Published this week in the New York Times, this article describes the decaying state of Greenwood Leflore Hospital, a 117 year-old facility in the Mississippi Delta that may be within months of closure. While rural hospitals across the country are struggling, Mississippi’s firm opposition to Medicaid expansion has exacerbated the problem in that state, by depriving providers of an additional $1.4B per year in federal funds. Instead, only a few of the state’s 100-plus hospitals actually turn an annual profit, and uncompensated care costs are almost 10 percent of the average hospital’s operating costs.
Despite a dozen or more hospitals at imminent risk of closure, Mississippi officials would rather use the state’s $3.9B budget surplus to lower or eliminate the state income tax.
The Gist:Expanding Medicaid doesn’t just reduce rates of uncompensated care provided by hospitals, it changes the volume and type of care they provide.
Further, Medicaid expansion has been found to result in significant reductions in all-cause mortality.
Ensuring that low-income residents in Mississippi and other non-expansion states have access to Medicaid would allow providers to administer more preventive care and manage chronic diseases more effectively, before costly exacerbations require hospitalization.
On Wednesday, UnitedHealth Group (UHG) announced that it will reduce its prior authorization claims volume by 20 percent for its commercial, Medicare Advantage, and Medicaid businesses later this year. Next year, it will launch a “gold card” program for qualifying providers that will further streamline care approvals. Cigna also shared that it has removed nearly 500 services from prior authorization review since 2020, relying on an electronic process for faster response times. These changes come in the wake of a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) proposed rule, set to be finalized in April, that aims to streamline prior authorization by requiring certain payers to establish a method for electronic transmission, shorten response time for physician requests, and provide a reason for denials.
The Gist: These changes address two of providers’ primary complaints around prior authorizations: there are too many of them, and payers take too long to process them. However, technology options aiming to solve this problem through automation are by no means a foolproof solution.
As ProPublica recently reported, algorithm-based electronic claims processing solutions that improve response times can create other challenges, including improper automatic denials, and can expand prior authorization to lower-cost services, for which it was previously determined to be inefficient to rely on human review. Quicker responses must still be accurate and fair, necessitating that insurance companies closely monitor, audit, and hone technology solutions.
US District Judge Reed O’Connor ruled on Thursday that the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA’s) requirement for most insurers to cover certain preventative care services without cost-sharing is unlawful. Judge O’Connor—who invalidated the entire ACA in 2018, before the Supreme Court reversed that ruling—had already sided with the plaintiffs in Braidwood vs. Becerra last September, on the grounds that mandatory coverage of HIV prevention treatment, also known as PrEP therapy, violated their religious beliefs. His latest ruling applies to the ACA-mandated preventive services that are compelled by the US Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF), on the grounds of the task force’s makeup and the fact that some of its recommendations predate the ACA. Services covered for no cost today include screening tests for a variety of cancers, sexually transmitted infections, and diabetes. The ruling does not impact other ACA preventative care services, like contraceptive services and children’s immunizations, as they are based on the recommendations of other government advisory groups. The immediate impact of this week’s ruling is unclear, as the Biden administration has already filed an appeal and may seek to stay the ruling, while most insurance contracts are set on an annual basis.
The Gist: Given the reasoning laid out in Judge O’Connor’s Braidwood v. Becerra ruling last fall, this decision was expected. As with previous attempts to repeal the ACA that have come through his district, the ultimate fate of the ACA’s cost-free preventative care services will likely be decided by the US Supreme Court. It’s possible that the Court may find the narrow targeting of this case more reasonable, making no-cost preventive care coverage optional for employers.
If that happens, millions of Americans could again have to pay for some of the most common and highest-value healthcare services. That additional financial burden, along with tightening of health plan benefit designs, could create barriers to access and exacerbate health disparities.
Hard-pressed to come up with significant savings to reduce the deficit, some Senate Republicans are taking a closer look at reforms to Medicare Advantage in light of reports that insurance companies are collecting billions of dollars in extra profits by over-diagnosing older patients.
But the idea of cracking down on Medicare Advantage overpayments to insurance companies divides Republicans, who have traditionally championed the program.
Proponents of Medicare Advantage reform anticipated it will face strong opposition from the insurance industry, one of the most powerful special interest groups in Washington.
Sen. Bill Cassidy (La.), the top-ranking Republican on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, is leading the push to reduce Medicare overpayments.
“Medicare is going insolvent. If we don’t do anything, it’s going to go insolvent. We have a whole package of things, all of them bipartisan, and we’re doing it essentially to have something out there so that if somebody decides to do something, there will be things that are examined, considered and bipartisan” to vote on, he said.
“I come up with lots of stuff. We thought it through policy and think it’s policy that can make it all the way through,” he said.
Cassidy’s office says his bill could extend the solvency of Medicare by saving as much as $80 billion in federal funds over the next decade without cutting benefits.
He emphasizes that it would not cut Medicare Advantage benefits, but critics of the legislation are sure to challenge that claim.
“We’re not undermining Medicare Advantage,” he said.
“In fact, I would say this is a better alternative than what CMS is doing by rule,” he added, referring to a new rule-making action by the Biden administration to recover overpayments in Medicare Advantage through the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
The Medicare Payment Advisory Panel estimates that Medicare Advantage plans collected $124 billion in overpayments from 2008 to 2023. They collected an estimated $44 billion overpayments in 2022 and 2023 alone, according to MedPAC.
Unlike traditional fee-for-service Medicare, Medicare Advantage plans are offered by private companies. Both are funded by taxpayers through general revenues, payroll taxes and beneficiaries’ premiums.
Cassidy is also leading a bipartisan working group to reform Social Security to extend its solvency. Members include Sens. Angus King (I-Maine) and Mitt Romney (R-Utah).
“To have a significant impact on fiscal policy, you’d have to look at entitlements,” said Romney, who called Medicare Advantage “an area we’re going to be looking at very shortly — the committee will be looking at Medicare Advantage,
the cost of Medicare Advantage …. It’s become more expensive than the old fee-for-service Medicare.”
In a follow-up interview Thursday, Romney said senators are also looking at reforms to Pharmacy Benefit Managers, the companies that serve as middle-men between drug manufacturers, insurance companies and pharmacies.
Romney said, “in the past, Medicare Advantage has been a lower-cost way of providing Medicare than fee-for-service Medicare.”
“If that’s changing, I’d like to understand why and make sure we don’t create impediments to the lower-cost Medicare Advantage,” he said.
Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.) said Medicare Advantage overpayment “definitely” is a “reform issue.”
“I’ve been the loudest voice on reforming health care and that’s a commonsense idea,” he said. “Whatever it takes to bring down health care costs.
“I’m one of the most free-market people here, but the health care industry is not a free market. It’s like an unregulated utility,” he said. “There’s so much opaqueness.”
But some Republicans are already trying to paint efforts to reduce overpayments as cuts to Medicare Advantage.
“The problem with Medicare Advantage is President Biden is cutting $540 per member per year. That’s the problem. Medicare Advantage has been very successful,” said Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), an OB/GYN who practiced medicine for more than 25 years.
National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman Steve Daines (R-Mont.) accused Biden of “proposing Medicare Advantage cuts” when the president accused some Republicans of wanting to sunset Medicare at his Feb. 7 State of the Union address.
Medicare Advantage is getting more popular among Democrats as well as the number of blue state enrollees in the program soars. The number of Americans enrolled in Medicare Advantage has nearly doubled over the last 12 years, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Cassidy’s proposal, which he introduced with progressive Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) on Monday, could draw broader interest from Republicans.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), an adviser to the Senate GOP leadership, called Medicare Advantage a “success.”
“That doesn’t mean that it should be immune from oversight, so I’ll be interested to see what they have to say,” he said.
Cassidy and Merkley say that Medicare Advantage plans have a financial incentive to make beneficiaries appear sicker than they are because they are paid a standard rate based on the health of individual patients. Their bill, the No Unreasonable Payment, Coding or Diagnoses for Elderly (No Upcode Act) would require risk models based on more extensive diagnostic data over a period of two years.
The goal is to narrow the disparity in how patients are assessed by traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage.
Studies and audits conducted by CMS and the Department of Health and Human Services’ inspector general found that insurance companies collected billion of dollars in overpayments because of diagnoses that were not later supported by enrollees’ medical records.
