The cost of critical illness would probably crush your finances

By:Bill Coffin of Life Health Pro
May 7,2013

An overwhelming majority (90%) of middle-income Americans say they are not financially prepared for a critical illness diagnosis, according to a new study released by Washington National Institute for Wellness Solutions (IWS).

The study, Middle-Income America’s Perspectives on Critical Illness and Financial Security, which surveyed 1,001 Americans ages 30 to 66 with an annual household income of between $35,000 and $99,999, found that only one in 10 feels strongly confident they have enough savings to cover family emergencies and handle the financial implications of a critical illness,such as cancer, heart disease stroke, or Alzheimer’s disease.

If diagnosed with a critical illness, most middle-income Americans say they would be forced to draw on savings to pay for out-of-pocket expenses not covered by insurance. But according to the study, many have little, if any, savings to fall back on:

75% have less than $20,000 in savings
50% have less than $2,000 in savings
25% have no current savings
To pay for critical illness costs, middle-income Americans say they would need to use credit cards (28%) or loans from family/friends (23%) or financial institutions (19%) to offset expenses not covered by health insurance. Another one-fourth (23%) say they simply “don’t know” what resources they would use to help offset their expenses. Millennials and Gen Xers anticipate greater reliance on credit cards and loans to pay for critical illness expenses.

Thirty-eight percent of respondents said they would probably never recover financially from a cancer diagnosis. Forty-five percent said that they would not recover financially from an Alzheimer’s/dementia diagnosis.

Despite this, only 12 percent of respondents said they have explored care-giving options. Sixty percent have not discussed financial planning for critical illness. And eighty-eight percent have not broached the topic with loved ones or a financial advisor.


The Kindest Cut: How One Hospital Lowered Costs by Making Doctors More Budget Conscious

These articles from Time are very telling. If you read the three I’ve reposted you’ll get a real good idea why we are over paying for ANYTHING HEALTHCARE.

Health & Family

Give a surgeon the choice between a $5 silk stitch and a $400 staple to close up an incision, and he’ll choose the $5 stitch, right?

Not necessarily. The problem is, most surgeons never know that the stitch costs $5 and the staple costs $400. Traditionally, knowing the costs of a stitch or a catheter or a bone screw — or any of the thousands of other supplies used during surgeries — hasn’t been part of many doctors’ medical consciousness.

Health care costs, however, have grown too massive — topping $2 trillion a year – to continue doing things the way we’ve always done them. Conscientious medical providers have no choice but to confront cost issues or become guilty bystanders to the slow deterioration of America’s health care system.

(MOREWhy Medical Bills Are Killing Us)

Meaningful change, however, can only come with knowledge. Believe it or…

View original post 544 more words

An End to Medical-Billing Secrecy?

It’s time every American starts asking questions when getting health care. Asking Doctors to explain your problem in layman’s terms asking how much is this going to cost. Even if you have health insurance.


This article appears in this week’s magazine under the title, “Goodbye to the Surgical Mask.” It has been updated from the online version.

Our hospital bill is about to get a thorough examination. Acting on the suggestion of her top data crunchers at the department’s Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius released an enormous data file on May 8 that reveals the list—or “chargemaster”—prices of all hospitals across the country for the 100 most common inpatient treatment services in 2011. It then compares those prices with what Medicare actually paid hospitals for the same treatments—which was typically a fraction of the chargemaster prices.

As a result, Americans are a big step closer to being able to compare what hospitals charge them for goods and services with what they actually cost. CMS public-affairs director Brian Cook told me that Sebelius’ action today comes…

View original post 641 more words

Hospital Prices No Longer Secret As New Data Reveals Bewildering System, Staggering Cost Differences

This Article was written by: Jeffery Young & Chris Kirkham and appeared today in the Huffington Post. It’s a long article but you need to read it completely.

