Back Button
Menu Button

American Hospital Association Advertisement
A Closer Look

A November 15 advertisement in the Wall Street Journal caught my attention – and then my ire. Rick Pollack, President and CEO of the American Hospital Association (AHA), a national organization that represents nearly 5,000 hospitals and health care networks – penned a piece titled, “Fighting for Fair Health Insurance Policies for Patients and Clinicians.”

The advertisement began with the following statement: “Hospitals and health systems put the health and welfare of their patients first. But for some of the nation’s largest commercial health insurance companies, that increasingly is not always the case.”

Pollack continues by asserting health insurance companies have policies that compromise patient care, access to that care and safety. “These include frequent changes to coverage, limited provider networks, delays in authorizing treatment and failure to pay providers in a timely manner.” I must admit, there is some truth to these assertions. Defending insurance companies on many of these issues will not come from me.

Pollack provides a few examples of the atrocities committed by insurance companies, which “blindsides” patients and “puts their health at risk.” Equally abhorrent, are the “billions of dollars in added costs to the health care system,” which “contribute to clinician burnout.” Again, I will not push back on such allegations.

Finally, Pollack goes for the jugular by writing that unjustified behavior by insurance companies is allowed because “commercial health insurance markets are increasingly concentrated and nearly every market is dominated by a single larger commercial insurer.” Yep, this too has some validity.

My ‘Ire’

So why am I incensed by this AHA advertisement? Quite simply, it amounts to the pot calling the kettle black. Finger pointing deflects blame from where it also belongs. Medicine has become more of a profit-incentive business than a public good that cares for patients. The large majority of clinicians serving patients are doing so for the ‘right’ reasons. Unfortunately, the business side of medicine tears away at the sanctity of patient care, leaving doubt in the care we once trusted. 

The AHA and its members are far from faultless on many of the criticisms it throws at health insurers. In fact, the atrocities they commit are swept under the rug and largely left ignored. When transgressions do surface, carefully polished responses are crafted by the AHA and its minions. Below are just a few of the many transgressions committed by the AHA and its powerful members:

  • Leveraged Local Power – Local hospitals infiltrate and hypnotize our communities, business associations and the state legislature to help soften or silence negative pushback on their business behaviors and practices. They often remind us of the “economic impact” they provide to our local economies and the ‘free’ care provided to those without health insurance. This is true, but nonprofit hospitals are exempt from paying most federal and state taxes, which may outweigh the charity care they provide. Because of this economic presence, they feel entitled to be treated with reverence to promote their own business interests. Yet contrary to arguments made by the medical establishment that bloated healthcare equates to more local jobs and serves as a multiplier-effect for local economies, growing our medical industrial complex just does not fit the true narrative of having thriving economies. Consolidation of hospitals, we are often led to believe, will broaden access to care and increase efficiency. As a result, the public will benefit by having “lower costs and improved care.” Yet, many of these mergers serve as a ploy to leverage bargaining prowess with third-party payers to ensure favorable, and more profitable prices. Studies have shown that hospital consolidation is more about enhancing bargaining power and less about integration aimed at reducing costs and providing better, safer care.
  • Opaque Pricing – The hospital price-transparency rule, which took effect this past Jan. 1, required hospitals for the first time to disclose the confidential prices negotiated with health insurers. Despite hospital opposition to this rule, it was implemented to help boost competition and control rising U.S. healthcare spending. According to a Wall Street Journal article in March, hospitals used various methods, including so-called blocking codes, to make it harder for people to search for and download pricing data. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services then recently released a final rule to raise penalties if hospitals do not comply. Not surprisingly, the AHA and other hospital trade groups pushed back. Hospitals around the country are notorious for charging exorbitant and variable prices to patients. Keeping prices opaque is a huge benefit to hospitals, but not to those who pay the bills. Let’s be honest, it’s about the bottom line – healthcare is in the money business.
  • Billing Complexity Equals Medical Debt – Opaqueness in pricing also carries through to how hospitals bill for their services. Hospitals behave as if they are entitled to our money – even if the billing is unfair and inaccurate. Fortunately, we have a new law enacted to protect patients against surprise medical bills, a practice that hospitals have allowed to happen for decades. Medical debt continues to pile up for patients, causing bankruptcy to those with and without health insurance coverage. 
  • Harm to Patients – We have known for years that fatalities due to preventable mistakes made in U.S. hospitals are enormous. In fact, if medical errors were tabulated similarly to other diseases, it is estimated that medical errors would be the third-leading cause of death in this country, behind only heart disease and cancer. It is egregious that death certificates do not list the preventable complications that contribute to the death of patients. The AHA and hospital trade groups whitewash preventable medical mistakes and patient harm as if they don’t happen. Instead, more resources are spent to initiate state laws that implement and enforce tort reforms that protect their backside. Apparently lobbying for such legislation is much easier than actually mitigating the harm they are needlessly causing.
  • Lobbying Power – The hospital and medical community lobbies state legislatures, Congress and federal agencies to influence decisions that benefit themselves, not the public. According to OpenSecrets.org, a nonpartisan, nonprofit, and independent organization that tracks money in U.S. politics,health’ was the top lobbying sector in 2020, spending over $629 million. Since 1998, this sector has dished out over $9.5 billion, edging out ‘Misc. Business’ ($9.4 billion) and Finance/Insurance/Real Estate ($9.36 billion).  ‘Health’ lobbyists represent the American Medical Association, American Hospital Association, pharmaceuticals, and so on. In the $4+ trillion healthcare industry, lobbying efforts can pay off handsomely. The ‘investments’ mentioned above are merely a drop in the bucket for the eventual returns that will come sometime later. 

