BenefitsAll

Time’s Up On Secret Price Negotiations Between Private Health Insurers, Hospitals and Doctors


Private health insurance companies excel at making employers believe that their business arrangement is an equal partnership with shared goals based on health care price and value. And insurers know they can rely on the vast majority of their employer clients to accept their prices and contract terms with little or no push back. The administrative advantages of working with private health insurers are well known and appreciated by employers. But it is the insurers’ contractual advantage in having access to key costs information that makes the relationship less than equal or fair. This information, if shared, would weaken health insurers’ ability to charge any price they want for their health plans.

The Public Has A Right To Know What It's Getting For It's Health Care Dollars

The Trump Administration,
according to a recent article in the New York Times, said, "it wanted to require public disclosure of the rates doctors and hospitals negotiate with health insurance companies." The operative words here are "wanted to require," this is not a formal proposal, according to reporting in the Wall Street Journal. But just wanting to broach the subject around the transparency of contracted rates between health insurance companies and hospitals and doctors is groundbreaking. After more than half a century of purchasing health insurance, employers never asked, at least to the public's knowledge, for this information, even though they and their employees are the true payers of health care.

As someone who worked in HR benefits departments of private companies and participated in annual health insurance negotiations, I have to admit I never requested information on insurer negotiated discounts with network providers. I wanted to know, but I took for granted that the discounts were significant and that it was in the best interests of the insurer to negotiate a “good deal” with the hospitals and doctors in the plan’s network. I’ll never know if the health insurance companies negotiated in good faith on behalf of my employers, but I have reason to be skeptical.

Private health insurance companies haven't behaved like insurance companies for decades. Self-funding by employers means no risk for the insurer, unless claim costs exceed the insured stop loss limit. And high premiums based on secret negotiated discounts for fully insured health plans ensure profits, not losses for the insurance company. The one health insurance product that may result in a loss for insurers is an individually purchased private health plan, which before Obamacare, was highly restrictive due to preexisting condition exclusions, excluded benefits, and premium costs. Post-Obamacare, sky-high premiums and deductibles for individually purchased health plans greatly reduce insurance company risk of loss.

It’s Not An Equal Relationship

Recent reports about some health insurance brokers and some private health insurance companies reveal that these brokers, often hired by employers, in effect work on behalf of the insurance company.
Broker compensation and bonuses come from and are contingent upon selling the health plan to the employer and retaining that employer’s business year after year. Other reports show collusion with hospitals and doctors to set discounts on inflated medical care rates. Still, even large employers haven’t requested the discount information the Trump Administration is contemplating. Instead, they are working with consultants to help them create their own private networks (Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway, and JPMorgan) where they negotiate rates for medical care services directly with hospitals, doctors, and drug manufacturers. Continue Reading...

Comments

We Must Fight Against The Health Care Status Quo's Propaganda War on Medicare For All


No one could read the statistics about our broken health care system and walk away thinking it just needs a few tweaks. But that's exactly what the marketing and public relations arms of the health care industry status quo wants us to think. The campaign to push back on Medicare For All (M4A), Medicare Buy-In, and any kind of universal health care program that competes with the for-profit health care system is in full swing. What these ads lack in originality they make up for in gall. But if history is any guide, millions of health care consumers will fall for the health care status quo's economic propaganda.

Health Care Industry Anti-Medicare For All Ads Are Pathetic

Social and other media outlets are currently awash in anti-Medicare For All ads, funded by health care organizations and other businesses.

The Partnership for America's Health Care Future (P4AHCF), recently sent out a tweet warning of a
future of high prices, low quality, and fewer health plan choices under Medicare For All. (Someone should tell them that the future is now.)


And there's more. The P4HCF's web site has this to say about our current health care system.

"While our current system is not perfect - we know there are many parts of it that are working well for patients across the country. And thanks to ongoing progress, we can continue to build upon and protect the parts of this system that work well - while improving up the parts that do not."

Aside from the strange "improving up the parts" wording, The Partnership's using the tried and tested tactic of holding up the employer-sponsored health insurance market as a model of success. It's not, and it deserves an honest response.

Employer provided health insurance is not a success, it is not a
part of the system that works well, and it is not relatively inexpensive as some may think. Employment-based plans receive favorable tax treatment that limit what employees pay, as well as subsidies from the employer. That $1,200 annual premium that the employee pays may receive a subsidy of over $4,800 from these two sources, leaving the employee with the false belief that their health plan is inexpensive. Health care spending in America consumes over 18% of the country's gross domestic product (GDP). It is not inexpensive. Continue Reading...
Comments