Anti Mandatory Mail Order Victory. A little noticed NYS Healthcare Law has gone under the radar amidst fast changes in Affordable Care Act tumult. AMMO – Anti-Mandatory Mail Order passed late Dec 2011 effective for groups renewing after Jan 11, 2012. A significant signal by Governor Cuomo to stand up to the billion dollar industry no doubt.
According to trade group Pharmacists United for Truth the PBM (pharmaceutical benefits managemnt) claim that mandatory mail order lowers costs proves otherwisee. Plan sponsors are routinely charged far more than retail price in mandatory mail order plans, and their lack of transparency keeps plan sponsors to detecting the unreasonable prices.
After spending a good part of a day in early March helping a NYS client faced with mandatory mail order I learned of this change. For certain medications the insurer limits retail pharmacy coverage. While the incentivisation of 90 day supply at 2 copays was attractive this has now declined to 2.5 copay. With few exceptions such as specialty pharmaceuticals retail pharmacists are given the same advantages and evening the playing field.
The National Community Pharmacists Association’s blog post below offers a helpful FAQ. Additionally with the steady decline of the local independent pharmacist a quality of personalized care has been eroded. The price paid in patient compliance and safety has received little attention. Independent Pharmacists have been the canary in the mine for fellow small businesses competing with large copra big box chain stores. At least now NYS is finally listening.
Community pharmacists in New York scored a significant win for their patients, communities and pharmacy choice in late 2011 with the enactment of the Anti-Mandatory Mail Order or AMMO with overwhelming, bipartisan backing. What lessons might the campaign in support of the AMMO law hold for community pharmacists across the country?
To find out, NCPA recently asked one of the legislation’s staunchest supporters and advocates to share his observations on the effort to enact the AMMO law. Craig Burridge, M.S., is Executive Director of the Pharmacists Society of the State of New York (PSSNY). Mr. Burridge credits PSSNY members as most instrumental to enacting AMMO over the fierce opposition of mandatory mail order proponents, principally large pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs). He notes people including Ray Macioci, Charles Catalano, Vinny Chiffy and literally hundreds of pharmacy owners helped win a hard fought battle by gathering tens of thousands of signatures on petitions from their patients and coordinating tens of thousands of phone calls, emails and letters.
What follows is a Q&A with Mr. Burridge, in hopes that his advice would benefit patients and independent community pharmacists in other states advocating for patient choice.
NCPA: When it comes to the forced or mandated use of mail order pharmacies, many of the concerns expressed by patients and the community pharmacists who care for them are not new and have, in fact, been voiced for a number of years. What made 2011 different in New York?
Mr. Burridge: In New York, consumers by the tens of thousands signed petitions at their local pharmacy against mandatory mail order. Patients wrote dozens of letters to the editor of many regional newspapers telling about their horror stories with mail order. Finally, pharmacy owners had had enough of losing their patients to self-dealing PBMs. Tens of thousands of phone calls to the Governor’s Office and to Legislators were made by pharmacy owners, their staffs and their patients in support of passage of the no mandatory mail order bill.
NCPA: One obstacle to ensuring patient choice of pharmacy is the myth of mail order savings. This persists in some minds despite what appears to be rampant mail order waste and studies demonstrating how health plan sponsors that incent or require the use of mail order can end up paying more for drugs. Did you encounter such misperceptions and, if so, what did you do to alter or overcome them?
Mr. Burridge: We did in New York. The PBMs came at us with ads stating that costs would go up and that it was a ‘prescription drug tax’ or that it would ‘prohibit mail order.’ We responded with evidence that exposed the ‘spreads’ being used at mail for generics and the fact that the legislation requires participating pharmacies to agree to the same reimbursement and the same co-pays.
NCPA: The health care benefits of a patient’s face-to-face consultation with a community pharmacist and the preference of most patients for going to a local pharmacy are both well-established. But how did you chronicle and reinforce the economic and tax benefits of buying local when it comes to pharmacies?
Mr. Burridge: According to national data (IMS Health) for 2009, the last year we had data before introducing legislation, 22.8 percent of the national drug spend was for mail order prescriptions. Using New York’s percentage of total drug spend (11 percent), we removed hospital expenditures and Medicaid (which had less than one percent mail order) and came up with a mail order drug spend in NY in access of $5.8 billion annually. New York State has no major mail order facilities so this represents thousands of lost pharmacy jobs.
NCPA: Like PSSNY, NCPA continually stresses to its members the importance of grassroots activism, whether it is at the federal or state levels or with local employers and leaders. Did you find that your memberships became more engaged than usual in 2011 and, if so, what did you do to encourage their further involvement?
Mr. Burridge: It helped to have the PBM industry fly in colleagues from around the country and host their own Lobby Day. They told legislators that New York’s pharmacies could survive on acute medications only. This only caused yet another round of thousands of phone calls from our pharmacists, their staffs and patients. Our grass roots turned into a raging grass fire. Livelihoods were at stake and our opponents showed their hand. They wanted ALL maintenance medications going to their wholly-owned out-of-state mail order facilities. Our legislators saw that too.
NCPA: What surprised you the most about your 2011 campaign against mandatory mail order?
Mr. Burridge: I’ve been doing this too long to be surprised. We expected the worst from our opponents and they did not disappoint us.
NCPA: What were some of your opponents’ most challenging arguments and how did you address them?
Mr. Burridge: That depends if you consider outright lies as a challenge. Their ads said that it was a “Prescription Tax” or, when that flopped, they said our bill “would prohibit mail order.” These were easily swept aside and only upset legislators who felt the PBM industry was accusing them of passing a tax on prescription drugs.
NCPA: Do you have any other words of wisdom that you would like to share with concerned patients or your colleagues in community pharmacy?
Mr. Burridge: Choosing one’s pharmacy should be a basic right. If the playing field is level, it only makes sense to buy local. Watch out for PBMs calling all maintenance medications so-called ‘specialty drugs’ as a way of getting around no mandatory mail order laws. We’ll have a lot more to say on that in the near future.
Short Term Disability coverage for ALL their employees.
Have you reviewed your New York State Statutory Disability Insurance lately?
FIRST REHABILITATION
GUARDIAN
HARTFORD
MUTUAL OF OMAHA
STANDARD LIFE
ZURICH
Male Rates
$2.25
$2.35
$2.45
$2.75
$2.45
$1.66
Female Rates
$4.95
$5.11
$5.70
$5.90
$5.65
$3.78
New York State Statutory Disability Insurance. In New York State and you have employees, this benefit is mandated by New York State, with almost no exceptions. All insurance companies provide the same core benefit. A 7-day wait for either sickness or accident, 50% of gross weekly earnings, maximum weekly benefit of $170.00 and a maximum benefit period of 26 weeks. For fewer than 50 employees there is a rate for males and a rate for females. Over 50 employees the rate will be determined by experience (rates determined by prior year loses) or based on payroll. Whether a community rated plan (under 50 lives) or experience rated (50 plus) you look for the lowest priced carrier. This is a benefit that is a 24 hour a day, seven days a week, non-work related benefit. This coverage which is provided by the Employer, is usually added with a short term or long term disability insurance
Hello. It’s been awhile, hope you’re all well. To all who have inquired, my thanks for your concern, but all’s good. Hectic, but good. Lot’s going on and an awful lot of travel. I’ve had a chance to meet and talk with with insurance carriers, Health Human Services, Trade Groups, Broker panels and most importantly customers with spirited opinions such as yourselves. It’s been a great time to learn, recharge and stay a bit too busy to write any meaningful posts. While staying busy appears to be the new constant, I’ll try to find something worthy to share on a more regular basis.
Before I get into it some news at MMS Corp:
Check our new www.medicalsolutionscorp.com this summer. We began the redesign and update of our web site to make it more user friendly and features packed with the following:
1-Quoting Module – The quoting engine will offer cross leading plans based on your location, income and employee total. Not all plans and carriers will participate and it is recommended that you get in touch with us.
2-Health Care Reform Section-this tab is dedicated to the new PPACA law.
