Catalyst for Payment Reform Names Vitori Health a Market-Shaping Enterprise

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 Logo RGBCPR 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.

As part of its research, CPR interviewed Neil Quinn, Vitori’s Chief Strategy Officer, for his perspective on current market practices and how MSEs can make a difference.

CPR | What’s your “theory of the case” as to why health care costs and prices continue to rise unabated?

QUINN | Costs and prices continue to rise unabated because there are no real countervailing forces to reduce the systemic financial inflammation. This has created a chronic business interruption disease for employer-purchasers that constantly drains dollars, hours, and energy away from core business priorities. At 20% of GDP, U.S. health care is a monopolistic mega-business that’s increasingly driven by shareholder profits, mergers and acquisitions, and massive multi-faction lobbies.

Unfortunately for employers, it has been generally unfettered by government public-good and antitrust guardrails and is not beholden to free-market forces. All actors in the health care system continue to maximize their financial interests and advantage to the detriment of employer-purchasers and their people.

CPR | Why have traditional health plans been unable to stem the tide?

QUINN | Too often the firemen are the arsonists. Efforts by traditional health plans to control costs and prices are analogous to spitting into an out-of-control fire. With deeply embedded conflicts of interest, these plans have neither intrinsic motivation nor external pressure significant enough to motivate meaningful and durable solutions.

Entrenched stakeholders aren’t going to disintermediate themselves. Their existing business models are reinforced by an interwoven collusion with provider systems, broker-advisors, and other healthcare matrix entities to collectively maintain shareholder priorities.

CPR | What types of strategies have the greatest potential to rebalance market power toward health care purchasers and consumers?

QUINN | Market-shapers are always great simplifiers. Trying to rebalance market power using broken traditional components results in a whole that is less than the sum of its parts. At best, it is simply managing the racketeering. The strategies with the greatest potential are those that recuse themselves of legacy industry elements and economics.

The sweet spot includes transparency-focused solutions such as Fair Market Payment™, net lowest cost Rx pricing technology, direct primary care, and bundled value-based contracting. These and other strategies create a consequential rebalancing of market power towards purchasers, while often removing financial barriers for plan members and patients.

CPR | On the flip side, why can Vitori as a non-traditional entity succeed where traditional models have failed?

QUINN | We aren’t saddled with the “hammer and nail” rigidity that maintains the status quo. Our success begins with the high-minded goal to truly liberate employer-purchasers and plan participants. Independence from legacy system components and economics gives us the freedom to solve problems created by that system without conflicts of interest and furtive revenue streams that deter traditional stakeholders from pursuing meaningful strategies. This unencumbered business model has given us the ability, agility, and drive to rapidly fail, adjust, and succeed.

CPR | What would you say is the greatest challenge to growing your business?

QUINN | One of our greatest challenges is getting past the “room with no windows” that keeps employer-purchasers in the dark about proven, better health plan alternatives. They are unaware that their broker-advisors and legacy insurance carriers hide these options and gaslight them into a disquieting Stockholm syndrome loyalty to their captors.

We routinely challenge a deeply embedded Principal-Agent problem built on enormous information asymmetry. The Principal (employer), who should be well informed and at the heart of the transaction, is instead veiled from price, quality, and value purchasing comparatives. The cabal of Agents (brokers, insurers, provider systems, PBMs) does not act in a transparent and trustworthy capacity, perpetuating economic and structural conflicts of interest.

CPR | What do you need from employer-purchasers to make your product successful?

QUINN | Employer-purchasers need to let go of their “devil you know” mindset and stop buying into the narrative that employees can’t handle change. Although there may be risks in taking action, they are far less than the risks of comfortable inaction that have enabled a vast transfer of wealth from working Americans to the medical industrial complex.

As legal fiduciaries to their health plan participants, employers need to ask themselves: Do traditional insurers/payers really have my organization’s and employees’ best interests at heart? Can I afford to ignore the financial competitive advantage that proven alternatives offer? What has happened year-over-year to employee disposable income and health care financial risk through our moral inertia?

As a Market-Shaping Enterprise, Vitori Health joins CPR in its commitment to rebalancing power in the healthcare market. Every aspect of a Vitori Health plan makes it easy for employer-purchasers to gain control of costs and ensure a better, more compassionate member experience.

Catalyst for Payment Reform (CPR) is an independent nonprofit corporation whose mission is to catalyze employers, public purchasers and others to implement strategies that produce higher-value health care and improve the functioning of the health care marketplace. CPR does not partner or endorse offerings from Vitori Health or other vendors.

Fair Market Payment™: Big Savings, Less Friction than BUCA or RBP Plans

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

Vitori Health Announces $30M Additional Funding Commitment from BV Investment Partners

2 min

The latest strategic investment is designed to scale the company, add key talent, and expand the Kansas City headquarters.

Vitori Health, a precision-built health plan solution combining best-in-class supply chain and plan elements to provide a high-performing alternative for employers and employees, announced an additional $30 million in committed funding from BV Investment Partners.

With employer health plan members in all 50 states, Vitori has continued to expand its reach in middle to upper markets by offering a continuum of models allowing employers to balance financial imperatives while providing employees with a better health plan experience. Vitori’s flagship product, Fair Market Payment™, an open access model, enables employees to use any physicians, facilities, and hospitals they choose while removing traditional network-associated costs for plan sponsors.

The investment will support Vitori’s rapid growth and expansion amid increased demand from benefits advisors and employers, as well as adding key talent, developing new products, and expanding their Kansas City corporate headquarters.

“Vitori is a market shaper whose offerings align with our strategic investment orientation,” says Vikrant Raina, CEO and Managing Partner at BV Investment Partners. “Vitori immediately improves its clients’ profitability and helps their employees spend less on healthcare, which is especially important in the current economy. This follow-on investment will directly support the company’s continued impressive growth and client retention.”

Vitori’s success is anchored in its ability to drive 30% savings by addressing legacy health insurance conflicts of interest, service, and cost control challenges while delivering an exceptional member experience and an unmatched savings guarantee. Built from the ground up, Vitori leverages proprietary technology and business processes to seamlessly integrate custom-designed features, including concierge member support and advocacy, unique medical payment controls, preferred surgical arrangements, optimized pharmacy pricing, and employer contracting without hidden fees. The result is a high-performance health plan that is significantly less expensive for plan sponsors and employees.

“We are pleased to have our success acknowledged by another strategic investment from BV Investment Partners,” said Tim O’Brien, Vitori Health CEO. “This investment will further increase our ability to do more for employers while continuing to enhance healthcare simplicity, affordability, and support for their employees.”

About BV Investment Partners

BV Investment Partners is one of the oldest and most experienced sector-focused private equity firms in North America. Since its founding in 1983, the firm has invested approximately $4.4 billion, actively targeting investments in the tech-enabled business services, software, and IT services industries.

About Vitori Health

Vitori Health is a comprehensive next-generation health plan solution focused on expense reduction and increased value through evidence-driven design, payment integrity controls, better member value, and guaranteed results.

###

Health Care Costs, Quality and Access Depend on Where You Live

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.

How NOT to Boost Employee Satisfaction with Your Health Plan

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.

More Patients and Providers Value Telehealth for Mental Health Care

2 min

According to the National Institutes of Health, telehealth services have been around since the 1920s using the limited technologies of their time. A century later, virtual care has become commonplace thanks to the global pandemic… and it is here to stay, especially for mental health services.

A study published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that in the first three months of 2020, telehealth usage grew 154% over the same period in 2019. While much of the initial surge was related to COVID-19 (contagion, social distancing, staffing shortages, etc.), 93% of telehealth patients sought care for conditions other than COVID-19 during the 2020 study period.

Clearly patients appreciate the convenience and benefits of telehealth for a multitude of services. What about practitioners? How do they perceive the value of telehealth as a way to deliver care?

The Journal of the American Medical Association surveyed mental health, primary care, and specialty care providers to learn more about their experience. Questions covered telehealth quality and ease of use as well as the proportion of care delivered via phone, video, and in-person visits.

At the time of the survey, mental health practitioners had significantly more telehealth encounters (40.3%) than other types of providers, likely because “telehealth was being used for MH (mental health) care well before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Survey results show that mental health practitioners:

  • Prefer video visits over phone visits for remote care by as much as 86.4%
  • Rate the quality of video visits as equivalent to (up to 50.1%) or better than (up to 41.7%) in-patient visits for both new and established patients
  • Report fewer challenges to delivering phone and video care (5.6%—26%) compared to primary care (7.6%—9%%) and specialty care (13.7%—63.8%) providers

While efforts are being made to reduce barriers to telehealth in general, employers can take action now by including coverage for free remote behavioral health services in their employee health plan, thus removing a financial barrier to seeking this important care and improving employee satisfaction.

Who Do You Think Pays Better Rx Prices? Pets or People?

2 min

Saying things have “gone to the dogs” implies a worsened situation. However, a recent study by the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) shows that dogs have a leg up and humans get the short end of the stick, paying more for commonly prescribed drugs used to treat both people and pets.

JAMA’s cross-sectional study compared 120 of the 200 most-prescribed generic human medications with unique active ingredients to the corresponding pet formulations to derive the human-to-pet price ratio. The average retail price (ARP) for humans was determined using GoodRx, with discounted prices obtained from Costco pharmacy. Pet prices were determined using online pet pharmacies such as Chewy.

The human ARP was a staggering 93.3% higher than the pet price; discounted prices were 64.2% higher. Researchers “found that prices of most medications were higher for humans than for pets. Even discounted prices for humans, a best-case scenario of out-of-pocket costs for patients without prescription drug coverage, were higher than pet prices for two-thirds of medications.”

Some results were even more significant. Check out the full study for citations relative to these results as well as several informative infographics.

  • Phytonadione
    Oral vitamin K1
    Human | 5mg tablet | $70.51
    Veterinary | 50mg tablet | $0.61.4 (61.4¢)
  • Levamisole
    Introduced in the 1960s as a veterinary anti-parasitic medication. When determined to be efficacious in treating human colon cancer, the human brand-name version (Janssen’s Ergamisol) was introduced.
    Human | 50mg tablet | $5
    Veterinary | 50mg tablet | $0.05 (5¢)

The researchers acknowledge that medication prices are dynamic and that there are “opaque rebates underlying discounted prices.” As a result, human prices are often not proportional to drug strength or fill quantity.

We concur with JAMA’s conclusion that “cash prices for generic medications should be transparent and accessible to people, for their own use and for their pets.” Paws up if you agree!

Patients Pushed to Use Medical Credit Cards to Pay for Needed Care

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.

Insurer Profits Are Strong While Patients Struggle to Pay Bills

< 1 minute

While patients grapple with runaway costs and the indignities of the U.S. healthcare system, the largest health insurance firms posted solid year-over-year earnings growth for the first half of 2022. In fact, experts don’t think they’ll struggle at all despite worrisome economic conditions.

These same experts also believe insurers with diverse revenue streams will stay strong as they absorb the impacts of lower enrollment as a result of inflation; rising medical costs; a possible recession, which could reduce employer-based enrollment; and the resumption of Medicaid eligibility redeterminations.

Why the disparity between insurers and the insured?

The answer is two-fold, according to Ge Bai, Ph.D., a professor at Professor at Johns Hopkins Carey Business School and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

In an interview with AIS Health, Bai points out that “insurance companies, because of their market position, are able to pass on inflation impacts to their end consumers.” Plan sponsors and ultimately, their members, bear the brunt of higher costs while insurers pocket greater profits.

Bai also articulates what many hesitate to say… that insurance companies “have pretty much captured customers. It’s not a very competitive market.” With little competition and no incentive to change current business practices, the greed and inequity will surely continue.

Employers and plan sponsors cannot rely on monopoly legacy insurance companies to care about their best interests. They need to take a more progressive approach and find an employee health plan that does care, especially with today’s rising inflation and the possibility of recession.

Unethical and Illegal: Cancer Centers Are Still Hiding Drug Prices

2 min

Consumers cheered when the Hospital Price Transparency rule took effect in January 2021, requiring that facilities publish their payer-specific negotiated rates for drugs and services. Despite the positive news, there remains a blatant lack of compliance that continues to keep patients in the dark.

Everyone deserves a less costly, more compassionate health plan, especially those being treated for cancer. To follow up on how well the new rule was driving transparency, JAMA Internal Medicine conducted a study of private-payer prices for 25 commonly used cancer therapies at 61 cancer treatment centers so designated by the National Cancer Institute.

In its review of the JAMA study, Cancer Therapy Advisor summarizes the results by saying, “A majority of National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers violated federal law last year by failing to disclose payer-specific prices for cancer therapies.” By year-end, only 44% had disclosed private-payer prices for at least 1 of the 25 top-selling therapies. The remaining 56% remained utterly opaque and in defiance of the rule.

The JAMA study further estimated the acquisition costs for each of the 25 therapies and the extent to which they were marked up by the hospitals administering them. Median markups across all centers and payers ranged between 118% to a whopping 634%. Negotiated prices also varied considerably between payers at the same center.

JAMA concludes by stating, “The findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that, to reduce the financial burden of cancer treatment for patients, institution of public policies to discourage or prevent excessive hospital price markups on parenteral chemotherapeutics might be beneficial.”

It’s important to ensure that employer health plan sponsors pay fair prices not only for medical services and retail pharmacy drugs, but also for all drug claims on the medical plan, like those used for cancer treatment.

Advisors and employer health plan sponsors are best served by health plan administrators like Vitori Health that incorporate reimbursement controls for drugs delivered in facility care settings. This can have a significant impact in reducing overspending for employers and patients going through difficult life and death treatments.

$2,885 Average Savings Per Employee with NO Cost Shifting | Estimate Your Savings

X