Cooperating for better care.

Affordable Care Act

Tag Archives

Experts present ideas to strengthen the ACA marketplace

 

Modern Healthcare reports that despite the gloom about the insurance market set up under the Affordable Care Act, “{H}health policy experts say there are relatively straightforward changes that would strengthen the individual insurance market. The key is getting more younger, healthier people to enroll, to offset the medical costs associated with older, sicker plan members. Experts say this could be done through toughening the mandate to buy insurance; boosting premium and cost-sharing subsidies; restoring risk protections for insurers; letting health plans charge younger people lower rates; beefing up enrollment outreach and education; and prodding people to leave their employer health plans and get covered instead through the individual market.”

To read the Modern Healthcare article, please hit this link.


Confused, irritated patients caught in insurance revolving doors

 

 

scream

“The Scream,” by Edvard Munch.

By JORDAN RAU

For Kaiser Health News

Andrea Schankman’s three-year relationship with her insurer, Coventry Health Care of Missouri, has been contentious, with disputes over what treatments it would pay for. Nonetheless, like other Missourians, Schankman was unnerved to receive a notice from Coventry last month informing her that her policy was not being offered in 2017.

With her specialists spread across different health systems in St. Louis, Schankman, a 64-year-old art consultant and interior designer, said she fears  that she may not be able to keep them all, given the shrinking offerings on Missouri’s health-insurance marketplace. In addition to Aetna, which owns Coventry, paring back its policies, UnitedHealthcare is abandoning the market. The doctor and hospital networks for the remaining insurers will not be revealed until the enrollment period for people buying individual insurance begins Nov. 1.

“We’re all sitting waiting to see what they’re going to offer,” said Schankman, who lives in the village of Westwood. “A lot of [insurance] companies are just gone. It’s such a rush-rush-rush no one can possibly know they’re getting the right policy for themselves.”

Doctor and hospital switching has become a recurring scramble as consumers on the individual market find it difficult or impossible to stay on their same plans amid rising premiums and a revolving door of carriers willing to sell policies. The instability, which preceded the health law, is intensifying in the fourth year of the Affordable Care Act’s marketplaces for people buying insurance directly instead of through an employer.

“In 2017, just because of all the carrier exits, there are going to be more people making involuntary changes,” said Katherine Hempstead, a senior adviser at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, a New Jersey philanthropy. “I would imagine all things being equal, more people are going to be disappointed this year versus last year.”

Forty-three percent of returning consumers to the federal government’s online exchange, healthcare.gov, switched policies last year. Some were forced to when insurers stopped offering their plans while others sought out cheaper policies. In doing so, consumers saved an average of $42 a month on premiums, according to the government’s analysis. But avoiding higher premiums has cost many patients their choice of doctors.

Jim Berry, who runs an Internet directory of accountants with his wife, switched last year from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Georgia to Humana after Blue Cross proposed a 16 percent premium hike.

Despite paying Humana $1,141 in premiums for the couple, Berry, who lives in Marietta, a suburb of Atlanta, said they were unable to find a doctor in the network taking new patients. They ended up signing up with a concierge practice that accepts their insurance but also charges them a $2,700 annual membership, a fee he pays out of pocket. Nonetheless, he said he has been satisfied with the policy.

But last month Humana, which is withdrawing from 88 percent of the counties it sold plans in this year, told Berry his policy was not continuing, and he is unsure what choices he will have and how much more they will cost.

“It’s not like if I don’t want to buy Humana or Blue Cross, I have five other people competing for my business,” Berry said. “It just seems like it’s a lot of money every year for what is just basic insurance, basic health care. I understand what you’re paying for is the unknown — that heart attack or stroke — but I don’t know where the break point is.”

To be sure, the same economic forces — cancelled policies, higher premiums and restrictive networks — have been agitating the markets for employer-provided insurance for years. But there is more scrutiny on the individual market, born of the turmoil of the Affordable Care Act.

Dr. Patrick Romano, a professor of medicine at the University of California at Davis Health System in Sacramento, Calif., said the topic has been coming up in focus groups he has been convening about the state insurance marketplace, Covered California. Switching doctors, he said, “is a disruption and can lead to interruptions in medications.”

“Some of it is unintentional because people can have delays getting in” to see their new doctor, he said. “Some of it may be because the new physician isn’t comfortable with the medication the previous physician prescribed.”

Dr. John Meigs, an Alabama physician and president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said that whatever the source of insurance, changing doctors disrupts the trust a patient has built with a physician and the knowledge a doctor has about how each patient responds to illnesses. “Not everything is captured in a health record” that can be passed to the next doctor, Meigs said.