The Kaiser Family Foundation reported in August that more than 28 million people — or about 48 percent of the eligible Medicare population — were enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans in 2022. They accounted for $427 billion or 55 percent of total federal Medicare spending.
Researchers estimate 15 million people will lose their Medicaid starting April 1 when states begin removing people from the low-income health insurance program for the first time in three years.
In March 2020, Congress banned states from removing people from Medicaid during the pandemic in exchange for more federal funding for state Medicaid programs. Medicaid enrollment is usually tied to people’s incomes, and individuals normally have to regularly prove they still qualify in what’s known as a redetermination. (In the 39 states and Washington, D.C., that have expanded Medicaid, a family of four has to make less than $40,000 to qualify. In non-expansion states, the cutoff is even lower.)
With redeterminations paused, Medicaid enrollment nationwide has grown from 71 million in February 2020 to an estimated 95 million in March 2023.Research shows Medicaid coverage is associated with better access to care, more financial security, better health and lower mortality. During the pandemic, beneficiaries have been able to enjoy these benefits without worrying about confirming their eligibility.
In December, Congress voted to let states restart the process of clearing their rolls on April 1, what’s sometimes referred to as “unwinding.”Lawmakers are giving states 14 months to redetermine millions of people’s eligibility — an unprecedented task made even more difficult by serious staffing and experience shortages in many Medicaid offices.
“It’s going to be a big lift,” said Sayeh Nikpay, a health policy researcher at the University of Minnesota and Tradeoffs Senior Research Advisor. “States have never had to do this many redeterminations this quickly before, and there’s a lot of uncertainty about what will happen.”
We asked Nikpay to pick out a few relevant studies to help us understand what is happening and how states and employers could keep more people insured. Here are three she identified as particularly helpful.
Two types of people will lose coverage
The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, which provides research for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, released a report in August 2022 that estimated 15 million people will lose Medicaid coverage as a result of the unwinding. (The estimate is similar to another analysis by the independent Urban Institute.)
ASPE breaks those 15 million people into two groups. In the first group are people who make too much money to qualify for Medicaid. ASPE estimates there are about 8 million people in that category, and they should be able to get insurance through work or the Obamacare exchanges.
In the second group are roughly 7 million people ASPE estimates are still eligible but will lose coverage because of what’s called “administrative churn.”This can happen if the Medicaid office can’t get in touch with someone to confirm their eligibility because they’ve moved or changed their phone number or if they’re unable to make an in-person appointment because of work or child care responsibilities. (The Urban Institute projects about 4 million people will be in this group.)
These two groups represent a key tension to the unwinding process: States want to shed people who make too much money, but officials also know eligible people often lose coverage during redeterminations, and that danger is heightened given the scale and speed of this process.
Making the switch from Medicaid to private insurance
This next paper looks at the first group: the roughly 8 million people expected to move from Medicaid to private coverage, and specifically the roughly 4 million who are expected to get coverage through the Obamacare exchanges. Adrianna McIntyre, an assistant professor of health policy at Harvard, wrote in JAMA Health Forum in October 2022 about the most effective ways to move people from Medicaid onto private Obamacare plans.
There’s limited data on this, but based on the few studies available, McIntyre found that only 3 to 5 percent of people who leave Medicaid end up getting an Obamacare plan. Many policymakers are relying on the Obamacare exchanges to provide a life preserver to millions of people losing Medicaid coverage, but the research cited by McIntyre shows getting people into these plans is not guaranteed and will take focused effort by states.
McIntyre’s review cites several randomized controlled trials where states tested different ways of increasing enrollment in Obamacare plans. These studies found simple reminders from the state – like physical letters, emails and phone calls help – boost sign-ups anywhere from 7 to 16 percent.
But what really seems to make a difference is reminders plus connecting people to someone who can get them signed up while they are on the phone. In one of those trials published in 2022, people in California who got a reminder email and a call connecting them to enrollment assistance were almost 50% more likely to sign up for a plan. Such extra effort is obviously costly, and it may not be a priority or financially feasible for some states.
