Much Ado About Broccoli: The Constitution, Healthcare Reform and A Generation of Entitled Employees

The United States Supreme Court, the highest c...
The United States Supreme Court, the highest court in the United States, in 2009. Top row (left to right): Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito, Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer, and Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Bottom row (left to right): Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, Associate Justice John Paul Stevens, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Associate Justice Antonin G. Scalia, and Associate Justice Clarence Thomas. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

As the Supreme Court debates the boundaries of government’s role in mandating the purchase of insurance, the discussion continues on whether the public or private sector is best positioned to drive market reforms necessary to meet our goals of lower costs and higher quality. As the son of a Phi Beta Kappa neo con who believes government should be the size of a sand gnat and as the husband to a British citizen who loves national healthcare and was born through a midwife, I often find myself lost in a political no man’s land with volleys being exchanged from the right and left.  To complicate Thanksgiving dinner further, thirty years of healthcare consulting, including a three-year stint in Europe, hospitalization for pneumonia in the NHS and a tour of duty as a senior executive for a national insurer has left me with my own conflicted convictions about  how we might fix our broken system.

On the eve of the Supreme Court determining the fate of PPACA, strong opinions are in full bloom like cherry blossoms along the Mall.  In his particularly sharp remarks to government attorneys, Justice Kennedy, considered a swing vote by many, cautioned that Congressional intervention to mandate citizens the “duty ( to buy coverage) to act “ was a slippery slope that sets dangerous precedent and impinges on individual rights. Justice Roberts added, “And here the government is saying that the Federal Government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act … That changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in the very fundamental way.”

Justice Scalia was quick to wade in after Justice Roberts questioning, ” what would be next in the role of the government dictating to its citizens ( if the mandate were to be upheld). “I will tell you the next something else (we will next tell Americans to do) is exercise, because we know that lack exercise contributes to illness.” It seems that this debate is indeed creating odd bedfellows as civil liberties advocates are joining conservatives in warning that the next thing the government will be telling people is that they cannot drink sugary soft drinks or that they have to eat broccoli.  It is hard to find a time when a conservative Justice and the ACLU share a common opinion about anything.

Private Versus Public – Who can Enforce Behavior? 

If legislators and American business want to reduce the cost of healthcare and engage an entire generation of entitled Americans, the practical answer to Justice Scalia’s rhetorical question is “Yes. Justice Scalia. We must mandate personal responsibility for healthier lifestyles.”

Most Constitutional and human rights advocates would agree that the government’s regulation of the “commerce of healthcare” can become a snare that can tangle any government’s legislative foot in a cat’s cradle of complications.  The need to legislate behavior in an effort to help reduce costs is simply a lap too far.  A government dedicated to reducing costs while preserving quality and competition would need to adopt practices currently employed and bearing fruit in the private sector to moderate medical trend and improve affordability.  The reality is many of these efforts – biometric testing, health risk assessments, population based plan designs, value based reimbursements – require a more prescriptive level of engagement by employees.  While the programs are strictly voluntary, it is clear that the cost of declining to engage in health improvement will begin to create a substantial cost sharing gap between those who participate and those who do not.

How Public And Private Payers Seek To Control Costs Fundamentally Varies

Medicaid and Medicare recipients are largely unmanaged.  Patients are free to access any provider who is willing to accept reimbursement and are generally not consistently under the care and coordination of a primary care provider. Fraud, overtreatment and instability among the chronically ill has led to extraordinary spending in public healthcare.  Unengaged and vulnerable patients freely access a system that has found it difficult to close gaps in care, manage compliance or offer visibility on the where to receive the most efficient care.

In the private sector, larger employers have begun to achieve lower per capita health care costs and market reforms by implementing programs designed to impact the unit cost of healthcare and the consumption of services. In the face of the recent recession, the private sector moved rapidly to de-leverage, right-sizing balance sheets and returning to profitability.  Larger firms have concluded that providing healthcare is neither a right nor a privilege but a benefit — an essential tool to attract and retain personnel.  In providing this benefit, there is an assumed  bilateral contract where each party takes responsibility for their role in health and healthcare.

Employers have done a poor job of enumerating expectations around personal health as many feel the idea of employment based health improvement reeks of Orwellian oversight.  Additionally, wellness and health management only works where there is a culture of trust and communications — two commodities often in short supply in a business environment often reducing staff, freezing pay and struggling to achieve year over year earnings growth.  Yet, firms have proven through the harmonic convergence of culture, communications and mutual accountability that medical trends can be reduced through health improvement.

The debate between public and private insurance inevitably breaks down when discussing how to best control costs.  A single payer system relies primarily on global budgets, rationed access and reimbursement based on a complex clinical and financial calculus that balances medical necessity and cost. Inevitably, the specter raised is whether restricted access to quality care suffers when rationed reimbursement is peanut butter spread across all providers who often have highly variable outcomes.  While every physician claims to have graduated first in their class, we know that some providers charge multiples of other providers but cannot clinically prove that their outcomes are significantly more favorable across a similar population.  The private sector has figured out that open access PPOs that promise 90% reimbursement for any in-network provider is contributing to the very problem they are trying to solve – paying for quality outcomes, not for units of care.

There is a case to be made that market based reforms can and would do a better job of preserving quality by reducing not only unit cost prices but also reducing consumption of services and preserving quality. The question remains whether the private sector has the will to convert an entire generation of reluctant and at times, recalcitrant employees who see open access, non managed healthcare as an entitlement.  Employers are now deciding whether they would prefer to take on the thankless task of redirecting employees and their dependents to narrower and more prescriptive primary care based networks or whether to drop coverage and abdicate the role of population health management to the government.

Several Supreme Court justices have already indicated that they do not believe government should play a broader role in regulating the “commerce” of healthcare. The question remains whether employers have the will and the skill to drive this process. Consider five reasons why the private sector needs to work harder to preserve employer based healthcare on the behalf of 180M working Americans.  In doing so, employers could end up preserving a system that rewards higher quality care and achieves lower cost without imposing universal reimbursement rationing.

1.     The Government Can’t Enforce Health Engagement.  Many Employers Won’t. There is a difference. – 50% of all private sector claims are driven by less than 10% of an employer’s population.  We know in many instances, these individuals develop chronic illnesses borne out of poor lifestyle choices.  The issues are difficult to solve for and are complicated by socio-economic issues such as lack of access to primary care, lack of access to healthier diet alternatives and a lack of education about the consequences of poor lifestyle choices.

Medicare and Medicaid do not have the means nor the ability to drive lifestyle based incentive plans or more prescriptively direct care for their recipients.  Less than 15% of Medicare is managed and those recipients are covered under Medicare Advantage plans that are driven by commercial insurers.  For Medicare to make advances, it would need to partner more closely with the very constituency that it vilified in an effort to get reform passed – managed care companies.  Meanwhile states are turning to managed care to help mitigate costs and improve care quality.  Medicaid costs are ballooning and without the ability to improve public health, better dictate access points, close gaps in care and manage the intensity of services being rendered while a patient is in the medical system, the public sector can only ration cost as a means of achieving cost management.

2.     Employers can design plans to reward engagement and health improvement – Employers are now committing resources to population health management – – conducting biometric tests, requiring health risk assessments, implementing rewards based plan designs that offer lower costs and richer benefits for engaged employees.  The result has been behavioral shifts that are fundamentally changing the way employees access care.  The combination of better tools to understand the variability of provider costs for similar procedures, education, rewards and disincentives have all combined to lower trends for many employers committed to driving loss control for healthcare.  The challenge for employers is true engagement requires time and resources.

