Code Red: Two Economists Examine the U.S. Healthcare System

By David Dranove and Craig Garthwaite
Narrow Networks Redux, July 29, 2014

The Affordable Care Act is premised, at least in part, on the notion that competition can be harnessed to reduce healthcare costs and improve quality.

When most people think about the benefits of competition, they tend to think about prices. Monopolies charge high prices; competitors charge low prices. There is nothing wrong with this perspective, but it misses a more fundamental point. In the long run, the greatest benefit of competition is that it has the potential to fuel innovation.

This is as true, in theory, for health insurers as it is for telecommunications and consumer electronics. It hasn’t always been true in practice; for several decades after the IRS made employer-sponsored health insurance tax deductible, insurers tended to offer the same costly indemnity products. But consumers eventually demanded lower premiums, and insurers responded with managed care. After the backlash, insurers developed high deductible health plans and value based insurance design. Insurers are now moving towards reference pricing. These plans offer consumers reimbursement up to a pre-specified level for treatments that can be easily broken into a treatment episode such as hip replacements or MRIs.

High deductibles and reference pricing are fine, but do not always work in practice. Chronically ill patients quickly exhaust their deductibles, and reference pricing does not work well for chronic diseases. In order to complement these tactics, some insurers are once again offering narrow network plans. We commented in earlier blog posts that the ACA would catalyze the return of these narrow networks and also warned that this might fuel another backlash. Unfortunately, a recent New York Times article shows, the backlash is well underway.

Make no mistake, restrictive networks are essential to cost containment. Through narrow networks, insurers can negotiate lower prices. More importantly, they can direct enrollees to providers who have lower overall costs and higher quality. Dranove has written two books about this. Don’t take his word for it. The independent Robert Wood Johnson Foundation has published two comprehensive studies showing that the competition triggered by networks has been successful in reducing costs and improving quality.

By definition, some providers are excluded from narrow networks, and this is where the trouble begins. Excluded providers who have lost out in the cauldron of competition always complain the loudest. We should have no sympathy for them.

What about patients? Some patients knowingly choose health plans with narrow networks in order to save money, and should not be surprised to find that some of their favorite providers are excluded. Others may be in the dark about their networks. The solution isn’t to regulate narrow networks out of existence; it is to shine some light on network structure.

Another concern may be that low income enrollees who cannot afford broader networks might be at a disadvantage. But if we want to provide big enough subsidies so that all enrollees have broad networks, we will have to either (a) raise taxes further, or (b) limit the number of uninsured we can enroll. Neither choice seems better than the status quo.

Now, this does not mean that we think there is no place for regulation of narrow network plans. We don’t think that the newly formed ACA exchanges, or any market, should be the proverbial Wild West. For example, if we want consumers to make educated choices across insurance plans, then they require timely and accurate information about which providers are in which networks. We would think this would be more than feasible, though healthcare.gov was somehow unable to provide this information to many of the initial enrollees. We understand that providers go in and out of networks all the time and it would be burdensome for insurers to inform enrollees of all network changes in real time. But insurers could provide regular updates. We also wonder if insurers have the capability of identifying, through billing records, when a particular patient’s provider has gone out of network, and sending that patient an immediate update. In these situations, patients should be allowed to change their choice of plans outside of the open enrollment period in the same way they might be able to if they had another qualifying event such as the birth of a child.

In addition, narrow network plans are only effective if there are multiple high quality providers offering services in an area. Given the recent wave of provider consolidations, it is critical that anti-trust authorities carefully monitor these mergers. After all, competition can only work in truly competitive markets.

But what we must avoid is mandating broader access. This would spell the end of market-based health reform. If insurers cannot exclude some providers, then providers have little incentive to lower prices and become more efficient.

Many states have already attempted to mandate minimum access through Any Willing Provider laws. These laws require insurers who have come to terms with a specific provider to accept all providers who agree to those same terms. This may sound fair, but the economic implications of AWP for patients are anything but fair. Under AWP, no providers need negotiate with insurers or accede to an insurer’s request for discounts. Providers can bide their time, knowing that they can always force their way into the network. Having lost all their leverage, insurers can no longer demand discounts, and prices invariably rise.

