February 25, 2020

Reference Pricing Can Reduce Medical Outlays, Costs

In an effort to coax health plan participants to use price-shopping behavior when deciding on where to have a procedure, more insurers are starting to roll out a system known as “reference pricing.”

With reference pricing, the health insurer imposes a limit on the amount it will pay for a particular procedure – a limit that is reasonable and allows access to care for patients. The price is usually a median or average price in the local market.

When a health plan participant selects a provider that charges less than the cap, they will receive the standard coverage with little or no cost-sharing.

But, if they decide to use a provider that charges more than the cap, the participant will have to pay the entire difference out of pocket. These excess payments do not count towards the patient’s deductible or the annual out-of-pocket maximum.

Use of reference-based pricing rose from 11% to 13% among large employers in 2015, according to a study by Mercer Benefits.

Proponents of reference pricing say that it can reduce health care spending because it encourages people to shop for better deals and, eventually, encourages hospitals to lower their prices.

Organizations that have implemented reference pricing report lower outlays for procedures.

CalPERS, the pension fund for California state employees, in 2011 began reference pricing and asked its preferred provider organization, Anthem Blue Cross, to research the average costs for hip and knee replacements among hospitals and develop a program that ensures sufficient coverage by those hospitals that meet a certain cost threshold.

The program set a maximum of $30,000 for these procedures.

The number of Anthem-CalPERS enrollees who chose a designated high-value hospital for their knee or hip replacement surgery increased from 50% between 2008 and 2010 to 64% in the first nine months of 2012, compared with little to no change among Anthem policyholders not enrolled in CalPERS.

Also, the average price for such procedures fell from more than $42,000 before the initiative to $27,148 in the first nine months of 2012.

The changes resulted in savings of about $5.5 million during the first two years of the reference pricing initiative, and the average cost to CalPERS for the procedures fell by 26%.

CalPERS says that after it implemented reference pricing, some of the hospitals that charged more than the payment limit significantly reduced their prices for the procedure.

These price reductions have increased; the number of California hospitals charging prices below the CalPERS $30,000 reference limit rose from 46 in 2011 to 72 in 2015.

Limits of reference pricing

To be clear, reference pricing cannot be applied to all procedures.

It should only be used for procedures or products that health plan enrollees can shop for, and when they have time to compare choices based on price and quality. This can include:

  • Scheduled procedures like the aforementioned knee replacements
  • Ambulatory surgical procedures
  • Lab tests
  • Imaging
  • Pharmaceuticals

What it should not be used for:

  • Emergency procedures
  • Unique components of care that the patient can’t select independently, like a lab test during a visit to a doctor
  • Complex medical conditions
February 18, 2020

Trends Shaping Health Insurance and Health Care in 2020

As a new decade begins, the health insurance industry is on the cusp of making a leap towards improved, higher-tech management of health plan participants.

A recent paper by Capgemini, an insurance technology and consulting firm, predicts the following trends that will be taking shape in the health insurance industry and how they may affect businesses that are paying for their employees’ coverage.

1. Realigned relationships — Insurers are trying to shift risk between themselves and pharmaceutical companies in an effort to reduce drug outlays. The report says insurers are also working more closely with health care providers for early intervention in medical issues that may be facing participants. Addressing health issues early can reduce long-run treatment costs.

2. Fluid regulations — As we’ve seen, just because the Affordable Care Act became the law of the land, the regulations governing health care and health insurance have continued streaming out of Washington. If the last two years are any guide, this will continue to be the case. Also, the constitutionality of the ACA is now being litigated once again after an appeals court upheld a lower court’s ruling that the individual mandate is unconstitutional.

3. Increasing transparency — More stringent regulations, along with President Trump’s recent executive order to improve price and quality transparency, are forcing the health care industry and insurers to become more transparent in their pricing.

One of the biggest focuses is on the drug industry and the role of pharmacy benefit managers, the largest of which have been criticized for being opaque in their pricing, discounts and how they handle drug company rebates.

Also, insurers are increasingly providing detailed information regarding services covered under their health plans, claims processing and payments. Additionally, some insurers are helping enrollees to make more informed decisions before they use a health care service by providing digital tools to help them reduce out-of-pocket expenses.

4. Predictive analytics — Health insurers are using predictive analytics for risk profiling and early intervention for enrollees with health issues. Predictive analytics provide insurers with insightful assessments of potentially high-risk customers, in order to mitigate losses.

With advancements in technologies such as big data and connected devices, insurers now have access to vast amounts of customer data, which can be used to remind people it’s time for their check-ups, medications and other necessary medical services.

Insurers are using predictive analytics to identify and monitor high-risk individuals to intervene early and prevent further complications. This in turn can help reduce claims.

