UnitedHealth Group’s Optum, the largest employer of physicians in the U.S., is expanding its reach in behavioral health.
The company added 45,000 therapists, psychiatrists and behavioral health providers to its network in 2023, and it has more than 430,000 behavioral health clinicians in its network overall.
Here are five things to know about Optum’s behavioral health offerings:
The company is acquiring behavioral health clinics. Optum recently picked up Care Counseling, which employs more than 200 clinicians at 10 clinics in the Minneapolis area. In 2022, Optum acquired Refresh Mental Health, which operates more than 300 outpatient sites in 37 states.
Optum’s acquisitions of behavioral health providers have helped cut wait times for patients, Optum CEO Heather Cianfrocco said in May.
“On average it takes over 50 to 60 days to get an appointment for high-quality behavioral care,” she said. “We started acquiring our own behavioral providers to be able to reduce that access issue.”
The company is also targeting in-home behavioral care. In December 2023, Amar Desai, MD, CEO of Optum Health, said the company had integrated behavioral care into its home health offerings.
“As a practicing physician, I am particularly excited that we are becoming the practice and partner of choice in the marketplace,” Dr. Desai said of the business.
Optum also administers behavioral health benefits systems for states, though it recently lost contracts to manage programs in Maryland and Idaho.
OptumRx, a pharmaceutical benefit manager, provides medication management for behavioral health, substance use disorder and other complex drugs for more than 1 million people each year.
The entities agreed to maintain services, provide capital investments and protect competition in the healthcare market.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced a settlement agreement this week reached by The Regents of the University of California and UCSF Health regarding their $100 million purchase of Dignity Health’s two San Francisco hospitals, St. Mary’s Medical Center (SMMC) and Saint Francis Memorial Hospital (SFMH).
Dignity Health is a nonprofit public benefit corporation that owns and operates SFMH, a 259-licensed-bed general acute care hospital, and SMMC, a 240-licensed-bed general acute care hospital. Both hospitals serve a diverse community, including a large number of elderly, unhoused and publicly insured patients who may rely on Medi-Cal, Medicare or charity care to access essential health services.
Under the settlement agreement approved by the San Francisco Superior Court, The Regents and UCSF Health commit to maintain services for the unhoused and Medi-Cal and Medicare beneficiaries, provide $430 million in capital investments, protect competition in the healthcare market and safeguard the affordability of and access to services for residents of San Francisco.
WHAT’S THE IMPACT
The Regents and UCSF Health agreed to a number of conditions over the next 10 years, including operating and maintaining SFMH and SMMC as licensed general acute care hospitals with the same types and levels of services, and associated staffing. They also agreed to continue participating in Medi-Cal and Medicare.
Also agreed upon was providing an annual amount of charity care at SFMH equal to or greater than $6.5 million and at SMMC equal to or greater than $3.5 million, with an annual increase of 2.4% at both hospitals.
The two entities agreed to provide an annual amount of community benefit spending for community healthcare needs at SFMH equal to or greater than $1.6 million and at SMMC equal to or greater than $10.7 million, to increase yearly by 2.4% at both hospitals.
UCSF Health and The Regents also pledged to invest at least $430 million, including at least $80 million for electronic medical record systems and related technologies, and at least $350 million in deferred maintenance and physical infrastructure improvements at both hospitals.
In addition to those agreements, they also agreed to a number of conditions over a seven-year period meant to maintain competition in the healthcare market, in part by maintaining contracts with the City and County of San Francisco for services at SFMH and SMMC unless terminated for cause.
The Regents and UCSF Health agreed to not condition medical staff privileges or contracts on the employment, contracting, affiliation, or appointment status of a physician with UCSF Health or any affiliate; not impose any requirement on any member of the hospitals’ medical staff, as a condition of either their medical staff membership or privileges that restricts them from contracting with providers other than UC Health; and negotiate all payer contracts for the hospitals separately and independently from payer contracts for UCSF Health, and maintain an information firewall between the two negotiating teams.
Finally, the two entities agreed to require, for five years, a price growth cap that limits the maximum that the hospitals may charge a payer from year to year upon renegotiation of contracts.
THE LARGER TREND
Mergers and acquisitions are expected to rebound this year after M&A activity fell to its lowest level in 10 years globally in 2023, according to Reuters.
Deal making last year was weighed down by high interest rates, economic uncertainty and a regulatory scrutiny, with all but the last factor slowly abating for renewed confidence.
Health systems put an emphasis on strategy over scale in hospital transactions announced in the second quarter of 2024, according to a July 9 report from Kaufman Hall.
“As pressure intensifies to transform the current healthcare system to bring greater value to patients and communities, the impetus for M&A activity will rely less on seeking capital in traditional ways and instead move toward new, strategic partnership models,” Anu Singh, managing director and mergers & acquisitions practice leader with Kaufman Hall, said in a July 9 news release. “Many of these M&A transactions enable hospitals to sustain and enhance access to care, launch new services, or strengthen and stabilize systems, which allows for future growth.”
Five things to know:
1. There were 11 hospital transactions announced in the second quarter of 2024, below historic Q2 averages. There were 20 hospital transactions announced in the second quarter of 2023.
2. Despite fewer overall deals, total transacted revenue in the quarter remained near historic highs at $10.8 billion.
3. Three of the 11 announced transactions involved religiously affiliated acquirers. Two involved academic or university-affiliated acquirers. The other six involved not-for-profit health system acquirers.
4. For the first time since Kaufman Hall tracked this data, there were no for-profit health system acquirers in the quarter. Kaufman Hall said in the report that this continues a trend of low for-profit buy-side activity. In the first quarter of 2024, just one of the 20 announced transactions involved a for-profit acquirer.
5. The emphasis on strategy over scale “characterized the most significant transactions of Q2 2024 and built upon trends we have been commenting on in recent past reports,” Kaufman Hall said.
Those trends are:
Pursuit of intellectual capital and new or complementary capabilities through a strategic partnership, often involving an innovative partnership model.
Focus of large regional or national systems on market reorganization and strategic realignment of their system portfolios.
The development of networks involving academic health systems and community hospital partners to sustain and enhance access to care.
Last Friday, Greensboro, NC-based Cone Health announced that it signed a definitive agreement to join Risant Health, Kaiser Permanente’s not-for-profit subsidiary.
Launched in April 2023, Risant aims to acquire and support not-for-profit health systems focused on value-based care.
If the deal is approved by regulators, Cone Health, a $2.8B not-for-profit system with five hospitals and an insurance arm, would join Danville, PA-based Geisinger as Risant’s second member.
As part of the deal, Risant will invest an undisclosed sum into Cone, but Cone will continue to operate independently, retaining its branding, leadership, and ability to work with multiple insurers. The two parties expect to close the deal in the next six months.
The Gist: Like Geisinger, Cone has a strong track record of value-based care, including a 15K-member health plan and a high-performing accountable care organization.
Neither Risant nor Kaiser has operations in North Carolina, a state currently seeing strong population growth.
Risant has previously said that is looking to acquire four or five more systems in addition to Geisinger, in order to reach a combined revenue target of $30-35B over the next five years.
The Affordable Care Act turned 14 on March 23. It has done a lot of good for a lot of people, but big changes in the law are urgently needed to address some very big misses and consequences I don’t believe most proponents of the law intended or expected.
At the top of the list of needed reforms: restraining the power and influence of the rapidly growing corporations that are siphoning more and more money from federal and state governments – and our personal bank accounts – to enrich their executives and shareholders.
I was among many advocates who supported the ACA’s passage, despite the law’s ultimate shortcomings. It broadened access to health insurance, both through government subsidies to help people pay their premiums and by banning prevalent industry practices that had made it impossible for millions of American families to buy coverage at any price. It’s important to remember that before the ACA, insurers routinely refused to sell policies to a third or more applicants because of a long list of “preexisting conditions” – from acne and heart disease to simply being overweight – and frequently rescinded coverage when policyholders were diagnosed with cancer and other diseases.
While insurance company executives were publicly critical of the law, they quickly took advantage of loopholes (many of which their lobbyists created) that would allow them to reap windfall profits in the years ahead – and they have, as you’ll see below.
I wrote and spoke frequently as an industry whistleblower about what I thought Congress should know and do, perhaps most memorably in an interview with Bill Moyers. During my Congressional testimony in the months leading up to the final passage of the bill in 2010, I told lawmakers that if they passed it without a public option and acquiesced to industry demands, they might as well call it “The Health Insurance Industry Profit Protection and Enhancement Act.”
