Tag Archives: High Deductible Health Plans

Would your plan cover John McCain’s treatment?

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

https://www.healthinsurance.org/blog/2017/07/25/would-your-plan-cover-john-mccains-treatment/

Image result for adequate health insurance coverage

The Arizona Senator’s health plan will ensure top-notch glioblastoma treatment, but how would Americans with other health coverage fare?

Last week, we heard the sad news that Senator John McCain has been diagnosed with glioblastoma. McCain had surgery at Phoenix’s Mayo Clinic in mid-July, and it’s expected that he’ll also receive chemotherapy and radiation, along with other potential treatments. Senator McCain has proven time and again that he’s tough as nails, and appears to be facing this latest battle head-on. One thing that he likely has on his side is top-notch health insurance.

McCain is 80, which means he’s presumably been on Medicare for 15 years. Currently serving federal lawmakers are able to obtain employer-subsidized coverage in the Washington DC small-business exchange, and they can have this coverage in addition to Medicare.

How good is McCain’s coverage?

McCain hasn’t said publicly exactly what insurance he has, and his office has not responded to my inquiry. But the most likely scenario is that he has Medicare plus employer-sponsored coverage through the DC exchange – a very comprehensive benefits package.

There are certainly lots of other people who have similar coverage arrangements – either because they’re still working after turning 65, like McCain, or because they receive generous retiree health benefits that supplement their Medicare coverage. For those who don’t, there are private Medicare supplements available that cover virtually all of the out-of-pocket costs associated with Medicare.

But health coverage in the United States is a bit of a mixed bag, with some people having much better coverage than others. A serious illness tends to shine a spotlight on the flaws that exist in some health plans, so let’s take a look at how the average American facing a glioblastoma diagnosis would fare under various health plans.

Employer-sponsored health insurance

Most employer-sponsored health insurance plans provide pretty solid health coverage. According to a 2016 Kaiser Family Foundation analysis, the average deductible for covered workers was about $1,500, and that doesn’t count the 17 percent of covered workers whose plans had no deductible at all.

In addition, the average employer paid more than two-thirds of the total premiums. And the tax exclusion of employer-sponsored insurance premiums amounts to a subsidy that cost the federal government $250 billion in fiscal year 2016.

However, employer-sponsored health insurance is, by definition, linked to employment. A person going through a serious illness like glioblastoma might not be able to continue working, depending on the specifics of the treatment.

As long as the employer has at least 20 employees, the employee will be able to continue the coverage under COBRA for 18 months, even if he or she is unable to work. But COBRA is expensive, as the employer contribution to the premiums and the tax exclusion of the premiums are eliminated. (COBRA premiums are counted as a medical expense for the purpose of itemized medical deductions, but only expenses that exceed 10 percent of your income can be deducted this way.)

Although most employer-sponsored plans provide good coverage, that’s due in part to the ACA. It was not uncommon – particularly in low-wage, high turnover industries – for employers to offer “mini-meds” before the ACA, with exceedingly low benefit caps. (The ACA’s ban on lifetime and annual benefit limits means that these plans are no longer offered to employees.)

A mini-med with a $2,000 or $5,000 annual benefit maximum would not have done much in the face of glioblastoma. Vox reported that just the initial craniotomy to remove a blood clot above Senator McCain’s eye would likely have been billed at more than $76,000. And that was before the cancer diagnosis.

ACA-compliant individual market coverage

The pre-ACA individual market included plenty of solid plans. But dubious coverage also abounded, and regulations varied considerably from one state to another.

The ACA imposed a bevy of regulations on the individual health insurance market, bringing all new (as of 2014) plans up at least a basic minimum standard. Individual major medical coverage can no longer be sold without the ACA’s essential health benefits.

And for those benefits, insurers cannot limit how much they’ll pay during a year or over the course of an insured’s lifetime. (Sadly, another Arizona resident with cancer, Arijit Guha, died in 2013 at age 32. Guha’s health insurance plan had a $300,000 lifetime cap – which is no longer allowed, thanks to the ACA – and his treatment, including chemotherapy that cost $11,000 per session, quickly exceeded that limit.)

Individual-market plans also cannot discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions, either by charging them higher prices or declining their applications (both of those were standard practice in nearly every state prior to 2014). Notably, Senator McCain has a history of melanoma, which would have virtually guaranteed a declined application in the individual market pre-ACA if he had been in need of non-group coverage for some reason.

A person with ACA-compliant individual market coverage would have solid coverage for glioblastoma. The maximum out-of-pocket costs during 2017 would be $7,150, although most plans have out-of-pocket maximums below that threshold. And 57 percent of people who enrolled through the exchanges in 2017 have cost-sharing subsidies, which further reduce the out-of-pocket costs.

The American Cancer Society explains in more detail how the ACA improves access to care for people with cancer. But the short story is that a person facing glioblastoma with a 2017 individual health insurance policy has a much more secure financial safety net than someone with the same diagnosis a decade ago.

Medicaid

Medicaid provides comprehensive coverage. Although the benefits available under traditional Medicaid vary from one state to another, Medicaid expansion coverage is required to include the ACA’s essential health benefits. (The Senate’s Better Care Reconciliation Act – BCRA – would eliminate this requirement after 2019.)

