What About Patient Accountability?

The debate between payers and providers over the responsibility and accountability of healthcare costs certainly didn’t begin with the drafting and eventual passage of the ACA, nor will it end. Like the Hatfields and McCoys, a war of words (and figures) has been waged between these primary stakeholders in the healthcare industry for decades. There is a fundamental distrust and disagreement regarding who is responsible for the unsustainable growth in healthcare costs – and who should ultimately be responsible and held accountable for the standard “healthcare system” objectives of increasing efficiency, decreasing costs, and improving outcomes.

To bend the cost curve, many of the recent conversations and reform efforts have been focused on population health management, care coordination, compliance, and engagement. New technologies and regulations are emerging daily with a promise to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of healthcare. New business and care delivery models (and old ones with new names) are being developed and deployed, such as ACOs and Medical Homes. And, most of these new ideas and solutions are being described as “consumer-driven,” “patient-centric,” and “integrated,” yet most are failing to produce the results that politicians, employers, and consumers are aggressively demanding.

Meanwhile, the heavily scrutinized leaders of health insurance companies and hospital systems continue to blame each other for the meteoric rise in health care costs – and they should be – but not as healthcare executives but rather as healthcare consumers… and consumers of cigarettes, alcohol, hamburgers, and home entertainment.

To clarify this point, I recall my experience at the 2010 World Health Care Congress in Washington DC (April 12-14). It was the first major industry conference shortly after the ACA passed (March 23). A morning panel of shell-shocked CEOs from leading payers and providers engaged in a “healthy” yet intense discussion about conflicts of interest, cost-shifting, risk-sharing, accountability, insurance exchanges, consumerism, fee-for-service vs. value-based, supply/demand imbalances, the aging population, end-of-life, fraud and abuse, technology integration and interoperability, industry consolidation, regulations, EHRs and meaningful use, and the economy, among other timely topics.

As soon as the session ended, the industry leaders charged with creating solutions for our national healthcare crisis flooded out of the auditorium into the hallways of the convention center. I observed in dismay as many shuffled outside for a smoke break in finger-numbing temperatures while the masses consumed sugar-loaded pastries, donuts, coffee drinks, juices and soft drinks from well-catered tables. Did I mention that we had all been sitting in chairs all morning?

If we really want to get serious about “bending the cost curve,” then we need to address our society’s apathy regarding unhealthy behaviors and environments. There is overwhelming evidence that prevalent yet preventative consumer behavior, such as smoking, alcohol abuse, poor nutrition, and lack of physical activity, are imposing enormous costs on our society. Chronic conditions that are caused or worsened by unhealthy lifestyles, such as heart disease, diabetes, asthma, obesity, and cancer, account for more than seventy-five percent of U.S. healthcare expenditures. To truly solve our healthcare crisis, patients and consumers of healthcare must assume more accountability.

Surely, that is one thing payers and providers should agree upon!

Together, these key stakeholders need to redesign our healthcare system with new solutions that will drive patient accountability and reward healthy behavior. Just as banks utilize credit ratings and the automobile insurance relies upon driving records to help manage their risks, the healthcare payers and providers need a standard means to help manage their risks. It’s quite simple in these other scenarios I referenced. If we are financially irresponsible, then it costs us more to borrow money. If we drive irresponsibly, then it costs us more to purchase car insurance.

There is overwhelming evidence that individuals with unhealthy habits pay only a fraction of the costs associated with their behaviors. Most of the expenses caused by their decisions and lifestyle are passed on to the rest of society in the form of higher insurance premiums, taxpayer-funded government expenditures for healthcare, and disability benefits.

Many payers, particularly self-insured employers, are already leading the charge to shift the risk and responsibility associated with healthcare directly to individuals. A recent survey by Hewitt Associates found that nearly half (47%) of employers either already use financial incentives or plan to use financial incentives during the next three to five years to penalize and/or reward the health-related behavior of their employees.

Section 2705 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) is a provision that holds significant potential. In 2014, employers may apply up to 30% of the total amount of employees’ health insurance premiums (50% at the discretion of the Secretary of Health and Human Services) to provide performance-based wellness incentives. This represents an attempt by the government to rein in healthcare costs associated with unhealthy behaviors. The clear objective of this ACA provision and the political rhetoric behind it is to improve health-related behavior and reduce the prevalence of chronic disease caused by unhealthy lifestyles.

These incentive programs have drawn criticism from those concerned that holding individuals responsible for their health, particularly through the use of penalties, violates individual liberties and discriminates against the unhealthy. And, as someone whose mother suffered from Multiple Sclerosis, a dreadful chronic disease without a known cause or cure, I can surely understand their argument but there must be a logical set of conditions under which a new incentive-based system can be developed and deployed in a responsible, ethical manner to contain healthcare costs and encourage healthy behavior. This issue was central in the historic Supreme Court hearings on the constitutionality of ACA’s mandate that just wrapped-up.

Read our blog next week for a proposed measurement system that will help drive patient accountability and promote healthy behavior.

John Montague

John Montague is a Vice President at TripleTree focused on innovative companies and solutions that are shaping the future of healthcare. E-mail John at jmontague@triple-tree.com

Read Full Post »

Would a Simplified Doctors Bill Reduce Patient Confusion?

With increasing frequency, the trend toward healthcare provider “transparency” is in the news.

One vocal and prominent proponent of the concept is Dr. C. Martin Harris of the Cleveland Clinic, whose goal is improved transparency and patient access across our health care system.  Conceptually it sounds great, but would a better patient understanding of the financial aspects of their care (i.e. bills) influence their behaviors when selecting a care provider?

Dr. Harris is pushing for the development and utilization of patient-centric financial management tools that will expose the true costs associated with patient care.  Such tools could allow patients (consumers) to analyze their “actual” medical costs as well as their insurance coverage to help them better understand, in real-time what is owed for a given treatment.

Dr. Harris is shining a light on the patient confusion surrounding what to pay, who to pay and when to pay it. His view calls for a simplified system of transparent billing (the financial side of healthcare transactions) which “would clearly optimize the value of care to patients.”

Approaches such as specialized cards that initiate any healthcare-related transaction and then connect to online portals might be a starting point; and could even include connections to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) via its Consumer Assessment of Health Providers and Systems (CAHPS®).   But will that be enough to entice consumers (patients) to gravitate toward a specific healthcare provider if they could deliver:

• Better value (i.e., the same or better medical care for cheaper)
• Enhanced customer service (i.e., overall patient experience), or
• Improved medical outcomes?

These three post reform drivers seem to be reasonable predictors of consumer preference – however its less clear whether a consumer would compare two or more healthcare providers based on billing statement transparency (clarity) alone.

Provider billing transparency is for now likely a “nice-to-have” rather than “must have” component of patient experience – and without the urging of consumers or employers the solutions envisioned by Dr. Harris won’t likely emerge.   Rather, patient experience trends, improved outcomes and calculating value for healthcare dollars spent, will likely persist as the near term focus of vendors serving the healthcare provider market.

Let us know what you think.

Jamie Lockhart

Jamie Lockhart is a Vice President with TripleTree covering healthcare software and service providers with a focus on consumer directed healthcare.  You can contact him at jlockhart@triple-tree.com

Read Full Post »

Can a New Approach to a Healthcare Claims Database Help Control Costs?

As congressmen and stakeholders across the country continue to debate the best methods for quality improvement and cost containment in the U.S. healthcare system, four of the nation’s largest health insurers have come together to provide access to data that has the potential to significantly bend the cost curve.

A long awaited announcement came last week from  Aetna, Humana, Kaiser Permanente and UnitedHealth Group  revealing that they will be providing access to over 5 billion de-identified claims from over 5,000 U.S. hospitals totaling $1 trillion of healthcare costs incurred since 2000. This data will be made available to researchers and distinguished healthcare economists via the newly formed nonprofit group, Health Care Cost Institute (HCCI).

According to the HCCI web site, its mission is to promote independent research and analysis on the causes of rising US health spending, to provide policy makers, consumers, and researchers with better, more transparent information on what is driving health care costs, to help ensure that, over time, the nation is able to get greater value from its health spending.

