By: Jon Jablon, Esq.
You may have read the blog post that my colleague Andrew Silverio wrote about this case just a few days ago. (If you haven’t, check it out!)
After doing a deep dive into this case, there are a few specific things I want to bring up – and to do so, I’ll do some quoting from the complaint. The plaintiffs – certain medical providers that feel they have been victimized by Cigna – have made many allegations, some very specific, and some more sweeping in nature. While we have no basis to question the facts presented by the plaintiffs, it does seem that the logic employed in the arguments leaves something to be desired. Here are a few paragraphs from the complaint that I find most noteworthy from a self-funding point of view:
13. Plaintiffs’ incurred charges for the Cigna Claims total approximately $72,757,456.28, reflecting Plaintiffs’ usual and customary rates for the particular medical services provided. But Cigna has paid only a small fraction of this amount,—$16,937,637.50, which represents only 23% of its legal responsibility.
The plaintiffs are alleging that the 23% of the total billed charges paid to them by Cigna was “only 23% of [Cigna]’s legal responsibility.”
I’ll pause to let that ridiculousness set in.
These plaintiffs are actually alleging that Cigna’s legal responsibility is to pay 100% of billed charges, across numerous claims. Not surprisingly, the complaint doesn’t support that assertion with any plan language, law, or logic, and I can’t help but wonder what the drafter of this complaint was thinking.
20. In this example, Cigna has told the provider that the unlucky Cigna Subscriber owes it $60,316.07 as the amount not covered under the Subscriber’s Plan, but has told the Subscriber that he/she owes the provider only $895.25 because Cigna negotiated a 98% discount with the provider. In doing this, Cigna misrepresents to Cigna Subscribers that the amounts improperly adjusted by Cigna are “discounts.” This misrepresentation appears on most Cigna Claim Patient EOBs.
Here, the plaintiffs allege that the EOBs provided to them identify that the amount Cigna claims to be above its allowable amount is a discount. This is a common folly and one we strongly caution against making! RBP plans often fall into this trap, since their payments are always at an allowable amount lower than the provider’s billed charges; characterizing the disallowed or excess amount as a “discount,” when it is not, is misleading to providers (causing confusion and frustration, and ultimately hurting outcomes when combating balance-billing) and a misrepresentation to members.
121& 122. For emergency services, the ACA Greatest of Three regulation and New Jersey law require Cigna to reimburse Plaintiffs at least at the in-network rate at which Cigna would reimburse contracted providers for the same services. … Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to the total incurred charges for the elective and emergency claims at issue, less Patient Responsibility Amounts not waived by Cigna.
This is not quite accurate for two reasons. First, the plaintiffs misquote the “Greatest of Three” rule; the amount that must be paid is at least the median in-network rate that each individual plan would pay for the same services, rather than the blundering mischaracterization of “the in-network rate at which Cigna would reimburse contracted providers.” Those are important differences, and, frankly, the attorney should have known better.
Second, even if this premise were accurate as written, the conclusion drawn is still nonsensical. The plaintiffs have indicated that since the payment must be at least the in-network rate paid to the same provider, then the payment must be “total incurred charges” minus patient responsibility. In other words, these providers are suggesting that the in-network rate, across thousands of claims with multiple providers, is 100%. It’s true that 0% discounts exist, but they’re somewhat rare, and it is certainly not the case here that every single relevant discount, accessed by any of the relevant health plans, is 0%.
155. Exhaustion is therefore deemed futile pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503-1(l) because Cigna failed to provide a clear basis for its denials and has refused to produce the requested documents necessary for Plaintiffs to evaluate the Cigna Claims denials. Cigna thus offered no meaningful administrative process for challenging its denials of the Cigna Claims.
This last example is another one where many self-funded plans run into unexpected issues. Called “futility,” this doctrine holds that appeals are not necessary, and a claimant can jump straight to a civil suit, if the plan renders appeals futile in any of various ways.
Here, if Cigna has truly issued insufficient EOBs, refused to provide substantiating documentation, and generally didn’t follow the applicable regulations, the providers have a very good argument that appeals are futile. What’s more, though, is that these actions constitute a breach of the Plan Administrator’s fiduciary duties to abide by applicable law and the terms of the Plan Document, which could subject the Plan Administrator to penalties as well as work against the payor in court.
We’re excited to see how this suit unfolds, and we’ll give you more updates when we can!
By: Philip Qualo, J.D.
