Top 10 health conditions costing employers the most

What health conditions are costing employers the most? As healthcare costs continue to rise, employers are constantly looking for ways to lower their costs. Continue reading to learn more.


As healthcare costs continue to rise, more employers are looking at ways to target those costs. One step they are taking is looking at what health conditions are hitting their pocketbooks the hardest.

“About half of employers use disease management programs to help manage the costs of these very expensive chronic conditions,” says Julie Stich, associate vice president of content at the International Foundation of Employee Benefits Plans. “In addition, about three in five employers use health screenings and health risk assessments to help employees identify and monitor these conditions so that they can be managed more effectively. Early identification helps the employer and the employee.”

What conditions are costly for employers to cover? In IFEPB’s Workplace Wellness Trends 2017 Survey, more than 500 employers were asked to select the top three conditions impacting plan costs. The following 10 topped the list.

10. High-risk pregnancy

Although high-risk pregnancies have seen a dip of 1% since 2015, they still bottom out the list in 2017; 5.6% of employers report these costs are a leading cost concern for health plans.

9. Smoking

Smoking has remained a consistent concern of employers over the last several years; 8.6% of employers report smoking has a significant impact on health plans.

8. High cholesterol

While high cholesterol still has a major impact on health costs — 11.6% say it’s a top cause of rising healthcare costs — that number is significantly lower from where it was in 2015 (19.3%).

7. Depression/mental illness

For 13.9% of employers, mental health has a big influence on healthcare costs. This is down from 22.8% in 2015.

New rule pushes for hospital price transparency

Beginning in January 2019, hospitals will be required to provide patients with a list of the cost of all their charges. Read this blog post to learn more.


The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced a proposed rule aimed at providing patients with a clear price listing of the cost of their hospital charges. In an effort to fulfill the proposed rule’s objective, CMS suggested an amendment to the requirements previously established by Section 2718(e) of the Affordable Care Act.

CMS issued the final rule (CMS-1694-F), which included the suggested amendment discussed in the April 24, 2018 proposed rule. Currently, under Section 2718(e), hospitals are given the option to either (i) make public a list of the hospital’s standard charges or (ii) implement policies for allowing the public to view a list of the hospital’s standard charges in response to an individual request.

Beginning January 1, 2019, however, hospitals will be required to make available a list of their current standard charges via the Internet in a machine-readable format and to update this information at least annually, or more often as appropriate.

This could be in the form of the chargemaster itself of another form of the hospital’s choice, as long as the information is in machine-readable format. CMS believes that this update will further promote price transparency by improving public accessibility of hospital charge information.

In the final rule, CMS explains that it is aware of the challenges that continue to exist because the chargemaster data may not accurately reflect what any given individual is likely to pay for a particular service or visit.

Additionally, the comments received in response to the proposed rule argue that the chargemaster data would not be useful to patients because it is confusing as to the amount of the actual out-of-pocket costs imposed on a particular patient.

CMS further explains that it is currently reviewing the concerns addressed in the comments, and is considering ways to further improve the accessibility and usability of the information disclosed by the hospitals.

SOURCE: Goldman, M; Grushkin, J; Fierro, C (16 August 2018) "New rule pushes for hospital price transparency" (Web Blog Post). Retrieved by https://www.employeebenefitadviser.com/opinion/cms-rule-pushes-for-hospital-price-transparency


Reference-based pricing is gaining momentum — here’s why

Reference-based pricing has made its comeback. Continue reading to learn what reference-based pricing is and why it is slowly gaining momentum.


In my 25 years in the insurance business I’ve seen many changes. But there’s always been one constant: Healthcare and pharmacy costs continue to accelerate and no regulatory action has been able to slow this runaway train. The problem is that we have focused on the wrong end of the spectrum. We don’t have a healthcare issue; we have a billing issue.

At the root of this national crisis is a lack of cost transparency, which is driven by people who are motivated to keep benefit plan sponsors and healthcare consumers in the dark. Part of the problem is that most cost-reduction strategies are developed by independent players in the healthcare food chain. This siloed approach fails to address the entire ecosystem, and that’s why we continue to lament that nothing seems to be working.

But that could change with reference-based pricing, a method that’s slowly gaining momentum.

Here’s how it works.

Reference-based pricing attacks the problem from all angles and targets billing — which is at the heart of the crisis.

Typically, a preferred provider organization network achieves a 50-60% discount on billable charges. However, after this 50-60% discount, the cost of care is still double or triple what Medicare pays for the same service. For example, the same cholesterol blood test can range from $10 to $400 at the same lab. The same hospitalization for chest pain can range anywhere from $3,000 to $25,000.

