U.S. workers paying 14% more in health care costs

J Roberts

Looks like healthcare costs continue to rise. Is there any help for employees and consumers who are getting stuck with larger out-of-pocket expenses?

The Star Ledger – on line

Strained by rising health care costs and the sour economy, U.S. employers are pressing workers to shoulder the added burden alone as employees pay higher insurance premiums and more out-of-pocket expenses for their medical care.

The average employer-provided family health plan now costs workers nearly $4,000 a year, up 14 percent from last year, according to a survey by the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Educational Trust.

That is the largest annual increase since the survey began in 1999 and a marked change from previous years, when employers generally split the cost of rising premiums with their employees.

Indeed, the average employer contribution to a family plan did not increase at all this year, meaning the entire increase was borne by workers.

Overall, premium growth slowed slightly this year to 3 percent, with the average annual cost of a family health plan reaching $13,370. Workers picked up 30 percent of that bill.

The average plan for a single individual cost $5,049.

At the same time, workers also saw average co-payments for routine office visits rise 10 percent and deductibles continue their surge upward.

In 2010, more than a quarter of American workers with employer-provided health coverage are in plans with deductibles of $1,000 or higher.

“It’s really bad news for everybody,” said Helen Darling, president of the National Business Group on Health, an organization of large employers that provide coverage to about 50 million workers, retirees and dependents.

The squeeze, reported by employers between January and May, largely reflects the fallout of the ongoing economic slowdown and may be ameliorated in future years as the new health care law is implemented.

But it could also further complicate the Obama administration’s efforts to rally support for the law, which is expected to do relatively little in the short term to contain rising medical bills.

“There have been times when employers been able to absorb costs. This is not one of those times,” said James Gelfand, health policy director at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a leading critic of the new law.

Read More

Report: Health costs burden rests on workers’ shoulders

J Roberts

It’s a fact, health care costs continue to increase.  Insurers are raising premiums while offering less comprehensive coverage. To complicate matters, many employers are putting price before quality when searching for a health plan.

By Lydell C. Bridgeford

American workers continue to see their health care costs increase, while receiving less comprehensive coverage. To complicate matters, employers are doing a lackluster job of shopping for quality health plans.

According to research by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Educational Trust, U.S. workers are paying, on average, about $4,000 for family health care coverage, a 14% or $482 jump from 2009 costs.

The spike occurred despite the total premiums for family coverage, which includes employer contributions, only increasing by 3% to $13,770 this year, researchers found.

Employer contributions for family coverage, however, remained steady, meaning companies are shifting more of the health care costs onto workers.

In the survey report, “2010 Employer Health Benefits Survey,” analysts also indicate that companies are raising the annual deductibles employees must pay before their health plans start to pick up the costs.

For example, a total of 27% of covered workers face annual deductibles of at least $1,000, up from 22% in 2009, according to the survey results. Among small employers with 3 to 199 workers the number rose to 46% for such deductibles.

Researchers conducted the survey between January and May of 2010. It included 3,143 randomly selected non-federal public and private employers with three or more workers. Of which 2,046 responded to the full survey and 1,097 responded to a single question about offering coverage.

“Much of the survey collection was done before the health reform law passed and most of the benefits arrangements described in the report occurred before there were any reasons to know what the health reform law would actually say,” explains Gary Claxton, vice president and director of the foundation’s health care marketplace project and the study leader author.

Still, since 2005, workers’ contributions to premiums have rose 47%, while overall premiums increased 27%, wages jumped 18%, and inflation spiked 12%.

“With the economy struggling, businesses have been shifting more of the costs of health insurance to workers through premiums, deductibles and other cost-sharing,” says Dr. Drew Altman, president and CEO at the Kaiser Family Foundation.

“This may be helping to stem the rapid rise in premiums that we saw in the early 2000s, but it also means employer coverage is less comprehensive. From a consumer perspective, the cost of health insurance just keeps going up faster than wages,” he adds.

In addition, 30% of employers admitted they reduced the scope of health benefits or increased cost sharing because of the economy.

Health plan quality

Meanwhile, the report reveals employers are not considering quality in their decision-making process on health plans.

Overall, large employers with 200 or more workers were more likely (34%) to review performance indicators on health plans than small employers with 3 to 199 workers (5%). The most common indicators used were the Consumer Assessment of Health Care Providers and System (77%) and hospital outcomes data (61%), according to the survey results.