McIntyre’s review did not include any research on what employers can do to help their workers transition from Medicaid to work-based coverage, but based on the studies McIntyre cited, Nikpay said she thinks it’s a good idea for employers to make sure people know Medicaid could be going away and provide as much help as possible in getting new coverage.
Making it easier to stay on Medicaid can have other benefits
The final study looks at the second group of people expected to lose Medicaid coverage: the 7 million people who may lose coverage due to administrative churn even though they are still eligible.
Some states have tried to limit that churn, and researchers at the RAND Corporation evaluated New York’s effort. Starting in 2014, New York allowed people to stay on Medicaid without any redeterminations for 12 months once enrolled.
In addition to keeping more people on Medicaid for longer, researchers found that after this policy was in place, hospital admissions and monthly costs per beneficiary went down. The researchers can’t say whether the continuous enrollment policy directly caused these improved outcomes, but the findings suggest that avoiding administrative churn can help people stay covered without ballooning costs.
“It seems reasonable to me,” Nikpay said of the findings, “that making it easier to stay on Medicaid, even outside of a global pandemic, could benefit people’s health given what we know about how Medicaid affects people.”
The AHA has previously noted the third party observers who demonstrate a tenuous grasp of the data and rules regarding federal hospital transparency requirements. Now, some of those same entities with deep pockets and an apparent vendetta against hospitals and health systems have turned their attention toward the broader financial challenges facing the field. The results, as described in a recent Health Affairs blog, are as expected — a complete misunderstanding of current economic realities.
The three most egregious suggestions in this piece are that hospitals are seeking some kind of bailout from the federal government, employers and patients; that investment losses are the most problematic aspect of hospital financing; and that hospitals’ analyses of their financial situation are dishonest.
We debunk these in turn.
Hospitals are seeking fair compensation, not a government bailout. The authors state that hospitals are asking “constituents to foot the bill for hospitals’ investment losses.” This is patently false. Indeed, if you read the request we made to Congress cited in their blog, hospitals and health systems are simply asking to get paid for the care they deliver or to lower unnecessary administrative costs. This includes asking Medicare to pay for the days hospitals care for patients who are otherwise ready for discharge. Increasingly, this has occurred because there is no space in the next site of care or the patient’s insurer has delayed the authorization for that care. Keeping someone in a hospital bed for days, if not weeks, requires skilled labor, supplies and basic infrastructure costs. This doesn’t even account for the impact on a patient’s health for not being in the most appropriate care setting. Today, hospitals are not paid for these days. Asking for fair compensation is not a bailout; it is a basic responsibility of any purchaser.
While investment income may be down, hospitals and health systems have faced massive expense increases in the last year. The authors note that patient care revenue was up “by just below 1 percent in relative terms from 2021 to 2022,” suggesting that implies a positive financial trend. However, hospital total expenses were up 7% in 2022 over 2021, and were up by even more, 20%, when compared to pre-pandemic levels, according to Kaufman Hall. And it’s not just the AHA and Kaufman Hall saying this either: in its 2023 outlook, credit rating agency Moody’s noted that “margins will remain constrained by high expenses.” Hospitals should not need to rely on investment income for operations. However, many have been forced into this situation by substantial underpayments from their largest payers (Medicare and Medicaid), which even the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), an independent advisor to Congress, has acknowledged. MedPAC’s most recent report showed a negative 8.3% Medicare operating margin. Hospitals and health systems are experiencing run-away increases in the supplies, labor and technology needed to care for patients. At the same time, commercial insurance companies are increasing their use of policies that can cause dangerous delays in care for patients, result in undue burden on health care providers and add billions of dollars in unnecessary costs to the health care system.
Hospitals and health systems are committed to an honest examination of the facts. The authors imply that the studies documenting hospitals’ financial distress are biased. They note that certain studies conducted by Kaufman Hall are based on proprietary data and therefore “challenging to draw general inferences.” They then go on to cherry-pick metrics from specific non-profit health care systems voluntarily released financial disclosures to make general claims about “the primary driver of hospitals’ financial strain.” The authors and their financial backers clearly seem to have a preconceived narrative, and ignore all the other realities that hospital and health system leaders are confronting every day to ensure access to care and programs for the patients and communities they serve.
