Over the weekend, President Biden called it quits and Democrats seemingly coalesced around Vice President Harris as the Party’s candidate for the White House. While speculation about her running mate swirls, the stakes for healthcare just got higher. Here’s why:
A GOP View of U.S. Healthcare
Republicans were mute on their plans for healthcare during last week’s nominating convention in Milwaukee. The RNC healthcare platform boils down to two aims: ‘protecting Medicare’ and ‘granting states oversight of abortion services. Promises to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, once the staple of GOP health policy, are long-gone as polls show the majority (even in Red states (like Texas and Florida) favor keeping it. The addition of Ohio Senator JD Vance to the ticket reinforces the party’s pro-capitalism, pro-competition, pro-states’ rights pitch.
To core Trump voters and right leaning Republicans, the healthcare industry is a juggernaut that’s over-regulated, wasteful and in need of discipline. Excesses in spending for illegal immigrant medical services ($8 billion in 2023), high priced drugs, lack of price transparency, increased out-of-pocket costs and insurer red tape stoke voter resentment. Healthcare, after all, is an industry that benefits from capitalism and market forces: its abuses and weaknesses should be corrected through private-sector innovation and pro-competition, pro-consumer policies.
A Dem View of Healthcare
By contrast, healthcare is more prominent in the Democrat’s platform as the party convenes for its convention in Chicago August 19. Women’s health and access to abortion, excess profitability by “corporate” drug manufacturers, hospitals and insurers, inadequate price transparency, uneven access and household affordability will be core themes in speeches and ads, with a promise to reverse the Dobb’s ruling by the Supreme Court punctuating every voter outreach.
Healthcare, to the Democratic-leaning voters is a right, not a privilege.
Its majority think it should be universally accessible, affordable, and comprehensive akin to Medicare. They believe the status quo isn’t working: the federal government should steward something better.
Here’s what we know for sure:
Foreign policy will be a secondary focus. The campaigns will credential their teams as world-savvy diplomats who seek peace and avoid conflicts. Nationalism vs. globalism will be key differentiator for the White House aspirants but domestic policies will be more important to most voters.
Healthcare reform will be a more significant theme in Campaign 2024 in races for the White House, U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives and Governors. Dissatisfaction with the status quo and disappointment with its performance will be accentuated.
The White House campaigns will be hyper-negative and disinformation used widely (especially on healthcare issues). A prosecutorial tone is certain.
Given the consequence of the SCOTUS’ Chevron ruling limiting the role and scope of agency authority (HHS, CMS, FDA, CDC, et al), campaigns will feature proposed federal & state policy changes and potential Cabinet appointments in positioning their teams. Media speculation will swirl around ideologues mentioned as appointees while outside influencers will push for fresh faces and new ideas.
Consumer prices and inflation will be hot-button issues for pocketbook voters: the health industry, especially insurers, hospitals and drug companies, will be attacked for inattention to affordability.
Substantive changes in health policies and funding will be suspended until 2025 or later. Court decisions, Executive Orders from the White House/Governors, and appointments to Cabinet and health agency roles will be the stimuli for changes. Major legislative and regulatory policy shifts will become reality in 2026 and beyond. Temporary adjustments to physician pay, ‘blame and shame’ litigation and Congressional inquiries targeting high profile bad actors, excess executive compensation et al and state level referenda or executive actions (i.e. abortion coverage, price-containment councils, CON revisions et al) will increase.
Total healthcare spending, its role in the economy and a long-term vision for the entire system will not be discussed beneath platitudes and promises. Per the Congressional Budget Office, healthcare as a share of the U.S. GDP will increase from 17.6% today to 19.7% in 2032. Spending is forecast to increase 5.6% annually—higher than wages and overall inflation. But it’s too risky for most politicians to opine beyond acknowledgment that “they feel their pain.”
My take:
Regardless of the election outcome November 5, the U.S. healthcare industry will be under intense scrutiny in 2025 and beyond. It’s unavoidable.
Discontent is palpable. No sector in U.S. healthcare can afford complacency. And every stakeholder in the system faces threats that require new solutions and fresh voices.
UnitedHealth Group, the largest health insurance conglomerate by far, continues to show how rewarding it is for shareholders when corporate lawyers find loopholes in well-intentioned legislation – and game the Medicare Advantage program in ways most lawmakers and regulators didn’t anticipate and certainly didn’t intend – to boost profits.
UnitedHealth announced this morning that it made $15.8 billion in operating profits between the first of January and the end of June this year. That compares to $4.6 billion it made during the same period in 2014. One way the company is able to reward its shareholders so richly these days is by steering millions of people enrolled in its health plans to the tens of thousands of doctors it now employs and to the clinics and pharmacy operations it now owns.
This is the result of the hundreds of acquisitions UnitedHealth has made over the past 10 years in health care delivery as part of its aggressive “vertical integration” strategy.
The other big way the company has become so profitable is by rigging the Medicare Advantage program in a way that enables it to get more money from the federal government in a scheme – detailed in a big investigative report by the Wall Street Journal a few days ago – in which it claims its Medicare Advantage enrollees are sicker than they really are. The WSJ calculated that Medicare Advantage insurers bilked the government out of more than $50 billion in the three years ending in 2021 by engaging in this scheme, and it said UnitedHealth has grabbed the lion’s share of those billions. In many if not most instances, those enrollees were not treated for the conditions and illnesses UnitedHealth and other insurers claimed they had. As the newspaper reported:
Insurer-driven diagnoses by UnitedHealth for diseases that no doctor treated generated $8.7 billion in 2021 payments to the company, the Journal’s analysis showed. UnitedHealth’s net income that year was about $17 billion.
By far, most of UnitedHealth’s health plan enrollment growth over the past 10 years has come from the Medicare Advantage program, and it now takes in nearly twice as much revenue from the 7.8 million people enrolled in that program as it does from the 29.6 million enrolled in its commercial insurance plans in the United States.
Since the second quarter of 2014, UnitedHealth’s commercial health plan enrollment has increased by 720,000 people. During that same time, enrollment in its Medicare Advantage plans has increased by 4.8 million.
UnitedHealth and other insurers that participate in the Medicare Advantage program know a cash cow when they see one.
As the Kaiser Family Foundation noted in a recent report, the highest gross margins among insurers come from Medicare Advantage, which, as Health Finance News reported, boasted gross margins per enrollee of $1,982 on average by the end of 2023, compared to $1,048 in the individual (commercial) market and $753 in the Medicaid managed care market.
