Category Archives: Uninsured

Healthcare Spending 2000-2022: Key Trends, Five Important Questions

Posted on by • Posted in Affordability, Aging Population, Dept of Justice (DOJ), Health Plan, Health Policy, Health System, Healthcare Reform, Healthcare Sector, Inflation Reduction Act, Market Consolidation, Market Trends, Medicare, Medicare Funding, Monopoly Behavior, Operating Margin, Operating Margin Drivers, Out of Pocket Expenses, Underinsured, Uninsured, UnitedHealth Group, UnitedHealthcare • Leave a comment
Healthcare Spending 2000-2022: Key Trends, Five Important Questions

Last week, Congress avoided a partial federal shutdown by passing a stop-gap spending bill and now faces March 8 and March 22 deadlines for authorizations including key healthcare programs.

This week, lawmakers’ political antenna will be directed at Super Tuesday GOP Presidential Primary results which prognosticators predict sets the stage for the Biden-Trump re-match in November. And President Biden will deliver his 3rd State of the Union Address Thursday in which he is certain to tout the economy’s post-pandemic strength and recovery.

The common denominator of these activities in Congress is their short-term focus: a longer-term view about the direction of the country, its priorities and its funding is not on its radar anytime soon. 

The healthcare system, which is nation’s biggest employer and 17.3% of its GDP, suffers from neglect as a result of chronic near-sightedness by its elected officials. A retrospective about its funding should prompt Congress to prepare otherwise.

U.S. Healthcare Spending 2000-2022

Year-over-year changes in U.S. healthcare spending reflect shifting demand for services and their underlying costs, changes in the healthiness of the population and the regulatory framework in which the U.S. health system operates to receive payments. Fluctuations are apparent year-to-year, but a multiyear retrospective on health spending is necessary to a longer-term view of its future.

The period from 2000 to 2022 (the last year for which U.S. spending data is available) spans two economic downturns (2008–2010 and 2020–2021); four presidencies; shifts in the composition of Congress, the Supreme Court, state legislatures and governors’ offices; and the passage of two major healthcare laws (the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 and the Affordable Care Act of 2010).

During this span of time, there were notable changes in healthcare spending:

  • In 2000, national health expenditures were $1.4 trillion (13.3% of gross domestic product); in 2022, they were $4.5 trillion (17.3% of the GDP)—a 4.1% increase overall, a 321% increase in nominal spending and a 30% increase in the relative percentage of the nation’s GDP devoted to healthcare. No other sector in the economy has increased as much.
  • In the same period, the population increased 17% from 282 million to 333 million, per capita healthcare spending increased 178% from $4,845 to $13,493 due primarily to inflation-impacted higher unit costs for , facilities, technologies and specialty provider costs and increased utilization by consumers due to escalating chronic diseases.
  • There were notable changes where dollars were spent: Hospitals remained relatively unchanged (from $415 billion/30.4% of total spending to $1.355 trillion/31.4%), physician services shrank (from $288.2 billion/21.1% to $884.8/19.6%) and prescription drugs were unchanged (from $122.3 billion/8.95% to $405.9 billion/9.0%).
  • And significant changes in funding Out-of-pocket shrank from 14.2% ($193.6 billion in 2020) to (10.5% ($471 billion) in 2020, private insurance shrank from $441 billion/32.3% to $1.289 trillion/29%, Medicare spending grew from $224.8 billion/16.5% to $944.3billion/21%; Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program spending grew from $203.4 billion/14.9% to $7805.7billion/18%; and Department of Veterans Affairs healthcare spending grew from $19.1 billion/1.4% to $98 billion/2.2%.

Looking ahead (2022-2031), CMS forecasts average National Health Expenditures (NHE) will grow at 5.4% per year outpacing average GDP growth (4.6%) and resulting in an increase in the health spending share of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) from 17.3% in 2021 to 19.6% in 2031.

The agency’s actuaries assume

“The insured share of the population is projected to reach a historic high of 92.3% in 2022… Medicaid enrollment will decline from its 2022 peak of 90.4M to 81.1M by 2025 as states disenroll beneficiaries no longer eligible for coverage. By 2031, the insured share of the population is projected to be 90.5 percent. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) is projected to result in lower out-of-pocket spending on prescription drugs for 2024 and beyond as Medicare beneficiaries incur savings associated with several provisions from the legislation including the $2,000 annual out-of-pocket spending cap and lower gross prices resulting from negotiations with manufacturers.”

