
Cartoon – That’s the half of it?


http://khn.org/news/big-employers-embrace-health-plan-status-quo/

The shrinking unemployment rate has been a healthy turn for people with job-based benefits.
Eager to attract help in a tight labor market and unsure of Obamacare’s future, large employers are newly committed to maintaining coverage for workers and often their families, according to new research and interviews with analysts.
Two surveys of large employers — one released Aug. 2 by consultancy Willis Towers Watson and the other out Tuesday from the National Business Group on Health, show companies continue to try to control costs while backing away from shrinking or dropping health benefits. NBGH is a coalition of large employers.
“The extent of uncertainty in Washington has made people reluctant to make changes to their benefit programs without knowing what’s happening,” said Julie Stone, a senior benefits consultant with Willis Towers Watson. “They’re taking a wait-and-see attitude.”
That’s a marked change from three years ago, when many big employers — those with 1,000 employees or more — contemplated ending medical benefits and shifting workers to the Affordable Care Act’s marketplaces.
In 2014, only 25 percent of big companies were “very confident” they would have a job-based health plan for employees in 10 years, according to the Willis Towers Watson survey.
This year, 65 percent expected to offer health benefits in a decade. And 92 percent said they were very confident a company-based health plan would exist in five years.
Many managers once eyed Obamacare marketplaces as workable coverage alternatives despite the law’s requirement that employers offer health insurance, analysts said.
But problems with marketplace plans, including fewer offerings, rising premiums and shrinking medical networks, have made employers think twice, they said.
Another big reason to maintain rich coverage is “the strength of the economy,” said Paul Fronstin, director of health research at the Employee Benefit Research Institute, an industry group. “Employers are doing what they have to do to get the right workers.”
Unemployment has fallen from 9.9 percent when Obamacare became law in 2010 to 4.3 percent last month, which equaled a 16-year low reached in May.
With such a steep decline, he added, “employers are thinking, ‘We need to offer this benefit for recruitment and retention.’”
Second Thoughts On High-Deductible Plans
Companies are even rethinking the long-standing expedient of shifting a portion of rising medical costs to employees through high-deductible plans and a greater share of the premium bill, other research shows.
“Employers are beginning to recognize that cost sharing has its limits,” said a June report from PwC, a multinational professional services network. Low unemployment and competition for workers mean “employers have less appetite for scaling back benefits and continuing with a plan design that has proven largely unpopular.”
At Fidelity Investments, a Boston-based financial firm with more than 45,000 employees, worker contributions have grown to about 30 percent of total health costs.
Jennifer Hanson, the company’s benefits chief who sits on NBGH’s board, doesn’t see that continuing.
As costs grow, “if you continue to shift more of a bigger number to employees, health care becomes unaffordable,” she said in an interview. “As employers, we really do need to pay attention less to who’s paying for what and more to how much everything costs.”
More than half of Americans with job-based insurance face deductibles — out-of-pocket costs for most care before insurance kicks in — of more than $1,000 for single-person coverage. Family deductibles can be much higher.
High On The To-Do List: Controlling Drug Costs
Big employers’ planned changes for next year focus on controlling drug costs and improving health results through telemedicine and steering patients to efficient, high-quality hospitals, noted the Willis Towers Watson report and the NBGH survey.
Employer health costs continue to rise, but not at the double-digit clip seen for many plans sold to individuals and families through the ACA marketplaces.
Employers expect health costs to increase 5.5 percent next year, up from 4.6 percent in 2017, according to the Willis Towers Watson report.
Companies in the NBGH survey predicted health costs will rise 5 percent next year, up from an average 4.1 percent increase for 2016.
That’s still far faster than inflation, which is less than 3 percent, and overall wage growth.
By many accounts, soaring costs for specialty pharmaceuticals used to treat cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, hemophilia and other complex conditions are the biggest factor.
“These are very expensive drugs,” said Brian Marcotte, NBGH’s CEO. “They cost thousands or tens of thousands per treatment.”
Often these drugs require infusion into the blood in a clinical setting, which can drive up their price tag.
For instance, hospital-based infusions have been found to cost as much as seven times more than those performed in, say, a doctor’s office.
Employers are working hard to steer patients to the least expensive, appropriate site, Marcotte said.
Big employers are also offering more on-site nurses and doctors; setting up accountable care organizations with incentives for doctors and hospitals to control costs; and striking deals with particular hospitals for high-cost operations such as transplants and joint replacements, the NBGH survey found.
Job-based insurance covers some 160 million people younger than 65, according to Census and Labor Department data, far more than the 10 million or so insured by plans sold through Obamacare marketplaces.
Government employers and companies with at least 500 workers, which historically have been more likely to offer health benefits than smaller employers, cover more than 90 million employees and dependents.
Willis Towers surveyed 555 large employers with about 12 million workers and dependents. NBGH surveyed 148 large companies with more than 15 million employees and dependents.
http://kcur.org/post/small-missouri-town-went-trump-now-some-fear-health-care-overhaul-0#stream/0

The closest emergency room is 20 miles east on the highway. That’s why it isn’t unusual for people experiencing heart attacks, blood clots and strokes to show up at Dr. Rodney Yager’s clinic on Main Street in Monroe City, Missouri.
Yager, who grew up in the area, can handle the fast pace of a small-town clinic. What worries him more is how federal health care policies being shaped in Washington, D.C., could affect his patients.
The most recent proposal by Senate Republicans would cut taxes for the wealthy and leave 22 million more U.S. residents uninsured by 2026, compared to current law.
But voter frustrations with the Affordable Care Act’s rollout in communities like Monroe City helped fuel the elections of candidates who promised to dismantle it.
“Honestly, I can see the Republican side of wanting to make budget cuts and try to eliminate waste,” Yager said.”But at the same time, they’re hurting a lot of people.”
This town of almost 2,500 people sprang up about 130 miles northwest of St. Louis, along the railroad in the 1850s. Monroe City, which is just west of Hannibal, was once a Democratic stronghold in northeast Missouri. In the last decades, voters have shifted to favor conservative Republican candidates and their policies. In the most recent presidential election, Monroe, Marion, and Ralls counties voted for Republican Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, his Democratic rival, by a 3 to 1 margin.
Nevertheless, Democratic U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill received a warm welcome at the Monroe City Senior Nutrition Center last week, where she held her eighth of 10 town halls during the Senate’s July 4 recess. Her Republican counterpart, Sen. Roy Blunt, held none, a decision that drew protests in the St. Louis area. Members of Blunt’s staff said he met with constituents one-on-one throughout the week.
McCaskill is in a tough spot. Her six-year term will be up at the end of 2018, and she’s running for re-election in an increasingly red state. But in Monroe City, about 60 people listened as she vowed to vote against the latest Republican plan to gut the Affordable Care Act, and reiterated a call for Republican senators to accept amendments proposed by Democrats.
“It’s really a big tax break for wealthy folks, paid for by cutting the Medicaid program,” McCaskill said. “So I’m hoping it doesn’t pass. And then we can sit down together and try and fix what we have, repair what we have.”
It took just three questions before someone asked whether health insurance should be the basis of a health care system at all. Nearly everyone in the room raised their hands when McCaskill asked who would favor extending Medicare coverage to everyone, of any age. The idea of a single-payer system for American health care is a non-starter for conservative lawmakers and think tanks, but has grown in popularity among the general public. A recent Politico poll found that 44 percent of respondents would support a federal health care program for everyone.
“Even though more of you are for ‘Medicare for all,’ I’m worried that we can’t afford it right now,” McCaskill told the crowd. “It’s very expensive.”
Like many small towns in the United States, Monroe City’s population is aging. While voters are more likely to cast their ballot for Republican candidates, they are disproportionately affected by cuts in public spending for health care programs.
Even if the Orphan Drug Act were working properly, its enormous costs might outweigh its exiguous benefits. But it’s not working properly. Drug manufacturers are gaming the Act in at least three important ways. They’re the topic of this week’s Healthcare Triage.

