fbpx

A New Health Care Model Tackles Costs, Quality Care

As group health insurance costs continue rising every year, more employers are embracing a new plan model that aims to both cut costs and improve outcomes for patients.

This trend, known as value-based primary care, is a bit of an umbrella term for various models that involve direct financial relationships between individuals, employers, their insurers and primary care practitioners. Insurers are experimenting with different model hybrids to find better care delivery methods that reward quality outcomes and reduce costs.

This new approach was made possible by the Affordable Care Act and the Medicare Access and Child Health Plan Reauthorization Act. And as the future of the ACA remains in doubt, the enabling parts that allowed for this system of payment reform that rewards health care providers that produce better quality outcomes for lower costs will likely remain intact.

And now more health plans are adopting this model. The 2016 “Health Care Transformation Task Force Report” found that the share of its provider and health plan members’ business that used value-based payment arrangements had increased from 30% in 2014 to 41% at the end of 2015.

In a McKesson white paper, payers reported that 58% of their business has already shifted to some form of value-based reimbursement.

How does it work?

First, let’s look at what the value-based primary care model is not: it’s not a fee-for-service system, under which when doctors see a patient and deliver care, they then bill the insurer a fee that is directly tied to the service they provided.

Fee-for-service arrangements have a fee schedule that lists the usual and customary charges for thousands of different procedures. The payment amounts will vary also based on the

reimbursement rate negotiated between the insurer and health care provider.

The part of the equation that’s missing is that the there is no direct link between the payment and the outcomes of the care. The insurer does not look at if a person was cured or has recovered successfully. There is only a link between the service provided and the payment.

Many value-based models provide a payment bonus to doctors and hospitals that produce better quality outcomes, like if they have more patients who don’t relapse or who recover at a slower pace and require more doctor visits.

Providers of value-based primary care typically charge the health plan a monthly, quarterly or annual membership fee, which covers all or most primary care services, including acute and preventive care.

The main goal is to get away from the fee-for-service system which puts pressure on doctors to only provide very short primary care visits with their patients, who will often send the patient out for unnecessary high-margin services such as scans and specialists and/or write excessive prescriptions. By eliminating this billing structure, doctors are able to practice more proactive care, which can reduce or eliminate certain future health care costs.

But just because the model is patient-focused, it does not mean that costs are higher. Proponents of value-based care say the focus on patients, and focusing on preventative and forward looking care rather than reactive care, reduces overall costs, which should be reflected in premiums.

Some benefits to patients include:

  • More time with their doctor
  • Same-day appointments
  • Short or no wait times in the office
  • Better technology, e.g., e-mail, texting, video chats, and other digital-based interactions
  • 24/7 coverage by a professional with access to their electronic health record
  • More coordinated care.

 

Vale-based care also improves provider experience and professional satisfaction, which, in turn, is known to improve the quality of care.


New Rules Lay Down Law for Group Plans in 2019

In the final rules that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services released for 2019, it also covered annual cost-sharing limits for group plans, rules on SHOP exchanges, and grandfathered plans, among other items we’ve covered earlier.

Here we break down some of the focuses of the 2019 rules:

Annual cost-sharing limits for group plans –  The maximum annual limit on cost-sharing for 2019 will jump to $7,900 for self-only coverage and $15,800 for other than self-only coverage. That’s up from $7,350 and $14,700, respectively, for this year.

New rules for SHOP –  Starting in 2019, the Small Business Health Options Program will no longer be required to provide employee eligibility determinations or appeals, premium aggregation or online enrollment. The SHOP scheme was created as a way for small employers to shop on an exchange much like individuals buying Affordable Care Act plans on marketplaces do.

SHOPs will still be required to determine employer eligibility for the SHOP and certify each qualified health plan available through the SHOP. However, enrollment will not be done online, but rather through agents and brokers who have registered with SHOP or an insurer offering a qualified health plan.

Notably, the small business health care tax credit will remain in place for eligible employers. SHOP will still have a website that includes information on the plans in all geographical areas, a premium calculator and access to customer service where SHOP personnel can answer questions.

One other item that will stay in place is the “rolling enrollment” rule that allows employers to buy SHOP coverage at any point during the year if they meet certain criteria.

