On Health Care, the Devil’s in the Details

By Uwe E. Reinhardt
The New York Times
September 3, 2010
The recently passed Affordable Care Act requires heath insurance issuers to use at least some minimum fraction of revenue from the premiums it receives on medical services. While the idea might sound straightforward, this fraction, known as the “medical-loss ratio,” is open to all sorts of creative arithmetic, and you can bet that interest groups from every corner are trying to get the math to add up in their favor.
Under the new law,  health insurers are supposed to spend at least 85 percent of premiums collected from large groups of insured on something defined as “medical benefits and activities that improve health care quality.” For small groups and individually sold policies, the standard is lower, at 80 percent.
Put yourself in the shoes of the health care providers.
They would like to put as many of an insurer’s outlays – other than provider payments – as can be justified into the denominators as “selling or administrative expense.” That would put pressure on insurers to increase payments to providers or to spend less on administration to meet the ratio requirement. Therefore, providers typically plead for a very narrow definition of an insurer’s outlays for “health care quality improvement” that, by statute, are to go into the numerator.
Health insurers, on the other hand, would like to pack as many of their outlays as possible into the numerator of the ratio.
In a letter to the commissioners, the president of America’s Health Insurance Plans, which represents about 1,300 member companies that provide insurance for more than 200 million Americans, pleads for inclusion in “activities to improve health care quality” such items as fraud prevention and detection, utilization review, costs associated with administrative simplification and health-information technology expenses, and the cost of implementing the new International Classification of Diseases, or ICD-10, codes.
Finally, there are the commissions that insurers pay to brokers, who currently play an important role in the small-group and individual market for health insurers.
The commissions usually range between 4 and 8 percent of the premium, depending on the state, but sometimes are 20 percent of the premium in the first year of a policy before dropping to the normal range.
How these commissions are incorporated into the ratio can have a significant impact on the economics of insurance brokers, whose future role in health care is of great concern to the commissioners.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/03/on-health-care-the-devils-in-the-details/

My response, also posted at the link here:
10.  Don McCanne, San Juan Capistrano, CA
September 3rd, 2010
Focusing on narrow issues such as whether the administrative cost of brokers’ fees somehow represents patient care or quality improvement as opposed to being an administrative expense distracts us from the much more important overriding issue of the profound administrative waste throughout our health care system that is related to the dysfunctional, fragmented manner in which we allocate health care spending.
The first consideration is the administrative cost of the private insurers. Should we really be allocating 15 to 20 percent of the insurance premiums to the private insurers for them to use for their own intrinsic purposes – funds that never make it to paying for health care? When you consider the very high health care expenditures in our nation, 15 to 20 percent is a huge allocation for non-medical purposes.
Another very important diversion of health care dollars is the cost of the administrative burden placed on hospitals and physicians merely to deal with our fragmented system of a multitude of public and private plans – especially in claims processing, including not only the protracted process of managing disputed claims, but also other administrative diversions such as negotiating and managing insurance company contracts.
This administrative burden on the providers has been estimated to consume about 12 percent of premium dollars. Thus the combined administrative costs merely for the insurance function will be about 27 to 32 percent of the insurance premium – a very high percentage of our very high priced system. That does not include all of the other essential administrative functions that hospitals and physicians face. What a waste!
It is unfortunate that consideration of a single publicly-financed and publicly-administered financing system was excluded before the reform negotiations began. Such a financing system – a single payer or an improved Medicare for all – would have dramatically reduced this profound administrative waste.
Even more important, a single financing system would have created our own public monopsony (single buyer of health care) in which we could ensure that we would be receiving maximum value in our health care purchasing – avoiding excessively high prices while ensuring that enough funds are available to maintain adequate capacity in the system. That is the cost control that we really need. And, oh yes… everyone is included!
Wasn’t that the goal of reform? Cover everyone and control costs?

The Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and Educational Trust
September 2, 2010

The average annual premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance in 2010 are $5,049 for single coverage and $13,770 for family coverage.

Twenty percent of covered workers are in plans with an annual total premium for family coverage of at least $16,524 (120% of the average premium).

Covered workers on average contribute 19% of the total premium for single coverage (up from 17% in 2009) and 30% for family coverage (up from 27% in 2009).

Fifty-one percent of workers with family coverage pay more than 25% of the total premium.

Among workers with a deductible, the average general annual deductible for single coverage is $675 for workers in PPOs, $601 for workers in HMOs, $1,048 for workers in POS plans, and $1,903 for workers in HDHP/SOs.

For the last two years we have asked employers about changes that they made to their health benefits in response to the poor economy. Among large firms (200 or more workers), 38% reported reducing the scope of benefits or increasing cost sharing, up from 22% in 2009, while 36% reported increasing their workers’ premium share, up from 22% in 2009.

Tracking whether and how worker out-of-pocket costs continue to grow will be an important focus for the survey over the next few years. The slow economic recovery and continuing high unemployment suggests that this trend of increasing out-of-pocket costs will persist, as workers have little clout to demand better benefits or lower costs in the current labor environment.

http://ehbs.kff.org/pdf/2010/8086.pdf

Full report (226 pages):
http://ehbs.kff.org/pdf/2010/8085.pdf

Comment: 

By Don McCanne, MD

By design, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) will have the least impact on employer-sponsored health plans. Congress did not want to disturb these plans that seemed to be working reasonably well, in that they covered more of us than all other programs, and were already generously funded with employer contributions. This annual report on employer health benefits is even more relevant this year since Congress, through PPACA, has deemed that we will be living with these plans for decades to come.

The report brings us terrible news. Premiums continue to rise at intolerable rates, and more of the premium costs are being shifted to the employees. Employers also are requiring greater cost sharing on the part of their employees, especially in the form of higher deductibles. Employees are paying more for less protection.

With the poor economy employees need greater relief, yet employers are seeking relief for themselves by placing an even greater financial burden on their own employees.

This is a one-way trend. Employers will continue to seek ways to reduce the costs of their health benefit programs, and an ever increasing amount of the burden will be borne by the employees. Should we really be leaving these decisions in the hands of the employers?

Drew Altman, president and CEO of the Kaiser Family Foundation, said, “The new law helps a lot of people in a lot of ways… but in general it left employer-based coverage alone. That is what the politics of health care dictated and what the American people asked for.” (Kaiser Health News, Sep 2)

If Americans really prefer their employer-sponsored plans, then why are they so relieved when they get to go on Medicare? How much more burden will Americans have to bear before they change the politics and start demanding Medicare for all?

Employer Health Benefits

The Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and Educational Trust
September 2, 2010
The average annual premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance in 2010 are $5,049 for single coverage and $13,770 for family coverage.
Twenty percent of covered workers are in plans with an annual total premium for family coverage of at least $16,524 (120% of the average premium).
Covered workers on average contribute 19% of the total premium for single coverage (up from 17% in 2009) and 30% for family coverage (up from 27% in 2009).
Fifty-one percent of workers with family coverage pay more than 25% of the total premium.
Among workers with a deductible, the average general annual deductible for single coverage is $675 for workers in PPOs, $601 for workers in HMOs, $1,048 for workers in POS plans, and $1,903 for workers in HDHP/SOs.
For the last two years we have asked employers about changes that they made to their health benefits in response to the poor economy. Among large firms (200 or more workers), 38% reported reducing the scope of benefits or increasing cost sharing, up from 22% in 2009, while 36% reported increasing their workers’ premium share, up from 22% in 2009.
Tracking whether and how worker out-of-pocket costs continue to grow will be an important focus for the survey over the next few years. The slow economic recovery and continuing high unemployment suggests that this trend of increasing out-of-pocket costs will persist, as workers have little clout to demand better benefits or lower costs in the current labor environment.
http://ehbs.kff.org/pdf/2010/8086.pdf
Full report (226 pages):
http://ehbs.kff.org/pdf/2010/8085.pdf

