Category Archives: Out of Pocket Expenses

Health Care Sharing Ministries Leave Consumers with Unpaid Medical Claims

Posted on by • Posted in Denial, Health Care Sharing Ministries (HCSMs), Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, Marketing Deceptive, Out of Pocket Expenses, Public Good, Public Perception, Underinsured, Uninsured • Leave a comment

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/blog/2023/health-care-sharing-ministries-leave-consumers-unpaid-medical-claims

Health care sharing ministries (HCSMs) claim to offer health coverage: members follow a common set of religious or ethical beliefs and make monthly payments to help pay the qualifying medical expenses of other members.

These products often appear comparable to insurance, but they lack the consumer protections and benefit standards that apply to comprehensive coverage. HCSMs are under no obligation to pay members’ claims and often require members to negotiate discounts or seek charity care from health care providers.

Because of how HCSMs are marketed, consumers may have difficulty identifying the significant limitations of these arrangements and risk getting stuck with unpaid bills. Until recently, states did not have access to data on HCSMs’ enrollment, operations, and finances.

Massachusetts and Colorado have begun to fill these gaps, and the data they have obtained are revealing. The Massachusetts marketplace began requiring HCSMs to report key data in 2020; and last year, Colorado became the first state to require comprehensive data from all HCSMs enrolling Colorado residents. The state’s first report provides a detailed look at HCSMs selling memberships in Colorado.

What’s in Colorado’s First Report?

The data show HCSMs have grown to include far more members than previously understood and shed light on risks for consumers who pay monthly fees with an expectation that their membership will cover health care claims.

Greater than expected enrollment. National enrollment for the HCSMs included in the Colorado report is larger than previously recognized: 1.7 million people. In Colorado alone, HCSM enrollment (at least 68,000) is equivalent to 30 percent of marketplace enrollment. Because HCSMs often exclude essential health services and are therefore more attractive to people who are relatively healthy, enrollment of this size, relative to marketplace enrollment, may increase premiums for marketplace plans.

It also means a significant number of people have forgone comprehensive coverage and federal subsidies to buy this alternative arrangement that does not guarantee health care costs will be paid.

One HCSM recently surveyed its members and found 42 percent had incomes under 200 percent of the federal poverty level (about $50,000 annually for a family of three). Individuals and families at this income level would likely be eligible for low- or no-cost coverage in the marketplace or Medicaid.

Broker-driven marketing. Seven HCSMs reported using brokers to market their plans; some said they rely heavily or exclusively on brokers to grow membership. About one-third of all enrollment in these seven HCSMs was attributed to brokers.

Because HCSMs pay substantially higher commissions (15% to 20%) than marketplace insurers (2.6%) typically do, brokers have an incentive to place consumers in these arrangements.

Unpaid claims. Though their members submitted about $362 million in claims during the reporting period, the HCSMs asserted that only one-third of this amount — about $132 million — was eligible for payment. During the same time period, HCSMs brought in about $97 million, resulting in an apparent shortfall of $35 million. The low share of eligible claims is attributable in part to the HCSMs’ strict rules that disallow reimbursement for various types of care.

In addition, HCSMs have broad flexibility to refuse sharing of a claim even if it otherwise meets the rules. For example, HCSMs often require their members to negotiate their own discounts or seek charity care from health care providers before their claims will be eligible for sharing.

Essential care ineligible for sharing. HCSMs reported they exclude from sharing any expenses for certain essential health care, including costs related to preventive care, mental health care, and substance use disorders, and exclude coverage for many preexisting conditions, including asthma, autism, cancer, diabetes, and hypertension. Alternatively, comprehensive insurance must cover essential health benefits and all preexisting conditions.

Getting Uniform Data Is Challenging but Essential

The first-year report shows the challenges of obtaining data from HCSMs that are not subject to any of the standards or oversight that apply to comprehensive health insurance. Regulators determined that several HCSMs marketing memberships in Colorado had failed to report data and getting complete and accurate data from those that did was difficult. A second report, recently released, indicates those challenges continue, making it impossible to draw comparisons between the two years. Still, by requiring HCSMs to use templates and state-defined terms to submit data in a uniform way, Colorado regulators seem to be on the path to a clearer understanding of how HCSMs are working, their financial solvency, and their effect on state residents and the health insurance market. Indeed, data in the second report show the risks to consumers described above persist.

