Tag Archives: Out of Pocket Expenses

How drug companies are beating Trump at his own game

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

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/03/trump-drug-prices-companies-721145

People pass the Pfizer headquarters in New York. |Getty Images

 

Recent price freezes and rollbacks are symbolic measures with little lasting impact.

A July tweet from President Donald Trump sent panic through the C-suites of some of the world’s biggest drug companies, prompting Pfizer and nine other companies to roll back or freeze prices.

But there’s less to those announcements than meets the eye. The gestures turned out to be largely symbolic — efforts to beat Trump at his own game by giving him headlines he wants without making substantive changes in how they do business.

The token concessions are “a calculated risk,” said one drug lobbyist. “Take these nothing-burger steps and give the administration things they can take credit for.”

Of the few companies that actually cut prices, for instance, most targeted old products that no longer produce much revenue — such as Merck’s 60 percent discount to a hepatitis C medicine that had no U.S. revenues in the first quarter.

Others volunteered to halt price increases for six months — in some cases, just weeks after announcing what is normally their last price hike for the year.

“A lot of this shit is meaningless to satisfy Trump,” said another drug lobbyist.

The industry’s deft response to Trump’s tweet shaming has also become a test of whether his administration is serious about following up with an aggressive crackdown on the companies or will simply declare victory based on token measures and move on.

“I think right now it’s a lot of noise, not a lot of substantial impact to the companies,” said Les Funtleyder, a health care portfolio manager at E Squared Asset Management, which owns shares in Pfizer. The prospect for meaningful change “is out there … but that will take motivation on the part of regulators and policymakers.”

Analysts are in broad agreement that the spate of recent concessions won’t hurt bottom lines, or rein in drug prices beyond this six-month period, because many companies already increased prices this year — in some cases, just weeks before publicly pledging to freeze them for the rest of 2018.

“There’s the glass-half-full and glass-half-empty interpretation,” said Walid Gellad, director of the Center for Pharmaceutical Policy and Prescribing at the University of Pittsburgh. “Glass half full says we have never before seen pharma promise not to raise prices anymore. So this is a step forward — including for patients. Glass half empty is that these are token measures — either on drugs few people use, or drugs that just had their price raised, and that prices will just go up next year.”

Either way, Gellad said, “this is not the kind of structural change we want in the market so that prices go down.”

Drug prices are a fixation for Trump, who rants about them in conversations with aides and advisers, according to people close to the president. He sees the issue as a political winner, especially among his conservative — and largely older — base, which relies heavily on prescription drugs. And after facing huge hurdles moving his legislative priorities through Congress, he sees this as something he can win on by using his executive authority.

That has put huge pressure on Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar, a former top official of Eli Lilly and Co.

“They talk three times a week, and they never have a conversation where drug pricing isn’t a topic,” said one person briefed on the conversations, adding that Trump has also interrupted Cabinet meetings to encourage Azar to brief the group on the latest developments.

But even as Azar implements his 44-page blueprint aimed at lowering prices, Trump has grown impatient with the glacial pace of rulemaking and arcane details of drug policy.

His outlet is Twitter, where he can marshal the rage of his millions of followers in an instant. White House aides say he sees his Pfizer tweet as a warning shot to other drug companies — part of a public “shaming” campaign designed to pressure companies to take voluntary steps to lower prices.

That strategy diverges sharply from what Azar is saying publicly — raising doubts about how serious the administration is about cracking down on drugmakers.

The HHS secretary’s rhetoric often targets pharmacy benefits managers — the obscure middlemen who manage the drug side of patients’ health insurance benefits — not drug companies. And targeting the middlemen is a play directly out of pharma’s strategy book — drug companies have long sought to pin patients’ frustration with rising costs on PBMs. HHS has also signaled it wants to overhaul a drug discount program for hospitals that could put money back in pharma’s pocket.

Pfizer CEO Ian Read himself praised the president’s blueprint on the company’s recent second-quarter earnings call, just a few weeks after Trump’s Pfizer tweet.

“I don’t think the administration is gunning for [pharma],” said Ronny Gal, a financial analyst at Sanford Bernstein. Everything they are doing right now is “scratching around the problem,” he said.

“You can tell by the way the stock has performed that investors aren’t too concerned,” Funtleyder said. “They figure, ‘OK, the pharma companies waved the white flag for now, so they’re out of the cross hairs.‘”

Meanwhile, HHS and drug industry officials have worked closely to show Trump they are getting results, administration and pharmaceutical industry sources tell POLITICO.

In private meetings with drug officials, HHS officials ask what steps they’ve taken that they might relay to Trump to keep the president satisfied, said drug company sources.

“They’re also like, ‘Hey, don’t be stupid. If you’re going to do something you feel like we can mutually take some credit for, let us know. … If you can get a good tweet out of it, don’t be an idiot. Let us know [ahead of time],’” said one person familiar with the conversations.

“They’ve said: ‘What would it take for you to lower prices?’” said another top drug industry official.

“There is a real fear that Trump only understands things very simplistically,” said a lobbyist for several drug companies. “So they want to keep tossing treats for him or he will go after blunt instruments,” like government drug price negotiations — steps neither the conservative leadership at HHS nor the drug industry want.

