obamacare

Three States Where Obamacare Premiums May Rise More Than 50% in 2018

Maria Montecillo Leave a comment

As of this writing, the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, still remains the law of the land, despite efforts to repeal and replace it. The uncertainty about where this is headed has created uncertainty in the marketplace and thus rising prices. There are 3 states where Obamacare premiums may rise more than 50% in 2018 including New York, Georgia, and Maryland. The reasons for this premium increase are enumerated in the article below. Is this a sign of things to come in 2018? Medical Cost Advocate can help you navigate our complex health care system and find the insurance plan that best suits your needs.

By Sean Williams, Aug 26, 2017

Despite President Trump having been in office for more than seven months now and Republicans retaining control of both houses of Congress, the Affordable Care Act, which is best known as Obamacare, remains the health law of the land.

The hallmark legislation signed into law by former President Barack Obama in March 2010 has taken care of its primary goal of reducing the uninsured rate. Between late 2013 and mid-2016, we witnessed the aggregate uninsured rate fall from 16% to around 9%, representing an all-time low, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

However, Obamacare has also been a relatively unpopular law since its inception. Until recently, when Republicans tried unsuccessfully on numerous occasions to repeal and replace Obamacare, you could easily count on two hands just how many months over the past six-plus years that Obamacare had more “favorable” views than “unfavorable” when it came to Kaiser Family Foundation’s Health Tracking poll. Most Americans never really cared for the individual mandate, which required them to purchase health insurance, and they certainly disliked the Shared Responsibility Payment, which required them to pay a penalty if they didn’t purchase health insurance.

Nevertheless, rate requests have been submitted by insurance companies in nearly every state, and we’re heading into 2018 with the strong likelihood that Obamacare will remain law.

President Trump threatens to go nuclear on Obamacare

Of course, that doesn’t mean President Trump has to like what’s transpired.

The Commander in Chief has suggested that if Congress doesn’t get its act together and repeal Obamacare, he’d consider going nuclear and withholding cost-sharing reductions in order to topple the program. Cost-sharing reductions, or CSRs, are the subsidies paid to lower-income individuals and families making between 100% and 250% of the federal poverty level, and they help cover the costs of heading to the doctor (e.g., copays, deductibles, and coinsurance). More than 7 million people enrolled via Obamacare’s marketplace exchanges qualified for CSRs in 2017. Without CSRs, lower-income folks would have health insurance but would probably be unable to afford the copay and deductible costs of being seen by a doctor.

This all ties back to a 2014 lawsuit filed by the House Republicans against Sylvia Burwell, who at the time was the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The GOP argued that only Congress has the right to apportion federal funding, which in this case meant approving funds for CSR payments. Since these subsidies weren’t getting the alleged proper approval, Republicans sued. In May 2016, they won; however, Judge Rosemary Collyer stayed her order, given the likelihood of an appeal from the Obama administration, which did come in. That appeal remains in place today, though Trump has appointed Tom Price as the new HHS secretary. All Donald Trump would have to do is drop the appeal of the case, and Collyer’s order would halt further CSR payments to insurers and low-income individuals and families.

Insurers, not knowing what will happen, have been requesting significant rate hikes to take into account both adverse selection (i.e., getting more sick enrollees than expected) and the possibility that these CSR subsidies could be taken away, in which case members may not be able to pay their medical bills. According to ACASignUps.net, which has aggregated price request data for nearly every state, the average rate hike request if CSRs remain in place is almost 16% in 2018, while premiums could jump by an average of 30% if CSRs are taken away.

Three states with possibly the highest average rate-hike requests

As in years past, we’ve seen a wide variance of rate requests. Alaska, which is known for having the highest monthly premiums, could see premiums drop by an average of 30% to 22% next year, simply depending on whether or not CSRs are kept or taken away. The drop is thanks to a new reinsurance program within the state.

Oklahoma could also see premiums fall by 1.9% in 2018 if CSRs are paid, or rise by an average of 8.7% if they aren’t. While good news on the surface, it’s little consolation considering the 76% that Blue Cross Blue Shield of Oklahoma hiked rates in 2017.

