Will Health Care Reform Keep its Cost Reducing Promise?
February 14, 2012
The February issue of Health Affairs journal is full of good articles about the potential impact of health care reform. In a series of posts, we will be focusing in on three specific pieces covering small companies using health insurance exchanges to provide employees with coverage, how large companies may end up using exchanges to provide employee coverage over the long term, and how some of the key provisions of the law might impact overall health care costs.
Today, we will focus on the last topic -- health care costs. One of the key goals of health care reform is to "bend the cost curve" downward over time by increasing efficiency in the health care system, shifting the focus toward outcomes and patient health rather than fee for service, and extending coverage to the previously uninsured. We will focus on provisions that provide coverage for the previously uninsured who otherwise may have been categorized as indigent care, the costs of which are built into the system. The higher indigent care costs are, the more those costs are passed along to other payers through higher rates.
By expanding Medicaid coverage, the thinking goes, the previously uninsured will have greater access to ongoing and preventive care, which is much less expensive than emergency room and inpatient care. Of course, this sounds good in theory, but how will it play out in practice?
A new study conducted by researchers at the University of California-Irvine (UCI) starts to answer part of this question by comparing health care costs over time for the newly insured. "In a case study involving low-income people enrolled in a community-based health insurance program, we found that use of primary care increased but use of emergency services fell, and over time total healthcare costs declined," says David Neumark, a professor of economics and director of UCI’s Center for Economics & Public Policy study.
The study focused on patients enrolled in a community-based primary care program at Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center. The study tracked emergency room, inpatient, outpatient, and primary-care service utilization of 26,000 previously uninsured Richmond residents between 2000 and 2007 whose household incomes fell 200% below the federal poverty level. Qualified enrollees were granted health insurance and assigned a primary-care provider for one year. The researchers chose this population because its demographics reflect the population that will be affected by the expansion of Medicaid benefits authorized by health care reform in 2014.
Now, to the results: The study found that these newly insured patients had 1.60 primary care visits per year in year three, up from 1.06 per year in year one. Over the same time, emergency room visits fell from 1.02 per year in year one to 0.74 in year three. Given the excessive cost of emergency room care compared to primary care in a physician’s office, this is a positive result.
Most importantly, these changes led to declines in cost per inpatient and outpatient visits and length of inpatient stays. Overall, these changes led to these newly insured individuals reducing their total healthcare costs from $8,899 per enrollee per year in year one to $4,569 in year three. This, in turn, had a positive impact on overall costs per enrollee per year for all participants in the plan with at least one year of enrollment. Those overall costs declined from $7,604 to $4,726.
The caveat here, of course, is that these cost reductions require time to take hold. Expanding Medicaid coverage and subsidizing health insurance through the exchanges will not reduce system-wide health care costs right away, but this result does show some promise.























Health Care Common Sense
"shifting the focus toward outcomes and patient health rather than fee for service" is a ridiculous premise, only thought up by governments and not real people.
Look, I don't have insurance and can't afford going to the doctor or dentist for much beyond taking care of my child - my own health is suffering, so I'm not of the class that the government wants to demonize. But any lunkhead could tell you that basing pay on outcomes when the whole premise of doctoring exists on people's bodies gradually dying, no matter what you do, is a fool's dream.
Once again -- get the government and the legal system OUT of medical care and watch the free market take over. I know of many doctors, one of whom is a friend of mine, who have left the system and offer their services at a reduced rate. They refuse to mess with insurance, they avoid as much legal stuff as they can, and they can afford to take care of people on a sliding scale or at a straight fee for various services.
You can go see my doctor at less than half of what it would cost you elsewhere, and usually for about the same as a co-pay on an average insurance policy.
Bending the Cost Curve
A health insurance policy does not guarantee access to doctors and hospitals for the working poor who are already struggling with high rents, high food prices and little choice of employment possibilities. Many working poor are just slightly above or above the poverty level, yet they will be saddled with the individual mandate and penalties for non-compliance.
A single person making $30K a year will only get a subsidy of about $1500 a year, having to pay about $150-200 a month for the mandated coverage. The deductibles on the plans will still be high, about $2-3000 before insurance kicks in at only 80%.
For someone paying $1200 a month for a one room studio the mandated coverage would pose a question: Should I eat this month or starve so I can have an insurance policy?
$25-30K a year is hardly the stuff of la dolce vita. No one takes into consideration that this legislation is not going to provide universal care and while some of the indigent population may now get access via free or very low cost insurance, the working poor will not have the same priveleges granted them.
This is hardly equality of outcome.
just another freeloader demanding his free stuff
How interesting that even though the poor are being given a lot more free stuff through Obamacare, that still isn't enough for those who long for a better free ride. We who are paying with our freedom and our money for Obamacare's handouts and patronage to these freeloaders are not impressed.
It is despicable that so-called "lowered costs of care" using free insurance is not seen for what it is. Free health care to privileged people still costs the rest of us plenty, and it is small comfort that less of this free care is coming from the abuse of the ER by people who refuse to pay for their own health care and still expect their free ride.
Yes, if you want healthcare, pay for it yourself just like the rest of us do. Pay your insurance premiums like the rest of us do responsibly, and manage your own personal needs and income like the rest of us do. We used to have charity hospitals that were fully paid for by generous donors, but our political elite sabotaged that by mandating health care donations from the rest of us that are expanding to more and more people without end.
Quit helping yourself to my money, and I will do my best to throw out all those politicians who are very generous giving my money to freeloaders who vote for them.
Exchanges
Following the release of regulations by Health and Human Services, 8 key questions still remain about state healthcare exchanges. http://www.healthcaretownhall.com/?p=4179
Healthcare costs
Healthcare costs will not be going down in the near future. When Medicare was establish, this organization sets the prices for services, it was designed for about 15 million beneficiaries. Now there are 41 million and over the next 15 years there will be another 73 million added.
Demand is outstripping Supply thus prices go up.
Want to see what your costs are going to be?
https://apps.hvsfinancial.com/demo/
To register click on "Sign Up"