Colorado Health Insurance Insider

No-cost broker assistance.

You are here: Home / Archives for Providers

Providers

Replicating Grand Junction’s Healthcare System

By

[…] This is a scenario that I could see being implemented even without a monopoly by one health insurance carrier. Grand Junction aside, if we look at the whole state of Colorado, the top 70% of the health insurance market is comprised of ten carriers. I wonder if it would be possible for medical offices to set up agreements whereby they pool money received from those ten carriers and from Medicare, Medicaid, and CHP+. Then instead of paying physicians directly from the health insurer depending on the insurance coverage of each specific patient, the doctors could simply be paid either a salary or an average reimbursement for each patient, regardless of which insurance that patient had. This would require some restructuring in terms of how medical billing is done, but it would allow medical offices to continue to negotiate competitive contracts with private health insurers (and the higher the contracted rate, the more total dollars the medical practice would have to put into their payment pool).

One of the major factors that contributes to the success of the system in Grand Junction is that doctors there are ok with receiving lower total incomes than they would in other areas that don’t function the way Grand Junction does. When you pool Medicare and Medicaid payments together with private health insurance payments, the public health insurance reimbursements drag down the average payment. In order to make sure that people with public health insurance are receiving equal access to healthcare (which they currently do not, especially those with Medicaid), the per-patient average reimbursement for physicians would have to decrease, since it would mean that more lower-paying patients would be treated. The caveat that doctors would have to be willing to work for a little less money is especially true of specialists, which is where the highest incomes are. […]

Hospital Payment Assistance Program Will Benefit Colorado’s Uninsured Population

By

[…] SB12-134 will result in some significant changes in terms of how uninsured patients are billed when they receive treatment in a hospital (note that the bill only applies to hospitals – outpatient clinics, medical offices, and other non-hospital providers will not be impacted). Most people are aware that private health insurance carriers have negotiated rates that are lower than the “retail” price for medical services. Medicare and Medicaid have even lower negotiated prices. The reason SB12-134 is so important is that uninsured patients (usually those who have the least ability to pay medical bills) typically get charged the retail price. There is usually a cash discount available, but most uninsured patients typically don’t have enough cash sitting around to pay the whole bill up front. So – assuming they are able to pay the bill at all – they often end up on a payment plan (sometimes through a third party where interest rates can rival those of credit cards) and ultimately pay far more than any insurance carrier would pay.

SB12-134 applies to medically necessary care provided to uninsured patients who have a family income of not more than 250% of the federal poverty level ($57,625 for a family of four in 2012). And SB12-134 applies only if the care is not eligible for coverage through the Colorado Indigent Care Program (CICP). For those patients, hospitals may not charge more than the lowest rate they have negotiated with a private health insurance plan. This is a huge change from the status quo.

SB12-134 also requires hospitals to clearly state their financial assistance, charity care, and payment plan information on their website, in patient waiting areas, directly to patients before they are discharged, and in writing on the patients’ billing statements. Hospitals will also have to allow a patient’s bill to go at least 30 days past due before initiating collections procedures. […]

Who Pays The Bill If A Patient Checks Out Of The Hospital Against Medical Orders?

By

[…] None of that is true however. As long as the treatment provided is a covered service on the patient’s health insurance plan, and as long as any required pre-authorization was taken care of, the health insurance carrier does not withhold payment simply because the patient acted against medical orders and checked out of the hospital. This is also true of other forms of non-compliance: for example, patients who don’t fill their prescriptions or those who resume activity too soon after surgery will generally find that their health insurance still covers their bills according to the language of the contract.

If “never events” on the patient end of the scale were cause for claims denials, I have a feeling that there would be a lot more denied claims. Health insurance carriers can and do charge higher premiums for various choices people make (like smoking, for example). But once a policy is in force, and premiums are paid on time – and assuming the application was completed honestly – the coverage is usually not dependent on the patient following doctors orders

A Doctor Who Cooks Brussels Sprouts For A Patient

By

[…] Dr. Flansbaum’s article is a must-read if you’re interested in the socioeconomic factors that contribute to obesity and “lifestyle” health conditions. Colorado has the distinction of being the least-obese state in the US (although we recently passed the 20% mark in terms of the percentage of adults who are obese). I’m sure this is due in large part to the state’s relatively affluent population, the plethora of outdoor activities available (combined with 300 days of sunshine each year), and the plentiful food choices available. Of course there’s a bit of a chicken-or-the-egg question too… are there plenty of healthful food choices available here because the people who live here demand them, or are there healthy people here because of all the good food options we have?

Cigna And CSHP Collaborating On An Accountable Care Program

By

[…] The collaboration between Cigna and CSHP will focus on improving patient outcomes, making healthcare more accessible and affordable, and improving patient satisfaction. One of the key components of the Cigna program is registered nurses working at the medical offices who will serve as care coordinators. These care coordinators will follow up with recently hospitalized patients to try to avoid preventable re-hospitalizations (costly and definitely not likely to result in a satisfied patient). They will also work with patients who have chronic illnesses to make sure the patients are filling their prescriptions, receiving needed office visits and screenings, and getting referrals to disease management programs that could help to prevent the conditions from worsening. The hands-on approach that the medical offices will be taking is likely to result in fewer re-hospitalizations and better overall compliance with medical advice.

Hopefully the program will also provide guidance for patients who aren’t filling prescriptions because they cannot afford to do so (for example, a referral to pharmaceutical company programs that provide free medications to people who can’t afford them), and help to address issues like lack of transportation or inability to fit medical office visits into inflexible work schedules. Some people truly just need a reminder to go get a screening test or refill a prescription. Others have more significant obstacles preventing them from doing so. […]

Emergency Room Overcrowding Expected To Worsen In The Coming Decade

By

[…] The results of these studies are a convincing argument in favor of the model that has been used in Grand Junction, Colorado since the 70’s. Instead of being reimbursed on an individual basis by each patient’s health insurance carrier, doctors in Grand Junction agreed long ago to simply pool the reimbursements from private health insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid. From that pool of money, the doctors are paid equally for every patient they see, regardless of whether that patient has private health insurance or Medicaid. Medicaid reimbursements are lower than those of private health insurance, so it’s understandable that many doctors prefer to see patients with private health insurance. But the system in Grand Junction focuses on what’s best for the community and does away with the financial incentive to see privately insured patients rather than those with Medicaid.

Perhaps implementation of a similar model in other cities could help to improve Medicaid patients’ access to primary care and cut down on ER overcrowding.

Will Healthcare IT Lead To Lower Healthcare Costs?

By

[…] My guess is that increased HIT will eventually (after the hiccups and bugs are worked out) result in more efficient care, better coordination of care between multiple doctors, fewer medical errors, and more streamlined health insurance claim processing. After reading the articles by McCormick et al and Mostashari, I think it’s clear that there’s some controversy in terms of whether HIT will lead to lower costs. I do think that HIT is coming one way or the other. It’s 2012. Most Americans are walking around with a touch screen mini computer in their pockets. We expect lightening fast internet connections and instant access to virtually any data we can think of. HIT will have to keep up, simply because technology keeps improving and it has to follow suit. But we’d be wise to carefully consider empirical data as much as possible in order to implement systems that have the best chance of success in terms of improving care and also lowering costs.

A Need For Evidence Based Medicine

By

[…] One of my favorite articles in this edition of Grand Rounds comes from Dr. Elaine Schattner, writing about a study that found little rhyme or reason in terms of follow-up surgery rates for breast cancer patients who initially opted for lumpectomies. It appears that a breast cancer patient’s surgical treatment after a lumpectomy is often based more on the surgeon involved than the medical facts of the case. Although evidence-based medicine has gotten a lot of talk lately, the study that Dr. Schattner discusses highlights an example of how difficult it can be for a patient to receive evidence-based care. And we know how hard it is for patients to be truly informed consumers when it comes to healthcare. Even if they’re able to get basic information about pricing, it can be very difficult for a patient to realistically determine a treatment path – which is why most patients rely on their doctors for advice, especially for major illnesses like breast cancer.

Preauthorizations And Legal-eze: Why Health Insurers Have To Use Them

By

[…] Starting in 2014, health insurance will be guaranteed issue and all of us will be required to have coverage. But until then, individual health insurance is priced based on medical underwriting and (in most cases) slightly less comprehensive benefits than group policies. That’s why it’s less expensive to have an individual policy than a group policy or a guaranteed issue policy like CoverColorado. If health insurance carriers (both individual and group) don’t go over their claims closely and utilize preauthorizations, they run the risk of being defrauded – which will only drive premiums higher than they already are. If they don’t use the specific legal-eze required by state regulations, they will run afoul of the Division of Insurance.

There are plenty of examples of health insurance carriers using unfair or deceptive practices. We’re lucky in Colorado to have a strong Division of Insurance that works hard to protect consumers. Regulations that protect patients and insureds from unfair business practices are largely beneficial (and tend to weed out the shady insurance carriers). But Jaan’s article highlights the fact that health insurance carriers also have to protect themselves. If they don’t, they will end up with premiums that are far higher than the rest of their competition – and that isn’t sustainable.

Too Much Paperwork

By

[…] I don’t know what the solution is here. On the one hand, we need regulation. We know that without it, there are way too many cracks into which all sorts of things can fall. And regulation is meaningless without having a way to objectively measure compliance and progress. But when we reach the point where doctors feel that they’re spending more of their time doing clerical work (eg, filling out compliance paperwork, documenting everything for their lawyers and for their patients’ health insurance carriers, etc.) than interacting with patients, perhaps it’s time to re-evaluate.

This is especially important as the ACA rolls out over the next few years. One of the goals is to make healthcare more efficient. But if we inadvertently end up bogging down the healthcare professionals in a sea of red tape and bureaucracy, efficiency is likely to decline. Hopefully doctors and nurses and other healthcare professionals – who work in the healthcare field on a daily basis – can be consulted to provide input on how best to measure compliance with well-intentioned regulatory programs.

New T.R. Reid Documentary Highlights Greatness In Our Healthcare System

By

[…] Overutilization – driven by supply rather than demand – was another common theme in the program. Basically, that the more healthcare supply we have (eg, scanning machines), the more utilization we have. This accounts for a large part of the huge variation in healthcare costs from one city to another. And in all of the hospitals and medical practices featured on the program, curbing over-utilization has been a high priority. One hospital figured out that blood transfusions during surgery aren’t nearly as necessary as they once thought (and indeed, the patients often do better without them). Given that the total cost of blood transfusions is about $1000/pint (!), that’s quite a cost-saving discovery. In another large clinic, pharmaceutical reps were no longer allowed to visit and they also removed the samples of brand name drugs that once filled their drawers. This was a controversial move, but they analyzed a lot of data provided by their local Blue Cross insurance carrier and found that they could optimize pharmaceutical care for a lot less money – patients had better outcomes and the clinic reduced overall Rx spending by $88/million a year compared with the state average.

The Program also showed and example of how patient-centered medical homes work in the real world. PCMHs are a huge buzz word these days, but the PBS documentary shows one in action, and they did a great job of making it easy for patients to visualize how such a program would work and how it would benefit us – including things like much more face time with doctors, and a reduction in the number of hospitalizations and ER visits. In addition to PCMHs, shared decision making between doctors and patients (another buzz word in healthcare reform) was highlighted as having a positive impact on both utilization and patient satisfaction. […]

Doctors, Patients, and The Exercise Discussion

By

[…] Encouraging people to take responsibility for their health (specifically in terms of what they eat and how much they exercise) could be one of the keys to reducing our out-of-control healthcare spending (and in turn, help to control ever-increasing health insurance premiums). I think that discussions about exercise and nutrition have to become a cornerstone of every preventive care office visit, and hopefully also find a place in visits with specialists. But getting from here to there will take an adjustment of expectations on the part of both patients and their doctors. Kudos to Dr. Schattner for starting the discussion.

Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield’s New Medical Home Program In Colorado

By

[…] I can obviously see how this structure can result in lower costs, and I particularly like the fact that it will be paying primary care doctors for “non-visit” services that are not currently reimbursed (the example given in the press release is “preparing care plans for patients with multiple and complex conditions” but I can see how this could be extended to other areas of care and could help to move away from the current ten minute visit + diagnosis + prescription scenario that is so common). But particular care will need to be taken to make sure that the end result is truly healthier patients, as well as lower healthcare costs.

A measure of patient satisfaction could also be beneficial here. This is a tough one though, as patients might tend to have less of a focus on the overall picture (outcome + cost) and more focus on the factors that directly and immediately impact them, such as outcome and convenience. Cost is a factor for patients, but since most of us have health insurance, we tend to be largely insulated from the immediate costs of our healthcare. We get the annual rate increase notification or a letter from our employer saying that our deductible and copays are going up, but most patients probably don’t consider how their own healthcare usage directly impacts the overall “big picture” of healthcare spending (and thus the resulting health insurance premium hikes). But in general, a program that results in an overall improvement in patient health and lower costs should also end up with satisfied patients. Things like more face-time with their primary care doctor (who is being compensated for keeping the patient healthy, not just fixing problems once they occur) ought to improve patients’ overall perception of the care they are receiving. […]

The Elusive Nature Of Healthcare Costs

By

[…] I’m still a fan of consumer directed health plans, high deductibles, and HSAs. I think that they can be useful tools to help people keep their health insurance premiums as low as possible and also (if an HSA is involved) set aside pre-tax money to cover potential future medical bills. But they are not a panacea. They are probably not a good solution for anyone who has a chronic illness that needs ongoing, expensive care. They don’t work so well for people with very little money who would struggle to cover the relatively high out-of-pocket costs and would not likely be able to fund an HSA. And no matter how great the actual consumer directed health plans are, the fact remains that transparency with regards to healthcare costs is still quite elusive. For some procedures, it can be relatively easy to get a set figure up front in terms of how much it’s going to cost. But much of the time that number can be difficult or impossible to pin down. Obviously, complications can arise in any medical situation (and the resulting increase in costs would make earlier estimates irrelevant). But even without factoring in complications, “shopping around” for healthcare is often an exercise in futility. In order to make consumer directed health plans more effective, there is much work to be done with regards to cost transparency.

Overutilization Of Prescription Drugs

By

[…] Half of all Americans take at least one prescription drug. Prescription costs have skyrocketed over the past couple decades. When we got into this industry ten years ago, we saw lots of individual health insurance policies that offered prescriptions with simple copays based on whether the drug was generic or brand name. These days, nearly all of the carriers in Colorado have separate prescription deductibles (our family’s Anthem policy has a separate $2000 deductible for prescriptions), or ever-increasing prescription copays. And a lot of carriers have added a fourth tier to their prescription categories – drugs in that tier are generally quite pricey and patients generally have to pay a percentage of the cost rather than a flat copay.

We owe it to ourselves to seriously consider whether our over-reliance on prescriptions is actually beneficial in the long run, both from a health perspective and a financial one.

Real-Time Tracking Of Healthcare Costs

By

[…] Obviously we have to avoid cutting corners just for the sake of lowering costs at the expense of patient outcomes (again, including patient outcomes when we compare the cost data would help to prevent this problem). But I have no doubt that there are other healthcare expenses that could be eliminated without compromising patient outcomes. In many cases, the providers might just be unaware of the actual costs that are being incurred – Dr. Fogelson’s idea for a real-time digital tracker would help to keep cost in the front of everyone’s mind.

Grand Rounds – Colorado Fall Colors Edition

By

Henry Stern of InsureBlog brings us an interview with the whistleblower who has brought a lawsuit against LabCorp for allegedly charging a lower price to United HealthCare than to Medicare. The post is particularly interesting because Hank adds his own thoughts after the interview, and he sees things a little differently than Andrew Baker (the whistleblower). Hank agrees that it does look like LabCorp lowered their fees for UHC […]

Increased Medicare Cost Sharing Might Not Be The Best Plan

By

[…] The healthcare providers make recommendations, order tests, perform surgeries… and in general, the patient does what the doctor recommends. And really, isn’t that the way it probably ought to be? Most of us have not been to medical school. When something seems amiss with our health, we need to feel that we can rely on our doctors to tell us the best course of action. Increased cost-sharing tends to increase the number of people who skip healthcare in general – including very necessary care like keeping diabetes and blood pressure under control.

Transferring Costs From Medicaid To Emergency Departments

By

[…] Denying arbitrary “non-emergent” ED claims for Medicaid patients doesn’t seem like a way to actually reduce ED overutilization. Instead, it seems like a way to cut Medicaid costs by increasing the number of unpaid claims that EDs have to write off each year. In order to cover their costs, hospitals will have to further increase prices for privately insured patients. That in turn causes health insurance premium hikes, which leads to calls for negotiations to artificially lower premiums. Where does it end?

A Good Trend In Medicare Spending

By

[…] She specifically addresses Medicare costs, but it stands to reason that the same cost-saving strategies and paradigm shifts will also help to lower healthcare costs that are being reimbursed by private health insurance carriers. Not only do private carriers tend to follow Medicare’s lead, but the focus on value over volume from a provider perspective will benefit everyone, as it’s unlikely to be applied only to Medicare patients.

Negotiating Premiums Doesn’t Lower The Cost Of Healthcare

By

[…] How would it help to have health insurance exchange boards negotiating with health insurance carriers to try to lower premiums – without addressing the root problem, which is the ever-increasing cost of healthcare? […] Much of the focus of the healthcare reform rhetoric has been on health insurance (availability, premiums, etc.), and some important issues have been addressed in the process. But we cannot continue to focus primarily on the cost of health insurance (or try to artificially lower it) without reducing the cost of healthcare.

Thoughts On Direct-Pay PCPs

By

[…] Those are a few of the thoughts that come to mind when I think about direct-pay medical care. I can see pros and cons to the idea, and I’m sure that there are many PCPs who would love the chance to focus more on medicine and less on administration/payer issues. But I think that most PCPs also want to make sure that everyone – regardless of financial status – has realistic access to medical care. And I’m just not sure that would be the case if more PCPs started pulling out of the health insurance networks – especially the networks that serve low income populations.

PVHS and UCH Begin Process Of Creating A Joint Hospital System

By

[…] The merger is expected to provide numerous benefits for both hospital systems, and will presumably make for lower total operating/administrative costs than they would have if they weren’t working together. As health care costs continue to climb, this should help both hospitals continue to provide quality care to their patients. It’s also reasonable to assume that the merger will be beneficial for UCH and PVHS patients, since access to both hospital system’s strengths will likely be available to patients in both Denver and Northern Colorado. […]

Support For Hospital Fees Varies From One State To Another

By

[…] This is a good example of how similar legislation does not necessarily have the same support or outcomes in different states. That’s not to say that the Health Care Affordability Act is universally supported in Colorado – it’s not. But it’s working relatively well as a vehicle to fund Medicaid here and to support Colorado hospitals that treat a large number of uninsured patients.

Is It Even Possible For Patients To Be Consumers?

By

[…] Dr. Perednia makes some excellent points about the inability of patients to be true “consumers”, even in cases where they have their own money on the line. He notes that if you call your doctor’s office to find out the price of a procedure, they won’t be able to tell you because there are too many complexities in the health insurance system for the doctor to give you an accurate idea of what the cost will be. And if you call your health insurance carrier directly […]