Medicare already 45% privatized, Medicaid could reach 30% by year's end

Share |

The privatization of Medicaid could hit 30% by the end of 2011. Medicare's privatization has already reached 45%.

The so-called Republican war on Medicare and Medicaid was already won a couple of years ago, and the battles waged so publicly now are, in large part, a public relations diversion.

What the Republicans, and apparently the President, don't want us to see is is the amount of government health care funds - between $2 billion and $5 billion every month - that this privatization has diverted to shareholder profits.

That money could be used instead to fund anywhere between 400,000 and 1 million full time jobs in local communities across the country. Every time one of these publicly-traded companies cuts the benefits it pays out, it means jobs have been lost as nurses, home attendants, adult day care, and a host of other local companies that provide equipment and services to the disability community. Meanwhile states have been able to cut their accounting, social work, quality control, regulation monitoring and other positions when the HMO takes over these jobs as part of its contract.

Figures published by the Commonwealth Fund, combined with Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) filings, show the percentage of people receiving Medicaid who are signed up through publicly traded HMOs has gone from 19.6% in 2009 to 27.1% as of June 30, 2011.

New contracts coming into play this year will add at least 1.7 million new people, bringing privatization to 29.8%. The Affordable Care Act is expected to raise Medicaid enrollment by 16 million by 2019, and the Commonwealth Fund concluded that "given recent patterns in state contract awards to managed care plans, it is reasonable to anticipate that plans operated by publicly traded companies will enroll the majority of the expanded Medicaid population."

Of the 47 million signed up for Medicare, 21 million are enrolled in publicly traded HMOs. When compared against the total population of just Medicare's managed care and stand-alone drug benefit, that 21 million becomes 71% of the total number of enrollees in those programs.

We obviously cannot count on our elected officials to stop this insidious process by themselves. They aren't even telling us about it. Please sign our petition demanding legislation to take private profits out of Medicaid and Medicare.

Poll: Should Medicaid and Medicare be auctioned off to for-profit HMOs?

Share |

The disability rights, civil rights, womens rights, family rights, senior rights and healthcare rights advocates need to unite to stop Medicaid and Medicare being sold off to for-profit HMOs. Please take our poll: should Medicaid and Medicare be sold to for-profit HMOs?

Unfortunately, the process has already been underway since the Bush days, reaching almost $11 billion a month in government revenues paid to for-profit HMOS. That amount is growing, for some companies as fast as twenty percent within six months.

I'm the mother of a beautiful and loving soon-to-be 12 year old who is at 24/7 risk of death from epilepsy. Hannah's life was auctioned off to one of these companies (Unitedhealth) in February 2009 so I see every day the impact of its spectacular earnings growth on her daily life. There is a huge disability community on the internet, and I see the impacts there as well. They are intensifying as more and more states are requiring Medicaid recipients with disabilities to join these for-profit HMOs.

They have taken away from us the right of choice.

The companies aren't cutting services to our children because "the budget" has been cut. In fact, if you live in Hawaii, New York, Florida, Georgia and a few other states, your for-profit Medicaid HMO got a premium raise from your state. That's an increase to the budget, not a decrease.

What's getting cut is how much of the premium your Medicaid HMO is being paid for your child that is actually being spent on medical care. The health insurance industry calls it the "Medical loss ratio," I think of it as the "Patient loss ratio", some companies are reasonably straightforward and call it the "health benefits ratio."

If you google "medical loss ratio", you will see that this little number is playing a large role in Washington politicking. I've uploaded a number of articles about it here. The point is, it represents the amount of the premium spent on actual medical costs as a percentage of the premium. If a company reports an 80% MLR to federal regulators, it means they spent only eighty percent of the money allocated for the care of our children (for example), and saved the rest by denying medically necessary services and treatments.

A twenty percent "patient loss ratio" is what these companies brazenly report to the SEC. Federal investigations have revealed companies fraudulently inflating costs by up to 299%, and so a 50% PLR estimate could be conservative.

These companies are stealing from our children, our grandparents, and our communities' most vulnerable populations.

We can't change something we don't know about, so please help us spread the word.

Romney says corporations are people, so why aren't HMO hoodlums who steal from taxpayers in jail?

Share |

If corporations are people, as Mitt Romney told a group today, then why aren't the companies caught defrauding Medicaid and Medicare in jail?

Romney's full statement, quoted in today's Huffington Post, is:

"Corporations are people, my friend... of course they are. Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to the people. Where do you think it goes? Whose pockets? Whose pockets? People's pockets. Human beings my friend."

"Everything ultimately goes to the people." That sure isn't the case with the big HMOs caught defrauding the taxpayers of billions of dollars intended to provide medical services to children.

I've asked before: if you were an employer and caught an employee stealing from you, would you hire that person again? And if you did and they did it again, would you hire them back a second time...a third time....?

Why is this any different from the Administration continuing to award federal subsidies to corporations already caught stealing from the government?

PR for the health insurance industry has done a great job fogging the mirror on Medicaid and Medicare. They have framed the entire debate in terms of the skyrocketing cost of medical care, the undeserving nature of recipients, and how the public budgets for these programs should be cut.

The problem is reality conflicts rather substantially with this PR "spin."

First, let's get the idea that Medicaid is for the poor or unemployed out of the way. Two-thirds of the national budget goes to keeping children and adults with disabilities, along with the elderly, out of institutions. Our country actually has a wonderful set of laws and regulations designed to keep families together, by providing medically necessary services in the individual's home. When the Medicaid budget starts getting cut, it's this two-thirds that is affected the most, and carries the highest human toll in misery and death.

Second, we need to remember that just because expenses are reported by insurance companies to federal authorities, doesn't mean those figures are accurate. The whistleblower case against Wellcare unsealed last summer reported expenses inflated by up to 299%. In Florida, investigators discovered Unitedhealth had billed the state for more than $2 million of speech therapy for children with disabilities that never took place.

Ironically, the insurance companies use these same inflated costs to justify premium increases in their state Medicaid contracts. In fact, the companies have to show they are losing money on the state contracts to get the rate increase. But if they were losing money in all the states that have awarded increases, how are they continuing to report record profits?

In its first quarter 2011 filing with the SEC, Wellcare said that "Hawaii program rate increases ... we believe have improved the stability of the program." With the company's operating profit jumping from 13.1% to 19.3% just in the past nine months, how much of the raise is being applied towards costs is in serious question.

Meanwhile, when PR flacks and industry reps talk about cutting provider rates, they forget to mention that doing so just increases the corporate HMO's profit margin. The HMO is not a "provider" in this lingo; it has replaced the state accounting and quality control bureaucracies with its own employees. The providers are the nursing agencies, pharmacies, hospitals, medical supply companies, day care centers for people with disabilities and other small businesses that provide direct services to the people needing them.

The biggest myth of all is that the issue that needs to be addressed is how to cut budgets. In essence, we are being asked to make decisions about cutting budgets without knowing how those budgets are spent. It might seem logical to equate Medicaid budgets with how much is spent on medical care, but that leaves out the twenty-to-fifty percent profit the HMO is scooping off the top of every payment they get from the government. Right now that totals somewhere between $2 billion and $5 billion a month, depending on how much fraud is going on.

As quietly as the government has been auctioning off Medicaid and Medicare to for-profit HMOs, the White House has taken steps to let these corporations know that federal regulators won't be watching too closely how these funds are actually spent.

On April 26, the Administration backed an agreement between Wellcare, nine states and the federal government, settling all the Medicaid fraud cases against them for $137 million. In return, the government agreed not to consider Wellcare a criminal and not to hold this non-criminal past against them in any future contract negotiations.

On May 6, the Administration published proposed new Medicaid access regulations that dropped jaws across Washington and the health reform movement. According to Sara Rosenbaum, Chair of the health policy department at George Washington University, "rather than being a forceful implementation of the law, the proposed rule is a model of inaction." She went on to call it "the first sign of the administration’s refusal to intervene" in state Medicaid practices, including those concerned with how government money is being spent. She calls the rule "a model of inaction," the sole remaining purpose of which is "to establish what might charitably be characterized as an information-gathering exercise."

Even this extremely watered down proposed law goes further by exempting everyone enrolled in Medicaid HMOs from inclusion in the five year information study.

Just from the year of statistics I took in college, I know any study that excludes seventy percent of the affected population has dubious accuracy.

Then on May 26, the White House took an action that could end up turning everyone receiving Medicaid into second class citizens. Defying HHS Secretary Sebellius as well as a number of health advocacy groups, Obama backed a "friend of the court" document submitted to the Supreme Court that advocates denying anyone on Medicaid the protection of federal law.

Simon Lazarus of the National Senior Center Law Center wrote:

The brief charts a path for the Supreme Court to permit federal courts to continue routinely to apply federal supremacy to strike down state laws protecting consumers, workers, retirees, bank depositors and others, alleged by business litigants to conflict with federal laws, while arbitrarily withholding identical protection from the vulnerable populations served by Medicaid and other safety net laws.

Rosenbaum warned in Politico that "there’s “no stopping point … in terms of its spillover effects” if the Supreme Court broadly restricts individuals’ access to the courts over state implementation of such a federal program."

If Romney thinks corporations are people, then Obama's actions tell us he values these corporations over the rights of the individual.

The country's most medically vulnerable population has been auctioned off to a bunch of criminal hoodlums with no regulatory strings attached.

Please sign our petition to stop this enslavement.

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.

Obama's $1 trillion handout to big business insurers

Share |

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.