Category Archives: Out of Network

Inside the Midyear Panic at UnitedHealth

Posted on by • Posted in 2026 Mid Term Election Issues, 2028 Election Issues, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Insurance Denial, Health Insurance Industry, Health Insurance Pre Authorization, Health Insurance Premiums, Health Policy, Healthcare Reform, High Premiums, Medical Loss Ratio (MLR), Medicare Advantage, Medicare Advantage Denials, Medicare Advantage Overpayments, Out of Network, Out of Pocket Expenses, Profit, Profit Margin, Profit Model, Profit Motive, UnitedHealth Group, UnitedHealthcare • Tagged , , , , • Leave a comment

https://healthcareuncovered.substack.com/p/inside-the-midyear-panic-at-unitedhealth

Imagine you’re facing your midyear performance review with your boss. You dread it, even though you’ve done all you thought possible and legal to help the company meet Wall Street’s profit expectations, because shareholders haven’t been pleased with your employer’s performance lately.

Now let’s imagine your employer is a health insurance conglomerate like, say, UnitedHealth Group. You’ve watched as the stock price has been sliding, sometimes a little and on some days crashing through lows not seen in years, like last Friday (down almost 5% in a single day, to $237.77, which is down a stunning 62% since a mid-November high of $630 and change).

You know what your boss is going to say. We all have to do more to meet the Street’s expectations. Something has changed from the days when the government and employers were overly generous, not questioning our value proposition, always willing to pick up the tab and pay many hidden tips, and we could pull our many levers to make it harder for people to get the care they need. 

Despite government and media reports for years that the federal government has been overpaying Medicare Advantage plans like UnitedHealth’s – at least $84 billion this year alone – Congress has pretended not to notice. There is evidence that might be changing, with Republicans and Democrats alike making noises about cracking down on MA plans. 

Employers have complained for ages about constantly rising premiums, but they’ve sucked it up, knowing they could pass much of the increase onto their workers – and make them pay thousands of dollars out of their own pockets before their coverage kicks in. Now, at least some of them are realizing they don’t have to work with the giant conglomerates anymore.

Doctors and hospitals have complained, too, about burdensome paperwork and not getting paid right and on time, but they’ve largely been ignored as the big conglomerates get bigger and are now even competing with them.

UnitedHealth is the biggest employer of doctors in the country. But doctors and hospitals are beginning to push back, too. 

Since last fall, UnitedHealth and its smaller but still enormous competitors have found that “headwinds” are making it harder for them to maintain the profit margins investors demand. That is mainly because, despite the many barriers patients have to overcome to get the care they need, many of them are nevertheless using health care, often in the most expensive setting – the emergency room. They put off seeing a doctor so long because of insurers’ penny-wise-pound-foolishness that they had some kind of event that scared them enough to head straight to the ER. 

It’s not just you who is dreading your midyear review. Everybody, regardless of their position on the corporate ladder, and even the poorly paid folks in customer service, are in the same boat. And so is your boss. Nobody will put the details of what has to be done in writing. They don’t have to. Your boss will remind you that you have to do your part to help the company achieve the “profitable growth” Wall Street demands, quarter after quarter after quarter. It never, ever ends. You know this because you and most other employees watch what happens after the company releases quarterly financials. You also watch your 401K balance and you see the financial consequences of a company that Wall Street isn’t happy with. And Wall Street is especially unhappy with UnitedHealth these days.

And when things are as bad as they are now at UnitedHealth’s headquarters in Minnesota, you know that a big consulting firm like McKinsey & Company has been called in, and that those suits will recommend some kind of “restructuring” and changes in leadership to get the ship back on course. You know the drill. Everybody already is subject to forced ranking, meaning that at the end of the year, some of your colleagues, regardless of job title, will fall below a line that means automatic termination. You pedal as fast as you can to stay above that line, often doing things you worry are not in the best interest of millions of people and might not even be lawful. But you know that if you have any chance of staying employed, much less getting a raise or bonus, you have to convince your superiors you are motivated and “engaged to win.” No one is safe. Look what happened to Sir Andrew Witty, whose departure as CEO to spend more time with his family (in London) was announced days after shareholders turned thumbs down on the company’s promises to return to an acceptable level of profitability. 

