Category Archives: Out of Pocket Expenses

The Battle for Health Care

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, ACA, Essential Health Benefits, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, High Deductible Health Plans, Individual Mandate, Out of Pocket Expenses, Preexisting Conditions, Supreme Court, Underinsured, Uninsured • Leave a comment

https://www.newyorker.com/podcast/comment/the-health-care-defense?reload=true

The Battle for Health Care

The latest Republican effort to destroy the Affordable Care Act appears likely to reach the Supreme Court in the heat of the 2020 Presidential race.

One of the central questions of the 2020 Presidential campaign was posed last week before the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, to a lawyer for the Trump Administration, who didn’t even pretend to have an answer. A three-judge panel was hearing the appeal of a ruling by Reed O’Connor, a Texas district-court judge, that the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, was unconstitutional in its entirety—an opinion that the Administration has endorsed. O’Connor had ordered that the government cease implementing or enforcing all aspects of the A.C.A., including its protections for people with preëxisting conditions, its ban on lifetime caps, its expansion of Medicaid and coverage for young adults on their parents’ plan, and its support for the treatment of addiction. The order could cost tens of millions of people all or much of their coverage, and throw the health-care system, which accounts for a fifth of the economy, into chaos. But O’Connor, in what Judge Jennifer Elrod, of the Fifth Circuit, described with no apparent irony as a “modest” act, had stayed his own order, pending appeals. Here, now, was the first appeal. So, if the stay is lifted, Elrod asked, “What’s the government planning to do?”

As the lawyer, August Flentje, struggled to answer (“This is a very complicated program—multifaceted, obviously”), it became clear that Republican opposition to the A.C.A. remains a project of blind destruction. One of President Trump’s few health-care initiatives, on drug prices, fell into disarray last week, with one measure defeated in court and another abandoned. Otherwise, he has mostly complained that Democrats want to extend care to, among others, undocumented people. His almost pathological need to undo President Obama’s legacy can be added to the mix; the restraint sometimes said to characterize conservatism can be subtracted. And there is a growing conviction among the A.C.A.’s opponents that the current Supreme Court, given the addition of Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, will back them up.

They may be right; the threat that this case, Texas et al. v. United States, presents to Obamacare should not be underestimated, especially as it is likely to reach the Court in the heat of the 2020 campaign. The case was brought by twenty states whose most distinct common quality is their redness. Maine and Wisconsin dropped out of the suit after the 2018 midterm elections, when their Republican governors were replaced by Democrats. When the Trump Administration declined to defend the law, a group of mostly blue states—currently twenty-one—got permission from the district court to do so. They were joined by a lawyer for the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives. When Kurt Engelhardt, another of the appeals judges, pointedly asked that lawyer why the Senate hadn’t sent someone to defend the law, he replied that the Senate “operates differently.” It is, after all, led by Mitch McConnell, not Nancy Pelosi.

The complaint concerns the so-called “individual mandate.” When the A.C.A. was enacted, in 2010, it directed every American to get insurance or face a penalty, which was calculated on a sliding scale (and dropped altogether for low-income people; other groups, such as prisoners, were exempt). The constitutionality of the mandate was the subject of an earlier challenge to the A.C.A., but Chief Justice John Roberts wrote an opinion classifying the penalty as a tax, which Congress has the power to levy. Trump’s 2017 tax package, however, reduced the penalty to zero. For the A.C.A.’s opponents, this led to a wild surmise: if the mandate had survived because the penalty was a tax, the absence of a tax might make the mandate unconstitutional. That point might seem academic—constitutional or not, the mandate is, for all practical purposes, already gone, now that there is no penalty for ignoring it. But Texas et al. makes a far more radical claim: The phantom mandate is not only unconstitutional but “inseverable” from the rest of the law. If it is invalid, then all nine hundred and six pages of Obamacare are also invalid.

This argument is as senseless as it is ruinous. It’s like saying that the 2017 tax bill was a stealth total repeal of the A.C.A., something that even leading Republicans denied at the time. And yet at least two of the judges, Elrod and Engelhardt, appeared inclined to accept it. The main issue for them seemed to be just how much of Obamacare to trash.

On that question, too, the Administration has been erratic. Initially, it argued that the court should invalidate only certain provisions, such as preëxisting-condition protections—a major feature that Trump has elsewhere claimed to like. Then, in March, the Administration said that it agreed with the Texas ruling: burn it all. Two months later, though, it argued that, while every word of the law was invalid, any relief that the lower court granted should be limited to damages suffered by Texas and the other states, without defining what those damages might be. This led to utter confusion in the oral arguments: Would there be different versions of the law for different states? Which provisions might the government want to keep? (“You would leave in place the calorie guides?” Judge Elrod asked.) Flentje, the Justice Department’s lawyer, told Elrod that, really, “things don’t need to get sorted out until there’s a final ruling”—that is, from the Supreme Court.

Obamacare has reduced the number of uninsured Americans by twenty million and, while the system is imperfect, premiums are more manageable than is often reported. But, as the Texas case suggests, it can still all be undone. And there is much more to do; the United States has not achieved universal coverage. All the Democratic Presidential front-runners share that goal, but they have what are sometimes sharply diverging proposals for getting there. Vice-President Joseph Biden, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, of South Bend, and former Representative Beto O’Rourke, of El Paso, want to build on the A.C.A. and make Medicare available to all as a public option, alongside private insurance. Senator Bernie Sanders, of Vermont, has a Medicare for All bill that aims to displace private insurance, and in most cases make it unlawful, leaving a public option as the only real option. Senators Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris have signed on to Sanders’s plan, although Harris has at times tried to downplay the impact on private insurance.

The next Democratic debates, which will be held on July 30th and 31st, may sharpen the candidates’ positions or further polarize them. The Democrats need a plan to protect Americans’ health coverage. And they need a plan to win in 2020. Those might even be the same thing. ♦

 

Trump craves big action on drug prices to take to the campaign trail

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, High Deductible Health Plans, High Drug Prices, Indecision, Leadership Implementation, Out of Pocket Expenses • Leave a comment

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-health-202/2019/07/03/the-health-202-trump-craves-big-action-on-drug-prices-to-take-to-the-campaign-trail/5d1b9aa21ad2e552a21d5228/?utm_term=.e49cb9f99e60

Image result for high drug prices

There may be a modest slowdown this year in the growth of drug prices, but it’s nowhere near the seismic shift President Trump has called for. And that seems to be irking the president to no end.

Much of the president’s frustration has been borne by Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar, a former drug executive who until very recently pushed back on proposals to allow the importation of lower-cost drugs from Canada and give the government the tools to directly negotiate lower drug prices in the Medicare program, my Washington Post colleagues Yasmeen Abutaleb, Josh Dawsey and Laurie McGinley report.

But now, under intense pressure, Azar has reversed his long-standing opposition to at least one of those ideas: drug importation, an idea typically embraced by Democrats and dismissed by Republicans and the drug industry.

“Inspired by the president’s passion, Secretary Azar has been pushing FDA to go even bigger and broader on importation,” a senior administration official told my colleagues, although the official declined to detail specific policy changes.

It’s been a little more than a year since Trump promised Americans, in a speech from the Rose Garden, he would slash the price of prescription drugs in the United States. In that time, his administration has proposed some bold new regulations that could help move the needle, but only one has so far been finalized — a new requirement that went into effect this month for drugmakers to list prices in television ads.

While Azar has championed a proposal to eliminate the secretive rebates drug manufacturers pay to insurers, opposition to the idea from Domestic Policy Council head Joe Grogan is hamstringing the effort, my colleagues report. Grogan dislikes its estimated $180 billion price tag and doesn’t view the measure as central to the administration’s drug-pricing effort, they write.

There’s another proposal under review at the Office of Management and Budget to tie some Medicare drug prices to those paid by other countries, but it’s opposed by key Senate Republicans and the drug industry.

A senior administration official downplayed talk of tension between Azar and Grogan, saying the two, along with White House legislative affairs director Eric Ueland, speak three times a week about what is happening on Capitol Hill.

And on Monday, the New York Post published a joint op-ed by Azar and Grogan praising a recent executive order from Trump aimed at more transparency around the prices negotiated between hospitals and insurers.

“President Trump has promised a better vision: a health care system that treats you like a person, not a number,” Azar and Grogan write. “He wants to hold providers and Big Pharma accountable to transparency and reasonable prices.”

Meanwhile, drugmakers have continued hiking prices, albeit a bit more slowly on average. List prices for branded drugs grew 3.3 percent in this year’s first quarter, compared with 6.3 percent in the first quarter of 2018, according to SSR Health pharmaceutical analysts. Bernstein analysts told Politico that drug prices jumped 10.5 percent over the past six months, less than over the same period last year but still four times the rate of inflation.

Trump has frequently referenced some encouraging data from the consumer price index, where the index for prescription drugs fell by 0.6 percent for the 12 months ending in December, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The index also dropped in January, February, March and May — a string of monthly declines not seen since 1973, my Post fact-checking colleagues recently noted.

Yet these data are a far cry from the drastic price reductions Trump would love to tout on the campaign trail as he seeks reelection in 2020.

“By all accounts, drug prices are a fixation for Trump, who frequently sends advisers news clippings and summons them to the White House to rant about the issue,” Yasmeen, Josh and Laurie write. “The guy likes to make money, and he thinks they make too much money,” said one former senior administration official.

A senior administration official told my colleagues there was frustration at a lack of executive branch tools to lower drug prices and that some of Trump’s ideas were ambitious but unworkable.

“Disagreements over how to proceed have created a policy free-for-all as different advisers — and the president himself — pursue what appear to be ad hoc and sometimes dueling approaches,” they write. “Trump entertains proposals usually pushed by progressive Democrats one moment and free-market GOP ideas the next.”

 

Out-of-pocket costs rising even as patients transition to lower-cost care settings

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Consumerism, Denial Rates, Emergency Care, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, Health System, Healthcare Financial Management Association (HFMA), High Deductible Health Plans, High Drug Prices, High Prices, Highly Specialized Drugs, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Out of Pocket Expenses, Primary Care, Rev Cycle Management, Urgent Care • Leave a comment

https://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/out-pocket-costs-rising-even-patients-transition-lower-cost-care-settings?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWldZeVlXTm1aVEF6TVdKbSIsInQiOiJjbWFzeVA2TGlWZkNkXC9odGxcLzdLczFZSDYxd1hoYW04b0wxY0ljQ25zblpYN1VWc2FMWFFCQWpmc2tCYmE4d1Z3eVdMd2htY3JiSjZ3N2Urek43SHFJbWFsckdRbUNycFJoQjhzZm5VcGpJUUhKUDlBMWF2eGJzRUhmZGFlUUx0In0%3D

Patients saw increases of up to 12% in their out-of-pocket responsibilities for inpatient, outpatient and ED care in 2018.

