Monday, July 25, 2011

Obama's $1 trillion handout to big business insurers, Part 2

Share |

Once you start following the money rather than the rhetoric, you can start seeing how the Medicaid/Medicare reality has little do to with big business insurers' PR campaign.

Myth 1:  We need to find a good way to reduce costs; rising costs of services is  the problem.

Reality:  When private insurers create HMOs for Medicaid and Medicare, the company is paid by the government a set amount per month per person. With little to no regulation let alone enforcement of minimum spending requirements, reducing costs just gives the company higher profits. 

I've been puzzling for over a month now over an article by Paul Krugman. He states, "Yes, Medicare has to get serious about cost control; it has to start saying no to expensive procedures with little or no medical benefits, it has to change the way it pays doctors and hospitals, and so on."  He compares US Medicare with Canadian health care, which is "less open-ended and more cost-conscious."

The Canadian public health system probably doesn't have a corporate middleman who slips twenty to fifty percent of premiums into his back pocket every month.

Myth 2: Health care companies are making money because people can't afford to spend their deductibles.

Reality:  Unitedhealth sold this line to the Wall Street Journal after last year's earnings figures came out.  It was apparently deemed successful enough that the PR department used it again in May with the New York Times.  This time they brought out some commercial policy holders to interview who substantiated their claim.

In the past three years, Unitedhealth's commercial premiums have increased by only $334 million a month.  Government revenues paid by Medicaid and Medicare are up almost $1.5 billion a month.  Corporate profits from not spending government-paid premiums are up 67%, while the premium revenues themselves are up only 51%.

Unitedhealth's soaring profits are more accurately represented by the family who has been denied hospitalization, or medications, or home care services for their child or grandparent with a disability.

We don't make as good a PR statement, however.

Sunday, July 24, 2011

Obama's $1 trillion handout to big business insurers

Federal hand-outs to the health insurance industry could top $1 trillion in the next five years. Between twenty and fifty percent of that will be saved off the top as net profit.

The handouts are not loans or grants or even tax breaks. They are the product of the Administration's policy supporting auctioning off state Medicaid and federal Medicare contracts to publicly traded, for profit health insurance corporations.

Based on SEC filings for the first three months of 2011, government payments to the top ten for-profit insurers were running around $10.9 billion a month, up ten percent just in the previous six months. Depending on how much fraud is going on, between $1.9 and $5.4 billion of that gets "saved" every month towards corporate profits by the company simply refusing to spend it.

Obama's willingness to concede to cuts in entitlements will probably have little influence on these payouts reaching $1 trillion in the next five years. The White House has given off too many signals in the past six months of its willingness to give private insurers a free hand in how they spend federal funds. The Administration has even gone so far as letting one company off the hook for criminal Medicaid fraud in nine states.

Just as slavery cloaked itself in the myth of the paternalistic landowner, the public war raging today over Medicaid and Medicare is using the myth of the undeserving poor to detract attention from the obscene private profits being generated with public funds.

In reality, the people whose lives are being affected the most are our country's fourteen million children and adults (including the elderly) with disabilities. Two-thirds of the nation's total Medicaid budget is allocated to paying for medical services to keep people with disabilities at home with their families, rather than shutting them up into institutions. More and more of that money is being paid out to companies more responsible to shareholders than policyholders.

What the President has auctioned off to big insurers is control over life and death of our society's most vulnerable citizens.

The new dandies of Wall Street

Ten health insurance companies control the private Medicaid/Medicare market. Four exist completely on public funding: Amerigroup, Centene, Molina and Wellcare. The other six (Aetna, Coventry, Health Net, Humana, Unitedhealth and Wellpoint) have been replacing lost corporate group business with new Medicaid and Medicare "managed care" policies.

Unitedhealth's quarterly net earnings (three-month profit before taxes) jumped from $505 million for April - June, 2008, to over $2.1 billion in the first three months of 2011. Quarterly commercial premiums were up by only $1 billion, but Medicaid/Medicare quarterly revenues were up by over $4 billion.

At Aetna, commercial revenue is down from 79% of total quarterly premiums to 74%. Its replacement with Medicaid/Medicare government funding, however, has accompanied a 22% increase in quarterly net earnings.

Among the ten, Medicaid membership is up 19%, and the mix of Medicaid and Medicare products is up 33%, from 27.7 million to 36 million policies. Both commercial membership and quarterly commercial revenues are down.

The relationship between the number of new Medicaid enrollees and the revenue they generate for the company is not a straight one to one ratio. Humana and Coventry both reported a loss in Medicaid membership at the same time as an increase in Medicaid revenue. Wellcare had a three percent increase in Medicaid membership generating a 14% increase in Medicaid revenues, and Unitedhealth and Amerigroup both showed almost a three-to-one ratio of Medicaid revenue growth to membership change.

In order to understand why Medicaid (and Medicare) contracts are so lucrative, it is best to start with what one writer has called the insurance industry's "dirty secret."

The "Patient Loss Ratio" and why it's important to Wall Street

When state Medicaid programs are carved up and auctioned off to the lowest bidder, they include a rate schedule used to determine a monthly payment per person. The insurer is paid a set amount per month per person, depending on how healthy the person is. For really healthy people, the insurer may get only $400 a month from the government; for a medically fragile child living in a rural area, the company may be getting paid $25,000 a month by the government.

For the publicly traded health insurers winning these contracts, profit derives from the simple difference between how much the government is paying to provide services for each covered individual, and how much the company spends on that person.

In the health industry, it's called the "Medical Loss Ratio": how much is actually spent per individual as a percentage of the total premium paid for that person. Since the term seems to imply that expenses are a corporate loss, the "Patient Loss Ratio" represents how much every policyholder under Medicaid and Medicare is losing of their budget to corporate profits.

For example, a medically fragile child in a rural area who is dependent on technology to breathe and eat might have a monthly budget of $25,000 to pay for equipment and care services at home. That's what the company is paid every month, and it is less than the state would pay if the child was institutionalized. When the company is reporting an MLR of 80%, it means the so-called "managed care plan" has cut twenty percent of the child's services. For instance, the child's life may now be endangered by the loss of 200 hours of home nursing services per month, and the community has lost 1.25 full-time jobs.

Minimum spending requirements for Medicaid contracts are virtually non-existent. In a single case in Florida where a contract required an 80% minimum, all eight insurers were found to have fraudulently padded medical expenses by fourteen to sixty percent (in other words, the patients were losing between 34% and 80% of their budgets to profits).

Non-profit health insurers and even for-profit corporations with US Military contracts report spending ninety-five cents out of every premium dollar on actual medical costs. Nevertheless, the Administration, in an extremely generous mood, tried to set minimum spending requirements of only 80-85% for commercial and Medicare policies through the Affordable Care Act. However, states were allowed to apply for (and are receiving) "waivers" as low as 70% on the basis the local insurance industry will be inconvenienced.

What Al Capone, the drug cartels and health insurers have in common

Money breeds crime. The more excessive the potential profits, the more pervasive is the crime.  And the analogy between health insurers and the heroine trade was made two years ago.

A whistleblower complaint against Wellcare, Amerigroup, Unitedhealth, Humana and others was unsealed last summer. Sean Hellein, an executive at Wellcare, wore a wire for 18 months as part of an FBI investigation into Medicaid fraud. This is a must-read for anyone who wants to understand how pervasive criminal Medicaid fraud is within the heath insurance industry. Some of the methods revealed included:
* inflating medical costs on 161,170 claims by 218% to 299%;
* bullying terminally ill patients and the mothers of medically fragile babies into disenrolling  ("cherrypicking");
* setting up a Cayman Islands reinsurance subsidiary to overpay themselves;
* cooperation between companies in false-billing practices, to reduce the chances of getting caught; and
* tricking federal regulatory computers into doublecounting expenses.
Hellein's testimony also reveals how incompetent state regulators are at catching Medicaid fraud. From mid-2005 to the date of the document, a Florida computer error awarded an estimated $16.8 million in overpayments for one program to Wellcare, Unitedhealth, Amerigroup, Humana and two other HMOs. Another error that was capitalized on was made by actuarial firm Milliman Consultants. The Milliman report mistakenly over-priced expenses for one program by $19.4 million over two years. Aware of the error, Wellcare fraudulently used the actuarial report to apply for (and receive) a rate increase.

In late April, 2011, Wellcare reached a settlement on criminal Medicaid fraud charges with nine states and the federal government. The White House apparently supported letting Wellcare off the hook by promising never to call them gangsters for what they had done, and not to hold their past gangster activities against them in future federal contract awards.

Would Fort Knox have hired Al Capone? As the mother of one of the millions of children victimized by this fraud, it feels tantamount to the President forcing me to hire a pedophile as a babysitter.

Federal and state funds diverted from medical care for  children and adults with disabilities can mean the difference between living at home with family, or being institutionalized; it can mean the difference between living surrounded by loved ones, and a slow, lonely and miserable death.

We need to look beyond the rhetoric on Medicaid and Medicare and pay attention to how our tax money is being spent. 

I've consolidated my document collection here

About Me

My photo
I'm the mom of a child with disabilities. Hannah's first neurologist said she might never develop beyond the level of a 2 month old infant, and there wasn't anything I could do about it. The brain damage was just too severe. Nine years later, she walks, uses a touchscreen computer and I've just been shown she can learn to construct sentences and do simple math with the right piece of technology. Along the way, I discovered I needed to teach myself what Hannah's rights to services really were. Learning about early intervention services led to reading about IDEA and then to EPSDT. I've been waiting for the Obama administration to realize the power and potential of EPSDT for the medical rights - including the right to stay at home with their families - of children with disabilities. The health reform people talk about long term care, and the disability people talk about education and employment, but nobody is talking about EPSDT. So I am.