Tag Archive: cost sharing

Health insurance returning to traditional role of covering unexpected, high cost care

A basic insurance principle is returning to health coverage: mitigating the financial risk of a major, unexpected or accidental need for medical care. That’s how it worked in the period immediately following World War II, when health insurance was termed “major medical” and designed to cover high cost care such as injuries resulting from accidents or a medical crisis such as a heart attack or stroke.

The big driver of the change: sharply rising premium rates over the past decade. Costly premiums are driving people to choose plans with more cost sharing and the lower premiums that come with greater cost sharing such as deductibles, co-pays and co-insurance. Even when premium rates are subsidized, 85 percent of those purchasing individual plans sold on state health benefit exchanges in 2014 chose bronze and silver rated plans over higher priced gold and platinum rated plans that have less cost sharing. Bronze and silver rated plans cover 60 and 70 percent, respectively, of expected annual health care costs while gold and platinum, 80 and 90 percent.

The upshot of these less generous plans is people will become less inclined to view health plans as pre-paid medical care and more as insurance for medical financial emergencies. It’s back to the future of major medical plans of the 1950s and 1960s – a reversal of the all-inclusive managed care plan trend that began in the 1970s and 1980s.

A consequence is likely to be less wasteful utilization of primary care for issues that typically clear up on their own such seeking an antibiotic prescription for a minor cough. That’s a highly beneficial development amid widespread concern of a looming shortfall of primary care physicians at the same time more people gain medical coverage under the Affordable Care Act.

Related trends are the rise of cash paid primary care options including prepaid direct primary care physicians and clinics, retail and drugstore clinics and companies offering quickly accessible online telehealth consultations. These services provide consumers convenient care within and outside of normal business hours without the need for an appointment plus reduce the uncertainly of whether a particular primary care visit will be covered by their health plan. Also, tax advantaged health savings accounts that allow money to be set aside to pay for minor care.

All of this fits nicely into the growing ethos that wellness is a personal responsibility that for the vast majority of people is secured with healthful lifestyles rather than frequent engagement with medical providers.

 


Need a speaker or webinar presenter on the Affordable Care Act and the outlook for health care reform? Contact Pilot Healthcare Strategies Principal Fred Pilot by email fpilot@pilothealthstrategies.com or call 530-295-1473. 

AHIP’s catastrophic plan proposal needs rethinking

America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) has proposed the creation of a new Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act-compliant catastrophic individual health plan. (Link here) According to AHIP:

The new catastrophic plan would offer an AV (actuarial value) just below the current minimum requirement (covering an average of 60 percent of medical utilization costs) allowing for lower premiums, but would still include coverage of the law’s mandated essential health benefits, have no annual or lifetime benefit limits, and cover all preventive health services with zero cost-sharing for consumers. This would allow individuals and families eligible for premium subsidies to use that financial assistance to purchase the new plan, an option currently unavailable to consumers purchasing the ACA catastrophic plan.

Since bronze plans and catastrophic plans are quite close in actuarial value, have the actuaries found any potential for meaningfully lower premiums for these proposed catastrophic plans? In other words, is the medical services utilization of a population covered at 57 percent AV, for example, significantly lower than one covered at 60 percent such that it can produce meaningfully lower premiums? Especially given that the Affordable Care Act limits annual maximum out of pocket costs for in-network providers?

Not likely. But the apparent goal isn’t so much to reduce premium rates but rather to make catastrophic plans eligible to become qualified health plans (QHPs) sold in the state health benefit exchange marketplace and thereby eligible for advance premium tax credit subsidies. That has raised criticisms from some quarters that proposed catastrophic plans would not be beneficial to lower income individuals and families since the plans’ high cost sharing (deductibles, co-insurance and co-pays) would discourage their getting necessary care. But lower income people and especially those who utilize a lot of catastrophic (i.e. hospital inpatient) care aren’t likely to choose catastrophic plans and instead opt for plans with at least 70 percent AV (this level includes additional cost sharing subsidies for lower income earners).

If the goal however is to bring more relatively healthy people into state risk pools who are comfortable covering their own out of pocket costs for non-catastrophic care and using tax deductible health savings accounts to cover them, a more appealing catastrophic plan would be one that provides lower cost sharing for hospitalizations and other unexpected high cost medical events. Even with annual out of pocket cost limits of $6,350 for an individual plan and $12,700 for a family plan, a hospitalization can result in large medical bills, particularly for out of network hospitals used in an emergency situation that can double those limits.

 


Need a speaker or webinar presenter on the Affordable Care Act and the outlook for health care reform? Contact Pilot Healthcare Strategies Principal Fred Pilot by email fpilot@pilothealthstrategies.com or call 530-295-1473. 

