Reply
Tue 1 Oct, 2013 09:53 am
September 22, 2013
Lower Health Insurance Premiums to Come at Cost of Fewer Choices
By ROBERT PEAR
NYTimes.com
WASHINGTON — Federal officials often say that health insurance will cost consumers less than expected under President Obama’s health care law. But they rarely mention one big reason: many insurers are significantly limiting the choices of doctors and hospitals available to consumers.
From California to Illinois to New Hampshire, and in many states in between, insurers are driving down premiums by restricting the number of providers who will treat patients in their new health plans.
When insurance marketplaces open on Oct. 1, most of those shopping for coverage will be low- and moderate-income people for whom price is paramount. To hold down costs, insurers say, they have created smaller networks of doctors and hospitals than are typically found in commercial insurance. And those health care providers will, in many cases, be paid less than what they have been receiving from commercial insurers.
Some consumer advocates and health care providers are increasingly concerned. Decades of experience with Medicaid, the program for low-income people, show that having an insurance card does not guarantee access to specialists or other providers.
Consumers should be prepared for “much tighter, narrower networks” of doctors and hospitals, said Adam M. Linker, a health policy analyst at the North Carolina Justice Center, a statewide advocacy group.
“That can be positive for consumers if it holds down premiums and drives people to higher-quality providers,” Mr. Linker said. “But there is also a risk because, under some health plans, consumers can end up with astronomical costs if they go to providers outside the network.”
Insurers say that with a smaller array of doctors and hospitals, they can offer lower-cost policies and have more control over the quality of health care providers. They also say that having insurance with a limited network of providers is better than having no coverage at all.
Cigna illustrates the strategy of many insurers. It intends to participate next year in the insurance marketplaces, or exchanges, in Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Tennessee and Texas.
“The networks will be narrower than the networks typically offered to large groups of employees in the commercial market,” said Joseph Mondy, a spokesman for Cigna.
The current concerns echo some of the criticism that sank the Clinton administration’s plan for universal coverage in 1993-94. Republicans said the Clinton proposals threatened to limit patients’ options, their access to care and their choice of doctors.
At the same time, House Republicans are continuing to attack the new health law and are threatening to hold up a spending bill unless money is taken away from the health care program.
In a new study, the Health Research Institute of PricewaterhouseCoopers, the consulting company, says that “insurers passed over major medical centers” when selecting providers in California, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky and Tennessee, among other states.
“Doing so enables health plans to offer lower premiums,” the study said. “But the use of narrow networks may also lead to higher out-of-pocket expenses, especially if a patient has a complex medical problem that’s being treated at a hospital that has been excluded from their health plan.”
In California, the statewide Blue Shield plan has developed a network specifically for consumers shopping in the insurance exchange.
Juan Carlos Davila, an executive vice president of Blue Shield of California, said the network for its exchange plans had 30,000 doctors, or 53 percent of the 57,000 doctors in its broadest commercial network, and 235 hospitals, or 78 percent of the 302 hospitals in its broadest network.
Mr. Davila said the new network did not include the five medical centers of the University of California or the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center near Beverly Hills.
“We expect to have the broadest and deepest network of any plan in California,” Mr. Davila said. “But not many folks who are uninsured or near the poverty line live in wealthy communities like Beverly Hills.”
Daniel R. Hawkins Jr., a senior vice president of the National Association of Community Health Centers, which represents 9,000 clinics around the country, said: “We serve the very population that will gain coverage — low-income, working class uninsured people. But insurers have shown little interest in including us in their provider networks.”
Dr. Bruce Siegel, the president of America’s Essential Hospitals, formerly known as the National Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems, said insurers were telling his members: “We don’t want you in our network. We are worried about having your patients, who are sick and have complicated conditions.”
In some cases, Dr. Siegel said, “health plans will cover only selected services at our hospitals, like trauma care, or they offer rock-bottom payment rates.”
In New Hampshire, Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, a unit of WellPoint, one of the nation’s largest insurers, has touched off a furor by excluding 10 of the state’s 26 hospitals from the health plans that it will sell through the insurance exchange.
Christopher R. Dugan, a spokesman for Anthem, said that premiums for this “select provider network” were about 25 percent lower than they would have been for a product using a broad network of doctors and hospitals.
Anthem is the only commercial carrier offering health plans in the New Hampshire exchange.
Peter L. Gosline, the chief executive of Monadnock Community Hospital in Peterborough, N.H., said his hospital had been excluded from the network without any discussions or negotiations.
“Many consumers will have to drive 30 minutes to an hour to reach other doctors and hospitals,” Mr. Gosline said. “It’s very inconvenient for patients, and at times it’s a hardship.”
State Senator Andy Sanborn, a Republican who is chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, said, “The people of New Hampshire are really upset about this.”
Many physician groups in New Hampshire are owned by hospitals, so when an insurer excludes a hospital from its network, it often excludes the doctors as well.
David Sandor, a vice president of the Health Care Service Corporation, which offers Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans in Illinois, Montana, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas, said: “In the health insurance exchange, most individuals will be making choices based on costs. Our exchange products will have smaller provider networks that cost less than bigger plans with a larger selection of doctors and hospitals.”
Premiums will vary across the country, but federal officials said that consumers in many states would be able to buy insurance on the exchange for less than $300 a month — and less than $100 a month per person after taking account of federal subsidies.
“Competition and consumer choice are actually making insurance affordable,” Mr. Obama said recently.
Many insurers are cutting costs by slicing doctors’ fees.
Dr. Barbara L. McAneny, a cancer specialist in Albuquerque, said that insurers in the New Mexico exchange were generally paying doctors at Medicare levels, which she said were “often below our cost of doing business, and definitely below commercial rates.”
Outsiders might expect insurance companies to expand their networks to treat additional patients next year. But many insurers see advantages in narrow networks, saying they can steer patients to less expensive doctors and hospitals that provide high-quality care.
Even though insurers will be forbidden to discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions, they could subtly discourage the enrollment of sicker patients by limiting the size of their provider networks.
“If a health plan has a narrow network that excludes many doctors, that may shoo away patients with expensive pre-existing conditions who have established relationships with doctors,” said Mark E. Rust, the chairman of the national health care practice at Barnes & Thornburg, a law firm. “Some insurers do not want those patients who, for medical reasons, require a broad network of providers.”
Wow. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I'm going to want to make sure University of Michigan Medical Center is in the network of whatever plan I take.
If I need a liver transplant or heart surgery or "whatever", I don't want them telling me I have to have it done at the nearest village clinic.
I ******* hate insurance companies!
just sayin'
@JPB,
JPB wrote:I ******* hate insurance companies!
just sayin'
Just avoid having an HMO, at all costs. And whatever hospital you'd want to have major surgery at if you had to have major surgery, make sure that hospital is part of your network.
Also, if you get one of the Blue Cross plans that are part of the "public option" it will come with extra governmental oversight to make sure the corporation behaves itself.
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:JPB wrote:I ******* hate insurance companies!
just sayin'
Just avoid having an HMO, at all costs. And whatever hospital you'd want to have major surgery at if you had to have major surgery, make sure that hospital is part of your network.
Also, if you get one of the Blue Cross plans that are part of the "public option" it will come with extra governmental oversight to make sure the corporation behaves itself.
BTW, if you want to pick the public option, this can help you find it in your state:
http://www.opm.gov/healthcare-insurance/multi-state-plan-program/
http://www.opm.gov/healthcare-insurance/multi-state-plan-program/opm-multi-state-plan-program-fact-sheet/
Rationing the production and distribution of services based on how much each person is willing and able to pay.
Hmmm... Now where have I heard THAT before???
Oh yeah, that's right. It was my microeconomics class. The teacher was singing the praises of the free market for doing exactly it. Rationing goods based on what people can and will pay is part what the glorious invisible hand (i.e. the price system) is supposed to do.
That darned Obama! How dare he give us a system that rations health care similarly to how a market rations goods?
Hey...my mom pays a lower cable bill than my friend, and you know what those bastards at Time Warner do? They give her fewer choices! (Obunga's behind that, too. You heard it here first.)
@Miller,
Miller wrote:
Dr. Barbara L. McAneny, a cancer specialist in Albuquerque, said that insurers in the New Mexico exchange were generally paying doctors at Medicare levels, which she said were “often below our cost of doing business, and definitely below commercial rates.”
A "cost of doing business" that probably includes $500k a year for one Dr. McAneny...
Gee whiz ... she'll have to choose between losing customers and getting by on $400k a year? How sad.
IMO, health insurance companies were never the central problem. Their profit margins were pretty low compared to other industries'. The problem, and the real reason so many people were unable to afford insurance before Obamacare, was that medical costs kept rising at 7% a year. (I don't remember whether that was the exact rate, but it was one of those things, like education, that went up in price relative to the general price level.) Maybe we'll finally see some downward pressure on the prices of medical equipment and services. They certainly can't keep going up the way they have for the last 30 years.
@Kolyo,
Kolyo wrote:Rationing the production and distribution of services based on how much each person is willing and able to pay.
Hmmm... Now where have I heard THAT before???
Oh yeah, that's right. It was my microeconomics class. The teacher was singing the praises of the free market for doing exactly it. Rationing goods based on what people can and will pay is part what the glorious invisible hand (i.e. the price system) is supposed to do.
That darned Obama! How dare he give us a system that rations health care similarly to how a market rations goods?
Hey...my mom pays a lower cable bill than my friend, and you know what those bastards at Time Warner do? They give her fewer choices! (Obunga's behind that, too. You heard it here first.)
Good point on the issue of "you get what you pay for".
But it would be nice if the exchange offered higher-priced policies for those of us who do not like "networks" and are willing to pay for a traditional insurance plan.
Also, this thread is a good warning that people need to
shop carefully and make sure that the plan they pick will let them access a high-end hospital if they need a high-end hospital.
Quote:Also, this thread is a good warning that people need to shop carefully and make sure that the plan they pick will let them access a high-end hospital if they need a high-end hospital
This is an important point, which is often ignored. In Massachusetts, we have many "high end hospitals", but if a Mass resident with insurance from a Mass exchange wants to be hospitalized in NYCity or Minnesota ( Mayo Clinic), then a problem will result.
Those patients who seek chemotherapy in a different State, not of their own residence, may have a difficult time receiving the care they desire.
I think the insurance exchanges should not forbid travel to other States for medical care.
Remember, not all hospitals accept Medicare patients and this is a trend that is likley to increase.
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
JPB wrote:I ******* hate insurance companies!
just sayin'
Just avoid having an HMO, at all costs. And whatever hospital you'd want to have major surgery at if you had to have major surgery, make sure that hospital is part of your network.
Interesting comment about HMOs. In Massachusetts, the HMO plans for BC/BS medicare advantage programs have been significantly higher than the PPO plans. The police in Mass ( State?) have had the PPO plan , the problem being that many physicians will not take patients with this plan. If you're on Medicare, than Medicare will pay the Physicians fees. If however, you don't have Medicare, but only have the PPO plan you could have a problem finding someone/or group to provide with medical services.
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
Wow. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I'm going to want to make sure University of Michigan Medical Center is in the network of whatever plan I take.
If I need a liver transplant or heart surgery or "whatever", I don't want them telling me I have to have it done at the nearest village clinic.
Please remember, that physicians and hospitals are continually dropping out of plans. So, you might enroll in a plan that serves you well in Jan, and then in March find that the services/physicians are no longer being offered.
Nothing lasts forever.
Quote:Rationing the production and distribution of services based on how much each person is willing and able to pay
That's only one aspect of the situation. Remember, for the plans to really work, the Insurance companies are depending on healthy, younger patients to buy premiums and never/or rarely see a physician for any kind of care. Not too many younger people will need heart transplants, kidney transplants, chemotherapy...etc. One can only hope these younger folks want to buy health insurance.
St. Jude's Childrens Hospital now advertises that it costs the Hospital $1.9 million per day to care for one of their patients. No child at that Hospital is required to pay for anything. That tells you something about the cost of medical care in the USA today.
@Kolyo,
Kolyo wrote:
Rationing the production and distribution of services based on how much each person is willing and able to pay.
Hmmm... Now where have I heard THAT before???
Oh yeah, that's right. It was my microeconomics class. The teacher was singing the praises of the free market for doing exactly it. Rationing goods based on what people can and will pay is part what the glorious invisible hand (i.e. the price system) is supposed to do.
That darned Obama! How dare he give us a system that rations health care similarly to how a market rations goods?
Hey...my mom pays a lower cable bill than my friend, and you know what those bastards at Time Warner do? They give her fewer choices! (Obunga's behind that, too. You heard it here first.)
No!
We're supposed to get everything we want from the gov't and....and... um you know, and not have to pay anything!
@Miller,
Another terrific argument for a single payer system.
this is not the rationing of care nor was it intended to be, it is the attempt to reward efficient operators by allowing them to charge less and this maybe get more customers. the only way this could turn into rationing is if a person is limited to a set a providers but is made to wait long times to get in, or that provider refuses to provide, it which case the customer will switch providers at the earliest possibility.
One of my major complaints about ObamaCare is that it does not ration care, and we cant get our health care bill down to affordable numbers till we do. we have done nothing about the massive over use of diagnostics, the massive over use of drugs, the massive price of drugs and individual services, we have made the already outrageous administrative costs even worse.....where exactly are the costs problems getting fixed under ObamaCare? limiting my access points into the system is not going to do anything about the system inefficiencies, and so long as I can change my access points next year by buying (or instructiong the government to buy) a different policy it will not ration care either.
I'm not going to worry about what this costs, because miller gave me the great idea of collecting cans for the monthly premiums...
At a buck a pound, I'll only have to collect about 24,000 cans each month.
Only about 800 a day...hey, that's in the catagory of a hobby.
If Judge Judy tells me it'll work, I'm all over it.
@oralloy,
But as of now resp before Obamacare, everyone with an health insurance can go to any doctor and in any hospital in the USA, like we do it with our mandatory insurance in Germany. Correct?
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:
But as of now resp before Obamacare, everyone with an health insurance can go to any doctor and in any hospital in the USA, like we do it with our mandatory insurance in Germany. Correct?
as long as they are prepared to pay most or all of the bill, sure. if the insurance company does not have a contract with that doctor then the insurance company will pay little or none of the bill. ObamaCare changes nothing about how insurance works, it pays some/all of the premiums and mandates a lot of the coverage, but it does not change the mechanic of how it works. this is a big part of the reason why it will not attack healthcare spending bloat.