Bottom Line

The business of medicine should be less about ‘private gain’ and more about ‘public good.’ The monetization of medicine has been designed for the benefit of those who stand to profit at the expense of those who are forced to blindly pay. To be fair, insurance companies are not without fault. However, I see this advertisement as yet another deflection from the real truth. We deserve greater transparency and accountability from those who provide our healthcare and the insurance companies that help pay for such care. Lastly, we must have honest and bold action from those we elect to protect the public’s interests. Unfortunately, patients are an afterthought in this perverse system that too often lacks appropriate accountability.

To stay abreast of employee benefits, we invite you to subscribe to our blog.

Is Healthcare a ‘Tapeworm’ in the American Economy?

Tapeworms cause health problems in our bodies. They can rob us of important nutrients, block our intestines, and take up space in organs so they don’t function normally. Tapeworms keep our bodies from operating efficiently.

Warren Buffett described the American healthcare system as a “tapeworm in the American economy.” Given the latest failure of Haven, a joint health care venture with JP Morgan, Amazon and Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway – the tapeworm appears to be live and well.

Buffett’s comment is brutally honest.

The tapeworm analogy is demonstrated in a new article from the New York Times, “Buoyed by Federal Covid Aid, Big Hospital Chains Buy Up Competitors.” This article paints a picture that some larger hospital chains are using Covid bailout money from the Provider Relief Fund and purchasing other hospitals and physician groups to grow their footprint in markets. Without much federal scrutiny, this bailout allows hospital chains to grow larger and dictate higher prices from private insurers, employers and individuals.

Multiplier Effect

I have to hand it to the American Hospital Association (AHA) and their state-based hospital members, including the Iowa Hospital Association (IHA). When payers demand to hold hospitals accountable to improve their outcomes at lower associated costs, hospitals revert to a tried-and-true formula to combat public scrutiny: Remind the public about how hospitals provide economic contributions to our communities and states.

As an example, in 2017, the AHA stated the “Health care sector has traditionally been an economic mainstay, providing stability and job growth in communities. Health care added more than 35,000 jobs per month in 2016.” The AHA mentions that hospitals employ more than 5.7 million workers, are one of the top sources of private-sector jobs, and purchase nearly $852 billion in goods and services from other businesses. More recently, Rick Pollack, President and CEO of the AHA, had a paid AHA advertisement in the Wall Street Journal titled, “Value of Health Systems Shown Clearly During the Pandemic.

