Tag Archives: Health Policy

The GOP’s Strategy for Killing Obamacare Now Looks Like This

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

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-22/the-gop-s-strategy-for-killing-obamacare-now-looks-like-this

The mandate to buy health insurance is the broccoli of Obamacare—the part you have to accept if you want the goodies, like affordable coverage of people with costly pre-existing conditions. Now Senate Republicans are saying you don’t have to eat your broccoli anymore. They eliminate the penalty for lack of coverage in their version of the $1.5 trillion tax cut bill, which they aim to vote on after Thanksgiving.

Could removing the penalty, which effectively kills the individual mandate, possibly make sense? Health-care economists describe the mandate as a necessary evil. Without it, they say, healthy people will roll the dice and choose to go uncovered, leaving insurance pools made up of sicker, older people who are costlier to cover. But the impact of the requirement is regressive. Well-off families generally get health insurance through their employers, so those who pay the tax for noncoverage tend to be poorer, some working two or three jobs to make ends meet.

For Senate Republicans, killing the individual mandate is a beautiful twofer. First, it’s a way to limit the red ink from their tax package. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates ending the mandate would save $318 billion over 10 years, because the people who dropped coverage wouldn’t get subsidies. Savings would continue after 2027. That’s crucial because under the Byrd rule, a measure can pass the Senate with a simple majority only if it doesn’t add to deficits beyond 10 years. Second, gutting the mandate would partially fulfill Republicans’ long-standing objective of getting rid of Obamacare entirely.

The downside for Republicans is that the repeal gambit has breathed new life into the pro-Obamacare coalition, which argues that Republicans are financing tax cuts for the rich by reducing the number of people with health insurance. “Adding ACA repeal to the corporate tax giveaway has fanned the flames of resistance into a roaring inferno,” says Ben Wikler, the Washington director of MoveOn.org, a liberal activist group. The Congressional Budget Office said on Nov. 8 that repealing the mandate would increase the number of uninsured Americans by 13 million and raise premiums by 10 percent “in most years” of the next decade.

Within hours of Senate Republicans’ announcing their intentions to kill the mandate, a coalition of trade groups for doctors, hospitals, and insurers urged them not to, warning that doing so would raise premiums. In Virginia, a CNN exit poll showed health care was voters’ top issue by more than 2 to 1. Democrat Ralph Northam won voters most concerned about health care 77 percent to 23 percent en route to his decisive election as their next governor.

This leaves Republicans in an awkward spot. While they crave the savings that come from repealing the mandate, they don’t love the reason why—namely, millions fewer people would be insured. That’s something they’ve always insisted wouldn’t happen. As recently as July, two White House officials wrote a Washington Post op-ed ridiculing the notion that millions of people “value their insurance so little that they will simply drop coverage next year following the repeal of the individual and employer mandates.”

Republicans are trying to have it both ways. Utah Senator Orrin Hatch, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said that dropping the mandate wouldn’t cut Medicaid. The CBO predicts that of the 13 million people who drop coverage, 5 million will be current Medicaid recipients. Senator Claire McCaskill, a Missouri Democrat, balked. “Where do you think the $300 billion is coming from?” she asked Hatch. “Is there a fairy that’s dropping it on the Senate?”

It’s not just the Republicans who have a complicated relationship with the mandate. Democrats need it to make Obamacare hang together, yet they know it’s unpopular and regressive. Seventy-nine percent of the 6.7 million households that paid the mandate tax for 2015 had incomes under $50,000, and 37 percent made below $25,000, according to Internal Revenue Service data. Republicans tweak Obamacare’s defenders by arguing that if financially hard-pressed families want to drop their policies—and lose the government subsidies that go with them—that’s their right.

Democrats say the mandate gets people to do something that’s in their best interest and keeps emergency rooms from being swamped by uninsured sick people. (Republicans used to make this argument.) But the mandate is also a way to get healthy families to subsidize less-healthy ones, rather than just cover their own risks. That’s what makes it unpopular. “That’s sort of the trap,” says Christopher Pope, a senior fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute.

Also, the mandate probably isn’t as effective as Democrats have argued. In its Nov. 8 report, the CBO said that for its next estimate, it’s changing its model for how people behave. While results won’t be ready until after Congress wants to finish the tax bill, it said, the effects “would probably be smaller than the numbers reported in this document.” In other words, it won’t reduce coverage as much—or save as much money. It could be that Obamacare needs to rely less on the stick (mandates) and more on the carrot (subsidies that hold down the cost of premiums).

A new CBO estimate that played down the impact of mandate repeal could work out quite nicely for the Republicans. They could point to the Joint Committee on Taxation’s current high estimate for savings to pay for the tax cut, and then next year’s lower estimate of coverage losses from the CBO to claim that eliminating the mandate wasn’t so harmful after all. “Politics is a funny business,” says Pope. “You use whatever weapon you can grab hold of.”

BOTTOM LINE – By dropping Obamacare’s individual mandate, Senate Republicans can raise billions to pay for their tax cuts—and undercut a key part of the health-care law.

 

Repealing the individual mandate would do substantial harm

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

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2017/11/21/repealing-the-individual-mandate-would-do-substantial-harm/?utm_campaign=Brookings%20Brief&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=58686618

Related image

he tax legislation reported by the Senate Finance Committee last week included repeal of the individual mandate, which was created by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and requires individuals to obtain health insurance coverage or pay a penalty. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated that this proposal would cause large reductions in insurance coverage, reaching 13 million people in the long run.

Supporters of repealing the individual mandate have argued that the resulting reductions in insurance coverage are not a cause for concern because they would be voluntary. Rigorous versions of this argument acknowledge that individuals who drop coverage would lose protection against high medical costs, find it harder to access care, and likely experience worse health outcomes, but assert that the very fact that these individuals would choose to drop insurance coverage shows that they will be better off on net. On that basis, advocates of repealing the mandate claim that its repeal would do no harm. However, this argument suffers from two serious flaws.

The first flaw in this argument is that it assumes individuals bear the full cost of their decisions about whether to obtain insurance coverage; in fact, one person’s decision to go without health insurance coverage shifts costs onto other people. Notably, CBO has estimated that the departure of healthy enrollees from the individual market spurred by repeal of the individual mandate will increase individual market premiums by 10 percent, causing some in that market to involuntarily lose coverage and causing those who remain to bear higher costs. In addition, many of those who become uninsured will end up needing health care but not be able to pay for it, imposing costs on other participants in the health care system. Because individuals who choose to become uninsured do not bear the full cost of that decision, they may choose to do so even in circumstances where the benefits of coverage—accounting for its effects on both the covered individual and the rest of society—exceed its costs.