Last week I spoke with Dr. Stephen T. Parente, PhD., Professor in the Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota and member of the governing board of HCCI. He described the multi-stage approach of the HCCI which includes collecting and aggregating data from the participating private insurers and establishing a database for entities interested in getting a handle on health care costs and utilization.  The HCCI is also designing “rules of the road” related to research protocols, access and review..

Until now, claims data has been limited to federally provided data on Medicare. But with over half of healthcare expenditures coming from private pay insurers, this restricted view hasn’t been broad enough to draw meaningful conclusions.   As its content evolves, the HCCI will publish a bi-annual scorecard to help researchers identify trending information at levels of detail rarely (if ever) seen before.

We’re actively working with healthcare innovators, many of which are working toward the same healthcare cost-saving goal,, and thought it would be useful to list our view of where  we predict the HCCI could (in the near term) positively impact payers, providers and patients related to healthcare cost and quality:

• Develop evidence-based care recommendations and best practices (Providers and patients)
• Design multi-payer quality improvement strategies and evaluate their effectiveness (Payers and patients)
• Understand key bottlenecks along the care continuum where patients spend the most time and dollars (Payers and patients)
• Determine specific diseases, conditions and treatments that are driving the largest cost trends (Payers and patients)
• Identify the most cost-effective providers and medical procedures as well as geographical variations (Payers and patients)
• Isolate cost variances between Medicare/Medicaid and private health plans and help appropriately align pricing with private pay (Taxpayers)
• Analyze healthcare cost trends over time at an heightened level of specificity (Everyone)
• Evaluate the effectiveness and draw comparisons between different types of disease management programs and treatment procedures(Payers, providers and patients)

Our long term outlook on the value of this data is that it can create new metrics of clinical and care performance standards based largely on historical and real-time reporting on claims. We’re hopeful that as such analyses are developed and recognized on a broader stage, they will be used to inform policy on a much more direct basis and make a huge impact on the costs of healthcare.

Have a great week.

Emma Daugherty

Emma Daugherty is a Senior Analyst at TripleTree covering the life sciences sector with a focus on provider technologies and patient safety.  You can contact her at edaugherty@triple-tree.com.

Read Full Post »

Insurance Exchange Enablement Heats Up as the Clock Ticks Down

Today’s news that Wellpoint and two other Blues (HCSC and BCSB MI) acquired a 78% stake in Health Insurance Exchange vendor Bloom Health is not the first – and won’t be the last – move in what is sure to be a consolidating market.

The Accountable Care Act (ACA or Obamacare) requires each state to establish an online shopping portal, known as a Health Insurance Exchange (HIX) for individuals and small groups to purchase health insurance no later than January 1 2014. We have written and blogged extensively on the topic. In our estimates, HHS and the states will need to spend in the neighborhood of $4-$6 billion dollars on technologies order to create these exchanges. In addition to the ACA HIX, there is perhaps a bigger market opportunity in the private sector to create non-government sponsored insurance exchanges, creating even a bigger market opportunity. Bloom Health is one of many vendors specializing in the private exchange market.

Wellpoint, the Blues, and in fact all health insurance companies are making the individual and small group markets a top priority for new business and growth initiatives. These markets will explode in growth due to the Obamacare legislation and the carriers recognize the opportunity and the challenge with tapping this market.

The insurance exchanges, both public and private, will be the primary vehicles to reach into the individual and small group markets. Wellpoint’s move on Bloom, and Optum’s acquisition of Connextions, is recognition of this fact.

In addition to the Connextions and Bloom transactions, the vendor community is also coming together to help create insurance exchanges. Accenture’s acquisition of Duck Creek, announced partnerships from Oracle, Microsoft, CSC and others such as Maximus’ partnership with Connecture, portend of additional transactions to come in the space.

Insurance companies need help in positioning into the individual market, and also need technology to help them more effectively participate in the public and private exchanges.  Several vendors are positioning into the market but only a few have broad, proven experience with exchanges.

Companies like eHealth and Extend Health, which have consumer engagement and online shopping capabilities from market adjacencies (a leading online brokerage for eHealth and a robust Medicare exchange from Extend) will be important players in the new world of insurance exchanges. Other players like DestinationRx are similarly active in the exchange marketplace, working with HHS and multiple insurance plans, and will have a meaningful impact on the public and private HIX marketplace.  These vendors already have a head start in exchange operations, plan comparison features and tools to help consumers sort through the confusing world of insurance costs and coverage.

TripleTree’s recent HIX research report lays out a number of vendors that are currently engaged in HIX solutions. The report concludes that no vendor provides a complete solution.  Given the importance of the exchanges and the immediate market opportunity, no doubt consolidation will continue.

Have a good week.

Scott Donahue

Scott Donahue is a Vice President at TripleTree covering infrastructure and application technologies across numerous industries and specializes in assessing the “master brands” of IT and Healthcare. Follow Scott on Twitter or e-mail him at sdonahue@triple-tree.com

Read Full Post »

Steward Takes On Insurer Role in Agreement with Tufts

Cerebrus-backed hospital operator Steward Health Care System (Steward) made news last week by launching an insurance product. This announcement marks one of the most dramatic attempts by a provider to position themselves to profit from system wide efforts to better control care delivery and distribution.

Dubbed Steward Community Choice, this new plan will see all routine care provided through Steward-affiliated doctors and facilities (although certain exceptions apply).  Despite potential access limitations, the plan is designed to appeal to small businesses as it will be priced as much as 15% to 30% below comparable products and calls for Steward to bear all the financial risk for patients’ care. Tufts Health Plan of Massachusetts will provide administrative services (running call centers staffing, card issuance, etc).

This announcement is the latest example of providers financially aligning themselves with the care they provide.  Similar models have been introduced throughout the country as well:

• Carilion Clinic through a partnership with Aetna in Virginia
• Sutter Health through a partnership with Health Net in northern California

The broader implication of this risk transfer to the provider is how the consumer has been thrust to the center of healthcare delivery and decision making processes, which is forcing payers (and providers) to re-think their distribution and retention strategies and focus on consumers.

Cost is the driver.  Employers are actively seeking solutions to better control healthcare-related costs and as they continue to shift towards high-deductible coverage (which send a significant percentage of healthcare costs towards the consumer) products like Steward’s where costs can be controlled.

Payers view this as another method to introduce performance-based risk contracting and better track the experience of a patient’s care. Several of the larger payers are trying to control the distribution of care by investing in providers as seen by Optum’s acquisition of Monarch and Humana’s acquisition of Concentra.

Providers view the potential additional revenue as a benefit too.  Given declining reimbursement rates and the increasing administrative burdens that accompany care distribution; these types of arrangements can increase revenues, cover costs and apply a stronger focus on the provision of care.

Perhaps the most affected will be consumers, who have increased demands for greater transparency, access and information to control their overall healthcare spending.  Historical efforts to introduce similar products have failed because consumers viewed them as restrictive and of poor quality, but trends around health reform are changing the playing field.

As healthcare costs continue to shift towards the consumer, these restrictive arrangements are likely to persist as the “closed” nature of provider networks offer cost relief by limiting access to certain doctors and hospitals.

Let us know what you think.

Joe Long

Joe Long is an analyst at TripleTree covering the healthcare sector, with a focus on the approaches and technologies surrounding health insurance exchanges.  You can email him at jlong@triple-tree.com.

Read Full Post »

Does Highmark’s Move Portend a Payers’ Path to Financial Health?

The  recent acquisition by Highmark, Inc. of the five-hospital West Penn Allegheny Health System brings into focus an emerging healthcare provider model in which payers are assuming direct control of medical facilities. Payers, seeking to curb costs amid U.S. health reform are motivated by numerous factors, including:

• Gaining an early leadership positioning in developing a self-sufficient ACO model that can be leveraged nationwide.
• Providing direct insight into best practices they can use in contracting with other medical groups.
• Allowing the capture of new efficiencies in the healthcare system by accruing part of the costs that would have gone to providers

Over the years, payers have attempted a number of different cost control mechanisms ranging from preferred drug lists to performance incentives – but have had minimal success. This feet-on-the-street approach is their most direct attempt to control spending through managing the doctors directly. The thought is that the Payer-Provider Facility strategy will truly “incentivize” doctors to control spending as it affects their direct employer; as opposed to other historical financial incentive arrangements that have failed to hold ground.

In the mid ‘90s managed care failed in its attempt to take a greater role in the care delivery as consumers rebuffed limits on provider choice and treatment options. This time around (and as depicted the graphic below), insurers adopting this strategy appear to be focused on the controlling the provision of services and owning providers as opposed to network or treatment restrictions.

Source: TripleTree, LLC

A recent Washington Post article analyzes the ongoing transition of the major managed care players – namely UnitedHealthcare, WellPoint, CIGNA and Humana – into the provider space.  Further analysis by TripleTree underscores that the strategy appears to be driven by the insurers’ desire diminish the financial pressure of health reform, however, this could also viewed as a long-term strategic move by insurers to position themselves as the central hub of future ACOs.

Source: TripleTree, LLC

Highmark’s acquisition is unique in that it is one of the only significant payer-hospital acquisitions to occur in well over a decade.  Payers (such as Humana and Wellpoint) have routinely purchased clinics in recent years in an effort to push care further outside of the hospital towards more efficient, less costly outpatient settings. The acquisition represents a bold strategy to align Highmark with their hospital provider base. However, the move also poses the risk of competitive backlash from competitors who choose to not use West Penn and withdrawal from customers fearing provider choice and location limitations.

In the coming months, TripleTree will be spending a considerable amount of time monitoring the movement of payers to reposition themselves as “clinical” and “provider-focused” as ACOs develop.   In addition, we will also be analyzing how each payer’s provider strategy aligns with their efforts to expand their clinical technology platforms into the provider market.

Let us know what you think.

Joe Long

Joe Long is an analyst at TripleTree covering the healthcare sector, with a focus on the approaches and technologies surrounding health insurance exchanges.  You can email him at jlong@triple-tree.com.

Read Full Post »

Consumerism in Healthcare

The U.S. healthcare system is entering a new era for consumers.  Consumers have become engaged ‘healthcare stakeholders’ and are demanding greater understanding of their options around care and costs.  As a result, consumers (aka patients, employees, and health plan members), are starting to realize that their influence (which has been steadily building over the last decade) have meaningful clout in the healthcare economy.  Below are four relevant initiatives we assessing:

• Health programs, care reminders, and incentives.  Consumers want easy access to online tools and resources that enable care direction and lifestyle management including programs like:
  • Medication Therapy Management tools that connect patients with physicians and pharmacists.
  • Care reminders that can be securely pushed to consumers through electronic messaging mediums such as phone, email, and text message.
  • Incentives can be a strong driver towards encouraging healthy behavior with insurance discounts for health and wellness activities like joining a health club.
• Better options, access to care, and transparency
  • Allowing patients to take more control of their care options and reviewing the costs associated with those procedures is a major factor in healthcare consumerism.
  • By providing education, pricing data, and easily accessible online content, patients can make more informed decision about care, which drives patient awareness, improves adherence, and transparency.
• A ‘retail-like’ healthcare experience
  • Customer satisfaction surveys typically rank ‘shopping for health insurance’ at or near the bottom of most industries.
  •  Traditional consumer expansion about a ‘retail’ shopping experience has been lost in health insurance, and consumers need online tools such as portals, comparison engines and programs for population health management (PHM). Opening this business-to-consumer (B2C) channel will create more clarity around cost, treatment options, and alternatives.
• Flexible payment options and improved customer service.  Most consumers would agree that managing the payment process for healthcare related expenses can be a nightmare. 
  • Wouldn’t it be great if a single trip the hospital resulted in one bill that included all charges and a single explanation of benefits (EOB)?   The lack of quality and continuity in customer service and support creates additional consumer frustration. Traditional customer relationship management (CRM) software tools that provide a 360 degree view of the customer in other verticals such as retail and financial services are only beginning to penetrate the healthcare market. Consumers want tools that provide more flexible payment options, simplicity around billing and cost, and an improved experience with customer service.

As consumers become more engaged healthcare stakeholders, the demand will increase for greater understanding of their care options, access, transparency, and costs.  Until recently there was little incentive for insurance companies and provider groups to change the model, and holding healthcare organizations accountable for these changes now is engendering consumer choice via competition, not legislation.  For more, check out our recent Principals Forum interview on the drivers of consumerism in healthcare and let us know what you think.