If you are at UnitedHealth, you listened to what the once and again CEO, Stephen Hemsley, and CFO John Rex, who got shuffled to a lesser role of “advisor” to the CEO last week, laid out a new action plan to their bosses – big institutional investors who have been losing their shirts for months now. You know that what the C-Suite promised on their July 29 call will mean that you will have to “execute” to enable the company to deliver on those promises. And you know that you and your colleagues will have to inflict a lot more pain on everybody who is not a big shareholder – patients, taxpayers, employers, doctors, hospital administrators. That is your job. And you will try to do it because you have a mortgage, kids in college and maxed-out credit cards.  

Here’s what Hemsley and his leadership team said, out loud in a public forum, although admittedly one that few people know about or can take an hour-and-a-half to listen to:

  • Even though UnitedHealth took in billions more in revenue, its margins shrank a little because it had to pay more medical claims than expected.
  • Still, the company made $14.3 billion in profits during the second quarter. That’s a lot but not as much as the $15.8 billion in 2Q 2024, and that made shareholders unhappy.
  • Enrollment in its commercial (individual and employer) plans increased just 1%, but enrollment in its Medicare Advantage plans increased nearly 8%. That’s normally just fine, but something happened that the company’s beancounters couldn’t stop.
  • Those seniors figured out how to get at least some care despite the company’s high barriers to care (aggressive use of prior authorization, “narrow” networks of providers, etc.)

To fix all of this, Hemsley and team promised:

  • To dump 600,000 or so enrollees who might need care next year
  • To raise premiums “in the double digits” – way above the “medical trend” that PriceWaterhouseCoopers predicts to be 8.5% (high but not double-digit high)
  • Boot more providers it doesn’t already own out of network
  • Reduce benefits

Throughout the call with investors (actually with a couple dozen Wall Street financial analysts, the only people who can ask questions), Hemsley and team went on and on about the “value-based care” the company theoretically delivers, without providing specifics. But here is what you need to know: If you are enrolled in a UnitedHealth plan of any nature – commercial, Medicare or Medicaid or VA (yes, VA, too) – expect the value of your coverage to diminish, just as it has year after year after year.  

The term for this in industry jargon is “benefit buydown.”

That means that even as your premiums go up by double digits, you will soon have fewer providers to choose from, you likely will spend more out-of-pocket before your coverage kicks in, you might have to switch to a medication made by a drug company UnitedHealth will get bigger kickbacks from, and you might even be among the 600,000 policyholders who will get “purged” (another industry term) at the end of the year.

Why do we and our employers and Uncle Sam keep putting up with this?

Yes, we pay more for new cars and iPhones, but we at least can count on some improvements in gas mileage and battery life and maybe even better-placed cup holders. You can now buy a massive high-def TV for a fraction of what it cost a couple of years ago. Health insurance? Just the opposite. 

As I will explain in a future post, all of the big for-profit insurers are facing those same headwinds UnitedHealth is facing. You will not be spared regardless of the name on your insurance card. If you still have one come January 1. Pain is on the way. Once again. 

Insurers and Private Equity Look to Join Forces to Further Consolidate Control of Americans’ Access to Health Care

Posted on by • Posted in 2024 Election Issues, Access, Antitrust, Health Insurance Industry, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Monopoly, Monopoly Behavior, Out of Network, Patient Referrals, Pharmacy Benefits Management, Physician Acquisition, Physician Employment, Physician Specialist, Private Equity • Leave a comment
https://healthcareuncovered.substack.com/p/insurers-and-private-equity-look?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=255152&post_id=145798815&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=59t65&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

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 recently reported 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.

The Medicare Advantage Trap

Posted on by • Posted in Health Insurance Denial, Health Insurance Industry, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Advantage Denials, Medicare Supplement, Out of Network, Out of Pocket Expenses, Preexisting Conditions • Leave a comment
https://prospect.org/health/2023-11-29-medicare-advantage-trap/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

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.”

