Insurers Push Plans That Limit Choice of Doctor

By Reed Abelson
The New York Times
July 17, 2010

As the Obama administration begins to enact the new national health care law, the country’s biggest insurers are promoting affordable plans with reduced premiums that require participants to use a narrower selection of doctors or hospitals.

The plans, being tested in places like San Diego, New York and Chicago, are likely to appeal especially to small businesses that already provide insurance to their employees, but are concerned about the ever-spiraling cost of coverage.

But large employers, as well, are starting to show some interest, and insurers and consultants expect that, over time, businesses of all sizes will gravitate toward these plans in an effort to cut costs.

The tradeoff, they say, is that more Americans will be asked to pay higher prices for the privilege of choosing or keeping their own doctors if they are outside the new networks. That could come as a surprise to many who remember the repeated assurances from President Obama and other officials that consumers would retain a variety of health-care choices.

But companies may be able to reduce their premiums by as much as 15 percent, the insurers say, by offering the more limited plans.

Many insurers also expect the plans to be popular with individuals and small businesses who will purchase coverage in the insurance exchanges, or marketplaces that are mandated under the new health care law and scheduled to take effect in 2014.

Prominent officials like Mr. Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton learned to utter the word “choice” at every turn as advocates of overhauling the system.

But choice — or at least choice that will not cost you — is likely to be increasingly scarce as health insurers and employers scramble to find ways of keep premiums from becoming unaffordable. Aetna, Cigna, the UnitedHealth Group and WellPoint are all trying out plans with limited networks.

The size of these networks is typically much smaller than traditional plans. In New York, for example, Aetna offers a narrow-network plan that has about half the doctors and two-thirds of the hospitals the insurer typically offers. People enrolled in this plan are covered only if they go to a doctor or hospital within the network, but insurers are also experimenting with plans that allow a patient to see someone outside the network but pay much more than they would in a traditional plan offering out-of-network benefits.

The insurers are betting these plans will have widespread appeal in the insurance exchanges as individuals gravitate toward the least expensive options.

The new health care law offers some protection against plans offering overly restrictive networks, said Nancy-Ann DeParle, head of the office of health reform for the White House. Any plan sold in the exchanges will have to meet standards developed to make sure patients have enough choice of doctors and hospitals, she said.

How widespread these plans will become is anybody’s guess, and some benefits consultants wonder if these plans represent any real solution to high medical costs. The narrow network, if it is based on the insurers’ ability to demand low prices, may be “just another short-term fix,” warned Barry Schilmeister, a consultant at Mercer.

But many insurers say they are still figuring out how to persuade people to choose these plans rather than force them to enroll. “What’s not changed are the old techniques of black-belt managed care,” said Mark T. Bertolini, Aetna’s president. “We have to create the same kind of model without the ‘Mother, may I.’ What we want is the ‘Mother, should I.’ ”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/business/18choice.html?pagewanted=all

The managed care revolution brought us restricted networks of physicians, hospitals and other health care services. These restrictions, which limited patients’ choices of their health care professionals and facilities, did produce a one-time notch in the curve of rising health care costs. The insurers did this by contracting lower rates with health care providers, and then imposing financial penalties on patients who chose their care outside of the networks.

Patients were not pleased with limitations placed on their choices, but generally were not rebellious since they were often able to continue to see their own physicians, or, if not, were usually satisfied with their in-network substitutes.

The major insurers have been experimenting for some time with much more restrictive networks – networks in which they could contract for much lower rates in exchange for a higher patient volume. Individuals and employers have not responded to these market efforts because the restrictions were too severe. They excluded popular health care professionals and hospitals, sometimes completely, or sometimes by requiring unaffordable coinsurance payments by the patients.

But the environment has changed. The premiums for health plans are now very close to being truly unaffordable for most individuals and employers. With individuals being mandated to purchase insurance, and employers being exposed to penalties if their employees purchase plans in the exchanges, the market for plans with affordable premiums is being forced. The insurers must come up with plans that will meet the test of the market. The deeply-discounted, more tightly restricted plans are now finding their market.

These plans are terrible. Many will lose their primary care professionals. They will often not be able to use their local hospitals and many of their local specialists. Most referrals to centers of excellence will be prohibited. Although the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) will require that provider networks provide choice, the law does not prohibit intolerably Spartan networks.

This, of course, is a setup for the death spiral of adverse selection for the plans with more adequate networks. Individuals with more significant problems will select plans that can better meet their needs, while the healthy will flee to the plans with Spartan networks once the premiums skyrocket.

When individuals shift to the more restricted plans, what will happen to the large number of physicians and hospitals that are denied contracts? Obviously their financial viability would be threatened, and many would shut down. As if we didn’t already have enough problems with the deterioration in our primary care infrastructure, much of the entire health care delivery infrastructure could begin to crumble.

PPACA contains many measures designed to improve the functioning of the private insurers, but most of them will drive premiums even higher. Insurance innovations such as the Spartan provider networks were fully predictable.

What should really alarm us is that the business world thrives on innovation. Think of the possibilities that the private insurance industry can devise. Actually, it is very difficult for us who are trying to figure out how to get patients the care they need to come up with innovative concepts that will protect the business model of the private insurance industry, no matter the cost to patient care. It isn’t in our DNA.

But there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that we will see innovation, and it won’t be healthy for patients, nor for their health care professionals.

TAKE ACTION: The article provoked a large number of responses on The New York Times website, many supportive of Medicare for all, single payer, national health program, and health care justice in general. ADD YOUR RESPONSE. Go to the article and post your opinion, even if only a sentence or two. If you are not registered, it is easy to do, so don’t let that deter you. The New York Times needs to hear from us so that they will investigate why there is such broad support for a national health program. (At least click “Recommend” on response #232.)

Public sector workers paying more of their health care costs

By Bobby Caina Calvan
The Sacramento Bee
July 15, 2010

Workers in private industry have felt the sting of rising health insurance premiums and out-of-pocket costs for decades. Now, as government budgets bleed, public employees are starting to share the pain.

In the past year, Sacramento’s largest school districts have trimmed health care coverage. Local and state government officials also are looking for ways to save.

And while public employee unions have made preserving health benefits a priority, they have been pressed to give ground or face more layoffs.

In his proposed budget, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is seeking to cut $152.8 million in health premium expenses by requiring the California Public Employees’ Retirement System to offer lower-cost coverage, possibly with fewer benefits, or give the state authority to do so.

Health insurance costs have “reached the point where we can’t sustain those benefits,” said Lynelle Jolley, spokeswoman for the state Department of Personnel Administration.

http://www.sacbee.com/2010/07/15/2891358/public-sector-workers-paying-more.html

Private employers have continued to shift more of the costs of health care to their individual employees. This has had deleterious financial and health impacts since it has made health care access less affordable. Now, even with union representation, public employees also are experiencing deterioration in their coverage.

That’s a one-way street. Plans for public employees will never improve but will likely further deteriorate to match the 60 to 70 percent actuarial value plans to be offered by the state insurance exchanges.

“After all, why should we taxpayers have to buy these people good insurance when we have to put up with our lousy plans?” But those who express this sentiment have it backwards. Why should they have put up with crappy insurance when we could all have a program that works even better than most plans for public employees?

As we’ve said many times, the private insurance model doesn’t work anymore. We can have that program that works for all of us, if we, as voters, demand it.

Health Insurance Exchanges and the Affordable Care Act: Key Policy Issues

By Timothy Stoltzfus Jost, J.D.
The Commonwealth Fund
July 15, 2010

Health insurance exchanges are the centerpiece of the private health insurance reforms of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA). If they function as planned, these exchanges will expand health insurance coverage, improve the quality of such coverage and perhaps of health care itself, and reduce costs. Previous attempts at creating health insurance exchanges, however, produced only mixed results. This report identifies the earlier attempts’ problems, enumerates the key issues that are critical for overcoming those problems, analyzes in detail the ACA’s provisions addressing these issues, and discusses further policy options.