Looking Ahead

Colorado’s annual requirement to share data will help regulators better understand HCSM operations and finances and, with improved compliance to data submission requirements, should allow for comparisons across HCSMs and from year to year. Data can help point regulators to HCSMs that warrant closer scrutiny and identify for policymakers ways to better protect consumers who may lack a clear understanding of the financial risks of HCSM membership.

Cigna’s Express Scripts adopts cost-plus pricing model

Posted on by • Posted in Health Policy, Healthcare Reform, High Deductible Health Plans, High Drug Prices, Out of Pocket Expenses, Pharmaceutical Industry, Pharmacy Benefits Management, Price Transparency, Retail Pharmacy • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/169732fa4667/the-weekly-gist-november-17-2023?e=d1e747d2d8

This week, Express Scripts, the nation’s second-largest pharmacy benefit manager (PBM), which is owned by health insurer Cigna, announced a new pricing model.

It is giving employers and health plans the option to pay pharmacies up to 15 percent over acquisition costs, plus a dispensing fee, for covered drugs. This payment structure was popularized by the Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drugs Company, founded by the billionaire businessman in reaction to the opaque pricing and complicated discounts and rebates common among PBMs.

While Cigna is not promising that this new pricing model will result in lower prices, it says it will improve transparency and should benefit retail pharmacies, who will split the markup with Express Scripts.

Cigna projects that only some employers will lower their healthcare spending through the cost-plus model, and that patient cost-sharing should be similar under both approaches. 

The Gist: Between disruptive competitors like Cuban’s venture and increasing scrutiny from Congress, PBMs are facing new pressures to improve transparency and account for their role in rising drug costs. 

This move by Cigna is an attempt to address at least one of those concerns, possibly intended to preempt regulatory and legislative action. 

After years of complaints surrounding their business practices, it appears that the Congressional tide may be turning toward PBM industry reform. However, patients—who by and large are unaware of what PBMs are or do—won’t be satisfied till they see their out-of-pocket prescription drug costs go down. 

Next up on this front: seeing which provisions targeting PBMs, many which have bipartisan support, make it into the Senate’s broad healthcare legislation planned for the end of this year, and in what form that bill ultimately passes. 

Are Employers Ready to Engage the Health Industry Head On?

Posted on by • Posted in Affordability, Community Benefit, Direct Contracting, Employer-Based Health Insurance, Employer-Sponsored Commercial Health Insurance, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Out of Pocket Expenses, Tax Exempt Status, Uncompensated Care, Underinsured, Uninsured • Leave a comment
Are Employers Ready to Engage the Health Industry Head On?

Last week, Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) released its Annual Employer Health Benefits Survey which included a surprise:

The average annual single premium and the average annual family premium each increased by 7% over the last year.

In 2022 as post-pandemic recovery was the focus for employers, the average single premium grew by 2% and the average family premium increased by 1%. Health costs and insurance premiums were not top of mind concerns to employers struggling to keep employees paid and door open. But 7% is an eye-opener.

The rest of the findings in the 2023 KFF Report are unremarkable: they reflect employer willingness to maintain benefits at/near pre-pandemic levels and slight inclination toward expanded benefits beyond mental health:

  • “The average annual premium for employer-sponsored health insurance in 2023 is $8,435 for single coverage and $23,968 for family coverage. Comparatively, there was an increase of 5.2% in workers’ wages and inflation of 5.8%2. The average single and family premiums increased faster this year than last year (2% vs. 7% and 1% vs. 7% respectively).
  • Over the last five years, the average premium for family coverage has increased by 22% compared to an 27% increase in workers’ wages and 21% inflation.
  • For single coverage, the average premium for covered workers is higher at small firms than at large firms ($8,722 vs. $8,321). The average premiums for family coverage are comparable for covered workers in small and large firms ($23,621 vs. $24,104) …
  • Most covered workers contribute to the cost of the premium for their coverage. On average, covered workers contribute 17% of the premium for single coverage and 29% of the premium for family coverage, similar to the percentages contributed in 2022…
  • 90% of workers with single coverage have a general annual deductible that must be met before most services are paid for by the plan, similar to the percentage last year (88%).
  • The average deductible amount in 2023 for workers with single coverage and a general annual deductible is $1,735, similar to last year…
  • In 2023, among workers with single coverage, 47% of workers at small firms and 25% of workers at large firms have a general annual deductible of $2,000 or more. Over the last five years, the percentage of covered workers with a general annual deductible of $2,000 or more for single coverage has grown from 26% to 31%.
  • While nearly all large firms (firms with 200 or more workers) offer health benefits to at least some workers, small firms (3-199 workers) are significantly less likely to do so. In 2023, 53% of all firms offered some health benefits, similar to the percentage last year (51%).”