3.     The Brokerage Community Has Done a Mediocre Job in Managing and Resourcing Health Improvement for Employers.  If you subscribe to the maxim that there are no bad students, only bad teachers, the sluggish move toward population health management, self insurance and aggressive loss management programs has as much to do with the limited intellect and resources of those advising employers as it does the employer themselves.  In the new normal, brokers must become advisors and have access to actionable data analytics, clinical resources, underwriting and actuarial services to more effectively forecast and show a return on investment for health.  The golden age of low transparency, limited access to claims experience, opaque premium and embedded broker remuneration is ending and giving way to an era of accountability where advisors will be paid for value and less for bedside manner and low value administrative support services.

4.     The Key To Quality is Reducing Higher Health Costs that Do Not Correlate to Better Outcomes – Employers have a lot of ground to make up.  After rebelling against HMO plans that had achieved close to zero trend in the mid-1990s but achieved it primarily by focusing on aggressive medical management and redirecting patient’s to lowest unit cost providers, employers demanded a more laissez faire system of access and oversight for employees. Choice and minimal third party intervention was the mantra which resulted in happier employees and annualized trends that swelled like waistlines to over 14%. As premiums soared, insurers and broker remuneration increased.

Over the last two decades, many employers have gravitated to larger, open access PPO networks that offer a wide range of provider choices for employees and also highly variable charges for similar procedures.  To complicate the need for consumer engagement, these variable charges are normally reimbursed at the same co-insurance or co-pay level – as long as they are incurred in network.  Often, the most expensive providers are perceived to be the best.  Employers must commit to narrowing networks and measuring quality based on outcomes over an entire episode of care.

The public sector equally rations reimbursement across all providers irrespective of outcomes or unit cost, shifting the burden to find a quality doctor to the patient.  The ability to reward quality with higher reimbursement while forcing greater transparency in outcomes and costs to better understand who is actually delivering the best care can only be achieved through extensive analytics and an employer’s willingness to begin to reward utility of better providers. While CMS has committed to pilot programs to begin to drive this migration to quality, the private sector has the ability to move more rapidly – but only if employers are willing to tolerate the disruption that this may visit on employees who prefer the status quo.

5. Rationed public reimbursement leads to cost shifting which undermines provider quality and accelerates lack of affordability in private healthcare.  Peanut butter spread reimbursement rewards mediocrity and creates the incentive to drive a higher volume of services to make up for rationed reimbursement.  As doctors and hospitals receive less from state and federal reimbursement, they will naturally attempt to shift these wholesale arrangements to retail commercial customers.  As medical trends spike in commercial health insurance, premiums become increasingly unaffordable with more employers choosing to drop coverage.  Private employers already pay an estimated $1.22 for every dollar of healthcare to compensate providers for public sector underreimbursement. The cycle eventually leads us to more employers dropping coverage and a larger and larger population of uninsured workers.  With 50M uninsured,  a call has rung across the land for public policy intervention to solve for the crisis of affordability and access.  Not unlike Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz, employers have always had the ability to reduce costs but have chosen to pass on cost increases and reduce benefits instead of tackling the more difficult and disruptive process of driving payment reforms and behavioral change.

It’s Now or Never– While CMS is attempting to change reimbursement methodologies to reward higher quality outcomes and to penalize poor management of services such as infection and readmission rates, the private sector still holds the trump card being able to drive more onerous consequences for poor medical delivery.  Determining medical necessity and driving reimbursement reform is tricky business and often disintegrates into political food fights as evidenced by contracting disputes that often arise between payers and providers.

When it comes to refusing to cover certain procedures or penalizing outlier behavior, commercial insurers find it increasingly more politically expedient to wait for CMS to change policy on Medicare reimbursement to provide air cover for their own policy changes. Historically, it has been in vogue for employers to blame insurers for certain reimbursement practices rather than take responsibility that payers are merely administering the employer’s plan document.  Employers need to own their medical spend and they need to reinforce with their employees the bi-lateral agreement that comes with financing care.  In the face of mounting pressure to reward engagement in the workplace, consumer advocates are now complaining that employers are becoming increasingly too prescriptive about population health management. Personally, I support the view of Steve Sperling of Hewitt who recently retorted to criticisms about employer driven health incentives, “House money, house rules.”

