As many of you know from reading my blog posts that I am a huge fan of the MAPD (Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug) plans. I think if the product is platformed off of a PPO type plan which guarantees access to out of network providers, the MAPD plan can run equally up against a Medicare Supplement plan. We are starting to see articles like the one I have posted. I am not sure who is pushing this false line of thinking whether it is government trying to consolidate, the providers who do not like the capitated form of Medicare Reimbursement or the carriers themselves trying to coerce Medicare members into costly Med Supp plans. In any case, I will post this article and as usual my commentary will be in red.
This article comes to us from our friends at Insurance News Net.
Growth in Medicare Advantage will increase risks of lower revenue, Moody’s says
Hospitals will face rising risks to reimbursement, particularly from an uptick in denial of claims, as older Americans increasingly opt for health coverage under Medicare Advantage plans rather than traditional Medicare, a Moody’s Investor Service report said.
Rob Says - Older Americans are being led into the MAPD plans because of the plan descriptions being offered by those carriers. It is the carriers offering $0 monthly premium with $0 copays for the primary, $30 for the specialist and a hospital copay of in many instances $355 a day for the first 5 days capping a hospital exposure to $1775 for the member. I question how a denial of claims can occur from a carrier who set the reimbursement rates and who along with the provider monitor and regulate all in network services and procedures.
Moody’s expects that by 2030, when all baby boomers have turned 65, about 60% of Medicare enrollees will be covered by an MA plan. The shift to MA will increase health care providers' reliance on large commercial insurers, elevating the insurers' influence and negotiating strength. New rules from Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services have the potential to mitigate some of the challenges posed by MA growth.
Again, if we are talking about an MAPD plan, it is the carriers responsibility to control costs as they are the ones building the capitated networks and negotiating the reimbursement amount for services rendered. The carriers don't get to have it both ways. They don't get to set the rules and then say the rules suck.
- Risks to hospital revenue will rise with MA expansion. MA plans, which are managed by large insurers, present greater challenges to revenue capture than traditional Medicare, as hospitals cite an uptick in claim denials and delays in care authorization. Hospitals with broad scale and more essential roles will be best positioned to counter these issues. However, hospitals of varied sizes and types are terminating MA contracts.
- Hospitals will never fully terminate their contracts with the MAPD carriers. They can't, as the article notes nearly 60% of all medicare recipients will be on some form of MA coverage meaning by terminating contracts, they are reducing their potential patient base by 60%. Do not think that this will force people over to straight Medicare as they understand how Medicare works and they would rather pay $1775 on a hospital bill as opposed to straight Medicare where they are responsible for the first $1632 in the Part A deductible and then 20% of the remaining costs with no maximum out of pocket limit (MOOP). That is a loser for the member. No, they will stay on the MAPD with the MOOP's in place and a $0 monthly premium.
- Declining profitability of MA plans presents an additional threat to hospital revenue. Insurers have begun to see a decline in profitability from MA plans, which have been a valuable source of earnings for them. To help offset lower MA earnings, insurers could, in addition to service denials, turn to reducing costs by restricting provider networks or becoming more aggressive when negotiating MA and commercial rates.
- Wow, no kidding. You can't take a $164 monthly Part B premium and then offer hospital, provider, therapy, Part D, dental, vision, hearing, gym membership and OTC benefits on a $0 monthly premium and think you won't be awash in red ink. How about instead of denying hospital claims, how about cutting back on the extra freebies. Yes, the additional benefits are great. My clients love them (even though Braven had a bit of a tough start with their Smart Card) but if they are causing a plan to lose money and to shirk their fiduciary responsibility in meeting claims then the additional benefits need to be reeled in.
- Hospitals' reliance on the largest insurers will grow, giving insurers greater negotiating power. UnitedHealth, Humana, Aetna and Elevance (formerly Anthem) now cover about 65% of MA patients, in addition to dominating the commercial market. Hospitals will thus become increasingly reliant on these big payers. Payer positioning in contract negotiations will further challenge health care providers, especially in markets dominated by one or two insurers.
- Blame the state insurance departments for this one. The states are mandating high reserves which means only the larger carriers can get in the market. The states are mandating that a carrier authorized to do business has to demonstrate an abnormally high amount of reserves to pay claims before they will be admitted. You can't set the rules to favor the big guys and then whine that only the big guys are in the game.
- New rules from CMS have the potential to alleviate challenges posed by MA.CMS rules implemented in January 2024 seek to ensure that MA plans provide access to care in line with traditional Medicare. If adhered to, the rules would likely alleviate some of the risks to revenue presented by MA expansion, including pre-authorization for treatment and downgrading of admissions to observation stays.
- Most MAPD's are already required to cover the entire schedule of Medicare Mandated Coverages. The risks to revenue for both carrier and provider will be alleviated through annual contract negotiations as they reset and redefine the reimbursement rates for rendered services. The fact is, most MAPD plans already require pre-authorization for services so for many this is a non-starter as it is already part of their current reality. Oh and do NOT expand that silly changing of in-patient admission to observation. That is a colossal failure as the facilities haven't figured out how to keep these patients in a comfortable respectable way. Leaving a patient on a gurney in a hallway is borderline cruel and while the facility may see cost savings, it will surely at some point catch up to them in their star rating as pissed off patients complain. No, the observation idea is one whose time has come and gone.