Medicaid has minimal cost-sharing, limited to no more than 5 percent of a family’s annual income.

It’s true that compared with private health insurance and Medicare, fewer medical providers accept Medicaid. But the majority do work with Medicaid. (According to a Kaiser Family Foundation analysis, about 69 percent of office-based physicians accept new Medicaid patients, while about 85 percent accept new privately-insured patients.)

Short-term health insurance

The ACA implemented regulations that apply to virtually all types of health insurance. But some plans are not regulated by the law, including short-term health insurance.

As evidenced by the name, short-term plans are limited in their duration. As of 2017, a short-term plan can last no more than three months, although people who remain healthy can purchase a second short-term plan after the first one ends.

Short-term plans do not cover pre-existing conditions. So if you were to be diagnosed with glioblastoma while covered under a short-term plan, the first thing the insurer would do is go back through your medical records to make sure that you didn’t have any symptoms prior to enrolling in the plan.

Assuming you were healthy before you enrolled, your short-term plan would start to cover your treatments. But you would be facing a looming and inflexible coverage termination date, along with annual and lifetime benefit maximums. Short-term plans vary considerably in quality – some have lifetime benefit maximums of $250,000 or less, while others provide benefits well in excess of a million dollars. In the case of a glioblastoma diagnosis, coverage would end when the policy reached its predetermined end date, or when you hit your benefit maximum – whichever happened first.

Either way, you’d want to hope that you had other coverage already lined up and ready to go at that point. The cancer diagnosis would make it impossible to obtain another short-term policy.

And since a short-term plan is not considered minimum essential coverage, the termination of the short-term policy would not trigger a special enrollment period for individual or employer-sponsored insurance. You would still be able to enroll in a regular individual-market plan, or an employer plan if you’re eligible for one, during regular annual open enrollment. But you might experience a significant gap in coverage, which can be disastrous in the middle of cancer treatment.

A limited-benefit plan

Limited-benefit plans are another category of coverage that’s not regulated by the ACA (despite attempts by the Obama Administration to place some regulations on certain types of fixed indemnity coverage).

Fixed indemnity means that the plan pays a specific dollar amount if the insured has a covered claim. For example, the plan might pay $1,000 per day for hospitalization, or $50 for a doctor visit. There’s no cap on how much the patient has to pay, and these plans often have very low annual and lifetime benefit limits.

So imagine a plan that will pay $2,000 per day for hospitalization, for up to 25 days. It will also pay $2,500 for an outpatient surgical procedure and $2,500 for an inpatient surgical procedure. And it will pay $625 for anesthesia, but it does not cover prescriptions (these numbers are from a real plan currently available in the limited benefit market).

Remember that McCain’s craniotomy – before the glioblastoma was even diagnosed – likely cost $70,000. He was home very soon after the surgery, so if he was hospitalized at all, it wasn’t more than a day or two. A limited benefit plan like the one described above would have paid $2,000 for each day in the hospital (which amounts to zero dollars if the procedure didn’t result in an inpatient stay), $2,500 for the surgery, and $625 for the anesthesia. That would leave a sizeable chunk of the $70,000 bill as the patient’s responsibility.

And all of that is before the treatment for the glioblastoma even begins.

A Cruz Amendment plan

In mid-July, Senator Ted Cruz introduced an amendment to the BCRA aimed at reducing regulations on health insurance plans. The Cruz Amendment, if included in the BCRA, would allow insurers to offer non-ACA-compliant plans as long as they also offered at least one Silver plan, one Gold plan, and one plan that complies with the BCRA’s benchmark standards (58 percent actuarial value).

The non-compliant plans would likely range from decent to terrible, since they would have wide latitude in terms of the consumer protections they’d be able to waive. Essentially, it would be a return to the pre-ACA days when there was more of an “anything goes” approach to health insurance. Plans would be available without essential health benefits, would not have to cover pre-existing conditions, and could be offered with higher out-of-pocket limits than ACA compliant plans.

These plans would likely appeal to healthy people, as they would be less expensive than ACA compliant plans. But a person who seems perfectly healthy can be diagnosed with glioblastoma, at which point the holes in the coverage become glaringly apparent.

What about those who lack McCain’s coverage

In glioblastoma, Senator McCain is facing a fierce battle, and our hearts go out to him and his family. But thanks to McCain’s health coverage, he won’t have to worry about how to pay for his treatment. I’m glad he has that health coverage.

Senator McCain is not alone in his battle. There are more than 12,000 Americans who will be diagnosed with glioblastoma this year. Unfortunately, many of them do not have the level of health coverage that McCain has. Even with the best health insurance, the diagnosis plunges each family into an immensely challenging situation. With lesser – or no – coverage, the challenge becomes even more insurmountable.

Nobody deserves cancer. And nobody deserves to have to fight cancer with less-than-adequate health insurance. With our current medical know-how, we can’t keep everyone from getting cancer. But we can make sure that as many people as possible are covered by high-quality health insurance. We owe it to all the lesser-known John McCains out there to work towards that goal.

That means pushing back against any sort of “reform” that would result in fewer people with insurance. It also means rejecting proposals that would allow junk insurance plans to flood the market, lulling consumers into a false sense of security – until they’re diagnosed with brain cancer.

