3 min

Corporate boards have historically relegated employee and workforce concerns to management. In 2020, COVID-19’s dramatic impact on operations and employee health began changing that perspective in significant ways, leading to a more expansive approach to how boards fulfill their responsibilities.

In a recent publication, Deloitte’s Center for Board Effectiveness confirms that:

“Events related to the pandemic … have … thrust workforce management to the forefront of board agendas. In many cases an afterthought, a lagging consideration to the business and technology strategy, workforce management is now a leading priority, on an equal footing with other key areas of board focus.”

This much-needed emphasis is both timely and necessary. There is organizational risk for boards that do not press for better performance beyond the status quo. Enterprise risk programs should do more than “check the boxes” and boards must challenge those who insist they’re doing “everything they can” for employees as well as shareholders.

Mitigating Employee Health Plan Risk

ERISA, which ensures that both retirement and health plans are managed in the best interests of plan participants, tightened its regulations around retirement plans after rising numbers of class action suits resulted in billions of dollars in settlements. From imprudent investments and grossly high fees to mismanaging shared plan assets, employers were called to task for reduced earnings for employees.

As for healthcare benefits, boards can (and should) urge organizations to move away from legacy health plans that prioritize insurer and PBM profits over plan participants. This has fueled runaway employer costs, siphoned employee income, and burdened employees with medical debt when they need to use their health insurance.

Most employers and their employees are overspending on healthcare by 30% or more. This drain on corporate profits and employee income can be addressed by a modern health plan administrator with leading technology and a moral imperative to represent the best interests of employers and health plan participants.

Although it is unlikely that ERISA-driven regulatory changes around health plans are imminent, ERISA does expect organizations (and by extension, their boards) to manage health plan expenses. It is not difficult to envision employee health plan participants initiating legal action because employers and benefits consultants maintain plans with legacy insurance carriers that fail to demonstrate any cost control. Boards are encouraged to be more diligent and take proactive steps to mitigate the risk of such a scenario.

Board Responsibilities to Society

Deloitte cites the 2022 Edelman Trust Barometer, whose top ten findings reinforce the role business plays as the society’s most trusted institution. Respondents affirm that “societal leadership is now a core function of business” and that “business needs to step up on societal issues.”

There are few societal issues or obligations more critical than addressing the challenges of today’s healthcare system. As an integral part of this system, employer health plan sponsors have an enormous responsibility and cannot afford to be complacent actors. A greater emphasis on employee health and wellbeing is needed, as supported by Springer, which finds that some boards “view health as a business opportunity or even a moral obligation.”

Although 54% of the population receives health insurance through an employer health plan, 29% of those with employer coverage are functionally uninsured. Legacy health plans subject employees to immense financial distress and instability, often resulting in bankruptcy and crippling debt from which many struggle to recover.

Corporations and their boards have responsibilities to employees as well as shareholders and when it comes to employee health, those priorities are not mutually exclusive. Private sector employers need to embrace the growing workforce stewardship taken by many state and municipal government leaders as they root out unnecessary spending and seek more cost-effective, member-focused health plan alternatives.

2 min

Pharmaceutical companies insist that outrageous prices drive the development of innovative medicines. And industry groups claim that Medicare pricing reform and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 will send innovation “light years back into the dark ages of biomedical research.” Don’t believe them. Read More about Will Pricing Reform Stifle Rx Innovation? Nope… Not One Bit.

2 min

“In the mosaic floor of the opulent atrium of a house excavated at Pompeii is a slogan ironic for being buried under 16 feet of volcanic ash: Salve Lucrum, it reads, “Hail, Profit.” That mosaic would be a fitting decoration today in many of health care’s (corporate) atria.” Read More about How to Win Against the Greed that Threatens US Health Care

3 min

As healthcare costs continue to rise, many employer health plan sponsors struggle to cover their employees without breaking the bank. Unfortunately, many keep returning to the same old solutions: a monopoly of legacy insurance carriers with high-priced plans and suboptimal benefits and member support. Read More about The Top 5 Excuses Why Employers Don’t Drop Their Legacy Insurance Carrier

2 min

The Inflation Reduction Act is a great first step toward lowering prescription drug prices and out-of-pocket expenses for Americans covered by Medicare. What’s unknown is how this will impact future Rx costs for members of employer-sponsored plans. How can employers cut costs now without reducing care?

Recent commentary asserts that drug manufacturers will experience losses as a result of this new legislation and are likely to “shift some of the losses onto commercial payers, leading to higher drug costs for employer-sponsored plan members. We’ve already seen this scenario play out in health care, as Medicare pays considerably lower rates for the same service compared to commercial plans, with hospitals and providers often increasing charges for employer-sponsored plans to make up for the difference.”

The author recommends that employers work with their Pharmacy Benefit Manager (PBM) to better understand their pricing practices and terms of service. While all efforts to improve communication and transparency are commendable, the Federal Trade Commission has already exposed the controversial, self-serving practices of six of the largest PBMs whose sole purpose is to limit competition and increase profits.

