How has Obamacare impacted state health care marketplaces?

https://www.brookings.edu/research/how-has-obamacare-impacted-state-healthcare-marketplaces/?utm_campaign=Brookings+Brief&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=42427416

Image result for How has Obamacare impacted state health care marketplaces?

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) changed the nature of competition among health plans by creating regulated insurance exchanges, introducing new insurance industry regulations, and providing premium and cost-sharing reduction subsidies. Through these reforms, the law aimed to increase access to and the value of insurance coverage while lowering costs. To better understand the law’s implementation and its effect on competition, researchers with the ACA Implementation Research Network interviewed key marketplace stakeholders to analyze why carriers chose to enter or exit markets, how provider networks were built, and how state regulatory decisions affected the landscape.

As Congress and the new Administration deliberate on what’s next for the law, the Network presents their analyses of competition in California, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, and Texas (PDFs). A summary report(PDF) of the general findings, authored by Texas A&M Professor Michael Morrisey, Brookings Senior Fellow Alice Rivlin, ACA Network Lead Richard P. Nathan, and Mark A. Hall, Brookings Nonresident Senior Fellow, is intended to generate hypotheses for further testing across state marketplaces and to identify individual idiosyncrasies within the states that provide context for national- and state-level reforms.

CONCLUSION

While the results of this five-state study may not be applicable across the country, the authors emphasize a few key lessons for further consideration when crafting a potential replacement plan or changes to the law:

    1. Health insurance markets are local and depend on the ability of insurers to create competitively priced plans. While this is often more difficult in rural locations, metropolitan areas also see variation in competition.
    2. Higher-than-expected claims costs caused concern for insurers initially, as they lacked information on the amount of health care service utilization to expect from exchange enrollees. It remains to be seen whether the trend will continue or if recent market adjustments reflect a “one-time correction.”
    3. Insurer networks have narrowed, which potentially provides greater opportunity for insurers to negotiate lower prices by assuring a greater volume of patients to a more limited number of providers. The number of preferred provider organization (PPO) exchange plans has also been decreasing, as these plans had disproportionate enrollment of people with pre-existing conditions and are generally less able to negotiate low prices from providers.
    4. Both hospital and provider competition are vital for competitive markets, with population and the number of physician groups and health systems playing a role in cost competition.

What Made Obamacare Succeed In Some States? Hint: It’s Not Politics

http://khn.org/news/what-made-obamacare-succeed-in-some-states-hint-its-not-politics/

People standing in line at the Panorama Mall to sign-up for Covered California at an enrollment event in 2014. (Irfan Khan/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)

Ask anyone about their health care and you are likely to hear about ailments, doctors, maybe costs and insurance hassles. Most people don’t go straight from “my health” to a political debate, and yet that is what our country has been embroiled in for almost a decade.

study out Thursday tries to set aside the politics to examine how the insurance markets function and what makes or breaks them in five specific states.

Researchers from The Brookings Institution were exploring a basic idea: If the goal is to replace or repair the Affordable Care Act, then it would be good to know what worked and what failed.

“The political process at the moment is not generating a conversation about how do we create a better replacement for the Affordable Care Act,” said Alice Rivlin, senior fellow at The Brookings Institution, who spearheaded the project. “It’s a really hard problem and people with different points of view about it have got to sit down together and say, ‘How do we make it work?’”

The researchers focused on CaliforniaFloridaMichiganNorth Carolina and Texas, interviewing state regulators, health providers, insurers, consumer organizations, brokers and others to understand why insurance companies chose to enter or leave markets, how state regulations affected decision making and how insurers built provider networks.

“Both parties miss what makes insurance exchanges successful,” said Micah Weinberg, president of Bay Area Council Economic Institute who led the California research team. “And it doesn’t have anything to do with red and blue states and it doesn’t have anything to do with total government control or free markets.”

Despite the political diversity of the five states, some common lessons emerged. Among them:

 

Judge, Citing Harm to Customers, Blocks $48 Billion Anthem-Cigna Merger

Today a federal judge blocked the proposed $48 billion merger of giant health insurers Anthem and Cigna, just two weeks after another federal judge blocked the proposed $37 billion merger between Aetna and Humana. (That judge found Aetna had lied when it said its decision to pull out of Obamacare was triggered by mounting losses; it was triggered by its desire to merge with Humana.)

Both judges agreed with Justice Department that the mergers would violate antitrust laws — giving the combinations too much economic power to raise prices.

Both decisions will almost certainly be appealed by the companies. But Trump’s and Jeff Session’s Justice Department might back down and allow the mergers to proceed.

