Category: Health Insurance Cost

Doctor Self-Referrals Part of Health-Care Cost Trend – washingtonpost.com

Doctor Self-Referrals Part of Health-Care Cost Trend – washingtonpost.com:

“In August 2005, doctors at Urological Associates, a medical practice on the Iowa-Illinois border, ordered nine CT scans for patients covered by Wellmark Blue Cross and Blue Shield insurance. In September that year, they ordered eight. But then the numbers rose steeply. The urologists ordered 35 scans in October, 41 in November and 55 in December. Within seven months, they were ordering scans at a rate that had climbed more than 700 percent.

“The increase came in the months after the urologists bought their own CT scanner, according to documents obtained by The Washington Post. Instead of referring patients to radiologists, the doctors started conducting their own imaging — and drawing insurance reimbursements for each of those patients.”

It is clear some oxen have to be gored, or at least hobbled, to “bend the curve.” Let’s start being explicit about where to do this. Private insurers, over-utilizing physicians, drug and equipment manufacturers and suppliers. Let’s start the hard discussions, please.

Rationing? Say it ain’t so!

Blue Cross praised employees who dropped sick policyholders, lawmaker says – Los Angeles Times:

But documents obtained by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and released today show that the company’s employee performance evaluation program did include a review of rescission activity.

The documents show, for instance, that one Blue Cross employee earned a perfect score of ‘5’ for ‘exceptional performance’ on an evaluation that noted the employee’s role in dropping thousands of policyholders and avoiding nearly $10 million worth of medical care.

WellPoint’s Blue Cross of California subsidiary and two other insurers saved more than $300 million in medical claims by canceling more than 20,000 sick policyholders over a five-year period, the House committee said.

‘When times are good, the insurance company is happy to sign you up and take your money in the form of premiums,’ Stupak said. ‘But when times are bad, and you are afflicted with cancer or some other life-threatening disease, it is supposed to honor its commitments and stand by you in your time of need.

‘Instead, some insurance companies use a technicality to justify breaking its promise, at a time when most patients are too weak to fight back,’ he said.

Lawmakers — Republicans and Democrats alike — decried the practice of canceling policies of ill policyholders and grilled insurance executives about it.

Health Affairs – 2 articles on the cost of private insurers to the system

Two articles from Health Affairs regarding the cost of Private Health Insurers, for profit and not for profit, to physicians’ practices, bottom lines, time and aggravation.

Peering Into The Black Box: Billing And Insurance Activities In A Medical Group — Sakowski et al. 28 (4): w544 — Health Affairs:

“Billing and insurance–related functions have been reported to consume 14 percent of medical group revenue, but little is known about the costs associated with performing specific activities. We conducted semistructured interviews, observed work flows, analyzed department budgets, and surveyed clinicians to evaluate these activities at a large multispecialty medical group. We identified 0.67 nonclinical full-time-equivalent (FTE) staff working on billing and insurance functions per FTE physician. In addition, clinicians spent more than thirty-five minutes per day performing these tasks. The cost to medical groups, including clinicians’ time, was at least $85,276 per FTE physician (10 percent of revenue).”

What Does It Cost Physician Practices To Interact With Health Insurance Plans? — Casalino et al. 28 (4): w533 — Health Affairs: “Physicians have long expressed dissatisfaction with the time they and their staffs spend interacting with health plans. However, little information exists about the extent of these interactions. We conducted a national survey on this subject of physicians and practice administrators. Physicians reported spending three hours weekly interacting with plans; nursing and clerical staff spent much larger amounts of time. When time is converted to dollars, we estimate that the national time cost to practices of interactions with plans is at least $23 billion to $31 billion each year.”

Congressional Republican’s Healthcare Reform Questionnaire

I live in the Pittsburgh are, specifically in Republican Congressman Tim Murphys’s district.

Today we received an “Important Survey on Pending Healthcare Legislation” from the Congressman. I was impressed by the straight forwardness of the questions (the subtle subtext was that you must be a complete moron to want our health care system to change) and by the clear headed, willful ignorance of the actual issues involved in reform displayed by the survey writers.