The push for broad access seems to be especially strong in sparsely populated states such as Montana. But proposals to assure access, which often take the form “At least X% of enrollees must live within Y miles of a provider” do more to drive up costs than any other rules we can imagine, because they grant effective monopoly rights to rural providers. Insurers facing such rules have two options (a) accede to the pricing demands of the local monopolies, or (b) drop coverage in areas where providers have been granted local monopolies. Montanans may as well have nationalized healthcare.

Narrow Networks Redux

****

Comment:

By Don McCanne, MD

This blog entry by David Dranove and Craig Garthwaite is another example, like yesterday’s, where economists from “the other side” clearly understand the policy issues, but are guided by an ideological preference for market solutions as opposed to more effective government solutions.

Narrow networks do terrible things. As these authors state, narrow networks provoke backlashes from patients who are unhappy with the restrictions. Healthy individuals select their plans primarily based on price but then are disappointed when they find that the networks are unable to meet either their needs or their choices. The narrow networks become anti-competitive when excluded providers leave the community and are not available for the next year of provider contracting. The authors point out that requiring the providers to be within a reason distance from patients drives up costs, as if cost containment is far more important than access. With the inevitable changes in patient plan enrollment and in provider network enrollment, narrow networks can be highly disruptive because of the need to leave your established care and enter new narrow networks. Perhaps worst of all, the authors state that “low income enrollees who cannot afford broader networks might be at a disadvantage.” But then they state that if we are to broaden the networks we must “either (a) raise taxes further, or (b) limit the number of uninsured we can enroll,” as if there were absolutely no other option for containing costs that did not involve narrow networks. They seem to believe that the trade-off is worth the cost of disadvantaging low income enrollees.

They contend that “restrictive networks are essential to cost containment,” after making the case that other market tools of competition have been inadequate. But ideology dictates that market competition must be the driving force for cost containment. They caution that mandating broader access “would spell the end of market-based health reform.”

The case they make for Montana seems to be the clincher on why narrow networks are such a highly flawed policy – a conclusion that they did not intend. They complain that requiring reasonable distances to health care creates a provider monopoly that will cause insurers to either charge outrageous rates or simply drop coverage. They say that “Montanans may as well have nationalized healthcare.” Maybe they should, as should the rest of us.

If the inadequacy of other tools of market competition have required insurers to turn to perverse narrow networks maybe we should be questioning whether market competition is the best policy for controlling costs. Come to think of it, maybe we should listen to these authors when they say that allowing broader access “would spell the end of market-based health reform.” Other national systems depending on government administered pricing provide care for everyone at an average of half of what we are spending per capita. Now that’s effective cost containment, and it’s accomplished without kowtowing to the ideologues who insist that health reform must be market based.

‘Double Jeopardy’ In American Health Insurance

By Dana P. Goldman and Tomas J. Philipson
Forbes, April 1, 2014

Health insurance markets allow people to share risks; those lucky enough not to need health care pay premiums to cover care for the unlucky ones who do. This risk-sharing—which most of us are very willing to purchase — amounts to a modest income loss through our premiums when we are healthy to avoid serious financial trouble when we are sick.

However, a disturbing trend has emerged over the last few years. As health care costs have risen, many insurance companies have responded by starting to increase cost-sharing on to patients when they get sick, sometimes dramatically. This has occurred particularly for the unlucky patients who are the sickest and who need highly specialized therapies. Such so called “specialty drugs” are different than standard prescription drugs and often cost substantially more, many times because they are harder to manufacture. For example, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the agency that implemented the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit, allowed plans to create a ‘formulary tier’ specifically for drugs costing $600 or more per month—and about 90 percent of plans use them. And, among the plans who use the tier, more than half require patients to pay 25% or more of costs. The drugs on this tier are those of patients faced with many difficult conditions – it includes medications for rheumatoid arthritis, osteoporosis, MS, and even cancer.

This insurance design often means that the sickest patients also take the largest financial hits; what we argue amounts to a “double jeopardy” of current health insurance. Consider the case of cancer care which is a relatively rare event compared to diseases like hypertension or diabetes, but often leads to a cascade of high expenses. Insurance companies are now pushing those expenses on patients at the time of care, rather than covering them through premiums paid before illness. Ironically, this has led to outrage against manufacturers of cancer treatments rather than payers, For example, oncology specialists have often criticized the manufacturers for the high prices involved because their patients can’t afford the treatments. The irony is that other forms of care are much more expensive — such as the use of intensive care units (ICUs) — yet there is no outcry by physicians against the device manufacturers concerning these costs. The reason is that ICU care–which often costs about $4,000 per day in the most futile cases–is fully covered (as it should be), whereas the specialty treatments remain only partially covered.

Pushing these costs onto the patient at the time of sickness not only distorts treatment patterns, but also leads to inequity. One common strategy to manage these specialty products is to force patients to try cheaper treatments before insurers will cover more expensive ones – a practice euphemistically called ‘step therapy.’ For those who respond to the cheaper therapy, they get better and pay very little. But for those who are unlucky enough not the respond to the first treatment, they move to the next therapy, often at much higher cost. The result is both worse health prospects but also a larger financial burden for the same but more severe form of the same disease, another form of double jeopardy. The high out-of-pocket costs of second-line therapy may also encourage patients and their physicians to retry ineffective, first line therapies, sometimes at great risk to the patient. Patients with more recalcitrant disease are being asked to pay more—the opposite of what we want insurance to do.

Since the 1960’s, economists have noted that cost-sharing at the time of illness for medical services is a way to balance the financial risks of health care spending against improper incentives for care when sick. On the one hand, full coverage eliminates all financial risks to patients, but it provides no incentive to economize on care when sick. On the other hand, no insurance imposes too much risk on a patient while it provides better incentives to economize on care. Thus, economists agree that the optimal cost-sharing should strike a balance between financial protection and proper incentives to economize on care. In particular, when treatments are valuable and patients are willing to seek them at very high prices, economists recognize there is little value to high copayments because they would just impose financial risks through care that would have been undertaken anyway. However, double jeopardy of American insurance imposes financial risk on the patient at precisely the moment when it is likely least appropriate. A cancer patient is willing to pay large sums to cling on to life, but is hit with both the dreaded disease and a large medical bill at the same time.

What can be done to limit the damage of double jeopardy in insurance? In cases where treatment is effective, payers should provide real insurance and not impose substantial burdens on patients when they are sick—especially those who do not respond to conventional first line care. In face of market forces, we would expect patients or their benefit managers to sooner or later shun plans with double jeopardy designs. The second best alternative would be to encourage manufacturers to fix the insurance failure by providing copayment assistance for these patients. The analogy is Medigap coverage, which provides secondary insurance for costs that Medicare does not cover. In the private sector, such coverage is often outlawed on the grounds that it interferes with payer’s incentives to make patients economize on care.

The bottom line is that insurance that doesn’t cover the financial risks for the sickest seriously lowers the value of coverage to the insured pool, imposes the largest losses on the sickest even within the same diagnosis, and leads to finger-pointing at the wrong parties.

Dana P. Goldman is the Leonard D. Schaeffer Chair and Director of the Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics at the University of Southern California. Tomas J. Philipson is the Daniel Levin Chair of Public Policy at the University of Chicago. Both are founding partners of Precision Health Economics LLC.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomasphilipson/2014/04/01/double-jeopardy-in-american-health-insurance/

****

Comment:

By Don McCanne, MD

This is an important article. The topic is important because it represents one of the more serious flaws in recent trends of health care financing reform – a flaw which results in greater financial burdens being imposed on people with serious medical disorders. It is also important because it represents the views of two authorities in the health policy community who come from the “other side,” generally holding views at odds with the health care justice positions of PNHP. This time they are right.

Insurers are using several techniques that place patients in “double jeopardy” – facing both the burdens of serious illness and the high costs imposed on them by insurance plan design. When serious medical problems develop, the insurers impose higher cost sharing on patients through techniques such as ever higher deductibles, large coinsurance requirements (paying a higher percentage of costs rather than lower copayments), and tiering of drugs and specialized services with even higher coinsurance requirements for the most expensive tiers.

The authors note that, not only are the patients exposed to higher costs, but some insurers require less expensive treatments as a trial before high cost treatments will be authorized (stepped therapy). The risk of delay of definitive treatment is obvious in disorders such as cancer, not to mention that it introduces more inequity into health care.

Although they repeat the consumer-directed canard that cost sharing is essential to provide incentives to economize on care, they seem to express the opposite view when they state, “when treatments are valuable and patients are willing to seek them at very high prices, economists recognize there is little value to high copayments because they would just impose financial risks through care that would have been undertaken anyway.”

Further, they state, “double jeopardy of American insurance imposes financial risk on the patient at precisely the moment when it is likely least appropriate. A cancer patient is willing to pay large sums to cling on to life, but is hit with both the dreaded disease and a large medical bill at the same time.”

Their solution is even more interesting, considering where they come from. “In cases where treatment is effective, payers should provide real insurance and not impose substantial burdens on patients when they are sick — especially those who do not respond to conventional first line care. In face of market forces, we would expect patients or their benefit managers to sooner or later shun plans with double jeopardy designs.” Imagine that. They suggest that the markets will reject precisely those cost sharing plans that their colleagues on the “other side” are pushing – plans which have gained great traction in recent years, especially since the implementation of the Affordable Care Act.

An alternative proposal of theirs also seems to reject the concept of making the consumer a better health care shopper through cast sharing. “The second best alternative would be to encourage manufacturers to fix the insurance failure by providing copayment assistance for these patients. The analogy is Medigap coverage, which provides secondary insurance for costs that Medicare does not cover.” Wow. Right now their colleagues are recommending that Medigap be pared back to deliberately increase exposure of patients to the direct costs of health care.

We can be thankful that these authors have pointed out the perversities of cost sharing. They do speak of “balance” but not when the burden is significant. Although, what might seem to many to be modest levels of cost sharing, that balanced level has been shown to be a harmful burden for those of more modest means.

We should accept their principle that payers should provide real insurance without burdens or secondary insurance for uncovered costs. But far easier and much more efficient than altering the private insurance model would be to replace it with a universal prepaid health system with equitable public funding (i.e., single payer). Although Goldman and Philipson are not quite there, maybe we can coax them over.

Glimmers of healthcare politics at meeting of Western Washington docs

Tough talk from Kshama Sawant and others at annual gathering of Western Washington Physicians for a National Health Program.

By Ted Van Dyk
Crosscut.com (Seattle), July 23, 2014

Seattle City Council member Kshama Sawant also was critical of Obamacare, arguing that the administration colluded with drug and insurance companies in framing it. Sawant spoke longest and most avidly at the meeting. She called on committed single-payer supporters to follow the example of those who sought a $15 minimum wage in Seattle, and bring tireless pressure to bear on Democratic officeholders in particular. Sawant is a committed socialist who often referred to “working class interests” and “corrupt corporations, banks, and hedge fund operators.”

Kshama Sawant (video at 4:45):

“Our discussion should be formulated not on the basis of whether or not the ACA delivered something good. Maybe it did, but that’s not the point. The point is, what are we not getting from it, and why didn’t we win single payer health care? That’s what I would like to focus on.”

http://crosscut.com/2014/07/23/health-medicine/121125/western-wa-physicians-national-health-program/?page=single

****

Comment:

By Don McCanne, MD

Socialist Kshama Sawant, a member of the Seattle City Council, came to national attention by leading her fellow council members in passing a $15/hour minimum wage for their city. Having shown that political activism can still be effective, she has important advice for us in our efforts to enact single payer reform.

