With both Republicans and Democrats taking on these Goliaths individually, this could be a watershed moment for bi-partisan action.
The push and pull between providers and insurance companies is as old as our health payment system. Doctors have long argued insurers pay too little and that they too often interfere in patient care.
Dramatic increases in prior authorization, aggressive payment negotiations and less-generous reimbursement to doctors by Medicare Advantage plans show there’s little question the balance of power in this equation has swung toward payers.
These practices have led some doctors to look for outside investment, namely private equity, to keep their cash flow healthy and their operations functional. The trend of private equity acquisitions of physician practices is worthy of the federal scrutiny it has attracted. Insurers have noticed this trend, too, and appear ready to propose a profitable partnership.
Bloomberg recentlyreported that CVS/Aetna is looking for a private equity partner to invest in Oak Street Health, the primary care business CVS acquired for $9.5 billion last year. Oak Street is a significant player in primary care delivery, particularly for Americans on Medicare, with more than 100 clinics nationwide. CVS is said to be exploring a joint venture with a private equity firm to significantly expand Oak Street’s footprint and therefore also expand the parent corporation’s direct control over care for millions of seniors and disabled Americans across hundreds of communities.
Republicans have led scrutiny of pharmacy benefit managers on Capitol Hill. And Democratic attacks on private equity in health care have recently intensified. I hope, then, that both parties would find common ground in being watchful of a joint venture between private equity and one of the country’s largest PBMs, Caremark, also owned by CVS/Aetna.
The combination of health insurers and PBMs over the last decade – United Healthcare and Optum; CVS/Aetna and Caremark, and Cigna and Express Scripts – has increasingly handed a few large corporations the ability to approve or deny claims, set payment rates for care, choose what prescriptions to dispense, what prescriptions should cost, and how much patients must pay out-of-pocket for their medications before their coverage kicks in.
As enrollment in Medicare Advantage plans has grown to include a majority of the nation’s elderly and disabled people, we have seen insurers source record profits off the backs of the taxpayer-funded program. But in recent months, insurers have told investors they have had higher than expected Medicare Advantage claims – in particular CVS/Aetna, which took a hammering on Wall Street recently because its Medicare Advantage enrollees were using more health care services than company executives had expected.
It is natural, then, that one of the largest insurer-owned PBMs is looking to expand its hold on primary care for older Americans. Primary care is often the gateway to our health care system, driving referrals to specialists and procedures that lead to the largest claims insurers and their employer customers have to pay. By employing a growing number of primary care providers, CVS/Aetna can increasingly influence referrals to specialists and therefore the care or pharmacy benefit costs those patients may incur.
Control of primary care doctors holds another benefit for insurers: determination of what primary care doctor a patient sees.
People enrolled in an Aetna Medicare Advantage or employer-sponsored plan may find that care is easier to access at Oak Street clinics. Unfortunately, while that feels monopolistic and ethically alarming, this vertical integration has received relatively little scrutiny by lawmakers and regulators.
No law prevents an insurance company or PBM from kicking doctors it does not own out of network while creating preferential treatment for doctors directly employed by or closely affiliated with the corporate mothership.
In fact, the system largely incentivizes this. And shareholders expect insurers to keep up with their peers. As UnitedHealth Group has become increasingly aggressive in its acquisitions of physician practices – now employing or affiliated with about one in ten of the nation’s doctors – it has also become increasingly aggressive in its contract negotiations with physicians it does not control, particularly the specialists who depend on the referrals that come from primary care physicians.
That’s another area where looking to expand Oak Street Health makes smart business sense for CVS/Aetna. Specialist physicians are historically accustomed to higher compensation than primary care doctors and are used to striking hard-fought deals with insurers to stay in-network.
By controlling the flow of primary care referrals to specialists, CVS/Aetna can control what insurers have long-desired greater influence over: patient utilization. As a key driver of referrals to specialists in a specific market, CVS/Aetna will have even more power in contract negotiations with specialists.
As Oak Street’s clinics grow market share in the communities they serve, specialists in that market will feel even more pressured to stay in-network with Aetna and to refer prescriptions to CVS pharmacies. That has the dual benefit for CVS/Aetna of helping to predict what patients will be treated for once they go to a specialist and control over what the insurer will have to pay that specialist.
With different corporate owners, this sort of model could easily run afoul of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and Stark Law.
No doctor or physician practice is allowed to receive anything of value for the referral of a patient. But that law only applies when there is separate ownership between the referring doctor and the specialist.
CVS/Aetna would clearly be securing value – in the form of lower patient utilization and effective reimbursement rates – under this model. But with Oak Street owned by CVS/Aetna and specialists forced to agree to lower reimbursement rates through negotiations with an insurer that appears separate from Oak Street, there’s no basis for a claim under the Stark Law. There may be antitrust implications, but those are more difficult and take longer to prove – and the fact the federal government cleared CVS/Aetna to acquire Oak Street Health last year wouldn’t help that argument.
This model is already of concern, which is why I continue to urge examination of increasing insurer control of physicians across the country. Their embrace of private equity to accelerate this model is truly alarming. And given Democrats’ recent focus on private equity in health care, they should work with their Republican colleagues who are rightly alarmed about the increasingly anti-competitive, monopolistic health insurance industry.
The Affordable Care Act turned 14 on March 23. It has done a lot of good for a lot of people, but big changes in the law are urgently needed to address some very big misses and consequences I don’t believe most proponents of the law intended or expected.
At the top of the list of needed reforms: restraining the power and influence of the rapidly growing corporations that are siphoning more and more money from federal and state governments – and our personal bank accounts – to enrich their executives and shareholders.
I was among many advocates who supported the ACA’s passage, despite the law’s ultimate shortcomings. It broadened access to health insurance, both through government subsidies to help people pay their premiums and by banning prevalent industry practices that had made it impossible for millions of American families to buy coverage at any price. It’s important to remember that before the ACA, insurers routinely refused to sell policies to a third or more applicants because of a long list of “preexisting conditions” – from acne and heart disease to simply being overweight – and frequently rescinded coverage when policyholders were diagnosed with cancer and other diseases.
While insurance company executives were publicly critical of the law, they quickly took advantage of loopholes (many of which their lobbyists created) that would allow them to reap windfall profits in the years ahead – and they have, as you’ll see below.
I wrote and spoke frequently as an industry whistleblower about what I thought Congress should know and do, perhaps most memorably in an interview with Bill Moyers. During my Congressional testimony in the months leading up to the final passage of the bill in 2010, I told lawmakers that if they passed it without a public option and acquiesced to industry demands, they might as well call it “The Health Insurance Industry Profit Protection and Enhancement Act.”
A health plan similar to Medicare that could have been a more affordable option for many of us almost happened, but at the last minute, the Senate was forced to strip the public option out of the bill at the insistence of Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Connecticut), who died on March 27, 2024. The Senate did not have a single vote to spare as the final debate on the bill was approaching, and insurance industry lobbyists knew they could kill the public option if they could get just one of the bill’s supporters to oppose it. So they turned to Lieberman, a former Democrat who was Vice President Al Gore’s running mate in 2000 and who continued to caucus with Democrats. It worked. Lieberman wouldn’t even allow a vote on the bill if it created a public option. Among Lieberman’s constituents and campaign funders were insurance company executives who lived in or around Hartford, the insurance capital of the world. Lieberman would go on to be the founding chair of a political group called No Labels, which is trying to find someone to run as a third-party presidential candidate this year.
The work of Big Insurance and its army of lobbyists paid off as insurers had hoped. The demise of the public option was a driving force behind the record profits – and CEO pay – that we see in the industry today.
The good effects of the ACA:
Nearly 49 million U.S. residents (or 16%) were uninsured in 2010. The law has helped bring that down to 25.4 million, or 8.3% (although a large and growing number of Americans are now “functionally uninsured” because of unaffordable out-of-pocket requirements, which President Biden pledged to address in his recent State of the Union speech).
