The plight of America’s rural health care

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, ACA, Bankruptcy, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, High Deductible Health Plans, High Drug Prices, High Premiums, High Prices, Out of Pocket Expenses, Patient Safety, Rural Health, Rural Hospital, Safety Net Hospitals, Safety-Net Providers, Underinsured, Uninsured • Leave a comment

https://www.axios.com/the-plight-of-americas-rural-health-care-a34b6c66-7674-4f78-abdc-33f8e711a601.html

Illustration of a tractor plowing a field in the shape of a heart monitor that is petering out

Rural America is stuck in a cycle of increasingly vulnerable patients with declining access to health care.

Why it matters: Rural patients often can’t afford care, are being hounded by hospitals and collection agencies over their unpaid bills, and are facing the reality of life in communities where the last hospital has closed.

Rural Americans tend to be older, sicker and lower-income than urban Americans. They suffer from higher rates of obesity, mental health issues, diabetes, cancer and opioid addiction, as my colleagues Stef Kight and Juliet Bartz reported.

  • They’re also more likely to be uninsured or covered by Medicare or Medicaid, which pay doctors and hospitals less than private insurance does.
  • A small and shrinking population, mostly covered by insurance plans that don’t pay very much, many of whom need a lot of care, puts more financial pressure on providers, especially hospitals. Physician shortages are common.

What they’re saying: “Rural hospitals have long been right there on the edge on average, and we’re seeing more and more of them flip over to red,” said Mark Holmes, a professor at UNC-Chapel Hill and director of the Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research.

And hospital closures often exacerbate the problems communities were already facing.

  • Hospitals are often the largest or second-largest employer in a rural community.
  • 113 rural hospitals have closed since 2010, according to the Sheps Center.
  • These are disproportionately located in the South — the region with the nation’s worst health outcomes, and where most states haven’t expanded Medicaid — leaving hospitals with more uninsured patients.
  • A 2018 study in Health Affairs found that Medicaid expansion is “associated with improved hospital financial performance and substantially lower likelihoods of closure, especially in rural markets.”

The bottom line: “What we have here is not one root cause; there’s multiple things going on here,” Holmes said. “All these sort of modest kind of trends are adding up to something that’s quite considerable.”

Go deeper:

  • Bloomberg Businessweek reported on eastern Montana’s sole psychiatrist, despite being the state with the nation’s highest suicide rate.
  • The Washington Post detailed a hospital in Missouri’s practice of suing its patients for payment — money that the hospital needed but patients generally don’t have.
  • Kaiser Health News and NPR have profiled the fallout in a rural community in Kansas after its sole remaining hospital closed, which included a 2-week lapse in nearby emergency care.

 

 

 

 

Rates for Affordable Care Act plans aren’t going up much

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, ACA, Health Insurance Industry, Health Policy, High Deductible Health Plans, High Premiums, Out of Pocket Expenses, Underinsured, Uninsured • Leave a comment

https://www.axios.com/affordable-care-act-plans-premiums-arent-going-up-much-1bfabbbe-5b97-400b-8c19-023bd7e4e545.html

Image result for Rates for Affordable Care Act plans aren't going up much

Premiums for Affordable Care Act coverage are going down in some places, and barely rising in others.

The big picture: Health insurers raised ACA rates dramatically over the past few years, largely due to political chaos. But their plans have still proven to be extremely profitable. Now many companies are lowering premiums as they expect to send money back to their customers.

Driving the news: Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina is reducing the average premium for ACA plans by 5.5% in 2020.

  • Nationally, average ACA premiums are basically flat for next year and are going down in a handful of states, according to an analysis by ACA tracker Charles Gaba.

Between the lines: Insurers jacked up ACA premiums after the Trump administration cut off cost-sharing subsidies and nullified the individual mandate, and as Republicans threatened to eradicate the entire law, among other things. Now, they’re correcting for that overpricing.

  • BCBS of North Carolina CEO Patrick Conway said in an interview premiums are falling because the plan cut some providers from its already narrow network and changed the way it pays some hospitals. But he also said the company has “more expertise in the market than when we started.”
  • BCBS of North Carolina’s ACA plans have been extremely lucrative — in fact, too lucrative. The ACA requires insurers to spend at least 80% of their premiums on medical care, or rebate the difference back to their customers.
  • In the first quarter of this year, BCBS of North Carolina spent just 67 cents of every premium dollar on care for most of its ACA plans, according to financial documents.
  • Many other insurers are in the same boat.

The bottom line: ACA plans for many middle-class people remain prohibitively expensive — often around $600 a month for individuals who get no subsidies. But for those who get financial help, “this is a stable, functional, mature market,” said David Anderson, a health policy researcher at Duke University.

 

Health care costs as much as a new car

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, ACA, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, High Deductible Health Plans, High Drug Prices, High Premiums, Out of Pocket Expenses, Underinsured, Uninsured • Leave a comment

https://www.axios.com/health-care-costs-insurance-premiums-deductibles-car-580fa6c8-0dd2-427b-8dda-c898d568e51e.html

Illustration of a car key with a health plus on the unlock button.

Buying a new car every year would be a very impractical expense. It would also be cheaper than a year’s worth of health care for a family.

Why it matters: The cost-shifting and complexity of health insurance can hide its high cost, which crowds out families’ other needs and depresses workers’ wages.

By the numbers: Health care for a family covered by a large employer cost, on average, $22,885 last year.

  • That’s $2,000 more than the sticker price for a brand-new Volkswagen Beetle.
  • If the iconic Beetle isn’t your style, $22,885 would also be more than enough to get you a Ford Focus ($17,950), a Toyota Corolla ($18,600) or a Hyundai Sonata ($22,050).

