Category Archives: Medical Debt

Foundational Steps Vital on the Road to Universal Health Care

Posted on by • Posted in ACA, Financialization of Health, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Insurance Denial, Health Insurance Industry, Healthcare Reform, Medical Debt, Medical-Financial-Industrial Complex (MFIC), Medical-Industrial Complex, Medicare for All, Pandemic, Physicians for a National Health Program, Profit Motive, Universal Coverage, Universal Healthcare System • Leave a comment
https://wendellpotter.substack.com/p/foundational-steps-vital-on-the-road?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=255152&post_id=144470044&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=59t65&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

“Incrementalism.” The word is perceived as the enemy of hope for universal health care in the United States.

Those who advocate for single-payer, expanded Medicare for all tend to be on the left side of the political spectrum, and we have advanced the movement while pushing back on incremental change. But the profit-taking health industry giants in what’s been called the medical-industrial complex are pursuing their own incremental agenda, designed to sustain the outrageously expensive and unfair status quo.

In recent years, as the financial sector of the U.S. economy has joined that unholy alliance, scholars have begun writing about the “financialization” of health care.

It has morphed into the medical-financial-industrial complex (MFIC) so vast and deeply entrenched in our economy that a single piece of legislation to achieve our goal–even with growing support in Congress–remains far short of enough votes to enact.

If we are to see the day when all Americans can access care without significant financial barriers, policy changes that move us closer to that goal must be pursued as aggressively as we fight against the changes that push universal health care into the distant future. Labeling all positive steps toward universal health care as unacceptable “incrementalism” could have the effect of aiding and abetting the MFIC and increase the chances of a worst-case scenario: Medicare Advantage for all, a goal of the giants in the private insurance business. But words matter. Instead of “incremental,” let’s call the essential positive steps forward as “foundational” and not undermine them.

The pandemic crisis exposed the weaknesses of our health system. When millions of emergencies in the form of COVID-19 infections overtook the system, most providers were ill-prepared and understaffed. More than 1.1 million U.S. citizens died of COVID-19-related illness, according to the Centers for Disease Control. 

For years, the MFIC had been advancing its agenda, even as the U.S. was losing ground in life expectancy and major measures of health outcomes. While health care profits soared in the years leading up to and during the pandemic, those of us in the single-payer movement demanded improved, expanded Medicare for all.  And we were right to do so. Progress came through almost every effort. The number of advocates grew, and more newly elected leaders supported a single-payer plan. Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential bid proved that millions of Americans were fed up with having to delay or avoid care altogether because it simply cost too much or because insurance companies refused to cover needed tests, treatments and medications.

But as the demand for systemic overhaul grew, the health care industry was making strategic political contributions and finding ways to gain even more control of health policy and the political process itself. 

Over the years, many in the universal health care movement have opposed foundational change for strategic reasons. Some movement leaders believed that backing small changes or tweaks to the current system at best deflected from our ultimate goal. And when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was passed, many on the left viewed it as a Band-Aid if not an outright gift to the MFIC. While many physicians in our movement knew that the law’s Medicaid expansion and the provisions making it illegal for insurers to refuse coverage to people with preexisting conditions would save many thousands of lives, they worried that the ACA would further empower big insurance companies. Both positions were valid.

After the passage of the ACA, more of us had insurance cards in our wallets and access to needed care for the first time, although high premiums and out-of-pocket costs have become insurmountable barriers for many. Meanwhile, industry profits soared. 

The industry expanded its turf. Hospitals grew larger, stand-alone urgent care clinics, often owned by corporate conglomerates, opened on street corners in cities across the country, private insurance rolls grew, disease management schemes proliferated, and hospital and drug prices continued the march upward. The money flowing into the campaign coffers of political candidates made industry-favored incremental changes an easier lift.

The MFIC now enjoys a hold on nearly one-fifth of our GDP. Almost one of every five dollars flowing through our economy does so because of that ever-expanding, profit-focused complex.  

To change this “system” would require an overhaul of the whole economy. Single-payer advocates must consider that herculean task as they continue their work. We must understand that the true system of universal health care we envision would also disrupt the financial industry – banks, collection agencies, investors – an often-forgotten but extraordinarily powerful segment of the corporate-run complex.  

Even if the research and data show that improved, expanded Medicare for all would save money and lives (and they do show that), that is not motivating for the finance folks, who fear that without unfettered control of health care, they might profit less. Eliminating medical bills and debt would be marvelous for patients but not for a large segment of the financial community, including bankruptcy attorneys.

Following the money in U.S. health care means understanding how deep and far the tentacles of profit reach, and how embedded they are now.

We know the MFIC positioned itself to continue growing profits and building more capacity. The industry made steady, incremental progress toward that goal. There is no illusion that better overall health for Americans is the mission of the stockholders who drive this industry. No matter what the marketers tell us, patients are not their priority. If too many of us get healthier, we might not use as much care and generate as much money for the owners and providers. Private insurers want enough premiums and government perks to keep flowing their way to keep the C-Suite and Wall Street happy.

More than health insurers

Health insurers are far from the only rapidly expanding component of the MFIC. A recent documentary, “American Hospitals: Healing a Broken System,” for example, explores a segment of the U.S. health industry that is often overlooked by policymakers and the media. Though they were unprepared for the national health crisis, hospitals endured the pandemic in this country largely because the dedicated doctors, nurses and ancillary staff risked their own lives to keep caring for COVID-19 patients while everything from masks, gowns and gloves to thermometers and respirators were in short supply. But make no mistake, many hospitals were still making money through the pandemic. In fact, some boosted their already high profits, and private insurance companies had practically found profit-making nirvana. Patients put off everything from colonoscopies to knee replacements, physical therapy to MRIs. Procedures not done meant claims not submitted, while monthly insurance premiums kept right on coming and right on increasing. 

The pandemic was a time of turmoil for most businesses and families, yet the MFIC took its share of profits. It was pure gold for many hospitals until staffing pressures and supply issues grew more dire, COVID patients were still in need of care, and more general patient care needs started to reemerge.

We might be forgiven for thinking there wasn’t much regulating or legislating done around health care during the pandemic years. We’d be wrong. There was a flurry of legislation at the state level as some states took on the abuses of the private insurance industry and hospital billing practices. 

And the movement to improve and expand traditional Medicare to cover all of us stayed active, though somewhat muted. The bills before Congress that expanded access to Medicaid during the pandemic through a continuous enrollment provision offered access to care for millions of people. Yet as that COVID-era expansion ended, many of those patients were left without coverage or access to care. This might have been a chance to raise the issue loudly, but the social justice movement did not sufficiently activate national support for maintaining continuous enrollment in Medicaid. Is that the kind of foundational change worth fighting for? I would argue it most certainly is.

As those previously covered by Medicaid enter this “unwinding” phase, many will be unable to secure equivalent or adequate health insurance coverage. The money folks began to worry as coverage waned. After all, sick people will show up needing care and they will not be able to pay for it. As of this writing, patient advocacy groups are largely on the sidelines.

 But Allina Health took action. The hospital chain announced it would no longer treat patients with medical debt. After days of negative press, the company did an about-face. 

Throughout the country, even as the pandemic loomed, the universal, single-payer movement focused on explaining to candidates and elected officials why improving and expanding Medicare to cover all of us not only is a moral imperative but also makes economic sense. In many ways, the movement has been tremendously effective: More than 130 city and county governing bodies have passed resolutions in support of Medicare for all, including in Seattle, Denver, Cincinnati, Washington, D.C., Tampa, Sacramento, Los Angeles, St. Louis, Atlanta, Duluth, Baltimore, and Cook County (Chicago). 

The Medicare for All Act, sponsored by Rep Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Sanders (I-Vt.) has 113 co-sponsors in the House and 14 in the Senate. Another bill allowing states to establish their own universal health care programs has been introduced in the House and will be introduced soon in the Senate.

Moving us closer

The late Dr. Quentin Young was a young Barack Obama’s doctor in Chicago. Young spoke to his president-in-the-making patient about universal health care and Obama, then a state legislator, famously answered that he would support a single-payer plan if we were starting from scratch. Many in the Medicare–for-all movement dismissed that statement as accepting corporate control of health care. 

But Young would steadfastly advocate for single-payer health care for years to come and as one of the founding forces behind Physicians for a National Health Program. Once Dr. Young was asked if the movement should support incremental changes. He answered, “If a measure makes it easier and moves us closer to achieving health care for all of us, we should support that wholeheartedly. And if a measure makes it harder to get to single-payer, we need to oppose it and work to defeat that measure.”  Many people liked that response. Others were not persuaded.