The main reason for these changes is that SHOP enrollment has been well shy of expectations, so CMS is looking for ways to continue offering the administration functions required by the ACA.

That said, state-based SHOPs will still have leeway to maintain their current operations as they see fit. But for the most part, starting with the 2019 policy year, federal and state SHOPs will mainly rely on brokers and insurers to take on more of the responsibility for determining employee eligibility, conducting enrollment and collecting premiums.

Another grandfather extension –  CMS has extended the transitional policy that allows  states to permit insurers in small group markets to renew health insurance policies they would otherwise have to cancel because they don’t comply with parts of the ACA.

This means that states may allow insurers that have continually renewed eligible non-grandfathered individual and small group policies since Jan. 1, 2014, to again renew those policies, provided that the policies end by Dec. 31, 2019.

Health insurers that use the transitional policy will be required to send informational notices to affected individuals and employers.

 


Drug Costs Starting to Drive Group Plan Inflation

Under the Affordable Care Act, group health insurance costs have been rising at a much slower rate than they had during the decade preceding its passage.

In fact, the rate of annual premium growth in the group market has hovered around 5% – more than half of what it was between 2001 and 2010. Also, health care’s share of the national economy actually fell from 17.4% in 2010 to 17.2% by 2013. However, that trend hasn’t lasted and in 2016 the share was 17.9%.

There has been a lot of debate about why rates have been increasing and some pundits say that if it were not for spiraling pharmaceutical costs, the rate of health insurance inflation would be lower.

While the drug industry would deny pharmaceutical costs are what’s driving health care cost inflation, the numbers show otherwise, according to an analysis by Modern Healthcare, an industry trade publication.

Here are the figures that drive home the point. Between 2013 and 2016, personal health care consumption rose 16.7%, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). This is what was driving that inflation:

  • Hospital spending: Up 15.5%
  • Professional services (mostly physician office-based care): Up 16%
  • Drug spending: Up 23.9%

Source: CMS

For 2018 group health plans, the inflation components of the three main areas could not be starker:

  • Hospital costs: 6.1% (from 2017)
  • Physician costs: 4.3%
  • Pharmaceuticals: 10.9%

Source: Segal Company

The situation may actually be worse than the numbers hint at. Retail drug sales don’t include the most expensive medicines – those delivered in hospital outpatient and physician offices. The CMS doesn’t track that data separately, but one can get a glimpse of what’s happening by examining the latest financial reports from major hospital systems.

Controlling drug costs

Prescription drug costs now account for about 17% of total U.S. healthcare spending and were the fastest rising component of that spending over the past year.

Drug costs have been difficult for health care providers and the insurance industry to tackle.

The pharmaceutical industry has been able to fend off government efforts to counter price hikes. It successfully lobbied Congress in 2003 to bar Medicare from negotiating prices in the new Part D program.

The industry has been aided by opposition from physician and patient advocacy groups, who fear that cost-benefit calculations will be used to cut them off from high-priced but effective medicines.

Benefits consulting firm Segal Company asked managed care organizations, health insurers, pharmacy benefit managers and third-party administrators to rank the cost-management strategies implemented by group health plans in 2017. Here are the top five:

    • Using specialty pharmacy management– This focuses on controlling costs of specialty drugs, many of which cost more than an annual health premium for a year’s worth of dosing.
    • Intensifying pharmacy management programs– This includes negotiating better pricing for commonly used drugs.
    • Contracting with value-based providers.
    • Increasing financial incentives in wellness plans.
    • Adopting high-deductible health plans.

These strategies show plan sponsors are looking to drive utilization to high-quality, low-cost providers in lieu of simply passing the costs on to their employees.


New Rules Allow Short-term Plans to Last up to Three Years

The Trump administration has taken another step in its effort to roll out short-term health insurance plans by extending the amount of time such plans can be in effect.

Under the new rule, which was issued August 1, short-term plans can be purchased for up to 12 months and policyholders can renew coverage for a maximum of 36 months.

These controversial plans, though, do not have to comport with the Affordable Care Act, like not covering 10 essential benefits and not having to cover pre-existing conditions – and they can even exclude coverage for medications.

As a result of the changes, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services predicts that an additional 600,000 people will enroll in short-term plans in 2019, jumping to 1.6 million individuals by 2021. Part of that will include some 200,000 people who drop their plans in the individual market and sign up for short-term coverage.

That’s compared with about 122,500 people enrolled in short-term plans in 2017, according to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. But enrollment is expected to surge now that the individual mandate penalty has been eliminated.

That said, CMS predicts that premiums for 2019 ACA exchange plans will rise 1%, while net premiums will decrease 6%.

The final rule goes into effect 60 days after it is posted, but state regulators would still need to approve any new plans that come to market. Health insurers may start selling short-term plans that last up to a year in a few months. The new regulation, however, does not require insurers to renew the policies.

Health insurers and consumer advocates have assailed the plans, saying they provide limited coverage and that many people won’t understand just how skimpy the plans are when they buy them.

They also said that if younger and healthier people gravitated to these less expensive plans, it would leave an older, sicker pool of enrollees in ACA marketplace plans, which could further force rates higher in the marketplaces.

 

New rules change the game

The renewability portion of the regulations was modeled on COBRA plans, which allow people who leave a job to continue on the same plans they had while on the job, but they have to foot the bill themselves.

Plans will be able to exclude someone based on pre-existing conditions. The plans also do not have to cover the ACA’s 10 essential health benefit categories, such as maternity care or prescription drugs, for example.

Insurers that sell these plans will be required to:

  • Prominently display wording in the contract that the plans are exempt from some ACA provisions.
  • List coverage exclusions and limitations for pre-existing conditions.
  • List what health benefits are covered.
  • Explain if the plans have lifetime or annual dollar limits on health benefits.

 

By skirting many of the ACA provisions, the short-term plans offer less coverage and are hence less expensive.

That said, states will be able to regulate these plans as they see fit. For example, California limits the time someone can be enrolled in a short-term plan, and it bars renewals.


Huge Investigation Uncovers Possible Generic Drug Pricing Cartel

An investigative report by the Washington Post has uncovered an alleged cartel among generic drug manufacturers to fix the price of some 300 medications, adding new fuel to the debate about raging price increases in the pharmaceutical industry.

While a number of name-brand drug makers have been named and shamed for their massive price increases – sometimes hundreds or thousands of percent higher – the article looks at how something similar has been going on in the generic drug market.

A case that started as an antitrust lawsuit brought by two states has spurred a massive investigation into alleged price-fixing by at least 16 companies that make 300 generic drugs. Now 47 states are party to the lawsuit, seeking to recoup perhaps billions of dollars.

In addition, pharmacies and other businesses have filed their own lawsuits against the generic drug makers. One such suit documents huge price hikes – like a 3,400% increase in the price of an anti-asthma medication – and investigators believe that generic drug producers colluded to raise prices in tandem or not make their products available in some markets or through specific pharmacy chains.

The scale of the alleged collusion was summed up by Joseph Nielsen, an assistant attorney general and antitrust investigator in Connecticut, whose office has taken the lead in the investigation: “This is most likely the largest cartel in the history of the United States,” he told the Washington Post.

If the allegations are true, the parties affected run the gamut from consumers, who have high copays or high deductibles for their pharmaceuticals, to hospitals and insurance companies. And many health industry observers were surprised to learn the news, considering that generics are supposed to be a safety net for patients to ensure access to quality medications at a reasonable price.

Two former executives of one generic drug maker, Heritage Pharmaceuticals, have pleaded guilty to federal criminal charges. They are now cooperating with the Justice Department.

The article describes the coziness among executives from competing generic drug makers and how they would allegedly collude to raise prices.

There has been no estimate of how much the generic drug companies allegedly overcharged over the years, but even if it’s a fraction of the annual sales of $104 billion a year, it would be substantial.

The drug makers that the Washington Post was able to reach denied the allegations.

Coordinated price hikes ‘almost routine’

The generics industry used to be highly competitive, according to the story, but over the years, things changed and suddenly allegedly “coordinated price hikes on identical generic drugs became almost routine,” the Post wrote.

The alleged price-fixing affects 300 generic drugs, according to the report. Generics account for 90% of the prescriptions written, however they only account for 23% of the total drug spend in the country, according to the Association for Accessible Medicines.