Comments (7,512)
When a patient arrives at Bayonne Hospital Center in New Jersey requiring treatment for the respiratory ailment known as COPD, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, she faces an official price tag of $99,690.
Less than 30 miles away in the Bronx, N.Y., the Lincoln Medical and Mental Health Center charges only $7,044 for the same treatment, according to a massive federal database of national health care costs made public on Wednesday.
Americans have long become accustomed to bewilderment and anxiety when confronting health care bills. The new database underscores why, revealing the perplexing assortment of prices for medical care, with the details of bills seemingly untethered to any graspable principle.
Even within the same metropolitan area, hospitals charge prices that differ by staggering degrees for the same procedures. People without health insurance pay vastly higher costs for care when less expensive options are often available nearby. Virtually everyone who seeks health care winds up paying inflated prices in one form or another as these stark disparities in price sow inefficiencies throughout the market.
While this basic picture has emerged as the consensus reality among health care experts, their evidence has been primarily anecdotal. Hospitals have protected their price lists — documents known as charge masters — as closely guarded secrets.
Their prices are secret no more.
The database released on Wednesday by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services lays out for the first time and in voluminous detail how much the vast majority of American hospitals charge for the 100 most common inpatient procedures billed to Medicare. The database — which covers claims filed within fiscal year 2011 — spans 163,065 individual charges recorded at 3,337 hospitals located in 306 metropolitan areas.
The Obama administration shared the data in advance with The Huffington Post, The New York Times and The Washington Post. What emerges through a preliminary analysis is a snapshot of an incoherent system in which prices for critical medical services vary seemingly at random — from state to state, region to region and hospital to hospital.

These price differences impose a uniquely punishing burden on the estimated 49 million Americans who have no health insurance, experts say. They are the only ones who see on their bill the dollar amounts listed on these official price lists. Yet these same prices effectively shape what nearly everyone pays for health care, because they determine how much private health insurance companies must surrender in reimbursement for services. That in turn influences the size of the premiums that insurance companies charge their customers.
Obama administration officials declined to characterize the causes of these gaping disparities in price, leaving unclear whether they reflect some form of malevolence — profiteering by some institutions or price-rigging — or rather more nebulous factors, such as varying estimates about the underlying costs of providing services.
[Click here to search the database.]
Administration officials said they offered up the data with hopes that its release would administer a market corrective, forcing hospitals to take greater heed of competitors while arming ordinary people with information they could use to seek a better deal. The data could also spur health insurance companies to negotiate with hospitals to seek lower prices.
“Our purpose for posting this information is to shine a much stronger light on these practices,” said Jonathan Blum, director of the Center for Medicare. “What drives some hospitals to have significantly higher charges than their geographic peers? I don’t think anyone here has come up with a good economic argument.”
The very fact that prices are now public may bring change, he added. “Hopefully, it will cause hospitals themselves to take a hard look at their charge-master practices and to ask hard questions of themselves as an industry why there is so much variation,” he said.
Within the nation’s largest metropolitan area, the New York City area, a joint replacement runs anywhere between $15,000 and $155,000. At two hospitals in the Los Angeles area, the cost of the same treatment for pneumonia varies by $100,000, according to the database.
Public access to this data on hospital charges pulls back the curtain on one of the most troubling characteristics of the American health care system: Medical providers set their prices in ways that seem arbitrary, with little oversight and practically no market incentive to reduce them, because almost no one actually pays the official rates.
The data lands as unexpected health care bills continue to be a leading cause of financial ruin for American families. Uninsured and low-income people are often subject to aggressive debt collection by hospitals and their agents when their illnesses result in bills they cannot pay.
Even among people of means, skepticism about American health care is common and with reasons based in data: Americans typically pay higher prices for health care than people in other countries, without gaining higher-quality care or superior health.
The new trove of billing data seems certain to amplify calls for a solution to rising medical costs — not only for ordinary people, but for the economy as a whole. Health care spending continues to grow faster than the economy, though the rate of increase has slowed in recent years, prompting hopes that a fix may be materializing.
In 1999, average charges billed to Medicare were equal to 104 percent of the cost to provide medical care, according to a report issued last June by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, an expert panel that counsels Congress. By 2010, the ratio had more than doubled to 218 percent.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services long has had access to hospital charges via the cost reports facilities must submit to the agency, said Blum, the Obama administration official. Before now, few had given a thought to making the data public. His agency’s actions were inspired in part by a sweeping Time magazine article on hospital charges by author Steven Brill published in March, Blum said.
The newly released data covers facilities that were collectively responsible for 90 percent of inpatient claims to Medicare while excluding certain institutions, such as children’s hospitals and cancer centers.
The Huffington Post reviewed the two dozen types of services billed to Medicare at least 100,000 times in fiscal 2011 in 13 metropolitan areas spanning the U.S. The locations varied in population from less than 1 million to the largest three metro areas: New York; Los Angeles; Chicago; Portland, Ore.; Austin, Texas; Jacksonville, Fla.; Richmond, Va.; Birmingham, Ala.; Tucson, Ariz.; Honolulu; Madison, Wis.; Provo, Utah; and Chattanooga, Tenn.
How is it possible that two hospitals in close proximity would set prices as differently as Bayonne Hospital Center in New Jersey and the Lincoln Medical and Mental Health Center in New York? It’s partly a relic of how hospitals used to operate and partly reflects their strategies to maximize revenues in ways that don’t have a direct connection to the cost of the care they provide any individual patient.
“The charge masters are totally irrational,” Robert Laszewski, a former health insurance company executive who consults for health care companies as president of Alexandria, Va.-based Health Policy and Strategy Associates, wrote in an email to The Huffington Post.
Hospitals used to base prices on health care costs and on the need for profit that would, among other things, enable them to make investments in their facilities, Laszewski explained. “They became the baseline from which the hospitals started,” he wrote. But over time, hospitals raised charges in anticipation of negotiating discounts with private health insurance companies while maintaining their revenue streams, he said.
Prices have continued growing over decades to the point where there is no plausible justification for them, according to Laszewski: “Over the years, the charge masters have become more and more disconnected from reality.”
The charges are the prices hospitals establish themselves for the services they provide. Although Medicare and Medicaid don’t base their payment rates on these figures, private health insurance companies typically do, which means they usually pay more for the same health care than the government does. That translates into higher premiums for people with insurance. And uninsured people are expected to pay the full list price or a discount from that number, which tends to mean they pay more than anyone else.
When a hospital doesn’t get paid as much as it wants from one source, it tries to make up the difference in other ways, such as billing so-called self-pay patients — almost always the uninsured — for the full list price of a service, said Robert Huckman, a health care expert at Harvard Business School. Even when hospitals agree to huge discounts for patients who can’t pay the bill, those discounts are taken from inflated prices much higher than those the government or private insurance companies pay, he said.
“The charge master is complete nonsense that really doesn’t matter — unless you are an uninsured person and you’re getting these huge bills driving you toward bankruptcy,” Laszewski wrote. “The biggest irony of the U.S. health care system is that only the uninsured — often people who don’t have a lot of money — are the only ones the hospital expects to pay these incredibly inflated list prices!”
Hospitals also inflate charges to raise money for things that aren’t related to treatments, said former Sen. David Durenberger (R-Minn.), who is senior health policy fellow at the University of St. Thomas in Minneapolis.
“The biggest factor by far, in my experience, is what are you trying to cross-subsidize,” he said. Hospitals will increase charges to finance things like technology upgrades and education and research and to compensate for their operational efficiencies, Durenberger said.
Myriad reasons legitimately explain how a health care service may be priced much differently from area to area, including labor costs and other local economic circumstances. But such factors fail to explain price discrepancies among hospitals in close proximity, Huckman said. “There’s no doubt that the variation in charges is significantly larger than the variation in the underlying costs for these hospitals,” he said.
The new Medicare database is replete with examples of inexplicably high prices and wide variations between hospitals in the same geographic area. The peculiar disorganization of the American health care system is evident by looking at just a few instances.
In the New York metro area, Bayonne Hospital Center — part of a chain called CarePoint Healthcare — charges the highest prices for several types of procedures, including COPD treatment, among the regional hospitals reviewed by HuffPost. Its price for that treatment runs four times the average in the New York area, according to the database. Medicare — the government health care program for older people and people with disabilities — paid an average of $6,826 for these same treatments within the New York area — or less than 7 percent of Bayonne Hospital Center’s charge.
Major joint replacement surgery at the hospital comes in at $155,769, which is almost three times the local average and more than nine times the price at Lincoln Medical and Mental Health Center in the Bronx. Medicare paid an average $18,944 in that area.
Garfield Medical Center in Monterey Park, Calif., outside Los Angeles, charges $241,654 to take care of a patient undergoing renal failure with major complications, which is almost 10 times the price at Beverly Hospital about 5 miles away in Montebello and more than three times the regional average.
And Birmingham’s Brookwood Medical Center has the highest charges in 14 of the 24 Medicare billing categories in area facilities HuffPost reviewed, including a $156,958 price for simple pneumonia and inflammation of the lung. That’s almost 12 times what the same treatment costs at Russell Hospital about an hour away in Alexander City, Ala., and about four times the local average.
Loyola Gottlieb Memorial Hospital in Melrose Park, Ill., outside Chicago, charged the highest prices for 16 of the 24 procedures reviewed by HuffPost. For kidney failure, Loyola Gottlieb charged $97,926, more than twice average cost of 59 hospitals in the Chicago area. The price is more than five times what John H. Stroger Jr. Hospital, 12 miles to the east, charges.
Those numbers reflect data from fiscal year 2011, and an official from Loyola University Health System, which runs the Gottlieb Memorial Hospital, said the hospital has reduced charges by an average 25 percent since then. “Loyola University Health System closely monitors charges and conducts reviews regularly to ensure that the health system is competitive in the Chicago market,” said Chief Financial Officer Jay Sial, in a written statement.
The other hospitals named in this article did not respond to or declined requests for comment.
The public availability of hospital charges is unlikely to bring swift and radical change to pricing or spare uninsured patients from exorbitant bills, said Huckman, the Harvard health care expert. Still, he added, it’s a good start.
“It would be hard for a hospital — unless there’s a justified reason — to be able to preserve a large margin over what its otherwise equal competitors charge,” Huckman said. “If someone knows the amount that even the most advantaged payer reimburses a hospital for a particular service and they can take that in with their own bill, I think that gives a pretty powerful opportunity for that customer to interact with the organization and say, ‘Why is my number so different?'”
Jay Boice, Aaron Bycoffe and Andrei Scheinkman contributed to this report.