The ACA also made it illegal for insurers to refuse to sell coverage to people with preexisting conditions, which even included birth defects, or charge anyone more for their coverage based on their health status; it expanded Medicaid(in all but 10 states that still refuse to cover more low-income individuals and families); it allowed young people to stay on their families’ policies until they turn 26; and it required insurers to spend at least 80% of our premiums on the health care goods and services our doctors say we need (a well-intended provision of the law that insurers have figured out how to game).
The not-so-good effects of the ACA:
As taxpayers and health care consumers, we have paid a high price in many ways as health insurance companies have transformed themselves into massive money-making machines with tentacles reaching deep into health care delivery and taxpayers’ pockets.
To make policies affordable in the individual market, for example, the government agreed to subsidize premiums for the vast majority of people seeking coverage there, meaning billions of new dollars started flowing to private insurance companies. (It also allowed insurers to charge older Americans three times as much as they charge younger people for the same coverage.) Even more tax dollars have been sent to insurers as part of the Medicaid expansion. That’s because private insurers over the years have persuaded most states to turn their Medicaid programs over to them to administer.
We invite you to take a look at how the ascendency of health insurers over the past several years has made a few shareholders and executives much richer while the rest of us struggle despite – and in some cases because of – the Affordable Care Act.
BY THE NUMBERS
In 2010, we as a nation spent $2.6 trillion on health care. This year we will spend almost twice as much – an estimated $4.9 trillion, much of it out of our own pockets even with insurance.
In 2010, the average cost of a family health insurance policy through an employer was $13,710. Last year, the average was nearly $24,000, a 75% increase.
The ACA, to its credit, set an annual maximum on how much those of us with insurance have to pay before our coverage kicks in, but, at the insurance industry’s insistence, it goes up every year. When that limit went into effect in 2014, it was $12,700 for a family. This year, it has increased by 48%, to $18,900. That means insurers can get away with paying fewer claims than they once did, and many families have to empty their bank accounts when a family member gets sick or injured. Most people don’t reach that limit, but even a few hundred dollars is more than many families have on hand to cover deductibles and other out-of-pocket requirements. Now 100 million Americans – nearly one of every three of us – are mired in medical debt, even though almost 92% of us are presumably “covered.” The coverage just isn’t as adequate as it used to be or needs to be.
Meanwhile, insurance companies had a gangbuster 2023. The seven big for-profit U.S. health insurers’ revenues reached $1.39 trillion, and profits totaled a whopping $70.7 billion last year.
SWEEPING CHANGE, CONSOLIDATION–AND HUGE PROFITS FOR INVESTORS
Insurance company shareholders and executives have become much wealthier as the stock prices of the seven big for-profit corporations that control the health insurance market have skyrocketed.
NOTE: The Dow Jones Industrial Average is listed on this chart as a reference because it is a leading stock market index that tracks 30 of the largest publicly traded companies in the United States.
REVENUES collected by those seven companies have more than tripled (up 346%), increasing by more than $1 trillion in just the past ten years.
PROFITS (earnings from operations) have more than doubled (up 211%), increasing by more than $48 billion.
The CEOs of these companies are among the highest paid in the country. In 2022, the most recent year the companies have reported executive compensation, they collectively made $136.5 million.
U.S. HEALTH PLAN ENROLLMENT
Enrollment in the companies’ health plans is a mix of “commercial” policies they sell to individuals and families and that they manage for “plan sponsors” – primarily employers and unions – and government/enrollee-financed plans (Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare for military personnel and their dependents and the Federal Employee Health Benefits program).
Enrollment in their commercial plans grew by just 7.65% over the 10 years and declined significantly at UnitedHealth, CVS/Aetna and Humana. Centene and Molina picked up commercial enrollees through their participation in several ACA (Obamacare) markets in which most enrollees qualify for federal premium subsidies paid directly to insurers.
While not growing substantially, commercial plans remain very profitable because insurers charge considerably more in premiums now than a decade ago.
(1) The 2013 total for CVS/Aetna was reported by Aetna before its 2018 acquisition by CVS. (2) Humana announced last year it is exiting the commercial health insurance business. (3) Enrollment in the ACA’s marketplace plans account for all of Molina’s commercial business.
By contrast, enrollment in the government-financed Medicaid and Medicare Advantage programs has increased 197% and 167%, respectively, over the past 10 years.
(1) The 2013 total for CVS/Aetna was reported by Aetna before its 2018 acquisition by CVS.
Of the 65.9 million people eligible for Medicare at the beginning of 2024, 33 million, slightly more than half, enrolled in a private Medicare Advantage plan operated by either a nonprofit or for-profit health insurer, but, increasingly, three of the big for-profits grabbed most new enrollees.
Of the 1.7 million new Medicare Advantage enrollees this year, 86% were captured by UnitedHealth, Humana and Aetna.
Those three companies are the leaders in the Medicare Advantage business among the for-profit companies, and, according to the health care consulting firm Chartis, are taking over the program “at breakneck speed.”
(1) The 2013 total for CVS/Aetna was reported by Aetna before its 2018 acquisition by CVS. (2,3) Centene’s and Molina’s totals include Medicare Supplement; they do not break out enrollment in the two Medicare categories separately.
It is worth noting that although four companies saw growth in their Medicare Supplement enrollment over the decade, enrollment in Medicare Supplement policies has been declining in more recent years as insurers have attracted more seniors and disabled people into their Medicare Advantage plans.
OTHER FEDERAL PROGRAMS
In addition to the above categories, Humana and Centene have significant enrollment in Tricare, the government-financed program for the military. Humana reported 6 million military enrollees in 2023, up from 3.1 million in 2013. Centene reported 2.8 million in 2023. It did not report any military enrollment in 2013.
Elevance reported having 1.6 million enrollees in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program in 2023, up from 1.5 million in 2013. That total is included in the commercial enrollment category above.
At Cigna, Express Scripts’ pharmacy operations now contribute more than 70% to the company’s total revenues. Caremark’s pharmacy operations contribute 33% to CVS/Aetna’s total revenues, and Optum Rx contributes 31% to UnitedHealth’s total revenues.
WHAT TO DO AND WHERE TO START
The official name of the ACA is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The law did indeed implement many important patient protections, and it made coverage more affordable for many Americans.
But there is much more Congress and regulators must do to close the loopholes and dismantle the barriers erected by big insurers that enable them to pad their bottom lines and reward shareholders while making health care increasingly unaffordable and inaccessible for many of us.
Several bipartisan bills have been introduced in Congress to change how big insurers do business. They include curbing insurers’ use of prior authorization, which often leads to denials and delays of care; requiring PBMs to be more “transparent” in how they do business and banning practices many PBMs use to boost profits, including spread pricing, which contributes to windfall profits; and overhauling the Medicare Advantage program by instituting a broad array of consumer and patient protections and eliminating the massive overpayments to insurers.
And as noted above, President Biden has asked Congress to broaden the recently enacted $2,000-a-year cap on prescription drugs to apply to people with private insurance, not just Medicare beneficiaries. That one policy change could save an untold number of lives and help keep millions of families out of medical debt. (A coalition of more than 70 organizations and businesses, which I lead, supports that, although we’re also calling on Congress to reduce the current overall annual out-of-pocket maximum to no more than $5,000.)
I encourage you to tell your members of Congress and the Biden administration that you support these reforms as well as improving, strengthening and expanding traditional Medicare. You can be certain the insurance industry and its allies are trying to keep any reforms that might shrink profit margins from becoming law.
Abuses by payers are myriad, but these five areas could bear the most fruit for federal antitrust investigators.
Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Justice announced it has haunched an investigation into “issues regarding payer-provider consolidation” along with other problems associated with mergers and acquisitions in health care. This is significant. For years Washington has trained its oversight authority on pharmaceutical manufacturers, private equity investments in health care and, more recently, pharmacy benefits managers controlled by big insurers. This has held bad actors like Martin Skhreli and Steward Healthcare accountable. But, it has also let insurers grow ever larger, under the radar.
No longer.
This task force will specifically evaluate the following, as an example: “A health insurance company buys several medical practices that compete with each other. It also prohibits its medical practices from contracting with rival health insurance companies.” The government will also dig into “anticompetitive uses of health care data,” “preventing transparency,” “price fixing,” and other areas that could drag nefarious activities of insurers into the spotlight.
