Biden, Sanders, Warren clash over Medicare for All in Houston

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/461229-biden-sanders-warren-clash-over-medicare-for-all-in-houston

Image result for Biden, Sanders, Warren clash over Medicare for All in Houston

The battle over health care that has dominated the Democratic race for the White House took center stage in Houston, where for the first time the top three candidates tangled over whether the nation is ready for sweeping reforms.

Former Vice President Joe Biden went back and forth at the opening of Thursday’s debate with the two progressives who are his leading challengers atop the polls, Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).

Arguing that the “Medicare for All” proposal championed by Sanders would cost people their insurance, Biden called out the Vermont senator as a socialist and said his proposals would be too costly.

At one point in the debate, Biden said of Warren and Sanders that “nobody’s yet said how much it’s gonna cost for the taxpayer.”

He also pointed to the taxes that would have to increase for middle class people to pay for Medicare for All.

“There will be deductible in your paycheck,” Biden said, referencing the chunk that taxes would take out of people’s pay.

Sanders said most Americans were getting a raw deal in terms of their present health care costs compared with countries that have systems more similar to his Medicare for All approach.

“Let us be clear, Joe, in the United States of America we are spending twice as much per capita on health care as the Canadians or any other major country on earth,” Sanders said. 

“This is America,” Biden retorted. 

“Yeah, but Americans don’t want to pay twice as much as other countries and they guarantee health care to all people,” Sanders responded. 

Health care is a top issue in the race according to polls, and Democrats believe they can win the White House if the general election against President Trump is focused on the issue.

But it is also the issue that divides the Democratic candidates the most, with Biden and other centrists proposing more modest steps, such as reforms to ObamaCare.

The battle over health care is intertwined with the debate Democrats are having over which of their candidates is best positioned to defeat President Trump, with some in the party worried that Warren and Sanders are too liberal to win a general election. Others say their bold ideas are what is needed for the party to defeat Trump.

Biden argues Medicare for All means scrapping former President Obama’s signature achievement, the Affordable Care Act, instead of building on it.

While Sanders touted that everyone would have coverage under his plan and that it would be more generous, with no premiums or deductibles, Biden countered with the cost of the proposal, which estimates put at around $32 trillion over 10 years.

In the debate’s first hour, Biden was already hitting Sanders and Warren over the cost of the plan.

“The senator says she’s for Bernie,” Biden said of Warren’s support for Sanders’s Medicare for All plan. “Well I’m for Barack.”

Warren, pressed by host George Stephanopolous on whether middle class taxes would rise from Medicare for All, did not directly answer, pivoting to argue that overall costs for the middle class would go down once the abolition of premiums and deductibles is taken into account.

“What families have to deal with is cost, total cost,” Warren said, adding: “The richest individuals and the biggest corporations are going to pay more, and middle class families are going to pay less.”

Other candidates were also in the middle of the Medicare for All exchanges.

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), who drew flak in the early months of the campaign for seeming to change her position on health care several times, touted the plan she eventually developed, to allow some private insurance to remain under Medicare for All by allowing private companies to administer some plans in a tightly regulated way.

“I want to give credit to Bernie. Take credit, Bernie,” Harris said, while adding, “I wanted to make the plan better, which I did.”

At another point in the debate, Biden dismissed the idea that employers would raise workers’ wages if employers no longer had to provide health insurance under a Medicare for All system. 

“My friend from Vermont thinks the employer’s going to give you back what you’ve negotiated as a union all these years … they’re going to give back that money to the employee?” Biden said.

“As a matter of fact they will,” Sanders interjected.

“Let me tell you something, for a Socialist you’ve got a lot more confidence in corporate America than I do,” Biden responded. 

While all of the Democrats advocate large additional government spending to expand health insurance coverage, the debates over whether private insurance should remain as an option has proven to be a particularly fierce source of debate.

Republicans have sensed an opening on that point as well, eagerly bashing Democrats for wanting to take away employer-sponsored coverage that millions of Americans have. Sanders and Warren counter that Medicare for All coverage would be better insurance, with no deductibles at all, so people would not miss it.

“I’ve actually never met anybody who likes their health insurance company,” Warren said, noting people like their doctors, which they would be able to keep. 

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), who has staked out a more moderate ground, tore into Sanders, though, over his plan’s elimination of private insurance.