UnitedHealth has significant enrollment in all of those areas. Enrollment in the Medicaid plans it administers in several states increased from 4.7 million at the end of the second quarter of 2014 to 7.4 million this past quarter.
In its disclosure today, UnitedHealth did not break out its health plan revenue as it has in past quarters, but you can see how public programs like Medicare Advantage and Medicaid have become so lucrative by comparing revenue reported by the company at the end of the second quarter of 2013 to the second quarter of 2023. Over that time, total revenues for commercial plans (employer and individual) increased by slightly more than $5.6 billion, from $11.1 billion in 2Q 2013 to $16.8 billion in 2Q 2023. Total revenues from Medicaid increased by $14.2 billion, from $4.5 billion to $18.7 billion, and total revenues from Medicare increased by $21.4 billion, from $11.1 billion to $32.4 billion.
Here’s another way of looking at this: At the end of 2Q 2013, UnitedHealth took in almost exactly the same revenue from its commercial business and its Medicare business ($11.053 from Medicare and $11.134 from its commercial plans.
At the end of 2Q 2023, the company took in nearly twice as much from its Medicare business ($32.4 billion from Medicare compared to $16.8 billion from its commercial plans.)
The change is even more stark when you add in Medicaid. At the end 2Q 2023, UnitedHealth’s Medicare and Medicaid (community and state) revenues totaled $51.1 billion; It’s commercial revenues, as noted, totaled $16.8 billion). It’s now getting three times as much revenue from taxpayer-supported programs as from its commercial business.
As impressive for shareholders as all of that is, growth in the company’s other big division, Optum, which encompasses its pharmacy benefit manager (Optum Rx) and the physician practices and clinics it owns) has been even more eye-popping. At the end of 2Q 2014, Optum contributed $11.7 billion to the company’s total revenues. At the end of 2Q 2024, it contributed $62.9 billion, an increase of $51.2 billion. At that rate of growth, it’s only a matter of a few quarters before Optum is both the biggest and most profitable division of the company.
And here’s the way the company benefits from that loophole in federal law I mentioned above. The Affordable Care Act requires insurers to spend 80%-85% of health plan revenue on patient care. UnitedHealth is consistently able to meet that threshold by paying itself, as HEALTH CARE un-coveredexplained in December. The billions UnitedHealthcare (the health plan division) pays Optum every quarter are categorized as “eliminations” in its quarterly reports. In 2Q 2024, 27.7% of the company’s revenues fell into that category.
The more it is able to steer its health plan enrollees into businesses it owns on the Optum side, the more it can defy Congressional intent – and profit greatly by it.
Wall Street loves how UnitedHealth has pulled all this off. It’s stock price jumped $33.50 to $548.87 a share during today’s trading at the New York Stock Exchange, an increase of 6.5% – in one day.
With both Republicans and Democrats taking on these Goliaths individually, this could be a watershed moment for bi-partisan action.
The push and pull between providers and insurance companies is as old as our health payment system. Doctors have long argued insurers pay too little and that they too often interfere in patient care.
Dramatic increases in prior authorization, aggressive payment negotiations and less-generous reimbursement to doctors by Medicare Advantage plans show there’s little question the balance of power in this equation has swung toward payers.
These practices have led some doctors to look for outside investment, namely private equity, to keep their cash flow healthy and their operations functional. The trend of private equity acquisitions of physician practices is worthy of the federal scrutiny it has attracted. Insurers have noticed this trend, too, and appear ready to propose a profitable partnership.
Bloomberg recentlyreported that CVS/Aetna is looking for a private equity partner to invest in Oak Street Health, the primary care business CVS acquired for $9.5 billion last year. Oak Street is a significant player in primary care delivery, particularly for Americans on Medicare, with more than 100 clinics nationwide. CVS is said to be exploring a joint venture with a private equity firm to significantly expand Oak Street’s footprint and therefore also expand the parent corporation’s direct control over care for millions of seniors and disabled Americans across hundreds of communities.
Republicans have led scrutiny of pharmacy benefit managers on Capitol Hill. And Democratic attacks on private equity in health care have recently intensified. I hope, then, that both parties would find common ground in being watchful of a joint venture between private equity and one of the country’s largest PBMs, Caremark, also owned by CVS/Aetna.
The combination of health insurers and PBMs over the last decade – United Healthcare and Optum; CVS/Aetna and Caremark, and Cigna and Express Scripts – has increasingly handed a few large corporations the ability to approve or deny claims, set payment rates for care, choose what prescriptions to dispense, what prescriptions should cost, and how much patients must pay out-of-pocket for their medications before their coverage kicks in.
As enrollment in Medicare Advantage plans has grown to include a majority of the nation’s elderly and disabled people, we have seen insurers source record profits off the backs of the taxpayer-funded program. But in recent months, insurers have told investors they have had higher than expected Medicare Advantage claims – in particular CVS/Aetna, which took a hammering on Wall Street recently because its Medicare Advantage enrollees were using more health care services than company executives had expected.
It is natural, then, that one of the largest insurer-owned PBMs is looking to expand its hold on primary care for older Americans. Primary care is often the gateway to our health care system, driving referrals to specialists and procedures that lead to the largest claims insurers and their employer customers have to pay. By employing a growing number of primary care providers, CVS/Aetna can increasingly influence referrals to specialists and therefore the care or pharmacy benefit costs those patients may incur.
Control of primary care doctors holds another benefit for insurers: determination of what primary care doctor a patient sees.
People enrolled in an Aetna Medicare Advantage or employer-sponsored plan may find that care is easier to access at Oak Street clinics. Unfortunately, while that feels monopolistic and ethically alarming, this vertical integration has received relatively little scrutiny by lawmakers and regulators.
No law prevents an insurance company or PBM from kicking doctors it does not own out of network while creating preferential treatment for doctors directly employed by or closely affiliated with the corporate mothership.
In fact, the system largely incentivizes this. And shareholders expect insurers to keep up with their peers. As UnitedHealth Group has become increasingly aggressive in its acquisitions of physician practices – now employing or affiliated with about one in ten of the nation’s doctors – it has also become increasingly aggressive in its contract negotiations with physicians it does not control, particularly the specialists who depend on the referrals that come from primary care physicians.
That’s another area where looking to expand Oak Street Health makes smart business sense for CVS/Aetna. Specialist physicians are historically accustomed to higher compensation than primary care doctors and are used to striking hard-fought deals with insurers to stay in-network.
By controlling the flow of primary care referrals to specialists, CVS/Aetna can control what insurers have long-desired greater influence over: patient utilization. As a key driver of referrals to specialists in a specific market, CVS/Aetna will have even more power in contract negotiations with specialists.