The second flaw in this argument is that it assumes individual decisions about whether to purchase health insurance coverage reflect a fully informed, fully rational weighing of the cost and benefits. In fact, there is strong reason to believe that many individuals, particularly the healthier individuals most affected by the mandate, are likely to undervalue insurance coverage. This likely reflects a variety of well-documented psychological biases, including a tendency to place too much weight on upfront costs of obtaining coverage (including the “hassle costs” of enrolling) relative to the benefits insurance coverage would provide if the individual got sick and needed care at some point in the future. It is therefore likely that many people who would drop insurance coverage due to repeal of the individual mandate would end up worse off, even solely considering the costs and benefits to the individuals themselves.

The considerations described above mean that, in the absence of subsidies, an individual mandate, or some combination of the two, many people will decline to obtain insurance coverage despite that coverage being well worth society’s cost of providing it. Furthermore, unless the current subsidies and individual mandate penalty provide too strong an incentive to obtain coverage that results in too many people being insured—a view that appears inconsistent with the available evidence—then reductions in insurance coverage due to repealing the individual mandate would do substantial harm.

The remainder of this analysis takes a closer look at the two flaws in the argument that reductions in insurance coverage caused by repeal of the individual mandate would do no harm. The analysis then discusses why these considerations create a strong case for maintaining an individual mandate.

INDIVIDUAL DECISIONS TO DROP INSURANCE COVERAGE IMPOSE SUBSTANTIAL COSTS ON OTHER PEOPLE

As noted above, supporters of repealing the individual mandate have often argued that the resulting reductions in insurance coverage would do no harm because they are the outcome of voluntary choices. One major flaw in this argument is that one person’s decision to drop insurance coverage imposes costs on other people through a pair of mechanisms: increases in individual market premiums and increases in uncompensated care. I discuss each of these mechanisms in greater detail below.

Increases in individual market premium reduce coverage and increase others’ costs

Repealing the individual mandate would reduce the cost of being uninsured and, equivalently, increase the effective cost of purchasing insurance coverage. That increase in the effective cost of insurance coverage would, in turn, cause many people to drop coverage. Because individuals with the most significant health care needs are likely to place the highest value on maintaining insurance coverage, the people dropping insurance coverage would likely be relatively healthy, on average. In the individual market, those enrollees’ departure would raise average claims costs, requiring insurers to charge higher premiums to the people remaining in the individual market.[1]

CBO estimates that, because of this dynamic, repealing the individual mandate would increase individual market premiums by around 10 percent. Those higher premiums would push some enrollees who are not eligible for subsidies out of the individual market. Higher premiums would impose large costs on unsubsidized enrollees who remained in the ACA-compliant individual market—around 6 million people—while increasing federal costs for subsidized enrollees who remain insured.[2]

CBO’s estimates are at least qualitatively consistent with empirical evidence on the effects of the individual mandate. Perhaps the best evidence on this point comes from Massachusetts health reform. Research examining the unsubsidized portion of Massachusetts’ individual market estimated that Massachusetts’ individual mandate increased enrollment in the unsubsidized portion of its individual market by 38 percent, reducing average claims costs by 8 percent and premiums by 21 percent. Similarly, research focused on the subsidized portion of Massachusetts’ market found that the mandate appears to have been an important motivator of enrollment, particularly among healthier enrollees.

Direct evidence on the effects of the ACA’s mandate is relatively scant because it is challenging to disentangle the effect of the mandate from the effect of other policy changes implemented by the ACA. However, it is notable that the uninsured rate among people with incomes above 400 percent of the federal poverty level fell by almost one-third from 2013 to 2015. This trend is consistent with the view that the ACA’s individual mandate has increased insurance coverage since these individuals are not eligible for the ACA’s subsidies, and implementation of the ACA’s bar on varying premiums or denying coverage based on health status, taken on its own, would have been expected to actually reduce insurance coverage in this group. Because this estimate applies to only a relatively small slice of the population, it cannot easily be used to determine the total effect of the individual mandate on insurance coverage, but it does suggest that the mandate has had meaningful effects.

Repealing the individual mandate could also cause broader disruptions in the individual market for some period of time. Insurers would find it challenging to predict exactly what the individual market risk pool would look like after repeal of the mandate. Some insurers might elect to limit their individual market exposure until that uncertainty is resolved, particularly since the Trump Administration has signaled an intent to pursue other significant policy changes affecting the individual market. That uncertainty could cause some insurers to withdraw from the market, potentially leaving some enrollees without any coverage options. Alternatively, insurers could elect to raise premiums by even more than they expect to be necessary (e.g., by more than the CBO 10 percent estimate cited above) to ensure that they are protected in all scenarios, with significant costs to both individuals and the federal government. It is uncertain how widespread these types of broader disruptions would be in practice, but they are possible.

It is important to note that one person’s decision about whether to purchase individual market coverage affects the premiums faced by others because of a conscious policy choice: the decision to bar insurers from varying premiums or denying coverage based on health status. Without those regulations, individual coverage decisions would have little or no effect on the premiums charged to others. But policymakers and the public have, appropriately in my view, concluded that these regulations perform a valuable social function by ensuring that health care cost burdens are shared equitably between the healthy and the sick. Having made that decision, other aspects of public policy must take account of the fact that one person’s decision to go uninsured has consequences for the market as a whole.

Some newly uninsured individuals would need care, but be unable to pay for it

Dropping insurance coverage also allows individuals to shift a portion of the cost of the care they receive onto others in the form of uncompensated care. Even in the group of comparatively healthy individuals who elect to drop their coverage, some will get sick and need health care. Some of these individuals might be able to pay for that care out of pocket, but others—particularly those who get seriously ill—would likely be unable to pay for it. In some cases, that would cause these individuals to forgo needed care, but in other cases they would receive care without paying for it, either due to the legal requirement that hospitals provide care in emergency situations or through various other formal and informal mechanisms. (Although individuals would often still be able to access care without paying for it, they would frequently still be billed for that care, with potential downstream consequences for their ability to access credit.)

Uninsured individuals receive large quantities of uncompensated care in practice. Estimates based on the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey indicate that a non-elderly individual uninsured for the entire year received $1,700 in uncompensated care, on average, during 2013. Consistent with that fact, increases in the number of uninsured individuals increase the amount of uncompensated care. In the context of the Oregon Health Insurance Experiment, a randomized controlled trial of the effects of expanded Medicaid coverage, having Medicaid coverage was estimated to reduce the amount of uncompensated care an individual receives by almost $2,200 per year, on average. Quasi-experimental research has similarly found that increases in the number of uninsured individuals in a hospital’s local area increase the amount of uncompensated care a hospital delivers and that the expansion in insurance coverage achieved by the ACA substantially reduced hospitals’ uncompensated care burdens.

Precisely who bears the cost of uncompensated care, particularly in the long run, is not entirely clear. A portion of uncompensated care costs are borne by federal, state, and local government programs and, therefore, are ultimately borne by taxpayers. In 2013, around three-fifths of uncompensated care was financed by federal, state, and local government programs explicitly or implicitly aimed at this purpose. Increases in uncompensated care burdens are likely to lead to increases in spending on these programs. In some cases, those increases will happen automatically. For example, CBO finds that repealing the individual mandate will increase federal spending on the Medicare Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) program, which is intended to defray uncompensated care costs, by $44 billion over the next ten years because the formula for determining DSH payments depends on the uninsured rate. In other cases, changes may occur more indirectly, perhaps because higher uncompensated care burdens create political pressure to expand these programs (or make it harder to cut them).

