Newsfeed

MA Fallout Much Greater Than CMS Indicates

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has reported that all is fine in the Medicare Advantage (MA) and standalone Part D worlds. But we know that is just not the case. It is political spin in an election year. We featured some good analysis last week about why choice will drop and some premiums and out-of-pocket costs will go up in standalone Part D.

Now, an analysis of MA shows a similar thing. Insurers are exiting geographic markets, reducing benefits, increasing premiums, and imposing higher out-of-pocket costs. An ATI Advisory analysis says more than 7% of beneficiaries, or about two million people, will need to find new offerings. This is up from fewer than 100,000 in past years. This is major displacement right around the election and is the October Surprise I have been talking about.

(Article may require a subscription.)

#medicareadvantage #healthplans #cms

https://www.modernhealthcare.com/insurance/medicare-advantage-aetna-humana-elevance-2025

Read More »

CBO Says Costs of Medicare Part D Changes Are Ballooning

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has updated its projections on the cost of the redesign of the Medicare Part D program passed by Democrats in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). I have argued in several blogs (see these: https://www.healthcarelabyrinth.com/part-d-premium-woes-due-to-the-inflation-reduction-act/ and https://www.healthcarelabyrinth.com/part-d-restructuring-in-inflation-reduction-act-could-have-huge-implications-on-standalone-part-d-program/ ) that Democrats did not think through the impact on both premiums over time as well as the stability of both Medicare Advantage (MA) and the standalone Part D (PDP) program. The generous out-of-pocket reductions would be paid by higher premiums and benefit changes since the government did not fund the policy changes. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) created an emergency demonstration program to stabilize premiums in 2025. But that only lasts for three years. I also think the program is extra-legal.

Now, the CBO is saying that the original estimates of the Part D changes have increased dramatically. It will cost $10 billion to $20 billion more next year than initially projected. In addition, the demonstration will cost another $5 billion in 2025.

(Article may require a subscription.)

#ira #partd #pdp #medicareadvantage #cms

https://www.statnews.com/2024/10/03/drug-pricing-law-higher-cost-cbo/

Read More »

United Healthcare Sues CMS on Call Center Measures For Star Year 2025

Interesting development already on Star Year 2025 even before the public announcement of results on 10/10.

In addition to a major drop in Stars for Humana for Star Year 2025, United Healthcare seems to have been hit with lower Stars and is now suing CMS. Humana has appeals on its ratings, too.

In the United case, the company is suing over what it says are arbitrary assessments of calls regarding timely connection to TTY or a foreign language translator as well as CMS asking the right questions and following procedures. Just one arguable assessment on a call by CMS for the Part C and D measures can cost you a higher score on those measures but also perhaps impact your overall score. This is what United says happened to them.

This builds on what happened in Star Year 2024, when Scan, Elevance Health, and some others successfully sued CMS and won a recalculation of Stars. Elevance also settled with CMS on a call center issue for 2024 Star and won increased ratings.

So, there is some hope that United and Humana could see higher scores if successful on appeal or in court.

Additional articles: https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/payers/cms-faces-another-star-ratings-lawsuit-time-unitedhealth and https://www.beckerspayer.com/payer/unitedhealthcare-sues-cms-over-1-phone-call.html

#medicareadvantage #stars #cms #unitedhealthcare

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/health-law-and-business/unitedhealth-sues-us-over-quality-rating-drop-tied-to-phone-call

Read More »

Trump Won’t Reintroduce Drug Price Reform

Donald Trump is backing away from his previous support for some form of drug price reform. In his first administration, Trump proposed drug price negotiations for Part B medical drugs in Medicare and the eventual cap of prices to international benchmarks. The U.S. would pay the lowest of other nations. He indicated he wanted to extend the concept to Part D retail drugs as well. The change is surprising given polls showing overwhelming support for drug price reform across Democrats, Independents, and Republicans. The reform was pulled back by the Biden administration due to rule-making issues and poor design.

(Article may require a subscription.)

#drugpricing #medicare #branddrugmakers

https://insidehealthpolicy.com/daily-news/trump-campaign-trump-won-t-pursue-most-favored-nation-policy-drugs

Read More »

Hospital Consolidation Has Meant Little Competition In Many Markets

A great Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) analysis shows the impact of massive hospital consolidation over the past many years. Nearly half (47%) of metropolitan areas had only one or two hospitals or health systems providing inpatient hospital care in 2022. About one in five (19%) metropolitan areas have only one hospital or health system providing hospital care. More than a quarter (27%) are controlled by two hospitals or systems.

Digging deeper, in 82% of metro areas, one or two hospitals or health systems were responsible for at least three quarters of all inpatient hospital discharges. This signifies these markets are highly concentrated under federal antitrust guidelines.

We know that hospital consolidation has led to major price increases. As well, hospitals and healthcare systems have acquired physician practices, raising prices for physician care by changing practice patterns to more expensive hospital locations.

Congress needs to intervene to stop further consolidation and pass site-neutral policies.