About 75% of employers indicated that they were “somewhat satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the information available on health plan quality. However, only about 50% of firms claimed that the information was “somewhat influential” or “very influential” in their decision to select health plans.

Moreover, only six percent of employers said they review information on health plan performance, and the ones who did look at information on plan quality only half said it was influential to the their selection of a health plan, says Megan McHugh, research director at the Health Research and Educational Trust.

“With quality improvement efforts expanding and with increased focus on transparency, employers do have the ability to find data on quality of care and use it when they are comparing health plans,” says McHugh. “The lack of comparison shopping based on quality … is troubling. We are finding employers don’t hold health plans accountable for the care they offer,” she adds.

McHugh speculates that employers are choosing health plans based on price and quality might not rise to the same level of importance.

In addition, perhaps, employers are “weary of the value of quality indicators and don’t understand the indicators that are available to them. They also might believe that the quality monitors can be entrusted to others, such as the health plan and the accreditation organizations,” she explains.

Other key findings from the survey include:

  • Consumer-driven plans have established a foothold in the employer market, tripling their market share from 4% in 2006 to 13% in 2010.
  • Preferred provider organizations (PPOs) continue to dominate the employer market, enrolling 58% of covered workers. Average PPO family premiums topped $14,000 annually in 2010.
  • Single-payer coverage increased 5% in 2010 to reach $5,049 annually. Workers on average are paying $899 annually for single coverage, up from $779 in 2009. Forty-seven percent of covered workers are in single coverage plans.
  • Physician office visits: Among covered workers with a co-payment for in-network physician office visits, the average co-payment increased a small but statistically significant amount from 2009 to 2010 – from $20 to $22 for primary care and from $28 to $31 for specialty care.
  • Mental health benefits: In response to the 2008 Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act, 31% of firms with more than 50 workers made changes to the mental health benefits they offer. Most of this group eliminated limits on coverage to comply with the law, though a small share (5% of those making changes) dropped mental health coverage altogether.
  • Wellness benefits: About three-fourths (74%) of employers offering health benefits offer at least one of the following wellness programs: weight loss program, gym membership discounts or on-site exercise facilities, smoking cessation program, personal health coaching, classes in nutrition or healthy living, web-based resources for healthy living, or a wellness newsletter.

Health risk assessments: Among firms offering coverage, 11% give their employees the option of completing a health risk assessment to help employees identify potential health risks. Within this group, 22% —or a relatively small two percent of all employers—offer financial incentives such as lowering the worker’s share of premiums or offering merchandise, gift cards, travel, or cash to their workers. Large firms are more likely than small firms both to offer assessments and to offer financial incentives.

Read More

Reform Could Accelerate Shift to High-Deductible Plans

J Roberts

There may be hope for consumer directed high deductible plans afterall. Read the following article to learn more.

By Charlotte Huff, Workforce Week Magazine

High-deductible plans, with or without an attached savings account, may provide the best flexibility to meet the coverage limits—both minimum and maximum—inherent in the health reform legislation.

Before health care reform, benefits consultants worried that the insurance overhaul would sideline consumer-directed plans or perhaps jettison them altogether. Their latest sentiment: modest to substantial optimism.

As with any post-reform plan, large employers should carefully structure their consumer-directed options, typically a high-deductible policy paired with another account, such as a health savings account. Ideally, coverage would adhere to a middle ground, meeting the reform legislation’s minimum coverage requirements without becoming sufficiently generous to trigger the so-called “Cadillac,” or excise, tax, beginning in 2018.

But the myriad ways in which these high-deductible plans can be structured likely leave them well situated in the post-reform world, benefits consultants say. Along with the plans’ flexible design, they also cite other reform-related changes as being influential, such as the new limitations on another type of account, the flexible spending account.

“Frankly, these consumer-directed plans are pretty well-positioned,” says Michael Thompson, a principal in the health and welfare practice at PricewaterhouseCoopers. “I think what we’ll find is not a slowing of the process, but actually an acceleration of the process to consumer-directed and high-deductible plans in general.”

Before President Barack Obama signed health reform into law in March, consumer-directed plans were already gaining some traction among large employers, according to an annual survey conducted by the National Business Group on Health and Towers Watson. By 2011, 61 percent of employers intend to offer a consumer-directed plan; the option was provided by only 33 percent in 2006. Meanwhile, nearly half (46 percent) of those who offered a consumer-directed plan in 2010 reported enrollment of at least 20 percent.