A new TransUnion Healthcare analysis has found that most patients likely felt a bigger pinch to their wallets as out-of-pocket costs across all settings of care increased in 2018. The new findings were made public yesterday at the 2019 Healthcare Financial Management Association Annual Conference in Orlando.

The analysis reveals that patients experienced annual increases of up to 12% in their out-of-pocket responsibilities for inpatient, outpatient and emergency department care last year.

In 2017, the average inpatient cost was $4,068; the average outpatient cost was $990; and the average emergency department cost was $577.

In 2018, the average inpatient cost was $4,659; the average outpatient cost was $1,109; and the average emergency department cost was $617.

FUELING THE TREND

There are certain factors that are influencing this trend, according to Jonathan Wiik, principal of healthcare strategy at TransUnion Healthcare.

“Patients are becoming more aware that emergency care is expensive and somewhat inefficient,” Wiik said. “No one wants to go to the emergency room unless we have to, because we don’t want to deal with the time there or the expense. They aren’t the best place to get primary or even urgent care.”

Another factor, he said, is that providers realize the emergency department is a care setting of last resort for many. Providers want to make sure that have room in the ED for cases that are real emergencies, so they’re essentially curating their patients, steering patients to the most cost effective settings possible — often primary care, which is the least expensive setting.

Noting that the biggest annual increases were in inpatient and outpatient care, Wiik said that was largely a function of utilization and just a general wariness, in addition to the fact that most EDs have pretty flat contracts. Financial communication with patients is also an issue.

“Most people can’t afford the average out-of-pocket, so providers are really trying to educate patients as early as they can about those costs,” said Wiik. “Emergency care is a really hard place to educate people on finances, let alone collect on them.”

RISING COSTS

The analysis found that, during a hospital visit, patients are likely experiencing cost increases that continue the trend of higher out-of-pocket costs. About 59% of patients in 2018 had an average out-of-pocket expense between $501 and $1,000 during a healthcare visit. This was a dramatic increase from 39% in 2017. Conversely, the number of patients that had an average out- of-pocket expense of $500 or below decreased from 49% in 2017 to 36% in 2018.

And with out-of-pocket costs increasing, the trend toward consumerism is growing as more patients, payers and providers transition to lower cost settings of care.

One example: Inpatient care, traditionally the most expensive healthcare option, has seen a leveling off with the percentage of price estimates remaining at 8% between 2017 and 2018. The percentage of outpatient services estimates, generally about one-quarter of the cost of inpatient services, rose in that same timeframe from 65% to 73%.

“Patients are likely seeing more providers and payers recommending that they take advantage of cost-effective healthcare options, which brings down costs for all parties,” said Wiik. “This is especially important as costs continue to rise in all areas of healthcare, particularly in inpatient, outpatient and emergency department services.”

This is having an impact on providers, payers and patients, he said.

“Let’s pretend Joanna had an MRI in her head, and that ran $3,200. That might have been paid by Blue Cross Blue Shield, and $100 out of Joanna’s pocket. Now Joanna’s paying $300. Most patients don’t look up how much the MRI’s going to be. They just get the bill later and try to figure it out. I think the patient portion of the bill is going to be in the 35, 40% range very soon. What that means is we’re quickly approaching half of the bill coming from the patient and half from the payer. That’s not insurance anymore, that’s a bank account.”

A recent Kaiser Family Foundation study indicated that 34% of patients are finding it difficult to pay their deductible before insurance kicks in. In addition to patients being challenged to make payments, the trend is that providers are also feeling the pressure of increased denial rates and write-offs, which is increasing bad debt.

Considering these factors together — increased out-of-pocket expenses, a patient’s challenge to make payment, and increased denial rates — collecting payments from all payers is critical for providers. In order for providers to ensure they receive payment for the patient-care services rendered, it is vital that they implement strategies that maximize reimbursements.

 

 

Medical costs projected to increase 6% by 2020, says PwC

Posted on by • Posted in Biosimilars, Chronic Diseases, Generic Drugs, Health Policy, Health System, High Prices, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Out of Pocket Expenses, Telemedicine, Value-Based Healthcare • Leave a comment

https://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/medical-costs-projected-increase-6-percent-2020-says-pwc?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWldZeVlXTm1aVEF6TVdKbSIsInQiOiJjbWFzeVA2TGlWZkNkXC9odGxcLzdLczFZSDYxd1hoYW04b0wxY0ljQ25zblpYN1VWc2FMWFFCQWpmc2tCYmE4d1Z3eVdMd2htY3JiSjZ3N2Urek43SHFJbWFsckdRbUNycFJoQjhzZm5VcGpJUUhKUDlBMWF2eGJzRUhmZGFlUUx0In0%3D

Utilization is still being dampened by high deductibles and other cost sharing, but at the expense of employee satisfaction.

Medical costs are rising, and by this time next year costs will likely show a modest increase of about 6% over the past two years, according to a new report from PwC, PricewaterhouseCoopers.

After figuring in health plan changes such as increased employee cost sharing and network and benefit changes, PwC’s Health Research Institute, which conducted the study, projects a net growth rate of 5 percent. Even with employers’ actions, market forces likely will still overrun the efforts to quell them.

Prices, not utilization, are continuing to fuel healthcare spending. Utilization is still being dampened by high deductibles and other cost sharing, but at the expense of employee satisfaction with their health plan. In response, employers are inserting themselves more forcefully into the healthcare delivery equation.

WHAT’S THE IMPACT

Beyond market forces, HRI identified three “inflators” that will, influence the medical cost trend.

One is that drug spending will grow faster. Between 2020 and 2027, retail drug spending under private health insurance is projected to increase at a rate of 3 percent to 6 percent a year as the impact of generics on spending plateaus, biosimilars continue to see slow uptake, and costly new therapies enter the market.

Chronic diseases will also be a major issue. Obesity and Type 2 diabetes continue to produce high rates of hypertension and cardiovascular disease. Sixty percent of adults have a chronic disease, with 40 percent managing two or more. For employers, per capita health spending on someone with a complex chronic illness is eight times that of a healthy person.

Lastly, employers are beginning to recognize the importance of helping their employees manage their mental health and wellbeing. Nearly 75 percent of employers offer mental health disease management programs, the report found. Anytime access is expanded, costs will go up in the short term, though it may have the opposite effect long-term.

And speaking of the opposite effect, there are a few “deflators” HRI recognized that will likely slow down the medical cost trend.

HRI predicts that in 2020, more companies will take action to make sure healthcare is accessible to their employees, opening and expanding clinics as a strategy to control the cost trend. Thirty-eight percent of large employers offered a worksite clinic in 2019, up from 27 percent in 2014.

Also, payers are designing plans to encourage members to choose free-standing facilities and in-home care rather than more expensive sites. How those benefits are designed, and how employees perceive the costs, will shape the effectiveness of site of care strategies. Payers and employers are aiming to grow the role of telemedicine as employees grow more comfortable with it, especially if out-of-pocket costs are lower and the quality doesn’t suffer.

WHAT ELSE YOU SHOULD KNOW

The trend has implications for employers, payers, providers and even pharmaceutical and life science companies.

For payers, it becomes important to  benchmark the prices paid commercially against a common reference point such as Medicare. With this information it’s possible to pursue value-based arrangements with high-performing and lower-cost providers, in addition to negotiating better contracted rates on existing fee-for-service arrangements.

For providers, a value line strategy is necessary as employers and consumers look for high quality care for a low cost. Providers armed with a value line strategy are more likely to be included in health plans’ high-performance networks, and are better positioned to directly contract with employers.

Providers should also understand what risk they can take on to guarantee a health outcome, and the cost structure needed to make them profitable in doing so. Providers should understand and manage both the risk inherent in their ability to deliver care and the risk of the population they’re managing — from health status to the social determinants impacting their health — to help them design appropriate clinical interventions and non-clinical support services.

For employers, it becomes imperative to understand their role as the purchaser of healthcare for employees and join the ranks of employer activists, pursuing new solutions to lower costs, improve access and enhance quality. Pharmaceutical and life science companies, meanwhile, should go beyond the basic outcomes-based arrangements currently in place and consider exploring and expanding alternative financing arrangements, such as subscription models for unlimited access to a product for a set period of time, or a mortgage model to finance expensive specialty drugs over time.

THE LARGER TREND

The PwC study loosely mirrors the findings of an October report from the Altarum Center for Value in Health Care, which found prices and spending in healthcare growing steadily, but at a moderate pace.

The country’s healthcare spending habits are at a level nearly double that of similar countries. Spending per capita in the U.S. is more than $9,000, compared to just over $5,000 in other Western nations, and because prices are growing slowly but steadily, spending is doing the same.

 

 

Hospital price transparency push draws industry ire, but effects likely limited

Posted on by • Posted in America's Health Insurance Plans, American Hospital Association (AHA), Federation of American Hospitals, Health Insurance Industry, Health Policy, Health System, Hospital, Medical Group Management Association (MGMA), Out of Pocket Expenses, Paperwork Burden, Physician, Physician Practice Management, President Executive Order, Price Transparency, Transparency • Leave a comment

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/hospital-price-transparency-push-draws-industry-ire-but-effects-likely-lim/557536/

Image result for price transparency

Far-reaching rules mandating industry price transparency could mark a major shift, but experts are skeptical the efforts will meaningfully lower prices for patients without a more fundamental system overhaul.

President Donald Trump’s executive order signed Monday directs HHS and other federal departments to begin rulemaking to require hospitals and payers to release information based on their privately negotiated rates. Providers would also have to give patients estimates of their out-of-pocket costs before a procedure.

The moves come amid efforts from the federal government and Congress to push the healthcare industry to address patient anger over high prices, particularly regarding what medical bills they can expect to receive.

Many details must still be worked out as HHS and CMS craft their proposals, but providers and payers were quick to condemn any notion of making negotiated rates public. A legal challenge to the rules is also likely.

Many policy analysts and economists said that while price transparency is good in theory, current evidence shows patients don’t take advantage of pricing information now available, said Ateev Mehrotra, associate policy of healthcare policy and Harvard Medical School.

Patients are wary of going against a doctor’s advice to undergo a certain procedure or test, and to get it done at a certain facility. A difference in price may not be enough to sway them.

Also, the healthcare system has so many moving parts and unique elements that understanding a medical bill and how the price was calculated is daunting, to say the least.

“That complexity hinders the ability of people to effectively shop for care,” Mehrotra told Healthcare Dive “It’s not like going to Amazon and buying a toothbrush or whatever.”