My take:

The reality is this: no one knows for sure what the U.S. health economy will be in 2025 much less 2035 and beyond. There are too many moving parts, too much invested capital seeking near-term profits, too many compensation packages tied to near-term profits, too many unknowns like the impact of artificial intelligence and court decisions about consolidation and too much political risk for state and federal politicians to change anything.

One trend stands out in the data from 2000-2022: The healthcare economy is increasingly dependent on indirect funding by taxpayers and less dependent on direct payments by users. 

In the last 22 years, local, state and federal government programs like Medicare, Medicaid and others have become the major sources of funding to the system while direct payments by consumers and employers, vis-à-vis premium out-of-pocket costs, increased nominally but not at the same rate as government programs. And total spending has increased more than the overall economy (GDP), household wages and  costs of living almost every year.

Thus, given the trends, five questions must be addressed in the context of the system’s long-term solvency and effectiveness looking to 2031 and beyond:

  • Should its total spending and public funding be capped?
  • Should the allocation of funds be better adapted to innovations in technology and clinical evidence?
  • Should the financing and delivery of health services be integrated to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the system?
  • Should its structure be a dual public-private system akin to public-private designations in education?
  • Should consumers play a more direct role in its oversight and funding?

Answers will not be forthcoming in Campaign 2024 despite the growing significance of healthcare in the minds of voters. But they require attention now despite political neglect.

PS: The month of February might be remembered as the month two stalwarts in the industry faced troubles:

United HealthGroup, the biggest health insurer, saw fallout from a cyberattack against its recently acquired (2/22) insurance transaction processor by ALPHV/Blackcat, creating havoc for the 6000 hospitals, 1 million physicians, and 39,000 pharmacies seeking payments and/or authorizations. Then, news circulated about the DOJ’s investigation about its anti-competitive behavior with respect to the 90,000 physicians it employs. Its stock price ended the week at 489.53, down from 507.14 February 1.

And HCA, the biggest hospital operator, faced continued fallout from lawsuits for its handling of Mission Health (Asheville) where last Tuesday, a North Carolina federal court refused to dismiss a lawsuit accusing it of scheming to restrict competition and artificially drive-up costs for health plans. closed at 311.59 last week, down from 314.66 February 1.

The Three In-bound Truth Bombs set to Explode in U.S. Healthcare

Posted on by • Posted in ACA, Administrative Burden, Affordability, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health System, Healthcare Reform, High Deductible Health Plans, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Medicare Advantage, Outcomes, Pharmaceutical Industry, Primary Care, Quality of Care, Regulation, Tax Exempt Status, Truth, Truth Unvarnished, Underinsured, Uninsured • Leave a comment
The Three In-bound Truth Bombs set to Explode in U.S. Healthcare

In Sunday’s Axios’ AM, Mike Allen observed “Republicans know immigration alone could sink Biden. So, Trump and House Republicans will kill anything, even if it meets or exceeds their wishes. Biden knows immigration alone could sink him. So he’s willing to accept what he once considered unacceptable — to save himself.”

Mike called this a “truth Bomb” and he’s probably right: the polarizing issue of immigration is tantamount to a bomb falling on the political system forcing well-entrenched factions to re-think and alter their strategies.

In 2024, in U.S. healthcare, three truth bombs are in-bound. They’re the culmination of shifts in the U.S.’ economic, demographic, social and political environment and fueled by accelerants in social media and Big Data.

Truth bomb: The regulatory protections that have buoyed the industry’s growth are no longer secure. 

Despite years of effectively lobbying for protections and money, the industry’s major trade groups face increasingly hostile audiences in city hall, state houses and the U.S. Congress.

The focus of these: the business practices that regulators think protect the status quo at the public’s expense. Example: while the U.S. House spent last week in their districts, Senate Committees held high profile hearings about Medicare Advantage marketing tactics (Finance Committee), consumer protections in assisted living (Special Committee on Aging), drug addiction and the opioid misuse (Banking) and drug pricing (HELP). In states, legislators are rationalizing budgets for Medicaid and public health against education, crime and cybersecurity and lifting scope of practice constraints that limit access.

Drug makers face challenges to patents (“march in rights”) and state-imposed price controls. The FTC and DOJ are challenging hospital consolidation they think potentially harmful to consumer choice and so. Regulators and lawmakers are less receptive to sector-specific wish lists and more supportive of populist-popular rules that advance transparency, disable business relationships that limit consumer choices and cede more control to individuals. Given that the industry is built on a business-to-business (B2B) chassis, preparing for a business to consumer (B2C) time bomb will be uncomfortable for most.

Truth bomb: Affordability in U.S. is not its priority.