And awaaay we go…

Okay, in fairness, the first six questions weren’t bad: do you have insurance, what kind, how is it, is it getting more expensive, do you believe the system is broken, and what priority should it be for Congress.

7. Do you favor a healthcare system that is run by the private sector or the government? (Private, Govt, combination, unsure)

Let’s see, I want the highest quality system in the world with costs far lower than our current system. Looking around the world I see that France, a government administered single payer system is the best in the world, and Germany, with a government regulated social health insurance system administered by private, not for profit insurers is right behind it. Low cost, high quality, waiting times like ours are now… OK, I choose either Government Run like France or a Hybrid system like Germany’s.

8. Would you be willing to pay higher taxes to guarantee heath insurance for all Americans?

This is why I’m writing this diary, because this question always sets me off. I would be willing to pay higher taxes because, if we do this correctly (see question 7), I will no longer be paying insurance premiums. If we do it really well (see question 7), I will actually end up paying significantly less for my healthcare overall, because we will eventually squeeze out the tremendous waste, overhead, and obscene profit currently embedded in our system.
What really ticks me off about this is the blatant intellectual dishonesty (or it could be simply ignorance, I can be charitable) on display. It does not require a degree in economics to understand that we pay for health care in many ways, but primarily we pay for it through our compensation packages: our insurance premiums come out of our wages! Ask anyone who’s had stagnant wages over the past decade whether or not health care costs come out of their wages.
Have no republicans *ever* looked at a study on comparative international health care? Do they not know that we pay way more than any other country in the world. Per capita, as percentage of GDP, however you want to slice it: we have the most expensive system on the world and the Republicans seem to think the only fix is to add costs?

9. Do you think a private sector healthcare system can be improved to provide coverage to more Americans at a lower cost than a nationalized plan?

I have to confess my initial impulse was a *big NO*, but, thinking of Germany, Switzerland and the many other countries using a hybrid public-private system of Social Health insurance, I will answer a qualified yes.

If we follow the models provided for us around the world and regulate the private insurers (i.e., a 3 or 4 millimeter long leash), it can be done. The discipline that would be required for our Congress to resist the money that would surely be thrown around does make me despair that it is near impossible. But, it has been done the world over, so, I can dream, can’t I?

Germany, again, provides an interesting model because it uses private, but not for profit, insurers (sickness funds) to do the administration. Everywhere in the world but here, not for profit means not for profit and not for profits don’t accumulate billions in “reserve funds” or pay executives millions of dollars a year.

10. What is your main concern with your current health insurance coverage or plan? Not portable/tied to employer, lack of transparency, too many restrictions on providers/rationing, out of pocket expenses, or other.

Props where they are due for this question. I hope his Democratic constituents give him an earful on these! All of the above is the obvious answer for me, but I just have to take up the choice/rationing bit.

Republicans are always focused on choice of insurer or of insurance plans, as if where you go to the hospital or which doctor you go to is an afterthought. Like every major market in the country, Pittsburgh has essentially 2 insurers. We switched plans a couple years ago *within* one of those insurers and we went from having my wife’s skin cancer specialist on one plan to her breast specialist on the other. But at least I could choose my plan!

My prior manifesto on rationing is here.

11. Should the government require that every American have health insurance?

Germany requires everyone in the bottom 4/5ths income to participate in a sickness fund. The upper fifth can opt out: 3/4 don’t, leaving the wealthiest one fifth in the private market. I can live with that.

Single payer countries, you’re just in. Period.

Either works for me.

12. Should the government require that all health insurance companies provide a “Basic Plan” option…so that families could shop around?

Not the ultimate solution, but since something like this will probably find its way into the reform, here is my proposal. it comes from an old Adam Tobias book on the insurance industry called “The Invisible Bankers.”

I’d like a truth in insurance statement, like a truth in lending statement on a loan or, even better, an energy sticker on an appliance. I can imagine lots of information on this sticker, but the really interesting one would be the one I stole from Tobias: *”This policy, on average, will pay out xx cents on every premium dollar paid.”* I’ll leave you to cogitate on that.

13. Should the government create and manage a public health insurance plan that would compete for business alongside private insurance plans?