The Trump Administration has been very transparent in their efforts to undermine and dismantle the Affordable Care Act (ACA). There have been several milestones in these efforts, such as essentially gutting the ACA Individual Mandate by reducing the penalty to $0 for individuals who forego health plan coverage for the tax year. The Trump Administration has also passed on the torch to the federal courts, as the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has recently ruled that the Individual Mandate is unconstitutional, and has kicked the case back to the lower courts to determine whether other parts of the ACA should be overturned as well.
However, there appears to be at least one aspect of the ACA that the Trump Administration appears to support – the revenue generated by PCORI fees. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) fee was established as a part of the ACA to fund medical research. Insurers and employers with self-insured plans are subject to the fee. The last PCORI fee payment was expected to occur on July 31, 2019 (or July 31, 2020 for non-calendar year plans). The ACA mandated payment of an annual PCORI fee was intended to be a temporary measure as it only applied to plan years ending after September 30, 2012, and before October 1, 2019, to provide initial funding for the Washington, D.C. based institute.
This past year, we have consistently advised our clients that PCORI fees would be a thing of the past – based on the law at that time. However, each time I wrote or spoke those words I had this gnawing feeling in my gut. Although the PCORI fee was intended to be a temporary assessment, it was difficult for me to imagine that we would let a revenue-generating assessment just slowly fade away into oblivion.
Well… it looks like I was right (I should have placed a wager on this!). On December 20, 2020, President Trump signed 2020 spending legislation (the 2020 “Further Consolidated Appropriations Act”), repealing three ACA related taxes: the 40% “Cadillac” Tax on high-cost employer-provided health coverage, a 2.3% excise tax on medical devices, and the Health Insurance Tax (HIT) on fully-insured plans. Although these cuts would appear to be in line with the Administration’s efforts to obliterate the ACA’s existence, for some reason, the Trump Administration make a last-minute decision to preserve and extend the PCORI fee for another 10 years through the Act. This means employers with self-funded plans must continue paying the administratively burdensome PCORI fee.
Although the future of the ACA is still a question mark at this time, based on this recent extension of a small portion of the ACA, I think it is fair to conclude that PCORI fees are here to stay. In about 9 years from now, whether the ACA is still here or not, I predict PCORI fees are either extended … again, or written into another legislation to make it a permanent excise tax on health plans.
Please note, that the next PCORI fee is due by July 31, 2020. The IRS has yet to announce the rates for this year, so say tuned!
By: Kevin Brady. Esq.
While businesses who are considering a potential merger or acquisition have a lot on their plates, one thing that should always be addressed is the impact that the transaction will have on the benefit plans of both the buyer and the seller. While it probably does not represent the biggest concern, overlooking the potential impact on benefit plans can cause major headaches when it comes to potential mergers and acquisitions.
Because the impact on the benefit plans will often be determined by the nature of the transaction and the specific agreement between the buyer and seller, it is important that both parties are aligned when determining how employees affected by the merger or acquisition will be provided benefits after the transaction is complete.
For our limited purposes, there are typically three types of transactions when it comes to mergers and acquisitions; an asset sale, a stock sale, and a merger.
In an asset sale for example, the buyer will typically purchase selected assets from another business (i.e. a particular department, facility, or service line). The employees who are affected by the transaction are typically considered terminated and immediately rehired by the new employer. The buyer does not have a legal obligation to hire those employees but often will do so if it aligns with their business practices. Those employees (while they may not notice a significant change in their employment or benefits) are most likely going to be considered terminated and immediately transitioned to the new employer’s health plans. Generally speaking, buyers do not continue ERISA benefit plans in asset purchases. Some, if not most, continue to offer similar benefits either under an existing employer group health plan or a new plan established after the purchase of the assets. If the buyer intends to offer similar benefits under their existing plan, they must ensure that their plan allows coverage for these individuals.
On the other hand, in the event of a stock purchase, the buyer will typically “step into the shoes of the seller” in terms of its rights and responsibilities as it relates to ownership of the business (including ERISA plans). The employees of the seller are not considered terminated in the event of a stock purchase (although this does not guarantee future employment) and ERISA plans in effect at the time of the sale are typically continued after the stock purchase has taken place.
Finally, in a merger, two entities will combine to become one business entity. In this situation, similar to a stock purchase, the employees are not considered terminated at the time of the merger and if an ERISA plan was in effect at the time of the merger it will likely be continued. However, the impact on a particular entities benefit plan will often be determined based on the specific agreement between the parties.
