Medicaid Provision Could Turn Into ‘Another SGR,’ Some Advocates Fear

By Amy Lotven, Inside Health Reform
America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP)
June 23, 2010
Under the reform law, starting in 2013 Medicaid payments for primary care physicians must equal 100 percent of Medicare payments, but Congress only funded the policy for two years due to fiscal constraints.
The Republican Study Committee (RSC), in a March 26 policy brief on the health reform law, calls the payment boost a “budget gimmick” and notes that “history has shown that this two-year increase will likely be increased every year after the ‘sunset date,’ thus hiding the true cost of the provision.”
“While many conservatives may believe that physicians in Medicaid should be paid more, many may believe that we should not be expanding this flawed program to begin with.”
The RSC also notes that the provision could be seen as “just another SGR,” referring to the annual congressional move to stave off physician payment cuts resulting from Medicare’s sustainable growth rate.
But primary care stakeholders are already working to mitigate the issue. The American Academy of Family Physicians says that it will be asking lawmakers to extend the provision to cover a longer period. “It is likely that any extension will be of specified duration because of its impact on the federal budget,” AAFP writes on its web site. “Nonetheless, physicians are not likely to begin taking Medicaid patients if they know that the higher payment rates are not going to continue. As Medicaid coverage expands, this will create an untenable situation in which more patients will be covered but have no physician practice that can take them,” the site adds.
The provision in the final legislation was obviously crafted so as to address fiscal constraints, AAFP President Lori Heim said. Essentially, the legislation expands Medicaid to an estimated 17 or so million people starting in 2014 and as of now the funding is slated to end that same year. If all of these people gain access to physicians at that point, what will happen in 2015? Heim asked.
http://www.ahiphiwire.org/LearningCenter/Feature.aspx?channel=Medicaid&doc_id=604516&page=1

And…

Physician Participation in Medi-Cal

California HealthCare Foundation
July 2010
While 90% of California physicians are accepting new patients and 73% accepting new Medicare patients, only 57% reported accepting new Medi-Cal patients.
Medi-Cal patients are concentrated in a small share of practices, with 25% of physicians providing care to 80% of Medi-Cal patients.
http://www.chcf.org/publications/2010/07/physician-participation-in-medical

Medicaid, being a welfare program with piddling political support, has been chronically underfunded. Yet, in the reform legislation, expansion of Medicaid eligibility is one of the more salient policies, designed to extend Medicaid coverage to perhaps 17 million more individuals. Will we have enough willing primary care professionals to take care of them?
Close to half of physicians already are unwilling to accept any Medicaid patients at all, and the patients who do receive care tend to be concentrated amongst one-fourth of physicians.
Congress recognized that there would be a reluctance on the part of primary care physicians to absorb this influx of Medicaid patients, so they increased payment rates for primary care services to the same level as Medicare. But the increase is scheduled for only two years merely because an arbitrary federal spending limit constrained the reform policies.
The increased fees will apply the year before and the first year of the Medicaid expansion. Physicians are already unhappy with the continued uncertainties over the future of Medicare payments since Congress has repeated failed to enact a revision to the SGR formula (sustainable growth rate), without which physicians could see dramatic reductions in Medicare payments. Physicians do not see Congress as reliable partners.
Why would any physician sign up a large number of new Medicaid patients in 2014, if the next year rates will be reduced to levels that already have caused physicians to refuse to participate in the program? It is likely that the one-fourth of physicians who already are dedicated to caring for Medicaid patients will be inundated, and at a time when we already have a serious primary care crisis.
The increased funding for community health centers may provide some relief, but serious logistical problems may impair adequate access – problems such as health center location and transportation to it, the shortage of primary care professionals to staff the centers, and the continual struggle with funding. Also, whether Medicaid patients are seen in primary care practices or community health centers, access to specialized care is very limited, primarily because of a lack of willing providers.
Medicaid is branded with the stigma of being a welfare program because it is a welfare program, quite unlike Medicare which is a social insurance program. Not only is Medicaid humiliating for the patients, it also creates fiscal problems for the health care delivery system because of chronic underfunding.
The Medicaid problem could be eliminated quite easily. It would be much more efficient, equitable, and less costly overall to have a social insurance program that covered absolutely everyone – an improved Medicare for all.