I applaud the Department of Justice’s continued focus on these issues, building on the Department’s action announced in February to begin an antitrust investigation into UnitedHealth Group. (If you haven’t read the piece we published in February on UnitedHealth’s self-dealing that helped lead DOJ to open that antitrust inquiry, you can do so here.) The following are a few areas of low-hanging fruit that I hope the task force will focus on as they consider the impact insurers’ ongoing vertical integration has had on the overall health care system.
1. Insurers purchasing physician practices
Once a low-profile issue, Congress and the Biden administration alike have increasingly turned their focus to insurance companies – often referred to as payers – that now own and operate physician practices and clinics – those being paid. Even for someone without a law degree, it is easy to see the conflict this creates, particularly at scale.
There is the oft-cited statistic that UnitedHealth has said that through its Optum division, the company employs or otherwise controls about 10 percent of doctors in the U.S. – around 130,000 physicians and other practitioners in 16 states. This prompted me to take a closer look at publicly available information on the number of doctors employed by other insurers to get a better handle on how much control of physician practices payers now have.
It is difficult to put a percentage on physicians employed by each insurer, but it is clear that the others are following UnitedHealth’s lead. CVS/Aetna purchased Signify Health in 2023, adding 10,000 clinicians to its portfolio. The company says it supports “more than 40,000 physicians, pharmacists, nurses and nurse practitioners.”
Clearly taking a page out of UnitedHealth’s playbook, Elevance (formerly Anthem), which owns Blue Cross Blue Shield plans in 14 states announced last month a “strategic partnership” with 900 providers across several states. Elevance did not disclose the terms of the deal except to say it, “will primarily be through a combination of cash and our equity interest in certain care delivery and enablement assets of Carelon Health.”
As insurers have acquired physician practices, they also have created a rinse-and-repeat strategy associated with kicking physicians they don’t own out of network, and in some cases targeting those same practices for acquisition. Aetna and Humana recently told investors they will be reviewing their networks of physicians, signaling they’ll soon be further narrowing their networks. A good question for this task force: when insurers review those contracts with doctors, do they ever kick the doctors they employ out of network? (Doubtful.) This could specifically draw attention from the task force’s focus on “health care contract language and other practices that restrict competition,” such as contract provisions that require or encourage patients to seek care from doctors directly employed or closely controlled by patients’ insurers.
Additionally, UnitedHealth CEO Andrew Witty recently told analysts, “As I think you see some of the funding changes play out across the — across the next few years, I suspect that may also create new opportunities for us as different companies assess their positions.” My translation:UnitedHealth’s burdensome business practices and the way it shortchanges doctors (those “funding changes” he referenced) contribute to the financial distress that is forcing many health care providers to “assess their positions.”
As the task force continues to consider the impact of private equity in health care monopolies, transactions like this one should receive equal consideration for their lack of transparency and overall impact on market consolidation.
2. Co-mingling of middlemen
I have watched with interest for over the past year as both Democrats and Republicans in Washington increasingly trained their fire on pharmacy benefit managers. The natural next area of focus in that space, which this new task force could advance, should be around how the
three PBMs that control 80 percent of market share are all combined with health insurance companies – namely CVS/Aetna (Caremark), UnitedHealth (Optum Rx), and Cigna (Express Scripts).
An important, and politically popular, area where this consolidation has played out is in the squeeze placed on small, independent pharmacists across the country. More than 300 community pharmacies have closed in the past year alone, out of an inability to operate or push back on unfair margins pushed by these PBM-insurer monopolies. As we have written here, the fees these PBMs charge have increased more than 100,000 percent over the past decade, and are quietly contributing significantly to the profits of the largest health insurers.
We still have little insight into how these business lines interact with each other, and the ultimate impact that has on patients. Given the enormous influence just three insurance companies have over what prescriptions Americans can receive, and how much should be paid for each prescription, the task force would do well to focus on what insurers and PBMs are doing behind the scenes to maximize profits and limit patient access to prescription drugs. It’s already gaining traction on Capitol Hill, with one Congressman recently saying, “I’ll continue to bust this up … this vertical integration in health care.”
3. Prior authorization requests
CVS/Aetna shares were hammered after the company reported a significant increase in payment of Medicare Advantage claims during the first three month is of this year. Expect all insurers to notice. And as they have seen their forecasts fall short of Wall Street’s expectations – particularly because of increasing scrutiny in Washington of Medicare Advantage – these corporations will look to increase their already aggressive use of prior authorization to limit claims payments.
It is not as though insurers make seeking the care you need easy. Far from it. Prior authorization has become “medical injustice disguised as paperwork,” as the New York Times said in a recent, excellent video detailing the widespread nature of this profiteering practice.
While not a stated direct focus of this task force, the increased impact of prior authorization in care delivery is a direct outgrowth of a few large health insurers effectively controlling the marketplace. As insurers directly employ more doctors and enroll more Americans in their plans, they can use prior authorization to increasingly determine whether a patient can get care, period.
Scrutiny in this space could add momentum to increasing activity in state legislatures and Washington to rein in excessive prior authorization. As of early March, nine states and the District of Columbia had passed bills to limit how far insurers could go with prior authorization. And earlier this year, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid released a final rule that is expected to save physicians $15 billion over the next decade by putting limits on insurer prior authorization tactics.
4. Rising out-of-pocket costs
Regular readers of this newsletter know one of my crusades is to ensure folks who pay good money for health insurance – out of their paychecks or through their tax dollars – can use it when they need it. It was a big win earlier this year for the Lower Out of Pockets Now coalition (which I lead) when President Biden called for a cap on prescription drug out-of-pocket costs of $2,000 annually for everybody, not just Medicare beneficiaries.
If there was true competition and real consumer choice in health insurance, payers wouldn’t be able to get away with increasingly shifting patients into high-deductible plans. But the fact that a few big players control the health insurance market has allowed the oligopoly of payers to do just that, with ever-rising deductibles alongside ever-rising premiums.
The task force’s focus on price fixing, collusion, and transparency in health care costs will, I hope, include some focus on how insurers use their size and clout to drive up out-of-pocket costs and premiums simultaneously – with little recourse to employers or their employees.
5. Implementing crystal clear laws and rules in health care
You know you’re a monopoly or close to it when you can pretty much do whatever you want and get away with it. Look no further than America’s health insurance companies and implementation of the No Surprises Act.
As I wrote earlier this year, Congress and CMS have been clear about how out-of-network hospital bills should be negotiated between insurers and physicians. Yet in case after case, including many that have become the basis of lawsuits, insurers are clearly flouting the Act passed by Congress and the rules promulgated by CMS. Payers are doing this, doctors have said, simply because of their size and ability to weather criticism from physicians, regulators, and the courts – while doctors struggle to pay their bills with significant payments still owed pending out-of-network negotiations with insurers.
One would hope, at a minimum, this task force, focused on rooting out the ills of monopolies, would document how insurers are well aware of how they are supposed to implement legislation like the No Surprises Act, but flout it anyway.
After UnitedHealth Group CEO Andrew Witty’s appearances at two congressional committee hearings last week, I had planned to write a story about what the lawmakers had to say. One idea I considered was to publish a compilation of some of the best zingers, and there were plenty, from Democrats and Republicans alike.
I reconsidered that idea because I know from the nearly half-century I have spent on or around Capitol Hill in one capacity or another that those zingers were carefully crafted by staffers who know how to write talking points to make them irresistible to the media. As a young Washington correspondent in the mid-to-late’70s, I included countless talking points in the stories I wrote for Scripps-Howard newspapers. After that, I wrote talking points for a gubernatorial candidate in Tennessee. I would go from there to write scads of them for CEOs and lobbyists to use with politicians and reporters during my 20 years in the health insurance business.
I know the game. And I know that despite all the arrows 40 members of Congress on both sides of the Hill shot at Witty last Wednesday, little if anything that could significantly change how UnitedHealth and the other big insurers do business will be enacted this year.
Money in politics is the elephant in any Congressional hearing room or executive branch office you might find yourself in (and it’s why I coauthored Nation on the Take with Nick Penniman).
You will hear plenty of sound and fury in those rooms but don’t hold your breath waiting for relief from ever-increasing premiums and out-of-pocket requirements and the many other barriers Big Insurance has erected to keep you from getting the care you need.
It is those same barriers doctors and nurses cite when they acknowledge the “moral injury” they incur trying to care for their patients under the tightening constraints imposed on them by profit-obsessed insurers, investors and giant hospital-based systems.
Funny not funny
Cartoonist Stephan Pastis captured the consequences of the corporate takeover of our government, accelerated by the Supreme Court’s 2010 landmark Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission ruling, in his Pearls Before Swine cartoon strip Sunday.
Rat: Where are you going, Pig?
Pig: To a politician’s rally. I’m taking my magic translation box.
Rat: He doesn’t speak English?
Pig: He speaks politicianish. This translates it into the truth. Come see.
Politician: In conclusion, if you send me to Washington, I’ll clean up this corrupt system and fight for you everyday hard-working Americans. God bless you. God bless the troops. And God bless America.
Magic translation box: I am given millions of dollars by the rich and the powerful to keep this rigged system exactly as it is. Until you change that, none of this will ever change and we’ll keep hoping you’re too distracted to notice.
Politician’s campaign goon: We’re gonna need a word with you.
Magic translation box: This is too much truth for one comic strip. Prepare to be disappeared.
Rat: I don’t know him.
Back to Sir Witty’s time on the hot seat. It attracted a fair amount of media coverage, chock full of politicians’ talking points, including in The New York Times and The Washington Post. (You can read this short Reuters story for free.) Witty, of course, came equipped with his own talking points, and he followed his PR and legal teams’ counsel: to be contrite at every opportunity; to extol the supposed benefits of bigness in health care (UnitedHealth being by far the world’s largest health care corporation) all the while stressing that his company is not really all that big because it doesn’t, you know, own hospitals and pharmaceutical companies [yet]; and to assure us all that the fixes to its hacked claims-handling subsidiary Change Healthcare are all but in.
Congress? Meh. Paying for care? WTF!
Wall Street was relieved and impressed that Witty acquitted himself so well. Investors shrugged off the many barbs aimed at him and his vast international empire. By the end of the day Wednesday, the company’s stock price had actually inched up a few cents, to $484.11. A modest 2.7 million shares of UnitedHealth’s stock were traded that day, considerably fewer than usual.
Instead of punishing UnitedHealth, investors inflicted massive pain on its chief rival, CVS, which owns Aetna. On the same day Witty went to Washington, CVS had to disclose that it missed Wall Street financial analyst’s earnings-per-share expectations for the first quarter of 2024 by several cents. Shareholders’ furor sent CVS’ stock price tumbling from $67.71 to a 15-year low of $54 at one point Wednesday before settling at $56.31 by the time the New York Stock Exchange closed. An astonishing 65.7 million shares of CVS stock were traded that day.
Postscript: I do want to bring to your attention one exchange between Witty and Rep. Buddy Carter (R-Ga.) during the House Energy and Commerce committee hearing. Carter is a pharmacist who has seen firsthand how UnitedHealth’s virtual integration–operating health insurance companies with one hand and racking up physician practices and clinics with the other–and its PBM’s business practices have contributed to the closure of hundreds of independent pharmacies in recent years. He’s also seen patients walk away from the pharmacy counter without their medications because of PBMs’ out-of-pocket demands (often hundreds and thousands of dollars). And he’s seen other patients face life-threatenng delays because of industry prior authorization requirements. Carter was instrumental in persuading the Federal Trade Commission to investigate PBMs’ ownership and business practices. He told Witty:
I’m going to continue to bust this up…This vertical integration in health care in general has got to end.
On Monday, national supermarket giant Kroger announced that it had reached a definitive agreement to sell its specialty pharmacy business to insurer Elevance Health, which plans to fold the business into its CarelonRx pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) division. Kroger’s in-store retail pharmacies and walk-in clinics are not included in the deal, which could close in the second half of 2024. Kroger’s specialty pharmacy is the sixth largest by revenue, serving two percent of the US market. The planned sale comes as Kroger pursues a merger with rival supermarket chain Albertsons, which also operates a specialty pharmacy, although the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently announced that it’s challenging that merger.
The Gist: With total pharmacy spend up 25 percent since 2019, including a 34 percent growth for specialty drugs, Elevance is capitalizing on a booming market by pushing into pharmacy services, following last year’s acquisition of BioPlus, another specialty pharmacy.
Administering high-cost drugs to patients with rare or complex diseases, specialty pharmacies now account for more than half of all prescription drug spending despite making up only around two percent of total prescription volumes.
If you’re a U.S. health industry watcher, it would appear the $4.5 trillion system is under fire at every corner.
Pressures to lower costs, increase accessibility and affordability to all populations, disclose prices and demonstrate value are hitting every sector. Complicating matters, state and federal legislators are challenging ‘business as usual’ seeking ways to spend tax dollars more wisely with surprisingly strong bipartisan support on many issues. No sector faces these challenges more intensely than hospitals.
In 2022 (the latest year for NHE data from CMS), hospitals accounted for 30.4% of total spending ($1.35 trillion. While total healthcare spending increased 4.1% that year, hospital spending was up 2.2%–less than physician services (+2.7%), prescription drugs (+8.4%), private insurance (+5.9%) and the overall inflation rate (+6.5%) and only slightly less than the overall economy (GDP +1.9%). Operating margins were negative (-.3%) because operating costs increased more than revenues (+7.7% vs. 6.5%) creating deficits for most. Hardest hit: the safety net, rural hospitals and those that operate in markets with challenging economic conditions.
In 2023, the hospital outlook improved. Pre-Covid utilization levels were restored. Workforce tensions eased somewhat. And many not-for-profits and investor-owned operators who had invested their cash flows in equities saw their non-operating income hit record levels as the S&P 500 gained 26.29% for the year.
In 2024, the S&P is up 5.15% YTD but most hospital operators are uncertain about the future, even some that appear to have weathered the pandemic storm better than others. A sense of frustration and despair is felt widely across the sector, especially in critical access, rural, safety net, public and small community hospitals where long-term survival is in question.
The cynicism felt by hospitals is rooted in four conflicts in which many believe hospitals are losing ground:
Hospitals vs. Insurers:
Insurers believe hospitals are inefficient and wasteful, and their business models afford them the role of deciding how much they’ll pay hospitals and when based on data they keep private. They change their rules annually to meet their financial needs. Longer-term contracts are out of the question. They have the upper hand on hospitals.
Hospitals take financial risks for facilities, technologies, workforce and therapies necessary to care. Their direct costs are driven by inflationary pressures in their wage and supply chains outside their control and indirect costs from regulatory compliance and administrative overhead, Demand is soaring. Hospital balance sheets are eroding while insurers are doubling down on hospital reimbursement cuts to offset shortfalls they anticipate from Medicare Advantage. Their finances and long-term sustainability are primarily controlled by insurers. They have minimal latitude to modify workforces, technology and clinical practices annually in response to insurer requirements.
Hospitals vs. the Drug Procurement Establishment:
Drug manufacturers enjoy patent protections and regulatory apparatus that discourage competition and enable near-total price elasticity. They operate thru a labyrinth of manufacturers, wholesalers, distributors and dispensers in which their therapies gain market access through monopolies created to fend-off competition. They protect themselves in the U.S. market through well-funded advocacy and tight relationships with middlemen (GPOs, PBMs) and it’s understandable: the global market for prescription drugs is worth $1.6 trillion, the US represents 27% but only 4% of the world population.
And ownership of the 3 major PBMs that control 80% of drug benefits by insurers assures the drug establishment will be protected.
Prescription drugs are the third biggest expense in hospitals after payroll and med/surg supplies. They’re a major source of unexpected out-of-pocket cost to patients and unanticipated costs to hospitals, especially cancer therapies. And hospitals (other than academic hospitals that do applied research) are relegated to customers though every patient uses their products.
Prescription drug cost escalation is a threat to the solvency and affordability of hospital care in every community.
Hospitals vs. the FTC, DOJ and State Officials:
Hospital consolidation has been a staple in hospital sustainability and growth strategies. It’s a major focus of regulator attention. Horizontal consolidation has enabled hospitals to share operating costs thru shared services and concentrate clinical programs for better outcomes. Vertical consolidation has enabled hospitals to diversify as a hedge against declining inpatient demand: today, 200+ sponsor health insurance plans, 60% employ physicians directly and the majority offer long-term, senior care and/or post-acute services. But regulators like the FTC think hospital consolidation has been harmful to consumers and third-party data has shown promised cost-savings to consumers are not realized.
Federal regulators are also scrutinizing the tax exemptions afforded not-for-profit hospitals, their investment strategies, the roles of private equity in hospital prices and quality and executive compensation among other concerns. And in many states, elected officials are building their statewide campaigns around reining in “out of control” hospitals and so on.
Bottom line: Hospitals are prime targets for regulators.
Hospitals vs. Congress:
Influential members in key House and Senate Committees are now investigating regulatory changes that could protect rural and safety net hospitals while cutting payments to the rest. In key Committees (Senate HELP and Finance, House Energy and Commerce, Budget), hospitals are a target. Example: The Lower Cost, More Transparency Act passed in the the House December 11, 2023. It includes price transparency requirements for hospitals and PBMs, site-neutral payments, additional funding for rural and community health among more. The American Hospital Association objected noting “The AHA supports the elimination of the Medicaid disproportionate share hospital (DSH) reductions for two years. However, hospitals and health systems strongly oppose efforts to include permanent site-neutral payment cuts in this bill. In addition, the AHA has concerns about the added regulatory burdens on hospitals and health systems from the sections to codify the Hospital Price Transparency Rule and to establish unique identifiers for off-campus hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs).” Nonetheless, hospitals appear to be fighting an uphill battle in Congress.
Hospitals have other problems:
Threats from retail health mega-companies are disruptive. The public’s trust in hospitals has been fractured. Lenders are becoming more cautious in their term sheets. And the hospital workforce—especially its doctors and nurses—is disgruntled. But the four conflicts above seem most important to the future for hospitals.
However, conflict resolution on these is problematic because opinions about hospitals inside and outside the sector are strongly held and remedy proposals vary widely across hospital tribes—not-for profits, investor-owned, public, safety nets, rural, specialty and others.
Nonetheless, conflict resolution on these issues must be pursued if hospitals are to be effective, affordable and accessible contributors and/or hubs for community health systems in the future. The risks of inaction for society, the communities served and the 5.48 million (NAICS Bureau of Labor 622) employed in the sector cannot be overstated. The likelihood they can be resolved without the addition of new voices and fresh solutions is unlikely.
PS: In the sections that follow, citations illustrate the gist of today’s major message: hospitals are under attack—some deserved, some not. It’s a tough business climate for all of them requiring fresh ideas from a broad set of stakeholders.
PS If you’ve been following the travails of Mission Hospital, Asheville NC—its sale to HCA Healthcare in 2019 under a cloud of suspicion and now its “immediate jeopardy” warning from CMS alleging safety and quality concerns—accountability falls squarely on its Board of Directors. I read the asset purchase agreement between HCA and Mission: it sets forth the principles of operating post-acquisition but does not specify measurable ways patient safety, outcomes, staffing levels and program quality will be defined. It does not appear HCA is in violation with the terms of the APA, but irreparable damage has been done and the community has lost confidence in the new Mission to operate in its best interest. Sadly, evidence shows the process was flawed, disclosures by key parties were incomplete and the hospital’s Board is sworn to secrecy preventing a full investigation.
The lessons are 2 for every hospital:
Boards must be prepared vis a vis education, objective data and independent counsel to carry out their fiduciary responsibility to their communities and key stakeholders. And the business of running hospitals is complex, easily prone to over-simplification and misinformation but highly important and visible in communities where they operate.
Business relationships, price transparency, board performance, executive compensation et al can no longer to treated as private arrangements.
Last Monday, two lawsuits were filed that strike at a fundamental challenge facing the U.S. health system:
In the District Court of NJ, a class action lawsuit (ANN LEWANDOWSKI v THE PENSION & BENEFITS COMMITTEE OF JOHNSON AND JOHNSON) was filed against J&J alleging the company had mismanaged health benefits in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”). As noted in the 74-page filing “This case principally involves mismanagement of prescription-drug benefits. “Over the past several years, defendants breached their fiduciary duties and mismanaged Johnson and Johnson’s prescription-drug benefits program, costing their ERISA plans and their employees millions of dollars in the form of higher payments for prescription drugs, higher premiums, higher deductibles, higher coinsurance, higher copays, and lower wages or limited wage growth… Defendants’ mismanagement is most evident in (but not limited to) the prices it agreed to pay one of its vendors—its Pharmacy Benefits Manager (“PBM”)—for many generic drugs that are widely available at drastically lower prices.”
The issue is this: what liability risk does a self-insured employer have in providing health benefits to their employees?
Is the structure of the plan, the selection of providers and vendors, and costs and prices experienced by employees subject to litigation? What’s the role of the employer in protecting employees against unnecessary costs?
On the same day, in the District Court of Eastern Wisconsin, an 85-page class action lawsuit was filed against Advocate-Aurora Health (AAH) claiming it “uses its market power to raise prices, limit competition and harm consumers in Wisconsin:
Forces commercial health plans to include all its “overpriced facilities” in-network even when they would prefer to include only some facilities.
Goes to “extreme efforts to drive out innovative insurance products that save commercial health plans and their members money.”
Suppresses competition through “secret and restrictive contract terms that have been the subject of bipartisan criticism.”
Acquires new facilities, which then allows it to raise prices due to reduced competition
… without intervention, the health system will continue to use “anticompetitive contracting and negotiating tactics to raise prices on Wisconsin commercial health plans and their members and use those funds for aggressive acquisitions and executive compensation.”
The issue is this: is a health system’s liable when its consolidation activities result in higher prices for services provided communities and employers in communities where they operate?
Is there a direct causal relationship between a system’s consolidation activities and their prices, and how should alleged harm be measured and remedied?
Two complicated issues for two reputable mega-players in the U.S. health system. Both lawsuits were brought as class actions which guarantees widespread media attention and a protracted legal process. And each contributes directly to the gradual erosion of public trust in the health system since the plaintiffs essentially claim the business practices of J&J and Advocate-Aurora willfully harm the individuals they pledge to serve.
In the November 2023 Keckley Poll, I asked the sample of 817 U.S. adults to assess the health system overall. The results were clear:
69% think the system is fundamentally flawed and in need of major change vs. 7% who think otherwise.
60% believe it puts its profits above patient care vs. 13% who disagree.
74% think price controls are needed vs. 7% who disagree.
83% believe having health insurance that’s ‘affordable and comprehensive’ is essential to financial security vs 3% who disagree.
52% feel confident in their ability to navigate the U.S. system “when I have a problem” vs. 32% who have mixed feelings and 16% who aren’t.
And 76% think politicians avoid dealing with healthcare issues because they’re complex and politically risky vs/ 6% who think they tackle them head-on.
The poll also asked their level of trust and confidence in five major institutions “to develop a plan for the U.S. health system that maximizes what it has done well and corrects its major flaws.”
Clearly, trust and confidence in the health system is low, and expectations about solutions fall primarily on hospitals and doctors. Lawsuits like these widen suspicion that the industry’s dominated first and foremost by Big Businesses focused on their own profitability before all else. And they pose particular problems for sectors in healthcare dominated by not-for-profit and public ownership i.e. hospitals, home care, public health agencies and others.
My take
These lawsuits address two distinct issues: the roles of employers in designing their health benefits for employees including the use of PBMs, and the justification for consolidation of hospital and ancillary services in markets.
But each lawsuit s predicated on a legal theory that prices set by organizations are geared more to corporate profits than public good and justifiable costs.
Pricing is the Achilles of the health system. Pushback against price transparency by some, however justified, has amplified exposure to litigation risk like these two and contributed to the public’s loss of trust in the system.
It is unlikely greater price transparency and business practice disclosures by J&J and Advocate-Aurora could have avoided these lawsuits, but it’s clearly a message that needs consideration in every organization.
