Tag Archives: Competition

Health Insurance Coverage Eight Years After the ACA

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2019/feb/health-insurance-coverage-eight-years-after-aca

Fewer Uninsured Americans and Shorter Coverage Gaps, But More Underinsured

What does health insurance coverage look like for Americans today, more than eight years after the Affordable Care Act’s passage? In this brief, we present findings from the Commonwealth Fund’s latest Biennial Health Insurance Survey to assess the extent and quality of coverage for U.S. working-age adults. Conducted since 2001, the survey uses three measures to gauge the adequacy of people’s coverage:

  • whether or not they have insurance
  • if they have insurance, whether they have experienced a gap in their coverage in the prior year
  • whether high out-of-pocket health care costs and deductibles are causing them to be underinsured, despite having continuous coverage throughout the year.

As the findings highlighted below show, the greatest deterioration in the quality and comprehensiveness of coverage has occurred among people in employer plans. More than half of Americans under age 65 — about 158 million people — get their health insurance through an employer, while about one-quarter either have a plan purchased through the individual insurance market or are enrolled in Medicaid.1Although the ACA has expanded and improved coverage options for people without access to a job-based health plan, the law largely left the employer market alone.2

Survey Highlights

  • Today, 45 percent of U.S. adults ages 19 to 64 are inadequately insured — nearly the same as in 2010 — though important shifts have taken place.
  • Compared to 2010, many fewer adults are uninsured today, and the duration of coverage gaps people experience has shortened significantly.
  • Despite actions by the Trump administration and Congress to weaken the ACA, the adult uninsured rate was 12.4 percent in 2018 in this survey, statistically unchanged from the last time we fielded the survey in 2016.
  • More people who have coverage are underinsured now than in 2010, with the greatest increase occurring among those in employer plans.
  • People who are underinsured or spend any time uninsured report cost-related problems getting care and difficulty paying medical bills at at higher rates than those with continuous, adequate coverage.
  • Federal and state governments could enact policies to extend the ACA’s health coverage gains and improve the cost protection provided by individual-market and employer plans.

The 2018 Commonwealth Fund Biennial Heath Insurance Survey included a nationally representative sample of 4,225 adults ages 19 to 64. SSRS conducted the telephone survey between June 27 and November 11, 2018.3 (See “How We Conducted This Study” for more detail.)

WHO IS UNDERINSURED?

In this analysis, we use a measure of underinsurance that accounts for an insured adult’s reported out-of-pocket costs over the course of a year, not including insurance premiums, as well as his or her plan deductible. (The measure was first used in the Commonwealth Fund’s 2003 Biennial Health Insurance Survey.*) These actual expenditures and the potential risk of expenditures, as represented by the deductible, are then compared with household income. Specifically, we consider people who are insured all year to be underinsured if:

  • their out-of-pocket costs, excluding premiums, over the prior 12 months are equal to 10 percent or more of household income; or
  • their out-of-pocket costs, excluding premiums, over the prior 12 months are equal to 5 percent or more of household income for individuals living under 200 percent of the federal poverty level ($24,120 for an individual or $49,200 for a family of four); or
  • their deductible constitutes 5 percent or more of household income.

The out-of-pocket cost component of the measure is only triggered if a person uses his or her plan to obtain health care. The deductible component provides an indicator of the financial protection the plan offers and the risk of incurring costs before someone gets health care. The definition does not include other dimensions of someone’s health plan that might leave them potentially exposed to costs, such as copayments or uncovered services. It therefore provides a conservative measure of underinsurance in the United States.

Compared to 2010, when the ACA became law, fewer people today are uninsured, but more people are underinsured. Of the 194 million U.S. adults ages 19 to 64 in 2018, an estimated 87 million, or 45 percent, were inadequately insured (see Tables 1 and 2).

Despite actions by the Trump administration and Congress to weaken the ACA, our survey found no statistically significant change in the adult uninsured rate by late 2018 compared to 2016 (Table 3). This finding is consistent with recent federal surveys, but other private surveys (including other Commonwealth Fund surveys) have found small increases in uninsured rates since 2016 (see “Changes in U.S. Uninsured Rates Since 2013”).

While there has been no change since 2010, statistically speaking, in the proportion of people who are insured now but have experienced a recent time without coverage, these reported gaps are of much shorter duration on average than they were before the ACA. In 2018, 61 percent of people who reported a coverage gap said it has lasted for six months or less, compared to 31 percent who said they had been uninsured for a year or longer. This is nearly a reverse of what it was like in 2012, two years before the ACA’s major coverage expansions. In that year, 57 percent of adults with a coverage gap reported it was for a year or longer, while one-third said it was a shorter gap.

There also has been some improvement in long-term uninsured rates. Among adults who were uninsured at the time of the survey, 54 percent reported they had been without coverage for more than two years, down from 72 percent before the ACA coverage expansions went into effect. The share of those who had been uninsured for six months or less climbed to 20 percent, nearly double the rate prior to the coverage expansions.

Of people who were insured continuously throughout 2018, an estimated 44 million were underinsured because of high out-of-pocket costs and deductibles (Table 1). This is up from an estimated 29 million in 2010 (data not shown). The most likely to be underinsured are people who buy plans on their own through the individual market including the marketplaces. However, the greatest growth in the number of underinsured adults is occurring among those in employer health plans.