As the nature of the transaction will have a major impact on benefit plans, it is always important to discuss the intent of both parties as it relates to their employees and those employees’ benefits. Often times, a potential merger or acquisition will include a thorough review of an entity’s compliance as well. Has the seller complied with the strict requirements to file form 5500s? Is the plan properly funded? Does the plan document itself allow for another employer to continue benefit under the plan? These are all questions, among many more, that should be asked and answered before moving forward with a potential merger or acquisition.
Finally, the buyer or the new entity (in the event of a merger), must ensure that they are compliance as it relates to their new employees and the benefits being offered to them. Buyers and sellers who could find themselves in a potential merger or acquisition should keep these things in mind as they move forward with those decisions. While a potential merger or acquisition can be a great thing for those involved, it would be a shame for unidentified issues with a benefit plan to hold things up or even prevent a potential transaction.
By: Ron E. Peck, Esq.
I really enjoy the quote, attributed to Haruki Murakami, that “Pain is inevitable. Suffering is optional.” This really hits home for me for a few reasons, personal and professional, but for our purposes – let’s consider how it relates to the health benefits industry and healthcare as a whole.
Anyone paying attention to the media and political debates will no doubt make note of the constant rhetoric regarding healthcare, and more to-the-point, the “cost” of healthcare. I’ve (here and elsewhere) discussed ad-nauseam my position that health “care” and health “insurance” are not the same. That insurance is a means by which you pay for care, and is not care itself. That by addressing solely the cost of insurance, and not the cost of care, you build a home on a rotten foundation. So, you can likely imagine some of the “ad-nauseam” I feel in my stomach when I hear the candidates talking on and on about how they’ll “fix” the problem of rising healthcare costs by punishing insurance carriers and making health “insurance” affordable (including Medicare-for-All).
The issue is that, ultimately, whether I pay via cash, check or credit… and whether I pay out of my own bank account, my wife’s account, or my parent’s account… at the end of the day, a beer at Gillette Stadium still costs more than a beer from the hole-in-the-wall pub, and if I keep buying beer from (and thereby encouraging the up-charging by) the stadium, prices will increase and whomever is paying (and in whatever form they are paying) will be drained, and no longer be able to pay for much longer. In other words, making insurance affordable (or free) without addressing the actual cost itself is simply passing the buck.
So, this brings me to the quote: “Pain is inevitable. Suffering is optional.”
Pain – the pain we feel as we are forced to deal with a costly, yet necessary, thing … healthcare. As technologies improve, research expands, and miracles take place every day, I absolutely understand that with the joys of modern medicine, come too the pain of cost. We must identify ways to reward the innovators, the care takers, the providers of life saving care.
Yet, we – as not only an industry, but as a nation – also assume that with this inevitable pain, so too must come the suffering. Suffering in the form of bankruptcy for hard working Americans and their families. Suffering in the form of unaffordable care, patients being turned away by providers, and steadily rising out of pocket expenses.
I do not believe that this suffering needs to be inevitable. If instead we accept the inevitability of the “pain” inherent in healthcare, and the costs of providing healthcare, but instead identify innovative ways to address those costs, then we can avoid the suffering. Our own health plan, for instance, rewards providers that identify and implement ways to provide the best care, for the least cost. Our plan rewards participants who utilize such providers as well. We educate our plan participants regarding how, unlike in many other aspects of life, in healthcare you do NOT “get” what you “pay for.” That fancy labels, advertisements, and price tags do not equate to better care. We teach our participants how to leverage not only “price transparency,” but also quality measurements to identify the “best of the best” when seeking care – providers that perform as well or better than the rest, for the lowest cost. Rather than accept the “inevitability” of suffering, we embrace the pain – we endure the costs, the time, the resources necessary to actually care, and make ourselves educated consumers of healthcare.
The result? Plan participants – employees that have been on the plan for five or more years – will, beginning in 2020, not make any contribution payment to our plan. That’s right; their “premium” is zero dollars. The cost of their enrollment is covered, 100%, by the plan sponsor. The plan sponsor, meanwhile, can afford to do this thanks to efforts it has made, as well as efforts made by its plan participants, to keep the costs down. Indeed, a self-funded employer like us can make a choice – either assume that the suffering is inevitable, and pass the cost onto the plan members (incurring the wrath of your own employees and politicians alike), or, see that the suffering is optional, and nip it in the bud. We have identified ways to better deal with the inevitable pain, thereby minimizing the suffering endured by our plan participants.
