Tuesday, February 28, 2012

5 Top Benefit Trends (According to Mercer)

February 27, 2012 | Categories: Infographics | Tags:

Health benefit cost management continues to be a dominant concern among US employers, according to the National Survey of Employer-Sponsored Health Plans. This nationally projectable survey, conducted annually by Mercer, includes public and private organizations with 10 or more employees; 2,844 employers responded in 2011.

“Our survey results show not only the actions employers are taking to manage their health benefit costs, but where they are having success,” says Beth Umland, Mercer’s director of research for health and benefits. “For example, last year the average growth in prescription drug benefit cost was the lowest in many years, helping to slow overall health plan cost growth.”

“As we typically see, larger employers are leading the way in exploring new cost-management measures,” she adds. “For example, they’ve been the first to adopt value-based plan design, which provides financial incentives to choose and adhere to courses of treatment with the best chance for success.”

Learn about five of today’s top health benefit trends.

(Click image to enlarge)

For more information about this survey, visit www.mercer.com/ushealthplansurvey.

Embed the above image on your site

Leave a Comment

Monday, February 27, 2012

Looks Like It Will Be the Small Group Plan for Most States

Fron an AIS Newsletter:

Despite a cool reception from various consumer advocates and industry stakeholders on the Obama administration’s recent guidance giving flexibility to states in designing “essential health benefits,” HHS is unlikely to deviate from those benchmark options, sources tell HRW. And as states move forward in choosing benchmarks, most probably will select existing small-group plans in their states as the model, various industry insiders tell HRW. Rhode Island’s insurance commissioner told a Feb. 3 Capitol Hill briefing that he, too, sees this approach as most probable.

Separately, a formulary analysis released Jan. 26 by Avalere Health LLC concludes that states’ choices on benchmark plans for essential benefits could have “a profound effect” on the availability of drugs for individuals buying insurance through exchanges.

“My feeling is most states will go with small-group plans, but there will be exceptions,” actuary Jim Drennan, senior director at OptumInsight, a unit of UnitedHealth Group, tells HRW. “The logic is the federal employee plan covers more, which would run the [state’s] cost up…and state-mandated benefits may or may not be covered under the federal plan. But the small-group plan has to cover state mandates,” offers reasonable coverage and won’t force higher rates than what are now in the market.

Using the state-employee plan instead would have “pluses and minuses,” he says. It may have more generous coverage than small-group plans, and “doesn’t necessarily have to cover all the mandates but probably will,” he explains, and yet it also likely would cost more than the small-group plan option. (Drennan declines to identify his state clients, but describes most as being “smaller states without large actuarial staffs.”)

For 2014 and 2015, states must select a plan equal in scope to services covered by a typical employer group plan in their state, HHS said in a Dec. 16 “bulletin” (HRW 12/19/11, p. 1). A state may choose a benchmark from among the three largest small-group plans, three largest state-employee plans or three largest federal-employee plans in the state, or opt for the largest HMO offered in the state’s commercial market. HHS proposes giving states until third-quarter 2012 to select benchmarks and, if they fail to do so, would set a default benchmark of the small-group plan with the largest enrollment in the state. Under the guidance, plans may modify coverage as long as benefits are “substantially equal” to the benchmark in 10 benefit categories designated under the reform law.

Numerous groups voiced concerns to HHS about its essential-benefits guidance. The American Academy of Pediatrics, for example, joined with other children’s health groups in worrying that HHS’s benchmark options are built around working adults, and thus “may lack important benefits for children.” The Essential Health Benefits Coalition of employer groups recommends that the essential-benefits package should contain only benefits in effect as of March 1, 2012, and not add new state mandates retroactively.

In its comments, America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) said HHS should review the cost and medical evidence for state mandates and develop a framework for excluding some of them from the essential-benefits package. AHIP also urged HHS to set a deadline of no later than June 30, 2012, by which states must choose a benchmark plan.

Janet Trautwein, CEO of the National Association of Health Underwriters, tells HRW that she has had “a lot of conversations” with HHS officials and would be “surprised if they deviated from those benchmarks.” The bigger question, she says, is what HHS will decide with respect to cost sharing (including deductibles and copayments) and whether it is affordable to employers. Also, she says, consumer groups are nervous about language in the guidance related to broad substitution and actuarial equivalence for essential benefits. And multistate small employers are wondering which benchmark plan they must use. As for large employers, she says, their lifetime and annual limits are tied to essential benefits.