As more employees signed up, the cost per employee declined, according to the same survey, which involved 507 employers each with at least 1,000 employees. Annual health costs per employee totaled $6,848 when at least half of the employer’s workforce enrolled in a consumer-directed plan, compared with $7,743 per employee when enrollment fell below 20 percent.

Employers are paying closer attention than ever before to those types of bottom-line statistics, says Alexander Domaszewicz, national health consumerism lead for Mercer. “None of the cost issues and very few of the quality and delivery issues have been meaningfully addressed in the reform legislation,” he says.

Cost pressures
As employers look ahead, one worry is the excise tax. Effective in 2018, a 40 percent tax will be applied to any of a health plan’s total value that exceeds the premium threshold—$10,200 for individual coverage or $27,500 for family coverage.

But Jay Savan, a senior consultant at Towers Watson, says other economic constraints just a few years off will be more influential than the excise tax in encouraging employers to consider a high-deductible plan.

Beginning in 2014, once the health insurance exchanges are established, employers will have an incentive to keep employees’ premium contributions below 9.5 percent of their adjusted gross income if workers earn less than 400 percent of the federal poverty level, Savan says. Otherwise, the employer will have to pay a penalty—typically $3,000 annually per such employee who receives coverage through a health exchange—for surpassing that premium ceiling.

That’s a relatively low bar, Savan says. For a family of four, 400 percent of the federal poverty level is $88,200 annually. If that penalty were in effect today, that employee couldn’t pay more than nearly $8,400 annually toward health coverage.

“The plans that are most likely to allow the employer to stay under that [premium] threshold are going to be high-deductible health plans,” Savan says. “Whether they are HSA-compatible or not, it’s going to be those plans, by virtue of simple mathematics.”

The average annually family health premium, as of 2009, reached nearly $13,400, according to an annual survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust. But the employee’s contribution averaged just $3,515.

For companies with lower-income employees, though, a relatively low premium can still exceed 9.5 percent of adjusted gross income, Savan says. Add in rising health costs and that likelihood increases, he says.

Establishing guardrails
In a sense, the new health reform law contains inherent guardrails that employers should pay attention to, Domaszewicz says. On the lower end, they should make sure that coverage isn’t classified as inadequate—defined as covering less than 60 percent of allowable costs. But as their plans’ total value increases, employers also need to stay sharp, he says.

“They can’t design them [the plans] too rich because they will eventually hit this excise tax,” he says. “They can’t design them too poor or too skinny because they are not going to meet this 60 percent requirement in terms of actuarial value.”

The reform law’s move to cap FSA contributions at $2,500 annually, beginning in 2013, also may spur employees themselves to take a second look at health spending accounts, says Chantel Sheaks, a principal in Buck Consultants’ National Technical Resources Group. A parent who is facing a large bill for braces, for example, may decide to bypass the FSA and instead contribute a higher amount to an HSA-linked insurance plan, she says.

Another reform-related wrinkle, Thompson adds, is that contributions to savings accounts, including an FSA or HSA, will be counted toward the plan’s total value in determining whether it qualifies for the excise tax. “It’s only a matter of time before FSAs become less common with employers,” he says.

In the years ahead, employers may adopt other measures, such as limiting company or employee contributions to HSAs, to prevent hitting the excise tax threshold, Savan says. But the Towers Watson consultant, a longtime proponent of consumer-directed plans, remains bullish that their time has finally arrived.

By 2013, nearly all large employers will be offering the insurance option, Savan predicts. And more employees will buy in, doubling the current median enrollment of 15 percent to 30 percent or more, he says.

Read More

If Healthcare Reform Fails: Fewer Well-Insured Patients Will Leave Doctors Hurting

J Roberts

Is the current Medicare reimbursement method flawed?  It depends on your perspective, but one thing appears more and more apparent – the recent healthcare reform bill does not appear to be a solution to the problem.

BNET Today

Judging by the opposition of surgical societies and some state medical societies to the Senate healthcare-reform bill passed last December, many physicians — particularly highly paid specialists — are relieved now that it appears the legislation is on its deathbed. But they shouldn’t be too gleeful, because in the absence of reform, fewer and fewer patients will be able to afford their services.

Just ask Clyde Yancy, a cardiologist who heads the American Heart Association (AHA). Yancy cited a recent AHA survey of heart patients in explaining why he believes that reform of the system is still necessary. In the survey of 1100 adults who said they had heart disease, a stroke, or high blood pressure, 56 percent of the respondents — most of whom had insurance — said they’d had trouble paying for prescription drugs or medical care in the past few years.

In an op-ed piece about the survey in a trade publication, Yancy referred to the “collective sigh” of relief among physicians about the stalling of reform and suggested that it’s premature. “The need for the discussion has not gone away,” he said. “If anything, that need is highlighted by this survey.”

Of course, Yancy is walking a fine political line. He chose not to highlight the financial pain doctors will feel as insurance coverage shrinks, and instead focused on the problem of patients not receiving proper care because they can’t afford it. But his intended audience of heart doctors can certainly read between the lines, particularly since they’re already battling to preserve their incomes in light ofsome recent Medicare changes.

Last fall, Medicare announced changes in its reimbursement methodology that basically lowered payments to specialists while raising them for primary-care physicians. Cardiologists, among the hardest hit specialists, were slated to lose an average of eight percent in 2010 and more in the ensuing three years. The new fee schedule also slashed payments for nuclear scans by 40 percent and cut the fees for echocardiograms and other tests by about a third. In late December, the American College of Cardiology (ACC) sued HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to reverse the cuts scheduled to take effect Jan. 1. Two weeks later, a federal court in Miami dismissed the suit on jurisdictional grounds, but the ACC pledged to carry on the legal fight.

The cardiologists, of course, claim that the drop in Medicare payments for high-end imaging tests will drive some of them out of business and that they’ll have to cut back on the services for the poor. In actuality, though, heart doctors have steadily ramped up their use of tests and other services to maintain their incomes. A study released last fall by cardiology services provider MedAxiom found that visits to cardiologists had risen 12 percent in 2009 and that return visits had climbed 34 percent since 2000. Meanwhile, the number of echos that cardiologists performed jumped 15 percent in 2009 and 43 percent in the previous five years.

These numbers highlight the main issue: the more Medicare cuts back on reimbursement, the more tests, procedures and follow-up visits physicians do. And the more doctors do, the more Medicare cuts its fees. The only solution is to dump the fee-for-service payment system — a goal that some of the provisions in the healthcare reform legislation would move us toward. Having to live within a budget would upset cardiologists even more than the recent Medicare cuts. But it’s hard to see how their patients will be able to afford their services in the long run under any other reform plan.

Read More

Statistics: Who Visits the Emergency Room? 20 Percent of Americans, Insured or Not

J Roberts

Here are some interesting facts about who visits the ER from The New York Times. One interesting fact to take note of, people with private insurance visit the ER almost as much as people without insurance.

By RONI CARYN RABIN

Americans, insured and not, make ample use of hospital emergency rooms: One out of every five visited an E.R. at least once in 2007, the latest year for which the National Center for Health Statistics has data.

Among the uninsured, 7.4 percent made two or more visits to an E.R., but so did 5.1 percent of people with private insurance. Medicaid recipients were the heaviest users of E.R.’s, with 15.3 percent of them making two or more visits during the year.

Adults in fair or poor health were most likely to go to an E.R. More than a third of them visited an emergency room at least once during the year.

People younger than 65 who said the E.R. was their only health care facility were no more likely to have gone to an emergency room than others, and for those older than 65, there were more E.R. visits by people with a usual source of care than by those without one.

More than 25 percent of non-Hispanic blacks visited an E.R., compared with 20 percent of whites and about 18 percent of Hispanics. For people younger than 75, age made little difference.

In all age groups, about one in five people went to the E.R. But among those older than 75, one in four visited the E.R. at least once.

The uninsured were no more likely to make non-emergency visits to the E.R. than anyone else — about 10 percent of visits were for non-emergencies, whether the patients had private insurance, Medicaid coverage or no insurance.

Figuring out who visits emergency rooms, how often and for what reasons involves sorting out complex interactions among many factors — socioeconomic level, health status, age, health insurance, access to health care and others.

“Our job is to provide the best numbers to inform policy and practice,” said Amy B. Bernstein of the National Center for Health Statistics. “If people are concerned about the use of emergency rooms and how to make their use more efficient or effective, they should have accurate information about who is actually using them — and not who they think is using them.”

Read More

Workshop warns business to brace for surging health care costs

J Roberts

Will the new healthcare reform act be beneficial to patients at the cost of being harmful to business? The jury is still out, but onething is for certain, costs will continue to rise in the immediate future.

The Daily – 07/22/10

By Beth Fitzgerald

As the new federal healthcare reform law is phased in through 2014, employers will face increased costs to comply with new regulations and reporting requirements, even as their health insurance premiums continue to rise.

That was the view from Scott Rappoport, CEO of Benefit Sources & Solutions, in

Bound Brook, who presented a workshop on the new law Thursday morning sponsored by the Somerset County Business Partnership. The session was held at Financial Resources Federal Credit Union’s Bridgewater office.

Rappoport reviewed key provisions of the law, starting with the “grandfathering” of healthplans that were in effect when the new law was adopted by Congress on March 23.  Many employers can keep their old plans – but the restrictions are such that, in most cases, it will be too costly to try and hang on to an old plan, he said. “I really believe that in two years, it will be so ridiculously expensive to maintain a grandfathered plan that it won’t make any sense,” he said.

One positive aspect of the law is that it spells out the “essential benefits” – including preventive care – health plans must provide, he said, which addresses a need to “focus on wellness and chronic disease management, and getting and staying well.”

In 2010,employers with fewer than 25 workers averaging salaries of $50,000 or less who pay 50 percent of their health insurance premiums can get a tax credit of 35 percent of the employer’s premium contributions. But Rappoport said in New Jersey, a high-wage state, many small employers won’t qualify.

Yet New Jersey Citizen Action, a consumer advocacy group, this week released a report by Washington, D.C. – based Families USA that estimated more than 100,000 New Jersey businesses could be eligible for the tax credit this year.

Read More

Hijacked, Stolen Health Care Reform: Why Health Care Costs Will Not Be Contained

J Roberts

Costs continue to rise even with the passage of landmark healthcare reform. Read the following article for an interesting take on outcomes of the new reform.

John Greyman

The passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable 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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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), 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)

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.

Read More

When Choosing Health Care, Know What You’ll Owe

J Roberts

Buyer beware! Most people don’t realize just how much out-of-pocket spending a healthplan may cost them until they become seriously ill or are hospitalized. The below article sheds light on the out-of-pocket expenses many consumers face and what they should be aware of when choosing a healthplan.

By WALECIA KONRAD

If you’re like most people, you may think they are the same. But while it is true both terms refer to the portion of medical bills you pay out-of-pocket, these two types of cost-sharing are quite different.

A co-pay is a fixed amount that you pay each time you see a doctor or fill a prescription, usually around $10 or $20. Co-insurance is the percentage of the cost of doctor visits, hospitalizations and prescription drugs that you must pay under your insurance policy.

Let’s say your policy calls for 80/20 co-insurance. After you meet your deductible, you must pay 20 percent of your medical bills; the insurance company is responsible for the remaining 80 percent.

Many plans demand both co-pays and co-insurance. Co-insurance is especially common when it comes to hospital stays. Of all workers covered by an employer-sponsored group health plan, 51 percent must pay co-insurance for hospital admissions, according to the 2009 Kaiser Family Foundation survey of employer health benefits. The average payment is 18 percent of the total. And 53 percent of covered workers pay co-insurance for outpatient hospital visits, with an average charge of 19 percent.

Co-insurance is common in the individual insurance market. And as companies head into this fall’s open enrollment season, many are considering a switch from co-pay to co-insurance as a way to increase employee cost-sharing and contain rising health benefit expenses, said Tom Billet, director for health and group benefits at the consulting firm Towers Watson.

Because of the confusion involving co-pay and co-insurance, many patients don’t realize just how much it may cost them until they become seriously ill or are hospitalized, said Lynn Quincy, a senior policy analyst at Consumers Union. “Ten or 20 percent may not sound like much, but 20 percent of a $100,000 surgery is a lot of money,” she said.

Co-insurance payments can add up quickly for seriously ill patients. It’s not unusual, for example, for a cancer patient to need $40,000 worth of medicine in a given year.

“Co-insurance on that could be as much as $14,000, and that’s just for the drugs. That’s not even counting going to the doctor or the hospital yet,” said Stephen Finan, senior director of policy at the American Cancer Society’s Cancer Action Network.