WHY ARE INSURED AMERICANS SPENDING SO MUCH OF THEIR INCOME ON HEALTH CARE COSTS?

Several factors may be contributing to high underinsured rates among adults in individual market plans and rising rates in employer plans:

  1. Although the Affordable Care Act’s reforms to the individual market have provided consumers with greater protection against health care costs, many moderate-income Americans have not seen gains. The ACA’s essential health benefits package, cost-sharing reductions for lower- income families, and out-of-pocket cost limits have helped make health care more affordable for millions of Americans. But while the cost-sharing reductions have been particularly important in lowering deductibles and copayments for people with incomes under 250 percent of the poverty level (about $62,000 for a family of four), about half of people who purchase marketplace plans, and all of those buying plans directly from insurance companies, do not have them.4
  2. The bans against insurers excluding people from coverage because of a preexisting condition and rating based on health status have meant that individuals with greater health needs, and thus higher costs, are now able to get health insurance in the individual market. Not surprisingly, the survey data show that people with individual market coverage are somewhat more likely to have health problems than they were in 2010, which means they also have higher costs.
  3. While plans in the employer market historically have provided greater cost protection than plans in the individual market, businesses have tried to hold down premium growth by asking workers to shoulder an increasing share of health costs, particularly in the form of higher deductibles.5 While the ACA’s employer mandate imposed a minimum coverage requirement on large companies, the requirement amounts to just 60 percent of typical person’s overall costs. This leaves the potential for high plan deductibles and copayments.
  4. Growth in Americans’ incomes has not kept pace with growth in health care costs. Even when health costs rise more slowly, they can take an increasingly larger bite out of incomes.

It is well documented that people who gained coverage under the ACA’s expansions have better access to health care as a result.6 This has led to overall improvement in health care access, as indicated by multiple surveys.7 In 2014, the year the ACA’s major coverage expansions went into effect, the share of adults in our survey who said that cost prevented them from getting health care that they needed, such as prescription medication, dropped significantly (Table 4). But there has been no significant improvement since then.

The lack of continued improvement in overall access to care nationally reflects the fact that coverage gains have plateaued, and underinsured rates have climbed. People who experience any time uninsured are more likely than any other group to delay getting care because of cost (Table 5). And among people with coverage all year, those who were underinsured reported cost-related delays in getting care at nearly double the rate of those who were not underinsured.

There was modest but significant improvement following the ACA’s coverage expansions in the proportion of all U.S. adults who reported having difficulty paying their medical bills or said they were paying off medical debt over time (Table 4). Federal surveys have found similar improvements.8 However, those gains have stalled.

Inadequate insurance coverage leaves people exposed to high health care costs, and these expenses can quickly turn into medical debt. More than half of uninsured adults and insured adults who have had a coverage gap reported that they had had problems paying medical bills or were paying off medical debt over time (Table 6). Among people who had continuous insurance coverage, the rate of medical bill and debt problems is nearly twice as high for the underinsured as it is for people who are not underinsured.

Having continuous coverage makes a significant difference in whether people have a regular source of care, get timely preventive care, or receive recommended cancer screenings. Adults with coverage gaps or those who were uninsured when they responded to the survey were the least likely to have gotten preventive care and cancer screenings in the recommended time frame.

Being underinsured, however, does not seem to reduce the likelihood of having a usual source of care or receiving timely preventive care or cancer screens — provided a person has continuous coverage. This is likely because the ACA requires insurers and employers to cover recommended preventive care and cancer screens without cost-sharing. Even prior to the ACA, a majority of employer plans provided predeductible coverage of preventive services.9

Conclusion and Policy Implications

U.S. working-age adults are significantly more likely to have health insurance since the ACA became law in 2010. But the improvement in uninsured rates has stalled. In addition, more people have health plans that fail to adequately protect them from health care costs, with the fastest deterioration in cost protection occurring in the employer market. The ACA made only minor changes to employer plans, and the erosion in cost protection has taken a bite out of the progress made in Americans’ health coverage since the law’s enactment.

Both the federal government and the states, however, have the ability to extend the law’s coverage gains and improve the cost protection of both individual-market and employer plans. Here is a short list of policy options:

  • Expand Medicaid without restrictions. The 2018 midterm elections moved as many as five states closer to joining the 32 states that, along with the District of Columbia, have expanded eligibility for Medicaid under the ACA.10 As many as 300,000 people may ultimately gain coverage as a result.11 But, encouraged by the Trump administration, several states are imposing work requirements on people eligible for Medicaid — a move that could reverse these coverage gains. So far, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has approved similar work-requirement waivers in seven states and is considering applications from at least seven more. Arkansas imposed a work requirement last June, and, to date, more than 18,000 adults have lost their insurance coverage as a result.
  • Ban or place limits on short-term health plans and other insurance that doesn’t comply with the ACA. The Trump administration loosened regulations on short-term plans that don’t comply with the ACA, potentially leaving people who enroll in them exposed to high costs and insurance fraud. These plans also will draw healthier people out of the marketplaces, increasing premiums for those who remain and federal costs of premium subsidies. Twenty-three states have banned or placed limits on short-term insurance policies. Some lawmakers have proposed a federal ban.
  • Reinsurance, either state or federal. The ACA’s reinsurance program was effective in lowering marketplace premiums. After it expired in 2017, several states implemented their own reinsurance programs.12  Alaska’s program reduced premiums by 20 percent in 2018. These lower costs particularly help people whose incomes are too high to qualify for ACA premium tax credits. More states are seeking federal approval to run programs in their states. Several congressional bills have proposed a federal reinsurance program.
  • Reinstate outreach and navigator funding for the 2020 open-enrollment period. The administration has nearly eliminated funding for advertising and assistance to help people enroll in marketplace plans.13 Research has found that both activities are effective in increasing enrollment.14 Some lawmakers have proposed reinstatingthis funding.
  • Lift the 400-percent-of-poverty cap on eligibility for marketplace tax credits. This action would help people with income exceeding $100,000 (for a family of four) better afford marketplace plans. The tax credits work by capping the amount people pay toward their premiums at 9.86 percent. Lifting the cap has a built in phase out: as income rises, fewer people qualify, since premiums consume an increasingly smaller share of incomes. RAND researchers estimate that this policy change would increase enrollment by 2 million and lower marketplace premiums by as much as 4 percent as healthier people enroll. It would cost the federal government an estimated $10 billion annually.15 Legislation has been introduced to lift the cap.
  • Make premium contributions for individual market plans fully tax deductible. People who are self-employed are already allowed to do this.16
  • Fix the so-called family coverage glitch. People with employer premium expenses that exceed 9.86 percent of their income are eligible for marketplace subsidies, which trigger a federal tax penalty for their employers. There’s a catch: this provision applies only to single-person policies, leaving many middle-income families caught in the “family coverage glitch.” Congress could lower many families’ premiums by pegging unaffordable coverage in employer plans to family policies instead of single policies.17

REDUCE COVERAGE GAPS

  • Inform the public about their options. People who lose coverage during the year are eligible for special enrollment periods for ACA marketplace coverage. Those eligible for Medicaid can sign up at any time. But research indicates that many people who lose employer coverage do not use these options.18 The federal government, the states, and employers could increase awareness of insurance options outside the open-enrollment periods through advertising and education.
  • Reduce churn in Medicaid. Research shows that over a two-year period, one-quarter of Medicaid beneficiaries leave the program and become uninsured.19 Many do so because of administrative barriers.20 By imposing work requirements, as some states are doing, this involuntary disenrollment is likely to get worse. To help people stay continuously covered, the federal government and the states could consider simplifying and streamlining the enrollment and reenrollment processes.
  • Extend the marketplace open-enrollment period. The current open-enrollment period lasts just 45 days. Six states that run their own marketplaces have longer periods, some by as much as an additional 45 days. Other states, as well as the federal marketplace, could extend their enrollment periods as well.

IMPROVE INDIVIDUAL-MARKET PLANS’ COST PROTECTIONS

  • Fund and extend the cost-sharing reduction subsidies. The Trump administration eliminated payments to insurers for offering plans with lower deductibles and copayments. Insurers, which by law must still offer reduced-cost plans, are making up the lost revenue by raising premiums. But this fix, while benefiting enrollees who are eligible for premium tax credits, has distorted both insurer pricing and consumer choice.21 In addition, it is unknown whether the administration’s support for the fix will continue in the future, creating uncertainty for insurers.22 Congress could reinstate the payments to insurers and consider making the plans available to people with higher earnings.
  • Increase the number of services excluded from the deductible.Most plans sold in the individual market exclude certain services from the deductible, such as primary care visits and certain prescriptions.23As the survey data suggest, these types of exclusions appear to be important in ensuring access to preventive care among people who have coverage but are underinsured. In 2016, HHS provided a standardized plan option for insurers that excluded eight health services — including mental health and substance-use disorder outpatient visits and most prescription drugs — from the deductible at the silver and gold level.24 The Trump administration eliminated the option in 2018. Congress could make these exceptions mandatory for all plans.

IMPROVE EMPLOYER PLANS’ COST PROTECTIONS

  • Increase the ACA’s minimum level of coverage. Under the ACA, people in employer plans may become eligible for marketplace tax credits if the actuarial value of their plan is less than 60 percent, meaning that under 60 percent of health care costs, on average, are covered. Congress could increase this to the 70 percent standard of silver-level marketplace plans, or even higher.
  • Require deductible exclusions. Congress could require employers to increase the number of services that are covered before someone meets their deductible. Most employer plans exclude at least some services from their deductibles.25 Congress could specify a minimum set of exclusions for employer plans that might resemble the standardized-choice options that once existed for ACA plans.
  • Refundable tax credits for high out-of-pocket costs. Congress could make refundable tax credits available to help insured Americans pay for qualifying out-of-pocket costs that exceed a certain percentage of their income.26
  • Protect consumers from surprise medical bills. Several states have passed laws that protect patients and their families from unexpected medical bills, generally from out-of-network providers.27A bipartisan group of U.S. senators has proposed federal legislation to protect consumers, including people enrolled in employer and individual-market plans.