“While Bernie wrote the bill, I read the bill, and on page eight of the bill it says that we will no longer have private insurance as we know it,” Klobuchar said.

“I don’t think that’s a bold idea, I think it’s a bad idea,” she added. 

Amid the division, Harris tried to strike a unifying note.

“I think this discussion is giving the American people a headache,” she said. “What they want to know is that they’re going to have health care and cost will not be a barrier to getting it.” 

 

Myth Diagnosis: Do hospitals charge more to make up for low government pay?

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/myth-diagnosis-do-hospitals-charge-more-to-make-up-for-low-government-pay/560021/

Image result for hospital prices

It’s a mantra from providers to justify the disparate prices charged patients depending on their level of insurance coverage: It’s all in the name of cost shifting to make up for stingy government reimbursement.

The idea is that hospitals bill commercial payers more to make up for low rates from government payers and the costs from treating the uninsured. Providers and payers both insist the practice occurs, but academics are skeptical — and the notion is notoriously difficult to measure.

No one is doubting that the prices are different depending on who is footing the bill. The issue is whether they are dependent on each other.

“What is crystal clear is that there’s a huge unit cost payment differential between government and commercial payers,” John Pickering of Milliman told Healthcare Dive. “What isn’t clear is whether there’s a causal effect between those two.”

Heath economists, doctors and industry executives have been arguing about whether hospitals perform cost shifting for at least 40 years.

Government efforts to tamp down on runaway payments to providers may have sparked the debate. These include Medicare’s shift from strictly fee-for-service reimbursement to the prospective payment system in the 1980s.

Also, the Affordable Care Act attempted to codify efforts to pay providers based on performance with initiatives like the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program and alternative payment models.

Part of the difficulty is untangling factors like differences in geography, quality and market share, said Michael Darden, an associate professor at Carey Business School.

The body of research on healthcare cost shifting is mixed. There is evidence that some hospitals perform cost shifting, but not strong and clear results showing hospitals make such adjustments consistently or what exactly is causing them.

The debate has received some renewed attention as more states approve Medicaid expansion under the ACA and as employers consider offering high-deductible health plans that patients on the hook for more costs, Rick Gundling, senior vice president for healthcare financial practices with the Healthcare Financial Management Association, told Healthcare Dive.

“As folks get more price-sensitive through higher cost-sharing with patients and employers and these types of things — it’s certainly talked about. As it should be,” he said.

Policy implications

The topic may get even more attention as healthcare has come to dominate the early days of the 2020 presidential election, at least among the 20-plus contenders running in the primary.

While still a long way off, a “Medicare for All”-type system seems closer than any time in recent history.

While not all of the proposals explicitly or fully eliminate the private insurance industry, some (including those put forward by Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.,) do, and others would at least severely curtail it. One key question for those plans is whether government rates would have to increase in order to keep hospitals and providers above water, and if so, by how much.

To counter, President Donald Trump and his administration have stepped up their scrutiny of industry billing practices. These efforts include pushing Congress to ban surprise billing and executive orders to revamp kidney care in the country and advance price transparency.

For their part,  providers say they’ll be forced to raise other rates if government programs pay less. Insurers will say the phenomenon means they must raise premiums to keep up.

In a statement to Healthcare Dive, America’s Health Insurance Plans pointed the finger at rising hospital prices, spurred in part from provider consolidation. The payer lobby argued health plans do their best to keep out-of-pocket costs affordable for customers through payment negotiations and by offering a number of coverage options.

“However, insurance premiums track directly with the underlying cost of medical care. The rising cost of doctor’s visits, hospital stays, and prescription medications all put upward pressure on premiums,” the group said.

Employers care about this issue as well, especially those that self-insure, said Steve Wojcik, vice president of public policy for the National Business Group on Health. Coverage can get expensive for businesses because they don’t get as good of a deal as government payers, he told Healthcare Dive.

Wojcik suggested more radical change away from fee-for-service payment arranges would be a better way of dealing with the issue. It’s an argument for many who push the healthcare sector’s slow march toward paying for quality and not quantity of treatment.

“I think, ultimately, it’s about driving transformation in healthcare delivery so that there’s more of a global payment for managing someone’s health or the health of a population rather than paying piecemeal for different services, which I think is inflationary,” he said.

