Bad Debt Grows as Out-Of-Network Benefits Shrink

https://www.healthleadersmedia.com/finance/bad-debt-grows-out-network-benefits-shrink?utm_source=silverpop&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ENL_181018_LDR_FIN_resend%20(1)&spMailingID=14460272&spUserID=MTY3ODg4NTg1MzQ4S0&spJobID=1501451819&spReportId=MTUwMTQ1MTgxOQS2

Doc taking money

A lack of OON benefits leads to never-ending financial obligations for patients and a greater likelihood of bad debt for providers.

Surprise, sky-high medical bills have been irking patients and legislators a lot lately, but as the number of patients with out-of-network (OON) benefits shrinks, the problem of high bills will continue to grow, according to research from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

A lack of OON benefits leads to never-ending financial obligations for patients and a greater likelihood of bad debt for providers, according to Katherine Hempstead, PhD, senior policy adviser at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Hempstead authored the new analysis, which looked at trends in OON benefits in the individual and small group markets.

“Out of network benefits have become much less common, especially in the individual market, where the proportion of plans with OON benefits has declined from 58% in 2015 to 29% in 2018 in the individual market,” she tells HealthLeaders via email.


“In the small group market, the decline was smaller: 71% to 64%,” she says.

However, even plans that do offer OON benefits increasingly have very high deductibles and maximum out-of-pocket (MOOP) caps.

For instance, in the individual market, the median OON deductible is approximately $12,000, the analysis shows. Some are even higher.

“A sizable share of plans in the individual markets have OON deductibles that exceed $20,000, and have no MOOP, meaning that patient obligations can continue infinitely,” Hempstead says.

For hospitals and health systems, all of this adds up to more patients who will be unable to pay their bills.

“The takeaway for revenue cycle managers is that most customers in the individual and small group market have little or no out-of-network coverage,” Hempstead says.

Because of this lack of OON coverage, hospitals and health systems should do some investigating beforehand.

“It will be important to ascertain in-network status before providing services, or the likelihood of bad debt will be high,” Hempstead says.

That’s something that hospitals and health systems can feasibly do, “especially if they have a price estimator tool,” says Donella J. Lubelczyk, RN, BSN, ACM-RN, CRC, CRCR, executive director of revenue cycle at Catholic Medical Center in Manchester, New Hampshire.

“They would need to do this with the patient and make sure the patients understand their out-of-network costs prior to selecting the service(s),” Lubelczyk says via email.

Patients also have a responsibility to know which providers are in and out of their networks.

A recent HealthSparq survey shows that 40% of patients who received a surprise bill said they could have done more to better understand their benefits and healthcare processes.

“Patients really need to understand their in-network plans, but most people do not and need to get assistance,” Lubelczyk says.

 

Hospitals Still Lagging on Cost Transformation Measures

https://www.healthleadersmedia.com/finance/hospitals-still-lagging-cost-transformation-measures?utm_source=silverpop&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ENL_181018_LDR_FIN_resend%20(1)&spMailingID=14460272&spUserID=MTY3ODg4NTg1MzQ4S0&spJobID=1501451819&spReportId=MTUwMTQ1MTgxOQS2

Health system executives have to pick up the pace on implementing effective cost transformation initiatives, according to a new survey from Kaufman Hall.

The focus on adequately addressing the rising cost transformation issues facing health systems has not resulted in significant progress, according to an annual survey from Kaufman Hall.

The healthcare management consulting firm reported that less than 20% of healthcare executives surveyed saw cost reductions exceed 5% in priority areas in 2017. Additionally, the report raised concerns on the lack of accountability measures in place to ensure that leaders have consequences for achieving cost transformation goals for their respective organizations.

Data from executives surveyed:

  • 32% saying that goal setting for cost reduction is absent in their organizations.
  • More than 70% indicating a lack of confidence in the accuracy of their current costing accounting solutions.
  • 12% increase reporting that their organizations have implemented processes to hold leaders accountable for cost transformation goals.
  • 56% witnessing effective use of clinical pathways, protocols, and guidelines to develop a common approach to treatment, a 9% increase compared to last year.
  • 73% saying cost transformation improvement targets have been distributed across the organization, up from 53% in 2017.