3 Instant Chat – Scheduled Fall 2011
4. Social 2.0- Find us on Facebook, Linkedin and Twitter.
5. HR Log In- For clients only. Some of you have already begun using this online HR Kiosk. We’ve deployed this in partnership with HR Connect Technologies to offer employers tools for common HR tasks such as Benefit Plan Admin, Forms for new hires, terminations, work-site postings and employee record keeping. HR-Connect is a secure, HIPAA-compliant, Internet driven system designed to simplify your human resource department. Employees can review their own personal information, but not other employee’s data. Click Video Demo here and just ask us to set it up for your business at no charge!
Lastly, we have been appointed earlier in 2011 to the Empire Broker Advisory Council which consists of top 10 of 5000 brokers that meets throughout the year to discuss relevant topics such as market insights, health reform changes and input on future plan designs. We take this opportunity seriously in giving voice to our clients and shaping a more consumer friendly plan. To Empire’s credit, they have been indeed listening and have taken suggestions seriously. New plan options released in the Fall will be examples of this.
For now, however, let’s play some catch-up:
Latest new is that US Court of Appeals has ruled that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional. The ruling is online here. The ruling stated that this is in synch with the commerce clause of interstate commerce. Furthermore, since Congress can force someone to buy health insurance because even if they don’t need insurance today they will at some point in their life. While this ruling is impactful and could influence future rulings, this is expected by many to go to Supreme Court. They have been loudly silent on this touchy topic thus far.
Regardless, this Individual Mandate has little teeth with penalties @ $95 or 1% for 2014, $325 or 2% in 2015 and $695 or 2.5% in 2016. In other words if one can still buy health insurance, face little penalties and no pre-existing condition whats stopping someone form buying insurance when they’re in the hospital?!
To date, many key provisions have already been enacted. Some of those are:
Extending the age of adult children eligible for coverage under their parents’ health care plan to age 26
Prohibiting individual and group health plans from placing lifetime limits on the dollar value of coverage
Preventing health insurers from rescinding coverage (except in cases of fraud)
Prohibiting health insurers from imposing pre-existing condition exclusions for children
Mandating coverage for recommended immunizations and preventive care
PPACA items that died in 2011.
1. The non-discrimination provision for Group Health Plans have been delayed. The short answer is that IRS needs more funding to enforce this as well as additional guidance. See blog here
3. W2 Reporting delayed- the IRS said employers who file fewer than 250 Forms W-2 in 2011 will not be required to report the cost of health care coverage prior to January 2014
Items that have funding delays:
1. Free Choice Voucher Program Takes a Hit- The program would have provided funding of vouchers for lower income employees to subsidize the employer contribution. Under this provision, plan sponsors of employer-based plans (including self-funded benefit plans) would have been required to offer vouchers to employees who fall below a pre-defined income threshold, while the state-based exchanges would credit the employee the amount of the voucher that exceeded their monthly premium.
2. No Health Co-Ops- The goal of the program was to spur the creation of qualified nonprofit health insurance issuers that could offer health plans for individuals and small businesses in states where insurance issuers are licensed to offer them. The program also would have provided loans and grants to fund start-up and maintenance costs for these plans.
This is a bit disappointing as we looked to the highly rated Seattle-based Group Health Cooperative program as a successful at managing costs and offering consumer centric care, click here for more info.
3. Wellness Funding for Small groups- no updates as of yet on the $750 Million funding. This was forward thinking incentives for small groups to afford a a Wellness Program for smoking cessation, diet/nutrition, gym etc. Typically large groups have had these programs as their rates are directly linked to “experience” of their members. In small market the rates are spread over thousands of other small groups. This is a first come first serve funding that we are closely monitoring to help our groups.
We are partnering with Wellness Companies and Health Insurers on establishing a program for small groups. The ROI on this is typically 1.6 :1. If you think your group could benefit please drop us a note at info@medicalsolutionscor.com.
The biggest news really will be the Health Exchanges schedule to open by 2014. NYS in particular than most states has enjoyed 2 rounds of Federal seed capital with almost $30 million for this effort. Each state has to set up an exchange, or marketplace, where small employers and individuals whose employers don’t provide coverage, or who can’t afford the employer plans, can purchase insurance. About 2.7 million New Yorkers are uninsured.
Sponsors say it should also result in one statewide, online, streamlined system for enrolling and renewing enrollment in government-supported Medicaid, Child Health Plus and Family Health Plus programs.
Each state can implement their own version. Several states have rejected funding and do not want to participate in the exchange. By discounting health plan rates based on income its unclear of how much will fall as a state burden?
Florida is one state that has decided not to implement a state health insurance exchange altogether. That state is seeking to shift virtually all of its Medicaid population from government coverage into private plans starting in July 2012.
Two states, Massachusetts and Utah, each have existing state exchanges that differ fundamentally. The Massachusetts exchange is considered an “active purchaser” model, has a large organization and a sizeable budget. The state’s model does not allow all licensed insurers to participate in the exchange. The Utah model, on the other hand, is an “all-comer” model that allows any licensed health insurer to participate. Utah’s exchange initiative is much smaller in scope with only two full-time employees and a limited budget. Currently, the Massachusetts state exchange is suffering major cost overruns.
Rebecca Vesely, writing in Business Insurance, makes this clear in her article describing how two states, Vermont and Florida, are taking strikingly different paths in addressing health care reform. Vermont has taken the first step toward creating a single payer system by 2017. Legislation to set up a five member board to move the state in this direction has already been enacted. And while many details need to be worked out (funding, to name one) and Vermont will need to obtain a waiver from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to put the package together, the state is further down the road to single payer than any other.
With healthcare becoming a hot issue for 2012 both parties are entrenched. Democrats are promoting Medicare as an effective low cost plan that provides insurance for millions of people. The fact that it is imploding is seemingly lost. Republicans, on the other hand, are touting touting free enterprise system but the Medicare Part D law enacted by Bush in 2003 had been under estimated by half! Along with Medicare Advantage plans that have cost the Gov in excess of what was expected.
Rita Redberg, UCF professor of medicine writes an amazing editorial in NYT “Squandering Medicare Money”. While this war of words by both parties goes on no one is really minding the issues. There are things that can be done right now while Washington tries to get its own house in order. An honest appraisal of Medicare Advantage shows that the program doesn’t deserve a fatter payday; it demands a serious crackdown.
Limitations on funding both at the federal and state levels will need to be addressed to avoid a rise in government deficit levels. In the short term, PPACA will continue to face significant political and legal hurdles. Nonetheless, implementation will continue, with more provisions and offices becoming established under the law.
* * * * *
As more information becomes available, MMS Corp is committed to keeping you up-to-date in a timely manner. Coming soon www.medicalsolutionscorp.com to view past Legislative Alerts in the “Newsroom” section. Or, you may visit alexmiller.wordpress.com for blog posts, polls, surveys and numerous resources. If you have any questions, please contact us. Thank you for taking the time to read through this important notification.
Change in tax treatment for over-age dependent coverage
Accounting impact of change in Medicare retiree drug subsidy tax treatment
Early retiree medical reinsurance
Medicare prescription drug “donut hole” beneficiary rebate
Break time/private room for nursing moms
[/tab_item]
[tab_item title=”2011″]
No lifetime dollar limits on essential health benefits
Restricted annual dollar limits on essentail health benefits, phased amounts until 2014
No pre-existing condition limitations for enrollees up to age 191 and no recissions
No health FSA/HRA/HSA reimbursement for non-prescribed drugs
Increased penalties for non-qualified HSA distributions
Additional standards for new or “non-grandfathered” health plans, including preventive care in network with no cost-sharing appeal and external review, provider choice and non-discrimination provisions for insured plans
Income-based Medicare Part D premiums
Pharmaceutical importers and manufacturers’ fees start
Medicare, Medicare Advantage benefit and payment reforms
Insurers subject to medical loss ratio rules
[/tab_item]
[tab_item title=”2012″]
Employers to distribute uniform summary of benefits and coverage (SBC) to participants (deadlines vary with group of recipients)
60-day advance notice of mid-year material modifications to SBC content
Form W-2 reporting for health coverage (track in 2012 for W-2 form provided in early 2013)
Coverage for additional women’s preventive care services5
[/tab_item]
[tab_item title=”2013″]
$2,500 per plan year health FSA contribution cap (plan years on or after January 1, 2013)
Comparative effectiveness group health plan fees first due
Annual dollar limits on essential health benefits cannot be lower than $2 million
Employers notify employees about exchanges
Medical device manufacturers’ fees start
Higher Medicare payroll tax on wages exceeding $200,000/individual; $250,000/couples
Change in Medicare retiree drug subsidy tax treatment takes effect
Health Insurance exchanges initial open enrollment period
[/tab_item]
[tab_item title=”2014″]
Health insurance exchanges
Individual coverage mandate
Financial assistance for exchange coverage of lower-income individuals
States Medicaid expansion (possibly only some states)
Employer shared responsibility
Dependent coverage to age 26 for any covered employee’s child
No annual dollar limits on essential health benefits
No pre-existing condition limits
No waiting period over 90 days
Wellness limit increase allowed
Health insurance industry fees
Additional standards for non-grandfathered health plans, including limits on out-of-pocket maximums,
provider nondiscrimination, and coverage of routine medical costs of clinical trial participants
Small market, non-grandfathered insured plans must cover essential health benefits with limited deductibles (initially $2,000/individual, $4,000/family), using a form of community rating
Insurers must apply guaranteed issue and renewability to non-grandfathered plans of all sizes
Auto enrollment sometime after 2014
[/tab_item]
[tab_item title=”2015″]
Temporary reinsurance fees first due in late 2014/early 2015
Additional employee-specific reporting and disclosure of 2014 coverage
[/tab_item]
[tab_item title=”2018″]
40% excise tax on “high cost” or Cadillac coverage
New York State Partnership for Long-Term Care-The Partnership was created to help New Yorkers finance long-term care without impoverishing themselves or signing over their life savings, with the accompanying loss of dignity
Employer Alliance for Affordable Health–Take action to fight unnecessary expensive health insurance mandates that increase your premiums and contribute to the number of uninsured New Yorkers.
Insurance Information Institute–The Insurance Information Institute provides facts and assistance free of charge to the media, individuals and organizations.
This month on April 12th, 2011 marked the five-year anniversary of Massachusetts 2006 State Health Care Reform. The reform was signed into law by then-governor Mitt Romney with the goal of providing affordable health insurance coverage to the estimated 6% of Massachusetts residents that were uninsured at the time.
Massachusetts State Health Care Reform and the Affordable Care Act are virtuallyidentical.Both reforms rely heavily on state-based health insurance exchanges, subsidies for qualifying individuals, and mandates for employers and individuals. As a result, Massachusetts presents the most appropriate example of what to expect from federal health care reform.
So, what have we learned from Massachusetts state reform? The 2006 Massachusetts State Health Care Reform:
Created the MAHealthConnector(a state health insurance exchange) to provide guaranteed issue health insurance to MA residents;
Mandated that every resident of the state obtain a minimum level of health insurance or face penalties;
Mandated that employers provide a “fair and reasonable contribution” to their employees’ health insurance premiums or face penalties; and
Provided free health insurance and partially-subsidized insurance to qualifying residents based on income.
Proponents of the law argue that Massachusetts Health Reform:
Has increased the percentage of private companies that offer health insurance from 70% in 2005 to greater than 77% today.
Has lowered the cost of individual health insurance premiums in Mass. due to the fact that primarily healthy people have moved to the individual market.
Opponents of the law argue that Massachusetts Health Reform:
Was setup for failure from the start due to its reliance on employer-sponsored health plans, plans that employers cannot afford due to rising costs.
Has resulted in more than half of the newly-insured residentsreceiving health insurance that is partially or completely subsidized by Massachusetts’ taxpayers.
Has Massachusetts health care reform been properly utilized as a test bed for Federal Reform? Will the costs associated with Massachusetts health care reform be sustainable over the long term?
The President yesterday released with great anticipation his own version of the Reform Health Bill. This is the opening bid before Thursday’s Bipartisan Summit.
The proposed Bill for the most part is similar to the Senate Bill passed in December with a few minor changes anticipated to cost almost $1 trillion over 10 years. The comprehensive bill adds cost saving measures and more affordability for lower income Americans.
As expected and in step with both Houses the proposal eliminates pre-existing condition but raises the penalty for individuals not paying into a mandatory health plan to 2.5% of adjusted gross income by 2016. Included, also, is an increase in the tax credits for health insurance premiums a sort of carrot and the stick model.
Spurred by recent rate increases by insurers such as Anthem’s 39% planned rate hike in California there is a provision to establish a new Health Insurance Rate Authority to give guidance and oversight to states and monitor insurance market behavior. “If a rate increase is unreasonable and unjustified, health insurers must lower premiums, provide rebates, or take other actions to make premiums affordable.”
Also included is elimination of Nebraska’s politically wrangled special deal to help pay for a proposed Medicaid expansion, and would instead provide more help for all states to pay for their new Medicaid enrollees. It would delay enactment of a the Cadillac tax (40% tax in excess of $10,200/$27,500 for single/ families) on high-cost employer-sponsored insurance plans with no special exceptions to Union groups.
There is elimination of the Medicare Rx “doughnut hole” for Part D. There will be a 25% coinsurance fee instead for seniors in this gap. Currently, the gap starts after the first covered $2830 and continues on the next $4550 with only a 5% member responsibility thereafter.
Our small employer groups will be relieved to know that groups under 50 employees are exempt form the mandate. Under the Senate plan, employers with more than 50 employees that do not offer coverage would pay a $750 assessment for each full-time employee. The White House proposal would bump up that assessment to $2,000 for each full-time employee. However, in determining the assessment, an employer’s first 30 employees would be excluded from the calculation. Taking the case of an employer with 100 employees that did not offer coverage, for example, its assessment would be 70 times $2,000.
The proposal also is believed to retain a provision in the House and Senate bills that would impose a $2,500 annual cap, starting in 2011, on the maximum annual contributions that could be made to health care flexible spending accounts such as HRA and FSA.
Our position is that Health Care Reform done responsibly is important and inevitable for the sustainability of our country. While the current leaves millions uninsured it just as importantly leaves many who are already insured struggling to pay and possibly drop out going forward. Addressing the cost factors for those already insured is being understated.
Stay tuned till the end of the week for the Bipartisan Summit. We expect to see proposals on creating tax credits for employers who already offer benefits. Also allowing insurers to easily cross state lines and increase competition by creating a basic Federal health package. This will allow strong reputable companies like Humana to enter the NY/NJ/CT market and side step the choke full of mandates. NY already includes almost 20% of overall costs going to these add-ons.
Health Care Reform!
Americans woke up earlier today to the new Health Care Reform House Bill, “Affordable Health Care for America Act. HR 392”, which completes an important 1st step of 3 stages of a final bill. While I didn’t quite make it through the 1990 page there are couple of items that stood out.
According to The Associated Press the Congressional Budget Office concludes that the public option might actually cost consumers more than private coverage. The bill is expected to fetch close to $1 trillion dollars over 10 years. However, the bill could lead to $104 billion net reduction in deficit by spending cuts, revenue raisers and other bill provisions.
The bill would create a Health Insurance Exchange system that individuals could use to buy health insurance from private insurers and government-run plans.
The bill also would provide incentives for the creation of nonprofit, state-based health insurance cooperatives.
The public option plans would have to negotiate their own rates with providers, rather than using the ultra-low Medicare rates.
Individual responsibility: A “shared responsibility” section that would take effect in 2013 and covers both individuals and employers. The max tax for individuals would be either 2.5% of persons AGI or cost of average health insurance premiums.
Employer responsibility: would impose a tax equal to 8% of employee wages on employers over a minimum size that failed to provide health coverage. The payroll tax would be lower for employers with $500,000 to $750,000 in payroll, and 0% for employers with less than $500,000 in payroll costs.
Forbid plans from basing premiums or denials of care on factors such as pre-existing conditions, race, or gender.
Close the Medicare Part D prescription drug program “doughnut hole”.
Provide “affordability credits” to help individuals and families who meet income requirements pay their health insurance premiums, and provide health insurance subsidies for small businesses.
Require the secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate drug prices on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries.
Expand Medicaid.
How will this be paid for? The new costs would be paid for according House Democrats by “making Medicare and Medicaid more efficient, imposing 5.4% tax surcharge on individuals with adjusted gross incomes over $500,000 and married couples with adjusted gross incomes over $1 million; and adopting other tax measures.”
Our reaction is that without a greater focus on health care costs, families and employers will not be able to afford coverage. Health care has tripled in a span of 15 years since 1984 to over $2 trillion and is expected to increase to $3.1 trillion by 2012. Most uninsured have programs available that were absent when I was growing up. You can still be middle class and qualify for state subsidies. Example for NYS is Healthy NY for small businesses and sole prop. as well as Family Health Plus and Child Health Plus.
In the absence of tort reform, however, and an expected 21% reduction in Medicare reimbursement this will negatively affect providers. In speaking with our client physician groups and national polls this could lead unintended consequences such 25% retirement and reduction of new physicians. Could this lead to more prescribing privileges and responsibilities for Physician Assistants, Nurses and Pharmacists?
Malpractice costs account for only 1% of spending but this leads to another estimated 9% is for “defensive medicine”. According to JAMA– “Defen
sive spending is described such as ordering tests, performing diagnostic procedures, and referring patients for consultation, was very common (92%). Among practitioners of defensive medicine who detailed their most recent defensive act, 43% reported using imaging technology in clinically unnecessary circumstances. Avoidance of procedures and patients that were perceived to elevate the probability of litigation was also widespread. Forty-two percent of respondents reported that they had taken steps to restrict their practice in the previous 3 years, including eliminating procedures prone to complications, such as trauma surgery, and avoiding patients who had complex medical problems or were perceived as litigious. Defensive practice correlated strongly with respondents’ lack of confidence in their liability insurance and perceived burden of insurance premiums.”
The issue of private competition is a big factor. According to Kelly Loussedes, of National Association of Health Underwriters, “By injecting more competition into the insurance market, this might seem like an intelligent way to lower overall health care costs. A “public option” would simply shift health care costs onto private payers — and undermine the private insurance system”. We question how real the private sector can compete with a public plan
however, well intentioned it may be.
In addition, most uninsured in progressive states such as NY are young people who elect not to pay now, illegal residents and people who earn over $50,000 but decide to opt out. The issue how strong is the requirement for individuals to participate? If its like Massachusetts with only a $1500 penalty or not enforced then this creates actually much more costs.
According to Mark Wagar President of Empire Blue Cross, “fewer businesses and individuals purchase private coverage and enrollment shifts to high cost Medicaid coverage, further increasing State funding burdens. In turn, too many people delay needed services, resulting in increased costs for urgent care for hospitals and physicians when care becomes critical.” He goes on to say that in NYS where the non group individual market is unaffordable now “The presence of an effective mandate – alone – would reduce the cost of individual coverage in New York by
over 60 percent and enroll 8 times as many New Yorkers in coverage than today because of improved affordability.”
Progressive countries such as Denmark and France have actually moved to private sector. According to our client Lisa Halpern of Euro Center USA , which works with a Danish travel insurance company for expatriates, “Denmark’s public single payer system had to include the private sector starting more than 20 years ago. This has become increasingly popular in recent years because the public had trouble accessing physicians without longer waiting times, diagnostics and private hospitals. The Private Insurance has also benefitted as a tax deduction for private companies offering additional health insurance.”
We support taking steps to lower costs as mentioned in prior newsletter
such as negotiating with drug manufacturers and implementation of healthcare cooperatives. On the other hand, we are wary of moving
too quickly on this road of reform and leading to unintended consequences. As debate and legislation is clarifying that a public option is a probability we are concerned if this will lead to big government, wasteful spending, higher taxes and the specter of no private sector.
As the saying goes the madness is in the details. As a fellow business owner we ask that you join us in staying active with your local chamber, legislative rep., editorials and social media forums on this road to reform. We have included some helpful links below.