Reference-based pricing allows employers to pay for medical services based on a percentage of CMS reimbursements (i.e. Medicare + 30%), rather than a percentage discount of billable charges. This model ensures that the above-mentioned hospitalization cost an employer $3,000 rather than $25,000.

“Negotiating” like Medicare

Reference-based pricing is becoming increasingly popular as more organizations consider the move to correct cost transparency issues as they transition from fully-insured to self-funded insurance plans.

One well-known and considerable example is Montana’s state employee health plan. The state employee health plan administrator received a notice from legislators in 2014 urging the state to gain control of healthcare costs. Instead of beginning with hospitals’ prices and negotiating down, they turned to reference-based pricing based on Medicare. Instead of negotiating with hospitals, Medicare sets prices for every procedure, which has allowed it to control costs. Typically, Medicare increases its payments to hospitals by just 1-3% each year.

The state of Montana set a reference price that was a generous 243% of Medicare — which allowed hospitals to provide high-quality healthcare and profit, while providing price transparency and consistency across hospitals. So far, hospitals have agreed to pay the reference price.

Of course, there is still the risk that a healthcare provider working with the state of Montana health plan, or any other health plan using reference-based pricing, could “balance bill” the member. But a fair payment and plenty of employee education about what to do if that happens could help you curb costs.

If balance billing does occur, many solutions include a law and auditing firm to resolve the dispute. In one recent example, a patient was balance billed almost $230,000 for a back procedure after her health plan had paid just under $75,000. An auditing firm found that the total charges should have been around $70,000, and a jury agreed. The hospital was awarded an additional $766.

Reference-based pricing is a forward-thinking way to manage costs while providing high-quality benefits to your employees. It’s one way to improve cost transparency, which may eventually transform the way that we buy healthcare.

Kern, J. (18 July 2018) "Reference-based pricing is gaining momentum — here’s why" (Web Blog Post). Retrieved from https://www.employeebenefitadviser.com/opinion/reference-based-pricing-health-insurance-gaining-momentum?utm_campaign=intraday-c-Jul%2018%202018&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&eid=1e52d1873f9d2e8d6bd477da3e7f49a3


A Look at Drug Spending in the U.S.

Spending on prescription drugs in the U.S. is projected to overtake other sectors of healthcare in 2018. Continue reading this blog post to learn more.


This fact sheet was updated on April 26, 2018, to reflect newly published data.

Overview

Spending on prescription drugs in the United States is on the rise and is projected to outpace growth in other parts of the healthcare sector in 2018.1 Limited public data on how much various payers and supply chain intermediaries pay for prescription drugs, as well as a lack of consensus on a single metric for drug expenditures, presents methodological challenges in measuring drug spending.

See also: Specialty Drugs and Health Care Costs

Nevertheless, a number of public and private organizations have published drug spending estimates over the past several years, including the share of health spending attributed to drugs. Historical estimates and spending projections from the Department of Health and Human Services’ Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE), the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS’) National Health Expenditure Accounts (NHEA), the Altarum Institute, and IQVIA are explored in Figures 1 and 2.

Figure 1 illustrates estimates and projections of U.S. drug spending by source from 2010 to 2018. Each incorporates rebates and spending on drugs, excluding over-the-counter (OTC) products.

  • ASPE estimates total prescription drug spending, including retail and nonretail, using CMS NHEA, IQVIA, and Altarum Institute data.2
  • CMS’ NHEA data provide estimates of retail prescription drug spending, excluding nonretail.3
  • IQVIA estimates total manufacturer revenue (“net price spending”), accounting for rebates and other price concessions.IQVIA also breaks down manufacturer revenue for drugs sold in both retail and nonretail settings.

Figure 2 illustrates drug spending as a percentage of health expenditure. Each of these estimates incorporates rebates and spending in retail and nonretail settings excluding OTC products, unless noted below.

  • ASPE estimates total drug spending (retail and nonretail) as a percentage of personal health expenditures, a subset of national health expenditures.5
  • The Altarum Institute estimates total prescription drug spending (retail and nonretail) as a percentage of total national health expenditures.6
  • CMS NHEA estimates drug spending (excluding nonretail) as a percentage of total national health expenditures.7
  • IQVIA estimates net drug spending (retail and nonretail) as a percentage of health care spending, including OTC products that do not require a prescription.8

See also: How employers can manage the skyrocketing cost of specialty drugs

Organizations use different denominators to describe health care expenditures

  • National health expenditures: Total health expenditures, including medical spending and public health activities, administrative costs, and research investments (Altarum Institute and CMS).
  • Personal health expenditures: Spending exclusively on direct patient care (ASPE).
  • Healthcare spending: An estimate of health care spending from the World Health Organization (IQVIA).

