The Divide in the ACO Debate – Beltway Rhetoric versus Marketplace Cynicism

Amid the broader – and oftentimes highly opinionated and heated – ACO conversation occurring across Washington and the private sector, The Wall Street Journal published an interesting piece last week highlighting the specific views of three individuals:

• Don Berwick is the former administrator for CMS who just stepped down last December.  Don oversaw the creation of the ACO framework under the Medicare Shared Savings Program.
• Tom Scully is currently a General Partner at the New York-based private equity firm Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe.  Tom formerly served as the CMS administrator from 2001 to 2004 and CEO of the Federation of American Hospitals.
• Jeff Goldsmith is a president of Health Futures, a healthcare consulting firm out of Charlottesville, VA and an associate professor of public health sciences at the University of Virginia.

What becomes immediately apparent in the three-way dialogue (done via email) is the lens through which various participants view the industry’s efforts to improve healthcare’s fundamental problem of shifting from the traditional fee for service to a value-based approach.  There aren’t any quick, silver bullet answers to the debate, but what is evident is the divide among those that represent Washington’s political rhetoric (Don) and those that must figure out ways to make the new framework work within a dynamic, private care delivery system (Tom and Jeff).

Several disagreements bubble to the surface related to:

The role providers will play

• Berwick: “The ACO premise is different. Beneficiaries don’t join an ACO; providers of care do.”
• Scully: “The biggest flaw with ACOs is that they are driving more power to hospitals—not to doctors. Very scary, and I am a hospital guy.” … “If the doctors had the capital to organize comprehensive ACOs to control their own fate and drive us to more efficient care, I would be bullish on ACOs. But doctors are again along for the ride, not driving the bus.”
• Goldsmith: “In practice, however, the ACO is more like asking the hungry horse to guard the granary. The major savings for Medicare are to be found by keeping people out of the hospital, and reducing the incomes of the specialists who dominate hospital politics. To get those savings, hospitals and their specialists have to turn their backs on five decades of making more by doing more.”

Emphasis on the patient

• Berwick: “…the formula for ACO success is clear: keep quality high, save money by improving—not by restricting—care, and remain attractive to beneficiaries, who could go anywhere for care.”
• Scully: “The best models for ACOs are doctor groups like Monarch HealthCare in Los Angeles or JSA HealthCare in Tampa. Give doctors lots of patient data, pay them to see patients more often, follow their drug use and health status more closely to keep them out of hospitals—and give them control of the cash!”
• Goldsmith: “The biggest problem with the ACO, however, isn’t the faulty business proposition, but the patient’s role.” … “In the ACO, providers are accountable to Medicare. Patients won’t get a dime of the savings, and no choice whether to participate or not.” “Despite all the rhetoric about ACOs being patient-centered, it is a paternalistic, “we’ll decide what you need” kind of model.”

Prospects for care improvements and financial success of ACOs

• Berwick: “Knowing full well the results of the PGP demonstration, the CMS office of the actuary estimated base-case Medicare savings of over $400 million in the first three years of the ACO program.”  … The “32 physician groups and health-care systems selected for the pioneer program, covering 860,000 Medicare beneficiaries, [are] projected to save $1.1 billion in health-care costs over the first five years.”
• Scully: “In the system we have, ACOs are conceptually right, in that the concept inches toward differential pricing for quality, and Don should be congratulated. But we need to step back out of the trees, look at the forest and question the financing system we have created.”
• Goldsmith: “Having each community, large or small, set up its own ACO is like setting up a backyard steel mill.” … “It is the incredibly heterogeneous 5% of the population that generates 47% of all costs that you need to focus on, and if you don’t have enough of them in your “attributed” population, you cannot concentrate the resources to change their care and lives.”

Startup costs of an ACO

• Scully: “The start-up cost of a real ACO is probably $30 million and up in a midsize market.”
• Berwick: “The actual barriers to entry appear a lot lower than the $30 million cost that Tom Scully mentions; CMS estimates are only a fraction of that.” “… the CMS Innovation Center has proposed a program of advance payment to provide front-end capital and extra operating funds for care coordination, information systems and the like.”
• Goldsmith: “A more credible estimate of setup costs for a provider system with no prior managed-care experience to participate in the shared savings program: $10 million to $15 million per health system (consulting, IT systems conversions, new staff, etc.).”