Regardless, whether hospitals cost shift isn’t as important as whether they go out of business. “We may be missing the point if we focus on cost shifting,” Christopher Ody, a health economist at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management, told Healthcare Dive.

Charging as much as they can?

A paper Darden helped author in the National Bureau of Economic Research found some hospitals that faced payment reductions from value-based Medicare programs did negotiate slightly higher average payments from private payers.

Health economist Austin Frakt noted the ability to negotiate better pricing could be related to quality improvement these hospitals likely undertook, knowing their quality measures would directly affect future payments.

It comes back to determining causality, Frakt, who holds positions with the Department of Veteran’s Affairs, Boston University and Harvard, told Healthcare Dive.

“It’s an important distinction, because the simplest economic model which is consistent with the evidence is that hospitals charge as much as they can to each type of payer,” he said. “So, they can’t really change what they receive from Medicare — those prices are fixed. But they charge private payers whatever the revenue- or profit-maximizing price is.”

Hospitals assert there is causality, but haven’t pointed to evidence that convinced Frakt of their argument. Frakt, for the record, understand why hospitals make the argument to policymakers, however.

“I’m not implying that this, throughout, is just to make a profit,” he said. “I think it’s possible to also have the best interests of patients in mind and to have this argument.”

Grundling said there has to be a breaking point somewhere so long as government rates fail to keep up with medical inflation. Also, hospitals have a federal legal responsibility to stabilize any patient regardless of ability to pay and have other philanthropic investments.

“It just puts a greater pressure on other payers in the system,” he said.

Frakt said the argument providers give for cost shifting doesn’t necessarily make sense for the average consumer. “It’s very strange that people find it intuitive that hospitals can readily cost shift because we don’t talk about any other industry like that,” he said. “Nobody says, well, my theater tickets was so much higher because you paid less.”

The idea that healthcare is vastly different from other industries is enduring, however, he said. “People don’t even want to think of healthcare as having prices,” he said. “How do you put a price on that?”

 

Aligning executive comp with long-term strategy

https://mailchi.mp/3675b0fcd5fd/the-weekly-gist-july-12-2019?e=d1e747d2d8

Image result for long term decision making

I recently had a conversation with the CEO of a regional health system we’ve worked with for many years. It’s a system at the forefront of the shift to risk-based contracting—rather than the 3-5 percent of revenue at risk common across the industry, his system already has a third of its revenue fully at risk. (That’s not counting performance bonuses and other “value-based” reimbursement—it’s true, delegated risk for total cost of care.)

The system managed to get to this point without owning its own insurance plan, but now the CEO is considering whether that’s the right next step, which was the topic of our discussion. We talked through the pros and cons of launching a provider-sponsored plan, which has proven to be a difficult step for many other health systems.

When I asked the CEO how his team was able to move so much faster to risk than other systems, he told me an important component of their approach was the incentive structure put in place for executives and facility leaders. Rather than continuing to pay bonuses based on hospital or system profitability, the board agreed to encourage executives to take a longer-term, strategic view by paying straight salary.

Eliminating P&L-based bonuses allowed leaders to focus on making the right decisions to transform the business, without being overly concerned about the short-term impact on profitability. It’s an idea worth considering for other systems committed to leaving fee-for-service behind. The critical ingredient, of course, is ensuring the board is fully bought into the strategy and has a high degree of trust in system executives to make the best long-term decisions on behalf of the organization.

 

Accountable Care Organizations: The case for “embracing” down-side risk

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/accountable-care-organizations-case-embracing-risk-thomas-campanella/

The picture above is not exactly on point, but who can resist a little boy “embracing” a bear.

Per the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) are groups of doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers, who come together voluntarily to give coordinated high quality care to the Medicare patients they serve (and hopefully saves money in the process).

ACOs are a product of the Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA). The theory behind ACOs was based on the recognition that we have a fragmented healthcare system that contributes to poor quality and higher healthcare costs.

Hospital-based health systems aggressively jumped on the ACO bandwagon starting with the passage of the ACA and, in the process, established relationships with physicians, ancillary providers, long-term care organizations, etc. Many times these Health Systems acquired (especially physicians) rather than established collaborative agreements with these community providers.

