Posts Tagged ‘Health Care Insurance’

Stop Beclowning Yourselves on Loss Ratio

Friday, May 21st, 2010

By Evan Falchuk

Like Ezra Klein, smart people keep saying foolish things about the health insurance business.  This time it’s a pair of bloggers talking about the largest expense that health insurers face: their “medical loss ratio.”

According to Richard Dale at the Venture Cyclist:

[W]hy do they call it Medical Loss Ratio? Why is looking after me (or you) called “Medical Loss”, when the whole point of a health care system is to look after me (or you)?

Sigh.

Alan Katz, one of the leading health insurance bloggers, surprisingly links to this with approval, saying “words matter.”

The problem: the word “loss” is probably one of the four oldest words in the insurance industry.  I’d say the others are probably “premium,” “commission,” and “profit.”

Should we start outlawing these words, too?

(more…)

Why Health Insurance is So Expensive, Continued

Wednesday, December 2nd, 2009

By Evan Falchuk

The Healthcare Economist points to a study from late last year about the impact of state insurance regulation on the price of health insurance policies.   It’s a subject I’ve blogged about many times before (like here, and here and here and here).

The study tried to quantify the impact of the types of mandates used by states in their insurance markets: guarantee issue, community rating, mandated benefits, and so-called “any willing provider” rules.

It found that all of these increased the price of health insurance, but there were limitations in the study.  They had a “rich data set based on actual insurance contracts” only for guarantee issue and community rating mandates on individual policies.  Still, this is a big segment of the market – perhaps 30 million people buy insurance in this way – and the data are revealing.

But first, what do these terms mean?

“Guarantee issue” means that an insurance company can’t deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition.  So if you are sick you can buy a policy and the company has to accept you.  “Community rating” means that an insurer can’t charge you more because you are sick, or because of your age or gender.   Different states put different spins on these concepts, or don’t have them at all.  They typically exist together as part of one regulatory scheme.  They are both part of reform bills in Congress.

According to the study, community rating increased individual premiums by as much as 17%, and family premiums by as much as 33%.  Guarantee issue increased premiums by well over 100% for individuals, and by as much as 191% for families.

Why does this happen?

If the law says insurers have to treat every person the same, without taking into account whether they’re sick or healthy, young or old, a rational insurer will do some rational things.  For example, it will assume disproportionate numbers of people who buy a policy from them will be sick and old.

Of course, when they do this, the product becomes expensive, and young, healthy people start to wonder if they should even buy it in the first place.  After all, they don’t really need insurance, right?  They’re young and healthy and can wait to buy insurance when they get sick.  So, the insurers’ assumptions on the age and health of their portfolios come true, or are worse than expected.  Coupled with the overall rise in the cost of health care, insurers now push through new rounds of price increases, which, in turn, create more uninsured people.  It is a very nasty cycle.

Which brings us to reform, circa 2009.

As Congress debates the politics of reform, there seems to be a lack of recognition of what makes health insurance so expensive in the first place.  The great irony of reform is that lurking in the bills our representatives have written are precisely the kind of regulations that got us here in the first place.

Bending the Curve- Wanna Bet?

Tuesday, December 1st, 2009

By Evan Falchuk

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts and Caritas Christi Health System are announcing a new agreement that some suggest may be a model for the rest of the country.

Under it, the non-profit insurer will stop paying the non-profit hospital on a fee-for-service basis for certain insureds:

Under the deal expected to be announced Friday, Caritas . . . will be paid to take care of about 60,000 Blue Cross members in its new program — whether or not they get sick. Caritas will use some of the payments for preventive services to help keep patients healthy. If Caritas can keep health-care costs under a certain budget, it can make a profit. But if health-care costs go over the agreed-on amount, Caritas is on the hook. . . . . Blue Cross is adding a carrot: If doctors and hospitals can meet certain quality targets, they can earn a bonus of as much as 10% on the value of the deal.

It sounds like a new approach to health costs.  But it reveals more about how the same old ways of controlling health care costs continue to thrive.

Here’s what I mean.