The Healthcare Economy: Three Key Takeaways that Frame Public and Private Sector Response

Posted on by • Posted in American Hospital Association (AHA), Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Consumer Price Index (CPI), Cost Management, Cost Reduction, Forecast, Health Policy, Health System, Healthcare Industry, Healthcare Market, Healthcare Price Index, Healthcare Reform, High Cost Therapies, High Deductible Health Plans, High Drug Prices, High Premiums, Highly Specialized Drugs, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Market Outlook, Market Trends, Out of Network, Out of Pocket Expenses, Prescription Drugs, Value-Based Contracting, Value-Based Healthcare • Leave a comment
The Healthcare Economy: Three Key Takeaways that Frame Public and Private Sector Response

Last week, 2 important economic reports were released that provide a retrospective and prospective assessment of the U.S. health economy:

The CBO National Health Expenditure Forecast to 2032: 

“Health care spending growth is expected to outpace that of the gross domestic product (GDP) during the coming decade, resulting in a health share of GDP that reaches 19.7% by 2032 (up from 17.3% in 2022). National health expenditures are projected to have grown 7.5% in 2023, when the COVID-19 public health emergency ended. This reflects broad increases in the use of health care, which is associated with an estimated 93.1% of the population being insured that year… During 2027–32, personal health care price inflation and growth in the use of health care services and goods contribute to projected health spending that grows at a faster rate than the rest of the economy.”

The Congressional Budget Office forecast that from 2024 to 2032:

  • National Health Expenditures will increase 52.6%: $5.048 trillion (17.6% of GDP) to $7,705 trillion (19.7% of GDP) based on average annual growth of: +5.2% in 2024 increasing to +5.6% in 2032
  • NHE/Capita will increase 45.6%: from $15,054 in 2024 to $21,927 in 2032
  • Physician services spending will increase 51.2%: from $1006.5 trillion (19.9% of NHE) to $1522.1 trillion (19.7% of total NHE)
  • Hospital spending will increase 51.6%: from $1559.6 trillion (30.9% of total NHE) in 2024 to $2366.3 trillion (30.7% of total NHE) in 2032.
  • Prescription drug spending will increase 57.1%: from 463.6 billion (9.2% of total NHE) to 728.5 billion (9.4% of total NHE)
  • The net cost of insurance will increase 62.9%: from 328.2 billion (6.5% of total NHE) to 534.7 billion (6.9% of total NHE).
  • The U.S. Population will increase 4.9%: from 334.9 million in 2024 to 351.4 million in 2032.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI Report for May 2024 and Last 12 Months (May 2023-May2024): 

“The Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) was unchanged in May on a seasonally adjusted basis, after rising 0.3% in April… Over the last 12 months, the all-items index increased 3.3% before seasonal adjustment. More than offsetting a decline in gasoline, the index for shelter rose in May, up 0.4% for the fourth consecutive month. The index for food increased 0.1% in May. … The index for all items less food and energy rose 0.2% in May, after rising 0.3 % the preceding month… The all-items index rose 3.3% for the 12 months ending May, a smaller increase than the 3.4% increase for the 12 months ending April. The all items less food and energy index rose 3.4 % over the last 12 months. The energy index increased 3.7%for the 12 months ending May. The food index increased 2.1%over the last year.

Medical care services, which represents 6.5% of the overall CPI, increased 3.1%–lower than the overall CPI. Key elements included in this category reflect wide variance: hospital and OTC prices exceeded the overall CPI while insurance, prescription drugs and physician services were lower.

  • Physicians’ services CPI (1.8% of total impact): LTM: +1.4%
  • Hospital services CPI (1.0% of total impact): LTM: +7.3%
  • Prescription drugs (.9% of total impact) LTM +2.4%
  • Over the Counter Products (.4% of total impact) LTM 5.9%
  • Health insurance (.6% of total) LTM -7.7%

Other categories of greater impact on the overall CPI than medical services are Shelter (36.1%), Commodities (18.6%), Food (13.4%), Energy (7.0%) and Transportation (6.5%).

