Tag Archives: Medicare

“The Inevitable Math behind Entitlement Reform”

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

“The Inevitable Math behind Entitlement Reform”

Image result for Entitlement Reform

 

That’s the title of a new NEJM Perspective by Michael Chernew and me. After crunching the numbers, our argument is that for long term cost control we will probably need to address growth in per capita health care utilization. The easy “solutions” won’t be enough.

Much of the projected increase in inflation-adjusted spending on health care entitlements, particularly for Medicare, stems from assumed increases in utilization (e.g., 2.75 percentage points of the 5.33% annual projected growth for Medicare spending). Strategies for holding utilization growth below projections (and more in line with very recent historical growth) will thus be central to the success of any attempt at cost containment.

[One approach] is to dissuade patients from seeking care by charging them more at the point of service. About 85% of Medicare beneficiaries have supplemental plans (e.g., Medigap) that reduce their out-of-pocket costs. Policies that limit the generosity of such plans could reduce Medicare spending considerably. However, such strategies would increase beneficiaries’ financial risks, reduce access to care, and probably exacerbate health disparities.

A second strategy is to help beneficiaries improve their health by enhancing long-term care management and preventive services with the goal of avoiding more expensive services. Evidence suggests that although this type of approach is probably beneficial to patients and may be cost-effective, it is generally not cost saving.

The piece continues with some more promising approaches, in our view. Click to read it in full (unfortunately pay-walled though).

 

Hidden From View: The Astonishingly High Administrative Costs of U.S. Health Care

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

Hidden From View: The Astonishingly High Administrative Costs of U.S. Health Care

Related image

It takes only a glance at a hospital bill or at the myriad choices you may have for health care coverage to get a sense of the bewildering complexity of health care financing in the United States. That complexity doesn’t just exact a cognitive cost. It also comes with administrative costs that are largely hidden from view but that we all pay.

Because they’re not directly related to patient care, we rarely think about administrative costs. They’re high.

A widely cited study published in The New England Journal of Medicine used data from 1999 to estimate that about 30 percent of American health care expenditures were the result of administration, about twice what it is in Canada. If the figures hold today, they mean that out of the average of about $19,000 that U.S. workers and their employers pay for family coverage each year, $5,700 goes toward administrative costs.

Such costs aren’t all bad. Some are tied up in things we may want, such as creating a quality improvement program. Others are for things we may dislike — for example, figuring out which of our claims to accept or reject or sending us bills. Others are just necessary, like processing payments; hiring and managing doctors and other employees; or maintaining information systems.

That New England Journal of Medicine study is still the only one on administrative costs that encompasses the entire health system. Many other more recent studies examine important portions of it, however. The story remains the same: Like the overall cost of the U.S. health system, its administrative cost alone is No. 1 in the world.

Using data from 2010 and 2011, one study, published in Health Affairs, compared hospital administrative costs in the United States with those in seven other places: Canada, England, Scotland, Wales, France, Germany and the Netherlands.

At just over 25 percent of total spending on hospital care (or 1.4 percent of total United States economic output), American hospital administrative costs exceed those of all the other places. The Netherlands was second in hospital administrative costs: almost 20 percent of hospital spending and 0.8 percent of that country’s G.D.P.

At the low end were Canada and Scotland, which both spend about 12 percent of hospital expenditures on administration, or about half a percent of G.D.P.

Hospitals are not the only source of high administrative spending in the United States. Physician practices also devote a large proportion of revenue to administration. By one estimate, for every 10 physicians providing care, almost seven additional people are engaged in billing-related activities.

It is no surprise then that a majority of American doctors say that generating bills and collecting payments is a major problem. Canadian practices spend only 27 percent of what U.S. ones do on dealing with payers like Medicare or private insurers.

Another study in Health Affairs surveyed physicians and physician practice administrators about billing tasks. It found that doctors spend about three hours per week dealing with billing-related matters. For each doctor, a further 19 hours per week are spent by medical support workers. And 36 hours per week of administrators’ time is consumed in this way. Added together, this time costs an additional $68,000 per year per physician (in 2006). Because these are administrative costs, that’s above and beyond the cost associated with direct provision of medical care.

In JAMA, scholars from Harvard and Duke examined the billing-related costs in an academic medical center. Their study essentially followed bills through the system to see how much time different types of medical workers spent in generating and processing them.

At the low end, such activities accounted for only 3 percent of revenue for surgical procedures, perhaps because surgery is itself so expensive. At the high end, 25 percent of emergency department visit revenue went toward billing costs. Primary care visits were in the middle, with billing functions accounting for 15 percent of revenue, or about $100,000 per year per primary care provider.

“The extraordinary costs we see are not because of administrative slack or because health care leaders don’t try to economize,” said Kevin Schulman, a co-author of the study and a professor of medicine at Duke. “The high administrative costs are functions of the system’s complexity.”

Costs related to billing appear to be growing. A literature review by Elsa Pearson, a policy analyst with the Boston University School of Public Health, found that in 2009 they accounted for about 14 percent of total health expenditures. By 2012, the figure was closer to 17 percent.

One obvious source of complexity of the American health system is its multiplicity of payers. A typical hospital has to contend not just with several public health programs, like Medicare and Medicaid, but also with many private insurers, each with its own set of procedures and forms (whether electronic or paper) for billing and collecting payment. By one estimate, 80 percent of the billing-related costs in the United States are because of contending with this added complexity.

“One can have choice without costly complexity,” said Barak Richman, a co-author of the JAMA study and a professor of law at Duke. “Switzerland and Germany, for example, have lower administrative costs than the U.S. but exhibit a robust choice of health insurers.”

An additional source of costs for health care providers is chasing patients for their portion of bills, the part not covered by insurance. With deductibles and co-payments on the rise, more patients are facing cost sharing that they may not be able to pay, possibly leading to rising costs for providers, or the collection agencies they work with, in trying to get them to do so.