Lance Robinson, managing director of Kaufman Hall’s performance management improvement practice, told HealthLeaders that while health system executives have focused on traditional areas of cost, like labor operations, they have overlooked other areas like service rationalization, clinical variation, length of stay, and integrating the physician enterprise. Robinson said those areas require immediate attention from hospital executives in order to sustain opportunities going forward.

“One thing I found surprising was that they’re not actually holding people accountable to the targets that are set,” Robinson said. “On the positive side, I think they have a good idea of what needs to happen. If you look at what factors are driving the need for cost transformation, like the move toward value-based care models and the advent of many disuptors in the industry, they need to be more price conscious and competitive.”

The report added that the need to generate capital to fund strategic initiatives is also driving system executives to revisit their cost transformation goals. Robinson said that as factors surrounding the system change, such as labor market and supply chain operations, executives have to evolve their cost transformation goals as well rather than seeking a “shot in the arm” to fix organizational weaknesses. 

While focus still revolves around traditional areas like labor and non-labor costs, Robinson said leading health systems are analyzing ways to address clinical variation, service rationalization, and other areas that can create meaningful change to their capital structure rather than reducing costs “around the edges.”

 

 

 

Both Parties Seek to Energize Base Voters on Health Issues

http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/both-parties-seek-to-energize-base-voters-on-health-issues?utm_source=just-in&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=energize-health-parties&utm_content=101918&bt_ee=05ccTe0Lp820lMqsIKZ9rsEC84uBk8tCGVMHpj2I80iDh%2BrNDK%2BwJpRqg0%2BFWTO2&bt_ts=1539981664412

Image result for pre existing conditions

As Republicans talk Obamacare repeal, Democrats re-emphasize top issue.

Democrats are seeking to energize their core supporters by repeating Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s remark this week that Republicans hope to revive a push to overhaul the 2010 health care law.

“McConnell gave us a gift,” Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer told MSNBC on Friday. “That’s a game-changer when he shows who he is and wants to really hurt people on health care.”

McConnell said Wednesday that the GOP may pursue repeal next year if it wins enough seats in the elections. The Kentucky Republican also said entitlement programs such as Medicare and Medicaid are driving deficits.

Democratic candidates are issuing press releases and tweets warning that a GOP-controlled Congress might roll back the law and its protections for pre-existing conditions, which has enjoyed growing support nationwide since Republicans targeted it last year. They also say Republicans want to reduce the growth of popular entitlement programs.

But McConnell appears to expect the idea of repeal to also rile up GOP base voters. For months, polls have shown that health care is the top issue for Democratic voters, but Republicans still want to repeal the health care law, also known as the Affordable Care Act.

“Republicans overwhelmingly disapprove of the law,” said Ashley Kirzinger, a senior survey analyst at the Kaiser Family Foundation. “I think that Sen. McConnell is trying this out because despite the fact that some of the provisions that are part of the ACA are really popular, the ACA overall is still not.”

A Kaiser Family Foundation poll released Thursday found that of Republican voters who said health care was their top campaign issue this year, 18 percent said they specifically meant repealing the health care law. That comes behind 23 percent of survey respondents who said they meant addressing high health care costs.

In Nevada, where health care has been a marquee issue in the Senate race between Republican incumbent Dean Heller and Democratic Rep. Jacky Rosen, 29 percent of GOP voters said a candidate’s commitment to overhauling the law is most important to determining their votes.

In Florida, where the health care law is less of an issue in the Senate race between Democratic incumbent Bill Nelson and Republican Gov. Rick Nelson, 31 percent of Republican voters said wanting to scale it back is the most important issue in determining who they would vote for.

But while Republican voters may say they’re clamoring for Congress to overhaul the law, GOP candidates are not talking loudly about their plans to do so on the campaign trail. When it comes to health care, many are campaigning to protect pre-existing conditions, which the 2010 law does. Polls show a majority of voters across the political spectrum support keeping that provision.

GOP on defense

President Donald Trump said Thursday on Twitter that if any Republican did not support pre-existing conditions coverage, “they will after I speak to them.”

Texas GOP Sen. Ted Cruz built his national political ambitions around his opposition to the health care law, going so far as to shut down the government in 2013. Now, as he faces off against Democratic Rep. Beto O’Rourke, Cruz has taken a quieter tone on the law, vowing to maintain protections for pre-existing conditions although he has said he wants to roll back other parts of the law.

While Republicans say they could revisit legislation to overhaul the law, they’re also doubling down on a commitment to guarantee coverage for people with pre-existing conditions. Those protections have become a focal point across the country after the Trump administration declined to defend those provisions against a lawsuit. A group of conservative state officials sued to overturn the law after Republicans used a tax overhaul last year to effectively end the requirement that most Americans have health insurance.

The repeal measure that House Republicans passed last year would have weakened protections for pre-existing conditions by allowing states to seek waivers that would allow insurers to charge sick patients more for coverage. In the Senate, Cruz proposed to let insurers sell plans that do not meet all of the health care law’s requirements if they also offer policies that do comply with it, which health experts said would lead to higher costs for sick patients.

In both chambers, allowing insurers to sell plans that would not comply with all of the law’s requirements were critical to earning votes from more conservative members.

Two Republican lawmakers fighting for re-election, Reps. David Young of Iowa and Pete Sessions of Texas, each recently proposed nonbinding resolutions that commit to protecting pre-existing conditions if a federal judge rolls back the protections.

U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor has yet to rule on the lawsuit by the conservative state officials, but said during oral arguments last month that he would try to do so as soon as possible. The administration asked that O’Connor postpone judgment until after the sign-up period for insurance sold on the federal and state exchanges ends in December in order to avoid chaos in the markets.

 

7 Examples of Shallow Leadership

http://www.leadershipdigital.com/edition/daily-finance-career-2018-10-17?open-article-id=9085494&article-title=7-examples-of-shallow-leadership&blog-domain=ronedmondson.com&blog-title=ron-edmondson

Growing in our leadership abilities, including growing in the knowledge of leadership and the relational aspect of leadership, should be a goal for every leader.

Sadly, in my experiencee, many leaders settle for a sort of status quo leadership rather than stretching themselves to continually improve. They settle for mediocre quality of leading, fathering than attempting the hard work of leadership excellence. They remain oblivious to the real health of their leadership and the organizations they lead. They may get by – people may say things are “okay” leaders, but no one would call them exceptional leaders.

I have often referred to this style of leadership as shallow leadership.

Perhaps you’ve seen this before or maybe you’ve been guilty of providing shallow leadership. For seasons, at least, I am not too proud to admit I certainly have.

If you’re still wondering what shallow leadership looks like, let me offer some suggestions.

7 characteristics of shallow leadership:

Thinking your idea will be everyone’s idea. You assume everyone is on the same page with you. You think everyone thinks like you. That’s because you’ve stopped asking questions of your team. You have stopped evaluating everything. You aren’t open to constructive evaluation – of you.

Believing your way is the only way. You’re the leader- you must be right, right? Maybe you’ve had some success and it went to your head just a little. Perhaps you’ve become – or you’ve always been – a little stubborn or head strong. You may even be controlling. You have to make or sign off on every decision. You may never delegate. Those are all signs of shallow leadership, because you’ve likely shut out some of the best ideas within the organization – which reside among the people you are trying to lead.

Assuming you already know the answer. You think you’ve done it long enough to see it all, so you quit learning. You have stopped reading. You never meet with other leaders anymore.

Pretending to care when really you don’t. This is so common among shallow leaders. Shallow leaders have grown cold in their passion. They may speak the vision, but they’re just words on a page or hung on a wall now. They may even go through all the motions. They are still drawing a paycheck, but if the truth be known, they’d rather be anywhere than where they are right now.

Giving the response, which makes you most popular. Shallow leaders like to be liked. They never make the hard decisions, refuse to challenge, avoid conflict, and run from complainers. They ignore the real problems in the organization so things never really get better.

Refusing to make a decision. Often a shallow leader had a setback at some point. Things didn’t go as planned, so they’ve grown scared or overwhelmed and so they refuse to walk by faith. The team won’t move forward because the leader won’t move forward.