February 12, 2020

Congress Eliminates the ‘Cadillac’ and Other ACA Taxes

Congress before the new year passed legislation repealing the so-called “Cadillac tax” on generous group health plans, as well as two other taxes, finally putting to bed an issue that has plagued the Affordable Care Act since its inception.

Although it had not yet been implemented, employers didn’t like the Cadillac and labor unions came out against it as well. It was so unpopular that Congress voted twice to delay implementation, which was originally set to start in 2018. The latest start date had been pushed until 2022.

The Cadillac tax, an enacted but not yet implemented part of the ACA, is a 40% levy on the most generous employer-provided health insurance plans — those that cost more than $11,200 per year for an individual policy or $30,150 for family coverage. It was designed to only tax the portion of the premium that was above the threshold.

Effect of repeal on group plans

The tax would have been levied on health plans, which are legal entities through which employers and unions provide benefits to employees. It would have been paid by employers, but its impact on employees would be indirect and would have depended on how firms and health plan managers responded to the tax in offering and designing benefits.

None of these issues now need to concern employers offering group plans.

The tax was eliminated as part of a $1.4 trillion year-end budget bill that President Trump signed in order to keep the government open. Here are all the ACA-related taxes that the legislation eliminated:

  • The Cadillac tax, which had been expected to raise $197 billion over 10 years.
  • Starting in 2021, the health insurance tax, which had been projected to raise $150 billion over the next decade, and
  • The 2.3% excise on the sale of medical devices, which had been expected to generate $25.5 billion in the next 10 years.
February 5, 2020

High-Deductible Plans Saddling Workers with Bigger Drug Outlays

A new study has found that high-deductible plans and increased use of coinsurance are exposing health plan enrollees to higher and higher pharmaceutical costs.

One of the big problems for many enrollees in high-deductible plans is that their outlays for drugs may not count towards their health plan deductibles and, if they are enrolled in separate pharmaceutical plans, they may have to pay the full list price until they meet their drug deductible, according to the “2019 Kaiser Family Foundation Employer Health Benefits Survey.”

The report warns of a growing crisis for American workers, more and more of whom are struggling with their health expenditures, be they premiums, deductibles, copays and/or coinsurance.

Workers in small firms face relatively high deductibles for single coverage and many also are saddled with significant premiums if they choose family coverage, according to the study.

The cost of group health insurance is growing at about 4% to 5% a year, reaching $7,188 for single coverage in 2019 and $20,576 for family coverage.

Workers in small firms on average contribute 16% of the premium for single coverage, compared with workers at large firms (19%), according to the report. But small-firm employees contribute 40% on average for family coverage, compared to 26% for staff at larger firms.

That said, 35% of covered workers in small firms are in a plan where they must contribute more than one-half of the premium for family coverage, compared to 6% of covered workers in large firms.

But premium contributions are only part of the story. Eighty-two percent of covered workers have a general annual deductible for single coverage that must be met before most services are paid for by the plan, and that average deductible amount is $1,655. But, the average annual deductible among covered workers with a deductible has increased 36% over the last five years, and by 100% over the last 10 years.

The hidden cost-driver

With all this as a backdrop, the cost of prescription drugs is one of the largest challenges facing group health plan enrollees, especially those who are enrolled in high-deductible health plans, whose out-of-pocket expenses for pharmaceuticals can be especially burdensome. It is the hidden cost-driver in the system.

The Kaiser survey found that about 90% of covered workers are enrolled in plans where the health plan deductible must be met before prescription drugs are covered. But, this number has been shrinking as group coverage pricing increases and employers shift more of the cost burden to employees.

There are a few ways that employees are taking on a significant load with their drug expenditures:

  • First, more workers are enrolled in plans that carve out prescription drugs, meaning that their expenditures on medication do not count towards satisfying their health plan deductibles. About 13% of employees are enrolled in a plan with a separate annual deductible that applies only to prescription drugs.
  • Many people with workers face out-of-pocket costs linked to prescription list prices regardless of the actual net, post-rebate costs. That’s because coinsurance percentages are computed based on the price negotiated between the pharmacy and the plan or pharmacy benefit manager. These negotiated prices are typically close to list prices.

    Even worse, patients pay the entire negotiated price when they are within a deductible and do not enjoy the benefits of rebates that the PBM may have negotiated with drug makers. Patients with these benefit designs do not benefit from rebates, though major brand-name drug makers sell their products at half of the list prices.
  • In the past, health plans had two- or three-tier benefit designs for drugs, mostly for generics and brand-name drugs, with lower copays and coinsurance for the lowest-tier medicines. But as prices have started increasing, many plans have four tiers and sometimes five (the specialty tier).

    The disappearance of two- and three-tier benefit designs have made out-of-pocket expenses especially high for specialty drugs. Plans place therapies for such chronic, complex illnesses as cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis and HIV on the fourth and specialty tiers of benefit plan, for which the enrollee has to pay a larger share.