Using data from Athenahealth, the Harvard health economist Michael Chernew computed the proportion of doctors’ bills that were paid by patients. For relatively small bills, those under $75, over 90 percent were paid within a year. For larger ones, over $200, that rate fell to 67 percent.

“It’s a mistake to think that billing issues only reflect complex interactions between providers and insurers,” Mr. Chernew said. “As patients are required to pay more money out of pocket, providers devote more resources to collecting it.”

A distinguishing feature of the American health system is that it offers a lot of choice, including among health plans. Because insurers and public programs have not coordinated on a set of standards for pricing, billing and collection — whatever the benefits of choice — one of the consequences is high administrative burden. And that’s another reason for high American health care prices.

 

 

 

Reducing Drug Prices and Medicare’s Role: ‘It’s Complicated’

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

https://us5.campaign-archive.com/?u=8ccc385380053ffb629ecef0f&id=fd94cdddf1

Related image

Reducing Drug Prices and Medicare’s Role: ‘It’s Complicated

The White House Rose Garden was in full bloom when President Trump took the podium to announce that his administration was “launching the most sweeping action in history to lower the price of prescription drugs for the American people.”

He said: “It’s been a complicated process, but not too complicated.”

Thing is, it is pretty complicated and made more so by the admittedly tangled web of lobbyists knocking with dogged determination on lawmakers’ doors in pursuit of one thing: higher drug prices.

Their efforts appear to be working. In 2017, they spent almost $280 million in pursuit of their employers’ objectives. Another estimate puts the cost of drug lobbying at $2.3 billion from 2006 to 2016, and it’s clear that the industry also pays substantially to support candidates for both houses of Congress.

The President talked about his announcement being “the most sweeping action in history to lower the price of prescription drugs.” If you remember the presidential campaign, he promised to utilize Medicare’s gorilla purchasing power to negotiate directly to reduce prices. That all sounded very promising.

What Medicare Can and Can’t-Do

Medicare buys more drugs than anyone else, because it has a base of approximately 60 million people over age 65 or younger with certain disabilities, and is the largest single healthcare payer. However, the law actually prevents Medicare from carrying on direct negotiations with pharmaceutical companies. Specifically, it bars the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) from managing the negotiations. Right now that’s Alex M. Azar II, a former executive with behemoth pharmaceutical company Lilly USA LLC, of Eli Lilly and Co.

Many were chagrined that the “American Patients First” does not, in fact, have any mandate for Medicare to negotiate directly with drug manufacturers. Some have described the situation in general as a gift, with a big bow around it, to America’s drug companies.

To understand why this happened, it helps to understand some of the history. Hearken to 2006, when Congress was in the throes of arguing the federal law around Medicare’s Part D law, the Medicare Modernization Act that became enforced in 2003. It was the most extensive rejuvenation of the program in 38 years.

Lobbyists persuaded lawmakers that if Medicare gained the ability to negotiate, that it would be akin to price control and an affront to the free market. Insurance companies in charge of subsidizing the new coverage were charged with managing drug costs.

Drugs Do Come Cheaper

In contrast, AARP invites us to consider how the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) deftly negotiates drug prices. The proof is in the pricing, as VHA pays 80 percent less for brand names than Medicare Part D. The VHA’s formulary list, that magic roster of medications it covers is a powerful negotiating tool. The relationship between Medicare and Medicaid that exists within the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) means the former two agencies must cover all FDA-approved drugs. That’s in spite of the fact that less expensive and equally effective medications can be bought on the open market.

Maybe you wonder how your fellow Americans feel about all of this. Big surprise: Democrats, Republicans, and independents are all pretty much on the same page. That’s according to a report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The analysis states emphatically that “finding a way to make prescription medicines — and healthcare at large — more affordable for everyone has become a socioeconomic imperative.”

According to the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, a majority of Democrats (96 percent), Republicans (92 percent), and Independents (92 percent) think that yes, our government should have to negotiate power here.

Maybe Yes, Maybe No

Kaiser’s analysis of this conundrum over the “noninterference clause” is this. Those in favor of having Azar negotiate think this would result in leverage to reduce drug costs, especially around medications with sky-high prices but with no competition. They say private plans just don’t pack enough punch that way.

As expected, those who proclaim “no” shrug and opine that the Secretary simply couldn’t get better deals done. Then there’s the argument that haggling over price would inhibit pharma’s research and development, limiting the opportunities for more and better medications to improve quality of life and save lives.

As Kaiser notes, in addition to allowing the HHS Secretary to make better deals on drugs, another option would be to establish a public Part D plan that works in partnership with private Part D. “The Secretary would establish a formulary for the public Part D plan and negotiate prices for drugs on that formulary.”

There’s also a compromise approach of sorts in the mix that would address those expensive drugs and those that don’t have therapeutic alternatives: The Secretary could negotiate those.

At the end of the day, before Medicare can become the drug price negotiator extraordinaire, the law must be changed, and that’s a big lift. Based upon history, even Republicans are not expected to want to do this, and for sure pharma will recoil. That leaves consumers using Part D watching and waiting for change.

Drug Negotiation Side Effects

Increasing negotiating around Medicare could have ramifications if the President transfers expensive medications from Part B — the first Medicare legislation in 1965 —
to Part D, says The New York Times.

AARP says it’s worried about increasing out-of-pocket charges if this happens. Also, 9 million Medicare members in Part B don’t have Part D, leaving a void as to who will pay medication costs.

The publication asked doctors for their opinions and one responded that one misstep could be “a disaster.” Another worried about Part D drugs’ prices increasing more than Part B’s. Still, other notes protected classes of Part D drugs that must be covered by insurance plans, but in this instance may hamper Part D negotiations.