Facing acute risks to their businesses from Washington policymakers, health companies spent more than $2 million to buy access to the incoming Trump administration via candlelight dinners, black-tie balls and other inauguration events, new filings show.
Drugmaker Pfizer gave $1 million to help finance the inauguration, according to documents filed with the Federal Election Commission. Amgen, another pharmaceutical company, donated $500,000. Health insurers Anthem, Centene and Aetna all gave six-figure contributions.
They joined a surge of corporate donors from multiple industries to break inauguration-finance records even as then-President-elect Donald Trump promised to “drain the swamp” of Washington influence-peddling.
But the stakes for the health industry were especially high as the new administration prepared to take power.
Two weeks before Pfizer’s donation, Trump told Time magazine: “I’m going to bring down drug prices.” At the same time, one of his top goals was repealing Obamacare — the Affordable Care Act — and its billions in subsidies for insurance companies and hospitals.
Also writing checks for the inauguration were drugmaker Abbott Laboratories, drug wholesaler Caremark, insurer MetLife and Managed Care of North America, a dental benefits manager.
Trump’s inaugural committee raised $107 million, more than twice as much as for any previous presidential investiture. President Barack Obama’s 2009 inauguration held the previous record of $53 million.
Obama banned corporate donations that year and limited individual donations to $50,000 but accepted corporate grants for his 2013 inauguration.
No health company gave more to Trump’s event than Pfizer, whose profits for Lyrica, Prevnar 13 and other high-priced medicines could come under pressure if the Medicare program for seniors is allowed to negotiate on cost, as Trump has suggested.
Lyrica alleviates nerve and muscle pain. Prevnar 13 is a vaccine against pneumococcal pneumonia.
Along with several other pharma companies, Pfizer is the subject of a Justice Departmentinvestigation over donations to charities that help Medicare patients avoid copayments for expensive drugs.
Pfizer CEO Ian Read is also a vocal advocate of cutting corporate income taxes, which Trump has pledged to do. The Obama administration thwarted Pfizer’s $160 billion deal to move its legal residency to low-tax Ireland to merge with Botox maker Allergen.
Pfizer’s $1 million donation entitled it to four tickets to a “leadership luncheon” with “select Cabinet appointees and House and Senate leadership,” according to a solicitation brochure obtained and posted online by the Center for Public Integrity.
“As it has been the case with previous presidential inaugurations, we made a financial contribution to the 58th Presidential Inaugural Committee and a group of our senior leaders participated in various official events,” said Pfizer spokesperson Sharon Castillo. She declined to identify the executives.

Working as a managed care executive in today’s healthcare environment is a demanding role. According to Managed Healthcare Executive’s 2016 State of the Industry Survey, challenges abound. Government requirements and mandates, such as implementing value-based reimbursement, are difficult to meet. Meanwhile, employing new technologies, such as electronic health records and data analytics, is no easy task. Pharmaceutical costs continue to rise dramatically, burdening the entire system.
The survey findings, based on 160 responses, show the biggest challenges that executives at health systems, health plans, pharmacy benefit organizations, and more anticipate next year. Here’s a closer look at the survey results, and what industry experts say organizations can do to overcome them.

The public already knows that the medicines we make can be enormously valuable. They just think we charge too much for them, and it is hard to find a good argument that we aren’t doing that. Take Sovaldi — Gilead launched a cure for the scourge of hepatitis C, something everyone wanted, priced it at what the market couldn’t refuse, and then faced the inevitable backlash.
In good years, innovation in the pharmaceutical industry amounts to 30 to 40 new products. Yet we’re charging the world for the 50,000 candidates that it took us to get to those 30 or 40. And that ratio is unlikely to change for as long as the market will bear the increasing cost. Unfortunately, there are signs that the market and public opinion have changed, and the lobbyists have chosen to ignore them.
The answer to fixing the pharmaceutical industry’s reputation doesn’t lie in vilifying Shkreli. He just supersized its business model, one that the lobbyists are defending at all costs.
Instead, we must choose to be different. We need to regain our ethical core and to be, once again, known as ethical pharma. And that’s where we need real leadership.

A lawsuit filed Monday accused three makers of insulin of conspiring to drive up the prices of their lifesaving drugs, harming patients who were being asked to pay for a growing share of their drug bills.
The price of insulin has skyrocketed in recent years, with the three manufacturers — Sanofi, Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly — raising the list prices of their products in near lock step, prompting outcry from patient groups and doctors who have pointed out that the rising prices appear to have little to do with increased production costs.
The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Massachusetts, accuses the companies of exploiting the country’s opaque drug-pricing system in a way that benefits themselves and the intermediaries known as pharmacy benefit managers. It cites several examples of patients with diabetes who, unable to afford their insulin treatments, which can cost up to $900 a month, have resorted to injecting themselves with expired insulin or starving themselves to control their blood sugar. Some patients, the lawsuit said, intentionally allowed themselves to slip into diabetic ketoacidosis — a blood syndrome that can be fatal — to get insulin from hospital emergency rooms.
A recent study in The Journal of the American Medical Association found that the price of insulin nearly tripled from 2002 to 2013.
“People who have to pay out of pocket for insulin are paying enormous prices when they shouldn’t be,” said Steve Berman, a lawyer whose firm filed the suit on behalf of patients and is seeking to have it certified as a class action.
In a statement, Sanofi said, “We strongly believe these allegations have no merit, and will defend against these claims.” Lilly said it had followed all laws, adding, “We adhere to the highest ethical standards.”
A spokesman for Novo Nordisk said the company disagreed with the allegations in the suit and would defend itself. “At Novo Nordisk,” the company’s statement said, “we have a longstanding commitment to supporting patients’ access to our medicines.”
The rising costs of drugs has led to several hearings in Congress and has drawn the attention of President Trump, who this month pledged to address the issue and said the industry was “getting away with murder.”
News on the Obamacare-replacement front was dominated this past weekend by Donald Trump and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who both touted their Obamacare replacement plans.
To be absolutely precise, they touted the claim that they had Obamacare replacement plans. They didn’t go into any great detail about what would be in those plans. (That didn’t stop CNN from captioning its interview with Paul, “Rand Paul Releases Obamacare Replacement Details.”)
The few details, or guideposts, or guidelines that they did disclose only underscored how difficult it will be for Trump, Paul and the the Republicans on Capitol Hill to fashion a replacement that meets all their stated goals. For Trump, according to an interview with the Washington Post published Sunday, this includes “insurance for everybody” that will encompass “great health care … in a much simplified form. Much less expensive and much better.” He promised “lower numbers, much lower deductibles.”
Paul, speaking on CNN’s Sunday morning “State of the Union” program, said his plan would “insure the most amount of people, give access to the most amount of people, at the least amount of cost.” That sounds like a set of concrete goals, but actually they’re ambiguous. “Most people” compared to what? “Least cost” compared to what?
Before we get into the details, such as they are, we should recognize that if one takes as the goal of healthcare policy to provide universal coverage in which everyone is “beautifully covered,” as Trump promised, then a few limitations immediately appear. Health coverage is the product of three factors: How many people are covered; the benefits provided; and the cost of those benefits. Since the 1940s, U.S. politicians and policymakers have tried to find a balance among these factors. Every effort has been confounded by the immutable facts that treating the sick costs money and treating more people costs more money. One can save money by treating fewer people, or giving the same number of people less treatment. So any politician who says he can do more for less money is almost certainly blowing smoke.
How do the Trump and Paul “details” stack up?

For the past few years, US lawmakers have considered legislation that would grant six additional months of market exclusivity for previously approved drugs that have been successfully tested and subsequently approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for treating rare diseases. This proposal is intended to incentivize pharmaceutical manufacturers to invest in rare disease research.
A new study, released by Health Affairs as a Web First, analyzed the thirteen supplemental applications approved by the FDA that earned rare disease status from 2005 through 2010 to estimate the costs of the clinical trials and potential economic gain arising from a six-month exclusivity extension. According to the authors, Aaron S. Kesselheim, Ben Rome, Ameet Sarpatwari, and Jerry Avorn, the median discounted financial gain for each drug would have been $94.6 million, with blockbuster drugs predictably enjoying the highest returns. The authors’ analysis also suggests that these manufacturers had spent a median of $29.8 million on trials that gained supplemental approval for rare disease indications.
“These results confirm that market exclusivity extensions can generate substantial returns to the manufacturers that are eligible for the incentive — sums that are generally much greater than the cost of performing the requisite clinical trials,” the authors conclude. As a result, “this solution could prove costly to the health care system.” They add, “Any proposal to extend market exclusivity protections in the US prescription drug market should undergo rigorous analysis that weighs the benefits of predicted investment in research against the costs of the incentives to governmental and private-sector payers.”
The authors are all affiliated with the Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law (PORTAL) at the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School.
This study, which was supported by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, will also appear in Health Affairs’ February issue.