Three key takeaways from these reports:

  • The health economy is big and getting bigger. But it’s less obvious to consumers in the prices they experience than to employers, state and federal government who fund the majority of its spending. Notably, OTC products are an exception: they’re a direct OOP expense for most consumers. To consumers, especially renters and young adults hoping to purchase homes, the escalating costs of housing have considerably more impact than health prices today but directly impact on their ability to afford coverage and services. Per Redfin, mortgage rates will hover at 6-7% through next year and rents will increase 10% or more.
  • Proportionate to National Health Expenditure growth, spending for hospitals and physician services will remain at current levels while spending for prescription drugs and health insurance will increase. That’s certain to increase attention to price controls and heighten tension between insurers and providers.
  • There’s scant evidence the value agenda aka value-based purchases, alternative payment models et al has lowered spending nor considered significant in forecasts.

The health economy is expanding above the overall rates of population growth, overall inflation and the U.S. economy. GDP.  Its long-term sustainability is in question unless monetary policies enable other industries to grow proportionately and/or taxpayers agree to pay more for its services. These data confirm its unit costs and prices are problematic.

As Campaign 2024 heats up with the economy as its key issue, promises to contain health spending, impose price controls, limit consolidation and increase competition will be prominent.

Public sector actions

will likely feature state initiatives to lower cost and spend taxpayer money more effectively.

Private sector actions

will center on employer and insurer initiatives to increase out of pocket payments for enrollees and reduce their choices of providers.

Thus, these reports paint a cautionary picture for the health economy going forward. Each sector will feel cost-containment pressure and each will claim it is responding appropriately. Some actually will.

PS: The issue of tax exemptions for not-for-profit hospitals reared itself again last week.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget—a conservative leaning think tank—issued a report arguing the exemption needs to be ended or cut.  In response,

the American Hospital Association issued a testy reply claiming the report’s math misleading and motivation ill-conceived.

This issue is not going away: it requires objective analysis, fresh thinking and new voices.  For a recap, see the Hospital Section below.

Preparing for Medicare Advantage’s Make-or-Break Moment

Posted on by • Posted in Health Insurance Industry, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Advantage Denials, Out of Network, Value-Based Contracting, Value-Based Healthcare • Leave a comment

https://www.kaufmanhall.com/insights/article/preparing-medicare-advantages-make-or-break-moment

In recent years, the Medicare Advantage (MA) program enjoyed both rapid membership growth and positive attention from healthcare organizations and advocates. As of the beginning of 2024, 33.4 million Americans were enrolled in MA, up 7% from 2023.

More than half of all Medicare-eligible individuals are now enrolled in MA.

Interest and growth in MA has been buoyed by a number of factors: a growing eligible population as Baby Boomers continue to age into Medicare eligibility; affordable benefit packages with low or zero monthly premiums; regulatory changes providing for more flexibility in plan and member design; consumer-centric programs and care models tailored to the needs of beneficiaries; increased marketing and sales efforts through direct mailings, telemarketing, and online advertising.

The program has also delivered meaningful value to members, who are more likely than traditional Medicare beneficiaries to have an annual income less than $40,000. In addition, the average monthly premium for Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in an MA plan has dropped by almost one-third in the last four years, reaching $18 per month in 2023.

Ideally, success in MA can take the form of a virtuous cycle: an improved margin on MA for a plan enables reinvestment in related products to grow membership and better manage health outcomes, which leads to further reinvestment (Figure 1). Sustained success is contingent on meaningful collaboration between payers and providers.

FIGURE 1: The Virtuous Cycle of MA Success

MA Hits Headwinds

However, after several high-growth years, payers and providers are currently confronting multiple MA-related challenges. Many providers have recently posted losses as their contractual yields decrease and authorizations for care have become more restrictive. The bar for risk adjustment and Star Ratings is also rising. Only 6% of plans received a 5-star rating from the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for 2024, down from 22% in 2023. CMS also recently confirmed plans for rate cuts in 2025, with critics arguing that benefits for beneficiaries may become more limited. Providers are also reeling from related bureaucratic headaches.

