One of the things I’ve always found most fascinating about news coverage and policymaker attention to health insurers is how little focus is placed on what these companies say to their investors.
It’s no secret that each quarter, all public companies update their shareholders and provide guidance for the future. When I was at Cigna, preparing the CEO to speak with reporters and investor analysts was arguably considered the most important role I had every three months.
Mining insights from those earnings reports has been a focus of mine since I became an insurance industry whistleblower. Recently, for example, we’ve highlighted how CVS/Aetna, in particular, has taken a beating on its stock price for reporting increased spending on medical care by seniors in Medicare Advantage plans.
Now, though, CEOs have become even more public and open, beyond their quarterly earnings calls, about the challenges they are having extracting further profit from the Medicaid and Medicare programs. This should be noted, particularly by the bipartisan group of lawmakers in Washington increasingly eyeing regulatory reform on insurer practices like prior authorization, as evidence that insurers are going to become even more aggressive in limiting care to preserve their 2024 profits.
Centene’s CEO saida few days ago that medical claims are increasing in the company’s managed Medicaid business. UnitedHealth and Elevance, which owns several Blue Cross Blue Shield companies that have converted to for-profit status, also recently reported they’re seeing similar results. Combined with increased medical spending on Medicare Advantage claims, one might guess this would begin to worry investors that insurers would lower their profit forecasts.
But none of these companies have so far expressed concern about not meeting their 2024 profit expectations.
So, medical claims in Medicaid and Medicare Advantage plans – now the majority of the business for many of the largest insurers – are rising, but these companies aren’t expecting to disappoint Wall Street with a drop in profits. How is that possible?
Because insurers can deploy the tools to prevent patients from accessing care. And their playbook isn’t secret, or complicated.
By further increasing prior authorization in Medicaid and Medicare Advantage plans, insurers can limit how many seniors and low-income Americans follow through with legitimate care and procedures. (Here’s a recent congressional report on increased hurdles insurers have put in place to prevent children from receiving preventive care in Medicaid plans. And insurers’ increasing use of prior authorization in Medicare Advantage is something we’ve regularly covered.)
Unlike their marketplace and employer-based plans, insurers can’t negotiate reimbursement rates for Medicaid and Medicare Advantage plans that they manage.
But beyond prior authorization, they can put other layers of bureaucracy in place that increase how long it takes a provider to be reimbursed for providing care – and to make it more complicated for doctors to ensure they’re reimbursed fully for the care they provide.
In effect, these tactics can amount to decreasing the already industry-low rate of reimbursement for doctors from the Medicaid and Medicare Advantage programs. Physicians, you should expect to see more hurdles to reimbursement in these programs throughout the balance of 2024 as insurers look to hoard as much cash as they can.
In Medicare Advantage plans, insurers can pursue the industry jargon of a “benefit buydown” to further shift costs onto plan enrollees and off insurers themselves. Because the federal government pays insurers a flat amount per Medicare Advantage enrollee, regardless of how much health care spending each patient has, it is in the insurers’ financial interest to claim that seniors and disabled people enrolled in their plans are sicker than they really are.
Rising out-of-pocket costs that seniors and disabled people in Medicare Advantage plans are facing is a consequence of insurers wanting to squeeze further profits out of the program, and is a way to maintain direct government payments per enrollee within the insurers’ coffers.
Medicare spends huge sums financing the dental, vision and other benefits offered by Medicare Advantage plans. A new government report sounds the alert about their potential misuse.
In mid-March, the Medicare Payments Advisory Commission (MedPAC), which advises Congress on Medicare policy, made a bombshell disclosure in its annual Medicare report. The rebates that Medicare offers Medicare Advantage plans for supplemental benefits like vision, dental, and gym membership were at “nearly record levels”, more than doubling from 2018 to nearly $64 billion in 2024, but the government “does not have reliable information about enrollees’ actual use of these benefits at this time.”
