This is National Hospital week. It comes at a critical time for hospitals:
The U.S. economy is strong but growing numbers in the population face financial insecurity and economic despair. Increased out-of-pocket costs for food, fuel and housing (especially rent) have squeezed household budgets and contributed to increased medical debt—a problem in 41% of U.S. households today. Hospital bills are a factor.
The capital market for hospitals is tightening: interest rates for debt are increasing, private investments in healthcare services have slowed and valuations for key sectors—hospitals, home care, physician practices, et al—have dropped. It’s a buyer’s market for investors who hold record assets under management (AUM) but concerns about the harsh regulatory and competitive environment facing hospitals persist. Betting capital on hospitals is a tough call when other sectors appear less risky.
Utilization levels for hospital services have recovered from pandemic disruption and operating margins are above breakeven for more than half but medical inflation, insurer reimbursement, wage increases and Medicare payment cuts guarantee operating deficits for all. Complicating matters, regulators are keen to limit consolidation and force not-for-profits to justify their tax exemptions. Not a pretty picture.
And, despite all this, the public’s view of hospitals remains positive though tarnished by headlines like these about Steward Health’s bankruptcy filing last Monday:
The public is inclined to hold hospitals in high regard, at least for the time being. When asked how much trust and confidence they have in key institutions to “to develop a plan for the U.S. health system that maximizes what it has done well and corrects its major flaws,” consumers prefer for solutions physicians and hospitals over others but over half still have reservations:
A Great Deal
Some
Not Much/None
Health Insurers
18%
43%
39%
Hospitals
27%
52%
21%
Physicians
32%
53%
15%
Federal Government
14%
42%
44%
Retail Health Org’s
21%
51%
28%
The American Hospital Association (AHA) is rightfully concerned that hospitals get fair treatment from regulators, adequate reimbursement from Medicare and Medicaid and protection against competitors that cherry-pick profits from the health system.
It can rightfully assert that declining operating margins in hospitals are symptoms of larger problems in the health system: flawed incentives, inadequate funding for preventive and primary care, the growing intensity of chronic diseases, medical inflation for wages, drugs, supplies and technologies, the dominance of ‘Big Insurance’ whose revenues have grown 12.1% annually since the pandemic and more. And it can correctly prove that annual hospital spending has slowed since the pandemic from 6.2% (2019) to 2.2% (2022) in stark contrast to prescription drugs (up from 4% to 8.4% and insurance costs (from -5.4% to +8.5%). Nonetheless, hospital costs, prices and spending are concerns to economists, regulators and elected officials.
National health spending data illustrate the conundrum for hospitals: relative to the overall CPI, healthcare prices and spending—especially outpatient hospital services– are increasing faster than prices and spending in other sectors and it’s getting attention: that’s problematic for hospitals at a time when 5 committees in Congress and 3 Cabinet level departments have their sights set on regulatory changes that are unwelcome to most hospitals.
My take:
The U.S. market for healthcare spending is growing—exceeding 5% per year through the next decade. With annual inflation targeted to 2.0% by the Fed and the GDP expected to grow 3.5-4.0% annually in the same period, something’s gotta’ give. Hospitals represent 30.4% of overall spending today (virtually unchanged for the past 5 years) and above 50% of total spending when their employed physicians and outside activities are included, so it’s obvious they’ll draw attention.
Today, however, most are consumed by near-term concerns– reimbursement issues with insurers, workforce adequacy and discontent, government mandates– and few have the luxury to look 10-20 years ahead.
I believe hospitals should play a vital role in orchestrating the health system’s future and the role they’ll play in it. Some will be specialty hubs. Some will operate without beds. Some will be regional. Some will close. And all will face increased demands from regulators, community leaders and consumers for affordable, convenient and effective whole-person care.
For most hospitals, a decision to invest and behave as if the future is a repeat of the past is a calculated risk. Others with less stake in community health and wellbeing and greater access to capital will seize this opportunity and, in the process, disable hospitals might play in the process.
Near-term reactive navigation vs. long-term proactive orchestration–that’s the crossroad in front of hospitals today. Hopefully, during National Hospital Week, it will get the attention it needs in every hospital board room and C suite.
PS: Last week, I wrote about the inclination of the 18 million college kids to protest against the healthcare status quo (“Is the Health System the Next Target for Campus Unrest?” The Keckley Report May 6, 2024 www.paulkeckley.com). This new survey caught my attention:
According to the Generation Lab’s survey of 1250 college students released last week, healthcare reform is a concern. When asked to choose 3 “issues most important to you” from its list of 13 issues, healthcare reform topped the list. The top 5:
Health Reform (40%)
Education Funding and access (38%)
Economic fairness and opportunity (37%)
Social justice and civil rights (36%)
Climate change (35%)
If college kids today are tomorrow’s healthcare workforce and influencers to their peers, addressing the future of health system with their input seems shortsighted. Most hospital boards are comprised of older adults—community leaders, physicians, et al.
And most of the mechanisms hospitals use to assess their long-term sustainability is tethered to assumptions about an aging population and Medicare.
College kids today are sending powerful messages about the society in which they aspire to be a part. They’re tech savvy, independent politically and increasingly spiritual but not religious. And the health system is on their radar.
With the South Carolina Republican primary results in over the weekend, it seems a Biden-Trump re-match is inevitable. Given the legacies associated with Presidencies of the two and the healthcare platforms espoused by their political parties, the landscape for healthcare politics seems clear:
Healthcare Issue
Biden Policy
Trump Policy
Access to Abortion
‘It’s a basic right for women protected by the Federal Government’
‘It’s up to the states and should be safe and rare. A 16-week ban should be the national standard.’
Ageism
‘President Biden is alert and capable. It’s a non-issue.’
‘President Biden is senile and unlikely to finish a second term is elected. President Trump is active and prepared.’
Access to IVF Treatments
‘It’s a basic right and should be universally accessible in every state and protected’
‘It’s a complex issue that should be considered in every state.’
Affordability
‘The system is unaffordable because it’s dominated by profit-focused corporations. It needs increased regulation including price controls.’
‘The system is unaffordable to some because it’s overly regulated and lacks competition and price transparency.’
Access to Health Insurance Coverage
‘It’s necessary for access to needed services & should be universally accessible and affordable.’
‘It’s a personal choice. Government should play a limited role.’
Public health
‘Underfunded and increasingly important.’
‘Fragmented and suboptimal. States should take the lead.’
Drug prices
‘Drug companies take advantage of the system to keep prices high. Price controls are necessary to lower costs.’
‘Drug prices are too high. Allowing importation and increased price transparency are keys to reducing costs.’
Medicare
‘It’s foundational to seniors’ wellbeing & should be protected. But demand is growing requiring modernization (aka the value agenda) and additional revenues (taxes + appropriations).’
‘It’s foundational to senior health & in need of modernization thru privatization. Waste and fraud are problematic to its future.’
Medicaid
‘Medicaid Managed Care is its future with increased enrollment and standardization of eligibility & benefits across states.’
‘Medicaid is a state program allowing modernization & innovation. The federal role should be subordinate to the states.’
Competition
‘The federal government (FTC, DOJ) should enhance protections against vertical and horizontal consolidation that reduce choices and increase prices in every sector of healthcare.’
‘Current anti-trust and consumer protections are adequate to address consolidation in healthcare.’
Price Transparency
‘Necessary and essential to protect consumers. Needs expansion.’
‘Necessary to drive competition in markets. Needs more attention.’
The Affordable Care Act
‘A necessary foundation for health system modernization that appropriately balances public and private responsibilities. Fix and Repair’
‘An unnecessary government takeover of the health system that’s harmful and wasteful. Repeal and Replace.’
Role of federal government
‘The federal government should enable equitable access and affordability. The private sector is focused more on profit than the public good.’
‘Market forces will drive better value. States should play a bigger role’
My take:
Polls indicate Campaign 2024 will be decided based on economic conditions in the fall 2024 as voters zero in on their choice. Per KFF’s latest poll, 74% of adults say an unexpected healthcare bill is their number-one financial concern—above their fears about food, energy and housing. So, if you’re handicapping healthcare in Campaign 2024, bet on its emergence as an economic issue, especially in the swing states (Michigan, Florida, North Carolina, Georgia and Arizona) where there are sharp health policy differences and the healthcare systems in these states are dominated by consolidated hospitals and national insurers.
Three issues will be the primary focus of both campaigns: women’s health and access to abortion, affordability and competition. On women’s health, there are sharp differences; on affordability and competition, the distinctions between the campaigns will be less clear to voters. Both will opine support for policy changes without offering details on what, when and how.
The Affordable Care Act will surface in rhetoric contrasting a ‘government run system’ to a ‘market driven system.’ In reality, both campaigns will favor changes to the ACA rather than repeal.
Both campaigns will voice support for state leadership in resolving abortion, drug pricing and consolidation. State cost containment laws and actions taken by state attorneys general to limit hospital consolidation and private equity ownership will get support from both campaigns.
Neither campaign will propose transformative policy changes: they’re too risky. integrating health & social services, capping total spending, reforms of drug patient laws, restricting tax exemptions for ‘not for profit’ hospitals, federalizing Medicaid, and others will not be on the table. There’s safety in promoting populist themes (price transparency, competition) and steering away from anything more.
As the primary season wears on (in Michigan tomorrow and 23 others on/before March 5), how the health system is positioned in the court of public opinion will come into focus.
Abortion rights will garner votes; affordability, price transparency, Medicare solvency and system consolidation will emerge as wedge issues alongside.
PS: Re: federal budgeting for key healthcare agencies, two deadlines are eminent: March 1 for funding for the FDA and the VA and March 8 for HHS funding.
Jayne Kleinman is bombarded with Medicare Advantage promotions every open enrollment period — even though she has no interest in leaving traditional Medicare, which allows seniors to choose their doctors and get the care they want without interference from multi-billion-dollar insurance companies.
“My biggest problem with being barraged is that so many of the ads were inaccurate,” Kleinman, a retired social services professional in New Haven County, Connecticut, told HEALTH CARE un-covered.
“They neglect to say that the amount of coverage you get is limited. They don’t talk about what you are losing by leaving traditional Medicare. It feels like insurance companies are manipulating us to get Medicare Advantage plans sold so that they can control the system, as opposed to treating us like human beings.”
Seniors face a torrent of Medicare Advantage advertising: an analysis by KFF found 9,500 daily TV ads during open enrollment in 2022. A recent survey by the Commonwealth Fund found that 30% of seniors received seven or more phone calls weekly from Medicare Advantage marketers during the most recent open enrollment (Oct. 15 to Dec. 7) for 2024 coverage.
In 2023, a critical milestone was passed: over half of seniors are now enrolled in privatized Medicare Advantage plans. The marketing for these plans nearly always fails to mention how hard it is to return to traditional Medicare once you are in Medicare Advantage, and that the MA plans have closed provider networks and require prior authorization for medical procedures. Instead, the marketing emphasizes the fringe benefits offered by Medicare Advantage plans like gym memberships.
U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, criticized the widespread and predatory marketing of Medicare Advantage in a report in November 2022 and has continued to pressure the Biden administration to do more to address the problem.
The report said that consumer complaints about Medicare Advantage marketing more than doubled from 2020 to 2021 to 41,000. It cites cases such as that of an Oregon man whose switch to Medicare Advantage meant he could no longer afford his prescription drugs, as well as a 94-year-old woman with dementia in a rural area who bought a Medicare Advantage plan that required her to obtain care miles further from her residence than she had to travel before.
When open enrollment began last fall, it was “the start of a marketing barrage as marketing middlemen look to collect seniors’ information in order to bombard them with direct mail, emails, and phone calls to get them to enroll,” Wyden stated in a letter to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), which was signed by the other Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee.
Just three weeks after Wyden sent the letter, CMS released a proposed rule reforming Medicare Advantage practices that the main lobby group for Medicare Advantage plans, the Better Medicare Alliance, endorsed.
But key recommendations by Wyden were missing, including a ban on list acquisition by Medicare Advantage third-party marketing organizations, which includes brokers, and banning brokers that call beneficiaries multiple times a day for days in a row.
Among the prominent third-party marketing organizations is TogetherHealth, a subsidiary of Benefytt Technologies, which runs ads featuring former football star Joe Namath.
In August 2022, the Federal Trade Commission forced Benefytt to repay $100 million for fraudulent activities. The month before, the Securities and Exchange Commission levied more than $12 million in fines against Benefytt.
But CMS continues to allow Benefytt to work as a broker. Benefytt is owned by Madison Dearborn Partners, a Chicago-based private equity firm with ties to former Chicago mayor and current Ambassador to Japan Rahm Emanuel. Benefytt collects leads on potential customers, which they then sell to brokers and insurers to aggressively target seniors. CMS did not provide comment as to why they had not blocked Benefytt’s continuing work as a third-party marketing organization for Medicare.
Two different rounds of rule-making on Medicare Advantage marketing in 2023 instead focused on such reforms as reining in exaggerated claims and excessive broker compensation.
The enormous profits generated by Medicare Advantage plans — costing the federal government as much as $140 billion annually in overpayments to private companies — explains what drives the aggressive and often unethical marketing practices, said David Lipschutz, an associate director at the Center for Medicare Advocacy.
“The fact is, there is an increasingly imbalanced playing field between Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare,” he said. “Medicare Advantage is being favored in many ways. Medicare Advantage plans are paid more than what traditional Medicare spends on a given beneficiary.
Those factors combined with the fact that they generate such profits for insurance companies, leads to those companies doing everything they can to maximize enrollment.”
Adding to the problem, Lipschutz argued, was the enormous influence of the health insurance industry in Washington. Health insurers spent more than $33 million lobbying Washington in just the first three quarters of 2023 alone.
“There is no real organized lobby for traditional Medicare, or organized advertising efforts,” he said. “During open enrollment, 80% of Medicare-related ads have to do with Medicare Advantage. We regularly encounter very well-educated and savvy folks who are tripped up by advertising and lured in by the bells and whistles. The deck is stacked against the consumer.”
Private equity firms have made a large investment in the Medicare Advantage brokerage and marketing sector, in addition to Madison Dearborn’s acquisition of Benefytt. Bain Capital, which Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) co-founded, invested $150 million in Enhance Health, a Medicare Advantage broker, in 2021.
The CEO of EasyHealth, another private equity-backed brokerage, toldModern Healthcare in 2021 that “Insurance distribution is our Trojan horse into healthcare services.”
As federal law requires truth in advertising, a group of advocacy organizations–led by the Center for Medicare Advocacy, Disability Rights Connecticut, and the National Health Law Project–cited what they considered blatantly deceptive marketing by UnitedHealthcare to people who are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid, in a complaint to CMS.
UnitedHealthcare had purchased ads in the Hartford Courant asking seniors in large bold-faced type: “Eligible for Medicare and Medicaid? You could get more with UnitedHealthcare.”
People who are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid due to their income level are better off in traditional Medicare than Medicare Advantage given that Medicaid covers their out-of-pocket costs, meaning that they have wide latitude to choose their doctors, hospitals and medical procedures.
Sheldon Toubman, an attorney with Disability Rights Connecticut who worked to draft the complaint, framed the ad in the broader context of poor marketing practices by the Medicare Advantage industry.
“I have been aware for a long time of basically fraudulent advertising in the MA insurance industry,” Toubman told HEALTH CARE un-covered. “There’s an overriding misrepresentation — they tell you how great Medicare Advantage is, and never the downsides.
“There are two big downsides of going out of traditional Medicare:
They don’t tell you that you give up the broad Medicare provider network, which has nearly every doctor. And should you need expensive medical care in Medicare Advantage, you will learn there are prior authorization requirements. Traditional Medicare does almost no prior authorization, so you don’t have that obstacle. They don’t ever tell you any of that,” he said.
But it is marketing to dual-eligible individuals that is arguably the most problematic, Toubman argued. “They have Medicare and they are also low income. Because they are low-income, they also have Medicaid.
“Medicaid is a broader program — it covers a lot of things that Medicare doesn’t cover.
In Connecticut, 92,000 dual-eligible seniors have been ‘persuaded’ to sign up for Medicare Advantage. What’s outrageous about the marketing is they get you to sign up by offering extra services. … If you look at the ad in the Hartford Courant, it says you could get more, with the only real benefit being $130 per month toward food. But you now have this problem of a more limited provider network and prior authorization. UnitedHealth is doing false advertising.”
It’s a nationwide problem, Toubman said. “All insurers are doing this everywhere. We’re asking CMS and the Federal Trade Commission to conduct a nationwide investigation of this kind of problem. The failure to tell people that they give up their broader Medicare network — they don’t tell anybody that.”
For Jayne Kleinman, the unending ads are about one thing only: insurance industry profits. “Medicare Advantage has been strictly based on the people who make millions of dollars at the top of the company making more,” she said. “It’s all about money, not about you as an individual. Every time I saw an ad I’d get angry every single time — because I felt they were misleading people. The Medicare Advantage insurers are trying to scam people out of an interest of making money.”
The new year dawned on a health insurance industry beset by challenges.
Only 7% of health plan executives view 2024 positively after being hammered by the coronavirus pandemic, regulatory turbulence and rising cost pressures, according to a Deloitte survey.
Costs are spiking, and health insurers remain uncertain how the lingering effects of COVID-19 will impact care utilization. Medicaid redeterminations are rewriting the coverage landscape state by state, while Medicare Advantage — the darling of payers’ business sheets — experiences significant regulatory upheaval.
Meanwhile, 2024 is a presidential election year. That’s adding more political uncertainty into the picture as Washington hammers payers over claims denials and the business practices of pharmacy benefit units.
Here’s what experts see coming down the pike for health insurers this year.
The uninsured rate will go up
The number of Americans without insurance coverage is almost certainly going to rise this year as states overhaul their Medicaid rolls, experts say.
During the pandemic, continuous enrollment protections led a record number of people to enroll in Medicaid. But earlier this year, states resumed checking eligibility for the safety-net program. Around 14.4 million Americans have been removed from Medicaid due to the redeterminations process, many for administrative reasons like incorrect paperwork despite remaining eligible.
“We are going to see an increase in the uninsured rate for children and probably adults as well as a consequence,” said Joan Alker, executive director of the Georgetown University Center for Children and Families.
The question is how big of an increase, experts said. Redeterminations began in April, but lagging information and state differences in data reporting has made it difficult to determine where individuals are turning for coverage, and in what numbers.
Early signs suggest some people losing Medicaid have found plans in the Affordable Care Act exchanges, though it’s probably “a very small percentage,” Alker said. More than 20 million people have signed up for ACA coverage since open enrollment began in November — an all-time high, according to data released by the Biden administration in early January.
Experts say the growth is due in part to redeterminations, along with the effects of more generous federal subsidies. Those subsidies are slated to expire in 2025, meaning ACA enrollment should stay elevated until then.
But it’s unlikely everyone who loses Medicaid will find a home on the marketplaces. The cost of family coverage without an employer remains out of reach for many Americans. It’s also too early to determine how many people terminated from Medicaid have shifted into employer coverage — that data should also emerge as 2024 continues, said Matt Fiedler, a senior fellow with the Brookings Schaeffer Initiative on Health Policy.
Federal regulators have also taken a number of actions to try and curb improper procedural Medicaid losses, like cracking down on states with high levels of child disenrollments. Yet, procedural terminations are unlikely to improve significantly this year, experts said.
“We do see a very hopeful trend” in some states, like Washington and Oregon, embracing longer periods of continuous eligibility, Alker noted.
The government has ramped up ACA marketplace outreach, which — along with macro forces like a strong labor market — are positive signs that individuals no longer eligible for Medicaid may find alternative coverage, whether in the ACA exchanges or through employment.
But “it’s likely we’ll see an increase in the uninsured rate. I think the question is how much,” Fiedler said.
Increasing vigilance around costs
Healthcare costs are projected to grow much faster in 2024 than the historical average, fueled by inflation, supply chain disruption and labor pressures increasing provider wages. Those costs are burdening employers already stressed by worker mental health and deferred preventive screenings that could worsen health conditions down the line.
As a result, employers are investing heavily in mental health and substance use disorder services. Seven out of ten employers say mental healthcare access is a priority in 2024, and employers say they’ll turn to virtual care providers to address the need, according to a Business Group on Health survey.
As a result, employers are increasingly demanding integrated platforms combining different benefits, continuing a pivot away from the point solutions they were deluged with during the pandemic. Payers are racing to meet that need.
This year, UnitedHealthcare plans to integrate more than 20 standalone products into a “supported benefits platform,” said Dan Kueter, CEO of the payer’s employer and individual business, during an investor day in November.
Cigna, which focuses on employer-sponsored plans, plans to add more services to its behavioral health navigator to help employers personalize the platform for their employees this year, said CEO David Cordani during a November earnings call.
For their part, health insurers are likely to raise premiums and combat hospital reimbursement hikes in 2024 to control costs, according to credit rating agency Fitch Ratings.
However, that outlook is complicated by uncertainty around how much elevated care utilization seen in 2023 will continue. Some payers, like UnitedHealth and Humana, are forecasting high utilization, while others like CVS have said they expect it to drop.
More payers might pursue mergers and acquisitions or build out internal musculoskeletal management programs to control costs, said Prateesh Maheshwari, a managing director at venture capital firm Maverick Ventures. Hip and knee surgeries were an oft-cited driver of utilization last year.
Still, publicly traded health insurance companies could see their margins moderately decrease in 2024, Fitch said.
GLP-1 coverage will increase — slowly
Surging demand for GLP-1s means insurance coverage for the drugs is expected to increase next year, putting more stress on the nation’s pressured healthcare payment system. GLP-1s, or glucagon-like peptide-1 drugs, have historically been used to treat diabetes but have shown efficacy in weight loss.