 

Trump Plan Might Cut Expenses For Some Insured Patients With Chronic Needs

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

http://californiahealthline.org/news/trump-plan-might-cut-expenses-for-some-insured-patients-with-chronic-needs/?utm_campaign=CHL%3A%20Daily%20Edition&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=54498266&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8C_svwCm5E3S6UrC_iEr8sdxdcweXEnWnmQvUYPlzA1Gj2o009d6NiGFKAkr02fB2hNT3xVlz6hKS4TXEdZjmHIJpNXA&_hsmi=54498266

Image result for high deductible health plan

Erin Corbelli takes three medications to treat high blood pressure, depression and an anxiety disorder. Her health plan covers her drugs and specialist visits, but Corbelli and her family must pay a $3,000 annual deductible before the plan starts picking up any of that tab.

Corbelli’s insurance is linked to a health savings account so that she and her husband can put aside money tax-free to help cover their family’s drug and medical expenses. But there’s a hitch: Plans like theirs can’t cover any care for chronic conditions until the deductible is satisfied.

Those out-of-pocket expenses could shrink under a Trump administration draft executive order that would change Internal Revenue Service rules about what care can be covered before the deductible is met in plans linked to health savings accounts, or HSAs.

“It would save us a lot of money,” said Corbelli, 41, who lives in Orlando with her husband and their two children, ages 3 and 5.

Health plans with deductibles of thousands of dollars have become increasingly commonplace. Plans often cover services like generic drugs or doctor visits before consumers have satisfied their deductibles, typically requiring a copayment or coinsurance rather than demanding that consumers pony up the entire amount.

But plans that link to health savings accounts have more restrictions than other high-deductible plans. In addition to minimum deductibles and maximum HSA contribution limits, the plans can’t pay for anything but preventive care before consumers meet a deductible. Under current IRS rules, such preventive care is limited to services such as cancer screenings and immunizations that prevent a disease or condition, called “primary prevention.” With HSA-eligible plans, medical services or medications that prevent an existing chronic condition from getting worse or prevent complications from occurring — called “secondary prevention” — can’t be covered before the deductible is paid.

The Trump administration’s draft executive order, which was first obtained last month by The New York Times and has yet to be issued, would allow such secondary preventive services to be covered.

Under the Affordable Care Act, most health plans, including HSA-eligible plans, are required to cover services recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force without charging consumers anything for them. That requirement is generally limited to primary prevention.

“We know health savings accounts are here to stay and we’d like to make them better,” said Dr. A. Mark Fendrick, an internist who is director of the University of Michigan’s Center for Value-Based Insurance Design and who has advocated for the change.

If people have diabetes, for example, they need regular eye and foot exams to prevent complications such as blindness and amputations down the road. But HSA plans can’t pay anything toward that care until people satisfy their deductible. “The executive order gives plans the flexibility to do that,” he said.

Similarly, it’s critical to remove obstacles to treatment for people like Corbelli with high blood pressure or heart disease, said Sue Nelson, vice president for federal advocacy at the American Heart Association.

“For people with cardiovascular disease, affordability is their No. 1 concern,” Nelson said.

The draft executive order is short on details, and administration officials would have to determine which new preventive services should be covered pre-deductible. Guidelines from medical specialty boards and quality metrics that many physicians are already being measured against could be used, said Roy Ramthun, president and founder of HSA Consulting Services who led the Treasury Department’s implementation of the HSA program in the early 2000s.

Back then, they took a conservative approach. “We said we can be more flexible later, but we can’t put the genie back in the bottle,” said Ramthun, who supports expanding preventive services coverage.

Many more employers would offer HSA-eligible plans if the list of services that could be covered pre-deductible were expanded, said Tracy Watts, a senior partner at human resources consultant Mercer. Fifty-three percent of employers with 500 or more workers offer HSA-eligible plans, according to Mercer survey data. Three-quarters of employers put money into their employees’ HSA accounts, she said.

Erin Corbelli’s husband’s employer contributes up to $1,500 every year to their health savings account, which can help cover their pre-deductible costs.

Not everyone is so fortunate. “You’re kind of at the mercy of what your employer can offer and what your disposable income is,” she said.

Republicans have long advocated for the expanded use of health savings accounts as a tax-advantaged way for consumers to get more financial “skin in the game.”

Consumer advocates have been much less enthusiastic, noting that the accounts typically benefit higher-income consumers who have cash to spare.

Still, given the reality of the growing prevalence of high-deductible plans, with or without health savings accounts, it’s a sensible proposal, many say.

“This is not a silver bullet or a solution to the problems that high-deductible plans can pose,” said Lydia Mitts, associate director of affordability initiatives at Families USA, an advocacy group. “But this is a good step in thinking about how we offer access to treatment people need in a timely and affordable way.”

Don’t Assume That Private Insurance Is Better Than Medicaid

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

As we recently wrote, it’s better for patients to have Medicaid than to be uninsured, contrary to critics of the program. But is having Medicaid, as those critics also say, much worse than having private insurance?

This idea has become a talking point for conservatives who back big changes to Medicaid, as the Senate health bill proposes. The poor would benefit simply by being ushered off Medicaid and onto private insurance, they write.

But it’s far from proven that Medicaid is worse than private insurance. A lot depends on what kind of insurance is compared with Medicaid, and how they are compared.

