Patients plagued by high, unexpected bills from emergency room visits

A patient waits in the hallway for a room to open up in the emergency room at Ben Taub General Hospital in Houston, Texas,

By Gene Emery

(Reuters Health) – – Two Yale economists are calling for states to end a practice that allows some doctors to surprise patients with large medical bills after visits to a hospital emergency room.

The bills appear when people show up for treatment at a hospital that’s in the patient’s insurance network but the hospital has hired doctors who are independent contractors who choose not to be part of that network.

The result: unexpected bills that average $622, according to a new analysis in the New England Journal of Medicine by Zack Cooper and Finoa Scott Morton.

They found one person who was billed an extra $19,603 after going to an emergency room where the extra costs were added in and not covered by insurance.

Even a $622 bill is daunting when nearly half of Americans can’t cover a $400 expense without borrowing money or selling assets, according to data from the Federal Reserve.

Patients “are not thinking of the bill when they need to get care and they get walloped later with a bill from a physician they didn’t know, couldn’t choose and couldn’t avoid,” Cooper told Reuters Health in a telephone interview.

“It’s roughly analogous to going out to dinner, having a decent meal, paying the bill, and eight weeks later getting a $10,000 bill from the guy who served the bread. And they threaten to send us to collection if we don’t pay,” he said.

“It isn’t just emergency care,” Cooper said. “This happens for a whole lot of other things – anesthesiologists, assistant surgeons, radiologists and laboratories. This is a vagary of how we pay for health care. But the emergency room example is particularly egregious.”

In response, the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) released a statement in which its president, Dr. Rebecca Parker, complained that “the study does not discuss that insurance companies are misleading patients by selling so-called ‘affordable’ policies that cover very little until large deductibles are met – then blaming physicians for charges.”

Dr. Parker also challenged the $19,603 bill and noted that Cooper and Morton didn’t identify the insurance company supplying the data.

The two economists suggest that “the best solution would be for states to require hospitals to sell a bundled ED (emergency department) care package that includes both facility and professional fees.”

Dr. Jim Augustine, an ACEP expert on out-of-network issues, said billing used to be a package deal until the federal government demanded separate billing in the 1970s and 1980s. What has changed, he told Reuters Health by phone, is that the insurance companies have decreased what they will pay for and set up narrow networks of providers.

“Insurance companies would like to have bundled reimbursement setups because it’s advantageous for their contracting,” he said. “It’s not advantageous for the people who provide care for them.”

Cooper and Morton said if physician costs were bundled with the cost of each emergency room visit, hospitals would determine what physicians would be paid and that agreement would be part of the emergency room package. There would be no surprise bills for consumers and it would preserve marketplace competition because if a doctor doesn’t like what a hospital is willing to pay for treating patients, the doctor could work at a different hospital. Hospitals would compete by offering the best rates to attract good doctors.

Under such a system, they said, “Most crucially, patients would always be protected.”

In their study, Cooper and Morton found that 22 percent of visits involved patients going to an in-network hospital emergency room staffed by out-of-network doctors.

The odds of that happening varied regionally. It was seen in 89 percent of visits in McAllen, Texas, but virtually no visits in Boulder, Colorado.

“The fact that we see places where this just doesn’t happen really tells us that this doesn’t really need to happen,” said Cooper, an assistant professor of health and economics at Yale. “There’s a lot of things that are broken in healthcare that we can’t fix or (are) really challenging. This is one that’s really big, that harms a lot of people, and that’s really easy to solve.”

SOURCE: http://bit.ly/2fXw6fT The New England Journal of Medicine, online November 16, 2016.

U.S. government says benchmark 2017 Healthcare.gov premiums up 25 percent

The federal government forms for applying for health coverage are seen at a rally held by supporters of the Affordable Care Act, widely referred to as "Obamacare", outside the Jackson-Hinds Comprehensive Health Center in Jackson, Mississippi, U.S

(Reuters) – The average premium for benchmark 2017 Obamacare insurance plans sold on Healthcare.gov rose 25 percent compared with 2016, the U.S. government said on Monday, the biggest increase since the insurance first went on sale in 2013 for the following year.

The average monthly premium for the benchmark plan is rising to $302 from $242 in 2016, the Department of Health and Human Services said. The agency attributed the large increase to insurers adjusting their premiums to reflect two years of cost data that became available.

The government provides income-based subsidies to about 85 percent of people enrolled, and those credits will increase with the higher premiums. It said 72 percent of consumers on HealthCare.gov will find plans with a premium of less than $75 per month.