The drugs are exceedingly expensive, butthat hasn’t stopped peoplefrom trying to get theirhands on GLP-1s — off-label or not. TD Cowen predicts GLP-1 sales could reach $102 billion by 2030, with $41 billion of that for obesity.
More private payers are considering covering the drugs next year, though the doors to coverage aren’t being thrown wide open. According to a November survey by the International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans, while 76% of employers provide GLP-1 drug coverage for diabetes, just 27% provide coverage for weight loss.
Yet, 13% are considering adding coverage for weight loss.
As insurance coverage increases, payers will ensure only eligible patients are accessing the drugs through checks like step therapy, said Nathan Ray, head of healthcare M&A at consultancy West Monroe. As a result, access could remain restricted.
Payers will also tie coverage for GLP-1s to additional behavioral management programs. That trend has proved a gold rush for chronic condition management companies and telehealth providers, which have rushed to stand up new business lines for weight loss that include GLP-1s.
“Things like this, that include the opportunity for medication along with the accompaniment of behavioral change, is where I think the market will go in 2024,” said Heather Dlugolenski, Cigna’s U.S. commercial strategy officer.
Proponents of weight loss medication are also eyeing a potential overturn of the ban on Medicare coverage of weight loss drugs next year. A growing number of lawmakers (and drugmakers standing to profit from Medicare coverage) have come out in support of a bill introduced in 2023 to allow Medicare to cover anti-obesity drugs.
The bill is unlikely to be prioritized given Washington has a lot on its plate during the election year, but passage isn’t out of the realm of possibility, experts said.
Medicare Advantage will continue to grow under Washington’s watchful eye
In MA, the government contracts with private insurers to manage the care of Medicare seniors. MA has become increasingly popular, swelling to cover 31 million people last year — a boon for insurers offering the coverage, which can be twice as profitable for private payers than other types of plans.
As such, MA plans have been advertising heavily, trumpeting their supplemental benefits like gym memberships or subsidized groceries. Seniors find those benefits attractive, Brookings’ Fiedler said, and may not understand that MA plans may not cover as much medical care as traditional Medicare.
”My best bet would be MA enrollment in the near term continues to grow,” Fiedler said. “I don’t think we’re at the ceiling yet.”
Despite elevated costs in 2023 from seniors using more medical care, insurers generally didn’t cut back on plan benefits this year as they continue to compete for members.
Yet, the program hasn’t been without its complications. Payers cried foul last year over tweaks to MA rates, star ratings and reimbursement audits, with Humana and Elevance suing to stop the changes.
MA “should remain a key long-term growth driver for managed care, but we see a more challenging setup in 2024 as weaker funding, risk coding changes, and lower Star ratings combine to pressure margins,” J.P. Morgan analysts wrote in an outlook report published late last year.
Insurers were also plagued in 2023 by congressional hearings and lawsuits over their claims reviews processes, sparking criticism that seniors may not be receiving the care they’re due.
Scrutiny from Washington around such practices is likely to continue.
“We are seeing both in the Senate and House a lot of interest in peeling back the layers of the onion of how big health plans are operating their Medicare Advantage programs. That’s going to continue to be an issue,” said Reed Stephens, a healthcare chair at law firm Winston & Strawn who focuses on risk.
Though it’s unlikely that legislation will be passed reforming MA, Reed said. Overall, regulatory and political turbulence should subside somewhat this year.
The rate and marketing changes were “short of the last train out of the station,” said Brookings’ Fiedler. “The administration is unlikely to want a big fight with MA plans in an election year.”
The Mark Cuban effect: Payers with PBMs will launch more ‘transparent’ options
Major pharmacy benefit managers will introduce more options billed as transparent and cost-effective to retain clients after some turned to upstart competitors last year.
PBM clients are clamoring for outcomes-based pricing, with structures tying PBM compensation to measures like adherence, according to a J.P. Morgan survey from late 2023. Clients also want transparency, whether more data sharing or full administration models.
The changes aren’t revolutionary, but they hint at ongoing distrust of major PBMs from benefits teams, J.P. Morgan said.
UnitedHealth’s Optum Rx, Cigna’s Express Scripts and CVS Caremark — which together control 80% of prescriptions in the U.S. — have all recently launched new programs, partnerships or models they say are more affordable and transparent to meet the demand.
The industry is likely to see more moves along those lines in 2024, experts say — especially as Congress considers legislation to reform PBMs. The Lower Costs, More Transparency Act passed the House in December. The bill is seen as unlikely to clear the Senate, but specific measures, like forced PBM transparency, could make it into larger legislative packages.
The passing of measures around transparency could satisfy politicians’ need for a win when it comes to drug pricing without creating meaningful reform in the sector, according to Jefferies analyst Brian Tanquilut.
Yet, momentum to do something about high drug costs will certainly carry into this year. Presidential candidates on both sides of the aisle are expected to wield the issue on the campaign trail.
“The companies in those markets are going to have to stay nimble and keep on their toes,” said Winston & Strawn’s Stephens.
M&A, especially vertical integration, carries on
Companies like UnitedHealth, CVS and Humana will continue building out networks of physical care sites in 2024. New M&A guidelines from the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission could raise the bar for merger approvals, but the value proposition for insurers to acquire healthcare providers is too high for them to be dissuaded, experts said.
Payers will continue to pursue as many deals “as they can find willing, available targets,” said West Monroe’s Ray.
By directing members to owned locations for medical needs, health insurers can essentially pay themselves for providing a service, keeping more revenue in-house. As a result, payers — especially those with a large presence in MA, which incentivizes organizations to better manage cost — will stay on the hunt for acquisition targets.
While healthcare M&A was relatively slow in 2023, 68% of senior leaders in the sector expect deal volume to rise in 2024, according to a survey by investment bank Jefferies.
Optum — which employs or is affiliated with around one-tenth of all doctors in the U.S. — is already eyeing M&A. The health services arm of UnitedHealth is currently pursuing an acquisition of a physician-owned clinic chain in Oregon, even as it comes off a number of big provider buys in 2023, including the multi-billion-dollar acquisitions of home health providers Amedisys and LHC Group.
Cigna has also said it plans to look for smaller strategic acquisitions to grow its business, after a potential merger with rival Humana crumbled late last year.
A new perspective on how technology, transformation efforts, and other changes have affected payers, health systems, healthcare services and technology, and pharmacy services.
The acute strain from labor shortages, inflation, and endemic COVID-19 on the healthcare industry’s financial health in 2022 is easing. Much of the improvement is the result of transformation efforts undertaken over the last year or two by healthcare delivery players, with healthcare payers acting more recently. Even so, health-system margins are lagging behind their financial performance relative to prepandemic levels. Skilled nursing and long-term-care profit pools continue to weaken. Eligibility redeterminations in a strong employment economy have hurt payers’ financial performance in the Medicaid segment. But Medicare Advantage and individual segment economics have held up well for payers.
As we look to 2027, the growth of the managed care duals population (individuals who qualify for both Medicaid and Medicare) presents one of the most substantial opportunities for payers. On the healthcare delivery side, financial performance will continue to rebound as transformation efforts, M&A, and revenue diversification bear fruit. Powered by adoption of technology, healthcare services and technology (HST) businesses, particularly those that offer measurable near-term improvements for their customers, will continue to grow, as will pharmacy services players, especially those with a focus on specialty pharmacy.
Below, we provide a perspective on how these changes have affected payers, health systems, healthcare services and technology, and pharmacy services, and what to expect in 2024 and beyond.
The fastest growth in healthcare may occur in several segments
We estimate that healthcare profit pools will grow at a 7 percent CAGR, from $583 billion in 2022 to $819 billion in 2027. Profit pools continued under pressure in 2023 due to high inflation rates and labor shortages; however, we expect a recovery beginning in 2024, spurred by margin and cost optimization and reimbursement-rate increases.
Several segments can expect higher growth in profit pools:
Within payer, Medicare Advantage, spurred by the rapid increase in the duals population; the group business, due to recovery of margins post-COVID-19 pandemic; and individual
Within health systems, outpatient care settings such as physician offices and ambulatory surgery centers, driven by site-of-care shifts
Within HST, the software and platforms businesses (for example, patient engagement and clinical decision support)
Within pharmacy services, with specialty pharmacy continuing to experience rapid growth
On the other hand, some segments will continue to see slow growth, including general acute care and post-acute care within health systems, and Medicaid within payers (Exhibit 1).
Several factors will likely influence shifts in profit pools. Two of these are:
Change in payer mix. Enrollment in Medicare Advantage, and particularly the duals population, will continue to grow. Medicare Advantage enrollment has grown historically by 9 percent annually from 2019 to 2022; however, we estimate the growth rate will reduce to 5 percent annually from 2022 to 2027, in line with the latest Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) enrollment data.1 Finally, the duals population enrolled in managed care is estimated to grow at more than a 9 percent CAGR from 2022 through 2027.
We also estimate commercial segment profit pools to rebound as EBITDA margins likely return to historical averages by 2027. Growth is likely to be partially offset by enrollment changes in the segment, prompted by a shift from fully insured to self-insured businesses that could accelerate as employers seek to cut costs if the economy slows. Individual segment profit pools are estimated to expand at a 27 percent CAGR from 2022 to 2027 as enrollment rises, propelled by enhanced subsidies, Medicaid redeterminations, and other potential favorable factors (for example, employer conversions through the Individual Coverage Health Reimbursement Arrangement offered by the Affordable Care Act); EBITDA margins are estimated to improve from 2 percent in 2022 to 5 to 7 percent in 2027. On the other hand, Medicaid enrollment could decline by about ten million lives over the next five years based on our estimates, given recent legislation allowing states to begin eligibility redeterminations (which were paused during the federal public health emergency declared at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic2).
Accelerating value-based care (VBC). Based on our estimates, 90 million lives will be in VBC models by 2027, from 43 million in 2022. This expansion will be fueled by an increase in commercial VBC adoption, greater penetration of Medicare Advantage, and the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) model in Medicare fee-for-service. Also, substantial growth is expected in the specialty VBC model, where penetration in areas like orthopedics and nephrology could more than double in the next five years.
VBC models are undergoing changes as CMS updates its risk adjustment methodology and as models continue to expand beyond primary care to other specialties (for example, nephrology, oncology, and orthopedics). We expect established models that offer improvements in cost and quality to continue to thrive. The transformation of VBC business models in response to pressures from the current changes could likely deliver outsized improvement in cost and quality outcomes. The penetration of VBC business models is likely to lead to shifts in health delivery profit pools, from acute-care settings to other sites of care such as ambulatory surgical centers, physician offices, and home settings.
Payers: Government segments are expected to be 65 percent larger than commercial segments by 2027
In 2022, overall payer profit pools were $60 billion. Looking ahead, we estimate EBITDA to grow to $78 billion by 2027, a 5 percent CAGR, as the market recovers and approaches historical trends. Drivers are likely to be margin recovery of the commercial segment, inflation-driven incremental premium rate rises, and increased participation in managed care by the duals population. This is likely to be partially offset by margin compression in Medicare Advantage due to regulatory pressures (for example, risk adjustment, decline in the Stars bonus, and technical updates) and membership decline in Medicaid resulting from the expiration of the public health emergency.
We estimate increased labor costs and administrative expenses to reduce payer EBITDA by about 60 basis points in 2023. In addition, health systems are likely to push for reimbursement rate increases (up to about 350 to 400 basis-point incremental rate increases from 2023 to 2027 for the commercial segment and about 200 to 250 basis points for the government segment), according to McKinsey analysis and interviews with external experts.3
Our estimates also suggest that the mix of payer profit pools is likely to shift further toward the government segment (Exhibit 2). Overall, the profit pools for this segment are estimated to be about 65 percent greater than the commercial segment by 2027 ($36 billion compared with $21 billion). This shift would be a result of increasing Medicare Advantage penetration, estimated to reach 52 percent in 2027, and likely continued growth in the duals segment, expanding EBITDA from $7 billion in 2022 to $12 billion in 2027.
Profit pools for the commercial segment declined from $18 billion in 2019 to $15 billion in 2022. We now estimate the commercial segment’s EBITDA margins to regain historical levels by 2027, and profit pools to reach $21 billion, growing at a 7 percent CAGR from 2022 to 2027. Within this segment, a shift from fully insured to self-insured businesses could accelerate in the event of an economic slowdown, which prompts employers to pay greater attention to costs. The fully insured group enrollment could drop from 50 million in 2022 to 46 million in 2027, while the self-insured segment could increase from 108 million to 113 million during the same period.
Health systems: Transformation efforts help accelerate EBITDA recovery
In 2023, health-system profit pools continued to face substantial pressure due to inflation and labor shortages. Estimated growth was less than 5 percent from 2022 to 2023, remaining below prepandemic levels. Health systems have undertaken major transformation and cost containment efforts, particularly within the labor force, helping EBITDA margins recover by up to 100 basis points; some of this recovery was also volume-driven.
Looking ahead, we estimate an 11 percent CAGR from 2023 to 2027, or total EBITDA of $366 billion by 2027 (Exhibit 3). This reflects a rebound from below the long-term historical average in 2023, spurred by transformation efforts and potentially higher reimbursement rates. We anticipate that health systems will likely seek reimbursement increases in the high single digits or higher upon contract renewals (or more than 300 basis points above previous levels) in response to cost inflation in recent years.
Measures to tackle rising costs include improving labor productivity and the application of technological innovation across both administration and care delivery workflows (for example, further process standardization and outsourcing, increased use of digital care, and early adoption of AI within administrative workflows such as revenue cycle management). Despite these measures, 2027 industry EBITDA margins are estimated to be 50 to 100 basis points lower than in 2019, unless there is material acceleration in performance transformation efforts.
There are some meaningful exceptions to this overall outlook for health systems. Although post-acute-care profit pools could be severely affected by labor shortages (particularly nurses), other sites of care might grow (for example, non-acute and outpatient sites such as physician offices and ambulatory surgery centers). We expect accelerated adoption of VBC to drive growth.
HST profit pools will grow in technology-based segments
HST is estimated to be the fastest-growing sector in healthcare. In 2021, we estimated HST profit pools to be $51 billion. In 2022, according to our estimates, the HST profit pool shrank to $49 billion, reflecting a contracting market, wage inflation pressure, and the drag of fixed-technology investment that had not yet fulfilled its potential. Looking ahead, we estimate a 12 percent CAGR in 2022–27 due to the long-term underlying growth trend and rebound from the pandemic-related decline (Exhibit 4). With the continuing technology adoption in healthcare, the greatest acceleration is likely to happen in software and platforms as well as data and analytics, with 15 percent and 22 percent CAGRs, respectively.
In 2023, we observed an initial recovery in the HST market, supported by lower HST wage pressure and continued adoption of technology by payers and health systems searching for ways to become more efficient (for example, through automation and outsourcing).
Three factors account for the anticipated recovery and growth in HST.First, we expect continued demand from payers and health systems searching to improve efficiency, address labor challenges, and implement new technologies (for example, generative AI). Second, payers and health systems are likely to accept vendor price increases for solutions delivering measurable improvements. Third, we expect HST companies to make operational changes that will improve HST efficiency through better technology deployment and automation across services.
Pharmacy services will continue to grow
The pharmacy market has undergone major changes in recent years, including the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the establishment of partnerships across the value chain, and an evolving regulatory environment. Total pharmacy dispensing revenue continues to increase, growing by 9 percent to $550 billion in 2022,4 with projections of a 5 percent CAGR, reaching $700 billion in 2027.5Specialty pharmacy is one of the fastest growing subsegments within pharmacy services and accounts for 40 percent of prescription revenue6; this subsegment is expected to reach nearly 50 percent of prescription revenue in 2027 (Exhibit 5). We attribute its 8 percent CAGR in revenue growth to increases in utilization and pricing as well as the continued expansion of pipeline therapies (for example, cell and gene therapies and oncology and rare disease therapies) and expect that the revenue growth will be partially offset by reimbursement pressures, specialty generics, and increased adoption of biosimilars. Specialty pharmacy dispensers are also facing an evolving landscape with increased manufacturer contract pharmacy pressures related to the 340B Drug Pricing Program. With restrictions related to size and location of contract pharmacies that covered entities can use, the specialty pharmacy subsegment has seen accelerated investment in hospital-owned pharmacies.
Retail and mail pharmacies continue to face margin pressure and a contraction of profit pools due to reimbursement pressure, labor shortages, inflation, and a plateauing of generic dispensing rates.7Many chains have recently announced8 efforts to rationalize store footprints while continuing to augment additional services, including the provision of healthcare services.
Over the past year, there has also been increased attention to broad-population drugs such as GLP-1s (indicated for diabetes and obesity). The number of patients meeting clinical eligibility criteria for these drugs is among the largest of any new drug class in the past 20 to 30 years. The increased focus on these drugs has amplified conversations about care and coverage decisions, including considerations around demonstrated adherence to therapy, utilization management measures, and prescriber access points (for example, digital and telehealth services). As we look ahead, patient affordability, cost containment, and predictability of spending will likely remain key themes in the sector.The Inflation Reduction Act is poised to change the Medicare prescription Part D benefit, with a focus on reducing beneficiary out-of-pocket spending, negotiating prices for select drugs, and incentivizing better management of high-cost drugs. These changes, coupled with increased attention to broad-population drugs and the potential of high-cost therapies (such as cell and gene therapies), have set the stage for a shift in care and financing models.
The US healthcare industry faced demanding conditions in 2023, including continuing high inflation rates, labor shortages, and endemic COVID-19. However, the industry has adapted. We expect accelerated improvement efforts to help the industry address its challenges in 2024 and beyond, leading to an eventual return to historical-average profit margins.
This discussion was recorded on November 16, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr Robert Glatter, medical advisor for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me today is Dr Brian Miller, a hospitalist with Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and a health policy expert, to discuss the current and renewed interest in physician-owned hospitals.
Welcome, Dr Miller. It’s a pleasure to have you join me today.
Brian J. Miller, MD, MBA, MPH: Thank you for having me.
History and Controversies Surrounding Physician-Owned Hospitals
Miller: Thank you. I should note that my views are my own and don’t represent those of Hopkins or the American Enterprise Institute, where I’m a nonresident fellow nor the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, of which I’m a Commissioner.
The story about physician-owned hospitals is an interesting one. Hospitals turned into health systems in the 1980s and 1990s, and physicians started to shift purely from an independent model into a more organized group practice or employed model. Physicians realized that they wanted an alternative operating arrangement. You want a choice of how you practice and what your employment is. And as community hospitals started to buy physicians and also establish their own physician groups de novo, physicians opened physician-owned hospitals.
Physician-owned hospitals fell into a couple of buckets. One is what we call community hospitals, or what the antitrust lawyers would call general acute care hospitals: those offering emergency room (ER) services, labor and delivery, primary care, general surgery — the whole regular gamut, except that some of the owners were physicians.
The other half of the marketplace ended up being specialty hospitals: those built around a specific medical specialty and series of procedures and chronic care. For example, cardiac hospitals often do CABG, TAVR, maybe abdominal aortic aneurysm (triple A) repairs, and they have cardiology clinics, cath labs, a cardiac intensive care unit (ICU), ER, etc. There were also orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals, which were sort of like an ambulatory surgery center (ASC) plus several beds. Then there were general surgical specialty hospitals. At one point, there were some women’s health–focused specialty hospitals.
The hospital industry, of course, as you can understand, didn’t exactly like this. They had a series of concerns about what we would historically call cherry-picking or lemon-dropping of patients. They were worried that physician-owned facilities didn’t want to serve public payer patients, and there was a whole series of reports and investigations.
Around the time the Affordable Care Act passed, the hospital industry had many concerns about physician-owned specialty hospitals, and there was a moratorium as part of the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act. As part of the bargaining over the hospital industry support for the Affordable Care Act, they traded their support for, among other things, their number one priority, which is a statutory prohibition on new or expanded physician-owned hospitals from participating in Medicare. That included both physician-owned community hospitals and physician-owned specialty hospitals.
Glatter: I guess the main interest is that, when physicians have an ownership or a stake in the hospital, this is what the Stark laws obviously were aimed at. That was part of the impetus to prevent physicians from referring patients where they had an ownership stake. Certainly, hospitals can be owned by attorneys and nonprofit organizations, and certainly, ASCs can be owned by physicians. There is an ongoing issue in terms of physicians not being able to have an ownership stake. In terms of equity ownership, we know that certain other models allow this, but basically, it sounds like this is an issue with Medicare. That seems to be the crux of it, correct?
Miller: Yes. I would also add that it’s interesting when we look at other professions. When we look at lawyers, nonlawyers are actually not allowed to own an equity stake in a law practice. In many other professions, you either have corporate ownership or professional ownership, or the alternative is you have only professional ownership.I would say the hospital industry is one of the few areas where professional ownership not only is not allowed, but also is statutorily prohibited functionally through the Medicare program.
Unveiling the Dynamics of Hospital Ownership
Glatter: A recent study done by two PhDs looked at 2019 data on 20 of the most expensive diagnosis-related groups (DRGs). It examined the cost savings, and we’re talking over $1 billion in expenditures when you look at the data from general acute care hospitals vs physician-owned hospitals. This is what appears to me to be a key driver of the push to loosen restrictions on physician-owned hospitals. Isn’t that correct?
Miller: I would say that’s one of many components. There’s more history to this issue. I remember sitting at a think tank talking to someone several years ago about hospital consolidation as an issue. We went through the usual levers that us policy wonks go through. We talked about antitrust enforcement, certificate of need, rising hospital costs from consolidation, lower quality (or at least no quality gains, as shown by a New England Journal of Medicine study), and decrements in patient experience that result from the diseconomies of scale. They sort of pooh-poohed many of the policy ideas. They basically said that there was no hope for hospital consolidation as an issue.
Well, what about physician ownership? I started with my research team to comb through the literature and found a variety of studies — some of which were sort of entertaining, because they’d do things like study physician-owned specialty hospitals, nonprofit-owned specialty hospitals, and for-profit specialty hospitals and compare them with nonprofit or for-profit community hospitals, and then say physician-owned hospitals that were specialty were bad.
They mixed ownership and service markets right there in so many ways, I’m not sure where to start. My team did a systematic review of around 30 years of research, looking at the evidence base in this space. We found a couple of things.
We found that physician-owned community hospitals did not have a cost or quality difference, meaning that there was no definitive evidence that the physician-owned community hospitals were cheaper based on historical evidence, which was very old. That means there’s not specific harm from them. When you permit market entry for community hospitals, that promotes competition, which results in lower prices and higher quality.
Then we also looked at the specialty hospital markets — surgical specialty hospitals, orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals, and cardiac hospitals. We noted for cardiac hospitals, there wasn’t clear evidence about cost savings, but there was definitive evidence of higher quality, from things like 30-day mortality for significant procedures like treatment of acute MI, triple A repair, stuff like that.
For orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals, we noted lower costs and higher quality, which again fits with operationally what we would know. If you have a facility that’s doing 20 total hips a day, you’re creating a focused factory. Just like if you think about it for interventional cardiology, your boards have a minimum number of procedures that you have to do to stay certified because we know about the volume-quality relationship.
Then we looked at general surgical specialty hospitals. There wasn’t enough evidence to make a conclusive thought about costs, and there was a clear trend toward higher quality. I would say this recent study is important, but there is a whole bunch of other literature out there, too.
Exploring the Scope of Emergency Care in Physician-Owned Hospitals
One thing I want to bring up — and this is an important issue — is that the risk for patients has been talked about by the American Hospital Association and the Federation of American Hospitals, in terms of limited or no emergency services at such physician-owned hospitals and having to call 911 when patients need emergent care or stabilization. That’s been the rebuttal, along with an Office of Inspector General (OIG) report from 2008. Almost, I guess, three quarters of the patients that needed emergent care got this at publicly funded hospitals.
Miller: I’m familiar with the argument about emergency care. If you actually go and look at it, it differs by specialty market. Physician-owned community hospitals have ERs because that’s how they get their business. If you are running a hospital medicine floor, a general surgical specialty floor, you have a labor delivery unit, a primary care clinic, and a cardiology clinic. You have all the things that all the other hospitals have. The physician-owned community hospitals almost uniformly have an ER.
When you look at the physician-owned specialty hospitals, it’s a little more granular. If you look at the cardiac hospitals, they have ERs. They also have cardiac ICUs, operating rooms, etc. The area where the hospital industry had concerns — which I think is valid to point out — is that physician-owned orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals don’t have ERs. But this makes sense because of what that hospital functionally is: a factory for whatever the scope of procedures is, be it joint replacements or shoulder arthroscopy. The orthopedic surgical specialty hospital is like an ASC plus several hospital beds. Many of those did not have ERs because clinically it didn’t make sense.
What’s interesting, though, is that the hospital industry also operates specialty hospitals. If you go into many of the large systems, they have cardiac specialty hospitals and cancer specialty hospitals. I would say that some of them have ERs, as they appropriately should, and some of those specialty hospitals do not. They might have a community hospital down the street that’s part of that health system that has an ER, but some of the specialty hospitals don’t necessarily have a dedicated ER.
I agree, that’s a valid concern. I would say, though, the question is, what are the scope of services in that hospital? Is an ER required? Community hospitals should have ERs. It makes sense also for a cardiac hospital to have one. If you’re running a total joint replacement factory, it might not make clinical sense.
Glatter: The patients who are treated at that hospital, if they do have emergent conditions, need to have board-certified emergency physicians treating them, in my view because I’m an ER physician. Having surgeons that are not emergency physicians staff a department at a specialty orthopedic hospital or, say, a cancer hospital is not acceptable from my standpoint. That’s my opinion and recommendation, coming from emergency medicine.
Miller: I would say that anesthesiologists are actually highly qualified in critical care. The question is about clinical decompensation; if you’re doing a procedure, you have an anesthesiologist right there who is capable of critical care. The function of the ER is to either serve as a window into the hospital for patient volume or to serve as a referral for emergent complaints.
Glatter: An anesthesiologist — I’ll take issue with that — does not have the training of an emergency physician in terms of scope of practice.
Miller: My anesthesiology colleagues would probably disagree for managing an emergency during an operating room case.
Glatter: Fair enough, but I think in the general sense. The other issue is that, in terms of emergent responses to patients that decompensate, when you have to transfer a patient, that violates Medicare requirements. How is that even a valid issue or argument if you’re going to have to transfer a patient from your specialty hospital? That happens. Again, I know that you’re saying these hospitals are completely independent and can function, stabilize patients, and treat emergencies, but that’s not the reality across the country, in my opinion.
Miller: I don’t think that’s the case for the physician-owned specialty cardiac hospitals, for starters. Many of those have ICUs in addition to operating rooms as a matter of routine in addition to ERs. I don’t think that’s the case for physician-owned community hospitals, which have ERs, ICUs, medicine floors, and surgical floors. Physician-owned community hospitals are around half the market. Of that remaining market, a significant percentage are cardiac hospitals. If you’re taking an issue with orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals, that’s a clinical operational question that can and should be answered.
I’d also posit that the nonprofit and for-profit hospital industries also operate specialty hospitals. Any of these questions, we shouldn’t just be asking about physician-owned facilities; we should be asking about them across ownership types, because we’re talking about scope of service and quality and safety. The ownership in that case doesn’t matter. The broader question is, are orthopedic surgical specialty hospitals owned by physicians, tax-exempt hospitals, or tax-paying hospitals? Is that a valid clinical business model? Is it safe? Does it meet Medicare conditions of participation? I would say that’s what that question is, because other ownership models do operate those facilities.
Glatter: You make some valid points, and I do agree on some of them. I think that, ultimately, these models of care, and certainly cost and quality, are issues. Again, it goes back to being able, in my opinion, to provide emergent care, which seems to me a very important issue.
Miller: I agree that providing emergent care is an issue. It’s an issue in any site of care. The hospital industry posits that all hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs) have emergent care. I can tell you, having worked in HOPDs (I’ve trained in them during residency), the response if something emergent happens is to either call 911 or wheel the patient down to the ER in a wheelchair or stretcher. I think that these hospital claims about emergency care coverage —these are important questions, but we should be asking them across all clinical settings and say what is the appropriate scope of care provided? What is the appropriate level of acuity and ability to provide emergent or critical care? That’s an important question regardless of ownership model across the entire industry.
Deeper Dive Into Data on Physician-Owned Hospitals
Glatter: We need to really focus on that. I’ll agree with you on that.
There was a March 2023 report from Dobson | DaVanzo. It showed that physician-owned hospitals had lower Medicaid, dual-eligible, and uncompensated care and charity care discharges than full-service acute care hospitals. Physician-owned hospitals had less than half the proportion of Medicaid discharges compared with non–physician-owned hospitals. They were also less likely to care for dual-eligible patients overall compared with non–physician-owned hospitals.
In addition, when COVID hit, the physician-owned hospitals overall — and again, there may be exceptions — were not equipped to handle these patient surges in the acute setting of a public health emergency. There was a hospital in Texas that did pivot that I’m aware of — Renaissance Hospital, which ramped up a long-term care facility to become a COVID hospital — but I think that’s the exception. I think this report raises some valid concerns; I’ll let you rebut that.
Miller: A couple of things. One, I am not aware that there’s any clear market evidence or a systematic study that shows that physician-owned hospitals had trouble responding to COVID. I don’t think that assertion has been proven. The study was funded by the hospital industry. First of all, it was not a peer-reviewed study; it was funded by an industry that paid a consulting firm. It doesn’t mean that we still shouldn’t read it, but that brings bias into question. The joke in Washington is, pick your favorite statistician or economist, and they can say what you want and have a battle of economists and statisticians.
For example, in that study, they didn’t include the entire ownership universe of physician-owned hospitals. If we go to the peer-reviewed literature, there’s a great 2015 BMJ paper showing that the Medicaid payer mix is actually the same between physician-owned hospitals vs not. The mix of patients by ethnicity — for example, think about African American patients — was the same. I would be more inclined to believe the peer-reviewed literature in BMJ as opposed to an industry-funded study that was not peer-reviewed and not independent and has methodological questions.
Glatter: Those data are 8 years old, so I’d like to see more recent data. It would be interesting, just as a follow-up to that, to see where the needle has moved — if it has, for that matter — in terms of Medicaid patients that you’re referring to.
Miller: I tend to be skeptical of all industry research, regardless of who published it, because they have an economic incentive. If they’re selecting certain age groups or excluding certain hospitals, that makes you wonder about the validity of the study. Your job as an industry-funded researcher is that, essentially, you’re being paid to look for an answer. It’s not necessarily an honest evaluation of the data.
Glatter: I want to bring up another point about the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) and the data on how physician-owned hospitals compared with acute care hospitals that are non–physician-owned and have you comment on that. The Dobson | DaVanzo study called into question that physician-owned hospitals treat fewer patients who are dual-eligible, which we know.
Miller: I don’t think we do know that.
Glatter: There are data that point to that, again, looking at the studies.
Miller: I’m saying that’s a single study funded by industry as opposed to an independent, academic, peer-reviewed literature paper. That would be like saying, during the debate of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), that you should read the pharmaceutical industries research but take any of it at pure face value as factual. Yes, we should read it. Yes, we should evaluate it on its own merits. I think, again, appropriately, you need to be concerned when people have an economic incentive.
The question about the HRRP I’m going to take a little broader, because I think that program is unfair to the industry overall. There are many factors that drive hospital readmission. Whether Mrs Smith went home and ate potato chips and then took her Lasix, that’s very much outside of the hospital industry’s control, and there’s some evidence that the HRRP increases mortality in some patient populations.
In terms of a quality metric, it’s unfair to the industry. I think we took an operating process, internal metric for the hospital industry, turned it into a quality metric, and attached it to a financial bonus, which is an inappropriate policy decision.
Rethinking Ownership Models and Empowering Clinicians
Glatter: I agree with you on that. One thing I do want to bring up is that whether the physician-owned hospitals are subject to many of the quality measures that full-service, acute care hospitals are. That really is, I think, a broader context.
Miller: Fifty-five percent of physician-owned hospitals are full-service community hospitals, so I would say at least half the market is 100% subject to that.
Glatter: If only 50% are, that’s already an issue.
Miller: Cardiac specialty hospitals — which, as I said, nonprofit and for-profit hospital chains also operate — are also subject to the appropriate quality measures, readmissions, etc. Just because we don’t necessarily have the best quality measurement in the system in the country, it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t allow care specialization. As I’d point out, if we’re concerned about specialty hospitals, the concern shouldn’t just be about physician-owned specialty hospitals; it should be about specialty hospitals by and large. Many health systems run cardiac specialty hospitals, cancer specialty hospitals, and orthopedic specialty hospitals. If we’re going to have a discussion about concerns there, it should be about the entire industry of specialty hospitals.
I think specialty hospitals serve an important role in society, allowing for specialization and exploiting in a positive way the volume-quality relationship. Whether those are owned by a for-profit publicly traded company, a tax-exempt facility, or physicians, I think that is an important way to have innovation and care delivery because frankly, we haven’t had much innovation in care delivery. Much of what we do in terms of how we practice clinically hasn’t really changed in the 50 years since my late father graduated from medical school. We still have rounds, we’re still taking notes, we’re still operating in the same way. Many processes are manual. We don’t have the mass production and mass customization of care that we need.
When you have a focused factory, it allows you to design care in a way that drives up quality, not just for the average patient but also the patients at the tail ends, because you have time to focus on that specific service line and that specific patient population.
Physician-owned community hospitals offer an important opportunity for a different employment model. I remember going to the dermatologist and the dermatologist was depressed, shuffling around the room, sad, and I asked him why. He said he didn’t really like his employer, and I said, “Why don’t you pick another one?” He’s like, “There are only two large health systems I can work for. They all have the same clinical practice environment and functionally the same value.”
Physicians are increasingly burned out. They face monopsony power in who purchases their labor. They have little control. They don’t want to go through five committees, seven administrators, and attend 25 meetings just to change a single small process in clinical operations. If you’re an owner operator, you have a much better ability to do it.
Frankly, when many facilities do well now, when they do well clinically and do well financially, who benefits? The hospital administration and the hospital executives. The doctors aren’t benefiting. The nurses aren’t benefiting. The CNA is not benefiting. The secretary is not benefiting. The custodian is not benefiting. Shouldn’t the workers have a right to own and operate the business and do well when the business does well serving the community? That puts me in the weird space of agreeing with both conservatives and progressives.
Glatter: I agree with you. I think an ownership stake is always attractive. It helps with retention of employed persons. There’s no question that, when they have a stake, when they have skin in the game, they feel more empowered. I will not argue with you about that.
Miller: We don’t have business models where workers have that option in healthcare. Like the National Academy of Medicine said, one of the key drivers of burnout is the externalization of the locus of control over clinical practice, and the current business operating models guarantee an externalization of the locus of control over clinical practice.
If you actually look at the recent American Medical Association (AMA) meeting, there was a resolution to ban the corporate practice of medicine. They wanted to go more toward the legal professions model where only physicians can own and operate care delivery.
Miller: It’s not just doctors. I think nurses want a better lifestyle. The nurses are treated as interchangeable lines on a spreadsheet. The nurses are an integral part of our clinical team. Why don’t we work together as a clinical unit to build a better delivery system? What better way to do that than to have clinicians in charge of it, right?
My favorite bakery that’s about 30 minutes away is owned by a baker. It is not owned by a large tax-exempt corporation. It’s owned by an owner operator who takes pride in their work. I think that is something that the profession would do well to return to. When I was a resident, one of my colleagues was already planning their retirement. That’s how depressed they were.
I went into medicine to actually care for patients. I think that we can make the world a better place for our patients. What that means is not only treating them with drugs and devices, but also creating a delivery system where they don’t have to wander from lobby to lobby in a 200,000 square-foot facility, wait in line for hours on end, get bills 6 months later, and fill out endless paper forms over and over again.
All of these basic processes in healthcare delivery that are broken could have and should have been fixed — and have been fixed in almost every other industry. I had to replace one of my car tires because I had a flat tire. The local tire shop has an app, and it sends me SMS text messages telling me when my appointment is and when my car is ready. We have solved all of these problems in many other businesses.
We have not solved them in healthcare delivery because, one, we have massive monopolies that are raising prices, have lower quality, and deliver a crappy patient experience, and we have also subjugated the clinical worker into a corporate automaton. We are functionally drones. We don’t have the agency and the authority to improve clinical operations anymore. It’s really depressing, and we should have that option again.
I trust my doctor. I trust the nurses that I work with, and I would like them to help make clinical decisions in a financially responsible and a sensible operational manner. We need to empower our workforce in order to do that so we can recapture the value of what it means to be a clinician again.
The current model of corporate employment: massive scale, more administrators, more processes, more emails, more meetings, more PowerPoint decks, more federal subsidies. The hospital industry has choices. It can improve clinical operations. It can show up in Washington and lobby for increased subsidies. It can invest in the market and not pay taxes for the tax-exempt facilities. Obviously, it makes the logical choices as an economic actor to show up, lobby for increased subsidies, and then also invest in the stock market.
Improving clinical operations is hard. It hasn’t happened. The Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that the private community hospital industry has had flat labor productivity growth, on average, for the past 25 years, and for some years it even declined. This is totally atypical across the economy.
We have failed our clinicians, and most importantly, we have failed our patients. I’ve been sick. My relatives have been sick, waiting hours, not able to get appointments, and redoing forms. It’s a total disaster. It’s time and reasonable to try an alternative ownership and operating model. There are obviously problems. The problems can and should be addressed, but it doesn’t mean that we should have a statutory prohibition on professionals owning and operating their own business.
Glatter: There was a report that $500 million was saved by limiting or banning or putting a moratorium on physician-owned hospitals by the Congressional Budget Office.
The CBO is not transparent about what its assumptions are or its analysis and methods. As a researcher, we have to publish our information. It has to go through peer review. I want to know what goes into that $500 million figure — what the assumptions are and what the model is. It’s hard to comment without knowing how they came up with it.
Glatter: The points you make are very valid. Physicians and nurses want a better lifestyle.
Miller: It’s not even a better lifestyle. It’s about having a say in how clinical operations work and helping make them better. We want the delivery system to work better. This is an opportunity for us to do so.
Glatter: That translates into technology: obviously, generative artificial intelligence (AI) coming into the forefront, as we know, and changing care delivery models as you’re referring to, which is going to happen. It’s going to be a slow process. I think that the evolution is happening and will happen, as you accurately described.
Miller: The other thing that’s different now vs 20 years ago is that managed care is here, there, and everywhere, as Dr Seuss would say. You have utilization review and prior authorization, which I’ve experienced as a patient and a physician, and boy, is it not a fun process. There’s a large amount of friction that needs to be improved. If we’re worried about induced demand or inappropriate utilization, we have managed care right there to help police bad behavior.
Reforming Healthcare Systems and Restoring Patient-Centric Focus
Glatter: If you were to come up with, say, three bullet points of how we can work our way out of this current morass of where our healthcare systems exist, where do you see the solutions or how can we make and effect change?
Miller: I’d say there are a couple of things. One is, let business models compete fairly on an equal playing field. Let the physician-owned hospital compete with the tax-exempt hospital and the nonprofit hospital. Put them on an equal playing field. We have things like 340B, which favors tax-exempt hospitals. For-profit or tax-paying hospitals are not able to participate in that. That doesn’t make any sense just from a public policy perspective. Tax-paying hospitals and physician-owned hospitals pay taxes on investments, but tax-exempt hospitals don’t. I think, in public policy, we need to equalize the playing field between business models. Let the best business model win.
The other thing we need to do is to encourage the adoption of technology. The physician will eventually be an arbiter of tech-driven or AI-driven tools. In fact, at some point, the standard of care might be to use those tools. Not using those tools would be seen as negligence. If you think about placing a jugular or central venous catheter, to not use ultrasound would be considered insane. Thirty years ago, to use ultrasound would be considered novel. I think technology and AI will get us to that point of helping make care more efficient and more customized.
Those are the two biggest interventions, I would say. Third, every time we have a conversation in public policy, we need to remember what it is to be a patient. The decision should be driven not around any one industry’s profitability, but what it is to be a patient and how we can make that experience less burdensome, less expensive, or in plain English, suck less.
Glatter: Safety net hospitals and critical access hospitals are part of this discussion that, yes, we want everything to, in an ideal world, function more efficiently and effectively, with less cost and less red tape. The safety net of our nation is struggling.
Miller: I 100% agree. The Cook County hospitals of the world are deserving of our support and, frankly, our gratitude. Facilities like that have huge burdens of patients with Medicaid. We also still have millions of uninsured patients. The neighborhoods that they serve are also poorer. I think facilities like that are deserving of public support.
I also think we need to clearly define what those hospitals are. One of the challenges I’ve realized as I waded into this space is that market definitions of what a service market is for a hospital, its specialty type or what a safety net hospital is need to be more clearly defined because those facilities 100% are deserving of our support. We just need to be clear about what they are.
Regarding critical access hospitals, when you practice in a rural area, you have to think differently about care delivery. I’d say many of the rural systems are highly creative in how they structure clinical operations. Before the public health emergency, during the COVID pandemic, when we had a massive change in telehealth, rural hospitals were using — within the very narrow confines — as much telehealth as they could and should.
Rural hospitals also make greater use of nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs). For many of the specialty services, I remember, your first call was an NP or a PA because the physician was downstairs doing procedures. They’d come up and assess the patient before the procedure, but most of your consult questions were answered by the NP or PA. I’m not saying that’s the model we should use nationwide, but that rural systems are highly innovative and creative; they’re deserving of our time, attention, and support, and frankly, we can learn from them.
Glatter: I want to thank you for your time and your expertise in this area. We’ll see how the congressional hearings affect the industry as a whole, how the needle moves, and whether the ban or moratorium on physician-owned hospitals continues to exist going forward.
Miller: I appreciate you having me. The hospital industry is one of the most important industries for health care. This is a time of inflection, right? We need to go back to the value of what it means to be a clinician and serve patients. Hospitals need to reorient themselves around that core concern. How do we help support clinicians — doctors, nurses, pharmacists, whomever it is — in serving patients? Hospitals have become too corporate, so I think that this is an expected pushback.
Glatter: Again, I want to thank you for your time. This was a very important discussion. Thank you for your expertise.
Robert D. Glatter, MD, is an assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York. He is a medical advisor for Medscape and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series.
Brian J. Miller, MD, MBA, MPH, is a hospitalist and an assistant professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. He is also a nonresident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. From 2014 – 2017, Dr Miller worked at four federal regulatory agencies: Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), and the Food & Drug Administration (FDA).
Ten states have uninsured rates below 5 percent. What are they doing right?
Universal health care remains an unrealized dream for the United States. But in some parts of the country, the dream has drawn closer to a reality in the 13 years since the Affordable Care Act passed.
Overall, the number of uninsured Americans has fallen from 46.5 million in 2010, the year President Barack Obama signed his signature health care law, to about 26 million today. The US health system still has plenty of flaws — beyond the 8 percent of the population who are uninsured, far higher than in peer countries, many of the people who technically have health insurance still find it difficult to cover their share of their medical bills. Nevertheless, more people enjoy some financial protection against health care expenses than in any previous period in US history.
