Want medical care without quickly draining your fortune? Try Singapore or Hong Kong as your healthy havens.
The following two articles come from Dr. Don McCanne’s Quote of the Day blog.
International Journal of Health Services
August 8, 2018
Medical Expenditures on and by Immigrant Populations in the United States: A Systematic Review
By Lila Flavin, Leah Zallman, Danny McCormick, and J. Wesley Boyd
In health care policy debates, discussion centers around the often-misperceived costs of providing medical care to immigrants. This review seeks to compare health care expenditures of U.S. immigrants to those of U.S.-born individuals and evaluate the role which immigrants play in the rising cost of health care. We systematically examined all post-2000, peer-reviewed studies in PubMed related to health care expenditures by immigrants written in English in the United States. The reviewers extracted data independently using a standardized approach. Immigrants’ overall expenditures were one-half to two-thirds those of U.S.-born individuals, across all assessed age groups, regardless of immigration status. Per capita expenditures from private and public insurance sources were lower for immigrants, particularly expenditures for undocumented immigrants. Immigrant individuals made larger out-of-pocket health care payments compared to U.S.-born individuals. Overall, immigrants almost certainly paid more toward medical expenses than they withdrew, providing a low-risk pool that subsidized the public and private health insurance markets. We conclude that insurance and medical
care should be made more available to immigrants rather than less so.
From the Discussion
Many Americans, including some in the health care sector, mistakenly believe that immigrants are a financial drain on the U.S. health care system, costing society disproportionately more than the U.S.-born population, i.e., themselves. Our review of the literature overwhelmingly showed that immigrants spend less on health care, including publicly funded health care, compared to their U.S.-born counterparts. Moreover, immigrants contributed more towards Medicare than they withdrew; they are net contributors to Medicare’s trust fund.
Our research categorized immigrants into different groups, but in all categories, these studies found that immigrants accrued fewer health care expenditures than U.S.-born individuals. Among the different payment sources – public, private, or out-of-pocket – public and private expenditures were lower for immigrants, with immigrants spending more out-of-pocket. Differences decreased the longer immigrants resided in the United States.
While annual U.S. medical spending in 2016 was a staggering $3.3 trillion, immigrants accounted for less than 10% of the overall spending – and recent immigrants were responsible for only 1% of total spending. Given these figures, it is unlikely that restrictions on immigration into the United States would result in a meaningful decrease in health care spending. To the contrary, restricting immigration would financially destabilize some parts of the health care economy, as suggested by Zallman and colleagues, who found that immigrants contributed $14 billion more to the Medicare trust fund than they withdrew.
Fiscal responsibility is an important reason for the United States to provide insurance for newly arrived immigrants, as they could continue to enlarge the low-risk pool of healthy individuals that helps offset the cost of insuring high-risk individuals. Currently, under the ACA, undocumented immigrants cannot enroll in the state health care exchanges. If we are seeking to minimize costs, which would seem a major factor in the reasoning of policymakers who would deny immigrants care, then it makes financial sense to enroll individuals who will (on average) contribute more to the health care system than they withdraw. Healthy, young immigrants are precisely whom we should target for Medicaid enrollment, state exchanges, or private health insurance.
The New England Journal of Medicine
August 1, 2018
A New Threat to Immigrants’ Health — The Public-Charge Rule
By Krista M. Perreira, Ph.D., Hirokazu Yoshikawa, Ph.D., and Jonathan Oberlander, Ph.D.
The United States is making major changes to its immigration policies that are spilling over into health policy. In one such change, the Trump administration is drafting a rule on “public charges” that could have important consequences for access to medical care and the health of millions of immigrants and their families. The concept of a public charge dates back to 19th-century immigration law. Under current guidelines, persons labeled as potential public charges can be denied legal entry to the United States. They can also be prevented from adjusting their status from a nonimmigrant visa category (e.g., a student or work visa) to legal permanent resident status. In addition, if they become public charges within the first 5 years after their admission to the United States, for reasons that existed before they came to the country, in rare cases they can be arrested and deported. Immigrants and their families consequently have strong incentives to avoid being deemed public charges.