At the other end of the spectrum, three states could be in line to hike premiums by more than 50% if CSRs don’t get paid. Please note the emphasis on that “if,” because it could mean significantly more money flowing out of the pockets of unsubsidized Americans come 2018 if CSRs get taken away.

These states are:

  1. New York: According to published rate requests in early June from the Department of Financial Services, insurers in the Empire State are requesting an average hike of 16.6% if the CSRs remain. This comes on top of the average 18% rate hike they requested last year. However, ACASignUps.net has New York pegged for an average weighted rate hike of up to 50.5% should CSRs be taken away. Last year, regulators only managed to lower New York insurers’ rate-hike request to 16.6% from 18%, so there’s little hope of much solace for New Yorkers on Obamacare in the coming year. Insurers provided little info on what’s driving their double-digit rate-hike requests, but it’s believed to be uncertainty stemming from future CSR payments.
  2. Georgia: The Peach State is another that could be facing some very extreme premium increases should CSRs be taken away by President Trump. The weighted average rate hike for Georgia, inclusive of CSRs, is already a whopping 29.2%. However, if those CSRs aren’t there, Georgians could see premiums spike higher by a weighted average of 52.2%. Feel free to point the finger at Anthem (NYSE: ANTM), the largest in-state Obamacare insurer, whose Blue Cross Blue Shield of Georgia is requesting a rate hike of 40.6% with CSRs continuing to be paid, or 63.6% without them. Anthem is among the biggest beneficiaries of government-sponsored subsidies under Obamacare, and their removal could possibly hurt it more than any other national insurer.
  3. Maryland: Taking the cake with the largest possible average weighted premium increase in 2018 looks to be the Old Line State. Even if CSRs are paid, Maryland’s insurers have requested an average weighted rate hike of 46.1%. However, if CSRs are taken away, this premium increase jumps to a weighted average of 57.1%. Both CareFirst of Maryland and CareFirst Blue Choice requested average rate increases of 58.8% and 50.4%, respectively, with one Cigna plan within the state requesting up to a (I hope you’re sitting down for this) 150.83% increase in 2018 from the previous year. As in numerous states, CSR uncertainty and a need to significantly boost premiums to account for adverse selection are the primary catalysts behind these large rate-hike requests.

Read More

The Affordable Care Act after Six years

Doug Leave a comment

Excellent summary from the Kaiser Family Foundation that clears up some of the confusion around where the Affordable Care Act fits in the overall healthcare system

By Drew Altman, president and chief executive officer of the Kaiser Family Foundation.

The Affordable Care Act generates so much partisan heat and draws so much media attention that many people may have lost perspective on where this law fits in the overall health system.

The Affordable Care Act is the most important legislation in health care since the passage of Medicare and Medicaid. The law’s singular achievement is that 20 million people who were previously uninsured have health-care coverage. What sets the ACA apart is not only the progress made in covering the uninsured but also the role the law has played rewriting insurance rules to treat millions of sick people more fairly and its provisions reforming provider payment under Medicare. The latter is getting attention throughout the health system.

Still, while the ACA expands coverage and has changed pieces of the health system–including previously dysfunctional aspects of the individual insurance market–it did not attempt to reform the entire health-care system. Medicare, Medicaid, and the employer-based health insurance system each cover many more people. Consider:

Some 12.7 million people have signed up for coverage in the ACA marketplaces, and enrollment in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program has increased by 14.5 million from pre-ACA levels, the Department of Health and Human Services noted in December. By contrast, 72 million people are enrolled in Medicaid and CHIP, 55 million in Medicare, and 150 million are covered through the employer-based health insurance system. The latter is where most Americans get their health coverage (Medicare and Medicaid share 10 million beneficiaries covered by both programs). All these forms of coverage have been affected by the ACA but operate largely independent of it.

In one presidential debate the moderator confused premium increases in ACA marketplaces (some of which are high, though the average is moderate) with premium increases in the much larger employer-based system. The tendency to overattribute developments, both good and bad, to the ACA is a product of super-heated debate about the law.

Given what the law actually does, it is not all that surprising that half of Americans say they have not been affected by it. Kaiser Family Foundation polling consistently finds that while the political world focuses on the ACA, the public is more concerned about rising deductibles and drug prices and other changes in the general insurance marketplace that have been developing with less scrutiny while attention has gone to the ACA. With so much published and said about the ACA since 2010, these and other important issues have received less attention from policy makers, the media, and health-care experts.