And still, the prices of on a benchmark set of older generic drugs in the Medicare prescription-drug program dropped 14% between 2010 and 2015.

But, for the 300 drugs in question, prices went up, according to the lawsuits. That’s why pharmacies have also come to the fore to sue. They were on the front lines when they started noticing marked increases of hundreds of percent in the prices of some generic medications.

If the collusion turns out to be true, it essentially reverses the possible gains when a generic drug enters the market. According to the Federal Drug Administration, prices fall up to 50% when a second generic enters the market. And once there are six or seven companies making the same generic drug, the price usually falls 75% from the original cost of the brand name pharmaceutical.


Skyrocketing Drug Prices Threaten Health Insurance Model

The US is experiencing a prescription drug pricing epidemic, and some drug companies are driving a wedge into the health insurance model by severely jacking up pharmaceutical prices to astronomical levels.

Unfortunately, the cost of some drugs has become so extreme that by paying for one prescription it could take decades to recoup the cost in premium collections.

The scourge was recently highlighted in an investigative report by “60 Minutes” on CBS.

The investigation reflects the difficulties facing health insurers in paying for drugs and also the fact that many pharmacy benefit managers, which are in business to rein in runaway drug costs, are not actually doing much to stem the rampant and exorbitant price increases.

The “60 Minutes” piece focused on one city which was faced with financial ruin because of the costs of just one drug for one of its employees. The city’s experience is emblematic of just how bad things have gotten.

The city of Rockford, Ill., had for years been self-insuring and paying the health care costs for its 1,000 employees and their dependents. But then one pharmaceutical busted the city’s health care budget: Acthar.

In 2015, two small children of Rockford employees were treated with Acthar, a drug that’s been on the market since 1952. It is used to treat a rare and potentially fatal condition called infantile spasms, which afflicts about 2,000 babies a year.

The drug had been affordable in 2001 when it sold for about $40 a vial. By 2015, the price had spiraled to $40,000 a vial – a phenomenal 100,000% increase.

As a result, the city paid out close to $500,000 for the two children’s Acthar prescriptions.

The problem is that Acthar is not the only drug on the market that has seen that kind of price increase. Pharmaceutical companies have been on a major price-hike spree, pushing once-affordable drugs into the stratosphere – often after one company buys the rights to a drug from another firm.

The maker of Acthar also in 2010 decided that it wanted to boost sales of the drug because there are only about 2,000 cases of infantile spasms a year. So it started marketing it to doctors for other diseases that it was not designed to treat.

The company began to market the drug for several chronic conditions like rheumatoid arthritis that affect adults, even though there was no evidence it worked for these conditions.

Prescriptions surged, and by 2015 Medicare was spending $500 million a year on Acthar.

They were able to get those prescriptions because many of the doctors who prescribed a lot of Acthar also were getting money from the company. The drugmaker paid them for speaking, consulting and conducting research studies for the company.

“60 Minutes” found that those doctors appear to be the ones who are most likely to also prescribe Acthar. The drugmaker paid doctors millions over a nearly two-year period, with the top earner getting more than $350,000. 

PBMs no help

To rein in drug costs, Medicare contracts with pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), which are supposed to negotiate down the price of drugs. Unfortunately, the city manager of Rockford says the PBM the city was using didn’t do that.

He said that PBMs actually wield a lot of clout, but often don’t use it when they should.

Many observers say that PBMs have divided loyalties and make money when drugs are more expensive. Express Scripts, the largest PBM in the country, for example, not only is a PBM, but it also owns a pharmacy that sells expensive drugs and a company that ships and packs them.

Rockford has sued the manufacturer of the drug and also Express Scripts, which the city hired specifically to contain costs, but alleges it didn’t do.

Express Scripts has denied any wrongdoing and, in its motion to dismiss, argues it was not “contractually obligated” to contain costs.

Unfortunately, there are many players with their hand in the drug pie. Besides the drugmakers, PBMs and pharmacies, doctors can make more money by prescribing more expensive drugs over ones that are cheaper and just as effective.


DOL Issues Final Rules for Association Health Plans

The Department of Labor in June issued its final rules for expanding employers’ access to association plans, a move that could result in some increases in premiums for other plans, including Affordable Care Act-compliant small group health plans.