In other words: $64 billion is being spent to subsidize private Medicare Advantage plans to provide benefits that are not available to enrollees in traditional Medicare, and the government has no idea how they are being spent.
Not only is this an enormous potential misallocation of taxpayer resources from the Medicare trust fund, it is also a critical part of Medicare Advantage’s marketing scam. The additional benefits offered in Medicare Advantage plans are what entice people to give up traditional Medicare, where there is no prior authorization, closed networks, or care denials.
But, as MedPAC states in the report, even though the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) does not collect the data on utilization of supplemental benefits, what little data there is does not paint a pretty picture, with MedPAC noting that, “Limited data suggest that use of non-Medicare-covered supplemental benefits is low.”
HEALTH CARE un-covered is among the first media outlet to report MedPAC’s findings.
A 2018 study by Milliman, an actuarial firm, found that just 11 percent of Medicare Advantage beneficiaries had claims for dental care in that year, and that “multiple studies using survey data have found that beneficiaries with dental coverage in MA are not more likely to receive dental services than other Medicare beneficiaries.” A study from the Consumer Healthcare Products Association found that just one-third of eligible participants in Medicare Advantage plans used an over-the-counter medication benefit at pharmacies, leaving $5 billion annually on the table for insurers to pocket. Elevance Health, formerly Anthem, has 42 supplemental benefits available to Medicare Advantage beneficiaries. They analyzed a subset of 860,000 beneficiaries. For six of the 42 benefits, the $124 billion insurer could not report utilization data. For the other 36 supplemental benefits, the bulk of those covered used fewer than four benefits, with a full quarter not using any benefits at all and a majority using one or less benefits.
Medpac added that it had “previously reported that while these benefits often include coverage for vision, hearing, or dental services, the non-Medicare supplemental benefits are not necessarily tailored toward populations that have the greatest social or medical needs. The lack of information about enrollees’ use of supplemental benefits makes it difficult to determine whether the benefits improve beneficiaries’ health.”
With studies already showing that Medicare Advantage is associated with increased racial disparities in seniors’ health care, the massive subsidies provided to supplemental benefits appears to be an inadvertent driver of this problem:
the $64 billion—at least the portion of it that is actually being spent as opposed to deposited into insurer coffers—is likely not going to the populations that actually need it.
Amber Christ is the managing director of health policy for Justice in Aging, which advocates for the rights of seniors. “Health plans are receiving a large amount of dollars to provide supplemental benefits through rebates to plans. Clearly the offering have expanded, but the extent that they are being used is a black box,” she said. What little we do know, she said, indicates a “real lack of utilization.”
Christ pointed out that the Biden administration has taken some significant steps forward. “We’ve seen some good things coming out of CMS that will bring some transparency—the plans are going to have to report spending and utilization data, and in 2026 they will have to start sending notices to enrollees at the six-month point, letting people know what benefits they have used and what’s available. Those are all good moves.”
What’s missing from the proposed rule-making, however, is how the colossal outlays to supplemental benefits impact the goal of health equity, Christ said. “What we would have wanted to see more is demographics around utilization. Are there disparities in access?”
Of particular concern to advocates is the way that Medicare Advantage plans use supplemental benefits to market to “dual eligibles,” people who are eligible for Medicaid and Medicare. Medicare Advantage plans have taken to offering what amounts to cash benefits to dual eligibles, which provides a very strong incentive for people to sign up for Medicare Advantage.
But it’s effectively a trap, as being in both Medicare Advantage and Medicaid can not only result in prior authorization, care denials, and losing access to one’s physician, but also making care endlessly complex.
“Medicaid offers a bunch of supplemental benefits, either fully or often more comprehensively than Medicare Advantage. Seniors get lured into these health plans for benefits that they already have access to. But because benefits between Medicare Advantage and Medicaid aren’t coordinated people experience disruptions to their access to care. If they are dually enrolled it should go above and beyond, not duplicate coverage or making it more difficult to access coverage,” Christ said.
