In their latest article scrutinizing the MA program, New York Times reporters Reed Abelson and Margot Sanger-Katz highlight MA marketing practices brought to light in a recent report from the Senate Finance Committee. Complaints to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) about MA marketing more than doubled from 2020 to 2021, as agents and brokers took advantage of oversight rules relaxed during the Trump administration. Some of the most egregious alleged abuses include agents switching seniors into new plans without their consent and exploiting individuals with cognitive impairments.
The Gist: Media interest is finally catching up to the building legislative and regulatory pressure on Medicare Advantage. While earlier reporting has highlighted how plans can inflate payments from Medicare, this new story shows how the process of selecting a plan can be fraught for the seniors enrolled.
Plan design is confusing even for industry insiders, so it is no surprise that seniors might find themselves ‘choosing’ plans that omit key providers, or even drug coverage they already rely on, particularly after being badgered or misled by agents and brokers.
Many of the regulatory fixes highlighted in the report can be implemented directly by CMS, but insurers, who remember the managed care backlash of the 90s, shouldn’t wait to tighten the reins on questionable marketing practices, lest they risk losing public support for one of their most lucrative business lines.
Cross-subsidy economics are increasingly challenged for America’s hospitals. Aging Baby Boomers are moving from commercial insurance to Medicare, decreasing the share of patients with lucrative private coverage, and insurers are increasingly reticent to provide the rate increases providers need to make up for the worsening mix.
At a recent executive retreat, one health system debated the best strategies to increase their capture of commercial volume. Most of the conversation focused on traditional market-based tactics to increase access and awareness in fast-growing, higher income areas of their service region.
For instance, the system’s chief marketing officer was pushing to increase advertising in the rapidly expanding suburbs, and advocated building ambulatory surgery centers in a wealthy area of town with a boom of new home construction.
The chief strategy officer shared a different perspective, supporting an employer-focused strategy. His logic: “In most businesses,the CEO and the janitor have the same benefit plans. If we only focus on the wealthy parts of town, we’re missing a big portion of the workers with good insurance.” He advocated for a new round of direct-to-employer contracting outreach, hoping to steer workers to high-value primary and specialty care solutions.
In reality, any system looking to move commercial share will need to do both—but even the best playbook for building commercial volume is unlikely to close the growing cross-subsidy gap. To maintain profitability in the long term, health systems must reduce costs for managing Medicare patients by delivering lower-cost care in lower-cost settings, with lower-cost staff.
It’s long been accepted as a truism that “moms” make most of a family’s healthcare choices. This has led many health systems to invest in high-end women’s services, especially labor and delivery facilities, with the hope of winning the entire family’s long-term healthcare loyalty.
This conventional wisdom has existed since the middle of the last century, when the postwar Baby Boom coincided with the rise of commercial insurance. But it’s hard to find real evidence that these investments deliver on their intent—and we think the argument deserves to be reexamined.
An expectant mother is likely years away from her family’s major healthcare spending events. Giving her a fantastic virtual care experience, or taking great care of her teenager who blows out a knee playing soccer, is likely to engender greater loyalty to the health system when she’s looking for her first mammogram, than her labor and delivery experience from a decade earlier. That’s not to say that top-notch obstetrics isn’t important—but market-leading labor and delivery facilities are likely more critical for wholesale purchasers, such as an employer considering a narrow network, or for physicians choosing where to build an OB practice.
Direct-to-consumer strategies should be built on more sophisticated consumer research that takes into account the preferences of a new generation of consumers, for whom not all healthcare choices are equal—that same consumer will be in different “segments” and make different choices for different problems over time, not all pre-determined by one memorable birthing experience.