A health plan similar to Medicare that could have been a more affordable option for many of us almost happened, but at the last minute, the Senate was forced to strip the public option out of the bill at the insistence of Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Connecticut), who died on March 27, 2024. The Senate did not have a single vote to spare as the final debate on the bill was approaching, and insurance industry lobbyists knew they could kill the public option if they could get just one of the bill’s supporters to oppose it. So they turned to Lieberman, a former Democrat who was Vice President Al Gore’s running mate in 2000 and who continued to caucus with Democrats. It worked. Lieberman wouldn’t even allow a vote on the bill if it created a public option. Among Lieberman’s constituents and campaign funders were insurance company executives who lived in or around Hartford, the insurance capital of the world. Lieberman would go on to be the founding chair of a political group called No Labels, which is trying to find someone to run as a third-party presidential candidate this year.
The work of Big Insurance and its army of lobbyists paid off as insurers had hoped. The demise of the public option was a driving force behind the record profits – and CEO pay – that we see in the industry today.
The good effects of the ACA:
Nearly 49 million U.S. residents (or 16%) were uninsured in 2010. The law has helped bring that down to 25.4 million, or 8.3% (although a large and growing number of Americans are now “functionally uninsured” because of unaffordable out-of-pocket requirements, which President Biden pledged to address in his recent State of the Union speech).
The ACA also made it illegal for insurers to refuse to sell coverage to people with preexisting conditions, which even included birth defects, or charge anyone more for their coverage based on their health status; it expanded Medicaid(in all but 10 states that still refuse to cover more low-income individuals and families); it allowed young people to stay on their families’ policies until they turn 26; and it required insurers to spend at least 80% of our premiums on the health care goods and services our doctors say we need (a well-intended provision of the law that insurers have figured out how to game).
The not-so-good effects of the ACA:
As taxpayers and health care consumers, we have paid a high price in many ways as health insurance companies have transformed themselves into massive money-making machines with tentacles reaching deep into health care delivery and taxpayers’ pockets.
To make policies affordable in the individual market, for example, the government agreed to subsidize premiums for the vast majority of people seeking coverage there, meaning billions of new dollars started flowing to private insurance companies. (It also allowed insurers to charge older Americans three times as much as they charge younger people for the same coverage.) Even more tax dollars have been sent to insurers as part of the Medicaid expansion. That’s because private insurers over the years have persuaded most states to turn their Medicaid programs over to them to administer.
We invite you to take a look at how the ascendency of health insurers over the past several years has made a few shareholders and executives much richer while the rest of us struggle despite – and in some cases because of – the Affordable Care Act.
BY THE NUMBERS
In 2010, we as a nation spent $2.6 trillion on health care. This year we will spend almost twice as much – an estimated $4.9 trillion, much of it out of our own pockets even with insurance.
In 2010, the average cost of a family health insurance policy through an employer was $13,710. Last year, the average was nearly $24,000, a 75% increase.
The ACA, to its credit, set an annual maximum on how much those of us with insurance have to pay before our coverage kicks in, but, at the insurance industry’s insistence, it goes up every year. When that limit went into effect in 2014, it was $12,700 for a family. This year, it has increased by 48%, to $18,900. That means insurers can get away with paying fewer claims than they once did, and many families have to empty their bank accounts when a family member gets sick or injured. Most people don’t reach that limit, but even a few hundred dollars is more than many families have on hand to cover deductibles and other out-of-pocket requirements. Now 100 million Americans – nearly one of every three of us – are mired in medical debt, even though almost 92% of us are presumably “covered.” The coverage just isn’t as adequate as it used to be or needs to be.
Meanwhile, insurance companies had a gangbuster 2023. The seven big for-profit U.S. health insurers’ revenues reached $1.39 trillion, and profits totaled a whopping $70.7 billion last year.
SWEEPING CHANGE, CONSOLIDATION–AND HUGE PROFITS FOR INVESTORS
Insurance company shareholders and executives have become much wealthier as the stock prices of the seven big for-profit corporations that control the health insurance market have skyrocketed.
NOTE: The Dow Jones Industrial Average is listed on this chart as a reference because it is a leading stock market index that tracks 30 of the largest publicly traded companies in the United States.