As Oak Street’s clinics grow market share in the communities they serve, specialists in that market will feel even more pressured to stay in-network with Aetna and to refer prescriptions to CVS pharmacies. That has the dual benefit for CVS/Aetna of helping to predict what patients will be treated for once they go to a specialist and control over what the insurer will have to pay that specialist.
With different corporate owners, this sort of model could easily run afoul of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and Stark Law.
No doctor or physician practice is allowed to receive anything of value for the referral of a patient. But that law only applies when there is separate ownership between the referring doctor and the specialist.
CVS/Aetna would clearly be securing value – in the form of lower patient utilization and effective reimbursement rates – under this model. But with Oak Street owned by CVS/Aetna and specialists forced to agree to lower reimbursement rates through negotiations with an insurer that appears separate from Oak Street, there’s no basis for a claim under the Stark Law. There may be antitrust implications, but those are more difficult and take longer to prove – and the fact the federal government cleared CVS/Aetna to acquire Oak Street Health last year wouldn’t help that argument.
This model is already of concern, which is why I continue to urge examination of increasing insurer control of physicians across the country. Their embrace of private equity to accelerate this model is truly alarming. And given Democrats’ recent focus on private equity in health care, they should work with their Republican colleagues who are rightly alarmed about the increasingly anti-competitive, monopolistic health insurance industry.
In the Congressional Budget Office’ latest report on the status of health insurance coverage from the 2023 National Health Interview Survey released last week, a cautiously optimistic picture of coverage is presented:
“In 2023, 25.0 million people of all ages (7.6%) were uninsured at the time of interview. This was lower than, but not significantly different from 2022, when 27.6 million people of all ages (8.4%) were uninsured. Among adults ages 18 64, 10.9% were uninsured at the time of interview, 23.0% had public coverage, and 68.1% had private health insurance coverage.
The percentage of adults ages 18-64 who were uninsured in 2023 (10.9%) was lower than the percentage who were uninsured in 2022 (12.2%).
Among children ages 0–17 years, 3.9% were uninsured, 44.2% had public coverage, and 54.0% had private health insurance coverage.
The percentage of people younger than age 65 with exchange-based coverage increased from 3.7% in 2019 to 4.8% in 2023.”
That represents the highest level of coverage in modern history. Later, it adds important context: The percentage of adults ages 18–64 who were uninsured decreased between 2019 and 2023 for all family income groups shown except for adults in families with incomes greater than 400% FPL. Notably, a period in which the Covid-19 pandemic prompted federal government’s emergency funding so households and businesses could maintain their coverage.
“Among adults with incomes below 100% FPL, the percentage who were uninsured in 2023 (20.2%) was lower than, but not significantly different from, the percentage who were uninsured in 2022 (22.7%).
Among adults with incomes 100% to less than 200% FPL, the percentage who were uninsured decreased from 22.3% in 2022 to 19.1% in 2023.
Among adults with incomes 200% to 400% FPL, the percentage who were uninsured decreased from 14.2% in 2022 to 11.5% in 2023.
No significant difference was observed in the percentage of adults with incomes above 400% FPL who were uninsured between 2022 (4.1%) and 2023 (4.3%).”
In 2023, among adults ages 18–64, the percentage who were uninsured was highest among health insurance coverage of any type was higher for those with higher household income but decreased coverage in 2023 correlated to ethnicity, non-expansion of state Medicaid programs: From 2019 to 2023.”
And decreases in the ranks of the uninsured were noted across all ethnic groups:
Among Hispanic adults, from 29.7% to 24.8%
Among Black non-Hispanic adults, from 14.7% to 10.4% in 2023
Among White non-Hispanic adults, decreased from 10.5% to 6.8%
Among Asian non-Hispanic adults, from 8.8% to 4.4% in 2023.
The New York Times noted “The drops cut significantly into gaps between ethnic groups.The uninsured rate among Black Americans, for example, was almost 8% higher than for white Americans in 2010, and was only 4%higher in 2022. The data points to the broad effects of the Affordable Care Act, the landmark law President Barack Obama signed in 2010 that created new state and federal insurance marketplaces and expanded Medicaid to millions of adults. National uninsured rates have continued to drop in recent years, hitting a record low in early 2023.”
But the report also flags a reversal of the trend: “The uninsured share of the population will rise over the course of the next decade, before settling at 8.9% in 2034, largely as a result of the end of COVID-19 pandemic–related Medicaid policies, the expiration of enhanced subsidies available through the Affordable Care Act health insurance Marketplaces, and a surge in immigration that began in 2022. The largest increase in the uninsured population will be among adults ages 19–44. Employment-based coverage will be the predominant source of health insurance, and as the population ages, Medicare enrollment will grow significantly. After greater-than-expected enrollment in 2023, Marketplace enrollment is projected to reach an all-time high of twenty-three million people in 2025.”
My take:
A close reading of this report suggests its forecast might be overly optimistic. it paints a best-case picture of health insurance coverage that under-estimates the realities of household economics and marketplace trends and over-estimates the value proposition promoted by health insurers to their customers. My conclusion is based on four trends that suggest coverage might slip more than the report suggests:
The affordability of healthcare insurance is increasingly problematic to lower- and middle-income households who face inflationary prices for housing, food, energy and transportation. The CBO report verifies that household income is key to coverage and working age populations are most-at risk of losing its protections. Subsidies to fund premiums for those eligible, employer plans that expose workers to high deductibles and increased non-covered services are likely to push fewer to enroll as premiums become unaffordable to working age adults and unattractive to their employers. As outlined in a sobering KFF analysis, half of the adult population is worried about the affordability of their healthcare—and that includes 48% who have health insurance. And wages in the working age population are not keeping pace with prices for food, shelter and energy, leaving healthcare expenses including their insurance premiums and out-of-pocket obligations at greater risk.
The value proposition for health insurance coverage is eroding among employers, consumers and lawmakers. To large employers that provide employee insurance, medical costs are forcing benefits reduction or cessation altogether. Insurance has not negated their medical costs. To small employers, it’s an expensive bet to recruit and keep their workforce. To government sponsors (i.e. Medicare, Medicaid, VHA, et al), insurance is a necessary but increasingly expensive obligation with growing dependence on private insurers to administer their programs. State and federal regulators are keen to limit public spending and address disparities in their public insurance programs. All recognize that private insurers play a necessary role in the system and all recognize that confidence in health insurance protections is suspect. Thus, increased regulation of private insurers is likely though unwelcome by its members.