 

 

Forty Years of Winning Friends and Influencing People

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

Forty Years of Winning Friends and Influencing People

An interview with former US Representative Henry Waxman of California.

Of the more than 12,000 Americans who have served in Congress since it convened in 1789, few have had careers as fruitful as Henry Waxman’s. Representing west Los Angeles and its surrounding areas for 40 years, Waxman, 78, left a remarkable imprint on US health policy. His manifold accomplishments were capped by the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010. A son of south-central Los Angeles, he worked at his father’s grocery store, earned a law degree at the University of California, Los Angeles, and in 1968 won a seat in the State Assembly. He was elected to the US House in 1974 in an era when bipartisanship was ordinary and health care had yet to become an overwhelming economic and political force in American life. Waxman was known in Congress for his persistence at wearing down opposition. Republican Senator Alan Simpson of Wyoming famously called him “tougher than a boiled owl” after negotiating the landmark Clean Air Act amendments of 1990. Waxman led efforts to ban smoking in public places and to require nutrition labels on food products. I talked with him recently about his experiences, the future of health policy, and the changing language of health reform. The transcript has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

Q: In 1974, when Los Angeles voters first sent you to Washington, health policy wasn’t the ticket to political influence. You are a lawyer, not a doctor. What drew you to health care?

A: When I was first elected to the California State Assembly in 1968, I believed that if I specialized in a policy area I would have more impact than if I tried to be an expert on everything. Health policy fit my district in Los Angeles, and I could see that government needed to be involved in a whole range of decisions, from health care services to biomedical research to public health. I was chairman of the Assembly Committee on Health. I was elected to Congress in 1974 in a Democratic wave election. I wanted to get on a health policy committee, which was Energy and Commerce. Democrats picked up so many seats and there were so many committee vacancies that year that it was easy to claim one, and I got on that committee. Within four years there was a vacancy for chair of the health and environment subcommittee, and I stepped up to that. It gave me a lot more impact.

Q: What role do you think health care will play in the upcoming elections?

A: If the Democrats do as well as I expect and hope, it will be more because of what Trump was doing in the health area than anything else. Even though people value health care services and insurance, the idea that the president and the GOP wanted to take away health insurance and reduce benefits for people who needed it — that was something they didn’t expect and were angry about.

Q: Is it feasible to provide health coverage to everyone?

A: I have always felt we needed access to universal health coverage. It wasn’t until we got the ACA under Obama that we were able to narrow the gap of the uninsured — those who couldn’t get insurance through their jobs, who weren’t eligible for Medicare and Medicaid, who had preexisting conditions, or who couldn’t afford the premiums. The ACA helped people have access to an individual health policy by eliminating insurance company discrimination and giving a subsidy to those who couldn’t afford coverage. It wasn’t a perfect bill, but it was important. The idea that Republicans would come along and bring back preexisting conditions as a reason to deny people coverage is what drove enough GOP senators to stop the GOP repeal bill from going forward last year. We’ll see what they do by way of executive orders or through the courts to try to frustrate people’s ability to buy insurance.

The Republican ACA repeal bill last year was a real shock because they also wanted to repeal the Medicaid program and allow states to cut funds for people in nursing homes, people with disabilities, and low-income patients who rely so heavily on that program. And they had proposals to hurt Medicare that House Speaker Paul Ryan had been advancing. The American people do not want to deny others insurance coverage and access to health services.

Q: Bipartisanship has gone out of style. Can it be revived?

A: It doesn’t look very likely now, but I built my legislative career on the idea that there could be bipartisan consensus to move forward on legislation. All the big bills had bipartisan support. The only bill that got through on a strictly partisan basis was the Obamacare legislation, and I regretted that. The Republicans just wanted to denigrate it and scare people into believing the ACA would provide for death panels, hurt people, take away their insurance, and keep them from getting access to care. None of that was true.

Q: A growing number of Democrats want to establish a single-payer health care system for the state. Do you agree with them?

A: A lot of people mistake the phrase “single payer” with universal health coverage. While I share the passion of people who want to cover everybody, single payer is not a panacea. My goal is universal health coverage. The Republican attempt last year to repeal the ACA and send 32 million Americans into the ranks of the uninsured was an albatross around their necks.

But the Democrats could turn this winning issue into a loser if some make a single-payer bill such as Medicare for All into a litmus test. I cosponsored single-payer legislation in Congress with Senator Ted Kennedy, and I always sought to bring the nation closer to universal coverage. I authored laws to bring Medicaid to more children and to establish the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and I led the fight to enact the ACA. These bills were very important. If we passed something like a single-payer bill, which would be extremely hard to do, we would be passing up opportunities to make progress. A lot of people who want a Medicare for All bill don’t realize that those of us on Medicare have to pay for supplemental insurance, because Medicare doesn’t cover everything. Medicare doesn’t generally cover certain services like nursing home care, so to get help you have to impoverish yourself to qualify for Medicaid.

One organization is sending out letters telling voters to support a single-payer bill and you won’t have to pay anything anymore. We can’t afford something like that. Democrats can embrace a boundless vision for a health care future without being trapped by a rigid model of how to get there. We should increase the number of people with comprehensive health insurance and focus on lowering costs. People with Medicare don’t want to give it up. People have health insurance on the job.

I would rather expand on what we have and build it out to cover everybody.

People don’t seem to remember that Democrats could barely muster the votes for the ACA when we had 60 votes in the Senate and a 255–179 majority in the House. Even if we recapture Congress and the presidency, I don’t think we would get a Medicare for All bill passed. It would require such a high tax increase that people would be absolutely shocked.

Q: What would be the national impact of California adopting a universal coverage plan?

