Tag Archives: Underinsured

Healthcare Is The No. 1 Issue For Voters; A New Poll Reveals Which Healthcare Issue Matters Most

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

https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertpearl/2018/08/13/midterms/#5b6ac3453667

Depending on which news outlet, politician or pundit you ask, American voters will soon participate in the most important midterm election “in many years,” “in our lifetime” or even “in our country’s history.”

The stakes of the November 2018 elections are high for many reasons, but no issue is more important to voters than healthcare. In fact, NBC News and The Wall Street Journal found that healthcare was the No. 1 issue in a poll of potential voters.

What’s curious about that survey, however, is that the pollsters didn’t ask the next, most-logical question.

What Healthcare Issue, Specifically, Matters Most To Voters?

To answer this question, I surveyed readers of my monthly newsletter. Will the opioid crisis sway voters at the polls? What about abortion rights? The price of drugs? The cost of insurance?

To understand the significance of these results, look closely at the top four:

  1. Prescription drug pricing (58%)
  2. Universal/single-payer coverage (57%)
  3. Medicare funding (50%)
  4. Medicaid funding (40%)

Notice a pattern here? All of these healthcare issues come down to one thing: money.

Healthcare Affordability: The New American Anxiety

Because the majority of my newsletter readers operate in the field of healthcare, they’re well informed about the industry’s macroeconomics. They understand healthcare consumes 18% of the gross domestic product (GDP) and that national healthcare spending now exceeds $3.4 trillion annually. The readers also know that Americans aren’t getting what they pay for. The United States has the lowest life expectancy and highest childhood mortality rate among the 11 wealthiest nations, according to the Commonwealth Fund Report. But these macroeconomic issues and global metrics are not what keeps healthcare professionals or their patients up at night.

Eight in 10 Americans live paycheck to paycheck. Most don’t have the savings to cover out-of-pocket expenses should they experience a serious or prolonged illness. In fact, half of U.S. adults say that one large medical bill would force them to borrow money. The reality is that a cancer diagnosis or an expensive, lifelong prescription could spell financial disaster for the majority of Americans. Today, 62% of bankruptcy filings are due to medical bills.

To understand how we’ve arrived at this healthcare affordability crisis, we need to examine the evolution of healthcare financing and accountability over the past decade.

The Recent History Of Healthcare’s Money Problems

Until the 21st century, the only Americans who worried about whether they could afford medical care were classified as poor or uninsured. Today, the middle class and insured are worried, too.

How we got here is a story of evolving policies, poor financial planning and, ultimately, buck passing.

A big part of the problem was the rate of healthcare cost inflation, which has averaged nearly twice the annual rate of GDP growth. But there are other contributing factors, as well.

Take the evolution of Medicare, for example, the federal insurance program for seniors. For most of the program’s history, the government reimbursed doctors and hospitals at (approximately) the same rate as commercial insurers. That started to change after a series of federal budget cuts (1997, 2011) and sequestration (2013) reduced provider payments. Today, Medicare reimburses only 90% of the costs its enrollees incur and commercial insurers are forced to make up the difference. As a result, businesses see their premiums rise each year, not only to offset the growth in their employee’s medical expenses, but also to compensate hospitals and physicians for the unreimbursed portion of the cost of caring for Medicare patients.

Combine two high-cost factors: general health care inflation and price constraints imposed by Medicare and what you get are insurance premiums rising much faster than business revenues.

To compensate, companies are shifting much of the added expense to their employees. The most effective way to do so: Raise deductibles. By increasing the maximum deductible annually, the company reduces the magnitude of its expenses the following year, at least until that limit is reached. A decade ago, only 5% of workers were enrolled in a high-deductible health plan. That number soared to 39.4% by 2016, and jumped again to 43.2% the following year.

High-deductible coverage holds individual patients and their families responsible for a major portion of annual healthcare costs, anywhere from $1,350 to $6,650 per person or $2,700 to $13,3000 per family. This exceeds what the average available savings for most American families and helps to explain the growing financial angst in this country.

And it’s not just employees under the age of 65 who are anxious. Medicare enrollees also fear that the cost of care will drain their savings. As drug prices continue to soar, Medicare enrollees are hitting what has been labeled “the donut hole,” which means that once the cost of their “Part D” prescriptions reaches a certain threshold, patients are on the hook for a significant part of the cost. Now, more and more seniors find themselves having to pay thousands of dollars a year for essential medications.