It can be done, and we did it. You can too, but the first step is accepting that some things are inevitable, and others are not. Assigning inevitability to something that is not in fact inevitable is a form of laziness and blame shifting; and the time has come to stop that behavior, accept responsibility, do the painful work necessary to change things, and recognize that – no pain, no gain.
Our consulting team (via PGCReferral@phiagroup.com) is often presented with the following scenario: Patient A visits Hospital, and the Plan pays certain benefits to Hospital which are later discovered to have actually been excluded by the terms of the plan document. This is a classic overpayment scenario, except that Hospital refuses to refund the overpayment to the plan (which it is well within its rights to do). In response, to try to avoid the loss, the Plan decides to activate the right it has given itself to offset future benefits payable against amounts due to the Plan. The right to offset future benefits is a common one, and there is nothing inherently unenforceable about offsetting benefits due to a patient, when that particular patient owes the plan money.
This health plan interprets its offset provision to apply across different patients. Since it is unknown whether or when Patient A will incur more covered claims, the plan instead decides to recoup its overpaid funds by withholding benefits due to Patient B (who had the misfortune of being the next patient to visit Hospital).
The question posed to our consulting team is whether this is an acceptable practice.
Our answer is no.
First, regarding overpayments in general: with some exceptions – such as payments by the Plan in excess of a contracted amount, or in excess of billed charges (for non-contracted claims) – providers do not have a legal obligation to refund money to a health plan. Instead, courts have indicated that the overpayment was technically made to the patient, since the plan paid money that would have been patient responsibility, had the plan correctly denied that amount.
Plan Administrators have certain fiduciary duties pursuant to ERISA and common law, including to act solely in the interest of plan participants, to act with the exclusive purpose of providing benefits and paying reasonable plan expenses, and to strictly abide by the terms of the Plan Document. The most apt interpretation of the practice of cross-patient offsetting is that the Plan has withheld benefits to Patient B in order to benefit the plan, such that Patient B is denied benefits to account for a prior error on the part of the plan. The plan’s attempt to make itself whole at Patient B’s expense – even though Patient B played no role in, nor benefitted in any way from, nor was even aware of, the overpayment – could be interpreted as a violation of an important fiduciary duty.
Cross-patient offsetting negates benefits due to patient B because of the Hospital’s refusal to refund money to the Plan. When we consider that it is not the provider that has technically been overpaid, but Patient A, it becomes more clear that Patient B cannot have benefits withheld to compensate for the overpayment made to Patient A. It’s an attempt to punish Hospital for not refunding money that is legally due from Patient A. Meanwhile, Patient B has paid her contributions in exchange for benefits from the plan; to withhold benefits due to Patient B because another, unrelated patient has not repaid the plan money allegedly owed is a practice we strongly recommend against.
Overpayments happen, and The Phia Group can assist in recouping them – but please, please do not offset a perceived overpayment against future claims incurred by other patients!
By: Kevin Brady, Esq.
On November 15, 2019, the Department of Health and Human Services, along with the Department of the Treasury, and the Department of Labor, issued proposed rules related to "Transparency in Coverage." These proposed rules come fresh off the heels of the executive order issued by President Trump in June of this year calling for increased transparency in the cost of health care, and the cost of coverage.
As made clear by the title of the proposed rules, the goal of the executive order, and the resulting proposed rules, is to make the cost of health care transparent for patients. Generally speaking, the proposed rules will require group health plans to make certain disclosures to plan members about the possible cost-sharing liability for the member, accumulated amounts (amounts paid by the member toward deductibles and out of pocket max), negotiated rates (payments by the plan to in-network providers for certain services) among other required disclosures.
The proposed rules impose disclosure requirements on group health plans and hopefully, these disclosures will help to avail the potential costs of coverage to its plan members. In practice, these required disclosures should empower self-funded group health plans. Self-funded plans are organized to pay for the health care expenses of their employees; they’re not organized to profit off of the employee premiums and therefore should benefit from increased transparency when it comes to pricing. While the long-term impact of the proposed rules cannot yet be determined, it is possible that network discounts may become more meaningful and group health plans may have more flexibility in terms of steering their plan members to more cost-effective providers. Regardless of the direct impact on group health plans, plan members will be empowered as a result of the rules.