Michael Boardman

Michael Boardman is an associate at TripleTree covering the healthcare and technology industries, specializing in clinical software solutions.  Follow Michael on Twitter or e-mail him at mboardman@triple-tree.com.

Read Full Post »

While Obamacare Exchanges Remain Controversial; Opportunities Exist for Commercial Insurance Exchanges

With the seating of the new Congress, much attention has been given to the Republican pledge to repeal Obamacare, or at least their desire to defund major parts of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). High on the list of defunding targets are the state mandated health insurance exchanges (section 1311).

The state exchanges are designed to be a marketplace where people not covered through their employers would shop for and purchase health insurance, and if qualified, would receive subsidies.  The PPACA mandates that all states must establish insurance exchanges for individuals to purchase insurance by 2014, or the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will establish and run the exchange for the states who aren’t compliant.

The exchanges remain one of the most controversial aspects of the PPACA because of the large unfunded mandates they place on the states, in addition:

• The exchanges are the vehicle for supporting the Individual Mandate (the portion of the Reform Act that requires all US citizens to be covered under health insurance), and because of the very ambiguous rules legislated in the establishment of the exchanges.
• Half of the U.S. State Attorneys General are suing the federal government to block the mandate to implement insurance exchanges, claiming the rules are too ambiguous, that the unfunded mandate will bankrupt the states, and that the mandate is an overreach of federal powers.

The national debate on healthcare and popular sentiment to make health insurance more accessible and affordable has forced the health insurance companies to re-think how they market and sell their products.  As we have spoken about many times in the last year, the health insurance market is at the forefront of a fundamental shift to a retail business model from its legacy wholesale roots.

Despite the public scrutiny being paid to the insurance exchange mandate and congressional risks to rejigger the entire legislation, TripleTree is seeing a much more interesting dynamic forming in the healthcare insurance marketplace – early steps to establish alternative insurance exchange marketplaces by commercial entities.

A commercial healthcare exchange is a private venture between one or more insurance companies and a retailer (such as Walmart), bank, property and casualty insurance company.  It could in reality, include a range of consumer-oriented entity that unite to create a health insurance marketplace.

In the individual and small group market, consumers may find much higher value (and savings) in bundled insurance products (i.e. property, auto, life and health) than they would in singulary buying health insurance in the state dictated and controlled exchange.   Complicating things, this is especially true for consumers that would not qualify for the federal or state subsidies that can only be received if insurance is purchased in the public state exchange.

Today, most property and casualty holders get a discount for carrying multiple policies from the same carrier (e.g. homeowners and auto combined might yield a 15% discount on both policies).   Our research has led to many discussions with property and casualty insurers interested in bundling health insurance though a partnership (rather than direct underwriting).  Their goal?…aggregate and manage a larger share of consumer spend on insurance products.

Similarly, we are aware of large national retailers seeking to implement a proprietary insurance marketplace of as a way of extending a service mix to their customers, building brand loyalty and retaining customers within their own pharmacies.  While some retailers may form single entity partnerships, others see themselves as a marketplace for multiple carriers competing for business.  We anticipate seeing these commercial insurance exchange marketplaces begin rolling out sometime in 2011.

Though these commercial exchanges may not solve the adverse selection problem that the PPACA exchanges were designed to address, they should prove a successful partnership for the retailer and the insurance company that otherwise has difficulty marketing directly to consumers.  While states dither and politics hinder the roll-out of the public exchanges, many forward thinking commercial business recognize the market opportunity to provide a better insurance buying experience and are moving quickly to meet a market need – the way that free economies are supposed to work.

This is a thorny, emotional issue – and our research and sell-side mandates are paying close attention as technology-based solutions emerge.

Let us know what you think and have a great week!

Scott Donahue

Scott Donahue is a Vice President at TripleTree covering infrastructure and application technologies across numerous industries and specializes in assessing the “master brands” of IT and Healthcare. Follow Scott on Twitter or e-mail him at sdonahue@triple-tree.com

Read Full Post »