Health care costs are primarily what’s driving growth in premiums across all health insurance markets. Employers and insurers have kept premiums down by increasing consumers’ deductibles and other cost-sharing, which in turn is making more people underinsured. This means that policy options like the ones we’ve highlighted above will need to be paired with efforts to slow medical spending. These could include changing how health care is organized and providers are paid to achieve greater value for health care dollars and better health outcomes.28 The government also could tackle rising prescription drug costs29 and use antitrust laws to combat the growing concentration of insurer and provider markets.30

 

 

Hospital Mergers Improve Health? Evidence Shows the Opposite

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

Hospital Mergers Improve Health? Evidence Shows the Opposite

Image result for hospital market power

Many things affect your health. Genetics. Lifestyle. Modern medicine. The environment in which you live and work.

But although we rarely consider it, the degree of competition among health care organizations does so as well.

Markets for both hospitals and physicians have become more concentrated in recent years. Although higher prices are the consequences most often discussed, such consolidation can also result in worse health care. Studies show that rates of mortality and of major health setbacks grow when competition falls.

This runs counter to claims some in the health care industry have made in favor of mergers. By harnessing economies of scale and scope, they’ve argued, larger organizations can offer better care at lower costs.

In one recent example, two Texas health systems — Baylor Scott & White, and Memorial Hermann Health System — sought to merge, forming a 68-hospital system. The systems have since abandoned the plan, but not before Jim Hinton, Baylor Scott & White’s chief executive, told The Wall Street Journal that “the end, the more important end, is to improve care.”

Yet Martin Gaynor, a Carnegie Mellon University economist who been an author of several reviews exploring the consequences of hospital consolidation, said that “evidence from three decades of hospital mergers does not support the claim that consolidation improves quality.” This is especially true when government constrains prices, as is the case for Medicare in the United States and Britain’s National Health Service.

“When prices are set by the government, hospitals don’t compete on price; they compete on quality,” Mr. Gaynor said. But this doesn’t happen in markets that are highly consolidated.

In 2006, the National Health Service introduced a policy that increased competition among hospitals. When recommending hospital care, it required general practitioners to provide patients with five options, as well as quality data for each. Because hospital payments are fixed by the government — whichever hospital a patient chooses gets the payment for care provided to that patient — hospitals ended up competing on quality.

Mr. Gaynor was an author of a study showing that consequences of this policy included shorter hospital stays and lower mortality. According to the study, for every decrease of 10 percentage points in hospital market concentration, 30-day mortality for heart attacks fell nearly 3 percent.

Another study found that hospital competition in the N.H.S. decreased heart attack mortality, and several studies of Medicare also found that hospital competition results in lower rates of mortality from heart attacks and pneumonia.

Another piece of evidence in the competition-quality connection comes from other types of health care providers, including doctors. Recently, investigators from the Federal Trade Commission examined what happens when cardiologists team up into larger groups. The study, published in Health Services Research, focused on the health care outcomes of about two million Medicare beneficiaries who had been treated for hypertension, for a cardiac ailment or for a heart attack from 2005 to 2012.

The study found that when cardiology markets are more concentrated, these kinds of patients are more likely to have heart attacks, visit the emergency department, be readmitted to the hospital or die. These effects of market concentration are large.

To illustrate, consider a cardiology market with five practices in which one becomes more dominant — going from just below a 40 percent market share to a 60 percent market share (with the rest of the market split equally across the other four practices). The study found that the chance of having a heart attack would go up 5 to 7 percent as the largest cardiology practice became more dominant. The chance of visiting the emergency department, being readmitted to the hospital or dying would go up similarly.

The study also found that greater market concentration led to higher spending. And a different study of family doctors in England found that quality and patient satisfaction increased with competition.

For many goods and services, Americans are comfortable with the idea that competition leads to lower prices and better quality. But we often think of health care as different — that it somehow shouldn’t be “market based.”

What the research shows, though, is that there are lots of ways markets can function, with more or less government involvement. Even when the government is highly involved, as is the case with the British National Health Service or American Medicare, competition is a valuable tool that can drive health care toward greater value.

 

 

Financial worries keep hospital CEOs up at night

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/financial-worries-keep-hospital-ceos-up-at-night/546982/

Image result for ceo concerns

Dive Brief:

  • Financial challenges, including increasing costs, shaky Medicaid reimbursement, reductions in operating costs and bad debt, ranked No. 1 on the list of hospital CEO worries in 2018, according to an American College of Healthcare Executives poll.
  • Government mandates and patient safety and quality tied for second place in ACHE’s survey of top issues facing health systems. Workforce shortages came in third.
  • A little more than 350 execs responded to the survey and ranked 11 concerns their facilities faced last year. Behavioral health and addiction issues, patient satisfaction, care access, physician-hospital relations, tech, population health management and company reorganization filled in the remaining slots.

Dive Insight:

No matter which cog in the healthcare system one blames for the skyrocketing costs of healthcare (big pharma inflating the list prices of drugs; hospitals for upmarking services; insurers for leaving gaps in care resulting in surprise bills) consumers’ pocketbooks aren’t the only ones affected.