By Reed Abelson
The New York Times
July 17, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment: 

By Don McCanne, MD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Insurers Push Plans That Limit Choice of Doctor

By Reed Abelson
The New York Times
July 17, 2010
As the Obama administration begins to enact the new national health care law, the country’s biggest insurers are promoting affordable plans with reduced premiums that require participants to use a narrower selection of doctors or hospitals.
The plans, being tested in places like San Diego, New York and Chicago, are likely to appeal especially to small businesses that already provide insurance to their employees, but are concerned about the ever-spiraling cost of coverage.
But large employers, as well, are starting to show some interest, and insurers and consultants expect that, over time, businesses of all sizes will gravitate toward these plans in an effort to cut costs.
The tradeoff, they say, is that more Americans will be asked to pay higher prices for the privilege of choosing or keeping their own doctors if they are outside the new networks. That could come as a surprise to many who remember the repeated assurances from President Obama and other officials that consumers would retain a variety of health-care choices.
But companies may be able to reduce their premiums by as much as 15 percent, the insurers say, by offering the more limited plans.
Many insurers also expect the plans to be popular with individuals and small businesses who will purchase coverage in the insurance exchanges, or marketplaces that are mandated under the new health care law and scheduled to take effect in 2014.
Prominent officials like Mr. Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton learned to utter the word “choice” at every turn as advocates of overhauling the system.
But choice — or at least choice that will not cost you — is likely to be increasingly scarce as health insurers and employers scramble to find ways of keep premiums from becoming unaffordable. Aetna, Cigna, the UnitedHealth Group and WellPoint are all trying out plans with limited networks.
The size of these networks is typically much smaller than traditional plans. In New York, for example, Aetna offers a narrow-network plan that has about half the doctors and two-thirds of the hospitals the insurer typically offers. People enrolled in this plan are covered only if they go to a doctor or hospital within the network, but insurers are also experimenting with plans that allow a patient to see someone outside the network but pay much more than they would in a traditional plan offering out-of-network benefits.
The insurers are betting these plans will have widespread appeal in the insurance exchanges as individuals gravitate toward the least expensive options.
The new health care law offers some protection against plans offering overly restrictive networks, said Nancy-Ann DeParle, head of the office of health reform for the White House. Any plan sold in the exchanges will have to meet standards developed to make sure patients have enough choice of doctors and hospitals, she said.
How widespread these plans will become is anybody’s guess, and some benefits consultants wonder if these plans represent any real solution to high medical costs. The narrow network, if it is based on the insurers’ ability to demand low prices, may be “just another short-term fix,” warned Barry Schilmeister, a consultant at Mercer.
But many insurers say they are still figuring out how to persuade people to choose these plans rather than force them to enroll. “What’s not changed are the old techniques of black-belt managed care,” said Mark T. Bertolini, Aetna’s president. “We have to create the same kind of model without the ‘Mother, may I.’ What we want is the ‘Mother, should I.’ ”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/business/18choice.html?pagewanted=all