The ACA could get hotter before it cools. There is a case on contraception coverage under consideration at the Supreme Court–with oral arguments heard Wednesday–and another big debate about the law is likely if a Republican wins the White House in November. Such a debate would probably involve legislation characterized as “repealing” the ACA, though such a bill is more likely to focus on changes that stop short of rolling back the law’s popular coverage expansions and insurance reforms that benefit tens of millions of Americans.

Read More

This Could Be the Obamacare Outcome we’ve All Been Waiting For

Doug Leave a comment

This often-overlooked long-term goal of Obamacare may be finding the mark according to this latest study from the American Cancer Society.

The third open enrollment period for the Affordable Care Act, best known as Obamacare, has been ongoing for roughly five weeks now. And as seems to be the trend around this time of year, more questions than answers appear to be swirling around healthcare’s law of the land.

Big changes lead to an uncertain future

Obamacare is facing a number of changes in the 2016 calendar year, and, frankly, no one is certain yet how those changes might affect enrollment or patient mix for insurers.

For example, insurance premiums are rising at about their fastest rate in about a decade. The Great Recession held premium rate inflation in check for years, but the failure of more than half of Obamacare’s health cooperatives, coupled with many low-cost insurers coming to the realization that their rates were unsustainably low, are leading to big premium hikes in the upcoming year.

Data from the Washington Examiner showed that 231 insurers requested double-digit percentage premium price hikes in 2016 compared to just 121 in 2015. Furthermore, the magnitude of these hikes — 61 plans are looking for a minimum premium increase of 30% this year — is much higher than 2015. In short, there’s concern that higher premiums could reduce the affordability of the program for those who don’t qualify for a subsidy, leading to a higher uninsured rate.

Meanwhile, the employer mandate will be fully implemented on Jan. 1, 2016. The employer mandate will require that businesses with 50 or more full-time-equivalent employees (FTE’s) offer eligible health coverage to those FTE’s and their dependents under the age of 26, as well as provide financial assistance in instances where low-income FTE’s would be paying more than 9.5% of their modified adjusted gross income out of pocket toward their premium. If qualifying businesses fail to follow the rules, they could be looking at a $2,000 to $3,000 fine per employee.
The big question here is how businesses will respond. Will bigger companies step up and supply health insurance for their workers or will we see layoffs, hour cutbacks, or a move to private health exchanges? Obamacare’s big changes in 2016 are leading to a seemingly uncertain enrollment outlook in the near term.

Obamacare’s incredibly important goal that you probably overlooked

The easiest way to measure the success of Obamacare has always been by its overall enrollment totals. Obamacare was first and foremost designed to reduce the number of uninsured and to utilize the individual mandate and employer mandate to make that happen. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported in Q1 2015 that just 9.2% of U.S. adults remained uninsured, including Medicare patients, which is the lowest figure on record. By this token, Obamacare would appear to be hitting its primary goal.

But there’s an even more important long-term goal that’s often lost on critics when discussing Obamacare’s success or failure — namely, the impact that preventative (and earlier) medical access could have on reducing long-term medical costs.
For insurers, Obamacare is a bit of a give and take. Insurers are enrolling more people than ever, and they’re also being required to accept members with pre-existing conditions. The result is that some insurers, such as the nation’s largest, UnitedHealth Group, are dealing with adverse selection and losing money on their individual marketplace plans because they’ve enrolled a large number of sicker individuals. Even though some of its large peers such asAnthem are healthfully profitable, the margins most insurers are generating on Obamacare plans (if they’re even profitable in the first place) are relatively small.

Now here’s the catch: In exchange for spending more money on their members up front, it’s possible that chronic and serious diseases that are the primary expense culprit for insurance companies can be caught before they become a serious issue. Thus, while health benefit providers may be spending more now than they would like to, their long-term outlook is also looking brighter presuming the current generation of members is now going to be healthier than the last generation given expanded access to medical care.

This could be the outcome we’ve been waiting for.

