Categories

Tag: Insurers

POLICY/HOSPITALS/HEALTH PLANS: Jockeying for position via the pages of the NY Times

Here’s my FierceHealthcare editorial this morning—Jon Cohn tells me that I’ve been a little rough on Milt Fredenheim lately. Any thoughts? (or have you all left for the Hamptons/Your Sonoma winery estate…)

The mechanics of healthcare reimbursement have been getting more inches than you might expect in The New York Times recently. We’ve heard in the last few days about the length of time it takes insurers to pay providers (too long), the rate of electronic claims submission (getting higher) and how much Medicare pays hospitals compared to private insurers (not enough). Is it just coincidence? Or can I detect a little preemptive strike here as the players start to jockey for position in the coming world of transparency and pay-for-performance. Last year health economist Uwe Reinhardt published a much-talked-about Health Affairs article in which he showed that hospital pricing–and presumably hospital cost accounting–was opaque and presumably mostly guesswork. Today CMS began to release information about what it pays for several common procedures.

If providers are moving to a world in which what they charge for procedures is exposed and vetted by payer-related organizations like Leapfrog–let alone Consumer Reports–then they want to make sure that they are getting their stake in the political ground first. Meanwhile, employers and insurers are trying to pass the buck (literally) to consumers and the taxpayer, before those two sleeping giants awake. Of course, this all puts off the inevitable day when we really take a deep look at why we spend so much on healthcare when luminaries like Don Berwick tell us that up to 50 percent of healthcare spending is wasted.

POLICY/HEALTH PLANS/HOSPITALS: More on the punking of Milt Freudenheim

Freudenheim has been the health care reporter at the NY Times for a long time — a quick Googling suggests 1993 was when he started. So letting this piece of propaganda from the health plans slip by him and writing an article about it called Low Payments by U.S. Raise Medical Bills Billions a Year is basically unforgivable. Especially after the article he wrote last week talking about delays in payments from payers, that completely ignored the huge lawsuits about the issue in the 1990s and again left his readers without most of the story.

The argument in today’s article is basically this. Evil Medicare and Medicaid pay hospitals and doctors so little that they are forced, forced I tell you, to bill private insurers more to make up the difference. We know that’s true because Millman & Robertson says so. (Those of you sniggering at the back of the class who thought that M&R’s job was to help insurers reduce their payments and spending obviously don’t understand….)

Except that halfway down the page the argument changes. Now it says, the huge unreimbursed cost of treating the uninsured is so great an extra burden on hospitals and doctors that they are forced, forced I tell you, to bill private insurers more to make up the difference.

The article then wraps with a grab-bag of quotes from random observers, none of whom suggest any solution to this and two of whom represent organizations (Employers and Health Plans) who have done their damnest over the years to scupper any solutions to the uninsurance problem that is now apparently just killing them. But let’s ignore that for now.

The one person who could have given Milt a good explanation was apparently not answering his phone. Uwe Reinhardt gave as good an explanation of this phenomenon as any at a 1994 HSR conference. The story is that sometimes costs go up faster in the public programs and sometimes they go up faster for private sector payers, but the difference between them is pretty minimal. At that conference Uwe put up a chart that I can’t find, but the data is in the table below (look at the bottom section which shows average annual increase in spending by source over time)

Source of funds

Essentially what this shows you is that in the 1970s public expenditure grew a bit faster than private sector spending (14% vs 12.0%), in the 1980s they grew at about the same rate (private grew slightly faster), in the 1990s public expenditure grew a bit faster than private again (5.9% vs 5.1%) and in 2000–20001 public spending grew even faster than private (9.4% versus 8.2%). Over time of course the overall share of public spending as a proportion of all spending has gone up, but not that much. Uwe’s explanation was that his friends in the insurance business told him that when public costs went up faster than private costs it showed how efficient the private sector was, and when it was the other way around, it showed that Medicare and Medicaid were cost shifting to the private sector!

Well, Freudenheim has bought that hook, line and sinker!

The truth is of course that providers will charge whomever they can whatever they can, and the balance of bargaining power providers hold over payers goes up and down (and in the last few years has been going up) with all payors across the board, while their ability to stick rate increases to different payors (public versus private) varies only slightly. But look again at the overall numbers, There’s never a time when the cost increases for private and public payers are radically different. If you read the NY Times article today you could be forgiven for thinking that Medicare is paying 20% less into the system and that the private side is paying 40% more.

It’s terrible to hear that the poor innocent health insurers have been forced, forced I tell you, to pay these huge extra amounts since the Medicare Balanced Budget Act of 1998 reduced Medicare payments. After all their huge profits of the 1990s have collapsed as they’ve been forced to absorb the extra costs, and the 2000s have been nothing but a sorry tale of woe as insurer after insurer has seen its profits and its stock price hurtle into the abyss, as you can clearly see from this chart

Health plans

But from the Freudenheim article, the answer is obvious. We should just have Medicare and Medicare pay way more each year, and then the providers would charge everyone else much less! I wonder why CMS didn’t think of that? After all, far be it from health insurers to have to actually try to do something about reducing their clients costs when the solution is so obvious that a slap-dash M&R report identifies it for us.

HEALTH PLANS/HOSPITALS: United–not in enough trouble, goes looking for more

I don’t know what’s going on at UnitedHealth Group, but I am missing the strategic subtlety of this latest move. If I were trying to manage PR for the biggest and most profitable health plan in the country, and I found that my CEO had made hundreds of millions of dollars by (definitely unethically and presumably illegally) back-dating option grants, I wouldn’t want to see a major regional subsidiary written up in the New York Times about how it’s aggressively targeting one of New York City’s poorest safety-net hospitals. Apparently the hospital thought it had agreed a contract, but eventually they noticed that they were being paid at the old rate. When they enquired as to why, Oxford (which United bought in 2004) brought up other issues and the whole thing has since escalated to the close to nuclear option.

This spring, Oxford told hundreds of doctors and thousands of its subscribers that it would no longer pay for medical care at Jamaica Hospital Medical Center, and gave them a month to make new arrangements. It told some doctors that they, too, would no longer be allowed to participate in the Oxford plans, and it told many patients that they needed to find new doctors.

Now we tough Californians are used to this stuff—and usually used to the insurer losing. But the concept is new in New York apparently, and it’s just dreadful PR to use it on Jamaica hospital, which is that hospital in the run down part of Brooklyn that most wealthy Manhattanites only stare at out of the cab window when they’re heading to JFK

Kenneth E. Raske, president of the Greater New York Hospital Association, a trade group, said: "I field complaints from hospitals about insurers every day. But I have never seen anything like this." Jamaica Hospital, on the Van Wyck Expressway near Jamaica Avenue, serves a largely poor population with many immigrants and a large number of uninsured patients. It is generally considered well managed, but has had serious losses in recent years. Officials say it merely broke even in 2005.

There may be good business reasons for United to be doing this. Lord knows health plans have spent precious little time or effort in recent years trying to contain the excesses of the system on their clients’ behalf. But surely going after a hospital that relies on its better paying customers to keep the lights on for the poor is not going to generate the kind of PR that the company needs.

Is Mr Spitzer watching? I suspect so…

TECH/HEALTH PLANS/PHYSICIANS: Let’s hire this PR firm!

To those of you who’ve been paying attention, this may not exactly be news.

Apparently, health insurers don’t pay claims immediately and deny some of them. But it is news because practice management/billing company AthenaHealth has quantified the numbers across its practices and published a list by plan of who’s paying when. They’ve even sent me the spreadsheet with every plan’s numbers. And they, or rather their apparently amazing PR company (which called me at 6 am—don’t worry I’ll be making them pay my divorce lawyer’s fees) have done amazingly well to get this into Milt Freudenheim’s story in the NY Times called The Check Is Not in the Mail.

Insure.graph

But is this news? Insurance companies make money off the float—always have. So it’s in their interest to be at the bottom of the list until either they get fined by the state (as happened to United in Arizona lately) or they get sued by medical associations (as happened to all the big guys in the late 1990s) and settle as Aetna and a bunch of others did three years ago. The numbers AthenaHealth put out seem to be a little better than they were in the 1990s, but maybe not as good as the doctors would like. If I was Humana CEO I’d call my CFO in and ask why we’re on the top of the list when the bigger more profitable plans are down the bottom!

Maybe I just love conspiracy theories too much, but given the NY Times penchant for printing up any rubbish that gets pushed to it by the current administration, perhaps Freudenheim is craving some of Judy Miller’s publicity! After all the CEO of AthenaHealth is not only named Bush but he’s a blood relative.

I’m also amused by the comments from the doc quoted:

Dr. Molly Katz, a Cincinnati gynecologist and former president of the Ohio Medical Association, said she hoped the publicity would encourage insurers to improve their payment practices. "I would much rather have my staff talking to patients than talking to insurance companies," Dr. Katz said.

Be careful what you wish for, Dr. Katz. Given that the organized medicine is getting its wish and we’re seeing more high-deductible plans, she’ll find that her staff—while they may not spend less time on the phone with insurers—will be spending much more time on the phone with their patients. Trying to get them to pay their bills!

HEALTH PLANS/PBMs: Don’t be evil?

I’m in Miami to talk to the Blues Association about blogging and new media. I think my theme is that You Shouldn’t Be Evil (or whatever the Googlers say…)

But it looks like Caremark is joining United and ACS in options woes. Given the shenanignas going on at those two places— and unnecessary shenanigans as it turned out—perhaps a bunch of others have been playing that game. And as McGuire himself said "If we can’t find new ways to provide value, we won’t grow". But then again around here THCB fans know that Wall Street hates healthcare services but doesn’t know it.

Of course it’s not the evil liberal blogosphere that’s found out all this dirt. It was real journalists—Charles Forelle and James Bandler. Meanwhile fellow WSJounralista, Barbara Martinez is hot on the trail of the PBMs. So perhaps the answer is not to blame the blog, but to call your PR flacks and ask why the MSM, or SCLM, hasn’t been warned off the way you wanted?