The managed care revolution brought us restricted networks of physicians, hospitals and other health care services. These restrictions, which limited patients’ choices of their health care professionals and facilities, did produce a one-time notch in the curve of rising health care costs. The insurers did this by contracting lower rates with health care providers, and then imposing financial penalties on patients who chose their care outside of the networks.
Patients were not pleased with limitations placed on their choices, but generally were not rebellious since they were often able to continue to see their own physicians, or, if not, were usually satisfied with their in-network substitutes.
The major insurers have been experimenting for some time with much more restrictive networks – networks in which they could contract for much lower rates in exchange for a higher patient volume. Individuals and employers have not responded to these market efforts because the restrictions were too severe. They excluded popular health care professionals and hospitals, sometimes completely, or sometimes by requiring unaffordable coinsurance payments by the patients.
But the environment has changed. The premiums for health plans are now very close to being truly unaffordable for most individuals and employers. With individuals being mandated to purchase insurance, and employers being exposed to penalties if their employees purchase plans in the exchanges, the market for plans with affordable premiums is being forced. The insurers must come up with plans that will meet the test of the market. The deeply-discounted, more tightly restricted plans are now finding their market.
These plans are terrible. Many will lose their primary care professionals. They will often not be able to use their local hospitals and many of their local specialists. Most referrals to centers of excellence will be prohibited. Although the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) will require that provider networks provide choice, the law does not prohibit intolerably Spartan networks.
This, of course, is a setup for the death spiral of adverse selection for the plans with more adequate networks. Individuals with more significant problems will select plans that can better meet their needs, while the healthy will flee to the plans with Spartan networks once the premiums skyrocket.
When individuals shift to the more restricted plans, what will happen to the large number of physicians and hospitals that are denied contracts? Obviously their financial viability would be threatened, and many would shut down. As if we didn’t already have enough problems with the deterioration in our primary care infrastructure, much of the entire health care delivery infrastructure could begin to crumble.
PPACA contains many measures designed to improve the functioning of the private insurers, but most of them will drive premiums even higher. Insurance innovations such as the Spartan provider networks were fully predictable.
What should really alarm us is that the business world thrives on innovation. Think of the possibilities that the private insurance industry can devise. Actually, it is very difficult for us who are trying to figure out how to get patients the care they need to come up with innovative concepts that will protect the business model of the private insurance industry, no matter the cost to patient care. It isn’t in our DNA.
But there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that we will see innovation, and it won’t be healthy for patients, nor for their health care professionals.
TAKE ACTION: The article provoked a large number of responses on The New York Times website, many supportive of Medicare for all, single payer, national health program, and health care justice in general. ADD YOUR RESPONSE. Go to the article and post your opinion, even if only a sentence or two. If you are not registered, it is easy to do, so don’t let that deter you. The New York Times needs to hear from us so that they will investigate why there is such broad support for a national health program. (At least click “Recommend” on response #232.)

Public sector workers paying more of their health care costs

By Bobby Caina Calvan
The Sacramento Bee
July 15, 2010
Workers in private industry have felt the sting of rising health insurance premiums and out-of-pocket costs for decades. Now, as government budgets bleed, public employees are starting to share the pain.
In the past year, Sacramento’s largest school districts have trimmed health care coverage. Local and state government officials also are looking for ways to save.
And while public employee unions have made preserving health benefits a priority, they have been pressed to give ground or face more layoffs.
In his proposed budget, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is seeking to cut $152.8 million in health premium expenses by requiring the California Public Employees’ Retirement System to offer lower-cost coverage, possibly with fewer benefits, or give the state authority to do so.
Health insurance costs have “reached the point where we can’t sustain those benefits,” said Lynelle Jolley, spokeswoman for the state Department of Personnel Administration.
http://www.sacbee.com/2010/07/15/2891358/public-sector-workers-paying-more.html

Private employers have continued to shift more of the costs of health care to their individual employees. This has had deleterious financial and health impacts since it has made health care access less affordable. Now, even with union representation, public employees also are experiencing deterioration in their coverage.
That’s a one-way street. Plans for public employees will never improve but will likely further deteriorate to match the 60 to 70 percent actuarial value plans to be offered by the state insurance exchanges.
“After all, why should we taxpayers have to buy these people good insurance when we have to put up with our lousy plans?” But those who express this sentiment have it backwards. Why should they have put up with crappy insurance when we could all have a program that works even better than most plans for public employees?
As we’ve said many times, the private insurance model doesn’t work anymore. We can have that program that works for all of us, if we, as voters, demand it.

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

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

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

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

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

Comment: 

By Don McCanne, MD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And cost control? It didn’t happen.

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

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

By Timothy Stoltzfus Jost, J.D.
The Commonwealth Fund
July 15, 2010
Health insurance exchanges are the centerpiece of the private health insurance reforms of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA). If they function as planned, these exchanges will expand health insurance coverage, improve the quality of such coverage and perhaps of health care itself, and reduce costs. Previous attempts at creating health insurance exchanges, however, produced only mixed results. This report identifies the earlier attempts’ problems, enumerates the key issues that are critical for overcoming those problems, analyzes in detail the ACA’s provisions addressing these issues, and discusses further policy options.
As part of successfully implementing the new exchanges, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the states must address issues that undermined the earlier attempts. These issues are:
• Adverse selection.
• Numbers of participants.
• Market coverage and structure.
• Choice without complexity.
• Transparency and disclosure.
• Competition.
• Administrative costs.
• Market or regulator?
• Administering subsidies and mandates.
• State, regional, or national exchanges?
• Governance.
• Relationships with employers.
• Cost control.
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Fund%20Report/2010/Jul/1426_Jost_hlt_insurance_exchanges_ACA.pdf

“Health Insurance Exchanges and the Affordable Care Act: Key Policy Issues,” by Timothy Stoltzfus Jost, should be read in full (44 pages) by everyone who cares about the future of our health care system. The Executive Summary alone is not adequate to understand the implications of the issues he discusses. Every page requires attentive reading since each is covered with red flags, far too many to cover in a qotd commentary.
It is an especially important report for those who believe that the health insurance exchange model is a satisfactory compromise for moving forward, while dismissing further efforts to create a public national health program. It is also important for single payer advocates (improved Medicare for all) since it is important to understand the red flags raised by this report, and be able to debate them with others.
Many of the issues listed would disappear under a single payer system. For instance, in spite of the measures in the law, adverse selection (concentrating high-cost patients in health plans) cannot be eliminated by the insurance exchanges, yet it would disappear in a single universal risk pool. That is especially important since adverse selection has destroyed previous insurance exchanges in numerous states.
The numbers of participants in the exchange plans are also crucial. A few unhealthy individuals can wipe out a plan if there isn’t a large number of healthy individuals to absorb the costs through the plan premiums. It has been estimated that 24 million people will obtain their coverage through the exchanges. Distribute that amongst the fifty states, and then divide those numbers up amongst the “large” selection of plans in the “robust” markets of the exchanges, and you can see that many plans would likely fail due to the small numbers of insured.
Although an important goal of reform was administrative simplification, insurers will still have most of their administrative costs, as will the physicians and hospitals, and yet another layer of administration is added in the operation of the exchanges.
The premium subsidies, cost-sharing subsidies, and the mandates and penalties, in a system with ever-shifting eligibilities, creates a complex financing structure that is totally unnecessary. It is far simpler to finance the entire health care system through equitable taxes.
The reform act was designed to perpetuate the employer role in providing health care coverage, but increasing costs and increasing fragmentation through various public and private programs is increasing the complexity of the decision process for employers, creating an uncertain future for employer-sponsored plans. It would be far easier to remove the employer as keeper of the health plan, and simply provide a single, comprehensive public plan for everyone.
And cost control? It didn’t happen.
You likely don’t have time to read the full report now, but download it and read it this weekend, or at any other time that you have a break.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment: 