There is little research about whether switching doctors leads to worse outcomes, said Dr. Thomas Yackel, a professor of medicine at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland. In some cases, he said, it can offer unexpected benefits: “Having a fresh set of eyes on you as a patient, is that really always a bad thing?”

With the shake-up in the insurance market, access to some top medical systems may be further limited. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee, which has included the elite Vanderbilt University Medical Center in its network, is pulling out of the individual marketplace in the state’s three largest metro areas: Nashville, Memphis and Knoxville. Bobby Huffaker, CEO of American Exchange, an insurance firm in Tennessee, said so far, no other carrier includes Vanderbilt in its network in the individual market.

In St. Louis, Emily Bremer, an insurance broker, said only two insurers will be offering plans next year through healthcare.gov. Cigna’s network includes BJC HealthCare and an affiliated physicians’ group, while Anthem provides access to other major hospital systems, including Mercy, but excludes BJC and its preeminent academic medical center Barnes-Jewish Hospital.

“These networks have little or no overlap,” she said. “It means severing a lot of old relationships. I have clients who have doctors across multiple networks who are freaking out.”

Aetna said it will still offer policies off the healthcare.gov exchange. Those are harder to afford as the federal government does not provide subsidies, and Aetna has not revealed what its networks will be. In an e-mail message, an Aetna spokesman said the insurer was offering those policies to preserve its option to return to the exchanges in future years; if Aetna had completely stopped selling individual policies, it would be banned from the market for five years under federal rules.

Even before St. Louis’ insurance options shrunk, Bremer said she had to put members of some families on separate policies in order for everyone to keep their physicians. That can cost the families more, because their combined deductibles and maximum out-of-pocket payments can be higher than for a single policy, she said.

“Every year our plan disappears,” said Kurt Whaley, a 49-year-old draftsman in O’Fallon, Mo., near St. Louis. After one change, he said, “I got to keep my primary-care physician, but my kids lost their doctors. I had to change doctors for my wife. It took away some of the hospitals we could get into.”

Brad Morrison, a retired warehouse manager in Quincy, Ill., said he has stuck with Coventry despite premium increases — he now pays $709 a month, up from $474 — because the policy has been the cheapest that would let him keep his doctor. “That’s the one thing I insisted on,” he said. “I love the guy.”

With Coventry leaving the Illinois exchanges, Morrison is unsure whether his alternatives will include his physician. His bright spot is that he turns 65 next spring. “I’m trying to hold out until I get to Medicare,” he said.


Minn. governor calls ACA ‘no longer affordable’ for many

 

Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton, a Democrat, says  that the Affordable Care Act is “no longer affordable for an increasing number of people.” Just a few years ago, he had strongly endorsed the law.

The Minneapolis Star Tribune reported that he made  the comments “while addressing questions about Minnesota’s fragile health insurance market, where individual plans are facing double-digit increases after all insurers threatened to exit the market entirely in 2017.”

The governor asked  Congress to fix the law to address rising costs and market stability.

His remarks followed  criticism nationwide, including former President Bill Clinton saying last week that the law was “the craziest thing in the world” before backtracking a bit and saying  that while the ACA needed fixes to address gaps it had done some good in expanding care.

The effect of all this may be in the fullness of time that  many Democrats will embrace a”Medicare for all” system to replace the staggeringly complicated, wasteful and expensive private-and-public-insurance “system” the nation has now.

To read a Minneapolis Star Tribune article on this, please hit this link.

 


Julie Rovner: Deconstructing Trump’s healthcare remarks

Healthcare finally came up as an issue in the second presidential debate in St. Louis Sunday night. But the discussion may have confused more than clarified the issue for many voters.

During the brief exchange about the potential fate of the Affordable Care Act, Republican Donald Trump said this: “Obamacare is a disaster. You know it. We all know it. It’s going up at numbers that nobody’s ever seen worldwide. Nobody’s ever seen numbers like this for health care.”

Let’s parse that discussion of costs piece by piece. Because when it comes to health care, there are many different types of costs: those for governments, employers and individuals. And those costs don’t always go up and down at the same time.

First, the federal government’s spending on the Affordable Care Act’s insurance is coming in under budget projections. According to the official scorekeeper, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), in March, the net cost of the insurance coverage provisions of the law — including tax credits to subsidize some lower-income customers’ premiums and costs for adding people to Medicaid — “is lower by $157 billion, or 25 percent” than the estimate when the law was enacted in 2010.