When it comes to paying for healthcare, the United States is an anxious nation in search of relief. The fear of not being able to afford out-of-pocket requirements is the reason so many voters have made healthcare their No. 1 priority as they head to the polls this November. And it’s why both parties are scrambling to deliver the right campaign message.

On Healthcare, Each Party Is A House Divided

In the last presidential election, the Democratic Party chose a traditional candidate, Hilary Clinton, whose views on healthcare were closer to the center than her leading challenger, Bernie Sanders. Two years later, the party is divided by those who believe that (a) the only way to regain control of Congress is by fronting centrist candidates who support and want to strengthen the Affordable Care Act as the best way to attract undecided and independent voters, and (b) those who will accept nothing less than a government-run single payer system: Medicare for all. The primary election of New York congressional candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a Sanders supporter, over long-time incumbent Joseph Crowley, represents this growing rift within the party.

The Republicans also face two competing ideologies on healthcare. Since his election in 2016, President Donald Trump has sought to dismantle the ACA. In addition, he and his political allies want to shift control of Medicaid (the insurance program for low-income Americans) from the federal government to the states—a move that would lower healthcare spending while eroding coverage protection. There are others in the Republican Party who worry that shrinking Medicaid or undermining the health exchanges will come back to bite them. Most of them live and campaign in states where voters support the ACA.

Do The Parties Agree On Anything?

Regardless of party, everyone, from the president to the most fervent single-payer advocate, understands that voters are angry about the cost of their medications and the associated out-of-pocket expenses. And, not surprisingly, each party blames the other for our current situation. Last week, the president gave the Medicare program greater ability to reign in costs for medications administered in a physician’s office. In addition, Trump has promised a major announcement this week to achieve other reductions in drug costs. Of course, generous campaign contributions may dim the enthusiasm either party has for change once the voting is over.

Playing “What If” With Healthcare’s Future

If both chambers remain Republican controlled, we can expect further erosion of the ACA with more exceptions to coverage mandates and progressively less enforcement of its provisions. For Republicans, a loss of either the Senate (a long-shot) or the House (more likely), would slow this process.

But regardless of what happens in the midterms, no one should expect Congress to solve healthcare’s cost challenge soon. Instead, patient anxiety will continue to escalate for three reasons.

First, none of the espoused legislative options will do much to address the inefficiencies in the current delivery system. Therefore, prices will continue to rise and businesses will have little choice but to shift more of the cost on to their workers.

Second, the Fed will persist in limiting Medicare reimbursement to doctors and hospitals, further aggravating the economic problems of American businesses. whose premium rates will rise faster than overall healthcare inflation.

Finally, compromise will prove even more elusive since so many leading candidates represent the extremes of the political spectrum.

Politics, the economy and healthcare will all be deeply entangled this November and for years to come. I believe the safest path, relative to improving the nation’s health, is toward the center. Amending the more problematic parts of the ACA is better than either of the two extreme positions. If our nation progressively undermines the current coverage provisions, millions of Americans will see their access to care erode. And on the other end, a Medicare-for-all healthcare system will produce large increases in utilization and cost.

It’s anyone’s guess what will happen in three months. But, whatever the outcome, I can guarantee that two years from now healthcare will remain top-of-mind for voters.

 

 

Short-term health plans: A junk solution to a real problem

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

https://theconversation.com/short-term-health-plans-a-junk-solution-to-a-real-problem-101447

Serious illnesses like cancer often are not covered by short-term health insurance policies.

 

After failing to overturn most of the Affordable Care Act in a very public fight, President Donald Trump has been steadily working behind the scenes to further destabilize former President Barack Obama’s signature achievement. A major component in this effort has been an activity called rule-making, the administrative implementation of statutes by federal agencies like the Department of Health and Human Services.

Most recently, citing excessive consumer costs, the Trump administration issued regulations to vastly expand the availability of short-term, limited duration insurance plans.

While the cost of health care is one of the overwhelming problems in the American health care system, short-term health plans do nothing to alter the underlying causes. Indeed, these plans may cause great harm to individual consumers while simultaneously threatening the viability of many states’ insurance markets. Having studied the U.S. health care market for years, here is why I think states can and should take quick action to protect consumers.