Observers both inside HHS and outside the administration see Azar’s drug pricing team as a buffer for the drug industry.

“To be candid, the secretary is pro-patient, pro-innovation and pro-competition and, quite frankly, really standing in between the industry and some faster ways to lower prices that some would say are not pro-competition,” said HHS’ John O’Brien, a senior adviser to Azar, at a drug cost event one day after Trump’s tweet attacking Pfizer.

Azar prefers the industry and HHS work to make change together, rather than it being adversarial, according to people familiar with HHS’ strategy.

He publicly touts industry price freezes and reversals “in part to show Trump they’re making progress, but also to show the industry that you get recognized for playing ball,” said a person familiar with the discussions.

The White House, meanwhile, was thrilled about the industry’s recent price freezes, even as officials acknowledged the companies’ announcements are only a first step — and promised what one official characterized as a “deluge” of drug price-related regulatory action in the coming months.

“Nothing about what they do or don’t do is going to really turn the tide in a major, major way on a voluntary basis,” the official said of the drug companies’ actions, promising that the administration will take aggressive action.

In the meantime, the White House isn’t ruling out more Twitter shaming.

“You’ll see continuing of the tweeting and announcing different actors doing good or bad things in the market,” the official said.

That will get particularly tricky for the industry come January, when drugmakers would typically take their biggest price increases of the coming year — and when their public concessions sunset.

“They can live with the changes that were made — but they can’t live with not raising prices forever,” Gal said. “It’s a noose they put their head into. In January, we will see what happens with that noose. Does it tighten or not?”

 

Do States Know the Status of Their Short-Term Health Plan Markets?

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

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/blog/2018/do-states-know-short-term-health-plan-markets?omnicid=EALERT1447487&mid=henrykotula@yahoo.com

Short term plans

The Trump administration this week issued a final rule reversing federal limits on short-term health coverage, allowing such plans to become a long-term alternative to individual market coverage. Starting in October, insurers will be allowed to sell short-term plans for just under 12 months, up from the current federal limit of three months. And in a sharp break from prior regulations, insurers can renew short-term plans for up to 36 months. The rule does strengthen a consumer notice required in application materials, but the notice does not need to inform consumers of all limitations and “fine print.” Importantly, the rule does not preempt state regulation that includes shorter limits on coverage.

Short-term plans are not required to comply with the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) consumer protections, meaning insurers that sell these policies can deny coverage to individuals with preexisting conditions and are not required to cover essential health benefits. These plans are typically marketed to healthy consumers, for whom coverage with limited benefits and a low premium may appear attractive.

In the past, many state insurance departments have had to warn residents about deceptive marketing practices sometimes undertaken by short-term plan sellers, which can lead consumers to believe they are buying a comprehensive policy when they are not. During the fall open-enrollment seasons for ACA marketplaces, these plans will be competing for consumers’ premium dollars with comprehensive coverage, introducing the possibility of still greater consumer confusion.

We surveyed the Departments of Insurance (DOIs) in the 17 state-based ACA marketplace states to understand how the market for short-term coverage is working on the eve of this policy shift. We found that most states have little information about the status of their current short-term plan markets. Additionally, inconsistencies in how states have collected and reviewed the premium rates and contracts for short-term plans will make it difficult to assess how the market is responding to the new federal rules.

Most States Do Not Have a Complete Picture of the Current Short-Term Market

With the exception of New York, which doesn’t permit short-term plans, 16 states in our survey require insurers to file for approval in order to sell short-term policies. However, once these policies are approved, few states require annual reapproval unless policies undergo significant rate or benefit design changes. Most DOIs acknowledged that insurers with short-term policies that were approved decades ago could potentially market them to consumers this fall without any additional regulatory approval.

As a first step to prepare for the Trump administration’s rulemaking, some states started to identify their approved short-term sellers and which ones are actively marketing. For example, in Maryland, the legislature directed the DOI to contact every approved short-term plan insurer to determine whether they are actively marketing. Similarly, Oregon is now reviewing advertisements for short-term products, and insurers marketing products that are at least five years old have been asked to refile with the state. However, overall, few states are aware of which short-term insurers are actively marketing. A few DOI officials also explained that with the new rule, more short-term plan insurers are likely to market within their state.

Insurers Marketing Short-Term Plans Are Generally Different Than Those Marketing Individual Plans

We compared the list of 2018 marketplace insurers to those who have been approved to sell short-term policies. Four of the 17 states (Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont) in our survey have no approved short-term sellers because they require such plans to play by some or all of the same rules as traditional coverage. While the data are limited,1 it appears that 11 of the 17 states have more insurers approved to sell short-term plans than individual plans. There tends to be little overlap among the companies, although there are a few approved to sell in both the individual and short-term markets.

This separation poses a risk to individual market stability, as short-term sellers may target healthy marketplace consumers, undercutting ACA-compliant insurers. In return, ACA-compliant insurers may be incentivized to start selling short-term policies in order to shift and maintain their healthy enrollees in those plans. Indeed, the Trump administration expects that as many as 500,000 individual market enrollees will migrate to short-term plans in 2019. Because they will be relatively healthy, their departure will cause premiums in the individual market to increase by a projected 5 percent. This increase will come on top of other projected increases resulting from the repeal of the ACA’s individual mandate penalty and the expansion of association health plans.