If you’ve read this far, you know my answer: Well, it’s better than nothing!. But, seriously, considering how un-progressive this legislation is going to ultimately be, we have to draw a line in the sand somewhere, and this should be where we draw it *at an absolute minimum.*

14. Should people on Medicaid have the option of purchasing private health insurance with a voucher to shop around for the best coverage, rather than have only the option of government insurance?

I happen to think Medicaid has lots of problems. Not the least is its very low reimbursement rates in many big states resulting in de facto rationing.

So I am against using Medicaid as the vehicle to expand coverage, but I know others feel differently.

15. Should the government offer tax credits to individuals to help offset the cost of health insurance?

I think the phrase “magic bullet” must have been invented just to cover the Republican love affair with tax cuts. Or that one about having only a hammer as a tool and every thing looking like a nail. One of those.

16. Should the government allow individuals to purchase health insurance from any state and shop nationally for the best price?

Don’t care, won’t help, but I can’t help but notice that on issues of privacy, national security and torture, republicans say “we,” but on social justice issues, it’s “the government.” Just sayin’.

17. Should the government mandate that private insurance companies cannot turn away patients with pre-existing conditions?

I’ll vote yes, but it provides a teaching opportunity. What happens in Germany or Switzerland, you may ask, if a particular insurer gets a disproportionate care of sicker patients who cost them more? Since they can’t charge higher premiums based on this and can’t drop people, what happens? Risk adjustments are made and the companies get adjusted funds from the government. This is being proposed here, as well.

And finally, just to remind the pipples why they hate government and really hate all this “social justice” nonsense that the Pope and Winston Churchill are so hopped up on:

18. Any government assistance will require taxpayer funds to cover the cost. Which of the following proposals would you support to pay for health care reforms, and for the government to cover the uninsured?(nat’l sales tax, higher payroll taxes, marriage penalty, cell phone taxes, sin tax on soda, sin tax on alcohol, tax on charitable donations,raise income taxes, penalize employers for not providing insurance, tax on insurance, tax on health care expense, tax on future health care needs (?), tax on Rx drugs, raise taxes on oil refineries, taxes on power companies, taxes on US companies doing business overseas, taxes on dividend income, raise capital gains taxes, inheritance tax – phrased “tax you family assets on death” LOL.

So, if you weren’t steamed before, I bet you are now. I refer you back to answer 7 for the inanity of this question, but in the best Republican tradition of ginning up resentment among the citizenry, I give you, “the list.”

Cheers,

Data Note: Footing the Bill – Kaiser Family Foundation

Data Note: Footing the Bill – Kaiser Family Foundation:

“This brief data note looks at the raft of polls recently released on the public’s willingness to pay for an expansion of coverage to their fellow citizens. It compares and contrasts findings on Americans’ general inclinations on the topic, and also revisits recent findings on specific revenue raising proposals.”

The file is here: Data Note (.pdf)

Kaiser does all of us a great service by doing the hard work of keeping track of and advancing our knowledgebase on health care, so my comments don’t reflect on them, but…

Thanks for putting together the Data Note on polling.

I find it tremendously frustrating that the questions are asked by organizations in the manner that they are.

The question should never be “would you support raising taxes to cover the uninsured,” the question should be, “”if your wages increased to reflect your employer no longer paying for your health insurance, would you be willing to pay more taxes to cover the uninsured” or, to those without insurance or buying their own, “if you could be covered by a national health insurance plan, would you be willing to pay higher taxes,” or questions like that.

I note in your last section, you point to people believing that this could be done without spending any extra money. This is true, if we adopted a German style Social Health Insurance model or French style single payer model. So, these people are not being foolish, they perhaps just see the tremendous amount of waste in the system and know that if we did things efficiently we would not have to pay more (and I would add, we wouldn’t have to pay more after we got through the transition period that would be required).

So I would like to see some organizations asking questions premised on wholesale reform – transformation to a German or French model – rather than continuing to be asked questions premised on rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

“If, rather than minor health care reform, the US adopted a system like Germany’s or Frances, with high quality health care for all, no waiting times, and no danger of losing insurance or going bankrupt due to health care costs, would you be willing to pay higher taxes?”