My take:

These findings show that employers are not prone to drastic changes in health benefits for their employees despite recognition it is expensive and unaffordable to small companies and for many of their own employees.  But many large self-insured employers (except those in government, education and healthcare) are poised to make significant changes next year. They recognize themselves as the primary source of profits enjoyed by insurers, hospitals, physicians, drug companies and others.  

They’re developing multi-year at risk direct contracts, value-based purchasing arrangements, primary care gatekeeping, narrow networks, restricted formularies, alternative care models and more to that leverage their clout. They’re going on offense.

The KFF Benefits Survey is a snapshot of where employer benefits are today, but it’s likely not the same next year. It appears employers are ready to engage the health industry head on.

PS Last week, the feud between Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee Chair Bernie Sanders and Not-for-Profit Health Systems heated up. On Oct. 10, he released a Majority Staff Report that said NFP hospitals do not deserve their tax exemptions as they spend “paltry amounts” on charity care. “Hospitals have gladly accepted the tax benefits that come with nonprofit status but have failed to provide the required community benefits. Non-profit hospitals spent only an estimated $16 billion on charity care in 2020, or about 57% of the value of their tax breaks in the same year.”

The same day, the American Hospital Association (AHA) released its analysis of hospital Schedule H filings concluding that tax-exempt hospitals provided $130 billion in community benefits in 2020 and called the HELP report “just plain wrong”.

In response to the AHA report, Sanders noted that AHA had not included CEO Compensation for NFPs in its analysis though featured prominently in his Majority Staff Report: “In 2021, the most recent year for which data is available for all of the 16 hospital chains, those companies’ CEOs averaged more than $8 million in compensation and collectively made over $140 million…

The disparities between the paltry amounts these hospitals are spending on charity care and their massive revenues and excessive executive compensation demonstrates that they are failing to live up to their end of the non-profit bargain.”

This tit for tat between the Committee Chairman and AHA is notable for 2 reasons: it draws attention to the Schedule H information goldmine about how not-for-profit hospitals operate since they’re now required to attach their S-10 Medicare cost report worksheets. Quantifying charity care in Exhibit 3B (for which there’s no expectation of payment) and the myriad of claimed community benefits including bad debt in Schedule 3C will likely intensify scrutiny of NFPs even more.  Second, it draws attention to Executive Pay in hospitals: in this regard the Majority Staff Report commentary on CEO pay is misleading: by combining Column B (wages, bonuses) with Columns C (Deferred compensation) and D (non-taxable benefits), the total is significantly higher than one-year’s actual take-home pay for the CEOs. But it makes headlines!

If not-for-profit systems wish to lead transformational change in U.S. healthcare, not-for-profit system boards and their trade associations must be prepared to address the storm clouds gathering above. The skirmish between the Senate HELP Chair and AHA mirrors an increasingly skeptical public who, with Congress, believe the system is being gamed.

Tightening the Rules Around Short-Term Health Insurance Plans Won’t Lead to More People Going Without Insurance

Posted on by • Posted in ACA, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, Out of Pocket Expenses, Preexisting Conditions, Short Term Health Insurance, Skinny Health Plans, Underinsured, Uninsured • Leave a comment
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/blog/2023/tightening-rules-around-short-term-health-insurance-plans-wont-lead-more-people-going?utm_campaign=Achieving%20Universal%20Coverage&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=277181558&_hsenc=p2ANqtz–ufaBTL0WjY2jmyaMR5rMHK2CXJeRoV0TJdWU7NpyNnRfxoN9jXrKrarEMBbia0VnU80H3epvGGw9ZlaL12EzzgnMkjA&utm_source=alert

Short-term, limited-duration insurance (STLDI) plans are exempt from the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) essential benefit coverage requirements and from prohibitions on medical underwriting.