It is imperative to acknowledge financial challenges facing hospitals and health systems today. Too much is at stake for the patients and communities that depend upon hospitals and health systems to be there, ready to care.
A recent Urban Institute report highlights the issue of medical debt but fails to examine two of the chief driving forces of this debt: inadequate enrollment in comprehensive health care coverage and high-deductible health plans that intentionally push more costs onto patients. It also fails to appreciate the looming crisis when the public health emergency ends and Medicaid enrollment could plummet.
As the extent of medical debt shows, both the government and the private market is failing too many patients, leaving too many either uninsured or with subpar plans that expose too many people to bills they cannot afford to pay. While hospital financial assistance is crucial to helping many individuals of limited means access care, it is no substitute for a solution that gets to the root causes of medical debt.
Affordable, comprehensive health care coverage is the most important protection against medical debt. While the U.S. health care system has achieved record rates of coverage, significant gaps remain and new threats are on the horizon. One of the gaps is the failure by some states to expand Medicaid, while the most imminent threat is the potential loss of Medicaid coverage for millions of people as the public health emergency ends. We must ensure that every individual has access to some form of comprehensive coverage.
In doing so, we must put an end to deceptively inadequate health plans. These include short-term limited duration health plans and health sharing ministries that often appeal to consumers because they are cheaper and often marketed to appear comprehensive. The reason they are cheaper is because when you read the fine print you discover they cover fewer benefits and include few-to-no consumer protections, like required coverage of pre-existing conditions and limits on out-of-pocket costs. Subscribers for these types of plans often find themselves responsible for their entire medical bill without any help from their health plan and can accumulate significant medical debt.
Many of the same concerns apply to high-deductible health plans. These plans are specifically designed to increase patients’ financial exposure through high cost-sharing – the amount the subscriber must pay out-of-pocket. Yet, many individuals enrolled in these plans find they can’t manage the gap between what their insurance pays and what they themselves owe as a result. It’s not a mystery why high-deductible health plans contribute to medical debt.
Hospitals and other providers do not determine how much insured patients owe for their care. Instead, that amount is set by the health plan. While every hospital has a financial assistance policy to help those most in need, they can only help so much and so many. And no matter how generous, hospital financial assistance will never be a substitute for a health plan that covers preventive and necessary care at an affordable price on the front and back end of coverage.
We must tackle the problem of medical debt, and we must do so at the root: ensuring all individuals are enrolled in comprehensive health care coverage and ending deceptive marketing of health plans and unaffordable cost-sharing.
Potential solutions include:
Restricting the sale of high-deductible health plans to only those individuals with the demonstrated means to afford the associated cost-sharing.
Prohibiting the sale of health sharing ministry products and short-term limited duration plans that go longer than 90 days.
Lowering the maximum out-of-pocket cost-sharing limits.
Eliminating the use of deductibles and co-insurance and rely solely on flat co-payments, which are easier for patients to anticipate.
Removing providers from the collection of cost-sharing altogether and require that health plans collect directly from their enrollees the cost-sharing payments they impose. This approach would eliminate the vast majority of patient bills from providers altogether.
Moreover, the AHA has been actively engaged in identifying and promoting best practices in patient billing for decades. The AHA updated our voluntary patient billing guidance in 2020. The guidelines include assisting patients who cannot pay for the care they receive and protecting patients from certain debt collection practices, such as garnishment of wages, liens, interest on debt, adverse credit reporting and lawsuits. Most hospitals provide free care for patients with the most limited means as defined by income below 200% of the federal poverty limit. In the event of an unpaid bill, the Internal Revenue Service has prescribed an extensive series of steps and wait times that most hospitals must adhere to before taking any collection actions, which is a last resort.
Hospitals’ doors are always open to anyone who needs care, regardless of ability to pay. In total, hospitals and health systems of all types provided in 2020 more than $42 billion in uncompensated care, or care for which they received no payment.
Hospitals and health systems will continue to work to advance solutions that make care more affordable and accessible for all patients. But health plans must do their part by providing adequate coverage that does not subject patients to unaffordable bills and medical debt.
HENRY KOTULA 