But in recent years, PHNP has become a national leader in a broad-based effort to halt the privatization of Medicare through so-called Medicare Advantage plans and other means. A case can be made that those are incremental/foundational but essential steps to achieving the ultimate goal.

We must fight incrementally sometimes, for instance when traditional Medicare is threatened with further privatization. Bit by painful bit, a program that has served this nation so well for more than 50 years will be carved up and given over to the private insurance industry unless the foundational steps taken by the industry are met with resistance and facts at every turn. We can achieve our goal by playing the short game as well as the long game. Foundational change can be and has been powerful. It just has to be focused on the health and well-being of every person.

8 Reasons Hospitals must Re-think their Future

Posted on by • Posted in 2024 Election Issues, Affordability, Health Insurance Industry, Health Policy, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Inflation, Market Consolidation, Market Power, Media Backlash, Medical Debt, Medicare Funding, Medicare Payment, Operating Expenses, Operating Income, Operating Margin, Operating Margin Drivers, Operating Metrics, Operating Performance, Operating Revenue, Physician Compensation, Physician Discontent, Physician Shortage, Physician Workforce, Strategic Change, Strategy, Strategy and Transformation, Surprise Bills, Survival Mode, Sustainable, Value-Based Healthcare • Leave a comment
8 Reasons Hospitals must Re-think their Future

Today is the federal income Tax Day. In 43 states, it’s in addition to their own income tax requirements. Last year, the federal government took in $4.6 trillion and spent $6.2 trillion including $1.9 trillion for its health programs. Overall, 2023 federal revenue decreased 15.5% and spending was down 8.4% from 2022 and the deficit increased to $33.2 trillion. Healthcare spending exceeded social security ($1.351 trillion) and defense spending ($828 billion) and is the federal economy’s biggest expense.

Along with the fragile geopolitical landscape involving relationships with China, Russia and Middle East, federal spending and the economy frame the context for U.S. domestic policies which include its health system. That’s the big picture.

Today also marks the second day of the American Hospital Association annual meeting in DC. The backdrop for this year’s meeting is unusually harsh for its members:

Increased government oversight:

Five committees of Congress and three federal agencies (FTC, DOJ, HHS) are investigating competition and business practices in hospitals, with special attention to the roles of private equity ownership, debt collection policies, price transparency compliance, tax exemptions, workforce diversity, consumer prices and more.

Medicare payment shortfall: 

CMS just issued (last week) its IPPS rate adjustment for 2025: a 2.6% bump that falls short of medical inflation and is certain to exacerbate wage pressures in the hospital workforce. Per a Bank of American analysis last week, “it appears healthcare payrolls remain below pre-pandemic trend” with hospitals and nursing homes lagging ambulatory sectors in recovering.”

Persistent negative media coverage:

The financial challenges for Mission (Asheville), Steward (Massachusetts) and others have been attributed to mismanagement and greed by their corporate owners and reports from independent watchdogs (Lown, West Health, Arnold Ventures, Patient Rights Advocate) about hospital tax exemptions, patient safety, community benefits, executive compensation and charity care have amplified unflattering media attention to hospitals.

Physicians discontent: 

59% of physicians in the U.S. are employed by hospitals; 18% by private equity-backed investors and the rest are “independent”. All are worried about their income. All think hospitals are wasteful and inefficient. Most think hospital employment is the lesser of evils threatening the future of their profession. And those in private equity-backed settings hope regulators leave them alone so they can survive. As America’s Physician Group CEO Susan Dentzer observed: “we knew we’re always going to need hospitals; but they don’t have to look or operate the way they do now. And they don’t have to be predicated on a revenue model based on people getting more elective surgeries than they actually need. We don’t have to run the system that way; we do run the healthcare system that way currently.”

The Value Agenda in limbo:

Since the Affordable Care Act (2010), the CMS Center for Innovation has sponsored and ultimately disabled all but 6 of its 54+ alternative payment programs. As it turns out, those that have performed best were driven by physician organizations sans hospital control. Last week’s release of “Creating a Sustainable Future for Value-Based Care: A Playbook of Voluntary Best Practices for VBC Payment Arrangements.” By the American Medical Association, the National Association of ACOs (NAACOs) and AHIP, the trade group representing America’s health insurance payers is illustrative. Noticeably not included: the American Hospital Association because value-pursuers think for hospitals it’s all talk.

National insurers hostility:  

Large, corporate insurers have intensified reimbursement pressure on hospitals while successfully strengthening their collective grip on the U.S. health insurance sector. 5 insurers control 50% of the U.S. health insurance market: 4 are investor owned. By contrast, the 5 largest hospital systems control 17% of the hospital market: 1 is investor-owned. And bumpy insurer earnings post-pandemic has prompted robust price increases: in 2022 (the last year for complete data and first year post pandemic), medical inflation was 4.0%, hospital prices went up 2.2% but insurer prices increased 5.9%.

Costly capital: 

The U.S. economy is in a tricky place: inflation is stuck above 3%, consumer prices are stable and employment is strong. Thus, the Fed is not likely to drop interest rates making hospital debt more costly for hospitals—especially problematic for public, safety net and rural hospitals. The hospital business is capital intense: it needs $$ for technologies, facilities and clinical innovations that treat medical demand. For those dependent on federal funding (i.e. Medicare), it’s unrealistic to think its funding from taxpayers will be adequate.  Ditto state and local governments. For those that are credit worthy, capital is accessible from private investors and lenders. For at least half, it’s problematic and for all it’s certain to be more expensive.

Campaign 2024 spotlight:

In Campaign 2024, healthcare affordability is an issue to likely voters. It is noticeably missing among the priorities in the hospital-backed Coalition to Strengthen America’s Healthcare advocacy platform though 8 states have already created “affordability” boards to enact policies to protect consumers from medical debts, surprise hospital bills and more.

Understandably, hospitals argue they’re victims. They depend on AHA, its state associations, and its alliances with FAH, CHA, AEH and other like-minded collaborators to fight against policies that erode their finances i.e. 340B program participation, site-neutral payments and others. They rightfully assert that their 7/24/365 availability is uniquely qualifying for the greater good, but it’s not enough. These battles are fought with energy and resolve, but they do not win the war facing hospitals.

AHA spent more than $30 million last year to influence federal legislation but it’s an uphill battle. 70% of the U.S. population think the health system is flawed and in need of transformative change. Hospitals are its biggest player (30% of total spending), among its most visible and vulnerable to market change.

Some think hospitals can hunker down and weather the storm of these 8 challenges; others think transformative change is needed and many aren’t sure. And all recognize that the future is not a repeat of the past.

For hospitals, including those in DC this week, playing victim is not a strategy. A vision about the future of the health system that’s accessible, affordable and effective and a comprehensive plan inclusive of structural changes and funding is needed. Hospitals should play a leading, but not exclusive, role in this urgently needed effort.

Lacking this, hospitals will be public utilities in a system of health designed and implemented by others.

How GoFundMe use demonstrates the problem of healthcare affordability

Posted on by • Posted in Affordability, Bankruptcy, Crowdfunding, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, High Deductible Health Plans, High Prices, Medical Debt, Out of Pocket Expenses • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/1e28b32fc32e/gist-weekly-february-9-2024?e=d1e747d2d8

Published this week in The Atlantic, this piece chronicles the increase in Americans using crowdfunding sites like GoFundMe to cover—or at least attempt to cover—their catastrophic medical expenses. Envisioned as a tool to fund “ideas and dreams,” the GoFundMe platform saw a 25-fold increase in the number of campaigns dedicated to medical care from 2011 to 2020.

Medical campaigns have garnered at least one third of all donations and raised $650M in contributions.

The article’s accounts of life-saving care leading to bankrupting medical bills are heartbreaking and familiar, and despite some success stories, the average GoFundMe medical campaign falls well short of its target donation goal. 

The Gist: 

Although unfortunately not surprising, these crowdfunding stats reflect our nation’s healthcare affordability crisis. 

Online campaigns can alleviate real financial burdens for some people; however, they come at the costs of publicly exposing personal medical information, potentially offering false hope, and financially imposing on friends and family. 

The majority of personal bankruptcies are caused by medical expenses, and recent changes like removing some levels of medical debt from credit reports are only a small step toward reducing the personal financial effects of medical debt. 

Absent larger-scale healthcare payment and coverage reform, healthcare industry leaders continue to be challenged with finding ways to decouple the provision of essential medical care from the risk of financial ruin for patients.