As part of successfully implementing the new exchanges, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the states must address issues that undermined the earlier attempts. These issues are:

• Adverse selection.
• Numbers of participants.
• Market coverage and structure.
• Choice without complexity.
• Transparency and disclosure.
• Competition.
• Administrative costs.
• Market or regulator?
• Administering subsidies and mandates.
• State, regional, or national exchanges?
• Governance.
• Relationships with employers.
• Cost control.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Fund%20Report/2010/Jul/1426_Jost_hlt_insurance_exchanges_ACA.pdf

“Health Insurance Exchanges and the Affordable Care Act: Key Policy Issues,” by Timothy Stoltzfus Jost, should be read in full (44 pages) by everyone who cares about the future of our health care system. The Executive Summary alone is not adequate to understand the implications of the issues he discusses. Every page requires attentive reading since each is covered with red flags, far too many to cover in a qotd commentary.

It is an especially important report for those who believe that the health insurance exchange model is a satisfactory compromise for moving forward, while dismissing further efforts to create a public national health program. It is also important for single payer advocates (improved Medicare for all) since it is important to understand the red flags raised by this report, and be able to debate them with others.

Many of the issues listed would disappear under a single payer system. For instance, in spite of the measures in the law, adverse selection (concentrating high-cost patients in health plans) cannot be eliminated by the insurance exchanges, yet it would disappear in a single universal risk pool. That is especially important since adverse selection has destroyed previous insurance exchanges in numerous states.

The numbers of participants in the exchange plans are also crucial. A few unhealthy individuals can wipe out a plan if there isn’t a large number of healthy individuals to absorb the costs through the plan premiums. It has been estimated that 24 million people will obtain their coverage through the exchanges. Distribute that amongst the fifty states, and then divide those numbers up amongst the “large” selection of plans in the “robust” markets of the exchanges, and you can see that many plans would likely fail due to the small numbers of insured.

Although an important goal of reform was administrative simplification, insurers will still have most of their administrative costs, as will the physicians and hospitals, and yet another layer of administration is added in the operation of the exchanges.

The premium subsidies, cost-sharing subsidies, and the mandates and penalties, in a system with ever-shifting eligibilities, creates a complex financing structure that is totally unnecessary. It is far simpler to finance the entire health care system through equitable taxes.

The reform act was designed to perpetuate the employer role in providing health care coverage, but increasing costs and increasing fragmentation through various public and private programs is increasing the complexity of the decision process for employers, creating an uncertain future for employer-sponsored plans. It would be far easier to remove the employer as keeper of the health plan, and simply provide a single, comprehensive public plan for everyone.

And cost control? It didn’t happen.

You likely don’t have time to read the full report now, but download it and read it this weekend, or at any other time that you have a break.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (PPACA) is being touted by its proponents as moving the country to near-universal coverage and a great step ahead in U.S. health care. But what does this really mean? Are the many barriers to care almost a thing of the past?

On the plus side, the PPACA does offer these welcome provisions:

• Extending health insurance to 32 million more people by 2019.

• Allowing parents to keep their children on their policies until age 26.

• Expansion of Medicaid to cover 16 million more lower-income Americans.

• New funding for community health centers that could allow them to double their patient volume.

However, on the other side of the ledger, there are many problems that will render restricted access to care for tens of millions of Americans, an ongoing and even increasing problem. These examples show how far short of the mark the PPACA falls on access to care:

• There will still be 23 million people without any kind of health insurance in 2019.

• Federal support for Medicaid expansion will not kick in until 2014.

• More than 32 million other Americans will be under-insured in 2019, as a result of these kinds of circumstances:

1. Many younger healthier people, the “Young Invincibles,” will opt out of coverage until they have an accident or get sick.
2. Many people will not be able to afford coverage through either exchanges (which won’t be operational until 2014) or high-risk pools.
3. The new federal temporary high-risk pool is already underfunded and plagued with many problems; at best, it will be available for up to 7 million uninsured people, but more likely for only about 200,000 or 3 percent of the target population. (Merlis, M. Health coverage for the high-risk uninsured: Policy options for design of the temporary high-risk pool. National Institute for Health Care Reform. May 27, 2010.)
4. The actuarial value of insurance plans for most of the newly “insured” will be as low as 60 to 70 percent (i.e. insurers leave 30 percent to 40 percent of the bill with patients and their families).
5. Even those fortunate enough to have employer-sponsored (ESI) coverage will find their plans costing more, covering less, and more difficult to afford; the Congressional Budge Office projects that the average family premium in the ESI market in 2016 will cost more than $20,000, not including deductibles and other out-of-pocket expenses. (Congressional Budget Office. An Analysis of Health Insurance Premiums Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Nov. 30, 2009.)
6. Access to care will further deteriorate as a result of 36 billion in Medicare and Medicaid cuts to safety-net hospitals. We can expect closure of some of these critical facilities that provide a wide range of services that other hospitals find too unprofitable to provide, including kidney dialysis, cancer treatment and mental health care.
7. Although the PPACA does call for an increase in reimbursement for primary care physicians, that won’t happen until 2013, and will then last only two years — just a small gesture toward the nation’s growing crisis in primary care.
8. The U.S. is facing a shortage of 35,000 to 44,000 primary care physicians for adults by 2025 (Colwill, J, Cultice, JM, Kruse, RL. Will generalist physician supply meet demands of an increasing and aging population? Health Affairs [Millwood] 27: w232-41, 2008.) An increasing number of people with insurance coverage cannot find a primary care physician to take care of them, especially those on Medicare or Medicaid, due to low reimbursement in those programs.
9. Since the PPACA calls for phased cuts in overpayments to private Medicare Advantage plans over the next few years, enrollees will face cuts in benefits and rising premiums.
10. As they confront deficits of 127 billion over the next two fiscal years, states are making draconian cuts in Medicaid across the country that will only aggravate current barriers to care. State appeals to the federal government for relief of Medicaid costs are now caught in a political crossfire threatening further unraveling of Medicaid funding. (Solomon, D. States face new pinch as stimulus ebbs. Wall Street Journal, June 23, 2010: A5.)
11. A majority of states outsource their Medicaid programs to private insurers that frequently create profits by cutting services. A recent report found that 2.7 million children on Medicaid in nine states were not receiving required screenings and immunizations. In Florida, the insurer WellCare paid 40 million in restitution to the state after it acknowledged that it had set up a subsidiary to make it appear that it was spending more on health care than it actually was. (MacGillis, A. Some states say they’re not receiving the Medicaid services they’re paying for. The Washington Post on line, July 8, 2010.)

Despite the hype we hear about “near-universal” access just down the road with PPACA, the above leads us to believe that access to care will remain inadequate for much of the population. In our next post, we will look at what this year’s health care “reform” legislation means for the quality of care Americans receive.

Adapted from “Hijacked: The Road to Single Payer in the Aftermath of Stolen Health Care Reform,” 2010, with permission of the publisher Common Courage Press. www.commoncouragepress.com

What Conservatives Are Winning

By Drew Altman, Ph.D., President and CEO
Kaiser Family Foundation
July 14, 2010

But for all of the frustration and even anger within the conservative movement about where health care is headed, the fact of the matter is that they are winning more than even they may realize in the current health care equation. That’s because the nature of health insurance itself is being redefined and moving gradually but seemingly inexorably in the direction conservatives have long advocated: more consumer “skin in the game” through higher patient deductibles.

Item: In our recent survey of people in the non-group insurance market, we found that the average deductible for an individual policy is now $2,498, and for families it’s $5,149. These are very high thresholds by any standard. Consider, for example, that a family with median income facing such a deductible would be spending almost 10% of their annual income just for their deductible before their insurance kicked in.

Item: The percentage of workers facing high deductibles — $1,000 or more for single coverage –  has been growing rapidly. It doubled from 10 percent to 22 percent between 2006 and 2009, and increased from 16 percent to 40 percent in small firms.

Item: Indications are that the share of workers with high deductibles is continuing to grow, a trend I expect our 2010 employer survey to confirm when we release it in September as we have every year for more than a decade now. And a substantial number of these high deductible plans are paired with tax-advantaged savings accounts, which conservatives have long advocated. Facing cost pressures without alternative answers, employers are moving to plans with less comprehensive coverage to reduce their expenses for employee benefits.

Item: Health reform is unlikely to reverse these trends. Large employers will continue to look for ways to address the rising cost of health care. And, for the basic “bronze” insurance plan that people will be required to buy, deductibles could run several thousand dollars for individuals and double that for families. To be sure, other aspects of health reform cut the other way. For example, there will be no cost sharing for preventive services in newly-purchased plans, and insurers will be required to cap consumer out-of-pocket costs at defined levels. And, of course, there are substantial subsidies to reduce premium and out-of-pocket costs for lower-income people. But, for the first time, the government will be defining the threshold that decent insurance must meet, and that minimum coverage will have the kind of high deductibles that conservatives favor.

For several years we have seen moderate increases in premiums for employment-based health insurance. I suspect that rising deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs are one explanation for this. It’s simple arithmetic that employers can buy down premium increases by switching to less comprehensive coverage and shifting more costs to workers. Plus, these higher out-of-pocket costs exert downward pressure on utilization – in some cases for the better, in some cases for the worse — and thus on premiums as well. At the same time, people have never been more upset about their own rising health care costs, as the coverage they get offers less and less financial protection.

Looked at through a political lens, liberals have gained through passage of major health reform legislation, including expanded coverage and increased government oversight of the health insurance system. But increasingly, the insurance itself is looking more and more like the vision advanced by conservatives – less comprehensive with more skin in the game. That’s where conservatives may be winning more than they realize in the ongoing battle over the future of health care.

http://www.kff.org/pullingittogether/071410_altman.cfm

Regular readers of the Quote of the Day have seen this theme expressed relentlessly in these weekday messages: We are experiencing a massive shift to underinsurance products, and this policy of making individuals sensitive to health care costs through greater out-of-pocket spending has long been on the agenda of the conservatives.

The importance of today’s message is that it comes from a highly credible individual, Drew Altman, President and CEO of Kaiser Family Foundation, which serves as a “non-partisan source of facts, information, and analysis for policymakers, the media, the health care community, and the public.” It is a very objective observation of the reality of the reform that is now law, and it’s the same message that we have been delivering over and over.

Building on the current system, which we just did, is the most expensive and one of the least effective models of achieving the goal of affordable, high quality care for everyone. Yet one of the least expensive and most effective models is a single payer national health program – an improved Medicare for all. Most of the measures in the enacted legislation have not yet taken place. We can still change course and do it the right way.

Conservative leader David Cameron on the NHS

Quote of the Day
August 17, 2009

“One of the wonderful things about living in this country is that the moment you’re injured or fall ill – no matter who you are, where you are from, or how much money you’ve got – you know that the NHS will look after you. That’s why we as a Party are so committed not just to the principles behind the NHS, but to doing all we can to improve the way it works in practice.”

(Since this quote, Conservative David Cameron was elected Prime Minister.)

http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/08/17/conservative-leader-david-cameron-on-the-nhs/

And…

NHS shake-up grants new powers to doctors and patients

By Rebecca Smith
Telegraph.co.uk
July 12, 2010

GPs are to be handed £80bn of the NHS budget to buy care from hospitals and other doctors for patients in their area, as hundreds of middle-management organisations are swept away.

Family doctors will be responsible, in consortiums, for commissioning the care for patients in their area by buying treatment from hospitals, charities and other doctors.

Under the new Coalition government’s health white paper, ministers will step back from the day-to-day running of the health service and hand power to the front line.

Andrew Lansley, Health Secretary, said the white paper represented a “vision based on the principles of freedom, fairness and responsibility”.

However, there was immediate criticism from Labour and the unions, saying handing £80bn to GPs who are private contractors was a mistake and that the plan was a ‘Trojan horse’ for widespread privatisation.

The document entitled Equity and Excellence: Liberating the NHS includes wide-ranging reforms covering all aspects of the NHS and healthcare.

Mr Lansley said ‘process-driven’ Labour government targets, such as the 18-week waiting time between GP referral and hospital treatment, will be scrapped and the focus will instead be on quality of outcomes for patients.

All hospitals are to become a Foundation Trust or part of one, giving them far greater freedoms from Whitehall and allowing them to earn more money from private patients.

Management costs are to be cut in half but the Government has already admitted that the NHS would be forced to make staff redundant. It is estimated that around 25,000 jobs could be lost.

Nigel Edwards, acting chief executive of the NHS Confederation, which represents all NHS organisations, said the changes would represent a huge upheaval.

“It is hard to stress just how radical this is. The NHS will look much more like the gas, electricity or telecom’s market than it will the monolithic state bureaucracy we have come to understand,” he said.

Dr Jennifer Dixon, director of the think thank, the Nuffield Trust, said handing billions of pounds of taxpayer’s money to GPs was ‘risky’ and is a significant change from their current role.

Andy Burnham, Shadow Health Secretary, called the white paper a ‘giant political experiment’ and warned that the government were taking an ‘£80bn gamble with the great success story that is out National Health Service today’.

“At a stroke, you are removing public accountability and opening the door to unchecked privatisation; you are demoralising NHS staff at just the time you need them at their motivated best,” he told Mr Lansley in the House of Commons.

David Fleming of Unite, said: “This is an untested, expensive Trojan Horse in political dogma that will give private companies an even greater stake in the NHS – this way of operating has already happened in the USA.

“Before the election, the Tories promised no major reorganisation of the health service – within three months that pledge to the British people, the majority of whom did not vote for further privatisation of the NHS – has been broken. So much for the ‘new politics’.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7885753/NHS-shake-up-grants-new-powers-to-doctors-and-patients.html

And…

Equity and excellence: Liberating the NHS

Department of Health (England)
July 2010

5. Cutting bureaucracy and improving efficiency

The scale of the NHS productivity challenge may prompt calls during this Parliament for even bigger increases in NHS resources; but the reality is that there is no more money.

So our first task is to increase the proportion of resource available for front-line services, by cutting the costs of health bureaucracy. Over the past decade, layers of national and regional organisations have accumulated, resulting in excessive bureaucracy, inefficiency and duplication. The Government will therefore impose the largest reduction in administrative costs in NHS history. Over the next four years we will reduce the NHS’s management costs by more than 45%.

The Department will shortly publish a review of its arm’s-length bodies. Subject to Parliamentary approval, we will abolish organisations that do not need to exist. We will streamline those functions that need to remain, to cut cost and remove duplication and burdens on the NHS. In future, the Department will impose tight governance over the costs and scope of all its arm’s-length bodies.

The Government will cut the bureaucracy involved in medical research. We have asked the Academy of Medical Sciences to conduct an independent review of the regulation and governance of medical research. In the light of this review we will consider the legislation affecting medical research, and the bureaucracy that flows from it, and bring forward plans for radical simplification.

We are moving to a system of control based on quality and economic regulation, commissioning and payments by results, rather than national and regional management. Within that context, we are committed to reducing the overall burdens of regulation across the health and social care sectors. We will therefore undertake a wide-ranging review of all health and social care regulation, with a view to making significant reductions.

Equity and excellence: Liberating the NHS (61 pages):
http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/@ps/documents/digitalasset/dh_117352.pdf

The British National Health Service (NHS) is one of the most effective health care systems in the world. That is a remarkable achievement considering that they devote only half as much funds to their health care as does the United States (percent of GDP in 2008: UK 8.7% versus US 16.0%). Yet in their white paper, “Equity and excellence: Liberating the NHS,” the Conservative government of Prime Minister David Cameron states, “the NHS productivity challenge may prompt calls during this Parliament for even bigger increases in NHS resources; but the reality is that there is no more money.”

No more money!? Excuse the vulgarity, but… bullshit!

The Cameron government is using this false claim to dramatically pull back the government’s role in the NHS, and to push privatization. They are not only cutting back on essential government administrative functions (as opposed to the profound administrative waste in the U.S. system), but they are also failing to honor their duty as stewards of the taxpayers’ funds to maintain adequate regulatory oversight of their public health care system.

They are even going so far as to reduce the government’s role in medical research. Could you imagine the Congress of the United States defunding our National Institutes of Health merely because it is a composite of government bureaucracies?

Is this really what the people of England voted for?

Plan-Provider Collaborations Promise Improved Care Delivery

By Louise Kertesz
America’s Health Insurance Plans
July 12, 2010

“Despite many challenges, health plans are well positioned to drive improvements” in care delivery through collaborations with providers. “Health plans have an enormous amount of assets” in the form of data and relationships they can leverage to improve care, said Jeremy Nobel, MD, adjunct lecturer, health policy and management, Harvard School of Public Health.

To drive improvement, plans can contract with providers to deliver value-based care, with reimbursement linked to performance. Plans can help establish medical homes, accountable care organizations, and episode pricing, he said.

They can also offer providers online tools to improve care delivery effectiveness and efficiency, such as e-prescribing, registries, computerized order entry, and electronic health records. Plans can “be an active infomediary between members and providers, supporting collaborative and value-based care through care gap alerts and shared personal health records.”

Rushika Fernandopulle, MD, a principal at Renaissance Health, has been involved in installing disease management processes for patients with chronic conditions in physician practices in Seattle and Atlantic City. His group has used predictive modeling to identify patients, brought in health coaches, and set up a three-tier payment model (in Seattle) and global budgets (in Atlantic City).

Putting DM processes – usually reserved for health plans and DM vendors – into physician offices is “next-generation disease management,” he said.

“This sort of close payer-provider partnership is not easy, but it is very rewarding when done right. It’s a very active process—more than writing a check and walking away. Plans need to be willing to invest enough, and be patient. There needs to be strong, ongoing connections at multiple levels, including personal relationships; one person needs to own this and go between” physicians and plan, he said.

http://www.ahiphiwire.org/News/Default.aspx?channel=HealthIT&doc_id=617027&utm_source=7/12/2010&utm_medium

Now that Congress has codified a permanent role in health care for the private insurance industry, what will be the next entrepreneurial innovations of the private insurance/managed care industry? “Plan-provider collaborations” that are “not easy” but “very rewarding when done right.”  Be afraid. Be very afraid!

In our last post, we looked at some of the uncontrolled drivers of rapidly rising health care costs despite all the assurances of our politicians supporting the new health care law, the Patient Protection and Affordability Care Act of 2010 (PPACA).

During the long run-up to this bill, President Obama told us that it would save the average American family $2,500 a year on insurance premiums (a claim that the Congressional Budget Office later dispelled as untrue, instead projecting a $2,300 increase in premium costs for the average family). (1) (Hemingway, M. Obama promised $2,500 health care savings; CBO says plan is $2,300 price increase. Washington Examiner on line, March 10, 2010)

The inconvenient fact is that premiums for families enrolled in employer-sponsored health plans from 2000 to 2008 increased by 97 percent, while those enrolled in individual plans increased by 90 percent; during this period, insurers’ payments to providers rose by 72 percent, medical inflation increased by 39 percent, wages grew by 29 percent and overall inflation went up by 21 percent. (2) (Health Care for America Now! (HCAN). Insurance industry inflates rates while falsely blaming new health care law. June 2010)

According to a recent survey by the Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers, more than one-half of smaller employers with 50 or fewer employees will face premium hikes for group policies in the 11 percent to 20 percent range for 2011. (3) (Wojcik, J. Group health insurance rates on the rise: Survey. Business Insurance, June 3, 2010)

So how in the world can we expect the new health care “reform” legislation to actually make health care and health insurance more affordable?

The new law promised not only cost savings but also provided for $476 billion (almost one-half of the total $1 trillion cost of the law in its first 10 years) in new federal subsidies to help lower- and middle-income Americans to pay for health insurance. We need to ask whether the promised cost savings are likely to materialize and whether the subsidies will help that much.

For openers, cost savings are an illusion. Supporters of PPACA assure us that several approaches will contain health care costs – such as an increase in wellness and prevention programs, wider application of health information technology, and experimentation with such initiatives as “accountable care organizations” and tweaks to the fee-for-service reimbursement system. Most are delayed for years into the future and none have yet been demonstrated to save money for patients and their families.

The cost of health care is certain to rise exponentially as far as we can see, since the market controls prices and the volume of services in a deregulated non-system. And insurance premiums are also certain to rise rapidly at rates way above the cost of living and median household income based on various industry-friendly loopholes in the law and gaming by the industry. These examples show how easy it will be for the industry to continue to exploit the public through both private and public programs:

• Under the new law, insurers can raise premiums based on age (by a 3:1 ratio), by geographic area, by the number of family members, and by tobacco use (by a 1.5 to 1 ratio).

• Many insurers are now aggressively marketing “wellness plans” in both private and public plans. One example is the Healthways SilverSneaker’s membership fitness plan for seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans. This is a clever strategy for insurers in two ways – they cherry-pick healthier seniors without infirmities that prevent their participation in such programs and then they charge 20 percent higher premiums to those seniors not enrolled in fitness programs. (4) (Blue Shield of California. Blue Shield of California to offer award-winning fitness program to Medicare beneficiaries in San Bernardino. January 18, 2010) (5) (Britt, R. Experts: Critical loophole in Senate health bill. Market Watch. January 7, 2010)

• Many healthier younger people will gamble with being uninsured until they get sick, in order to avoid paying fines for noncompliance with the individual mandate. This has already happened in Massachusetts over the four years since the “Massachusetts Miracle” was adopted in 2006. Since then, the number of short-term insurance buyers has increased by four-fold, getting insurance only after they have health care problems, then dumping coverage after they get care. This has increased the cost of insurance for other people and costs the state’s program an additional $300 million a year. (6) (Lazar, K. Short-term insurance buyers drive up cost in Mass. The Boston Globe, June 30, 2010) (6) (Lazar, K. Short-term  insurance buyers drive up cost in Mass. The Boston Globe, June 30, 2010)

People with employer-sponsored group coverage will also take hits. As employers confront hikes in the costs of group coverage, they will pass along these costs to their employees in the form of increased co-payments and deductibles, often with other restrictions in coverage. Middle-income families will be especially hard-hit if they have so-called Cadillac plans – those with annual premiums in excess of $8,500 for individuals and $23,000 for families. Employers will be faced with a tax on such plans beginning in 2013, when we can expect them to avoid the tax by limiting coverage and forcing more cost-sharing on their employees. (7) (Herbert, B. Op-Ed. A less than honest policy. New York Times, December 29, 2009)

But won’t the nearly half a trillion dollars in federal subsidies over 10 years make health care affordable for lower- and middle-income Americans? Here too the story is not what we are being led to believe by pundits and supporting politicians. Subsidies will not start until 2014, and then are not available to people already covered by employer-sponsored insurance, those qualifying for Medicaid (incomes less than 133 percent of the federal poverty level, or FPL) and those earning more than 400 percent of FPL. Subsidies can only be obtained by those purchasing coverage on their own on an Exchange.

The Commonwealth Fund has established useful criteria to assess affordability of health care vs. other costs of living. When put up against other basic necessities of life, such as food, housing, and one car to get to work, health care costs above 10 percent of family income become a hardship level, as are medical expenses above 5 percent of family income for lower-income adults below 200 percent of the federal poverty level and those with health plan deductibles above 5 percent of income. (8) (Schoen, C, Doty, M, Collins, SR, Holmgren, AL. Commonwealth Fund. Insured but not protected: How many adults are underinsured, the experiences of adults with inadequate coverage mirror those of their uninsured peers, especially among the chronically ill. Health Affairs Web Exclusive, June 14, 2005)

The Kaiser Family Foundation has developed a useful Health Reform Subsidy Calculator, by which people can readily determine their own health care costs. As an example, a family of four in with an income of $60,000 in 2014 can expect to be responsible for an insurance premium of $16,858 as well as $6,250 in out-of-pocket costs, which together would account for 18.6 percent of their household income. And those costs may well be higher due to restricted coverage of their own plan and changes in cost-sharing requirements. By comparison, seniors were paying an average of 15 percent of their annual income on premiums and out-of-pocket health care costs in 1965 when Medicare was enacted. (Blumenthal, D., et al. “Renewing the Promise: Medicare & its Reform.” New York, Oxford University Press, 1988.)

So far we have found little evidence that health care “reform” circa 2010 will contain health care costs or make health care more affordable. In our next post we will consider how much we can believe about claims of improved access to care.

Dr. John Geyman is professor emeritus of family medicine at the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle, a past president of Physicians for a National Health Program and author of “Do Not Resuscitate: Why the Health Insurance Industry Is Dying, and How We Must Replace It.” This posting is partially based on materials in his forthcoming book, “Hijacked: The Road to Single Payer in the Aftermath of Stolen Health Care Reform,” soon to be released by Common Courage Press in both print and e-book format. http://www.commoncouragepress.com

How The Center For Medicare And Medicaid Innovation Should Test Accountable Care Organizations

By Stephen M. Shortell, Lawrence P. Casalino and Elliott S. Fisher
Health Affairs
July 2010

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 directs the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to create a national voluntary program for accountable care organizations (ACOs) by January 2012. ACOs are provider groups that accept responsibility for the cost and quality of care delivered to a specific population of patients cared for by the groups’ clinicians.

Accountable Care Models

Accountable care organizations will be largely based on physician practices that, in turn, may be organized as patient-centered medical homes. Many ACOs will also include hospitals, home health agencies, nursing homes, and perhaps other delivery organizations. There are at least five different types of practice arrangements that could serve as ACOs. These are the integrated or organized delivery system, multispecialty group practices, physician-hospital organizations, independent practice associations, and “virtual” physician organizations, all described below.

1. Integrated Delivery Systems

Integrated delivery systems involve a common ownership of hospitals, physician practices, and—in some cases—an insurance plan. Some examples are Kaiser Permanente, Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound, and Geisinger Health System. These systems typically have aligned financial incentives, electronic health records, team-based care, and resources to support cost-effective care.

2. Multispecialty Group Practices

Multispecialty group practices usually own or have a strong affiliation with a hospital. Examples of this type of arrangement include Mayo Clinic and Cleveland Clinic. They usually do not own a health plan but, rather, have contracts with multiple health plans in their areas. Most have a long history of physician leadership and highly developed mechanisms for providing coordinated clinical care.

3. Physician-Hospital Organizations

These organizations are a subset of the hospital’s medical staff. One example is Advocate Health in Chicago. Most were formed in the 1990s in response to managed care pressures to negotiate with health plans. Some function like multispecialty group practices, focusing on reorganizing the delivery of care to achieve more cost-effective coordination. Although they may be less well suited than integrated delivery systems or multispecialty practices to qualify as ACOs, many could structure themselves to meet the criteria for that type of organization.

4. Independent Practice Associations

Independent practice associations consist of individual physician practices that came together largely for purposes of contracting with health plans. Over time, however, many of these have evolved into more-organized networks of practices that are actively engaged in practice redesign, quality improvement initiatives, and implementation of electronic health records. One example is Hill Physicians Group, in Northern California. Such organizations could qualify as ACOs, and that might encourage other independent practice associations to evolve similarly, given sufficiently strong financial incentives and technical assistance.

5. Virtual Physician Organizations

Finally, a number of small, independent physician practices, many located in rural areas, can organize to become “virtual” physician organizations, such as Community Care of North Carolina. This process can be led by individual physicians in rural areas or by a local medical foundation, state Medicaid agency, or similar organization that can provide the leadership, infrastructure, and resources to help small practices develop disease registries; implement electronic health records; share information; and provide better-coordinated, cost-effective care. These virtual networks could qualify as ACOs and serve as models for other groups of small practices.

Physicians can choose one or more of the above models, depending on what best fits their needs and local circumstances. But because there are so many options, the payment systems that the CMS creates for ACOs should evolve with the models chosen. Specifically, the more-integrated forms of accountable care, such as integrated delivery systems and multispecialty group practices, are capable of assuming the greatest risk. This would make them natural candidates for capitation or bundled payments, in which providers assume a relatively greater share of risk.

In contrast, less structurally integrated forms of ACOs, such as virtual physician organizations and more loosely organized independent practice associations, are best suited—at least initially—to low degrees of risk. For them, a form of limited, partial capitation for selected illnesses may be most appropriate.

To facilitate delivery system transformation and focus attention on desired health outcomes, payment systems need to change. Payment based on outcomes achieved, rather than on volume of services provided, will be the motivation for providers to focus their attention on improving the underlying systems of care.

Considerable technical assistance will be needed to implement the learning system for the development of ACOs. This will be particularly true for loosely organized independent practice associations and virtual physician networks, which currently lack the size and resources to become ACOs.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/abstract/29/7/1293

And…

Analyzing Shifts In Economic Risks To Providers In Proposed Payment And Delivery System Reforms

By Jeff Goldsmith
Health Affairs
July 2010

Conclusion

These innovative payment methods all share the assumption of broader responsibility — either formally or informally — by hospitals or physicians for reducing Medicare expense through better coordination and management of care. Sadly, these diverse approaches do not appear to fit together seamlessly to encompass the entire continuum of health care.

Policy makers are unlikely to find a single “silver bullet” they can use to replace Medicare fee-for-service payment. They might have to tolerate multiple, overlapping, and partial solutions, and substantial regional variation in the mechanisms that are feasible.

Nonetheless, for better or worse, hospitals are going to play a much larger role in organizing or reorganizing care in their communities. The most promising innovations are those that build on hospitals’ existing information technology and organizational infrastructure. The key to successful innovation will be extending risk assumption to follow suit.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/abstract/29/7/1299

“Accountable care organization” (ACO) is an abstract concept of organizing health care providers into single entities that are responsible for delivering a broad continuum of care for specific patients, while bearing financial risk for the care provided. Moving beyond that abstraction, there really isn’t much new on the policy front.

Most of the types of entities that might actually be able to serve as ACOs already exist, ranging from independent practice associations to fully integrated delivery systems. Even the concept of bundling payments already has applications ranging from Medicare’s DRG prospective payments (diagnosis related groups) to capitation payments for comprehensive health care services.

So what is new? Would payment systems be designed to require that all reimbursement be provided through ACOs? If so, what would happen to the sector of the health care delivery system that would be excluded from the ACOs that controlled the health care delivery in a given region? Would those providers simply become bankrupt and shut down? Could we afford to lose them, especially with the existing deficiencies in our primary care infrastructure?

Shortell, Casalino and Fisher suggest that the establishment of “virtual physician organizations” would address that concern, but here “virtual” seems to refer to the computer term of “not physically existing as such but made by software to appear to do so.” Of course, the providers would actually exist, but they would never function as a unified ACO providing the full range of services, including hospital services, for a given population requiring at least 5000 patients with accountable care protocols for each clinical entity.

Basically, the concept of the accountable care organization is merely a relabeling of various existing policy efforts to try to control inappropriate spending in our dysfunctional health care system. Since our goal is to provide health care for everyone while slowing the growth in spending to sustainable levels, clearly these policies have failed us.

Let’s go with a system that actually works to achieve the goal of affordable health care for everyone – a single payer national health program.

The passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (PPACA), our new health care legislation, in March was hailed by its supporters as an historic event of the magnitude of Social Security and Medicare. But four months later, it remains controversial, with repeated polls showing three large groups of divisive opinion, including those who would work to repeal it and others who believe that it will make no difference. The Democrats have launched a $125 million PR campaign to defend the new law amidst growing signs that many Democrats facing re-election are failing to get political traction on the issue. (1) (Allen, M. Dems launch $125 M health campaign. Politico, June 7, 2010)

We are being advised by many to “wait and see” how this complex new bill plays out over the next five to ten years, but we can already know what its outcomes will be. More than 30 years of health policy science, including documentation of the repeated failures of incremental changes built into the new law, together with well-entrenched trends in our market-based system, allow us to project its outcomes with confidence. For this legislation has been molded and crafted by the political power and money of corporate stakeholders in the medical-industrial complex.

Five previous posts in 2009 described the uneasy “alliance” of the five biggest players—the insurance industry, the drug industry, the hospital industry, business and organized medicine. They will do just fine with the new law at the expense of patients, families and Main Street.

Health care “reform” this time around was intended to address these four basic system problems: (1) containing health care costs, (2) making health care more affordable, (3) increasing access to care, and (4) improving the quality of care. This post introduces a series of five that will examine how well the PPACA will do on each of these four goals, followed by an overall assessment of the law. These posts will draw in part from my new book Hijacked: The Road to Single Payer in the Aftermath of Stolen Health Care Reform, soon to be released by Common Courage Press in both print and ebook format.

CONTINUED UNRESTRAINED DRIVERS OF HEALTH CARE COSTS
These are some of the many reasons that we can already conclude that health care costs will continue to run out of control at rates far exceeding the costs of living and median household incomes.

•  No price controls. Wall Street has already factored in rapid expansion of markets for drugs, medical devices and other services in a system of expanded access. There is also a long line forming of providers of information technology and administrative services that will exploit the complex implementation of this law.
•  No bulk purchasing. The PPACA has prohibited the government from negotiating the prices of prescription drugs and retains a ban on importation of drugs from Canada and other countries.
•  Lack of control over perverse incentives that drive increased volume of services. These in turn are driven by retention of fee-for-service (FFS) reimbursement that encourages physicians and other providers to offer more services than are medically appropriate or necessary.
•  No effective mechanism to rein in marginal or ineffective technologies. Coverage policies for new drugs and medical devices are still lax and not subject to rigorous evidence-based criteria for either efficacy or cost-effectiveness.
Although the PPACA does call for a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, its role is already neutered by not having the power to mandate or even endorse coverage or reimbursement rules for any particular treatment. (2) (Kaiser Health News staff. True or false: Seven concerns about the new health law, March 31, 2010)
•  The dominant business model of health care prevails, with many facilities and services remaining for-profit and investor-owned and with an ongoing trend for increasing consolidation within industries.
•  The PPACA has grandfathered-in specialty hospitals, typically physician-owned facilities that focus on well-reimbursed procedures in such areas as cardiology and orthopedics, whereby physicians can “triple dip”, earning high incomes as providers, owners and investors.
•  More preventive services will further fuel health care inflation. While the PPACA does provide new coverage for many preventive services, this will lead to increased costs due to additional diagnostic and treatment services engendered. (3) (Russell, L. Preventing chronic disease: An important investment, but don’t count on cost savings. Health Affairs 28 (1): 42-5, 2009)
•  Private insurers can’t contain health care costs, even where they have dominant market power. A 2009 report by the Congressional Research Service, The Market Structure of the Health Insurance Industry, concludes that “The exercise of market power by firms in concentrated markets generally leads to higher prices and reduced output—high premiums and limited access to health
insurance—combined with high profits.” (4) (Austin, DA, Hungerford, TL. The Market Structure of the Health Insurance Industry. Washington, D.C. Congressional Research Service, November 17, 2009)
• There are no controls over premium rate increases by insurers. Despite the outcry by government officials, annual premium rates are escalating at rates up to 56 percent (5) (Johnson, A. Fight over health-care premiums heats up. Wall Street Journal, February 19, 2010: A6), and there is no end in sight for continued exorbitant rate increases. Insurers will continue to game the system by extracting
maximal profits and offering reduced coverage with actuarial values (the amounts insurers actually pay in coverage) as low as 60 or 70 percent.
•  National health care spending will grow unabated despite the passage of PPACA. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) projects that overall national health expenditures (NHE) will increase from its present 17 percent of GDP to 21 percent in 2019, a total of $4.470 billion. (6) (Foster, RS. Office of the Actuary. Estimated financial effects of the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” as Amended. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, April 22, 2010)

These well-documented trends leave no room to think that health care “reform” will have any chance to contain health care costs. Instead, health care inflation will be exacerbated by all the new incentives and inefficiencies in the new “system”. In our next post we will examine the impact of these trends on affordability of health care.

Dr. John Geyman is professor emeritus of family medicine at the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle, a past president of Physicians for a National Health Program and author of “Do Not Resuscitate: Why the Health Insurance Industry Is Dying, and How We Must Replace It.” Buy John Geyman’s Books at: http://www.commoncouragepress.com

Premium Assistance for Coverage in Exchanges Health Reform Subsidy Calculator

Kaiser Family Foundation

An example for a 50 year old with a family of four, with income at 401% of federal poverty level:

$93,934 – Projected income in 2014

$16,858 – Unsubsidized health insurance premium in 2014

N/A – Maximum % of income the family has to pay for the premium

$16,858 – Actual family required premium payment

$0 – Government tax credit

$12,500 – The maximum out-of-pocket costs the person/family will be responsible for in 2014 (not including the premium)

$29,358 – Premium plus out-of-pocket costs

31% – Percent of income for premium plus out-of-pocket costs

http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx

This calculator is useful for determining anticipated individual and family costs for insurance premiums plus out-of-pocket expenses for plans obtained through the insurance exchanges, if execution of the program is optimal.

Uncertainties arise since 1) premiums are not guaranteed and could be much higher if private insurers fail to restrain cost increases, and 2) out-of-pocket costs could be much higher based on plan design, limitations of provider networks, and expenses for disallowed services and products.

Furthermore, most individuals and families will not even be allowed to purchase plans through the exchanges.

What kind of reform is this? We could have covered everyone without the need to create personal financial hardship had we adopted a single payer national health program. In fact, we can still do that.

The Political Challenges That May Undermine Health Reform

By Theda Skocpol
Health Affairs
July 2010

Abstract

As with all major social legislation, years of decisions and disputes over implementation lie ahead for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Opponents at the state and national levels may seek the law’s judicial overturn or repeal. However, a far more serious effort to undermine the law will come about through challenges to various administrative arrangements, taxes, and subsidies to fund expansions of coverage. The redistributive aspects of health reform will be especially at risk, as business interests and groups of more-privileged citizens press for lower taxes, looser regulations, and reduced subsidies for low-income people.

The Staying Power Of Redistributive Reform

As the New York Times reporter David Leonhardt has observed, the new health reform legislation “is the federal government’s biggest attack on economic inequality since inequality began rising more than three decades ago.” The American rich have been getting richer; meanwhile, in contrast to the situation in many other nations attempting to mitigate rising market inequalities, the U.S. government in recent decades has exacerbated them through tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the rich. But the 2010 health reform promises subsidies to millions of working people of modest means, whose employers do not provide health insurance and who cannot afford to buy it themselves in the existing marketplace. Most of the revenues to pay for coverage expansion come from Americans making more than $250,000 a year, as well as from fees on businesses and cuts in subsidies to private insurers involved in Medicare.

Anti-Reform Interests

Cheering as this aspect of reform may be to analysts concerned about rising inequality in the United States, the political storms to come should not be underestimated. Many aspects of the U.S. political system give vastly disproportionate leverage to the privileged and well-organized wealthy interests. These are the very groups and interests that Obama is asking to pay for health care for their less-fortunate fellow citizens. They don’t like it, and they have potent weapons at their disposal to fight back: money for media campaigns, legions of lobbyists, and now, with the recent Supreme Court Citizens United decision that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in elections, an unlimited ability to contribute to candidates.

With every resource at their disposal, these groups will weigh in as regulations are written at the federal level—and also as rules for insurance exchanges are devised in multiple states. They will use the system to elect representatives, senators, governors, and state legislators who share their sympathies. They will lobby politicians’ staffs to make changes in taxes, subsidies, and rules. Much of this will happen out of public view; it will be complicated and might not gain much attention from the news media.

Subtle Efforts To Undermine The Law

In the end, the clamorous campaign to have provisions of health reform declared unconstitutional may distract attention from subtler efforts to undermine the law. We will not know for a decade or so how far opponents will succeed in stripping away fees and higher taxes on the privileged, undercutting regulations on private insurers, and reducing redistributive subsidies to the less privileged. But we can predict that much of the intended redistribution will be reversed, because it is so easy and tempting for public officials of either party to enact tax breaks for the rich or to adjust regulations and subsidies as demanded by well-heeled business interests. Each individual change will seem small enough so that particular legislators, even Democrats, can rationalize their votes, but the changes will add up.

Redistribution

The generational redistribution implied in the new health reform will also work to the advantage of those who seek leverage to reverse key provisions. Americans slated to get more help tend to be younger and poorer. Meanwhile, seniors on Medicare, especially rich ones, are not only relatively satisfied with the pre-2010 status quo, but they are also responsive to claims that reforms will hurt their health care. Senior citizens are reliable voters, and over the coming months, they may become even more anxious if discussions are launched about how to cut the deficit by reducing spending growth on Social Security or Medicare. Republicans may face difficulties if they have to explain how the nation can simultaneously oppose any tax increases and prevent cuts to Medicare. In short, the arguments they are using now to fight “Obamacare” may come back to haunt them.

But the logic here may be political, not fiscal. The preferred course for both Republicans and the increasing numbers of senior citizens who may vote for them in 2010 and 2012 may be to get rid of or greatly reduce federal subsidies for the uninsured. These subsidies could shrink well before they are delivered in 2014 and beyond, thus making reform much less redistributive in the end.

Battle Is Not Over

In short, the bitter U.S. war over comprehensive health reform is far from finished. It remains to be seen if the promise of the legislation can be realized in a polity divided by class and generation. A century-long quest for reform may have achieved an uneasy breakthrough. But no one who follows the politics of U.S. health care should think that the battle is over.

(Theda Skocpol is the Victor S. Thomas Professor of Government and Sociology at Harvard and an internationally recognized analyst of comparative and American politics. Skocpol’s books on social revolution and the state are considered fundamental texts and have been translated into several languages.)

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/29/7/1288

Today’s comment is very brief in order to give you more time to read these important excerpts from Theda Skocpol’s article. The redistributive aspects of any health financing reform are absolutely crucial, yet under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, redistribution is at great risk. A single payer national health program would have much greater immunity against the vicious but opaque assault that will be taking place under the current law.

Why Consumers Disenroll from Medicare Private Health Plans

Medicare Rights Center
Summer 2010

This report analyzes data and case notes from the 475 cases presented in 2009 by consumers who called us about disenrolling from Medicare private health plans.

Reasons for Disenrollment (percentage of calls)

24.8% – Provider access problems
21.5% – Misinformation/marketing abuse
19.4% – Coverage problems for medical services
19.4% – Systems/data transfer problems
8.6% – Cost-sharing too high
7.2% – Part D coverage problems
3.2% – Premium increase

Provider Access Problems

The consumer problems in this category incorporate a wide range of provider access issues. They include general complaints and lack of understanding about the limits on provider access imposed by network-based plans, as well as specific concerns, such as the potential interruption of a valued relationship with a doctor who is being dropped from the plan’s network. Provider access problems are often prompted by an acute episode of illness or diagnosis; consumers seek to disenroll when their current plan will not cover care from a home health agency, skilled nursing or other rehabilitation facility, or from a particular specialist, such as a facility or doctor specializing in cancer treatment. This category also includes cases where consumers were misinformed about the limits on provider access before joining.

Disenrollment Due to Cancer

Cancer diagnoses are implicated in a relatively small percentage — less than 5 percent — of the disenrollments, but these cases are some of the most heart-wrenching and most difficult to resolve for Medicare Rights Center caseworkers.

The majority of cancer disenrollment cases — 63.6 percent —  however, involve provider access. The limitations of the private plan networks become apparent after the consumer is referred to a hospital or cancer specialist that is out of network. Treatment of rare or advanced cancers in particular triggers referrals to specialty facilities, such as M. D. Anderson in Houston or Memorial Sloan-Kettering in New York City. During the open enrollment periods, the disenrollments are generally effective the following month. When a person is diagnosed with cancer outside of the open enrollment periods, however, rules that lock consumers into their Medicare Advantage plans for the year generally prevent disenrollment (unless the case also concerns misrepresentation or marketing fraud, as is sometimes the case), and therefore may impede access to the most appropriate cancer treatment facility.

http://www.medicarerights.org/pdf/Why-Consumers-Disenroll-from-MA.pdf

This survey does not quantify the extent of patient dissatisfaction with Medicare Advantage plans since it was limited to individuals calling the Medicare Rights Center to find out about disenrolling from the private Medicare Advantage plans. But it does provide us with an understanding of why patients want out of their plans. First and foremost patients complain of a “lack of understanding about the limits on provider access imposed by network-based plans.”

The second most common complaint was about misinformation and marketing abuse. This was the primary reason for provider access complaints – the Medicare beneficiaries did not understand that their access would be limited to physicians in plan networks.

This has certainly been infuriating for those who have lost their choice of physicians by enrolling in the Medicare Advantage plans, but it has much greater implications under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Virtually all plans will have network-based restrictions.

President Obama promised us choice of health plans, but the marketing of his proposal was silent on the fact that virtually all of the plans would have limited access – limited choice of physicians and hospitals – because of provider network restrictions.

With the traditional Medicare program, everyone has free choice of their health care professionals and institutions. That should have been a prime goal of health care reform. It still can be should we decide to enact a single payer national health program – an improved Medicare for everyone.

By Claudia Chaufan MD

In a recent issue in the New England Journal of Medicine, economist Jonathan Gruber praises the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act (PPACA) as a “step in the right direction,” even as he expresses a healthy skepticism about PPACA’s capacity to control escalating health care costs, which he recognizes as “key to the long-term viability of our health care system.” Gruber also argues that there is “shortage of evidence” regarding which approach will meet Americans’ health care needs while controlling costs; therefore there is “no consensus” on what works [1].

Had Gruber looked beyond the U.S. borders, however, he would have found plenty of evidence. For instance, he would have found that U.S. consumption of health care as measured by critical indicators — per capita annual doctor visits, length of stay following heart attacks, or length of stay following normal childbirth – is no greater than the OECD average, and therefore cannot justify the extraordinary level of U.S. spending [2].

He would also have found that U.S. prices for medical care commodities and services are significantly higher than in other nations and constitute a key determinant of U.S. overall spending [3], and that such prices are determined by the exceptionally high administrative overhead caused by the system’s fragmented, public-private financing [4] and by the comparatively limited market power of American patients vis-à-vis their counterparts in countries with national health systems where the government negotiates prices with drug and medical device companies [5]. And he might have concluded that PPACA will do predictably little to change all this.

Moreover, the international literature would have shown the author the extraordinary international consensus around nonprofit financing to cover medically necessary services [5].

But what about the dramatic expansion of coverage promised by PPACA? Is this not a step in the right direction? The problem is that insurance coverage, as desirable as it may be, is not health care, but just a means to that end. And the U.S. system is notorious for providing coverage without care. High co-pays and deductibles are significant obstacles to access. Nor does health insurance offer financial security: nearly 78 percent of personal bankruptcies in 2007 that were linked to medical debt involved persons who were insured at the onset of their illness or injury [6]. PPACA, by allowing the sale of premiums for policies that will cover only 60 percent of health expenses [7], will do predictably little to change this state of affairs.

There is, however, an alternative proposal whose financial and policy soundness are based on decades of international experience and evidence. It would improve and expand Medicare to include all residents in the nation or in one state. That alternative may have to wait until PPACA unravels, as it predictably will [8].

President Obama argued that a model of reform as that implemented by PPACA would allow Americans to build on “what works” [9] – a decades-long experience with employer-sponsored for-profit health insurance. Maybe paradoxically, however, PPACA will unravel as employers realize that it is cheaper to pay a fine than pay for increasingly more expensive and inadequate policies, and employees enter the individual health exchanges implemented by the new law and find them so expensive that they “clamor for a nationalized health care system” [10].

References

1. Gruber, J., The Cost Implications of Health Care Reform. N Engl J Med: p. NEJMp1005117.

2. Peterson, C.L. and R. Burton, U.S. Health Care Spending: Comparison with Other OECD Countries. 2007. Order Code RL34175(September 17): p. http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34175_20070917.pdf (Accessed November 10 2007).

3. Anderson, G.F., et al., It’s The Prices, Stupid: Why The United States Is So Different >From Other Countries. Health Affairs, 2003. 22(3): p. 89-105.

4. Woolhandler, S., T. Campbell, and D.U. Himmelstein, Costs of Health Care Administration in the United States and in Canada. The New England Journal of Medicine, 2003. 349(August 21): p. 768-75.

5. White, J., Competing solutions: American health care proposals and international experience. 1995, Washington D. C: The Brookings Institution.

6. Himmelstein, D., U. , et al., Medical Bankruptcy in the United States, 2007: Results of a National Study. The American Journal of Medicine, 2009. 122(8): p. 741-746.

7. Dorgan, B., The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act. http://dpc.senate.gov/dpcdoc-sen_health_care_bill.cfm, 2010. Democratic Policy Committee.

8. Angell, M., Is the House Health Care Bill Better than Nothing? Physicians for a National Health Program, 2010: p. http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/november/is_the_house_health_.php (May 17, 2010).

9. The New York Times, Obama’s Health Care Speech to Congress. 2009: p. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/us/politics/10obama.text.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print (Date accessed September 12, 2009).

10. Helderman, R., Gingrich in Va.: A Republican Congress could defund health care law. 2010: The Washington Post. p. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2010/05/former_speaker_of_the_house.html.

Claudia Chaufan, M.D., Ph.D., is assistant professor at the Institute for Health and Aging at the University of California, San Francisco. She teaches sociology of health and medicine, sociology of power, public health, comparative health care systems and sociological theory. Dr. Chaufan is also vice president of Physicians for a National Health Program-California (http://pnhpcalifornia.org/).

WellPoint Scales Back Rate Increases Sought in California

By Avery Johnson
The Wall Street Journal
July 1, 2010

Health insurer WellPoint Inc. is backing off its plan to increase prices by as much as 39% for individuals in California, instead seeking rates for this year that it said would result in a $100 million loss for the company there.

On Wednesday, WellPoint’s Anthem Blue Cross unit told the California Insurance Department that it wants to increase prices for individual policyholders by an average of 14%, down from the 25% average it had previously sought.

“The actual rates we would need are higher than this, but we made a business decision to get a rate implemented,” said Brian Sassi, WellPoint’s president and chief executive of its consumer business unit.

Wellpoint had been hammered for months by the Obama administration and consumer advocates over the size of its initial rate proposal. Angela Braly, its chief executive, and other insurance executives contend that the rising cost of care and demands for higher reimbursement from providers are driving premiums—and that the federal health-overhaul law didn’t do enough to control costs.

WellPoint plans to file 2011 rates in California that do cover costs, they said.

Len Nichols, a health economist at George Mason University, said that WellPoint has “been asserting the point that, ‘You’ve got to understand we can’t control costs.’ And that point has been made, and the message has been heard.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704334604575339284211797328.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

After withdrawing a request for an average 25 percent increase in premiums for individual health plans in California, Anthem Blue Cross is now asking for an average 14 percent increase, which they claim will result in a loss that they will make up with 2011 premium increases. With medical inflation, a further increase in adverse selection, and an adjustment to eliminate losses, next year’s premium increases will be even more intolerable.

The Obama administration and members of Congress are critical of these increases, blaming Anthem Blue Cross for excessive profits – as if a $100 million loss in this market somehow reflects egregious profits (though, of necessity, they are profitable in other markets).

Obama and Congress are totally off target when they blame the private insurers. The private insurance model does not and cannot work to control costs and insure everyone, no matter how much market advocates wish it could. It is Obama and Congress who bear much of the blame because they were the ones who decided to keep the private insurers in charge.

Although we can blame our elected leaders now, if we don’t communicate to them clearly that they must bring us the reform that we need – a single payer national health program – then we will be left with only ourselves to blame.

The following text is the testimony that Dr. Margaret Flowers presented to the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform at its June 30 hearing in Washington. Dr. Flowers is congressional fellow for Physicians for a National Health Program.

I am Dr. Margaret Flowers and I am here today on behalf of Physicians for a National Health Program, the leading physician research, education and advocacy organization in support of a truly universal single-payer health system in the United States. I will speak specifically about the contribution of health care costs to our national deficit and the evidence-based remedy to control these costs.

When compared to health care in other advanced nations, the United States excels in only one area – the amount of money spent per capita per year. Despite our high spending, the U.S. leaves a third of the population either uncovered or underinsured and thus vulnerable to financial ruin.

Medical debt is a leading cause of bankruptcy and foreclosure in our nation despite the fact that most families declaring medical bankruptcy had insurance when they began incurring such debt.

Our health outcomes are relatively poor, placing us 37th in the world, and we rank the highest in preventable deaths, over 100,000 preventable deaths per year, when compared to other advanced nations. It is clear that we are getting poor value in return for our health care dollar.

Health care costs, which are rising 2.5 percent faster than our GDP, are a leading driver of our financial deficit. In fact, if our health care costs were comparable to those in other advanced nations, which provide nearly universal health care with better outcomes, we would currently experience a budget surplus.

The recent health legislation, misleadingly titled the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), lacks proven cost controls and is predicted to cause U.S. health care costs to rise faster than if there had been no reform at all (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, April 2010) despite continuing to leave tens of millions out.

Given the impact of health care costs, members of this commission may attempt to decrease the deficit by cutting our public health insurance programs, Medicaid and Medicare; however, doing this would be a mistake because it would increase poverty, worsen health outcomes and increase costs.

Since its enactment nearly 45 years ago, Medicare has substantially lowered poverty among the elderly. Studies show that health disparities in the U.S. start decreasing when our population reaches the age of 65. And the cost of health care per beneficiary is rising more slowly for those on Medicare than for those with private health insurance.

Medicaid and Medicare have not caused our rising health care costs but are victims of our fragmented and failed market-based model of health care financing. Shifting the cost of health care from the taxpayer to the patient will not magically make these health care costs disappear or become sustainable.

The solution to our economic crisis is to jettison the costly failed market model of health care and adopt a publicly financed and independently delivered national improved Medicare for All. This is commonly known as “single payer.” A national improved Medicare for All system has myriad benefits:

* Administrative savings of approximately $400 billion per year, which is enough to provide comprehensive high quality health care to all who are uninsured and underinsured.

* Ability to negotiate for pharmaceutical prices as a monopsony which would lower costs by about 40 percent and bring our prices in line with those of other advanced nations.

* Inherent cost controls of global budgeting for health facilities, negotiated fees, bulk purchasing and rational, rather than profit-driven, allocation of capital expenditures and health resources.

* Ability to identify outliers and develop quality improvement tools.

* Eliminate the burden of rising employee health care costs on businesses.

* Enhance the competitiveness of U.S. products in international markets.

* Liberate our population to pursue advanced education or entrepreneurial enterprises.

* Allow older workers to retire which would increase job opportunities for our younger workers.

* Stimulate the economy because families would have more money for discretionary spending.

* Improve the health, and therefore the productivity, of our workforce.

* Eliminate bankruptcy and foreclosure due to medical debt.

* Eliminate the spend-down required for those who need long-term care funded by Medicaid.

* Provide true health security to our population so that nobody has to choose between necessary medical care and other necessities such as housing, food, education and clothing.

Given these multiple economic benefits – and I have not begun to describe the ways in which national improved Medicare for All would improve patient choice and quality of health care – it is no surprise that the single payer approach is supported by the majority of those in the U.S. and the majority of American physicians. This was evident once again last Saturday in the town meetings sponsored by America Speaks when participants across the nation demanded single payer as an option to solving the health care crisis and 71 percent voted not to cut Medicaid and Medicare.

Private health insurance is rapidly becoming a thing of the past. There is a steady trend in fewer people being enrolled in employee-sponsored health plans. This is expected to increase under PPACA as businesses have an incentive to drop insurance benefits and pay the lower cost penalty.

There is a steady trend in people choosing high deductible plans which leave them financially vulnerable in their time of need. As people enter the individual market, those with health conditions will find it difficult to afford adequate insurance.

The trends for those who are uninsured and underinsured will continue upward. Under PPACA, billions of public dollars will be used to subsidize rising private insurance premiums for policies that cover fewer and fewer services. The result is a flow of patient and public dollars into the coffers of private insurance corporations with declining return in terms of health care. This trend is not sustainable.

The alternative scenario of a national improved Medicare for All will save lives and save money. National improved Medicare for All will place our nation on the path of becoming one of the best health systems in the world – something of which we can all be proud.

This commission has the ability to recommend creating a financially sustainable universal health system. I urge the members of this commission to recommend addressing the deficit through adopting this most popular approach: national improved Medicare for All. Don’t cut Medicare. Protect it, improve it and expand it to cover everyone.

Short-term insurance buyers drive up cost in Mass.

By Kay Lazar
The Boston Globe
June 30, 2010

The number of people who appear to be gaming the state’s health insurance system by purchasing coverage only when they are sick quadrupled from 2006 to 2008, according to a long-awaited report released yesterday from the Massachusetts Division of Insurance.

The result is that insured residents of Massachusetts wind up paying more for health care, according to the report.

“The active members subsidize some of the costs tied to those individuals who terminate within one year,” the report says.

http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2010/06/30/short_term_insurance_buyers_drive_up_cost_in_mass/?rss_id=Boston.com+–+Health+news

Report:
http://www.mass.gov/Eoca/docs/doi/Companies/adverse_selection_report.pdf

During the reform process the concern was expressed repeatedly that an individual mandate – requiring individuals to purchase their own health insurance – would result in gaming the system. People would enroll when they needed expensive care, and then drop out after the care was completed. The experience in Massachusetts has demonstrated that it did not take long for the public to learn this game, for this is precisely what has happened. Nevertheless, the individual mandate is now the law of the land.

Options being considered to reduce this form of adverse selection include, as examples, allowing open enrollment for only one month per year, or increasing the penalty for remaining uninsured. Although such measures might reduce this tendency to game the system, they will not eliminate it.

It is the structure of the financing system that is fundamentally flawed. It cannot be fixed merely by tweaking the mandate, nor by tweaking the thousands of other provisions in this dysfunctional system. It needs to be replaced with a structurally sound system.

With a single payer national health program the issue of an individual mandate would be moot since everyone would be enrolled, automatically, throughout life.