The country is inching toward universal coverage. If everybody who qualified for either the ACA’s financial assistance or its Medicaid expansion were successfully enrolled in the program, we would get closer still: More than half of the uninsured are technically eligible for government health care aid.
Particularly in the last few years, it has been the states, using the tools made available by them by the ACA, that have been chipping away most aggressively at the number of uninsured.
Today, 10 states have an uninsured rate below 5 percent — not quite universal coverage, but getting close. Other states may be hovering around the national average, but that still represents a dramatic improvement from the pre-ACA reality: In New Mexico, for instance, 23 percent of its population was uninsured in 2010; now just 8 percent is.
Their success indicates that, even without another major federal health care reform effort, it is possible to reduce the number of uninsured in the United States. If states are more aggressive about using all of the tools available to them under the ACA, the country could continue to bring down the number of uninsured people within its borders.
The law gave states discretion to build upon its basic structure. Many received approval from the federal government to create programs that lower premiums; some also offer state subsidies in addition to the federal assistance to reduce the cost of coverage, including for people who are not eligible for federal aid, such as undocumented immigrants. A few states are even offering new state-run health plans that will compete with private offerings.
I asked several leading health care experts which states stood out to them as having fully weaponized the ACA to reduce the number of uninsured. There was not a single answer.
“I don’t think any state has taken advantage of everything,” said Larry Levitt, executive vice president at the KFF health policy think tank. “No state has put all the pieces together to the full extent available under the ACA.”
But a few stood out for the steps they have taken over the last decade to strive toward universal health care.
Massachusetts (and New Mexico): Streamlined enrollment and state subsidies
Massachusetts has the lowest uninsured rate of any state: Just 2.4 percent of the population lacks coverage. It had a head start: The law provided the model for the ACA itself, with its system of government subsidies for private plans sold on a public marketplace that existed prior to 2010.
But experts say it still deserves credit for the steps it has taken since the Massachusetts model was applied to the rest of the country. Matt Fiedler, a senior fellow with the Brookings Schaeffer Initiative on Health Policy, said two policies stood above any others in expanding coverage: integrating the enrollment process for both Medicaid and ACA marketplace plans and offering state-based assistance on top of the law’s federal subsidies.
Massachusetts was among the first states to do both.
“The former can do a lot to reduce the risk that people lose their coverage when incomes change,” Fiedler told me, “while the latter directly improves affordability and thereby promotes take-up.”
Integrated enrollment means that, for the consumer, they can be directed to either the ACA’s marketplace (where they can use government subsidies to buy private coverage) or to the state Medicaid program through one portal. They enter their information and the state tells them which program they should enroll in. Without that integration, people might have to first apply to Medicaid and then, if they don’t qualify, separately seek out marketplace coverage. The more steps that a person must take to successfully enroll in a health plan, the more likely it is people will fall through the cracks.
The state assistance, meanwhile, both reduces premiums for people and makes it easier for them to afford more generous coverage, with lower out-of-pocket costs when they actually use medical services. Nine states including Massachusetts now have state assistance, with interest picking up in the past few years.
New Mexico, for example, only recently converted to a state-based ACA marketplace and started offering additional aid in 2023. Having already seen some dramatic improvements, it remains to be seen how much more progress the state can make toward universal coverage with that policy in place.
Minnesota and New York: The Basic Health Plan states
The basic structure of the ACA was this: Medicaid expansion for people living in or near poverty and marketplace plans for people with incomes above that. But the law included an option for states to more seamlessly integrate those two populations — and so far, the two states that have taken advantage of it, Minnesota and New York, are also among those states with the lowest uninsured rates. Just 4.3 percent of Minnesotans and 4.9 percent of New Yorkers lack coverage today.
They have both created Basic Health Plans, the product of one of the more obscure provisions of the health care law. This is a state-regulated health insurance plan meant to cover people up to 200 percent of the federal poverty level (about $29,000 for an individual or $50,000 for a family of three). Those are people who may not technically qualify for Medicaid under the ACA but who can still struggle to afford their monthly premiums and out-of-pocket obligations with a marketplace plan.
In both states, the Basic Health Plans offered insurance options with lower premiums and reduced cost-sharing responsibilities than the marketplace coverage that they would otherwise have been left with. In New York, for example, people between 100 percent and 150 percent of the federal poverty level pay no premiums at all, while people between 150 percent and 200 percent pay just $20 per month.
There is good evidence that the approach has increased coverage: In New York, for example, enrollment among people below 200 percent of the poverty level increased by 42 percent when the state adopted its BHP in 2016, compared to what it had been the year before when those people were relegated to conventional marketplace coverage.
State interest in Basic Health Plans has been limited so far, but Minnesota and New York provide a model others could follow. Fiedler said part of the basic plans’ success in those states has been using Medicaid managed-care companies to administer the plan: Those insurers already pay providers lower rates than marketplace plans do and the savings give the states money to reduce premiums and cost-sharing.
Colorado and Washington: Public options and assistance for the undocumented
These states have been inventive in myriad ways. They are both early adopters of a public option, a government health plan that competes with private plans on the marketplace, a policy also being tested in Nevada.
There is another policy that unites them, one that addresses a sizable part of the remaining uninsured nationwide: They both provide some state subsidies to undocumented immigrants.
Most uninsured Americans are already technically eligible for some kind of government assistance, whether Medicaid or marketplace subsidies. But there is a large chunk of people who are not: About 29 percent of the US’s uninsured are ineligible for government aid, among them the people who are in the country undocumented. Those people bear the full cost of their medical bills and may avoid care for that reason (among others, of course).
Starting this year, Washington is allowing undocumented people with incomes that would make them eligible for Medicaid expansion to enroll in that program, and making state subsidies available to people with higher incomes no matter their immigration status. Colorado has set aside a small pool of money annually to provide state aid to about 11,000 undocumented people. (After that threshold is hit, those folks can still enroll in a health plan but they must pay the full price.)
Interest has been robust: Last year, Colorado hit the enrollment limit after about a month. This year, enrollment capped out in just two days, suggesting the state may need to put more money behind the effort.
It is difficult to imagine insurance subsidies for undocumented people nationwide any time soon, given the fraught national politics of immigration. But states are finding ways to make inroads on their own: California has made undocumented people eligible for Medicaid.
Through these and other means, they are helping the US inch toward universal health care.
November 2023 marks seven months since the federal government began unwinding Medicaid’s pandemic-related continuous enrollment guarantee. Because Medicaid coverage is associated with improved access and better health outcomes, stabilizing enrollment throughout the public health emergency was a vital public health measure. Now states must grapple with the challenge of returning to normal operations, which means reviewing eligibility for more than 90 million beneficiaries.
By early November, at least 10,135,000 people had been disenrolled. Overall, two-thirds of people had their coverage renewed while about one-third lost eligibility.
The rate of disenrollment during renewal varies greatly, depending on a state’s underlying Medicaid eligibility rules, capacity to process renewals, and strategies for simplifying the process and reducing risks of error. Illinois showed a disenrollment rate of less than 10 percent, while Florida’s rate was one-third. Disenrollment of children appears to be happening at a high rate, even though they should be protected because of the relatively generous eligibility standards governing children’s coverage under Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP).
Among those disenrolled, more than 70 percent lost coverage for procedural reasons, like failure to return forms or an inaccurate mailing address. High procedural disenrollments also likely reflect agency error (e.g., miscalculating earnings information), but available data do not track the proportion of procedural disenrollments that result from such mistakes.
The high procedural disenrollment problem is exacerbated by the speed at which some states are acting — far faster than required under the federal 12-month unwinding timeline allowed by Congress.
Compounding matters, anecdotal evidence suggests that people terminated for procedural reasons are also being turned away from the health insurance marketplace because states close cases without determining if beneficiaries are truly ineligible for Medicaid. This is happening even though marketplaces and Medicaid agencies are supposed to coordinate activities to ensure that people losing Medicaid can obtain marketplace coverage if eligible.
Disenrollment rates are the result of a complex process, excessive speed, and overtasked workers, along with states’ underlying eligibility rules for low-income children and adults. If these rules are more restrictive, they increase the disenrollment rate. In states that have not adopted the Affordable Care Act (ACA) expansion, the potential for major coverage loss is far higher. In nonexpansion states, the rules for poor adults (who had coverage throughout the pandemic, including postpartum women or teenage children who have now reached young adulthood) require an extremely low income level — 16 percent of the federal poverty level in Texas or about $4,000 annually for a family of three in 2023. As stated previously, the disenrollment of children has been far higher than expected, affecting even newborns during the first year of life when enrollment is guaranteed.
The ACA streamlined and simplified Medicaid’s historically complex enrollment and renewal process by eliminating in-person interviews, automating data collection functions, and instituting an ex parte process, in which the state performs reviews without placing unnecessary renewal burdens on beneficiaries. In addition, a historic 1970 Supreme Court decision governing due process protections for people receiving means-tested public assistance benefits requires states to fully and comprehensibly explain in writing why coverage is ending and gives beneficiaries the opportunity to contest a termination decision before it takes effect. These constitutional safeguards are especially crucial to Medicaid because termination implicates not only coverage, but access to health care itself.
In 2022, long after the ACA simplification reforms were instituted, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) concluded that of the 15 million people estimated to lose Medicaid during the unwinding process, nearly 45 percent would lose coverage because of procedural issues associated with navigating the renewal process. HHS also foresaw that children and younger adults (including very poor parents) would be disproportionately affected. The evidence appears to be bearing both predictions out.
The federal government and advocates have begun to take action to mitigate erroneous coverage loss. The 2022 unwinding legislation empowers the HHS Secretary to impose corrective action plans in states showing excessive procedural disenrollments. In states that fail to comply with such plans, HHS would “require the State to suspend . . . terminations of eligibility for medical assistance . . . that are for procedural reasons until the State takes appropriate corrective action.” Under this special power, HHS has urged states to guard against improper disenrollments without an individualized ex parte review and also ordered reinstatement of a half-million children and adults disenrolled simply because other family members were no longer eligible. The agency has ordered states to halt disenrollment until corrective action is taken.
In a first-of-its-kind case, beneficiaries in Florida who have lost coverage without required constitutional protections have sued for reinstatement and to halt further disenrollment. Plaintiffs include children (some with serious disabilities) and adults. The complaint describes state notices that are incomprehensible by people with average education and that fail to convey which family members are losing coverage, why coverage is being lost, and the right to a pre-termination hearing. Beneficiaries in other states may follow suit.
The current unwinding situation presents a unique challenge for states, health care providers, and above all, millions of beneficiaries who depend on Medicaid. It is important to remember that continuous enrollment enacted during the pandemic was a response to three structural limitations that are part of everyday Medicaid: first, highly restrictive eligibility limits, particularly in states that do not cover low-income working-age adults; second, the lack of annual guaranteed enrollment for all beneficiaries, regardless of age or basis of eligibility; and third, a redetermination process that, despite improvements, continues to face enormous operational challenges.