Comparing crab apples and oranges

Short-term, limited duration insurance plans, by definition, provide insurance coverage for a short, limited period. Since being regulated by the Health Insurance Portability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), this has meant for less than one year. Sold at least since the 1970s, they were offered as an alternative to major medical insurance intended for individuals with temporary and transitional insurance needs such as recent college graduates or those in between jobs.

However, after passage of the Affordable Care Act further concerns emerged over the misuse and mismarketing of these kinds of plans. As a result, the Obama administration restricted their duration to three months.

In addition to being shorter in duration, these policies’ benefits tend to also be much skimpier than for those plans sold on the Affordable Care Act’s marketplaces. For example, plans often do not cover crucial services such as prescription drugs, maternity care, or major emergencies like cancer. Equally problematic, even those benefits covered come with high deductibles, strict limitations, and annual and lifetime coverage limits.

It is important to note that short-term health plans are also not subject to any of the consumer protections established by the Affordable Care Act. This means, for example, that insurers can set premiums, or even refuse to sell to an individual, based on a person’s medical history. Moreover, consumers must update their health status every time they seek to purchase coverage.

Crucially, short-term health plans have shown to be particularly discriminatory against women. For one, women are charged higher premiums. Moreover, they are likely to be disproportionately affected by medical underwriting for pre-existing conditions like domestic and sexual abuse and pre- and postnatal treatment.

Because plans are so limited in benefits, and because insurers are able to deny coverage to sicker individuals, short-term health plans come with much lower premiums than standard insurance plans with their more expansive benefits and vastly superior consumer protections. Indeed on average, premiums amount to only one-fourth of ACA-compliant plans.

Too good to be true

While short-term insurance plans are more affordable in terms of premiums, they come with a slew of problems for consumers.

For one, consumers have a tremendously hard time understanding the American health care system and health insurance. Predatory insurance companies have been known to take advantage of this shortcoming by camouflaging covered benefits, something the Affordable Care Act sought to ameliorate. Mis- and underinformed consumers often find themselves surprised when they actually try to use their insurance.

Even for those who are aware of the limitations, problems may arise. Unable to predict major medical emergencies, consumers may be confronted with tens of thousands of dollars of medical bills if they fall sick or face injury.

Moreover, insurers are also able to rescind policies after major medical expenses have been incurred if consumers failed to fully disclose any underlying health conditions. This even applies to health conditions that consumers had not been aware of prior to getting sick.

While some may argue that this is the fault of the those who purchase short-term insurance, it causes problems for all of us.

For one, these individuals may refuse to seek care. This could result in severe consequence for their and their family’s well-being and ability to earn a living.

At the same time, medical providers will shift the costs of the resulting bad debts to other individuals with insurance or the general taxpayer.

Bad for the individual, worse for all of us

Short-term insurance plans are perhaps even more problematic for the health of the overall insurance market than they are for individual consumers.

With a very short implementation time frame, insurance regulators in the states only have until October to prepare for the potentially significant disruptions to their markets. This leaves little time for analysis and regulatory preparation.

Yet long-term consequences are even more concerning. Healthier and younger consumers are naturally drawn to the low premiums offered by these plans. At the same time, older and sicker individuals will value the comprehensive benefits and protections offered by the Affordable Care Act. The result is the continuing segregation of insurance markets and risk pools into a cheaper, healthier one and a sicker, more expensive one. As premiums rise in the latter, its healthiest individuals will begin to drop their coverage, leading to ever more premium increases and larger coverage losses. If left unchecked, eventually the entire insurance market may collapse in this process.

This could be particularly problematic in states with relatively small insurance markets like Wyoming or West Virginia where even one truly sick individual can drive up premiums tremendously.

States have options

The expansion of short-term health plans is one action by the Trump administration that states can counteract relatively simply. Currently, states serve as the primary regulator of their insurance markets. As such, they have the power to make decisions about what insurance products can be sold within their boundaries.

Action can be taken by insurance regulators and legislature to create relatively simple solutions. While the vast majority of states have failed to create consumer and market protections, a small number of states have done just that.

New York, for example, has banned the sale of these plans.

Others, like Maryland, have strictly limited their sale and renewability.

Treating the symptoms, not the cause

Many Americans struggle to access insurance and services despite the Affordable Care Act. While the Affordable Care Act has unquestionably improved access to insurance for Americans, cost control and affordability are truly its Achilles heels. Indeed, some Americans lost their limited benefits, lower cost plans when the Affordable Care Act did not recognize them as viable coverage.