The Patient Protection and Affordability Act 2010 advanced the notion that annual healthcare spending growth should not exceed more than 1% of the annual GDP.  It also advanced the premise that spending should not exceed 9.5% of household adjusted gross income (AGI) and associated affordability with access to insurance coverage offering subsidies and Medicaid expansion incentives to achieve near-universal coverage. In 2024, that percentage is 8.39%.

Like many elements of the ACA, these constructs fell short: coverage became its focus; affordability secondary.

The ranks of the uninsured shrank to 9% even as annual aggregate spending increased more than 4%/year. But employers and privately insured individuals saw their costs increase at a double-digit pace: in the process, 41% of the U.S. population now have unpaid medical debt: 45% of these have income above $90,000 and 61% have health insurance coverage. As it turns out, having insurance is no panacea for affordability: premiums increase just as hospital, drug and other costs increase and many lower- and middle-income consumers opt for high-deductible plans that expose them to financial insecurity. While lowering spending through value-based purchasing and alternative payments have shown promise, medical inflation in the healthcare supply chain, unrestricted pricing in many sectors, the influx of private equity investing seeking profit maximization for their GPs, and dependence on high-deductible insurance coverage have negated affordability gains for consumers and increasingly employers. Benign neglect for affordability is seemingly hardwired in the system psyche, more aligned with soundbites than substance.

Truth bomb: The effectiveness of the system is overblown.

Numerous peer reviewed studies have quantified clinical and administrative flaws in the system.  For instance, a recent peer reviewed analysis in the British Medical Journal concluded “An estimated 795 000 Americans become permanently disabled or die annually across care settings because dangerous diseases are misdiagnosed. Just 15 diseases account for about 50.7% of all serious harms, so the problem may be more tractable than previously imagined.”

The inadequacy of personnel and funding in primary and preventive health services is well-documented as the administrative burden of the system—almost 20% of its spending.  Satisfaction is low. Outcomes are impressive for hard-to-diagnose and treat conditions but modest at best for routine care. It’s easier to talk about value than define and measure it in our system: that allows everyone to declare their value propositions without challenge.

Truth bombs are falling in U.S. healthcare. They’re well-documented and financed. They take no prisoners and exact mass casualties.

Most healthcare organizations default to comfortable defenses. That’s not enough. Cyberwarfare, precision-guided drones and dirty bombs require a modernized defense. Lacking that, the system will be a commoditized public utility for most in 15 years.

PS: Last week’s report, “The Holy War between Hospitals and Insurers…” (The Keckley Report – Paul Keckley) prompted understandable frustration from hospitals that believe insurers do not serve the public good at a level commensurate with the advantages they enjoy in the industry. However, justified, pushback by hospitals against insurers should be framed in the longer-term context of the role and scope of services each should play in the system long-term. There are good people in both sectors attempting to serve the public good. It’s not about bad people; it’s about a flawed system.

Trends shaping the business of health insurance in 2024

Posted on by • Posted in Behavioral Health, Diabetes, Health Insurance Industry, Market Consolidation, Market Outlook, Market Trends, Medicaid, Medicaid Eligibility, Medicaid Redeterminations, Medicare Advantage, Mental Health, Mergers & Acquisitions, Pharmacy Benefits Management, Uninsured, Weight Loss Drugs • Leave a comment
https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/health-insurer-predictions-2024/701800/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Issue:%202024-01-17%20Healthcare%20Dive%20%5Bissue:58245%5D&utm_term=Healthcare%20Dive

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, but that hasn’t stopped people from trying to get their hands 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

More seniors will select Medicare Advantage plans this year, further growing a program that recently saw its enrollment sneak past that of traditional Medicare.

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.

Major payers in MA, including Humana, UnitedHealthcare, Centene and Kaiser Permanente, expanded their geographic markets for 2024, even as some lagging competitors like Cigna consider exiting MA altogether.

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.

ACA enrollment continues at a record pace 

Posted on by • Posted in 2024 Election Issues, ACA, Essential Health Benefits, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, Healthcare Reform, Medicaid Expansion, Medical Loss Ratio (MLR), Out of Pocket Expenses, Preexisting Conditions, Underinsured, Uninsured • Leave a comment

https://nxslink.thehill.com/view/6230d94bc22ca34bdd8447c8k3p6r.11v6/ce256994

Affordable Care Act (ACA) enrollment appears poised to reach record levels once again as signups grew by more than a third of what they were this time last year, a fact the White House is using to continue to draw attention to former President Trump’s threats to try again to repeal the law.  