This last point sounds great on paper, but it’s difficult to prove that Obamacare is really making a dent in lowering long-term healthcare costs, especially since it’s only been the law of the land for about two years. All that consumers and critics can focus on at the moment are the rapidly rising premium prices.

However, a new study from the American Cancer society that was published online in the Journal of the American Medical Association late last month appears to show that there is a correlation between Obamacare’s expansion and a higher rate of cervical cancer diagnoses in select patients.

Researchers from the Department of Epidemiology at Emory University and from the ACS’ Department of Intramural Research analyzed a large database of cancer cases within the United States, separating cervical cancer diagnoses for women ages 21 to 25 in one group from cervical cancer diagnoses in women ages 26 to 34 in the other cohort. The reasoning behind this split? Persons under the age of 26 are still eligible to be covered under their parents’ health plan under Obamacare, and thus the expansion of this dependent clause should give researchers a reasonable correlation of how well Obamacare is affecting the rate of cervical cancer diagnoses.

After examining cervical cancer diagnosis rates for both cohorts before and after the implementation of Obamacare, researchers noted that there was a substantial increase in the number of cervical cancer diagnoses for women ages 21 to 25, whereas the age 26-34 cohort had a relatively consistent number of diagnoses before and after Obamacare’s implementation.

On the surface, a rising rate of cervical cancer diagnoses may not sound good at all. But, in a different context it could be just the news we’ve been hoping for. The key to beating cervical cancer is discovering it early, and presumably being able to stay on their parents’ health plans until age 26 helped the 21- to 25-year-old cohort gain this vital medical access. It’s possible that this early diagnoses not only saved lives, but for insurers that it kept them from shelling out big bucks in mid- to late-stage cancer treatments.

Keep in mind that this is just one example, and one example does not make a trend. However, it’s long been postulated that reducing the barriers to health insurance would lead to a higher medical utilization rate for consumers and a better chance of discovering potentially serious and chronic conditions at an earlier time, thus saving the patients’ lives and cutting insurers’ long-term medical expenses. It’s possible we could be witnessing the first signs of that.

Understandably, we’ll want to see additional studies emerge that examine disease diagnosis and treatment rates in a pre- and post-Obamacare setting so we can make a conclusive ruling as to whether or not Obamacare could actually lower long-term healthcare costs and improve long-term patient survival rates. The initial signs, though, are very encouraging.

Read More

Americans don’t know what’s in Obamacare, do know they don’t like it

admin

By Sarah Kliff, Washington Post

Fifty percent of Americans now say they oppose the Affordable Care Act. This is the highest number that Kaiser Family Foundation’s poll has seen since October 2011, when Republicans were in the midst of a primary cycle and lots of anti-Obamacare rhetoric was in the air. The easiest explanation for the recent upswing in negative sentiment would be that lots of Americans tried, but failed, to buy insurance through HealthCare.gov. They ran into technical barriers that plagued the site in October and November. But Kaiser’s data don’t really bear out that thesis. There’s actually only been a tiny uptick in the number of Americans who say the health-care law has affected their lives over the past three months. A full 59 percent of Americans still report no personal experience with the law. 

Most Americans don’t know that Obamacare has, at this point, pretty much fully taken effect. When surveyed in January, after the insurance expansion began, 18 percent said they thought “all” or “most” provisions of the Affordable Care Act had been put into place.

There’s lots of confusion, too, about what policies are and aren’t part of the health-care law. Most Americans know there’s a mandate to purchase health insurance. A lot fewer are aware that the law provides financial help for low- to middle-income Americans (the tax subsidies) or gives states the option of expanding Medicaid.

For many Americans – particularly the 68 percent who get coverage through their work, Medicare and Medicaid — the launch of the exchanges probably doesn’t affect their coverage situation. They’ll continue getting insurance in 2014 just the same way they did in 2013. For them, an expansion of Medicaid or an end to the denial of coverage for people with pre-existing conditions isn’t a big change (unless, of course, they lose their current coverage).

So what’s driving the negative opinions of Obamacare? The Kaiser survey does point to one potential culprit: negative news coverage. More Americans say they’ve seen stories about people having bad experiences with the Affordable Care Act than good ones.

