Another sign that the economy is mired in muck, with prospects for improvement any time soon being very dim:

A new survey shows a family health plan in 2010 averages $4,000 a year, up 14% from 2009. Meanwhile, the average employer contribution to a family plan hasn’t increased at all. [...] Overall, premium growth slowed slightly this year to 3%, with the average annual cost of a family health plan reaching $13,370. Workers picked up 30% of that bill. The average plan for a single individual cost $5,049.

Slow job growth. Incremental premium increases. Higher out-of-pocket expenses for care. Forget about cost-sharing. This is massive cost shifting, and healthcare consumers are being forced to take the brunt of the cost of that coverage. | LINK

In the nascent days of Pres. Obama’s reform legislation, much in the way of healthcare policy at the start of this crucial decade proceeds incrementally. With respect to the role of small businesses, expect the use of targeted tax credits for employees as another incentive for the smallest of those private proprietorships to remain viable in both the healthcare economy and the economy in general. It’s all about baby steps and getting skin the health reform game at the outset. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the credits could give up to $40B in savings to small businesses over the next 10 years and lower annual premiums by approx. 10 percent by 2016. | PDF LINK to Commonwealth Fund white paper

The massive increase in procedures over the past 20 years has added to the cost of providing care, to no one’s surprise. A study in the recent Radiology journal acknowledges this.

Part of the explosion in medical imaging over the past two decades may be attributable to overutilization, and steps need to be taken to cut back … Imaging services and their costs have grown at about twice the rate of other technologies in healthcare including lab procedures and pharmaceuticals…

Part of the problem fueling this growth has been the inclusion of many non-invasive standard imaging techniques as being procedure based — lumping the costs associated with uncomplicated, unenhanced CT imaging with, say, CT-guided renal biopsy — for example. Of course, bordering on the unethical side are the practices of self-referral within large imaging groups in many healthcare markets. | LINK

The application of the philosophy that is at the core of medicine: first do no harm — is a little at play in an article in the NYT. The rise of so-called concierge practices in the wake of healthcare reform has touched off a debate of sorts on the ethics of delivering such care. That is, you essentially pay for what you get — nothing more, nothing less. Perhaps its the myriad names by which its central workings are known that give it some ethical cover: membership medicine, concierge health care, cash only practice, direct care, boutique medicine. These terms convey one basic fact — the patient pays an annual fee (with other possible charges). In exchange for the retainer, doctors provide enhanced care.

[I]t’s hard not to wonder whether it is possible to practice in a way that reconciles concierge medicine with all the ethical concerns. One group of doctors in Boston believes it is possible. [...] But unlike other boutique practices, the retainer fee of $1,800 per year that these patients pay does not go directly to the doctors’ coffers. Instead, it is used to support the traditional general medical practice, the teaching of medical students and trainees and free care to impoverished patients.

Thinking of the delivery of this type of “specialized” primary care in which fees go to the process of delivery itself before direct provider revenue is another way some primary care practices hope to regain some lost footing in practices on the brink of dissolution or acquisition under the brave new world of reform. For some of these practices, for now, arrangements seem to be paying off — ethically, if not fiscally. | LINK

For the past six months insurance regulators in California have been working through negotiations with Anthem, a BC insurer whose initial premium rate hikes became a cause célèbre for healthcare consumers in that state and the Obama administration, alike. The previously proposed 39% increases created a firestorm in healthcare policy circles and provided Obama and HHS a temporary PR headache as a solution to lower premium increases was sought. The end result after scrutiny of state ledgers is a “smaller” increase —  of approx. 14 percent. | MP3 LINK

Medical loss ratios (MLRs), those metrics used by insurance companies to gauge medical costs as a percentage revenues from premiums, will be attracting some attention this week thanks to a provision in the recently passed reform bill that will allow a third party to be instrumental in determining how much insurers can ultimately spend on those admin costs — influencing profits in the process. That third party — the National Assn. of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) — could have far-reaching authority in determining Insurance’s role in final implementation of the healthcare reform law come 2014.

HHS Sec’y Kathleen Sebelius could be at the mercy of the NAIC with respect to these new rules, creating disquietude among top Dems who favored reform with as little corporate influence as possible. Although the federal government has final say over where MLRs begin and end, states’ insurance commissioners actions will give lobbyists and insurers alike time to affect ultimate MLR regulations under reform law. Expect a mildly bumpy road at the hands of Insurance — which desires as little distance as possible between administrative quotas and earnings. | LINK

It has already happened in the Minneapolis/St. Paul metro. Now Duluth is in the midst of a nurses strike.

Nurses in Duluth voted overwhelmingly to reject a new labor contract, setting the stage for a 24-hour strike.

More than 90 percent of nurses who voted from St. Mary’s Medical Center and SMDC Medical Center, and more than 86 percent of those from St. Luke’s Hospital voted to reject the contract offer primarily because it did not include language that would allow them to close a unit to new admissions if they felt overwhelmed.

Again, the issue appears to be faulty staffing (nurse:patient) ratios. | LINK

Healthcare reform begets the need for laws to ensure the intent of reform. This has never been truer than on the eve of implementation of the major role individual states’ insurance commissions in keeping Insurance accountable. As coverage begins to expand to include demographics never before considered by insurers, many states have no mechanism to face enforcements of the central tenets of the reform law. Most outstanding, states will now have the ability to review insurance premium hikes, for example — the number one stealth maneuver of insurers of late to guarantee profitability.

If states are not able to carry out insurance compliance in accordance with with reform law, the feds step in to guarantee standards. Problem is, as intricate as the central aspects of reform are, the provisions in many states’ laws are just as myriad.

Some state regulators said they would ask state legislators to expand their authority by putting the federal standards into state law next year. Others said they would rely on their powers of persuasion, the good will of insurers or general state laws that ban unfair or deceptive trade practices.

Despite assurances to states by the federal government that, ultimately, such oversight is well within their scope, gaps in executive powers vary widely; these inconsistencies place yet another wrinkle on the rapid rollout of reform provisions the Obama administration hopes will result in a smooth transition between the parties that will continue to drive healthcare in this country (insurers) and the ultimate functional unit of healthcare commerce (the physician-patient partnership). | LINK

The initial impact of the new healthcare reform law won’t begin until late September/early October. But how much do Americans really know about the legislation’s benefits and changes? President Obama has embarked on some PR jaunts to remind the public of the virtues of reform, but is the White House’s awareness campaign really enough to get the word out that reform is actually imminent? Apparently not.

Many key parts of the new law, signed by President Obama in March, take effect in several stages beginning next month and continuing through 2015. Because it’s so complex, consumer advocates worry that people won’t take advantage of its benefits, so they have embarked on a nationwide education campaign. [..]

“People are still afraid that there are death panels . . . or that Medicare is going to go away,” says Cheryl Matheis of AARP, the nation’s largest seniors organization. “We have an obligation to get the information out there…”

It’s the new reality. Focus groups, polls, lobbies. To bad reform won’t cover the cost of these mechanisms of information dissemination. | LINK

Critics of President Obama’s rosy outlook on Medicare reform as part of the Affordable Care Act are pointing to the entitlement’s chief actuary as proof that his sudden realization of Medicare’s fiscal virtues under reform are peppered with politics. As recently as last weekend, Obama praised the almost half a trillion in savings over the next decade to the federal budget as not only the most fiscally responsible action the government has implemented as part of reform, but also as part and parcel of the overall commitment to the nation’s seniors with respect to the affordable access to healthcare.

Read the rest of this entry »

BC/BS Michigan is asking that state’s insurance regulators to vary the premium amounts on its Medigap supplemental offerings to seniors. It will ask state regulators to allow deeper discounts to low-income seniors while reducing the discounts on premiums for wealthier seniors. Medigap plans are standard insurance supplements to Medicare coverage offered only to beneficiaries with both Part A and B coverage.

Plans offered usually are the same; only the premiums can differ. All Michigan Blue Cross customers for the most popular of its Medigap policies now get a 39 percent discount off monthly premiums. The discount is distributed evenly to all Medigap policyholders, so that everyone pays just over $100.

It appears that with this move, the Michigan insurance marketplace is one of the first arenas in which states will negotiate with payers in the wake of expected cuts under Medicare Advantage offerings to fund reform over the next decade. | LINK

Health care coordination seems to the mechanism by which many healthcare pundits on either side of the the debate agree on how significant waste in spending can be cut. North Carolina’s Medicaid program is utilizing the medical home model as an example of that type of care coordination.

Moving beyond Medicaid FFS and traditional managed care partnerships, the delivery of care in this context identifies the appropriate patient populations based upon services meeting certain primary care needs. Physicians are paid higher reimbursements and a specialized “care-coordination” fee as incentive to continue participation. Community care networks made up of primary care teams in multiple locations serving Medicaid enrollees are headed by physicians and serve as the de facto health plan for those patients.

This model is another example of putting state healthcare spending to practical use, empowering physicians who manage it not only to have a stake in its success but also to remain intimately involved in quality healthcare delivery at the state level. | LINK

A conservative health and public policy think tank reports on the consequences of a federally managed pharmaceutical approval and regulatory process and how that impacts patient access to timely and appropriate care — with respect to pharma availability. The Pacific Research Institute released its white paper detailing what it describes as the bureaucratic morass of “stymied pharmaceutical regulation” within the FDA’s drug approval process. A snippet:

During a 12-month period in 2008 and 2009, the European Union’s European Medicines Authority (EMA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a total of 39 new medicines. Fifteen were approved only by the FDA, 11 were approved only by the EMA, and 13 were approved by both regulators.

In five of the 13 cases where the FDA and EMA both approved the medicine, the EMA was the first to approve, and it issued those approvals 552 days faster than the FDA, on average. Even if we include all 13 medicines approved by the FDA and the EMA, the EMA approved those 97 days faster, on average.

The report goes on to describe the effects on impassive procedures of the FDA and its correlation to unnecessary medical tourism for similarly approved pharmacological treatments elsewhere. Although the report confirms what we all know about the costs of healthcare respect to governmental and regulatory mechanisms, perhaps this is another area in which Obama’s pick to head another regulatory agency addresses the need to apply quality and efficiency to the rather staid and arcane process of pharma approval.