Public funding for government payers will be increasingly limited increasing insurer dependence on private capital for sustainability and growth. Funding for Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans and Military Health, Public Health et al are dependent on appropriations and tax collections. All are structured to invite private insurer participation: all are seeing corporate insurers seize market share from their weaker competitors. The issues are complex and controversial as evidenced by the ongoing debates about fairness in Medicare Advantage and administration of Medicaid expansion among others. And polls indicate widespread dissatisfaction with the system and lack of confidence in its insurers, hospitals, physicians or the government to fix it.
Access to private capital for private health insurers is shrinking enabling corporate insurers to play bigger roles in financing and delivering services. Private investments in healthcare services (i.e. hospitals, physicians, clinics) has slowed and momentum has shifted from sellers to buyers seeking less risk and higher returns. Capital deployment by corporate insurers i.e. UHG, HUM et al has resulted in vertically-integrated systems of health inclusive of physician services, drug distribution, ASCs and more. And funding for AI-investments that lower their admin costs and increase their contracting leverage with providers is a strategic advantage for corporate insurer that operate nationally at scale. Unless the federal government bridles their growth (which is unlikely), corporate insurers will control national coverage while others fail.
Thus, no one knows for sure what coverage will be in 2034 as presented in the CBO report. Its analysis appropriately considers medical inflation, population growth and an incremental shift to value-based purchasing in healthcare, but it fails to accommodate highly relevant changes in the capital markets, corporate insurer shareholder interests and voter sentiment.
P.S. This is an important week for healthcare: Today marks the two-year anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, ending the constitutional right to an abortion that pushed reproductive rights to states.
And Thursday in Atlanta, President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump will make history in the first presidential debate between an incumbent and a former president.
Reproductive rights will be a prominent theme along with immigration and border security as wedge issues for voters.
The economy and inflation are the issues of most consequence to most voters, so unless the campaigns directly link healthcare spending and out of pocket costs to voter angst about their household finances, not much will be said.
Notably, half of the U.S. population have unpaid medical bills and medical debt is directly related to their financial insecurity. Worth watching.
The Affordable Care Act turned 14 on March 23. It has done a lot of good for a lot of people, but big changes in the law are urgently needed to address some very big misses and consequences I don’t believe most proponents of the law intended or expected.
At the top of the list of needed reforms: restraining the power and influence of the rapidly growing corporations that are siphoning more and more money from federal and state governments – and our personal bank accounts – to enrich their executives and shareholders.
I was among many advocates who supported the ACA’s passage, despite the law’s ultimate shortcomings. It broadened access to health insurance, both through government subsidies to help people pay their premiums and by banning prevalent industry practices that had made it impossible for millions of American families to buy coverage at any price. It’s important to remember that before the ACA, insurers routinely refused to sell policies to a third or more applicants because of a long list of “preexisting conditions” – from acne and heart disease to simply being overweight – and frequently rescinded coverage when policyholders were diagnosed with cancer and other diseases.
While insurance company executives were publicly critical of the law, they quickly took advantage of loopholes (many of which their lobbyists created) that would allow them to reap windfall profits in the years ahead – and they have, as you’ll see below.
I wrote and spoke frequently as an industry whistleblower about what I thought Congress should know and do, perhaps most memorably in an interview with Bill Moyers. During my Congressional testimony in the months leading up to the final passage of the bill in 2010, I told lawmakers that if they passed it without a public option and acquiesced to industry demands, they might as well call it “The Health Insurance Industry Profit Protection and Enhancement Act.”
A health plan similar to Medicare that could have been a more affordable option for many of us almost happened, but at the last minute, the Senate was forced to strip the public option out of the bill at the insistence of Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Connecticut), who died on March 27, 2024. The Senate did not have a single vote to spare as the final debate on the bill was approaching, and insurance industry lobbyists knew they could kill the public option if they could get just one of the bill’s supporters to oppose it. So they turned to Lieberman, a former Democrat who was Vice President Al Gore’s running mate in 2000 and who continued to caucus with Democrats. It worked. Lieberman wouldn’t even allow a vote on the bill if it created a public option. Among Lieberman’s constituents and campaign funders were insurance company executives who lived in or around Hartford, the insurance capital of the world. Lieberman would go on to be the founding chair of a political group called No Labels, which is trying to find someone to run as a third-party presidential candidate this year.
The work of Big Insurance and its army of lobbyists paid off as insurers had hoped. The demise of the public option was a driving force behind the record profits – and CEO pay – that we see in the industry today.
The good effects of the ACA:
Nearly 49 million U.S. residents (or 16%) were uninsured in 2010. The law has helped bring that down to 25.4 million, or 8.3% (although a large and growing number of Americans are now “functionally uninsured” because of unaffordable out-of-pocket requirements, which President Biden pledged to address in his recent State of the Union speech).
The ACA also made it illegal for insurers to refuse to sell coverage to people with preexisting conditions, which even included birth defects, or charge anyone more for their coverage based on their health status; it expanded Medicaid(in all but 10 states that still refuse to cover more low-income individuals and families); it allowed young people to stay on their families’ policies until they turn 26; and it required insurers to spend at least 80% of our premiums on the health care goods and services our doctors say we need (a well-intended provision of the law that insurers have figured out how to game).
The not-so-good effects of the ACA:
As taxpayers and health care consumers, we have paid a high price in many ways as health insurance companies have transformed themselves into massive money-making machines with tentacles reaching deep into health care delivery and taxpayers’ pockets.
To make policies affordable in the individual market, for example, the government agreed to subsidize premiums for the vast majority of people seeking coverage there, meaning billions of new dollars started flowing to private insurance companies. (It also allowed insurers to charge older Americans three times as much as they charge younger people for the same coverage.) Even more tax dollars have been sent to insurers as part of the Medicaid expansion. That’s because private insurers over the years have persuaded most states to turn their Medicaid programs over to them to administer.
We invite you to take a look at how the ascendency of health insurers over the past several years has made a few shareholders and executives much richer while the rest of us struggle despite – and in some cases because of – the Affordable Care Act.
BY THE NUMBERS
In 2010, we as a nation spent $2.6 trillion on health care. This year we will spend almost twice as much – an estimated $4.9 trillion, much of it out of our own pockets even with insurance.
In 2010, the average cost of a family health insurance policy through an employer was $13,710. Last year, the average was nearly $24,000, a 75% increase.