Politico’s David Nather had a great line on this recently, in a story about the very high bar for success stories about the Affordable Care Act.

“Here’s the challenge the White House faces in telling Obamacare success stories: Try to picture a headline that says, ‘Obamacare does what it’s supposed to do,’ ” Nather writes. “Somehow, the Obama administration and its allies will have to convince news outlets to run those kinds of stories — and to give the happy newly insured the same kind of attention as the outraged complainers whose health plans were canceled because of the law.”

We don’t have a great sense yet of what type of experience Obamacare’s new enrollees are having — whether they’re disproportionately bad or if the bad stories are just more interesting to cover. But the more negative news coverage does seem to have played some role in the recent uptick in negative opinions about the new law.

Read More

How to Charge $546 for Six Liters of Saltwater

Doug

This article exposes some of the ways medical product suppliers and hospitals mark up products, sometimes 1,000 times, to capture profitable revenue from sick patients and their insurance companies.  Another example of all of the players getting caught with their hand in the cookie jar.  Will it ever change?

By NINA BERNSTEIN for the NY TImes
It is one of the most common components of emergency medicine: an intravenous bag of sterile saltwater.

Luckily for anyone who has ever needed an IV bag to replenish lost fluids or to receive medication, it is also one of the least expensive. The average manufacturer’s price, according to government data, has fluctuated in recent years from 44 cents to $1.

Yet there is nothing either cheap or simple about its ultimate cost, as I learned when I tried to trace the commercial path of IV bags from the factory to the veins of more than 100 patients struck by a May 2012 outbreak of food poisoning in upstate New York.

 Some of the patients’ bills would later include markups of 100 to 200 times the manufacturer’s price, not counting separate charges for “IV administration.” And on other bills, a bundled charge for “IV therapy” was almost 1,000 times the official cost of the solution.

It is no secret that medical care in the United States is overpriced. But as the tale of the humble IV bag shows all too clearly, it is secrecy that helps keep prices high: hidden in the underbrush of transactions among multiple buyers and sellers, and in the hieroglyphics of hospital bills.
At every step from manufacturer to patient, there are confidential deals among the major players, including drug companies, purchasing organizations and distributors, and insurers. These deals so obscure prices and profits that even participants cannot say what the simplest component of care actually costs, let alone what it should cost.

And that leaves taxpayers and patients alike with an inflated bottom line and little or no way to challenge it.

A Price in Flux

In the food-poisoning case, some of the stricken were affluent, and others barely made ends meet. Some had private insurance; some were covered by government programs like Medicare and Medicaid; and some were uninsured.

In the end, those factors strongly (and sometimes perversely) affected overall charges for treatment, including how much patients were expected to pay out of pocket. But at the beginning, there was the cost of an IV bag of normal saline, one of more than a billion units used in the United States each year.

“People are shocked when they hear that a bag of saline solution costs far less than their cup of coffee in the morning,” said Deborah Spak, a spokeswoman for Baxter International, one of three global pharmaceutical companies that make nearly all the IV solutions used in the United States.

It was a rare unguarded comment. Ms. Spak — like a spokesman for Hospira, another giant in the field — later insisted that all information about saline solution prices was private.

In fact, manufacturers are required to report such prices annually to the federal government, which bases Medicare payments on the average national price plus 6 percent. The limit for one liter of normal saline (a little more than a quart) went to $1.07 this year from 46 cents in 2010, an increase manufacturers linked to the cost of raw materials, fuel and transportation. That would seem to make it the rare medical item that is cheaper in the United States than in France, where the price at a typical hospital in Paris last year was 3.62 euros, or $4.73.

Middlemen at the Fore

One-liter IV bags normally contain nine grams of salt, less than two teaspoons. Much of it comes from a major Morton Salt operation in Rittman, Ohio, which uses a subterranean salt deposit formed millions of years ago. The water is local to places like Round Lake, Ill., or Rocky Mount, N.C., where Baxter and Hospira, respectively, run their biggest automated production plants under sterility standards set by the Food and Drug Administration.

But even before the finished product is sold by the case or the truckload, the real cost of a bag of normal saline, like the true cost of medical supplies from gauze to heart implants, disappears into an opaque realm of byzantine contracts, confidential rebates and fees that would be considered illegal kickbacks in many other industries.