REVENUES collected by those seven companies have more than tripled (up 346%), increasing by more than $1 trillion in just the past ten years.
PROFITS (earnings from operations) have more than doubled (up 211%), increasing by more than $48 billion.
The CEOs of these companies are among the highest paid in the country. In 2022, the most recent year the companies have reported executive compensation, they collectively made $136.5 million.
U.S. HEALTH PLAN ENROLLMENT
Enrollment in the companies’ health plans is a mix of “commercial” policies they sell to individuals and families and that they manage for “plan sponsors” – primarily employers and unions – and government/enrollee-financed plans (Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare for military personnel and their dependents and the Federal Employee Health Benefits program).
Enrollment in their commercial plans grew by just 7.65% over the 10 years and declined significantly at UnitedHealth, CVS/Aetna and Humana. Centene and Molina picked up commercial enrollees through their participation in several ACA (Obamacare) markets in which most enrollees qualify for federal premium subsidies paid directly to insurers.
While not growing substantially, commercial plans remain very profitable because insurers charge considerably more in premiums now than a decade ago.
(1) The 2013 total for CVS/Aetna was reported by Aetna before its 2018 acquisition by CVS. (2) Humana announced last year it is exiting the commercial health insurance business. (3) Enrollment in the ACA’s marketplace plans account for all of Molina’s commercial business.
By contrast, enrollment in the government-financed Medicaid and Medicare Advantage programs has increased 197% and 167%, respectively, over the past 10 years.
(1) The 2013 total for CVS/Aetna was reported by Aetna before its 2018 acquisition by CVS.
Of the 65.9 million people eligible for Medicare at the beginning of 2024, 33 million, slightly more than half, enrolled in a private Medicare Advantage plan operated by either a nonprofit or for-profit health insurer, but, increasingly, three of the big for-profits grabbed most new enrollees.
Of the 1.7 million new Medicare Advantage enrollees this year, 86% were captured by UnitedHealth, Humana and Aetna.
Those three companies are the leaders in the Medicare Advantage business among the for-profit companies, and, according to the health care consulting firm Chartis, are taking over the program “at breakneck speed.”
(1) The 2013 total for CVS/Aetna was reported by Aetna before its 2018 acquisition by CVS. (2,3) Centene’s and Molina’s totals include Medicare Supplement; they do not break out enrollment in the two Medicare categories separately.
It is worth noting that although four companies saw growth in their Medicare Supplement enrollment over the decade, enrollment in Medicare Supplement policies has been declining in more recent years as insurers have attracted more seniors and disabled people into their Medicare Advantage plans.
OTHER FEDERAL PROGRAMS
In addition to the above categories, Humana and Centene have significant enrollment in Tricare, the government-financed program for the military. Humana reported 6 million military enrollees in 2023, up from 3.1 million in 2013. Centene reported 2.8 million in 2023. It did not report any military enrollment in 2013.
Elevance reported having 1.6 million enrollees in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program in 2023, up from 1.5 million in 2013. That total is included in the commercial enrollment category above.
At Cigna, Express Scripts’ pharmacy operations now contribute more than 70% to the company’s total revenues. Caremark’s pharmacy operations contribute 33% to CVS/Aetna’s total revenues, and Optum Rx contributes 31% to UnitedHealth’s total revenues.
WHAT TO DO AND WHERE TO START
The official name of the ACA is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The law did indeed implement many important patient protections, and it made coverage more affordable for many Americans.
But there is much more Congress and regulators must do to close the loopholes and dismantle the barriers erected by big insurers that enable them to pad their bottom lines and reward shareholders while making health care increasingly unaffordable and inaccessible for many of us.
Several bipartisan bills have been introduced in Congress to change how big insurers do business. They include curbing insurers’ use of prior authorization, which often leads to denials and delays of care; requiring PBMs to be more “transparent” in how they do business and banning practices many PBMs use to boost profits, including spread pricing, which contributes to windfall profits; and overhauling the Medicare Advantage program by instituting a broad array of consumer and patient protections and eliminating the massive overpayments to insurers.
And as noted above, President Biden has asked Congress to broaden the recently enacted $2,000-a-year cap on prescription drugs to apply to people with private insurance, not just Medicare beneficiaries. That one policy change could save an untold number of lives and help keep millions of families out of medical debt. (A coalition of more than 70 organizations and businesses, which I lead, supports that, although we’re also calling on Congress to reduce the current overall annual out-of-pocket maximum to no more than $5,000.)