David Lipschutz, the associate director of the Center for Medicare Advocacy, related an experience he had with a state health official who counseled a senior against enrolling in Medicare Advantage. The official “was able to stop them and help them think through their choices. She wanted to enroll in a Medicare Advantage plan that offered a flex benefit,” which is basically restricted cash (Aetna, for example, restricts its recipients to spending the money at stores owned by CVS Health, its parent company). “None of her five doctors contracted with the Medicare Advantage plan. Had it not been with that interaction with the health counselor. She would have traded the flex card for no access to her current physicians. It’s an untenable situation.”
Lipschutz added that Medicare Advantage insurers contract with community organizations to administer supplemental benefits, which helps to insulate the industry from political pressure from advocates in Washington. “This whole new range of supplemental benefits has also at the same time pulled in a lot of community based organizations. They need the cash that the plans are offering. It creates a welcome dynamic for insurance companies trying to make community organizations dependent on their money. But it’s not a good situation to be in when you’re trying to reign in Medicare Advantage overpayments.”
Bid/Ask
The core of the financing of supplemental benefits is through a bid system, in which CMS sets a benchmark based on area fee-for-service Medicare spending, and then invites insurers to submit a bid, and then receives a rebate for supplemental benefits based on the benchmark. The essential problem is that the average person in traditional Medicare is sicker than someone in a Medicare Advantage plan—the research shows that when patients get sick, they leave Medicare Advantage for traditional Medicare if they can. And Medicare Advantage plans aggressively market to healthier patients—the oft-touted gym membership supplemental benefit only works for those who actually work out at the gym regularly. (Well under one-third of those 75 and over.)
And in counties with low traditional Medicare spending, the benchmark is at 115 or 107.5 percent—an unreasonable and massive subsidy written into the Affordable Care Act at the behest of the insurance lobby. The lowest benchmark is at 95 percent of FFS spending for areas with high costs.
“The way the payment is set up leads to this excessive amount of rebate dollars,” said Lipschutz. “It’s a fundamentally flawed payment system which is in dire need of reform.” Lipschutz’s position jives with the MedPAC report, which states that: “A major overhaul of MA policies is urgently needed.”
Supplements For Half
“You shouldn’t have to enroll in a private plan just to access these benefits,” said Lipschutz. But that’s exactly the choice millions of seniors are faced with. Forty-nine percent of seniors remain in traditional Medicare.
And for that group, Medicare offers no supplemental benefits, Christ said. “As a foundational principle spending all this money for Medicare Advantage to give supplemental benefits doesn’t make sense. This is the Medicare trust fund. Half of Medicare has “access,” and the other half, in traditional Medicare, doesn’t. Wouldn’t those dollars be better spent giving everyone access? Especially when we understand that Medicare Advantage has narrower providers and prior authorization.
There’s a recognition that these supplemental benefits have positive impacts on quality of life, but we’re not offering it in traditional Medicare—even though Medicare Advantage is not doing a better job than traditional Medicare.”
House of Cards?
A new lawsuit, filed in April, could substantially impact the incentives that plans have to offer supplemental benefits. To manage costs, many Medicare Advantage plans have value-based care arrangements with providers—meaning that they share some of their revenues with hospitals and other health providers to ensure access to networks and to smooth costs out in the long run.
But as part of this arrangement, providers bear some of the costs of the plans—including the cost of supplemental benefits. Bridges Health Partners, which is a clinically integrated network of doctors and hospitals, sued Aetna to block the allocation of supplemental benefits to the expenses that they bear the cost of, due to a 20-fold increase in their costs.
Combined with the 2026 requirement from CMS that participants be informed as to what benefits they haven’t used, insurers’ ability to offer these supplemental benefits and still retain sky-high profit margins could be curtailed.
It’s no secret I feel strongly that “Medicare Advantage for All” is not a healthy end goal for universal health care coverage in our country. But I also recognize there are many folks, across the political spectrum, who see the program as one that has some merit. And it’s not going away anytime soon. To say the insurance industry has clout in Washington is an understatement.