One third of hospitals take legal action against patients with outstanding medical bills, study finds

Posted on by • Posted in Accountability, Affordability, Collection Agency, Health Equity, Health Policy, Healthcare Reform, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Medical Debt, Rev Cycle Management, Revenue Cycle • Leave a comment
One third of hospitals take legal action against patients with outstanding medical bills, study finds

Nearly 50% of U.S. adults report struggling to keep up with the cost of healthcare, with four in ten ringing in the new year with medical debt. Medical debt is a major burden that often forces people to delay–and sometimes forgo–access to care. Not only do outstanding medical bills undermine health, but they also represent the most common type of collections, with estimates ranging anywhere from $81 to $140 billion. 

With problematic hospital practices gaining national media attention – including rejecting appointments for patients with outstanding medical bills and going so far as to sue such patients – the issue of medical debt is front and center for many Americans.

A glimpse into the state of hospital billing practices

Hospital watchdogs have started collecting valuable data on hospital billing practices to inform patients about these practices and potentially put pressure on hospitals to improve.

In an effort to capture the varied nature of hospital billing and collection practices, the Lown Institute is building a database of financial assistance policies and billing and collection practices across 2,500 hospitals with the support of Arnold Ventures. Initial results are expected to be available in mid-2024 with a full report issued in 2025. 

Also interested in evaluating the current state of hospital’s financial practices, in 2021, the Leapfrog Group added questions to their hospital survey around billing and collections. Researchers from the Leapfrog Group, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, and Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine published a recent analysis of this data in JAMA where they found that many hospitals are still falling short when it comes to billing ethics. Although the data set of 2,270 hospitals was not nationally representative, it provides an interesting glimpse into the billing practices of some U.S. hospitals.  

Here are the key takeaways: 

  • 754 hospitals (33.2%) reported that they “take legal action against patients for late payment or insufficient payment of a medical bill.” Rural hospitals were 38% more likely than urban hospitals to take legal action against patients. 
  • 1,020 (44.9%) hospitals did not routinely send patients itemized bills within 30 days of final claims adjudication or date of service for patients without insurance.
  • 125 (5.5%) hospitals did not provide access to billing representatives capable of investigating billing errors, offering price adjustment, and establishing payment plans.

Ultimately, only 38% of surveyed hospitals reported meeting all three proposed billing quality standards. Interestingly, hospitals with worse Leapfrog safety grades were less likely to meet all three billing standards compared to hospitals with better grades. It’s not clear what’s behind this pattern, but it could be an issue of capacity (hospitals with more resources and staff have an easier time abiding by safety protocol and billing standards), or potentially profiteering (hospitals more concerned with making money may be both understaffing hospitals and suing patients).

So, how can we encourage better billing practices and reduce harm caused by medical debt?

The JAMA study authors recommend standardizing measurement and reporting of hospital billing practices to “increase accountability, reduce variation in billing practices, and reduce barriers in access to care in the US.” 

Some states are taking these recommendations to the policy-level, working to make healthcare more affordable for patients. To date, eight states limit medical debt interest and two states restrict credit reporting of medical debt. Current policy proposals on the docket include New York’s Senate Bill S5909B, which seeks to ban hospitals from suing patients making less than 400% of the federal poverty level (FPL).

This research is important to not only provide further insight into how hospitals financially support, or undermine, their patients, but also inform policy efforts to improve healthcare affordability and hospital accountability moving forward.

The rising debate about hospital community benefits: Sanders vs AHA

Posted on by • Posted in American Hospital Association (AHA), Community Benefit, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Medical Debt, Tax Exempt Status • Leave a comment
The rising debate about hospital community benefits: Sanders vs AHA

We’ve been getting more and more questions about our Fair Share Spending work that assesses whether hospitals are giving back enough in financial assistance and community health investments to justify their generous tax breaks. Two new reports—one from a United States Senate committee and one from the American Hospitals Association—delve into this space and provide very different views. Here’s what you need to know.

Sanders report calls out hospitals

Nonprofit hospitals receive an estimated $28 billion in total tax breaks each year, but give back far less in meaningful community benefits. A Lown Institute report found that nonprofit hospitals received $14 billion more in tax breaks than they spent on financial assistance and community health programs in 2020, what we call a Fair Share Deficit. About three quarters of hospitals failed to give back to their communities in amounts commensurate with their tax exemption.