HEALTH PLANS/POLICY: RAND study on the individual market puzzles me a little

Here are my longer comments on the RAND study about Consumer making in the individual insurance market published on the web last week by Health Affairs. Somewhat ironically I was interviewed and fairly extensively quoted in this Olga Pierce UPI story (yup, the Moonies got to me!) before I’d read the whole study, so I was mostly venting my prejudices about the individual insurance market as a whole in my comments there. This is a little long, so I’ve put it below the jump — but I think it’s very important.

Continue reading…

HEALTH PLANS/HOSPITALS: Kaiser needs to set up a major external review

Here’s the latest LA Times article in the series on an issue for Kaiser Permanente that is clearly not going away: Kaiser Transplant Patients Express Their Fear and Fury

And up from the comments from Harvey Frey MD, is the core issue that KP must deal with now before they get put in the "just like the rest of the egregious bastards" category: Harvey says:

Kaiser-Permanente is emphatically a for-profit organization. 50% of
Kaiser’s annual billion dollar profit is paid to the Permanente Medical
Group, and thence into the doctors’ retirement accounts. Fifty cents of every dollar NOT spent on health care directly benefits
the doctors. Money paid to outside contractors comes right out of their
pockets. The motivation behind the Kaiser denial of kidney transplants is clear.

As for cooking their statistics, according to an ER doctor friend of
mine who has worked there, they drive up their heart treatment
statistics by referring out the riskier cases. They get away with their poor care by forcing patients into their
mandatory arbitration system, and blackballing arbitrators who find big
for patients. The only excuse for being a Kaiser supporter is ignorance of what they actually do!

I don’t know if this little blog has any influence, but here’s what I’m calling for. Kaiser needs to set up not an internal inquiry as they’ve started, but a major league external investigation headed by a serious independent medical heavyweight. They must also agree to abide by its recommendations for insulating the (largely salaried) Permanente physicians from the suspicion (as voiced by Harvey), and I hope not the actuality, that they are making medical decisions for their own personal profit.

Don’t forget that capitation as a movement died because the public felt that doctors were withholding care for their own financial advantage. The same thing is becoming understood about FFS–or rather that doctors/the system does too much for their own advantage not for the best care of patients. KP or more accurately The Permanente Medical Group needs to get itself out of that similar ethical hole, and given that it largely pays it physicians with salaries, it ought to be able to make sure that, not only in perception but also in reality, it is working for patients’ best interests.

Because, as I said in a private email exchange last night, if we can’t trust salaried physicians at what has been–to those of us in the  health policy world at least–one of the few institutions that has been an innovator in care and care management on a population basis, who can we trust?

HEALTH PLANS: Kaiser, kidney transplants, (sigh)

This Kaiser kidney transplant thing isn’t getting any better—today they’re setting up an “internal enquiry”. There’s no way that lawsuits and legislative activity won’t result soon. And as Eric Novack chastises me for my favoritism, this is from one of the “good guys” in American health care. If it was (say) Tenet or Golden Rule I would be piling on a lot more. I certainly am feeling much more dismay than I would were it one of those others…

What’s worrying is that there was a lot of basic incompetence in the administration of the Thrive campaign (internal documents left on public servers, domain names not reserved, etc, etc). I had hoped that that incompetence would be contained within the marketing department, not allowed to spread into the important areas of clinical care.

I hope there is another side to this story, but at the moment don’t you think KP would have been better off taking 1% of the $40m it dumped into its Thrive campaign, and using it to have an impartial expert consultant take a hard look at this new kidney center’s practices before and as it was opening. After all they are the ones who’ve been stressing that preventative care is cheaper and better quality than trying to patch things up after the fact.

HEALTH PLANS/HOSPITALS: Kaiser gets beaten up in LA Times

There’s a series going on in the LA Times suggesting that, after it created its own kidney transplant program, either through inefficiency, incompetence or worse, Kaiser Permanente caused a delay in the transplants of several kidney patients. This morning’s report, called Kaiser Denied Transplants of Ideally Matched Kidneys is pretty damning, suggesting that Kaiser deliberately refused to cover the transplants of some perfectly matched organs for donors at UCSF. The unstated reason is of course that they’d have to pay for them at UCSF whereas it would be money they’d keep within their own system if they could perform the transplant at their own new center.

As late as Wednesday afternoon, Kaiser officials adamantly denied that they had ever instructed UC San Francisco to turn away such organs. But after being confronted with evidence to the contrary by The Times, the officials called back to say that they could not stand by that position. One of Kaiser’s own kidney specialists had confirmed that he directed UC San Francisco to turn down at least one of the near-perfect-match kidneys, they acknowledged.

Now as far as I can tell we don’t really know whether those patients quickly got their transplants within the new Kaiser center, or what their outcomes were. And we don’t really know why Kaiser pulled its business from UCSF in the first place—Kaiser in S.Cal is still contracting out transplants to academic medical centers.

I tend to believe that Kaiser is in general on the side of the angels, so I’m waiting to see more about this before I cast any judgments. But whatever they saved in the first few months of this program pales in comparison to what these kinds of stories will cost them.

 

assetto corsa mods