Transparency in health care pricing is long overdue. Imagine going to a new restaurant and ordering an apple pie (an apple pie a day keeps the doctor away… do I have that right?), you don’t see the price on the menu but hey, how expensive can it be right? So you get the pie, you eat the whole thing and the next thing you know, the bill comes. You’re shocked to see that its $100.00. Would you have ordered the pie if you knew the cost? Or would you have gone to the diner across the street that sells an apple pie – that may taste even better - for a fraction of the cost? Without transparency in health care pricing, patients incur claims (eat pies) without regard to the overall (billed charges) or individual (cost of the service after cost-sharing) costs of that service. This is untenable.
In almost every other area of our lives as consumers, we are provided with the cost of a product or service before we purchase or use it; we then have the ability to utilize widely available, and easily accessible, data (thanks google) to compare those prices with other potential vendors or business and eventually ensure that the cost is reasonable, and in-line with our expectations before we make the purchase. This same access to information should be available to consumers of healthcare as well.
It is our hope that the proposed rules for transparency will not only avail the cost of health care to patients, but that a shift in the mindset of those patients to be more responsible consumers will result as well. This shift should not only benefit the patients themselves, but ultimately should help to curb the costs for their health plans as well. Eventually, as the cost of health care becomes more widely available (and just as importantly, digestible) for patients, the days of uninformed and frankly uninterested plan participants may be coming to an end. A great example of the power of information, and specifically, looking at health care through the lens of a consumer can be found right here at Phia.
Here, plan participants are encouraged to be informed consumers when it comes to health care. Transparency (between the Plan and its members) about the costs of coverage, and how active participation by members will ultimately benefit each covered individual, has helped the Phia Group avoid some of the major financial setbacks that commonly befall group health plans who do not otherwise encourage informed decision-making when it comes to health care.
Year after year, our personal costs (premiums and cost-sharing) remain incredibly low, while our benefit offerings continue to improve. This would not be possible if we (the members) did not approach health care as consumers. By encouraging participants to be informed- when it comes to the treatment options, proactive- when considering providers and their associated costs, diligent- when reviewing personal medical bills for errors and erroneous charges, and engaged- when it comes to our overall health, Phia has been able to effectively contain health care costs despite the lack of total transparency.
While the long-term impact of the proposed rules is yet to be seen, any change to the current system that increases transparency and encourages individuals to be responsible consumers of health care should help curb the rising costs in our health care system and the way in which we all participate in it.
By: Nick Bonds, Esq.
The Democratic candidate known for her multitude of plans and granular policy detail, has officially unveiled her Medicare for All plan. After a series of sharp jabs on the last Democratic debate stage from several of Senator Warren’s peers (from Mayor Buttigieg in particular), the Senator’s campaign was quick to announce that their plan was in the works.
To be fair, Senator Warren had been somewhat cagey in her responses. When asked point blank during the debates whether her plan would raise taxes on the middle class, she remained adamant that her plan would ultimately rein in costs – an echo of Senator Sanders’ defense of his own Medicare for All plan. On stage, Senator Warren made the promise, “I will not sign a bill into law that does not lower costs for middle-class families.” Now that Senator Warren has released some details, we can see that through some careful if optimistic finagling, the Warren Plan does indeed appear to deliver on that promise, while simultaneously distinguishing itself from Sanders’ plan.
Senator Warren’s plan is inarguably expensive, costing more than $30 trillion over a decade, with roughly two-thirds of that composed of new government spending. Her plan aims to cover this cost with a combination of employer contributions, taxes on large corporations and financial firms, closing tax loopholes (that old chestnut), and wealth taxes on individuals earning more than $50 million per year.
Mayor Buttigieg’s “Medicare-For-All-Who-Want-It” plan takes a different approach. While the Warren attempt to control health care spending focuses primarily on paying less money to providers, the Buttigieg plan takes aim at the other side of the equation: lowering medical prices. Mayor Buttigieg’s plan would implement market-based price caps for out of network providers. The purported cost of this plan does look more appealing: $1.5 trillion over 10 years, largely funded through rolling back the corporate taxes slashed by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.
The Warren campaign is built on its calls for sweeping systemic change, and the Warren Medicare for All plan reflects that aspirational ethos. While the Warren Plan may be difficult to pay for, it stands as a comprehensive overhaul of the American health care system. The Buttigieg campaign takes a less daring approach, and essentially props up the system as it stands now. Senator Warren’s riposte to the Mayor’s attacks starkly underlined her view that his proposal fails to go far enough, calling the Buttigieg plan “Medicare for All who can afford it."
Universal coverage is a noble goal, but ultimately the voters will decide whose path they think will lead us there. With both these candidates back on stage for the next round of Democratic debates, expect the duel over the future of our health care system to remain front and center.
For employers who sponsor calendar year self-funded group health plans, the Fall season can be a very hectic time of year. This is usually the time of year that many employer plan sponsors begin reviewing their benefits in the context of the evolving needs of their workforce, and of course, plan costs. Based on my own experience in preparing The Phia Group health plan for the 2020 plan year, I have compiled several helpful tips for employer plan sponsors to keep in mind as they review their group health plans for the new plan year.
Know Your Workforce
Although U.S. job growth has been consistently strong in recent years, a low unemployment rate indicates there are more jobs than there are job seekers. Because of the limited pool of job seekers, and increasingly high quit rates, employers are reviewing their compensation packages, and more importantly, their benefit offerings, to assess what advantage they may have or need to attract and retain top talent. As such, employer plan sponsors should take the time to survey their workforce demographics and consider whether current benefit options are consistent with the needs of their current employees as well as future ones they seek to attract. For example, an aging or younger workforce may mean certain benefits are more or less important today than then they were a few years ago.
Employer plan sponsors should take the time to identify and analyze claim expenditures and benefit utilization for the current, and even prior, plan years. This allows employer plan sponsors to assess the financial health of their group health plans and identify benefits that are particularly costly or heavily utilized. By being proactive and identifying costly patterns, employer plan sponsors are empowered with the tools necessary to explore permissible cost-effective plan design options and cost-containment incentives to address high cost plan expenditures in the upcoming plan year.
Federal rules applicable to group health plans are constantly changing, whether it is due to new legislation or Court decisions establishing new precedent. Thus, employer plan sponsors should take the time to review their benefit offerings, Plan Documents, and/or Summary Plan Descriptions to ensure their group health plans are still compliant with the most current regulatory landscape. Failure to maintain or update benefits, Plan Documents and/or Summary Plan Descriptions in compliance with federal laws may result in costly penalties.
Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 105(h) prohibits self-funded group health plans from discriminating in favor of “highly compensated individuals” (HCIs) and against non-HCIs as to eligibility to participate and benefits available under the plan. If an employer’s group health plan treats all of its employees the same for purposes of health plan coverage (i.e., eligibility, contributions, and benefits are the same for all employees), the risk of violating Section 105(h) nondiscrimination rules is low.
For employer sponsored group health plans that vary eligibility and benefits among distinct classes of employees, Section 105(h) nondiscrimination testing should be conducted at least annually, preferably before the start of each plan year. A self-funded health plan cannot correct a failed discrimination test by making corrective distributions after the end of a plan year. If a self-funded health plan fails nondiscrimination testing, HCIs will be taxed on any excess reimbursements from the plan. Thus, depending on the plan’s design, an employer may wish to monitor group health plan compliance with Section 105(h) rules throughout the plan year to avoid adverse tax consequences for HCIs.
Employer plan sponsors that decide to make changes to their group health plan for a new plan year should make sure any relevant changes to the Plan Document are clearly communicated to the applicable stop-loss carrier. It is also advisable for all plan sponsors to review the content of their Plan Documents against the applicable stop-loss policy to identify and resolve potential gaps in coverage. Failure to communicate relevant health plan changes to the carrier or identify potential gaps between the Plan Document and the stop-loss policy may result in significant issues with stop-loss reimbursement in the new plan year.
By: Andrew Silverio, Esq.
In August, a $572 million Oklahoma ruling came down against Johnson & Johnson – the first major ruling against a drug manufacturer for its role in America’s ongoing opioid crisis. The holding found that the drug manufacturer’s advertising and marketing helped flood the state with dangerous painkillers, and it dominated the news cycle as the first major “loss” for a drug manufacturer in a case of this type (many similar claims have been settled out of court. It also sparked a firestorm of speculation about who will come out of the woodwork making such claims against various manufacturers, since the harm associated with the opioid crisis is so far-reaching.
Now, an unexpected plaintiff has jumped into the fight to claim their share of the payout – hospitals. Per Blake Farmer at NPR, “hundreds of hospitals have joined up in a handful of lawsuits in state courts, seeing the state-based suits as their best hope for winning meaningful settlement money” (see https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/10/24/771371040/some-hospitals-sue-opioid-makers-for-costs-of-treating-uninsured-for-addiction.) If this causes you to raise an eyebrow, you aren’t alone – many would argue, and this will almost certainly be raised as a defense, that hospitals are in fact complicit in creating this crisis through overprescribing of these drugs.