As a result of these acquisitions and collaborations, the hospital-based ACO and, in turn, the parent health systems became an even greater force in their communities. They were also in a better position to negotiate with payers because of the increased leverage they had as a result of their enhanced local provider presence. 

This also had a negative impact on health systems, since it did increase their fixed costs and made them less flexible to respond to competitors of different forms, especially in the outpatient and home setting.

Have ACOs lived up to their promise?

There have been many articles and research studies on the value of ACOs to determine if they have lived up to their promise of increased quality and cost-efficiencies. The consensus of research seems to be that ACOs have had a positive impact on quality, especially with regard to continuity of care for individuals with chronic diseases.

The jury is still out on the cost savings side, especially for hospital-based ACOs. 

Recently CMS has required that hospital-based ACOs to take on both up-side and downside risk.

Historically, ACOs have had the ability to take on only upside risk (or rewards), but at a lower percentage of potential gain vs. what they would have received if they were also willing to take on downside risk.

As I have noted in prior blogs, I am believer in risk/value-based contracting with downside financial exposure for hospital systems. I support this approach, not in a vindictive way, but because I want hospitals to survive and prosper in this new world of healthcare.

I also believe that if we are to successfully evolve from a “sick-care” system to a true “health” system, hospitals need to enter into the appropriate payer contracts that reward them for keeping patients healthy, not just for providing additional services.

Breaking down the silos inside and outside the walls of the hospital

I have worked in the healthcare industry in a variety of sectors since the early 1980s and during that period of time, I constantly heard the refrain about the need to break down the silos of healthcare both inside and outside the walls of the hospital.

The fee-for-service payment methodologies that exist today “the more you do the more you make” creates no “real” incentives to break down these silos. ACOs that have downside risk exposure along with payment methodologies such at capitation and bundled payments have the real ability to break down these silos.

As long as the majority of payments from payers is based on the fee-for-service payment methodologies, hospitals will have no “real” incentives to break down the silos that prevent value-based care from being provided. It also does not provide any “real” incentives to keep people healthy.

Per the dictionary, “Accountability refers to an obligation or willingness to accept responsibility for one’s actions. … When roles are clear and people are held accountable, work is accomplished efficiently and effectively. Furthermore, constructive change and learning is possible when accountability is the norm.”

While this definition was not met for ACOs, it really does apply and was ultimately the goal of the original drafters of the ACO concept. ACOs must be held accountable, and only through downside risk along with appropriate rewards will that occur.

If we want to achieve our goals of a value-base healthcare system as well as an overall healthier society, we need to create the proper incentives in our payment methodologies. As I have stated repeatedly in past healthcare blogs, “a healthcare system is shaped by what you pay for and how you pay for it.” The “how you pay for it” gets to the heart of the “risk” linkage with regard to hospital-based ACOs.

All of this is not to say that physician-led ACOs should not have risk but, given their size, these independent practices are much more financially vulnerable. Payment models for physician-led ACOs need to recognize the current value they are bringing to the ACO world, and consider ways to gradually add a risk component.

Hospital-based ACOs are looking to exit (or walk away from) Medicare Shared Savings Programs if required to take on downside risk

Per a recent article (April 26, 2019), “Just over half of accountable care organizations (ACOs) said they would consider leaving (or walking away from) the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) if required to take on more downside risk, revealed a study published in Health Affairs.

Thirty-two percent of ACOs said they are extremely or very likely to leave, and 19 percent believe they are moderately likely to leave.

The results also showed that there were significant differences in responses from physician-based ACOs and hospital-based ACOs.

“Approximately two-thirds of physician-based ACO respondents reported that they were likely to remain in the program if required to accept downside risk, compared with only about one-third of hospital-based ACOs,” the team said.

“This reflects the fact that physician-based ACOs have performed better, and a higher proportion of these ACOs have earned shared savings, than hospital-based ACOs. Physician-based ACOs have generated substantial savings by reducing spending for both inpatient and outpatient hospital services, which has not been true for hospital-based ACOs.”

Hospital based ACOs and well as hospital systems in general are doing themselves “no favors” by not accepting risk. 

By entering into “risk-based” contracts, hospital systems will create the appropriate incentives to address their supply-chain costs. Hospitals would also find it easier to engage physicians in addressing the cost side of the equation if physicians also understood and embraced the risk-based payment methodologies.