As a result of these concerns, some providers are going out of network from MA plans, while some have asked CMS to investigate administrative denials. Nineteen percent of health system chief financial officers stopped accepting one or more MA plans in 2023—and 61% either plan to do so in 2024 or are considering doing so—according to a recent survey by the Healthcare Financial Management Association and Eliciting Insights.

Current MA members also have expressed concerns with the program’s trajectory. While roughly two-thirds of MA and traditional Medicare beneficiaries recently surveyed by the Commonwealth Fund said their coverage has met their expectations, MA members were more likely to report delays in care while awaiting prior approval (22% vs. 13%) or difficulty affording care due to copayments or deductibles (12% vs. 7%).

Some industry experts are warning senior citizens about the costs associated with switching back to traditional Medicare after enrolling in MA plans. Their concerns are creating political and regulatory scrutiny.

Collaborating for Value

Despite current challenges, many providers and health plans believe they need to continue to participate in and/or prioritize MA, given the program’s scale and overall benefits to their organizations and the communities they serve.

For instance, the success of MA risk contracts predicated on collaborating around delivering healthcare value suggests a possible path forward.

According to a JAMA study of more than 300,000 Medicare Advantage beneficiaries, members in value-based care MA arrangements with risk for both payers and providers had lower rates of inpatient admission, emergency department visits, and readmissions. In addition, CMS’s robust risk scoring model ensures that providers are paid fairly for the true cost of providing care to the populations they serve.

Percent of premium contracts, where payers delegate a share of the premium to providers to manage, are predictable, align payer and provider interests, easy to understand, and increasingly common.

In addition, the high cost of caring for Medicare enrollees makes the population health focus on VBC arrangements economical. Medicare members have the highest utilization of any insurance class, so intensive services like care management, disease management, and care coordination are more likely to have a positive return on investment.

Successful VBC arrangements share several core tenets, grounded in the need for close collaboration between participating parties (Figure 2).

FIGURE 2: Core Tenets of Successful Payer-Provider Value-Based Care Models

However, VBC arrangements are not the only option. Value-centric collaborations can take on a wide range of forms, depending on the amount of risk providers are willing to assume and the partnerships’ risk-related capabilities. The full continuum of value-centric collaborations runs the gamut from shared savings contracts with no downside risk for providers to full vertical integration into a single organization (Figure 3).

FIGURE 3: Understanding the Continuum of Value-Based Care Arrangements

Looking Into the Crystal Ball: Three Future State Scenarios

As the MA market confronts new headwinds after years of growth and favorable attention, we anticipate three possible future state scenarios. These possibilities can be applied to both the outlook nationally, as well as the actions of payers and providers within specific markets.

Scenario 1: A renewal of growth

In this scenario, better sense prevails, and plans and providers collaborate to address the core issues facing the program. A pause/adjustment in the market is followed by a period of renewed growth. From a national standpoint, this scenario is contingent on neutral to favorable regulatory treatment.

Scenario 2: Uneasy stabilization

In this scenario, contention is partially resolved through some degree of collaboration between payers and providers. This scenario is also dependent on neutral to favorable regulatory treatment.

Scenario 3: Implosion

In this scenario, high levels of contention continue, and more providers go out of network. Middle-income Medicare members opt out of MA and go back to traditional Medicare when feasible. This scenario accounts for heightened regulatory pressure on risk adjustment and utilization management practices, which further pressures margins.

Conclusion

Despite MA’s recent, publicly documented challenges, the program now accounts for more than half of all Medicare beneficiaries—a patient population that every healthcare organization must engage in some form or fashion.

As providers and payers decide how to approach the program—and each other—amid uncertainty and contention, the path forward can appear unclear. However, healthcare leaders seeking to emerge from the current environment of MA contention have an opportunity to shape the future of MA and will play a major role determining which of the three scenarios outlined in this article comes to fruition.