The model of the last few decades has been this.  Insurers and hospitals negotiate rates to pay for care.  The bigger and more important the hospital, the more leverage it has over the insurer.  The bigger and more important the insurer, the more leverage it can have back over the hospital.  So in Massachusetts, like other states, hospitals have consolidated into a small number of big hospital “systems.”  In turn, the health insurance business has become dominated by a small number of insurers, chief among them Blue Cross.

Simplified, here’s how these negotiations go.  The insurer threatens that if it doesn’t get what it wants, it will change its plan designs to make it less likely that patients will seek care at the hospital.  The hospital, says if it it doesn’t get what it wants, it will stop accepting the insurer’s customers.  It’s a game of high-stakes chicken, but deals usually get made.  They typically involve the hospitals agreeing to lower rates of pay for more routine care, and preserving higher rates of pay for more specialized care.  It’s a set up that encourages big hospital systems to get bigger, so they can capture more patients, and more focused on highly specialized care.  It also makes it far more likely that smaller insurers will end up paying more for the same care at the same hospital, as the hospitals try to offset lost revenue from them.

So what does this have to do with the new deal between Blue Cross and Caritas?

Well, less significant hospital systems like Caritas (which has very good doctors but has been notoriously troubled in recent years) have very little negotiating leverage with the big insurance companies.  For them, the game isn’t so much getting a good rate of pay for their services as it is getting patients through the door.  And so they need to figure out ways to get the insurer to encourage patients to go there.  What better way to do it than to enter into a high-profile new contract with the biggest insurer in the state?

Now, take a look at the numbers.  If I’m doing the math right, Caritas is going to get about $6,000 per insured per year.  With state Medicaid payments running at about $5,500 per insured, these Blue Cross patients not particularly interesting, financially.  Unless, that is, the program works as expected and Blue Cross ends up changing its plan design to encourage more people to go to Caritas for care, as opposed to the other major Massachusetts hospital systems.  And you know Blue Cross would love to be able, one day, to use its deal with Caritas as part of its negotiations with those other systems.

“It’s a bet,” said Caritas Chief Executive Ralph de la Torre.

That, it is.  But some new paradigm for health care?  Not so much.

The Divide, Continued

Friday, November 13th, 2009

By Evan Falchuk

The strangely out-of-touch comments by proponents of reform legislation continue.

Yesterday, Christina Romer, the head of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers was asked about the proposed excise tax on so-called “Cadillac” health plans.  Romer said:

Part of the idea of how that is going to work is precisely because it does empower consumers. It empowers each of us to have an employer-sponsored plan to call our HR office and say, ‘Would you negotiate harder? Would you think about (whether this) is the most efficient plan out there, because I don’t want my plan paying an excise tax.’ So I think that’s something that is very much empowering consumers.

It’s a bizarre statement.  Roemer has impressive academic credentials, but this kind of statement betrays a profound ignorance of how employers actually buy health benefits.  She’s not the only one with such strange beliefs.

So, let me make it simple.

Companies across America use skilled and experienced benefits professionals to design and implement their health plans.  The bigger the employer the better they are at this.  In fact, big employers are such smart negotiators that they manage to get the services of the insurance companies without paying them a dime for health insurance.  It’s true: they just use the insurance companies to mechanically pay for the cost of their employees’ care, which comes out of the pocket of the employer.

Now, the smaller an employer is, the more difficult it is.  If you’re a company with 20 employees, your problem isn’t whether you are any good at negotiating.  It’s that you probably live in a state where one or two insurance companies dominate the market.  Your choices are limited, and because you’re too small to self-insure, you need to buy insurance from one of them.

But it’s worse than that.  State laws make it so that even if you were to try to “negotiate harder” (whatever that means), there isn’t much the insurance company is allowed to do.

So what is Professor Romer talking about?  Frankly, I have no idea.  So many reform proponents in Washington have never run a business or designed a benefit plan, so I’m becoming less and less surprised when they come to strange conclusions about these things.  But what doesn’t help is that they seem to prefer to spend so much time behind closed doors in Washington, or on TV, and so little time out talking to people actually in this business to see what works and what doesn’t.

This is hubris.  And it bodes very ill for the likelihood that plans coming out of Washington are going to make things better and not worse.