 Prospects for success

• Berwick: “Smart entrants, focused on seamless care, outcomes and beneficiary satisfaction, will both reduce Medicare’s expenditures and reap financial rewards for themselves.” … “I hope and expect that ACOs will honor the trust they have been given by doing the job—lower cost through care improvements. If they violate that trust, the costs to them and to the future of seamless, coordinated care in America will be high indeed.”
• Scully: “Don’s vision is great, and who can’t like what he has tried to do with ACOs… Except that the incentives are very small, the change will be slow, and we are just nibbling at real system reform.”
• Goldsmith: “There were a lot of good ideas in the Affordable Care Act for saving money and improving quality. Unfortunately, the ACO wasn’t one of them.” … “By pushing this edgy idea from the policy world and ignoring the real-world evidence of its own trials, CMS picked the wrong horse.”

In a final from Jeff Goldsmith: “One of the most serious problems with the health-care world just now is the gap between the policy world and the real world. The ACO is Exhibit A in this yawning disconnect.”  Jeff is right to point out that there’s a divide between the public and private domains, yet progress, however small, has arguably been made.

The real question is whether “the vision” put forth by Don Berwick will ultimately evolve into a pervasive performance-based delivery model in which quality, efficiency, and choice are the driving factors behind private sector reimbursement and profitability.  To those outside of Washington, there certainly seems to be a long way to go – let us know what you think.

Seth Kneller

Seth Kneller is a Vice President at TripleTree covering the healthcare industry, specializing in revenue cycle management, clinical software solutions, geriatric care and healthcare analytics. Follow Seth on Twitter or e-mail him at skneller@triple-tree.com.

Read Full Post »

“Incubation Phase” of Federal Contractors in Health Care Now in Rearview Mirror

National defense spending is facing headwinds as the Department of Defense controller predicts the national defense budget to decline from its current level of $740 billion to $700 billion in 2012; and $650 billion in 2013.

For defense contractors reliant on this spending, TripleTree expects a continued focus on vertical expansion to intensify as early adopters expand on their existing footprints and late-comers feel the pressure to aggressively stimulate growth at any cost.

We predict that 2012 will be an active year in federal healthcare M&A because of four factors:

• Military deployment drawdown and DoD budget cuts
• Documented success of early healthcare initiative adopters
• Fear of stockholder retribution by late-movers
• Looming 2013 healthcare initiative deadlines mandated by the Affordable Care Act.

With that in mind, large contractors continue to trumpet new healthcare initiatives, redirect strategy teams, appoint new management, and realign spending priorities. Recent announcements underscore the trend:

• CGI Group will record health care revenue as a separate vertical segment going forward. Behind this move was strong historical performance ($350 million in annual revenue), high growth (3 year healthcare CAGR of 28.1% vs. 5.3% for CGI), and strategic importance (order backlog of more than $1.2 billion)
• USIS will form a healthcare solutions group providing fraud, waste, & abuse services targeting the federal market. The move reflects a strategic departure from its traditional business providing background investigations and screenings
• Harris Corporation was awarded over a quarter of a billion dollars of healthcare contracts in the past 45 days – healthcare is part of the company’s fastest growing business segment
• CACI International President & CEO Paul Cofoni announced on the heels of winning four HCIT contract awards worth a cumulative $69 million that “transformative healthcare IT solutions and services … are key components of our future growth strategy”
• Pure play defense & IT contractors continue to woefully underperform their diversifying peers – Raytheon lowered its sales forecast by $500 million to $1 billion

Last quarter we predicted M&A activity would be carried on the backs of public asset divestitures, private equity platform transactions, and contract vehicle access acquisitions, or “golden tickets”. To that point, in the past three months we have seen a handful of corporate divestitures, including the spinout of SRA’s CRO division to biopharmaceutical company Aptiv Solutions. We’ve also watched as a near-record number of small government vendor acquisitions have occurred (71 last year, the highest since 2000), and at least one “golden ticket” transaction went down (ManTech’s $90 million purchase of Worldwide Information Network Systems, a cyber IT provider). Last week, consulting firm Grant Thornton acquired Computer Technology Associates’ Health Solutions division, expanding its healthcare and public sector presence with five military healthcare contracts.

Healthcare is not a sector that lends itself to being understood swiftly and easily and much of the hesitation from non-traditional global acquirers in diversifying into healthcare stems from this lack of familiarity. Contractor expansion into the healthcare vertical has been slower and more deliberate than peer verticals like cyber security and intelligence. We believe that contractor healthcare strategy teams are nearing the end of their incubation periods and once committed to healthcare, their business models and-go-to market approaches will be fully baked. Federal contractor healthcare initiatives will be key area of our research agenda and advisory focus in the quarters ahead, and we’ll opine often on developments…until then, let us know what you think.

Marc Baudry

Marc Baudry is an analyst at TripleTree covering the healthcare industry specializing in government health, population health management, informatics, and facility-based services. Follow Marc on Twitter or email him at mbaudry@triple-tree.com.

Read Full Post »

The Clock is Ticking for Public Health Insurance Exchanges

The success of Obamacare relies entirely on every state having a health insurance exchange as mandated by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) up and running no later January 1, 2014.

By early 2013, the federal government (via Health and Human Services (HHS)) will make a determination as to each state’s readiness to bring their health insurance exchange online. Lack of readiness by the January 1, 2014 deadline means HHS will take over the implementation and operation of each exchange.

The clock is ticking…

We are following closely the progress that is being made by the states are convinced that only a handful will be ready by the deadline.   Moreover, we question whether HHS will be able to step in and offer their working version of an exchange either, or if that federal exchange will even be legally able to offer subsidized policies.

While we are not prepared to unilaterally conclude that ACA’s exchange deadline won’t be met by any state, a former HHS secretary is equally skeptical.

We want exchanges to succeed and believe they ultimately will (in some form).  Our reviews of the exchange initiatives have included studying the Early Innovator grants and interviewing state policy administrators and vendors selling into the exchange concept.  The amount of work that will need to be done in order to get the public exchanges stood up by 2014 is daunting.

TripleTree’s recent report on exchanges, HIX: An assessment of the complexities and opportunities emanating from the ACA’s public health insurance exchange concept introduces these challenges and some innovative solutions that could emerge as part of the solutions.  Since then however, the planning, procurement and testing are in the early innings; and operational integration is far from reality.   Unfortunately very few states have a demonstrated ability to pull off the kind of implementation prowess needed to come online, on time.

Putting politics and policy aside, there are at least three major challenges that each state will need to overcome (quickly) if the public exchanges have any chance of meeting the 2014 deadline:

1. States need more clarity on what they are building even though many states have RFPs out for technology and have drafted high level architectures.  There is universal uncertainty and lack of guidance from HHS on major issues such as to exactly how payments and subsidies will be processed  or how the carriers will integrate their workflow into the exchanges
2. States lack successful architectural models and commercially proven technical capabilities because there is no working model of an exchange. Those charged with building the models – the Early Innovator grantees – are far from ready, or have dropped out of the program and/or returned their remaining funds.  The often cited Massachusetts and Utah models fall short of the ACA requirements (as do the Medicare exchanges).   And no vendor has a turnkey solution.
3. States need more time – Given the massive scale and complexity of the exchanges and the integration that needs to be done with existing state and federal systems, it will be next to impossible to build an automated exchange as envisioned by the ACA in the next 16 months.

In our report, we also introduced the notion of private entities that may have the acumen and motivation to bring an insurance exchange online by the 2014 deadline.  We speculated that the private exchanges would start to roll-out in the second half of 2011 and even identified some of the likely players that would have compelling capabilities to drive the private exchange concept.

Our research asserted the real opportunities for the private sector to capitalize on the HIX mandate through a market-aligned solution that will have more impact to improve health insurance access than the federal mandates.  We are excited to see and will continue to watch the early launches of the private exchanges and believe the states and public HIX will benefit from modeling their efforts and approaches around the early successes from the private exchanges.

Let us know what you think.

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 »

An Update on Electronic Payments & Healthcare Providers [Updated]

In today’s world of electronic connectivity and mobile payments (ePayments), the U.S. healthcare system lags not only other industries, but everyday consumers too.  Over the past ten years, nearly every component of the healthcare system has undertaken massive initiatives to transition from paper to electronic environments, but as shown below just 10% of provider payments are received electronically¹, in spite of the fact that 75% of claims are submitted electronically¹.

The laggard in the value chain prohibiting the transition is not the payers’ ability to submit ePayments, but the providers’ inability to accept them.  The benefits for providers getting on the ePayment bandwagon are real, and include:

• Improved working capital due to decreased time to post payments
• Reduced errors associated with manual, human processes
• Reduced costs associated with the additional paper, postage and manual activity (it is estimated that eliminating paper checks in healthcare could save $11 billion per year¹)

So why the slow adoption?  One reason could be that ePayments, also known as electronic funds transfer (“EFT”), add a layer of complexity due to a lack of standardization and lack of operating rules across payers and their EFT submissions.  Multiple payment submissions from multiple payers using different systems and submitting at different times all around a single claim makes reconciliation very difficult for the provider office.

When will we see change?  The Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 mandates that payers must make payments to providers by electronic funds transfer (EFT) and electronic remittance advice (ERA) by January 1, 2014 or face considerable federal penalties.

These potential financial ramifications will be a catalyst for change with providers.  However, success will hinge on new levels of standardization and operating rules for EFT which allow providers to uniformly accept ePayments from many different payers.  We’re predicting (and already seeing) a mad dash by the providers to implement systems that accept EFT before the 2014 deadline.

Vendors such as Payformance, Fidelity National Information Services (FIS), InstaMed, HERAE, Wausau Financial Systems and Emdeon seem well positioned to enable the shift and we’ll be watching this space closely.  Let us know what you think.

Judd Stevens

Judd Stevens is an associate at TripleTree covering the healthcare industry, specializing in the impacts and transformation of health plans in a post-reform world.  Follow Judd on Twitter or e-mail him at jstevens@triple-tree.com.

 

Update: Made adjustments to the chart.

Source:

1. U.S. Healthcare Efficiency Index©

Read Full Post »

Linking Value Based Purchasing & the Realities of Tracking Care Provider Accountability

On April 29^th the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) officially launched the Value Based Purchasing (VPB) initiative originally proposed by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) in January.  The current form of the VBP rule was created in response to the enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) in 2010, and was derived to ensure that providers are held accountable for the quality and type of care provided. What’s not as well-known is that although the VBP initiative won’t begin to impact reimbursement until the beginning of the federal fiscal year 2013 (Oct. 1, 2012), providers’ performance scores will begin being tracked this July.  This means the care being provided beginning on July 1, 2011 will have an impact on Medicare reimbursement in late 2012.

Because CMS will evaluate two separate clinical scores (achievement and improvement), CMS must establish a benchmark for each provider so that it can determine the improvement portion of each clinical measurement (score).  Then effective in 2012, CMS will track the performance of each qualifying provider from July 1, 2011 to March 31, 2012 to set the respective baselines for improvement. Given that this measurement period is quickly approaching, and the dollars that will be at risk for providers (estimated at $850 million in the first year) are so significant, we are puzzled to find a lack of VBP activity in the market (we note that there is a fair amount of patient satisfaction improvement initiatives and solutions, but few specific VBP offerings).

As a reference and based on the March 15 post by my colleague Adam Link, the graphic below represents key VBP data points that should be top of mind for hospital administrators:

source: TripleTree

While we continue to hear “value-based purchasing” thrown around a great deal, the impact of the initiative with regards to timing, structure and implementation schedule is widely unknown.  Further, it has become increasingly from our research and advisory based briefings that there are few technology enabled assets able to offer a comprehensive VBP reimbursement improvement platform.  Solutions do exist that can help providers assess “at-risk” reimbursement dollars and improve their HCAHPS scores and decision support solutions; which may be able to help providers improve their VBP clinical care scores/measurements.

However, we are unaware of any comprehensive, end-to-end VBP solution that will not only help providers measure and assess at-risk reimbursement, but can also analyze the relevant measures to help providers maximize Medicare reimbursement.  As we’ve opined in previous blog posts, we believe that such a solution will be highly valuable and coveted by providers as they appreciate the magnitude of the reimbursement dollars VBP will impact.  We’ll continue to watch this area and seek briefings with organization espousing market-ready VBP solutions. Let us know what you think and have a great week.