Ignoring the warning signs of poor health. This can be poor health in the organization, the team, or in the leader. Things may not be “awesome” anymore. Momentum may be suffering. Shallow leaders look the other way. And, again, it could be the leader. Your soul may be empty. You may be the one unhealthy. Or the team may be unhealthy. Shallow leaders refuse to see it or do anything about it.

We never achieve our best with shallow leadership. And, the first step is always to admit.

 

Health Care in America – The Experience of People with Serious Illness

http://features.commonwealthfund.org/health-care-in-america?_ga=2.69920404.568922675.1539785477-833267550.1532293701

Image result for Health Care in America - The Experience of People with Serious Illness

Listening to People with Serious Illness

These are just a few of the many voices of people with serious illness. They express the bewilderment and the loss of control. They convey fear that the system is indifferent to their needs and that the cost of care is beyond their reach. They reflect the joy of feeling well enough to get back to the familiar parts of life.

Most Americans expect the health care system will deliver effective treatment and support them through trying times when they get sick. But in reality, health care in America sometimes hurts even as it helps. Appointments can be difficult to get. Clinics and emergency rooms are often overcrowded. Doctors’ recommendations can be confusing and difficult to follow. And when the bills arrive, the costs can be unexpected and devastating. More than 40 million adults in the United States experienced serious illness in the past three years. More than 41 million provided unpaid care to elderly adults during the past year.

Health Care in America: The Experience of People with Serious Illness, a project of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, the New York Times, and the Commonwealth Fund, is examining the experiences of Americans with serious illness — the sickest of the sick — and those who help care for them. Our goal is to understand whether our health care system is doing all it can do not just to treat illness but to help people cope with illness. Where is the system failing to meet people’s needs? How is it adding to already heavy burdens? Can the most seriously ill Americans afford the care our health system delivers?

To help answer these and other questions, we surveyed nearly 1,500 Americans with serious illness and the friends or family members caring for them. We considered someone to have serious illness if, within the past three years, they had two or more hospital stays and visits with three or more doctors. Below we discuss what we found. We then point to opportunities to help ensure that American health care not only saves people but also supports them in their time of need.

Serious Illness: A Life-Altering Journey

People going through serious illness often experience profound loss: loss of control, loss of independence, loss of time, and the loss of capabilities that most of us take for granted. The physical, emotional, and financial toll can be life-altering. It can mean an end to the activities that give life pleasure; growing isolation from friends, family, and familiar places; and an inability to work or support others. And there is the worry of being a burden on family and friends.

People with serious illness experience distress over and above the physical symptoms of their specific condition. And our new survey reveals that many are distressed. Sixty-two percent feel anxious, confused, or helpless at some point. Nearly half have emotional or psychological problems. Social isolation, a known risk factor for worse health outcomes, is common, with one-third of respondents reporting feeling left out, lacking in companionship, or isolated from others.

Many people with serious illness want to continue working or continue to provide care for family and friends who need their help, but they face high hurdles. Nearly three of four have had problems related to work or their ability to care for others (Appendix 1). Half reported being unable to do their job as well as they could before. Twenty-nine percent lost a job or had to change jobs. Half reported wanting to work but being unable to do so.

Our Health Care System Often Adds to the Burden of Illness

It’s fair to say that several consequences of serious illness — the distress, isolation, confusion, and lost earnings — are simply part of being sick. In some cases, they are probably inevitable. But being sick in America also means carrying some burdens that our health care system foists upon us.

Americans have high expectations for their health care. Most believe that when serious illness strikes, their health professionals will be fully prepared to make a diagnosis and provide appropriate treatment. This belief is not wholly unwarranted, of course. News stories brim with pioneering medical advances. For people with what were once fatal and untreatable diseases, there are now cures. Once harrowing chemotherapy regimens have been replaced by pills taken once a day. New technologies are improving the quality of life for many people with serious disabilities.

