THCB

Employers as Doctors

Unless you spend a lot of time around health policy wonks, you’ve probably never heard of the term “value-based health insurance benefits.”  In fact, you may not even know that it’s the hottest new fad in the field.

Here is my layman’s summary: If you are like most people, you are not a very good consumer of health care. Odds are, you will fall for the latest fad advertised on TV or follow the advice you get at the bridge club instead of buying the care that has been scientifically shown to be better for you.

So as a corrective, a lot of employers are finding ways to “nudge” you into better decisions through financial incentives. Say you have a chronic condition and need to take certain medications. Your employer might drop your deductible down to zero (or may even pay your to take them) to encourage your compliance. But for services where there appears to be wasteful overuse (such as MRI scans), the employer might impose a hefty $500 deductible.

This idea intrigued me, so I turned to a rather lengthy article in the Washington Post, which informed that value-based insurance benefits are incorporated into the new health reform law, “including the requirement that new insurance provide free recommended preventive services such as mammograms and colon cancer screenings.”

In the world of big business, this idea is all the rage. One in every five employers employing at least 500 people is already doing it. Four in five employers who employ at least 10,000 workers say they are interested.

So if big business is for it; the government is mandating it; and health policy wonks like it; how could anyone possibly obj-……..

Whoops… wait a minute… Mammograms?… I haven’t seen a slew of articles over the past year or so questioning the value of mammograms — suggesting that Americans get too many, concluding that the costs are often greater than the benefits, even questioning whether they are a useful breast cancer detection tool? In case you haven’t been keeping up, see here, here, here and here.

I wish I could say this was a mere oversight. An error on someone’s part. Alas. It is not. Turns out that the “value” in value-based insurance benefits does not necessarily mean high-quality, low-cost, evidence-based care, despite all the rhetoric. There are other values at play here and they may not be values you share.

For example, despite a mountain of evidence that so-called preventive care does not pay for itself — especially when provided to otherwise healthy people — the new health law mandates that a whole laundry list of services be provided for free.

I’ve offered a political explanation of this phenomenon before, in response to the puzzling fact that other countries seem to over-provide to the healthy and under-provide to the sick. Unregulated doctors and hospitals are likely to spend more than half the health budget on 5% of the population. But if you are the Minister of Health, you cannot afford to spend half your money on 5% of the voters — many of whom will die before the next election or will be too sick to make it to the polls and vote anyway. Redistribution from the sick to the healthy makes political sense, even if it makes no medical sense.

Employers have a different type of perverse incentive: it is in their financial self-interest to attract the healthy and avoid the sick. From their point of view, it makes sense to provide free mammograms, PAP smears, PSA tests, etc. What else are healthy people going to spend health dollars on? Wellness programs that emphasize no smoking, weight control and physical fitness are going to attract what kind of employees? Answer: the ones who don’t smoke and who are thin and fit. At the same time, it also makes sense to charge employees more for their sleep apnea care or for the plethora of treatments available for ailing joints. If the employer is lucky, maybe these will become some other employer’s problems.

As an economist, I like the idea of economic incentives being incorporated into public policy. Here are some interesting examples collected by the Washington Post:

  • In Scotland, the National Health Service actually pays people to quit smoking.
  • The fee is even higher for pregnant mother who quit.
  • In Tanzania, a World Bank program pays young men and women who test negative for sexually transmitted diseases.
  • In Greensboro N.C., young girls are paid not to get pregnant.
  • In Minnesota, at-risk women are paid to get mammograms.
  • In another experiment, low-income African-American patients were paid to make depression therapy appointments.

These efforts may not prove cost effective. A series of studies show short-term gains, but no long-lasting benefits from paying patients to lose weight or to stop smoking.

I’m willing to allow competition and free markets to sort out what works and what doesn’t, what’s sensible and what’s not. In the meantime, be alert that the providers of value-based insurance benefits may have values different from yours.

John C. Goodman, PhD, is president and CEO of the National Center for Policy Analysis. He is also the Kellye Wright Fellow in health care. His Health Policy Blog is considered among the top conservative health care blogs where health care problems are discussed by top health policy experts from all sides of the political spectrum.

Livongo’s Post Ad Banner 728*90

31
Leave a Reply

30 Comment threads
1 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
11 Comment authors
Mike Kippuk pharmacy onlineReedRNEmployers as Doctors | Health Care Jobs In Connecticutbotetourt Recent comment authors
newest oldest most voted
Mike Kipp
Guest

I recently chaired a panel on innovation that, among other things, looked at what employers might do to precipitate a “prudent buyer” revolution; and it goes well beyond the kind of simplistic transparency that would have us search out the cheapest colonoscopy (gulp). Note how EMC has done a great job of tooling their employees and dependents to be better consumers at http://tinyurl.com/4qupe3q.

uk pharmacy online
Guest

Well, this is really awesome information you share with us which is really needed for everyone. Keep sharing continuously.

botetourt
Guest
botetourt

Peter–Hospitals are generally inefficient and have not had the right incentives. Hospitals want and try to be all things to all people–most of the time in the non-profit world with their collective hearts in the right place, but their business sense no where in evidence. In my state hospitals are probably averaging reimbursements of 140% of cost from insurance companies, so a 40% discount from charges is not that far off what the average is for insurance companies (hence premiums are outrageous even though the cost structure for hospitals is reasonable-largely due to gross Medicaid under-reimbursements). Even at free-standing, cherry-picking… Read more »

Peter
Guest
Peter

“Finally, a responsible hospital should be providing a blanket discount for the uninsured which approximates the average discount provided to insurance company contracts. By and large, patients who have no insurance don’t pay anyway–who can even attempt to pay hospital charges even with a 40% discount?” botetourt, I agree that if they can make money from reimbursements from insurance contracts, they can make money from cash pay, paying the same charges, but they will argue they don’t have a contract with individual cash pay and that it’s not fair for cash pays, who don’t pay premiums, to benefit from negotiated… Read more »

botetourt
Guest
botetourt

Peter—I was trying to illustrate the situation faced by most hospitals–only a few procedural services end up providing the margin for the whole institution. One can argue whether the insurance company is paying too much or the government too little–but the point is, without the cost-shifting that has been built in, many hospitals would fail. And if hospitals get cherry-picked on the procedural services, there is no margin being provided for poorly-reimbursed medical services, uninsured, ED, etc. I don’t get what “charity paid care” is. It is hard enough to be able to document free care, as the accounting rules… Read more »

ReedRN
Guest
ReedRN

If the American people could have the type of health care insurance that would take care of them when they are sick as well as when they are healthy, our health insurance would be perfect. I am an RN. I have been a health care professional for over 30 yrs. I have had health care for free including prescription medications and I have had to pay a small fortune out of every paycheck to have what is considered adequate, not great health care. Health care is definitely a business; A business that is like any other business, focused on being… Read more »

Peter
Guest
Peter

“The medical necessity of a procedure has nothing to do with its pricing in a free market.” Try holding your breath Nate and see how much you’re willing to pay for air. “not once did an adjuster ever dictate where I had the work done or have control over cost to the point I had to find a cheaper contractor or mechanic.” Usually state law. But did the insurance just pay the bills the contractor/body shop sent in, or did you have to phone the company first then have an adjuster inspect the damage and measure the repair cost against… Read more »

trackback

[…] arediscussed by top health policy experts from all sides of the politicalspectrum. Tweet this Share on FacebookThe HealthCare Blog Tags: Doctors, […]

Nate Ogden
Guest
Nate Ogden

Peter Generic drugs are medically necessary yet there is stil a very competitive market for Rx that fall under the typical co-pay. First $4 then $1.99 then free for drugs that fall under the usual $10 to $15 generic co-pay, shoppers are willing to change pharmacy to lower their cost from 10 to 4 to nothing.

Nate Ogden
Guest
Nate Ogden

Sorry Peter, if you can’t grasp basic economic forces not much I can do to help you. The medical necessity of a procedure has nothing to do with its pricing in a free market. No idea why you relate non connected forces like you do. For logical thinkers it makes sense. ” Do people really want an adjuster getting in the way of their healthcare decisions?” Um then don’t insure it? I know that might be to simple of an answer but the only way to make sure an insurance adjuster isn’t invloved in your healthcare is to not insure… Read more »

Peter
Guest
Peter

“You need only look at lasik surgery, breast enhancement, or any other cosmetic procedure to see the power of consumerism.” Sure, all unnecessary optional procedures that when not done do not risk health. Mammography detects life threatening disease, less done equals less detection and more deaths or serious health issues. “You see the same thing with auto repair and home repair after an accident, if someone had to replace something out of their pocket they shop for the best price, if insurance pays for it they go for the highest perceived quality regardless of price.” Not sure how many auto… Read more »

Nate Ogden
Guest
Nate Ogden

imdoc summed it up pretty good. You need only look at lasik surgery, breast enhancement, or any other cosmetic procedure to see the power of consumerism. When an insured patient recieves a mammogram they are only spending their co-pay or co-insurance, total cost is a minor factor if a factor at all. If they had to pay 100% of the cost then they would gladly go to the suburbs to save 50%, or go to an outpatient facility a friend told them about. When they don’t have to pay the bill why not go to the hospital, the most expensive… Read more »

imdoc
Guest
imdoc

This issue will become clearer if you google “cat scan, cash” and see all the imaging providers offering low cost services. They do this by running on low cost structure and stay open 24hrs to spread the fixed cost.
The hospital-insurance arrangement will make sure only hospitals and radiologists retain this technology as a cash cow and prevent anyone else from providing it (legislation, certificate-of-need, etc, etc) Meanwhile, free market provides the service at rock-bottom prices.

Peter
Guest
Peter

“because every provider is trying to make up for all the other things that are not paid for fairly, for the underpayments by govt payers, the free care, etc.” Why are you assuming that “govmt” underpays just because providers say that? Why can’t we assume private payers over pay or providers overcharge? Of course less free care through mandatory coverage would help provide more income to providers, but how do we know they will reduce charges and not just pad income/profits? There is also a lot of charity paid care that offsets “free” care and charging full list price to… Read more »

Peter
Guest
Peter

Nate, why do you think individuals would be better negotiators than insurance companies? Don’t insurance companies market premium price for equal/better coverage? Don’t insurance companies have the resources to know equipment cost, overhead, wages and profit, and what is a fair return? And as Margalit says, they have the advantage of bringing in volume.

botetourt
Guest
botetourt

What everyone seems to be forgetting is that in healthcare nothing paid for by insurance is ever priced at its marginal cost (+a reasonable mark-up) because every provider is trying to make up for all the other things that are not paid for fairly, for the underpayments by govt payers, the free care, etc. You can’t isolate mammography and try to apply a storekeeper mentality to its pricing without taking into account how messed up the rest of our system is. This is why physicians build open heart and orthopedic specialty hospitals and not pneumonia or mental health specialty centers.… Read more »