The rule in its essence allows more small businesses and self-employed workers to band together to buy insurance. The final rule is part of the Trump administration’s plan to encourage competition in the health insurance markets and lower the cost of coverage.

It does that by broadening the definition of an employer under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) to allow more groups to form association health plans and bypass ACA rules, like requiring plans to offer the 10 essential benefits. But what’s not clear is how the marketplace will react and what kind of plans will ultimately be created to target this new potential market.

In announcing the final rules, Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta said that some 4 million people would likely gain coverage in the association plan market, most of them migrating from the small group and individual markets. The figure also includes an estimate that 400,000 people who currently don’t have coverage will end up securing coverage in association plans.

An insurance-industry-funded analysis of the final rule by Avalere Health, a health care consulting firm, has predicted that mostly healthy, young people are expected to gravitate to association plans, which would spark rising premiums in the ACA individual and small group markets. Avalere projected premiums would increase by as much as 4% between 2018 and 2022.

Under prior rules, association health plans had to comply with ERISA’s large-employer insurance requirements. Many existing association plans have been required to comply with small group and individual insurance market regulations, including protections for people with pre-existing medical conditions and covering the ACA’s 10 essential health benefits.

The specifics of the final rule

Here’s what you need to know about the final rule:

  • Association health plans cannot restrict membership based on health status or charge sicker individuals higher premiums.
  • Plans may be formed by employers in the same trade, industry, line of business, or profession. They may also be formed based on a geographic test, such as a common state, city, county or same metropolitan area (even if the metropolitan area includes more than one state).
  • The primary purpose of the association may be to offer health coverage to its members. But, it also must have at least one substantial business purpose unrelated to providing health coverage or other employee benefits.
    A “substantial business purpose” is considered to exist if the group would be a viable entity in the absence of sponsoring an employee benefit plan.
  • The association plan must limit enrollment to current employees (and their beneficiaries, such as spouses and children), or former employees of a current employer member who became eligible for coverage when they worked for the employer.
  • The final rule reduces the requirement for working owners. To be eligible to participate they must work an average of 20 hours per week or 80 hours per month (the proposed rule required an average of 30 hours per week or 120 hours per month).

An association plan may not experience-rate each employer member based on the health status of its employees; however, it may charge different premiums as long as they are not based on health factors.
For example, employees of participating employers may be charged different premiums based on their industry subsector or occupation (e.g., cashier, stockers, and sales associates) or full-time vs. part-time status.


DOL Employers Expect 6% Hike in Health Costs for 2019

The IRS has released the inflation-adjusted amounts for 2019 used to determine whether employer-sponsored coverage is “affordable” for purposes of the Affordable Care Act’s employer shared responsibility provisions.

For plan years beginning in 2019, the affordability percentage has increased to 9.86% (from 9.56% in 2018) of an employee’s household income or wages stated on their W-2 form. The higher rate is indicative of the anticipated small group plan inflation that continues hitting premiums.

If you are an applicable large employer under the ACA (with 50 or more full-time staff), you should examine the affordability percentages for your lower-waged employees so you don’t run afoul of the law. Fortunately, as the percentage has increased, you’ll have more flexibility when setting your employees’ contribution rates.

A recent study by PricewaterhouseCooper’s Health Research Institute found that employers and insurers are expecting a 6% increase in health care costs in 2019. While that rate is just slightly above the average 5.6% increases since the ACA took effect, many employers have increasingly been passing the inflationary costs on to their covered employees.

The report by PwC noted three trends that are having the largest effect on health care costs.

Abundance of treatment options – With covered individuals demanding more convenience in their treatment options, employers and health plans have responded by giving them more ways to obtain care, like retail clinics, urgent care clinics and electronic physician consultations. While the long-term goal is to reduce health care spending on services, currently the increased offerings have resulted in higher utilization.

Mergers by providers – Hospitals and other health care providers have been consolidating for the better part of a decade, and that trend is expected to continue in light of several recently announced mega-deals. Prices tend to rise when two health systems merge and the consolidated entity gains market share and negotiating power.

Physician consolidation and employment – Hospitals, health systems and medical groups are hiring more and more doctors out of private practice. And when that happens, costs tend to go up since these organizations tend to charge higher prices than independent practitioners.

