Category Archives: Uncategorized

Antipating the Impact of the Baby Boom on Medicare

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , • Leave a comment

 

 
In perusing the excellent work of the Peterson-Kaiser Health System Tracker project, we recently came across an analysis (depicted on the left, below) of Medicare spending patterns broken down by age of beneficiary. Based on 2014 data, the analysis shows how much was spent per capita in traditional Medicare fee-for-service on beneficiaries of each age. (The analysis excludes Medicare Advantage data, and also doesn’t include beneficiaries aged 65, for whom a full year of spending data wasn’t available.)

What’s interesting is how spending patterns differ across age cohorts—inpatient spending peaks at age 92 and then declines, spending on physician services peaks at age 85, skilled nursing and hospice spending ramp up quickly for much older beneficiaries. To see how these patterns might play out if applied to the Baby Boom generation, we combined the Peterson-Kaiser analysis with our earlier look at generational aging. The result is the chart on the right, below, which shows how each bucket of spending will increase over the coming 25 years given aging of the population.
 
A couple of interesting observations from this (admittedly imperfect) analysis.

First, the sheer size of the baby boom generation will drive a huge increase in Medicare spending over the next 25 years. And a full third or more of the total Medicare spend on Baby Boomers isn’t even captured here—that will come via payments to Medicare Advantage plans.

Second, inpatient care drives a huge amount of the total spend. It’s clear that an urgent priority is finding ways to shift spending from the light grey bars (inpatient) to the other segments—we need to pull forward the shift from inpatient to other settings from where it was in 2014’s population. Recall that this is traditional Medicare—strategies like accountable care organizations (ACOs) and other care management/population health reforms will be critical here.

Finally, in addition to changing the trend with innovations in care delivery models, we should expect technology and pharmaceuticals to play a role in inflecting the shape of this graph. Whether that impact will produce a net savings or a net increase in spending remains to be seen.

New Tax Will Help Washington Residents Pay for Long-Term Care

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , • Leave a comment

Image result for long term care insurance

In other healthcare news from the Evergreen State, Gov. Inslee also signed a law this week that will provide a new long-term care benefit for state residents starting in 2025. In the furthest-reaching legislation of its type nationally, the new Washington law puts in place a payroll tax of 0.58 percent starting in 2022, and creates a year-long, $100/day allowance for state residents that can be used to pay for nursing home fees, at-home caregivers, and other long-term care needs.

Family members who are full-time caregivers can also receive compensation. Like other states, Washington spends a growing portion of its state budget on paying for long-term care for aging residents, putting a heavy burden on the finances of its Medicaid program that’s expected to worsen as the Baby Boom generation ages. In addition to nursing and caregiver services, the new benefit can also be used for in-home meals, housing repairs, and other services that impact health status.

As with its “public option” plan, Washington has taken the lead on another healthcare coverage issue that will eventually need to be addressed nationwide: the fact that seniors are entering retirement entirely unprepared for the amount they’ll need to spend on long-term care.

Medicaid currently pays for two-thirds of nursing home care and 60 percent of all long-term care costs, and no state is currently prepared for the amount of spending that will be required over the next 25 years. Almost no one buys long-term care insurance, which is unaffordable for most. Any serious attempt to expand coverage over the next few years must take on this critical issue.

 

 

Launching the first “public option” insurance plan

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , • Leave a comment

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/05/16/723843559/will-washington-states-new-public-option-plan-reduce-heath-care-costs

Image result for public option

On Monday, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee signed into law the nation’s first “public option” health plan, to be sold on the state’s individual health insurance exchange, starting during next year’s open enrollment period. Inslee, who is also a candidate for the Democratic Presidential nomination, characterized the new plan as a “way for our state to push back” on the Trump administration’s efforts to roll back the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

The plan, called Cascade Care, is not quite the same as a true, government-run plan of the type proposed by some during the drafting of the ACA; rather, it creates a category of private insurance plans that will cap provider and facility rates at 160 percent of Medicare reimbursement, with the goal of lowering premiums for consumers who shop on Washington’s insurance marketplace.

The public option plan is meant to exert competitive pressure on other plans in the market in an attempt to drive premiums down, but experts expect the new plan to produce only a modest 5-10 percent savings for consumers. In 2018, average premiums on Washington’s exchange rose 38 percent, resulting in lower overall enrollment levels. Other states, including Colorado and Connecticut, are considering similar “public option” plans.

It’s notable that Washington’s approach is explicitly built around reducing payment to hospitals and doctors—any serious efforts to lower premiums will almost certainly have the same impact.

As the politics of healthcare continue to heat up, we’d expect more such proposals to gain traction across the country.

 

 

 

Universal health care in California: $17 billion a year, says one estimate

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/The-price-tag-for-universal-health-care-in-13602501.php?utm_campaign=CMS+Sharing+Tools+%28Mobile%29&utm_source=m.facebook.com&utm_medium=referral&fbclid=IwAR1EEjMdhaai-HH9u6jq_Mo2aNNQ8cpAlmBD1J7Saxmb3c_rVag5HdVnrGc

Universal health care in California could cost $17.3 billion a year, under one plan proposed Friday by UC Berkeley health policy researchers.

The paper offers one path for getting about 3 million uninsured Californians health coverage. It is one of several recent estimates from researchers and legislators who have devised various ways to work toward universal coverage in the state. It is not a plan for a single-payer system.

The figure is significantly higher than other analyses, which found that working toward universal coverage by expanding Medi-Cal insurance for the poor would cost less than half of that. That is because the paper builds in the assumption that the uninsured would get on private health insurance plans, whereas other estimates factor in federal funding for getting more people on Medi-Cal, which is jointly paid for by the federal and state governments.

The paper, by Richard Scheffler and Stephen Shortell of Berkeley’s School of Public Health, proposes a mix of new taxes on the health care industry, California employers and airline travelers, paired with contributions from the state’s general fund and premium payments from individuals who are now uninsured.

The ideas, presented Friday to a group of California health policy researchers and advocates, are considered one early stab at financing universal coverage and are not included in legislative proposals.

The largest source of financing, 41 percent, would come from a 3 percent tax on the revenue of hospitals, nursing homes, drug companies, home care providers and insurance companies, which would generate an estimated $7.2 billion a year. The tax would not apply to public hospitals.

The next largest source of funding, 31 percent or $5.2 billion, would come from currently uninsured residents who would pay a monthly premium for a health plan — envisioned as a plan bought through the insurance marketplace Covered California. The premium would be paid by those who earn too much to qualify for Medi-Cal, the insurance program for the poor, and would average out to $123 a month per person. The authors do not specify how many people would pay this premium, or address how to incentivize this population — many of whom are undocumented and hesitant to participate in government programs — to buy into the system.

The paper also proposes a tax on international and business class travelers who fly into and out of California’s five largest airports: Los Angeles International Airport, San Francisco International Airport, San Diego International Airport, Oakland International Airport and San Jose International Airport. The taxes would be $50 per ticket for domestic business class passengers, $60 per ticket for for economy international passengers and $250 per ticket for international business passengers. These five airports see a collective 188 million passengers each year, according to the authors’ analysis of California Department of Transportation air passenger traffic data. The tax would generate $2.3 billion a year.

The remaining funding would come from the state’s general fund in the amount of $1.7 billion, and a tax on employers that would generate $979 million. The employer tax would be modeled after Healthy San Francisco, a program started in 2007 to cover the city’s 14,000 uninsured residents. It would require employers that don’t provide insurance to their workers to pay into a fund by levying a 4 percent surcharge on customers. It would apply to for-profit employers with more than 20 workers and nonprofit employers with more than 50 workers.