In August, four US Senators sent letters to the IRS asking for clarification on how hospitals are complying with the community benefit standard. And this week majority staff of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, chaired by Senator Bernie Sanders, released a report showing how some large hospital systems spend little on financial assistance, despite paying their CEOs whopping 8-figure salaries.

The Sanders report highlights examples of nonprofit hospitals engaging in aggressive billing activities such as sending patients’ medical debt to collections and denying care to patients with outstanding medical debt. The report also adds a new analysis of how much the 16 largest nonprofit hospital systems spend on financial assistance (free and discounted care for patients who can’t afford to pay). They find that 12 of these systems spent less than $0.02 for each dollar in revenue on financial assistance, and six gave less than $0.01. 

The report also called attention to “massive salaries” for some system CEOs, like Commonspirit which paid their CEO $35 million in 2021. Lown Institute data shows vast inequities at some hospitals, with some CEOs making up to 60 times what other hospital workers make.

This underinvestment in financial assistance causes real harm to patients. When hospitals charge patients for care they can’t afford, patients go into debt and often sacrifice basic needs and avoid additional care. An estimated 100 million Americans are in medical debt, and most owe at least some to hospitals. If hospitals paid off their $14 billion fair share deficit, it would be enough to erase the debt of 18 million Americans, which would be a huge step forward for fairness in the country.

AHA provides opposing view

The American Hospitals Association just published their analysis of hospital community benefit spending, finding that hospitals spent $130 billion in 2020, amounting to 15.5% of hospital expenses. That’s far more than other studies estimate. 

How can the AHA estimate be so different? The answer depends on what’s being counted as a “community benefit.” When you imagine programs to improve community health, you might think of free immunizations, health fairs and educational classes, food pantries and other nutritional assistance, investments in affordable housing, healthcare for the homeless, etc. However, spending on those types of programs made up only 1.8% of hospital expenses in 2020, according to the AHA’s report.

Financial assistance, free or discounted care for eligible patients, is another important category of community benefit spending. But the AHA report doesn’t break out this amount on its own; instead, they lump it in together with Medicaid shortfall and other unreimbursed costs of government programs.

While it’s important that hospitals care for patients with Medicaid, the “shortfall” they report does not go towards tangible community programs or into the pockets of patients. Instead, this is an accounting item related to the discounted prices in Medicaid. Hospitals offer discounts on care to insurers all the time, but these aren’t considered community benefits–why should Medicaid discounts be any different? Most hospitals already make up this shortfall from public insurers by charging private insurers more than their costs of care. The same goes for Medicare shortfall, which the AHA report also includes in their total, despite this not even being considered a “community benefit” by the IRS.

The AHA report also includes bad debt, which is money the hospital expected to get from patients but never received. The AHA argues this spending is a benefit to the community because many patients who don’t pay would have qualified for financial assistance. However, in the real world, policies on financial assistance vary widely and getting access to it can be easy or hard. If a hospital goes to great lengths to make their financial assistance application simple and accessible, and give more in assistance as a result, that should be rewarded. On the other hand, if hospitals make getting assistance hard and hound low-income patients to pay their bills or send their debt to collection agencies, that hardly seems like a “community benefit.”

What can policymakers do?

The Sanders report adds to existing evidence that nonprofit hospitals could do much more to improve community health and earn their tax-exempt status. How can federal policymakers improve transparency and incentives around the community benefit standard? See some of our key recommendations for Congress on this issue.

New York governor to curb hospitals suing patients

Posted on by • Posted in Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Legislative Agenda, Medical Debt, Rev Cycle Management, Revenue Cycle, Uncompensated Care • Leave a comment
https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/new-york-governor-to-curb-hospitals-suing-patients.html?origin=BHRE&utm_source=BHRE&utm_medium=email&utm_content=newsletter&oly_enc_id=2893H2397267F7G

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul has vowed to protect New Yorkers from medical debt, limit hospitals’ ability to sue patients and expand financial assistance programs as part of her 2024 State of the State.

Ms. Hochul aims to introduce legislation that would curb hospitals’ ability to sue patients earning less than 400% of the federal poverty level ($120,000 for a family of four). 

The legislation would also expand hospital financial assistance programs for low-income New Yorkers, limit the size of monthly payments and interest charged for medical debt, among other protections to improve access to financial assistance and mitigate the effects of medical debt.

“More than 700,000 New Yorkers have medical debt in collections. Individuals with medical debt are less likely to seek necessary medical care and report being forced to cut back on critical social determinants of health, including food, heat, and rent,” Ms. Hochul’s office said in a Jan. 2 news release. “As a result, substantial debt levels threaten not only the financial stability of many individuals and families, but also undermine the state’s commitment to improving health equity and health outcomes.”

The governor also aims to eliminate insulin cost-sharing through proposed legislation and provide financial relief to New Yorkers and improve adherence to these medications. With 1.58 million New Yorkers diagnosed with diabetes, Ms. Hochul’s office estimates this initiative will save about $14 million in 2025 alone. 

“Too many New Yorkers today must overextend their finances to afford critical healthcare, like insulin, and to pay everyday expenses, like rent,” New York State Department of Financial Services Superintendent Adrienne Harris said. “When an individual is forced to choose between the two, deprioritizing their health impacts their lives, their families, and ultimately increases costs across the healthcare system. The alternative is no better. Without enough cash to cover all expenses, New Yorkers have turned to buy now, pay later products, racking up debt with companies that have operated without guardrails in this state for too long.”

Ryder Cup Lessons for Team USA Healthcare

Posted on by • Posted in Affordability, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, Healthcare Reform, Lobbyist, Medical Debt, Mortality, Out of Pocket Expenses, Outcomes, Profit Motive, Public Health, Public Health Strategy, Quality of Care, Quality of Life, Underinsured, Uninsured, Universal Coverage, Universal Healthcare System • Leave a comment
Ryder Cup Lessons for Team USA Healthcare

Saturday, Congress voted overwhelming (House 335-91, Senate 88-9) to keep the government funded until Nov. 17 at 2023 levels. No surprise.  Congress is supposed to pass all 12 appropriations bills before the start of each fiscal year but has done that 4 times since 1970—the last in 1997. So, while this chess game plays out, the health system will soldier on against growing recognition it needs fixing.

In Wednesday night’s debate, GOP Presidential aspirant Nicki Haley was asked what she would do to address the spike in personal bankruptcies due to medical debt. Her reply:

“We will break all of it [down], from the insurance company, to the hospitals, to the doctors’ offices, to the PBMs [pharmacy benefit managers], to the pharmaceutical companies. We will make it all transparent because when you do that, you will realize that’s what the problem is…we need to bring competition back into the healthcare space by eliminating certificate of need systems… Once we give the patient the ability to decide their healthcare, deciding which plan they want, that is when we will see magic happen, but we’re going to have to make every part of the industry open up and show us where their warts are because they all have them”

It’s a sentiment widely held across partisan aisles and in varied degrees among taxpayers, employers and beyond. It’s a system flaw and each sector is complicit.

What seems improbable is a solution that rises above the politics of healthcare where who wins and loses is more important than the solutions themselves.

Perhaps as improbable as the European team’s dominating performance in the 44th Ryder Cup Championship played in Rome last week especially given pre-tournament hype about the US team.

While in Rome last week, I queried hotel employees, restaurant and coffee shop owners, taxi drivers and locals at the tournament about the Italian health system. I saw no outdoor signage for hospitals and clinics nor TV ads for prescriptions and OTC remedies. Its pharmacies, clinics and hospitals are non-descript, modest and understated. Yet groups like the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation Development (OECD) rank Servizio Sanitario Nazionale (SSN), the national system authorized in December 1978, in the top 10 in the world (The WHO ranks it second overall behind France).

“It covers all Italian citizens and legal foreign residents providing a full range of healthcare services with a free choice of providers. The service is free of charge at the point of service and is guided by the principles of universal coverage, solidarity, human dignity, and health. In principle, it serves as Italy’s public healthcare system.” Like U.S. ratings for hospitals, rankings for the Italian system vary but consistently place it in the top 15 based on methodologies comparing access, quality, and affordability.

The U.S., by contrast, ranks only first in certain high-end specialties and last among developed systems in access and affordability.

Like many systems of the world, SSN is governed by a national authority that sets operating principles and objectives administered thru 19 regions and two provinces that deliver health services under an appointed general manager. Each has significant independence and the flexibility to determine its own priorities and goals, and each is capitated based on a federal formula reflecting the unique needs and expected costs for that population’s health. 