Large national insurers including Aetna Inc <AET.N>, UnitedHealth Group Inc <UNH.N> and Anthem Inc <ANTM.N> have said they are losing money on the exchanges, created under President Barack Obama’s national healthcare reform law, because patient costs are higher than anticipated and enrollment is lower than forecast. Both UnitedHealth and Aetna have pulled out of the exchanges for 2017.

As a result, consumers will have fewer plans to choose from. In 2017, in five states there will be offerings from only one insurance company. The government expects average monthly 2017 enrollment of 11.4 million people, up about 1 million from 2016.

Obama acknowledged last week that the law is not working perfectly but said the problems could be fixed if lawmakers created a government-run health insurance option that would help U.S. states where there is little or no competition.

Premium increases have become fodder for the presidential race, as Republican candidate Donald Trump calls for the repeal of the Affordable Care Act if he is elected and Democrat Hillary Clinton calls for expanding it.

The news “shows why the entire program must be repealed and replaced …. Mr. Trump knows the only way to fix our nation’s failing health care system is complete and total reform,” said Trump communications adviser Jason Miller.

The government agency said the 2017 premium increase comes after two years of very low increases in the marketplace for the second-lowest cost “silver” plan, the benchmark plan used to calculate cost-sharing subsidies.

Average premiums for the silver plan increased 2 percent in 2015 and were up 7 percent in 2016, the agency said.

The figure reflects premiums on Healthcare.gov, the federally run website that sells plans for about two-thirds of the states. Including four states and the District of Columbia, which run their own insurance marketplaces, and those that have reported data, the average premium rose 22 percent, the agency said.

(Reporting by Caroline Humer in New York and Toni Clarke in Washington; Editing by Matthew Lewis and Cynthia Osterman)

UnitedHealth trims drug coverage, including Sanofi insulin

A packet of diabetes drug Lantus SoloStar passes along the production line at a manufacturing site of French drugmaker Sanofi in Frankfurt J

(Reuters) – UnitedHealth Group, the largest U.S. health insurer, will stop covering several brand-name drugs as of next year, reinforcing a trend of payers steering prescriptions to lower-priced options.

In a bulletin seeking client feedback by Sept. 28, UnitedHealth said it is changing reimbursement terms for long-acting insulins and will no longer cover Lantus, the main insulin drug sold by Sanofi.

The insurer said Basaglar, a cheaper biosimilar insulin sold by Eli Lilly would be covered as “Tier 1,” meaning the lowest out-of-pocket costs for members. Levemir, produced by Novo Nordisk, will move from Tier 1 to Tier 2.

CVS Health made a similar move last month to drop Lantus in favor of Lilly’s new biosimilar.

Analysts at Jefferies said the sales impact of the United exclusion should be less than that from the CVS move, because the United plan covers around 15 million people while CVS covers 19 million.

Sanofi shares fell more than 1 percent on Thursday after the news but had recovered by 1200 GMT, while Novo was down 1.3 percent.

Sanofi reaffirmed its sales expectations despite the latest exclusion. A spokeswoman said the company was still targeting a decline in diabetes drug sales of 4 to 8 percent a year until 2018.

“We are disappointed with the decision. For Sanofi, it is a pity not to leave doctors a choice,” she said. “We had anticipated this kind of decision but we are holding discussions with other organisations in the United States to have them keep Lantus on their lists.”

Biosimilars are cheaper copies of protein-based biotech drugs such as Lantus, which are no longer protected by patents. They cannot be precisely replicated like conventional chemical drugs but have been shown to be equivalent in terms of efficacy and side effects.

United also said it will exclude from coverage Amgen’s white blood cell-boosting drug Neupogen, in favor of Zarxio, a biosimilar sold by Novartis.

UnitedHealth last year bought Catamaran for $12.8 billion, making it the nation’s No. 3 pharmacy benefit manager after Express Scripts Holding and Caremark, which is owned by CVS.

(Reporting by Deena Beasley, Ben Hirschler and Noelle Mennella; Editing by Ruth Pitchford and Elaine Hardcastle)

UnitedHealth sees further losses for Obamacare insurance

The logo of Down Jones Industrial Average stock market index listed company UnitedHealthcare is shown in Cypress, California

By Caroline Humer

(Reuters) – UnitedHealth Group Inc is still losing money on the individual insurance business created under U.S. President Barack Obama’s national healthcare reform law due to customers’ high medical costs, the company said on Tuesday.

The largest U.S. health insurer said that it was booking $200 million in losses in the second quarter to cover higher-than-anticipated use of medical services by customers this year. UnitedHealth and other insurers have blamed those costs for their losses from the exchange business.

The company said it expected the program, often called Obamacare, to reduce 2016 earnings by about $850 million, up from $475 million in 2015.

Next year, it will exit most of the two dozen states where it sells individual insurance on the exchanges but still has plans to sell in Nevada, New York and Virginia.

“We do not expect any meaningful financial exposure on 2017 business from the three or fewer exchange markets where we currently plan to remain,” Chief Executive Officer Stephen Hemsley said on a conference call with analysts to discuss second-quarter financial results.

Individual exchange customers this year have more severe chronic conditions, such as diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and HIV, and attrition has been lower than expected, UnitedHealth said. It expects to end 2016 with 750,000 exchange members.

The company said its other businesses, including pharmacy benefit management and the technology and consulting divisions, were strong, and it reported higher-than-expected earnings and revenue for the second quarter.

UnitedHealth, which also sells employer-based insurance as well as Medicare and Medicaid, raised the low end of its full-year profit outlook to $7.80 per share from $7.75 and kept the high end at $7.95.

Shares of UnitedHealth were up 0.5 percent at $141.42. It is the only large insurer not involved in any of the major consolidation deals under review by antitrust regulators.

Other insurers were off slightly on the announcement but lost ground after a report that antitrust regulators were planning to block their deals. Aetna Inc was off 3.6 percent at $114.90, while Anthem Inc fell 2.9 percent to $131.11. Cigna Corp was down 2.3 percent at $130.02 and Humana Inc gave up 5.3 percent to $151.10.

Mizuho analyst Sheryl Skolnick said UnitedHealth’s Obamacare business could further weigh on 2016 profit, given that more members have stayed on than expected and will have higher expenses during the second half.

“They have tried as much as they can… to take as much of the losses as they can,” Skolnick said.

Revenue from the company’s Optum business, which manages drug benefits and offers healthcare data analytics services, rose 51.5 percent to $20.6 billion from a year earlier.

Net earnings rose to $1.75 billion, or $1.81 per share, from $1.59 billion, or $1.64 per share, a year earlier.

(Reporting by Caroline Humer in New York and Amrutha Penumudi in Bengaluru; Editing by Lisa Von Ahn)

American’s pay highest cancer drug prices in the the world

Four-year-old Niuniu sits on a bench while his mother pays his medical bills at Shanghai Children's Hospital

By Deena Beasley

CHICAGO (Reuters) – Americans pay the highest prices in the world for cancer drugs, but the treatments are least affordable in lower income countries, according to the results of a new study released on Monday.

The study of cancer drug prices in seven countries, which did not take into account discounts or rebates to list prices, was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago.

The lowest drug prices were found in India and South Africa. But after calculating price as a percentage of wealth adjusted for the cost of living, cancer drugs appeared to be least affordable in India and China.

Researchers at Rabin Medical Center in Petah-Tikvah, Israel, calculated monthly drug doses for 15 generic and eight brand-name cancer drugs used to treat a wide range of cancer types and stages. List prices in Australia, China, India, South Africa, the United Kingdom, Israel, and the United States were obtained from government websites.

The high prices commanded by modern cancer drugs are generating increased resistance and demands for price discounts from politicians, health care providers, insurers, patients and some doctors.

Drug companies argue that they need to make a profit to pay for the billions of dollars needed for drug research. Many companies also have extensive low-cost or free access schemes for patients who cannot afford their medicines.

The study researchers used gross domestic product and cost of living statistics from the International Monetary Fund to estimate drug price affordability.

Median monthly prices for branded drugs ranged from $1,515 in India to $8,694 in the United States. For generics, median prices were highest in the United States, at $654, and lowest in South Africa, $120, and India, $159.

In terms of ability to pay, the study found cancer drugs to be most affordable in Australia, where generic drugs were priced at 3 percent of “domestic product per capita at purchasing power parity” and patented drugs were 71 percent of the same measure.

In China, the study found generic drug prices were 48 percent and patented drugs were 288 percent of wealth adjusted for the cost of living.

In India, the cost of generics was 33 percent of that measure, while patented drugs were 313 percent.

In the United States, generics were found to be priced at 14 percent of wealth adjusted for the cost of living, and patented cancer drugs were 192 percent of the same measure.

The study did not take into account that drug costs are paid by either the government, health insurers, or patients themselves, depending on each country’s health insurance system.

Worldwide spending on cancer medicines will exceed $150 billion by 2020, driven by the emergence of expensive new therapies that help the immune system to attack tumors, according to a forecast earlier this year from IMS Health Holdings <IMS.N>.

(Reporting By Deena Beasley; Editing by Bill Rigby)