Currently attention has been diverted from single payer, as most progressives are celebrating the supposedly great successes in implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Even the Republicans in Congress who have voted several times to repeal ACA, are now suing President Obama for not implementing it fast enough.

Those of us who continue to adamantly support single payer are facing criticism for not joining the ACA bandwagon. This is where Sawant’s message is so important. Whether “ACA delivered something good” is not the point. The point is, we have to inform the public on “what are we not getting from it.” And what we are not getting is most of the goals of reform! The accomplishments are extremely modest compared to the reform that we need.

What are we not getting from ACA that we would be getting from single payer?

• Truly universal coverage
• Dramatic reduction in administrative waste
• Removal of financial barriers to care
• Coverage of all essential health care services
• Free choice of hospitals and health care professionals
• Removal of the interventions and excesses of the private insurers
• Taxpayer financing based on ability to pay
• Infrastructure reform that would slow spending to sustainable levels

And what successes are the ACA supporters touting (though using different rhetoric)?

• Coverage of only about half of the uninsured
• Shift to underinsurance products
• Guaranteed issue of these underinsurance products
• Deductibles that keep patients away from care by erecting financial barriers
• Insurance subsidies that are inadequate
• Ultra-narrow networks that take away choice
• Insurance marketplaces that increase administrative complexity and waste
• Inadequate cost containment policies (except for perverse higher deductibles)

Sawant delivers a very strong leftist message on social justice issues, and includes in her comments the failures of the Democratic Party to act. But this point on what we are not getting from ACA and why we need single payer is not a leftist message. It is a call for all of us from across the political spectrum who support single payer to take control of the message. We can no longer allow ourselves to be a meek voice silenced by those who, for noble and ignoble reasons, celebrate the paltry successes of ACA.

Again, the something good that ACA did is not the point. The point is what we are not getting from ACA and would be getting under a single payer system. Let’s drown out the message of the ACA supporters who wimped out on real reform.

Arkansas Weighs Plan To Make Some Medicaid Enrollees Fund Savings Accounts

By Michelle Andrews
Kaiser Health News, July 22, 2014

If all goes according to plan, next year many Arkansas Medicaid beneficiaries will be required to make monthly contributions to so-called Health Independence Accounts. Those that don’t may have to pay more of the cost of their medical services, and in some cases may be refused services.

Supporters say it will help nudge beneficiaries toward becoming more cost-conscious health care consumers. Patient advocates are skeptical, pointing to studies showing that such financial “skin-in-the-game” requirements discourage low-income people from getting care that they need.

Michigan and Indiana have already implemented health savings accounts for their Medicaid programs, modeled after the accounts that are increasingly popular in the private market. The funds, which may be supplemented by the state, can be used to pay for services subject to the plan deductible, for example, or to cover the cost of other medical services.

The program particulars in each state differ. But both states – and the Arkansas proposal — require beneficiaries to make monthly contributions into the accounts in order to reap certain benefits, such as avoiding typical cost sharing for medical services. Funds in the accounts may roll over from one year to the next, and participants may be able to use them to cover their medical costs if they leave the Medicaid program.

“We believe in consumerism,” says John Selig, director of the Arkansas Department of Human Services. By requiring Medicaid beneficiaries to make a monthly contribution to a Health Independence Account, “we think they’ll use care more appropriately and get a sense of how insurance works.”

Under the health law, states can expand Medicaid coverage to adults with incomes up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level (currently $16,105 for an individual). So far, about half have done so. But some conservatives have objected to the expansion of a government entitlement program, preferring a private market approach that they say encourages personal responsibility.

Arkansas and Iowa proposed and received approval from the federal Department of Health and Human Services for premium assistance programs that use federal funds to enroll the new Medicaid-eligible beneficiaries in marketplace plans.