A: Californian progress would be a model for the rest of the country, and we would be doing what’s right for the people of California who don’t have access to coverage. I think California is a trendsetter — for good and for bad. Proposition 13 and term limits started in California and spread to other states, and I think they have been a disservice. We’ve also done a lot of good things in California, and the rest of the country follows those things as well.

People who try to marginalize California do so at their own risk. People around the country look at California as a leader. California embraced the ACA, expanded Medicaid, and has been moving forward on making sure our public health care system is reforming itself to represent the needs for population health care and to ensure that uninsured low-income patients get access to decent, good-quality health care.

Q: More states are adopting work requirements in Medicaid. Do you think that will become the standard nationwide?

A: Work requirements are inconsistent with the Medicaid law. We’re talking about making people go to work to get health care when they’re sick. I just don’t think it makes sense. The courts may throw it out, and if not, at some point there will be a reaction against it, and it will be repealed by a future Congress.

Q: Some see parallels between the conduct of tobacco companies and opioid makers. Do you think “Big Pharma” will be held to account like “Big Tobacco?”

A: In the difficult fight against big tobacco, one of the lessons we learned was that even an extremely powerful group like the tobacco industry could be beaten if you keep pushing back. Even though there was overwhelming public support for regulation of tobacco, it took until 2009 before we could enact tobacco regulation by giving the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authority to act. In the meantime, there were lawsuits by states to recover money they spent under Medicaid programs to cope with the harm from smoking. With opioids, there will be more and more lawsuits against distributors and manufacturers whose actions resulted in deaths of people from opioid addiction. Congress now is grappling with many bills to help people who are addicted, to prevent addiction from spreading further, and to restrict the ability to get the drug product. I’m optimistic we can come to terms with this crisis.

Q: What have you been doing since retiring from Congress?

A: I wanted to stay in the DC area near my son, Michael Waxman, and his family. He had a traditional public relations firm and he asked me to join him. In the health area, we represent Planned Parenthood in California, public hospitals in California, community health centers at the national level, and hospitals that get 340b drug discounts because they serve many low-income patients. We have foundation grants to work on problems of high pharmaceutical prices, and foundation grants to have a program to make sure women know about the whole range of health services available to them for free under the ACA. I enjoy working with my son and pursuing causes I would have pursued as a member of Congress.

 

 

 

Proposed changes to 340B program would cut DSH eligibility by half

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

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/hospital-management-administration/proposed-changes-to-340b-program-would-cut-dsh-eligibility-by-half.html

Image result for 340b program changes 2018

A new congressional proposal would raise the minimum disproportionate share hospital adjustment percentage that DSH hospitals must meet to qualify for the 340B drug discount program, eliminating 340B eligibility for over half the participating hospitals, according to a study by 340B Health.

Under the bill, proposed by Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, 573 of the 1,115 DSH hospitals enrolled in the 340B program would no longer be eligible for the drug discounts. Under the current rules, DSH hospitals are eligible for the 340B program if their Medicare DSH adjustment percentage is greater than 11.75 percent. The proposal would raise the qualifying rate to 18 percent.

Here are the 10 states with the most DSH hospitals that would lose 340B eligibility under the proposal:

  1. California (39)
  2. Texas (35)
  3. North Carolina (33)
  4. Georgia (31)
  5. Ohio (29)
  6. Michigan (23)
  7. New York (21)
  8. Illinois (19)
  9. Alabama (19)
  10. Pennsylvania (18)

 

 

Medigap Enrollment and Consumer Protections Vary Across States

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

Medigap Enrollment and Consumer Protections Vary Across States

One in four people in traditional Medicare (25 percent) had private, supplemental health insurance in 2015—also known as Medigap—to help cover their Medicare deductibles and cost-sharing requirements, as well as protect themselves against catastrophic expenses for Medicare-covered services. This issue brief provides an overview of Medigap enrollment and analyzes consumer protections under federal law and state regulations that can affect beneficiaries’ access to Medigap. In particular, this brief examines implications for older adults with pre-existing medical conditions who may be unable to purchase a Medigap policy or change their supplemental coverage after their initial open enrollment period.

Key Findings

  • The share of beneficiaries with Medigap varies widely by state—from 3 percent in Hawaii to 51 percent in Kansas.
  • Federal law provides limited consumer protections for adults ages 65 and older who want to purchase a supplemental Medigap policy—including, a one-time, 6-month open enrollment period that begins when they first enroll in Medicare Part B.
  • States have the flexibility to institute consumer protections for Medigap that go beyond the minimum federal standards. For example, 28 states require Medigap insurers to issue policies to eligible Medicare beneficiaries whose employer has changed their retiree health coverage benefits.
  • Only four states (CT, MA, ME, NY) require either continuous or annual guaranteed issue protections for Medigap for all beneficiaries in traditional Medicare ages 65 and older, regardless of medical history (Figure 1). Guaranteed issue protections prohibit insurers from denying a Medigap policy to eligible applicants, including people with pre-existing conditions, such as diabetes and heart disease.
  • In all other states and D.C., people who switch from a Medicare Advantage plan to traditional Medicare may be denied a Medigap policy due to a pre-existing condition, with few exceptions, such as if they move to a new area or are in a Medicare Advantage trial period.

Medigap is a key source of supplemental coverage for people in traditional Medicare

Medicare beneficiaries can choose to get their Medicare benefits (Parts A and B) through the traditional Medicare program or a Medicare Advantage plan, such as a Medicare HMO or PPO. Roughly two-thirds of Medicare beneficiaries are in traditional Medicare, and most have some form of supplemental health insurance coverage because Medicare’s benefit design includes substantial cost-sharing requirements, with no limit on out-of-pocket spending. Medicare requires a Part A deductible for hospitalizations ($1,340 in 2018), a separate deductible for most Part B services ($183), 20 percent coinsurance for many Part B (physician and outpatient) services, daily copayments for hospital stays that are longer than 60 days, and daily copays for extended stays in skilled nursing facilities.

To help with these expenses and limit their exposure to catastrophic out-of-pocket costs for Medicare-covered services, a quarter of beneficiaries in traditional Medicare (25 percent) had a private, supplemental insurance policy, known as Medigap in 2015 (Figure 2). Medigap serves as a key source of supplemental coverage for people in traditional Medicare who do not have supplemental employer- or union-sponsored retiree coverage or Medicaid, because their incomes and assets are too high to qualify. Medicare beneficiaries also purchase Medigap policies to make health care costs more predictable by spreading costs over the course of the year through monthly premium payments, and to reduce the paperwork burden associated with medical bills.1

Medigap policy benefits were standardized through the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, which also included additional consumer protections discussed later in this issue brief.2 Of the 10 standard Medigap policies available to beneficiaries, Plan F is the most popular, accounting for over half of all policyholders in 2016, because it covers the Part A and B deductibles (as does Plan C), and all cost-sharing for Part A and B covered services.3

The share of all Medicare beneficiaries with Medigap coverage varies widely by state—from 3 percent in Hawaii to 51 percent in Kansas in 2016 (Figure 3, Appendix Table). In 20 states, at least one-quarter of all Medicare beneficiaries have a Medigap policy. States with higher Medigap enrollment tend to be in the Midwest and plains states, where relatively fewer beneficiaries are enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans.4

Medigap coverage is substantially more common for Medicare beneficiaries ages 65 and older than it is for younger Medicare beneficiaries, many of whom qualify for Medicare because of a long-term disability. Only 5 percent of traditional Medicare beneficiaries under age 65 had Medigap in 2015—considerably lower than the shares in older age brackets (Figure 4). The low enrollment in Medigap by beneficiaries under age 65 is likely due to the absence of federal guarantee issue requirements for younger Medicare beneficiaries with disabilities (discussed later in this brief) and higher rates of Medicaid coverage for people on Medicare with disabilities who tend to have relatively low incomes.

Federal law provides limited consumer protections for Medigap policies

In general, Medigap insurance is state regulated, but also subject to certain federal minimum requirements and consumer protections. For example, federal law requires Medigap plans to be standardized to make it easier for consumers to compare benefits and premiums across plans. Federal law also requires Medigap insurers to offer “guaranteed issue” policies to Medicare beneficiaries age 65 and older during the first six months of their enrollment in Medicare Part B and during other qualifying events (listed later in this brief). During these defined periods, Medigap insurers cannot deny a Medigap policy to any applicant based on factors such as age, gender, or health status. Further, during these periods, Medigap insurers cannot vary premiums based on an applicant’s pre-existing medical conditions (i.e., medical underwriting). However, under federal law, Medigap insurers may impose a waiting period of up to six months to cover services related to pre-existing conditions, only if the applicant did not have at least six months of prior continuous creditable coverage.5 As described later in this brief, states have the flexibility to institute Medigap consumer protections that go further than the minimum federal standards.

Federal law also imposes other consumer protections for Medigap policies. These include “guaranteed renewability” (with few exceptions), minimum medical loss ratios, limits on agent commissions to discourage “churning” of policies, and rules prohibiting Medigap policies to be sold to applicants with duplicate health coverage.6 (For further details on these requirements and a history of federal involvement in the Medigap market, see Medigap: Spotlight on Enrollment, Premiums, and Recent Trends, April 2013.)

When does federal law require guaranteed issue protections for Medigap?

Federal law provides guaranteed issue protections for Medigap policies during a one-time, six-month Medigap open enrollment period for beneficiaries ages 65 and older when enrolling in Medicare Part B, and for certain qualifying events. These limited circumstances include instances when Medicare beneficiaries involuntarily lose supplemental coverage, such as when their Medicare Advantage plan discontinues coverage in their area, or when their employers cancel their retiree coverage. Beneficiaries who are in a Medicare Advantage plan also have federal guaranteed issue rights when they move to a new area and can no longer access coverage from their Medicare Advantage plan. In these qualifying events, people ages 65 and older in Medicare generally have 63 days to apply for a supplemental Medigap policy under these federal guaranteed issue protections.

Federal law also requires that Medigap polices be sold with guaranteed issue rights during specified “trial” periods for Medicare Advantage plans. One of these trial periods is during the first year older adults enroll in Medicare. During that time, older adults can try a Medicare Advantage plan, but if they disenroll within the first year, they have guaranteed issue rights to purchase a Medigap policy under federal law. Another trial period applies to Medicare beneficiaries who cancel their Medigap policy to enroll in a Medicare Advantage plan. These beneficiaries have time-limited guaranteed issue rights to purchase their same Medigap policy if, within a year of signing up for a Medicare Advantage plan, they decide to disenroll to obtain coverage under traditional Medicare.

States have the flexibility to institute Medigap consumer protections that go further than the minimum federal standards, such as extending guaranteed issue requirements beyond the open enrollment period or adding other qualifying events that would require insurers to issue policies, as discussed later in this brief.

When does federal law not provide guaranteed issue protections for Medigap?

Broadly speaking, after 6 months of enrolling in Medicare Part B, older adults do not have federal guaranteed issue protections when applying for Medigap, except for specified qualifying events described earlier (Table 2). Therefore, older adults in traditional Medicare who miss the open enrollment period may, in most states, be subject to medical underwriting, and potentially denied a Medigap policy due to pre-existing conditions, or charged higher premiums due to their health status.

Medical Underwriting. Insurance companies that sell Medigap policies may refuse to sell a policy to an applicant with medical conditions, except under circumstances described above. The Text Box on this page provides examples of health conditions that may lead to the denial of Medigap policies, derived from underwriting manuals/guides from multiple insurance companies selling Medigap policies. Examples of conditions listed by insurers as reasons for policy denials include diabetes, heart disease, cancer, and being advised by a physician to have surgery, medical tests, treatments, or therapies.