The ACA, to its credit, set an annual maximum on how much those of us with insurance have to pay before our coverage kicks in, but, at the insurance industry’s insistence, it goes up every year. When that limit went into effect in 2014, it was $12,700 for a family. This year, it has increased by 48%, to $18,900. That means insurers can get away with paying fewer claims than they once did, and many families have to empty their bank accounts when a family member gets sick or injured. Most people don’t reach that limit, but even a few hundred dollars is more than many families have on hand to cover deductibles and other out-of-pocket requirements. Now 100 million Americans – nearly one of every three of us – are mired in medical debt, even though almost 92% of us are presumably “covered.” The coverage just isn’t as adequate as it used to be or needs to be.
Meanwhile, insurance companies had a gangbuster 2023. The seven big for-profit U.S. health insurers’ revenues reached $1.39 trillion, and profits totaled a whopping $70.7 billion last year.
SWEEPING CHANGE, CONSOLIDATION–AND HUGE PROFITS FOR INVESTORS
Insurance company shareholders and executives have become much wealthier as the stock prices of the seven big for-profit corporations that control the health insurance market have skyrocketed.
NOTE: The Dow Jones Industrial Average is listed on this chart as a reference because it is a leading stock market index that tracks 30 of the largest publicly traded companies in the United States.
REVENUES collected by those seven companies have more than tripled (up 346%), increasing by more than $1 trillion in just the past ten years.
PROFITS (earnings from operations) have more than doubled (up 211%), increasing by more than $48 billion.
The CEOs of these companies are among the highest paid in the country. In 2022, the most recent year the companies have reported executive compensation, they collectively made $136.5 million.
U.S. HEALTH PLAN ENROLLMENT
Enrollment in the companies’ health plans is a mix of “commercial” policies they sell to individuals and families and that they manage for “plan sponsors” – primarily employers and unions – and government/enrollee-financed plans (Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare for military personnel and their dependents and the Federal Employee Health Benefits program).
Enrollment in their commercial plans grew by just 7.65% over the 10 years and declined significantly at UnitedHealth, CVS/Aetna and Humana. Centene and Molina picked up commercial enrollees through their participation in several ACA (Obamacare) markets in which most enrollees qualify for federal premium subsidies paid directly to insurers.
While not growing substantially, commercial plans remain very profitable because insurers charge considerably more in premiums now than a decade ago.
(1) The 2013 total for CVS/Aetna was reported by Aetna before its 2018 acquisition by CVS. (2) Humana announced last year it is exiting the commercial health insurance business. (3) Enrollment in the ACA’s marketplace plans account for all of Molina’s commercial business.
By contrast, enrollment in the government-financed Medicaid and Medicare Advantage programs has increased 197% and 167%, respectively, over the past 10 years.
(1) The 2013 total for CVS/Aetna was reported by Aetna before its 2018 acquisition by CVS.
Of the 65.9 million people eligible for Medicare at the beginning of 2024, 33 million, slightly more than half, enrolled in a private Medicare Advantage plan operated by either a nonprofit or for-profit health insurer, but, increasingly, three of the big for-profits grabbed most new enrollees.
Of the 1.7 million new Medicare Advantage enrollees this year, 86% were captured by UnitedHealth, Humana and Aetna.
Those three companies are the leaders in the Medicare Advantage business among the for-profit companies, and, according to the health care consulting firm Chartis, are taking over the program “at breakneck speed.”
(1) The 2013 total for CVS/Aetna was reported by Aetna before its 2018 acquisition by CVS. (2,3) Centene’s and Molina’s totals include Medicare Supplement; they do not break out enrollment in the two Medicare categories separately.
It is worth noting that although four companies saw growth in their Medicare Supplement enrollment over the decade, enrollment in Medicare Supplement policies has been declining in more recent years as insurers have attracted more seniors and disabled people into their Medicare Advantage plans.
OTHER FEDERAL PROGRAMS
In addition to the above categories, Humana and Centene have significant enrollment in Tricare, the government-financed program for the military. Humana reported 6 million military enrollees in 2023, up from 3.1 million in 2013. Centene reported 2.8 million in 2023. It did not report any military enrollment in 2013.
Elevance reported having 1.6 million enrollees in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program in 2023, up from 1.5 million in 2013. That total is included in the commercial enrollment category above.
At Cigna, Express Scripts’ pharmacy operations now contribute more than 70% to the company’s total revenues. Caremark’s pharmacy operations contribute 33% to CVS/Aetna’s total revenues, and Optum Rx contributes 31% to UnitedHealth’s total revenues.
WHAT TO DO AND WHERE TO START
The official name of the ACA is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The law did indeed implement many important patient protections, and it made coverage more affordable for many Americans.
But there is much more Congress and regulators must do to close the loopholes and dismantle the barriers erected by big insurers that enable them to pad their bottom lines and reward shareholders while making health care increasingly unaffordable and inaccessible for many of us.
Several bipartisan bills have been introduced in Congress to change how big insurers do business. They include curbing insurers’ use of prior authorization, which often leads to denials and delays of care; requiring PBMs to be more “transparent” in how they do business and banning practices many PBMs use to boost profits, including spread pricing, which contributes to windfall profits; and overhauling the Medicare Advantage program by instituting a broad array of consumer and patient protections and eliminating the massive overpayments to insurers.
And as noted above, President Biden has asked Congress to broaden the recently enacted $2,000-a-year cap on prescription drugs to apply to people with private insurance, not just Medicare beneficiaries. That one policy change could save an untold number of lives and help keep millions of families out of medical debt. (A coalition of more than 70 organizations and businesses, which I lead, supports that, although we’re also calling on Congress to reduce the current overall annual out-of-pocket maximum to no more than $5,000.)
I encourage you to tell your members of Congress and the Biden administration that you support these reforms as well as improving, strengthening and expanding traditional Medicare. You can be certain the insurance industry and its allies are trying to keep any reforms that might shrink profit margins from becoming law.
In 46 states, once you choose Medicare Advantage at 65, you can almost never leave.
Medicare was founded in 1965 to end the crisis of medical care being denied to senior citizens in America, but private insurers have been able to progressively expand their presence in Medicare.
One of the biggest selling points of Obamacare was that it would finally end discrimination against patients on the basis of pre-existing conditions.
But for one vulnerable sector of the population, that discrimination never ended. Insurers are still able to deny coverage to some Americans with pre-existing conditions. And it’s all perfectly legal.
Sixty-five million seniors are in Medicare open enrollment from October 15 until December 7. Nearly 32 million of those patients are enrolled in Medicare Advantage, a set of privately run plans that have come under fire for denying treatment and overbilling the government.
Medicare Advantage patients theoretically have the option to return to traditional Medicare. But in 46 states, it is nearly impossible for those people to do so without exposing themselves to great financial risk.