A separate American Hospital Association-backed study predicted health systems will lose $218 billion in federal payments by 2028, and private payers (whose dollars would normally help hospitals make up the difference) have been curtailing reimbursements as well.

Bad debt was another fear in the ACHE report. Uncompensated care costs peaked in 2013 at $46.4 billion and, though the figures have decreased slightly since then, hospitals shelled out $38.3 billion in 2016. Wisconsin alone was on the hook for $1.1 billion in uncompensated care in fiscal year 2017.

“The survey results indicate that leaders are working to overcome challenges of balancing limited reimbursements against the rising costs of attracting and retaining talented staff to provide that care, among other things,” ACHE president and CEO Deborah Bowen said in a statement.

Other financial concerns included competition, government funding cuts, the transition to value-based care, revenue cycle management and price transparency.

And 70% of hospital CEOs were worried about shifting CMS regulations in 2018, along with regulatory/legislative uncertainty (61%) and cost of demonstrating compliance (59%) — unsurprising, given the current administration’s track record of unpredictability.

Patient safety and quality of care was also top of mind for health system CEOs, with over half of respondents anxious about the high price of medications, involving physicians in the culture of quality and safety and getting them to reduce unnecessary tests and procedures.

Also of interest was the high rank given to addressing behavioral health and addiction issues, according to Bowen, which ranked fifth in its first year of being included in the survey. The topic has been front and center in the industry of late, in line with the increasing recognition of social determinants of health and the breakdown in silos of care.

Ranking of the issues has remained largely constant since 2016, though in 2017 more hospital CEOs were concerned about personnel shortages than patient safety and quality.

 

Healthcare M&A now more about strategy than opportunity, Kaufman Hall says

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , • Leave a comment

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/healthcare-ma-now-more-about-strategy-than-opportunity-kaufman-hall-says/545909/

Dive Brief:

  • The size of the companies involved in healthcare M&A continues to grow. The average size in revenue of sellers was $409 million last year, nearly 14% higher than a decade ago, Kaufman Hall said in a new report.
  • Kaufman Hall found that seven transactions in 2018 involved sellers with net revenues of at least $1 billion.
  • Healthcare M&A today is more of a strategic decision than one about opportunistic growth. Fewer deals last year involved financially distressed sellers, according to the report.

Dive Insight:

Healthcare M&A isn’t so much about saving a struggling hospital now. Instead, these deals often involve strong health systems looking to expand into new areas.

Nearly one-third of healthcare transactions last year involved companies with revenues of between $100 million and $500 million. About one-fifth of deals were at least $500 million.

Nearly half involved not-for-profit companies acquiring other nonprofits and about one-quarter were not-for-profits buying for-profits. Another nearly 25% involved a for-profit acquiring either another for-profit or nonprofit.

Kaufman Hall said M&A activity isn’t about taking advantage of a struggling competitor. A mere 20% of deals involved a distressed company. Instead, health systems want strategic advantages.

“Health system leaders are seeking to acquire organizations that bring embedded expertise and resources to the deal, making these transactions more of a strategic partnership than an asset acquisition,” according to the report.

Kaufman Hall said it has found that health systems with “strong operational or clinical capabilities” are looking beyond their local markets.

New competitors in the market are offering larger scale and resources, including annual revenues as much as nearly 10 times the levels of the biggest not-for-profit systems. The CVS Health-Aetna deal kicked off a trend that continued with Humana-Kindred Healthcare and Optum-DaVita Medical Group and goes on with Amazon’s efforts to enter healthcare.

“New combinations across healthcare verticals and new market entrants are creating competitors that dwarf the scale of even the largest health systems,” according to the analysis. “The forces that are reshaping the industry affect not-for-profit and for-profit health systems alike and are causing not-for-profit and for-profit strategies to converge.”

Kaufman Hall found that consolidation is happening faster in some states than others. Not surprisingly, Texas led with eight deals in 2018. Florida (seven), Pennsylvania (six) and Louisiana and Tennessee (five each) ranked next.

Texas ($6.8 billion) and Florida ($3.6 billion) led in terms of revenue of announced deals. Kaufman Hall said 16 states didn’t have any healthcare transactions. However, some of those states, such as Kentucky and Massachusetts, have seen a high volume or large deals in recent years.

One downside of M&A is consolidation that can limit competition. The Center for American Progress recently reported that provider consolidation has led to higher healthcare prices. That report also found that consolidation isn’t lowering costs and improving care coordination, which is a common argument in favor of M&A activity.

 

 

 

 

When Hospitals Merge to Save Money, Patients Often Pay More

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment
Image result for hospital mergers

The nation’s hospitals have been merging at a rapid pace for a decade, forming powerful organizations that influence nearly every health care decision consumers make.

The hospitals have argued that consolidation benefits consumers with cheaper prices from coordinated services and other savings.

But an analysis conducted for The New York Times shows the opposite to be true in many cases. The mergers have essentially banished competition and raised prices for hospital admissions in most cases, according to an examination of 25 metropolitan areas with the highest rate of consolidation from 2010 through 2013, a peak period for mergers.

The analysis showed that the price of an average hospital stay soared, with prices in most areas going up between 11 percent and 54 percent in the years afterward, according to researchers from the Nicholas C. Petris Center at the University of California, Berkeley.