This means that consumers with preexisting conditions can be denied coverage and anyone who purchases such a plan may lack coverage for key services.

In August 2018, under the Trump administration, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services revised the definition of short-term plans to include coverage with an initial term of less than 12 months that could be renewed for up to 36 months. While the purported goal of this change was to increase coverage and reduce uninsured rates, our analysis indicates that it did not accomplish this: coverage did not increase and the uninsured rate did not drop.

In July 2023, the Biden administration issued a notice to limit the initial duration of short-term plans to three months, with an option to renew for one additional month. This change was intended to ensure that people purchasing insurance coverage have meaningful protection and to preserve the preexisting condition protections in the ACA. 

Critics feared and some cost estimates suggested that tightening the STLDI rules could leave many without any coverage at all.

In 2019, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), using its forecast model (data were not yet available), estimated that 1.5 million people would purchase short-term plans and that 500,000 would gain coverage (relative to being uninsured). Our analysis suggests that these forecasts substantially overstated the effects of the rule change; far fewer people enrolled in STLDI plans and the enrollment that did occur was from people moving off marketplace coverage.

There is no evidence that the number of uninsured people declined because these plans became available.

Using data from the American Community Survey and marketplace enrollment from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), we assessed whether the loosening of STLDI regulations (under the Trump administration) led to increased enrollment in off-marketplace nongroup coverage in states that permitted sales compared to those that did not. Plans sold off the marketplace include STLDI as well as ACA-compliant plans, grandfathered coverage, health care sharing ministries, and fixed indemnity plans. Next, we looked to see whether the Trump-era regulations increased nongroup insurance coverage altogether (including marketplace coverage) in these states. Finally, we looked to see whether the broader availability of STLDI was associated with lower uninsured rates. We examined coverage patterns for adults ages 26 to 64 and then focused on young men ages 26 to 35, who may be most sensitive to the presence of regulations similar to those in the ACA because they are less likely to have preexisting conditions or to seek comprehensive coverage.

In 2017, 2.6 million adults ages 26 to 64, about 1.6 percent of that population, purchased private nongroup insurance outside the marketplace. By 2020, about 270,000 more people were enrolled in off-marketplace nongroup plans, across all states, than had been in 2017. There was a larger increase in off-marketplace nongroup enrollment among all adults and among young adults (we cannot separate young men in the CMS data) in states that permitted the sale of STLDI coverage, compared to those that prohibited it. This is consistent with the evidence of growth in sales of these plans. Across all states, about 160,000 more young adults, ages 26 to 34, held off-marketplace nongroup coverage in 2020 than in 2017.

The ACS data show that off-marketplace plans largely substituted for marketplace plans in states that permitted the sale of STLDI. Patterns of enrollment in nongroup plans overall were very similar in states with and without STLDI plans available for purchase over this period. While nongroup coverage was consistently more popular in states with no restrictions, between 2017 and 2020 enrollment in nongroup plans declined slightly more in states where STLDI plans were available for purchase than in those where they were not. The same pattern of marginally greater declines held for young men (and young adults) in states where STLDI plans were available.

Nongroup coverage was slightly higher in states where STLDI plans were available for sale, but the overall uninsured rate is much higher in these states, primarily because many did not expand Medicaid eligibility.

The gap in uninsured rates between states with STLDI plans available and those in which they were not available widened through 2018, narrowed slightly in 2019, and rose again in 2020. Patterns among young men were similar.

The lack of reliable information on STLDI plans and the small size of the market make it difficult to draw strong inferences about how changes in regulations affected participation. Nonetheless, by comparing states where the 2018 regulatory changes took effect and those where they did not, we are able to rule out any notable effects. A modest number of people — no more than one-fifth of the 1.5 million the CBO projected — are likely to have enrolled in STLDI plans that became available after the Trump administration’s regulatory change. This enrollment mainly appears to have displaced marketplace coverage.

There is no evidence that the broader availability of STLDI plans had any meaningful effect on nongroup coverage in general or on uninsurance, either in the full population or among young men.