Between the lines: Roughly $15,000 of that $22,885 comes from employers’ contribution to their workers’ premiums. That share alone is enough to buy a basic sedan.

  • Workers chip in an average of $4,706 per year premiums, and then spend an additional of $3,020 out of pocket. Combined, that’s almost 4 times more than the average family spends on gas in a year.

The Beetle is being discontinued in the U.S. after this year. But as health care costs continue to rise, they’ll be comparable to even fancier cars. They’re already inching up toward the cheapest Cadillac — a familiar car metaphor.

  • The Affordable Care Act’s “Cadillac tax” was intended to put downward pressure on prices by taxing the most generous health plans. But it actually affects a broad range of plans, and Congress has delayed the tax until 2022. The House has voted to repeal it altogether.

 

 

 

The fight over the future of our most expensive drugs

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Competition, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Generic Drugs, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, High Drug Prices, Out of Pocket Expenses, Pharmaceutical Industry, Price Regulation, Underinsured, Uninsured • Leave a comment

https://www.axios.com/the-fight-over-the-future-of-our-most-expensive-drugs-034b6e4d-b596-4f48-9b53-6e2c267e01e3.html

An illustration of a hammer and a concrete pill.

The market designed to create competition for biologics — typically our most expensive drugs — has been slow to take off, but some experts say that even its best-case scenario doesn’t do enough to lower drug prices.

Why it matters: While wonks debate the future of biosimilars in policy journals and on editorial pages, the argument is reflected in the political divide over whether enhanced drug competition or price regulation is the best way to address drug prices.

The big picture: Congress created the pathway for biosimilars to come to market knowing that they’d look different than small-molecule generics, and even their most ardent supporters say biosimilars will never achieve the steep discounts that generics do.

  • That’s because biosimilars are much harder to make than normal generics, meaning that drug companies have to charge enough to make their endeavor worthwhile.
  • Nevertheless, the Biosimilars Council says on its website that biosimilars could lead to more than $54 billion in savings over the next decade. A recent analysis by the Pacific Research Institute found that biosimilars could save $7.2 billion a year under the most optimistic modeled scenario.

Yes, but: Some experts are arguing that that’s not enough, and that biosimilars aren’t the best way to control biologic prices.

  • Last week, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center’s Peter Bach and MIT’s Mark Trusheim published an editorial in the Wall Street Journal arguing that biosimilars don’t produce enough savings and that the resources spent developing them would be better used to bring new, innovative drugs to market.
  • Bach and Trusheim proposed that the government instead regulate the price of older biologics after they’ve been on the market for a certain period of time, which they wrote could save around $50 billion a year.

The other side: Former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb wrote an editorial in the WSJ yesterday in response, arguing that Congress should speed up the use and development of biosimilars instead of regulating prices.

  • “Among other dangers, [price regulation] could trigger shortages of the drugs. It would also discourage investment in manufacturing, as few drugmakers would want to produce complex drugs in perpetuity for little profit,” Gottlieb writes.

The bottom line: This argument isn’t just for the academics. The leading Democratic presidential candidates are also arguing for drug price regulation, a major shift left for the party.

  • “Price regulation may be a tough sell in some quarters, but it’s the best way to keep the promise of America’s extraordinary pharmaceutical industry alive,” Bach and Trusheim write.

 

 

 

The provider lobby takes on Congress

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Dark Money, Health Policy, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Politics, Rev Cycle Management, Surprise Bills • Leave a comment

https://www.axios.com/the-provider-lobby-takes-on-congress-57d2acc6-b26b-4b57-aa64-a75606e612b8.html

Illustration of a giant health plus on top of a pile of cash, the ground underneath is cracking.

Ending surprise medical bills inspires bipartisan kumbaya in a way nearly unheard of these days, and yet a brutal lobbying and public relations blitz by doctor and hospital groups is threatening to kill the entire effort.

Driving the news: Provider-backed groups are spending millions of dollars to sway lawmakers and the public opinion against Congress’s efforts to ban surprise billing, according to a handful of recent reports.

Details:

  • A dark money group called Doctor Patient Unity has spent more than $13 million on advertising in states where senators are up for re-election, Bloomberg Government reported on Monday — the most expensive campaign on any congressional health care topic this year.
  • Modern Healthcare’s Susannah Luthi reported yesterday that some congressional staffers worry that the provider onslaught will cause the entire surprise billing effort to collapse. The staffers say that may be what the groups want; providers insist this isn’t the case.
  • My colleague Bob Herman reported last week that physician outsourcing companies — which are often the source of surprise medical bills — and private equity firms have flooded Congress with lobbyists.

The other side: Other congressional aides are less worried about the surprise billing effort being killed.

  • “If anything, [providers’] tactics are backfiring. Compassion is winning. Members are more concerned for patients than a profit fight between industries,” a GOP aide familiar with the effort told me.
  • Instead, “members are beginning to question private equity’s interest in this. What is it they’re willing to invest $13 million to save and why are they hiding behind dark money?”

 

 

 

Cartoon – Important Notice

Posted on by • Posted in Cartoon, Important Notice, Talent Management • Leave a comment

Image result for important notice

THE MANAGEMENT REGRETS THAT

IT HAS COME TO THEIR ATTENTION

THAT EMPLOYEES DYING ON THE

JOB ARE FAILING TO FALL DOWN.

 

THIS PRACTICE MUST STOP,

AS IT BECOMES IMPOSSIBLE TO

DISTINGUISH BETWEEN DEATH AND

NATURAL MOVEMENT OF THE STAFF.

 

ANY EMPLOYEES FOUND DEAD IN AN

UPRIGHT POSITION WILL BE DROPPED

FROM THE PAYROLL.