Looking Forward

The final rule allowing short-term policies to be sold for longer durations puts enrollees at financial risk, as they unknowingly enroll in the skimpier policies that do not meet their health needs. In turn, the shift of large numbers of healthy consumers to the short-term market will increase prices for those remaining in the individual market. As a new market of long-term short-term plans emerges, states need to understand their short-term market in order to protect consumers and maintain a stable individual market. This can begin with an assessment of which insurers are actively marketing in the state. States also may want to ensure that any short-term plan sellers seeking to offer coverage that mimics the 12-month duration of ACA-compliant coverage submit plan designs, rates, and marketing materials for review and approval, as Vermont has done recently. Doing so will allow states to have a firmer understanding of the insurance products being sold to their residents, and will better position them to reduce consumer confusion and monitor for potential fraud.

 

California Employer Health Benefits: Workers Shoulder More Costs

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

https://www.chcf.org/publication/california-employer-health-benefits-workers-shoulder-more-costs/

Image result for California Employer Health Benefits: Workers Shoulder More Costs

From 2000 to 2017, the percentage of employers offering health insurance coverage has declined from 69% to 56%. At the same time, workers are shouldering more of the costs for their health care with increasing premiums and higher deductibles and copays.

California Employer Health Benefits: Workers Shoulder More Costs presents data compiled from the 2017 California Employer Health Benefits Survey.

Key findings include:

  • From 2016 to 2017, health insurance premiums for family coverage increased by 4.6%, slightly higher than the 3.0% inflation rate.
  • Average monthly premiums, including the employer portion, were significantly higher in California than the national average. In 2017, the average premium was $604 for single coverage and $1,643 for family coverage.
  • California workers paid an average of 17% of the total premium for single coverage and 27% for family coverage.
  • One in 4 workers had an annual deductible of at least $1,000 for single coverage. Large deductibles were more common among workers in small firms (3 to 199 workers) than larger firms. Nearly 60% of workers had no deductible.
  • In 2017, 25% of California firms reported increasing cost sharing for workers in the past year, and 37% reported that they are very or somewhat likely to increase their workers’ share of premiums in the next year.

The full report, all of the charts found in the report, and the data files are available under Related Materials. These materials are part of CHCF’s California Health Care Almanac, an online clearinghouse for key data and analyses describing the state’s health care landscape.

The California Employer Health Benefits Survey is a joint product of CHCF and the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago. The survey was designed and analyzed by researchers at NORC and administered by National Research.

Trump’s undermining of Obamacare violates the Constitution, new lawsuit charges

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

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-s-undermining-obamacare-violates-constitution-new-lawsuit-charges-n896626

Image: People Sign Up For Health Care Coverage Under The Affordable Care Act During First Day Of Open Enrollment

ASHINGTON — After congressional Republicans repeatedly failed last year to repeal the Affordable Care Act, President Donald Trump promised to “let Obamacare implode” on its own.

A new lawsuit being filed Thursday argues that Trump’s efforts to make good on that promise violate the U.S. Constitution.

Trump has “waged a relentless effort to use executive action alone to undermine and, ultimately, eliminate the law,” the complaint charges, according to a draft obtained by NBC News. The lawsuit is being filed in Maryland federal court by the cities of Baltimore, Chicago, Cincinnati and Columbus, Ohio.

Since Trump’s first executive order directing federal agencies to claw back as much of the Affordable Care Act as possible, his directives have increased health coverage costs and depressed enrollment, the complainants say.

Specifically, the suit argues that Trump is violating Article II of the Constitution, requiring the president to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

“There’s a clear case of premeditated destruction of the Affordable Care Act,” said Zach Klein, Columbus city attorney.

This includes making it easier for individuals and trade groups to purchase coverage outside the law’s insurance markets; threatening to eliminate cost-sharing reduction payments; cutting funding for “navigators,” or those who help individuals enroll in the program; and using federal funds Congress dedicated to implementing the law toward making videos criticizing it.

On Wednesday, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar announced a plan for cheaper, short-term insurance plans, the latest example of actions that critics say will drive up costs on Obamacare exchanges.

During a call-in appearance on Rush Limbaugh’s radio show Wednesday, Trump took credit for all but ending the Affordable Care Act.

“I have just about ended Obamacare. We have great health care,” he said. “We have a lot of great things happening right now. New programs are coming out.”

The suit also relies on a list of Trump’s tweets indicating his intent to unravel the law, according to a lawyer involved in the case.

Constitutional scholars have long debated the extent to which the chief executive must “faithfully” execute U.S. laws under Article II — from Franklin Roosevelt’s objections to legislative veto provisions and Harry Truman’s seizure of steel mills.

Citing the same “take care” clause, Republicans took issue with President Barack Obama’s executive orders on immigration as well as his delayed implementation of the health law.