By Don McCanne, MD

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

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

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

What Conservatives Are Winning

By Drew Altman, Ph.D., President and CEO
Kaiser Family Foundation
July 14, 2010
But for all of the frustration and even anger within the conservative movement about where health care is headed, the fact of the matter is that they are winning more than even they may realize in the current health care equation. That’s because the nature of health insurance itself is being redefined and moving gradually but seemingly inexorably in the direction conservatives have long advocated: more consumer “skin in the game” through higher patient deductibles.
Item: In our recent survey of people in the non-group insurance market, we found that the average deductible for an individual policy is now $2,498, and for families it’s $5,149. These are very high thresholds by any standard. Consider, for example, that a family with median income facing such a deductible would be spending almost 10% of their annual income just for their deductible before their insurance kicked in.
Item: The percentage of workers facing high deductibles — $1,000 or more for single coverage —  has been growing rapidly. It doubled from 10 percent to 22 percent between 2006 and 2009, and increased from 16 percent to 40 percent in small firms.
Item: Indications are that the share of workers with high deductibles is continuing to grow, a trend I expect our 2010 employer survey to confirm when we release it in September as we have every year for more than a decade now. And a substantial number of these high deductible plans are paired with tax-advantaged savings accounts, which conservatives have long advocated. Facing cost pressures without alternative answers, employers are moving to plans with less comprehensive coverage to reduce their expenses for employee benefits.
Item: Health reform is unlikely to reverse these trends. Large employers will continue to look for ways to address the rising cost of health care. And, for the basic “bronze” insurance plan that people will be required to buy, deductibles could run several thousand dollars for individuals and double that for families. To be sure, other aspects of health reform cut the other way. For example, there will be no cost sharing for preventive services in newly-purchased plans, and insurers will be required to cap consumer out-of-pocket costs at defined levels. And, of course, there are substantial subsidies to reduce premium and out-of-pocket costs for lower-income people. But, for the first time, the government will be defining the threshold that decent insurance must meet, and that minimum coverage will have the kind of high deductibles that conservatives favor.
For several years we have seen moderate increases in premiums for employment-based health insurance. I suspect that rising deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs are one explanation for this. It’s simple arithmetic that employers can buy down premium increases by switching to less comprehensive coverage and shifting more costs to workers. Plus, these higher out-of-pocket costs exert downward pressure on utilization – in some cases for the better, in some cases for the worse — and thus on premiums as well. At the same time, people have never been more upset about their own rising health care costs, as the coverage they get offers less and less financial protection.
Looked at through a political lens, liberals have gained through passage of major health reform legislation, including expanded coverage and increased government oversight of the health insurance system. But increasingly, the insurance itself is looking more and more like the vision advanced by conservatives – less comprehensive with more skin in the game. That’s where conservatives may be winning more than they realize in the ongoing battle over the future of health care.
http://www.kff.org/pullingittogether/071410_altman.cfm

Regular readers of the Quote of the Day have seen this theme expressed relentlessly in these weekday messages: We are experiencing a massive shift to underinsurance products, and this policy of making individuals sensitive to health care costs through greater out-of-pocket spending has long been on the agenda of the conservatives.
The importance of today’s message is that it comes from a highly credible individual, Drew Altman, President and CEO of Kaiser Family Foundation, which serves as a “non-partisan source of facts, information, and analysis for policymakers, the media, the health care community, and the public.” It is a very objective observation of the reality of the reform that is now law, and it’s the same message that we have been delivering over and over.
Building on the current system, which we just did, is the most expensive and one of the least effective models of achieving the goal of affordable, high quality care for everyone. Yet one of the least expensive and most effective models is a single payer national health program – an improved Medicare for all. Most of the measures in the enacted legislation have not yet taken place. We can still change course and do it the right way.

Quote of the Day
August 17, 2009

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

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

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

And…

NHS shake-up grants new powers to doctors and patients

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And…

Equity and excellence: Liberating the NHS

Department of Health (England)
July 2010

5. Cutting bureaucracy and improving efficiency

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment: 

By Don McCanne, MD

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

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

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

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

Is this really what the people of England voted for?

Conservative leader David Cameron on the NHS

Quote of the Day
August 17, 2009

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

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

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

And…

NHS shake-up grants new powers to doctors and patients

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And…

Equity and excellence: Liberating the NHS

Department of Health (England)
July 2010

5. Cutting bureaucracy and improving efficiency

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment: 

By Don McCanne, MD

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

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

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

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

Is this really what the people of England voted for?