What drug spending estimates include

  • Rebates: Drug price reductions intended to increase sales through formulary placement. While the method used to calculate the rebate is specified at the time of purchase, the actual rebate is received in the future, as it is based on product sales. Most rebates are paid to pharmacy benefit managers and health plans. Rebates are accounted for in all five estimates, but none of the organizations has access to the specifics of manufacturer agreements.9 IQVIA approximates rebates and other price concessions using publicly available wholesaler and pharmaceutical sales data, public financial filings, the Medicare trustees’ report, and proprietary audits. CMS NHEA adjusts estimated drug expenditures to account for rebates in retail and mail-order settings.10 Altarum Institute and ASPE apply CMS’ rebate adjustments to their drug expenditure estimates.
  • Payers: Entities other than patients responsible for paying health care costs. In the United States, payers generally include insurance companies, health plan sponsors—such as employers or unions—and pharmacy benefit managers. Medicare is the nation’s largest payer. CMS NHEA data include estimates of pharmaceutical expenditures by private health insurers and public health insurers such as Medicare and Medicaid. CMS NHEA data also incorporate the amount that premiums contribute to the cost of pharmaceuticals, though the data do not include the share of premiums that go toward pharmaceuticals. IQVIA does not directly incorporate patient premiums in its drug spending estimates. CMS NHEA data include nonretail prescription drug spending in overall health expenditures but do not separately report spending on nonretail drugs. Spending on drugs in these sites of care is included in overall health cost estimates for each respective setting (for example, drugs purchased by hospitals are reported as hospital spending). The Altarum Institute uses IQVIA data to estimate spending on nonretail prescription drugs. ASPE also publishes an estimate of pharmaceutical spending for both retail and nonretail outlets.
  • Over the counter: Drugs that do not require a prescription. Only the IQVIA estimate for net drug spending as a percentage of health care spending incorporates spending on OTC products.
  • Retail prescription drugs: Drugs sold in a retail setting, such as a pharmacy, drugstore, mail-order, or other mass-merchandising establishment.
  • Nonretail prescription drugs: Drugs dispensed in clinics and institutional settings such as hospitals, long-term care facilities, and nursing homes.

Endnotes

  1. Gigi A. Cuckler et al., “National Health Expenditure Projections, 2017–26: Despite Uncertainty, Fundamentals Primarily Drive Spending Growth,” Health Affairs 37, no. 3 (2018): 553–63, https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2016.1627; Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, “National Healthcare Expenditure Data,” accessed February 14, 2018, https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData.
  2. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, “Observations on Trends in Prescription Drug Spending” (2016), https://aspe.hhs.gov/pdf-report/observations-trends-prescription-drug-spending. ASPE figures rely on data from the NHEA and the Altarum Institute. ASPE expenditures are available from 2009 to 2013 and projections from 2014 to 2018. This was a one-time publication.
  3. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, “National Healthcare Expenditure Data.” CMS data are sourced from Census Bureau retail data, Medicare and Medicaid claims, and IQVIA data. CMS expenditures are available from 1970 to 2016 and projections from 2017 to 2026. CMS publishes these data annually.
  4. IQVIA, “Medicines Use and Spending in the U.S.: A Review of 2017 and Outlook to 2022” (2018), https://www.iqvia.com/institute/reports/medicine-use-and-spending-in-the-us-review-of-2017-outlook-to-2022. IQVIA data are sourced from wholesaler and pharmaceutical company sales information. IQVIA publishes expenditures from 2013 to 2017 and projections from 2018 to 2022. It updates this publication annually.
  5. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, “Observations on Trends in Prescription Drug Spending” (2016).
  6. Charles Roehrig, “A Ten Year Projection of the Prescription Drug Share of National Health Expenditures Including Non-Retail,” Altarum Institute (2017), https://altarum.org/sites/default/files/uploaded-publication-files/Non-Retail%20Rx%20Forecast%20Data%20Brief%20with%20Addendum%20May%202017.pdf.
  7. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, “National Healthcare Expenditure Data,” accessed February 14, 2018, https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData.
  8. IQVIA, “Understanding the Dynamics of Drug Expenditure: Shares, Levels, Compositions and Drivers” (2017) https://www.iqvia.com/institute/reports/understanding-the-dynamics-of-drug-expenditure-shares-levels-compositions-and-drivers. IQVIA data are sourced from wholesaler and pharmaceutical company sales information and the World Health Organization’s Global Health Expenditure Database from December 2016. This one-time publication includes expenditures from 1995 to 2015.
  9. IQVIA accounts for but does not report drug supply and payment chain entity profit retentions (e.g., discounts, rebates, chargebacks and other financial transactions among manufacturers, pharmacy benefit managers, pharmacies, and wholesalers).
  10. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, “National Health Expenditure Accounts: Methodology Paper, 2015,” https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/Downloads/DSM-15.pdf.