IV bags can function like cheap milk and eggs in a high-priced grocery store, or like the one-cent cellphone locked into an expensive service contract. They serve as loss leaders in exclusive contracts with “preferred manufacturers” that bundle together expensive drugs and basics, or throw in “free” medical equipment with costly consequences.

Few hospitals negotiate these deals themselves. Instead, they rely on two formidable sets of middlemen: a few giant group-purchasing organizations that negotiate high-volume contracts, and a few giant distributors that buy and store medical supplies and deliver them to hospitals.

Proponents of this system say it saves hospitals billions in economies of scale. Critics say the middlemen not only take their cut, but they have a strong interest in keeping most prices high and competition minimal.

The top three group-purchasing organizations now handle contracts for more than half of all institutional medical supplies sold in the United States, including the IVs used in the food-poisoning case, which were bought and taken by truck to regional warehouses by big distributors.
These contracts proved to be another black box. Debbie Mitchell, a spokeswoman for Cardinal Health, one of the three largest distributors, said she could not discuss costs or prices under “disclosure rules relative to our investor relations.”

Distributors match different confidential prices for the same product with each hospital’s contract, she said, and sell information on the buyers back to manufacturers.

A huge Cardinal distribution center is in Montgomery, N.Y. — only 30 miles, as it happens, from the landscaped grounds of the Buddhist monastery in Carmel, N.Y., where many of the food-poisoning victims fell ill on Mother’s Day 2012.

Among them were families on 10 tour buses that had left Chinatown in Manhattan that morning to watch dragon dances at the monastery. After eating lunch from food stalls there, some traveled on to the designer outlet stores at Woodbury Common, about 30 miles away, before falling sick.

The symptoms were vicious. “Within two hours of eating that rice that I had bought, I was lying on the ground barely conscious,” said Dr. Elizabeth Frost, 73, an anesthesiologist from Purchase in Westchester County who was visiting the monastery gardens with two friends. “I can’t believe no one died.”

About 100 people were taken to hospitals in the region by ambulance; five were admitted and the rest released the same day. The New York State Department of Health later found the cause was a common bacterium, Staphylococcus aureus, from improperly cooked or stored food sold in the stalls.

Mysterious Charges

The sick entered a health care ecosystem under strain, swept by consolidation and past efforts at cost containment.
For more than a decade, hospitals in the Hudson Valley, like those across the country, have scrambled for mergers and alliances to offset economic pressures from all sides. The five hospitals where most of the victims were treated are all part of merged entities jockeying for bargaining power and market share — or worrying that other players will leave them struggling to survive.

The Affordable Care Act encourages these developments as it drives toward a reimbursement system that strives to keep people out of hospitals through more coordinated, cost-efficient care paid on the basis of results, not services. But the billing mysteries in the food poisoning case show how easily cost-cutting can turn into cost-shifting.

A Chinese-American toddler from Brooklyn and her 56-year-old grandmother, treated and released within hours from the emergency room at St. Luke’s Cornwall Hospital, ran up charges of more than $4,000 and were billed for $1,400 — the hospital’s rate for the uninsured, even though the family is covered by a health maintenance organization under Medicaid, the federal-state program for poor people.
The charges included “IV therapy,” billed at $787 for the adult and $393 for the child, which suggests that the difference in the amount of saline infused, typically less than a liter, could alone account for several hundred dollars.

Tricia O’Malley, a spokeswoman for the hospital, would not disclose the price it pays per IV bag or break down the therapy charge, which she called the hospital’s “private pay rate,” or the sticker price charged to people without insurance. She said she could not explain why patients covered by Medicaid were billed at all.

Eventually the head of the family, an electrician’s helper who speaks little English, complained to HealthFirst, the Medicaid H.M.O. It paid $119 to settle the grandmother’s $2,168 bill, without specifying how much of the payment was for the IV. It paid $66.50 to the doctor, who had billed $606.

At White Plains Hospital, a patient with private insurance from Aetna was charged $91 for one unit of Hospira IV that cost the hospital 86 cents, according to a hospital spokeswoman, Eliza O’Neill.