Barriers for Beneficiaries Under Age 65 with Disabilities. Under federal law, Medigap insurers are not required to sell Medigap policies to the over 9 million Medicare beneficiaries who are under age of 65, many of whom qualify for Medicare based on a long-term disability. (However, when these beneficiaries turn age 65, federal law requires that they be eligible for the same six-month open enrollment period for Medigap that is available to new beneficiaries age 65 and older.)

Beneficiaries Choosing to Switch from Medicare Advantage to Traditional Medicare. There are no federal guarantee issue protections for individuals who choose to switch from a Medicare Advantage plan to traditional Medicare and apply for a Medigap policy, except under limited circumstances described in Table 2. In most states, therefore, beneficiaries who want to switch from their Medicare Advantage plan to traditional Medicare may be subject to medical underwriting and denied coverage when they apply for a Medigap policy because they do not have guaranteed issue rights, with some exceptions (e.g., if they have moved or if they are in a limited trial period). In states that allow medical underwriting for Medigap, Medicare Advantage enrollees with pre-existing conditions may find it too financially risky to switch to traditional Medicare if they are unable to purchase a Medigap policy. Without Medigap, they could be exposed to high cost-sharing requirements, mainly because traditional Medicare does not have a limit on out-of-pocket spending (in contrast to Medicare Advantage plans).7

Some states require guaranteed issue and other consumer protections for Medigap beyond the federal minimum requirements

States have the flexibility to institute Medigap consumer protections that go further than the minimum federal standards. While many states have used this flexibility to expand guarantee issue rights for Medigap under certain circumstances, 15 states and the District of Columbia have not, relying only the minimum guarantee issue requirements under federal law (Table 3).

Only four states require Medigap insurers to offer policies to Medicare beneficiaries age 65 and older (Figure 5). Three of these states (Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York) have continuous open enrollment, with guaranteed issue rights throughout the year, and one state (Maine) requires insurers to issue Medigap Plan A (the least generous Medigap plan shown earlier in Table 1) during an annual one-month open enrollment period. Consistent with federal law, Medigap insurers in New York, Connecticut, and Maine may impose up to a six-month “waiting period” to cover services related to pre-existing conditions if the applicant did not have six months of continuous creditable coverage prior to purchasing a policy during the initial Medigap open enrollment period.8 Massachusetts prohibits pre-existing condition waiting periods for its Medicare supplement policies.

Many other states have expanded on the federal minimum standards in more narrow ways by requiring Medigap insurers to offer policies to eligible applicants during additional qualifying events (Table 3). For example, 28 states require Medigap insurers to issue policies when an applicant has an involuntary change in their employer (retiree) coverage. (This qualifying event is more expansive than federal law, which applies only when retiree coverage is completely eliminated.) Nine states provide guaranteed issue rights for applicants who lose their Medicaid eligibility.9

As noted above, federal law does not require Medigap insurers to issue policies to Medicare beneficiaries under the age of 65, most of whom qualify for Medicare because of a long-term disability. However, 31 states require insurers to provide at least one kind of Medigap policy to beneficiaries younger than age 65 (typically through an initial open enrollment period).10

Some states provide stronger consumer protections for Medigap premiums than others

States also have the flexibility to establish rules on whether or not Medigap premiums may be affected by factors such as a policyholder’s age, smoking status, gender, and residential area. Federal law allows states to alter premiums based on these factors, even during guaranteed issue open enrollment periods.

There are three different rating systems that can affect how Medigap insurers determine premiums: community rating, issue-age rating, or attained-age rating (defined in the Text box below). States can impose regulations on which of these rating systems are permitted or required for Medigap policies sold in their state. Of the three, community rating provides the strongest consumer protection for Medigap policies because it does not allow premiums to be based on the applicant or policyholder’s age or health status. However, insurers in states that require community rating may charge different premiums based on other factors, such as smoking status and residential area. In states that allow attained age rating, older applicants and policyholders have considerably less protection from higher premiums because premiums may increase at unpredictable rates as policyholders age.

Premium rating systems

Community rating: Insurers must charge all policyholders within a given plan type the same premium without regard to age (among people age 65 and older) or health status. Insurers can raise premiums only if they do so for all policyholders of the given plan type. Insurers may still adjust premiums based on other factors, including smoking status, gender, and residential area.

Issue-age rating: Insurers may vary premiums based on the age of the policyholder at the time of purchase, but cannot increase the policyholder’s premium automatically in later years based on his/her age. Additionally, insurers may charge different premiums based on other factors, including health status, smoking status, and residential area.

Attained-age rating: Insurers may vary premiums based on the age of the policyholder at the time of purchase and increase premiums for policyholders as they age. Additionally, insurers may charge different premiums based on other factors, including health status, smoking status, and residential area.

Currently, eight states (AR, CT, MA, ME, MN, NY, VT, and WA) require premiums to be community rated among policyholders ages 65 and older. This means that Medigap insurers cannot charge higher premiums to people because they are older or sicker, and therefore, must charge an 80-year old policyholder the same as a 70-year old policyholder regardless of health status (Table 4). Insurers may still adjust premiums based on other factors, including smoking status, gender, and residential area. A state’s community rating requirement does not, in itself, guarantee that applicants will be issued a policy in the state. However, as described earlier, four of the states that have community rating (CT, MA, ME, NY), have guarantee issue protections and require insurers to issue Medigap policies to eligible applicants either continuously during the year, or during an annual enrollment period.

