“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
The healthcare industry continues to feed its addiction to obscene profits instead of better, more affordable patient care. While Americans are bombarded with relentless direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) pushing dubious drugs to an unwary public, health plan sponsors can provide a much-needed antidote. Read More about Billions Spent Pushing Low Value Drugs Directly to US Consumers
Health Affairs has launched a timely analysis of physician, hospital, and other health care provider prices in private-sector markets and their impact on overall spending. We applaud this pursuit of definitive answers but until such truths are revealed, employers won’t have any cost relief any time soon.
The Forefront series, Provider Prices in the Commercial Sector, kicked off with an excellent article discussing what Health Affairs considers “under-explored burning questions in the price debate” that they think deserve attention. We couldn’t agree more!
Read the full article when you can. In the meantime, we’ve highlighted key takeaways to help frame this important conversation for employers and all stakeholders seeking lower health care costs and a better member experience.
1. Do Poorly Set Public Prices Distort Commercial Prices?
Our current systems for setting prices in public programs are flawed. For example, Medicare pays different amounts for the same service delivered in different settings and reimburses more for higher cost drugs. Additionally, relative value units for physician services are often inaccurate. Although there is some evidence that higher Medicare prices lead to higher commercial prices, more evidence is needed.
2. How Should Services Be Defined?
Our payment systems rely on very granular service definitions. For example, there are ten CPT codes for office visits. This creates opportunities for providers to choose more lucrative codes and adds administrative costs. The general sense is that our system has erred on the side of too little standardization. Broader service categories may be desirable.
3. How Does Quality Respond To Changes In Pricing?
Cross-national evidence suggests countries paying lower prices do not suffer significantly worse quality of care. Studies of mergers and prices suggest antitrust activities may lower prices but not degrade quality, supporting the position that policies intended to lower heath care prices do not necessarily impact quality adversely.
4. How Should We Price New Digital Services?
Given the fee-for-service chassis of the US health system, the instinct is often to create codes for these services and then assign prices, but that is problematic. For many interventions, there is limited evidence about their appropriate use.
5. How Much Spending is Flowing Outside of The Claims System?
Most pricing research is based on claims data, a valuable but flawed resource. Increasingly, funds are flowing from payers to providers outside of the claims system via fixed payments, quality bonuses, or shared savings from alternative payment models.
6. Are Pay-for-Performance Systems Worth It?
There is a growing body of evidence suggesting value-based care incentives are not effective. Often, quality measures are not tied closely enough to health outcomes to merit additional payments. Operating these models is expensive and may distract from other activities. It is reasonable to conclude that some of these systems should at least be scaled back, maybe even abandoned, until better, more targeted approaches to eliminating substandard care and improving quality can be designed.
7. To What Extent Do High Prices Reflect Higher US Production Costs and Why?
While we know market power and a lack of pricing transparency and direct competition is an important determinant of higher prices in the US, a further understanding of production costs would be valuable. In part, health care prices likely reflect higher labor costs in the US. Prices of technologies are higher in the US compared to other nations. And the complexity and fragmentation of the American health care system create higher administrative costs, driving higher prices.
It takes time to delve into these questions and implement solutions for changing the American health care model. The more immediate imperative for employer commercial plan sponsors is to take the reins now with a health plan that is proven to reel in claims overspending while improving benefits and providing a better member experience.
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
From stagnant wages to crushing medical expenses, employee net income has plummeted, preventing American workers from saving adequately for retirement. Pending legislation seeks to alleviate this crisis while a growing number of employers are boosting retirement benefits by reducing health care costs. Read More about How to Boost Employee Retirement Benefits by Slashing Health Care Costs
From targeting the Affordable Care Act to clamoring for COVID relief funds, annual federal healthcare lobbying expenditures have risen a staggering 70%. Nearly $714 million has been spent influencing legislation to favor the industry and maintain obscene profits. Who’s spending all this money? Read More about Annual Health Care Lobbying Rises 70% to a Whopping $714 Million
Multiple studies affirm that millions of Americans are underinsured or completely uninsured. These grim results include the 54% of the population covered by employer health plans. While outrageous healthcare and premium costs are part of the problem, it’s clear employers need to step up and do better. Read More about What Good is Health Insurance That Robs Benefits and Hurts Health?
In the ongoing battle for talent acquisition and retention, 2 in 3 employers plan to expand their employee benefits program in the next 12-18 months. Yet 8 in 10 say out-of-control health care costs impede their ability to stay competitive. Is it really possible to compete without overspending? Absolutely! Read More about How to Fund Competitive Benefits to Attract and Retain Talent
A study published in the journal Radiology confirms what we already know — that there’s no rational explanation for wildly divergent costs for the same test at the same hospital or even between hospitals. And with every negotiation, it appears that hospitals hold the winning hand.
The vast difference between the lowest prices for common imaging services is astonishing. Likewise for the highest price, which on average can be nearly four times as much as the lowest. What’s worse is that these disparities exist not only between hospitals, insurers, and employers, but are found in different health plans offered by the same insurer.
The study shows that more expensive radiology services tend to have wider price variations. The most extreme example is a brain CT scan, whose prices ranged from $134 to $4,065 at the same hospital. How is it possible that the highest negotiated cost is over 30 times more than the lowest?
Even Ge Bai, Ph.D., a professor of accounting and health policy at Johns Hopkins University and one of the coauthors of the study, was surprised by its findings. In an interview with Fierce Healthcare, Bai noted that commercial health plans are “leaving money on the table” when negotiating with hospitals. This often contributes to higher out-of-pocket costs for insured patients and higher premiums for both employees and health plan sponsors.
According to Bai, “If insurance companies’ incentives had been perfectly aligned with employers, we would have observed little variation in negotiated rate for a given hospital across different health plans administered by the same insurance company.”
It’s clear that hospitals and insurance companies have zero allegiance to employers and continue to prioritize their profits over the needs of health plan sponsors and their members. Fair Market Payment™ is an immediate and effective solution for avoiding this price gouging variation and healthcare overspending.
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.
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.
Kansas City | Corporate Office
4000 West 114th Street, Suite 110
Leawood, KS 66211
Boston, MA | Cleveland, OH
1-844-4VITORI
Copyright © 2023 Vitori Health