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 »

HIX: Finding the pony hidden within the ACA’s “exchange concept”

Change is coming to the U.S. health insurance market and the road will be bumpy.  Nowhere is the change more apparent than the current debate surrounding the state-run public health insurance exchanges. Our research underscores that the Affordable Care Act of 2010 underestimated the cost and complexity of establishing public exchanges. In spite of these issues, new and unforeseen opportunities are emerging relative to health insurance distribution. The application of retail, product design and customer service expertise could be transformational relative to the health insurance market for individuals.

As the Affordable Care Act (ACA) marks its first anniversary, a number of key questions remain. One of the largest revolves around the costs and benefits for the federally mandated and state-run competitive marketplaces called Health Insurance Exchanges (HIX), where individuals will be able to shop for and purchase health insurance. The public (state-run) HIX is one of the cornerstones of the health reform legislation, and for individuals without healthcare coverage today – an estimated 34 million people – the public HIXs are the intended mechanism by which individuals will acquire health insurance.

Our latest research report assesses the ACA requirement that each state build and operate a multi-channel (i.e. online, phone, and paper-based) marketplace where any qualified individual can shop for and buy health insurance.  The legislation provides some specifics as to what types of “essential health benefits” must be provided within the exchange, dictates guidelines and mandates as to how the states must run the HIX, and defines specific features the exchanges must possess. These include:

• A choice of certified and approved health plans from different carriers.

• Simple plan comparison tools that allow consumers to research and select the best policy for their needs.

• Enrollment assistance for those purchasing private insurance, and eligibility information for those qualified to receive government subsidies or Medicaid enrollment.

• A process for recouping operational costs of the HIX through surcharges in order to make them self-sustaining.

For these exchange-based insurance policies, federal and state law will closely regulate the products and benefits offered and the prices insurance companies can charge for their products. To keep the HIXs viable, insurance companies are forbidden from undercutting prices of products sold on a public exchange with competing products in the open market. They will also be required to pool risks across exchange and non-exchange participants. Further, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will mandate a set of essential health benefits that must be provided under each policy, including coverage and deductible tiers for each plan offered.

While the public HIX concept seems simple and straight forward, our research predicts that their implementation will be fraught with costs, technical challenges, and sustainability issues that are neither recognized nor acknowledged, much less understood. Thus far, much of the debate about HIXs has focused on constitutional questions – and therefore political issues – related to the individual mandate which would compel citizens to purchase health insurance. As the states ramp their HIX implementation efforts in order to meet the 2014 deadline, we anticipate that several new challenges will come to the forefront. They will need to be addressed and will propel further change.

Healthcare reform and the resultant need for serving the individual market are propelling new approaches to capturing share in the insurance marketplace, and we expect that a range of new market entrants are just around the corner. Recognizing that it is still early in the progression of these alternative, free-market approaches, this report will review the concept of “private” insurance exchanges and reveal how they will likely serve a larger population than their public counterparts, and will provide more compelling insurance options and opportunities.

Thanks 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 »

ACOs: Millions of Web Hits…Dozens of Theories…One Bottom Line

Nine million. That’s how many web hits are returned during a Google search for “Accountable Care Organization,” and reflects the countless articles, white papers and opinions that have been published regarding the potential successes and more likely pitfalls of the proposed ACO mandate. As highlighted in my colleague’s recent post, our team is continuously evaluating the business development opportunities being fueled by the demands and requirements of these new provider organizations.  Last week, the members of our Healthcare Executive Roundtable recently discussed and debated an element of the ACO equation that is not typically highlighted and could become a critical component of ACO success (or failure)…Trust.

In boardrooms around the country, health care executives are focusing on the technical requirements for their future ACO’s clinical and administrative systems. They are pouring over spreadsheets and attempting to understand the data and analytical tools that will be necessary for adequate financial and quality of care reporting. Getting these operational elements “right” is important; however, these business leaders should also focus on designing a culture – and the corresponding behaviors, communication, and incentives that will fuel strong and collaborative relationships between the ACO and its community of providers.