This suggests that the Biden administration’s proposed tightening of STLDI is unlikely to have substantial negative effects on nongroup coverage or uninsurance. Instead, limiting STLDI will likely strengthen the health insurance marketplaces that offer reliable, comprehensive nongroup coverage.

The Potential for SHIPs to Combat Medicare Misinformation and Deceptive Marketing

Posted on by • Posted in Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Marketing, Marketing Deceptive, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare Enrollment, Medicare Part D, Misinformation, Mislead, Misleading, Out of Network, Out of Pocket Expenses, Out-of-Network, State Health Insurance Assistance Program (SHIP) • Leave a comment
The Potential for SHIPs to Combat Medicare Misinformation and Deceptive Marketing

With Medicare’s Annual Election Period (also known as Open Enrollment) beginning on October 15th, over 65 million adults across the United States will have until December 7th to decide whether they plan to renew or change their Medicare coverage. Beneficiaries choose between Traditional Medicare (TM) and a variety of Medicare Advantage (MA) plans and prescription drug coverage.

For this enrollment cycle, it is estimated that the average beneficiary will have over 40 plans to choose from, leading to complexity. For those who are dually eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid benefits, there is an even greater number of options for them to consider, especially if they live in areas where integrated options such as dual-eligible special needs plans and Medicare-Medicaid plans are available.

As the US population continues to age and the number of Medicare enrollees grow, it is important to understand how beneficiaries make their coverage decisions and ensure they are protected from any misinformation in the process.

Though already complex, the plan selection process for older adults is further complicated by the deceptive marketing tactics that brokers, agents, and third-party marketing organizations (TPMOs) have employed in recent years. In a recent study, the Commonwealth Fund identified how some of these practices are driven by the financial incentives associated with enrolling beneficiaries in particular MA plans.

Between robocalls and misleading television advertisements, many beneficiaries across the country have found themselves enrolled in MA plans they did not intend to enroll in, or that did not cover services or in-network providers that they were initially marketed. In a sweeping review of Medicare Open Enrollment-related television ads, Kaiser Family Foundation found that the majority of Open Enrollment-related advertisements last year promoted the Medicare logo and privately-operated hotlines, misleading beneficiaries into believing these were government sponsored ads and helplines.

Acknowledging the growing concerns and complaints among beneficiaries, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced that starting in 2024, Medicare-related television ads must be approved in advance of airing and cannot contain plan names or Medicare logos and images that misrepresent their organization or agency. Additional consumer protections included in the 2024 MA and Part D Final Rule will hold brokers, agents, and other TPMOs to higher standards of providing transparent, quality information. These activities include monitoring TPMO behavior, regulating how and when they market to beneficiaries, ensuring brokers review the full list of options and choices available to a beneficiary, and going through a detailed, standardized set of pre-enrollment questions. There is also an increased effort in getting beneficiaries to use some of the federally funded tools and resources available to assist in their coverage decisions.

Some of these tools include the Medicare.gov website, the CMS Medicare Plan Compare tool, and a 1-800-MEDICARE hotline to help inform beneficiaries about their benefits. However, a study by Hernandez et al. revealed that very few Medicare beneficiaries utilized these tools and often felt more comfortable discussing their options in-person with brokers or family members and friends, even though these sources may be biased or potentially inaccurate.  Additionally, it is important to recognize that navigating these tools requires some degree of health literacy and technological proficiency, which may disproportionately affect those who are low-income, have lower levels of education, or are non-native English speakers.

The State Health Insurance Assistance Program (SHIP), however, is a free and unbiased resource for Medicare counseling that few beneficiaries are aware of. In 1990, the federal government implemented SHIPs to help support Medicare beneficiaries with free, one-to-one health insurance counseling and education within their communities. It is currently run by the Administration for Community Living (ACL). The ACL administers grants to states, who in turn provide funding to community-level subgrantees to maintain various networks of full-time, part-time, and/or volunteer counselors. The latest available data suggests that SHIPs provided assistance to 2.7 million Medicare beneficiaries from April 2018 through March 2019—just 4.5% of the eligible Medicare population.