Much of that is because CBO originally estimated that large numbers of employers would stop providing insurance to workers and send them to the law’s online marketplaces, where many of them would get federal subsidies. That didn’t happen. Medicaid spending increased more than CBO projected, but that was more than offset by the lower spending on tax credits.

What Trump was almost certainly referring to when he talked about costs going up were reports of increases in premiums for the marketplace plans. Those are for people who don’t have employer coverage and don’t qualify for a public health plan, such as Medicare or Medicaid. About 18 million Americans use those marketplaces, or exchanges.

And on average, premium prices in states that have announced their rates are going up next year at much higher rates than for the previous two years, although the final tallies won’t be known until all the rates are released later this month. Charles Gaba, who crunches numbers for his blog, ACASignups.net, estimates a national average premium increase of around 25 percent.

Earlier in the debate, Trump noted that under the law, “your health insurance and healthcare is going up by numbers that are astronomical, 68 percent, 59 percent, 71 percent.” And there are reports of very large increases like those, including in Oklahoma, where premiums in the individual market could rise anywhere from 58 to 96 percent. Even in California, which has what is generally considered a successful marketplace, rates are going up an average of 13.2 percent for next year.

There are several reasons for the increases. One is that insurers charged premiums that were simply too low to begin with, and now they are catching up in order not to go broke. Another goes back to the CBO prediction above, about employers sending workers to the individual market to buy their own insurance. When that didn’t happen, insurers didn’t get the influx of generally healthier people to offset the costs of the sicker people who the law made eligible for coverage for the first time.  A recent study from researchers at the Brookings Institution found that premiums in that market are actually lower than they would have been had the law not been passed.

But even with premiums rising in many (though certainly not all) areas of the country, about half the people who buy insurance on the individual market won’t feel much of that increase. Tax credits will increase to cover most of the hikes for those who bought through the exchanges, and in many places consumers can save money by changing plans. Even with an estimated 25 percent premium increase, the federal government projects, 78 percent of marketplace consumers should be able to find a plan that costs $100 per month or less. Another estimated 2.5 million people are purchasing coverage on their own who could be getting tax credits.

Meanwhile, the majority of Americans get coverage through an employer, and that market is seeing historically low premiums increases. A recent report from the Kaiser Family Foundation found family premiums for employer-coverage rose an average of 3 percent in 2016, continuing several years of much-lower-than-average hikes. (Kaiser Health News is an editorially independent project of the Kaiser Family Foundation.)
However, consumers at every level are feeling more financial pain when it comes to health care. While premiums for most people  have increased slowly, workers and individual insurance purchasers are being asked to pay much larger deductibles before their health insurance kicks in. When insurance does pay, patients also are being asked to contribute more for their share of the services. And even the slow rate of premium increases is often more than the growth in workers’ wages, so it eats more of their paychecks.

At the same time, however, healthcare spending overall (as measured by the federal government) continues at a historically slow rate. Spending in 2014 (the last full year analyzed) was up 5.3 percent. That was only slightly higher than the five previous years, which included the smallest increase (2.9 percent in 2013) recorded since government officials began keeping track more than a half century ago.

Nonetheless, health spending is going up faster than the economy as a whole, thus consuming more of the nation’s resources. And Trump is correct about U.S. health spending not looking good next to the rest of the world. The U.S. spends one-third more per person on health care than the next highest-spending country (Switzerland), and more than twice the average for industrialized nations. Yet Americans are not healthier than most of our international counterparts.


California shows that the ACA can work well

goldengate

The Golden Gate Bridge.

For those who think that the Affordable Care Act is a disaster, California is proving that it can work well.

As the Los Angeles Times reports, “The state has recorded some of the nation’s most dramatic gains in health coverage since 2013 while building a competitive insurance marketplace that offers consumers enhanced protections from high medical bills.

“Californians, unlike people in many states, have many insurance choices. That means that even with rising premiums, the vast majority of consumers should be able to find a plan that costs them, at most, 5% more than they are paying this year.

“And all health plans being sold in the state will cap how much patients must pay for prescriptions every month and for many doctor visits.”

“California followed the blueprint. They did it right,” said Dr. J. Mario Molina, chief executive of Long Beach-based Molina Healthcare Inc., a leading national insurer that is selling marketplace plans in nine states in 2017.

“What has been lost in all the rhetoric and the politics is that the system can work,” Molina said.

To read the Los Angeles Times piece, please hit this link.


