Health care spending continues to rise at the fastest rate in our history. In 2005, total national health costs rose 6.9 percent -- twice the rate of inflation - reaching $2 trillion, or $6,700 per person [Catlin, Cowan, Heffler, et al, 2006]. Currently, total health care spending represents 16 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP). In the next decade, U.S. health care spending is expected to increase at similar levels, reaching $4 trillion in 2015 [Borger et al, 2006].

While some experts maintain that our health care system is costly because it is riddled with inefficiencies, excessive administrative expenses, inflated prices, poor management, waste, inappropriate care, and fraud [Health Insurance Cost, National Coalition on Health Care, 2008], at least three remaining key factors, namely, aging population, expensive medical innovation, and defensive care, contribute substantially, to the overall cost picture.


1. Aging population

In the United States, the proportion of the population aged >65 years is projected to increase from 12.4% in 2000 to 19.6% in 2030. The number of persons aged >65 years is expected to increase from approximately 35 million in 2000 to an estimated 71 million in 2030, and the number of persons aged >80 years is expected to increase from 9.3 million in 2000 to 19.5 million in 2030 [Public Health and Aging: Trends in Aging --- United States and Worldwide, 2008; Kaiser Family Foundation, 2006].
"The growing number of older adults increases demands on the public health system and on medical and social services. Chronic diseases, which affect older adults disproportionately, contribute to disability, diminish quality of life, and increased health- and long-term--care costs." [UN, 2002] 125 million Americans have one or more chronic conditions (e.g. congestive heart failure, diabetes.) Chronic diseases account for 75% of all health care expenditures. Source: Burrill & Company, 2006

2. Expensive innovation

* The American biotechnology industry has surpassed pharmaceutical companies for the third straight year as the primary source of new medicines, and biotech revenue jumped nearly 16 percent to a record $50.7 billion in 2005. Source: Ernst & Young LLP, 2006

* The USA is the world's largest and wealthiest pharmaceutical market, accounting for around 48% of the world total. Per capita expenditure on drugs is US $1,069 in 2006, nearly double the level found in the rest of the world. Source: Espicom Business Intelligence, 2006
* ...an estimated 30% of new products under development are "combo products" - involving medical devices embedded with pharmaceutical or biologics components. [Combination Products- Navigating Two FDA Quality Systems, Microtest White Paper, 2007]. The combination products market is estimated at $5.9B in 2004, and will continue to grow at a compound annual rate of 10% through 2009. By 2009, the market is expected to reach approximately $9.5B worldwide with a majority of these revenues from drug-eluting stents and steroid-eluting electrodes. Source: Navigant Consulting, Inc. In 2004, the US held approximately 65% of the drug-device combination product market. By 2010, the US is projected to hold 57%. Source: Business Communications Inc.


3. "Defensive" Medicine

"One of the major cost drivers in the delivery of health care are these junk and frivolous lawsuits. The risk of frivolous litigation drives doctors -- and hear me out on this -- they drive doctors to prescribe drugs and procedures that may not be necessary, just to avoid lawsuits. That's called the defensive practice of medicine.. . . . See, lawsuits not only drive up premiums, which drives up the cost to the patient or the employer of the patient, but lawsuits cause docs to practice medicine in an expensive way in order to protect themselves in the courthouse. The defensive practice of medicine affects the federal budget. The direct cost of liability insurance and the indirect cost from unnecessary medical procedures raise the federal government's health care costs by at least $28 billion a year." [US President George Bush, Arkansas, January 26, 2004]

Now let us observe the paradox:


1. On one hand, the participants of every ancillary industry to health care, including insurance companies, hi-tech and pharmaceutical engineers and scientists, as well as lawyers, have increased their profits in step with the rising costs of health care at ever accelerating pace.

2. On the other hand, the medical and chiropractic office owners - the actual health care providers - have not only failed to keep up with raising costs but have lost a significant part of their income. In fact, between 1995 and 1999, at a time when most wages and salaries in the United States rose 3.5 percent after adjusting for inflation, average physician net income from the practice of medicine, adjusted for inflation, dropped 5 percent [Reed and Ginsburg, 2003]. In 2006, the median compensation for specialty and primary physicians grew only 1.7 ($322,259) and 2 ($171,519) percent respectively, slower than consumer price index of 3.2 percent [MGMA Physician Compensation and Production Survey: 2007 Report]. In comparison, health care costs beat the inflation by 3.5% reaching the annual growth rate of 6.7 [Health Care Spending, 2008]

Diverting our focus away from trying to find solutions to the problem of rising health care costs, we ask a different question: How such a paradoxical situation is possible without a deliberate and systematic strategy against health care providers?