In 2016, 42% of physicians were employed by hospitals, compared to just 25% in 2012, according to the PwC report. Hospitals and medical groups tend to charge between 14% and 30% more than physicians in private practice.

Restraining factors

At the same time, there are some factors that are dampening overall cost increases:

  • Expectations that next year’s flu will be milder than this year’s main virus.
  • More employers are offering care advocates who help covered individuals navigate the insurance system to find the best quality care at the best price. According to the survey, 72% of employers offered health-advocacy services to their employees in 2018.
  • More employers are using “high-performance networks,” also known as “narrow networks.” In essence, a plan will use a narrow network of doctors who care for the bulk of covered individuals. Not contracting with as many doctors means lower overall outlays for medical services.

While the doctors in these networks are not always the least expensive providers, they typically are ones who have proven over time to yield the best results.

The takeaway

We are here to help you get the most value for your and your employees’ health care spend. Talk to us about any of the tools mentioned above to see if we have a program that might work for your organization.


Pharmacy Benefit Managers: A Break On Rising Prescription Costs Or a Cause of Them?

In 2015, spending on prescription drugs grew 9%, faster than any other category of healthcare spending, according to the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

The report cited increased use of new medicines, price increases for existing ones, and more spending on generic drugs as the reasons for this growth. Increasingly, though, observers of the healthcare system point to one player – pharmacy benefit managers.

Pharmacy benefit managers are intermediaries, acting as go-betweens for insurance companies, self-insured employers, drug manufacturers and pharmacies. They can handle prescription claims administration for insurers and employers, facilitate mail-order drug delivery, market drugs to pharmacies, and manage formularies (lists of drugs for which health plans will reimburse patients.)

Express Scripts, which provides network-pharmacy claims processing, drug utilization review, and formulary management among other services, is the best-known PBM. CVS Caremark and UnitedHealth Group’s OptumRx are other major players.

A PBM typically has contracts with both insurers and pharmacies. It charges health plans fees for administering their prescription drug claims. It also negotiates the amounts that plans pay for each of the drugs.

At the same time, it creates the formularies that spell out the prices pharmacies receive for each drug on the lists. Commonly, the price the plan pays for a drug is more than the pharmacy receives for it. The PBM collects the difference between the two prices.

It can do this because the health plan does not know what the PBM’s arrangement is with the pharmacy and vice versa. Also, one health plan does not know the details of the PBM’s arrangements with its competitors.

A PBM could charge one plan $200 for a month’s supply of an antidepressant, charge another plan $190 for the same drug, and sell it to a pharmacy for $170. None of the three parties know what the other parties are paying or receiving.

In addition, drug manufacturers, who recognize the influence PBM’s have over the market, offer them rebates off the prices of their products.

In theory, the PBM’s pass these rebates back to the health plans, who use them to moderate premium increases. However, because these arrangements are also confidential, the extent to which these savings are passed back to health plans is unknown. Many observers believe that PBM’s are keeping all or most of the rebates.

To fund the rebates, drug manufacturers may increase their prices. The CEO of drug maker Mylan testified before Congress in 2016 that more than half the $600 price of an anti-allergy drug used in emergencies went to intermediaries.

The PBM’s argue that they help hold down drug prices by promoting the use of generic drugs and by passing on the savings from rebates to health plans and consumers.

They reject the notion that they are somehow taking advantage of health plans and pharmacies, pointing out that they are “sophisticated buyers” of their services. They also argue that revealing the details of their contracts would harm their abilities to compete and keep prices low.

Nevertheless, PBM’s are now attracting scrutiny from Congress, health plans and employers. At least one major insurer has sued its PBM for allegedly failing to negotiate new pricing concessions in good faith. In addition, businesses such as Amazon are considering getting into the PBM business. Walmart is already selling vials of insulin at relatively inexpensive prices.

PBM’s earn billions of dollars in profits each year. With the increased attention those profits have brought, it is uncertain how long that will continue.


Infographic: How Healthcare is Robbing Companies Blind

In this infographic, we illustrate how skyrocketing healthcare and health insurance costs are stealing profits from companies and undermining wage increases.  Working with a Next Generation benefits advisor can help you reject the status quo, making your benefits plan a valuable business tool.


Malcare WordPress Security