Why Molina Healthcare outperforms big rivals

 

The Wall Street Journal reports: “The approach of Molina Healthcare —rigorous cost control, limited networks of doctors and hospitals and close management of patients’ health—signals what can work in the health-coverage marketplaces created by the Affordable Care Act. Long Beach, Calif.-based Molina has done relatively well in the exchanges, where larger rivals have faltered. While UnitedHealth Group Inc., Aetna Inc. and Humana Inc., have lost millions on ACA plans and are pulling back from the marketplaces, Molina is profitable, though the margins are slim. The company projects that its margins on the exchange business this year will be within its targeted range, between 1.5% and 2%.”

To read the WSJ story, please hit this link.


Medicaid expansion and the ER

ed

This Health Affairs article looks at how uninsured adults’ share of physician and emergency room visits has fallen in states that expended Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. The authors note:

“There is growing evidence that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has helped to reduce the number of uninsured adults, particularly in states that implemented the ACA’s Medicaid expansions. Research has also begun to show how the ACA’s changes in coverage are altering the way U.S. health care is financed. In a recent Health Affairs article, for example, Sayeh Nikpay and coauthors use data from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Hospital Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) to show declines in the share of hospitalizations that are uninsured, and increases in the Medicaid share, in states that expanded Medicaid.”

They continued: {I}n states that expanded Medicaid, the share of emergency room visits by uninsured individuals declined from 19.8 percent in 2011-13 to 10.5 percent in 2014. The public coverage share in those states rose from 22.2 percent in 2011-13 to 34.8 percent in 2014. Once again, we did not observe similar changes in non-expansion states.”

To read the Health Affairs report, please hit this link.

 

 


Barriers to public-health officials in pushing population-health programs

pophealth

An article in governing.com looks at why it has been so tough for state and local public-health officials to incorporate  population-health programs into their work — a goal of the Affordable Care Act.

A couple of Yale University researchers conducted a study with the Milbank Memorial Fund to  identify the challenges  in implementing a more social services-oriented approach within health departments and across communities.

They found three “root causes” that get in the way of population-health effort: . “The health of a state’s population is not always prioritized relative to other societal goals. Incentives to improve health, including financial and political ones, are misaligned. And there is a lack of consensus regarding who is responsible for health.”

The report features a few population-health initiatives that are making a positive impact, including Vermont’s Blueprint for Health, Live Well San Diego and Rhode Island’s establishment of “health equity zones.”

The Rhode Island zones, for example, “pinpoint communities where social factors have a particular measurable impact on population health. Community needs assessments are conducted. In Woonsocket, for example, the biggest issues identified were substance abuse, teen pregnancy and trauma. Appropriate programs are then rolled out over a three- to four-year period.”

To read the article, please hit this link.

 

 


Aetna to push community health

 

Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini, eager to cut his company’s costs, says the huge insurer will  invest in social programs to help the health of people in the long run. Aetna has been moving away from the Affordable Care Act’s insurance exchanges because it has found them inadequately profitable.

He says the ACA is flawed in that while it has opened access to coverage for millions of Americans, it doesn’t adequately address the role of community and behavioral health in reducing treatment of chronic illness, as do such things as encouraging healthy eating and exercise.

So, USNews & World Report says:

“Aetna is focusing its efforts on setting the blueprint for what it sees as the next step to health care reform under a new administration.

“Through research and grants the firm’s Aetna Foundation is investing in projects aimed at reducing chronic disease like expanding healthy eating options or constructing walkable neighborhoods. The company… intends to demonstrate that the quality of a person’s health has less to do with the health care they receive and more to do with how they live.

This got the attention of  those of us at Cambridge Management Group who have long worked in community health and have been addressing the social/behavioral causes of illness and how to address them.

To read the US News article, please hit this link.


Analysis: Nearly 20 million would lose coverage under Trump health plan

 

An analysis by the nonpartisan research organization Rand Corp. funded by the Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit healthcare-research group, has found that if Donald Trump as president succeeds in his promise to get the Affordable Care Act repealed, 19.7 million people would lose their health insurance and the federal budget deficit would be widened by $33.1 billion in fiscal 2018.

The  study found that the Republican nominee’s proposed healthcare tax credits would largely benefit higher-income people.

The analysis found that  one of Hillary Clinton’s key health-reform plans could provide insurance to as many as 9.6 million  more  people and lower healthcare costs mainly for low- and moderate-income individuals. It would widen the deficit by $90.4 billion.

To read the analysis, please hit this link.


Page 10 of 29First...91011...Last

Contact Info

info@cmg625.com

(617) 230-4965

Wellesley, MA