The impact of uncompensated care therefore depends to a significant degree on how non-profit hospitals cope with reduced operating margins. Evidence on this point is relatively limited. However, in instances where increases in uncompensated care burdens cause providers to incur outright losses, they are likely to ultimately force facilities to close, which could reduce access to care or increase prices charged to those enrolled in private insurance by reducing competition. In instances where increases in uncompensated care burdens merely trim positive operating margins, lower margins presumably force hospitals to reduce capital investments or to reduce cross-subsidies to other activities such as medical education or research.Recent research focused on the hospital sector, which accounts around three-fifths of all uncompensated care, suggests that providers also bear a significant portion of uncompensated care costs in the form of lower operating margins. However, this does not imply that uncompensated care costs are ultimately borne by hospitals’ owners. Indeed, this research finds that reductions in operating margins in response to increases in uncompensated care occur almost exclusively among non-profit hospitals, plausibly because for-profit hospitals are adept at locating in geographic areas where the demand for uncompensated care is relatively low. (Greater distortions where providers choose to locate and what services they choose to offer may be an important cost of increased uncompensated care.)

INDIVIDUAL DECISIONS TO DROP INSURANCE COVERAGE MAY HARM THE INDIVIDUALS THEMSELVES

The argument that reductions in insurance coverage due to repeal of the individual mandate do no harm because they are voluntary has a second important flaw; specifically, this argument assumes that individual decisions about whether to obtain health insurance coverage reflect a fully informed, fully rational weighing of the costs and benefits. There is strong reason to doubt that assumption.

Economists commonly note that many people decline to take-up health even in settings where that coverage is free or nearly so. For example, analysts at the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) have estimated that, in 2016, there were 6.8 million people who were eligible for Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program, but not enrolled in those programs, despite the fact that these programs had negligible premiums. Similarly, for this year’s Marketplace open enrollment period, analysts at KFF estimated that among uninsured individuals eligible to purchase Marketplace coverage, around two-fifths could obtain a bronze plan for a premium of zero, but few expect all of these individuals to enroll.

This type of behavior is very challenging to explain as the outcome of a fully informed, fully rational decision-making process. The fact that individuals who do not purchase insurance coverage can shift significant costs to others, as discussed above, can help explain why some individuals value insurance at less than the cost of providing it. But these factors cannot explain why enrollees would decline to obtain coverage that is literally free to them. In principle, “hassle costs” of enrolling in coverage could explain decisions to forgo coverage in these instances, but those hassle costs would need to be implausibly large to explain a decision to forgo an offer of free insurance coverage.

Precisely why individuals decline to take up insurance coverage even in settings where it seems clearly in their interest to do so is not fully understood. This review article catalogues a wide variety of psychological biases that may play a role, but three seem particularly important in this context:

  • Present bias: Economists have documented that individuals generally exhibit “present bias,” meaning that they place a large weight on current costs and benefits relative to similar costs and benefits in the future. In the context of insurance coverage, this type of bias is likely to cause individuals, particularly those who are currently healthy, to place too much weight on the upfront premium and hassle costs required to enroll in health insurance relative to the benefit of having insurance coverage if they get sick at some point in the future. This may cause individuals to decline to obtain insurance coverage even when it is in their economic interest, including in instances where the premium required to enroll is literally zero.

Overweighting of small up front hassle costs appears to lead suboptimal decisions in many economic settings, but the retirement saving literature provides a particularly striking example. Simply being required to return a form to enroll in an employer’s retirement plan has been documented to sharply reduce take-up of that plan, even in circumstances where employees forgo hundreds or thousands of dollars per year in employer matching contributions by declining to participate.

  • Overoptimistic perceptions of risk: One core function of health insurance is to provide protection against relatively rare, but very costly, illnesses. Indeed, a large fraction of the total value of a health insurance contract is delivered in those states of the world. In 2014, around 5 percent of the population accounted for around half of total health care spending.[3] But because these events are comparatively rare, many individuals, particularly healthier individuals, may have difficulty forming accurate perceptions of the risks they face. Research on Medicare Part D has found that individuals tend to place too much weight on premiums relative to expected out-of-pocket costs when choosing plans, providing some evidence that individuals do indeed underestimate risk (although research focused on insurance products other than health insurance has concluded that individuals may sometimes overestimate risk). Like present bias, misperceptions of risk can cause hassle or premium costs to receive too much weight relative to the actual benefits of coverage.
  • Inaccurate beliefs about affordability: Enrollees could also have inaccurate information about the availability of coverage. Survey evidence has suggested that, as of early 2016, almost 40 percent of uninsured adults were unaware of the existence of the ACA’s Health Insurance Marketplaces. Additionally, approximately two-thirds of those who were aware of the Marketplaces had not investigated their coverage options, with most saying that they had not done so because they did not believe that they could afford coverage. Individuals’ beliefs about whether coverage is affordable may be accurate in some instances, but it is likely that they are not accurate in many other cases. Inaccurate beliefs may cause many individuals to fail to investigate their coverage options, including some who are eligible for free or very-low-cost coverage.

REDUCTIONS IN INSURANCE COVERAGE FROM REPEALING THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE WOULD DO SUBSTANTIAL HARM

The factors identified above provide strong economic rationale for implementing some combination of subsidies and penalties to strengthen the financial incentive to obtain health insurance coverage. These policy tools can compensate for the fact that individual decisions to go without coverage do not account for the ways in which those decisions increase costs for others. Similarly, in many (though not all) instances, financial incentives can help counteract psychological biases that cause individuals to go without insurance coverage even when it is against their own economic interest.

This discussion does not, of course, speak directly to how large subsidies and penalties should be. At least in theory, it is possible to overcompensate for the factors catalogued in the preceding section by creating too large an incentive to obtain coverage and thereby causing too many people to become insured. This occurs if the cost of the additional health care individuals receive when they become insured plus the administrative costs of providing that coverage exceeds the health benefits of the additional health care and the improved protection against financial risk.

Estimating the optimal size of subsidies and penalties is beyond the scope of this analysis. However, it is notable that virtually no one in the current policy debate is arguing that the United States insures too many individuals. Furthermore, there is reason to doubt that this is an empirically relevant concern. For example, the research on Massachusetts health reform by Hackmann, Kolstad, and Kowalski that was discussed earlier used their estimates to calculate the “optimal” mandate penalty to apply to unsubsidized enrollees. They conclude that just offsetting adverse selection justifies a mandate penalty similar in size to the one included in the ACA; also accounting for either uncompensated care or imperfections in consumer decision making could justify a considerably larger penalty.

