Following the Money, Doctors Ration Care

New York Times
Business Day
Following the Money, Doctors Ration Care
By TYLER COWEN

Published: December 11, 2010

Doctors are already rationing health care and are likely to further discriminate based on whether a patient has private insurance, Medicare or Medicaid.

Insurance Fraud Mushrooms

As was predicted here in April, insurance fraud is now mushrooming, with new schemes popping up to scam the American consumer in 24 states. Section 1322 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act mandated that states create co-ops. Under this legislation, private insurers or related entities in existence before July 16, 2009, cannot qualify as health insurance issuers in co-ops. The co-op provision in HR 3590 necessitates that a number of new nonprofit companies will pop up and apply for startup loans and grants from the federal government.

Who exactly will these new nonprofits be? After paying their premium dollars, will customers get the services they expect? Apparently not, according to a Reuters article published on Tuesday:

“The Federal Trade Commission said on Wednesday it is working with 24 states to crack down on sellers of medical discount plans that market them as health insurance that covers doctors, hospitals and other services. Such scams have increased in the wake of the health care reform law…, said David Vladeck, director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection…"The uncertainty about the benefits that will be available under the new federal insurance program and the fact that the budget doesn't kick in until 2014 is going to give scammers very fertile ground for this," Vladeck told reporters in a conference call. "They're going to try to capitalize on uncertainty."


…"Health discount plans are not insurance. They don't pay your medical bills," said Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson, who has filed three lawsuits. She added that continued job losses are fueling the scams since most Americans who have insurance get it through their employer. The companies targeted by the FTC and states are mostly privately owned. They include Health Care One, Consumer Health Benefits Association, and United States Benefits. So far, 54 lawsuits and other civil enforcement actions have been taken by the FTC and the states, officials said. New York's insurance superintendent, James Wrynn, said some of the discount plans do offer some limited payments for some healthcare expenses such as medical tests or short hospital stays, "but when you find out the extent of the coverage, there is for all intents and purposes, no coverage."

Expect even more fraud in the next few years. Given the state budget deficits most states are facing and ever deepening economic recession/depression, there will be even less resources available to combat it in the future.

As always - let the buyer beware!

Understanding Insurance: Will a Public Option or Co-op Get US Where We Want?

Today's commentary comes from an article I'd written for the Journal of the American Osteopathic Association and published today. Please click here.

On Sunday, under Cloak of Darkness, in the Wee Hours of the Night and in a Snow Storm, the Senate Voted on Health Reform

I am reminded of a phrase my grandmother used to say, “Fra dire e fare, ch’é un mare” - Between saying and doing there is an ocean in between. For all the talk about openness and transparency, it seems things could not be more the opposite given the government was shut down yesterday (Monday) due to the snow. Most all of what has been negotiated has been behind closed doors, with only the ruling party invited to participate. All the rhetoric about “If anyone out there has any good ideas, we want to hear them,” appears to be just hot air. Only one party actually got to bring any of their ideas to the floor for a vote. Despite the fact that Rasmussen has polled the public on healthcare reform and 57% do not want the government to do anything at this point, Congress seems determined to ignore the will of the people. Many have called their elected representatives to find no one answers the phone, email is answered by form letter that usually is not even relevant to what the person wrote. Local offices of elected officials are not taking calls from what my colleagues are reporting to me. Americans are frustrated because their voices are being flatly ignored.

It seems our elected officials do not realize healthcare is not like any other issue. People go back to work for healthcare coverage. The definition of a good job is that it has good benefits, especially health benefits. For most people this is a giant security blanket. They will take a lesser paying job in order to get coverage.

What is most disturbing is the fact that Congress fails to appreciate that the uninsured are not a static group of people. According to a 2004 CBO report, “About 30 percent of Americans under age 65 who become uninsured in a given year remain so for more than 12 months, while nearly half obtain coverage within four months.” Given that most are only transiently uninsured, one must ask. “What is the purpose of remaking 1/6 of the economy and financing it with high taxes to build a system that is not scheduled for implementation for four years, for people who will not likely need coverage by then?”

Politicians, beware passing any of the currently proposed healthcare bills. Failure to recognize that this unlike any other matter before Congress, will surely mean peril in next fall’s election and beyond.

HR3962: Duty or Charity - Covering Congenital or Developmental Deformities

HR 3962 assures that children with congenital or developmental deformities be covered under group health plans. But children born to a "covered" parent already have these benefits. The question is - who will benefit from this rule change?

It is quite popular for those who would like to adopt children to go abroad to do so. Many choose to adopt a child with special needs, such as a cleft palate, who would be less likely to be adopted by a local couple. These children may require one or several surgeries as they grow. No doubt, this is a noble and charitable deed. This is not an unknown risk, the parents had full disclosure of the condition when they adopted the child. Often employer health plans willingly choose to extend coverage for such conditions under their plan in these circumstances. Understanding that such generous coverage necessitates higher premiums to pay for it, the question is should an employer-provided health plan be forced to participate in the employee's charity? Health plans do not typically cover adoption as part of their reproductive health options coverage. Parents pay tens of thousands of dollars of their own savings to adopt. Is it unreasonable for them to bear the full
expense of their decisions, rather than mandate it be cost-shifted to their employers, particularly in these difficult economic times?