More than 15 million people have signed up for plans in states that use HealthCare.gov, representing a 33 percent increase from last year. The Biden administration estimates 19 million will sign up for plans by the Jan. 16 deadline.  

On Dec. 15, the deadline for coverage starting Jan. 1, more than 745,000 people selected a plan through HealthCare.gov — the most in a day in history, the Department of Health and Human Services said.  

For 2023 plans, more than 16.3 million people signed up through HealthCare.gov last year, another record. Of those who enrolled for this year, 22 percent were new to the marketplace. 

This year’s enrollment had some unusual factors that may have played a part in boosting enrollment. Those who were disenrolled from Medicaid this year during the “unwinding” period were allowed to sign up for ACA plans earlier than normal. 

There was also stronger insurer participation in the program this year, providing significantly more options for customers to choose from. 

“Thanks to policies I signed into law, millions of Americans are saving hundreds or thousands of dollars on health insurance premiums,” President Biden said on Wednesday. 

“Extreme Republicans want to stop these efforts in their tracks,” he added. “At every turn, extreme Republicans continue to side with special interests to keep prescription drug prices high and to deny millions of people health coverage.” 

The US doesn’t have universal health care — but these states (almost) do

Posted on by • Posted in ACA, Health Policy, Healthcare Reform, Medicaid, Medicaid Eligibility, Medicaid Expansion, Out of Pocket Expenses, Underinsured, Uninsured, Universal Coverage, Universal Healthcare System • Leave a comment

https://www.vox.com/policy/23972827/us-aca-enrollment-universal-health-insurance

Ten states have uninsured rates below 5 percent. What are they doing right?

Universal health care remains an unrealized dream for the United States. But in some parts of the country, the dream has drawn closer to a reality in the 13 years since the Affordable Care Act passed.

Overall, the number of uninsured Americans has fallen from 46.5 million in 2010, the year President Barack Obama signed his signature health care law, to about 26 million today. The US health system still has plenty of flaws — beyond the 8 percent of the population who are uninsured, far higher than in peer countries, many of the people who technically have health insurance still find it difficult to cover their share of their medical bills. Nevertheless, more people enjoy some financial protection against health care expenses than in any previous period in US history.

The country is inching toward universal coverage. If everybody who qualified for either the ACA’s financial assistance or its Medicaid expansion were successfully enrolled in the program, we would get closer still: More than half of the uninsured are technically eligible for government health care aid.

Particularly in the last few years, it has been the states, using the tools made available by them by the ACA, that have been chipping away most aggressively at the number of uninsured.

Today, 10 states have an uninsured rate below 5 percent — not quite universal coverage, but getting close. Other states may be hovering around the national average, but that still represents a dramatic improvement from the pre-ACA reality: In New Mexico, for instance, 23 percent of its population was uninsured in 2010; now just 8 percent is.

Their success indicates that, even without another major federal health care reform effort, it is possible to reduce the number of uninsured in the United States. If states are more aggressive about using all of the tools available to them under the ACA, the country could continue to bring down the number of uninsured people within its borders.

The law gave states discretion to build upon its basic structure. Many received approval from the federal government to create programs that lower premiums; some also offer state subsidies in addition to the federal assistance to reduce the cost of coverage, including for people who are not eligible for federal aid, such as undocumented immigrants. A few states are even offering new state-run health plans that will compete with private offerings.

I asked several leading health care experts which states stood out to them as having fully weaponized the ACA to reduce the number of uninsured. There was not a single answer.

“I don’t think any state has taken advantage of everything,” said Larry Levitt, executive vice president at the KFF health policy think tank. “No state has put all the pieces together to the full extent available under the ACA.”

But a few stood out for the steps they have taken over the last decade to strive toward universal health care.

Massachusetts (and New Mexico): Streamlined enrollment and state subsidies

Massachusetts has the lowest uninsured rate of any state: Just 2.4 percent of the population lacks coverage. It had a head start: The law provided the model for the ACA itself, with its system of government subsidies for private plans sold on a public marketplace that existed prior to 2010.

But experts say it still deserves credit for the steps it has taken since the Massachusetts model was applied to the rest of the country. Matt Fiedler, a senior fellow with the Brookings Schaeffer Initiative on Health Policy, said two policies stood above any others in expanding coverage: integrating the enrollment process for both Medicaid and ACA marketplace plans and offering state-based assistance on top of the law’s federal subsidies.

Massachusetts was among the first states to do both.