It therefore seems difficult to justify repealing the individual mandate on the grounds that current policies provide an excessive overall incentive to obtain insurance coverage. Of course, policymakers might believe that it would be preferable to swap the mandate for larger subsidies, perhaps because they believe that it is inappropriate to penalize individuals for not obtaining coverage. In principle, sufficiently large increases in subsidies could offset the reduction in insurance coverage that repealing the individual mandate would cause. But such an approach would require large increases in federal spending since it would keep insurance enrollment at its current level by providing larger subsidies to each enrolled individual. In any case, the Senate Finance Committee bill does not take this approach. Rather than increasing spending on insurance coverage programs to mitigate coverage losses, the bill uses the reduction in spending on coverage programs caused by repealing the mandate (which results from lower enrollment in those programs) to finance tax cuts.

 

 

 

 

 

The biggest health issue we aren’t debating

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

https://www.axios.com/the-biggest-health-issue-we-arent-debating-2511098849.html

Image result for The biggest health issue we aren’t debating

 

Thanksgiving is always a time to think about those in need. How about, then, a group we don’t worry about enough: the many lower and moderate income Americans who can’t cover their cost sharing if they get sick? It raises the question: How much cost sharing is too much?

The bottom line: High deductible plans, which require people to pay large amounts out of pocket before their medical bills are covered, are a good deal for some middle and upper income people. But many lower and moderate income Americans simply don’t have $1,500 to $3,000 to pay for the colonoscopy that might save their life, or a stress test that might reveal the heart disease which is the cause of their chest discomfort.

The details: The chart, drawn from a new study, tells the tale: More than four in in 10 households with private coverage and incomes between 150% and 400% of the federal poverty line do not have enough liquid assets to cover a deductible of $1,500 for single people and $3,000 for families.

  • That’s not a high deductible plan, but about the average in an employer-provided insurance plan.
  • Sixty percent couldn’t cover deductibles double those amounts, which are not uncommon, especially in the individual insurance market.
  • Ninety percent of insured households with incomes of 400% of poverty or more could meet a typical employer insurance deductible, but just 37% of lower income household with incomes under 150% of the poverty level could.

For many families, even if they have insurance, any significant illness could wipe out all their savings, making impossible to fix a broken car to get to work, or pay for school, or make a rent or mortgage payment.

Congress has passed no law declaring that the country will go with high deductible coverage as its main approach to health insurance. There has been no meaningful debate about its pros and cons. But as deductibles and other forms of cost sharing have inched up year by year, the nature of insurance has changed.

The people to worry about most are the ones who are least equipped to deal with that change. There may be someone who fits that bill around your Thanksgiving table.

 

Podcast: Nurses to the Rescue!

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

Nurses to the Rescue!

Image result for Nurses to the Rescue!

They are the most-trusted profession in America (and with good reason). They are critical to patient outcomes (especially in primary care). Could the growing army of nurse practitioners be an answer to the doctor shortage? The data say yes but — big surprise — doctors’ associations say no.

 

Medicaid Expansion Has Improved the Financial Outlook for Safety-Net Hospitals

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

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2017/nov/financial-impact-state-medicaid-expansion-safety-net-hospitals

Abstract

  • Issue: Safety-net hospitals play a vital role in delivering health care to Medicaid enrollees, the uninsured, and other vulnerable patients. By reducing the number of uninsured Americans, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was also expected to lower these hospitals’ significant uncompensated care costs and shore up their financial stability.
  • Goal: To examine how the ACA’s Medicaid expansion affected the financial status of safety-net hospitals in states that expanded Medicaid and in states that did not.
  • Methods: Using Medicare hospital cost reports for federal fiscal years 2012 and 2015, the authors compared changes in Medicaid inpatient days as a percentage of total inpatient days, Medicaid revenues as a percentage of total net patient revenues, uncompensated care costs as a percentage of total operating costs, and hospital operating margins.
  • Findings and Conclusions: Medicaid expansion had a significant, favorable financial impact on safety-net hospitals. From 2012 to 2015, safety-net hospitals in expansion states, compared to those in nonexpansion states, experienced larger increases in Medicaid inpatient days and Medicaid revenues as well as reduced uncompensated care costs. These changes improved operating margins for safety-net hospitals in expansion states. Margins for safety-net hospitals in nonexpansion states, meanwhile, declined.

Background

Through their missions or legal mandate, safety-net hospitals provide care to all patients, regardless of their ability to pay.1 They include public hospitals, which are often providers of last resort in their communities; academic medical centers, which combine their teaching function with a mission to serve vulnerable populations; and certain private hospitals.

Safety-net hospitals deliver a significant level of care to low-income patients, including Medicaid enrollees and the uninsured, typically providing services that other hospitals in the community do not offer — trauma, burn care, neonatal intensive care, and inpatient behavioral health, as well as education for future physicians and other health care professionals. They are also an important source of care to uninsured individuals who are ineligible for Medicaid or subsidized marketplace coverage because of their citizenship status.2

Several studies have suggested major reductions in uncompensated care and improved financial status at safety-net institutions in states that expanded Medicaid compared to those in states that did not expand.3,4 However, these results were based on interviews with a limited number of safety-net health system executives and staff. Our analysis expands on this research by examining changes in key financial metrics — that is, uncompensated care, Medicaid costs and revenues, and total hospital margins–across safety-net hospitals nationally using standardized data.

When compared to other short-term acute care hospitals, hospitals that met our safety-net hospital criteria had substantially higher Medicaid revenue and uncompensated care levels than non-safety-net hospitals. Safety-net hospitals, however, had lower operating margins (Exhibit 1).

Below we discuss findings on the impact of the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) Medicaid expansion on safety-net hospitals’ financial status. The ACA allowed states to expand Medicaid eligibility to nonelderly adults with incomes up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level. The reduction in the number of uninsured under the ACA coverage expansions was expected to reduce the uncompensated care that hospitals provide, thus improving their financial status. As of 2015, 31 states and the District of Columbia had expanded Medicaid, while 19 states had not.5

We measure changes in the financial status of safety-net hospitals in states that expanded Medicaid prior to 2015 (326 hospitals) versus safety-net hospitals in states that did not expand or expanded in 2015 or after (268 hospitals). (See “How We Conducted This Study” for complete methods.)