I encourage you to tell your members of Congress and the Biden administration that you support these reforms as well as improving, strengthening and expanding traditional Medicare. You can be certain the insurance industry and its allies are trying to keep any reforms that might shrink profit margins from becoming law.
Risant Health, a nonprofit formed under Oakland, Calif.-based Kaiser Permanente, has signed a definitive agreement to acquire Greensboro, N.C.-based Cone Health.
The news comes less than three months after Risant acquired its first health system, Danville, Pa.-based Geisinger Health. If the transaction closes, Cone Health will operate independently as a regional and community-based health system under Risant, which supports organizations with technology and services to improve outcomes and lower care costs in diverse business models.“Cone Health’s impressive work for decades in moving value-based care forward aligns so well with Risant Health’s vision for the future of healthcare. Their longstanding success and deep commitment to providing high-quality care to North Carolina communities make them an ideal fit to become a part of Risant Health,” CEO, Jaewon Ryu, MD, said in a June 21 news release. “We will work together to share our industry-leading expertise and innovation to expand access to value-based care to more people in the communities we serve.”
Cone Health includes four acute-care hospitals, a behavioral health facility, three ambulatory surgery centers, eight urgent care centers and more than 120 physician practices, according to its website. It has more than 13,000 employees and over 700 physicians, along with 1,800 partner physicians. “As part of Risant Health, Cone Health will build upon its long track record of success making evidence-based health care more accessible and affordable for more people. The people across the Triad will be among the first to benefit,” Cone Health President and CEO Mary Jo Cagle, MD, said.
Cone Health will maintain its brand, name and mission, and maintain its own board, CEO and leadership team. It will continue to work with health plans, provider organizations and independent physicians. Dr. Cagle said she does not anticipate changes in the types of care Cone Health provides as a result of becoming part of Risant. The proposed transaction is subject to regulatory approvals and closing conditions.
This week’s graphic looks at the plethora of state-level mergers and acquisitions (M&A) oversight laws that are now in place, part of a recent trend that adds further scrutiny to healthcare consolidation.
Thirty-five states currently have laws that require not-for-profit healthcare entities that meet certain requirements, usually based on revenue size, to report M&A activity to state regulators. Fourteen of these states extend these requirements to for-profit healthcare entities as well.
These state laws vary in scope but generally target healthcare deals that fall below the federal reporting threshold for transaction size, updated to $119.5M in 2024.
Two states with particularly strong healthcare M&A oversight laws are Oregon and Minnesota. The Oregon Health Authority must pre-approve any healthcare transaction of at least $35M in size.
Passed in 2023, Minnesota’s healthcare antitrust law sets the deal size reporting requirements at $10M,
but the state commissioner of health and the attorney general do not have to pre-approve all healthcare mergers. Minnesota also requires merging parties to disclose extensive details on the transaction agreement, market impact, service cuts, and more to state regulators, who have broad authority to block mergers on public interest grounds.
Although some believe that these state laws will help preserve healthcare competition and access, they will increase the complexity, cost, and timeline for healthcare entities seeking to merge and could make survival for smaller providers even more difficult.
Late last week, Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) and Legacy Health, both not-for-profit health systems based in Portland, OR, shared that they had signed a definitive agreement to merge after first announcing their intent to combine last August.
The combined system would be the largest in the Portland region, with 12 hospitals and a total annual revenue of about $6.6B. As part of the deal, OHSU has promised to invest about $1B over ten years to upgrade Legacy’s facilities.
The systems are expected to apply this summer for review by Oregon’s Health Care Market Oversight Program, which was established in 2022 and has the authority to deny or attach conditions to healthcare mergers in the state.
The Gist: If finalized, this merger would connect OHSU’s academic medical center to Legacy’s network of community hospitals and clinics, as well as secure Legacy a needed capital infusion.
Next steps include review by both federal regulatory agencies and Oregon, which is among a growing number of states to implement M&A oversight laws.
Permanente grabbed everyone’s attention last year when it said it was creating Risant Health, a new and vague entity that acquired Geisinger and had plans to scoop up at least four more health systems that are focused on “value-based care.”
Well, nothing has happened since then, at least publicly. Instead, everyone has been playing the parlor game of guessing who those next systems could be. There are some rumblings that the next deal could be announced in the near future. After reading some recent hospital financial reports, it’s clear there are a handful of systems that mirror Geisinger’s shaky trajectory and could find themselves in Kaiser’s crosshairs.
But Kaiser is being very deliberate in its next targets. “The old phrase, ‘Measure twice, cut once’ — Kaiser will measure four or five times before they cut,” said Kevin Holloran, a senior director at Fitch Ratings who leads the company’s nonprofit health care group.
By picking Geisinger as its first acquisition, Kaiser has established some criteria for future Risant targets.Read my story to learn which health systems could fit the mold.
Abuses by payers are myriad, but these five areas could bear the most fruit for federal antitrust investigators.
Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Justice announced it has haunched an investigation into “issues regarding payer-provider consolidation” along with other problems associated with mergers and acquisitions in health care. This is significant. For years Washington has trained its oversight authority on pharmaceutical manufacturers, private equity investments in health care and, more recently, pharmacy benefits managers controlled by big insurers. This has held bad actors like Martin Skhreli and Steward Healthcare accountable. But, it has also let insurers grow ever larger, under the radar.
No longer.
This task force will specifically evaluate the following, as an example: “A health insurance company buys several medical practices that compete with each other. It also prohibits its medical practices from contracting with rival health insurance companies.” The government will also dig into “anticompetitive uses of health care data,” “preventing transparency,” “price fixing,” and other areas that could drag nefarious activities of insurers into the spotlight.
I applaud the Department of Justice’s continued focus on these issues, building on the Department’s action announced in February to begin an antitrust investigation into UnitedHealth Group. (If you haven’t read the piece we published in February on UnitedHealth’s self-dealing that helped lead DOJ to open that antitrust inquiry, you can do so here.) The following are a few areas of low-hanging fruit that I hope the task force will focus on as they consider the impact insurers’ ongoing vertical integration has had on the overall health care system.
1. Insurers purchasing physician practices
Once a low-profile issue, Congress and the Biden administration alike have increasingly turned their focus to insurance companies – often referred to as payers – that now own and operate physician practices and clinics – those being paid. Even for someone without a law degree, it is easy to see the conflict this creates, particularly at scale.
There is the oft-cited statistic that UnitedHealth has said that through its Optum division, the company employs or otherwise controls about 10 percent of doctors in the U.S. – around 130,000 physicians and other practitioners in 16 states. This prompted me to take a closer look at publicly available information on the number of doctors employed by other insurers to get a better handle on how much control of physician practices payers now have.
It is difficult to put a percentage on physicians employed by each insurer, but it is clear that the others are following UnitedHealth’s lead. CVS/Aetna purchased Signify Health in 2023, adding 10,000 clinicians to its portfolio. The company says it supports “more than 40,000 physicians, pharmacists, nurses and nurse practitioners.”
Clearly taking a page out of UnitedHealth’s playbook, Elevance (formerly Anthem), which owns Blue Cross Blue Shield plans in 14 states announced last month a “strategic partnership” with 900 providers across several states. Elevance did not disclose the terms of the deal except to say it, “will primarily be through a combination of cash and our equity interest in certain care delivery and enablement assets of Carelon Health.”
As insurers have acquired physician practices, they also have created a rinse-and-repeat strategy associated with kicking physicians they don’t own out of network, and in some cases targeting those same practices for acquisition. Aetna and Humana recently told investors they will be reviewing their networks of physicians, signaling they’ll soon be further narrowing their networks. A good question for this task force: when insurers review those contracts with doctors, do they ever kick the doctors they employ out of network? (Doubtful.) This could specifically draw attention from the task force’s focus on “health care contract language and other practices that restrict competition,” such as contract provisions that require or encourage patients to seek care from doctors directly employed or closely controlled by patients’ insurers.
Additionally, UnitedHealth CEO Andrew Witty recently told analysts, “As I think you see some of the funding changes play out across the — across the next few years, I suspect that may also create new opportunities for us as different companies assess their positions.” My translation:UnitedHealth’s burdensome business practices and the way it shortchanges doctors (those “funding changes” he referenced) contribute to the financial distress that is forcing many health care providers to “assess their positions.”
As the task force continues to consider the impact of private equity in health care monopolies, transactions like this one should receive equal consideration for their lack of transparency and overall impact on market consolidation.
2. Co-mingling of middlemen
I have watched with interest for over the past year as both Democrats and Republicans in Washington increasingly trained their fire on pharmacy benefit managers. The natural next area of focus in that space, which this new task force could advance, should be around how the
three PBMs that control 80 percent of market share are all combined with health insurance companies – namely CVS/Aetna (Caremark), UnitedHealth (Optum Rx), and Cigna (Express Scripts).
An important, and politically popular, area where this consolidation has played out is in the squeeze placed on small, independent pharmacists across the country. More than 300 community pharmacies have closed in the past year alone, out of an inability to operate or push back on unfair margins pushed by these PBM-insurer monopolies. As we have written here, the fees these PBMs charge have increased more than 100,000 percent over the past decade, and are quietly contributing significantly to the profits of the largest health insurers.
We still have little insight into how these business lines interact with each other, and the ultimate impact that has on patients. Given the enormous influence just three insurance companies have over what prescriptions Americans can receive, and how much should be paid for each prescription, the task force would do well to focus on what insurers and PBMs are doing behind the scenes to maximize profits and limit patient access to prescription drugs. It’s already gaining traction on Capitol Hill, with one Congressman recently saying, “I’ll continue to bust this up … this vertical integration in health care.”
3. Prior authorization requests
CVS/Aetna shares were hammered after the company reported a significant increase in payment of Medicare Advantage claims during the first three month is of this year. Expect all insurers to notice. And as they have seen their forecasts fall short of Wall Street’s expectations – particularly because of increasing scrutiny in Washington of Medicare Advantage – these corporations will look to increase their already aggressive use of prior authorization to limit claims payments.
It is not as though insurers make seeking the care you need easy. Far from it. Prior authorization has become “medical injustice disguised as paperwork,” as the New York Times said in a recent, excellent video detailing the widespread nature of this profiteering practice.
While not a stated direct focus of this task force, the increased impact of prior authorization in care delivery is a direct outgrowth of a few large health insurers effectively controlling the marketplace. As insurers directly employ more doctors and enroll more Americans in their plans, they can use prior authorization to increasingly determine whether a patient can get care, period.
Scrutiny in this space could add momentum to increasing activity in state legislatures and Washington to rein in excessive prior authorization. As of early March, nine states and the District of Columbia had passed bills to limit how far insurers could go with prior authorization. And earlier this year, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid released a final rule that is expected to save physicians $15 billion over the next decade by putting limits on insurer prior authorization tactics.
4. Rising out-of-pocket costs
Regular readers of this newsletter know one of my crusades is to ensure folks who pay good money for health insurance – out of their paychecks or through their tax dollars – can use it when they need it. It was a big win earlier this year for the Lower Out of Pockets Now coalition (which I lead) when President Biden called for a cap on prescription drug out-of-pocket costs of $2,000 annually for everybody, not just Medicare beneficiaries.
If there was true competition and real consumer choice in health insurance, payers wouldn’t be able to get away with increasingly shifting patients into high-deductible plans. But the fact that a few big players control the health insurance market has allowed the oligopoly of payers to do just that, with ever-rising deductibles alongside ever-rising premiums.
The task force’s focus on price fixing, collusion, and transparency in health care costs will, I hope, include some focus on how insurers use their size and clout to drive up out-of-pocket costs and premiums simultaneously – with little recourse to employers or their employees.
5. Implementing crystal clear laws and rules in health care
You know you’re a monopoly or close to it when you can pretty much do whatever you want and get away with it. Look no further than America’s health insurance companies and implementation of the No Surprises Act.
As I wrote earlier this year, Congress and CMS have been clear about how out-of-network hospital bills should be negotiated between insurers and physicians. Yet in case after case, including many that have become the basis of lawsuits, insurers are clearly flouting the Act passed by Congress and the rules promulgated by CMS. Payers are doing this, doctors have said, simply because of their size and ability to weather criticism from physicians, regulators, and the courts – while doctors struggle to pay their bills with significant payments still owed pending out-of-network negotiations with insurers.
One would hope, at a minimum, this task force, focused on rooting out the ills of monopolies, would document how insurers are well aware of how they are supposed to implement legislation like the No Surprises Act, but flout it anyway.
HENRY KOTULA 