As politicians in both parties increase their scrutiny of Medicare Advantage, and the Biden administration reviews proposed reforms to the program, I think it’s important to highlight common-sense, achievable changes with broad appeal that would address the many problems with MA and begin leveling the playing field with the traditional Medicare program.
1. Align prior authorization MA standards with traditional Medicare
Since my mother entered into an MA plan more than a decade ago, I’ve watched how health insurers have applied practices from traditional employer-based plans to MA beneficiaries. For many years, insurers have made doctors submit a proposed course of treatment for a patient to the insurance company for payment pre-approval — widely known as “prior authorization.”
While most prior authorization requests are approved, and most of those denied are approved if they are appealed, prior authorization accomplishes two things that increase insurers’ margins.
The practice adds a hurdle between diagnosis and treatment and increases the likelihood that a patient or doctor won’t follow through, which decreases the odds that the insurer will ultimately have to pay a claim. In addition, prior authorization increases the length of time insurers can hold on to premium dollars, which they invest to drive higher earnings. (A considerable percentage of insurers’ profits come from the investments they make using the premiums you pay.)
Last year, the Kaiser Family Foundation found the level of prior authorization requests in MA plans increased significantly in recent years, which is partially the result of the share of services subject to prior authorization increasing dramatically. While most requests were ultimately approved (as they were with employer-based insurance plans), the process delayed care and kept dollars in insurers’ coffers longer.
The outrage generated by older Americans in MA plans waiting for prior authorization approvals has moved the Biden administration to action.
Beginning in 2024, MA plans may be no more restrictive with prior authorization requirements than traditional Medicare.
That’s a significant change and one for which Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra should be lauded.
But as large provider groups like the American Hospital Association have pointed out, the federal government must remain vigilant in its enforcement of this rule. As I wrote about recently with the implementation of the No Surprises Act, well-intentioned legislation and implementation rules put in place by regulators can have little real-world impact if insurers are not held accountable. It’s important to note, though, that federal regulatory agencies must be adequately staffed and resourced to be able to police the industry and address insurers’ relentless efforts to find loopholes in federal policy to maximize profits. Congress needs to provide the Department of Health and Human Services with additional funding for enforcement activities, for HHS to require transparency and reporting by insurers on their practices, and for stakeholders, especially providers and patients, to have an avenue to raise concerns with insurers’ practices as they become apparent.
2. Protect seniors from marketing scams
If it’s fall, it’s football season. And that means it’s time for former NFL quarterback Joe Namath’s annual call to action on the airwaves for MA enrollment.
As Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky and I wrote about more than a year ago, these innocent-appearing advertisements are misleading at their best and fraudulent at their worst. Thankfully, this is another area the Biden administration has also been watching over the past year.
CMS now prohibits the use of ads that do not mention a specific plan name or that use the Medicare name and logos in a misleading way, the marketing of benefits in a service area where they are not available, and the use of superlatives (e.g., “best” or “most”) in marketing when not substantiated by data from the current or prior year.
As part of its efforts to enforce the new marketing restrictions, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services for the first time evaluated more than 3,000 MA ads before they ran in advance of 2024 open enrollment. It rejected more than 1,000 for being misleading, confusing, or otherwise non-compliant with the new requirements. These types of reviews will, I hope, continue.
CMS has proposed a fixed payment to brokers of MA plans that, if implemented, would significantly improve the problem of steering seniors to the highest-paying plan — with the highest compensation for the insurance broker. I think we can all agree brokers should be required to direct their clients to the best product, not the one that pays the broker the most. (That has been established practice for financial advisors for many years.) CMS should see this rule through, and send MA brokers profiteering off seniors packing.
A bonus regulation in this space to consider: banning MA plan brokers from selling the contact information of MA beneficiaries. Ever wonder why grandma and grandpa get so many spam calls targeting their health conditions? This practice has a lot to do with it. And there’s bipartisan support in Congress for banning sales of beneficiary contact information.