By design, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) will have the least impact on employer-sponsored health plans. Congress did not want to disturb these plans that seemed to be working reasonably well, in that they covered more of us than all other programs, and were already generously funded with employer contributions. This annual report on employer health benefits is even more relevant this year since Congress, through PPACA, has deemed that we will be living with these plans for decades to come.
The report brings us terrible news. Premiums continue to rise at intolerable rates, and more of the premium costs are being shifted to the employees. Employers also are requiring greater cost sharing on the part of their employees, especially in the form of higher deductibles. Employees are paying more for less protection.
With the poor economy employees need greater relief, yet employers are seeking relief for themselves by placing an even greater financial burden on their own employees.
This is a one-way trend. Employers will continue to seek ways to reduce the costs of their health benefit programs, and an ever increasing amount of the burden will be borne by the employees. Should we really be leaving these decisions in the hands of the employers?
Drew Altman, president and CEO of the Kaiser Family Foundation, said, “The new law helps a lot of people in a lot of ways… but in general it left employer-based coverage alone. That is what the politics of health care dictated and what the American people asked for.” (Kaiser Health News, Sep 2)
If Americans really prefer their employer-sponsored plans, then why are they so relieved when they get to go on Medicare? How much more burden will Americans have to bear before they change the politics and start demanding Medicare for all?

By Don McCanne
September 1, 2010
Speaker John Perez of the California State Assembly, on the very last day of the legislative session, pulled SB 810, the single payer bill, from the Assembly floor.
This highly unusual move of pulling a bill that had cleared all legislative hurdles except for the final Assembly floor vote was to protect Democrats from having to cast a health care reform vote in a difficult political environment three months before the next election.
Democrats feared a backlash from those who are opposed to the recently enacted federal health care legislation should they vote for the bill, and they feared offending their progressive base should they vote against the bill. Since a veto by Gov. Schwarzenegger was a given, it was decided that it would be safer to avoid the political risks by simply pulling the bill.
But did they really avoid that risk? Are the single payer advocates expendable? Don’t think so.
Fortunately, Senator Mark Leno is not to be deterred. He has vowed to reintroduce the bill in the next legislative session which begins in January.
The Democrats are worried about their political base, but maybe that’s not the framing we should be looking at. Perhaps the single payer advocates should be reassessing their own base instead.
Not all Democrats have been supportive of single payer, and several Republicans who are not part of the prevailing lock-step bloc do understand the benefits of the single payer model. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is proof that we can’t rely on the Democrats to do the right thing. Most importantly, everyone understands the benefits of Medicare as a social insurance program (even if there is a fringe reactionary element that would emasculate it).
The Tea Party is proving that passionate voices can be heard. Maybe we can learn from them, though our message should contain more than simple platitudes. Our message needs to convey the principled substance of health care justice, and it needs to be loud, clear and highly infectious.

By Drew Armstrong
Bloomberg
August 26, 2010

Health insurers led by WellPoint Inc. are backing Republicans with campaign donations by an 8-to-1 margin, favoring the party that’s promised to repeal President Barack Obama’s health-care overhaul if it wins back Congress.

WellPoint, Humana, Aetna, Cigna and UnitedHealth Group Inc. have also been considering a $20 million-plus campaign fund to reward friends and punish enemies in Congress. That fund would target vulnerable Democrats who have spoken out against the industry, and would support candidates who are likely to argue for the industry’s positions during future debate on the health overhaul.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-26/health-insurer-cash-shifts-to-favor-republicans-before-november-elections.html

Comment:

By Don McCanne, MD

With private insurers supporting Republicans by an 8-to-1 margin, there is no question but that the insurers are supporting their own financial interests, regardless of the negative impact on people who need health care.

The Republicans remain opposed to all forms of social insurance that would make health care accessible and affordable for everyone (not that the Democrats did much better this time around). Instead Republicans support measures such as high-deductible health plans, health savings accounts, elimination of mandated benefits such as mental health and maternity care, and promoting interstate sale of less regulated, Spartan plans.

