John A. Marcille

John A. Marcille

Business people have to come up with new products, and in our part of the economy, the hot product is consumer-directed health care. Yet we all know that a product that is sexy and well promoted and superficially attractive is not necessarily good for us all, individually or collectively. Take the Egg McMuffin or the SUV.

I am not saying that the new plans will turn out to be bad for us, but as a number of folk who participated in the preparation of this issue point out, there are areas of concern. So while we might agree that price sensitivity will make good consumers, we need look at other effects. Some are unintended; some not.

There is even the possibility that CDHPs — consumer-directed health plans — will cost more than existing plans because of consumer fear and confusion. When my doc wants to order an MRI, I'm a lot less prepared to debate the issue than, say, a utilization review flunky who has a list of expert guidelines at her fingertips. Try telling your physician, "I found this cheaper med for peripheral arterial disease; let's try it!" In the face of such a scenario, would malpractice rates rise?

"God bless the child that's got his own" under this system. Insurance spreads risk, while these new systems may encourage those who think they have low risk to abandon the group.

Some people want you to call this "consumer-driven" health care. In truth, employers, abetted by consultants, are driving it. The consumers I know won't be eager to take on more risk, spend hours researching treatments and drugs, track their spending account balances, pay high fees directly, review the quality of provider networks and, potentially, try to negotiate prices with providers.

Who will monitor quality? In the HMO, it is the chief medical officer; under CDHP, with its many flavors and faces, will it be the uneducated patient? And like the bad old pre-managed care days, will each element of the system work only for itself? Silos, anyone?

I'm not convinced that CDHPs offer a long term dampening of health care inflation. If the effect is to constantly push patients into accepting the lowest tech care, it might. Is that what we want?

Finally, HMOS and other insurance companies could find their business shrinking dramatically. All I'm saying is, let's be careful.

Managed Care’s Top Ten Articles of 2016

There’s a lot more going on in health care than mergers (Aetna-Humana, Anthem-Cigna) creating huge players. Hundreds of insurers operate in 50 different states. Self-insured employers, ACA public exchanges, Medicare Advantage, and Medicaid managed care plans crowd an increasingly complex market.

Major health care players are determined to make health information exchanges (HIEs) work. The push toward value-based payment alone almost guarantees that HIEs will be tweaked, poked, prodded, and overhauled until they deliver on their promise. The goal: straight talk from and among tech systems.

They bring a different mindset. They’re willing to work in teams and focus on the sort of evidence-based medicine that can guide health care’s transformation into a system based on value. One question: How well will this new generation of data-driven MDs deal with patients?

The surge of new MS treatments have been for the relapsing-remitting form of the disease. There’s hope for sufferers of a different form of MS. By homing in on CD20-positive B cells, ocrelizumab is able to knock them out and other aberrant B cells circulating in the bloodstream.

A flood of tests have insurers ramping up prior authorization and utilization review. Information overload is a problem. As doctors struggle to keep up, health plans need to get ahead of the development of the technology in order to successfully manage genetic testing appropriately.

Having the data is one thing. Knowing how to use it is another. Applying its computational power to the data, a company called RowdMap puts providers into high-, medium-, and low-value buckets compared with peers in their markets, using specific benchmarks to show why outliers differ from the norm.
Competition among manufacturers, industry consolidation, and capitalization on me-too drugs are cranking up generic and branded drug prices. This increase has compelled PBMs, health plan sponsors, and retail pharmacies to find novel ways to turn a profit, often at the expense of the consumer.
The development of recombinant DNA and other technologies has added a new dimension to care. These medications have revolutionized the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and many of the other 80 or so autoimmune diseases. But they can be budget busters and have a tricky side effect profile.

Shelley Slade
Vogel, Slade & Goldstein

Hub programs have emerged as a profitable new line of business in the sales and distribution side of the pharmaceutical industry that has got more than its fair share of wheeling and dealing. But they spell trouble if they spark collusion, threaten patients, or waste federal dollars.

More companies are self-insuring—and it’s not just large employers that are striking out on their own. The percentage of employers who fully self-insure increased by 44% in 1999 to 63% in 2015. Self-insurance may give employers more control over benefit packages, and stop-loss protects them against uncapped liability.