A health care system that promises so much would seem capable of minimizing the burdens of illness and care, of helping people cope. But for too many, American health care does the opposite: it places unexpected and unnecessary burdens on the sick. People struggle to obtain effective treatments and services. Pervasive fragmentation and lack of coordination across the health system make obtaining services heavy labor for people with advanced illnesses or frailty.

How common are such problems for this vulnerable group? In our survey, six of 10 people with serious illness reported at least one problem receiving care (Appendix 2). The difficulties people reported are symptomatic of the confusing patchwork that is health care in the United States. Nearly a third of those with serious illness spoke of trouble understanding what their health insurance covered. Twenty-nine percent reported being sent for duplicate tests or diagnostic procedures by different doctors, nurses, or other health care workers. Twenty-three percent of respondents said they experienced a problem with conflicting recommendations from the health professionals that saw them. One of five had difficulty understanding a doctor’s bill — a confusion not just about the costs of care but about what services were provided.

Unnecessary tests and procedures are not only redundant and costly. They carry their own risks to health. Safety in health care is, in fact, an ongoing challenge, especially for patients requiring complex care plans. Nearly one of four adults in our survey reported a serious medical error in their care. We know from other studies that people with serious illness are especially prone to diagnostic errors, prescribing errors, and communication mishaps. Every doctor and many patients can recall missed abnormal lab results, failure to account for allergies, and lost information that led to terrible side effects, or even death.

Paying for Care: Teetering on the Edge of Financial Ruin

Health care can be extraordinarily expensive for anyone, but especially so for people with serious illness. Millions of Americans are ruined financially by the costs of their treatment. Although most survey respondents reported having insurance coverage, nearly one in 10 were uninsured. Even with coverage, many are not adequately protected from health care costs. More than half of people with serious illness in our survey (representing more than 21 million people) experienced one or more dire financial consequences related to their care (Appendix 3).

Apart from its sometimes lasting health consequences, serious illness also appears to cause long-term financial problems for many. More than one-third of survey respondents used up most or all of their savings. Nearly one-quarter were unable to pay for basic necessities like food, heat, or housing. Nearly a third were contacted by a collection agency for unpaid bills. And the financial consequences are not felt by patients alone. More than one in four survey respondents reported that the costs of care placed a major burden on their family.

What Can Be Done to Improve the Experience of the Seriously Ill?

The burdens described above are not an inevitable companion to serious illness. They are a consequence — at times inadvertent, but no less real — of how our health system operates today. But things could be different. It is fully within our means as a nation to improve the experience of the millions of Americans living with serious illness and the millions more who help care for them.

In fact, strategies for delivering a better health care experience — one that ensures comprehensive, holistic care while always respecting the dignity of the individual — already exist. They just need to be adopted on a much wider scale.

  1. Build the capacity to identify and manage the behavioral health needs of patients and their caregivers. Integrating behavioral health services into medical care requires more than simply improving communication among siloed professionals. Multidisciplinary care teams that include behaviorists, social workers, and patients working together can ease the sense of helplessness, the loss, and the social isolation that seriously ill people commonly experience.
  2. Assess and address social service needs. Our findings illustrate that the impact of serious illness extends well beyond the medical realm. Many people cannot work while dealing with a life-threatening condition. This means fewer resources at a time when expenses can increase dramatically. Access to and support for reliable transportation, supportive housing, nutritious meals, and other services are critical to helping the seriously ill maintain a level of well-being.

  3. Make it easier for patients, caregivers, and professionals to work in close coordination with one another. Patients want their clinicians and other providers to talk to each other — and they want in on the conversation, too. Providers can improve communication with each other, with patients, and with caregiving family members and friends by taking full advantage of advances in consumer-friendly digital tools like secure texting, email, telehealth, and social media platforms. Coordination could be further enhanced by care managers or community health workers who check in on patients and caregivers between appointments and connect them to needed services.
  4. Make care more affordable. Universal health insurance coverage is a fundamental protection against the cost of unexpected illness. It not only guards against the threat of financial ruin but minimizes the costs incurred by everyone else when sick people who are uninsured (or underinsured) show up in emergency rooms or hospitals, which by law must treat everyone in need of care. Guaranteed coverage of preexisting conditions is especially important to those who have experienced serious illness and would otherwise be denied coverage by insurers. Keeping out-of-pocket costs like copayments and coinsurance reasonable not only prevents bills from going unpaid but makes it easier for patients to stick with their preventive care regimen, avoid repeated emergency room visits and hospitalizations, and maintain progress in their treatment.

Conclusion

Americans have high expectations for their health system. They spend more than the citizens of any other country with the hope that the right care will be there for them when serious illness strikes. But along with the treatments and services that can improve life for the seriously ill come an unwanted and unnecessary set of physical, emotional, and financial burdens. These burdens result from the choices made by policymakers, practitioners, payers, and others. Listening to the voices of people with serious illness, reckoning with the human costs of our current system, and lifting the burdens that health care places on us when we become sick may be the most important work health care can undertake.

 

Is Medicare for All the Answer to Sky-High Administrative Costs?

Is Medicare for All the Answer to Sky-High Administrative Costs?

Related image

 

Calls for a Medicare for All system are growing louder. Many Democrats have embraced it, while President Trump said last week that it would raise health care costs drastically.

Democrats say that giving people the option to partake in Medicare — no matter their age — will actually cut costs.

American administrative costs for health care are the highest in the world, and they argue that one advantage of Medicare for All is that it would save money because Medicare’s administrative costs are below those of private insurers.

Does that argument hold up?

Medicare’s administrative costs were $8.1 billion last year, or 1.1 percent of total spending, close to the proportion it has been in recent years.

But some have argued that the actual cost is higher because of services performed for Medicare by other parts of the government that aren’t accounted for: The Social Security Administration collects premiums, the Internal Revenue Service collects taxes for the program, the F.B.I. provides fraud prevention services, and at least seven other federal agencies and departments also do work that benefits Medicare.

The claim that these administrative costs are overlooked is false. As annual reporting of Medicare’s finances plainly states, they are accounted for.

But there is something missing from the $8.1 billion Medicare administrative cost figure, as Kip Sullivan explains in a 2013 paper published in the Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law. Although it accurately accounts for the federal government’s administrative costs, it does not include those borne by private plans that also offer Medicare benefits.

In addition to the traditional (public) Medicare plan, Medicare is also available from private plans through the Medicare Advantage program. Today, one-third of people using Medicare are in such plans, up from about one-fifth a decade ago. Moreover, all Medicare drug benefits are administered through private plans.

National Health Expenditure data shows both the government’s administrative costs for Medicare and those of Medicare’s private plans. Putting them together for the most recent year available (2016), they reach $47 billion, or 7 percent of total Medicare spending — well above the administrative costs borne directly by the Medicare program.

Medicare’s private drug benefit plans incur administrative costs that are about 11 percent of their spending. All of this additional, private administrative cost is paid for by taxpayers and, through their premiums, people who use Medicare.

Medicare’s direct administrative costs are not only low, but they also have been falling over the years, as a percent of total program spending. Yet the program’s total administrative costs — including those of the private plans — have been rising.

“This reflects a shift toward more enrollment in private plans,” Mr. Sullivan said. “The growth of those plans has raised, not lowered, overall Medicare administrative costs.”

Making an accurate estimate of the administrative costs of Medicare for All would depend, in part, on whether it would be more like an expansion of traditional Medicare (with its 1.1 percent administrative cost rate) or of all of Medicare, including its private plans (with a combined 7 percent administrative cost rate).

Yet both figures are well below private insurers’ administrative costs, which run about 13 percent of spending (this also includes profit), according to America’s Health Insurance Plans, an advocacy organization for the industry.

Some critics have argued that Medicare’s administrative cost rate appears artificially low because Medicare enrollees’ health spending is so high. Average Medicare spending per beneficiary is just over $12,000 per year; for an average worker in a private plan, it’s about $6,000. If you simply divide administrative costs by total spending, you will get a lower number for Medicare for this reason alone.

This is true, but the government’s administrative costs for Medicare are still below those of private plans. The government’s administrative costs are about $132 per person compared with over $700 for private plans. One reason Medicare’s are so much lower is that it reaps economies of scale. It also benefits from not needing to do much marketing, and it doesn’t earn profits.