High co-insurance and other out-of-pocket costs, including insurance premiums, can sometimes discourage patients from receiving the treatment they need. One in three individuals under age 65 diagnosed with cancer has delayed needed health care in the last 12 months, according to a Cancer Action Network poll.

Read More

Pages: 1 2

Employers’ Medical Costs to Rise in 2011

J Roberts

Looks like medical costs are expected to trend well above inflation for 2011. In addition, consumer out-of-pocket costs have increased as employers continue to shift the cost onto employees.

Medical costs are expected to increase by 9 percent in 2011, according to a report from PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. Although the increase is down 0.05 percent from the 2010 growth rate, it still is expected to outpace the rate of inflation. For the first time, the majority of the American workforce is expected to have a health insurance deductible of at least $400 as more employers return to indemnity-style cost sharing by raising out-of-pocket limits, replacing co-payments with co-insurance and adding high-deductible health plans.

Hospital and physician costs, which make up 81 percent of premium costs, are the biggest inflators of the 2011 medical cost trend. Hospitals shifting costs from Medicare to private payers and employers is seen as the top reason for higher medical cost trends. In 2011, Medicare will reduce payment rates to hospitals for the first time after seven years of increases that almost matched or exceeded inflation increases. Some hospitals that benefitted from higher payments in 2008 and 2009 may be able to manage this type of cut by tapping their reserves, but many hospitals are likely to shift more costs to commercial payers during their negotiations, according to the report.

In addition, increasing consolidation among physician practices is expected to increase their bargaining power. Payers expect to see more negotiating power and higher prices in the short term, but efficiencies created by consolidation will moderate future rate hikes.

The report findings are based on a survey of more than 700 employers from 30 industries and interviews with health plan actuaries.

Read More

Doctors tack on ‘a la carte’ fees for patients

J Roberts

It appears that physicians are now charging ‘a la carte’ fees for services not traditionally covered by insurance or Medicare. The extra fees mean greater out-of-pocket costs for consumers. Read on to learn more.

By Alison Young • USA TODAY •

A growing number of doctors across the country are boosting revenue by asking patients to pay new fees for services they say insurance doesn’t cover, insurance and physicians’ groups say.

The extra payments include no-show fees of $30-$50 for missed appointments, widely varying charges for filling out health forms for school, work or athletic teams, and annual administrative fees of $35-$120 or more to simply be a patient in some practices, medical associations and doctors say.

“It’s not unlike the airlines,” said William Jessee, president of the Medical Group Management Association, which generally advises against extra fees that may anger patients or run afoul of insurance contracts. “They’ve gone from all-inclusive to a la carte. That’s what you’re seeing with physicians.”

Doctors who charge extra fees are in the minority, he said. Some have done it for years, but more are joining them because they say they need the fees to offset the rising costs of practicing medicine.

Allen Greenlee, an internist in Washington, sent a letter in March to 7,000 patients in his group practice asking for a voluntary $35 annual administrative fee for costs insurance didn’t cover. He said he got only two angry letters and dozens paid extra to help others. “I’m trying to stay solvent,” he said.

WellPoint, the nation’s largest insurer by membership, is receiving more inquiries from doctors seeking to charge annual administrative fees.

“We have seen some increase in that type of activity,” said John Syer, a vice president over provider contracting at WellPoint, which operates 14 Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans. “The vast majority do not engage in that,” Syer said, noting such fees may violate provider agreements if doctors charge for items insurers consider included in their payments.

Though no national data are available on how many practices charge extra fees, Jessee said primary care doctors face increased financial pressures as insurance reimbursement hasn’t kept pace with costs. The result has been a growing shortage of primary care physicians as medical students choose more lucrative specialty fields. Primary care is critical to the nation’s new health law, which will give 32 million uninsured Americans coverage.

Office visits are the main source of insurance payments to primary care doctors, yet physicians spend much of each day on activities they’re not directly compensated for, such as phone calls and prescription refills, a study in The New England Journal of Medicine in April found.

“A lot of doctors are trying all kinds of experimental things just to survive,” said Gary Seto, a doctor in South Pasadena, Calif., who charges an annual $120-per-family “non-covered benefits fee.”

Sue Braga of the Arizona chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics said she’s hearing of more practices charging for no-shows and health forms.

Susan Wheeler, 33, said her kids’ pediatrician near Atlanta recently started a $10-per-child form fee. “I don’t like it,” she said. “It’s part of their job.”

Read More