Many studies that measure Medicaid against private insurance suffer from the same flaws that compare Medicaid with being uninsured. They’re terribly confounded, and can show only associations, not causation. People with private insurance are healthier and wealthier than those on Medicaid, and in ways not fully controlled for in statistical analyses. These factors almost certainly predispose someone on Medicaid to have worse outcomes than someone with private insurance.

Perhaps the most convincing way to compare Medicaid and private insurance would be with a randomized controlled trial that pits them head to head. No such trials exist. Recall that the Oregon Medicaid study randomly offered, via a lottery, the opportunity for low-income adults to enroll in Medicaid. It did not have another study arm that offered private insurance.

But we do have a decades-old trial that looked at varying levels of cost-sharing: the RAND Health Insurance Experiment. This is relevant because one substantial difference between Medicaid and most private coverage is the level of cost-sharing. Medicaid is nearly free. Most private coverage comes with deductibles and co-payments.

The RAND study randomly assigned 2,750 families to one of four health plans. One had no cost-sharing whatsoever — kind of like Medicaid. The other three had cost-sharing (money people had to pay out-of-pocket for care) at levels of 25, 50 or 95 percent — capped at $1,000 at the time, which is about an inflation-adjusted $6,000 today. This level of personal liability acts like a deductible, making the plan with a 95 percent level of cost-sharing comparable to a “Bronze” plan on the Affordable Care Act’s exchanges today.

The RAND study found that the more cost-sharing was imposed on people, the less health care they used — and therefore the less was spent on their care. The study also found that, over all, people’s health didn’t suffer from lower health care use and spending.

Lower spending and no decline in health — these are the results that everyone cites to justify increased cost-sharing, and to justify shifting people from Medicaid to private plans with high deductibles.

But the results of the RAND study, like so much in health care, are complicated. A deeper dive into the data shows that people decreased their consumption of necessary health care in equal measure to unnecessary health care. As a rule, people are terrible discriminators of what care is needed and what’s not. Since most people under the age of 65 are healthy, even in the RAND study, that doesn’t matter much.

But even if most people are healthy, some are not (and particularly those on Medicaid). In the RAND study, poorer and sicker people — exactly the kind more likely to be on Medicaid — were slightly more likely to die with cost-sharing.

Free care also resulted in improvements in vision and blood pressure for those with low income. As an influential 1983 New England Journal of Medicine paper put it: “Free care does make a difference.”

One limitation of the RAND study is its age. It took place between 1971 and 1982. There have been no studies of cost-sharing to rival it since. Still, the best recent evidence we have is that giving free care to poorer and sicker people improves health and saves lives. It is reasonable to conclude that switching them to a plan with high cost-sharing (even a private plan) would do the opposite.

Some of the more recent studies were nicely summarized in a paper by Katherine Swartz for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s Synthesis project. She found that increased cost-sharing for low-income populations was associated with a shift toward more costly services, like increased emergency room visits because people skipped taking their drugs. She also found that increased cost-sharing affects poor people differently than everyone else, confirming RAND’s findings. A more recent study found that enrollment in plans with high deductibles led to reductions in necessary care, which would have consequences for the poor and sick.

Austin wrote previously herehow increased cost-sharing may lead people to take fewer drugs for their high cholesterol, hypertension and diabetes. In his first Upshot column, Aaron wrote that parents delay taking their children for asthma treatment when cost-sharing rises.

Even small premiums can lead to problems. A $10 increase in monthly Medicaid premiums was followed by a 6.7 percent reduction in Medicaid and coverage of CHIP (Children’s Health Insurance Program) for people just above the poverty line.

Unquestionably, private coverage can work very well for many people. Take us, for instance. The insurance that we each have from our employers is probably better for us than Medicaid would be. Though these plans come with cost-sharing, we have incomes that can handle it. Our plans cover things that Medicaid often does not, like dental checkups.

Our plans have great networks, and they reimburse well for the care we receive. Just like Medicaid enrollees, we also receive support from the federal government, which waives tax collections on dollars contributed to premiums. That tax break is higher than the cost of Medicaid in many cases.

We’re also relatively healthy and would probably be fine on any plan (unless and until our health deteriorates).

But because our plans require considerable cost-sharing, even Medicaid enrollees would struggle on them. More important, neither House nor Senate repeal and replace bills offer poor Medicaid enrollees plans as generous as ours.

The Senate’s health care plan, for example, would offer much less generous plans. A 64-year-old woman with an income of $11,400 would face a deductible of at least $6,000. For her, such a plan is not better than Medicaid; it is most likely much worse if she is also sick. Because of the deductible, the care she’d need would be financially out of reach.

A recent paper in Health Affairs documented that outcomes in Arkansas, which allowed poor people to buy private plans on the exchanges, were similar to those in Kentucky, which expanded access to poor people through Medicaid. But those private plans came with significant cost-sharing subsidies, which would be stripped away by the Senate’s bill. Even so, the evidence did not suggest that the private coverage of Arkansas was better than the public coverage of Kentucky.

There are certainly private plans for poor and sick Americans that are better than Medicaid. But plans with very high cost-sharing — which are the ones being offered in Congress as A.C.A. replacements — are not among them.

 

GOP promises lower health premiums but ignores all that’s driving them

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

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/06/health-care-premiums-republicans-obamacare-240242

Image result for underinsured

Republicans promise to bring down the cost of health insurance for millions of Americans by repealing Obamacare.