It is funded through national and regional taxes, supplemented by private expenditure and insurance plans and regions are allowed to generate their own additional revenue to meet their needs. 74% of funding is public; 26% is private composed primarily of consumer out-of-pocket costs. By contrast, the U.S. system’s funding is 49% public (Medicare, Medicaid et al), 24% private (employer-based, misc.) and 27% OOP by consumers.

Italians enjoy the 6th highest life expectancy in the world, as well as very low levels of infant mortality. It’s not a perfect system: 10% of the population choose private insurance coverage to get access to care quicker along with dental care and other benefits. Its facilities are older, pharmacies small with limited hours and hospitals non-descript.

But Italians seem satisfied with their system reasoning it a right, not a privilege, and its absence from daily news critiques a non-concern.

Issues confronting its system—like caring for its elderly population in tandem with declining population growth, modernizing its emergency services and improving its preventive health programs are understood but not debilitating in a country one-fifth the size of the U.S. population.

My take:

Italy spends 9% of its overall GDP on its health system; the $4.6 trillion U.S spends 18% in its GDP on healthcare, and outcomes are comparable.  Our’s is better known but their’s appears functional and in many ways better.

Should the U.S.copy and paste the Italian system as its own? No. Our societies, social determinants and expectations vary widely. Might the U.S. health system learn from countries like Italy? Yes.

Questions like these merit consideration:

Might the U.S. system perform better if states had more authority and accountability for Medicare, CMS, Veterans’ health et al?

Might global budgets for states be an answer?

Might more spending on public health and social services be the answer to reduced costs and demand?

Might strict primary care gatekeeping be an answer to specialty and hospital care?

Might private insurance be unnecessary to a majority satisfied with a public system?

Might prices for prescription drugs, hospital services and insurance premiums be regulated or advertising limited?

Might employers play an expanded role in the system’s accountability?

Can we afford the system long-term, given other social needs in a changing global market?

Comparisons are constructive for insights to be learned. It’s true in healthcare and professional golf. The European team was better prepared for the Ryder Cup competition. From changes to the format of the matches, to pin placements and second shot distances requiring precision from 180-200 yards out on approach shots: advantage Europe. Still, it was execution as a team that made the difference in its dominating 16 1/2- 11 1/2 win —not the celebrity of any member.

The time to ask and answer tough questions about the sustainability of the U.S. system and chart a path forward. A prepared, selfless effort by a cross-sector Team Healthcare USA is our system’s most urgent need. No single sector has all the answers, and all are at risk of losing.

Team USA lost the Ryder Cup because it was out-performed by Team Europe: its data, preparation and teamwork made the difference.

Today, there is no Team Healthcare USA: each sector has its stars but winning the competition for the health and wellbeing of the U.S. populations requires more.

Do We Still Care About the Uninsured?

Posted on by • Posted in 2024 Election Issues, ACA, Bad Debt Expense, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, Medicaid Expansion, Medical Debt, Out of Pocket Expenses, Underinsured, Uninsured, Universal Coverage, Universal Healthcare System • Leave a comment
Do We Still Care About the Uninsured?

Were you better off in 2022 than you were in 2017? I was for a lot of reasons. One thing that didn’t change over those five years, though, was my health insurance status. I had health insurance in 2017, and I had health insurance in 2022. And I still have health insurance today.

So do most Americans. In fact, according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s latest report on health insurance coverage in the U.S., 92.1% of us had some form of health insurance in 2022. That’s about 304 million people, per the report.

Conversely, 7.9% of us were uninsured last year. That’s a little more than 25.9 million people. That’s down from 8.3% and about 27.2 million people in 2021.

Some may see the decrease in both the percentage and number of uninsured as good news. And it is. Any time the uninsured figures go down, that’s good.

The bad news is, we’re back where we were in 2017. That’s also when 7.9% of us, or about 25.6 million people, were uninsured. Five years of trying to get more people insured and nothing to show for it.

The number of people with any type of private health insurance (employer-based or direct-purchase) crept up to 216.5 million last year from 216.4 million in 2021. The number of people with any type of public health insurance (Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) rose to 119.1 million last year from 117.1 million in 2021. Both headed in the right direction but too slow to push the uninsured rate significantly down.

If we want to get serious about achieving universal coverage, let’s get serious about it. If we don’t want to get serious about it because most of us already have health insurance, the only useful purpose of the Census Bureau’s annual reports on health insurance is to show us how little we really care.

Thanks for reading.

To learn more about this topic, please read: