Search This Blog

Wednesday, June 26, 2019

Supreme Court ACA Reimbursement Case Will Have Minimal Effect On Big Insurers

A Supreme Court case tackling whether the federal government must reimburse health insurers that lost money participating in the Affordable Care Act is worth billions collectively and will be closely watched — but the outcome is unlikely to have a big impact on the insurers’ bottom lines.

What’s At Stake

The companies say the government owes them about $12 billion after Congress declined to fund a program meant to entice them to participate in the ACA, also known as Obamacare.
The companies were agreeing to take customers with unknown risk, so the original law envisioned reimbursements for companies that lost significant money. But Republicans quickly began calling reimbursements a “bailout” and canceled them.
While the overall dollar amounts the companies were denied is significant — and some companies dropped out of ACA after being shorted — it’s a small part of most remaining companies’ overall finances. Some have already moved on.
At least one of the largest health insurers, Humana Inc HUM 0.07%, has already written off about $583 million that it had expected, according to Modern Healthcare.
Other large, publicly traded health insurers have also written off the uncollected money, Leerink Partners LLC analyst Ana Gupte told The Wall Street Journal.
Now, whatever the justices decide, the case is “not impacting the balance sheet” at those companies, Gupte said. If they do win, the payout would be “found money,” she said.

Profits Are Back

There’s also been a turn in the ACA marketplace: insurers are starting to again see profits.
The companies increased rates significantly in the early years to deal with high costs and are now starting to make money on ACA customers, and rate hikes are slowing.
In states where insurers have made rate filings for 2020, several are averaging single-digit percentage increases. In Maryland, the average is negative, a 2.9% premium decrease.

Case Background

The risk corridor program was meant to coax insurers to provide ACA coverage by having the federal government cover some losses of companies that had the highest payouts.
Some of the money came from other insurers — those that profited heavily in the program had to fork over some profits to those that lost.
But the amount coming in from profitable insurers was never enough to meet the claims by companies losing money.
When the government decided not to make up the difference, the shortfall was a big reason for the large premium hikes in the early years of Obamacare.
Insurers who were expecting the risk corridor subsidy payments, including Moda Health Plan Inc., of Portland, Oregon, Maine Community Health Options and Land of Lincoln Mutual Health Insurance, filed suit.
Initially a claims judge agreed with them, but a federal appeals court ruled last year that Congress was within its right to change its mind on the payments.
Bob Herman
✔@bobjherman
Big news: SCOTUS is taking up the ACA risk corridors case. GOP’s decision to stymie that program arguably did the most damage to the ACA marketplaces. https://www.axios.com/supreme-court-affordable-care-act-insurers-payments-f8231a0c-c4f2-42b4-a509-3d4c7b17eb3b.html 

Supreme Court will hear insurers’ suit over Affordable Care Act payments

The case involves $12 billion insurers say they’re owed.
axios.com
The health insurance industry argues ACA premiums were intentionally kept low by states because the companies could expect reimbursement for losses through the risk corridor program.
While large publicly traded insurers aren’t necessarily relying on reimbursements now, smaller ones could see their ability to participate in the ACA compromised, and some have dropped out of the ACA because of the decision not to make the payments.
And some of the not-for-profit ACA co-op insurers collapsed because the payments didn’t come.
The end of the payments “compromises those companies’ ability to continue providing health insurance coverage, transfers costs to consumers … and undermines Congress’s stated goal in adopting the ACA — providing health insurance coverage for millions of Americans who previously were uninsured,” an industry group said in a brief supporting the plaintiffs.
Even for some smaller insurers, the money they claim is owed to them would be small.
For example, another company that originally sued, Sioux Falls, South Dakota-based Sanford Health, said it was owed $9 million — in a year in which its operating revenue was over $4 billion.
The case, which combined individual lawsuits from the three plaintiffs, will be heard during the court’s next term, which starts in October.

Higher intake of linoleic acid may reduce type 2 diabetes risk

Intake of linoleic acid (LA) is inversely associated with the risk for type 2 diabetes, according to a study published in the June issue of Diabetes Care.
Geng Zong, Ph.D., from the Chinese Academy of Sciences in China, and colleagues used data from 83,648 women participating in the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS; 1980-2012), 88,610 women from NHSII (1991-2013), and 41,771 men from the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study (1986-2012) to examine the association between intakes of n-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) and type 2 risk. There were 18,442 type 2 diabetes cases during 4.93 million person-years of follow-up.
Dietary n-6 PUFAs accounted for an average of 4.4 percent to 6.8 percent of  and consisted primarily of linoleic acid (at least 98 percent). When extreme n-6 PUFA quintiles (highest versus lowest) were compared in multivariate-adjusted models, the hazard ratio for type 2 diabetes risk was 0.91 (Ptrend = 0.002) for total n-6 PUFAs and 0.92 (Ptrend = 0.01) for LA. In a model allowing for isocaloric substitution, type 2 diabetes risk was 14 percent lower when LA isocalorically replaced saturated fats (5 percent of energy; P = 0.002), 17 percent lower when substituting for trans fats (2 percent energy; P < 0.0001), and 9 percent lower when substituting for carbohydrates (5 percent energy; P = 0.047). There was no impact on  when n-3 PUFAs or monounsaturated fats were replaced with LA.
“Our study provides additional evidence that LA intake is inversely associated with risk of type 2 diabetes, especially when replacing saturated fatty acids, , or carbohydrates,” the authors write.
Several authors disclosed ties to Unilever, and one disclosed ties to the California Walnut Commission.

Explore further

More information: Abstract/Full Text (subscription or payment may be required)

Heart risk raised by sitting in front of the TV, not by sitting at work

Sitting for long periods of time has been linked to increased risk of cardiovascular disease and early death, but a new study suggests that not all types of sitting are equally unhealthy.
The study, led by researchers at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, found that leisure-time sitting (while watching TV)—but not sitting at work—was associated with a greater risk of heart disease and death among the study’s more than 3,500 participants. The study also found that moderate-to- may reduce or eliminate the harmful effects of sedentary television watching.
“Our findings show that how you spend your time outside of work may matter more when it comes to heart health,” study author Keith M. Diaz, Ph.D., assistant professor of behavioral medicine at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons and a certified exercise physiologist. “Even if you have a job that requires you to sit for long periods of time, replacing the time you spend sitting at home with strenuous exercise could reduce your risk of heart disease and death.”
The study was published online today in the Journal of the American Heart Association.
Background
A growing body of research shows that people who are sedentary—especially those who sit for long, uninterrupted periods of time—have a higher risk of cardiovascular disease and death.
But most previous studies did not follow people over time, making it difficult to draw conclusions about the relationship between sedentary behavior and health risk. These studies have included mainly people of European descent rather than African Americans, a group that has a higher risk of heart disease compared with whites. Previous studies also measured physical activity using an activity monitor, which is unable to distinguish between different types of sedentary behavior.
What the Study Found
The new study followed 3,592 people, all African Americans, living in Jackson, Miss., for almost 8.5 years. The participants reported how much time they typically spent sitting while watching TV and during work. They also reported how much time they spent exercising in their down time.
The participants who had logged the most TV-viewing hours (4 or more hours a day) had a 50% greater risk of cardiovascular events and death compared to those who watched the least amount of TV (less than 2 hours a day).
In contrast, those who sat the most at work had the same health risks as those who sat the least.
Even for the most dedicated TV watchers, moderate to vigorous —such as walking briskly or doing aerobic exercise—reduced the risk of heart attacks, stroke, or death. No increased risk of heart attack, stroke, or  was seen in people who watched TV for 4 or more hours a day and engaged in 150 minutes or more of exercise a week.
Why Does the Type of Sitting Matter?
In a previous study, Diaz found that excessive sitting is linked to worse health outcomes, and even more so when sitting occurs in lengthy, uninterrupted bouts.
“It may be that most people tend to watch television for hours without moving, while most workers get up from their desk frequently,” Diaz says. “The combination of eating a large meal such as dinner and then sitting for hours could also be particularly harmful.”
“More research is needed, but it’s possible that just taking a short break from your TV time and going for a walk may be enough to offset the harm of leisure-time sitting,” adds Diaz. “Almost any type of exercise that gets you breathing harder and your  beating faster may be beneficial.”
And although occupational sitting was less problematic, Diaz notes that the same approach to movement applies at work. “We recognize that it isn’t easy for some workers, like truck drivers, to take breaks from sitting, but everyone else should make a regular habit of getting up from their desks. For those who can’t, our findings show that what you do outside of work may be what really counts.”
The researchers suspect that the study’s findings may be applicable to anyone who is sedentary, even though the study focused on African Americans.
What’s Next
In future studies, Diaz will examine why TV watching may be the most harmful sedentary behavior and whether the timing of sedentary behavior around dinner time could be a contributing factor.
The study is titled, “Types of Sedentary Behavior and Risk of Cardiovascular Events and Mortality in African-Americans: The Jackson Heart Study.”

Can Facebook improve your mental health?

Contrary to popular belief, using social media and the internet regularly could improve mental health among adults and help fend off serious psychological distress, such as depression and anxiety, finds a new Michigan State University study.
Communication technologies and make it easier to maintain relationships and access health information, which could explain it, says Keith Hampton, professor of media and information at Michigan State University.
So why the bad rap?
Because until now, adults haven’t been the focus of much research on the subject, Hampton said. Instead, most studies on social media have focused on youth and college students, and the effects could be explained by life stages, rather than .
“Taking a snapshot of the anxiety felt by young people today and concluding that a whole generation is at risk because of social media ignores more noteworthy social changes, such as the lingering effects of the Great Recession, the rise in single child families, older and more protective parents, more kids going to college and rising student debt,” he said.
So, Hampton set out to study more mature populations, analyzing data from more than 13,000 relationships from adult participants in the Panel Study of Income Dynamics—the world’s longest-running household survey. He used 2015 and 2016 data, which included a series of questions about the use of  and .
He found social media users are 63 percent less likely to experience serious psychological distress from one year to the next, including major depression or serious anxiety. Having extended family members on social media further reduced psychological distress, so long as their family member’s  was not in decline.
The study, published in the Journal of Computer Mediated-Communication, challenges the notion that , mobile technologies and the internet contribute to a mental health crisis in the United States.
Other key findings:
  • Someone who uses a social networking site is 1.63 times more likely to avoid serious psychological distress.
  • The extent to which communication technologies affect psychological distress varies according to the type and amount of technologies people and their extended family members use.
  • Changes to the mental health of family members affect the psychological distress experienced by other family, but only if both  are connected on a social networking site.
“Today, we have these ongoing, little bits of information popping up on our cell phones and Facebook feeds, and that ongoing contact might matter for things like mental health,” Hampton said.


More information: Journal of Computer Mediated-CommunicationDOI: 10.1093/jcmc/zmz010/5521084 , https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jcmc/zmz010/5521084

Is San Francisco’s vaping ban backed by science?

San Francisco has decided to ban the sale of e-cigarettes in 2020, hoping to curb a surge in vaping among adolescents. But is the policy backed up by the available evidence?
How harmful is vaping?
Unlike tobacco cigarettes, e-cigarettes do not “burn.” The devices, which have been available in the US since 2006, work instead by heating up a liquid that then turns into vapor and is inhaled.
Because of this, e-cigarette users don’t get exposed to the estimated 7,0000 chemical constituents present in combustible cigarettes, and vaping is generally believed to be safer than smoking.
The liquids do, however, contain nicotine, which has been studied for decades and is known to be highly addictive.
They also contain a variety of other constituents classed as “potentially harmful” according to a 2018 study compiled by the US National Academy of Sciences requested by Congress.
Though many of the flavorings in e-liquids are recognized as safe, their toxicity was studied for oral consumption in food and not inhalation, it said.
There is also “substantial evidence” that the vapor contains traces of metals, either from the coil used to heat the liquid, or other parts of the device.
Another potential red flag, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is the presence of diacetyl, which is used to add a butter flavoring to microwave popcorn but has been linked to a serious but relatively rare lung disease.
For the time being, there is “no available evidence” to show whether or not e-cigarettes use is associated with cancer, said the NAS report.
But there’s a caveat. While experts generally believe vaping is a less toxic alternative to smoking, “the implications for long-term effects on morbidity and mortality are not yet clear,” and would require decades of more data and studies to know for certain.
Can it help smokers quit?
Market leading maker Juul’s response to the San Francisco ban was that it would “drive former adult smokers who successfully switched to vapor products back to deadly cigarettes.”
Are they right about that?
A study published in February in the New England Journal of Medicine on a group of 886 patients in Britain’s National Health Service found the claim to be true.
The one-year abstinence rate among  users was 18 percent, compared to 9.9 percent among a group who used other nicotine replacement products like gum or patches.
The conversions are not, however, all in one direction.
A slew of recent studies have found that, among adolescents, e-cigarettes effectively provide a gateway toward full-fledged smoking.
Authorities are worried that decades of declining smoking rates among this demographic could go up in smoke as a result of these devices.
Regulation versus prohibition
The vaping industry is adamant it doesn’t want to see underage people using its products and more must be done to prevent their sale. E-cigarettes are already illegal to sell in the US to people under 18 or 21, depending on the state.
But, the sector argues, bans are a poor policy choice because they deprive adults addicted to smoking of a valuable tool.
“To deprive those smokers from access to e-cigarettes, which we know are substantially less harmful, I think is a terrible decision, ” Neil McKeganey, of the UK-based Center for Substance Use Research based, which is partly funded by the industry, told AFP.
The irony is that the sale of alcohol, cigarettes and cannabis will remain legal in San Francisco for those over 21.
The risks associated with all three are well studied. For alcohol, these include liver disease, high blood pressure and heart disease, numerous cancers. For cigarettes, heart disease, stroke, lung and various other cancers.
Numerous papers meanwhile have explored the risks of cannabis particularly on the juvenile brain.
In place of bans, makers want to see tighter regulation.
There is a lot of work to be done: an analysis of Californian vendors published Monday in the medical journal JAMA found that almost half of tobacco and vape shops did not ID young customers looking to buy vape products.

Explore further

Patients’ out-of-pocket costs increased up to 14% in 2018

Patients’ out-of-pocket costs for inpatient services increased by 14% on average between 2017 and 2018, according to a new report from TransUnion Healthcare.
Revenue-cycle management provider TransUnion revealed its findings Tuesday during the Healthcare Financial Management Association’s annual conference in Orlando, Fla. The company tracks patients’ out-of-pocket costs annually across its roughly 1,800 hospital and health system clients.
Last year, patients who received inpatient care saw the biggest hikes in their out-of-pocket costs. Patients’ deductibles and co-pays averaged $4,659 for an inpatient visit in 2018, compared with $4,086 in 2017.
Outpatient care saw a noteworthy uptick of its own. Patients’ out-of-pocket costs averaged $1,109 for an outpatient visit in 2018, up 12% compared with $990 in 2017.
In 2018, the average out-of-pocket bill for a trip to the emergency room was $617, up 7% from $577 in 2017, TransUnion found.
“This trend is increasing at a pretty alarming rate,” said David Wojczynski, TransUnion’s executive vice president of healthcare.
While some research focuses on out-of-pocket costs for self-pay and commercially insured patients, TransUnion’s included self-pay, commercially insured and Medicare patients, including those with Medicare Advantage plans, said Jonathan Wiik, TransUnion’s healthcare strategy principal. Self-pay patients took on most of the increase in out-of-pocket responsibility, he said.
The study also found 59% of patients last year had an average out-of-pocket expense of $501 to $1,000 for a healthcare visit. That was up significantly from 39% in 2017. And the number of patients whose out-of-pocket expenses were $500 or less decreased from 49% in 2017 to 36% in 2018.
Inpatient care is seeing the highest patient responsibility increases because it’s the most expensive and has the highest variability, Wiik said. It’s also because hospitals tend to give inpatient reimbursement first priority when negotiating price increases with insurers, he said.
The out-of-pocket cost increases on the outpatient side are driven by volume and price increases, Wiik said.
Parallon, HCA Healthcare’s revenue-cycle subsidiary, has observed patients’ co-pays and deductibles increasing between 6% and 8% annually for at least seven years, said Eric Ward, Parallon’s CEO.
“Our payments are not growing 6% to 8% per year, so it creates an issue for providers,” he said. “Insurance companies are shifting the balance to us.”
The trend has prompted Parallon to place more emphasis on collecting at point-of-service and on self-service collection so that paying a bill is as convenient as possible, Ward said.
Not-for-profit health system Catholic Health Initiatives, which recently completed its merger to form CommonSpirit Health, started working with payment solutions provider Flywire Health in early 2018 to try to improve their patients’ financial experiences, including adding online payments, mobile payments and payment plans.
“The patient portion has gone up, and that’s why we want to customize this so that patients have more options to pay in full,” Leslie Richard, CHI’s national director of revenue cycle, said in an interview.
Currently, online payments make up 65% of CHI’s payments, 40% of which are done from mobile devices.
Next, CHI plans to offer pre-service estimates. The trouble with that is making sure they don’t deviate too much from the patients’ actual bill. If that happens, the patient experience will suffer, Richards told the audience during a Monday session at the HFMA conference in Orlando.
Asked by an audience member whether CHI will honor its pre-service estimates, Richard said that is yet to be determined.
“At this point, I don’t know, honestly,” she said.

Senate health panel may change surprise billing proposals ahead of floor vote

The Senate health committee approved its major healthcare package on Wednesday, but with one change to the proposed ban on surprise medical billing and potentially more to come ahead of a full Senate vote expected later this month.
As it stands, the provision on surprise medical bills would cap out-of-network physician or hospital charges at a rate already negotiated by insurers. An amendment to that provision came from Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and would make insurers post all the physician and hospital options in their networks so patients could see their choices of doctor before deciding on a plan.
But Cassidy and other colleagues—who were driving forces behind an arbitration model to settle any payment disputes between physicians, hospitals and insurers—made it clear they will keep working to move the bill toward a more provider-friendly form as hospital and physician groups continue to strongly oppose the benchmark rate cap. The Senate’s benchmark rate proposal tracks closely with the House Energy and Commerce bill, which has yet to have a panel vote.
Just before the Senate panel voted on the legislation, titled the Lower Health Care Costs Act, committee Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) promised he would keep working with Cassidy and other senators who still want to appoint an outside arbiter to field payment disputes.
Specialty physician groups, who don’t want any absolute cap on what they can bill for out-of-network care, are intensely pushing for this policy.
After the committee approved the amended legislation, Alexander told reporters that work on the bill will continue over the next few weeks.
“Sen. Cassidy, as well as Sens. (Lisa) Murkowski and (Maggie) Hassan, have made some very strong arguments about the possibility of unintended consequences, especially in rural or underserved areas, of the requirement of an absolute benchmark,” Alexander said.
He added: “There clearly are possibilities to continue to improve the bill and move in the direction Sen. Cassidy wants to go.”
In the amended bill text released on Monday, the health committee leaders had already tweaked the surprise billing provisions to make HHS write its regulations according to geographic area, with rural healthcare access in mind. The regulations could also be periodically updated based on HHS assessments of how it’s working.
With the lobbying pressure already intense, the next few weeks will likely fuel more tension until the legislation finally goes to the floor. Insurers and hospitals have pushed back against the bill’s transparency provisions and the American Hospital Association has asked all its member hospitals to urge their senators to oppose the sweeping contract reform proposals as well as the benchmark rate cap for surprise medical bills.
Cassidy, Hassan and Murkowski have framed their push for an arbitration option for balance billing disputes as critical to keep fair reimbursement rates for rural hospitals or prevent them from getting squeezed out of insurer networks. This claim is pushed by hospital and physician lobbyists, although policy analysts working on the issue view it with skepticism.
Murkowski emphasized her stance during the committee vote as she discussed the changes she wants to see made to the bill.
“I fear the direction that we head when we see a situation in rural America where people cannot get basic healthcare services because there are no facilities,” she said. “We cannot get to a system where only people who live in urban areas can access healthcare. That’s just not right.”
The rural healthcare claim drew skepticism from Loren Adler, associate director of USC-Brookings Schaeffer Initiative for Health Policy, who has worked extensively on the balance billing issue.
“There’s no reason to think that surprise billing solutions, even aggressive ones, would have any impact one way or the other on the vast majority of rural hospitals,” Adler said after the committee vote.
He argued that only rural hospitals that are “actively getting paid by doctors to allow them to surprise bill patients” would potentially see an impact.
“Is that really the funding mechanism for rural hospitals we want, one that only benefits the rural hospitals willing to bankrupt patients?” he said, contending that the benchmark rate cap proposal isn’t likely to have any significant impact.
“Most rural hospitals are the only one in their markets, so the median in-network rate for their anesthesiologists would be exactly what they get paid today, and hence they’d see no changes under (the health committee’s) proposed solution,” Adler said.
Murkowski also asked the committee to reopen debate over a late addition that extends the cap on out-of-network charges to air ambulances. Air ambulances play an outsize role in transporting patients around Alaska.
The air ambulance industry was surprised last week when the committee formally introduced the legislation and included them in the surprise billing ban. This led to a lobbying effort launched against the provision on Monday through the so-called Save Our Air Medical Resources (SOAR) Campaign.
Now that the legislation has passed out of committee, Alexander is still eyeing a Senate floor vote before August. As of Monday, the package incorporates a priority for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to raise the legal age to buy tobacco products to 21.
On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee will report its own package of bills on drug pricing. The Senate Finance Committee has yet to introduce its expected legislation as leaders haven’t been able to agree on key provisions.
The only members of the health committee to vote against the legislation were Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) who are running for president, and Rand Paul (R-Ky.). Warren and Sanders did not attend the panel markup.