In addition, just as drug companies have to mention the potential side effects of their medications, MA plans should also be required to be forthcoming about their restrictions, including prior authorization requirements, limited networks, and potentially high out-of-pocket costs, in their ads and marketing materials.
3. Be real about supplemental benefits
Tell me if this one sounds familiar. The federal government introduced flexibility to MA plans to offer seniors benefits beyond what they can receive in traditional Medicare funded primarily through taxpayer dollars.
Those “supplemental” benefits were intended to keep seniors active and healthy. Instead, insurers have manipulated the program to offer benefits seniors are less likely to use, so more of the dollars CMS doles out to pay for those benefits stay with payers.
Many seniors in MA plans will see options to enroll in wellness plans, access gym memberships, acquire food vouchers, pick out new sneakers, and even help pay for pet care, believe it or not — all included under their MA plan. Those benefits are paid for by a pot of “rebate” dollars that CMS passes through to plans, with the presumed goal of improving health outcomes through innovative uses.
There is a growing sense, though, that insurers have figured out how to game this system. While some of these offerings seem appealing and are certainly a focus of marketing by insurers, how heavily are they being used? How heavily do insurers communicate to seniors that they have these benefits, once seniors have signed up for them? Are insurers offering things people are actually using? Or are insurers strategically offering benefits that are rarely used?
Those answers are important because MA plans do not have to pay unused rebate dollars back to the federal government.
CMS in 2024 is requiring insurers to submit detailed data for the first time on how seniors are using these benefits. The agency should lean into this effort and ensure plan compliance with the reporting. And as this year rolls on, CMS should be prepared to make the case to Congress that we expect the data to show that plans are pocketing many of these dollars, and they are not significantly improving health outcomes of older Americans.
4. Addressing coding intensity
If you’re a regular reader, you probably know one of my core views on traditional Medicare vs. Medicare Advantage plans. Traditional Medicare has straightforward, transparent payment, while Medicare Advantage presents more avenues for insurers to arbitrarily raise what they charge the government. A good example of this is in higher coding per patient found in MA plans relative to Traditional Medicare.
An older patient goes in to see their doctor. They are diagnosed, and prescribed a course of treatment. Under Traditional Medicare, that service performed by the doctor is coded and reimbursed. The payment is generally the same no matter what conditions or health history that patient brought into the exam room. Straightforward.
MA plans, however, pay more when more codes are added to a diagnosis.
Plans have advertised this to doctors, incentivizing the providers to add every possible code to a submission for reimbursement. So, if that same patient described above has diabetes, but they’re being treated for an unrelated flu diagnosis, the doctor is incentivized by MA to add a code for diabetes treatment. MA plans, in turn, get paid more by the government based on their enrollee’s health status, as determined based on the diagnoses associated with that individual.
Extrapolate that out across tens of millions of seniors with MA plans, and it’s clear MA plans are significantly overcharging the federal government because of over-coding.
One solution I find appealing: similar to fee-for-service, create a new baseline for payments in MA plans to remove the incentive to add more codes to submissions. Proposals I’ve seen would pay providers more than traditional Medicare but without creating the plan-driven incentive for doctors to over-code.
5. Focusing in on Medicare Advantage network cuts in rural areas
Rural America is older and unhealthier than the national average. This should be the area where MA plans should experience the highest utilization.
Instead, we’re seeing that the aggressive practices insurers use to maximize profits force many rural hospitals to cancel their contracts with MA plans. As we wrote about at length in December, MA is becoming a ghost benefit for seniors living in rural communities. The reimbursement rates these plans pay hospitals in rural communities are significantly lower than traditional Medicare. That has further stressed the low margins rural hospitals face.
As Congressional focus on MA grows, I predict more bipartisan recommendations to come forth that address the growing gap between MA plan payments and what hospitals need to be paid in rural areas.
If MA is not accepted by providers in older, rural America, then truly, what purpose does it serve?
HENRY KOTULA 