Under the plan, the revenue generated through these proposed new taxes would go toward what’s known as integrated care systems to expand their geographic reach and offer more insurance plans on Covered California. The biggest and most well-known integrated system is Kaiser, which provides both the insurance coverage and health care services to its patients, but others have started forming their own integrated care systems in recent years including Sutter Health’s HMO plan, Sharp Health Care in San Diego and HealthCare Partners in Los Angeles. Those integrated care plans would be offered on Covered California.

Scheffler and Shortell say they hope their ideas are a starting point for debate and will inspire action by state legislators.

“We’re hoping for some interest from Sacramento,” Scheffler said.

Some policy experts who reviewed the paper raised questions about some of the proposed taxes and the cost estimate. Ken Jacobs, chair of the UC Berkeley Labor Center, said $17 billion is much too high for achieving universal coverage because it doesn’t take into account the federal dollars that would be available if the state were to expand Medi-Cal to more uninsured people.

A state-level employer mandate could face legal challenges, as Healthy San Francisco did, because of federal preemption issues under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA, Jacobs said. Similarly, the airline tax might run afoul of federal laws regulating interstate commerce and airlines. And the tax on hospitals would need a two-thirds vote in the Legislature and buy-in from health care providers.

“I look at the (financing) as throwing some ideas on the table to start a discussion,” Jacobs said.

Other proposed measures and analyses put different cost estimates for getting California closer to universal coverage. A report released this month by Covered California found that providing more financial assistance to consumers to buy plans would cost between $2.1 billion and $2.7 billion a year.

One bill, AB-4, proposes expanding Medi-Cal to all undocumented adults — a move the Legislative Analyst’s Office has estimated would cost $3 billion annually. Another bill, AB-174, aims to provide financial assistance to those making between $48,000 and $72,000 to buy insurance. It would cost $40 million to $75 million a year, according to estimates included in a previous bill.

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s proposed budget included expanding Medi-Cal coverage to undocumented young adults between ages 19 and 25, and providing state-funded financial assistance to help Californians buy insurance — both of which would be steps toward universal coverage in the state. It is unclear how much the initiatives would cost.

 

Democrats Have No Safe Options On Health Care

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

Democrats Have No Safe Options On Health Care

Even though most of the candidates have committed to some form of universal health care, the Democratic primary is turning into a debate about the future of the country’s health care system. Presidential hopefuls have proposed policies ranging from an ambitious four-year plan to transform Medicare into a universal single-payer system, in which the government pays for everyone’s health care and private insurance plans are effectively eliminated, to a more modest scheme that would leave the existing health care system intact but create a government-administered public insurance plan people could choose to purchase. But some of the candidates have been light on policy specifics, so it’s likely that health care will be a big topic at the debates and beyond.

In the abstract, focusing on health care makes a lot of political sense for Democrats. It was a top issue among Democratic voters in the 2018 midterms, and the Trump administration recently renewed its efforts to strike down the Affordable Care Act in the courts, which means the law could be hanging in the balance throughout the primaries and into the general election. A recent ABC News/Washington Post poll also found that Americans, by a 17-point margin, say that President Trump’s handling of health care makes them more likely to oppose him than to support him in 2020. By a similar margin, an Associated Press/NORC poll found that Americans trust Democrats more than Republicans on health care.

All of this means that Democrats are heading into the 2020 election cycle with a serious edge on an issue that has the potential to mobilize their base. But if the candidates pitch big, sweeping changes to the health care system without addressing voters’ concerns about cost and access, that advantage won’t necessarily hold up. And trying to sell Americans on a completely new system carries risks, even in the primaries.

Why do people care about health care so much?

First, it’s important to understand how health care has morphed over the past decade from just another issue to one of the issues voters care most about. In the 2018 exit polls, 41 percent of voters said health care was the most important issue facing the country, up from 25 percent in 2014 and 18 percent in 2012. (It wasn’t asked about in 2016.) And although Democrats are more likely to prioritize health care than Republicans, a Pew Research Center poll from January found that a majority of Republicans say health care costs should be a top priority for Congress and the president.