While some states had greater success, serving over 10% of their eligible population, others were only able to reach as few as 2%. A 2018 evaluation of California’s SHIP, called HICAP (Health Insurance Counseling & Advocacy Program), highlighted the strengths of this community-based counseling system. HICAP reported high rates of engagement, citing their ability to deliver uniquely tailored counseling to beneficiaries in their native languages and through in-person or hybrid settings depending on the beneficiary’s condition or preferences. Moreover, strong marketing efforts via Spanish radio shows and mailing postcards were particularly effective in reaching “hard-to-locate” populations. However, the program did experience challenges given the variation in operations across locations, citing concerns over the recruitment, training and retention of volunteers and paid staff.

In recognition of SHIP’s potential to provide an unbiased alternative to brokers and combat misinformation, CMS finalized a requirement in the 2024 MA and Part D rule that TPMOs are to provide a disclaimer citing SHIP as an option for beneficiaries to obtain additional help (42 CFR § 422.2267(e )(41)). But despite SHIP’s promise, some beneficiary advocates have worried that the multi-tiered, volunteer, and part-time driven delivery model that characterizes most SHIPs leads to access and quality gaps. This is especially a concern among vulnerable beneficiaries who may live in low-income neighborhoods, have disabilities, or limited English proficiency. Given their historically low utilization rates and limited visibility, others have expressed concern that SHIPs may be ill-equipped to handle an increased demand for services in the coming year, due to more Medicare beneficiaries being advised of their existence through TPMO disclaimers. With the limited evidence about SHIP’s performance and outreach nationally, given the diffuse nature of the program, it will be important to understand some of the barriers and facilitators they face to delivering timely and accurate Medicare counseling.

The free and unbiased nature of the SHIP program presents a promising alternative to helping beneficiaries navigate complex plan choices for Open Enrollment. As MA enrollment increases and as plan choices become more complex, the SHIP program should be monitored for potential inequities in access to and quality of services based on area income.

For more information about your state’s SHIP program and to find a local Medicare counselor, please visit https://www.shiphelp.org/.

Ryder Cup Lessons for Team USA Healthcare

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My take:

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

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

Questions like these merit consideration:

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

Might global budgets for states be an answer?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do We Still Care About the Uninsured?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for reading.

To learn more about this topic, please read:

How Do Democrats and Republicans Rate Healthcare for 2024?

Posted on by • Posted in 2024 Election Issues, ACA, Affordability, Association Health Plans, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, Healthcare Reform, High Deductible Health Plans, High Premiums, High Prices, Inflation Reduction Act, Medicaid Expansion, Medicare Drug Price Negotiation, Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act, Out of Pocket Expenses, Preexisting Conditions, Short Term Health Insurance, Skinny Health Plans, Surprise Bills, Underinsured, Uninsured • Leave a comment
https://mailchi.mp/burroughshealthcare/april-16-9396870?e=7d3f834d2f

It feels as though November 5, 2024 is far away, but for both Democrats and Republicans, the election is now. On the issue of healthcare, the two parties’ approaches differ sharply.
 


Think back to the behemoth effort by Republicans to “repeal and replace” the Affordable Care Act six years ago, an effort that left them floundering for a replacement, basically empty-handed. Recall the 2022 midterms, when their candidates in 10 of the tightest House and Senate races uttered hardly a peep about healthcare.
 
That reticence stood in sharp contrast to Democrats who weren’t shy about reiterating their support for abortion rights, simultaneously trying hard to ensure that Americans understood and applauded healthcare tenets in the Inflation Reduction Act.
 
As The Hill noted in early August, sounds like the same thing is happening this time around as America barrels toward November 2024. The publication said it reached to 10 of the leading Republican candidates about their plans to reduce healthcare costs and make healthcare more affordable, and only one responded: Rep. Will Hurd (R-Texas).


 
Healthcare ‘A Very Big Problem’


 
Maybe the party thinks its supporters don’t care. But, a Pew Research poll from June showed 64% of us think healthcare affordability is a “very big problem,” superseded only by inflation. In that research, 73% of Democrats and 54% of Republicans thought so.


 
Chuck Coughlin, president and CEO of HighGround, an Arizona-based public affairs firm, told The Hill that the results aren’t surprising.
 
“If you’re a Republican, what are you going to talk about on healthcare?” he said.
 
Observers note that the party has homed in on COVID-lockdowns, transgender medical rights, and yes, abortion.