This information is pumped out every few years for each state to tout, including Iowa. The AHA provides a state-by-state economic impact grid that illustrates the value hospitals provide to their respective local economies. The IHA readily uses this information to display on their website. Of course, we are constantly reminded of the ‘multiplying effect’ that supports “thousands of additional jobs.” We are told that “more than 143,000 jobs are tied to Iowa hospitals, creating an overall impact that is worth nearly $8.6 billion to Iowa’s economy.” It is true that, along with public schools, hospitals are the largest employers within many of our communities.

Not to be outdone, the lobbying organization for insurance companies – America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) – employs a similar approach to tout how private insurance is an economic boon for local economies. In early May, AHIP posted By the Numbers: How Health Insurance Providers Contribute to State Economies and Peace of Mind.” The 2021 AHIP biennial report discusses how the economies of each state are impacted by health plans, specifically on the number of jobs generated and tax revenues paid to support the local economy.

Based on AHIP data, Iowa employs over 4,000 health plan employees and almost 13,000 insurance-related employees. Average annual wages for health plan employees are over $86,000 while insurance-related employees earn about $63,000 annually. By most standards, these wages are good for the Iowa economy, especially when using the multiplier effect.

Zero-Sum Game

Given the narratives being sold to us, perhaps we should supersize the entire U.S. economy by continuing to expand healthcare and health plans beyond their current size. But that simply will not work. There are economic tradeoffs that come into play.

It brings to mind poker and gambling, two popular examples of the zero-sum game. In poker, the sum of the amounts won by some players equals the combined losses of other players. In a zero-sum game, there is one winner and one loser.

“Currently, the U.S. healthcare and health insurance systems are really a patchwork of different programs, which create gaps and expensive inefficiencies”, according to economic health researcher, Katherine Baicker.

But who pays for these inefficiencies? ALL OF US.

What we pay to healthcare providers and insurers will indeed fund the job growth of doctors, nurses, medical technicians, health insurance personnel and professionals. To be sure, we need these services. But, as a consequence, we don’t have this money to spend (or save) on other economic necessities or preferences. This becomes an economic tradeoff that adversely impacts other parts of our economy.

Inefficient and opaque spending on healthcare creates another problem: a redistribution of our hard-earned money that is often being used to our own detriment – for lobbying efforts to ensure the status quo remains unchanged. Opaqueness breeds blind spending by those who pay. This is a vicious cycle that perpetuates the zero-sum game.

Law of Diminishing Marginal Returns & Opportunity Costs

Another economic term, Law of Diminishing Marginal Returns, is typically used when analyzing the production of a particular commodity. For example, when a factory employs workers to manufacture its products, at some point during production, the company will operate at an optimal level (with all other factors remaining constant). Over time, however, adding additional workers will result in less efficient operations.

At what point has healthcare exceeded the optimal revenue from its payers? When will the best possible returns obtained by healthcare diminish with every dollar invested? Are we there yet? The latest Kaiser Health News poll that found large employers are ready for more government involvement may suggest this point has been reached.

Put yet another way, what are the opportunity costs with each dollar spent on healthcare? Opportunity cost is the loss of the benefit that could have been enjoyed if the best alternative choice was chosen instead. Continuing to pay higher healthcare costs without receiving the commensurate benefits represents a lost opportunity of investing that money elsewhere – such as investing in updated infrastructures, efficient factory equipment or paying higher wages. Redirecting financial investments into other worthwhile opportunities would provide a multiplier effect for local economies.

Continuing to accept overpriced care is not the solution to sustain economic growth. In fact, overpriced and inefficient care is holding the economy back from becoming MORE robust. This is precisely Buffett’s point.

Summary

Contrary to the argument of being an ‘economic stimulus’ to local economies, the REAL purpose of healthcare is to enhance the quality of life by enhancing our health. It is true that creating reasonable profits to remain financially viable is necessary to stay in business to serve others. However, healthcare must focus on creating social health and well-being to fulfill its fundamental promise to society.