This does not need to preclude parents from adopting a child with congenital or developmental deformities. Today, many developing countries have first-world internationally accredited hospitals where these children can have the necessary procedures at a tiny fraction of what it would cost for the same care here. It may be easier for the child and parents, given the staff speak the child's native language, as well as English.

HR 3962: Extension of Coverage vs. States Rights

HR 3962, Sec. 105 allows parents to keep their adult children under 27 years of age, who may or may not be in school or working, and are not enrolled in a health plan, enrolled under their parent's health plan. [Of course, the parent and the parent’s employer will pay the added premium for keeping the additional family member on the plan.] At present, state laws have varying ages and conditions under which children may be kept on their parent’s plan. This bill, however, nationalizes those requirements. It is interesting that Congress can nationalize administrative rules previously under the prerogative of the states to increase insurance coverage for Americans; however, Congress is unwilling to use the same logic to open up competition with a national health insurance market, a move that would significantly lower rates in many markets. If the idea is to get more people covered, wouldn’t making cheaper insurance coverage available to more people, more places be a good start?

Medicare, Medicare Supplemental & Medicare Advantage: Part II

Congress is planning on making big cuts to the Medicare Advantage program claiming that it is subsidizing the private insurers for this program. Is this true? The answer is yes, it is subsidizing the health plan; but it is really subsidizing the beneficiaries, not the insurers. People saw value and as a result the number of people in these plans has grown. The payments/expenditures for beneficiaries are higher on average than traditional Medicare.

The reason lies in how Medicare Advantage plans are paid. The Medicare Modernization act of 2003 set into place the present system of payment. A private insurer places a bid for what price per person it is willing to offer Part A and Part B services in a given geographic area. If it is under the government’s benchmark rate that it is willing to pay in that geographic area, they split the difference. Under the rules, the government keeps 25% of the savings, and the insurer must provide the beneficiary with additional benefits or a rebate equivalent to 75% of the difference. For example, if Medicare is willing to pay $500 per person per month to the insurer and the insurer has bid $400 per person per month, there is a $100 difference. Of that amount $25 in savings goes back to the government and $75 goes to the beneficiary in the form of a Part B or D premium rebate or additional services. Medicare pays out $475 in benefits. As you can see, the amount of additional benefits or rebates enrollees are offered makes one plan more attractive than another.

The heart of the problem is the benchmark rate calculation. By law, it must be at least as high as high as what the government would pay on average per person in the traditional Medicare fee for service (FFS) arena. Remember, Medicare pays 80% of the allowable payment rates. There are risk adjustments fir areas of the country where patients are “sicker.”

According to the Congressional Budget Office, for 2007 the “benchmarks are 17% higher, on average than projected per capita FFS expenditures nationwide.” [Note: This CBO report was released in 2007, yet proposals to fix the problem are just now coming forth.]

These benchmarks are determined by statutory rules. It requires an act of Congress to make any changes. This is the similar to the way the Medicare physician payment formula [SGR] is set. Do you see a pattern here? There is a problem anytime an act of Congress is required to make should be a common sense business decision - namely to fix the formula. Government bureaucracy seems to preclude it from making the necessary adaptations to respond in a timely manner to save money or prevent potential disruptions in service.

The next question is what will happen to current Medicare Advantage enrollees? Who will be most affected? We will try to tackle that tomorrow -

Insurance: Profitable, but hardly obscene...

Finally today, the news media did their homework on the insurance industry and called the politicians’ bluff. According to TheStreet.com health insurers only made 2.4% last year. [I have to say it; I made this point on pages 1&2 of Healthcare Solved.] According to an article in the American Medical News, October 12, 2009 [print], the nonprofit blues insurers averaged only 2.0% profit last year. Fortune magazine ranked the industry as 35th out of 53 in profits. It is clearly not the most profitable industry in America as Senator Harry Reid has claimed. Not exactly "obscene" profit margins - in fact, the insurance industry is quite anemic in comparison to many other industries. It seems the only possible explanations for these glaring discrepancies are that our politicians are grossly negligent in doing their due diligence on the industry or they are lying.

If they are this ignorant about the industry, is it not pure arrogance to think they can “reform” it? Or, do they believe if enough of politicians repeat these outright lies enough times, Americans will fall for anything they propose? Whether clueless and content to stay that way or desperate, either is deplorable; we need real, meaningful reform. Keep informed, participate in the process. If one of those politicians is yours, call them on it. They get away with it when we let them slide. Shame them into being better men and women then they are. We need statesmen serving the best interests of the people. Accept nothing less.

Medicare, Medicare Supplemental and Medicare Advantage: Part I

What’s the difference?