In evaluating whether a person is likely to become a public charge, immigration officials take account of factors such as age, health, financial status, education, and skills. The use of cash assistance for income maintenance (e.g., Supplemental Security Income or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) and government-funded long-term care are considered in making these determinations. Other noncash benefits such as health and nutrition programs are specifically excluded from consideration, and use of cash-assistance benefits by the immigrant’s dependents is not currently factored in.
The Trump administration is proposing sweeping changes to these guidelines. A draft rule from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) would substantially expand the definition of a public charge to include any immigrant who “uses or receives one or more public benefits.” Not just cash assistance but nearly all public benefits from federal, state, or local governments would be considered in public-charge determinations, including nonemergency Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and subsidized health insurance through the marketplaces created by the Affordable Care Act (ACA); Medicare would be excluded. The DHS draft notes that in making these determinations, “having subsidized insurance will generally be considered a heavily weighted negative factor.” The broadened definition of public charge would also encompass food assistance (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program [SNAP] and the Women, Infants, and Children Program [WIC]), programs designed to assist low-income workers (e.g., the Earned Income Tax Credit [EITC]), housing assistance (Section 8 vouchers), and the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. Moreover, not only immigrants’ use of public assistance but use of these programs by any dependents, including U.S.-born citizen spouses and children, would also be considered.
The potential impact of these changes is enormous. In 2016, about 43.7 million immigrants lived in the United States. If enacted, the new regulations would affect people seeking to move to the United States to be reunified with family members and to work, as well as lawfully present immigrants who hope to become legal permanent residents (green-card holders). One estimate suggests that nearly one third of U.S.-born persons could have their use of public benefits considered in the public-charge determination of a family member. This includes “10.4 million citizen children with at least one noncitizen parent.” Notably, unauthorized immigrants are not the primary target of the draft rule, since they are already ineligible for most federally funded public assistance. Instead, lawfully present immigrants would bear the brunt, as well as persons living in “mixed-status” families (those in which some members are citizens and others are not) and persons living abroad who wish to immigrate to the United States.
We believe that the draft public-charge regulation represents a substantial threat to lawfully present immigrants’ access to public programs and health care services. What modifications may be made is uncertain — after the rule is formally proposed, there will be a public comment period, and revisions could be made before it is finalized. But if this rule takes effect, it will most likely harm the health of millions of people and undo decades of work by providers nationwide to increase access to medical care for immigrants and their families.
This morning’s post by fellow blogger, Joe Paduda, contained a small paragraph that linked to an article in the Harvard Business Review (HBR) about a hospital in the Cayman Islands that is delivering excellent care at a fraction of the cost.
Joe’s blog generally focuses on health care and workers’ comp issues, and has never crossed over into my territory. Not that I mind that.
In fact, this post is a shoutout to Joe for understanding what many in health care and workers’ comp have failed to realize — the US health care system, which includes workers’ comp medical care, has failed and failed miserably to keep costs down and to provide excellent care at lower cost.
That the medical-industrial complex and their political lackeys refuse to see this is a crime against the rights of Americans to get the best care possible at the lowest cost.
As I have pointed out in previous posts, the average medical cost for lost-time claims in workers’ comp has been rising for more than twenty years, even if from year to year there has been a modest decrease, the trend line has always been on the upward slope, as seen in this chart from this year’s NCCI State of the Line Report.
The authors of the HBR article asked this question: What if you could provide excellent care at ultra-low prices at a location close to the US?
Narayana Health (NH) did exactly that in 2014 when they opened a hospital in the Cayman Islands — Health City Cayman Islands (HCCI). It was close to the US, but outside its regulatory ambit.
The founder of Narayana Health, Dr. Devi Shetty, wanted to disrupt the US health care system with this venture, and established a partnership with the largest American not-for-profit hospital network, Ascension.
According to Dr. Shetty, “For the world to change, American has to change…So it is important that American policy makers and American think-tanks can look at a model that costs a fraction of what they pay and see that it has similarly good outcomes.”
Narayana Health imported innovative practices they honed in India to offer first-rate care for 25-40% of US prices. Prices in India, the authors state, were 2-5% of US prices, but are still 60-75% cheaper than US prices, and at those prices can be extremely profitable as patient volume picked up.
In 2017, HCCI had seen about 30,000 outpatients and over 3,500 inpatients. They performed almost 2,000 procedures, including 759 cath-lab procedures.
HCCI’s outcomes were excellent with a mortality rate of zero — true value-based care. [Emphasis mine]
HCCI is accredited by the JCI, Joint Commission International.
Patient testimonials were glowing, especially from a vascular surgeon from Massachusetts vacationing in the Caymans who underwent open-heart surgery at HCCI following a heart attack. “I see plenty of patients post cardiac surgery. My care and recovery (at HCCI) is as good or better than what I have seen. The model here is what the US health-care system is striving to get to.”
A ringing endorsement from a practicing US physician about a medical travel facility and the level of care they provide.
HCCI achieved these ultra-low prices by adopting many of the frugal practices from India:
- Hospital was built at a cost of $700,00 per bed, versus $2 million per bed in the US. Building has large windows to take advantage of natural light, cutting down on air-conditioning costs. Has open-bay intensive care unit to optimize physical space and required fewer nurses on duty.
- NH leverage relations with its suppliers in India to get similar discounts at HCCI. All FDA approved medicines were purchased at one-tenth the cost for the same medicines in the US. They bought equipment for one-third or half as much it would cost in the US.
- They outsourced back-office operations to low-cost but high skilled employees in India.
- High-performing physicians were transferred from India to HCCI. They were full-time employees on fixed salary with no perverse incentives to perform unnecessary tests or procedures. Physicians at HCCI received about 70% of US salary levels.
- HCCI saved on costs through intelligent make-versus-buy decisions. Ex., making their own medical oxygen rather than importing it from the US. HCCI saved 40% on energy by building its own 1.2 megawatt solar farm.
And here is the key takeaway:
The HCCI model is potentially very disruptive to US health care. Even with zero copays and deductibles and free travel for the patient and a chaperone for 1-2 weeks, insurers would save a lot of money. [Emphasis mine]
US insurers have watched HCCI with interest, but so far has not offered it as an option to their patients. A team of US doctors came away with this warning: “The Cayman Health City might be one of the disruptors that finally pushes the overly expensive US system to innovate.”
The authors conclude by stating that US health care providers can afford to ignore experiments like HCCI at their own peril.
The attitude towards medical travel among Americans can be summed up by the following from Robert Pearl, CEO of Permanante Medical Group and a clinical professor of surgery at Stanford: “Ask most Americans about obtaining their health care outside the United States, and they respond with disdain and negativity. In their mind, the quality and medical expertise available elsewhere is second-rate, Of course, that’s exactly what Yellow Cab thought about Uber. Kodak thought about digital photography, General Motors thought about Toyota, and Borders thought about Amazon.”
Until this attitude changes, and Americans drop their jingoistic American Exceptionalism, they will continue to pay higher costs for less excellent care in US hospitals. More facilities like HCCI in places like Mexico, Costa Rica, the Caymans, and elsewhere in the region need to step up like HCCI and Narayana Health have. Then the medical-industrial complex will have to change.
The Workers’ Compensation Research Institute (WCRI) released a study today that indicated that hospital outpatient payments were higher and growing faster in states with percent-of-charge-based fee regulations or no fee schedules.
This study is an annual study that compares hospital payments for a group of common outpatient surgeries in workers’ compensation across 35 states from 2005 to 2016.
According to WCRI’s executive vice president and counsel, Ramona Tanabe, “Rising hospital costs continue to be a focus for public policymakers and system stakeholders in many states.”
The study found that states with percent-of-charge-based fee regulations had substantially higher hospital outpatient payments per surgical episode than states with fixed-amount fee schedules.
Percent-of-charge-based states were 30 — 196% higher than median of the states with fixed-amount fee schedules in 2016.
States without fee schedules also had higher payments per episode; 38 — 143% higher than the median of fixed-amount states in 2016.
Lastly, WCRI found that hospital payments per episode in most states with percent-of charge-based fee regulations or no fee schedules, grew faster than states with fixed-amount fee schedules.
The study also compared payments for workers’ comp with Medicare rates for the most common group of surgical procedures across states. The following chart highlights the variation in the difference between average workers’ comp payments and Medicare rates. The variation was as low as 38%, or $2,012 below Medicare in Nevada, and as high as 502%, or $21,692 above Medicare in Alabama.
So, what does this mean?
It means that hospital outpatient payments for the most common group of surgical procedures in Workers’ Comp are not decreasing, and are likely adding to the slow, but steady rise in the overall total average medical cost for lost-time claims, a development I have followed for some time now with the release of NCCI’s State of the Line Reports.
This is not the first time I have discussed this topic, and probably won’t be the last, as I keep reminding you that surgical costs for most common workers’ comp surgeries are a fraction of the cost here in the US in countries that provide medical travel services.
If this study is right, wouldn’t you rather pay for a surgical procedure in Costa Rica, for example, that costs $12—$13,000, than paying $21,692 in Alabama? Eighteen out of thirty-five states listed on the above chart have higher payments than the median of 100. This represents 51.4% of all the states examined in the study. Just more than half.
And this idea of medical travel is stupid, ridiculous, and a non-starter? Ok, keep shelling out more money for hospital outpatient procedures. After all, it ain’t your money, is it?
To download this study, visit WCRI’s website at https://www.wcrinet.org/reports/hospital-outpatient-payment-index-interstate-variations-and-policy-analysis-7th-edition.
A report issued Monday by Milliman indicated that the cost of health care for a typical American family covered by the average employer-sponsored preferred provider organization (PPO) plan in 2018 is $28,166, as per the Milliman Medical Index (MMI).
Broken down into component parts, this represents the following costs:
The key takeaway from the report is that employers are paying more; but employees are paying a lot more.
The health care expenditures are funded by employer contributions to health plans and by employees through their payroll deductions and out-of-pocket expenses incurred when care is received, according to the report.
The report continues that they are seeing over the long-term, and that employees are paying a higher percentage of the total, with employee expenses increasing 5.9%, and employer expenses increasing 3.5% in 2018.
The total cost of health care is shared by both the employer and employee for a family of four, the MMI stated, which breaks down to three categories:
1. Employer subsidy. Employers that sponsor health plans subsidize the cost of healthcare for their employees by allocating compensation dollars to pay a large share of the cost.2. Employee contribution. Employees who choose to participate in the employer’s health benefit plan typically also pay a substantial portion of costs, usually through payroll deduction.3. Employee out-of-pocket cost at time of service. When employees receive care, they also often pay for a portion of these services via health plan deductibles and/or point-of-service copays.
The relative proportions of medical costs for 2018 are:
Looking at this another way, employees are paying a total of 44% as either a contribution or out-of-pocket, which adds up to $12,378, compared to the employers’ 56% and $15,788, respectively.
As health care gets more expensive, it will naturally lead to higher costs for employers, but also higher costs for employees. And as has been happening more commonly, employers are shifting more of the costs onto the employees. With stagnant wages, as reported daily in the news, this is going to be a problem for those families caught in the squeeze between rising costs for medical care and stagnant wages.
This would be resolved by creating a single payer health care system that will save both employers and employees money,
It’s May, and you know what that means. It means NCCI has held its Annual Issues Symposium, and the State of the Line Report, presented by Chief Actuary Kathy Antonello.
But this year I am going to do something a little different. I am going to compare the data presented this year with some of the data from last year and the year prior, so that the reader can see how much change there has been year over year from the 2017 and 2018 reports. Last year’s data and the year before was presented in my post, “Slight Increase in Average Medical Costs for Lost-Time Claims, Part 2.”
First up, this year’s WC Average Medical Lost-Time Claim Severity in Chart 1.
As you can see, there has been another slight increase in the lost-time claim severity from the 2016 to 2017 preliminary data. In 2016, the average medical lost-time claim severity was $28,800 and the preliminary 2017 severity was $29,900, an increase of nearly $1,000.
The key takeaway here is that NCCI estimates that the AY 2017 average medical lost-time claim severity is 4% higher than the corresponding AY 2016 value.
Looking back at the data from last year’s report, we can compare the preliminary 2016 data with the actual 2016 data reported above. Chart 2 exhibits last year’s data.
Source: NCCI’s Financial Call Data; p Preliminary based on data valued as of 12/31/2016.
In chart 2, the preliminary medical lost-time claim severity was $29,100 and represented a 5.0% change from 2015. In 2015, it was $27,700 and saw a -1.4% change from the prior year.
This is borne out in the next chart, Chart 3, where the 2015 average medical lost-time claim severity was estimated at $28,500, or a 1.0% change from 2014.
Next, we look at the cumulative change in medical lost-time claim severity (1997-2017p), as highlighted in chart 4.
In this chart, the cumulative change in medical lost-time claim severity is contrasted with the cumulative change in the Personal Health Care Chain-Weighted Price Index (1997-2017p). The PHC is a proxy for medical care price inflation that responds to changes in the blend of different medical services over time.
From the chart, the cumulative change in medical lost-time claim severity has strongly outpaced the change in the PHC index in that same period, indicating that while the PHC index is nearly flat, the medical lost-time claim severity is rising and will continue to do so.
According to NCCI, the medical lost-time claim costs have risen faster, +175% , than the PHC index of +61%, over the period from 1997-2017, with most of the gap occurring in the years before the recession.
However, looking at the data from last year’s report, as shown in chart 5, the cumulative change in medical lost-time claim severity was much higher, as estimated by NCCI, which was +227%.
Sources: NCCI’s Financial Call Data; Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services ; p Preliminary based on data valued as of 12/31/2016.
The next chart, chart 6, compares the relative growth rates between medical severity and price inflation.
On the left-hand side, the medical lost-time claim severity grew approximately 4.5% per year faster than the medical care prices for the same period.
On the right-hand side however, the change in the medical lost-time claim severity and the medical care price tracked one another in the same ten-year period. Yet, there is a slight rise in the medical lost-time claim severity after 2015 continuing into 2017.
The key takeaways as NCCI reported were that much of the gap between the cumulative changes in medical lost-time claim severity and the PHC index since 1997 arose from the years prior to 2007. And that both the severity and care prices have grown at approximately the same rate, as indicated above.
Lastly, the next chart, chart 7, indicates the average annual change from 2012 to 2016 for all NCCI states. Note: all states in grey are either monopolistic states or are intrastate-rated states that do not report data to NCCI.
The state with the highest average annual change was Nevada, and the states with the lowest average annual change, were Maine, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Oregon, and Rhode Island.
The key takeaways here are that the average annual change in medical lost-time claim severity was +2.3% from the four years between 2012 and 2016. The increase in Nevada, NCCI stated, was due to a very large claim that occurred in 2016. The decrease in North Carolina was due to a combination of large claim activity in 2012 and a change in the medical fee schedule in 2013 and 2015.
But it is apparent that most states experienced a change at, or below 10% from 2012 to 2016. And if we are to believe that claim frequency is decreasing, then we must ask ourselves, why is the medical lost-time claim severity rising, as seen in chart 1, one hundred dollars short of $30,000.
One answer we have already examined is the cumulative change in medical lost-time claim severity from 1997 to 2017, although preliminary as of this week’s report.
However, what is not shown is what lies behind those numbers, i.e., what is happening in each claim to cause the severity to rise, or not rise. There is no indication, as there never is, as to what amount of the rise is due to the cost of surgery or to other claim factors such as hospital bills, ancillary services such as medical equipment, anesthesia services, any testing performed, etc. In short, we don’t know if what is causing health care costs generally to rise also is affecting the medical lost-time claim severity.
As I have stated before in this blog, workers’ compensation must look to other alternatives to help bring down the medical lost-time claim severity. This cannot be achieved by looking between all three coasts. It must include looking at less expensive, but equally advanced medical care elsewhere. Otherwise, the gap will only get wider over time.
Shoutout to Promed Costa Rica for the following article posted today on Facebook.
CMS has been for decades the crux of the problem with the American health care system, Every model, program and scheme they have implemented addresses only the symptoms, but not the cause of the disease the patient is suffering from.
As I wrote yesterday, and the week before in my review of Health Care under the Knife, the real cause of the complexity, confusion, dysfunction and overall failures of the health care system is the system itself — meaning the economic system that has proletarianized physicians, commodified, corporatized, financialized, and monopolized health care in this country.
So now, this talk of price transparency, when the cost of care is already too high compared to other Western nations, is just a placebo being administered to a dying patient — the American health care system.
Remember these words:
“America’s health care system is neither healthy, caring, nor a system.”