This case stands apart from all others, says Abbe Gluck, a Yale University law professor and expert on Article II, because it’s not about the extent to which Trump is “faithfully” implementing a law. Rather Trump has been frank that he is sabotaging the law, she said.

“That’s what makes this case novel, first of its kind and really important,” Gluck said. “No scholar or court has ever said the president can use his discretion to implement a statute to purposely destroy it.”

“If there’s ever going to be a violation of the ‘take care’ clause, this is it,” she said.

If successful, the suit would strike down aspects of a Trump rule designed to undercut insurance markets; render a judgment he’s violating his constitutional obligation to enforce the statute; and issue an injunction that he implement the law faithfully.

LOCAL IMPACT

The suit also cites Trump scaling back oversight of insurance issuers, cutting open enrollment in half, urging a federal court to throw out Obamacare’s protections for pre-existing conditions and undermining the individual mandate.

All of these actions, they say, undercut confidence in the program and enrollment, the keys to its success. The whole concept of insurance, whether it’s for cars, homes or people, is to minimize risk by creating a diverse pool — in this case of healthy and unhealthy, young and old participants.

John Yoo, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and former Bush Justice Department official, said a president can’t refuse to enforce a law just because he disagrees with it.

Still, Obamacare was written in a way that gives great leeway to the executive, said Yoo.

“Is there something specific in the statute that he is refusing?” he said, adding that funding reductions don’t qualify. “That’s the constitutional standard,” said Yoo.

In 2017, there was a 37 percent average increase in premiums nationwide, and 3 million more people lacked health insurance than did in 2016. In Columbus, city-subsidized health centers saw almost 3,000 more uninsured patients in 2017. As the uninsured rate increases, Columbus must also pay more for ambulance transports, draining millions of dollars from localities.

“The accumulation of these (acts) has cost Americans thousands of dollars more, and it was done in a way that can be clearly traced” to Trump’s orders, said Andy Slavitt, former acting administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid under Obama.

The budget strain is also hampering efforts to address the opioid crisis. Ohio has the second-highest drug overdose death rate, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, with the city of Columbus averaging nine or 10 Naloxone administrations a day to prevent deaths.

“The time for criticism is over,” Klein said. “We have no ability to recoup that money. We just have to eat it due to the Trump administration’s efforts to sabotage the law.”

HEALTH CARE POLITICS

The plaintiffs deny politics play a role in the timing of the suit, which they say they have been building for the past year.

But it will likely serve as a reminder to voters of Trump’s hand in rising premiums just as they are set to skyrocket. Trump’s 2016 campaign platform was built in part on greater economic security for working-class Americans.

Insurance companies are hiking rates in the individual market, citing decisions being made in Washington. And premiums are set to surge in 2019, with a majority of states proposing increases over and above the previous year.

After several elections in which Republicans used Obamacare to attack Democrats, the party says it’s regained the advantage on the health care issue. In the past few years, the Republican-led Congress has voted dozens of times to try and repeal the law, failing each time. “People got to see they (the GOP) have no better alternative,” said Slavitt.

“Most Democrats are saying ‘look we never said the ACA is perfect, but the other person is trying to take away your coverage,” said Slavitt.

Trump’s former Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price has also faulted Congress’s repeal of the individual mandate for coming premium increases. Further, Trump’s Justice Department is taking aim at Obamacare’s most popular provisions: a ban on insurance companies’ discriminating against individuals with pre-existing conditions.

CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION

The suit seeks to force Trump to adopt policies intended to expand rather than shrink enrollment; reduce rather than increase premiums; and promote instead of attack the ACA.

Among the specific rules plaintiffs seek to reverse are allowing exchanges to strip individuals of tax credits without notification and reducing oversight of insurance agents and brokers, as well as oversight of the law in general.

“What’s insidious here is the administration is doing it knowing that confidence in the act is key to its success,” said Adam Grogg, senior counsel at Democracy Forward and the lead litigator on the case. The fewer Americans who enroll in the program, the more volatile the market, he said.

“The overall picture here is one of sabotage that drives up the rates of uninsured and underinsured and leaves cites and counties holding the bag,” Grogg said.

Four cities are charging that the president is failing to execute the law by actively undercutting the Affordable Care Act.

 

High Deductibles Aren’t Working

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

High Deductibles Aren’t Working

Image result for high deductibles

Each year, for well over a decade, more people have faced higher health insurance deductibles. The theory goes like this: The more of your own money that you have to spend on health care, the more careful you will be — buying only necessary care, purging waste from the system.

But that theory doesn’t fully mesh with reality: High deductibles aren’t working as intended.

A body of research — including randomized studies — shows that people do in fact cut back on care when they have to spend more for it. The problem is that they don’t cut only wasteful care. They also forgo the necessary kind. This, too, is well documented, including with randomized studies.

People don’t know what care they need, which is why they consult doctors. There’s nothing inherently wrong with relying on doctors for medical advice. They’re trained experts, after all. But it runs counter to the growing trend to encourage people to make their own judgments about which care, at what level of quality, is worth the price — in other words, to shop for care.

Shopping for health care may sound ludicrous on its face — and sometimes is. People don’t have time, let alone the cognitive focus, to shop for treatments while having a heart attack, or during any other emergency.

But not all care we need is related to an emergency. Some care is elective, and so potentially “shoppable.” Scholars have estimated that as much as 30 or 40 percent of care falls into this category. It includes things like elective joint replacements and routine checkups.

And yet very few people shop for this type of care, even when they’re on the hook for the bill. Maybe it’s just too complex. Even when price transparency tools are offered to consumers to make it easier, almost nobody uses those them.

A National Bureau of Economic Research working paper published Monday adds a lot more to the story. The study team from Yale, Harvard and Columbia considered a health care service that should be among the easiest to shop for: nonemergency, outpatient, lower-limb M.R.I.s.

This is the kind of imaging you might get if you’re having some trouble with a knee or ankle, but not bad enough to need the image right away.

The study, which focused on more than 50,000 adults between 19 and 64, strongly suggests that people get their M.R.I.s wherever their doctors advise, with little regard to price. The authors didn’t eavesdrop on patients, so they don’t know exactly what the doctors said about where to get M.R.I.s.

But the identity of a patient’s orthopedist explains a lot more about where he or she got her M.R.I. than any other factor considered, including price and distance. Less than 1 percent of patients in the study sample availed themselves of a price comparison tool to shop for M.R.I.s before receiving one.

By this reasoning, the authors concluded that doctors sent people to more expensive locations than they had to. On the way to their M.R.I., patients drove by an average of six other places where the procedure could have been done more cheaply.

“Many patients are going to very expensive providers when lower-price options with equal quality are available,” said Zack Cooper, a health economist at Yale and a co-author of the study. Though patients seem to follow the advice of their doctors on where to go, their doctors don’t have all the information on hand to make the best decisions for the patient either.

There are over 15 M.R.I. locations within a half-hour drive for most patients. As with many health care services, there is a large variation of prices across these locations, which means a tremendous opportunity to save money by selecting lower-priced ones. In one large, urban market, prices for the procedure are as low as about $280 and as high as about $2,100.

If patients went to the lowest-cost M.R.I. that was no farther than they already drove, they’d save 36 percent. Savings rise if they’re willing to travel farther. Within an hour’s drive, for example, savings of 55 percent are available. Savings are split between patient and insurer, depending on cost sharing. On average, patients pay just over $300 toward the cost of the procedure.

There is no evidence that the quality of low- and high-priced M.R.I.s differs, at least enough to be clinically meaningful. The study found that virtually none of the M.R.I.s at any price level had to be repeated — strong evidence that the doctors relying on them are satisfied even with the lower-priced images.

At almost $1,500, the average price of a hospital M.R.I. is more than double that of one at an imaging center. The study found that doctors who work for hospitals (rather than independently) are more likely to send their patients for more expensive hospital-based imaging. Just getting all patients to use M.R.I.s that are no farther away and not in a hospital could save 16 percent.

What this latest study suggests, in the context of other studies, is that if people can’t shop for elective M.R.I.s, there’s hardly a chance they are going to do so with other health care procedures that are more complicated and variable.

Even if 40 percent of health care is shoppable, people are not shopping. What seems likelier to work is doing more to influence what doctors advise.

For example, we could provide physicians with price, quality and distance information for the services they recommend. Further, with financial bonuses, we could give physicians (instead of, or in addition to, patients) some incentive to identify and suggest lower-cost care. An alternative approach is for insurers to refuse to pay more than a reasonable price — like the market-average — for a health care service, though patients could pay the difference if they prefer a higher-priced provider.

Leaving decisions solely to patients, and just making them spend more of their own money, doesn’t work.

 

SHORT-TERM HEALTH PLANS ALLOWED UP TO 3 YEARS

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

https://www.healthleadersmedia.com/finance/short-term-health-plans-allowed-3-years

A final rule expands access to non-ACA-compliant plans, which the Trump administration has touted as cheaper alternatives to full coverage.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Only about 200,000 people are expected to exit the ACA exchange market as a result of the final rule.

Gross premiums for marketplace plans are expected to rise 1% next year attributable to this policy change.

The administration notes that ‘these products are not for everyone,’ so buyers should review their options carefully.

Beginning this fall, consumers will be allowed to buy short-term limited-duration health plans renewable for up to three years, the Trump administration announced Wednesday morning with a newly finalized rule.

The policy change expands access to lower-grade coverage options the Obama administration had restricted to three months, without a renewal option, in light of the Affordable Care Act. The looser rules finalized Wednesday allow terms up to 12 months, renewable up to 36 months.

While critics contend the short-term options will pull younger healthier beneficiaries out of ACA-compliant exchange plans, driving up premiums for sicker populations left behind, the administration says any negative effects will be minimal and outweighed by the market benefits of having more options.

James Parker, MBA, a former Anthem executive who serves as director of the Health and Human Services Office of Health Reform and as one of four key senior advisors to HHS Secretary Alex Azar, said the administration doesn’t expect a mass exodus from the ACA exchanges to these short-term options.