The healthcare system is changing as we debate the need for change.  The tectonic plates of hospital and provider delivery are shifting causing great upheaval and alterations in the strategies of large systems, community based hospitals and across a range of stakeholders.  According to a recent Credit Suisse report,  the US still ranks at 150% of the unit cost of services and a full 60% higher than other industrialized nations for overtreatment/consumption of services.  While we can boast higher cancer survival rates and a system of R&D that props up the innovation occurring across the globe, we are not getting enough value for our spend.  It is unsustainable. The Supreme Court now has the dubious honor of killing or upholding PPACA.  Irrespective of the outcome, private employers are our best chance to help fix the problem.

Given the nature of politics and the nature of human behavior in healthcare, it’s my belief that government can fix the cost problem rather quickly but would likely throw the babies of quality and public health improvement out with the notion of private reimbursement.  The private sector has the green light to drive market based reforms that can reduce pricing variability, reward quality and improve public health.  However, it’s a tall order at a time when companies are seeking to reduce administrative costs, are focused on the business of the their business and are lacking the will to burn social capital with workers by playing Big Brother when it comes to health improvement.

In one scenario, the government may want to reduce healthcare spending but really, at the end of the day, the Supreme Court is saying “you can’t. ” In the other case, employers have a golden opportunity to step up and start demanding value for their spend and force greater transparency and conformity around health improvement.  But up until now, they won’t.

Stalking the Public Option

Health care systems and single payer
Health care systems and single payer (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The law of unintended consequences is what happens when a simple system tries to regulate a complex system. The political system is simple, it operates with limited information (rational ignorance), short time horizons, low feedback, and poor and misaligned incentives. Society in contrast is a complex, evolving, high-feedback, incentive-driven system. When a simple system tries to regulate a complex system you often get unintended consequences. Stephen Dubner and Steven Levitt, Freakonomics

I hear it restlessly moving off in the distance, the way spring struggles and finally gains momentum through the mud season.  It hesitates, sending subtle harbingers of change in the form of a warm wind or the scent of new growth.  The public option is stirring like a new shoot poking out of the decay of an old stump. With it, a next stage of reform is already forming even as Managed Care 2.0 struggles to gasp its first few breaths.

It is strange to be speaking of the next stage of reform years before the majority of Managed Care 2.0 regulations are due to take effect.  However, in the land of unintended consequences, no one can predict with certainty how healthcare is likely to evolve.  We do know that no one from the political middle, left or right is convinced that this first iteration of health reform will result into a system characterized by affordable, high quality care.  Managed Care 2.0 is merely a brief stage in the metamorphosis of the last private healthcare system in the industrialized world.

Some believe that the US’ best chance to salvage its mounting public debt, socioeconomic polarity and physical vitality is to eventually yield to a single payer system that can ensure coverage all of our citizens.  In that brave new world, those capable of opting out into private care, could do so on their own dime and on an after tax basis. Critics of single payer argue that an entitlement of this magnitude only stands to propel the nation toward record deficits, hyperinflation and economic ruin. The very thing that has made the US great, conservatives argue,  is its ability to avoid safety net entitlements that eventually become hammocks. One thing is for certain: Reform in its current form will do little to alter the supply side of the business.

Change is a scary proposition for 180M Americans who believe the devil they know (employer based private coverage) is preferred to a government run system. Seniors are doing the math and wondering if Medicare will default on their watch. More than 50% of these same seniors, when polled, shared they do not want a government run healthcare system – even though Medicare is a government run system.  People are confused, angry and wary.  To attack the real crisis of affordability at this time is an even scarier proposition for politicians who want to be reelected. Yet, The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is now law and despite its obvious flaws and potential for unintended consequences, it is unlikely to be repealed or deconstructed.  For better or worse, it is the foundation for Managed Care 2.0.