Marketing platforms being used by healthcare-related associations on how hospitals and health plans will benefit our communities is, at best, disingenuous. We live in a world of unfulfilled opportunities. Until these opportunities are given the chance to succeed, we will never know just how robust our economy can become.

How long do we allow the tapeworm to control our economic well-being?

To stay abreast of employee benefits, we invite you to subscribe to our blog.

Hospital Price Transparency Took Effect New Year’s Day
But, Where is it?

Happy 2021!!!

In this brand-new year, imagine that you have found your most desired showroom vehicle at a local dealership. After haggling with the salesperson (and the backroom manager), a process that is similar to playing ‘Let’s Make a Deal,’ you are handed the following purchase agreement that reads (in short):

This negotiated price is an estimate only and is not a quote or a guarantee of the amount that you will eventually owe…

Now wouldn’t that be a twist on the old way of doing things! But in healthcare, this is precisely the norm.

Recent Ruling on Hospital Transparency Pricing

On Tuesday, December 29, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit rebuked the hospital industry’s legal attempt to banish new rules on price transparency from taking effect on New Year’s Day. I have written about the new rules frequently in the past. The price transparency rule, published in November 2019, was pushed by President Trump and HHS Secretary Alex Azar.

As it now stands, barring a President Biden ‘stay of execution’ order to relax these rules, hospitals must post their negotiated rates online beginning January 1, 2021. The online rates must be conveyed in a machine-readable format and also list their negotiated rates for at least 300 shoppable services in a consumer-friendly format – including 70 services picked by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).

Starting Jan. 1, 2022, health plans and insurance companies will have to provide a publicly available, updated data file on costs. By January 1, 2023, payers, such as commercial insurance companies and large, self-funded employer health plans will also need to comply with similar price transparency rules demanded of hospitals. This was discussed in my November blog, “Finalized Price Transparency Rules for Insurers.”

Not surprisingly, the American Hospital Association is disappointed by this latest decision and, according to their General Counsel, Melinda Hatton, “…are reviewing the decision carefully to determine (our) next steps.”

It’s Now 2021 – Have These Rates Been Posted?

On January 2, I’m sitting at my computer attempting to discern what actions a few Central Iowa hospitals have taken to comply with this new requirement to inform Iowan’s about specific ‘negotiated’ health prices, not just merely ‘estimated’ prices. Estimations, I might add, are simply playing a game of horseshoes and hand grenades, providing just enough information to check boxes to ‘inform’ an already confused public.

Below is a rather quick assessment of three Des Moines-area hospitals – in addition to the Iowa Hospital Association – and what they have listed on their websites as of January 2, 2021. Since that date, any changes made by the following organizations have not been reflected in my comments found below.

MercyOne – Des Moines

As I understand the requirements, MercyOne’s ‘Estimate Your Costs’ webpage does not conform with the new regulations on hospital price transparency. This webpage allows one to download a list of their ‘standard charges’ (in Excel format), but does not provide the ‘negotiated’ rates by payer. MercyOne cautions that this information is only a ‘partial estimate,’ as it does not include other fees beyond hospitals charges, such as “physician fees, charges for your emergency room physician, radiologist or anesthesiologist”.

Before an interested patient can gain access to “generate the most accurate estimate for your health care procedure,” one must click “Estimate Your Costs” and agree to the ‘Disclaimer’ before providing your name, DOB, type of desired medical procedure and your insurance vendor. I attempted to complete this exercise but was met with ‘an error’ both times.

Just as troubling to me is this disclaimer: “Benefits and eligibility are subject to change at any time. This estimate may contain private information that is protected by law. If you are not the patient, patient representative or guarantor, sharing, copying or using this information in any way is against the law.

Frankly, I thought this regulation was all about ‘transparency’ of negotiated medical prices. If I want to publish what MercyOne has negotiated with any particular payer, I should be able to do so. I will assume this site has not been adequately updated and, consequently, this language requires a revision.