Which will reveal the underlying choice America faces: Either a private-for profit health insurance system run by a few giant corporations charging as much as possible, or a single-payer system run to keep Americans health at the lowest cost.

What do you think?

Drug Makers Accused of Fixing Prices on Insulin

A lawsuit filed Monday accused three makers of insulin of conspiring to drive up the prices of their lifesaving drugs, harming patients who were being asked to pay for a growing share of their drug bills.

The price of insulin has skyrocketed in recent years, with the three manufacturers — Sanofi, Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly — raising the list prices of their products in near lock step, prompting outcry from patient groups and doctors who have pointed out that the rising prices appear to have little to do with increased production costs.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Massachusetts, accuses the companies of exploiting the country’s opaque drug-pricing system in a way that benefits themselves and the intermediaries known as pharmacy benefit managers. It cites several examples of patients with diabetes who, unable to afford their insulin treatments, which can cost up to $900 a month, have resorted to injecting themselves with expired insulin or starving themselves to control their blood sugar. Some patients, the lawsuit said, intentionally allowed themselves to slip into diabetic ketoacidosis — a blood syndrome that can be fatal — to get insulin from hospital emergency rooms.

A recent study in The Journal of the American Medical Association found that the price of insulin nearly tripled from 2002 to 2013.

“People who have to pay out of pocket for insulin are paying enormous prices when they shouldn’t be,” said Steve Berman, a lawyer whose firm filed the suit on behalf of patients and is seeking to have it certified as a class action.

In a statement, Sanofi said, “We strongly believe these allegations have no merit, and will defend against these claims.” Lilly said it had followed all laws, adding, “We adhere to the highest ethical standards.”

A spokesman for Novo Nordisk said the company disagreed with the allegations in the suit and would defend itself. “At Novo Nordisk,” the company’s statement said, “we have a longstanding commitment to supporting patients’ access to our medicines.”

The rising costs of drugs has led to several hearings in Congress and has drawn the attention of President Trump, who this month pledged to address the issue and said the industry was “getting away with murder.”

 

2016 Health Care Year in Review

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/blog/2016/dec/2016-health-care-year-in-review

Image result for 2016 Health Care Year in Review

This was a tumultuous year in health care and elsewhere. Wherever we looked, the improbable and unbelievable became true and believable: from Brexit to a President-elect Trump to alleged foreign sabotage of our political institutions. Historians will dissect the remnants of these events for decades. For us, for now, let’s focus on health care, which is plenty.

U.S. judge finds that Aetna deceived the public about its reasons for quitting Obamacare

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-aetna-obamacare-20170123-story.html

Mergers in the healthcare sector: why you'll pay more

Aetna claimed this summer that it was pulling out of all but four of the 15 states where it was providing Obamacare individual insurance because of a business decision — it was simply losing too much money on the Obamacare exchanges.

Now a federal judge has ruled that that was a rank falsehood. In fact, says Judge John D. Bates, Aetna made its decision at least partially in response to a federal antitrust lawsuit blocking its proposed $37-billion merger with Humana. Aetna threatened federal officials with the pullout before the lawsuit was filed, and followed through on its threat once it was filed. Bates made the observations in the course of a ruling he issued Monday blocking the merger.

Aetna executives had moved heaven and earth to conceal their decision-making process from the court, in part by discussing the matter on the phone rather than in emails, and by shielding what did get put in writing with the cloak of attorney-client privilege, a practice Bates found came close to “malfeasance.”

The judge’s conclusions about Aetna’s real reasons for pulling out of Obamacare — as opposed to the rationalization the company made in public — are crucial for the debate over the fate of the Affordable Care Act. That’s because the company’s withdrawal has been exploited by Republicans to justify repealing the act. Just last week, House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) cited Aetna’s action on the “Charlie Rose” show, saying that it proved how shaky the exchanges were.
Bates found that this rationalization was largely untrue. In fact, he noted, Aetna pulled out of some states and counties that were actually profitable to make a point in its lawsuit defense — and then misled the public about its motivations. Bates’ analysis relies in part on a “smoking gun” letter to the Justice Department in which Chief Executive Mark Bertolini explicitly ties Aetna’s participation in Obamacare to the DOJ’s actions on the merger, which we reported in August. But it goes much further.