As Ed Brown, CEO of Iowa Clinic puts it, “People are unclear about what the value-based world looks like, and they’re unsettled on what clini­cal integration really means. And nobody has really made it work.”  This lack of clarity around the value-based model will make it challenging for providers to leave the financial security blanket of the traditional fee-for-service payment engine.  Moreover, influencing them to modify their approach to patient care for the benefit of the system and the promise of shared savings is a monumental effort. Success by any measure will largely depend on the trust established between providers and the ACO organization itself. ACO’s should prioritize establishing trust with providers in three key areas:

• ACO Operations and Management:  Providers need to trust that the ACO is well run. Understanding the organizational governance, expertise of the management team and core capabilities (strategic assets) will help generate confidence that the ACO is well-positioned to generate enough shared savings to make participation worthwhile. In addition, it is critical that the ACO measure and report management performance metrics that demonstrate its accountability to the providers.
• Compensation Incentives:  Providers need to trust that they are getting their fair distribution of shared savings. Clinical algorithms defining quality and outcomes must be evidence-based; and the financial tools and risk-adjustment methodologies used to distribute payment must be easy to understand. Above all, the organization’s compensation schemes must be highly transparent and accessible so that providers can validate that they are being treated as an equally valued business partner in the organization.
• Confidence in Provider Team:  Providers need to trust their ACO provider colleagues. If the right incentives are in place to bring members within the organization together, providers will need to trust that their peers will also be active participants working toward fully coordinated care within the ACO. Under an accountabilities and outcomes-based model, it will be important that providers view their care responsibilities as extending beyond the encounter. Active provider participants should be practicing first-class follow-up care, improving patient satisfaction, and reducing re-admission rates which will achieve collective rewards.

The inclusion of ACOs as a provision of the Patient Protection and Affordability Act is a strategy to realign delivery systems in the US so that they provide high quality, coordinated care.  The bottom line for achievement might simply boil down to whether providers can engage in meaningful and integrated relationships with the ACO and with each other. Since relationships are based on trust—predictability, integrity, and reciprocity–it is imperative that ACOs make trust a deliberate priority.  Our research and advisory agenda is 100% focused on the possibilities of ACOs, and moreover the innovations and business models which will be required to make them successful.

Let us know what you think!

Emma Daugherty & Archelle Georgiou

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.

Archelle is a Senior Advisor and Chair of TripleTree’s Healthcare Executive Roundtable, and focused on creating health through innovation.  You can follow Archelle on Twitter or email her at ageorgiou@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 »

Can Cloud Computing Help Fix Healthcare? – 08/23/10

(The following is an excerpt from an article our colleague Scott Donahue authored for CloudBook magazine on hCloud – read the full article here)

Few topics have dominated the political news cycle over the past year more than health care reform. The recently passed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act are aimed at improving the quality, cost, and accessibility of health care in the United States – an indisputably massive but much-needed undertaking.

Aside from political debates in Washington, the technology industry continues to buzz about cloud computing. It may seem, at first glance, that health care reform and cloud computing are unrelated, but TripleTree’s research and investment banking advisory work across the health care landscape are proving otherwise; the linkage with cloud is actually quite significant.

Our viewpoint is that cloud computing may end up mending a health care system that has largely let a decade of IT innovation pass by and now finds itself trapped in inefficiency and stifled by legacy IT systems.

Much has already been written about cloud computing’s potential and demonstrated successes at helping enterprise IT infrastructures adapt and transform into more efficient and flexible environments. But where does cloud computing fit within health care?

We have long espoused that innovation in health care needs to come from outside of the industry. Today, the likes of Amazon, Dell, Google, IBM, Intuit, and Microsoft have built early visions for cloud computing and see a role for themselves as health care solution providers. We are convinced that traditional HIT vendors will benefit from aligning with these groups such that their domain-specific knowledge can attach itself to approaches for cloud (public, private and hybrid), creating a transformational shift in the health care industry.

Cloud is active, relevant and fluid…see our colleague Jeff Kaplan’s recent blog post on the changing competitive landscape.

We’d be interested to know what you think…have a great week!

Chris Hoffmann

Chris Hoffmann is Research Director at TripleTree covering Cloud, SaaS and enterprise applications and specializes in CRM, loyalty and collaboration solutions across numerous industries. Follow Chris on Twitter or e-mail him at choffmann@triple-tree.com.

Read Full Post »