Mar
21

What the uninsured mean to you

If businesses and politicians think the 45 million uninsured are not their problem, they are wrong. Really wrong. The uninsured get health care, they just don’t pay for it – taxpayers, employers, and those of us with health insurance do. And they get a lot of care – around $100 billion worth.
Out of that $100 billion, three-quarters is covered by cost-shifting to those patients with insurance, and one-quarter is self-paid. And because upwards of 30% of the uninsured who are admitted to hospitals are there for avoidable conditions and 18,000 die prematurely each year, the economic costs in terms of excess care and forgone productivity are immense.
There are overt taxes and hidden taxes – and the uninsured represent a $100 billion hidden tax, borne by employers who offer health insurance, employees who pay part of their premiums, and taxpayers.
The next time someone says we can’t afford to cover the uninsured, tell them we already are, and we are paying way more than we would if they had insurance.
What does this mean for you?
Higher taxes and premiums due to lack of political will.


Mar
20

How companies reduce health care inflation

Yes, there are ways for employers to keep health care inflation under control. And yes, some insurers are better positioned to help manage expense over the long term. Some employers have been able to hold health care cost increases under 3% for two years or more. That is an amazing result, especially in a period where many employers have seen double-digit premium jumps. How do they do it? Do they fire sick employees? Only hire Olympic athletes? Are they the early adopters of consumer-directed health plans (CDHPs)?
No no and no. Rather, these employers are not the ones relying largely on CDHPs, engaging in significant cost-shifting to employees, slashing benefits or limiting eligibility. According to one of the sponsors of a study on high-performing employee health plans:
“merely increasing employee accountability or sharing costs with employees does not reduce overall cost increases. In fact, the degree to which organizations have adopted programs that share more costs and financial risks with employees was found to be almost completely unrelated to performance.
“Employers should not focus on employee accountability alone,” said (Helen) Darling. “When used in combination with promoting quality care, health management, use of data and appropriate use of care, companies are able to achieve significantly lower cost trends.”
Of all the health plans, managed care firms, and insurers out there, Aetna looks to be the best positioned to provide employers with the tools they need to identify the right docs, pay them fairly (although this is, at best, a work in progress), and educate consumers about appropriate health benefit, and health care, decisions.

Continue reading How companies reduce health care inflation


Mar
17

Cavanaugh leaving LWCC

The Louisiana Workers Compensation Corp has a new leader; long-time CEO Steve Cavanaugh has left to take a position with a new workers comp start up in Dallas. Cavanaugh’s replacement will be LWCC’s current COO, Kristen Wall.
This is more than the usual transition – Cavanaugh headed up LWCC and was indirectly responsible for the innovative work the company did in provider network management, an approach that has proven to deliver results significantly better than industry standards.
LWCC’s results were driven in large part by their use of a relatively small network of occupational medicine physicians, chosen for their expertise in disability management and demonstrated outcomes. While some of the physicians provided care at a discount, all received a payment of around $250 to manage each case.
Cavanaugh did not provide any details on his new venture; the fact that his new firm hired someone with his track record bodes well for their results.


Mar
16

More problems for Marsh

Marsh Mclennan, the nation’s largest broker, has once again been hit by a civil suit charging bid rigging, hidden commissions, and RICO violations. This time the suit has been filed in Florida’s Lee County.
According to the St. Petersburg Times, one of the issues deals with hidden commission payments from insurers:
“The suit does allege Marsh contracted with Miami-Dade County to provide coverage for services for a flat fee, but received from insurers an additional $140,000 in hidden commissions.”
Marsh has condemned the suit, noting it simply repeats the charges filed by (and not coincidentally settled for $850 million by) NY Attorney General Eliot Spitzer.
Thanks to Helen Knight for the tip.


Mar
16

Noe’s non-WC problems

This is at best tangential to managed care, but I just can’t stop watching the Tom Noe train wreck.
Noe’s trial date for allegedly laundering money to fund the Bush campaign will be set shortly, and it may well fall during the campaigning season, bringing tears to the eyes of his former colleagues in the Ohio GOP. Noe, a source of much fodder for this and other blogs due to his criminal mismanagement of Ohio’s workers compensation funds, is now a pariah in his own party.

Continue reading Noe’s non-WC problems


Mar
15

Questions about United Health

Industry giant (and ex-employer) UnitedHealthGroup is taking fire from an analyst who questions the company’s ability to hold down health care costs, reserving practices, and the results of UHG’s Pacificare division. The analyst, Matthew Borsch of Goldman Sachs, is perhaps the only one on the street recommending against UHG – that said, his points are worth considering and may portend troubles for the industry as a whole.
Borsch notes:
– the Arizona Dept of Insurance recently levied its largest-ever fine ($340,000) against UHG for allegedly not responding to consumer complaints; failing to follow grievance and appeals processes; and not handling disputed payments appropriately. While those problems are not atypical of the industry, UHG was hit hard because it had been cited for similar issues earlier and failed to correct the problems.
– UHG faces another possible hit from a pending class-action suit similar to one that has been settled by Aetna and Cigna, who each paid $160 million to settle their cases. The case is in court this week.
– more troubling is UHG’s apparent problems with health care costs, which have been accelerating of late. That rise, coupled with the company’s payment of medical claims appears to have slowed recently, adds to concerns about future profitability.
While analysts’ opinions should always be viewed with caution, Borsch’s prognostications about UHG have been quite accurate in the past; his forecasts for UHG were the most accurate in the industry in 2004. And, his experience working at industry giant HealthNet probably gives him a leg up on the other erstwhile “experts”.
What does this mean to you?
If UHG stumbles due to higher medical costs, that will be a strong signal that health cost inflation remains unmanageable – and that will be very bad news indeed.
Thanks to Matt Holt’s FierceHealthcare for the lead.


Mar
15

Alcoa’s union pushes for national health care

Alcoa, one of the nation’s leading industrial companies and a giant in the aluminum sector, is entering union negotiations that look to feature, you guessed it, health care costs as the key issue. The company is now paying the entire health care bill for hourly workers, a practice that is fast going the way of the dinosaur.
No surprises so far – old industrial firm overpays thru rich benefits, now struggling, asks for givebacks…
What’s different about this story is the union leader is asking Alcoa to work with the union to push for national health care, noting that all the other countries in which Alcoa operates have some form of national system.
Labor is starting to get it.


Mar
13

Medical malpractice costs

Medical malpractice tort cost factoid – total expenses in 2004 were just under $29 billion; 2003 costs were $26.5 billion.
O perhaps I should characterize this as a “possibly fact-oid”, as the source’s definition of what constitutes “tort costs” appears a little shaky.
And is not verifiable.
And includes “administrative expenses”.
And this is from a company that prides itself on actuarial research?
In any event, a small fraction of total medical costs – about a half a percent.


Mar
13

Pharmacists, Part D, and politics

The law of unintended consequences continues to dog the much-maligned Part D program. So far, seniors and states have been depicted as the primary victims of the program’s operational, structural, and marketing faults. Now there’s news that the program’s impact on pharmacists is resulting in political fallout for the White House.
The New York Times reported yesterday that a (free registration required) group of pharmacists from Texas met with White House political boss Karl Rove to voice concerns about Part D. While their complaints include the additional time required of pharmacists to explain the program to seniors and advise them on which of the myriad offerings works best for them, by far the more significant issue appears to be the financial fallout.
Pharmacies’ problems include slow payment by Part D vendors; lower reimbursement rates; extra labor costs incurred while (free registration required) pharmacists wrestled with administrative nightmares; and the cost of free scripts given away to seniors lost in the bureaucratic mess.
According to a pharmacist in California: “It’s really bad and it’s been a disaster for us…Our reimbursement rates have gone down. Medicare Part D has really hurt us.”
While the administrative and operational issues look to be solvable, the reimbursement issue will not go away. Pharmacists are discovering that in many cases their reimbursement under Part D is less than it was under Medicare, making Part D significantly less attractive. And that comes on top of a reduction in Medicaid drug dispensing fees that went into effect last year.
According to the pharmacists from Bush’s home state, these problems have combined to push many pharmacies, especially the mom-and-pops, to the financial brink. The result is these independent business people, many of which have been ardent supporters of the President, feel victimized by the program. Bush’s recent comment that “It’s not immoral to make sure that prescription drug pharmacists don’t overcharge the system” further alienated pharmacists.
The winners in Part D look to be big pharma, PBMs, managed care firms, and employers. In addition to taxpayers, seniors and pharmacies, losers may include the President and his allies on Part D.