The hospitals’ main claim will be that they have been damaged in the form of all the uncompensated care they have had to provide resulting from the opioid crisis, emergency and otherwise, with most of this care being uncompensated as the patients are often uninsured and unable to pay for treatment. This is certainly a legitimate complaint, however many hospitals have been unwilling to join in. This is likely at least in part motivated by a desire to keep details private about the hospitals’ own prescribing practices (which will likely be scrutinized by the defense), as well as to avoid being required to justify their charges as they relate to the actual costs of care.
We will undoubtedly continue seeing new lawsuits in this area for years, but these will be important cases to keep an eye on.
As the 2020 Presidential Election draws closer, the topic of healthcare continues to dominate the airwaves. Be it media or debate, this is one of the (if not the) issue about which everyone is talking; but pay close attention and you’ll notice they aren’t all speaking the same language.
Access vs. Care vs. Insurance
One word everyone can agree upon is “affordability.” The issue, however, is that depending upon whom you ask, what it is that ought to be “affordable” differs. Some people throw the term “access” around, while others seek affordable “care,” whilst still others focus (candidly) on affordable insurance.
Interestingly, for many, the term they use (access versus healthcare) matters little, as – once their position is better defined – a shrewd listener will note that the goal is ultimately the same; make insurance cheaper. They seem to believe that insurance is healthcare, and cheaper insurance is thereby cheaper healthcare. Further, they believe that the only “cost” of healthcare, incurred by an insured person is their premium, co-pay, coinsurance, and deductible.
This, then, is one misconception that continues to dominate political, regulatory, and economic discourse; that by attacking the cost of insurance for the general populace (i.e. premiums/contributions, co-pays, coinsurance, and deductibles), you somehow fix the problem of limited access and/or the high cost of healthcare.
Health Insurance is Not Healthcare
I’ve written in the past, and continue to argue today, that health insurance is not healthcare. Health insurance is one means by which the risk of payment for healthcare is shifted from the consumer of healthcare to a third-party payer. Changing who pays for healthcare doesn’t (on its own) address how much the healthcare costs. For instance, before you argue that Congress should establish a funding mechanism to support the “cost of caring” for those with significant medical needs, ask first what it means to pay for care. Are you referring to the cost of insurance, or the cost of the “actual” health care for which insurance pays?
Some might argue, however, that when a “new” payer is designated, (be it insurance, a self-funded plan, or the government), if they are large enough and possess enough clout, they can strongarm the provider into accepting lower prices for care – thereby reducing the actual cost of care. Thus, while making insurance more affordable doesn’t in and of itself reduce the cost of care, by providing more lives (and this negotiation power) to the payer, those payers in turn are provided with more “power” to force providers into accepting lower prices. Indeed, a single-payer would hold all the cards, and thus name their own price.
In a vacuum it makes sense, and if we were purchasing potatoes or tires it may work (in a truly free-market environment), however, in healthcare some features apply that are unique to this industry.
A Non-Market Market
In any other market, a vendor of goods or services can set any price for those goods or services. Supply, demand, and competition will then force the vendor to increase or reduce their price or fail. This allows the “free market” to naturally set prices at a level both the seller and buyer can live with. In healthcare, however, providers leverage things like technology, reputation, rankings, and sponsorships to compete for “customers” (a/k/a patients), rather than the price. Providers compete for these other things; if and when price is a matter over which there is competition between vendors (providers), it’s a competition to see who can charge the most. Indeed, one of the big pushbacks against transparent pricing in healthcare is that some providers will see that other providers “get away” with charging higher prices for the same services … and will increase their rates to match. Imagine if that same argument applied to every other industry; that the cost of bananas couldn’t be transparent, because grocers will compete to raise prices faster than the competition. Welcome to a world where the consumer has no skin in the game, and no price-based incentive to pick the lower cost options exists.
In healthcare, where patients don’t know, or (they think) pay the price of healthcare (at the time the care is consumed), and the consumer doesn’t appreciate the impact of higher healthcare prices on insurance costs, providers are able to freely raise prices without the negative repercussions vendors in other industries would immediately suffer. Additionally, even if patients know the price, if they (at least in their mind) don’t think they are the ones paying the price, then higher prices will – at best – not dissuade them from consuming care, and – at worst – will steer them away from reasonably priced care to higher cost providers, thanks to an (inaccurate) assumption that higher price equates to higher quality.