“The former can do a lot to reduce the risk that people lose their coverage when incomes change,” Fiedler told me, “while the latter directly improves affordability and thereby promotes take-up.”

Integrated enrollment means that, for the consumer, they can be directed to either the ACA’s marketplace (where they can use government subsidies to buy private coverage) or to the state Medicaid program through one portal. They enter their information and the state tells them which program they should enroll in. Without that integration, people might have to first apply to Medicaid and then, if they don’t qualify, separately seek out marketplace coverage. The more steps that a person must take to successfully enroll in a health plan, the more likely it is people will fall through the cracks.

The state assistance, meanwhile, both reduces premiums for people and makes it easier for them to afford more generous coverage, with lower out-of-pocket costs when they actually use medical services. Nine states including Massachusetts now have state assistance, with interest picking up in the past few years.

New Mexico, for example, only recently converted to a state-based ACA marketplace and started offering additional aid in 2023. Having already seen some dramatic improvements, it remains to be seen how much more progress the state can make toward universal coverage with that policy in place.

Minnesota and New York: The Basic Health Plan states

The basic structure of the ACA was this: Medicaid expansion for people living in or near poverty and marketplace plans for people with incomes above that. But the law included an option for states to more seamlessly integrate those two populations — and so far, the two states that have taken advantage of it, Minnesota and New York, are also among those states with the lowest uninsured rates. Just 4.3 percent of Minnesotans and 4.9 percent of New Yorkers lack coverage today.

They have both created Basic Health Plans, the product of one of the more obscure provisions of the health care law. This is a state-regulated health insurance plan meant to cover people up to 200 percent of the federal poverty level (about $29,000 for an individual or $50,000 for a family of three). Those are people who may not technically qualify for Medicaid under the ACA but who can still struggle to afford their monthly premiums and out-of-pocket obligations with a marketplace plan.

In both states, the Basic Health Plans offered insurance options with lower premiums and reduced cost-sharing responsibilities than the marketplace coverage that they would otherwise have been left with. In New York, for example, people between 100 percent and 150 percent of the federal poverty level pay no premiums at all, while people between 150 percent and 200 percent pay just $20 per month.

There is good evidence that the approach has increased coverage: In New York, for example, enrollment among people below 200 percent of the poverty level increased by 42 percent when the state adopted its BHP in 2016, compared to what it had been the year before when those people were relegated to conventional marketplace coverage.

State interest in Basic Health Plans has been limited so far, but Minnesota and New York provide a model others could follow. Fiedler said part of the basic plans’ success in those states has been using Medicaid managed-care companies to administer the plan: Those insurers already pay providers lower rates than marketplace plans do and the savings give the states money to reduce premiums and cost-sharing.

Colorado and Washington: Public options and assistance for the undocumented

These states have been inventive in myriad ways. They are both early adopters of a public option, a government health plan that competes with private plans on the marketplace, a policy also being tested in Nevada.

There is another policy that unites them, one that addresses a sizable part of the remaining uninsured nationwide: They both provide some state subsidies to undocumented immigrants.

Most uninsured Americans are already technically eligible for some kind of government assistance, whether Medicaid or marketplace subsidies. But there is a large chunk of people who are not: About 29 percent of the US’s uninsured are ineligible for government aid, among them the people who are in the country undocumented. Those people bear the full cost of their medical bills and may avoid care for that reason (among others, of course).

Starting this year, Washington is allowing undocumented people with incomes that would make them eligible for Medicaid expansion to enroll in that program, and making state subsidies available to people with higher incomes no matter their immigration status. Colorado has set aside a small pool of money annually to provide state aid to about 11,000 undocumented people. (After that threshold is hit, those folks can still enroll in a health plan but they must pay the full price.)

Interest has been robust: Last year, Colorado hit the enrollment limit after about a month. This year, enrollment capped out in just two days, suggesting the state may need to put more money behind the effort.

It is difficult to imagine insurance subsidies for undocumented people nationwide any time soon, given the fraught national politics of immigration. But states are finding ways to make inroads on their own: California has made undocumented people eligible for Medicaid.

Through these and other means, they are helping the US inch toward universal health care.

Health Care Sharing Ministries Leave Consumers with Unpaid Medical Claims

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

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

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

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

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

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

What’s in Colorado’s First Report?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Getting Uniform Data Is Challenging but Essential

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

Looking Ahead

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

Are Employers Ready to Engage the Health Industry Head On?

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

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

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

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

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

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

My take:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ryder Cup Lessons for Team USA Healthcare

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My take:

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

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

Questions like these merit consideration:

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

Might global budgets for states be an answer?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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