What the order actual does

The executive order has two main directives:

  • Within 60 days, HHS must propose a regulation “to require hospitals to publicly post standard charge information, including charges and information based on negotiated rates and for common or shoppable items and services, in an easy-to-understand, consumer-friendly, and machine-readable format using consensus-based data standards that will meaningfully inform patients’ decision making and allow patients to compare prices across hospitals.”
  • Within 90 days, HHS and the Departments of Labor and Treasury must solicit comment on a proposal “to require healthcare providers, health insurance issuers, and self-insured group health plans to provide or facilitate access to information about expected out-of-pocket costs for items or services to patients before they receive care.”

The order also outlines smaller steps, including a report from HHS on how the federal government and private companies are impeding quality and price transparency in healthcare and another on measures the White House can take to deter surprise billing.

It also directs federal agencies to increase access to de-identified claims data (an idea strongly favored by policy analysts and researchers) and requires HHS to identify priority databases to be publicly released.

The order requests the Secretary of the Treasury expand coverage options for high-deductible health plans and health savings accounts. It specifically asks the department to explore using HSA funds for direct primary care, an idea Senate HELP Committee Chairman Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., said he “especially like[d].”

Industry pushes back

The order itself wastes no time in pointing the finger at industry players for current patient frustrations with the system. “Opaque pricing structures may benefit powerful special interest groups, such as large hospital systems and insurance companies, but they generally leave patients and taxpayers worse off than would a more transparent system,” according to the document.

As expected, payer and provider groups slammed any attempt to force them to reveal the rates they negotiate behind closed doors, though they expressed appreciation for the general push toward more transparency.

The American Hospital Association shied away from strong language as details are still being worked out, but did say “publicly posting privately negotiated rates could, in fact, undermine the competitive forces of private market dynamics, and result in increased prices.”

The Federation of American Hospitals took a similar tone in a statement from CEO Chip Kahn. “If implementing regulations take the wrong course, however, it may undercut the way insurers pay for hospital services resulting in higher spending,” he said.

Both hospital groups highlighted more transparency for patient out-of-pocket costs and suggests the onus should be on payers to communicate information on cost-sharing and co-insurance.

Mollie Gelburd, associate director of government affairs at MGMA, which represents physician groups, said doctors don’t want to be in the position of explaining complex insurance terms and rules to a patient.

“While physicians should be encouraged to talk to patients about costs, to unnecessarily have them be doing all this education when they should be doing clinical care, that sort of gets concerning,” she said.

Practices are more concerned about payer provider directories and their accuracy, something not addressed in the executive order. Not having that type of information can be detrimental for a patient seeking care and further regulation in the area could help, Gelburd said.

Regardless, providers will likely view with frustration any regulations that increase their reporting and paperwork burdens, she said.

“I think the efficacy of pricing transparency and reducing healthcare costs, the jury is still out on that,” she said. “But if you have that onerous administrative requirement, that’s certainly going to drive up costs for those practices, especially those smaller practices.”

Payer lobby America’s Health Insurance Plans was quick to voice its opposition to the order.

CEO Matt Eyles said in a statement disclosing privately negotiated rates would “reduce incentives to offer lower rates, creating a floor — not a ceiling — for the prices that hospitals would be willing to accept.” He argued that current tools payers use to inform patients of cost expectations, such as cost calculators, are already offering meaningful help.

AHIP also said the order works against the industry’s efforts to shift to paying for quality instead of quantity. “Requiring price disclosure for thousands of hospital items, services and procedures perpetuates the old days of the American health care system paying for volume over value,” he said. “We know that is a formula for higher costs and worse care for everyone.”

Limited effects

One potential effect of making rates public is that prices would eventually trend toward equalization. That wouldn’t necessarily reduce costs, however, and could actually increase them for some patients. A payer able to negotiate a favorable rate for a specific patient population in a specific geographic area might lose that advantage, for example, Christopher Holt, director of healthcare policy at the conservative leaning American Action Forum, told Healthcare Dive.

John Nicolaou of PA Consulting told Healthcare Dive consumers will need help deciphering whatever information is made available however. Reams of data could offer the average patient little to no insight without payer or third-party tools to analyze and understand the information.

“It starts the process, just publishing that information and just making it available,” he said. “It’s got to be consumable and actionable, and that’s going to take a lot more time.”

The order does require the information being made public be “easy-to-understand” and able to “meaningfully inform patients’ decision making and allow patients to compare prices across hospitals.” That’s far easier said than done, however, Harvard’s Mehrotra said. “We haven’t seen anybody able to put this information in a usable way that patients are able to effectively act upon,” he said.

Holt said patients are also limited in their ability to shop around for healthcare, considering they often have little choice in what insurance company they use. People with employer-based plans typically don’t have the option to switch, and those in the individual market can only do so once a year.

Another aspect to consider is the limited reach of the federal government. CMS can require providers and payers in the Medicare Advantage program, for example, to meet price transparency requirements, but much of the licensing and regulations for payer and providers comes at the state level.

Waiting for details, lawsuits

One of the biggest questions for payers and providers in the wake of Monday’s announcement is how far exactly the rulemaking from HHS will go in mandating transparency. One one end, the requirements could stick close to giving patients information about their expected out-of-pocket costs without revealing the details of payer-provider negotiations. Full transparency, on the other hand, would mean publishing the now-secret negotiated rates for anyone to see.

“I think it’s the start of a much longer process,” Holt said. “It’s going to depend a lot on how much information is going to be required to be divulged and how that’s going to be collected.”

It’s almost certain that as soon as any concrete efforts at implementation are made, lawsuits will follow.

That’s what happened after Ohio passed a price transparency law in 2015 that required providers give patients information on out-of-pocket costs before a procedure — a proposal the executive order also puts forward.