Oops, Sorry Kids

Thursday, October 15th, 2009

By Evan Falchuk

BelushiCollegeInside Higher Ed notes an important oversight in the Baucus health care plan.  It seems that the proposal could eliminate college and campus health plans.  According to Jim Turner, President of the American College Health Association:

Congress simply isn’t thinking about college students’ health care.  They’re not trying to be malicious, I don’t think, but the legislation could unintentionally be eliminating student health insurance programs.

Forgetting about college students was probably a mistake.  But I’m not sure we should be too surprised.  There’s an “experience gap” when it comes to the insurance market in Congress – the states have been responsible for regulating it for decades.  And if you are trying to take on a big, complicated subject without much experience at dealing with it, you should be expected to make some silly mistakes.  Which of course begs the question of what else has been overlooked, or what other important, unintended consequences lurk in the reform plans.

But the experience gap isn’t limited to Congress.

Ari Matusiak, a law student and founder of a reform advocacy group says that when it comes to coverage, students ought to just. . . eat cake. . . I mean, be covered under their parents’ health plans.  It’s why he he supports an effort by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to require that young people be allowed to stay covered under their parents’ plans until age 27.  According to Matusiak:

If there’s any provision that matters most to college students, it’s that one.  Most college students are covered by their parents’ plans and want to be covered under those plans since they come with little or no cost to them.

John Belushi couldn’t have said it any better.  Still, I suppose it’s reasonable to allow kids to stay on their parents’ plans past the age at which they stop being kids.  In fact, a large number of states already allow this.   But not all students are equal.

For example, consider a student from Massachusetts who goes to college in California.  If his parents are well-off and have a “Cadillac”-style PPO health plan, the coverage will work great in California.  Going to the doctor will be just like it is at home.  But what if they’re not so well-off ?  What if the student’s parents have a low-cost HMO plan?  The student seeking medical care in California is going to face big out-of-network co-pays and deductibles for every single doctor he sees.  He may even find that his care isn’t covered at all.  So much for “little or not cost.”

Now, you might say that this is an argument for a public option, and maybe it is.  Or maybe it’s an argument for limiting out-of-network costs for students.  Or, maybe, it’s an argument for making sure students have the choice of getting insurance like they’re get it now.  It’s probably an argument for any number of other possible reforms.

I don’t pretend to know the right answer, or even all the right questions.  In the rush to reform, though, our representatives in Congress seem to have decided it doesn’t matter that much.

Is it really a good way to reform our health care system?

Should Insurance be Regulated by the Feds or the States?

Thursday, September 24th, 2009

By Evan Falchuk

In the rush to reform health care, something very important has been overlooked.  Central to the major reform proposals is perhaps the most significant change in insurance regulation since World War II.  Congressional leaders and the President have made clear in their actions (if not their sales pitch) that they want the federal government to dominate the regulation of the U.S. insurance market.

Last week in Forbes, Grace-Marie Turner argued against this direction.  She uses the example of Utah’s “Health Insurance Exchange” to make her point (readers of the See First blog will have heard about the Utah Exchange when I blogged about it in March).

Says Turner:

Because it’s working so well, one might argue that the Utah Exchange should be replicated at the national level. But the Exchange has been successful because Utah lawmakers, led by House Speaker David Clark, were able to create a market-based program tailored to the unique needs of their residents.

It’s not clear what “unique needs” Utahns face that people in other states do not.  But at least she is making the argument you would expect to hear from more state insurance regulators.  Namely, that they know their states and their markets better than anyone and think it is bad public policy to sweep away the regulatory structures they have built over many decades.  It’s a fair point, and it’s a discussion we ought to be having openly as part of the reform debate.

Still, embedded in her critique of a bigger federal role is actually an argument against state insurance regulation.  She opposes the idea of Congress being in charge of rules on acceptable insurance coverage.  She worries they will come up with “limited options of costly, impersonal, one-size-fits-all programs dominated by benefit mandates and pushed by lobbyists and special interest groups, not consumers.”