The reason? Health care is becoming more of a financial burden, according to Mollyann Brodie, executive director for public opinion and survey research at the Kaiser Family Foundation. Specifically, Americans’ out-of-pocket health care costs have risen significantly over the past decade, even for workers who get insurance through their jobs. In an economy that by many measures is doing well, health care — rather than something like taxes — is becoming one of voters’ most important pocketbook issues, she said. “If you’re worried about whether you or your loved ones can afford your next health care bill, that’s really a matter of life or death, so you can understand why this issue is moving to center stage politically.”

And Americans are increasingly likely to say that the government has an important role to play in ensuring access to health care. In November, Gallup found that 57 percent of Americans said they think it’s the federal government’s responsibility to ensure that everyone has health care coverage, up from a low of 42 percent in 2013. Support for the Affordable Care Act rose over the same period, too. But, notably, support for government intervention in the health care system was even higher before President Obama was elected and the ACA passed — in 2006, 69 percent of Americans thought the government should guarantee health care coverage.

While support for government involvement in health care is rebounding, it’s not clear how much change voters are really asking for. “The average American is first and foremost concerned about the financial problems facing their family,” said Robert Blendon, a professor of health policy and political analysis at Harvard. “They’re less worried about system-level concerns like health care spending and inequality. They want their existing coverage to be better and more affordable.”

What do voters want politicians to do?

Americans aren’t opposed to the idea of government-run health care, but there’s not a lot of consensus on what that would mean. For example, a recent Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that a majority (56 percent) of Americans favor a national “Medicare for All” plan. But according to a March Morning Consult poll, Americans are more likely to favor a plan that offers some kind of public option — a government-sponsored health insurance plan available in addition to existing private plans — over a system where everyone is enrolled in the same plan.

But this apparent contradiction makes sense, according to Brodie, because Americans are risk-averse when it comes to health care, and the switch to single-payer would affect far more people than the ACA did. Tens of millions of previously uninsured people received coverage under the ACA, but that number would be dwarfed by the 156 million people who get their insurance through their employers and could see their coverage change if the country switched to a single-payer plan. “Even if the current system isn’t working, transitions are scary,” Brodie said. “And people aren’t necessarily aware of what a national plan really means. When you start telling people that there might not be any more private insurance companies, that’s actually not a popular position.” For example, a January Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that support for a national Medicare for All plan dropped significantly when respondents were told it would mean eliminating private insurance companies.

And when asked what health care policies they want Congress to prioritize, Americans don’t list Medicare for All first. Instead, according to a recent Kaiser Family Foundation poll, they want Congress to pass targeted measures that would lower prescription drug costs, continue the ACA’s protections for preexisting conditions and protect people from surprise medical bills. Only 31 percent of Americans say that implementing Medicare for All should be a top priority for Congress, compared to 68 percent who want lowering drug prices to be a top priority. Moreover, prioritizing Medicare for All is politically polarizing: Only 14 percent of Republicans support putting that kind of plan at the top of the to-do list, compared to 47 percent of Democrats.

Some health care issues get only one-sided support

Share of Republicans and Democrats who say each issue should be a top priority for Congress, and the difference between the parties

Dem. Rep. Diff.
Making sure the ACA’s preexisting condition protections continue 82% 47% D+35
Implementing a national Medicare for All plan 47 14 D+33
Expanding government financial help for those who buy their own insurance coverage on the ACA marketplace to include more people 36 18 D+18
Lowering prescription drug costs for as many Americans as possible 77 66 D+11
Protecting people from surprise high out-of-network medical bills 55 45 D+10
Repealing and replacing the ACA 16 52 R+36

Source: Kaiser Family Foundation

However, smaller policy steps like lowering prescription drug costs and protecting people from surprise medical bills get more bipartisan support. Overall, Americans seem to be more concerned with fixing the current health care system than creating a sweeping new replacement — even if that replacement could address the issues they most want fixed in the current system.