The remaining 38 states and the District of Columbia do not require premiums to be community rated; therefore, Medigap premiums in these states may be subject to issue-age and attained-age rating systems, depending on state regulation. Medigap insurers are permitted to offer community rated policies in these states, but most do not.11 Additionally, Medigap insurers may increase premiums due to inflation, regardless of the premium rating system.12

Discussion

Medigap plays a major role in providing supplemental coverage for people in traditional Medicare, particularly among those who do not have an employer-sponsored retiree plan or do not qualify for cost-sharing assistance under Medicaid. Medigap helps beneficiaries budget for out-of-pocket expenses under traditional Medicare. Medigap also limits the financial exposure that beneficiaries would otherwise face due to the absence of an out-of-pocket limit under traditional Medicare.

Nonetheless, Medigap is not subject to the same federal guaranteed issue protections that apply to Medicare Advantage and Part D plans, with an annual open enrollment period. As a result, in most states, medical underwriting is permitted which means that beneficiaries with pre-existing conditions may be denied a Medigap policy due to their health status, except under limited circumstances.

Federal law requires Medigap guaranteed issue protections for people age 65 and older during the first six months of their Medicare Part B enrollment and during a “trial” Medicare Advantage enrollment period. Medicare beneficiaries who miss these windows of opportunity may unwittingly forgo the chance to purchase a Medigap policy later in life if their needs or priorities change.13 This constraint potentially affects the nearly 9 million beneficiaries in traditional Medicare with no supplemental coverage; it may also affect millions of Medicare Advantage plan enrollees who may incorrectly assume they will be able to purchase supplemental coverage if they choose to switch to traditional Medicare at some point during their many years on Medicare.

Only four states (CT, MA, NY, ME) require Medigap policies to be issued, either continuously or for one month per year for all Medicare beneficiaries age 65 and older. Policymakers could consider a number of other policy options to broaden access to Medigap. One approach could be to require annual Medigap open enrollment periods, as is the case with Medicare Advantage and Part D plans, making Medigap available to all applicants without regard to medical history during this period. Another option would be to make voluntary disenrollment from a Medicare Advantage plan a qualifying event with guaranteed issue rights for Medigap, recognizing the presence of beneficiaries’ previous “creditable” coverage. For Medicare beneficiaries younger than age 65, policymakers could consider adopting federal guaranteed issue protections, building on rules already established by the majority of states.

On the one hand, these expanded guaranteed issue protections would increase beneficiaries’ access to Medigap, especially for people with pre-existing medical conditions. They would also treat Medigap similarly to Medicare Advantage in this regard, and make it easier for older adults to switch between Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare if their Medicare Advantage plan is not serving their needs in later life. On the other hand, broader guaranteed issue policies could result in some beneficiaries waiting until they have a serious health problem before purchasing Medigap coverage, which would likely increase premiums for all Medigap policyholders. A different approach altogether would be to minimize the need for supplemental coverage in Medicare by adding an out-of-pocket limit to traditional Medicare.14

Ongoing policy discussions affecting Medicare and its benefit design could provide an opportunity to consider various ways to enhance federal consumer protections for supplemental coverage or manage beneficiary exposure to high out-of-pocket costs. As older adults age on to Medicare, they would be well-advised to understand the Medigap rules where they live, and the trade-offs involved when making coverage decisions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maryland governor signs federal all-payer health contract

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

https://www.myjournalcourier.com/news/medical/article/Maryland-governor-signs-federal-all-payer-health-13060454.php

Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, center, signs a contract with the federal government for the state's unique all-payer health care model in Annapolis, Md., on Monday, July 9, 2018. Seema Verma, administrator of the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, is on the right and Maryland Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller is on the left. Robert Neall, Maryland's health secretary is standing behind the governor. Photo: Brian Witte, AP / AP

Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan signed a contract with the federal government on Monday to enact the state’s unique all-payer health care model, which he said will create incentives to improve care while saving money.

Hogan signed the five-year contract along with the administrator of the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Seema Verma.

“The Maryland Model provides incentives across the health system to provide greater coordinated care, expanded patient-care delivery and collaboration of chronic-disease management … all while improving the quality of care at lower cost to the consumer,” Hogan said.

He said the model emphasizes the quality of care over the quantity of care.

The Hogan administration said the new contract is expected to provide an additional $300 million in savings a year by 2023, totaling $1 billion in savings over five years.

Maryland is the only state that can set its own rates for hospital services, and all payers must charge the same rate for services at a given hospital. The policy has been in place since the 1970s, though Maryland modernized its one-of-a-kind Medicare waiver about four years ago to move away from reimbursing hospitals on a fee-for-service basis to a fixed budget.

Because that change focused on hospitals only, the federal government required the state to develop a new model that would provide comprehensive coordination across the entire health care system.

Under the agreement, Maryland will be relieved of federal restrictions and red tape that the other 49 states face in the Medicare program. However, the state will have to meet benchmarks of improving access to health care while improving quality and reducing costs.

Verma said the model is the first involving the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services that holds the state “fully at risk for total Medicare costs for all residents.”

“The state and CMS have agreed on the goals, and now our job is to get out of the way and give the state the maximum flexibility to achieve success.”

Maryland health secretary Robert Neall says if successful, the plan could be replicated around the country to address financial strain on Medicare. Neall described the model as being “less transactional and more just taking care of the total person.”

“The incentives are going to be aligned so that it’s right place, right time, right purpose, right price, instead of, ‘Come back and see me in two weeks, and we’ll run the same set of tests on you,'” Neall said.

 

 

About 30 New Lawsuits Await Supreme Court Input in High-Stakes DSH Payments Case

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

https://www.healthleadersmedia.com/finance/about-30-new-lawsuits-await-supreme-court-input-high-stakes-dsh-payments-case

Image result for supreme court

In latest filing, HHS argues there’s a broader principle at play than the potential reimbursements totaling up to $4 billion.

As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to consider this fall whether to take up a case implicating potentially billions of dollars in Medicare payments, hospitals that provide high rates of uncompensated care are lining up to ask the federal government for their piece of the pie.

The D.C. Circuit Court ruled less than a year ago that Health and Human Services violated the Medicare statute by failing to conduct a notice-and-comment rulemaking process when it implemented a policy affecting disproportionate-share hospital (DSH) reimbursements. Since then, providers have filed about 30 lawsuits in the D.C. District Court raising similar claims, according to a filing submitted Thursday to the Supreme Court on HHS Secretary Alex Azar’s behalf.

Some of the suits include dozens of plaintiffs. Most of them have been stayed pending the Supreme Court’s next move.

“The monetary stakes and hospitals’ legal sophistication will likely lead to future cases raising similar issues being litigated in the District of Columbia, where the decision below constitutes binding precedent,” Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco wrote in the filing, arguing that the Supreme Court should take the case so HHS may argue that the appellate court’s decision should be overruled.

The respondents—who argued the Supreme Court should deny the HHS request and let the Circuit Court decision stand—include just nine hospitals, but their claims for a single year total $48.5 million in additional reimbursement. Considering that about 2,700 hospitals receive DSH payments, the financial stakes surrounding this case are clearly quite high.

Although the appellate court sided with the hospitals’ claim that HHS broke the law by skipping notice-and-comment rulemaking, the latest HHS filing argues that the ruling was faulty and that there’s a broader issue at play.

The respondents both “miss the point and are wrong” about the legal standard, the HHS filing states.

“They miss the point because the logic of the decision below would apply to any context in which the agency gives its contractors interpretive instructions about making initial reimbursement decisions,” the filing states, noting that providers have the option to challenge initial cost-reporting determinations.

In other words, if HHS is required to engage in notice-and-comment rulemaking to calculate DSH reimbursements, then it must be required to do the same in other matters that would make running Medicare and other programs unworkable, HHS argues.

The Supreme Court is set to consider in a conference September 24 whether to take up the case.

 

 

Five Worrisome Trends in Healthcare

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

https://www.medpagetoday.com/publichealthpolicy/healthpolicy/72001?pop=0&ba=1&xid=fb-md-pcp&trw=no

Image result for five worrisome trends in healthcare

A reckoning is coming, outgoing BlueCross executive says.

A reckoning is coming to American healthcare, said Chester Burrell, outgoing CEO of the CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield health plan, here at the annual meeting of the National Hispanic Medical Association.

Burrell, speaking on Friday, told the audience there are five things physicians should worry about, “because they worry me”:

1. The effects of the recently passed tax bill. “If the full effect of this tax cut is experienced, then the federal debt will go above 100% of GDP [gross domestic product] and will become the highest it’s been since World War II,” said Burrell. That may be OK while the economy is strong, “but we’ve got a huge problem if it ever turns and goes back into recession mode,” he said. “This will stimulate higher interest rates, and higher interest rates will crowd out funding in the federal government for initiatives that are needed,” including those in healthcare.

Burrell noted that 74 million people are currently covered by Medicaid, 60 million by Medicare, and 10 million by the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), while another 10 million people are getting federally subsidized health insurance through the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA’s) insurance exchanges. “What happens when interest’s demand on federal revenue starts to crowd out future investment in these government programs that provide healthcare for tens of millions of Americans?”

2. The increasing obesity problem. “Thirty percent of the U.S. population is obese; 70% of the total population are either obese or overweight,” said Burrell. “There is an epidemic of diabetes, heart disease, and coronary artery disease coming from those demographics, and Baby Boomers will see these things in full flower in the next 10 years as they move fully into Medicare.”

3. The “congealing” of the U.S. healthcare system. This is occurring in two ways, Burrell said. First, “you’ll see large integrated delivery systems [being] built around academic medical centers — very good quality care [but] 50%-100% more expensive than the community average.”

To see how this affects patients, take a family of four — a 40-year-old dad, 33-year-old mom, and two teenage kids — who are buying a health insurance policy from CareFirst via the ACA exchange, with no subsidy. “The cost for their premium and deductibles, copays, and coinsurance [would be] $33,000,” he said. But if all of the care were provided by academic medical centers? “$60,000,” he said. “What these big systems are doing is consolidating community hospitals and independent physician groups, and creating oligopolies.”

Another way the system is “congealing” is the emergence of specialty practices that are backed by private equity companies, said Burrell. “The largest urology group in our area was bought by a private equity firm. How do they make money? They increase fees. There is not an issue on quality but there is a profound issue on costs.”

4. The undermining of the private healthcare market. “Just recently, we have gotten rid of the individual mandate, and the [cost-sharing reduction] subsidies that were [expected to be] in the omnibus bill … were taken out of the bill,” he said. And state governments are now developing alternatives to the ACA such as short-term duration insurance policies — originally designed to last only 3 months but now being pushed up to a year, with the possibility of renewal — that don’t have to adhere to ACA coverage requirements, said Burrell.

5. The lackluster performance of new payment models. “Despite the innovation fostering under [Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation] programs — the whole idea was to create a series of initiatives that might show the wave of the future — ACOs [accountable care organizations] and the like don’t show the promise intended for them, and there is no new model one could say is demonstrably more successful,” he said.

“So beware — there’s a reckoning coming,” Burrell said. “Maybe change occurs only when there is a rip-roaring crisis; we’re coming to it.” Part of the issue is cost: “As carbon dioxide is to global warming, cost is to healthcare. We deal with it every day … We face a future where cutbacks in funding could dramatically affect accessibility of care.”

“Does that mean we move to move single-payer, some major repositioning?” he said. “I don’t know, but in 35 years in this field, I’ve never experienced a time quite like this … Be vigilant, be involved, be committed to serving these populations.”