But she seems to be missing something:  health insurers already face nearly 2,000 coverage mandates, created by state legislatures.  So is she against the whole notion of benefit mandates?  Or is it that she prefers her lobbyist-designed one-size fits all programs to be mandated at the state, not federal level?

There aren’t easy answers to these questions.  Ms. Turner is a noted health care expert, so I suspect she has strongly held views on the subject.  Still, very few people seem interested in engaging in this debate.

So, what do you think?  Should insurance regulation happen at the state, or federal level?  Should states and the federal government mandate coverages, or leave it to the market to sort out?

UPDATE: Some faint grumblings of dissent on federal insurance regulation here.

My Quick Six Reactions to the Baucus Plan

Monday, September 21st, 2009

By Evan Falchuk

Last week, the Senate Finance committee finally released the initial description of Senator Baucus’ long-awaited “America’s Healthy Future Act.”

There is a lot to digest in the 223 pages of text, and others have given good summaries of the high points.

Here are my “quick six” reactions to it.

(more…)

What in the World is Judge Napolitano Talking About?

Tuesday, September 15th, 2009

By Evan Falchuk

The politicization of everything to do with health care reform continues.

In today’s Wall Street Journal, Fox News contributor Judge Andrew Napolitano writes about the President’s health care reform plan. He claims it is “unconstitutional at its core.”

Napolitano is a former state court judge, so I respect his credentials as a fellow member of the bar. But a first year law student could demolish most of Napolitano’s argument. And that same first year student, having done some quick research, could dispense with the rest.

(more…)

Reform Federalism?

Tuesday, September 8th, 2009

By Evan Falchuk

In America, insurance is regulated by the states, not the federal government.

Each of the 50 states decides who can sell insurance, mandates coverages, and sometimes even premiums. For some products, like auto insurance, states have made it mandatory for everyone to buy coverage. Massachusetts has taken this a step further and applied this kind of a mandate to health insurance.

The nearly complete authority of state governments over these issues is clear.

Which makes the press release issued earlier today by Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner Joel Ario rather curious, and revealing.

(more…)

Why Health Insurance is So Expensive, Continued

Friday, August 21st, 2009

By Evan Falchuk

Another of the many reasons why health insurance is so expensive is the wave of hospital consolidation over the last 15 years.

They’ve been merging into big local hospital systems, and national chains, with the number of stand-alone hospitals – and even just the pure number of hospitals – declining steadily. It’s a trend that in this recessionary environment and questions about health care reform may be accelerating.

Why is it happening?

A big reason is declining government payment rates to hospitals.

In an effort to control costs, Medicare and Medicaid programs have systematically limited payments to hospitals for their services.  Hospitals have tried to make up this shortfall by shifting costs onto private insurers through higher costs to them.

The best way to have leverage in those negotiations is to be a bigger, more important negotiating entity.  So merging into a big system makes perfect sense.  Some people think the resulting cost-shifting adds as much as 10% onto the cost of private insurance.

It also amplifies other trends in the health care marketplace.

In Massachusetts, for example, the dominant hospital system and dominant health insurer reportedly entered into a secret agreement in 2000 along these lines.  The insurer, in return for agreeing to pay significantly more for services from the hospital system, got a promise from the hospital system that it would always charge other insurers at least as much. What it meant was that the hospital got lots more money from all insurers, and the dominant insurer was able to know it would always have the cheapest cost structure of any insurer in the state.

Of course, it also meant significant premium increases for everyone to pay for this arrangement. It’s the kind of collusion that is reminiscent of the “trust busting” era of the early 20th century.

This time, though, the government doesn’t seem especially interested in it.  Indeed, earlier this year, the Massachusetts Governor, without irony, asked for the “vigorous cooperation” of Massachusetts hospitals and insurers to resolve the problem of high health care costs.

  • "Medicine is learned by the bedside and not in the class room. Let not your conception of manifestations of disease come from work heard in the lecture room or read from the book: see and then research, compare and control. But see first."
    - Sir William Osler, MD
    The Father of Modern Medicine
  • Connect


    Via RSS


    On Twitter

    Subscribe via Email

  • Follow Us on YouTube:

  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

  • Categories

  • Archives