But in the race to make insurance premiums cheaper, they ignore a more ominous number — the $3.2 trillion-plus the U.S. spends annually on health care overall.

Republicans are betting it’s smart politics to zoom in on the pocketbook issues affecting individual consumers and families. But by ignoring the mounting expenses of prescription drugs, doctor visits and hospital stays, they allow the health care system to continue on its dangerous upward trajectory.

That means that even if they fulfill their seven-year vow to repeal Obamacare and rein in premiums for some people,the nation’s mounting costs are almost sure to pop out in other places — includingfresh efforts by insurers and employers to push more expenses onto consumers through bigger out-of-pocket costs and narrower benefits.

As a presidential candidate, Donald Trump didn’t talk much about health care in 2016 — not compared to the border wall, jobs, or Hillary Clinton’s emails. But the final days of the campaign coincided with the start of the Obamacare sign-up season — and Trump leapt to attack what he called “60, 70, 80, 90 percent” premium increases. Big spikes did occur in some places, but they weren’t the rule, and most Obamacare customers got subsidies to defray the cost.

But the skyrocketing premium made a good closing message for Trump — and Republicans have stuck with it.

“The Republicans decoded: What is the single, 10-second thing that says why you are running against the Affordable Care Act?” said Bob Blendon, an expert on health politics at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. “Premiums became the face of what’s wrong.”

The GOP approach differs from the tack Democrats took when they pushed for the Affordable Care Act back in 2009-10. That debate was about covering more Americans — and about “bending the curve” of national health care spending, which eats up an unhealthy portion of the economy.

Conservatives like Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas argue that Obamacare failed to achieve its promise to bring down costs.

“The biggest reason that millions of people are unhappy with Obamacare is it’s made premiums skyrocket,” said Cruz, who is leading a small band of conservatives trying to pull the Senate repeal bill to the right as leaders seek to cobble together 50 votes. “We’ve got to fix that problem that was created by the failing policies of Obamacare.”

The answer, he says, is getting government out of the way. Conservatives want to free insurers from many of the coverage requirements and consumer protections in Obamacare. That means they could sell plans that wouldn’t cover as comprehensive a set of benefits — but they’d be cheaper.

Even some prominent critics of the Affordable Care Act think that’s not getting at the heart of the U.S. health care problem, even if it sounds good to voters.

“Too many in the GOP confuse adjustments in how insurance premiums are regulated with bringing competitive pressures to bear on the costs of medical services,” the American Enterprise Institute’s James Capretta wrote in a recent commentary for Real Clear Health. “They say they want lower premiums for consumers, but their supposed solution would simply shift premium payments from one set of consumers to another.”

The Congressional Budget Office has not yet evaluated how the House repeal bill, which narrowly passed, or the Senate companion legislation, which is still being negotiated, would affect overall health spending in coming years. It is already a sixth of the U.S. economy — more than 17 cents out of every dollar — and spending is still growing, partly because of an aging population.

The nonpartisan budget office projected the federal government would spend about $800 billion less on Medicaid over a decade, as the GOP legislation upends how Washington traditionally paid its share. But CBO hasn’t yet reported on how that would affect the health sector overall.

Many Republicans predict that limiting federal payments to states would force Medicaid to be more efficient. Democrats says the GOP bill would basically thrust those costs onto the states and onto Medicaid beneficiaries themselves, who are too poor, by definition, to get their care — often including nursing homes — without government assistance.

The CBO gave a mixed assessment of what would happen to premiums under the GOP proposals. They’d rise before they’d fall — and they wouldn’t fall for everyone. Older and sicker people could well end up paying more, and government subsidies would be smaller, meaning that even if the sticker price of insurance comes down, many people at the lower end of the income scale wouldn’t be able to afford it.

“Despite being eligible for premium tax credits, few low-income people would purchase any plan,” the CBO said.

Shrinking insurance benefits may work out fine for someone who never gets injured or sick. But there are no guarantees of perpetual good health; that’s why insurance exists. If someone needs medical treatment not covered in their slimmed-down health plan, the costs could be astronomical and the treatment unobtainable.

Couple that with skimpier benefits, bigger deductibles, smaller subsidies and weaker patient protections, and “Trumpcare” — or whatever an Obamacare successor ends up being called — could spell voter backlash in the not-too-distant future, particularly as poll after poll shows the legislation is already deeply unpopular.

“Premiums are one of the important ways in which consumers experience cost. But it’s not the only way,” said David Blumenthal, president of the Commonwealth Fund, a liberal-leaning think tank, and a former Obama administration official. But deductibles running into the thousands of dollars and steep out-of-pocket costs, he added, “are a source of discontent for Trump and non-Trump voters alike.”

Even the 2009 health debate early in the Obama presidency, which looked at staggering national health spending and what it meant for the U.S. economy, didn’t translate into a bottom line for many American families, said Drew Altman, president and CEO of the Kaiser Family Foundation, which has extensively polled public attitudes on health care.

And the bottom line — the cost of care — is what ordinary people focus on, Kaiser has found. Not just on premiums, but on what it costs to see a doctor, to fill a prescription, or to get treated for a serious disease.

“That’s what all of our polling shows,” Altman said. “The big concern is health care costs.”

