In your member enrollment process leaving you exposed?

By Claire Thayer, June 2, 2017

In September last year, the Government Accounting Office released a new study on findings from its undercover enrollment eligibility testing of federal and selected state marketplaces. As part of the study, GAO submitted 15 fake applications for subsidized coverage through the federal Marketplace in Virginia and West Virginia and through the state marketplace in California. GAO’s applications tested verifications related to (1) applicants’ making required income-tax filings, and (2) applicants’ identity or citizenship/immigration status. Through this extensive under cover testing process, GAO found that eligibility determination and enrollment processes continue to remain vulnerable to fraud.

This weeks’ edition of the MCOL Infographic, co-sponsored by LexisNexis, highlights some of findings presented in the GAO report: 

MCOL’s weekly infoGraphoid is a benefit for MCOL Basic members and released each Wednesday as part of the MCOL Daily Factoid e-newsletter distribution service – find out more here.

Opportunities With Consumer Angst About ACA Exchanges and Out of Pocket Costs

By Clive Riddle, October 7, 2016

GfK has just released updated survey results on consumer health insurance purchasing which found that “one-third of consumers who purchased on ACA exchanges do not expect that their present insurer (33%) – or any other carrier (34%) – will offer insurance through their exchange in 2017. And 32% do not think they will find options on the exchange that meet their needs.”

Additional findings they report include:

• 13% of consumers purchasing through ACA exchanges plan to revert to becoming uninsured if their current coverage was not offered.
• For ACA exchange consumers earning less than $25,000 a year, 34% plan on becoming uninsured if current coverage isn’t available
• 43% of exchange users say they would seek new options through the exchanges – with levels highest among 50 to 64 year olds.
• 35% of exchange users would go directly to an insurer or agent for solutions if their coverage lapses
• 66% say they would choose the best option to meet their needs, regardless of the insurance company
• Only 12% would make a point of staying with their current carrier
• 20% say they would explore coverage through a different insurer

Liz Reyer, GfK Vice President and health insurance lead concludes that “as a ’brand,’ the ACA has taken some hits in 2016. While most observers expected insurance companies to reassess their offerings on the exchanges now and then, the outright defections we have seen have quickly limited consumers’ choices and eroded confidence that the ACA will find ways to meet their needs. We need to see a high-profile campaign making clear the options that consumers still have – so no one goes without insurance unnecessarily – and stronger collaboration between the insurance industry and the government in keeping the ACA viable.”

Health Plans remaining on the ACA exchanges certainly have a market opportunity to mop up the mess left by large national plans exiting the exchanges. Outside the ACA exchanges, plans active in individual markets, and applicable private exchanges have a major opportunity to gain ground with consumers not eligible for subsidies (which are only available through the ACA exchanges.)

Meanwhile, Navicure, in conjunction with Porter Research has just released provider survey results from a study on how healthcare organizations are responding to patient engagement and consumerism, with a focus on consumer concerns about price transparency, financial responsibility and payment options. The survey included hospitals (19%) and medical groups ranging in size (33% in practices with ten providers or less and 21% with 100 providers or more.)

Of the most common questions patients ask about their financial responsibility, provider respondents said “58 percent inquire about payment plans, and 56 percent ask about total treatment cost. Other top questions include asking what balance is due (53%) and what payment options are available (43%).”

67% of provider respondents say patients do not understand their payment responsibility versus their insurance provider’s responsibility, and 42% of providers find that attempting to estimate prices for services is a major problem.

The study found that most healthcare organizations aren’t using available tools to help with consumer confusion over out of pocket costs, with 33% of providers using patient bill estimation tools, 26% sending patients electronic statements, and 25% securely store debit or credit card information on file.

In this era of ever increasing consumer cost sharing, a major market opportunity exists for providers and health plans that can easily answer patient questions on what their out of pocket will be, and offer a range of options for how patients can pay for them.

Millennials Are (Not) So Different

By Kim Bellard, June 24, 2016

If we believe conventional wisdom about them, they like to live with their parents, at least until they can move into their urban-center condo.  They hate to drive.  They're maddening in the workplace, demanding lots of frills and constant praise yet returning little loyalty.  They're hyperconnected through their various digital devices.  And, when they deign to think about health care, which isn't often, they want all digital, all the time. 

There's some truth to the conventional wisdom, but not as much as you'd think.  A new study from Credit Karma flatly asserts that "everything you thought you knew about Millennials may be wrong," finding that they still have aspirations to much of the same "American Dream" as previous generations.   

The hyperconnected part is certainly true.  Millennials are much more likely to have a smartphone,  and -- jawdroppingly -- on an average day they interact with it much more than with anyone else, even their parents or significant other.  

Things get really interesting when it comes to health.  Millennials are often viewed as not very interested in health care, but it is the second most important social issue for them, right after education and ahead of the economy. 

A deep dive on millennials and health care by the Transamerica Center for Health Studies had some results that also don't necessarily fit the stereotypes. Taking care of their health was tied with getting/keeping a job as their top priority. 70% have been to a doctor's office within the last year, although for minor issues they're more likely to head to urgent care/a retail clinic. When it comes to getting health information, this supremely digital generation still relies most heavily on health care professionals and friends/family (especially their mothers!).

There has been a dramatic drop in being uninsured -- 11% versus 23% as recently as 2013 -- but millennials don't like much about health insurance.  They feel much more informed about their health and how to improve it than they do about how to find health care services or their health insurance options.  

Perhaps that is why two-thirds have never comparison shopped for health insurance.

Lastly, TCHS found that millennials rate affordability as the most important aspect of the health care system, but many don't find it affordable.  About 20% can't afford routine health expenses, even though millennials' median health expenses are under $100 per month.  Nearly half have skipped care to reduce their expenses. Similarly, most millennials view monthly premiums over $200 as unaffordable.

If there is a key difference with millennials' health care, it may be in their emphasis on technology.  A report from Salesforce.com found that 76% of millennials valued online reviews in choosing a doctor, and 73% want doctors to use mobile devices during appointments to share information. 60% are interested in telehealth options in lieu of office visits.

It is perhaps no wonder millennials are turning to technology when it comes to their health.  They highly value face time with their doctor, but they may not be getting it.  According to the Salesforce report, 40% of millennials don't think their primary care doctor would recognize them on the street. 

Many of us might suspect the same thing, and that should trouble us all.

When it comes to health care, as with many other aspects of life, it may be less that millennials are different in what they want as it is that they're quicker to adopt newer options for getting it.  The rest of us should learn from that, not shake our heads at it.

This post is an abridged version of the posting in Kim Bellard’s blogsite. Click here to read the full posting

Two Thirds of Healthcare Stakeholders Have Faith in Consumers Using Online Tools to Engage With Their Doctor

By Clive Riddle, June 16, 2016

MCOL has conducted an e-poll, co-sponsored by Keenan, of healthcare business stakeholders regarding their opinion on consumer tools involved with healthcare costs or quality. Key questions were asked regarding consumer healthcare cost and quality tools; and ranking of applicable items with respect to overall effectiveness.

68.5% of stakeholders believe it is likely or very likely that a typical consumer will use online data/comparisons to discuss options and costs with a provider. Stakeholders not involved with online tools have a greater belief that consumers are very likely to do so (34.8% compared to 18.6% of stakeholders that are involved with online tools). However, stakeholders involved with tools have an overall greater belief that consumers are likely to do so – combining likely plus very likely responses (72.1% for involved stakeholders compared to 65.2% for stakeholder not involved with tools.)

44.4% of stakeholders feel a smartphone is the optimal vehicle to deliver such tools, while 34.7% feel a computer desktop is the optimal vehicle, and 13.9% listed a tablet such as an iPad as the optimal vehicle. Stakeholders not involved with online tools were less likely to list a computer desktop (21.7% compared to 38.1% for stakeholders involved with tools and 57.1% for stakeholders not sure if they are involved). However smartphones were the top choice for both stakeholders involved with online tools, or not involved with online tools.

Given five types of tools to rank for effectiveness, stakeholders preferred health insurance out-of-pocket costs calculators and healthcare service price estimator/comparisons. Given seven issues to rank by level of concern, relating to consumer tools, stakeholders were most concerned by accuracy/credibility of data sources, and consumer ability to understand/use tool correctly.

58.9% of stakeholders indicated they are involved with consumer tools, while 31.5% responded they are not involved, and 9.5% were not sure. The online survey of healthcare business stakeholders was conducted during May 2016 by MCOL.  Survey participants received a detailed report on the survey results.

As Tim Crawford, a Vice President from Keenan puts it, “if we want to bend the healthcare cost trend downward by making patients and their families more effective consumers, we will need to equip them with the information they need to make informed decisions. Consumers of medical services will need to know about the quality of their providers and understand the total costs involved. More than two-thirds of those responding to the survey believe that consumers will use tools that give them this information and will use the knowledge to discuss options and costs with their providers. Ideally, such tools can provide the common ground needed for patients and physicians to have a transparent dialog about medical decisions.”

IMS Institute on the Global Oncology Market

By Clive Riddle, June 2, 2016

The IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics this week released their new study: Global Oncology Trend Report: A Review of 2015 and Outlook to 2020, which examines the current and future global oncology market. Their 42-page report tells us that “more than 20 tumor types are being treated with one or more of the 70 new cancer treatments that have been launched in the past five years, with the sustained surge in innovative therapies driving the global oncology market to $107 billion in 2015. However, many of these drugs are not yet available to patients in most countries, and even when registered they may not be reimbursed under public insurance programs.”

The study finds that growth in global spending on oncology therapeutics and supportive care drugs increased 11.5 percent on a constant-dollar basis last year, with more than 500 companies actively pursuing oncology drug development around the world. Collectively, they are advancing nearly 600 new molecules through late-stage clinical development, most frequently for non-small cell lung cancer and breast, prostate, ovarian and colorectal cancers.

And as for the future, “annual global growth in the oncology drug market is expected to be 7.5 – 10.5 percent through 2020, reaching $150 billion. Wider utilization of new products—especially immunotherapies —will drive much of the growth, offset by reduced use of some existing treatments with inferior clinical outcomes. Payers also are expected to tighten their negotiation stance with manufacturers and adopt new payment models in an effort to drive greater value from their expenditures on these drugs.”

The report also shares that:

• The pipeline of oncology drugs in clinical development has expanded by more than 60 percent during the past decade, with almost 90 percent of the focus on targeted agents.
• The median time from patent filing to approval for oncology drugs in 2015 was 9.5 years, down from 10.3 years in 2013.
• Of the 49 oncology New Active Substances analyzed that were initially launched between 2010 and 2014, fewer than half were available to patients by the end of 2015 in all but six countries: the U.S., Germany, UK, Italy, France and Canada.
• Targeted immunotherapies are available in most developed countries, but none of the emerging markets outside of the European Union has yet registered these treatments.
• Of the drugs approved in 2014 and 2015 by a set of developed countries analyzed, only the U.S., France and Scotland have more than half included on reimbursement lists at the end of 2015.
• The annual growth rate in cancer drug costs has risen from 3.8 percent in 2011 to 11.5 percent in 2015, at constant exchange rates. Growth in the U.S. market increased from 2.0 percent to 13.9 percent in the same period.
• The U.S. now accounts for about 45 percent of the global total market for therapeutics, up from 39 percent in 2011, due in part to the strengthening of the U.S. dollar and more rapid adoption of newer therapies.
• In the U.S., cancer drugs now make up 11.5 percent of total drug costs, up from 10.5 percent in 2011
• Net price growth in the U.S. on existing branded oncology drugs have averaged an estimated 4.8 percent in 2015, compared with 6.4 percent invoice price growth
• In the U.S., cancer drugs dispensed through retail channels now account for more than one-third of total costs, up from 25 percent ten years ago and typically covered by pharmacy benefits. This reflects a shift in the mix of new therapies toward oral medicines, eliminating the need for injection or infusion in a physician’s office or outpatient facility.
• Nearly 40 percent of the total costs of targeted therapies in the U.S. are now for oral formulations, up from 26 percent in 2010.
• Only 17 percent of U.S. oncologists are in independent practices, unaffiliated with some type of integrated delivery network or corporate parent, down from 28 percent in 2010.
• Average total treatment costs for patients in commercial insurance plans with a cancer diagnosis who are receiving active treatment reached $58,000 in 2014, up 19 percent from 2013.
• Patients with commercial insurance who were treated in 2014 with cancer drugs received by injection or infusion were responsible for more than $7,000 of costs on average, compared to $3,000 for those patients receiving only oral medicines.
• Some type of coupon or patient cost offset was used for more than a quarter of cancer drug retail prescriptions filled by patients with commercial insurance in 2015, up from 5 percent in 2011 and reflecting efforts by manufacturers to reduce patient out-of-pocket costs. The average cost offset has averaged about $750 per prescription over the past five years.

Patients Happy With PCPs But Not Always Following Their Advice Due to Costs

By Clive Riddle, May 19, 2016

The Physicians Foundation has just released a 74-page report with results from their Physicians Foundation Patient Survey conducted by Harris Poll. The report findings state that “95 percent of patients surveyed are satisfied or very satisfied with their PCP’s ability to explain information in a manner they understand, while 96 percent feel their physicians are respectful of them. Moreover, 93 percent were satisfied or very satisfied with how well their PCP listened to them during their most recent exam, with 92 percent noting high levels of satisfaction relative to how well their doctor knew their medical history.”

But the report notes that “patients who saw a primary care physician for their most recent routine exam are not fully adhering to treatment plans, avoiding routine check-ups or opting not to take prescription medication due to rising healthcare costs.”

They cite that “ sixty-two percent of U.S. adults are concerned with being able to pay for medical treatment if they get sick or injured. Almost half (48 percent) are not confident they could afford care should they become seriously ill. In addition, more than a quarter of U.S. adults (28 percent) have skipped a medical test, treatment or follow-up or avoided a visit to the doctor for a medical problem in the past 12 months because of costs. Twenty-seven percent of patients have avoided filling a prescription in the past 12 months, noting costs as a primary factor.”

Who do patients feel are driving these costs? The report says that “59 percent of patients surveyed say it’s the cost of prescription drugs. One-third (33 percent) of patients cited fraud as another contributor factor, followed by social conditions and poverty (28 percent), government mandates (26 percent) and an aging population (25 percent).”

Rip Hollister, MD, a Physicians Foundation board member tells us “patients recognize that there is an array of stakeholders and external influences that affect treatment options and, in effect, clinical autonomy. Historically, treatment plans have been developed between the doctor and patient. Yet, patients understand that there are now many other parties ‘in the room,’ so to speak, which complicates and challenges the manner in which physicians practice medicine.”

In this regard, the report cites how much patients felt each of the following stakeholder groups, as a whole, impacts treatment options available to them:

• Health insurance companies (83 percent)
• Physicians (79 percent)
• Pharmaceutical companies (68 percent)
• Federal legislature (60 percent)
• State legislatures (54 percent)

The Biosimilar Opportunity

By Clive Riddle, April 1, 2016

Biosimilars hold considerable future opportunity for helping address rapidly rising prescription costs. They also hold considerable opportunity for pharmaceutical companies seeking to offer them, as well as challenges for pharmaceutical holders of brand drugs that they would impact.

PwC listed Biosimilars as one of their top ten health industry issues of 2016. They stated that “Finally entering the US market, biosimilar drugs have the potential to be as disruptive as generic drugs following the Hatch-Waxman Act of 1984. The first US biosimilar - Sandoz’s Zarxio, which prevents infections in cancer patients – received FDA approval in 2015, and entered the market at a 15% discount. At least four biosimilar applications are pending FDA review in 2016, with another 50 in the FDA review process.”

PwC also another challenge in that U.S> consumers don’t know what the heck a Biosimilar is: citing a survey in which only 17% of consumers chose a correct definition of Biosimilar when offered multiple choice answers.

Biosimilars are of course much further along the path in Europe, but in addition to consumer confusion and provider and purchaser lack of familiarity as well, there is of course continued regulatory morass as well as lobbying from pharmaceutical companies trying to protect specific brand drug turf. The NCSL (National Conference of State Legislatures) has a page dedicated to the topic of State Laws and Legislation Related to Biologic Medications and Substitution of BioSimilars.

In addition to monitoring and summarizing this activity, NCSL provides easy to understand background information. They tell us “Biologic medicines are much more complex than traditional chemically synthesized drugs. Biologics are manufactured from living organisms by programming cell lines to produce the desired therapeutic substances and consist of large molecules….Regulating biologics raises new issues for both state and federal policymakers. Because of their complexity, biologic drugs are much more difficult to replicate than the chemically produced generics for other drugs. The cell lines used and modifications in the manufacturing process affect biologic medicines. As a result, truly identical “generic” versions are currently virtually impossible to produce. However, once patents expire for the existing brand-name biologic drugs, “biosimilar” medicines can be produced, which is an occurrence that raises regulatory issues in the states. Currently, there is concern that traditional statutes regulating ‘generic drugs’ may be misapplied to new products that are not identical. This has led to a recent move to amend older state laws to address the medical and chemical characteristics of these ‘biologics,’ as well as any future generic-style ‘follow-on biologics’ or ‘biosimilars.’ “

This week the IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics released a 36 page report: Delivering on the Potential of Biosimilar Medicines -The Role of Functioning Competitive Markets, telling us that “Greater acceptance of biosimilar medicines in a growing number of therapy areas and an active pipeline of 56 new products in clinical development are expected to deliver total savings of as much as $110 billion to health systems across Europe and the U.S. through 2020.”

IMS offer considerable research into Biosimilar adoption and issues in Europe, and counsels that “As these medicines also become available in the U.S., stakeholder education and incentives will play a vital role in ensuring biosimilars deliver their full potential.” Their report finding include:

• Considerable variations across the EU in payer policy approaches are limiting the biosimilar opportunity.
• Biosimilars use in the EU and U.S. may yield total savings of $56-110 billion over the next five years.
• Patient access to biologic treatments has grown by as much as 100 percent following the availability of biosimilars.
• Intensifying competition and greater choice are expected as new biosimilars reach the market.
• Capturing the benefits of biosimilar medicines requires a balance between controlling price and ensuring a sustainable, competitive marketplace.

IMS emphasizes the need for education and incentivization in order for Biosimilars to fulfill their potential.  They tell us that “Payers need to ensure that they are keeping themselves informed. The variation in policies adopted, as well as in biosimilar prices and uptake, across the EU, suggests that some payers do not understand the potential offered by biosimilar medicines. Physicians need to trust that biosimilar medicines offer a safe and efficacious alternative to original biologics…..Patients are expected to accept new technologies, about which they may have only limited information….Payers need to ensure that doctors see a tangible benefit to prescribing biosimilar medicines. Physicians need to understand that prescribing biosimilar products delivers clinical benefits across the market as a whole, and that the cost-savings that result from biosimilar uptake enable more patients to access needed treatment.”

Medication Adherence and Out of Pocket Costs

By Clive Riddle, March 25, 2016

While out of pocket costs impact consumer demand and utilization for healthcare services in various degrees for all aspects of care, the relationship is perhaps the most direct for prescriptions. This direct relationship is due to both the relatively lower average cost per prescription compared to the per unit cost of most other health care services, along with the behavioral economics implications that a prescription typically delivers delayed results, while most other healthcare services provide perceived potentially immediate results.

In this context, Truveris, a pharmacy benefits solutions provider, has just released study results examining medication adherence based upon out of pocket prescription costs. They found that “85 percent of prescriptions are filled when the price at the register is around $30. Once the cost of a prescription surpasses $50, the rate starts a notable decline, dropping to 76 percent. The number of prescriptions filled drops even further, to 65 percent, when the cost is $90 and above.”

Kristin Begley, Chief Pharmacy Officer at Truveris tells us “as healthcare costs continue to burden Americans, there is ample evidence of increased prescription costs leading to discontinuation of medications in order to save money. We’re seeing a troubling trend that when drug prices reach a certain level, consumers are simply walking away, not filling the prescriptions and, in effect, gambling on their health. This should be an urgent wake-up call across the healthcare spectrum.”

Taking things a step further, a Geisinger study published in the February 2016 issue of The American Journal of Managed Care “shows that instituting a zero prescription co-pay for its chronically ill employee population resulted in a positive cost saving and return on investment.”

The Geisinger study found “that a zero co-pay drug program for its chronically ill employee population was associated with positive cost savings and a return on investment of 1.8 over five years….More than 200 prescription medications were selected to be eligible for the $0 co-pay program; those selected were designated for chronic conditions like high blood pressure, cholesterol and diabetes management and were preventative in nature. Geisinger researchers say that VBID implementation within the context of a wider employee wellness program targeting the appropriate population can potentially lead to further positive cost savings.”

Under the Influence

By Kim Bellard, March 18, 2016

A new analysis by ProPublica found that doctors who receive money from drug companies do, in fact, tend to prescribe more brand name drugs, and that the more money they got, the more brand name prescribing they did.

ProPublica looked at prescribing patterns from five specialties -- cardiovascular, family medicine, internal medicine, ophthalmology, and psychiatry -- with the restriction that individual physicians had to have had at least 1,000 Part D prescriptions in the study period (2014).  Overall, about three-fourths of physicians took some money from a drug company, although there was wide variation by specialty and geography -- e.g., nearly 9 of 10 cardiologists took payments, just as around 90% of physicians took such payments in Nevada, Kentucky, Alabama, and South Carolina. 

Conversely, in Minnesota and Vermont the percentage was closer to 25%.

The amount of the payments appeared to have an impact.  Internists who received no payments had brand-name prescribing rates of about 20%, while those getting more than $5,000 had rates of around 30%.

The defenses from physician organizations and the drug industry make for fun reading.  Dr. Richard Baron, the president and chief executive of the America Board of Internal Medicine, protested that doctors almost have to go out of their way to avoid taking these kinds of payments.

The president of the American College of Cardiology suggested the patterns were re-enforcing; the more they learn about a drug, the more they tend to use it, and the more they use it, the more drug companies pay them to be speakers and consultants.

Seriously, these are their defenses?

We've been learning a lot more about how pervasive industry payments -- not just pharmaceutical companies but also medical device and other health care suppliers -- are since the advent of the Open Payments initiative.  We're talking about over $6.5b in payments in 2014, made to over 600,000 physicians and 1100 hospitals.  I wrote about this last summer, and the new ProPublica analysis certainly should rattle any remaining doubts anyone might have had about the potential impact of such payments. 

True to form, last fall the AMA called for a ban on DTC advertising.   That's right, they don't seem disturbed about the $6.5b physicians are getting, but they think that the ads that we see are bad.  There's a certain logic to that; it has long been suspected that these ads help drive consumer demand.

Austin Frakt, of The New York Times, recently challenged this conventional wisdom.  For one thing, he notes that while drug ads do cause an increase in sales for the advertised drug, they also increase sales of other drugs in the same class, using Prozac as an example.  Seeing drug ads may help "normalize" the condition being treated, making getting treatment for it more acceptable, and may also help encourage patients to continue with existing prescriptions.  

Mr. Frakt points out that it is not only the drug companies who benefit from drug advertising, but also physicians.  Every $28 in drug advertising results in an additional doctor visit; someone has to do the prescribing, after all.  And, of course, the DTC spending is dwarfed by the direct-to-physician "promotions" -- Mr. Frakt estimates drug companies spend seven times more on these than on DTC advertising. 

So we're back to the ProPublica analysis. 

It simply is not plausible to maintain that these efforts are not influencing physicians' decisions, and that they may not always be in the best interests of patients.  As Bloomberg put it last summer: the payments "seek to convince doctors that second choice is OK."
 
Well, I don't know about you, but that is not OK with me. 

This post is an abridged version of the posting in Kim Bellard’s blogsite. Click here to read the full posting

Retail Clinics: Trying to Reconcile Cost Per Visit, Utilization, Access and Convenience

By Clive Riddle, March 10, 2016

The March issue of Health Affairs features a paper presenting study findings on retail clinic:  Retail Clinic Visits For Low-Acuity Conditions Increase Utilization And Spending. The title would seem to say it all regarding their findings. The study involved retail clinic use by 3 million Aetna members, from 2010 to 2012 for 11 low-acuity conditions. 

Here’s what the authors had to say in part in their abstract: “We found that 58 percent of retail clinic visits for low-acuity conditions represented new utilization and that retail clinic use was associated with a modest increase in spending, of $14 per person per year. These findings do not support the idea that retail clinics decrease health care spending.”

Kaiser Health News, in covering the story, notes that “The study doesn’t contradict earlier research that found retail clinics provide care that costs 30 to 40 percent less than similar care provided at a physician’s office and that the treatment for routine illnesses was of similar quality. But it suggests those savings are more than offset by increased use of medical services.”

But for some who embrace this perspective, but also are critics of increased consumer cost-sharing including high deductible plans that can limit access, is this perhaps a bit contradictory from a policy standpoint? If you are concerned the increased access and use of such services drives up costs, should you be concerned about cost savings measures that decrease potential access and use?

Interestingly, a Policy Brief in last month’s Health Affairs  on High Deductible Health Plans features the lead-in: “As high-deductible health plans become increasingly prevalent in both group and individual markets, it remains to be seen how they will affect health care access and outcomes.”

Is it a paradox that high-deductible health plan consumers are target audiences for retail care clinics?

Last month, NPR, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health released the 42-page study: Patients’ Perspectives on Health Care in the United States which addressed retail clinic and urgent care use among many things. 92% of survey respondents rated retail clinic costs as reasonable, and 74% rated urgent care costs as reasonable, compared to 77% rating their personal doctor visit costs as reasonable and 58% rating emergency room costs as reasonable.

Granted, the study published in Health Affairs didn’t dispute the lower cost per visit – they just conclude that the retail supply creates demand and thus drives up costs. But what about access, and what happens to overall costs when access isn’t adequate? Isn’t that the critique of high deductible plans – that high out of pocket costs become a barrier to access?

The argument put forth in Health Affairs is your out of pocket costs might be higher per visit, but ultimately lower overall, by always sticking with your personal doctor because you will see them less.

And see them less you very well may. Another aspect of access addressed in the NPR study: 22% said they could not see their regular doctor at some point in the past two years when they needed health care, with the number one reason the doctor did not have any available appointment times (followed by care was needed at night or on the weekend.)

Truven Examines Scope and Drivers in Bundled Commercial Spend for Lower Joint Replacement

By Clive Riddle, March 4, 2016

Truven Health Analytics has just released a twelve page research brief:  Bundled Pricing for Total Joint Replacements in the Commercially Insured Population: Cost Variation Insights by Bundled Care Components, which follows up on their recently released eight page brief on this same topic: Geographic Variation and Cost-Driver Insights.

Truven “found that the primary drivers of cost variation for major lower joint replacement are tied to hospital cost and length of stay. For facility costs, the study attributes up to $1,944 per additional day in total cost variation. That variation is independent of professional costs. The study builds on previous research that found more than $10,000 in commercial bundled spend variation for the same surgeries based on geography.”

Truven shares these key findings:

• The increase in facility cost only (removing professional cost) for each additional day a patient is hospitalized after the procedure varies from $313 per day in the East North Central region to $1,944 per day in the Pacific region, a difference of more than $1,600.
• On average, the cost to treat a patient at a rehab facility was $10,600 per patient, versus $5,300 per patient at a skilled nursing facility, and $1,300 using home health services. And, the cost for rehab facilities varied widely by region, with the cost per patient in the Pacific totaling close to $22,500 compared with roughly $7,000 per patient in New England.
• The cost per bundle for readmissions varied from $538 in the East South Central to $918 in the West South Central division. This lower cost in the East South Central resulted from both a low rate of readmission (3.3 percent) and a low cost per discharge ($16,340).

In their most recent brief, Truven notes that “in our previous research, we estimated the marginal impact of one extra day in the hospital after a TJR to be about $880 per day across all geographic divisions.  To further analyze that finding, we used a mixed effects regression model, with fixed average professional costs, to quantify the increase in facility cost only for each additional day a patient remains hospitalized after the procedure…. The average impact varied from $313 or 1 percent of the base price per additional day in the anchor facility after initial day of hospitalization in the East North Central division, to $1,944 or 6.2 percent of the base price in the Pacific. That’s a difference of more than $1,600.”

Bob Kelley, senior research fellow, advanced analytics, at Truven Health Analytics tells us “as providers and payers begin to consider bundled payment programs for these procedures, it is increasingly important to understand the cost implications of each additional inpatient day, as well as post-acute care and readmissions. Once claims-based, actual patterns are recognized and understood, guidelines and standard best practices can be put in place to guide discharge planning and post-acute care based on patient risk for readmission and other factors contributing to a successful recovery.”

Two Employee Benefit Studies Don’t Agree on Everything – But Do Agree on 52% HDHP Adoption

By Clive Riddle, February 19, 2016 

Benefitfocus has just released the “Benefitfocus State of Employee Benefits 2016,” based on benefit selection data from 700,000+ people at 500 large employers, based on actual behavioral versus self-reported data. They cite that 52 percent of large employer clients now offer high-deductible health plans (HDHPs). 

The report notes that “millennials—born between 1980 and 1989—selected HDHPs more than any other age group. However, while approximately 44 percent of employees in this group chose HDHPs, a much smaller number of these employees took full advantage of health savings accounts (HSAs.)”

In addition, the report found that their clients “should be well positioned to navigate the Cadillac tax to be levied on higher-cost health care plans in 2020 under the Affordable Care Act. Total premiums across all 2016 plans averaged $14,974 for family coverage and $6,096 for individual coverage—both well below the tax’s respective target thresholds of $27,500 and $10,200.” 

While voluntary benefits have receiving much publicity as a popular solution and offering in consumer driven plan environments, they report that “only 36 percent of large employers offered such voluntary benefits for 2016, and only 14 percent of employees actually enrolled.” 

Meanwhile, Wells Fargo Insurance  has just released their Employee Benefits Trend Study surveying 650 middle-market companies and large corporations, which painted a somewhat different picture. They found that “fifty eight percent of employers surveyed expect their medical plan costs to exceed the thresholds for the Affordable Care Act (ACA) excise tax, or “Cadillac” tax, which was originally to take effect in 2018, but has been delayed until 2020.” Their findings state that “As more employers offer high deductible health plans, the C-suite is also aware of the financial exposure that employees face with these types of plans. As a result, they are looking to mitigate those costs by offering voluntary benefits solutions (e.g. critical illness and accident insurance).” 

But the Wells Fargo survey did agree to the penny with the Benefitfocus study on one item – HDHP adoption, citing that “half of the employers in the study said they will continue to make changes to their plans either this year or in 2017 by adding a high deductible plan option (52 percent), increasing the employee contribution percentage (56 percent), or increasing co-insurance features (55 percent).

Provider Collaboration – Bundled Payments Top Survey Results for Impact on Medicaid Transformation

by Clive Riddle, December 11, 2015

MCOL has just released results from its second annual Medicaid Transformation e-poll of stakeholders interested in Medicaid transformation. Last year, when respondents were asked to a rank of topics for their impact on Medicaid Transformation, with 1 being the top rank, Provider Collaboration/Engagement and Risk Sharing virtually tied with State Medicaid Funding and ACA participation for the top spot (based on weighted average rank). This year, there was some separation between the two, with Provider Collaboration taking the top spot. Breaking down these results by category of respondents, providers definitively gave collaboration the top ranking, while purchasers and vendors/others results were more mixed.

When asked which type of provider collaboration would have the most impact, last year’s results were mixed, but this year bundled payments and other new payment models emerged as the clear top choice. Interestingly, perceived Medicaid ACO impact reduced this year from last, with providers seeing ACOs having less impact than purchasers or vendors/others.

Below are table of the results broken out by respondent category, along with 2015 and 2014 totals:

Taking an early Post ICD10 Transition Pulse from Five Surveys

by Clive Riddle, December 3, 2015

As time ticks by after the October 1st ICD10 transition, early survey results are coming in regarding the impact and implications for providers. Let’s take a look at these initial findings:

KPMG has just released results from a survey of 298 attendees of a Nov 9th ICD10 webcast for providers, which found:

• 28 percent saying the transition has been smooth
• 51 percent found “a few technical issues, but overall successful.”
• 11 percent described the transition as a “failure to operate in an ICD-10 environment.”

 Survey respondents listed challenges they see with ICD-10 as:

1. rejected medical claims
2. clinical documentation and physician education
3. reduced revenue from coding delays
4. information technology fixes

The survey found 42 percent of respondents said all of these challenges are part of ICD-10. 11 percent of claimants said they did not expect those challenges to arise.

46 percent of respondents said they were thinking of pursuing initiatives in clinical documentation improvement, revenue cycle optimization, and electronic health record and IT system optimization. 25 percent were pursuing none of those options.

Last month, Healthcare Informatics reported on a survey from Himagine Solutions that found “Large hospitals have reported a 30 to 45 percent productivity reduction on the inpatient side and a 20 to 40 percent productivity reduction on the outpatient side since implementation the ICD-10 codes.”

Also last month, the vendor Kareo announced that 99 percent of client claims submitted in the first month of the ICD-10 coding transition were successful, and 87 percent of clients have already been paid for at least one submitted claim. 11 days was the average time to payment for ICD-10 claims. Kareo also surveyed its customer base directly to gauge its experience with the transition. Based on customer responses, 57 percent of respondents considered the ICD-10 transition “easy” or “very easy.” Just three percent of respondents considered the transition “difficult,” or “very difficult.” The remaining 40 percent considered the event “moderate.”

Executive Insight reported that “in early October, Navicure, a claims management and patient payment solutions provider, only processed 50% of the medical claims processing it would've in pre-ICD-10 months, which could have been a result of providers' caution along with a mix of ICD-9 claims from the previous month. Towards the end of October, however, data showed that claims gradually increased to 90% of the pre-transition volume. Rejections, too, are staying in a manageable range rather than spiking like many healthcare experts anticipated.”

Finally, Information Management reported on a SERMO survey in which “physicians were asked if the new requirement to use ICD-10 has taken away time from patients. Two-thirds of responding doctors said yes. The poll of 1,249 physicians was conducted from November 20 to 30. Although doctors strongly indicated that the code switchover has detracted from patient care, that percentage is down significantly from a SERMO poll last month that asked members if ICD-10 was taking their time away from patient care. At that time, 86 percent said it had negatively impacted patient care while only 14 percent said it had not.”

The Prescription Drug Locomotive and the U.S Big Slice of the Global Rx Pie

by Clive Riddle, November 20, 2015

With prescription drug spending now having taken over the locomotive of the healthcare cost train, it behooves stakeholders to better get to know what lies on the tracks ahead. The IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics has just released the 47-page report: Global Medicines Use in 2020:  Outlook and Implications in which they examine the global use of medicines and spending levels in 2020, including small and large molecules, brands and generics, those dispensed in retail pharmaceutics as well as those used in hospital or clinic settings.

IMS tells us the report “found that total global spend for pharmaceuticals will increase by $349 billion on a constant-dollar basis, compared with $182 billion during the past five years. Spending is measured at the ex-manufacturer level before adjusting for rebates, discounts, taxes and other adjustments that affect net sales received by manufacturers. The impact of these factors is estimated to reduce growth by $90 billion, or approximately 25 percent of the growth forecast through 2020.”

The report also tells as that “developed markets will contribute 63% of the spending, led by the U.S.  Original brands will represent 52% of spending and 85% of global spending will be for medicines to treat non-communicable diseases.” 

A pie chart exhibit in the report is telling in how large the U.S. slice of the medicine spending pie is projected for 2020 – 41% of global spending, with the next closest slice being the entire European Union at 13%.

Report findings on spending impacting U.S. costs include:

• Brand spending in developed markets will rise by $298 billion as new products are launched and as price increases are applied in the U.S., most of which will be offset by off-invoice discounts and rebates. 
• Patent expiries are expected to result in $178 billion in reduced spending on branded products, including $41 billion in savings on biologics as biosimilars become more widely adopted. 
• Many of the newest treatments are specialty medicines used to address chronic, rare or genetic diseases and yielding significant clinical value. By 2020, global spending on these medicines is expected to reach 28 percent of the total.
• More than 90 percent of U.S. medicines will be dispensed as generics by 2020. Generic medicines will continue to provide the vast majority of the prescription drug usage in the U.S., rising from 88 percent to 91-92 percent of all prescriptions dispensed by 2020. 
• Spending on medicines in the U.S. will reach $560-590 billion, a 34 percent increase in spending over 2015 on an invoice price basis. 
• While invoice price growth – which does not reflect discounts and rebates received by payers – is expected to continue at historic levels during the next five years, net price trends for protected brands will remain constrained by payers and competition, resulting in 5-7 percent annual price increases. 

Some international findings include:

• Global medicine use in 2020 will reach 4.5 trillion doses, up 24 percent from 2015.
• Most of the global increase in use of medicines over the next five years will take place in pharmerging markets, with India, China, Brazil and Indonesia representing nearly half of that growth.
• Generics, non-original branded and over the counter (OTC) products will account for 88 percent of total medicine use in pharmerging markets by 2020, and provide the greatest contribution to increased access to medicines in those countries. 
• Newer specialty medicines, which typically have low adoption rates in pharmerging countries lacking the necessary healthcare infrastructure, will represent less than one percent of the total volume in those markets.
• Global spending will grow by 29-32 percent through 2020, compared with an increase of 35 percent in the prior five years. 
• Spending levels will be driven by branded drugs primarily in developed markets, along with the greater use of generics in pharmerging markets—offset by the impact of patent expiries. 

A Definitive Study and Reference Resource on Healthcare Cost and Utilization

By Clive Riddle, October 30, 2015

The Health Care Cost Institute (HCCI) has just released its free 26-page 2014 Health Care Cost and Utilization Report, and 92-page Appendix, which provide a definitive examination of detailed U.S. health care cost and utilization component line items and demographics. Their study – as with other major cost studies released this year – put a lot of focus on increases in prescription drug prices.

They found the costs increased 3.4 percent in 2014, with overall utilization decreasing somewhat, while prices for all categories of services rose.  Average spending per person was $4,967, up $163, including out-of-pocket spending of $810 that grew 2.2%.

With prescription costs standing out, they note that “despite a nearly 16 percent decrease in use of brand prescriptions, spending on these prescriptions jumped by $45 per capita in 2014—an increase four times larger than in 2013. Much of this increase was due to use of high-priced Hepatitis C drugs Olysio, Sovaldi, and Harvoni, which became available starting in late 2013.”

Here’s some other key findings:

• “In 2014, the largest decline in use (-2.7%) was for acute admissions, which fell by 1 admission per 1,000 individuals. The smallest decline in use (-0.9%) was for outpatient visits, which fell by 3 visits per 1,000 individuals.”
• “The smallest average price increase was for professional services (3.1%), an increase of $3 per service. The largest average price increase was for acute inpatient admissions (4.6%), an increase of $831 per admission.”
• “Spending out of pocket on acute inpatient admissions (–$1) and on brand (–$9) and generic (–$4) prescriptions decreased by $14 per capita in 2014 compared to the previous year, while spending out of pocket on outpatient ($16) and professional ($15) services increased by a total of $31 per capita in 2014.”
• “Every year between 2010 and 2014, out-of-pocket spending was higher by women than by men. This difference grew every year, reaching $237 in 2014.”
• “The difference in spending between the oldest and youngest age groups studied increased every year studied: from $6,281 in 2010 to $6,806 in 2014. In 2014, spending was $2,660 for children ages 0-18 and $9,466 for pre-Medicare adults, ages 55-64.”

Consumers and Physicians and Technology in 2015

by Clive Riddle, October 9, 2015

 

The Deloitte Center for Health Solutions has just released a survey report, Health Care Consumer Engagement: No One-Size-Fits-All Approach, which they say shows 'that Americans are increasing their use of technology to improve their health, navigate the health system and flex their shopping muscles in acting like consumers instead of passive patients."

 

Overall, how "techy" are American healthcare consumers? They found "22% used technology to access, store and transmit health records in the last year, up from 13% in 2013. Use was higher for those with major chronic conditions: 32% compared to 19% in 2013."

 

Deloitte’s findings are that consumer engagement is increasing three ways:

1. "More consumers today prefer to partner with doctors instead of relying passively on them to make treatment decisions"
2. "Consumers’ trust in the reliability of information sources is rising"
3. Consumers are increasingly relying Relying on technology

Here's some of the numbers behind their report, regarding the oercentage of survey consumer respondents: 

• 28% have used technology to measure fitness and health goals, up from 17% in 2013 (45% of Millennials this year)
• 23% have used technology to monitor a health issue, versus 15% in 2013
• 40% of the surveyed technology users have shared their fitness or monitoring information with their doctor
• 39% with major chronic conditions use tech-based monitoring (22% in 2013)
• 63% of the surveyed technology users say their use of fitness or monitoring technologies has led to a significant behavior change
• 13% who take prescription drugs receive electronic alerts or reminders
• 48% prefer to partner with doctors rather than have them make decisions for them, up from 40% in 2008
• 34% strongly believe doctors should encourage patients to raise questions
• 58% feel that doctors should explain treatment costs to them before decisions are made
• 16% who received care report asking their doctor to consider treatment options other than the one initially recommended.
• 52% report searching online for health or care-related information; 
• 16% who needed care went online for cost information, up from 11% in 2013 (27% of Millennials this year)
• 71% of all those surveyed said they have not gone online for cost information but are "very" or "somewhat" likely to use a pricing tool in the future
• 25% used a scorecard to compare the performance of doctors, hospitals and/or health plans, up from 19% in 2013 (49% of millennials this year)

What do these numbers mean? Harry Greenspun, M.D.Director of the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions, tells us "not all consumers are alike in how they engage the system, and a large segment still remains disengaged. Companies likely won't take a one-size-fits-all approach in their marketing and operations, but a tailored strategy that considers the unique characteristics of the segments they are most interested in."

 

Greg Scott, Principal, Vice Chairman and national sector leader for Deloitte's health plans practice, adds "the specter of a more customer-driven industry is causing many health companies to transform into retail-focused organizations, impacting everything from strategy and scale to operations and human capital. For the enterprise, this is about more than a cool app – this is about making the end-to-end changes needed to better identify and engage a more empowered purchaser."

 

So at the other end of the stethescope, how do doctors feel about using technology in their practices? Geneia just released survey results on this topic - not addressing physician interaction with consumers as discussed above, but rather how physicians relate to EMR, data and analytics.

 

Heather Lavoie, Geneia's President & Chief Operating Officer, tells us that "seemingly, there is an inverse relationship between health IT spending and physician job satisfaction,..physician sentiment towards technology is surprisingly nuanced. Doctors are indicating that data and analytics tools have the potential to reduce time spent on recordkeeping, one of their primary frustrations, while also contributing to it."

 

24% of physicians said that EMR impact on practices was positive, 19% negative, 53% a little of both, and 5% said they do not use EMRs. 69% of physicians felt data and analytics tools positively impacted their ability to efficiently assess patient history and needs, 63% said they help them get value and improved outcomes from chart documentation, and nearly 60% felt they helped identify and triage the highest need patients and created greater efficiencies in office workflow.

 

But Geneia shares that "on the other hand, more than 60% of physicians say that data and analytics tools have negatively impacted recordkeeping time. In fact, when asked to identify the number one way data and analytics could improve their job, the most popular answer was to reduce the time spent on recordkeeping (41%) followed by more time with every patient (22%), better access to patients' complete medical profile and history (20%), and more time with the patients who require enhanced care (14%)."

The Patient Experience of the Very Elderly

by Clive Riddle, October 2, 2015

Press Ganey has just published a seven page white paper Patient Experience in the Very Elderly: An Emerging Strategic Focus, that in their words, “examines the clinical and strategic benefits for health care organizations creating targeted care strategies for the ‘Very Elderly’ population” which they  define as patients 80 years of age and older.

Thomas H. Lee, MD, Press Ganey’s Chief Medical Officer and a co-author of the paper tells us “most patients in this Very Elderly population claim a ‘poor’ or ‘fair’ health status and tend to have greater and more complex needs. The data suggest their needs are not being met reliably. Organizations that embrace a more focused, compassionate, connected care model have the potential to reduce suffering for this very vulnerable population and mitigate the impact of age and health status on patient experience ratings.”

Press Ganey points out that while only 3.5% of the U.S. population is over 80 years of age - this demographic is a dominant presence in hospitals, emergency departments and outpatient practices, representing “27% of medical service and 12% of surgical service admissions, and their lengths of stays are longer.” Press Ganey’s analysis examined HCAHPS data by service line and age group for 1.5 million patients.

Press Ganey uses HCAHPS patient service ratings as an argument that the medical needs of the Very Elderly are not being adequately met. They note that “the percentage of patients giving top ratings [to providers] steadily increases as patients get older—but then declines for patients above 80 years old. When data “change directions,” the reason is usually two different forces are at work. The most likely explanation for the data in Figure 1 is that the elderly patients have greater needs, and that, in the Very Elderly, failure to meet these needs overcomes the tendency of older patients to give higher ratings to their providers.”

Service ratings of providers that were a 9 or 10 (out of ten) increased by each age group (medical services from 58.6% for age 18-34to 71,2% for ages 65-79; and surgical services from 65.2% for ages 18-34 to 78.2% for ages 65-79; which fell to 69.2% for age 80+ medical services and 75.9% for age 80+ surgical services.)

Press Ganey also points out that “patients in poorer health give lower ratings to their hospitals than do those in better health, regardless of age,” and the HCAHPS data clearly shows a deterioration in reported health status by age. 83% of patients reporting excellent health rating medical service providers 9+ out of ten, compared to 61% reporting poor health. 86% of patients reporting excellent health rating surgical service providers 9+ out of ten, compared to 65% reporting poor health. Press Ganey provides graphs demonstrating that “older patients are more likely to describe their health as fair or poor, and few Very Elderly patients report being in very good or excellent health.”

Press Ganey emphasizes to providers that “taken together, these data demonstrate both an opportunity and a threat. The threat is the risk of losing the patient segments that account for a large proportion of the care delivered by most organizations—the sick elderly. Furthermore, hospital payments might be compromised by lower patient experience scores that result from having more sick Very Elderly patients.” Press Ganey concludes that “this group wants more thorough, communicative care that meets their needs for information, coordination, responsiveness and general hygiene;” and that “providers have the potential to reduce suffering for this very vulnerable population, improve patient experience and market share through focused efforts and team-based care.”

Royal Philips has also just published new study results relating to the elderly’s healthcare experience, with their analysis “demonstrating an insightful correlation between chronic conditions and falls risk. Their researchers” retrospectively analyzed the records of 145,000 seniors equipped with a standard Philips Lifeline medical alert service or a medical alert service with AutoAlert (automatic fall detection) between January 2012 and June 2014.”

Their findings, and national data they highlight in their report include:

• Seniors with chronic conditions fell and required emergency transport up to 54 percent more often, compared to their peers with no chronic conditions. (they note that one in three seniors fall each year and that 80 percent of the senior population has at least one chronic condition and 68 percent has two or more.)
• Seniors with physical conditions not typically tied to frailty, including COPD and diabetes, also were shown to fall more often.
• Among Philips users, seniors who self-reported suffering from three chronic conditions had 15 percent more falls that required hospital transport, and those with five or more conditions had 40 percent more falls than those with no chronic conditions.
• Within the study population, 72 percent reported having one or more chronic conditions, with 20 percent reporting five or more.
• The data shows that seniors fell more often and needed hospital transport when reporting the following: Cognitive impairment by 54 percent; COPD by 42 percent; Diabetes by 30 percent; and Heart condition by 29 percent.

Pharmaceutical Industry in Transition

By Clive Riddle, August 7, 2015

KPMG has just conducted a survey of pharmaceutical and medical device companies, finding “their biggest commercial challenges coming from payers, surpassing hurdles posed by regulators, declining access to healthcare providers, and the move toward specialty drugs.”

Based on these findings, KPMG’s Bill Shew, Alison Little and Peter Gilmore have released a twelve-page report:  Change in pharma? Not optional; 10 Integrated imperatives for pharmaceutical commercial transformation.  Page two contains just these 35 words, in large font – which sums up the situation for pharma: “The pharmaceutical industry is caught between a blockbuster-driven past and a future  comprising precision medicine, curative therapies, and payment for outcomes. The years of consistent  double-digit growth and unconstrained pricing power are fading into memory.”

Author Alison Little tells us "life sciences companies face increasingly high demands from payers to prove the value of their products in terms of improved patient outcomes and lower costs. This requires not only clinical and analytical rigor, but increased focus on account management and strategy. This is a significant part of the commercial model for the pharma, biotech and medical device sectors, which need to evolve to compete in the future.  These are dramatic changes in bringing drugs to market and are far removed from the blockbuster model of marketing drugs with large direct-to-consumer advertising budgets and extensive physician detailing. Newer brand name drugs are treating much more complex medical conditions and have more stringent handling and administration requirements than those a decade ago. Pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies need to consider 'beyond the pill' services to help with patient engagement and helping them adhere to treatment."

Their report cites challenges for the industry including a paltry one percent annual growth rate for top 25 life sciences companies in 2014, down from double digits five years ago; and that seventy percent of recent brand launches underperformed analyst forecasts.

Without further adieu, here’s The ten “Imperatives for Commercial Transformation” they elaborate on, in their report:

1. Use commercial tactics, not clinical data, to differentiate new products
2. Elevate pricing and contracting within the organization
3. Take a more holistic approach to stakeholder mapping and prioritization
4. Base sales models on a collaborative approach to improving outcomes
5. Play a larger role in the industry transformation from “volume to value”
6. Support providers in improving quality and patient satisfaction
7. Leverage data and analytics to enhance commercial strategies
8. Allocate commercial resources optimally across markets and brands
9. Evolve performance metrics and incentives to reflect new realities
10. Drive the transformation agenda throughout the enterprise\

The author’s sum up where the industry needs go from here:  “Pharmaceutical companies need to transform their commercial models so that they can continue to thrive. In our evolving healthcare ecosystem, power centers are shifting, quantifiable outcomes are expected, and companies must demonstrate value for every healthcare dollar spent. We are approaching a tipping point when pharmaceutical companies, no matter the size or therapeutic focus, will no longer be able to view commercial transformation as an aspiration. Instead, they will need to recognize that it is a critical imperative.”

PwC and Milliman Examination of Medical Cost Trends

by Clive Riddle, June 10, 2015

PwC projects a medical cost trend for 2016 of 6.5%, netting down to 4.5% after benefit design changes. Milliman tells us that the 2015 actual trend was 6.3%, up from 5.4% in 2014.

PwC’s Health Research Institute this week released their tenth annual Behind the Numbers report, which includes a “projection for the coming year’s medical cost trend based on analysis of medical costs in the large employer insurance market. In compiling data for 2016, HRI interviewed industry executives, health policy experts and health plan actuaries whose companies cover more than 100 million employer based members.

Milliman released their fifteenth annual Milliman Medical Index report two weeks ago, which is “an actuarial analysis of the projected total cost of healthcare for a hypothetical family of four covered by an employer-sponsored preferred provider organization (PPO) plan. Unlike many other healthcare cost reports, the MMI measures the total cost of healthcare benefits, not just the employer’s share of the costs, and not just premiums. The MMI only includes healthcare costs. It does not include health plan administrative expenses or profit loads.”

With respect to 2015, Milliman found “the cost of healthcare for a typical American family of four covered by an average employer-sponsored preferred provider organization (PPO) plan is $24,671”, up from $23,215 in 2014. The 2015 family costs works out to $2,055 on a monthly basis.

Milliman emphasizes the importance of the role the Rx costs play in the mix. They note “prescription drug costs spiked significantly, growing by 13.6% from 2014 to 2015. Growth over the previous five years averaged 6.8%. The 2015 spike resulted from the introduction of new specialty drugs as well as price increases in both brand and generic name drugs, increases in use of compound medicines, and other causes. Since the MMI’s inception in 2001, prescription drugs have increased by 9.4% on average, exceeding the 7.7% average trend for all other services. Prescription drug costs now comprise 15.9% of total healthcare spending for our family of four, up from 13.2% in 2001.”

Milliman also highlights the role of cost-sharing, citing that the “total employee cost (payroll deductions plus out-of-pocket expenses) increased by approximately 43% from 2010 to 2015, while employer costs increased by 32%. Of the $24,671 in total healthcare costs for this typical family, $10,473 is paid by the family, $6,408 through payroll deductions, and $4,065 in out-of-pocket expenses incurred at point of care.”

PwC also keys on these two issues for 2016 as well, with drugs as an inflator, and cost-sharing as a deflator of the medical trend.  PwC spotlighted two inflators of the 2016 medical trend: (1) New specialty drugs entering the market in 2015 and 2016 will continue to push health spending growth upward; and (2) Major cyber-security breaches are forcing health companies to step up investments to guard personal health data, adding to the overall cost of delivering care.

PwC notes three factors that serve to "deflate" the 2016 medical cost trend: (1) The Affordable Care Act’s looming “Cadillac tax” on high-priced plans which is accelerating cost-shifting from employers to employees to reduce costs; (2) Greater adoption of “virtual care” technology that can be more efficient and convenient than traditional medical care; and (3) New health advisers helping to steer consumers to more efficient healthcare.

PwC also comments on the longer range medical trend perspective, citing four key cost growth factors H observed over the past decade:

• The healthcare-spending trajectory has leveled off but is not declining;
• Cost sharing slows consumer use of health services;
• Curtailing inpatient care lowers costs; and
• The ACA has had minimal direct effect on employer health costs.