Not long ago, I opened a new box of cereal and found a lot fewer flakes than usual. The plastic bag inside was barely three-quarters full.
This wasn’t a manufacturing error. It was an example of shrinkflation.
Following years of escalating prices (to offset higher supply-chain and labor costs), packaged-goods producers began facing customer resistance. So, rather than keep raising prices, big brands started giving Americans fewer ounces of just about everything—from cereal to ice cream to flame-grilled hamburgers—hoping no one would notice.
This kind of covert skimping doesn’t just happen at the grocery store or the drive-thru lane. It’s been present in American healthcare for more than a decade.
What Happened To Healthcare Prices?
With the passage of the Medicare and Medicaid Act in 1965, healthcare costs began consuming ever-higher percentages of the nation’s gross domestic product.
In 1970, medical spending took up just 6.9% of the U.S. GDP. That number jumped to 8.9% in 1980, 12.1% in 1990, 13.3% in 2000 and 17.2% in 2010.
This trajectory is normal for industrialized nations. Most countries follow a similar pattern: (1) productivity rises, (2) the total value of goods and services increases, (3) citizens demand better care, newer drugs, and more access to doctors and hospitals, (4) people pay more and more for healthcare.
But does more expensive care equate to better care and longer life expectancy? It did in the United States from 1970 to 2010. Longevity leapt nearly a decade as healthcare costs rose (as a percentage of GDP).
Then American Healthcare Hit A Ceiling
Beginning in 2010, something unexpected happened. Both of these upward trendlines—healthcare inflation and longevity—flattened.
Spending on medical care still consumes roughly 17% of the U.S. GPD—the same as 2010. Meanwhile, U.S. life expectancy in 2020 (using pre-pandemic data) was 77.3 years—about the same as in 2010 when the number was 78.7 years.
How did these plateaus occur?
Skimping On U.S. Healthcare
With the passage of the Affordable Care Act of 2010, healthcare policy experts hoped expansions in health insurance coverage would lead to better clinical outcomes, resulting in fewer heart attacks, strokes and cancers. Their assumption was that fewer life-threatening medical problems would bring down medical costs.
That’s not what happened. Although the rate of healthcare inflation did, indeed, slow to match GDP growth, the cost decreases weren’t from higher-quality medical care, drug breakthroughs or a healthier citizenry. Instead, it was driven by skimping.
To illustrate this, here are three ways that skimping reduces medical costs but worsens public health:
1. High-Deductible Health Insurance
In the 20th century, traditional health insurance included two out-of-pocket expenses. Patients paid a modest upfront fee at the point of care (in a doctor’s office or hospital) and then a portion of the medical bill afterward, usually totaling a few hundred dollars.
Both those numbers began skyrocketing around 2010 when employers adopted high-deductible insurance plans to offset the rising cost of insurance premiums (the amount an insurance company charges for coverage). With this new model, workers pay a sizable sum from their own pockets—up to $7,050 for single coverage and $14,100 for families—before any health benefits kick in.
Insurers and businesses argue that high-deductible plans force employees to have more “skin in the game,” incentivizing them to make wiser healthcare choices.
But instead of promoting smarter decisions, these plans have made care so expensive that many patients avoid getting the medical assistance they need.Nearly half of Americans have taken on debt due to medical bills. And 15% of people with employer-sponsored health coverage (23 million people) have seen their health get worse because they’ve delayed or skipped needed care due to costs.
And when it comes to Medicaid, the government-run health program for individuals living in poverty, doctors and hospitals are paid dramatically lower rates than with private insurance.
As a result, even though the nation’s 90 million Medicaid enrollees have health insurance, they find it difficult to access care because an increasing number of physicians won’t accept them as patients.
2. Cost Shifting
Unlike with private insurers, the U.S. government unilaterally sets prices when paying for healthcare. And in doing so, it transfers the financial burden to employers and uninsured patients, which leads to skimping.
To understand how this happens, remember that hospitals pay the same amount for doctors, nurses and medicines, regardless of how much they are paid (by insurers) to care for a patient. If the dollars reimbursed for some patients don’t cover the costs, then other patients are charged more to make up the difference.
Two decades ago, Congress enacted legislation to curb federal spending on healthcare. This led Medicare to drastically reduce how much it pays for inpatient services. Consequently, private insurers and uninsured patients now pay double and sometimes triple Medicare rates for hospital services, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation report.
These higher prices generate heftier out-of-pocket expenses for privately insured individuals and massive bills for the uninsured, forcing millions of Americans to forgo necessary tests and treatments.
3. Delaying, Denying Care
Insurers act as the bridge between those who pay for healthcare (businesses and the government) and those who provide it (doctors and hospitals). To sell coverage, they must design a plan that (a) payers can afford and (b) providers of care will accept.
When healthcare costs surge, insurers must either increase premiums proportionately, which payers find unacceptable, or find ways to lower medical costs. Increasingly, insurers are choosing the latter. And their most common approach to cost reduction is skimping through prior authorization.
Originally promoted as a tool to prevent misuse (or overuse) of medical services and drugs, prior authorization has become an obstacle to delivering excellent medical care. Insurers know that busy doctors will hesitate to recommend costly tests or treatments likely to be challenged. And even when they do, patients weary of the wait will abandon treatment nearly one-third of the time.
This dynamic creates a vicious cycle: costs go down one year, but medical problems worsen the next year, requiring even more skimping the third year.
The Real Cost Of Healthcare Skimping
Federal actuaries project that healthcare expenses will rise another $3 trillion over the next eight years, consuming nearly 20% of the U.S. GDP by 2031.
But given the challenges of ongoing inflation and rapidly rising national debt, it’s more plausible that healthcare’s share of the GDP will remain at around 17%.
This outcome won’t be due to medical advancements or innovative technologies, but rather the result of greater skimping.
For example, consider that Medicare decreased payments to doctors 2% this year with another 3.3% cut proposed for 2024. And this year, more than 10 million low-income Americans have lost Medicaid coverage as states continue rolling back eligibility following the pandemic. And insurers are increasingly using AI to automate denials for payment.
Currently, the competitive job market has business leaders leery of cutting employee health benefits. But as the economy shifts, employees should anticipate paying even more for their healthcare.
The truth is that our healthcare system is grossly inefficient and financially unsustainable. Until someone or something disrupts that system, replacing it with a more effective alternative, we will see more and more skimping as our nation struggles to restrain medical costs.
Six individuals and the owners of two small businesses sued the federal government, arguing that the ACA provision “makes it impossible” for them to purchase health insurance for themselves or their employees that excludes free preventive care. The plaintiffs argue that they do not want or need such care. They specifically name the medication PrEP (used to prevent the spread of HIV), contraception, the HPV vaccine, and screening and behavioral counseling for sexually transmitted diseases and substance use; however, they seek to invalidate the entire ACA preventive benefit package.
A federal trial court judge agreed with some of their claims and invalidated free coverage of more than 50 services, including lung, breast, and colon cancer screenings and statins to prevent heart disease.
This ruling, which is currently being appealed, strips free preventive services coverage from more than 150 million privately insured people and approximately 20 million Medicaid beneficiaries who are covered under the ACA’s Medicaid expansion.
This suit was first filed in 2020. The plaintiffs in the case, Braidwood Management v. Becerra, continue to oppose the entire preventive benefit package, which consists of four service bundles: services rated “A” or “B” by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF); routine immunizations recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP); evidence-informed services for children recommended by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA); and evidence-informed women’s health care recommended by HRSA. The trial judge invalidated all benefits recommended by the USPSTF after March 23, 2010, the date the ACA became law. (The court also exempted the plaintiffs on religious grounds from their obligation to cover PrEP.) The Fifth Circuit put the trial court’s decision on temporary hold while the case is on appeal.
The Fifth Circuit, one of the nation’s most conservative appeals courts, will hear the Biden administration’s appeal of the trial court’s USPSTF ruling and the entirety of the plaintiffs’ original challenge, thereby putting all four coverage guarantees in play. The court also will hear whether the ruling should apply only to the plaintiffs or to all Americans.
The trial court held that the USPSTF lacks the legal status necessary under the Constitution to make binding coverage decisions, and that the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) — who can make such binding decisions — lacks the power to rectify matters by formally adopting USPSTF recommendations. The judge concluded that federal law fails to require that members be presidential nominees confirmed by the Senate under the Appointments Clause; in the judge’s view, this means that members are not politically accountable for their decisions, which is constitutionally problematic. The judge also ruled that federal law makes the USPSTF the final coverage arbiter, which means that the HHS Secretary, who is nominated and confirmed under the Appointments Clause and thus politically accountable, cannot cure the constitutional problem by ratifying USPSTF recommendations.
On appeal, the Biden administration argues that the USPSTF passes constitutional muster because the HHS Secretary, who oversees the Task Force, is a nominated and confirmed constitutional officer. Alternatively, the administration argues the appeals court should interpret the statute as allowing the HHS Secretary to ratify USPSTF recommendations, since the law specifies that USPSTF members are independent of political pressure only “to the extent practicable.” The administration makes similar arguments on behalf of ACIP and HRSA.
The plaintiffs argue that secretarial ratification cannot cure the constitutional problems with all three advisory bodies. According to the plaintiffs, none of the advisory bodies has the status of constitutional officers demanded by the Appointments Clause, and so their recommendations must remain recommendations only, unenforceable by HHS on insurers, health plans, and state Medicaid programs.
The second issue is the scope of the remedy if the law is found unconstitutional. The trial court did not limit its holding to the four individual plaintiffs and two companies who sued, but instead applied its order nationwide. The Biden administration argues that, if the coverage guarantee is unconstitutional, the court only should prohibit HHS from enforcing the preventive services provision against the plaintiffs who brought the lawsuit and should allow the coverage guarantee to remain in force for the rest of the country. Citing an amicus brief filed by the American Public Health Association and public health deans and scholars, the administration argues that barring HHS from enforcing the preventive services requirement nationwide “pose[s] a grave threat to the public health” by decreasing Americans’ access to lifesaving preventive services. The plaintiffs argue that a nationwide prohibition is necessary, the broader public interest in free preventive coverage is irrelevant, and insurers will voluntarily continue to offer free preventive coverage if people want it.
The administration’s arguments on appeal have attracted amicus briefs by bipartisan economic scholars, organizations concerned with health equity and preventive health, health care organizations, and 23 states.
Crucially, the economists point out that, prior to the ACA, comprehensive free preventive coverage was extremely limited because it is not in insurers’ interest to make a long-term economic investment in members’ health. Indeed, prior to the ACA, insurers did not even uniformly cover the basic screenings for newborns to detect treatable illnesses and conditions.
Amicus briefs supporting the plaintiffs have been filed by Texas and an organization dedicated to “protecting individual liberties . . . against government overreach.” All briefing will be complete by November 3, 2023, with oral argument thereafter. A decision is likely in early to mid-2024. Whatever the outcome, expect a Supreme Court appeal given the size of the stakes in the case.
HENRY KOTULA 