management and health promotion. It’s really that simple.
My only critique of “American Hospitals” is many of its contributors expect too much from hospitals. They want them to simultaneously improve their care delivery and advance the health of their communities. This is wishful thinking. Health and healthcare are fundamentally different businesses. Rather than pivoting to population health, hospitals must focus all their efforts on delivering the right care at the right time, place and price.
If hospitals can deliver appropriate care more affordably, this will free up enormous resources for society to invest in health promotion and aligned social-care services. In this brave new world, right-sized hospitals deliver only necessary care within healthier, happier and more productive communities.
All Americans deserve access to affordable health insurance that covers necessary healthcare services without bankrupting them and/or the country. Let me restate the obvious. This requires less healthcare spending and more investments in health-creating activities. Less healthcare and more health is the type of transformative reform that the country could rally behind.
At issue is whether America’s hospitals will constructively participate in downsizing and reconfiguring the nation’s healthcare system. If they do so, they can reinvent themselves from the inside out and control their destinies.
Historically, hospitals have preferred to use their political and financial leverage to protect their privileged position rather than advance the nation’s well-being. Like Satan in Milton’s “Paradise Lost,” they have preferred to reign in hell rather than serve in heaven.
Pride comes before the fall. Woe to those hospitals that fight the nation’s natural evolution toward value-based care and healthier communities. They will experience a customer-led revolution from outside in and lose market relevance. Only by admitting and addressing their structural flaws can hospitals truly serve the American people.
After COVID fears and shutdowns led consumers to delay care early in the pandemic, persistently high inflation over the past year has further suppressed volumes.
As the graphic above illustrates, the average deductible for individual coverage has grown by over 140 percent since 2010, exposing consumers to an increasing portion of healthcare costs, and prompting economists to reevaluate the adage that healthcare is “recession-proof”.
This year, that trend collided with an inflation spike that outpaced wage gains by two percent. Faced with diminished purchasing power, households are making budget tradeoffs which explicitly pit healthcare against other essential household needs.
For some, this cost-cutting impulse even extends to preventative screenings—required to be covered without cost-sharing—when consumers’ financial concerns drive them to avoid healthcare altogether.
While the latest inflation report suggests price increases are moderating, fears of a broader recession persist, making it critical for health systems and physicians to communicate with patients, encouraging them to continue to access preventive care, educating them about lower cost care options, and helping them prioritize treatment that should not be put off.
All signs point to a crushing surge in health care costs for patients and employers next year — and that means health care industry groups are about to brawl over who pays the price.
Why it matters: The surge could build pressure on Congress to stop ignoring the underlying costs that make care increasingly unaffordable for everyday Americans — and make billions for health care companies.
[This special report kicks off a series to introduce our new, Congress-focused Axios Pro: Health Care, coming Nov. 14.]
This year’s Democratic legislation allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices was a rare case of addressing costs amid intense drug industry lobbying against it. Even so, it was a watered down version of the original proposal.
But the drug industry isn’t alone in its willingness to fight to maintain the status quo, and that fight frequently pits one industry group against another.
Where it stands: Even insured Americans are struggling to afford their care, the inevitable result of years of cost-shifting by employers and insurers onto patients through higher premiums, deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs.
But employers are now struggling to attract and retain workers, and forcing their employees to shoulder even more costs seems like a less viable option.
Tougher economic times make patients more cost-sensitive, putting families in a bind if they get sick.
Rising medical debt, increased price transparency and questionable debt collection practices have rubbed some of the good-guy sheen off of hospitals and providers.
All of this is coming to a boiling point. The question isn’t whether, but when.
Yes, but: Don’t underestimate Washington’s ability to have a completely underwhelming response to the problem, or one that just kicks the can down the road — or to just not respond at all.
Between the lines: If you look closely, the usual partisan battle lines are changing.
The GOP’s criticism of Democrats’ drug pricing law is nothing like the party’s outcry over the Affordable Care Act, and no one seriously thinks the party will make a real attempt to repeal it.
One of the most meaningful health reforms passed in recent years was a bipartisan ban on surprise billing, which may provide a more modern template for health care policy fights.
Surprise medical bills divided lawmakers into two teams, but it wasn’t Democrats vs. Republicans; it was those who supported the insurer-backed reform plan vs. the hospital and provider-backed one. This fight continues today — in court.
The bottom line: Someone is going to have to pay for the coming cost surge, whether that’s patients, taxpayers, employers or the health care companies profiting off of the system. Each industry group is fighting like hell to make sure it isn’t them.
Employers face a brutal increase in health-insurance premiums for 2023, Axios’ Arielle Dreher writes from a Kaiser Family Foundation report out this morning.
Why it matters: Premiums stayed relatively flat this year, even as wages and inflation surged. That reprieve was because many 2022 premiums were finalized last fall, before inflation took off.
“Employers are already concerned about what they pay for health premiums,” KFF president and CEO Drew Altman said.
“[B]ut this could be the calm before the storm … Given the tight labor market and rising wages, it will be tough for employers to shift costs onto workers when costs spike.”
🧠 What’s happening: Nearly 159 million Americans get health coverage through work — and coverage costs and benefits have become a critical factor in a tight labor market.
Almost 40% of Americans are willing to split their ticket and vote for a candidate from the opposing party who made a top priority of lowering health costs, according to a Gallup/West Health poll published Thursday.
Why it matters: Though candidates haven’t been talking much about medical costs in the run-up to the midterms, the issue remains enough of a priority that it could erode straight party-line voting.
By the numbers: 87% of Americans polled said a candidate’s plan to reduce the cost of health care services was very or somewhat important in casting a vote.
The issue cut across partisan lines, with 96% of Democrats and 77% of Republican respondents saying a candidate with a health care costs plan was an important factor.
86% also said a plan to lower prescription drug prices is very or somewhat important. That’s especially true for seniors.
Of note: Democratic voters were more likely than Republicans to say they would cross party lines because health costs are a top priority. Four in 10 Democrats said they were likely to do so compared to about 1 in 5 Republicans.
Amid new price transparency laws and growing consumer demand, more hospitals are adding cash pay options for certain health care services instead of just accepting insurance, Nora Tepper writes for Modern Healthcare—and some hospital officials say these offerings are “only going to go up” in the future.
How an ‘anomaly’ is becoming more common
Providers advertising cash pay rates for their services used to be considered an “anomaly,” Tepper writes. Now, the No Surprises Act, the federal price transparency law, and changing consumer expectations may make cash-only payments for health care services more common.
“The market is going there,” said Larry Van Horn, associate professor of management, law, and health policy and executive director of health affairs at Vanderbilt University. “You’ve got direct primary care, you’ve got physicians going and moving into cash pay. You’re gonna have to sit there at some point and say, ‘Wait a minute, they’re taking my business.'”
Although some hospitals and health systems that serve certain populations—such as Pomerene Hospital in Ohio with Amish and Anabaptist patients and the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center with medical tourists—have long had cash-pay systems, it is still a relatively new concept for most providers in the United States.
According to data from Medscape, which surveyed more than 17,000 clinicians, just 17% of clinicians used cash-only, concierge, or direct-pay primary care models in 2020. Primary care providers (PCPs) made up the largest proportion of providers accepting cash pay, with 10% of practices charging patients a flat monthly fee for unlimited services.
“[S]ome providers embracing the cash pay revolution say their bottom line benefits from faster reimbursement, lower administration costs and higher patient retention,” Tepper writes.
In a 2020 report from the Society of Actuaries, almost all PCPs who operated under self-pay models reported “better or much better” personal and professional satisfaction compared to those under a traditional fee-for-service system. In addition, 34% of respondents reported “better or much better” earnings under a direct payment model.
How patients could benefit from cash-pay systems
According to Tepper, hospitals generally offer self-paying patients, who have typically been uninsured individuals or those with high-deductible health plans, lower rates for services compared to commercial insurers since they don’t have to handle administrative work or collections.
In a 2021 study published in JAMA Network Open, researchers analyzed rates for “shoppable” services at 922 hospitals and found that the proportion of hospitals that had lower cash prices than their median commercial negotiated rate ranged from 38.4% for liver tests to 68.5% for C-sections.
During the pandemic, more insured patients began to inquire about what services they could pay cash for, leading some health systems to create new payment models for certain procedures.
For example, Deaconess Health System launched an in-house bundled payment program, which includes cardiology, radiology, and urgent care services, in July 2020. The first year, the health system sold 130 bundled services, which increased to 351 in 2021, and 489 as of August 2022.
For any services not covered by the program, Deaconess offers a 50% discount on cash payments compared to its insurer rate. However, self-paying patients are required to pay the full cost of a procedure upfront.
“The patient has decided to take a bet on themselves,” said Steve Russell, VP and chief revenue cycle officer at Deaconess. “They have a high deductible, they don’t think they’re going to reach that threshold and their thought is, ‘If I don’t use my insurance, what kind of discount can you give me?'”
Separately, CommonSpirit Health‘s Catholic Health Initiatives (CHI) launched its own bundled cash price program in 2018 after noticing that many patients with high-deductible plans would defer care due to affordability concerns. The health system also advertises and sells its services on MDsave, an online marketplace that allows consumers to shop for health care procedures.
“With the No Surprises Act and the price transparency regulations, this has to be something that we offer,” said Jeanette Wojtalewicz, SVP and CFO at CHI Health’s Midwest division. “You’ll see more of this coming.”
The future of cash-pay systems in hospitals
According to Aaron Miri, SVP and chief digital and information officer at Baptist Health South Florida, although few patients are currently paying directly for health care services, the industry is heading towards that direction, which means health systems need to be prepared to meet the demand.
“When you look at the directionality of demand, this is only going to go up,” Miri said. “Patients are going to start seeing their total estimated bill and say, ‘I want to spend my $500 at a health system that was really transparent with me, and made me feel comfortable, versus the health system down the road that I’ve always gone to, but that simply can’t tell me what my actual amount due is.”
To make it easier for patients to directly pay for procedures, some health systems, including Baptist Health, have updated their payment options by adding Apple Pay, Google Pay, or other online payment systems instead of just accepting payment in-person or by phone.
However, even as direct payment models become more common, some insurers are “using their leverage to slow adoption of cash pay,” Tepper writes.
Kimberly Scaccia, VP of revenue management at MercyHealth, said some of the health system’s contracts with insurers prohibit it from offering cash discounts to insured patients.
“Some of the smaller payers, they’re fine with removing [cash pay restrictions],” Scaccia said. “Some of the very, very large payers, they simply will not allow it.”
In addition, Matthew Fiedler, a senior fellow of economic studies at the USC-Brookings Schaeffer Initiative for Health Policy, said clinicians may also be concerned about insurers asking to pay the lower cash rate during contract renewals or jeopardizing a provider’s network position.
“An insurer could say, ‘We’re gonna put this provider out-of-network, but we’re gonna put them in a preferred out-of-network position in our benefit design, where the cost-sharing is not that onerous, because we know they have this really good cash price,'” Fiedler said.
From the spring of 2021 through June of this year, the U.S. has been in a period of high and rising economywide price inflation. Pressures such as labor scarcities, global energy interruptions, and supply chain disruptions have made everything from consumer goods to business services more expensive. Yet, in our ongoing series of Health Sector Economic Indicators (HSEI) briefs, we have been detailing data that find, quite surprisingly, overall inflation for the health care sector—as measured by the aggregate Health Care Price Index (HCPI)—has remained in a very tight and modest range, rarely exceeding three percent year-over-year growth or falling beneath two percent growth. In our monthly briefs, we have explored how factors such as the time it takes for new contracts and reimbursement rates to take effect and recent policy changes restraining public health care costs have kept overall health care inflation well below economywide rates. As these factors continue to play out, the recently-released July price data are revealing what may be a key inflection point in Medicare and private insurance prices for health care services.
In July, the prices paid for many types of health care from these two major payer types diverged substantially. Medicare prices fell by nearly a full percentage point, putting overall Medicare services prices below the levels seen back in January 2021 (Exhibit 1). These declining Medicare prices are due to two major factors: very low or no increases in the statutory reimbursement rates for hospital care and physician services in the calendar year 2022 and the re-institution of the mandated sequestration cuts for Medicare provider payments in April and July of this year. These sequestration cuts, which had been postponed for many years since they were updated in 2011, are having a meaningful impact as seen in the chart below (click on link above). The impact of the two sequestration cuts can be seen clearly in the data, pulling down Medicare prices between March and April and then between June and July across all three major settings of care as first a 1% and then a 2% cut were put in place. Due to the fact that physician services received relatively smaller baseline increases in new Medicare rates for 2022, the sequestration cuts have pulled those price levels the lowest, down by 2.2% since January 2021. Medicare price changes for nursing homes care fall in between hospitals and physician services, down by 1.0% since January 2021.
At the same time Medicare prices are falling, the prices for similar types of care paid by private insurance increased substantially in July, up a full percentage point from the previous month and 5.4% higher than the price levels in January 2021 (Exhibit 2). We believe many of these increases are occurring as new contracts or updated rates are slowly taking effect, and further expect there may be a noticeable discrete jump in private prices beginning in 2023, as recent comments from providers and insurers are stating 2023 negotiations are generally favoring providers. We can see in the data that it appears hospitals are experiencing much higher private price growth than other components (up 7.2% since January 2021) and faster recent growth, with price levels increasing by nearly a full percentage point in each of the past three months. Physician services are the next fastest growing component, while nursing home private prices have barely moved since the beginning of 2021. Faster increases in hospital prices may indicate stronger negotiating positions for those providers, particularly given ongoing consolidation in the industry over the past ten years.
When looking at the HCPI in aggregate, these two diverging trends have been cancelling out, leading to overall moderate growth in health care prices. Yet, these detailed, by-payer data indicate that significant trends in health care prices are occurring underneath, with the long-expected increases in private prices beginning to follow overall economywide inflation trends. All else equal, these price increases in care paid by private insurance will further exacerbate an already wide gap between public and private prices. This is especially true for hospital care, where the disparity between Medicare and private prices diverged by a whopping 7.2 percentage points in the last eighteen months. The most important factors driving the trends going forward for private prices will be the extent to which overall economywide inflation slows and who has the balance of power in insurer/provider contract negotiations. For public prices, government policy decisions will continue to be most important influencer of their growth. We expect to follow all these factors and the overall impact of the diverging data on overall health sector inflation in our ongoing series of HSEI briefs through the rest of the year and into 2023.
Despite the hype, accountable care organizations (ACOs) and other Medicare-driven payment reform programs intended to improve quality and lower healthcare spending haven’t bent the cost curve to the extent many had hoped.
A recent and provocative opinion piece in STAT News, from health policy researcher Kip Sullivan and two single-payer healthcare advocates, calls for pressing pause on value-based payment experimentation. The authors argue that current attempts to pay for value have ill-defined goals and hard-to-measure quality metrics that incentivize reducing care and upcoding, rather than improving outcomes.
The Gist: We agree with the authors that current value-based care experiments have been disappointing.
The intention is good, but the execution has been bogged down by entrenched industry dynamics and slow-to-move incumbents. One fair criticism: ACOs and other “total cost management” reforms largely focus on the wrong problem. They address utilization, rather than excessive price.
But we’re having a price problem in the US, not a utilization problem.Europeans, for example, have more physician visits each year than Americans, yet spend less per-person on healthcare. It’s our high prices—for everything from physician visits to hospital stays to prescription drugs—that drive high healthcare spending.
The root cause: our third-party payer structure actively discourages real efforts to lower price—every player in the value chain, including providers, brokers, and insurers, does better economically as prices increase. That’s why price control measures like reference pricing or price caps have been nonstarters among industry participants.
Recent reforms that increase price transparency, while not the entire solution, at least shine a light on the real challenges our healthcare system faces.
HENRY KOTULA 