Insurers prefer these plans because they are the most profitable. Many individuals in the large healthy sector of our population tend to prefer these plans because the premiums are lower. Unfortunately for the sick, these plans shift a burdensome amount of the health care costs to the patients in need, not to mention the fact that the insurers have been relatively successful in avoiding these higher-cost individuals in the first place.

Republicans support these proposals because of their ideological stance, believing that each person should be responsible for their own welfare, making exceptions only for those who are the most destitute, not of their own making. They oppose the social solidarity of “collectivist” approaches such as universal insurance programs, whether public or private.

A distinction should be made between the current, lock-step, obstructionist, party-of-NO Republicans, and the nearly extinct species of progressive Republican – many of whom have become independent. It is this obstructionist Republican bloc that serves so well the interests of the private insurers.

It’s sad that the Democrats got into bed with these people. The Democrats ended up supporting the right-wing private insurance model of Mitt Romney and the Heritage Foundation to appease the Republicans and the private insurers. That resulted in the enactment of a terribly flawed program that will not adequately control costs, and will leave tens of millions uninsured and many more underinsured.

The insurers now want to send us more of these reactionary politicians. Aren’t there enough of us who care about the health of all of our people to step up and counter this? Or is it merely all words (for the pollsters), and no action (on behalf of those with health care needs)?

Where are our activists?

Health Insurer Cash Shifts to Favor Republicans Before Election

By Drew Armstrong
Bloomberg
August 26, 2010
Health insurers led by WellPoint Inc. are backing Republicans with campaign donations by an 8-to-1 margin, favoring the party that’s promised to repeal President Barack Obama’s health-care overhaul if it wins back Congress.
WellPoint, Humana, Aetna, Cigna and UnitedHealth Group Inc. have also been considering a $20 million-plus campaign fund to reward friends and punish enemies in Congress. That fund would target vulnerable Democrats who have spoken out against the industry, and would support candidates who are likely to argue for the industry’s positions during future debate on the health overhaul.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-26/health-insurer-cash-shifts-to-favor-republicans-before-november-elections.html

With private insurers supporting Republicans by an 8-to-1 margin, there is no question but that the insurers are supporting their own financial interests, regardless of the negative impact on people who need health care.
The Republicans remain opposed to all forms of social insurance that would make health care accessible and affordable for everyone (not that the Democrats did much better this time around). Instead Republicans support measures such as high-deductible health plans, health savings accounts, elimination of mandated benefits such as mental health and maternity care, and promoting interstate sale of less regulated, Spartan plans.
Insurers prefer these plans because they are the most profitable. Many individuals in the large healthy sector of our population tend to prefer these plans because the premiums are lower. Unfortunately for the sick, these plans shift a burdensome amount of the health care costs to the patients in need, not to mention the fact that the insurers have been relatively successful in avoiding these higher-cost individuals in the first place.
Republicans support these proposals because of their ideological stance, believing that each person should be responsible for their own welfare, making exceptions only for those who are the most destitute, not of their own making. They oppose the social solidarity of “collectivist” approaches such as universal insurance programs, whether public or private.
A distinction should be made between the current, lock-step, obstructionist, party-of-NO Republicans, and the nearly extinct species of progressive Republican – many of whom have become independent. It is this obstructionist Republican bloc that serves so well the interests of the private insurers.
It’s sad that the Democrats got into bed with these people. The Democrats ended up supporting the right-wing private insurance model of Mitt Romney and the Heritage Foundation to appease the Republicans and the private insurers. That resulted in the enactment of a terribly flawed program that will not adequately control costs, and will leave tens of millions uninsured and many more underinsured.
The insurers now want to send us more of these reactionary politicians. Aren’t there enough of us who care about the health of all of our people to step up and counter this? Or is it merely all words (for the pollsters), and no action (on behalf of those with health care needs)?
Where are our activists?