Ms. O’Neill defended the markup as “consistent with industry standards.” She said it reflected “not only the cost of the solution but a variety of related services and processes,” like procurement, biomedical handling and storage, apparently not included in a charge of $127 for administering the IV and $893 for emergency-room services.

The patient, a financial services professional in her 50s, ended up paying $100 for her visit. “Honestly, I don’t understand the system at all,” said the woman, who shared the information on the condition that she not be named.

Dr. Frost, the anesthesiologist, spent three days in the same hospital and owed only $8, thanks to insurance coverage by United HealthCare. Still, she was baffled by the charges: $6,844, including $546 for six liters of saline that cost the hospital $5.16.
“It’s just absolutely absurd.” she said. “That’s saltwater.”

Last fall, I appealed to the New York State Department of Health for help in mapping the charges for rehydrating patients in the food poisoning episode. Deploying software normally used to detect Medicaid fraud, a team compiled a chart of what Medicaid and Medicare were billed in six of the cases.

But the department has yet to release the chart. It is under indefinite review, Bill Schwarz, a department spokesman, said, “to ensure confidential information is not compromised.”

Read More

For Obamacare, Some Hurdles Still Ahead

Doug

President Obama and his advisers hope the healthcare overhaul will do two things. The first is to extend coverage to tens of millions of Americans who today lack health insurance. The second is to hold the line on rising health care costs. This article describes some hurdles to achieving those two goals. While you are enjoying a vacation this summer, hopefully you will have time to ponder the impacts Health Care Reform will have on you and your family.

By Eduardo Porter, NY Times

Like other big employers, in the mid-1990s Harvard University was struggling with the ballooning cost of providing health insurance.
It chose what was a novel solution for the time. It dropped its standard deal — a subsidy that rose in line with the price of the insurance policy — and switched some 10,000 workers on its payroll to a fixed subsidy that encouraged them to shop around for care.

For Harvard’s accountants, the change worked wonders. A study a couple of years later by David M. Cutler, a Harvard economist, and Sarah Reber, a Harvard graduate, concluded that competition among insurers cut the university’s health bill by 5 to 8 percent.
But not everybody was equally pleased. Families of workers who chose the Preferred Provider Organization offered by Blue Cross/Blue Shield — the most comprehensive plan, with lots of doctors and hospitals on its network — faced a $500-a-year jump in their out-of-pocket spending on health care.

Younger and healthier workers canceled their P.P.O. plans, enrolling in cheaper H.M.O. options or dropping Harvard insurance altogether. Left with a sicker patient base, the P.P.O. raised its premiums further, which prompted the next layer of relatively healthy customers to leave.
And so on. In 1997, Blue Cross/Blue Shield withdrew its P.P.O. from the market, making it a victim of what economists call the death spiral of adverse selection.

In a couple of months the nation is set to experience a similar shock on a very large scale: the greatest change in how Americans pay for health care since the advent of Medicare nearly half a century ago.

Come October, millions of uninsured people will be able to choose one of several health plans, offered at four different tiers of service and cost through new health exchanges coming onstream in every state.

Cheap “bronze” plans will shoulder some 60 percent of patients’ medical expenses. Pricey “platinum” plans will cover at least 90 percent. But insurers will not be allowed to exclude people with pre-existing conditions, or charge more for the sick, or put a lifetime cap on medical costs. Their policies will have to cover a minimum standard of medical care. And the government will subsidize those who cannot afford to buy the policies.

President Obama and his advisers hope the overhaul will do two things. The first is to extend coverage to tens of millions of Americans who today lack health insurance. The second is to hold the line on rising health care costs.

“Over time, success will depend on what happens to the cost curve,” Professor Cutler told me. “If we don’t bend the cost curve, everything will fail. The government won’t be able to afford it. Nobody will be able to afford it.”

In theory, the overhaul could meet both goals. Millions of new Americans armed with a subsidy and shopping among plans would bring consumer choice to bear, finally, on the health care industry. Insurers would compete to create policies that offered the most value for money, pressuring hospitals and doctors on behalf of all of us.

Yet despite the care the administration took in establishing incentives and safeguards, even some of Obamacare’s most committed backers are wondering whether the experiment will work as advertised — or, like Harvard’s P.P.O., go off the rails along the way.