Democrats have a long list of things they detest about the Republican repeal-and-replace legislation — and the lack of attention to overall health spending for the country and for individuals and families is right up there.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the top Democrat on the Finance Committee, would like a bill that tackles cost — starting with rising drug prices. But this bill, he said, does nothing about health care costs.

“This really isn’t a health bill. This is a tax-cut bill,” he said. The repeal bills would kill hundreds of billions of dollars of taxes — many on the health care industry or wealthy people — that were included in Obamacare to finance coverage expansion, though the Senate is now considering keeping some of them to provide more generous subsidies.

Conservative policy experts acknowledge that premiums aren’t the whole story.

The overall cost and spending trajectory “is something we have to get to,” said Stanford University’s Lanhee Chen, who has advised Mitt Romney and other top Republicans. But for now, he said, premiums are a good first step.

Who’s driving health care law – a free market or insurance companies?

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

http://theconversation.com/republican-health-care-bills-defy-the-partys-own-ideology-80175?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20July%201%202017%20-%2077496134&utm_content=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20July%201%202017%20-%2077496134+CID_7e419ab4ae6962d1afd6f9273e9cc417&utm_source=campaign_monitor_us&utm_term=Republican%20health%20care%20bills%20defy%20the%20partys%20own%20ideology

Image result for insurance company lobbyists health care reform

Does this make economic sense?

Republicans may be too timid or lack the votes to advance structural reform. And they may feel it necessary to prop up insurance companies struggling with the costs of insuring high-risk patients. That’s a fair calculation.

But are they ready to create a health care system that aids every group except the working poor? The wealthy will have their health care and their tax cuts. The middle classes will continue to enjoy expensive, generous insurance that’s indirectly funded through the tax code. And insurance companies will accept whatever assistance the government provides – from tax cuts to coverage penalty periods – to continue increasing their authority over the medical system.

That’s an arrangement that leaves out the very groups that are most desperate for health care reform: lower-income families and the working poor.

68% of Consumers Did Not Pay Patient Financial Responsibility

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

https://revcycleintelligence.com/news/68-of-consumers-did-not-pay-patient-financial-responsibility?elqTrackId=f58bd47466634010a6e670a643500477&elq=235b6caa09e94e4eb4db871c5d4f6292&elqaid=2897&elqat=1&elqCampaignId=2683

Two in three individuals did not fully pay their patient financial responsibility to hospitals in 2016, a study revealed

 

The number of consumers failing to pay full patient financial responsibility to hospitals increased 15 percentage points from 2015 to 2016, a study showed.

About 68 percent of patients with medical bills of $500 or less did not fully pay their patient financial responsibility to hospitals in 2016, according to a recent TransUnion Health study.

The proportion of individuals failing to pay off full medical bill balances increased from 53 percent in 2015 and 49 percent in 2014.

“There are many reasons why more patients are struggling to make their healthcare payments in full, the most prominent of which are higher deductibles and the increase in patient responsibility from 10% percent to 30 percent over the last few years,” stated Jonathan Wiik, TransUnion Principal for Healthcare Revenue Cycle Management. “This shift in healthcare payments has been taking place for well over a decade, but we are seeing more pronounced changes in how hospital bills are paid during just the last few years.”

• 63 percent of hospital medical bills were $500 or less between 2014 and 2016 and 68 percent of these bills were not paid in full by 2016

• 14 percent of hospital medical bills between 2014 and 2016 were $3,000 or more and hospitals did not receive full patient financial responsibility for 99 percent of the bills in 2016

• 10 percent of hospital medical bills were between $500 and $1,000 from 2014 to 2016 and patients did not pay the full balance on 86 percent of them in 2016

The TransUnion Health analysis confirmed that as patient out-of-pocket costs increase, hospital patient financial responsibility collection rates drop. A recent Crowe Horwath study also revealed that patient collection rates for accounts with balances exceeding $5,000 were four times lower than patient collection rates for accounts with low-deductible health plans.

For patient balances between $1,451 and $5,000, hospitals reported a 25.5 percent collection rate. In contrast, hospitals saw collection rates drop to just 10.2 percent for patient balances between $5,001 and $7,500.

Consequently, patients are more likely to partially pay hospitals for their financial responsibility. The TransUnion Health analysis showed that the proportion of individuals making partial payments toward their hospital medical bills rose from about 89 percent in 2015 to 77 percent in 2016.

Hospitals may see these patient collection trends continue, researchers stated. They projected the percentage of individuals neglecting to fully pay their patient financial responsibility to grow to 95 percent by 2020.

Researchers pointed to the popularity of high-deductible health plans as the primary driver of increased hospital patient collection challenges. In 2015, almost one-quarter of all workers belonged to a high-deductible health plan with a savings options versus just 8 percent in 2009, a 2016 Health Affairs blogpost stated.

The number of employees enrolled in high-deductible health plans is likely to increase, the blogpost continued. More than four of ten employers are considering offering only high-deductible health plans over the next three years.

Provider organizations continue to feel the pressure from increased patient financial responsibility under high-deductible health plans. About 72 percent of providers in a recent InstaMed survey cited patient financial responsibility and collection as their top healthcare revenue cycle management concerns in 2016.