What does this mean for the Democrats?

The complexity of Americans’ views on health care doesn’t change the fact that Democrats have a big advantage over Republicans on this issue, but it does mean that the individual candidates are in a tough spot because there’s no obvious unifying message they can adopt for the primary. And embracing a single-payer plan now could hand the GOP a weapon for the general election, allowing Republicans to frame the health care discussion around the Democrats’ controversial plan while glossing over Trump’s efforts to dismantle the ACA.

“The safest bet for a Democrat in the general election is to emphasize Trump’s track record on health care and say you’re going to make the ACA work,” Blendon said. The problem is that while that kind of argument might appeal to moderates, it’s likely to fall flat among a significant sector of the Democratic base that supports prioritizing a national Medicare for All plan over improving and protecting the ACA.

Democrats arguably still have an opening to make a case for a more ambitious health care overhaul, since voters still have relatively little information about what something like Medicare for All means. “It’s fine to support single-payer if you think that’s where the country needs to go, but you can’t just lean on principles like fairness or equality when you’re selling it,” said David Cutler, an economist at Harvard who advised Obama’s campaign on health care strategy. “You also have to tell voters, very specifically, what you are going to do to lower their costs and improve their coverage next year — not in 10 years.”

Even though Americans mostly prefer Democrats’ health care positions to the GOP’s, Democrats still risk alienating voters if they emphasize bumper-sticker slogans over concrete strategies for reducing the financial burden of health care. This is particularly important because their base of support for a single-payer system may be shallower than it appears, even within the party — especially when it comes to getting rid of private insurance. Big changes to the status quo are always politically challenging, but they may be especially risky when many Americans are concerned about losing the protections they already have.

 

 

 

Warning: Signs of credit crisis grow

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

https://www.axios.com/credit-crisis-banks-us-debt-4b77bbc4-395b-4c1e-9be4-b29d72548315.html

A credit card machine catching on fire

A recent survey of bank officers shows U.S. institutions are tightening their lending standards and raising rates on commercial loans and credit cards.

Details: Bankers say they have increasing concern about future economic growth, despite continued U.S. labor market strength and solid economic fundamentals. The data banks are seeing runs contrary to the overall narrative of a strong U.S. economy.

Driving the news: Credit card delinquency rates in Q1 hit the highest level since 2012, driven in part by a spike in overdue payments by people ages 18–29, according to a report out this week from the New York Federal Reserve.

What’s happening: In addition to the inability to make credit card payments, the rise in younger borrowers’ delinquency rates — by far the highest among all age groups — reflects the cohort jumping into the credit card market at a faster rate, as well as the eagerness of banks to latch on to younger consumers. Still, the delinquency rate remains well below that seen during the financial crisis.

  • More young people are opening credit cards now than they did in the the past decade — about 52% in 2018 verses 46% in 2008, per the New York Fed — pushing up the likelihood of more delinquencies.
  • Credit card accounts among young borrowers fell in 2009 following the passage of the Card Act, which added new rules for consumers under 21 looking to borrow and limited how much banks could advertise to young people.
  • “There has been some recovery in credit card prevalence in recent years, consistent with increased issuance in card accounts,” according to the Fed.

Why it matters: After the financial crisis, young people had been largely debt-averse — particularly with credit cards — as a result of the the Great Recession. But that trend looks to be reversing.

  • “Banks were a little concerned going forward and [expect to] tighten standards,” David Norris, head of U.S. credit at TwentyFour Asset Management, tells Axios.
  • “I think from the viewpoint of the marketplace, if that’s going to continue … it works its way into consumer spending habits, consumer attitudes, and that can affect the demand side of the economy.”