Under risk arrangements, hospitals would also have even more motivation to develop strategic relations with their vendors (medical device, etc.), such as what the auto industry does with their suppliers.

These risk arrangements will also allow hospital systems to be better prepared for the new world of healthcare. In this new world there will be winners and losers and different types of competitors, especially in the outpatient and home setting.

As we have also noted in prior blogs, hospital inpatient admissions are decreasing and patients have a higher acuity. Hospital inpatient care has been evolving to some form of a center of excellence. As hospitals look to find ways to expand their revenue opportunities they should be looking to bundle services for prospective patients and employers. These bundled services would and should have a risk-component tied to them.

Accepting risk-based contractual arrangements with payers is also better than competing in the retail marketplace where hospitals are much more vulnerable to lower priced regional and national competitors, especially as the result of the increased push for transparency.

Payers: Medicaid Managed Care, Medicare Advantage, Commercial Carriers, Self-insured employers should be pushing risk contracts. 

As noted in this article in Health Affairs, there are two ways employers should push ACO arrangements to evolve:

Financial Risk

“As experts jest, if ACO providers don’t take on the financial risk of caring for their population of patients (for example, only shared savings), it is like “vegan barbeque…or gin and tonic without the gin.” Payers’ ability to change provider behavior is likely to be negligible if they only reward providers with small bonuses for effective care a year after the fact. Greater financial accountability would encourage providers to promote preventive care and look for ways to cut waste.

In fact, without downside risk, health systems may take advantage of the ACO model. Experts argue that health systems may take on the practice of “ACO squatting” (that is, they form ACOs, take on patients, but avoid looking for ways to cut waste, reduce total cost of care, and improve quality) and that “a migration to two-sided risk for ACOs…after a certain number of years, so that there is a cost [downside financial risk]…would help to address this issue.”

Alignment of Patient Incentives

“Providers would be loath to assume financial risk for a patient population without the ability to manage their care. Commercial payers can modify patients’ out-of-pocket spending to encourage them to seek care only within the ACO. For example, by treating the ACO as a narrow network, the payer could pair it with a benefit design that offers lower premiums and minimal out-of-pocket spending for care from an ACO provider but little to no coverage for care sought outside of the ACO.

If the vast majority of patient visits occur within the ACO, it might be more likely to stay within budget because those providers can coordinate care and reduce redundancies. In addition, the ACO leadership can communicate with ACO providers about the cost and quality implications of their care decisions.”

If Medicare Advantage and Medicaid Managed Care Plans are not pushing for risk arrangements with Hospital-based ACOs or health systems, and these Plans continue to rely on some form of fee-for-service, then the true payers, Medicare and the individual states, should be reevaluating their own payment formulas with these entities. The payment formulas maybe too rich and do not provide enough incentives for these Plans to enter into risk arrangements with the above providers.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS:

If you have been a reader of my blogs, you know I like sprinkling in health economic concepts into them. It is natural for individuals and other entities to make decisions based on their own self-interest.By not embracing risk in a manageable, but continuous fashion, hospital-based ACOs as well as hospital systems are sacrificing their long-term self-interest for immediate gain.

Active purchasers of healthcare services will continue to demand value in the marketplace, and for hospital-based ACOs and hospital system to meet this demand they need to break down the silos which can only be done effectively by embracing risk-based contracting tied to appropriate rewards.

Finally, we, as a society, are recognizing the need to focus our attention on population health, not only because it is the right thing to do, but because it also represents the best uses of our resources. We will not be able to achieve our goal of population health unless hospitals fully embrace it. One true way to expedite the transition to population health is for hospitals and ACOs payment methodologies to incorporate in their reimbursement contracts the appropriate risk/rewards that incent them to keep people healthy both inside and outside the walls of the hospital.

 

 

 

Medical costs projected to increase 6% by 2020, says PwC

https://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/medical-costs-projected-increase-6-percent-2020-says-pwc?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWldZeVlXTm1aVEF6TVdKbSIsInQiOiJjbWFzeVA2TGlWZkNkXC9odGxcLzdLczFZSDYxd1hoYW04b0wxY0ljQ25zblpYN1VWc2FMWFFCQWpmc2tCYmE4d1Z3eVdMd2htY3JiSjZ3N2Urek43SHFJbWFsckdRbUNycFJoQjhzZm5VcGpJUUhKUDlBMWF2eGJzRUhmZGFlUUx0In0%3D

Utilization is still being dampened by high deductibles and other cost sharing, but at the expense of employee satisfaction.