The greatest challenge impacting healthcare revenue cycle management was the growth of patient financial responsibility with 29 percent of respondents, followed by cash flow issues with 21 percent, longer days in accounts receivable with 14 percent, and rise in bad medical debt due to insufficient patient collections with 8 percent.

With unpaid patient financial responsibility reducing hospital revenue, TransUnion Health researchers reported that hospitals wrote off about $35.7 billion as bad medical debt or charity care in 2015. Although overall uncompensated care costs declined in 2015, they added.

“Higher deductibles and the increase in patient responsibility are causing a decrease in patient payments to providers for patient care services rendered,” stated John Yount, TransUnion Vice President for Healthcare Products. “While uncompensated care has declined, it appears to be primarily due to the increased number of individuals with Medicaid and commercial insurance coverage.”

Editorial: It’s now or never to fix next year’s insurance exchange rates

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

http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20170603/MAGAZINE/170609997/editorial-its-now-or-never-to-fix-next-years-insurance-exchange-rates

Image result for it's now or never

As the ad hoc committee of 13 Republican senators rethinks the increasingly unpopular American Health Care Act, Congress and the administration face a more pressing question. Will they stabilize the individual insurance market for 2018?

Preliminary rate filings for next year suggest that some states are entering the first phases of the much-dreaded death spiral, where rising rates and declining enrollments feed on each other to climax in a collapsed market. Where last year it was mostly rural areas that suffered from a dearth of carriers offering exchange plans, major urban areas like Kansas City and Knoxville, Tenn., are now among the regions reporting no insurers interested in offering coverage.

Meanwhile, carriers are requesting double-digit rate hikes in many areas of the country. Increase requests as high as 50% have been reported.

Republicans blame the Affordable Care Act. But, in fact, blame rests squarely with the Trump administration and the Republican-controlled Congress, who’ve created tremendous uncertainty around the policies that make the ACA’s individual market work.

The biggest single problem is Congress’ failure to appropriate the $7 billion owed insurers for underwriting cost-sharing reductions for low-income plan purchasers. That affects about 7 million of the 13 million people who signed up for individual plans.

Last year, Congress also put a one-year hold on the surcharge on health insurance premiums that supports ACA subsidies. Without further action, the tax, which was slated to raise about $100 billion over the next decade, will go into effect in 2018.

From a budgetary perspective, the move is a wash. The increased tax collection will be offset by the increased subsidies given low-income people who buy plans. People who are unsubsidized—those most likely to be bitter opponents of Obamacare—will be hit dollar-for-dollar with the rate hike.

President Donald Trump​ also contributed to uncertainty over next year’s enrollment period. First, he halted media promotion of the 2017 open enrollment. Then, in February, he issued an executive order waiving the individual mandate, which is key to getting millions of younger, relatively healthy people into the individual market pool.

While Politico reported last month that the Internal Revenue Service didn’t carry out the president’s order this year, the atmospherics around these pronouncements will ensure that fewer people sign up for individual plans in 2018. Insurers are assuming they will be covering an older, sicker population, a surefire path to higher rates.

Last week, Bradley Wilson, CEO of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina, dissected how these compounding uncertainties contributed to its request for a 22.9% rate hike. About half the increase came from the missing cost-sharing reduction subsidies; about a third from an expected increase in medical losses, driven by rising costs and a sicker pool; and the rest from the expected tax.

This Republican Congress and the administration could quickly solve these problems without sacrificing their political principles. The administration could signal it will enforce the mandate since it is still the law. Congress could appropriate the money for the cost-reduction subsidies. This would preserve the House’s lower court victory in its suit challenging the Obama administration’s lacking an appropriation.

And, in a nod to their goal of protecting people with pre-existing medical conditions, Congress could create a reinsurance program to cover the extraordinary expenses of high-cost patients in the individual market. Unlike state-run high-risk pools, which have never worked, a federally funded reinsurance program would preserve everyone’s access to health insurance in the individual market at affordable rates.

It’s up to Congress now. Insurers face a June 21 deadline for notifying HHS about participation in the exchanges, and final rates are due from states by Aug. 16; there’s not much time to act. We’ll soon find out if Trump and this Congress intend to deny millions of people access to affordable health insurance next year.

 

The ‘Kimmel test’ could be a good health care yardstick for the GOP

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

The ‘Kimmel test’ could be a good health care yardstick for the GOP

Should the “Kimmel test” help shape the health care bill that the US Senate is now working on behind closed doors? Republican senators could easily use it to vet the bill while staying true to their conservative roots.

Last month, talk show host and comedian Jimmy Kimmel shared with his audience a story about his son, Billy, who had been born a few days earlier with a heart defect called the tetralogy of Fallot and needed open heart surgery at three days old.

“If your baby is going to die, and it doesn’t have to, it shouldn’t matter how much money you make,” pleaded Kimmel in an impassioned take on health insurance that has been viewed by millions.

Not long afterward, Republican Senator Bill Cassidy, a physician who represents Louisiana, said that any Republican health care legislation would need to pass the “Jimmy Kimmel test.” Morally and politically, Cassidy is right.

Every day in my work in a pediatric emergency department, I see firsthand that the Affordable Care Act, the law that the Republican House and Senate are determined to replace, saves lives. Before the ACA, children born with pre-existing conditions were often uninsurable, their families left to struggle with an unmanageable economic burden.