California exchange undertakes review of November ballot measure calling for prior approval of individual and small group health plan premium rates, cost sharing

California’s health benefit exchange marketplace, Covered California, is undertaking an analysis of the potential impact of a November 2014 ballot measure that would institute prior regulatory approval of individual and small group health insurance rates. The initiative statute, titled the Insurance Rate Public Justification and Accountability Act, would subject these rates to an initiative statute ratified by voters in 1988 that placed most types of property/casualty insurance under prior rate approval regulation.

An outline of the analysis raises various questions as to how prior approval will jibe with Covered California’s annual schedule to select and finalize qualified health plans (QHPs) to be sold through the exchange and on what terms and conditions within Covered California’s standardized benefit framework. Under the schedule, health plan regulators review QHPs and their coverage terms and conditions in a two month window in the late summer and early fall for QHPs effective January 1 of the following year. But the scope of that review does not give regulators the final word on what plans can charge for premiums and out of pocket costs.

The ballot measure would afford California’s elected insurance commissioner that oversight authority as well as the authority to hold hearings to obtain public testimony. The Act would overlay federal regulations issued under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act at 45 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 154 authorizing federal and state regulators to jointly review (or the federal Department of Health and Human Services alone if a state opts out) small group and individual rates and require health plan issuers justify rate increases of 10 percent or more per year.

Both Covered California as an active purchaser exchange and regulators negotiate final QHP rates, which also affect plans sold outside the exchange since plans must offer the same plans both inside and outside the exchange marketplace. If approved by voters, the November ballot measure would increase the negotiating leverage of the insurance commissioner, who could opt to hold up rate approval pending a public hearing. That could potentially complicate Covered California’s annual QHP negotiation and approval process (and by extension its marketing and enrollment functions) and result in some plans being withdrawn before they take effect the following January if their premium rates and cost sharing are deemed excessive by the commissioner and disapproved.

In addition, since the underlying cost trend of annual health insurance rate increases has generally exceeded 7 percent in recent years, most if not all proposed plan rates would trigger a provision of the proposed law that allows the public and consumer groups to request the commissioner to hold a public hearing to determine if rate increases at or above 7 percent would result in rates that are unfair, discriminatory or excessive, introducing the prospect of further delay before the rates could be used. Further complications could come under a provision in the ballot initiative creating a transition period where plan issuers could hit the reset button and issue new plans that the commissioner could opt to exempt from prior rate approval provided they use rates in effect on or before January 1, 2014.

Proponents of the measure — including the current insurance commissioner — are likely to downplay the issues raised in the Covered California operational analysis. They will likely argue that premium rates are a matter between the plans and consumers (and not the exchange) and plans are responsible for ensuring they are using only approved rates and refunding any excess rates. However, if premium rates and cost sharing for the next to lowest cost silver actuarial value plan are involved in a lengthy challenge and hearing process, it could seriously affect the exchange marketplace since advance premium tax credits are keyed to that plan.

While a majority of states require prior approval of rates in the individual health insurance market (California is in a minority that employ a “file and use” scheme) according to this Kaiser Family Foundation chart, a half dozen states including California have state-based health benefit exchange marketplaces that actively select QHPs and negotiate with health plan issuers according to this Kaiser Family foundation compilation. Of those six states, all are prior approval states except California. Covered California’s analysis should undoubtedly examine how those state-based exchanges navigated their states’ prior approval regulatory schemes for plan year 2014.

 


Need a speaker or webinar presenter on the Affordable Care Act and the outlook for health care reform? Contact Pilot Healthcare Strategies Principal Fred Pilot by email fpilot@pilothealthstrategies.com or call 530-295-1473. 

Primary care medicine on retainer may offer better value than richer insurance plans

Check out this article on the trend of having a primary care physician on retainer published in the current issue of Sacramento-based Comstock’s Magazine. For people who need to consult a doctor frequently when they need to (such as parents of young children, those with complex, chronic conditions, and individuals making a major health-related lifestyle change), combining this arrangement with a high deductible insurance plan could be a better value than an all-inclusive plan that factors frequent doctor visits into premium rates. Such as, for example, individual health plans rated “gold” or “platinum” that have lower cost sharing for frequent users of medical services but come with the tradeoff of higher premiums.

There is a concerning aspect to the trend as author Jeff Wilser points out in his piece. Primary care physicians who work on a retainer basis manage to get more time to devote to patients (great for those types of aforementioned patients who need more time and attention) by substantially reducing the size of their patient panels. That’s counter to the projected growth in demand for primary care doctors due to insurance market reforms of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act — at the same time there are fewer primary care docs providing services due to economic incentives to specialize and growing retirements.

 


Need a speaker or webinar presenter on the Affordable Care Act and the outlook for health care reform? Contact Pilot Healthcare Strategies Principal Fred Pilot by email fpilot@pilothealthstrategies.com or call 530-295-1473. 

%d bloggers like this: