The Top 7 Reasons Why Employer-Sponsored Health Plans are Changing

2 min

The outdated health insurance system is feeling increasingly less safe and prudent for employer-sponsored health plans, making change more attractive and attainable. What’s behind this significant shift?

In a recent Vitori Health Digital Forum, hundreds of advisors and employers shared the key factors that have heightened their willingness to take a more progressive approach to employer-sponsored health plans. Behind these dynamics is a compelling impulse to seek a competitive advantage, avoid future risk, and not lag behind more forward-looking peers.

  1. Health Care Cost Increases
    Employers and advisors are tired of the continuous cost increases in the legacy insurance system. They are no longer willing to shift these costs to employees, who have seen their disposable income dwindle.
    dddd
  2. Self-serving Industry Practices
    Continual revelations of unethical and potentially criminal practices on the part of hospital systems, insurance carriers, PBMs, and traditional insurance brokers have raised employer awareness that the legacy system does not serve their interests.
    xxxx
  3. Talent Acquisition and Retentions
    To win the war for workers and talent, employers must free up money to increase salaries and bonuses, improve benefits, and more.
    xxxx
  4. Reduced Market Competition
    Mergers and acquisitions among and between health systems, insurance carriers, PBMs, and pharmacies continue unchecked, each one reducing competition and increasing prices. Employers are demanding more competitive and more cost-effective health plan options.
    xxxx
  5. Increased Adoption of Alternatives
    Approximately 1 in 15 employers currently deploy an alternative to legacy insurance carriers and PBMs. That number continues to grow as employers realize the benefits of alternatives.
    xxxx
  6. Regulatory Actions
    Incumbent stakeholders are under tighter scrutiny from the Healthcare Price Transparency and No Surprises Acts, elements of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, proposed prescription drug pricing legislation, and more.
    xxxx
  7. Fiduciary Responsibility
    Employers and their boards of directors, are increasingly concerned that they are breaching their fiduciary responsibility to manage shared employer and employee health plan assets and expenses, exposing them to the harsh litigation risks that have impacted employee retirement plans.

Collectively, these factors are accelerating employer transitions to health plans that reduce overspending, offer better member service, and free up money for workforce and business investments. Our ability to meet this market-driven need with a unique and comprehensive next-generation health plan helps to explain Vitori’s exponential growth.

FTC Probe of Pharmacy Benefit Managers Stalls after Tie Vote

< 1 minute

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have done almost nothing over the past decades to protect market competitiveness and consumer interests in healthcare. Employers continue to grapple with ever-rising plan costs as members bear the brunt of fewer healthcare options at a higher cost.

The DOJ and FTC have allowed massive and ongoing acquisitions and mergers by (and sometimes between) hospitals and health systems, pharmacy benefit managers, pharmacies, and insurance carriers to go unchecked. This has fostered monopolies and cartels in these sectors, reducing competition and increasing prices for medical services, drugs, and health insurance.

Consider the following:

  • The top three PBMs capture nearly 85% of the market
  • The top four insurance carriers own over 40% market share
  • The nation’s top four health systems command over 50% of market share and revenue

This continued inaction by agencies responsible for protecting society from anti-competitive practices is even more appalling now that the FTC declined to probe the predatory practices of the PBM industry after a tie vote along political party lines.

Employers and health benefits advisors should not hang their hopes on government protections or interventions to create free market results in healthcare. Thankfully, solutions are available right now to help employer health plan sponsors and forward-thinking advisors escape the racketeering that the DOJ and FTC seem unwilling to address.

Hospital Profit Greed is Crushing Nurses and Decimating the Profession

2 min

In the early days of COVID, America’s nurses were rightly celebrated as heroes. Many nurses had hoped that such long overdue recognition might lead to needed reforms, but that optimism seems to have faded. In fact, nurses are leaving hospitals in droves. Some are even abandoning the profession.

The convenient explanation for this phenomenon is that we’re beginning another year of the pandemic and its attendant stresses – physical, mental, and emotional. In truth, COVID has simply revealed what nurses have known all along — that the root cause of the nursing crisis is chronic understaffing by profit-driven hospitals.

What Nursing Shortage?

This opinion video from The New York Times reveals that rigid and unrealistic staff-to-patient ratios, especially in critical care units, are to blame for the current crisis. To maximize profits, hospitals have intentionally understaffed nurses for decades, long before the pandemic. There are actually more licensed nurses in the country now than ever before. It’s just that hospitals aren’t hiring them and they’re not willing to work at the bedside under these conditions.

In addition to the devastating impact on health care workers, patients often pay the ultimate price for corporate greed. The chances of dying increase by 7% with every additional patient assigned to an individual nurse. As one nurse eloquently put it, “If you push me past my limit, past my capacity for being able to multitask, something’s going to get missed. And when I say something, I’m talking about your mother. I’m talking about your father. I’m talking about your husband and your wife.”

Follow the Money

A provocative video from PBS | Amanpour and Company exposes the practice of hiring travel nurses to temporarily boost hospital staffing during this crisis. While this helps ease staffing burdens, it also creates discontent because travel nurses are paid up to three times more than resident staff.

The traveling nurse featured in this video insists we need full financial disclosure from hospitals regarding where the money is going. “They say that they will not pay nurses and doctors more because they can’t afford it. Yet they still keep giving million dollar bonuses for their CEOs every year. So how exactly is the money being distributed? If it’s not being distributed to the heart of the hospital, which is doctors, nurses, and patients, where is that money going?”

Staff-to-Patient Ratios are Key

Nursing professionals agree that regulating staff-to-patient ratios is key to improving patient safety, protecting burned out health care workers, and retaining skilled and experienced nurses. California put such a law in place in 2004 with positive results, but it has been an uphill journey elsewhere. A recent initiative in Massachusetts was defeated thanks to a $25 million misinformation campaign funded by the hospital lobby, but laws are currently under consideration in Illinois and Pennsylvania.

Hospitals and the for-profit health care industry need to start respecting the expertise of our nursing professionals. These laws could save patient lives and create a more just work environment for a vulnerable generation of nurses, the ones we pledged to honor and protect at the start of the pandemic.

Judge Orders Uncharitable Nonprofit Hospitals to Pay Taxes

2 min

Many school systems rely on property taxes for most of their budget. When a school district in Chester County, Pennsylvania challenged the charitable results of three nonprofit hospitals owned by Tower Health, they exposed the unethical practices that allow many nonprofit hospitals to beat the system. The school district won.

Nonprofit hospitals are supposed to provide acceptable levels of free care to the community in exchange for not paying property taxes. The judge in this case concluded that the results for three Tower Health hospitals “did not show a substantial donation of services” and ordered the hospital to start paying taxes.

The basis for this decision is indisputable:

  • Phoenixville Hospital | A mere 0.00076 percent of patients received free services (only 162 of 199,405 people to whom services were rendered last year)
  • Brandywine Hospital | Just 0.052 percent of patients received free services
  • Jennersville Hospital | Only 0.053 percent of patients received free services

The judge also ruled that lucrative executive bonus plans tied to financial performance disqualified the hospitals from a tax exemption. The compensation plan was clearly a pass through of tax savings to hospital executives.

Questionable Accounting

Another revelation from this case reinforced that writing off bad debt does not equal donated services. “An institution that treats patients efficiently and at a cost lower than the stated reimbursement percentage gets the same payment as an inefficient institution,” the judge stated. “To write off bad debts is not charity when the hospitals decide not to pursue the collection of these accounts even though there was, in the hospitals’ determination, a means to pay. The bad debt write-offs do not equal an increase in donated care.”

The court also ruled that the hospitals’ reliance on a “master charge sheet” — a common feature in hospital finance offices — was meritless because the hospitals’ own witness testified that this charge master has no meaning or value. The witness stated, “The numbers, essentially, are pulled out of thin air and are created only because [the hospital] is required to have a charge sheet to satisfy federal requirements.”

The hospitals contended they had each lost money, revealing that Tower Health had charged them fees in excess of $43 million in 2020 alone. The court rightfully questioned the company’s administrative structure and executive compensation schemes that drained “huge sums…from the [hospitals and to Tower Health], resulting in the hospital ‘showing’ a large net loss.”

A Sign of Things to Come?

Although the Tower Health decision will likely be appealed, it sounds a warning bell for nonprofit hospitals and health systems that have avoided taxes for decades. The decision is a judicial duck test. If a nonprofit organization looks, acts, and compensates itself like a for-profit company, it may be treated like a for-profit company. At the very least, it won’t be treated like a “charity.”

It’s time for hospitals to become efficiently run, tax-paying citizens with rationale cost accounting and transparent pricing — especially those that aren’t living up to their mandate as charitable, nonprofit entities.

JAMA | Broken Health Benefits Market Reduces Quality of Life

2 min

A recent article posted to JAMA Network reveals how the dysfunctional interests of insurers, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and PBMs ultimately reduce quality of life for U.S. employees through financial distress induced by the health benefits market.

According to the authors, “It is assumed that insurers compete intensely to improve the value received by employers and employees by negotiating to keep prices down and advocating for employers and employees.” This is not the case, however.

The article shares that “…the mean premium for family coverage increased by 55% from 2010 to 2020 (from $13,770 to $21,342) and employee contributions increased by 40% (from $3,997 to $5,588). Deductibles per enrolled individual increased 110% (from $646 to $1,364) and, to reduce monthly premium deductions from their paychecks, 31% of employees are now enrolled in high-deductible health plans.

“Partly as a result of employer-paid costs of employee benefits rising faster than employer income…take-home pay for most workers stagnated, with real median wages increasing 11% from $62,865 in 2007 to $69,560 in 2019, depriving employees of wage gains resulting from growth in their productivity.

“In the absence of intense counterpressure from insurers, hospitals and most other health care organizations have prioritized growth of high-priced services and developed costly marketing strategies, rather than restructuring to become a low-cost, high-quality solution for employees.”

The top three health insurers work aggressively to increase their monopoly market share of provider contracts that offer little value yet keep providers from pursuing arrangements with alternative payers. Compounding this, healthcare competition is severely hindered as more health systems, many of which don’t pay taxes, merge and purchase hospitals and physician practices, raising prices with each acquisition.

In examining insurance company revenue, profit, and shareholder dynamics, the authors illustrate, shockingly, that “Even if an insurer manages to improve profit margins by 20% while slowing per capita spending growth to 2%, their projected share prices would be lower than if per capita spending growth continued to increase at a 4% rate.” Read that again.

Employers and employees are effectively trapped in this dysfunctional industry matrix that prioritizes rapid growth and financial performance for shareholders.

Although higher healthcare costs are an obvious result of this aberrant system, other costs are more subtle and toxic. In an effort to maintain financial viability, employers often transfer higher health plan costs to employees through lower or no wage increases and higher payroll deductions, plans deductibles, co-insurance, and co-pays.

In the end, employees experience net wage stagnation, are unable to pay their out-of-pocket share when they use healthcare, avoid getting preventive and chronic care, and endure a diminishing quality of life as a direct result of an underperforming healthcare market.

What’s needed are seismic structural changes throughout the industry and better enforcement of regulations designed to accelerate price transparency and competition. In the meantime, employers play a key role in disrupting a system that actively works against the best interests of their organization and their employees.

How? By choosing a high-performance health plan that can save 30%+ over legacy insurance carrier plans while delivering high-quality care and improved member support. When better benefits are offered at a lower cost, employers can improve the quality of life of their workforce and their families.

Best Practices in Shafting Patients and Employer Health Plans

< 1 minute

In 2008, a box of 30 prescription suppositories sold for less than $200. In 2021, the same box cost $10,000 — an outrageous increase of 4,900%. Is there any better example of how employer health plan sponsors and patients are getting shafted by a dysfunctional health care industry?

Creative profiteering has become a criminal art form as evidenced by the 2021 Shkreli Awards, so named for the “Pharma Bro” whose egregious price hikes shocked the world. We wish we could say Shkreli and the latest award winners are the exception. They’re not, and patients continue to suffer without access to affordable prescription drugs and health care.

Plan sponsors can mitigate this dysfunction with employee health plans that challenge the current state of affairs with accurate, timely data, and clear medical evidence. Claims should include pre-payment integrity controls based on value instead of whatever trumped-up charges are billed. And everyone benefits from a high-performing formulary that uses clinical evidence to balance comparative drug effectiveness with costs.

It’s time to take action that eliminates the industry’s figurative suppositories foisted upon plan members and employer plan sponsors.

WATCH | Health Plan Funding Options: Financial Facts and Fables

< 1 minute

Self-Insurance - On-Demand Landing Page

It’s not always apparent that the ability to control costs is directly impacted by how an employee health plan is funded. From fully-funded to self-insured, choosing the right insurance model is key to optimizing reimbursement and maximizing value and savings.

Brokers and employers can benefit from having a deeper understanding of risk transfer and health plan funding. Without such clarity, it can be difficult to establish insurance arrangements that optimize cost control.

Watch our fast-moving, 30-minute on-demand webinar to acquire the information you need to:

  • Know the gradations of fund planning and their respective pros and cons
  • Understand why fully-insured plans typically offer minimal cost controls
  • Realize that self-funding is appropriate for employers of all sizes
  • Learn how to maximize savings and value with a high performance health plan
  • Estimate current overspending and cost-saving opportunities

Watch now and contact Vitori Health for personalized insights into shaping and influencing an optimized health plan.

U.S. Healthcare Costs Exceed CPI as Much as 347%. Stop the Madness!

< 1 minute

How can an image be worth a thousand words when it leaves you speechless? How can anyone justify why trillions of dollars in doctor services, drugs, and medical care expenditures exceed the Consumer Price Index, with hospital services exceeding at a whopping 347%?

What if food, housing, and utility costs increased at such rates over the past 30 years? It’s a nightmare that’s unthinkable… and unsustainable.

Percentage Change in Cost

A report issued by The Commonwealth Fund comparing U.S. healthcare to other high income countries states that the “United States ranks last overall, despite spending far more of its gross domestic product on health care.” The U.S. also ranks last on access to care, administrative efficiency, equity, and health care outcomes.

Wholesale changes to the healthcare industry are needed to slow this outrageous cost trend and improve the value of care delivered. Instead of waiting, forward-thinking employers are embracing high-performance health plans that adhere to ethical billing practices, strict cost controls, and fair market payments. Doing anything less just perpetuates the madness.

Telehealth Provides Better Employee Access to Important Mental Health Care

2 min

As we approach two years of coping with COVID-19 and its latest variants, there is a burgeoning need for mental health services. The American Psychological Association (APA) describes it as a “health care tsunami” with 84% of psychologists reporting an increase in demand for anxiety treatment since the start of the pandemic.

This demand has exacerbated the usual difficulties in getting needed mental health care: providers who don’t accept insurance plans, practices closed to new patients, the high cost of out-of-network care, and a limited number of local (and overburdened) practitioners in some areas.

Decreased Productivity

Businesses are also adversely affected by COVID. It’s hard for employees to stay focused and efficient when they’re worried about their health and safety at work, at home, and in the community. Concerns are compounded with children in school or daycare and family members in shared or congregate housing.

As a result of these pandemic-related stresses, Harvard Business Review reports that most companies “are less productive now than they were 12 months ago” as employees struggle to balance the new realities of work and home. The best way to improve productivity is for employee health plans to effectively reduce the barriers to quality mental health care.

Telehealth Leads the Way

Collaborative technologies have changed the way we work and access health care during the pandemic, and that change is here to stay. According to an APA survey, 96% of psychologists said that telehealth “has proven its effectiveness as a therapeutic tool” with 93% intending to continue providing telehealth options after the pandemic.

Telehealth eliminates the physical barriers to quality mental health services, making it available to all employees regardless of location. It can also make such care financially accessible. Forward-looking employee health plans offer telehealth services that are completely free to members. It’s a small price to pay for the priceless benefits of employee wellbeing and productivity.

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

X