The Most Expensive Cities For Health Care

Hotze to File Suit Over Federal Health Reform by Emily Ramshaw and Becca Aaronson May 7, 2013

Updated May 7, 2013:

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that penalties under the Affordable Care Act qualify as taxes has opened the door to another constitutional challenge, Dr. Steve Hotze, a Houston physician and prominent Republican donor, said at a Tuesday press conference announcing his lawsuit against the federal government.

“What we were promised was a new health care policy and change that could be good for all Americans,” Hotze said at the state Capitol, flanked by more than a dozen Republican legislators. “Really, all it’s turned out to offer us is higher premiums, higher taxes and a government that will allow its bureaucrats to interfere with the doctor-patient relationship.”

Hotze plans to file a lawsuit in Houston district court on Tuesday to prevent enforcement of the federal Affordable Care Act in Texas.

The lawsuit presents two constitutional challenges: First, it argues that the ACA violates the rule that requires revenue-raising bills to begin the U.S. House, because the original bill began as a tax credit bill for veterans —not a revenue-raising bill. Second, the lawsuit argues that the ACA violates the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution by essentially requiring citizens to pay money to other citizens by compelling employers to pay private insurance companies for health coverage.

Because Hotze’s business, Braidwood Management, has more than 50 employees, the law requires him to purchase employee health insurance or pay a $2,000 penalty for every full-time employee above a 30-employee threshold.

“This is going to be a huge expense. I’m grateful that Dr. Hotze is stepping forward,” state Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, said at the press conference. “I think he’ll have the support of many business owners and people around the state.”