By Jessica Marcy
Kaiser Health News
August 27, 2010

Under federal rules, most people with disabilities who are younger than 65 aren’t eligible for Medicare until more than two years after they qualify for Social Security disability income. A coalition of more than 65 organizations led by the Medicare Rights Center has been pushing Congress to do away with the waiting period. But the effort has stalled because of the high cost to the federal government – an estimated $113 billion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That takes into account a $32 billion reduction in federal spending on Medicaid, the state-federal program for the poor and the disabled. Many people with disabilities go on Medicaid while they wait to become eligible for Medicare.

When Medicare expanded in 1972 to cover the disabled, Congress created the waiting period to help control costs and ensure that only people with severe, ongoing disabilities received coverage. About 17 percent of Medicare’s total 47 million beneficiaries – just over 8 million people in 2010 – receive disability benefits, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Still, the patient groups are pushing to end the Medicare waiting period because many people may still need government help. Currently, nearly 39 percent of patients are uninsured for at least some of the time during the Medicare two-year waiting period while 26 percent have no insurance for the entire time.

Discarding the Medicare waiting period “is always going to be an issue in Congress,” said Edmund Haislmaier, senior health policy research fellow at the Heritage Foundation. “Some of it is money, some of it is politics, too. For members of Congress, irrespective of party or where they stand on the issue, it’s kind of all-or-nothing because if they did it for some diseases, then they’re immediately going to be inundated with ‘Why didn’t you do it for us?'”

Joseph Antos, health care policy scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, said that a total elimination of the waiting period was not going to happen. “Across the board eliminating the two years just doesn’t seem practical,” he said. “This really is a money issue.”

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2010/August/27/huntington-waiting-period.aspx

Comment: 

By Don McCanne, MD

When Congress expanded Medicare to cover individuals under 65 with long-term disabilities, they specified a two year waiting period to be certain that only those with truly permanent disabilities would be admitted to the program. Obviously this creates a hardship for precisely those for whom the eligibility was established. Will the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) adequately address this injustice?

PPACA did not include any adjustments in the two year waiting period. Consequently different groups representing specific chronic disorders are lobbying for exceptions to the two year wait. Even if some of these groups achieve legislative success, it will not help the others who must wait the two years.

Since many lose their insurance and their income during that two year wait, some may become eligible for the expanded Medicaid program. Yesterday’s message explained how Medicaid may leave those with chronic disorders underinsured with impaired outcomes, so this is certainly not a satisfactory solution. Besides, many with inadequate incomes may still fall above the threshold for Medicaid eligibility.

For those who lose their insurance during the two year wait, the individual mandate would require that they purchase private plans. Even with premium subsidies, these plans may still not be affordable. Besides, their low actuarial values will not provide adequate protection for these individuals with high health care costs, even with out-of-pocket spending subsidies.

PPACA included the CLASS Act (Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Act) designed to provide long-term care insurance. Though you might think that this provides an out, there are significant problems with CLASS. The program is voluntary and the individual must pay premiums for five years before benefits are available. That alone will exclude those with modest incomes who might consider the premiums to be unaffordable, especially for a program they can’t use for five years and may never need. Furthermore, the benefits are anticipated to be quite meager and likely will provide only a modest daily cash benefit. The CLASS Act will not fulfill the insurance need for the two year gap.

The comments from the representatives of the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute describe the real hurdles: politics and money. It’s not that we can’t find the money, but the anti-government politics of today is driven by the philosophy that the government has been drained dry so that no funds are available. That is ridiculous. Our national health expenditures are already adequate, but the funds are inequitably and inefficiently distributed. We need more government involvement, not less, in providing stewardship over our health care funds.

The two year waiting period is yet one more example of the profound injustices inherent in our fragmented, dysfunctional health care financing system – a unsound and iniquitous system perpetuated by Congress through the enactment of PPACA. All of this evil nonsense would go away if they instead would enact a single payer, improved Medicare for all.