At the same time, contract law states that a customer who agrees to pay a certain price for a service or product has entered into a contract with the vendor. This preemptive agreement between the customer and vendor, regarding what will be paid, and what will be received by the customer, is titled a “meeting of the minds.” If the customer later fails to pay the amount to which they’d previously agreed, this would be deemed a breach of contract. Even if objectively, one could argue the agreed upon price is excessive, assuming the customer had the requisite capacity to enter into such a deal, the contract is binding. If, however, someone receives a good or service but there was no meeting of the minds (agreement about what would be provided, and a specific price for said goods or services), the customer will be forced to pay an objectively reasonable price – determined by an objective third party, using objective pricing parameters – and NOT whatever price the vendor chooses to collect. This concept, called Quantum Meruit, ensures vendors are adequately compensated based upon objectively reasonable parameters, and customers are not unjustly enriched (don’t “get something for nothing”) but also aren’t forced to pay a price they never agreed to (and which is excessive by all reasonable, objective measurements).
In healthcare, however, rarely can we say there is truly a meeting of the minds. It is rare indeed to see a provider (the vendor) and patient (the consumer) agree upon a price prior to the provision of services. Yet, despite this, Quantum Meruit – applicable to other commercial exchanges – has no place in healthcare, and rather, the provider is allowed to balance bill the patient whatever amount it wants – usually the amount that exists between the provider’s “charge master” price, and what it already received from the applicable carrier or benefit plan. Note that the only prohibition on this billing practice is the prior existence of a contract between a payer and the provider, by whose terms the provider agrees to accept the payer’s payment as payment in full. This agreement, many argue, is the greatest value a network offers.
Given that the law protects a provider’s right to charge whatever they wish – with no limits based in reasonableness, meeting of the minds, or Quantum Meruit – and limited only by pre-negotiated contracts, payers generally negotiate from a weak position.
As such, simply ensuring everyone has insurance will not drastically reduce the cost of healthcare itself. Further, people – whether they are insured or not – will pay the cost when healthcare is too expensive. Be it balance bills for the uninsured, or rising premiums and deductibles for the insured – the money needs to come from somewhere.
Compounding the issue further is that fact that Americans generally suffer from a lack of long-term vision. We are, as a society, driven by a need for instant gratification. People use credit cards to buy things now, that they can’t afford later. People purchase homes and take out mortgages now, that they can’t afford later. Likewise, people obtain healthcare now that they can’t afford later. Make no mistake; even those with insurance pay the cost later, in the form of higher premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and co-insurance. Therein lies the rub – people are quick to target out of pocket expenses at the time care is received, and the cost of insurance in general, but they do so without asking why insurance is expensive or addressing that root cause.
Until people understand that – with or without insurance – patients will ultimately be responsible for the actual cost of care, then the issue will not be resolved. In other words, focusing on the rising out of pocket expenses, such as premiums, co-pays, and deductibles – without also focusing on why these expenses are increasing – addresses a symptom without diagnosing the disease.
What Does This Mean for Us?
Many candidates and their supporters are proponents of the so-called “Medicare for All” plan, yet even many who support those candidates are beginning to hesitate, worrying that under Medicare payment rates (forced down providers’ throats by a single-payer monopoly), some hospitals struggling to stay open might close. Here, then, we see the opposite issue – ushered in when a monopoly is in place. A single-payer with too much power can force opposition into accepting unduly low, unfair rates.
Is there a happy medium? Some have argued that a so-called “public option” may be one such “middle ground,” but this idea cannot live in harmony with private benefits for long … resulting in the demise of private plans, and eventual monopoly that is a single-payer, and which (as already discussed) most agree needs to be avoided.
Consider as “Exhibit A” the State of Washington. Washington is set to become the first state to enter the private health insurance market with a so-called “public option,” at rates supporters say will be 10% cheaper than comparable private insurance. Almost as if the lawmakers read my article above (before I even wrote it), they claim these savings will be achieved thanks to a cap on rates paid to providers.
Without going into too much detail regarding the pricing model (spoiler alert – it’s a percentage of Medicare), if this public option is indeed available to all residents, and if they can “force” providers to accept these payments as payment in full (thereby preventing balance billing), why would anyone sign up for a private plan? If, then, all private plan members are steered by sheer common sense to this public option, private plans will cease to exist and – in this way – a single-payer emerges from the exchange.
It was this threat that caused a public option to be removed from the proposed PPACA legislation, but now it’s back, at the State level as well as in proposals presented by Democratic candidates for the Presidency.
In the end, unless private plans and providers can achieve a meeting of the minds … and make healthcare affordable long term … this may be the future sooner than we think.