Healthcare organizations and their trade groups can no longer defend against lack of transparency by defaulting to the complexity of our supply chains and payment systems. They’re excuses. The realities of generative AI and interoperability assure information driven healthcare that’s publicly accessible and inclusive of prices, costs, outcomes and business practices. In the process, the public’s interest will heighten and lawsuits will increase.
Recently published in Stat, this article outlines how the launch of telehealth platforms by pharmaceutical companies, most notably Eli Lilly’s LillyDirect, portends a gamechanger for DTC prescription marketing.
Spurred by the escalating demand for Eli Lilly’s Zepbound and Mounjaro GLP-1 drugs, LillyDirect connects consumers with a third-party telehealth provider for prescriptions, an online pharmacy for fulfillment, and in-house payment support through streamlined coupon applications and prior authorization troubleshooting. In exchange, Eli Lilly gets access to reams of patient data, in addition to boosted sales. Pharma companies insist that the platforms have proper firewalls in place, as no money directly changes hands between them and their affiliated telehealth providers.
The Gist:With so manyothercompanies hopping on the GLP-1 virtual prescription bandwagon, it’s no wonder why pharma companies are opting to enter the market directly. What LillyDirect offers is not fundamentally different than platforms like Ro or Teladoc: using telehealth to blur the lines between prescription and over-the-counter medications by empowering consumers to seek out the care they want.
However, Eli Lilly’s control of the drug supply, ability to offer coupons, relationships with pharmacy benefit managers, and inherent brand association with the drugs give it a leg up on the competition.
By replacing “talk to your doctor about” with “visit our website for”, these consumer-focused platforms perpetuate the ongoing fragmentation of care and risk tapping into the potentially harmful side of consumerization in healthcare.
Earlier this month, leaders from more than 400 organizations descended on San Francisco for J.P. Morgan‘s 42nd annual healthcare conference to discuss some of the biggest issues in healthcare today. Here’s how Advisory Board experts are thinking about Modern Healthcare’s 10 biggest takeaways — and our top resources for each insight.
How we’re thinking about the top 10 takeaways from JPM’s annual healthcare conference
Following the conference, Modern Healthcare provided a breakdown of the top-of-mind issues attendees discussed.
Here’s how our experts are thinking about the top 10 takeaways from the conference — and the resources they recommend for each insight.
1. Ambulatory care provides a growth opportunity for some health systems
By Elizabeth Orr, Vidal Seegobin, and Paul Trigonoplos
At the conference, many health system leaders said they are evaluating growth opportunities for outpatient services.
However, results from our Strategic Planner’s Survey suggest only the biggest systems are investing in building new ambulatory facilities. That data, alongside the high cost of borrowing and the trifurcation of credit that Fitch is predicting, suggests that only a select group of health systems are currently poised to leverage ambulatory care as a growth opportunity.
Systems with limited capital will be well served by considering other ways to reach patients outside the hospital through virtual care, a better digital front door, and partnerships. The efficiency of outpatient operations and how they connect through the care continuum will affect the ROI on ambulatory investments. Buying or building ambulatory facilities does not guarantee dramatic revenue growth, and gaining ambulatory market share does not always yield improved margins.
While physician groups, together with management service organizations, are very good at optimizing care environments to generate margins (and thereby profit), most health systems use ambulatory surgery center development as a defensive market share tactic to keep patients within their system.
This approach leaves margins on the table and doesn’t solve the growth problem in the long term. Each of these ambulatory investments would do well to be evaluated on both their individual profitability and share of wallet.
On January 24 and 25, Advisory Board will convene experts from across the healthcare ecosystem to inventory the predominant growth strategies pursued by major players, explore considerations for specialty care and ambulatory network development, understand volume and site-of-care shifts, and more. Register here to join us for the Redefining Growth Virtual Summit.
Also, check out our resources to help you plan for shifts in patient utilization:
2. Rebounding patient volumes further strain capacity
By Jordan Peterson, Eliza Dailey, and Allyson Paiewonsky
Many health system leaders noted that both inpatient and outpatient volumes have surpassed pre-pandemic levels, placing further strain on workforces.
The rebound in patient volumes, coupled with an overstretched workforce, underscores the need to invest in technology to extend clinician reach, while at the same time doubling down on operational efficiency to help with things like patient access and scheduling.
For leaders looking to leverage technology and boost operational efficiency, we have a number of resources that can help:
3. Health systems aren’t specific on AI strategies
By Paul Trigonoplos and John League
According to Modern Healthcare, nearly all health systems discussed artificial intelligence (AI) at the conference, but few offered detailed implementation plans and expectations.
Over the past year, a big part of the work for Advisory Board’s digital health and health systems research teams has been to help members reframe the fear of missing out (FOMO) that many care delivery organizations have about AI.
We think AI can and will solve problems in healthcare. Every organization should at least be observing AI innovations. But we don’t believe that “the lack of detail on healthcare AI applications may signal that health systems aren’t ready to embrace the relatively untested and unregulated technology,” as Modern Healthcare reported.
The real challenge for many care delivery organizations is dealing with the pace of change — not readiness to embrace or accept it. They aren’t used to having to react to anything as fast-moving as AI’s recent evolution. If their focus for now is on low-hanging fruit, that’s completely understandable. It’s also much more important for these organizations to spend time now linking AI to their strategic goals and building out their governance structures than it is to be first in line with new applications.
Check out our top resources for health systems working to implement AI:
Digital health companies like Teladoc, R1 RCM, Veradigm, and Talkspace all spoke out about their use of generative AI.
This does not surprise us at all. In fact, we would be more surprised if digital health companies were not touting their AI capabilities. Generative AI’s flexibility and ease of use make it an accessible addition to nearly any technology solution.
However, that alone does not necessarily make the solution more valuable or useful. In fact, many organizations would do well to consider how they want to apply new AI solutions and compare those solutions to the ones that they would have used in October 2022 — before ChatGPT’s newest incarnation was unveiled. It may be that other forms of AI, predictive analytics, or robotic process automation are as effective at a better cost.
Again, we believe that AI can and will solve problems in healthcare. We just don’t think it will solve every problem in healthcare, or that every solution benefits from its inclusion.
During the conference, providers criticized insurers for the rate of denials, Modern Healthcare reports.
Denials — along with other utilization management techniques like prior authorization — continue to build tension between payers and providers, with payers emphasizing their importance for ensuring cost effective, appropriate care and providers overwhelmed by both the administrative burden and the impact of denials on their finances.
Many health plans have announced major moves to reduce prior authorizations and CMS recently announced plans to move forward with regulations to streamline the prior authorization process. However, these efforts haven’t significantly impacted providers yet.
In fact, most providers report no decrease in denials or overall administrative burden. A new report found that claims denials increased by 11.99% in the first three quarters of 2023, following similar double digit increases in 2021 and 2022.
Our team is actively researching the root cause of this discrepancy and reasons for the noted increase in denials. Stay tuned for more on improving denials performance — and the broader payer-provider relationship — in upcoming 2024 Advisory Board research.
For now, check out this case study to see how Baptist Health achieved a 0.65% denial write-off rate.
6. Insurers are prioritizing Star Ratings and risk adjustment changes
By Mallory Kirby
Various insurers and providers spoke about “the fallout from star ratings and risk adjustment changes.”
2023 presented organizations focused on MA with significant headwinds. While many insurers prioritized MA growth in recent years, leaders have increased their emphasis on quality and operational excellence to ensure financial sustainability.
With an eye on these headwinds, it makes sense that insurers are upping their game to manage Star Ratings and risk adjustment. While MA growth felt like the priority in years past, this focus on operational excellence to ensure financial sustainability has become a priority.
We’ve already seen litigation from health plans contesting the regulatory changes that impact the bottom line for many MA plans. But with more changes on the horizon — including the introduction of the Health Equity Index as a reward factor for Stars and phasing in of the new Risk Adjustment Data Validation model — plans must prioritize long-term sustainability.
Check out our latest MA research for strategies on MA coding accuracy and Star Ratings:
Pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) leaders discussed the ways they are preparing for potential congressional action, including “updating their pricing models and diversifying their revenue streams.”
Healthcare leaders should be prepared for Congress to move forward with PBM regulation in 2024. A final bill will likely include federal reporting requirements, spread pricing bans, and preferred pricing restrictions for PBMs with their own specialty pharmacy. In the short term, these regulations will likely apply to Medicare and Medicaid population benefits only, and not the commercial market.
Congress isn’t the only entity calling for change. Several states passed bills in the last year targeting PBM transparency and pricing structures. The Federal Trade Commission‘s ongoing investigation into select PBMs looks at some of the same practices Congress aims to regulate. PBM commercial clients are also applying pressure. In 2023, Blue Cross Blue Shield of California‘s (BSC) decided to outsource tasks historically performed by their PBM partner. A statement from BSC indicated the change was in part due to a desire for less complexity and more transparency.
Here’s what this means for PBMs:
Transparency is a must
The level of scrutiny on transparency will force the hand of PBMs. They will have to comply with federal and state policy change and likely give something to their commercial partners to stay competitive. We’re already seeing this unfold across some of the largest PBMs. Recently, CVS Caremarkand Express Scripts launched transparent reimbursement and pricing models for participating in-network pharmacies and plan sponsors.
While transparency requirements will be a headache for larger PBMs, they might be a real threat to smaller companies. Some small PBMs highlight transparency as their main value add. As the larger PBMs focus more on transparency, smaller PBMs who rely on transparent offerings to differentiate themselves in a crowded market may lose their main competitive edge.
PBMs will have to try new strategies to boost revenue
PBM practice of guiding prescriptions to their own specialty pharmacy or those providing more competitive pricing is a key strategy for revenue. Stricter regulations on spread pricing and patient steerage will prompt PBMs to look for additional revenue levers.
PBMs are already getting started — with Express Scripts reporting they will cut reimbursement for wholesale brand name drugs by about 10% in 2024. Other PBMs are trying to diversify their business opportunities. For example, CVS Caremark’s has offered a new TrueCost model to their clients for an additional fee. The model determines drug prices based on the net cost of drugs and clearly defined fee structures. We’re also watching growing interest in cross-benefitutilization management programs for specialty drugs. These offerings look across both medical and pharmacy benefits to ensure that the most cost-effective drug is prescribed for patients.
At the conference, retailers such as CVS, Walgreens, and Amazon doubled down on their healthcare services strategies.
Typically, disruptors do not get into care delivery because they think it will be easy. Disruptors get into care delivery because they look at what is currently available and it looks so hard — hard to access, hard to understand, and hard to pay for.
Many established players still view so-called disruptors as problematic, but we believe that most tech companies that move into healthcare are doing what they usually do — they look at incumbent approaches that make it hard for customers and stakeholders to access, understand, and pay for care, and see opportunities to use technology and innovative business models in an attempt to target these pain points.
CVS, Walgreens, and Amazon are pursuing strategies that are intended to make it more convenient for specific populations to get care. If those efforts aren’t clearly profitable, that does not mean that they will fail or that they won’t pressure legacy players to make changes to their own strategies. Other organizations don’t have to copy these disruptors (which is good because most can’t), but they must acknowledge why patient-consumers are attracted to these offerings.
For more information on how disruptors are impacting healthcare, check out these resources:
9. Financial pressures remain for many health systems
By Vidal Seegobin and Marisa Nives
Health systems are recovering from the worst financial year in recent history. While most large health systems presenting at the conference saw their finances improve in 2023, labor challenges and reimbursement pressures remain.
We would be remiss to say that hospitals aren’t working hard to improve their finances. In fact, operating margins in November 2023 broke 2%. But margins below 3% remain a challenge for long-term financial sustainability.
One of the more concerning trends is that margin growth is not tracking with a large rebound in volumes. There are number of culprits: elevated cost structures, increased patient complexity, and a reimbursement structure shifting towards government payers.
For many systems, this means they need to return to mastering the basics: Managing costs, workforce retention, and improving quality of care. While these efforts will help bridge the margin gap, the decoupling of volumes and margins means that growth for health systems can’t center on simply getting bigger to expand volumes.
Maximizing efficiency, improving access, and bending the cost curve will be the main pillars for growth and sustainability in 2024.
To learn more about what health system strategists are prioritizing in 2024, read our recent survey findings.
Also, check out our resources on external partnerships and cost-saving strategies:
During the conference, MA insurers reported seeing a spike in utilization driven by increased doctor’s visits and elective surgeries.
These increased medical expenses are putting more pressure on MA insurers’ margins, which are already facing headwinds due to CMS changes in MA risk-adjustment and Star Ratings calculations.
However, this increased utilization isn’t all bad news for insurers. Part of the increased utilization among seniors can be attributed to more preventive care, such as an uptick in RSV vaccinations.
In UnitedHealth Group‘s* Q4 earnings call, CFO John Rex noted that, “Interest in getting the shot, especially among the senior population, got some people into the doctor’s office when they hadn’t visited in a while,” which led to primary care physicians addressing other care needs. As seniors are referred to specialty care to address these needs, plans need to have strategies in place to better manage their specialist spend.
The new year dawned on a health insurance industry beset by challenges.
Only 7% of health plan executives view 2024 positively after being hammered by the coronavirus pandemic, regulatory turbulence and rising cost pressures, according to a Deloitte survey.
Costs are spiking, and health insurers remain uncertain how the lingering effects of COVID-19 will impact care utilization. Medicaid redeterminations are rewriting the coverage landscape state by state, while Medicare Advantage — the darling of payers’ business sheets — experiences significant regulatory upheaval.
Meanwhile, 2024 is a presidential election year. That’s adding more political uncertainty into the picture as Washington hammers payers over claims denials and the business practices of pharmacy benefit units.
Here’s what experts see coming down the pike for health insurers this year.
The uninsured rate will go up
The number of Americans without insurance coverage is almost certainly going to rise this year as states overhaul their Medicaid rolls, experts say.
During the pandemic, continuous enrollment protections led a record number of people to enroll in Medicaid. But earlier this year, states resumed checking eligibility for the safety-net program. Around 14.4 million Americans have been removed from Medicaid due to the redeterminations process, many for administrative reasons like incorrect paperwork despite remaining eligible.
“We are going to see an increase in the uninsured rate for children and probably adults as well as a consequence,” said Joan Alker, executive director of the Georgetown University Center for Children and Families.
The question is how big of an increase, experts said. Redeterminations began in April, but lagging information and state differences in data reporting has made it difficult to determine where individuals are turning for coverage, and in what numbers.
Early signs suggest some people losing Medicaid have found plans in the Affordable Care Act exchanges, though it’s probably “a very small percentage,” Alker said. More than 20 million people have signed up for ACA coverage since open enrollment began in November — an all-time high, according to data released by the Biden administration in early January.
Experts say the growth is due in part to redeterminations, along with the effects of more generous federal subsidies. Those subsidies are slated to expire in 2025, meaning ACA enrollment should stay elevated until then.
But it’s unlikely everyone who loses Medicaid will find a home on the marketplaces. The cost of family coverage without an employer remains out of reach for many Americans. It’s also too early to determine how many people terminated from Medicaid have shifted into employer coverage — that data should also emerge as 2024 continues, said Matt Fiedler, a senior fellow with the Brookings Schaeffer Initiative on Health Policy.
Federal regulators have also taken a number of actions to try and curb improper procedural Medicaid losses, like cracking down on states with high levels of child disenrollments. Yet, procedural terminations are unlikely to improve significantly this year, experts said.
“We do see a very hopeful trend” in some states, like Washington and Oregon, embracing longer periods of continuous eligibility, Alker noted.
The government has ramped up ACA marketplace outreach, which — along with macro forces like a strong labor market — are positive signs that individuals no longer eligible for Medicaid may find alternative coverage, whether in the ACA exchanges or through employment.
But “it’s likely we’ll see an increase in the uninsured rate. I think the question is how much,” Fiedler said.
Increasing vigilance around costs
Healthcare costs are projected to grow much faster in 2024 than the historical average, fueled by inflation, supply chain disruption and labor pressures increasing provider wages. Those costs are burdening employers already stressed by worker mental health and deferred preventive screenings that could worsen health conditions down the line.
As a result, employers are investing heavily in mental health and substance use disorder services. Seven out of ten employers say mental healthcare access is a priority in 2024, and employers say they’ll turn to virtual care providers to address the need, according to a Business Group on Health survey.
As a result, employers are increasingly demanding integrated platforms combining different benefits, continuing a pivot away from the point solutions they were deluged with during the pandemic. Payers are racing to meet that need.
This year, UnitedHealthcare plans to integrate more than 20 standalone products into a “supported benefits platform,” said Dan Kueter, CEO of the payer’s employer and individual business, during an investor day in November.
Cigna, which focuses on employer-sponsored plans, plans to add more services to its behavioral health navigator to help employers personalize the platform for their employees this year, said CEO David Cordani during a November earnings call.
For their part, health insurers are likely to raise premiums and combat hospital reimbursement hikes in 2024 to control costs, according to credit rating agency Fitch Ratings.
However, that outlook is complicated by uncertainty around how much elevated care utilization seen in 2023 will continue. Some payers, like UnitedHealth and Humana, are forecasting high utilization, while others like CVS have said they expect it to drop.
More payers might pursue mergers and acquisitions or build out internal musculoskeletal management programs to control costs, said Prateesh Maheshwari, a managing director at venture capital firm Maverick Ventures. Hip and knee surgeries were an oft-cited driver of utilization last year.
Still, publicly traded health insurance companies could see their margins moderately decrease in 2024, Fitch said.
GLP-1 coverage will increase — slowly
Surging demand for GLP-1s means insurance coverage for the drugs is expected to increase next year, putting more stress on the nation’s pressured healthcare payment system. GLP-1s, or glucagon-like peptide-1 drugs, have historically been used to treat diabetes but have shown efficacy in weight loss.
The drugs are exceedingly expensive, butthat hasn’t stopped peoplefrom trying to get theirhands on GLP-1s — off-label or not. TD Cowen predicts GLP-1 sales could reach $102 billion by 2030, with $41 billion of that for obesity.
More private payers are considering covering the drugs next year, though the doors to coverage aren’t being thrown wide open. According to a November survey by the International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans, while 76% of employers provide GLP-1 drug coverage for diabetes, just 27% provide coverage for weight loss.
Yet, 13% are considering adding coverage for weight loss.
As insurance coverage increases, payers will ensure only eligible patients are accessing the drugs through checks like step therapy, said Nathan Ray, head of healthcare M&A at consultancy West Monroe. As a result, access could remain restricted.
Payers will also tie coverage for GLP-1s to additional behavioral management programs. That trend has proved a gold rush for chronic condition management companies and telehealth providers, which have rushed to stand up new business lines for weight loss that include GLP-1s.
“Things like this, that include the opportunity for medication along with the accompaniment of behavioral change, is where I think the market will go in 2024,” said Heather Dlugolenski, Cigna’s U.S. commercial strategy officer.
Proponents of weight loss medication are also eyeing a potential overturn of the ban on Medicare coverage of weight loss drugs next year. A growing number of lawmakers (and drugmakers standing to profit from Medicare coverage) have come out in support of a bill introduced in 2023 to allow Medicare to cover anti-obesity drugs.
The bill is unlikely to be prioritized given Washington has a lot on its plate during the election year, but passage isn’t out of the realm of possibility, experts said.
Medicare Advantage will continue to grow under Washington’s watchful eye
In MA, the government contracts with private insurers to manage the care of Medicare seniors. MA has become increasingly popular, swelling to cover 31 million people last year — a boon for insurers offering the coverage, which can be twice as profitable for private payers than other types of plans.
As such, MA plans have been advertising heavily, trumpeting their supplemental benefits like gym memberships or subsidized groceries. Seniors find those benefits attractive, Brookings’ Fiedler said, and may not understand that MA plans may not cover as much medical care as traditional Medicare.
”My best bet would be MA enrollment in the near term continues to grow,” Fiedler said. “I don’t think we’re at the ceiling yet.”
Despite elevated costs in 2023 from seniors using more medical care, insurers generally didn’t cut back on plan benefits this year as they continue to compete for members.
Yet, the program hasn’t been without its complications. Payers cried foul last year over tweaks to MA rates, star ratings and reimbursement audits, with Humana and Elevance suing to stop the changes.
MA “should remain a key long-term growth driver for managed care, but we see a more challenging setup in 2024 as weaker funding, risk coding changes, and lower Star ratings combine to pressure margins,” J.P. Morgan analysts wrote in an outlook report published late last year.
Insurers were also plagued in 2023 by congressional hearings and lawsuits over their claims reviews processes, sparking criticism that seniors may not be receiving the care they’re due.
Scrutiny from Washington around such practices is likely to continue.
“We are seeing both in the Senate and House a lot of interest in peeling back the layers of the onion of how big health plans are operating their Medicare Advantage programs. That’s going to continue to be an issue,” said Reed Stephens, a healthcare chair at law firm Winston & Strawn who focuses on risk.
Though it’s unlikely that legislation will be passed reforming MA, Reed said. Overall, regulatory and political turbulence should subside somewhat this year.
The rate and marketing changes were “short of the last train out of the station,” said Brookings’ Fiedler. “The administration is unlikely to want a big fight with MA plans in an election year.”
The Mark Cuban effect: Payers with PBMs will launch more ‘transparent’ options
Major pharmacy benefit managers will introduce more options billed as transparent and cost-effective to retain clients after some turned to upstart competitors last year.
PBM clients are clamoring for outcomes-based pricing, with structures tying PBM compensation to measures like adherence, according to a J.P. Morgan survey from late 2023. Clients also want transparency, whether more data sharing or full administration models.
The changes aren’t revolutionary, but they hint at ongoing distrust of major PBMs from benefits teams, J.P. Morgan said.
UnitedHealth’s Optum Rx, Cigna’s Express Scripts and CVS Caremark — which together control 80% of prescriptions in the U.S. — have all recently launched new programs, partnerships or models they say are more affordable and transparent to meet the demand.
The industry is likely to see more moves along those lines in 2024, experts say — especially as Congress considers legislation to reform PBMs. The Lower Costs, More Transparency Act passed the House in December. The bill is seen as unlikely to clear the Senate, but specific measures, like forced PBM transparency, could make it into larger legislative packages.
The passing of measures around transparency could satisfy politicians’ need for a win when it comes to drug pricing without creating meaningful reform in the sector, according to Jefferies analyst Brian Tanquilut.
Yet, momentum to do something about high drug costs will certainly carry into this year. Presidential candidates on both sides of the aisle are expected to wield the issue on the campaign trail.
“The companies in those markets are going to have to stay nimble and keep on their toes,” said Winston & Strawn’s Stephens.
M&A, especially vertical integration, carries on
Companies like UnitedHealth, CVS and Humana will continue building out networks of physical care sites in 2024. New M&A guidelines from the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission could raise the bar for merger approvals, but the value proposition for insurers to acquire healthcare providers is too high for them to be dissuaded, experts said.
Payers will continue to pursue as many deals “as they can find willing, available targets,” said West Monroe’s Ray.
By directing members to owned locations for medical needs, health insurers can essentially pay themselves for providing a service, keeping more revenue in-house. As a result, payers — especially those with a large presence in MA, which incentivizes organizations to better manage cost — will stay on the hunt for acquisition targets.
While healthcare M&A was relatively slow in 2023, 68% of senior leaders in the sector expect deal volume to rise in 2024, according to a survey by investment bank Jefferies.
Optum — which employs or is affiliated with around one-tenth of all doctors in the U.S. — is already eyeing M&A. The health services arm of UnitedHealth is currently pursuing an acquisition of a physician-owned clinic chain in Oregon, even as it comes off a number of big provider buys in 2023, including the multi-billion-dollar acquisitions of home health providers Amedisys and LHC Group.
Cigna has also said it plans to look for smaller strategic acquisitions to grow its business, after a potential merger with rival Humana crumbled late last year.
HENRY KOTULA 