I was reminded this week that, even with the epochal epidemic now gripping the nation, this is still a presidential election year.
Clearly, the new coronavirus is the biggest issue on Americans' minds—but if anything, it only makes more pertinent the long-running debate in the Democratic presidential primary about health care reform. If enacted, both Sen. Bernie Sanders' Medicare for All and former Vice President Joe Biden's public option would have major consequences for the financing and delivery of U.S. health care.
If you think it's too early to consider the consequences of these plans… well, you're probably right. We don't know who will win the presidency, let alone Congress. And just because a president proposes a plan doesn't mean it will become law, and even if it does, it will morph dramatically along the way (let us all remember the journey the Affordable Care Act took to become law).
Oh, and let's not forget the Supreme Court, who might have to adjudicate any major legislation. And the COVID-19 outbreak may continue to shake up the health reform conversation. And so on.
I know. I know. Speculating on any major health care legislation is way too premature.
But amid a tremendously difficult week in health care, let's allow ourselves a bit of fun with math and do so anyway.
Sanders' presidential prospects, while dimming, are not yet extinguished. And besides, the public option is often derided as a backdoor to single payer, so it's worth looking at what the full Monty looks like.
For today, let's limit our analysis to hospital and health system revenue. And let's start with Antares Health System, Advisory Board's astronomically named, and entirely fictitious, model health system that we've used to assess necessary targets for growth and cost control. (Longtime Advisory Board members might recall that Antares is a typical five-hospital health system, with roughly $1 billion in annual revenue and a respectable 3% operating margin. For assumptions about payer mix, revenue, costs, etc., please check out our Antares model.)
Sanders' single-payer proposal would transition Americans to a government-run plan and remove patient cost-sharing responsibilities. It's difficult to predict exactly how health care consumption would change, but it's reasonable to assume that patients would utilize more high-cost services.
Previous coverage expansions—such as the passage of Medicare in 1964 and the Affordable Care Act in 2010—did not significantly increase inpatient utilization, so we can expect increases in utilization would overwhelmingly occur in the outpatient setting. We estimate an average uptick of 13% given Antares' payer mix.
Under Sanders's Medicare for All, Antares would receive 100% of Medicare payment rates for all patients. Even after accounting for the expected increase in outpatient utilization and coverage for the uninsured, Antares's revenue is projected to decline by a rather alarming 23%, assuming current commercial rates of roughly 200% of Medicare. (These declines scale up quickly if your commercial reimbursement is substantially higher.)
How can your system stave off Antares' fate? A few options:
But as overhauls to the U.S. health care system go, Medicare for All isn't the only option.
In the past several weeks, Biden has experienced a comeback few would have predicted a few months ago. He promises a health reform that is, on one level, far less radical: an alternative to traditional insurance plans, with premium rates for patients and payment for providers all set by the government. But if anything, the public option is subject to even more unknowns—not least because the Biden campaign has released few details.
But any public option's impact will be most dependent on two factors: (1) how many people switch to the public option, and (2) the rates paid to providers, which can vary dramatically.
But both of these figures are tough to pin down. Estimates for switching behavior vary based on the how much the public option differs from traditional insurance and whether it's available outside of the individual market. And proposals for provider rates range from current Medicare levels to those approaching 150% of current Medicare rates (still well-lower than typical commercial rates).
For the purposes of this analysis, we looked at a range of scenarios for Antares. Each scenario assumes that the majority of nation's remaining uninsured partake of the public option, and that the plan is financed with patient premiums with normal cost-sharing, leading to little change in overall utilization.
If payments to providers are relatively high, premiums are likely to be higher too—and relatively few people will switch to the public option. In that scenario, the plan is net positive from the reduction of uninsured.
But if payments are relatively low, more people will switch from commercial insurance—resulting in the worst-case scenario for most hospitals and health systems (absent major government subsidies).
When we look at the impact for Antares, most scenarios are slightly to moderately negative because the modeled rates would still fall well below commercial levels.
Some major caveats here:
Although Biden and Sanders are the last major Democratic presidential candidates standing, that doesn't mean we should ignore the plans initially offered by other candidates, whose plans could still serve as the model that Congress ultimately adopts. (After all, several of the former candidates are still in Congress!)
It's notable, then, that most of the other candidates' plans didn't eliminate the private insurance system as it stands today—stopping short of true "Medicare for All." Most also stopped short of transitioning those covered by employer-sponsored coverage to a public plan. These details are often overlooked in the political conversation about health reform, but they have a huge impact on how a given proposal will impact the industry.
So what details should we look for moving forward? As the ultimate presidential nominees release more information about their proposals, here are some of the key points Advisory Board will be watching for:
Target population: Does the proposal target only the currently uninsured, or would it shift those with private insurance to public insurance? Would coverage be mandatory or optional?
Reimbursement level: At what level will payments be set? How do rates compare on an aggregate basis considering current uncompensated care cost?
Timeline for implementation: How quickly would changes be phased in?
Administrative impact: To what extent will the proposed changes result in decreased administrative costs through simplified revenue cycle operations?
Impact to utilization: Will decreased cost sharing, broader payer networks, or expansion of coverage to previously uninsured populations increase health care utilization?
Workforce impact: What will happen to the employees of private health insurance companies if patients transition to a government-run single payer? What will happen employees of hospitals that close as a result of lower reimbursement rates?
And one final question, which remains hard to answer: What impact will the COVID-19 outbreak have on the health reform conversation? Already we've seen an openness to a greater public role in financing health care, even from Republicans who've traditionally cast skepticism on public financing. If the epidemic considers for months to come, our national politics could been shaken in ways we still can't predict.
(Sorry, I know I promised you a change of pace from COVID-19.)
I hope everyone reading this is hunkering down, ready to face the potential challenge that awaits in the coming days and weeks. But as we emerge at the other end of the coronavirus outbreak, let's remember that there's still an election on—and it's likely to be the second most important health care story of the year.
Create your free account to access 2 resources each month, including the latest research and webinars.
You have 2 free members-only resources remaining this month remaining this month.
Never miss out on the latest innovative health care content tailored to you.