The law still has not been enforced, as it has been caught up in the courts. The Ohio Hospital Association and Ohio State Medical Association sued over the law, arguing it was too vague and could lead to a delay in patient care.

 

How much does Medicare spend on prescription drugs?

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Health Policy, Medicare, Medicare Part D, Out of Pocket Expenses • Leave a comment

https://usafacts.org/reports/facts-in-focus/medicare-part-d-prescription-drug-cost?utm_source=EM&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=medicaredive

Image result for drug spending

As of 2017, the government now spends more on prescription drugs than private insurers or individuals out-of-pocket. Medicare payments alone account for 30% of the $333 billion spent on prescription drugs. In 2005, Medicare was responsible for just 2% of prescription spending.

Medicare’s expanding role at the pharmacy came with the 2006 creation of Medicare Part D, a program that offers supplemental prescription drug coverage plans to Medicare enrollees. The federal government tracks all claims paid for through Medicare Part D.

Sifting through the data allows one to see how spending on drug brands and drug types has changed for Medicare.

The graphs below show how spending has changed. Spending per claim, or simply the cost of a prescription, have gone up in drugs used for cancer treatments or diabetes. Meanwhile, prescription costs have gone down for blood pressure drugs, even as total claims for those drugs go up.

During 2017, Medicare Part D beneficiaries took out 1.4 billion prescription drug claims on 2,878 different brands of prescription drugs. The total spend, before rebates and discounts kick in, was $152 billion.

All those figures are up from 2013, when Medicare prescription drug spending stood at $102 billion on 1.2 billion claims on 2,294 different drugs. Between 2013 and 2017, prescription drug spending increased 15%, claims increased 18% and spending per claim increased 29% from $81.02 per claim to $104.56 per claim

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services documents drug spending for three programs: Medicare Part B (drugs administered by health professionals), Medicare Part D (prescription drugs patients generally administer themselves) and Medicaid (prescription drugs).

The interactive graphic below shows Part D total spending (combining out-of-pocket costs with Medicare payments) and claims from 2013 to 2017.

 

The drug pricing debate is stuck in the past

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, ACA, Biologics, Biosimilars, Competition, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Gene Therapy, Generic Drugs, Generic Entry, Health Policy, High Drug Prices, High Prices, Highly Specialized Drugs, Limited Competition, Out of Pocket Expenses, Patent Protections, Precision Medicine, Preexisting Conditions • Leave a comment

https://www.axios.com/drug-pricing-debate-stuck-in-past-10ba315e-0ddf-4013-8c5a-f8ee89c2f530.html

Illustration of falling pills and coins

There’s a scientific and economic revolution happening in medicine, and the political debate over drug prices isn’t keeping up. Not only are policymakers struggling to agree on solutions, they’re mostly talking about yesterday’s problems.

Why it matters: Medical innovation is already hurtling toward a new era of highly specialized drugs — some are even tailor-made for each individual patient. They may be more effective than anything we’ve seen before, and also more expensive. But the drug-pricing debate is more focused on decades-old parts of the system.

The big picture: “We haven’t really contemplated how we’re going to absorb some of these things,” Food and Drug Administration Scott Gottlieb said. “These are good problems to have…but they are policy challenges.”

Where it stands: Congress is mainly squabbling over proposals to reduce prices by boosting competition — by making it easier to start developing generics, or by changing patent protections that help pharmaceutical companies keep their rivals at bay.

Yes, but: Those regulatory tools were designed for a world in which pharmaceutical companies develop relatively simple drugs and try to market them to a big group of people. But science is rapidly moving away from that world.

  • Gene therapy, for example, is the new wave in cancer treatment. It helps patients’ own immune systems fight off cancer — which means each dose is custom-made for each patient. It’s a highly promising approach, but treatment can come with a price tag north of $1 million once all is said and done.
  • The old dichotomy of a brand-name pill followed by a generic version of that pill doesn’t really hold up for custom-made drugs.
  • So tools that try to promote competition simply may not work as well. “I don’t think they’re solutions for gene therapies because I think you’re ultimately going to have to figure out ways to capitalize those costs,” Gottlieb said.

Even without being custom-made, many new drugs are still trying to treat smaller groups of patients — like people with the same specific genetic mutation.

  • “Generic entry might not prove to be as successful for addressing this problem as it has historically been, and I think it’s because we fundamentally have shifted into these other types of products where competition is just more challenging,” Vanderbilt’s Stacie Dusetzina said.

Most of these new drugs belong to a class known as biologics. They’re more complex than the drugs we’re used to, and therefore have the potential to be more precise in the way they interact with your body.

  • “The way drugs are produced and made now is quite different from the way they were produced and made in the early ‘80s, and that’s both because…you have a lot of these drugs being made for small populations, and for biologics the science is so much more complicated,” said Rachel Sachs, a professor at Washington University.
  • Biologics don’t have traditional generic versions; the equivalent are products known as “biosimilars.”
  • The Affordable Care Act created a pathway for the FDA to approve biosimilars, but that market has been slow to take off, and at least in the early going, biosimilars often don’t offer the same steep discounts as traditional generics.

Promoting competition isn’t the only idea in the world, but more muscular price controls are much more controversial.

  • Most of these new, complex drugs are administered at a doctor’s office, not picked up from a pharmacy. The Trump administration has proposed tying Medicare’s payments for that class of drugs to the lower prices that other countries pay, and Democrats support direct Medicare price negotiations.