For 2015, Arkansas is proposing to expand its experiment by introducing the Health Independence Accounts. Nearly all beneficiaries earning between 50 and 138 percent of the poverty level ($5,835 to $16105 for an individual) would have to participate through monthly contributions of between $5 and $25, depending on their income, or face cost-sharing requirements capped at 5 percent of income by Medicaid rules. In addition, Medicaid enrollees with incomes over the poverty level could be refused services if they don’t make their monthly contribution and don’t make a copayment. (This year, those with incomes between 100 and 138 percent of poverty already have co-pays.)

Under the new program, any of the private option enrollees would be able to avoid all cost sharing charges next year by making monthly contributions to their HIA.

Each month that a beneficiary makes a payment to his or her account, the state will contribute $15. Unused amounts will roll over from one year to the next up to a maximum of $200, which can be used by the beneficiary for health care costs if he or she leaves Medicaid for private coverage.

Advocates say they’re pleased that 175,000 Arkansans have gained coverage under the Medicaid expansion. But the proposal for next year gives them pause.

“There are concerns with adding cost sharing to those below the poverty level,” says Anna Strong, health care policy director at Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families.

Those concerns are well founded, say experts. “This is something that researchers have looked at a lot,” says MaryBeth Musumeci, associate director at the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured. “Overarchingly, premiums and cost sharing have been shown to discourage or impede folks from getting needed care.”

Some experts note that at least 40 states already charge premiums or cost sharing for at least some beneficiaries. Beneficiaries have skin in the game already, they say, and they question the value of these special accounts that add a whole new layer of complexity for people who may not ever have had insurance before.

“We’re creating these incredibly complicated administrative structures, and I don’t think people will understand them,” says Judith Solomon, vice president for health policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2014/July/22/Michelle-Andrews-on-Arkansas-plan-for-Medicaid-savings-accounts.aspx

Comment:

By Don McCanne, MD

Arkansas is demonstrating to us the irrationality of basing reform on ideological concepts divorced from health policy science. Let’s look closer at this proposal for “Health Independence Accounts,” their version of consumer directed health care for very low income individuals, using the concept of health savings accounts.

• “Nearly all beneficiaries earning between 50 and 138 percent of the poverty level ($5,835 to $16,105 for an individual) would have to participate through monthly contributions of between $5 and $25.”
• It seems to matter little that these individuals have no discretionary income since they do not have enough revenues to meet their basic needs, much less contribute to a savings account.
• If they are able to make their payments, then, according to this article, cost sharing is eliminated. Wasn’t a purpose of the savings accounts to help pay for cost sharing?
• So what do they suggest is the purpose of the health savings accounts? They “can be used by the beneficiary for health care costs if he or she leaves Medicaid for private coverage.” So this is a financing plan for Medicaid that won’t be used, but saved until after the person leaves Medicaid? How does that help?
• For those with incomes between 100 and 138 percent of the federal poverty level, failure to make a payment into the Health Independence Account could result in being refused health care services. Is this really a rational policy for trying to improve health care access for these low income individuals?

No, it’s not about improving health care access. According to John Selig, director of the Arkansas Department of Human Services, “We believe in consumerism. We think they’ll use care more appropriately and get a sense of how insurance works.”

This is ideology that is totally divorced from health policy science. Contrast that with ideology that is based on sound health policy science that results in everyone receiving the health care that they need within a system that is affordable for all. Of course, that would be a single payer national health program.

This is sometimes presented as an ideological divide between the “individual responsibility” and the “we’re all in this together” mindsets, but ideology cannot be divorced from policy science. Health care should not simply be teaching poor people about how insurance works. It should be about getting them the care that they need, when they need it.