Adverse selection is perhaps the direst threat. For Obamacare to work, millions of healthy, young, uninsured Americans must join a health plan to counterbalance the sicker millions who are most likely to buy insurance. Otherwise, health plans on the exchanges will have to raise premiums to shoulder the higher costs.

(more…)

Read More

Healthcare Costs Top $20K Per Family

J Roberts

Here’s some more discouraging news: Healthcare for a family of four now costs as much as small family sedan. For many consumers the price to pay is too much. Even employers are grappling with rise in costs as they struggle to provide healthcare benefits to employees. Read the below article to learn just how much the cost of healthcare has risen in the past few years.

 

Margaret Dick Tocknell, for HealthLeaders Media , May 16, 2012

The national annual cost of medical care for a typical family of four with PPO coverage has edged up over $20,000 for the first time, according to the actuarial and consulting firm, Milliman.

The 2012 Milliman Medical Index estimates the annual cost at $20,728. That’s a record $1,335 increase in the total cost of care compared with 2011, and the first time the cost has notched above the $20K mark since Milliman started reporting on these costs twelve years ago. Through a combination of copayments, deductions, and premiums, the prototypical family of four will be responsible for a record share—42%—of its medical costs.

A combination of factors is driving the increase, including the comparative lack of control insurers exert on outpatients costs, a slowdown in hospital bed utilization, and the cost of technology in patient care, explains Chris Girod, principal and consulting actuary in Milliman’s San Diego office and a co-author of the report.

The good news? The pace of the increase is slowing. The 6.9% increase in total costs is the lowest annual rate of increase in more than a decade.

The MMI is comprised of five components: inpatient facility care, outpatient facility care, physician services, pharmacy, and miscellaneous other.

Among the MMI findings:

Outpatient facility costs posted its first single digit increase, 8.6%, in four years, but for the fifth year that increase outpaced all the other MMI components.

Outpatient facility care costs totaled $3,699, or 18% of a family of four’s annual healthcare bill. Girod explains that the level of insurer control is improving under contractual discount arrangements, but still isn’t on par with inpatient controls.

Inpatient facility utilization or the number of inpatient days for a covered population in a year has remained unchanged for several years. However, the patients who are hospitalized tend to require more intensive and expensive services that have helped boost the cost of treatment contributing to a 7.6% increase in the average charge per day costs.

Physician care costs reversed a four-year trend and increased by 5%. Girod says a number of things may have contributed to this cost bump, including evidence of some pushback by physicians in their contract negotiations with health plans.

Hospital inpatient costs ($6,531) and physician costs ($6,647) each account for 32% of a family of four’s total annual healthcare bill.

Pharmacy costs continued their roller coaster ride of cost increases and exceeded $3,000 for the first time. The 7.3% increase is down slightly from 2011’s 8%, but a significant increase over 2010’s 6%. Pharmacy costs totaled $3,056 or 15% of the family’s total annual healthcare bill. Girod says that while the shift to generics has helped slowed the growth in pharmacy costs, the expense of specialty drugs will have a growing impact on this cost trend.

The cost of miscellaneous other services such as durable medical equipment, ambulance services and home health posted a 6.7% increase to $795.

In addition to looking at costs on a nationwide basis, for the last five years the Index has looked at comparative healthcare costs in the same 14 cities across the country, including Chicago, Denver, and Los Angeles.

With a current annual cost of $24,965, Miami has topped the list for five years. Girod explains that Miami has a large number of healthcare practitioners and capacity helps drive the demand for healthcare services. Also, the practice of defensive medicine is more prevalent in the Miami area.

Phoenix was the least expensive with a cost of $18,365 for a family of four.

For the 2012 study, healthcare costs in 11 of the 14 cities exceeded $20,000 annually for a typical family of four. In 2011 only six of the 14 cities posted costs in excess of $20,000. While that could suggest an easing in the geographic differences in the cost of healthcare, Girod says a more likely explanation is that “the entire scale is shifting up, both at the bottom and the top, so we just ended up with more cities over that $20,000 threshold.”

The report notes that so far the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has had “only a limited effect on total healthcare costs for the illustrative family of four.”

Read More