The bottom line: “One version of ten years from now will have very limited competition in certain types of markets, either because the market has eroded it to be that way or because the drugs that are coming out will by definition have limited competition,” said Rena Conti, a professor at Boston University.

 

 

 

On the Doorstep With a Plea: Will You Support Medicare for All?

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Employer-Based Health Insurance, Grass Roots Support, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Insurance Industry, Health Policy, High Deductible Health Plans, High Premiums, Human Rights, Labor Union, Out of Pocket Expenses, Preexisting Conditions, Public Option, Single Payer Health System • Leave a comment

Art Miller listened patiently as the stranger on his doorstep tried to sell him on the Medicare for All Act of 2019, the single-payer health care bill that has sharply divided Democrats in Congress and on the presidential campaign trail.

The visitor, Steven Meier, was a volunteer canvasser who wanted Mr. Miller to call his congresswoman, Abby Finkenauer, the young Democrat who took a Republican’s seat last year in this closely divided district — and press her to embrace Medicare for all. Beyond congressional politics, there was the familiar role that Iowa plays as the first state to weigh in on the fight for the Democratic presidential nomination.

“I want to know how my grandkids are going to pay for it, O.K.?” Mr. Miller, 71, mused, peering at the flier that Mr. Meier had handed him.

It was a fairly typical encounter for Mr. Meier, 39, who with hundreds of volunteers around the country is working with National Nurses United, the country’s largest nurses’ union, to build grass-roots support for the single-payer bill, a long shot on Capitol Hill and a disruptive force in the party. House Democrats have declared this Saturday and Sunday to be “a weekend of action on health care” — but they are split over whether to embrace extreme change or something closer to the status quo.

A single-payer health care system would more or less scrap private health insurance, including employer-sponsored coverage, for a system like Canada’s in which the government pays for everyone’s health care with tax dollars. Democrats not ready for that big a step are falling back on a “public option,” an alternative in which anyone could buy into Medicare or another public program, or stick with private insurance — a position once a considered firmly on the party’s left wing.

Lawmakers like Ms. Finkenauer, mindful of the delicate political balance in their districts, fear the “socialism” epithet that President Trump and his party are attaching to Medicare for all. On Friday, Mr. Trump called the House bill “socialist health care” that would “crush American workers with higher taxes, long wait times and far worse care.” But even Ms. Finkenauer, who beat the incumbent Republican in November by 16,900 votes, has been pulled left by the debate, embracing the public option, which could not get through Congress when the Affordable Care Act passed in 2010.

“In a divided Congress, I’m focused on what we can do to bring immediate relief to Iowans,” she said in an email.

The nurses’ union and a number of other progressive groups want nothing less than a government system that pays for everyone’s health care, seizing on the issue’s prominence and a round of Medicare for all hearings in the House with canvassing in the districts of many of the 123 House Democrats who have not thrown their support behind a single-payer system.

“Hearings are a moment for us to have a national stage for this campaign,” Jasmine Ruddy, the lead organizer for the nurse union’s Medicare for all campaign, told several dozen new volunteers on a training call last month. “It’s up to us to take advantage of the momentum we already see happening and turn it into political power.”

But building support for a single-payer health care system has been slow going. On Wednesday, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Representative Richard E. Neal of Massachusetts, convening the House’s third Medicare for all hearing, said it was about “exploring ideas.”

Republicans warned darkly of sky-high tax increases, doctor shortages and long waits for care. Representative Kevin Brady of Texas, the senior Republican on the committee, said his constituents were “frightened” about their private coverage being “ripped out from under them.”

The nurses’ union campaign began just after Democrats won the House in November, when the union and several other groups held a strategy call with Representative Pramila Jayapal, Democrat of Washington, the chief author of the Medicare for All Act, and Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who pushed Medicare for all into the mainstream during his 2016 presidential campaign.

“Rather than try to convince people it’s the right system,” Ms. Ruddy said, “our strategy is to reach the people who are already convinced that health care is a human right, to bring them in and actually make them feel the action they are taking matters.”

In Dubuque, Mr. Meier and his partner, Briana Moss, have knocked on 250 doors and gathered about 50 signatures over the past few months. About 20 volunteers, including a retired nurse and several college students, are also involved. Nationwide, canvassers have knocked on 20,000 doors and collected 14,000 signatures since February.

On a Saturday afternoon, Mr. Miller, a Vietnam veteran, told Mr. Meier about his positive experience with government health care through the Department of Veterans Affairs, saying, “I’ve seen how it can work.”

A few houses down, a woman who owns a cleaning service and would give only her first name, Sharon, and her party affiliation, Republican, said that if the bill covered abortions, “I won’t go for that.”

She added that she would be happy to stop paying $170 a month for supplemental insurance to cover what Medicare does not, but she did not want to see people who do not work receive free care. From the garage, her husband hollered that he agreed. Conceding defeat, Mr. Meier and Ms. Moss moved along.

Both Sanders supporters, they took on the cause in part because Ms. Moss has Type 1 diabetes and has struggled on and off to stay insured, though now she has Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act’s expansion of the program. Ms. Moss, 30, went to see Ms. Finkenauer in her district office this year and asked if she supported a government system that eliminated insurance. Ms. Finkenauer, she said, stated her preference for a public option.

“That’s simply a compromise that leaves the insurance companies still in the game,” said Mr. Meier, who recently started working at John Deere building backhoes and will soon have employer-based coverage after being uninsured for his entire adult life.