References:

1. Catlin, A, C. Cowan, S. Heffler, et al, "National Health Spending in 2005." Health Affairs 26:1 (2006): 142-153.
2. Borger, C., et al., "Health Spending Projections Through 2015: Changes on the Horizon," Health Affairs Web Exclusive W61: 22 February 2006.
3. Health Insurance Cost, National Coalition on Health Care as of January 4, 2008
4. Public Health and Aging: Trends in Aging --- United States and Worldwide, as of January 4, 2008
5. United Nations. Report of the Second World Assembly on Aging. Madrid, Spain: United Nations, April 8--12, 2002.
6. Kinsella K, Velkoff V. U.S. Census Bureau. An Aging World: 2001. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2001; series P95/01-1.
7. U.S. Census Bureau. International database. Table 094. Midyear population, by age and sex. 2008
8. The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Employee Health Benefits: 2006 Annual Survey. 26 September 2006.
9. President Bush Calls for Medical Liability Reform, Baptist Health Medical Center, Little Rock, Arkansas, January 26, 2004 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040126-3.html as of January 4, 2008
10. Marie C. Reed, Paul B. Ginsburg, Behind the Times: Physician Income, 1995-99, Data Bulletin No. 24, March 2003
11. Medical Group Management Association (MGMA) Physician Compensation and Production Survey: 2007 Report
12. MEDICARE SPENDING - United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Health, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, March 6, 2007, Healthcare Costs 101
13. Health Care Spending http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/01_Overview.asp as downloaded on January 15, 2008



Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Yuval_Lirov

A Sacramento-area surgeon couldn't schedule surgeries for more than six months because his contract was not loaded in the insurer's computer system. More than 200 of Dr. Watson's patients received letters indicating incorrectly that he was no longer participating in the network. Watson lost about 25 percent of these patients and was not paid for about eight months. Another insured spent eleven months trying to get claims paid for his family, including an autistic child. The insurer never specified what information was needed to make the denied claims eligible for payment.

Are these three isolated incidents or are they three symptoms of a growing problem with the entire provider's reimbursement system? The owners of health care practices easily recognize these painfully familiar symptoms. The better questions are: how are they related to the rising healthcare costs and what can a provider do to help?

In 2005, national healthcare costs rose 6.9 percent - twice the rate of inflation, reaching $2 trillion. National healthcare costs are predicted to double to $4 trillion by 2015. While key health care cost factors include aging US population, the arrival of new and expensive drugs and bio-tech devices, and the defensive medicine, the insurance costs alone stand out as a key contributor to rising healthcare costs. Exorbitant executive compensation became a hallmark of healthcare insurance industry, where William McGuire, CEO of UnitedHealth Group, has reportedly received over $500 million since 1992, more than $1 billion worth of options, a lump sum payout of $6.4 million upon leaving the company, and an annual pension of $5.1 million. But such compensation can be easily justified on Wall Street, when comparing it to outstanding insurance industry profits, such as 38 percent growth in earnings in the 3rd quarter of 2006.

The problem for any successful insurance company is how to make such growth sustainable? This question is difficult because the premium growth (68.4 percent) has disproportionally outpaced both inflation (16.4 percent) and workers earnings (18.2 percent) during the same period (2001-2006), making it impossible to continue to rise the premiums without losing major segments of insured population.

Without the ability to attract new clients or to further raise insurance premiums, cost reduction becomes the next most important approach to enhance profitability. Such cost reduction can be done in a variety of ways, which we conveniently divide into strategic and tactical or opportunistic approaches.

Strategic insurer's arsenal

The creation of an oligopsony through consolidation is the main weapon in the strategic arsenal of insurance companies. Oligopsony exists when providers significantly outnumber buyers, enabling them to dictate prices. Take for example, the PacifiCare's $9.2 billion merger with United Health Group Inc. in late 2005, which created a vast network of HMO and PPO plans covering more than 3 million Californians. Today, three plans alone (UnitedHealthcare, WellPoint and Aetna) cover 77.7 million insured lives. Oligopsony allows the systematic and continuous cost reduction without extra investment, e.g., annual cut of allowed rates (such as the average reimbursement for E&M allowable dropped 10 percent in 2006 and another 6.5 percent in 2007), payment suspension for specific procedures (such as EKG tests for routine physicals), offering "all or none" participation alternatives, or the creation of "tiered networks" that profile providers and incentivize patients to see lower cost providers.

Tactical insurer's weapons

Increasing billing process complexity and inventing new denial reasons through arcane terminology, disparate data formats, and modifications of CPT/ICD codes and medical necessity rules - these are all examples of tactical methods designed to increase providers costs for both billing and follow up and reduce the payments at the expense of practice owners. These methods need continuous investment in personnel training, better process management, and improved technology to keep them effective as the providers begin building more sophisticated systems to scrub and analyze claims and discover payment discrepancies and irregularities.

Provider's Response

Returning to the three incidents mentioned at the outset of this article, the joint Department of Managed Health Care and Insurance Department determined that these are not isolated cases. It analyzed 1.1 million paid claims from June 2005 to May 2007 that covered about 190,000 members in PacifiCare's HMO plans and PPO coverage [Gilbert Chan , "PacifiCare fined record $3.5 million," www.sacbee.com , January 30, 2008] and discovered 30 percent of the HMO claims wrongly denied and 29 percent of the disputes with doctors were handled incorrectly. PacifiCare paid out over $1 million and was fined additional $3.5 million.

In summary, providers need new and effective approaches to mobilize both legal and organizational talent to reverse their revenue decline. Legal methods battle market conditions like oligopsony while large-scale medical billing networks aggregate claim volumes and create resulting economies of scale to enable analytical discovery of under-payments.



Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Yuval_Lirov