Key Findings

Our analysis of Medicare cost report data for federal fiscal years 2012 and 2015 shows a sizable contrast in financial performance between safety-net hospitals in states that expanded Medicaid under the ACA and those in states that did not. Performance metrics included the following:

    • Hospital operating margins.6 Operating margins improved for safety-net hospitals located in Medicaid expansion states compared with declines for those in states that did not expand. From 2012 to 2015, operating margins for safety-net hospitals in Medicaid expansion states increased from –3.2 percent to –2.1 percent in 2015 (Exhibit 2, Appendix A). In contrast during the same period, operating margins for safety-net hospitals in nonexpansion states declined from 2.3 percent to 2.0 percent. Largely accounting for this difference were increased Medicaid revenues and reduced uncompensated care costs. Even after expansion, safety-net hospitals’ operating margins in Medicaid expansion states were lower than those in nonexpansion states.
    • Medicaid inpatient days. From 2012 to 2015, safety-net hospitals in Medicaid expansion states experienced larger growth in Medicaid utilization than those in nonexpansion states (Exhibit 3). During the study period, Medicaid inpatient days in expansion states rose 13.5 percent. In comparison, Medicaid inpatient days in nonexpansion states fell slightly, by 0.9 percent.
    • Medicaid revenues and costs.7 The rise in use of safety-net hospitals in Medicaid expansion states resulted in these hospitals’ increased Medicaid revenue and costs compared to a slight decline in nonexpansion states (Exhibit 4). From 2012 to 2015, safety-net hospitals’ Medicaid revenues as a share of net patient revenues rose 12.7 percent in Medicaid expansion states. In contrast, during the same period, safety-net hospitals’ Medicaid revenues as a share of net patient revenues declined 1.8 percent in nonexpansion states. However, safety-net hospitals’ profit margins on Medicaid patients fell from 6.8 percent to 0.7 percent in expansion states, suggesting that the revenues received for newly eligible patients did not keep pace with the higher cost of treating these patients.
    • Uncompensated care costs.8 In 2012, safety-net hospitals’ uncompensated care costs as a percent of total hospital operating costs equaled 6.7 percent in expansion states compared to 5.7 percent in nonexpansion states (Exhibit 5). By 2015, however, the safety-net hospitals’ share of uncompensated care declined to 3.5 percent in expansion states, or a reduction of 47.4 percent. By comparison, in nonexpansion states that year, uncompensated care costs as a share of total hospital operating costs fell to 5.3 percent, a 7.8 percent reduction.

Discussion

These data suggest that the Medicaid expansion created by the ACA had a significant positive financial impact on safety-net hospitals in states that expanded Medicaid eligibility relative to those in states that did not expand. Safety-net hospitals in expansion states saw larger increases in Medicaid patient volume and revenue, reduced uncompensated care, and improved financial margins compared to safety-net hospitals in nonexpansion states. Although our study’s results are specific to safety-net hospitals, other studies have found similar trends across all hospitals in expansion and nonexpansion states.9

The improved financial stability of safety-net hospitals could allow these hospitals to continue expanding outpatient capacity, invest in strategies to improve care coordination, hire new staff, and develop better infrastructure to monitor costs.10 Such investments can also help prepare hospitals for new payment arrangements that may require them to assume more financial risk for patient care and outcomes. Improvements not only benefit the institutions and Medicaid patients but the communities these hospitals serve.

Current attempts to repeal the ACA aim to eliminate the Medicaid expansions over time and curtail Medicaid spending by more than $800 billion over 10 years. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that about 14 million people could lose their Medicaid coverage by 2026, which would have an adverse effect on safety-net hospitals in those states. Specifically, safety-net hospitals’ gains in reduced uncompensated care and improved overall financial margins could be lost in the future.

 

Ambulance trips can leave you with surprising — and very expensive — bills

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

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/ambulance-trips-can-leave-you-with-surprising–and-very-expensive–bills/2017/11/17/6be9280e-c313-11e7-84bc-5e285c7f4512_story.html?tid=ss_tw-bottom&utm_term=.78d3dfa36d97

Image result for high ambulance bill trends

 

One patient got a $3,660 bill for a four-mile ride. Another was charged $8,460 for a trip from a hospital that could not handle his case to another that could. Still another found herself marooned at an out-of-network hospital, where she’d been taken by ambulance without her consent.

These patients all took ambulances in emergencies and got slammed with unexpected bills. Public outrage has erupted over surprise medical bills — generally out-of-network charges that a patient did not expect or could not control — prompting 21 states to pass laws over the years protecting consumers in some situations. But these laws largely ignore ground ambulance rides, which can leave patients stuck with hundreds or even thousands of dollars in bills and with few options for recourse, finds a Kaiser Health News review of 350 consumer complaints in 32 states.

Patients usually choose to go to the doctor, but they are vulnerable when they call 911 or get into an ambulance. The dispatcher picks the ambulance crew, which may be the local fire department or a private company hired by the municipality. The crew, in turn, often picks the hospital. Moreover, many ambulances are not summoned by patients, but by police or a bystander.

Betsy Imholz, special projects director at the Consumers Union, which has collected more than 700 patient stories about surprise medical bills, said at least a quarter concern ambulances.

“It’s a huge problem,” she said.

Forty years ago, most ambulances were free for patients, provided by volunteers or town fire departments using taxpayer money, said Jay Fitch, president of Fitch & Associates, an emergency services consulting firm. Today, ambulances are increasingly run by private companies and venture capital firms. Ambulance operators now often charge by the mile and sometimes for each “service,” such as providing oxygen. If the ambulance is staffed by paramedics rather than emergency medical technicians, that will result in a higher charge — even if the patient didn’t need paramedic-level services. Charges range from zero to thousands of dollars.

The core of the problem is that ambulance companies and private insurers often can’t agree on a fair price, so the ambulance service doesn’t join the insurer’s network. That leaves patients stuck with out-of-network charges that are not negotiated, Imholz said.

This happens to patients frequently, according to a recent study of more than half a million ambulance trips taken by patients with private insurance in 2014. The study, by two staffers at the Federal Trade Commission, found that 26 percent of these trips were billed on an out-of-network basis.

That figure is “quite jarring,” said Loren Adler, co-author of a recent report on surprise billing.

The KHN review of complaints revealed two common scenarios leaving patients in debt: First, patients get into an ambulance after a 911 call. Second, an ambulance transfers them between hospitals. In both scenarios, patients later learn the fee is much higher because the ambulance was out-of-network, and after the insurer pays what it deems fair, they get a surprise bill for the balance, also known as a “balance bill.”

The Better Business Bureau has received nearly 1,200 consumer complaints about ambulances in the past three years; half were related to billing, and 46 mentioned out-of-network charges, spokeswoman Katherine Hutt said.

While the federal government sets reimbursement rates for patients on Medicare, it does not regulate ambulance fees for patients with private insurance. Those patients are left with a highly fragmented system in which the cost of a similar ambulance trip can vary widely from town to town. There are about 14,000 ambulance services across the country, run by governments, volunteers, hospitals and private companies, according to the American Ambulance Association. (The Washington area reflects that mix.)

For a glimpse into the unpredictable system, consider the case of Roman Barshay. The 46-year-old software engineer, who lives in Brooklyn, was visiting friends in the Boston suburb of Chestnut Hill last November when he took a nasty fall.

Barshay felt a sharp pain in his chest and back, and he had trouble walking. An ambulance crew responded to a 911 call at his friends’ house and drove him four miles to Brigham and Women’s Hospital, taking his blood pressure as he lay down in the back. Doctors there determined he had sprained tendons and ligaments and a bruised foot, and released him after about four hours, he said.

After Barshay returned to Brooklyn, he got a bill for $3,660, or $915 for each mile of the ambulance ride. His insurance had covered nearly half, leaving him to pay the remaining $1,890.50.

“I thought it was a mistake,” Barshay said.

But Fallon Ambulance Service, the private company that brought him to the hospital, was out-of-network for his UnitedHealthcare insurance plan.

“The cost is outrageous,” said Barshay, who reluctantly paid the bill after Fallon sent it to a collection agency. If he had known what the ride would cost, he said, he would at least have been able to refuse the ride and “crawl to the hospital myself.”

In a statement, UnitedHealthcare said: “Out-of-network ambulance companies should not be using emergencies as an opportunity to bill patients excessive amounts when they are at their most vulnerable.”

“You feel horribly to send a patient a bill like that,” said Peter Racicot, senior vice president of Fallon, a family-owned company based outside Boston.

But ambulance firms are “severely underfunded” by Medicare and Medicaid, Racicot said, so Fallon must balance the books by charging higher rates for patients with private insurance.

Racicot said his company has not contracted with Barshay’s insurer because they couldn’t agree on a fair rate. When insurers and ambulance companies can’t agree, he said, “unfortunately, the subscribers wind up in the middle.”

It’s also unrealistic to expect EMTs and paramedics at the scene of an emergency to determine whether their company takes a patient’s insurance, Racicot added.

Ambulance services must charge enough to subsidize the cost of keeping their crews ready around the clock, said Fitch, the ambulance consultant. In a third of the cases where an ambulance crew answers a call, he added, they end up not transporting anyone and the company typically isn’t reimbursed for the trip.

In part, Barshay had bad luck. If his injury had happened just a mile away — inside Boston’s city limits — he could have ridden a city ambulance, which would have charged $1,490, according to Boston EMS, a sum that his insurer probably would have covered in full.

Very few states have laws limiting ambulance charges, and most state laws that protect patients from surprise billing do not apply to ground ambulance rides, according to Brian Werfel, a consultant to the American Ambulance Association. And none of the surprise-billing protections apply to people with self-funded employer-sponsored health insurance plans, which are regulated only by federal law. That’s a huge exception: 61 percent of privately insured employees are covered by self-funded employer-sponsored plans.

Some towns that hire private companies to respond to 911 calls may regulate fees or prohibit balance billing, Werfel said, but each locality is different.

Insurers try to protect patients from balance billing by negotiating rates with ambulance companies, said Cathryn Donaldson, a spokeswoman for America’s Health Insurance Plans. But “some ambulance companies have been resistant to join plan networks” that offer Medicare-based rates, she said.

Medicare rates vary widely by geographic area. On average, ambulance services make a small profit on Medicare payments, according to a report by the Government Accountability Office. If a patient uses a basic life support ambulance in an emergency in an urban area, for instance, Medicare payments range from $324 to $453, plus $7.29 per mile. Medicaid rates tend to be significantly lower.

There’s evidence of waste and fraud in the ambulance industry, Donaldson added, citing a study from the Office of Inspector General at the Department of Health and Human Services. The report concluded that in 2012 Medicare paid more than $50 million in improper ambulance bills, including for supposedly emergency-level transport that ended at a nursing home, not a hospital. One in 5 ambulance services had “questionable billing” practices, said the report, which noted that Medicare spent $5.8 billion on ambulance transport that year.

Most complaints reviewed by Kaiser Health News did not appear to involve fraudulent charges. Instead, patients got caught in a system in which ambulance services can legally charge thousands of dollars for a single trip — even when the trip starts at an in-network hospital.

That’s what happened to Devin Hall, a 67-year-old retired postal inspector in Northern California. While he faces Stage 3 prostate cancer, Hall is also fighting a $7,109.70 bill from American Medical Response, the nation’s largest ambulance provider.

On Dec. 27, 2016, Hall went to a local hospital with rectal bleeding. Because the hospital didn’t have the right specialist to treat his symptoms, it arranged for an ambulance ride to another hospital about 20 miles away. Even though the hospital was in his network, the ambulance was not.

Hall was stunned to see that AMR billed $8,460 for the trip. His federal health plan, the Special Agents Mutual Benefit Association, paid $1,350.30 and held Hall responsible for $727.08, records show. (According to his plan’s explanation of benefits, it paid that amount because AMR’s charges exceeded the plan’s Medicare-based fee schedule, which is based on Medicare rates.) But AMR turned his case over to a debt collector, Credence Resource Management, which sent an Aug. 25 notice seeking the full balance of $7,109.70.

“These charges are exorbitant — I just don’t think what AMR is doing is right,” said Hall, noting that he had intentionally sought treatment at an in-network hospital.

He has spent months on the phone calling the hospital, his insurer and AMR trying to resolve the matter. Given his prognosis, he worries about leaving his wife with a legal fight and a lien on their Brentwood, Calif., house for a debt they shouldn’t owe.

After being contacted by Kaiser Health News, AMR said it pulled Hall’s case from collections while it reviews the billing. After further review, company spokesman Jason Sorrick said the charges were warranted because it was a “critical care transport, which requires a specialized nurse and equipment on board.”

Sorrick faulted Hall’s health plan for underpaying, and said Hall could receive a discount if he qualifies for AMR’s “compassionate care program” based on his financial and medical situation.

“In this case, it appears the patient’s insurance company simply made up a price they wanted to pay,” Sorrick said.

In July, a California law went into effect that protects consumers from surprise medical bills from out-of-network providers, including some ambulance transport between hospitals. But Hall’s case occurred before that, and the state law doesn’t apply to him because of his federal insurance plan.

The consumer complaints reviewed by Kaiser Health News reveal a wide variety of ways that patients are left fighting big bills:

• An older patient in California said debt collectors called incessantly, including on Sunday mornings and at night, demanding an extra $500 on top of the $1,000 that his insurance had paid for an ambulance trip.

• Two ambulance services responded to a New Jersey man’s 911 call when he felt burning in his chest. One of them charged him $2,100 for treating him on the scene for less than 30 minutes — even though he never rode in that company’s ambulance.

• A woman who rolled over in her Jeep in Texas was charged a $26,400 “trauma activation fee” — a fee triggered when the ambulance service called ahead to the emergency department to assemble a trauma team. The woman, who did not require trauma care, fought the hospital to get the fee waived.

In other cases, patients face financial hardship when ambulances take them to out-of-network hospitals. Patients don’t always have a choice in where to seek care; that’s up to the ambulance crew and depends on the protocols written by the medical director of each ambulance service, said Werfel, the ambulance association consultant.

Sarah Wilson, a 36-year-old microbiologist, had a seizure at her grandmother’s house in rural Ohio on March 18, 2016, the day after having hip surgery at Akron City Hospital. When her husband called 911, the private ambulance crew that responded refused to take her back to Akron City Hospital, instead driving her to an out-of-network hospital that was 22 miles closer. Wilson refused care because the hospital was out-of-network, she said.

Wilson wanted to leave. But “I was literally trapped in my stretcher,” without the crutches she needed to walk, she said. Her husband, who had followed by car, wasn’t allowed to see her right away. She ended up leaving against medical advice at 4 a.m. She landed in collections for a $202 hospital bill for a medical examination, a debt that damaged her credit score, she said.

Ken Joseph, chief paramedic of Emergency Medical Transport, the private ambulance company that transported Wilson, said company protocol is to take patients to the “closest appropriate facility.” Serving a large area with just two ambulances, the company has to get each ambulance back to its station quickly so it can be ready for the next call, he said.

Patients such as Wilson are often left to battle these bills alone, because there are no federal protections for patients with private insurance.

Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), who has been pushing for federal legislation protecting patients from surprise hospital bills, said in a statement that he supports doing the same for ambulance bills.

Meanwhile, patients do have the right to refuse an ambulance ride, as long as they are older than 18 and mentally capable.

“You could just take an Uber,” said Adler, co-author of the surprise-billing report. But if you need an ambulance, there’s little recourse to avoid unexpected bills, he said, “other than yelling at the insurance company after the fact, or yelling at the ambulance company.”

​The ACA is the ultimate survivor

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

​https://newsatjama.jama.com/2017/11/20/jama-forum-the-health-care-law-that-continues-to-escape-death/

The Affordable Care Act has survived more assassination attempts than Fidel Castro — and it’s still kicking. The Kaiser Family Foundation’s Larry Levitt has a piece in the JAMA Forum laying out the argument that the ACA “continues to escape death.”

  • Levitt’s piece is mostly focused on the Senate’s repeal-and-replace efforts and the Trump administration’s implementation decisions — cutting off payments for cost-sharing subsidies and dramatically scaling back enrollment outreach.
  • “If these efforts were intended to make the marketplace implode, they may, in fact, be backfiring,” Levitt says, citing the weird abundance of plans with $0 monthly premiums and enrollment totals that are beating some experts’ expectations.

This is just the latest chapter. The ACA has been a fixture of public debate since 2009, and it has never veered far from death’s door. In that time, it has survived:

  • Any number of make-or-break moments during the legislative debate
  • Two potentially disastrous Supreme Court challenges
  • The Republican waves of 2010 and 2014, and the countless repeal votes that followed
  • A slew of self-inflicted wounds, from provisions that proved unworkable to the hot mess that was the HealthCare.gov launch.

Between the lines: The ACA has definitely taken some hits — it’s not as strong its drafters might have hoped on the day it passed. But congressional Republicans’ failure to repeal it, and President Trump backing into a massive increase in its subsidies, are just the latest signs of the law’s surprising durability.

Until Congress repeals the individual mandate, anyway…

 

Puerto Rico’s Dire Health-Care Crisis

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

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/10/puerto-ricos-health-care-crisis-is-just-beginning/544210/

Image result for puerto rico hospitals

It’s been two months since Hurricane Maria hit Puerto Rico, but nearly 10 percent of the island’s 3.4 million residents still don’t have access to clean, safe water. Half of the electric grid is still out of service, which has made it difficult to safely store food or medicines that need to be refrigerated. The outages have also left many residents vulnerable to heat exposure; temperatures remain in the high 80s on the island.

There’s also growing concern that Puerto Rico’s Medicaid program — which covers nearly half of Puerto Ricans — will soon run out of money to pay doctors and hospitals. The territory’s governor has asked the Trump administration to waive Puerto Rico’s share of Medicaid costs, and some Democratic senators have made similar appeals.

 

 

Health Care Price Growth Plummets To Lowest Rate In Almost Two Years

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

https://altarum.org/about/news-and-events/health-care-price-growth-plummets-to-lowest-rate-in-almost-two-years

Image result for Health Care Price Growth Plummets To Lowest Rate In Almost Two Years

Fueled by health policy uncertainty and structural health sector changes, health care price growth in August rose by only 1.2% compared to a year earlier. This is the lowest health price growth rate recorded in almost 2 years, and just slightly above the all-time low, according to Altarum’s latest Health Sector Economic Indicators Briefs. Contributing to overall slow price growth is a historically low Medical Consumer Price Index growth rate, a possible signal of relief for health care consumers with substantial out-of-pocket expenditures.

Despite an upward revision to recent estimates, health spending growth in August 2017 was only a modest 4.3% higher than a year earlier. Per Charles Roehrig, founding director of Altarum’s Center for Sustainable Health Spending, this moderation in spending growth is in response to a leveling-off in insurance coverage.

Health care job growth also remained modest, with 22,500 new jobs added in September 2017, slightly less than the 2017 average of 25,000. “Slower growth in health care utilization is reflected in slower growth in health jobs, particularly in the hospital sector,” said Roehrig. “This relatively good news should be tempered by a serious look at whether even this moderate growth is sustainable in the longer term.”

Health Care Spending

In August, the health share of gross domestic project (GDP) fell to 18.0%, but spending at an annual rate was 4.3% higher than August 2016, exceeding $3.5 trillion. Spending growth in August 2017 increased in all major categories, led by home health care at 6.5%. Hospital spending continues to grow slowly, at a 2.3% rate.

Health Care Employment

Hospitals added 4,500 jobs and ambulatory care settings added an above-average 24,700 jobs in August, but these gains were offset by the loss of 6,700 jobs in nursing and residential care. Slow hospital job growth in 2017 is a primary force behind the health sector growing at about three-quarters the pace of 2015 and 2016.

Health Care Prices

The 12-month moving average of the Health Care Price Index (HCPI) fell to 1.8% growth after being at 1.9% for 6 straight months, dousing any expectations of a return to a 2.0% growth rate range in the near term. Year-over-year hospital price growth fell to from 1.5% to 1.3%, and physician and clinical services price growth fell one-tenth to 0.5%. Annual drug price growth fell to a 2.7% rate, its lowest reading since growing by 2.4% in December 2015.

Why payers are flocking to the Medicare Advantage market

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

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/why-payers-are-flocking-to-the-medicare-advantage-market/510589/

Medicare Advantage (MA) and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) exchanges are both federal programs, but they couldn’t be more different in payers’ eyes. Insurance companies are entering or expanding their footprints in the MA market, while simultaneously pulling back or out of the ACA exchanges. They’ve found success in MA. Not so much in the ACA exchanges.

Payers see MA as a stable market. That’s evident in the fact that MA premiums are expected to decrease by 6% next year. Insurance companies like stability. Insurers increase premiums by double digits when there isn’t stability, which is the case with the ACA exchanges.

A large part of the ACA exchanges’ problems is linked to actions and inaction in Washington, D.C. President Donald Trump’s administration stopped paying cost-sharing reduction payments to insurers, cut the exchanges’ open enrollment in half, reduced the exchanges’ advertising budget by 90%, offered proposed rules and executive orders that hurt the ACA and threatened not to enforce the individual mandate that requires almost all Americans to have health insurance.

Congress, meanwhile, has tried and failed to repeal the ACA this year. All of this created an unstable exchanges market, which resulted in payers leaving the exchanges or jacking up premiums by 20% or more for 2018.

Meanwhile, the MA market is a picture of stability and payer success.

  • There is a steady stream of new people eligible for Medicare daily, and many choose MA.
  • People usually don’t switch back from MA plans after leaving traditional Medicare.
  • Payers can easily convert members from traditional Medicare to MA via marketing campaigns.
  • The MA demographics are usually people who once had an employer-based plan, so they know insurance and how healthcare works. That also means they usually don’t have pent-up healthcare needs.
  • The CMS pays MA plans upfront for covering people with high healthcare costs and payers have enjoyed stable MA payments from the CMS.

So, MA members are easier to get and keep, they usually have fewer health needs and payers like the MA payment structure better than the exchanges, which get compensated at the end of the year. All of that equals a stable market for payers.

One-third of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in an MA plan this year compared to 25% just six years ago. Enrollment grew by 8% between 2016 and 2017 and the CMS recently announced that MA membership will grow by 9% to 20.4 million members in 2018.

Gretchen Jacobson, associate director with the Kaiser Family Foundation’s (KFF) Program on Medicare Policy, told Healthcare Dive that more than half of those in Medicare will have MA plans in many counties next year.

That growth isn’t expected to slow — especially with Republicans controlling both houses of Congress and the White House, according to Steve Wiggins, founder and chairman of Remedy Partners.

“With Republican control of the federal government, it is conceivable that Medicare Advantage will become a centerpiece of CMS’ strategy to control spending growth,” Wiggins told Healthcare Dive.

What more MA members and payers mean for hospitals and providers

With more MA members expected next year, the continual shift to MA will have mixed benefits for providers. Jacobson said it’s not entirely clear how more MA members will affect hospitals and providers. “One of our studies recently showed that the provider networks for Medicare Advantage plans greatly varies and these networks will become even more important as enrollment in Medicare Advantage plans grows,” she said.

Fred Bentley, vice president at Avalere Health, told Healthcare Dive that MA’s growth will present a whole new set of challenges for hospitals and health systems.

Bentley listed two issues:

  • Narrow networks
  • Tighter utilization management compared to Medicare’s fee-for-service model

A recent KFF report found that 35% of MA enrollees were in narrow-network plans in 2015. Payers have increasingly turned to narrow networks to control costs and improve quality of care. To take part in the narrower networks, physicians usually have to agree to payer demands concerning cost and quality.

“Differences across plans, including provider networks, pose challenges for Medicare beneficiaries in choosing among plans and in seeking care, and raise questions for policymakers about the potential for wide variations in the healthcare experience of Medicare Advantage enrollees across the country,” KFF said.

Another issue for hospitals and providers is that more payers involved in capitated plans like MA will result in more pressure on providers and hospitals to focus on the cost of care, Michael Abrams, partner at Numerof & Associates, told Healthcare Dive.

“With Republican control of the federal government, it is conceivable that Medicare Advantage will become a centerpiece of CMS’ strategy to control spending growth.”

There’s also the issue of having too few MA payers in some regions. Aneesh Krishna, partner in McKinsey & Company’s Silicon Valley office, told Healthcare Dive the concentration of MA plans in certain markets is a worry for providers. “This concern would be magnified in markets where there is a similarly high concentration in commercial segments from the same payers, and where overall MA penetration is high,” he said.

There’s also a potential payment issue. MA generally reimburses at a slightly higher level than traditional Medicare, but utilization is managed more tightly. Krishna said providers willing and capable of sharing medical cost savings are “likely to see more benefit from the shift to Medicare Advantage plans.” However, MA networks are often narrow, which means providers will need to weigh the relative price/volume trade-offs of accepting MA.

More MA growth in the coming years

MA will have more payers and members than ever next year and the two largest payers, UnitedHealth and Humana, are expected to increase their footprint. Despite new payers showing interest in the market, Jacobson expects the market break down will look similar in 2018. She said small payers entering the market will offset the plans exiting MA next year.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and HHS both project MA enrollment will continue to grow over the next decade. The CBO estimated that about 41% of Medicare beneficiaries will have an MA plan in 2027. UnitedHealth even predicted half of Medicare beneficiaries will eventually have an MA plan.

MA’s popularity with payers is easy to understand — 10,000 people turn 65 every day. The CBO expects 80 million Americans will be eligible for Medicare by 2035.

There’s also an opportunity in the MA market to sign up members quickly. Rachel Sokol, practice manager of research at Advisory Board, told Healthcare Dive that utilizing a strong marketing engine allows payers to grow MA membership. This is quite different from the employer-based market, which relies on payers working with companies.

Potential MA barriers

The MA market is largely positive for payers, but it does face challenges, including:

  • A small number of payers dominate the market
  • The CMS expects improved efficiency and savings
  • There is increased federal oversight, especially concerning possible overpayments to MA insurers

CMS is all in supporting MA plans and its marketspace. The agency last week proposed a rule with an aim toward improving quality and affordability in contract year 2019. According to the agency, the number of plans available to individuals will increase from about 2,700 to more than 3,100.

The agency is proposing to expand the definition of quality improvement activity to include fraud reduction activities, changing the medical loss ratio (MLR) requirements for Medicare Advantage plans. This change should excite payers because they can add the administrative service to the MLR ratio they are required to spend on healthcare, which is at least 85%. CMS states it believes the service will help combat fraud.

For now, the MA market is consolidated around only a handful of payers. UnitedHealth and Humana have more than 40% of the market. UnitedHealth has one-quarter on its own. KFF said UnitedHealth, Humana and Blue Cross Blue Shield affiliates make up 57% of MA enrollment and the top eight MA payers constitute three-quarters of the market.

Also, CMS is imposing improved efficiency in the traditional Medicare program. This could ultimately affect MA. Accountable care organizations (ACO) and bundled payments will “put downward pressure on the benchmarks used to set payment rates for Medicare Advantage plans,” Wiggins said.

This pressure will result in MA payers needing to either cut costs or trim benefits. “The former is difficult, except through narrow networks, and the latter will diminish the attractiveness of Medicare Advantage plans,” he said.

Then there’s the 800-pound gorilla in the market — potential overpayments. The Department of Justice (DOJ) has joined whistleblower lawsuits against UnitedHealth Group concerning MA overpayments. The lawsuits allege that UnitedHealth changed diagnosis codes to make patients seem sicker, which resulted in higher reimbursements to the insurer. A federal judge threw out one of the lawsuits in October.

The DOJ is investigating other MA payers for the same reason, and Congress is also interested. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to CMS Administrator Seema Verma in April questioning what CMS is doing to “implement safeguards to reduce score fraud, waste and abuse.” Grassley said there was about $70 billion in improper Medicare Advantage payments between 2008 and 2013 because of “risk score gaming.”

It’s understandable that investigators and Congress have grown interested in MA payers. The federal government paid $160 billion to MA payers in 2014. The CMS estimated about 9.5% of those payments were improper.

The combination of billions being paid to insurers, the potential for fraud and growing membership numbers make MA ripe for oversight. The stability of the market, particularly compared to other options for payers, however, will mean growth continues.