Traditional Medicare covers 80% of allowable medical expenses for the elderly. In general, it covers hospitalizations (Part A) for free for those over the age of 65 who are also eligible for social security. The elderly who want part B coverage, which covers things like doctor visits, labs, etc., must pay monthly premiums which are deducted from the social security checks. Since it does not cover all medical expenses, many enrollees also buy a Medicare Supplemental [MedSup or Medigap] policy. There are about a dozen MedSup plan options from which to choose. Plan benefits are government-defined, but privately-insured. There is no medical underwriting for the plans, and thus, no pre-existing conditions. While there may be a dollar or two discount per month for enrollees who buy coverage through a union, trade organization or AARP, there is no need to join such an organization as the plan prices are competitive.

Medicare Advantage, previously known as Medicare+Choice or Part C, is a different animal. It was established by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. People with Medicare A and B can choose to receive their Medicare healthcare services through an Advantage plan. It is a cheaper alternative that negates the need for a MedSup plan, as it provides many of the same benefits without having to buy additional coverage, and may also provide Part D coverage. Enrollees agree to receive their care through the plan’s network of providers. “Medicare Advantage plans include (1) Medicare Managed Care plans (like HMOs), (2) Medicare Preferred Provider Organization plans (PPOs), (3) Private Fee-for-Service plans(PFFS), and (4) Medicare Specialty plans (available in some areas to provide Medicare benefits for certain people with special needs, such as beneficiaries in institutions).” [SSA website]. It was supposedly an attempt to privatize Medicare. But since there are no specific eligibility requirements for this lower cost program, it is not too surprising that this program is growing in popularity, particularly the PFFS plans. Of the 45 million Medicare recipients, 9 million are Medicare Advantage members.

Congress has Medicare Advantage, in particular, in its sites to cut costs. Tomorrow we will look at why.

A.M Best: BESTWIRE: Under Proposed Reforms, Little Rate Regulation, New Customers May Mean Health for Insurers

This is an article from A.M. Best's BESTWIRE. "Founded in 1899, A.M. Best Company is a full-service credit rating organization dedicated to serving the financial services industries, including the banking and insurance sectors. Policyholders and depositors refer to Best's ratings and analysis as a means of assessing the financial strength and creditworthiness of risk-bearing entities and investment vehicles."

Co-ops: Real or Phoney?

In addition page 4 of the October CBO letter to the Senate Finance Committee Chair states the Baucus Bill will “provide start-up funds to encourage the creation of cooperative exchange plans (co-ops) that could be offered through the exchanges; existing insurers could not be approved as co-ops.”

Let’s think about this for a minute. Present day insurers are entirely shut out of the game. (You can almost hear the politicians say, “We showed them.” ---but is it a pyrrhic victory?)

Whatever you think about insurers, these are the people who actually know how to do the job. They have the systems and processes in place to service the needs of their customers, send them insurance cards, provide a network of providers and pay claims. This little provision means a lot of “newbie” nonprofit companies will be popping up, by necessity.

Who are these companies? Are they reputable? Do you believe your claims will be paid in a timely manner? What is their track record? Will you get the service you expect? What assurances do we have that they will be there tomorrow to pay claims after giving them your premium dollars? Do you think this opens the public up to a lot of potential fraud? Are state regulators going to be able to handle the job, given the number of new entities that will no doubt arise due to the amount of money at stake?

Of course, we can rely on the government to protect us from the hucksters, can’t we?

Baucus Bill Part III: Will it really be cheaper?

The CBO believes that employer provided plans will be “more expensive that the low-cost plans available in the exchanges, because healthcare services in those exchange plans would be more tightly managed.” [September CBO letter, page 4]

Administrative costs for all health plans, both for-profit and nonprofit, have averaged about 11% of premiums. The BCBS family of companies average about 10%. In fact, Highmark BCBS, a nonprofit insurer, in PA specifically states that their goal is for 90% of premiums to go toward paying medical expenses (aka medical-loss ratio) for enrollees. To more tightly manage the plan requires higher administrative costs, not less. And what does more “tightly managed” mean to the doctor and patient? You can bet there will be stricter standards for ordering tests/procedures, more “red-tape” and more non-certifications of coverage. There is simply no other way to make up for the added administrative costs, pay claims and still be competitive with the private sector marketplace, let alone be more affordable for individuals or small businesses.

Key Issues Not Addressed by the Baucus Bill: Part II

Continuing our look at the Baucus Bill based on the CBO Analyses of September 22 and October 7, 2009...

• The fees and taxes this bill imposes on insurers, medical device makers, clinical laboratories and drugmakers will be considered a “pass-through;” that is - passed through to consumers! It seems the CBO recognizes this on page 2 of the September letter which states those fees “will ultimately raise insurance premiums by a corresponding amount.” This is a tax on every person. It further raises medical costs. It’s counterproductive.
  
• The CBO admits on page 3-4 that comparing costs of coverage to the present system is difficult “for many reasons, including the extent of the coverage…;the rates and methods used to pay providers…; the quantity and intensity of services used; the insurer’s administrative costs; state regulations of the insurance market; employment status and employers’ decisions about offering coverage and the underlying health of the enrollee pool.” It seems that these are huge gaps in analysis that simply cannot be overlooked if this report is to be taken seriously.