Study: In healthcare price negotiation, insurer size matters

http://www.fiercehealthcare.com/payer/study-when-negotiating-healthcare-prices-insurer-size-matters?utm_medium=nl&utm_source=internal&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWmpCaVl6YzNZVGMzWW1VMSIsInQiOiJFOWcxQXlNRFltbXIzc2FocWNwREJpRnp6dEpLbmZORTVIb29WaTRtQ2lrYzVwQ1hjOW4rS1RMUDlNOEE1RVRJdEJoMjJYeEpNWUFjbnBiRUQ0WGhoSGpkUDQyWkQxZE1UQ3NBbFU1bjVwVm5ITjBTVUxRbmNWQ3JcLytnMlM0bnAifQ%3D%3D

Handshake

Larger health insurers are able to negotiate lower prices with providers, according to a new study. But that doesn’t necessarily mean payer consolidation is the answer to keeping healthcare costs in check.

The study, conducted by researchers from Harvard Medical School and published in the January issue of Health Affairs, examined multipayer claims data from 2014 to assess how insurers’ market power affected the rates that they were able to negotiate for office-based physician services.

The researchers found that greater market power did indeed give insurers a leg up at the negotiating table. For example, when examining rates for office visits paid to the same group of providers, they estimated that large insurers—those with market shares of 15% or more—negotiated prices that were 21% lower than prices negotiated by small insurers, or those with market shares of less than 5%.

Looking at providers of different sizes, the study also found evidence that insurers require greater market shares to negotiate lower prices from large provider groups than with smaller ones. And if providers respond to insurer mergers with greater consolidation of their own, that would boost their bargaining power and let them negotiate higher prices, the study said.

Antitrust trial over $37B Aetna-Humana merger nearing an end

http://www.healthcaredive.com/news/antitrust-trial-over-37b-aetna-humana-merger-nearing-an-end/433206/

A decision on the $37 billion merger between Aetna and Humana will be made soon. The payers and the federal government have been an engaged in a legal standoff since the U.S. Department of Justice and several states filed an antitrust lawsuit in July 2016 to block the merger, citing reduced competition, hindered innovation, and increased prices to consumers. The federal government also alleges the deal would give Aetna too much of a stake in the Medicare Advantage market.

Representatives for both Aetna and the federal government have been exchanging barbs for the past several months. The government accused Aetna of scaling back its participation in ACA marketplaces as a result of the lawsuit. Aetna claimed that these accusations were unfounded and said the deal would be a pro-competitive move that would benefit millions.

Health insurance giant Anthem has also proposed a $54 billion merger with Cigna. If both mergers occur, it would combine four of the five largest insurers in the country.

There is no timeline set for a decision in the case. Yet Judge Bates said he would issue his decision in a “timely manner,” according to Bloomberg.

Aetna/Humana-DOJ trial: Prosecutors battle over Medicare Advantage plans

http://www.healthcaredive.com/news/aetnahumana-doj-trial-prosecutors-battle-over-medicare-advantage-plans/432142/

Dive Brief:

  • The Department of Justice (DOJ) argued against the viability of Aetna’s plans to sell off assets to counter concerns over its proposed $34 billion merger with Humana, The Wall Street Journal reports.
  • Aetna had agreed to sell $117 million in assets, representing nearly 30,000 Medicare Advantage enrollees in 21 states, to Molina Healthcare.
  • Federal prosecutors questioned whether Molina’s purchase of those assets be enough to sustain competition in the market for private Medicare plans in the markets where Aetna and Humana operate.

Nixed Hershey-PinnacleHealth marriage could send them into arms of someone else

http://www.pennlive.com/news/2016/11/nixed_hershey-pinnaclehealth_m.html

PinnacleHealth System and Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center said a marriage made sense for many reasons.

Not the least of which was to gain size and strength needed to fend off megasystems from outside their traditional service area. Those systems, they said, are positioning to siphon away patients needing the most advanced care, thereby eroding revenues needed to support those services in Harrisburg-area counties.

But the Federal Trade Commission opposed the merger on the grounds it would create a local hospital monopoly, and Hershey and Pinnacle subsequently called off their engagement.

 Still, experts say the forces that pulled the one-time rivals together are real and won’t go away. Those forces have triggered a wave of health system consolidation all over the country. In the Harrisburg region, they have prompted players such as Geisinger Health System, WellSpan Health and the newly-merged Lancaster General Health-University of Pennsylvania Health System to eye the territory traditionally served by Pinnacle and Hershey.

Those systems now surround Pinnacle and Hershey. At the same time, health care has entered an era where health systems are forever trying to attract more patients. That often requires expanding their footprint.

“It’s going to be hard for them to maintain what they’re doing as stand-alones,” said David Sarcone, an associate professor of business management and health studies at Dickinson College.

Stephen Foreman, an associate professor of health care administration at Robert Morris University in Pittsburgh said, “I can’t say I think their positions are all that great right now.”