The building blocks of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act are insurance market and access reforms — legislation that has little to do with moderating rising medical costs.  It’s not that those that conceived the legislation did not understand or consider more draconian steps toward achieving affordability.  However, no on wants to break that news to the American people. It would be too scary a bedtime story for adolescent, recession sick America to hear about a future where tough decisions will need to be made about who gets how much care.  The story would not have clear heroes and villains but be cast in an ambiguous gray world of ethical and moral dilemmas — do we reduce reimbursement to our revered doctors and hospitals? How can we assure that our best and brightest continue to practice medicine?  Do we cut Medicare? Will venture capital, public and private equity flee out of healthcare profoundly effecting research and development?  How do we tackle the march towards chronic illness of Americans who are obese and unable to take personal responsibility for their health? Should we ask all Americans for a durable power of attorney so we have the ability to make the hard choices about end of life care?

Is Massachusetts a Mature Version of Managed Care 2.0 ?

The next chapter of the managed care story is being read aloud in Massachusetts. Already having achieved universal coverage through reform, the Bay State is seeing costs in its merged individual and small group pool continue to surge. In an election year game of cat and mouse, Governor Deval Patrick is restricting non profit insurers to live with rate increases well below those required to cover the costs of ever increasing medical utilization.  When Massachusetts passed reform, it covered all individuals but simply did not confront the underlying factors contributing to rising costs.  Before you shout, “Those damn insurers,” remember that 95% of Mass’ insurers are not for profit.

To add insult to injury, the Massachusetts legislature has recently proposed a bill that would require any physician seeking to be lisenced in the Bay State to accept Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement levels.  It may be time for Kaiser to move into Massachusetts as the alternative employer of choice to the state.

Most new Massachusetts insureds can’t find a primary care doctor as too few are left after years of under reimbursement. This leaves our newly insureds — many of whom are chronically ill and require coordinated care — to access the system through the least efficient point of entry, the emergency room.  The state’s not for profit insurers are in a profound pickle.  They have statutory reserves that will soon be depleted if they cannot raise rates.  However, it is an election year and the governor is using an age old lever, price controls, to buy time, point fingers and escalate the debate.  If this were allowed to play out, the insurers would be unable to meet legal reserve requirements within 24 months and be out of business in the state — leaving the need for a single payer to assume responsibility.

Why is There Not More Competition Between Health Plans?

Where are the competitors you ask?  When insurers are raising rates 20%-40% for small business, why are there no new entrants to steal market share as is often the case in other industries primed by a free market pump.  Simply put, the barriers to entry are too high for new entrants.  The economics of provider contracting (which drive 80% or more of a payer’s costs) are such that a payer has to have membership to get the best economics from a provider.

In many US markets that are dominated by a handful of players, the cost of building market share to achieve similar economics to the market’s largest competitor is too high — particularly for a public company.  You essentially can only enter a new market by purchasing a competitor – – which is expensive and carries enormous execution risk for the capital being employed.

For example,  trying to unseat a deeply entrenched Blues plan with 70% market share and most favored nation pricing deals with hospitals, is an almost impossible feat for any new payer.  No insurer has the financial will to enter a new market against a giant competitor that controls as much as 50% of the individual and small group market — a market where margins are largest.   A further complication arises if that entrenched competitor is a non profit sitting on huge reserves and you are a for profit company expected to show earnings improvement quarter over quarter. No shareholder or private equity owner has the patience to wait out the price war that you would inevitably engage to take market share.

So, who can compete with a large competitor squatting like a toad with a disproportionate amount of market share? United Healthcare?  Aetna? Harvard Pilgrim?  Kaiser? Bzzzzzzz!  Sorry, wrong answer.  It is the government.

Ah yes, the dreaded public option defined by some as “Medicare Lite,” ” Obamacare” or ” Death Panels for Granny”.  Over time, it would represent a basic package of essential services consistent with so many other nationalized plans across the world.  Many believe that a public option is really the only viable way to create competition within markets where competition does not exist.  Other see it as a Trojan Horse leading to unfair competition where taxpayer dollars are used to subsidize the cannibalization of private care by a public plan.  The goal: single payer, socialized medicine.  So who’s right ?

Why Not Introduce the Public Option In Markets With No Competition?

Here’s the dilemma: If a public option were to be created, its reimbursement would likely be linked to Medicare. If a larger percentage of insureds reimburse doctors and hospitals at Medicare levels, providers would revolt contending that public option reimbursement is inadequate to cover the true costs of care. Critics argue of rationed provider reimbursement note that US providers make 8.5 times the average salary of a worker in the US and only 2 times the average salary in other Western countries.  Our best and brightest seek medicine and in doing so, deliver some of the best care in the world. ” If I get cancer” asserts one anti-reformer, ” I want to be treated in the US where I have the highest probability for survival.” Naysayers argue that our outcomes are actually worse than other industrialized countries whose reimbursement systems have created systems that are characterized by primary care and smaller secondary and tertiary care systems.  “The US is the diametric opposite”, contends one critic, ” we lag many nations in critical public health indicators. In the US, the insured live longer.  Outside the US,  everyone lives longer – not just those who can afford healthcare.”

Doctors have long contended that like it or not, their ability to cost shift to private healthcare enables a less than optimal equilibrium that holds our broken system together. With a public option tied to Medicare, doctors would find a larger percentage of their patients policies reimbursing at lower levels.  This would be abetted by the fact that insurers would be losing market share to a lower priced public option alternative.  As public companies  they would have to continue to lower premiums to keep pace with a public option that has better economics or lose market share — either way suffering an operating profit death by a thousand cuts. Supporters for the public option view this economic transformation as an inevitability of eliminating waste, inequity and over-treatment.  The dollars are there, many contend, they just need to be redistributed.

The reimbursement differences between Medicaid, Medicare and private insurance are real and pronounced. We know in New Jersey for example, there are three levels of hospital pricing reflected in state regulations.  More than 500% of the federal poverty level (FPL) is considered retail charges.  Between 300% and 500% of the FPL can be charged at 115% of Medicare and below 300% of FPL is charged at the state Medicaid fee for service rate.  The range of costs that can be charged to uninsured individuals vary dramatically.  For example, the charges for back surgery for a 500%+ FPL patient range from $185,000 to a startling low of $13,000.  The reimbursement for an under 300% Medicaid patient averages around $5,800.  How one is allowed to reimburse hospitals and doctors determines much of their fate as a payer.

Should the government introduce a single payer, it would reimburse providers at lower levels than private insurance which would allow it to capture market share through lower costs resulting in lower premiums.  In 2014, consumers concerned about the rising cost of care delivered through newly formed state insurance exchanges, would seek the lowest price plan.  If that choice was a public option, many would be likely to try it on for size.  So far, so good?

There is a scenario where a large percentage of those currently privately insured move from an exchange plan to a public option exchange alternative. The more participants that join the public pool, the greater the purchasing power the government can wield in negotiating fee increases to providers.  As the economic advantage between a public option and private insurance widens, private insurers start to withdraw from markets.

Much of healthcare cost control is achieved through provider reimbursement contracting but it only goes so far.  As physician and hospital reimbursement decreases, fewer individuals stay in or enter medicine leading to reduced capacity.  Access to care becomes an issue resulting in a delivery system that is anchored by rationing and triage.  This transformation toward rationing access is inevitable in any system where there are limited resources and infinite demand. Many economists and health policy experts would argue that our current course is untenable and that managing healthcare within a finite annual appropriation is not a bad thing.  Affordability is, after all, a zero sum game.

Can The Public Option Compete Without Medicare Reimbursement?

If a public option is introduced but not allowed to index reimbursement to Medicare could it survive ? Certainly a public option not anchored by Medicare rates of reimbursement would experience the same challenges that any insurer experiences when trying to enter a new market.  A public option may have initial advantages due to lower administrative costs and non profit status but as a level playing field competitor, it requires additional infrastructure to pay claims and administer clinical, fraud and utilization management programs to control cost. Hospitals and providers would be reluctant to give a new public option better economics than private plans for several reasons — the knowledge that a stronger public option means reduced reimbursement over time, the awareness that any government plan allows less of an ability to negotiate rates and the recognition that a public option without members has no real purchasing power.  Like credit, one has to have it to get it. Competitive contracting economics come with leverage. Leverage is membership.  The more members you have, the better the rates you can negotiate.  No members, no competitive contracts.

Fear not, the public option has the advantage of using tax payer dollars to initially price premiums at a loss (charges for care will exceed premiums received ) until the it takes on enough membership to be self sustaining.  Initially insurers would try to cherry pick against the upstart public competitor, running off poorer risks to the public option.  However, the deep pockets of a public option funded by tax payer dollars can outlast any private plan.  The balance in the market shifts and the public option gains equal or better financial footing than its for profit foes. The twilight of private insurance is at hand in a 2.0 world.

Some question whether a public option can delivery similar clinical and utilization management as private plans to ensure cost effective delivery of care and limited abuses by providers trying to make up in quantity those dollars that they are losing in reimbursement. After all, unit cost discounts can only go so far.  The holy grail of medicine is managing care in a more integrated fashion, eliminating unnecessary treatments and keeping people healthy — none of which get rewarded through today’s treat vs. prevent chronic illness reimbursement system.

History suggests Medicare and Medicaid have not been nearly as diligent as private insurers in fraud, medical management and waste prevention.  In fact, while government run plans have an administrative cost that is one-third of private for profit insurers, fraud and abuse represent an additional 10% or $$100B per year. The savings achieved through razor-thin administration are bleeding out through the thousand cuts caused by laissez faire medical management. It’s a fair question to ask whether a single payer would really be able to manage care and outcomes or just manage access and reimbursement.

What Next?

Insurers understand that Managed Care 2.0 is just that — a next stage in an irreversible process of transformation.  Their greatest fear did not immediately occur – the establishment of a federal rate authority administered by Health and Human Services.  However, if minimum loss ratio thresholds prove inadequate to contain costs ( and they will prove inadequate ), we are likely to see the two headed beast appear where we are asked to pick our poison — rate controls or a public option. Prior approval of rates are already embedded in 50% of US markets.  Rate debate is happening as we see Massachusetts and others grapple with little imagination around the reality that access without affordability is like a flashlight without batteries — it doesn’t work.

My guess is by the time health exchanges are established for individuals and small employers in 2014, costs will have risen another 40%.  The government will realize that $500B of Medicare cuts to finance access for new insureds did nothing to reduce its $38T unfunded liabilities. Medicare will continue to hurtle towards insolvency until the real cost containment legislation is passed.

The average cost for private insurance will increase with mandated coverage minimums and guarantee issue, non cancelable coverage. An individual above 400% of the poverty line will find it hard to afford coverage and may spend a large percentage of their discretionary income on health insurance.  Larger employers are likely to pull up the drawbridge and begin to slowly cut coverage.  Mid-sized and smaller business will do the simple calculus around whether they keep or drop insurance. No one will want to be the first guy to drop coverage but no one wants to be the last guy who pays for the $15,000 aspirin as cost shifting hits its high water mark. A public option could provide the air cover employers need to slowly step away from employer sponsored coverage.

The middle class will take it on the chin as they always do.  At this point, we will rally around the cry for affordability.  The pitchforks and torches will once again appear and we will look for a common enemy.  And out of the woods, crashing across the growing chasm of cost will fall the public option.  It will be hailed as the panacea for competition and sentinel control over for profit players.  It will usher in a new era and it may very well set in motion the next phase of Managed Care 2.0 – – an era characterized by the death of private insurance.

Depending on where you sit, you will either be dancing around the bonfire or burning someone in effigy.  One thing is certain, more change is coming.