Kimmel thinks the solution is easy: “Don’t give a huge tax cut to millionaires like me and instead leave it [the ACA] how it is.” But the solution is far from easy.

As a physician, a conservative Republican, and a health insurance scholar, I believe that government intrusion into private insurance has had serious consequences. Families across America are paying thousands of dollars a year more in higher health insurance premiums. Insurers, which have been losing money, have started abandoning entire markets. The House of Representatives passed the American Health Care Act in early May, believing it had to do so to stabilize markets and reduce premiums. But the Congressional Budget Office finally reported that the AHCA strips away most protections for pre-existing conditions and pushes an estimated 23 million more Americans into being uninsured.

Can we Republicans pass the Kimmel test, improving on the AHCA while still ensuring the sustainability of American health care? Senate Republicans have expressed skepticism, but I believe we can. The key is to stay true to our roots by adhering to four conservative principles.

First, private markets must remain free. Healthy people will need to help pay for sick people — that’s how health insurance works — but they must be allowed to choose their own insurance. The ACA coerced the healthy into paying above-market rates for insurance, and so it prohibited the lower-premium catastrophic plans that make sense for most families.

Second, the poor should never pay for government benefits to the wealthy. The main way the ACA tries to help families with pre-existing conditions is by regulating insurance premiums, but that means its benefits are indiscriminate. The young and healthy, many of whom are struggling economically, pay more. The elderly, many of whom need help but some of whom are wealthy, pay less. We should use America’s progressive tax system, where the wealthy pay more in taxes, to implement a means-tested health insurance system that specifically helps the needy. Republicans don’t love taxes, but a hidden tax is worse than a visible one, and it is utter anathema that the ACA moves even a single dollar from the poor to the rich.

Third, redistribution must be transparent. The ACA mainly forces higher costs onto private insurance plans, which invisibly pass those costs to healthy consumers. Democrats may prefer this hidden tax politically, but to abide by conservative principles, a subsidy must come with a budget that can be seen, understood, and voted on.

Fourth, health insurance subsidies must be structured to reduce expenditures over time. Just as welfare should be a bridge to independence for individuals, subsidies should be a bridge to sustainability for the health care industry.

The ACA introduced some promising cost-reductions, like financial responsibility provisions for hospitals and limits on luxury plan tax deductions. The Senate needs to continue these efforts. Subsidized care must be adequate and compassionate, but it should insist on using generic drugs (when available) rather than brand-name ones, and it should not cover newly constructed hospitals or low-value services. Medicine must de-intensify, helping patients receive care at home instead of in hospitals when appropriate and using social workers to meet social needs. We also need to help subsidized patients take more responsibility for their health — showing up for appointments, taking prescribed medications, and, if needed, quitting smoking and receiving treatment for addiction.

In my view, the best way to accomplish these four goals would be through either a federally funded expansion of Medicaid or a federally run high-risk pool, which would offer families a means-tested option to buy in once medical bills reach a certain point. Such a plan would intentionally have high deductibles and copays, but it would offer extra assistance to needy families. The private insurance market would be free to compete on price and quality, innovating new ways to deliver value.

I am not writing to advocate for any specific plan. Instead, I offer conservative principles as a yardstick: Does the program provide compassionate, adequate coverage to the sick? Is it transparent, fair, and sustainable? Are the healthy still free to choose their own insurance?

Republicans can craft sensible, conservative subsidies to protect our most vulnerable citizens while also preventing hidden taxes and blank checks. Kimmel is right: No parents should have to choose between bankruptcy and saving their child’s life. Nor does our nation have to choose between fiscal irresponsibility and compassion for our most vulnerable.

Divisions emerge in the Senate on pre-existing conditions

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

Divisions emerge in the Senate on pre-existing conditions

Divisions emerge in the Senate on pre-existing conditions

Senate Republicans are showing early divisions over what to do about ObamaCare’s protections for people with pre-existing conditions.

Some conservatives, including Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), want to simply repeal those provisions and other ObamaCare regulations and leave them up to the states.

But advocates of a more centrist approach, like Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), are speaking out in favor of pre-existing condition protections and endorsing a “Jimmy Kimmel test” for the bill, where no one can be denied coverage.

Other senators are exploring a middle ground where states would have to automatically enroll people in health insurance before they could get a waiver for the regulations, though conservatives object to that idea as Washington overreach.

The disagreements over what to do about preexisting conditions point to the larger difficulty facing Senate Republicans as they seek to find consensus on a host of contentious issues in the healthcare bill.

California Employer Health Benefits: Prices Up, Coverage Down

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

http://www.chcf.org/publications/2017/03/employer-health-benefits

Employers Offering Coverage, by Firm Characteristics, California, 2016

The majority of Californians rely on their employers for health insurance, but these benefits continue to shrink as the cost to workers continues to rise.

Since 2000, the percentage of employers offering health benefits has declined in California and nationwide, although coverage rates among offering firms have remained stable. Only 55% of California firms reported providing health insurance to employees in 2016, down from 69% in 2000. Implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2014 does not appear to have impacted the overall trend in employer offer rates.

Nineteen percent of California firms reported that they increased cost sharing in the past year, and 27% of firms reported that they were very or somewhat likely to increase employees’ premium contribution in the next year. The prevalence of plans with large deductibles also continues to increase.