 
Republicans Champion CHOICE


 
There is action on this front, for in late July, House Republicans passed the CHOICE Arrangement Act. Its future with the Democratic-controlled Senate is bleak, but if Republicans triumph in the Senate and White House next year, it could advance with its focus on short-term health plans. They don’t offer the same broad ACA benefits and have a troubling list of “what we won’t cover” that feels like coverage is going backwards to some.
 

Plans won’t offer coverage for preexisting conditions, maternity care, or prescription drugs, and they can set limits on coverage. The plans will make it easier for small employers to self-insure, so they don’t have to adhere to ACA or state insurance rules.


 
CHOICE would let large groups come together to buy Association Health Plans, said NPR, which noted that in the past, there have been “issues” with these types of plans.
 
Insurance experts say that the act takes a swing at the very foundation of the ACA. As one analyst described it, the act intends to improve America’s healthcare “through increased reliance on the free market and decreased reliance on the federal government.”


 
Democrats Tout Reduce-Price Prescriptions


 
Meanwhile, on Aug. 29, President Joe Biden spoke proudly in The White House: “Folks, there’s a lot of really great Republicans out there. And I mean that sincerely…But we’ll stand up to the MAGA Republicans who have been trying for years to get rid of the Affordable Care Act and deny tens of millions of Americans access to quality, affordable healthcare.” 
 
Current ACA enrollment is higher than 16 million.
 
He said that Big Pharma charges Americans more than three times what other countries charge for medications. And on that date, he announced that “the (Inflation Reduction Act) law finally gave Medicare the power to negotiate lower prescription drug prices.” He wasn’t shy about saying that this happened without help from “the other team.”
 
The New York Times said it feels this push for lower healthcare costs will be the centerpiece of his re-election campaign. The announcement confirmed that his administration will negotiate to lower prices on 10 popular—and expensive drugs—that treat common chronic illnesses.


 
It said previous research shows that as many as 80% of Americans want the government to have the power to negotiate.


 
The president also said that “Next year, Medicare will select more drugs for negotiation.” He added that his administration “is cracking down on junk health insurance plans that look like they’re inexpensive but too often stick consumers with big hidden fees.” And it’s tackling the extensive problem of surprise medical bills.
 
Earlier, on August 11, Biden and fellow Democrats celebrated the first anniversary of the PACT Act, legislation that provides healthcare to veterans exposed to toxic burn pits while serving. He said more than 300,000 veterans and families have received these services, with more than 4 million screened for toxic exposure conditions.


 
Push for High-Deductible Plans


 
Republicans want to reduce risk of high-deductible plans and make them more desirable—that responsibility is on insurers. According to Politico, these plans count more than 60 million people as members, and feature low premiums and tax advantages. The party said plans will also help lower inflation when people think twice about seeking unneeded care.
 
The plans’ low monthly premiums offer comprehensive preventive care coverage: physicals, vaccinations, mammograms, and colonoscopies, and have no co-payments, Politico said. The “but” in all this is that members will pay their insurers’ negotiated rate when they’re sick, and for medicines and surgeries. Minimum deductible is $1,500 or $3,000 for families—and can be even higher.
 
Members can fund health savings accounts but can’t fund flexible spending accounts.
Proponents cite more access to care, and reduced costs due to promotion of preventive care. Nay-sayers worry about lower-income members facing costly bills due to insufficient coverage.
 

Republican Candidates Diverge on Medicaid
 

The American Hospital Association (AHA) doesn’t love these high deductible plans. It explained that members “find they can’t manage the gap between what their insurance pays and what they themselves owe as a result,” and that, AHA said, contributes to medical debt—something the association wants to change.


 
An Aug. 3 Opinion in JAMA Health Forum pointed out other ways the two parties diverge on healthcare. For example, the piece cited Biden’s incentives for Medicaid expansion. In contrast, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, a Republican presidential candidate, has not worked to offer Medicaid to all lower-income residents under the ACA. Former Governor Nikki Haley of South Carolina feels the same, doing nothing. However, former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has expanded it, as did former Vice President Mike Pence, when he governed Indiana.


 
Undoubtedly, as in presidential elections past, healthcare will be at least a talking point, with Democrats likely continuing to make it a central focus, as before.