“What we do believe, however, is that there will be significant interest in these policies from individuals who today are not in the exchange and, in many cases, have been priced out of coverage as insurance premiums have significantly increased over the past four to five years,” Parker said during a call with reporters Tuesday evening.

Randy Pate, a deputy administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services who oversees individual and small-group markets as director of the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight, said the administration expects about 600,000 people to enroll in the short-term plans next year as a result of the expanded access. Only an estimated 200,000 will leave the exchange market as a result of the final rule, he said.

This shift is expected to increase gross premiums for marketplace plans by 1% next year, with net premiums decreasing by 6%, Pate said during the call.

  • The wrong direction? When the administration announced its plans earlier this year to expand access to short-term coverage options, American Hospital Association President and CEO Rick Pollack called it “a step in the wrong direction for patients and health care providers.” If consumers are unaware of the limits on their skimpy coverage, it could ultimately drive bad debt for hospitals, he said.
  • Disclosure requirements beefed up: The final rule includes additional language to make sure consumers know what they are buying, Pate said. “We fully recognize these products are not necessarily for everyone, but we do think they will provide an affordable option to many, many people who have been priced out of the current market under the Obamacare regulation,” he said.
  • There’s an opportunity for insurers. As consumers gain interest in their short-term options, insurers will have an opportunity to meet the rising demand. “The impact is going to vary depending on the insurer, whether this is a business they have been in in the past and whether they have been longing to get back into it when consumer interest reached an acceptable level,” Christopher Holt, director of healthcare policy with D.C.-based think tank American Action Forum, told HealthLeaders Media. “There also could be some who see it as a new opportunity to claim a share of the marketplace they’re not reaching.”
  • But insurers have some skepticism. Matt Eyles, president and CEO of America’s Health Insurance Plans, wrote a letter to HHS in April. “We are concerned that substantially expanding access to short-term, limited duration insurance will negatively impact conditions in the individual health insurance market, exacerbating problems with access to affordable comprehensive coverage for all individual market consumers,” Eyles wrote.
  • Trump administration boosters: Beyond simply opening a door to longer short-term plans, the Trump administration has touted these and other non-ACA-compliant options as viable rescue mechanisms for individuals squeezed by rising premiums. Navigators, who have been tasked in past years with helping people sign up for exchange coverage, will now be encouragedto provide information on short-term and association health plans as well.
  • States can block: The final rule released Wednesday addresses the federal government’s definition of short-term limited-duration health insurance, but states retain the authority to impose stricter regulations, Pate said. They can limit or even ban the plans altogether.

While lawmakers seem to have backburnered their aspirations for broad healthcare reform in the near-term, Parker said the administration will continue taking incremental steps to improve affordability of coverage.

 

 

Individual market enrollment dropping amid premium increases

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

Individual market enrollment dropping amid premium increases

Individual market enrollment dropping amid premium increases

Enrollment in the individual health insurance market — the market for people who don’t get coverage through work — has declined 12 percent in the first quarter of 2018, compared to the same period last year, according to a new analysis released Tuesday.

The analysis from the Kaiser Family Foundation showed enrollment in the individual market grew substantially after the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and remained steady in 2016, before dropping by 12 percent in 2017.

There were 17.4 million people enrolled in the individual market in 2015, compared to 15.2 million in 2017 and 14.4 million in the first quarter of 2018.

The study notes that much of the decline is concentrated in the off-exchange market, where a number of enrollees are not eligible for ObamaCare subsidies and therefore not protected from significant premium increases in 2017 and 2018.

In this market, enrollment numbers dropped by 38 percent from the first quarter of 2017 to the first quarter of 2018.

The Trump administration last year canceled key ObamaCare subsidies for insurers, leading insurers to increase premiums substantially.

The anticipation of the repeal of ObamaCare’s individual mandate has also contributed to premium increases.

While ObamaCare enrollees who receive subsidies are mostly shielded from these increases, those who don’t are left to pay the full price.

“While the vast majority of exchange consumers receive subsidies that protect them from premium increases, off-exchange consumers bear the full cost of premium increases each year,” the analysis notes.

“In 2017, states that had larger premium increases saw larger declines in unsubsidized ACA-compliant enrollment, suggesting a relationship between premium hikes and enrollment drops.”

Despite the rises in premiums, enrollment in the ObamaCare exchanges has remained stable. There were 10.6 million people on the exchanges in the first quarter of this year, compared to 10.3 million in the first quarter of last year.

 

 

States sue Trump administration over AHP expansion

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

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/states-sue-trump-administration-over-ahp-expansion/528875/

Dive Brief:

  • Attorneys general from 11 states and Washington, D.C. are suing the Trump administration in hopes of putting the brakes on association health plan expansion.
  • Expanding AHPs is a key plank in President Donald Trump’s healthcare platform, but critics call the plans “junk insurance” that will sidestep Affordable Care Act regulations.
  • Meanwhile, the House of Representatives passed two bills last week that look to lower restrictions on health savings accounts (HSAs).

Dive Insight:

Trump, who repeatedly calls the ACA a “disaster,” said AHPs and allowing anyone to get catastrophic health insurance will offer flexibility and reduce health insurance costs.