HHS Clarifications Are Expected Soon

Since the common objective is to “keep employers in the game” of sponsoring health coverage, Trautwein says, HHS is expected to clarify such issues soon. “We’ve been told it’s coming in the next few weeks,” she said Feb. 8. As for the final rule on essential benefits, HHS officials told her during the week of Jan. 30 that they intend to pay close attention to public comments before issuing regulations. There has been speculation in the media that the regulations won’t come out before the fall elections.

Trautwein notes that if a state chooses a small-group plan, there is a downside in the form of affordability for individuals. Such a benchmark “would provide broad coverage and hopefully a large range of cost sharing,” she says, but it’s also much richer coverage than current individual-market offerings. Thus, it “definitely will cost more for individuals than what they are currently paying,” she says, and if small employers send their employees to the exchange, “even if coverage is subsidized, it starts from a higher place because it’s richer coverage.”

In Defense of the Medicare Advantage Program

The MA Program is under constant criticism for its relative high cost. This article makes the case that the cost criticism is unfair:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1114019

Friday, February 24, 2012

Keeping Seniors Out of Nursing Homes

Good article in the NYT about the PACE program's growth and success in keeping seniors in the community and out of nursing homes. But does it actually save money? The article implies the program saves the gov't $1700 a month over nursing home care but the question is would these same people otherwise be in a nursing home?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/24/nyregion/managed-care-keeps-the-frail-out-of-nursing-homes.html?_r=1&emc=tnt&tntemail1=y

Thursday, February 23, 2012

Four Requirements for Value Driven Health Care

Easier written than done but these 4 things must be in place for ealth care to become value driven:

The First Cornerstone of value-driven healthcare is widespread adoption of interoperable HIT [health information technology] to facilitate, among other things, reducing medical errors, enhancing the provision of evidence-based healthcare, and increasing administrative efficiency in healthcare delivery. […]

The Second Cornerstone of value-driven healthcare is measuring and publishing information about healthcare quality. […]

The Third Cornerstone of value-driven healthcare is measuring and publishing information about prices. […]

The Fourth Cornerstone of value-driven healthcare is adopting incentives to promote high-quality and cost-effective care.


MA Leading the Way in Reducing HC Costs?

As I have blogged about numerous times, the state of Massachusetts is leading the way in health care reform. Given that it basically solved the problem of the uninsured, it then moved to tackle the issue of high rising health care costs. Recent premium increases only averaged 1.8%. So does this mean, the state has fixed this problem also? Not really. Read this interview w/4 experts from Kaiser Health News:

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2012/February/22/massachusetts-health-cost-growth-slows.aspx

Customer Service Ranked Poorly

As the health insurance industry moves more and more to the individual market, customer service is going to become even more important to remain competitive. According to this survey, it has a long way to go at most companies:
http://www.fiercehealthpayer.com/story/survey-health-insurance-industry-has-worst-customer-service/2012-02-22?utm_medium=nl&utm_source=internal

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Small Businessess and the ACA

Will more move to self-insure? If so, what will this do to premiums? Good questions.

http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/content/HEP-276833/What-if-Small-Businesses-Evade-ACA-Regs

State Exchanges: No Where Close to Being Ready

So this is why the Obama budget has a $750M request for a federal exchange:
From AIS's Newsletter

While HHS collectively has awarded $729 million to help states stand up an insurance exchange (see table, p. 4), many states will run out of time long before they run out of cash. As a result, HHS is expected to set the bar low when evaluating certification applications for state insurance exchanges, industry observers tell HEX.

The reform law requires HHS to certify state exchanges no later than Jan. 1, 2013. But with many states still waiting for their legislatures to act, or for the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of the reform law, overall development of state exchanges is woefully behind schedule.

In November 2011, CMS issued a 14-page draft certification application, which states must submit this fall. But HHS has said little about what the certification process will look like. And given that a majority of states won’t be fully ready for certification — either by choice or circumstance — HHS is expected to help states make progress, rather than reject applications that fall short, according to a source who has worked with CMS’s Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight (CCIIO) but asked not to be identified. HHS will most likely allow conditional approval with an action plan for states that don’t meet all of the certification requirements, she tells HEX.

Joel Ario, who headed HHS’s Office of Insurance Exchanges until last September, predicts that “substantially less than” half of the states that apply will receive full certification next January. Most of the others will need to rely on federal partnership options, which allow for “a certain amount of mixing and matching” of functions, he tells HEX. A state, for example, can focus on traditional functions such as insurer oversight and consumer assistance, while relying to varying degrees on the federal government for the front-end eligibility and enrollment system. “My hope would be that many states in this middle ground can move to a full state exchange over time, as the proposed rules allow.”

Frank Micciche, a senior advisor at the Washington, D.C., law firm McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP, says he’s not surprised at the approach. “Everything that CCIIO has done for the last few months now has been extremely solicitous of the states, doing everything possible to keep them from walking away from exchange establishment,” he says. The main motivation for such a strategy, he quips, is “complete terror” at HHS over the thought of having to run a large number of exchanges.

Deborah Chollet, a senior fellow at Mathematica Policy Research, agrees that HHS is likely to make the certification as “friendly” as possible, and notes that CMS would prefer that states operate their own exchange.

“States will be all over the map regarding their exchange progress…and a majority of them will be nowhere near ready by the Jan. 1, 2013, deadline. As such, HHS will need to issue ‘conditional approval’ based on different levels of progress,” predicts Dan Schuyler, who heads the health insurance exchange practice at the Utah-based consulting firm Leavitt Partners.

States that opt to build an exchange from the ground up will need between 24 and 36 months to develop the necessary information technology (IT). That means certification by next January will be virtually impossible for those states unless HHS is very flexible. Moreover, it’s unclear if the federal government will have enough time to create a federal program that can be plugged into states that can’t or won’t stand up their own exchange. And even if some form of a federal exchange model is operational early next year, Leavitt says it will be extremely costly for HHS to implement a federal exchange in states that have made progress but still lack a certifiable exchange. Prior to joining Leavitt, he helped define the technical goals and business processes for Utah’s insurance exchange.

Micciche anticipates that about 35 states will seek level one grants, but probably closer to 25 states will seek actual certification of an exchange this fall. “And if you get there, I think you’ll get the green light.” But he says HHS could face problems if states that received conditional approval aren’t ready to enroll people on Oct. 1, 2013.

‘Operational Readiness’ Will Be Challenging

The application is broken into three parts. The first section — Enabling Authority and Governance — requires a copy of the law or regulation granting the state authority to create an exchange. It notes that pending legislation won’t be enough. Applicants also must describe the entity’s governance structure and provide an overview of the board’s composition as well as details about how and why those members were selected.

Part 2, Exchange Functions, requires applicants to outline strategies for member outreach and education, call centers and the Web portal. States also must “provide evidence” that they have enough staff to process applications through a variety of channels, and ensure there are safeguards in place that will allow the exchange to receive federal tax information.

Part 3, Operational Readiness, will be difficult for many states to complete, says Micciche. “You have to have your act together from an IT perspective and that’s where most states will get caught up,” he predicts. “Most of the other requirements are pretty easy to meet as long as they have legislation and have started doing their work. It’s the operational readiness part that is going to mean everything. That will be what really determines if a state is ready to be certified.”

But it’s highly unlikely any state will have everything complete by Jan. 1, 2013, which means applicants need to demonstrate only future capabilities. And how HHS measures that is anyone’s guess, he adds.

States that receive conditional approval can enter into a partnership with HHS to provide some services until the state transitions to a fully state-based exchange, according to a prepared statement CMS supplied to HEX.

Editor’s note: Here’s a link to the CMS page that includes the exchange certification application: www.cms.gov/paperworkreductionactof1995/pral/itemdetail.asp?itemid=CMS12...

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Cleveland Clinic Gets Serious About Participation in Health Promotion Program

Bottom Line: participate and meet goals--4% decrease in premiums; otherwise pay 21% more.

http://www.cleveland.com/healthfit/index.ssf/2012/02/join_or_pay_more_cleveland_cli.html

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

Ford Developing a Car that Can Check Your Health

I think this is pretty cool and useful given how much time we spend in our cars:

http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/print/TEC-276275/What-If-Your-Car-Cared-About-Your-Health

Monday, February 6, 2012

Wellpoint and Primary Care Reimbursement

$1B in increased reimbursement to primary care physicians hopefully will make a difference:
http://www.fiercehealthpayer.com/story/interview-behind-wellpoints-1b-primary-care-initiative/2012-02-06?utm_medium=nl&utm_source=internal

Thursday, February 2, 2012

Should Medicare Move to Premium Supports?

Medicare premium supports are the mainstay of the recently proposed legislation sponsored by Sen. Ron Wyden and Rep. Paul Ryan. Is it a good idea? Read on:

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1200448

Wednesday, February 1, 2012

ACOs to Bring the End of Health Insurance Companies?

Well by 2020 this is what Ezekiel Emanuel predicts and I think he he is right, at least in their present form.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/30/the-end-of-health-insurance-companies/

Positive Impact of the ACA

So why did Obama not mention any of these achievements to date in his SOTU address from the passage of the Affordable Care Act? Good question:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ten-miles-square/2012/01/a_quiet_triumph_of_obama_care035079.php