SOURCE: PEW (27 February 2018) "A look at drug spending in the U.S." (Web Blog Post). Retrieved from http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/fact-sheets/2018/02/a-look-at-drug-spending-in-the-us


Point-of-sale wellness: How health plans are cashing in

With skyrocketing healthcare costs, payers constantly look for ways to reduce costs and improve health. Continue reading to learn more.


Health care costs continue to skyrocket, and payers are constantly looking for ways to keep their populations healthier and to reduce these costs. Payers looking for more effective strategies to improve health and wellness for members should be aware of the new preventative approaches that more health plans are offering.

One such method that health plans are deploying to engage members is point-of-sale wellness, a type of incentive program that encourages members to actively make healthier purchases and lifestyle choices. As point-of-sale wellness becomes more prevalent among health plans, human resource managers and benefits brokers should understand how these programs work to best determine if they would be a valuable option for their employees and clients.

What is point-of-sale wellness?

Point-of-sale wellness is all about helping health plan members make smart, healthy purchasing decisions when they’re in a retail store or pharmacy. According to the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, the average consumer visits their doctor 3.1 times per year. This same consumer will visit his or her favorite retailers multiple times per week. This presents the perfect opportunity for actionable engagement. It is often too easy for individuals to make impulsive decisions that favor cheaper care items or junk food that provides instant gratification but lead to an unhealthy lifestyle in the long run. Empowering consumers in these moments before checking out at the register with the understanding — and more importantly, the financial incentive — to make informed, smarter choices can lead to a healthier lifestyle and reduced health care costs. In short, the goal is to help individuals prioritize health and wellness at retail point of sale.

There are numerous ways that health plans can achieve this goal. One of the most common is by providing members with prepaid cards that are loaded with funds and discounts for the purchase of over-the-counter (OTC) items such as vitamins, diabetes care items and medications for allergies or cold and flu symptoms. The key component of these specialized prepaid cards is that they can be restricted-spend cards. In other words, they cannot be used to purchase any items that the health plan members want; they can only be used to purchase items off a curated list of products.

Under this arrangement, all parties, from the individual to the health plans and retailers, benefit. With a restricted-spend prepaid card in hand, an individual is rewarded for making purchases that contribute to a healthier lifestyle, while reducing health care costs both for themselves and the health plans administering the cards. In the meantime, the retailers partnering with the health plans to make point-of-sale wellness possible enjoy the opportunity to build long-term customer relationships with the health plan members using the cards.

Point-of-sale wellness in action

Point-of-sale wellness can be customized to be as general or specific as a health plan needs. For example, a health plan that supports a high number of new parents on a regular basis may offer a prepaid card designed specifically to assist members with newborn children. The first years of an infant’s life are among the most expensive from a health care perspective. More health plans are starting to offer new parents prepaid cards that are loaded with funds and discounts for items such as OTC medications, baby food and formula, diapers, strollers, car seats or thermometers. This opens an easier path for new parents to do basic at-home diagnostics and keep their babies’ health monitored so costly trips to an emergency room or urgent care center are not needed as often.

Payers that offer health and wellness programs to assist new parents in their populations can consider engaging health plans that offer these types of prepaid cards. Having a healthier child has the added benefit of reducing stress on the parents, which means they are in a better position to continue performing in the workplace.

Financial incentives for healthier choices

Most wellness programs are focused on informing participants of the best ways to support a healthier lifestyle, but that is only half of the equation. Point-of-sale wellness goes one step further to ensure participants are empowered from a financial perspective to make smarter purchasing decisions while shopping for daily care items. Businesses and benefits brokers who want to provide their employees and clients the best opportunities to live a healthier lifestyle should consider engaging health plans that prioritize these prepaid card incentives into their offerings.

Vielehr, D. (19 July 2018). "Point-of-sale wellness: How health plans are cashing in" (Web Blog Post). Retrieved from https://www.benefitspro.com/2018/07/19/point-of-sale-wellness-how-health-plans-are-cashin/


Health prices to outpace inflation for first time since 2010

Since 2010, our health prices have stayed in pace or below inflation. For the first time since then, they're expected be much, much more. Get the details in this article from Employee Benefit Advisor.