Medical costs are rising, and by this time next year costs will likely show a modest increase of about 6% over the past two years, according to a new report from PwC, PricewaterhouseCoopers.

After figuring in health plan changes such as increased employee cost sharing and network and benefit changes, PwC’s Health Research Institute, which conducted the study, projects a net growth rate of 5 percent. Even with employers’ actions, market forces likely will still overrun the efforts to quell them.

Prices, not utilization, are continuing to fuel healthcare spending. Utilization is still being dampened by high deductibles and other cost sharing, but at the expense of employee satisfaction with their health plan. In response, employers are inserting themselves more forcefully into the healthcare delivery equation.

WHAT’S THE IMPACT

Beyond market forces, HRI identified three “inflators” that will, influence the medical cost trend.

One is that drug spending will grow faster. Between 2020 and 2027, retail drug spending under private health insurance is projected to increase at a rate of 3 percent to 6 percent a year as the impact of generics on spending plateaus, biosimilars continue to see slow uptake, and costly new therapies enter the market.

Chronic diseases will also be a major issue. Obesity and Type 2 diabetes continue to produce high rates of hypertension and cardiovascular disease. Sixty percent of adults have a chronic disease, with 40 percent managing two or more. For employers, per capita health spending on someone with a complex chronic illness is eight times that of a healthy person.

Lastly, employers are beginning to recognize the importance of helping their employees manage their mental health and wellbeing. Nearly 75 percent of employers offer mental health disease management programs, the report found. Anytime access is expanded, costs will go up in the short term, though it may have the opposite effect long-term.

And speaking of the opposite effect, there are a few “deflators” HRI recognized that will likely slow down the medical cost trend.

HRI predicts that in 2020, more companies will take action to make sure healthcare is accessible to their employees, opening and expanding clinics as a strategy to control the cost trend. Thirty-eight percent of large employers offered a worksite clinic in 2019, up from 27 percent in 2014.

Also, payers are designing plans to encourage members to choose free-standing facilities and in-home care rather than more expensive sites. How those benefits are designed, and how employees perceive the costs, will shape the effectiveness of site of care strategies. Payers and employers are aiming to grow the role of telemedicine as employees grow more comfortable with it, especially if out-of-pocket costs are lower and the quality doesn’t suffer.

WHAT ELSE YOU SHOULD KNOW

The trend has implications for employers, payers, providers and even pharmaceutical and life science companies.

For payers, it becomes important to  benchmark the prices paid commercially against a common reference point such as Medicare. With this information it’s possible to pursue value-based arrangements with high-performing and lower-cost providers, in addition to negotiating better contracted rates on existing fee-for-service arrangements.

For providers, a value line strategy is necessary as employers and consumers look for high quality care for a low cost. Providers armed with a value line strategy are more likely to be included in health plans’ high-performance networks, and are better positioned to directly contract with employers.

Providers should also understand what risk they can take on to guarantee a health outcome, and the cost structure needed to make them profitable in doing so. Providers should understand and manage both the risk inherent in their ability to deliver care and the risk of the population they’re managing — from health status to the social determinants impacting their health — to help them design appropriate clinical interventions and non-clinical support services.

For employers, it becomes imperative to understand their role as the purchaser of healthcare for employees and join the ranks of employer activists, pursuing new solutions to lower costs, improve access and enhance quality. Pharmaceutical and life science companies, meanwhile, should go beyond the basic outcomes-based arrangements currently in place and consider exploring and expanding alternative financing arrangements, such as subscription models for unlimited access to a product for a set period of time, or a mortgage model to finance expensive specialty drugs over time.

THE LARGER TREND

The PwC study loosely mirrors the findings of an October report from the Altarum Center for Value in Health Care, which found prices and spending in healthcare growing steadily, but at a moderate pace.

The country’s healthcare spending habits are at a level nearly double that of similar countries. Spending per capita in the U.S. is more than $9,000, compared to just over $5,000 in other Western nations, and because prices are growing slowly but steadily, spending is doing the same.