The Trump administration has rightfully highlighted to high costs of the American health care system. However, offering consumers the opportunity to purchase bare-bones insurance at lower costs does nothing to solve America’s health care cost problems.

If access to insurance is truly a concern for the Trump administration, I believe it should seek to convince the remaining hold-outs to expand their Medicaid programs. Also, I think discontinuing its actions to destabilize insurance markets would also go a long way to reducing premiums.

Yet when it comes to altering the underlying cost calculus, there are no simple solutions. Administrative costs are too high. Medical quality is too low. Resources constantly get wasted. Consumers could do more to be healthier.

Ultimately, I see it coming down to one crucial problem: Providers, pharmaceutical companies, device makers and insurers are making too much money. And it is these vested interests that make structural reform of the U.S. health care system a truly herculean endeavor.

But unless Americans and policymakers of both parties are willing to address this root cause, any reform effort amounts to nothing more than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

 

2018 Mid-Term Healthcare Issues

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

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-health-202/2018/08/15/the-health-202-senate-democrats-stay-focused-on-health-care-even-during-short-august-recess/5b72f0901b326b4f9e90a72c/?utm_term=.2403975557c2

Senate Democrats used their truncated August recess to talk to their constituents about one key issue: Health care. 

And though they are returning to Washington tonight, they have no plans to stop talking about it. 

That’s a remarkable turnaround for Democrats who have been on the defensive about health care for the better part of a decade. Obamacare played a major role in their loss of control of the House in the first midterm election of President Obama’s presidency in 2010. But now, they’re hoping to take back the House and retain their seats in the Senate largely by running on the merits of the Affordable Care Act.

Over their 10-day mini break, Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) held a roundtable discussion with voters about health care, as did Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), who held his third roundtable this year focused specifically on pre-existing conditions. And Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) also met with voters with pre-existing conditions on Tuesday.

“Cutting people off from insurance and making it harder for people to get insurance, we’re all still gonna pay the bill because in America we’re not going to stop people at the door at the emergency room and I’m sorry you don’t have health insurance, we’re gonna let you die,” she said, according to Missourinet.

In Nevada, Democratic Rep. Jacky Rosen, who is hoping to unseat GOP Sen. Dean Heller, also held a public meeting with voters with pre-existing conditions.  Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) met with health care providers and patients to talk pre-existing conditions, and Rep. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), who is vying for the open Senate seat there, also met with constituent groups to discuss health care.

“It doesn’t matter which community you are in, health care is the number-one issue that Arizonans are talking about,” Sinema told the Arizona Daily Star. “It is not just Arizonans who don’t have health-care coverage, many of those who are expressing concerns and fear are Arizonans who do have coverage but cannot afford it.”

As campaign cycles go, it’s still early in this one. And the deluge of ads will really heat up come fall. Republicans still see an opening to talk about rising costs of health care and President Trump continues to declare that the ACA is dead. But unlike years past when the GOP could run on an anti-Obamacare message, this year the party is more likely to focus on other issues like tax cuts and job creation. 

It’s harder for GOP candidates to make their case that health care policy is failing in the first election where they are in control of both houses in Congress and the White House. And recent scuttlebutt that Republicans would consider another repeal effort if they held Congress may not be helpful this cycle.

And so Democrats, if August activity is the precursor to the fall campaign, are going all in on health care. 

Earlier this month, the New York Times’ Margot Sanger-Katz had a great anecdote from an event with McCaskill. The senator, who may be in the toughest fight of her career, asked voters to stand if they have a pre-existing condition. There were reportedly few people left in their seats.

The Democrats and the groups who support them have homed in specifically on the warning that if the ACA is struck down, people with pre-existing conditions would lose protection. Notably, McCaskill and Manchin, two of the Democrats’ most vulnerable members, are running against state attorneys general who joined a lawsuit arguing the ACA should be deemed unconstitutional. If the law were struck down, it would take with it protections for people with past and current health conditions.

Before the Senate left, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.)  pledged to keep health care front and center this month in Congress, which is in keeping with Democrats’ election strategy this year.  Schumer’s office declined to show its hand, but on the floor he detailed exactly what the Democrats would be pushing for, including votes to protect people with pre-existing conditions and a Medicare buy-in program. They’re unlikely to get those votes, but that’s all part of the game plan to keep the attention on health care.