The Jayapal and Sanders bills would both expand traditional Medicare to cover all Americans, and change the structure of the program to cover more services and eliminate most deductibles and co-payments. There would effectively be no private health insurance, because the new system would cover almost everything; Mr. Sanders has said private coverage could be sold for extras like cosmetic surgery.

While polling does show that Medicare for all has broad public support, that drops once people learn it would involve raising taxes or eliminating private insurance. That finding bewilders Mr. Meier, given many of the conversations he has on people’s front steps.

Those conversations keep coming. Rick Plowman 66, complained bitterly about how despite having Medicare, he had to pay nearly $500 for inhalers to treat his chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Still, he was skeptical.

“I just don’t know what it’s going to look like down the road,” Mr. Plowman said. “Even Social Security for kids, you know? Even for you guys?”

“I’m willing to start making that sacrifice right now,” Mr. Meier pushed back. Mr. Plowman signed the petition.

At a white bungalow around the corner, Mr. Meier found — finally — that he was preaching to the choir with Bobby Daniels, 50, and his wife, Andrea, 46. Mr. Daniels, a forklift operator from Waterloo, said their coverage came with a $3,000 deductible and he would “most definitely” support Medicare for all. Ray Edwards, 36, an uninsured barber, also heartily signed on.

At the final stop of the day, Mr. Meier and Ms. Moss encountered Jeremy Shade, 36, a registered Republican who promptly told them his sister lived in Canada and had spent “hours and hours in the hospital, waiting for care” under that country’s single-payer system.

“I get that concern, and it’s something I’m worried about, too,” Mr. Meier said as Mr. Shade’s dog barked. “Would you be interested in maybe just calling Abby Finkenauer and saying, ‘Hey, what are we doing about the health care problem in this country?’”

“My wife would,” Mr. Shade said, explaining that she was a Democrat. “I’m real wary about it.”

Two hours of hot canvassing amid swarms of gnats had yielded six petition signatures and a few pledges to call Ms. Finkenauer. Mr. Meier was determined to end on a positive note. “I really think health care could be the issue that could get people to stop being so on one side or the other,” he said, a point that Mr. Shade accepted, shaking his hand before retreating inside.

 

 

 

Who is blocking ‘Medicare for All’?

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Health Insurance Industry, Health Policy, Hospital Industry, Medicare for All, Out of Pocket Expenses, Outcomes, Pharmaceutical Industry • Leave a comment

Who is blocking ‘Medicare for All’?

Who is blocking 'Medicare for All'?

Decades of corporate-friendly politics and policy have decimated communities throughout the country. Centrist Democrats who have chosen corporate profits over people’s needs have aided and abetted this decimation. People are hungry for big ideas to improve their lives and to change the rules that serve only to make the rich richer.

Nowhere is this hunger more apparent than in the demand for improved “Medicare for All”. During a hearing at the House Budget Committee this week it was also apparent that the center-right and their wealthy donors won’t go down without a fight when it comes to health care. 

With guns-a-blazing, they are out to block an incredibly successful and popular program: Medicare, from being improved, expanded and provided to everyone.

Yet polling shows that across party lines, a majority of Americans are in favor of Medicare for All. And why not? Right now, nearly 30 million people in this country are uninsured; 40 million can’t afford health-care co-pays and deductibles and 45,000 die annually as a result of not having access to health care.

Those reaping the excessive profits from our illnesses and injuries are in a panic. They’re laying all their chips on the table to make sure Medicare for All never becomes reality. It would mean the end of private insurance companies that profit mightily off the most costly and least effective health-care system in the industrialized world.

So, to continue to rake in their profits, they’ve created the Partnership for America’s Health Care Future, a partnership of corporate hospitals, insurance and drug companies. They must have a lot to lose: last year alone, the group spent $143 million developing attack ads and launching fear campaigns to kill Medicare for All.

It’s time to admit it, while nearly every modern country in the world provides quality, accessible health care for free or very inexpensively to their citizens, the United States stands alone in its willingness to let corporations suck the last pennies out of sick or injured people.

Well, the jig is up. Decades under a corporate-run private health insurance system have proven that we can’t rely on profiteers to provide access to quality health care. We need a publicly held system that is accountable to the people who rely on it. We are able to do so and save trillions of dollars over the next decade.

Medicare for All would reduce national health-care spending by anywhere between $2 trillion to $10 trillion over ten years. Research shows that countries with single-payer systems spend much less on drugs.

Yet opponents continue to decry the “costs” of Medicare for All. They will continue to focus on the cost to taxpayers, conveniently avoiding the truth that already we pay excessive health care costs through insurance premiums, co-pays and deductibles.

Americans suffer from poor health outcomes because they can’t afford to see a doctor until their illness becomes catastrophic. Many weigh the choice between financial ruin and life-saving medicines and treatment. In one of the richest countries in the world that is nothing short of shameful.

The U.S. is a country with abundant resources and more than enough wealth to go around. It’s time to share the wealth in America. It’s a new day and it starts with Medicare for All. Buckle up — because the fight is just beginning.

 

 

 

Toward 2020: A Survey of ACA Market Insurers

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, ACA, Essential Health Benefits, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Insurance Industry, Health Policy, Health System, High Deductible Health Plans, High Premiums, Hospital, Out of Pocket Expenses, Preexisting Conditions, Underinsured, Uninsured • Leave a comment

Click to access Toward_2020_A_Survey_of_ACA_Market_Insurers.pdf