Employers and plan sponsors need to go beyond understanding the machinations of this corruption and implement a contemporary pharmacy benefit plan that prioritizes patients over secret profits.

Pharmacy Administration without the Predation

According to the PBM Accountability Project, “It’s no coincidence that out-of-pocket drug costs are rising, while PBM profits are increasing. The process of pricing our medications is unknown to many Americans. The opacity and complexity of the drug pricing system undermines the possibility for dynamic, price competition between PBMs — putting consumers at a disadvantage.” 

Vitori Health’s lowest net-cost pharmacy administration offers employers the antithesis of predation and disadvantage. It includes unmatched technology-enabled contracting and built-in advocacy on behalf of members who are reliant on high-cost specialty medications. By securing member financial assistance from pharmaceutical manufacturers, Vitori also removes plan sponsor costs and adds value as cost cascading occurs in the market.

It’s time to stop letting the fox guard the hen house. Contact Vitori Health for information about our non-PBM VitoriRx plan that gives employers and members a clear advantage.

4 min

Vitori Health has been recognized as a Market-Shaping Enterprise (MSE) by Catalyst for Payment Reform (CPR). Independent and influential, CPR’s thought leaders empower health care purchasers to proactively improve today’s dysfunctional healthcare market. Vitori is proud to advance this mission.

CPR has published a white paper that examines the evolution, mechanisms, and strategy behind MSE solutions. It also explores the most important questions health care purchasers should consider when evaluating an MSE vendor.

3 min

Paying healthcare claims should be transparent, less costly, and stress free but for many plan sponsors, it is anything but. Insurance company discounts off price-blind billing fuel rising costs, and referenced based pricing (RBP) antagonizes providers and members alike. A better approach is Fair Market Payment™ (FMP). Read More about Fair Market Payment™: Big Savings, Less Friction than BUCA or RBP Plans

2 min

America… the land of the free and the home of the world’s highest health care costs and lowest life expectancy. While you may be familiar with such global comparisons, you may be surprised by the wide disparities in health care quality, affordability, and access, between and even within our states.

The State of Our Health Care

A recent WalletHub study ranked the best and worst states for health care based on these and other criteria including infant mortality rate, doctors and dentists per capita, and the number of adults who have not seen a doctor or dentist in two years. The results are alarming, and the challenge is daunting.

The study includes an interactive table that can be sorted by rank, cost, access, and outcomes. The top two performers are Minnesota and Rhode Island, which are among the top 10 in all four categories. In three out of four categories are Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Vermont.

Results at the other end of the spectrum are more nuanced. Massachusetts, for example, has high costs but ranks #1 in access and outcomes. Others, like Alabama, Alaska, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas, rate the most poorly in three out of four categories.

Shrinking Access to Maternity Care

While the WalletHub study focused on health care in general, the March of Dimes dug deeper into maternity care. This is especially important because in poorly rated states, there is a direct relationship to high infant mortality rates.

The March of Dimes study identified what it calls “maternity care deserts.” These locations are defined as “any county without a hospital or birth center offering obstetric care and without any obstetric providers.” Obstetric providers include obstetrician-gynecologists, certified nurse midwives, and certified midwives.

It’s hard to imagine that nearly 7 million American women of childbearing age now live in a county with limited or no maternity care services. One-third of U.S. counties, more than half of which are rural, are now maternity deserts. And that number is growing as local and regional hospitals get gobbled up by large hospital systems.

Employers can take an active role in mitigating the nation’s healthcare mess, at the local and individual levels, by choosing an integrated employee health plan with national coverage. It’s best to seek out a next-generation health plan designed specifically to reduce overspending while improving access to quality health care, regardless of location.

Given the difficulty navigating our broken healthcare system, a preferred employee health plan should also include high levels of member support. From answering questions to locating qualified providers, members deserve personalized assistance to get the best care at the lowest cost.

2 min

A new study shows that 71% of US employers expect moderate to significant increases in healthcare costs over the next three years, including a 6% rise in 2023. While the need to manage costs is clear, it’s shocking that 1-in-4 employers plans to shift costs to employees through higher contributions.

As quoted in the WTW study, “Employers must focus on changes that go beyond addressing their employees’ needs to also support efforts to attract and retain talent during a tight labor market.”

Increasing premium contributions effectively reduces employee income and quality of life, and is contrary to a growing focus on making employee benefits more affordable. It’s certainly not the best way to win the war for talent and boost employee satisfaction and retention.

In addition to higher payroll deductions, 23% of employers surveyed have further eroded employee earnings and freedom of choice by increasing out-of-pocket costs for non-preferred labs, providers, and facilities. Another 19% expect to do so by 2024. Boxing employees into narrow networks is never popular and does little to effectively balance cost management with health care affordability.

Doing the Right Thing for Employees

Employers have a fiduciary responsibility under ERISA to manage plan expenses on behalf of plan participants. At the same time, they need to seek competitive advantages and avoid future risk. A next-generation health plan is a strategic tool for meeting these goals by countering inflationary pressures and making health care affordable without reducing benefits.