UnityPoint Health – Des Moines

The Patient Charges and Costs webpage for UnityPoint Health appears to be helpful, but when looking more closely, it has not changed to reflect the new regulation. The UnityPoint site refers to the January 1, 2019 requirement that hospitals list their ‘standard charges’ of Diagnostic-Related Group (DRG) charges. This information should be deleted from the website as it no longer is compliant with the new regulations. UnityPoint Health cautions the patient to ‘first contact your insurance provider’ who may provide their own ‘estimates’ for out-of-pocket costs based on the insurance plan of the patient. But doing so will likely invite the patient to enter a new labyrinth of confusion that is full of disclaimers, etc.

UnityPoint’s ‘Financial Estimate‘ webpage requires completion and submission before releasing prices. I did so, but when it was submitted, I received the following message: “Thank you for your request.  We’re striving to provide an easier and more personal way for you to plan your health care. A UnityPoint Health financial representative will reach out to you within 2 business days to provide your estimate information.

This website is both confusing and non-compliant – based on my review date (January 2).

Iowa Hospital Association (IHA)

After a cursory review of the IHA website, there are no specific updates that provide revised information about this latest regulation.

Broadlawns Medical Center – Des Moines

With Broadlawns, we actually have a BINGO!

Two days before the required posting of negotiated rates, Broadlawns posted their ‘Pricing Directory’. Broadlawns provides this information in two formats: PDF file and CVS file. The 450-page PDF has the following disclaimer at the top of the first page:

This is an estimate only and is not a quote or a guarantee of the amount that you will owe or what the charges for services will be. The actual charges may be lower or higher than the estimates depending upon many factors – including actual services rendered, complications, your particular health care needs, and your actual insurance policy coverage.

The 450-page PDF includes 15 health insurance products offered by eight insurance companies: Aetna, CIGNA, Coventry, Health Partners, Medica, United Healthcare and Wellmark. Many shoppable services are broken down by professional (physician) and hospital services. You will find the procedure code, gross amount of the service, cash discount offered, negotiated rate with that particular insurer, and the minimum and maximum charge.

Out of sheer curiosity, I did a quick price comparison between Wellmark PPO and United Healthcare PPO for a few random procedures at Broadlawns (found below). Please note, this comparison does not suggest that these negotiated prices are the same at other hospitals. This information is only specific to Broadlawns Medical Center.In lieu of searching for the correct procedure code and shoppable services at Broadlawns, the patient can request a ‘Personalized Price Estimate’ from Broadlawns using the web-based Cost Estimator Request Form (or by calling a Broadlawns financial representative).

Conclusion

Because each patient encounter is so unique and may require various procedures, caveats by hospitals are certainly understandable when quoting specific procedure code prices. There are MANY hurdles to full-blown price transparency that cannot be categorically described in this particular blog. One obvious hiccup is – just how much the patient has remaining on his/her deductible and out-of-pocket maximum to determine their personal liability for the procedure(s). The patient will need to toggle between the health provider for specific prices and with their insurance vendor on whether the service is covered by their plan and, if so, how much the patient will be liable to pay. Transparency in medical prices help, but clarity on how to use this transparency will be problematic until a new world of simplicity evolves.

Many experts agree that price transparency in healthcare will eventually be a valuable thing to have, but this particular requirement is merely a first step toward a ‘Marie Kondo’ approach that will hopefully clean up a very messy industry when it comes to pricing. Kaiser Health News just published an article about the implications of having transparent medical pricing for consumers.

I envision that enterprising third parties will take this newly-released public data and morph it into usable consumer-centric information that can be easily accessed through a smart phone app for the patient. In addition, innovative clinician tools can help health providers perform real-time cost/value trade-offs with the patient while ordering procedures and diagnostic tests that impact the cost.

Simplifying a complex system will take patience, time and a general willingness to invoke needed change.

To stay abreast of employee benefits, we invite you to subscribe to our blog.