The growth in U.S. healthcare prices is projected to outpace economy-wide inflation for the first time since 2010, the second report in a week to signal the end of a long stretch of restrained medical increases.

This year, price increases for personal health expenditures are projected to rise 2.2%, compared with 1.9% for overall inflation, according to a report released Wednesday by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The findings confirmed a recent analysis warning that the U.S. could be at the cusp of a return to higher medical inflation.

Health spending is determined by the price of goods and services, as well as how much health care people use. In recent years, increases in health spending have been driven by volume, as millions more people gained insurance coverage under the Affordable Care Act. While high-cost drugs have made headlines, overall price hikes have been historically low, increasing by an average of 1.1% annually between 2014 and 2016.

Those trends are projected to reverse. Government actuaries expect the number of people without health insurance to increase slightly after Republicans lifted the ACA’s penalty for going uninsured late last year. Medical price growth, meanwhile, will rebound, “in part reflecting more rapid growth in healthcare workers’ wages,” the report said.

 
Bloomberg

Healthcare inflation has been partly restrained by limits on how much Medicare pays hospitals and physicians under the ACA and other legislation, combined with overall slow growth in prices throughout the economy.

In recent days, concerns about higher-than-expected inflation have rattled stock markets and pushed up Treasury yields. Investors feared that a tightening labor market and rising wages could push up prices and spur the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates faster than anticipated to keep the economy from overheating.

Total health spending is projected to increase by 5.3% to about $3.7 trillion in 2018, according to the CMS report, and the growth will average 5.5% per year over the next decade. While that’s still faster than the overall rate of economic growth, it’s an improvement from past decades. Between 1990 and 2007, annual health spending increased by 7.3% per year.

Read the original article here.

Source:
Bloomberg News (20 February 2018). "Health prices to outpace inflation for first time since 2010" [Web Blog Post].Retrieved from address https://www.employeebenefitadviser.com/articles/health-prices-to-outpace-inflation-for-first-time-since-2010?feed=00000152-175f-d933-a573-ff5f3f230000

Trump proposes bigger role for skimpy insurance, undermining ACA

Are you an advocate of short-term insurance plans? Get some of the pros and cons in this article from Employee Benefit Advisor on the Trump administration.


The Trump administration is proposing to expand the availability of short-term insurance plans, offering a cheaper health coverage option for consumers, while taking another step to undercut Obamacare.

The Department of Health and Human Services proposed allowing short-term plans to be sold for coverage periods of up to a year, up from the current maximum of three months set by the Obama administration. The plans would also be allowed to offer far less comprehensive coverage than plans sold under the Affordable Care Act.

The short-term plans are likely to appeal to healthier individuals who don’t think they need full coverage, potentially drawing them out of Obamacare’s markets. Combined with earlier moves by the Trump administration -- such as ending the ACA requirement that all people buy health coverage or pay a fine -- the latest proposals could result in higher costs or fewer options for individuals who still want to buy the more comprehensive Obamacare plans.

The Administration said its goal is to give people more insurance options at a time when premiums have been rising.

Bloomberg 

“It’s one step in the direction of providing Americans with health insurance options that are both more affordable and more suited to individual and family circumstances,” HHS Secretary Alex Azar said on a conference call with reporters. “We need to be opening up more affordable alternatives to the all too often unaffordable Affordable Care Act health insurance policies.”

‘Young or Healthy’

The administration, in the proposed rule announced Tuesday, said the short-term plans may lack some Obamacare protections such as required coverage of pre-existing conditions, and coverage for a broad array of services such as maternity care, hospital stays and prescription drugs. But it anticipates that most of the individuals who switch to the plans will be “relatively young or healthy.”

The proposed rule builds on an executive order the president issued last year. The health insurance industry has been divided on the plans, with some insurers already offering them, while others worry they could undermine the ACA’s individual market.

UnitedHealth Group Inc., the biggest U.S. health insurer, already offers short-term coverage, and has said it would explore expanding offerings. Two major industry lobby groups, America’s Health Insurance plans and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, have warned that the short-term plans could harm state insurance markets.

Read the original article.

Source:
Bloomberg News (20 February 2018). "Trump proposes bigger role for skimpy insurance, undermining ACA" [Web Blog Post]. Retrieved from address https://www.employeebenefitadviser.com/articles/trump-proposes-bigger-role-for-skimpy-insurance-undermining-aca?feed=00000152-175f-d933-a573-ff5f3f230000