In announcing the final rule last month, the Department of Labor said the regulation included anti-discrimination protections similar to those for large employers. It also allows states to regulate AHPs.

Though supportive of those protections, AHP critics are still concerned about the plans. They charge that AHPs will offer fewer consumer protections, lead to higher premiums in individual and small-group markets and result in fraudulent companies in the AHP market.

Tempting people with lower-cost offerings, AHPs and catastrophic plans could cause millions to flee the ACA exchanges. A recent report from the Society of Actuaries predicted between 3% and 10% of those in ACA marketplace plans will leave for AHPs. Those people are more likely to be young and healthy. Leaving the marketplace plans will result in an unstable risk pool with higher premiums in the exchanges.

A recent report from Avalere predicted individual rates would increase by between 2.7% and 4% and small group by between 0.1% and 1.9% with AHP expansion. Avalere said 130,000 to 140,000 more people will become uninsured because of the premium increases in the individual market by 2022.

Millions of people and small employers once got coverage through AHPs. However, the ACA instituted consumer protections for AHPs and said they should be regulated the same as individual and small-group market plans, such as requiring them to cover people with pre-existing conditions. The consumer protections increased the costs of AHPs, and many of them folded. The Kaiser Family Foundation said only 6% of employers with fewer than 250 employees offered health insurance through AHPs in 2017.

The Trump administration wants to make AHPs a low-cost solution with fewer regulations and consumer protections. However, the lawsuit involving 11 states and Washington, D.C. alleges the Department of Labor’s rule to expand AHPs violates the Administrative Procedures Act. The suit said that allowing for more AHPs “increases the risk of fraud and harm to consumers, requires states to redirect significant enforcement resources to curb those risks and jeopardizes state efforts to protect their residents through stronger regulation. The rule is unlawful and should be vacated.”

Meanwhile, the Republican-led House of Representatives is promoting more use of health savings accounts, which are a crucial part of high-deductible health plans and the drive toward consumerism.

One bill the House passed would allow members more flexibility to use their HSA until meeting their deductible. It also lets spouses contribute to an HSA and loosens restrictions on how members can use the account. The second piece of legislation would let people set aside more money for their HSA. That bill would also reduce the health insurance tax for two years, a change supported by the insurance lobby. The ACA created the tax as a way to pay for coverage improvements, but payers say it increases premiums.

 

 

CMS Adminstrator dismisses Affordable Care Act

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

CMS Adminstrator dismisses Affordable Care Act

Image result for 2018 midterm elections

 

About 1.4 million Californians buy coverage through the state’s Obamacare exchange, Covered California, and nearly 4 million have joined Medicaid as a result of the program’s expansion under the law.

Stepping into the land of the Trump resistance, Seema Verma flatly rejected California’s pursuit of single-payer health care as unworkable and dismissed the Affordable Care Act as too flawed to ever succeed.

Speaking Wednesday at the Commonwealth Club here, the administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said she supports granting states flexibility on health care but indicated she would not give California the leeway it would need to spend federal money on a single-payer system.

“I think a lot of the analysis has shown it’s unaffordable,” Verma said during a question-and-answer session following her speech. “It doesn’t make sense for us to waste time on something that’s not going to work.”

During her speech, Verma issued a broader warning to advocates pushing for a Medicare-for-all program nationally. She said that “socialized” approach to medicine would endanger the program and the health care it provides for millions of older Americans.

“We don’t want to divert the purpose and focus away from our seniors,” Verma said in the address before more than 200 people. “In essence, Medicare for all would become Medicare for none.”

Single-payer has emerged as a key issue in the California governor’s race this year. The current front-runner for governor, Gavin Newsom, a Democrat and the current lieutenant governor, has vowed to pursue a state-run, single-payer system for all Californians if elected in November. Many California lawmakers have endorsed that idea as the next step toward achieving universal coverage and to tackling rising costs.

California has enthusiastically embraced the Affordable Care Act, and state leaders have struggled with — and even bucked — the Trump administration on a variety of health-policy fronts. The state stands to lose more than any other if the Trump administration is successful in further dismantling the ACA.

About 1.4 million Californians buy coverage through the state’s Obamacare exchange, Covered California, and nearly 4 million have joined Medicaid as a result of the program’s expansion under the law.

Verma wields enormous power as head of CMS, overseeing a $1 trillion budget. The agency sets policy for Medicare, Medicaid and the federal insurance exchanges under the ACA.

The landmark health law, she said, was so flawed it could not work without further action from Congress.

“It wasn’t working when we came into office and it continues not to work,” Verma said, responding to a question from moderator Mark Zitter, founder of the Zetema Project, a nonprofit organization that promotes debate on health care across partisan lines. “The program is not designed to be successful.”
Zitter billed the event as a rare chance for Californians to hear directly from a top Trump administration official, although Verma’s remarks broke little new ground, he said.

Trump health care policies figure into many of California’s congressional races this fall in which incumbent Republicans are fending off Democratic challengers. And in court, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra is leading a coalition of attorneys general who are defending the constitutionality of the ACA in a Texas case with national implications.