Groups Press Congress To End Patients’ Wait For Medicare

By Jessica Marcy
Kaiser Health News
August 27, 2010
Under federal rules, most people with disabilities who are younger than 65 aren’t eligible for Medicare until more than two years after they qualify for Social Security disability income. A coalition of more than 65 organizations led by the Medicare Rights Center has been pushing Congress to do away with the waiting period. But the effort has stalled because of the high cost to the federal government – an estimated $113 billion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That takes into account a $32 billion reduction in federal spending on Medicaid, the state-federal program for the poor and the disabled. Many people with disabilities go on Medicaid while they wait to become eligible for Medicare.
When Medicare expanded in 1972 to cover the disabled, Congress created the waiting period to help control costs and ensure that only people with severe, ongoing disabilities received coverage. About 17 percent of Medicare’s total 47 million beneficiaries – just over 8 million people in 2010 – receive disability benefits, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Still, the patient groups are pushing to end the Medicare waiting period because many people may still need government help. Currently, nearly 39 percent of patients are uninsured for at least some of the time during the Medicare two-year waiting period while 26 percent have no insurance for the entire time.
Discarding the Medicare waiting period “is always going to be an issue in Congress,” said Edmund Haislmaier, senior health policy research fellow at the Heritage Foundation. “Some of it is money, some of it is politics, too. For members of Congress, irrespective of party or where they stand on the issue, it’s kind of all-or-nothing because if they did it for some diseases, then they’re immediately going to be inundated with ‘Why didn’t you do it for us?'”
Joseph Antos, health care policy scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, said that a total elimination of the waiting period was not going to happen. “Across the board eliminating the two years just doesn’t seem practical,” he said. “This really is a money issue.”
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2010/August/27/huntington-waiting-period.aspx

When Congress expanded Medicare to cover individuals under 65 with long-term disabilities, they specified a two year waiting period to be certain that only those with truly permanent disabilities would be admitted to the program. Obviously this creates a hardship for precisely those for whom the eligibility was established. Will the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) adequately address this injustice?
PPACA did not include any adjustments in the two year waiting period. Consequently different groups representing specific chronic disorders are lobbying for exceptions to the two year wait. Even if some of these groups achieve legislative success, it will not help the others who must wait the two years.
Since many lose their insurance and their income during that two year wait, some may become eligible for the expanded Medicaid program. Yesterday’s message explained how Medicaid may leave those with chronic disorders underinsured with impaired outcomes, so this is certainly not a satisfactory solution. Besides, many with inadequate incomes may still fall above the threshold for Medicaid eligibility.
For those who lose their insurance during the two year wait, the individual mandate would require that they purchase private plans. Even with premium subsidies, these plans may still not be affordable. Besides, their low actuarial values will not provide adequate protection for these individuals with high health care costs, even with out-of-pocket spending subsidies.
PPACA included the CLASS Act (Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Act) designed to provide long-term care insurance. Though you might think that this provides an out, there are significant problems with CLASS. The program is voluntary and the individual must pay premiums for five years before benefits are available. That alone will exclude those with modest incomes who might consider the premiums to be unaffordable, especially for a program they can’t use for five years and may never need. Furthermore, the benefits are anticipated to be quite meager and likely will provide only a modest daily cash benefit. The CLASS Act will not fulfill the insurance need for the two year gap.
The comments from the representatives of the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute describe the real hurdles: politics and money. It’s not that we can’t find the money, but the anti-government politics of today is driven by the philosophy that the government has been drained dry so that no funds are available. That is ridiculous. Our national health expenditures are already adequate, but the funds are inequitably and inefficiently distributed. We need more government involvement, not less, in providing stewardship over our health care funds.
The two year waiting period is yet one more example of the profound injustices inherent in our fragmented, dysfunctional health care financing system – a unsound and iniquitous system perpetuated by Congress through the enactment of PPACA. All of this evil nonsense would go away if they instead would enact a single payer, improved Medicare for all.