While 27% of respondents currently use programs to combat fraud and waste, such capabilities can be fully integrated into a modern health plan to ensure sustainable savings and help prevent such abuse from happening in the first place.

The same is true for concierge support services, which help employees navigate the healthcare system and get more value from their health plan. A key driver of employee satisfaction, this essential service is currently only offered by 21% of respondents, with another 25% expecting to do so by 2024.

Employers willing to let go of their “devil you know” mindset can deliver better, more affordable health care for their employees and successfully fight the rising costs and low transparency of legacy health plans.

3 min

Technology leaders and top executives from US hospitals and health systems met recently to focus on healthcare affordability and transforming the patient financial experience. Although many good ideas were generated, the definition and expectation of affordability clearly varies by stakeholder.

Participants in the leadership summit acknowledged that “healthcare in the U.S. is notoriously expensive, including for many people covered by insurance — a reality underscored by the role medical debt plays in more than 60 percent of bankruptcies.” Yet for these constituents, affordability means “enlightened” payment plans that “focus on maximizing the repayment success of the patient.” In other words, let’s improve the odds of the patient paying a bill that is outrageously and unnecessarily high.

The Rapid Rise of Medical Credit Cards

The healthcare industry is increasing its use of technology to improve what it calls the “patient financial experience.” Direct-to-provider payment plans are still the norm, but they are rapidly being replaced by medical credit cards whose lines of credit roughly equal the amount of the patient’s bill.

Research for an article in Crain’s Chicago Business revealed that Synchrony Financial, one of the largest issuers of medical credit cards, reported a 50% increase in purchase volume (from $8 to nearly $12 billion) from 2015 to 2021. The author predicts that it’s just a matter of time before medical credit cards overtake payment plans as the preferred financing method. But preferred by whom?

Hospitals love them because they get paid up front and incur lower transaction fees: a single swipe for a one-time payment vs. 60 swipes for a five-year payment plan. These cards are also promoted (with training provided by the card issuers) by dentists, cosmetic surgeons, and providers whose charges are out of pocket or subject to high deductibles. Even veterinarians are in on the game.

So while hospitals and providers clear outstanding charges from their books, their alliance with medical credit card companies pushes patients into a debt vehicle that’s not in their best interest. The ethics get murkier for nonprofit hospitals who should be providing acceptable levels of free care and services to the community in exchange for substantial tax relief.

Do Patients Benefit from Medical Credit Cards?

Patient reaction to medical credit cards is decidedly mixed. While some appreciate the convenience, others feel they were preyed upon or misled about the terms of their debt, specifically the no-interest introductory period and when interest charges begin accruing. Patients report being pushed to open an account during point of care, including in the emergency room or at discharge.

Kristen Schell, who was profiled in the Crain’s article, says she was pressured into charging urgent gall bladder surgery to a medical credit card, despite being in the financial field for 15 years and “knowing better” that it was not prudent.

Consumer credit experts say medical credit cards should be the last resort for paying a large medical bill. Interest rates are higher: CareCredit is close to 27% while regular credit cards average 19% to 20%. And once medical debt hits a credit card of any kind, it is indistinguishable from consumer debt.

This is a very important consideration for anyone supposedly concerned about the patient financial experience. Consumers rejoiced when the three major credit reporting agencies agreed to remove medical debt from credit reports. However, this only applies to money owed directly to a hospital, care provider, or collection agency. It does not apply to medical debt on any type of credit card. Once charged, it’s just a massive amount of debt in the patient’s credit history that’s viewed less favorably by credit card bureaus.

Transparency and True Affordability

The most encouraging outcome of the leadership summit was a push toward price transparency. Participants acknowledged that “patients still have surprisingly little visibility into what they owe, why they owe it, and how they can pay for it in a way that fits within their budgets.” Additionally, patients “rarely have an opportunity to inform themselves what a consultation, a lab test or an intervention will cost them.”

Technology and artificial intelligence chat bots are being touted as mechanisms to digitize and improve the patient financial experience. And while the technology may be ready, the industry is not. An executive from a Chicago-based health system made the following observation.

“Organizations are putting their prices out there and patients are looking at quality and at what it might cost them, but the problem is they don’t understand the full cost because there’s all this back work with payers about what their true out-of-pocket will be.” In reality, better payment predictive analytics are needed for these efforts to have any real value to consumers.

From a patient perspective, knowing real and accurate costs in advance doesn’t necessarily make them reasonable or affordable, but such transparency is a step in the right direction in that it supports better financial decision making when it comes to health care.

Helping Employees Navigate the System

Employers should consider these two highly effective ways to help protect the financial and health interests of their employees.

• Improve financial literacy through direct education and a compassionate, member-focused health plan that unburdens plan administrators by offering unlimited access to personalized support services during open enrollment and beyond.
• Implement a next-generation employee health plan designed around accountability, transparency, cost-containment and guaranteed savings that prioritizes employer and member needs over those of the healthcare industry.