Archive

Posts Tagged ‘cost shift’

Time will tell whether PPACA can save individual, small group health insurance market segments

Last week’s Supreme Court decision on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) and specifically the so-called individual mandate turned on the penalty for not having minimum essential coverage under Section 1501 of the PPACA.  While the court ruled the government cannot compel all Americans have health coverage, the government may require payment of a penalty for not having it as a permissible exercise of Congress’s power to levy taxes.  The penalty gives the mandate real teeth.  Without it, the mandate would be a paper tiger.

The individual mandate in turn is designed to work with upfront tax credits to subsidize the cost of coverage for those who earn above 133 percent of the federal poverty level and are thus ineligible for Medicaid.  The penalty for not having coverage is the disincentive or stick and the tax subsidy to defray plan premiums or fees is the incentive — the carrot.  Insurers and health plans also have a mandate to sell coverage to whoever is willing to buy it starting in January 2014 regardless of their medical condition.

Together, the carrot and stick built into the individual mandate along with the requirement insurers and health plans accept all applicants (per sections 2701 and 2704 of the Act) is intended to save the individual and small group health insurance market segments from the black hole of adverse selection and ultimately market failure.  The acceleration in adverse selection in recent years occurred in the individual market due to increasingly selective medical underwriting standards in states where payers are permitted to screen out people likely to incur high medical treatment costs. Adverse selection also threatens the viability of the small group market due to poor spread of risk among employers of 50 or fewer employees— and particularly numerous micro businesses with five or fewer workers.

In order to preserve these market segments and to also reduce rising premiums in the large group market due to the shifting of medical treatment costs incurred by those without coverage to the insured population, the PPACA has created an alternative and far more compulsory health insurance market than existed prior to its enactment in early 2010Daniel Weintraub, a veteran Sacramento print journalist with deep knowledge of the health care market, described the new market landscape that will fully emerge in 2014 as one in which insurers and managed care plans will effectively become a “quasi-public utility.”

The question going forward is whether this government-drawn and enforced market can achieve sufficient savings and spread of risk to ward off market failure in the individual and small group market segments.  In addition, given that health insurance functions as a pass through mechanism, whether the chronic disease prevention provisions of Title IV of the PPACA will meaningfully slow the relentless rise in medical costs driving up premiums.

Advertisements

CalPERS cites Medicare/Medicaid cost shift for 9.5 percent 2013 health premium increase

The Sacramento Bee reports today the California Public Employees’ Retirement System will boost health insurance premiums next year for its 1.3 million public workers and retirees that pencils out at 9.5 percent and represents “one of the biggest increases in years for CalPERS,” which is one of the largest purchasers of the health care in the nation.  As such, CalPERS health insurance costs serve as a closely watched barometer of where health coverage costs are headed.

According to the Bee story, CalPERS board member Howard Schwartz said CalPERS is fighting to keep health care premiums in check, but is up against powerful market forces. “We like all health care purchasers are wrestling with the problem,” he told the newspaper, noting a source of cost pressure is under funding of Medicare and Medi-Cal.  That prompts health care providers to shift costs “to large purchasers like us,” Schwartz is quoted as saying.

 

Cost shift prompts insurer lawsuit against provider

The dynamic of the medical care “cost shift” in which insured patients are effectively surcharged to cover the cost of the care for those lacking coverage is on full display in this San Jose Mercury News item.  It reports on the “SafetyNet” program at Santa Clara Urgent Care and the 10 other facilities operated by the Bay Area Surgical Management. The program gives 1,000 uninsured residents free health care, which includes urgent care, imaging and gynecological services and outpatient surgeries.   But that care isn’t exactly free and the cost must be covered somehow:  the provider faces legal action from Aetna accusing the provider of overcharging patients with coverage.

Tags:
%d bloggers like this: