Where is the risk?

That’s the question Thomas Cox, an RN with insurance experience and expertise, says should be asked about any health care financing mechanism.

The whole idea of insurance is distributing risk widely so that it can be shared over a wide group of people and thus become manageable. That’s why people need insurance at all, and that’s also why schemes that put too much of the onus on individuals are a very bad idea – as has happened in recent years to a number of people,  the “insured” individual can incur costs that are more than he or she can bear.

In general, insurance is most solid when it’s over a larger group. Each major increase in group size distributes the risk further and makes the healthcare financing system stronger. Cox has an interesting paper on this which he presented at an American Statistical Association meeting.

In general, large insurers are an order-of-magnitude more sound than small ones, and nationwide insurance systems (such as Medicare) have a distinct actuarial edge over state-based insurance (think, for example, California earthquake). For this reason, it’s a shame that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has state exchanges as its primary mechanism rather than one single federal exchange; risk dispersal is inferior.

Looking at the risk question, there’s a real problem with affordable care organizations (ACOs), which are one of the primary ways the ACA aims to keep down future costs. Essentially, ACOs are a form of capitation, and (Cox maintains and I think he’s right) capitation is essentially a mechanism to push risks down from the insurer or from Medicare to providers. Pushing risks to smaller groups is a terrible idea and will worsen the system. With ACOs having  smaller covered populations, they are far more subject to being the victim of events they can’t control, whether that’s having a large number of huge-cost, high-needs patients in a single year or having a large number of patients affected by an epidemic or natural disaster.

Providers are not trained or qualified to manage risk well, nor do they have the financial reserves to do so.  Cox calls this “professional caregiver insurance risk.”  Burdening providers with a task they are very ill-suited for is a truly bad idea. As Cox comments:

Pushing risks elsewhere removes the only real function we are paying insurance companies for.  If insurance companies are pushing down their risks elsewhere, we are paying them money for nothing of value. Insurance companies don’t provide healthcare – if they don’t manage risk either, what good are they? Of course, if they can sit there and siphon off profits without taking risks, it may not trouble profit-making insurers . . . but it should trouble the public [if they are] issuing policies, passing the insurance risks on to health care providers, and walking off with guaranteed profits year after year.

And (particularly for the ACO that has been “unlucky” and has incurred larger-than-expected costs), the financial risk can be a force for corruption, pushing organizations toward denying care and undertreatment.

Of course, with the enormous amount of unnecessary care and overtreatment in the US medical system today, some ACOs may indeed manage to give really good care for quite a while provided they are reasonably lucky. But this is a strategy with diminishing returns (as unneeded care dwindles in amount). At root, pushing down insurance risk to smaller entities is, Cox has persuaded me, a fundamentally flawed direction.

And I’ll never look at a health care financing proposal in future without asking myself: “Where is the risk?”

2:18 PM

Fool Us Once, Shame on You, Fool Us Twice, Shame on Us - The Untrustworthy Pronouncements of Aetna's Former CEOs

A small tempest in the larger US health care reform teapot was produced a few weeks ago when Ron Williams, former CEO of Aetna, declared in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that he no longer supported the health insurance mandate.  The "mandate" for all US citizens to buy health insurance, actually a relatively small tax that would be imposed on people without health insurance, was the central point of contention in the lawsuit before the US Supreme Court challenging the Affordable Care Act (ACA). 

Immediate Past-CEO of Aetna Ron Williams' Abrupt Change of Mind on the Individual Mandate

Williams wrote,

Soon the U.S. Supreme Court will rule on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. I am not a lawyer, or an expert on the Constitution. But as the chairman and CEO of a major health plan, I had a ringside seat to the entire health-care reform process. After much reflection, I have concluded that the federal individual mandate, which requires all Americans to purchase health insurance starting in 2014, will not be upheld.

On this, Williams was soon proven wrong. The Supreme Court upheld the law. However, the tempest was not due just to Williams' reversal of his former opinion, but the role he actually played in pushing his former opinion into the passage of the law, which was really far more than being a "ringside" spectator.

In an August 24, 2009 article, "Aetna's Ron Williams on Health Reform," Forbes' Dan Whelan noted,

Williams, 59, is taking a surprisingly visible role in arguing for change in the health care system. He has met with Obama a half-dozen times (he shrugs off the surname gaffe), has testified four times in front of Senate committees this year and participates in shindigs set up by the many trade groups for which he's a director.

Williams' position echoes that of the HMO industry generally: He's against a government-run plan but favors universal coverage and forcing insurers to take all comers.

As Wendell Potter, the former head of public relations for large health for-profit health insurance company Cigna, who is now a strong industry critic, put it on his blog,

Ron Williams who possibly more than anyone else had persuaded the President to reconsider his campaign pledge to enact reform without making people buy coverage from a private insurer. Candidate Obama’s reform platform differed from those of Hillary Clinton’s and John Edwards’ in only one significant way: both Clinton and Edwards embraced the mandate, which Williams was championing, first behind the scenes and then publicly, on behalf of the insurance industry. Candidate Obama said he didn’t believe it was right for people to be forced to buy something they couldn’t afford.

Williams was the industry’s most visible CEO on Capitol Hill during the debate on reform. He testified at numerous congressional hearings about how essential it was to move the millions of uninsured Americans into private health insurance plans and how an individual mandate was necessary to make that happen. He also never missed an opportunity to trash the idea of a 'public option' to compete with private insurance companies, which candidate Obama had said was essential 'to keep private insurers honest.'

Capitol Hill was not the only place Williams was frequenting during the reform debate. In an August 2009 article in Forbes, Williams was quoted as saying that he already had met with the President six times. When I called the White House to confirm that, a top aide told me it was true Williams had been there many times, adding, 'We’ve found him to be one of the more reasonable ones.'

Williams' recent seeming disavowal of the individual mandate raises the question of why anyone, much less President Obama, trusted him in the first place. After all, he was CEO of Aetna.

2001 Aetna CEO John Rowe Blamed Everyone Else for Health Care Problems

In fact, perusal of my memory, and a few file folders suggested several previous cases in which Aetna CEOs issued pronouncements that should not have been trusted.

First I recalled a meeting in 2001 at Brown during which the then Aetna CEO was honored by giving the Paul Levinger Lecture on "Good Health: Can We Afford It?" (See original Brown news release here.) My memory is that of Dr Rowe blaming just about everybody other than the for-profit health care insurance companies for health care's ills. A Brown Daily Herald article (not currently on line, Baskin B. Health care getting harder to afford, Aetna chief tells Brown U. Brown Daily Herald, November 30, 2001) recounted him blaming "cost inflation," (presumably due to doctors and hospitals), and employers, for whom "quality doesn't matter." He only allowed that insurers were to blame for not giving "better service," but not either rising costs or poor quality. I also recall Dr Rowe being treated with great respect by the audience. After all, this was a prestigious lecture.

However, his talk seemed just the least bit self-serving. If the audience had been aware of his record at the time, maybe we would have been more skeptical.

Mount Sinai CEO Dr John Rowe Extolled Merger with New York University, Jumped to Become Aetna CEO as Merger Began to Fail

By 1993, Dr Rowe was CEO of Mount Sinai Medical Center, and was seemingly at the vanguard of the movement for health care CEOs to be paid a lot. The New York Times reported that the 1993 Chronicle of Philanthropy survey showed him to be the country's best paid non-profit CEO, bringing in total compensation of over $800,000 in 1993 dollars. By 1998, Dr Rowe's big project was pushing concentration of power in health care in the form of a proposed merger between New York University Medical Center and Mount Sinai. According to the New York Times, the plan would be for Dr Rowe to become CEO of the combined entity. At the time, he said,

The advantages of merging hospitals are so great, they far outweigh any hypothetical potential negative impact.

The bond issue needed to finance the merger, however, ran into trouble by early 2000.  Soon after that, Dr Rowe seemingly demonstrated his lack of faith in it by jumping to the leadership of Aetna. It turned out, according to the Hartford Courant, Aetna's offer was just to rich to turn down.

Rowe got a $2 million sign-on bonus to leave Mount Sinai NYU Health and become chief executive of Aetna's health business, the document says. He will also get a $1.4 million retention bonus on July 3, 2001.

Both bonuses are designed to replace money that Rowe forfeited by leaving the giant New York hospital system, Aetna spokeswoman Joyce Oberdorf said.

In addition, Rowe will get an annual salary of at least $1 million and an annual bonus of $1 million to $3 million, depending on how well goals are met, under a three-year employment agreement with two possible one-year extensions.

Rowe, who already received 25,000 shares of restricted Aetna stock and options on 500,000 shares, will get another 100,000 options. The new options will be granted when Aetna spins off its health business to shareholders, or on Jan. 1, 2001 -- whichever comes first. The exercise price will be about $72.73, or whatever price Aetna stock is trading at the time if it's higher than that.

By 2001, the New York Times referred to the merger as existing "in name only." That year, the campuses resumed separate administration. The merger was officially terminated in 2008. Its failure was documented in an Academic Medicine article. (Kastor JA. Failure of the merger of the Mount Sinai and New York University hospitals and medical schools: part 2. Acad Med 2010; 85: 1828-32. Link here.)

If the Brown audience had known that the merger Dr Rowe extolled with such confidence was already failing, but that he was able to leverage his role in its development to go from the country's best paid non-profit CEO to a multi-million dollar a year insurance CEO, maybe we would have felt less guilt about our responsibility for health care's high cost, low access and poor quality.

Aetna CEO Richard Huber's Failure to "Walk the Walk"

In fact, searching through the files showed an even earlier example of an Aetna CEO talking out of two sides of his mouth.

By 1998, an American Medical News article documented the "rocky relations" between Aetna and physicians. By early 2000, Aetna CEO Richard Huber was known as "the managed care executive physicians love to hate," per the American Medical News. His departure was characterized by then American Medical News Street Smarts columnist Dr Scott Gottlieb, as partly due to how

Huber talked out of one side of his mouth about his company's obsessive quest for 'quality' health care -- while out of the other he was screaming at doctors, hospitals and drug firms about controlling costs. Yet Aetna's medical costs were still creeping up. As Richard Huber learned, you can't talk the talk if you don't walk the walk.

Summary

So the unreliability of recent Aetna CEO Ron Williams' advocacy of the "patient mandate," was presaged by similarly untrustworthy pronouncement by two former Aetna CEOs. In each case, the remarks of the particular CEO seemed more designed to promote his immediate self-interest than to provide trustworthy opinion or policy advice.

By the way, this summary should not be viewed as particularly an indictment of Aetna. I am sure I could find equally untrustworthy but self-serving pronouncements from the leaders of many other health care organizations. (Recall the visionary pronouncements of the failed and ultimately jailed CEO of the now vanished Allegheny Health Education and Research Foundation, see post here.)

The recent Ron Williams reversal should serve, however, as a stark reminder that we, meaning physicians, other health care professionals, those who study health care and health policy, policy makers, and the public at large, should be very, very skeptical about any pronouncements about health policy by top executives of health care organizations. They as a group have shown themselves to be remarkably good at doing whatever it takes to buttress their immediate self-interest, including making apparently oracular but ultimately foolish policy pronouncements.

The real question is why these pronouncements continue to be treated with reverence, if not as "visionaries,"  by health care professionals, health care and policy researchers, the news media, health care and medical journals, policy makers, politicians, and the public at large? Why has hardly anyone, besides yours truly, gone back to check the accuracy of their previous pontifications before swooning over their latest ones? Why has hardly anyone examined the accuracy of their predecessors' opinions, given that most executives these days seem to be subject to the same incentives to make things look good in the short term, and never mind the consequences?

12:38 PM

Health Care (Insurance) Reform Upheld, but Concentration and Abuse of Power Remain Largely Unaddressed

This may seem like sour grapes, but...  Numerous media reports say that the US Supreme Court has upheld the massive US health care "reform" law (look here for Reuters coverage today, and here, for the Los Angeles Times, for example).  In my humble opinion, the law will likely increase acess to commercial health care insurance, although will likely not reduce the expense of such insurance, or address the misbehavior of many large insurance companies (for example, see our series of posts on Aetna, UnitedHealth, WellPoint, and the insurance industry in general, etc, etc).

The law, as we summarized here, does contain a few provisions relevant to the concerns we raise on Health Care Renewal.  These include measures to improve disclosure of certain kinds of conflicts of interest affecting individual physicians and health care academics, and improved funding for comparative effectiveness research.  We hoped that the law would lead to a more rational way to fix payments to physicians that might supplant the secretive, procedure-happy RUC, but so far that hope remains unfulfilled. 

However, as we wrote in 2010, the legislation will leave most of the other problems we discuss on Health Care Renewal untouched. We thus have one or two small steps for mankind in the US, but no reason for complacency.


The news is not bad.  We are probably on balance somewhat better off with some health care insurance reform than none.  However, we are still a long way from meaningfully addressing concentration and abuse of power in health care. There will be no rest for the weary bloggers of Health Care Renewal.

9:16 AM

Huge Insurance Company WellPoint Settles Once Again, Providing a Window On the Ethical Questions Its Birth Presented

Another month, another question about the ethical conduct of for-profit insurance giant WellPoint. 

WellPoint Settles Allegations its Predecessor Anthem Cheated its Former Policy-Holders

This time the issue was how the company treated people insured by its now Anthem subsidiary a long time ago.  Here is the Reuters version:

Health insurer WellPoint Inc has agreed to pay $90 million to settle a class-action lawsuit against its Anthem unit over accusations the company did not fairly compensate former members when Anthem was converted from a mutual company into a stock company.

The Indianapolis Star noted:

WellPoint had fought the lawsuit for seven years in court.

The lawsuit alleged that WellPoint's Anthem subsidiary underpaid policyholders who opted to receive cash instead of stock when the Blue Cross-Blue Shield franchisee converted in 2001 into a stock company.

Of course, a WellPoint spokesman denied the company had done anything wrong, per Reuters,

Anthem spokeswoman Kristin Binns said in an e-mailed statement.

'We continue to believe that in all ways the company acted appropriately and in the best interests of its former members,...'

The Historic Context: the Conversion of Non-Profit Health Insurers into For-Profit Corporations

This may seem very dry and only of historical interest, but consider the historical context. Per Wendell Potter's Deadly Spin, after the Clinton administration's failed attempt at health reform, leaders of previously non-profit Blue Cross and Blue Shield insurance plans saw a new opportunity. In the mid-1990s,

the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association took a little-noticed but monumental step. The trade group, a bastion of non-profit health insurers that included the founders of the modern health insurance system, modified its bylaws to permit members to convert into public-stock companies.

Potter opined about the executives' main motivation for conversion to for-profit status, and then consolidation of the resulting companies,

They would earn bigger pay packages for managing larger businesses, and if they could convert them to for-profit companies, they would earn even more.

So,

Fourteen Blue Cross plans, most of which dominated their state-wide markets, converted from nonprofits to for-profits, and by 2004 all fourteen wound up as wholly owned subsidiaries of WellPoint....

The Anthem Demutualization as a Step to WellPoint Executives' Enrichment

Anthem began as a non-profit insurance company, Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Indiana. Its hired managers first converted it into a mutual insurance company, a company that was owned by its policy-holders, and hence somewhat a non-profit in spirit. Then the executives started to acquire other formerly non-profit Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans. Then they converted the mutual insurance company into a pure for-profit. The for-profit Anthem eventually acquired WellPoint, taking that company's name. The resulting company then had become the biggest for-profit US health care insurer. In 2003, as the acquisition of WellPoint was pending, the Indianapolis Star reported:

The top executive at Anthem Inc. will receive a $42.5 million stock-and-cash award for guiding the company as it became the state's largest firm and now stands to become the nation's largest health benefits company.

Larry C. Glasscock will receive the merit-based performance award over the next three years on top of his salary, bonus and other compensation of $3.73 million last year. It's the most compensation Glasscock has received since he became the company's chief executive in 1999 and helped convert it to a publicly traded concern in 2001

Furthermore,

Award amounts of $16 million each went to Glasscock's two highest-ranking associates: executive vice presidents David R. Frick, an attorney and former Indianapolis deputy mayor, and Michael L. Smith, a former chief executive of moving company Mayflower Group.

In addition, the president of Anthem Midwest, Keith R. Faller, will get a stock-and-cash award of $11.9 million, while Anthem Southeast President Thomas G. Snead Jr. got $4.36 million.

The allegation that the company's hired managers failed to adequately reimburse policy-holders for the policy-owners' ownership interests in the mutual version of Anthem was the basis of the law-suit that was just settled. The Anthem demutualization was a key step in the formation of the WellPoint behemoth. Its creation was the rationale to make the executives listed above rich. The allegations made in the lawsuit just settled suggest that they earned these huge windfalls on the backs of the policy-holders who at one point thought it was their company, and formerly thought that their insurer was a benign non-profit organization.

A Continuing Record of Ethical Misadventures

Thus, the lawsuit just settled suggests that WellPoint was born in ethically questionable circumstances, and that its creation served more to enrich its hired executives, who may have started as hired leaders of mission-oriented non-profit organizations. So in retrospect maybe it is not so surprising that WellPoint's leadership has continued to generate a series of ethical questions.

Since we began Health Care Renewal, we have noted that the company:

• settled a RICO (racketeer influenced corrupt organization) law-suit in California over its alleged systematic attempts to withhold payments from physicians (see 2005 post here).
• subsidiary New York Empire Blue Cross and Blue Shield misplaced a computer disc containing confidential information on 75,000 policy-holders (see 2007 story here).
• California Anthem Blue Cross subsidiary cancelled individual insurance policies after their owners made large claims (a practices sometimes called rescission).  The company was ordered to pay a million dollar fine in early 2007 for this (see post here).  A state agency charged that some of these cancellations by another WellPoint subsidiary were improper (see post here).  WellPoint was alleged to have pushed physicians to look for patients' medical problems that would allow rescission (see post here).  It turned out that California never collected the 2007 fine noted above, allegedly because the state agency feared that WellPoint had become too powerful to take on (see post here). But in 2008, WellPoint agreed to pay more fines for its rescission practices (see post here).  In 2009, WellPoint executives were defiant about their continued intention to make rescission in hearings before the US congress (see post here).
• California Blue Cross subsidiary allegedly attempted to get physicians to sign contracts whose confidentiality provisions would have prevented them from consulting lawyers about the contracts (see 2007 post here).
• formerly acclaimed CFO was fired for unclear reasons, and then allegations from numerous women of what now might be called Tiger Woods-like activities surfaced (see post here).
• announced that its investment portfolio was hardly immune from the losses prevalent in late 2008 (see post here).
• was sanctioned by the US government in early 2009 for erroneously denying coverage to senior patients who subscribed to its Medicare drug plans (see 2009 post here).
• settled charges that it had used a questionable data-base (built by Ingenix, a subsidiary of ostensible WellPoint competitor UnitedHealth) to determine fees paid to physicians for out-of-network care (see 2009 post here). 
• violated state law more than 700 times over a three-year period by failing to pay medical claims on time and misrepresenting policy provisions to customers, according to the California health insurance commissioner (see 2010 post here).
• exposed confidential data from about 470,000 patients (see 2010 post here) and settled the resulting lawsuit in 2011 (see post here).
• fired a top executive who publicly apologized for the company's excessively high charges (see 2010 post here).
• California Anthem subsidiary was fined for systematically failing to make fair and timely payments to doctors and hospitals (see 2010 post here).
• management was accused of hiding the company's political contributions from the company's own stock-holders (see 2012 posts here and here).

Meanwhile, top hired managers have continued to draw bloated compensation from the company.  For example, as we noted here, current WellPoint CEO Angela Braly got $13.2 million compensation, and received an additional $6.9 million from newly vested restricted stock units in 2011, despite falling company earnings.

Summary: A Company Too Big to Manage Except to Enrich Its Executives

Thus, we have seen an amazing string of incidents suggesting that company leadership has consistently put short-term revenues, and the resulting exaggerated management compensation, before stock-holders' interests, and before patients' interests.  Yet this pattern, so plain above, has largely not been assembled from its component pieces in public other than on Health Care Renewal.  Lack of perception of this pattern may explain why this incredible compilation of ethical missteps has failed to generate any calls for massive revisions in how this company is lead and governed, or perhaps calls to dismantle such a large for-profit company as unmanageable except as a source of nearly unlimited dollars for the enrichment of its top insiders.

True health care reform would require the leaders of health care organizations to uphold the health care mission ahead of their own self-interest, and to be accountable to the organizations' owners, when they exist, and to patients and the public at large.

9:45 AM

Are the Health Plans of the Very Rich Different from Yours and Mine?

Yesterday, the New York Times published an intriguing story about "Cadillac" (that is, expensive) health insurance plans,

Goldman Sachs is one of the nation’s richest banks, and hundreds of top Goldman employees have a health care package to match — one of the 'gold-plated Cadillac' plans cited by those involved in the health care debate in Washington.

Goldman’s 400 or so managing directors and its top executive officers participate in the bank’s executive medical and dental program as part of their benefits, according to documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The program generally costs the bank $40,543 in premiums annually for each participant’s family.

Those taking part in the plan include the company’s chief executive, Lloyd C. Blankfein, and four other top officers, as well as managing directors, whose base salary is $600,000.

Goldman’s medical coverage entered the health care discussion on Sunday when David Axelrod, senior adviser to President Obama, cited the Goldman program as an example of the expensive benefits the administration might consider taxing to help pay for its health care program.

'The president actually was asked this the other day by Jim Lehrer, and what he said was that this was an intriguing idea to put an excise tax on high-end health care policies like the ones that the executives at Goldman Sachs have, the $40,000 policies,' Mr. Axelrod said.

A proposal by Senator John F. Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, would impose an excise tax on the insurers that issue policies like Goldman’s, with the expectation that the insurers would pass along most, if not all, of the cost to employers who buy the plans.

Leaders of the Senate Finance Committee, which is working on bipartisan version of the health care legislation in Congress, had long expressed interest in taxing some employer-provided benefits — a move many budget experts say would help slow the steep rise in health costs.

Negotiators have not yet determined the value of the plans that would set off a tax on the insurance companies; the numbers under discussion range from $20,000 to $40,000 annually, a senior administration official said.

The lower end of that range would increase the amount of money the tax would raise but would also hit some middle-class workers, whose unions in some cases negotiated robust health benefits in lieu of pay increases. Typical employer-provided plans cost $13,000 to $20,000 per family, depending on the location and the age of the plan participants.

A health care package costing $40,000 or more a year would generally have no co-payments or deductibles, according to Paul Fronstin, an analyst at the Employee Benefit Research Institute, a Washington nonprofit that studies benefits. It would also have no limits on doctors or procedures, no restrictions on pre-existing conditions and no requirements for referrals.

Few people have such policies, Mr. Fronstin said. 'It would only be top executives who run big businesses, mainly people in the C suite,' said Mr. Fronstin, referring to companies’ chief officers.

It was not clear from this article how many top corporate executives have such plans, and whether leaders of other kinds of organizations, like large not-for-profits, also have them.

My main concern about such plans is not how much they contribute to top corporate leaders' compensation packages. Such packages are generally already so outrageously huge that providing $40,000 rather than $13,000 worth of health insurance is a trivial increase. My concern is not that plan recipients' demands for health care will collectively increase health care costs, because they include only a tiny portion of the population.

My main concern, instead, is how much these plans further insulate already cocooned top executives from the vicissitudes of daily life, particularly related to coping with our current dysfunctional health care system. What benefits executive health care plans provide is not clear, but presumably they insulate executives from having to deal with the managed care/ health insurance bureaucracy which frustrates patients seeking particular services, but not necessarily the most expensive, or least beneficial services. Such executives might thus not have gut level appreciation of how dysfunctional the health care system has become for even insured patients. Since top executives often are disproportionately influential members of the "superclass," their disconnection from the realities of dysfunctional health care is likely to translate into little real support by the powers that be for meaningful health care reform. There support may be further retarded by the influence of their fellow superclass members whose personal fortunes depend on the status quo in health care.

Real improvement of health care may depend on finding leaders who have better understanding of the plight of real people.

1:50 PM

Managed Care Executives Will Not Limit Rescissions

We have posted before about how certain health care insurance companies/ managed care organizations in California were found to have cancelled individual health insurance policies after the people holding them made substantial claims, supposedly rationalized by minor errors or omissions in the information the people supplied to the companies on their individual applications found after the claims were made. Several companies were subsequently disciplined by the state government for these "rescissions." See posts on rescissions by WellPoint here, here, and here, and by Health Net here.

Executives of several such companies testified before a US congressional committee recently, with remarkable results, as reported by Lisa Girion writing in the Los Angeles Times. First, by way of background, the article suggested that rescissions are widespread:

An investigation by the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations showed that health insurers WellPoint Inc., UnitedHealth Group and Assurant Inc. canceled the coverage of more than 20,000 people, allowing the companies to avoid paying more than $300 million in medical claims over a five-year period.

Furthermore,

The committee's investigation found that WellPoint's Blue Cross targeted individuals with more than 1,400 conditions, including breast cancer, lymphoma, pregnancy and high blood pressure. And the committee obtained documents that showed Blue Cross supervisors praised employees in performance reviews for rescinding policies.

One employee, for instance, received a perfect 5 for 'exceptional performance' on an evaluation that noted the employee's role in dropping thousands of policyholders and avoiding nearly $10 million worth of medical care.

Nonetheless, the executives were not prepared to abandon rescissions:

Executives of three of the nation's largest health insurers told federal lawmakers in Washington on Tuesday that they would continue canceling medical coverage for some sick policyholders, despite withering criticism from Republican and Democratic members of Congress who decried the practice as unfair and abusive.

The executives -- Richard A. Collins, chief executive of UnitedHealth's Golden Rule Insurance Co.; Don Hamm, chief executive of Assurant Health and Brian Sassi, president of consumer business for WellPoint Inc., parent of Blue Cross of California -- were courteous and matter-of-fact in their testimony.

But they would not commit to limiting rescissions to only policyholders who intentionally lie or commit fraud to obtain coverage, a refusal that met with dismay from legislators on both sides of the political aisle.

Sassi said rescissions are necessary to prevent people who lie about preexisting conditions from obtaining coverage and driving up costs for others.

'I want to emphasize that rescission is about stopping fraud and material misrepresentations that contribute to spiraling healthcare costs,' Sassi told the committee.

But rescission victims testified that their policies were canceled for inadvertent omissions or honest mistakes about medical history on their applications. Rescission, they said, was about improving corporate profits rather than rooting out fraud.

Also,

Late in the hearing, Stupak, the committee chairman, put the executives on the spot. Stupak asked each of them whether he would at least commit his company to immediately stop rescissions except where they could show 'intentional fraud.'

The answer from all three executives:

'No.'

This is just amazing. Here are executives of three of the country's largest for-profit health care insurance companies/ managed care organizations asserting they will continue cancelling peoples' policies after they make claims, simply because of minor errors or omissions in the application documents that have no bearing on the particular claims, or on discrepancies between information provided by patients and doctors, given that patients may not have full access to or understanding of what is in their charts. What good is an insurance policy that is liable to be cancelled as soon as one makes a claim on it?

Whatever these companies are selling, it is not insurance. Basing our health care system on their products is foolish, but that is what we are doing, and what many political leaders would continue to do.

In my humble opinion, if we are going to have a system based on privately provided insurance, that insurance has to be honest, unlike what some of our largest insurance companies seem to be peddling.

12:13 PM

BLOGSCAN - Whose Interests Does Health Care Advocacy Serve?

Merrill Goozner, on the GoozNews Blog, dissected recent pronouncements on health care reform by economist Uwe Reinhardt. Reinhardt compared our US "system" of financing health care with those of some other countries. He noted some advantages of the latter systems, but wondered whether US citizens would accept the trade-offs they implied. In particular, he wondered whether the US would accept the tight regulation of private insurance companies found in Germany. But he conveniently failed to note that the German plan's success may depend on its exclusive use of only not-for-profit health insurers. Mr Goozner wondered whether if this omission had to do with Mr Reinhardt's position on the board of a for-profit US health insurance company, a relationship not disclosed in Mr Reinhardt's New York Times blog post. (We have posted before about how Mr Reinhardt's authoritative writings on health policy have not been accompanied by disclosure of his positions on the boards of several major health care corporations.) Once again, it is hard to tell whose interests prominent health care advocacy serves.

11:29 AM

Who Is Warning Us About the Perils of a Government-Run Public Health Insurance Plan?

There has been considerable discussion lately about whether the US government should offer a publicly run health insurance plan similar to the current Medicare program for the elderly and disabled. A recent report has thrown a bit of cold water on the idea, as noted in this AP article:

A public health insurance option for middle class families could help cover the uninsured but it may well put private insurers out of business, a respected consulting firm concluded in a study released Monday.

The report by the Lewin Group, a numbers-crunching firm that serves government and private clients, said it all depends on details that lawmakers are far from deciding. Nonetheless, the report could provide ammunition for critics who say a public plan would move in the direction of government-run medicine.

President Barack Obama and many Democrats want to create a government insurance plan to compete with private plans that now cover about 170 million Americans. The issue is major sticking point for Republicans and the insurance industry.

The Lewin study found that if such a plan were open to all employers and individuals, and if it paid doctors and hospitals the same as Medicare, the government plan would quickly grow to 131 million members, while enrollment in private insurance plans would plummet.

'The private insurance industry might just fizzle out altogether,' said John Sheils, a Lewin vice president and leading author of the study.

By paying Medicare rates the government plan would be able to set premiums well below what private plans charge. Monthly premiums for family coverage would be $761 in the government plan, compared with an average of $970 in private plans, the study estimated. Employers and individuals would flock to the public plan to cut costs.

This new report by the Lewin group also provided more ammunition to politically conservative commentators opposed to a public health insurance plan, e.g., see this link.

I am not going to comment on the substance of the report, or the argument over the merits of a public health insurance plan, save to note that in my humble opinion, the biggest danger of such a plan would be to further exaggerate differences in payments made to primary care and other "cognitive" physicians and to physicians who mainly do procedures. We have posted before (e.g., here) on how Medicare has come to fix payments to favor procedures and disfavor primary care and other cognitive services. Increasing the number of patients covered by Medicare or a Medicare-like plan, without changing the current Medicare payment system, would only make these discrepancies worse. Note that this potential problem with the public health insurance plan was not mentioned in the Lewin Group report.

Perhaps the nature of the Lewin Group influenced what this report did and did not emphasize. The group was described above as an independent consulting firm. Its web-site says it is "a premier national health care and human services consulting firm." It also claims:

The Lewin Group is committed to independence and integrity in our work. We combine professional expertise with extensive knowledge and a rigorous approach to analyzing and solving problems to deliver value to each of our clients and to the larger community as well.

That's a somewhat self-contradictory assertion. It seems that delivering "value" to specific clients might be hard to do while maintaining "independence."

Perhaps considering the nature of the Lewin Group's clients would clarify things. The group says its clients include "hospitals, health systems and providers;" "payers / insurers;" and "pharma/bio/device." The middle group seems most germane to a debate about The services provided to them include:

The Lewin Group helps payers and insurers succeed in complex government, commercial, and long-term care markets.

Based on our more than 20 years of experience, The Lewin Group offers our clients detailed understanding of the competitive marketplace and the expectations of purchasers. Based on rigorous, data-driven research, we provide our clients with actionable information grounded in practical, real-world advice.

Our understanding of public policy through our work with government entities, including Medicaid and SCHIP, helps us understand how policies are shaped and how they impact our clients. With this insight, we help our clients strategize and succeed in public programs and new product offerings.

So, the Lewin Group specifically offers to help insurers succeed in a complex market partially controlled by government. Maybe this orientation had some influence on the report they published now being used to support arguments for private, commercial health insurance.

Finally, who owns the Lewin Group? The description provided in the news story above suggests it is independent, and perhaps is even not-for-profit. Per Lewing Group web-site, it is neither:

The Lewin Group is an Ingenix company. Ingenix, a wholly-owned subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group, was founded in 1996 to develop, acquire and integrate the world's best-in-class health care information technology capabilities.

Ingenix has been in the news lately. See our posts here, here, and here about legal settlements of charges that large health care insurance companies used a database created and allegedly manipulated by Ingenix to underpay out of network claims. So, the Lewin Group is a part of Ingenix, an organization that just settled claims that it manipulated data about insurance payments.

Furthermore, Ingenix is in turn part of UnitedHealth. It is amazing how often UnitedHealth's antics have provided grist for the Health Care Renewal mill. See this post for a summary of the company's more recent escapades.

For balance, I must note that the Lewin Group web-page asserts:

The Lewin Group operates with editorial independence and provides its clients with the very best expert and impartial health care and human services policy research and consulting services.

But again, note that the focus is on making clients happy, not providing the public with unbiased knowledge.

So a report being used to support arguments against government-run health insurance was published by a subsidiary of one of the largest commercial health care insurance companies and managed care organizations, a subsidiary that just settled charges that it manipulated data to increase insurance company profits.

With a new administration in the White House, there is new interest in health care reform. It is not surprising that this has inspired some vigorous discussion. Nor is it surprising that some of the discussion comes from those with vested interests to protect. They have, of course, every right to make their views known. But it would be a more honest discussion if everyone were willing to put their vested interests on the table.

12:11 PM