The Trump administration has sided with the officials waging the lawsuit, choosing not to defend the health law’s protections for people with preexisting conditions. Separately, the administration has backed work requirements for many people on Medicaid.

Short
California’s state Senate passed a law in May banning such requirements as a condition for eligibility in Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program. The bill is pending in the state Assembly.

“Making health insurance coverage contingent on work requirements goes against all we’ve worked for here in California,” state Sen. Ed Hernandez (D-West Covina), author of SB 1108, said in May.

State lawmakers also are considering bills that would limit the GOP-backed sale of short-term health policies and prevent people from joining association health plans that don’t have robust consumer protections.

In an interview after the speech, Verma criticized those legislative efforts in California because they would limit consumer choice.
“Any efforts to thwart choice and competition and letting Americans make decisions about their health care is bad health policy,” she said.

Peter Lee, executive director of Covered California, the state’s ACA marketplace, has criticized the Trump administration for promoting those cheaper, skimpier policies as an alternative to ACA-compliant plans. He said he fears consumers will be harmed by “bait-and-switch products” that don’t provide comprehensive benefits.

“There have been a series of policies from Washington that have the effect of raising costs, particularly for middle-class Americans, and pricing them out of coverage,” Lee said in an interview last week. “This is not a failure of the ACA. This is entirely happening since the new administration.”

Most of Verma’s speech in San Francisco focused on Medicare. She outlined a number of initiatives designed to strengthen the program and protect taxpayers from ballooning costs. After the speech, CMS announced proposed changes to Medicare payment policies for outpatient care that could yield savings for the government and patients.

In her remarks, Verma reiterated the Trump administration’s efforts to reduce prescription drug prices, improve patients’ access to their own medical records and eliminate burdensome regulations on doctors and other medical providers.

Verma received a polite round of applause at the beginning and end of her appearance.

 

Insurance start-up launches on-demand health coverage

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

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/27/insurance-start-up-launches-on-demand-health-coverage.html

Related image

 

  • Start-up Bind uses proprietary algorithms, powered by machine learning, to lower health-care costs.
  • Bind discovered that it could break out certain procedures and reduce health benefit costs more effectively than with a high-deductible plan.
  • It is backed by Ascension Ventures, Lemhi Ventures and UnitedHealthcare.

Technology has made on-demand services a reality for everything from food deliveries to gym classes and car-sharing. What if you could have on-demand health coverage for big-ticket procedures like knee surgery?

On-demand health insurance seems like an oxymoron, but digital health insurance firm Bind is betting that by structuring health plans so that people can add coverage and pay for it when they need it, companies and employees can save money in the long run.

“It’s not intuitive for people, but I think when we started this we thought, ‘how do people really use the health-care system?’ And we used it in an on-demand way,” explained Tony Miller, co-founder and CEO of Bind.

The two-year old start-up is not a full-fledged insurer, it administers benefits for self-insured employers using UnitedHealth Group’sprovider networks and data analytics. Using its own proprietary algorithms, powered by machine learning, Bind discovered that it could break out certain procedures and reduce health benefit costs more effectively than with a high-deductible plan. It is backed by Ascension Ventures, Lemhi Ventures and UnitedHealthcare.

Plans are designed with basic co-pays and no deductibles for core medical coverage. In addition to free preventive care required under the Affordable Care Act, Bind’s plans cut out deductibles for primary care and specialist visits, maternity coverage, hospital care, medications and even cancer treatment. Co-pays are priced on a sliding scale — from $15 for a visit to retail clinic to $100 at an urgent care facility.

The big-ticket out-of-pocket costs kick in for elective procedures, such as knee replacement or back surgery. The extra co-pay for those procedures is based on the total cost, with consumers being given the full price of the procedure up front and no surprise bills on the back end. The co-pay can be structured so the worker can pay it off through payroll deductions, like a premium.

By outlining the total costs, Bind said it helps employees generate 10 to 15 percent in savings for themselves and for their employer compared to traditional out-of-pocket deductible plans.

“A market might be $6,000 to $24,000 for knee arthroscopy,” explained Miller. “What Bind does is says (for) the $6,000 performer — you only have to pay $1,000 to have access to them. If you want to go to the $24,000 knee arthroscopy with no difference in quality, no difference in performance, you have to pay $6,000 as a consumer.”

“What happens is the consumers actually go and buy the more cost-effective provider and they save money. But more importantly, the entire pool saves money … we save $18,000 for the group,” he said.

That was the way high-deductible plans were supposed to work, with consumers making the most cost-effective choice. Miller should know. He co-founded Definity Health in the late 1990s, which helped pioneer so-called consumer directed health plans; UnitedHealth bought that firm in 2004.

Does he worry that employers could use Bind’s on-demand plans to skimp on core benefits, and shift more costs to their workers? He does.

“What I would worry about is, taking this very novel plan design and if someone wanted to create a skinny plan out of it,” which he admitted would defeat the goal of Bind plan designs.

“Let’s make sure we fund the things we all need in health insurance and make sure that’s a part of everyone’s core benefit,” he said.

Bind has so far signed up small regional employers for its plan, but hopes to launch with a large Fortune 500 company for 2019 coverage.