Ultimately, organizations must be able to develop a business model that both delivers quality care and manageable per capita costs—and critically, find ways to work through today’s pressing concerns with other MA stakeholders and partners.

Cartoon – Zero Premium Coverage

Posted on by • Posted in Cartoon, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Insurance Denial, Health Insurance Industry, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Advantage Denials, Out of Network, Out of Pocket Expenses, Out-of-Network, Underinsured, Zero Premiums • Leave a comment

Cartoon – Medicare Advantage

Posted on by • Posted in 2024 Election Issues, Cartoon, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Insurance Denial, Health Insurance Industry, High Deductible Health Plans, High Premiums, Medicare Advantage, Out of Network, Out of Pocket Expenses, Underinsured • Leave a comment

BIG INSURANCE 2023: Revenues reached $1.39 trillion thanks to taxpayer-funded Medicaid and Medicare Advantage businesses

Posted on by • Posted in 2024 Election Issues, ACA, Affordability, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Insurance Denial, Health Insurance Industry, Health Policy, High Deductible Health Plans, High Drug Prices, High Premiums, Lobbyist, Market Consolidation, Market Power, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Advantage Denials, Medicare Advantage Insurance Brokers, Out of Network, Out of Pocket Expenses, Preexisting Conditions, Profit Motive, Underinsured • Leave a comment
https://wendellpotter.substack.com/p/big-insurance-2023-revenues-reached?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=255152&post_id=143173122&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=59t65&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

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. 

Among other things, the ACA made it unlawful for most of us to remain uninsured (although Congress later repealed the penalty for doing so). But, notably, it did not create a “public option” to compete with private insurers, which many advocates and public policy experts contended would be essential to rein in the cost of health insurance. Many other reform advocates insisted – and still do – that improving and expanding the traditional Medicare program to cover all Americans would be more cost-effective and fair. 

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.

Insurers have bulked up incredibly quickly since the ACA was enacted through consolidation, vertical integration, and aggressive expansion into publicly financed programs – Medicare and Medicaid in particular – and the pharmacy benefit space. Premiums and out-of-pocket requirements, meanwhile, have soared.

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. 

PBMs

As with Medicare Advantage, three of the big seven insurers control the lion’s share of the pharmacy benefit market (and two of them, UnitedHealth and CVS/Aetna, are also among the top three in signing up new Medicare Advantage enrollees, as noted above). CVS/Aetna’s Caremark, Cigna’s Express Scripts and UnitedHealth’s Optum Rx PBMs now control 80% of the market.

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. 

Cartoon – Out of Pocket Experience

Posted on by • Posted in 2024 Election Issues, Cartoon, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Insurance Industry, High Cost Therapies, High Deductible Health Plans, High Drug Prices, High Premiums, High Prices, Out of Network, Out of Pocket Expenses • Leave a comment

Unpacking one aspect of healthcare affordability

Posted on by • Posted in 2024 Election Issues, Affordability, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Insurance Industry, High Deductible Health Plans, High Drug Prices, High Premiums, High Prices, Out of Network, Out of Pocket Expenses • Leave a comment

https://www.kaufmanhall.com/insights/blog/gist-weekly-april-12-2024

In this week’s graphic, we showcase recent KFF survey data on how healthcare costs impact the public, particularly those with health insurance. 

Nearly half of US adults say it is difficult to afford healthcare, and in the last year, 28 percent have skipped or postponed care due to cost, with an even greater share of younger people delaying care due to cost concerns.

Although healthcare affordability has long been a problem for the uninsured, one in five adults with insurance skipped care in the past year because of cost. Insured Americans report low satisfaction with the affordability of their coverage.

In addition to high premiums, out-of-pocket costs to see a physician or fill a prescription are particular sources of concern. Adults with employer-sponsored or marketplace plans are far more likely to be dissatisfied with the affordability of their coverage, compared to those with government-sponsored plans. 

With eight in ten American voters saying that it is “very important” for the 2024 presidential candidates to focus on the affordability of healthcare, we’ll no doubt see more attention focused on this issue as the presidential election race heats up.