Press Release: https://www.kff.org/health-costs/press-release/nearly-half-of-metro-areas-have-only-one-or-two-hospitals-or-health-systems-providing-inpatient-care/

#hospitals #antitrust #manda #mergers #acquisitions

https://www.kff.org/health-costs/issue-brief/one-or-two-health-systems-controlled-the-entire-market-for-inpatient-hospital-care-in-nearly-half-of-metropolitan-areas-in-2022/

Read More »

Biden Administration Announced Q3 Drug Inflation Rebates

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced that many Medicare enrollees will pay less for 54 drugs available through Medicare Part B. The drugs will have a lower Part B coinsurance rate from October 1, 2024 – December 31, 2024 because drug makers increased prices higher than applicable inflation.

Over 822,000 people with Medicare use these drugs annually to treat conditions such as cancer, osteoporosis, and pneumonia. The inflation cap and rebate were passed as part of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), the same bill that has Medicare drug price negotiations. Savings on some drugs could be in the thousands.

Additional articles: https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2024/09/30/hhs-announces-cost-savings-for-prescription-drugs-thanks-to-medicare-inflation-rebate-program.html and https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/payers/hhs-releases-cost-savings-54-prescriptions-including-cancer-drug

#ira #drugpricing #branddrugmakers

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/4904127-medicare-savings-rebates-inflation-reduction-act

Read More »

CMS Says Medicare Advantage and Part D Stable For 2025

Contrary to everything we hear on the street, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is reporting that all is well in Medicare Advantage (MA) and the standalone Part D (PDP) program. It reports that the average monthly plan premium for all MA plans, which includes MA plans that provide prescription drug coverage and MA Special Needs Plans (SNPs), is projected to decrease from $18.23 in 2024 to $17.00 in 2025. It also says benefit options will remain stable. CMS says the average standalone Part D plan total premium is projected to decrease from $41.63 in 2024 to $40.00 in 2025 (a decrease of $1.63). This is largely due to the special demonstration program put in place by CMS when it saw standalone Part D premiums slated to skyrocket. It says approximately 99% of people with Medicare enrolled in a standalone Part D plan in 2024 are currently enrolled in a standalone Part D plan offered by a plan sponsor that opted into the demonstration for 2025. Why not – free government money! I still argue the program is extra-legal.

I tend to think CMS is painting the rosiest of pictures here. I do think there are benefit reductions, which allowed plans in major penetration areas to keep premiums stable. And likely high enrollment areas are masking the impact of benefit reductions and premium increases in certain areas that will be hit somewhat hard. There is a great deal of already reported geographic contraction, plan exits, and benefit changes from some of the nation’s largest plans. There also is some evidence of standalone Part D premium hikes in areas despite the stabilization program. If the program was able to keep weighted average premiums stable, no doubt the trend toward fewer choices, higher cost-sharing, and formulary changes will also occur.

We will see the real impact around the country come mid-October with the start of the enrollment season for 2025.

Additional articles: https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/press-releases/medicare-advantage-and-medicare-prescription-drug-programs-remain-stable-cms-implements-improvements

#medicareadvantage

https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/fact-sheets/medicare-advantage-and-medicare-prescription-drug-programs-remain-stable-cms-implements-improvements

Read More »

WSJ Editorial Wrong On FTC Lawsuit On PBMs

I agree more with the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) editorial page than not, but the newspaper was dead wrong in an editorial yesterday on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) lawsuit against pharmacy benefits managers (PBMs).

On one hand, I understand the WSJ’s complaint that the FTC appears to be singling out the PBMs when rebates are legal in government-sponsored programs. I defend much of what PBMs do. The WSJ is right, too, that brand drug makers were effectively portrayed as victims.

The WSJ says the suit could lead to higher insurance costs and premiums, and notes that net insulin prices have come down over time. It also says PBMs should not be blamed if employer groups and health plans do not pass the rebate through to the consumer (some now do) and that rebates account for just a small share of profits. It then bemoans Obamacare for leading to vertical integration because it regulated profits via the minimum medical loss ratio (MLR) requirement.

I will have a blog soon that responds to the WSJ editorial, but quite simply WSJ has not thought out its free market position terribly well. In its rush to defend business, it misses the point that the drug channel and pricing system are anything but a free market. The opaqueness and perverse incentives in the channel raise prices and undermine competition in many ways. This leads to major costs for consumers and businesses (which pay a heavy load and need to compete in the global markets). Then there is the sheer dominance of the Big 3 PBMs. That certainly is not healthy for healthcare innovation.

At base, that is what the FTC is going after – admittedly a little clumsily. We can debate the fairness of the lawsuit on the PBMs, but change needs to occur. The WSJ should channel a little more of trustbuster Teddy Roosevelt. More soon.

#pbms #drugpricing #branddrugmakers #ftc #antitrust #consolidation #manda #mergers #acquisitions

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/federal-trade-commission-pharmacy-benefit-managers-insulin-43b0a974?st=XKDcP3&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

Read More »

STAT Opinion Piece By MA Opponents Uses Misleading Statistics

A STAT opinion piece written by two well-known opponents of Medicare Advantage (MA), Paul Ginzburg and Steve Lieberman, again uses misleading statistics to attack the program and argues MA is exorbitantly overpaid.

The authors have some recommendations, such as a move to standardization and delinking MA rate setting from the traditional fee-for-service (FFS) program over time, that could be considered with a more dispassionate discourse on the program overall. But their misleading statistics on the overpayment issue makes it difficult to take their recommendations seriously.

They argue the MA overpayment is more than $80 billion or 22%, generated by “beneficial selection” and “upcoding.” I have argued there is some over-reimbursement and that some reforms need to be made on risk adjustment. And many others have dispelled what the critics here say and what MedPAC, the congressional policy arm, constantly reports. Another misleading statistic from the authors: they argue MA profits are more than double the employer-based market. We know this is just not the case right now given the publicly disclosed financials of MA plans.

It is ironic that, just as the STAT editorial was written, another study from management consulting firm BRG finds that the new risk model being phased in MA from 2024 to 2026 will actually lead to lower MA payments vs. FFS. I peg the risk model changes as worth about 7% of revenue once fully in. There are other reforms that should be made, such as ending diagnosis code submissions in risk adjustment tied only to health risk assessments and manual chart reviews. But all of this in toto is far less than the critics’ $80 million plus overpayment numbers. BRG also pokes holes in MedPAC’s calculations and approach, which are similar to the critics.

In essence, some of the MA overpayment is being programmed out already through the risk model change, yet critics of MA look past this in favor of political arguments. It is clear that the goal of critics is to undermine MA and augment benefits in and grow the tired, fraud-ridden, and inefficient FFS system. That would be a hugely costly mistake.

(Some articles may require a subscription.)

Additional articles: https://www.statnews.com/2024/09/25/medicare-advantage-reform-cms-election-trump-harris/ and https://insidehealthpolicy.com/daily-news/brg-analysis-ma-pay-declines-compared-ffs-when-accounting-ra-change

#medicareadvantage #riskadjustment #overpayments

https://ecommunication.thinkbrg.com/22/2684/uploads/comparing-ma-payments-to-ffs-spending-during-risk-model-transitions.pdf

Read More »

Major News On GLP-1 Weight-Loss Drugs

Denmark-based Novo Nordisk CEO Lars Fruergaard Jørgensen appeared before the Senate HELP Committee today but refused to absolutely commit to reducing the price of his GLP-1 weight-loss drugs, Wegovy and Ozempic. In a usual tactic for brand drug makers, the CEO blamed pharmacy benefits managers (PBMs) for the high costs of such drugs as they do not largely pass-through rebates to consumers at the point of sale. But what the CEO did not mention is that net prices for his drugs in the U.S. would still be measurably higher than in other developed countries.

Brand drug makers are making money hand over fist on their drugs and could easily solve the issue by lowering their list prices to reasonable levels and getting rid of rebates altogether. The truth is the brand drug makers and PBMs both benefit from the opaque rebate scheme. The rebate protects brand drugs’ market share.  

The CEO argued that lower costs would not ensure that PBMs would keep providing coverage if prices went down and rebates went away. The astute and indefatigable Chairman, Sen. Berine Sanders, I-VT, pushed back and said that PBMs confirmed to him that they would not suddenly change their coverage of the drugs. The CEO was skeptical.

Sanders also attacked on the issue of price disparity with other developed nations. Sanders pointed out that Americans with diabetes pay as much as $969 per month for Ozempic. The same drug can be purchased for $155 in Canada, $122 in Denmark and $59 in Germany. The Wegovy price disparity is similar. “Treat the American people the same way that you treat people all over the world,” Sanders said. “Stop ripping us off.”  Well said. Go Bernie!

As I have argued, the solution may be to outlaw rebates altogether as kickbacks. Reform the system by having all drugs be net prices and then have drugs fight for formulary space based on clinical effectiveness over others.

In other news on the GLP-1 front:

  • A group of House and Senate Democrats are backing drug pricing advocates’ idea to use a little-known patent-breaking law, which requires companies to allow the government to license drugs. The government would then allow generic drug makers to produce the drugs. A major generic maker told Sanders it could produce and sell a GLP-1 for under $100 a month.
  • Generic drug makers are asking Congress to pass more protections for generic introduction, including reforming patent thickets.

Additional articles: https://www.modernhealthcare.com/politics-policy/ozempic-wegovy-novo-nordisk-pbm-pharmacy-benefit-managers-bernie-sanders and https://insidehealthpolicy.com/daily-news/lawmakers-push-1498-statute-cut-glp-1-drug-prices-generic-lobby-seeks-broader-reform and https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/pharmacy/novo-nordisk-ceo-open-to-glp-1-price-drop-5-takeaways.html and https://insidehealthpolicy.com/daily-news/aam-calls-action-boost-generics-market-hatch-waxman-anniversary

(Some articles may require a subscription.)

#drugpricing #branddrugmakers #glp1s #weghtlossdrugs

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/4897283-sanders-novo-nordisk-ceo-clash-over-weight-loss-drug-prices/

Read More »

Available Now

$30.00