“The number one thing Americans want is health care, and we Democrats will spend August recess focusing on that issue, and forcing Republicans to cast votes or deny votes on those important issues,” Schumer said. “It’s a great opportunity, not just for Democrats, not just for Republicans, but for America. We are going to do it.”

The first television ad the campaign arm for the Democrats released in 2017 was about health care. It showed a man selling his car and a woman pawning her engagement ring. Then it cuts to them sitting at the hospital bedside of a sick child.

Most of the heavy ad buys are still to come, but an independent analysis of political ads so far this cycle found pro-Democrat ads have been overwhelmingly about health care.  According to Kantar Media/CMAG data by the Wesleyan Media Project, “An astounding 63 percent of pro-Democratic ads for U.S. House discuss healthcare, and 16 percent contain an explicit statement about being in favor of the Affordable Care Act. U.S. Senate contests are less likely to feature health care, but it is still the top issue, appearing in over a quarter (28 percent) of all ad airings.”

Take Rosen, the congresswoman running against Heller. She has a television ad that shows her talking to voters about their anxieties over the ACA being repealed. She says in the ad that ACA has “real problems,” but repealing it isn’t the answer. 

It’s a strategy divergent from previous years when Democrats were defensive of their support for Obamacare. They’d make macro arguments about the millions of people who would lose coverage without it. But now, with the focus on pre-existing conditions, they’ve found a way to make it personal and accessible for voters. 

“What we’re seeing on the trail is that health care remaining the defining issue of the election and voters are aware and concerned that GOP policies will increase their costs and jeopardize their coverage and voters are preparing to hold GOP candidates accountable on this issue,” said David Bergstein, a spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

When asked, most Republicans will say they support keeping protections for pre-existing conditions. For example, when asked, McCaskill’s opponent, Missouri Attorney General Josh Hawley, said he thinks“insurance companies should be forced to cover pre-existing conditions.”

For his part, Hawley’s first television ad of the campaign was about his work as a clerk on the Supreme Court and accused McCaskill of supporting “liberal activist judges.”

In a press release in response to the ad, McCaskill’s campaign said, “Josh Hawley is suing to strip protections for nearly 2.5 million Missourians with pre-existing conditions.”

 

 

 

Six Things Health Execs Should Know about Association Health Plans

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

http://www.managedhealthcareexecutive.com/policy/six-things-health-execs-should-know-about-association-health-plans?rememberme=1&elq_mid=2696&elq_cid=876742

Image result for skinny health plans

Association Health Plans (AHPs) permit small businesses to band together and buy health insurance. “By allowing them to join together in associations, small companies can have the same buying power as a large employer,” says Diane Wolfenden, director, Sales and Client Services, East Region, Priority Health, Michigan’s second largest health plan.

In June, when the final rule governing AHPs was released, the Trump Administration emphasized that AHPs will provide small businesses with more choices, access, and coverage options.

Here are six things MCOs should know about AHPs.

1. Critics say AHPs may undermine ACA plans. The most commonly cited concern with new AHP regulations is that they may undermine the ACA marketplace because association plans aren’t required to comply with all ACA regulations. “The fear is that AHPs will siphon off younger, healthier individuals, and leave those with greater health risks and pre-existing conditions in ACA risk pools,” Wolfenden says. “Critics have stated that allowing AHPs will weaken some of the ACA’s protections for consumers and make coverage on the exchanges and through ACA markets more expensive.”

2. The regulation seeks to prevent the forming of associations solely to provide health benefits. Under the new regulations finalized by the Department of Labor, an association must have a substantial purpose for existing in addition to offering health benefits. “Offering health benefits may be the primary reason for forming an association, but the secondary reason must be substantive enough that even without offering health benefits the association could continue to exist,” Wolfenden says.

Businesses can form AHPs in a specific city, county, state, or multi-state metropolitan area. “Therefore, chambers of commerce, trade groups, or businesses in the same geographic area can form or join an AHP,” says Sally C. Pipes, president, CEO, and Thomas W. Smith Fellow in Healthcare Policy, Pacific Research Institute, a free-market think tank. “Alternatively, cross-border AHPs can form for businesses or sole proprietors that occupy the same industry.”

The association needs to have an organized structure with a governing body and policies and procedures in place indicating governance, as well as legalization behind it, says Bryan Komornik, director of West Monroe’s healthcare practice, a business technology consulting firm. Like the ACA, individuals can’t be discriminated against if they have pre-existing conditions.