That move comes as U.S. debt is $1 trillion higher than its previous record…

The N.Y. Fed’s latest report shows that total household debt increased by $124 billion in Q1. It was the 19th consecutive quarter with an increase, and household debt is now $993 billion higher than the previous peak of $12.68 trillion in the third quarter of 2008.

Between the lines: Delinquency rates are trending up again, and not just for younger consumers.

  • The report found that seriously delinquent credit card balances have also risen for consumers aged 50–69.
  • For borrowers aged 50–59 and 60–69, the 90-day delinquency rate increased by nearly 100 basis points each.

“People are probably extending themselves too much,” said TwentyFour’s David Norris, also noting that the headline numbers for Q1 U.S. GDP were a bit misleading.

  • “Banks are seeing this currently and they’re beginning to get concerned about credit quality and the quality of borrowers and they’re trying to tighten standards. This is a signal that we need to watch out for.”

A deeper look at the credit card delinquencies that are steadily rising…

  • In the Fed’s latest U.S. bank senior loan officers survey, which provided data from the fourth quarter of 2018, loan officers predicted more delinquencies this year as a result of the growth of “non-prime” borrowers. They’ve cited that as a reason for an anticipated pullback in credit and an increase in rates.
  • U.S. card holders are expected to pay $122 billion just in interest charges this year. That’s 50% more than what they paid just 5 years ago.
  • The average credit card assessed interest rate is now 16.91%. It was 13.14% in the first quarter of 2014.
  • The average interest rate on retail cards is more than 25%.

 

 

 

Health care CEOs made $2.6 billion in 2018

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-vitals-3dafd3d8-dd1c-47ed-a1f0-287e7f37fc6f.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosvitals&stream=top

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1AY1nXwBnQVlata0RgdLz17OI4XaK6785hfAsiLFz84U/edit#gid=0

Illustration of George Washington with a stethoscope around his neck.

The CEOs of 177 health care companies collectively made $2.6 billion in 2018 — roughly $700 million more than what the National Institutes of Health spent researching Alzheimer’s disease last year, according to a new Axios analysis of financial filings.

Why it matters: The pay packages reveal the health care system’s real incentives: finding ways to boost revenue and stock value by raising prices, filling more hospital beds, and selling more drugs and devices, Axios’ Bob Herman reports.

By the numbers: The median pay of a health care CEO in 2018 was $7.7 million. Fourteen CEOs made more than $46 million each.

  • The figures were calculated by using actual realized gains of stock options and awards, which are in the annual proxy disclosures companies file with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The highest-paid health care CEO last year was Regeneron Pharmaceuticals CEO Leonard Schleifer, who made $118 million. A spokesperson said Schleifer “has built Regeneron from a start-up into a leading innovative biopharmaceutical company” and that he “generally holds his option awards until nearly the end of the full 10-year option term.”

  • Pharmaceutical CEOs represented 11 of the 25 highest compensation amounts last year.
  • Executives of medical device and equipment companies that don’t attract as much attention — such as Intuitive Surgical, Masimo, Hill-Rom and Exact Sciences — also were sitting at the top.

Between the lines: A vast majority of CEO pay comes from exercised and vested shares of stock. Salaries are almost an afterthought.

  • But health care executives routinely earned millions of dollars in cash bonuses, based on factors like revenue goals and financial metrics that experts say can be manipulated.
  • Quality of care is either not a factor at all in CEOs’ bonuses at all, or a marginal one.

Details: McKesson CEO John Hammergren received a $4 million bonus for hitting financial targets last year, just as the company was facing a slew of lawsuits over its role in the opioid crisis. McKesson did not immediately respond to questions.

  • Community Health Systems CEO Wayne Smith recorded a $3.3 million bonus even though his hospital chain continued to hemorrhage money. His bonus was heavily weighted by an adjusted metric that made CHS look profitable, and none of his bonus was tied to patient outcomes. CHS did not respond.

Worth noting: The analysis does not include compensation from not-for-profit hospital systems, because their 2018 tax filings have not been released yet.