Traditional Medicare has no out-of-pocket cap and covers 80 percent of medical expenses. Unlike Medicare Advantage plans, in traditional Medicare, seniors can choose whatever provider they want, and coverage limitations are far less stringent. Consequently, there’s a huge upside to going with traditional Medicare, and the downside is mitigated by the purchase of a Medigap plan, which covers the other 20 percent that Medicare doesn’t pay.
While this coverage is more expensive than most Medicare Advantage plans, nearly everybody in their old age would like to be able to choose their doctor and their hospitals, and everybody would want the security of knowing that they won’t be denied critical treatments. In 46 states, however, Medigap plans are allowed to engage in what’s called underwriting, or medical health screening, after seniors have already chosen a Medicare Advantage plan at age 65.
Only four states—New York, Connecticut, Maine, and Massachusetts—prevent Medigap underwriting for Medicare Advantage patients trying to switch back to traditional Medicare. The millions of Americans not living in those states are trapped in Medicare Advantage, because Medigap plans are legally able to deny them insurance coverage.
Medicare Advantage little resembles Medicare as it was traditionally intended, with tight networks and exorbitant costs that threaten to bankrupt the Medicare trust fund. (A recent estimate from Physicians for a National Health Program found that the program costs Medicare $140 billion annually.)
Jenn Coffey, a former EMT in New Hampshire who has been a vocal critic of her Medicare Advantage insurers’ attempts to deny her needed care, told the Prospect that she would jump back to traditional Medicare in a second. But because she became eligible prior to turning 65 due to a disability, she never had the option to pursue traditional Medicare with a Medigap plan. Instead, she pays premiums for a Medicare Advantage plan that nearly mirror what the cost of Medigap would be. But New Hampshire, like most other states, allows Medigap plans to reject her.
“I tried to find out if I could switch to traditional Medicare,” said Coffey. “When I talked to an insurance broker they said that I could. I made an appointment with an insurance agent, who then started looking at my pre-existing conditions, and they said, ‘We’re never going to get somebody to underwrite you.’”
Coffey was stunned by the agent’s words. “I honestly thought that we were completely done with pre-existing conditions” as a determinant for insurance coverage, she said. “Medigap plans are the only place where they are allowed to discriminate against us.”
Medicare Advantage now covers a majority of Medicare participants, thanks to extremely aggressive marketing and perks for healthier seniors like gym memberships.
In the 46 states that lack protections for people with pre-existing conditions, “lots of people don’t know that they may not be able to buy a Medigap plan if they go back to traditional Medicare from Medicare Advantage,” said Tricia Neuman, a senior vice president at KFF who has studied this particular issue.
Technically speaking, they can still go back to traditional Medicare if they don’t like their Medicare Advantage options, Neuman explained. But without access to a Medigap plan, they would be on the hook for 20 percent of their medical costs, which is unaffordable for most seniors.
Neuman told the Prospect about “cases where people have serious medical problems, and wanted to see a specialist,” but were blocked by their Medicare Advantage plan. Those same people had no ability to switch to traditional Medicare with a Medigap plan at precisely the time they need it the most, in nearly every state in the U.S.
“Medigap wasn’t a part of the ACA discussion on pre-existing conditions,” Neuman added. “A lot of people have no idea about this restriction on Medicare coverage, until they find themselves in a position that they want to go back and then it could be too late.”
Academic research shows that seniors often seek to return to traditional Medicare when they become sick.
The critical component that both Medigap and Medicare Advantage plans offer, which traditional Medicare does not, is out-of-pocket caps, said Cristina Boccuti, a director at the West Health Policy Center. “People who want to leave their Medicare Advantage plan, maybe because they are experiencing problems in their plan’s network, decide to disenroll and can’t obtain an out-of-pocket limit which they had previously had in Medicare Advantage,” Boccuti said.
That’s exactly the problem facing Rick Timmins, a retired veterinarian in Washington state. When Timmins was continually delayed care for melanoma, he explored getting out of his Medicare Advantage plan. “I wanted out of Medicare Advantage big-time,” said Timmins. But when he began to look at Medigap plans, he was told that he wouldn’t be guaranteed to get a plan, and that the insurance company could raise premiums based on a pre-existing condition.
“I doubt that I’ll be able to switch over to traditional Medicare, as I can’t afford high premiums,” Timmins said. “I’m still paying off some old medical debt, so it adds to my medical expenses.”
Medicare was founded in 1965 to end the crisis of medical care being denied to senior citizens in America. “No longer will older Americans be denied the healing miracle of modern medicine,” Lyndon Johnson said at the time. “No longer will illness crush and destroy the savings that they have so carefully put away over a lifetime so that they might enjoy dignity in their later years. No longer will young families see their own incomes, and their own hopes, eaten away simply because they are carrying out their deep moral obligations to their parents, and to their uncles, and their aunts.”
But slowly, private insurers were able to progressively expand their presence in Medicare, with a colossal advance made through George W. Bush’s Medicare prescription drug program in 2003. Now, Medicare Advantage covers a majority of Medicare participants, thanks to extremely aggressive marketing and perks for healthier seniors like gym memberships.
Numerous recent studies have shown Medicare Advantage plans to deny care while boosting the profits of private insurance companies. Defenders of Medicare Advantage argue that managed care—which practically speaking means insurance employees denying care to seniors—improves our health care system.
Denial-of-care issues,
combined with the aforementioned $140 billion drain on the trust fund, have attracted far more scrutiny of the program than in years past. Community organizations like People’s Action, along with other groups like Be A Hero, have stepped up their criticism of the program. The Biden administration proposed new rules this year to curb overbilling through the use of medical codes, but a furious multimillion-dollar lobbying campaign from the health insurance industry led to the rules being implemented gradually.
Still, members of Congress have become more emboldened to speak out against abuses in Medicare Advantage. A recent Senate Finance Committee hearing featured bipartisan complaints about denying access to care. And House Democrats have urged the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to crack down on increases in prior authorizations for certain medical procedures, as well as the use of artificial-intelligence programs to drive denials.
Megan Essaheb, People’s Action’s director of federal affairs, said that Medicare Advantage has become a drain on the federal trust fund. “These private companies are making tons of money,” Essaheb said. “The plans offer benefits on the front end without people understanding that they will not get the benefits of traditional Medicare, like being able to choose your doctor.”
Despite the growing scrutiny, the trapping of patients who want to get out of Medicare Advantage hasn’t gotten as much attention from either Congress or state legislatures that could end the practice.
Coffey, the retired EMT from New Hampshire, told the Prospect that she has paid $6,000 in out-of-pocket expenses this year under a Medicare Advantage program. “If I could go to Medigap, I would have better access to care, I wouldn’t be forced to give up Boston doctors,” she said.
“These insurance companies are allowed to reap as much profit as possible for as little service as they can get away with. They pocket all of our money and they don’t pay for anything, they sit there and deny and delay.”
More than 20% of Medicare Advantage patients could be affected by the rule, report finds.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ January expansion of the two-midnight rule to include Medicare Advantage plans has contributed to higher inpatient volumes and revenue growth in the first quarter of the year, according to a Strata Decision Technology report.
This is because inpatient services have higher reimbursement levels compared to outpatient services and the two-midnight rule concerns inpatient care.
CMS published the final rule in April 2023, which for the first time expanded the rule to include Medicare Advantage plans. The rule requires patients to be admitted as an inpatient if the treating clinician determines they require hospital care that extends beyond two midnights, rather than being held under observation status as an outpatient.
The expansion now includes more than 30 million people enrolled in Medicare Advantage managed care plans. Prior to the final rule, the two-midnight rule only explicitly applied to traditional Medicare.
More than 20% of Medicare Advantage patients could be affected by the rule, the report found. An analysis of Medicare Advantage encounters from 2023 – before the rule was expanded to those patients – found that 22.3% were held in observation status for two days or more. By comparison, 8.7% of Medicare patients and 11.3% of patients covered by commercial plans had observation lengths of stay of two days or more in 2023.
WHAT’S THE IMPACT?
Looking at trends in hospital gross revenues, year-over-year growth in inpatient revenue surpassed outpatient revenue in March for the first time in more than two years. Inpatient revenue rose 3.7% versus March 2023, while outpatient revenue was up 2.4% year-over-year. Overall gross operating revenue increased 3.1% and 2.2% over the same periods, respectively.
March marked the 11th consecutive month of year-over-year increases for all three metrics, which contributed to stronger margins in recent months, data showed.
Revenue growth varied widely for hospitals in different regions. For example, hospitals in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic areas saw inpatient revenue jump 5.4% year-over-year in March, while outpatient revenue was nearly flat, down just 0.1%.
Adjusted revenues increased year-over-year, but were down month-over-month. Net patient service revenue per adjusted discharge increased 2.5% year-over-year, and decreased 1.7% versus the previous month, while NPSR per adjusted patient day rose 4.9% from March 2023 to March 2024, and was down 0.5% from February to March 2024.
Hospital operating margins showed strong performance throughout the first quarter. The median year-to-date operating margin was 4.7% for the month, down slightly from a peak of 5.2% in January, but up significantly compared to margins of less than 1% in early 2023.
While actual operating margin increased overall, the median change in the metric was nearly flat both year-over-year and month-over-month when looking at the national data. The median change in operating margin decreased 0.1 percentage point from March 2023 to March 2024, and was down 0.3 percentage point compared to February 2024. The median change in operating earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA) margin decreased 0.4% year-over-year and 0.5% versus the prior month.
THE LARGER TREND
CMS initially implemented the two-midnight Rule for Medicare in 2013 to help remove barriers to patients receiving medically necessary care.
Medicare’s two-midnight rule states that inpatient services are generally payable under Medicare Part A if a physician expects a patient to require medically necessary hospital care that spans at least two midnights.
ALSO: We’re premiering our Magic Translation Box to help you decipher corporate jargon and understand what’s coming down the pike.
If you are enrolled in an Aetna Medicare Advantage plan, now might be a good time to get more nervous than usual.
Wall Street is not happy with Aetna’s parent, CVS Health. In response to that unhappiness, triggered by the company’s admission that it has been paying more claims than usual, CVS execs have promised to do whatever it takes to get profit margins back to a level investors deem suitable.
That means the odds have increased that Aetna will refuse to cover the treatments and medications your doctor says you need. It also means CVS/Aetna likely will increase your premiums next year and might dump you altogether. The company has a long history of doing just that, as you’ll see below.
Medicare Advantage companies in general are facing what Wall Street financial analysts call headwinds, and those winds are now coming from several sources: increased Congressional scrutiny of insurers’ business practices, Biden administration efforts to end years of overpayments that have cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars, enrollee discontent, and a gathering storm of negative press.
To understand the pressures CVS CEO Karen Lynch and her C-Suite team are under to satisfy the company’s remaining shareholders (many have fled), you need to know and understand what they told them in recent weeks–and what she undoubtedly will have to say again, with conviction, this coming Thursday when CVS holds its annual meeting of shareholders. You can be certain Lynch’s staff has prepared a binder chock full of the rudest questions she could face from rich folks (mostly institutional investors) who’ve become a little less rich in recent months as the golden calf calf called Medicare Advantage has lost some of its luster. (My former colleagues and I used to put together such a CEO-briefing binder during my Cigna days, which coincided with Lynch’s years at Cigna.)
To help with that understanding, we’re introducing the HEALTH CARE un-covered Magic Translation Box (MTB). We’ll fire it up occasionally to decipher the coded language executives use when they have to deal with analysts and investors in a public setting. We’ll start with what Lynch and her team told analysts on May 1 when CVS announced first-quarter 2024 results that caused a stampede at the New York Stock Exchange.
Lynch: We recently received the final 2025 (Medicare Advantage) rate notice (from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services), and when combined with the Part D changes prescribed by the Inflation Reduction Act, we believe the rate is insufficient. This update will result in significant added disruption to benefit levels and choice for seniors across the country. While we strive to deliver benefit stability to seniors, we will be adjusting plan-level benefits and exiting counties as we construct our bid for 2025. We are committed to improving margins.
Magic Translation Box: Can you believe it? CMS did not bend to industry pressure to pay MA plans what we demanded for next year. We only got a modest increase, not enough, in our opinion, to protect our profit margins. To make matters worse, starting next year we won’t be able to make people enrolled in Medicare prescription drug plans (Part D) pay more than $2,000 out of their own pockets, thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act President Biden signed in 2022. So, to make sure you, our most important stakeholder, once again have a good return on your investment, we will notify CMS next month that we will slash the value of Medicare Advantage plans by reducing or eliminating some benefits, like dental, hearing and vision, that attract people to MA plans in the first place. And, for good measure, we’ll be dumping Medicare Advantage enrollees who live in zip codes where we can’t make as much money as we’d like. For them: too bad, so sad. For you: more money in your bank account. And for extra good measure, to keep seniors from blaming greedy us for what we have in store for them, our industry will be bankrolling dark money ads to persuade voters that Biden and the Democrats are the bad guys cutting Medicare.
Later during CVS’s earnings call, CFO Thomas Cowhey reiterated Lynch’s remarks about reducing benefits.
Cowhey:So, we’ve given you all the pieces to kind of understand why we think it (Medicare Advantage) will lose a significant amount of money this year. But as you think about improvement there, obviously there’s a lot of work that we still need to do to understand what benefits we’re going to adjust and what ones we can and can’t…To the extent that we don’t believe we can credibly recapture margin in a reasonable period of time, we will exit those counties…(And) as we’ve all mentioned we’re going to be taking significant pricing actions and really it’s going to depend on what our competitors do.
Magic Translation Box: We’re under the gun to figure this out because we have to notify CMS by June 3 how much we will increase Medicare Advantage premiums and cut benefits next year and which counties we’ll abandon altogether. We’ll also be watching what our competitors do, but we know from what they’ve been telling you guys that they, too, will be dumping enrollees, hiking premiums and slashing benefits.
To make sure investors couldn’t miss what they were saying, Lynch jumped back into the conversation to make clear they knew they were #1 in her book:
Lynch: I’m just going to reiterate what I said in my prepared remarks. (You can bet what follows were prepared, too.) We are committed to improving margin in Medicare Advantage [emphasis added] and we will do so by pricing for the expected trends. We will do so by adjusting benefits and exiting service counties. And we are committed to doing that.
Magic Translation Box: Have I made myself clear? We will do whatever it takes to deliver the profits you expect. We will keep a closer eye on how much care people are trying to get and we’ll swing into action faster next time if we see evidence of an uptick. There will be carnage, but you guys rule. You mean a lot more to us than those old and disabled people who don’t have nearly as much money as you do in their bank accounts.
This will not be the first time Aetna has dumped health plan enrollees who were a drain on profits. In 2000, when Medicare Advantage was called Medicare+Choice, Aetna notified the Clinton administration it would stop offering Medicare plans in 14 states, affecting 355,000 people, more than half of Aetna’s total Medicare enrollment at the time. Other companies, including Cigna, did the same thing. My team and I wrote a press release to announce that Cigna would be bailing from almost all the markets where we sold private Medicare plans.
We of course blamed the federal government (i.e., the Democrats) for being the skinflints that made it necessary to bail. Our CEO at the time, Ed Hanway, said the government just couldn’t be relied upon to be a reliable “partner.”
Back then, just a relatively small percentage of Medicare beneficiaries were in private plans. Today, more than half of Medicare-eligible Americans are enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan, which means the disruption could be much worse this time. Some people in counties where Aetna and other companies stop offering plans likely will not find a replacement plan with the same provider network, premiums and benefits.
But in most places, those who get dumped will be stuck in the volatile, often nightmarish Medicare Advantage world, unable to return to traditional Medicare and buy a Medicare supplement policy to cover their out-of-pocket obligations.
That’s because in all but a handful of states, seniors and disabled people will not be able to buy a Medicare supplement policy as cheaply as they could within six months of becoming eligible for Medicare benefits. After that, Medicare supplement insurers, including Aetna, get their underwriters involved. If your health isn’t excellent, expect to pay a king’s ransom for a Medigap policy.
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.
As Medicare Advantage grows bigger and bigger, there’s one area the industry and regulators haven’t figured out how to make work yet: hospice.
Why it matters:
The end-of-life care option is the only Medicare service that can’t be offered in the private-run alternative, which now covers over half of enrollees.
Medicare is winding down an experiment — years earlier than expected — that let some Medicare Advantage plans offer a hospice benefit, citing operational challenges and limited interest from insurers and hospices.
Catch up quick:
Usually, when a Medicare Advantage beneficiary decides to enter hospice after receiving a terminal diagnosis, traditional Medicare pays for this care while they remain enrolled in their private plan.
That could make navigating insurance “very, very clunky” for hospice patients, especially when they have health care needs unrelated to their terminal illness, said Lynne Sexten, CEO of Agrace Hospice.
And this affects a lot of people. Nearly half of the 1.7 million Medicare Advantage beneficiaries who died in 2022 used hospice services, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC).
Experts say the roots of this awkward arrangement likely goes back about 40 years, when private Medicare first became a permanent offering. At the time, traditional Medicare had just startedcovering hospice, so officials had limited data on how much it cost.
What they did:
Medicare’s Innovation Center began an experiment in 2021 that allowed Medicare plans to contract directly with hospice providers.
It aimed to test whether that could make end-of-life care transitions more seamless for Medicare Advantage patients while reducing costs and improving care quality.
Participating health plans also covered palliative care and transitional care, where patients continued curative treatments like dialysis or chemotherapy temporarily during their hospice stay.
The Innovation Center announced abruptly in March that it would end the program in December, a year after officials said it would run through 2030.
The news came after two major insurers — UnitedHealth Group and Elevance — pulled out of the model. Only 13 insurers participated this year.
Hospices largely cheered the decision. Lower reimbursement rates, delayed payment from insurers and burdensome quality reporting made the experiment difficult for hospices that chose to contract with insurers, an independent evaluation of the program found.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services stressed that its decision to end the experiment doesn’t meanit failed, and the agency in a statement to Axios said it will continue to evaluate results.
Many insurers also faced a learning curve on how to work with hospice for their Medicare enrollees. Hospice is delivered and paid for differently than other Medicare benefits.
The experiment tried to do too much too fast, said Kevin Kappel, vice president at SCAN Health Plan, a nonprofit insurer that joined Medicare’s hospice experiment last year.
“I think people underestimated how complex it was to do. … We’ve learned a lot,” Kappel said.
Yes, but:
Hospices and insurers said they still need to figure out how to make care more seamless for Medicare Advantage beneficiaries.
“This is by no means the end of the story for end-of-life care providers and MA plans,” said Ethan McChesney, policy director at the National Partnership for Healthcare and Hospice Innovation.
It’s been a full decade since MedPAC, the congressional advisory committee, recommended including hospice in Medicare Advantage, warning that excluding it“fragments care accountability and financial responsibility for MA enrollees who elect hospice.”
What we’re watching:
Industry leaders say hospice doesn’t necessarily have to become part of Medicare Advantage to improve care integration, or at least not right away.
Ohio’s Hospice, a nonprofit provider that participated in the Medicare experiment, said it will continue working with Medicare plans to extend palliative care and symptom management to more patients, CEO Kent Anderson said.
While Anderson said some peers worry about the growth of Medicare Advantage, “the longer we sit outside the managed care world, the less relevant we’ll become.”
HENRY KOTULA 