Health Care Spending Slowdown: The Consumer Paradox

By Al Dobson, Ph.D., Gregory Berger, M.P.P., Kevin Reuter, Phap-Hoa Luu, M.B.A. and Joan E. DaVanzo, Ph.D., M.S.W.
Dobson/DaVanzo, Report prepared for the Federation of American Hospitals, July 23, 2014

In recent reports we have outlined the continuing historic slowdown in the growth rate of health care spending driven in large part by emerging structural changes in the health care system. Recent evidence suggests that the cost curve has continued to bend, with health care spending declining in the first quarter of 2014. Despite this continuing trend in health care spending growth, consumers are increasingly concerned that they are ever-more financially burdened by spending on their own health care.

This consumer perception is largely a factor of the “new normal” being established through health insurance, which includes:

• Benefit plan designs, used by employers and insurers to shift greater financial risk to consumers through higher out-of- pocket spending (i.e., deductibles, co-payments, and co- insurance); and
• Health insurance premiums, which continue to rise faster than the average person’s income.

This trend of growth in out-of-pocket spending combined with increases in health insurance premiums that outpace increases in wages is not sustainable over the long term, and harms both patients and providers.

Key Findings

• In the first quarter of 2014, consumer spending on health care declined by 1.4%, representing the largest decline in over 30 years
• Almost 60% of Americans think that health care costs have been growing faster than usual in recent years, and more than 70% of consumers attribute responsibility for their perceived high and rising costs to health insurance companies
• Total premiums have increased substantially over the past decade, from 14.9% to 21.6% of median household income between 2003 and 20126
• Employee contributions to premiums and out-of-pocket spending have risen 23% faster than employee costs since 2009 (32% in cumulative growth vs. 26%)
• Cumulative growth in workers’ contributions to premiums between 2002 and 2013 was 114%, approximately four times higher than growth in workers’ average income (31%)
• Deductibles for family coverage increased more than 75% from 2006 and 2013 (from $1,034 to $1,854), while enrollment in plans with a deductible increased to 81% in 2013
• The percentage of workers enrolled in high-deductible plans ($1,000 or more) has increased more than five times over the past decade, from 4% in 2006 to 26% in 2014
• Overall, employees’ premium contributions and out-of-pocket expenses per capita have grown by 42% over the past five years, from $6,824 in 2009 to $9,695 in 2014

Payers and providers are both adjusting to a “new normal” in the marketplace through a variety of multi-year strategies aimed at improving quality, reducing costs, and minimizing financial risk within the evolving regulatory framework. Additional interventions or blunt policymaking, rather than allowing the market to respond to current reform efforts, could interfere with the system.

Both payers (including employers) and providers have prepared multi-year transition plans to adjust their business models, and require some level of predictability and capital reserves. Major disruptions to the operating environment for providers, payers and/or employers may generate uncertainty, which ultimately could flow down to consumers in the form of higher premium contributions and out-of-pocket spending.

http://fahpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Dobson-DaVanzo-Federation-Cost-Sharing-Executive-Summary.pdf

Report: http://fahpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Dobson-DaVanzo-Federation-Cost-Sharing-Report.pdf

****

Comment:

By Don McCanne, MD

This report describes the paradox of the “new normal” in which increases in health care costs have been slowing as payer/employers and providers adjust their business models to the marketplace, while the financial burden for health care on patient/consumers continues to increase. As this report states, “this trend of growth in out-of-pocket spending combined with increases in health insurance premiums that outpace increases in wages is not sustainable.”

This study was sponsored by the Federation of American Hospitals – the lobby organization for America’s private, investor-owned hospitals. To no surprise, they recommend that the marketplace be allowed to work its magic, avoiding disruptions or policy changes that could interfere with the system. They caution that such interference “could flow down to consumers in the form of higher premium contributions and out-of-pocket spending.”

What? They have just shown us how the market they want to protect is taking care of payer/employers and providers (including for-profit hospitals) while creating financial burdens for patient/consumers through “higher premium contributions and out-of-pocket spending.”

They haven’t gotten reform right, and they won’t as long as we allow the medical/industrial complex to remain in charge. Reform needs to be centered around the patient, yet it is the patient who is being dumped on. Single payer would fix that.