In addition, association members must be able to demonstrate the income they derive from their business is sufficient to cover the cost of their premium or that they work at least 80 hours per month at the business, Wolfenden says.

3. They could expand the number of insured patients. AHPs will not only give small employers more options for their employees, but they could also encourage some individuals to buy insurance when they may have gone without it otherwise. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that 4 million current ACA enrollees in the individual and small group markets could shift their coverage to these new policies, Wolfenden says. Further, the CBO stated that about 10% of those 4 million people buying plans in 2023 and beyond would have been uninsured otherwise.

Individuals who join a coalition can obtain health insurance coverage for themselves, their spouse, and their children, or they can opt to only get coverage for themselves, Komornik says. If an individual’s spouse has an employer-sponsored health plan, the individual can still get coverage through the association if they qualify otherwise.

4. They might offer fewer benefits. AHPs are likely to offer lower premiums through skinnier plan design, sacrificing benefits for lower costs. “This means that consumers will need to have a better understanding of what will, and will not, be covered by their AHP policy,” Wolfenden says. Because AHP policies aren’t required to comply with ACA regulations, they may not cover prescription drugs or certain types of surgeries.

5. They could lead to more uncompensated care. Because AHP plans may offer leaner benefits, some patient advocacy groups are concerned that patients will end up with healthcare expenses that their insurance company won’t cover and the patient can’t pay. “These bills may end up going unpaid, leading to an increase in uncompensated care,” Wolfenden says. Uncompensated care has fallen in nearly every state since the ACA’s implementation based on the expanded coverage. “Increases in uncompensated care make it harder for providers to invest in new technologies and equipment and maintain enough capacity to care for patients. Transparency will become even more critical as providers will need to work closely with patients to ensure they understand what their insurance policy covers and what their share of the costs will be upfront.”

6. The new rule will have a staggered implementation schedule. The new rule will be phased in in three stages. It will first take effect for associations with fully-insured AHPs on September 1, 2018. It will become applicable for associations with existing self-insured AHPs on January 1, 2019. Finally, the rule will take effect for new self-insured AHPs on April 1, 2019, Pipes says.

 

Deductibles: They’re not going down

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

http://files.kff.org/attachment/Report-Employer-Health-Benefits-Annual-Survey-2017?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosvitals&stream=top-stories

 

Data: Kaiser Family Foundation; Chart: Chris Canipe/Axios

The average insurance deductible keeps going up, as does the number of people covered by high-deductible plans. And only about half of those people get help from their employers to save up for potential medical bills, according to a new study in Health Affairs.

The details:

  • In 2006, just 11.4% of private-sector workers had a high-deductible plan. In 2016, that number was up to 46.5%.
  • Roughly half of those workers also get an employer contribution to a health savings account or health reimbursement arrangement.
  • High-deductible plans are most popular with smaller companies, where employer contributions to an HSA are least popular.
  • At the smallest companies, about two-thirds of workers didn’t have the option of a plan without a high deductible, and don’t get an employer contribution to an HSA or HRA.

Why it matters: Higher deductibles don’t just require people to pay more out of pocket each year. They also expose those consumers to the complexities of the health care system, including the way prices are set.

  • People with high deductibles are more likely to have to pay the full sticker price of a prescription drug, or for a hospital procedure.

 

Increase in uncompensated hospital care could be one effect of short-term coverage rule

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

https://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/increase-uncompensated-hospital-care-could-be-one-effect-short-term-coverage-rule?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWVdZNE1URmxNREk1T1RsbCIsInQiOiIrbiszc25vVXhkU1NvMkJadnRGTEJhQnNYRDNBcmwyTmFHdnhVem5aS1lZT1wvSkhXYUZqOHNTQTlzZU5iaWtWYjZpN3FydGtadm5Ic1MzMFJwMnFsQWpWWFRZVEdJYkxNM3F4S0QzbHJqSDNSM09iK09tZFZaWTEyWkY0YVIyZGoifQ%3D%3D

Short-term limited duration plans finalized by the Trump Administration on Wednesday could subject patients to catastrophic medical bills and medical bankruptcy, stakeholders told the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and Treasury in commenting on the final rule.

Enrollees suffering acute health emergencies, debilitating injuries that lead to permanent disabilities, or the onset of chronic conditions could end up facing financial hardship until they can enroll in an individual or group market plan that provides the coverage they need, according to the final rule.