Health Beat: The AMA Would Make Health Care Unaffordable for Many Americans

Health Beat: The AMA Would Make Health Care Unaffordable for Many Americans:

“The American Medical Association has announced its opposition to a public-sector health plan that would compete with private insurers. Why? Because the AMA fears that Medicare E (for everyone) might not pay some specialists as handsomely as private insurers do now.

“Why do private insurers pay more? Because they can pass the cost along to you and I in the form of higher premiums. Medicare E has no one to pass costs on to—except taxpayers. And taxpayers will already be helping to subsidize those who cannot afford insurance.

“Everyone agrees that primary care physicians are underpaid. Democrats in both the House and the Senate propose raising their fees, as does the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPac)—the group that might take over setting fees for Medicare. Moreover, the House, the Senate, President Obama and MedPac have made it clear that they do not favor the across-the-board-cuts called for under the sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula. Congress has consistently refused to make those cuts and President Obama did not include them in the 2010 budget that he originally sent to Congress. On that score, the AMA has nothing to worry about.

“Protecting Excessive Fees for Some Specialists’ Services

“So what does the AMA fear? That either MedPac or Medicare will trim fees for certain specialists’ services. Keep in mind that Medicare’s fee schedule has traditionally been set –and adjusted on a regular basis, by the RUC– a committee dominated by specialists.( Private insurers then follow that fee schedule, usually paying somewhat more for each service.) I have described this group in the past: They meet behind closed doors. No minutes are kept of their meetings. They rarely suggest lowering fees—even though as technology advances, some services become easier to perform. MedPac has pointed out that a less biased group should be involved in determining fees—perhaps physicians who work on salary, and are not affected by Medicare’s fee schedule.

“There is good reason to suspect that the RUC has over-rated the value of some services.. MedPac has suggested taking a look at particularly lucrative tests or treatments that are being done in large volume. Often, this may mean that patients who don’t need the service are receiving it; if the procedure isn’t necessary, then, by definition, they are being exposed to risks without benefits. And in fact, experience shows that when high fees are trimmed, volume falls, suggesting that rich fees were, in fact, driving overtreatment.”

There is more here about using medicare to “bend the curve,” or reduce over-utilization, improve use of preventive services, as well as a discussion of how a Public Plan might besubsidezed, etc. well worth reading, particularly about subsidization.

I would only add that the title falls a bit short: The AMA, or rather, conservative physicians, are hardly the only group fighting significant change. The Health Insurance industry, despite conciliatroy noise, will be the big guns or long knives as this goes forward. And behind them will be Pharma, other device and equipment manufacturers, probably home health servicers, ambulatory care centers, and, for purely ideological reasons, all conservatives.

Snapshots: Health Care Spending in the United States and OECD Countries – Kaiser Family Foundation

Snapshots: Health Care Spending in the United States and OECD Countries – Kaiser Family Foundation:

“Health spending is rising faster than incomes in most developed countries, which raises questions about how these countries will pay for future health care needs. The issue may be particularly acute in the United States, which not only spends much more per capita on health care than any other country, but which also has had one of the fastest growth rates in health spending among developed countries. Despite this higher level of spending, the United States does not achieve better outcomes on many important health measures. This paper uses information from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)1 to compare the level and growth rate of health care spending in the United States with other OECD countries. In an increasingly competitive international economy, policymakers in the United States will need to be aware of how the health spending and spending growth in the United States compares to that of other nations.”

Foregoing care due to cost | New America Blogs

HEALTH CARE: If This Is An Emergency, Please Press “Can’t Afford It” New America Blogs:

From the New America Healthcare Blog …

“Imagine being sick enough or hurt enough to rush to an emergency room—and then leaving without getting the recommended tests or treatment because you can’t afford it.

“Doctors have a name for those discharges—’Against Medical Advice.’ It seems to be happening more often, both in the ER and in the rest of the hospital as health costs rise and insurance coverage falls.

“MSNBC interviewed several doctors and patients about how the economy is affecting emergency care. A patient with acute appendicitis needing emergency surgery who waited for his mother to drive him to the hospital so he wouldn’t have to pay for an ambulance. A patient with an infected kidney stone. People with chest pains who were not in the throes of a life-threatening heart attack that very minute but who couldn’t or wouldn’t follow up to find out what the pains signaled. A 31 year old knocked unconscious in a bike crash, who asked about the cost of the recommended follow up, only to be told by the ER doctor, that she was ‘a physician, not an accountant.’ Declining treatment, he still got a $600 bill.”

There’s more at New America and at MSNBC…

I would only add this, from a wise NY Times reader:

Mr. Krugman rightly notes that emergency room care cannot substitute for health insurance since the cost will be billed directly to the patient.

There is another reason emergency rooms cannot provide adequate health care. Emergency rooms are for emergencies. They can treat a patient in a diabetic coma, but they cannot provide continuing help in managing diabetes. They can treat a full-blown asthma attack, but they cannot provide the medications needed to manage asthma daily.

They can treat a woman who has gone into early labor, but they cannot provide prenatal care.Emergency rooms cannot offer any help for managing Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s or cancer. On a more basic level, they cannot provide eyeglasses, hearing aids or dentures.

Republican claims that no American is without access to health care because “you can just go to an emergency room” are openly false as well as appallingly callous.

Kaiser Family Foundation Health Policy Tutorials and Compendia

Tutorials:

KaiserEDU’s tutorials are multimedia presentations on health policy issues, research methodology or the workings of government.

Here are a few to get started (I haven’t yet, but put them here for reference and eventual use!)

Health policy experts provide overviews of current topics in health policy. Watch and download slides from these and other tutorials:
The Public and Health Care Reform
A Primer on Tax Subsides for Health Care
Expanding Health Coverage to the Uninsured

They also have Compendiums:

These modules include background summaries along with links to academic literature, policy research and data sets on current health policy issues, such as:
U.S. Health Care Costs
Health Information Technology
Addressing the Nursing Shortage
The Uninsured
International Health Systems

Paperwork, profits clog health care’s efficiencies

Paperwork, profits clog health care’s efficiencies:
DEAN CALBREATH, San Diego Union Tribune

“Jim G. Kahn, health economist at the Institute for Health Policy Studies at the University of California San Francisco, found a similar pattern during a study of California hospitals, clinics and doctors’ groups. He found the doctors’ groups were spending an average of 14 cents per dollar related to legal, accounting and processing costs involved with health insurance.

““You have to have teams of lawyers and accountants to negotiate contracts and to figure out who pays for what,” Kahn said. “You have to have whole teams in place to figure out what errors there are (in the paperwork) and how to fix them.”

“Kahn said that in a single-payer system like Canada’s, the data are centralized, resulting in less time, money and effort being spent on administrative tasks. “And then you could apply that savings to provide better health coverage,” he said.

“Critics of a single-payer concept worry that a government-run system would end up being too costly and too bureaucratic, without providing the benefits of innovation and cost-cutting that competition is supposed to bring. But if that were true, why does our system cost more than those abroad?

“The entities that seem to benefit most from the current system are the major pharmaceuticals, which are among the nation’s most profitable companies, and the life insurers, which have also done well.

“Donald Cohen, executive director of San Diego’s Center for Policy Initiatives, a liberal think tank, said the top seven for-profit health insurers made a combined $12.6 billion in 2007, an increase of more than 170 percent from 2003. Part of those profits go toward paying high salaries for the top executives. The seven chief executives received an average compensation of $14.3 million in 2007, with pay packages ranging from $3.7 million to $25.8 million.

“Cohen suggested that one way of lowering costs would be to create more competition, by having a government health plan competing with the private insurers. Government-run programs, he said, typically run with low administrative expenses, often with overhead running at 1 percent to 3 percent of their expenses. In contrast, the privately run insurance firms have overhead costs as high as 20 percent, partly because of their high salaries.

“As Cohen noted, conservative think tanks like the Reason Foundation, Heritage Foundation and others have argued that allowing the private sector to compete with the public sector can benefit the taxpayer. Why shouldn’t the reverse be true?

““Public-private competition in health insurance will squeeze overhead and profits from the middlemen in the system so we can put more money into actual health care,” Cohen said. “