During the Obama years, the mergers received nearly universal approval from antitrust agencies, with the Federal Trade Commission moving to block only a small fraction of deals. State officials generally looked the other way.

President Trump issued an executive order last year calling for more competition, saying his administration would focus on “limiting excessive consolidation throughout the health care system.” In September, Congress asked the Medicare advisory board to study the trend.

But not only have big consolidations continued, the behemoths have further cemented their reach in some regions of the country by gobbling up major doctors’ and surgeons’ practices.

“You have to watch for these systems throwing their weight around,” said Xavier Becerra, the California attorney general whose office has sued Sutter Health, a sprawling system in the northern part of the state. “We are looking for cases where consolidation does nothing for efficiency and leads to distortions of the market.”

Ted Doolittle, who heads Connecticut’s Office of the Healthcare Advocate, has fielded angry complaints from residents, but he sees few options available to officials. “A lot of this is too little and too late,” he said.

The latest giant hospital consolidations continue to stir concerns. Dignity Health and Catholic Health Initiatives, two large chains, are expected to become one of the nation’s largest groups — with 139 hospitals in 28 states — by the end of the year. And two of Texas’ biggest systems, Baylor Scott & White Health and Memorial Hermann Health System, recently announced plans to combine.

The New Haven area has witnessed the most significant decline in competition. Yale New Haven Health, one of the largest hospital groups in Connecticut, took over the only competing hospital in the city and has also aggressively expanded along the state’s coast. The group recently added another hospital to its collection, merging Milford with its Bridgeport location.

Although the price of a hospital admission in the New Haven-Milford area was already three times higher than in other parts of the state, prices surged by 25 percent from 2012 to 2014, compared with 7 percent elsewhere in the state, according to the Petris Center.

In the national analysis, a third of the metropolitan areas experienced increases in the cost of hospital stays of at least 25 percent from 2012 to 2014, from roughly $12,000 to at least $15,000.

Prices rise even more steeply when these large hospital systems buy doctors’ groups, according to Richard Scheffler, director of the Petris Center.

Thousands of Connecticut residents were stranded without a local hospital last year when another big hospital group, Hartford HealthCare, battled the state’s biggest health insurer over how much it would charge for patient care.

Its six hospitals are clustered around the state capital and are the only resort for residents in broad swaths of the eastern part of the state. This month, it announced plans to add a seventh hospital to its network.

“These systems are empire-building, there’s no question,” said Jill Zorn, a senior policy officer for the Universal Health Care Foundation of Connecticut, which seeks to improve access for residents. “But to whose benefit?”

Numerous studies by economists and others have underscored how hospital consolidation is driving up the cost of medical care. “Within the academic community, there is near unanimity,” said Zack Cooper, a health economist at Yale University who is among a group of researchers that has looked at how dominant hospitals affect prices.

The emergence of a one-hospital town is inevitable in many places, and the Parkersburg, W.Va., area is no exception. St. Joseph’s merged with neighboring Camden-Clark Memorial in 2011, and then they were consumed by what is now the state’s largest health system.

Residents can get most care locally but they go to Morgantown, where the academic medical center is situated, for complex conditions. “We’ve elevated the level of care,” Mr. Wright said.

But private insurers are paying more. In the Parkersburg-Vienna area, the overall price of a hospital stay increased 54 percent from 2012 to 2014, after the mergers. That is compared with 10 percent elsewhere in the state, according to the Petris Center.

Large systems “get paid better by some of the insurers,” Mr. Wright said.

Flailing hospitals often have little choice but to be acquired or go out of business, and a larger system can offer badly needed capital and management skills. “They can fix a hospital and benefit the community,” said Torrey McClary, a lawyer who specializes in mergers at King & Spalding.

When Yale New Haven Health took over the Hospital of Saint Raphael, a Catholic hospital six blocks away from its New Haven location, Saint Raphael was in danger of going under. Over the last six years, the system has invested more than $200 million in capital improvements at Saint Raphael, said its president Richard D’Aquila, including modernizing “everything behind the walls.”

Because it converted Saint Raphael into what is essentially a second 555-bed campus for its academic medical center, Yale New Haven Health defends the higher rates it charges private insurers as appropriate for a top-tier medical institution. Its community hospitals negotiate prices individually with insurers.

Systems also say they are trying to improve the care for smaller communities. “We’re actively trying to move care toward places that are accessible,” Hartford’s chief executive, Elliot Joseph, said.

But patients rarely reap the rewards of lower insurance premiums or out-of-pocket expenses when mergers occur.

Hartford executives talk about reducing the total cost of care in the same breath that they discuss the need to charge insurers more. “The math for us is how we move the care out of the hospitals while maintaining our financial stability,” Mr. Joseph said.

To defend higher rates, many hospitals cite low reimbursements from government sources, particularly Medicaid, and highlight their role as a safety net. “We’re left with no choice,” Mr. D’Aquila said.

Others, like Hartford, negotiate prices as a single entity, forcing health insurers to include all of their hospitals in a network or risk losing access in areas where there are no alternatives.

Hartford “has taken over so many hospitals and practices that, with the Anthem dispute, we felt we had no choices at all,” Sharry Goldman, a Storrs, Conn., resident, told state lawmakers. Although Hartford and Anthem Blue Cross, the insurer, eventually reached an agreement, Connecticut passed a law this year requiring hospitals and insurers to extend previous contracts for two months to protect consumers when the parties are at an impasse.

While patients may pay more for a well-known brand, like Yale, it is not clear that the higher price tags lead to better care, said Francois de Brantes, a health care executive who once worked at General Electric, which is headquartered in the state.

Since the merger, Yale New Haven has defended the higher rates it charges private insurers as appropriate for a top-tier medical institution.CreditChristopher Capozziello for The New York Times

“We have more lower-rated hospitals in Connecticut than in other New England states,” he said, pointing to an analysis he did at the time of the Anthem-Hartford dispute.

In the Albany, Ga., area, where the Berkeley researchers found a rare decline in hospital prices, the Federal Trade Commission had unsuccessfully attempted to block HCA, the for-profit hospital chain, from selling its hospital to its only local competitor in 2011. But the merger took place, and the F.T.C. reached a settlement with the parties involved.

While Berkeley researchers found area prices dropped, another study by two former F.T.C. employees, Christopher Garmon and Laura Kmitch, found that certain hospital quality measures declined. The merger “highlights the problems that can occur when competition is reduced,” the authors said.

The hospital group, Phoebe Putney Health System, dismissed the findings. “Phoebe has made great strides in enhancing the quality of health care available to the people of southwest Georgia,” Dawn Benson, Phoebe’s general counsel, said in a statement.

To foster competition, Lee County is planning a new 60-bed hospital within the Albany area.

In some cases, state regulators have opposed actions they consider illegal and anti-competitive. In Washington, state officials accused CHI Franciscan Health, based in Tacoma, of using its ties to two doctors’ practices to raise prices and decrease competition on the Kitsap Peninsula, according to a lawsuit filed last year.

The regulators argue that CHI wanted to wield its newfound clout by shifting some operations and imaging from less expensive outpatient settings to hospitals where they could charge more.

“I am all for taking advantage of hospital-based pricing, if we think it is doable in the market and the market can support it,” a CHI executive is quoted as saying in the lawsuit. “It would be great to drop a couple of million more to our bottom line.”

CHI Franciscan said the attorney general’s allegations were “misguided and unfounded.”

In California, Mr. Becerra, the state attorney general, brought a lawsuit against Sutter in March, claiming that its actions led to significantly higher prices in Northern California.

Sutter says it adopted methods encouraged by the federal health care law, by combining hospital services with care delivered outside the hospital to better meet patients’ needs.

But Mr. de Brantes, the health care executive in Connecticut, and others wonder why many mergers were allowed in the first place. “The puzzling part for many of us in the state is why anyone would allow these oligopolies to form,” he said.

 

 

 

Softer bookings dampen Cerner’s Q3 growth

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/softer-bookings-dampen-cerners-q3-growth/540694/

Dive Brief:

  • Cerner’s new bookings fell short of expectations in the third quarter of 2018, leading to lower than expected revenue for the period. While sales of licensed software grew 43% from a year ago to $1.59 billion, the EHR vendor didn’t match the second quarter’s $1.78 billion.  
  • Third quarter revenue totaled $1.34 billion, up 5% from the same period the prior year.
  • The earnings report comes as Cerner is under fire again for its performance on a Department of Defense contract. According to Politico, independent investigators for the Pentagon gave the company poor marks on its MHS Genesis EHR implementation, calling the system “not effective and not suitable” and “not interoperable.” The low assessment echoes an April DOD report.

Dive Insight:

Cerner attributed the lower-than-expected software bookings to timing and pointed to a strong pipeline of potential business hookups. Technology resales were also somewhat off in the third quarter.

“There isn’t anything that’s forcing clients to go get deals done,” Cerner CFO Marc Naughton said during a Thursday earnings call. “The market is still active. We just didn’t get much of it in Q3.”

Cerner also said it is not yet seeing the full impact of government contracts. Nonetheless, officials called it a strong quarter with solid results.

“We continue to have good contributions from our key growth areas” of population health, revenue cycle management and health IT outsourcing, said Chief Client Officer John Peterzalek, who replaces departing President Zane Burke starting next week.

“As we look at our portfolio and our investment plans, there’s some transformation of our own that we need to do to make sure we’re positioned well for the opportunities in front of us,” said Cerner Chairman and CEO Brent Shafer. “Part of that work is creating an operating model that is really designed to support innovation at scale. We are at scale now and want to continue to scale.”

Meanwhile, Cerner faces fresh competition from commercial health giant UnitedHealth, which is expanding into EHRs with a fully integrated system in 2019. During a recent earnings call, UnitedHealth CEO David Wichmann said the company will launch a “fully individualized, fully portable” EHR early next year leveraged off its Rally mobile wellness platform.

 

 

Bon Secours’ hospital proposal in Suffolk gets an edge over Sentara’s expansion request

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

https://pilotonline.com/news/local/health/article_a058693e-d630-11e8-a732-eb28ce327e7d.html

Bon Secours Harbour View Hospital

In a race to build-out hospital services in the northern part of Suffolk, Bon Secours has received an edge over Sentara.

State health staff, who reviewed expansion requests from both health care systems this summer, recently provided a recommendation of conditional approval for Bon Secours. Its proposal seeks to add 18 in-patient beds and four operating rooms to a facility at the Harbour View campus.

The plan calls for a two-story, 76,000-square-foot facility on the northeast corner of Bon Secours Drive and Harbour Towne Parkway. Bon Secours executives say it’s an effort to better reach western Hampton Roads patients and establish a short-stay, surgically focused hospital.

Within days of each other, Bon Secours and Sentara filed letters to state health officials seeking permission to add or move beds to their respective northern Suffolk campuses.

Bon Secours filed its letter of intent first to apply for a “certificate of public need” to move hospital beds and a few surgery rooms from its Maryview Medical Center in downtown Portsmouth. Days later Sentara submitted a similar request for in-patient beds, operating rooms and a CT scanner at its Sentara Belleharbour campus on Route 17 Bridge Road.

That plan would involve moving beds from Sentara Obici Hospital. Hospital executives have said the shift would meet patients closer to where they are: About 14 patients at Obici each day are coming from Belleharbour, said Dr. Steve Julian, president of Obici, in a June interview.

But the Sentara project “duplicates” services already available in the district, according to the state’s review, and would contribute further to the hospital system’s market dominance. Staff recommended denial of the request, stating it could be “harmful to competition in the region.”

In a statement issued through a spokesman, Julian said Sentara was disappointed with the review but would consider next steps in the state’s certificate of public need process.

“We believe our application offered the most benefit for the least cost in a hospital-ready building already under construction,” Julian said in the statement.

The competing mini medical center proposals demonstrate how hospital systems vie for turf – and how the state tries to weigh those requests in the balance of keeping health care costs reasonable for patients.

The state health commissioner will render a final decision on the projects later this year.

Two letters of opposition against the Sentara project appear to have factored into the staff’s preference for the Bon Secours plan.

Dr. Joseph Verdirame, former president of the medical staff at Obici, wrote that, since acquiring Obici, Sentara has migrated many resources away from downtown Portsmouth and central Suffolk to Belleharbour and Sentara Norfolk General. He believes those shifts are detrimental to care in central Suffolk.

In another letter, Virginia Slocum, strategic operations planning manager at Chesapeake Regional Healthcare, said Sentara doesn’t have enough competition and that allowing it to spend more on expansion could drive “increases in health care costs” for consumers. 

 

 

Massachusetts officials attach stiff conditions to Beth Israel-Lahey merger

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/massachusetts-officials-attach-stiff-conditions-to-beth-israel-lahey-merger/539515/

Dive Brief:

  • Massachusetts public health officials have set tough new conditions for the proposed merger of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Lahey Health that will require the parties to demonstrate they’re holding down costs while ensuring access to low-income patients, The Boston Globe reports.
  • The conditions, laid out at a Wednesday meeting of the state’s Public Health Council, include yearly reporting of how the hospitals will apply savings from the merger to enhance care quality and access to services. If savings surpass the state’s 3.1% benchmark for controlling healthcare costs, the new system will have to put more money back into services and community hospitals and clinics.
  • The conditions also require the system, within six months, to develop a plan to increase services to Medicaid patients and, within two years, ensure full participation by Beth Israel-Lahey physicians in the state Medicaid program.

Dive Insight:

The conditions follow a Health Policy Commission report that warned the merger could result in a $128.4 million to $170.8 million increase in healthcare spending for inpatient, outpatient and adult primary care services and up to $59.7 million for specialty physician services.

The commission concluded that while the merger could lead to improvements in quality and efficiencies, the companies hadn’t explained how that would happen. The new conditions call for a second report in five years to assess the merger’s impact on healthcare costs and services in the state.

BIDMC CEO Kevin Tabb called the commission’s conditions “strict,” but said they won’t discourage the planned merger. “While the conditions are unprecedented, we are eager to move forward together as Beth Israel Lahey Health,” he told Healthcare Dive via email. “The status quo in this market is unacceptable, and it’s time to do something different.”

As mergers and acquisitions continue in healthcare, potential problems could lead to more stringent conditions. Research has shown, for example, that horizontal mergers can drive up costs. Once completed, Beth Israel-Lahey Health would rival Partners HealthCare System in terms of market share in Massachusetts. The new company could use its increased bargaining power to raise prices for commercial payers, increasing healthcare spending.

A recent National Bureau of Economic Research analysis also played down the extent to which hospital mergers increase efficiencies. According to NBER, acquired hospitals save just 1.5% of total costs following a merger — or an average of $176,000 a year.

And a recent University of California-Berkeley study of health system consolidation in the state found that highly concentrated markets led to higher hospital and physician service fees, as well as higher Affordable Care Act premiums, especially in northern California.

 

 

WHAT’S YOUR LEADERSHIP TILT?

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , • Leave a comment

What’s Your Leadership Tilt? Find Your Balance Inside

 

 

We’ve surveyed hundreds of leaders about their greatest leader, the most important natural behaviors beyond character and hard worker were Results and Relationships.

Where do you tilt on the results and relationships scale?

Check out this free infographic, and please tell others about it!