The rule extends short-term, limited duration coverage from three months to a year, with extensions available for up to three years.

Devastating for hospital ERs

America’s Health Insurance Plans said it was concerned the new plans could catch some consumers unaware and facing high medical expenses when the care they need isn’t covered or exceeds their coverage limits.

Hospitals could be affected by an increase in uncompensated care because the plans are not qualifying health plans mandated to cover the essential benefits of the Affordable Care Act, those commenting on the final rule said.

Stakeholders said the proposed changes could have a devastating impact on hospital emergency rooms, since ERs are required to provide care regardless of coverage status or one’s ability to pay.

“In addition, the lack of coverage of essential health benefits may also lead to an increased reliance on emergency departments as consumers delay or do not seek primary care, exacerbating existing acute and chronic conditions,” the final rule said.

One commenter said this may also lead to increased boarding of mental health patients in emergency departments, where some have an average stay of 18 hours.

If a short-term, limited-duration insurance policy excludes treatment in hospital emergency rooms, there is the possibility that there could be increases in uncompensated care provided by hospitals, according to the departments which issued the rule.

However, there is no reason to believe that all short-term, limited-duration insurance policies will exclude such coverage, the rule said.

In addition, short-term limited duration plans could result in a decrease in uncompensated care if people who otherwise had no insurance become insured.

Many commenters expressed concern that extending the maximum duration of short-term, limited-duration coverage would weaken the single risk pools and destabilize the individual market by syphoning young, healthy individuals from ACA plans. This would leave on the exchanges only those with higher expected health costs and those receiving subsidies in the individual market.

An estimated 70 percent of ACA enrollees receive a subsidy of a premium tax credit.

The departments acknowledge that relatively young, healthy individuals in the middle-class and upper middle-class whose income disqualifies them from obtaining premium tax credits  are more likely to purchase short-term, limited-duration insurance.

“As people choose these plans rather than individual market coverage, this could lead to adverse selection and the worsening of the individual market risk pool,” the rule said.

It could also result in higher premiums for some consumers remaining in the Affordable Care Act market as healthier consumers choose short-term plans and their lower premiums, the rule said.

Individuals who choose to purchase short-term, limited-duration insurance are expected to pay a premium that is approximately half of the average unsubsidized premium in the exchange.

Mixed results

Individual market premiums increased 105 percent from 2013 to 2017, in the 39 states using Healthcare.gov in 2017, while the average monthly premium for the second-lowest cost silver plan for a 27-year-old increased by 37 percent from 2017 to 2018.

Premiums for unsubsidized enrollees in the exchanges are expected to increase by 1 percent in 2019 and by 5 percent in 2028.

In 2019, when the short-term plans go into effect, enrollment in these plans will increase by 600,000. About 100,000 of these consumers will have been previously uninsured.

Enrollment in the ACA exchange in 2019 is expected to decrease by 200,000.

By 2028, enrollment in individual market plans is projected to decrease by 1.3 million, while enrollment in short-term, limited-duration insurance will increase by 1.4 million, according to the final rule.

The net result will be an increase in the total number of people with some type of coverage by 0.1 million in 2020 and by 0.2 million by 2028.

Benefits of short-term plans include increased profits for insurers of these plans and potentially broader access to providers compared to ACA market plans.

Short-term plan shortcomings include high deductibles and cost-sharing requirements.

For example, in Phoenix, Arizona, the out-of-pocket cost-sharing limit for a 40-year-old male can be as high as $30,000 for a 3-month period. Another commenter pointed out that in Georgia, a plan had a 3-month out-of-pocket limit of $10,000, but did not include the deductible of $10,000, resulting in an effective 3-month out-of-pocket maximum of $20,000.

ACA plans also have high premiums and out-of-pocket costs, the rule said. In 2018, deductibles average nearly $6,000 a year for bronze single coverage and more than $12,000 a year for bronze family coverage.

Matt Eyles, president and CEO of America’s Health Insurance Plans said, “Consumers deserve more choices, particularly those who do not qualify for federal subsidies and must pay the full premium.  Consumers should clearly understand what their plan does and does not cover. The new requirement for short term plans to make clearer disclosures to consumers is an important improvement. We also appreciate that the rule affirms the role of states to regulate these plans, including the option to reduce the duration period for short-term coverage.”