Hotze said Gov. Rick Perry, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and Attorney General Greg Abbott were made aware of his intention to file a lawsuit, and none objected. Dewhurst was originally scheduled to speak at the press conference but did not attend.

The state of Texas will not be involved in pursuing or paying for the lawsuit. Hotze plans to cover the costs of the suit and has established a legal defense fund for other individuals and businesses to donate to his cause.

Original story:

Steve Hotze, a Houston-area physician and major Republican campaign donor who has built his career around alternative medicine, says he is filing suit against the federal government to try to prevent the enforcement of the Affordable Care Act in Texas.

He’ll announce the suit, to be filed against U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, on Tuesday morning in a press conference hosted by Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst.

Hotze, the president of Conservative Republicans of Texas, said his suit will address “new and unconstitutional problems that stem from Obamacare.”

“It is imperative that Texas challenge this unwarranted federal overreach and ensure that Texans maintain the most innovative and economically viable health care system in the country,” he wrote in a statement.

Hotze has built a lucrative practice in suburban Houston around nontraditional therapies and treatments for allergies, thyroid problems and yeast infections. He’s best known for promoting natural progesterone replacement therapy for women, a treatment the FDA has questioned the effectiveness of. As recently as 2011, he had a daily health and wellness show on Republican Sen. Dan Patrick’s Houston radio station, KSEV.

Hotze contributed at least $60,000 personally and at least $640,000 via his PAC, Conservative Republicans of Texas, to GOP House and Senate candidates in the 2010 election cycle. In 2010, he contributed $15,000 to Dewhurst’s campaign.

Texas Tribune donors or members may be quoted or mentioned in our stories, or may be the subject of them. For a complete list of contributors, click here.

States: PCIP running out of cash BY RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR | MAY 3, 2013

WASHINGTON (AP) — Thousands of people with serious medical problems are in danger of losing Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP) coverage because of cost overruns, state officials say.

The drafters of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) created PCIP — which is often pronounced “pee-sip” — to serve as transition program for the so-called “uninsurables” — people with serious medical conditions who can’t get coverage elsewhere.

The program was supposed to help uninsurable people bridge the gap from day PPACA was signed into law in March 2010 until Jan. 1, 2014, when PPACA will prohibit health insurers from taking health problems into account when deciding whether to accept applicants.

About 100,000 people now have PCIP coverage. The people in a state’s plan pay premiums comparable to the premiums that commercial insurers in the state charge healthy enrollees.

In a letter this week to Health and Human Services Secretary (HHS) Kathleen Sebelius, state officials said they were “blindsided” and “very disappointed” by a federal proposal that they contend would shift the risk for cost overruns to the states in the waning days of the program.

“We are concerned about what will become of our high risk members’ access to this decent and affordable coverage,” wrote Michael Keough, chairman of the National Association of State Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans. States and local nonprofits administer the program in 27 states, and the federal government runs the remaining plans.

“Enrollees also appear to be at risk of increases in both premiums and out-of-pocket costs that may make continued enrollment cost prohibitive,” added Keough, who runs North Carolina’s program. He warned of “large-scale enrollee terminations at this critical transition time.”

The crisis is surfacing at a politically awkward time for the Obama administration, which is trying to persuade states to embrace a major expansion of Medicaid under PPACA. It may undercut one of the main arguments proponents of the expansion are making: that Washington is a reliable financial partner.

The root of the problem is that PPACA capped spending on the program at $5 billion, and the money is running out.

Enrollment has been much lower than analysts originally had projected but medical bills for the beneficiaries have been much higher. Advanced heart disease and cancer are common diagnoses for the group.

PCIP officials have reported that PCIP beneficiaries averaged about $32,000 in claims in 2012, with the sickest 4 percent generating an average of about $225,000 in claims.

Obama did not ask for any additional funding for the program in his latest budget, and a Republican bid to keep the program going by tapping other funds in PPACA failed to win support in the House last week.

There was no immediate response from HHS, which has given the state-based program until next Wednesday to respond to proposed contract terms for the program’s remaining seven months.

Delivered last Friday, the new contract stipulated that states will be reimbursed “up to a ceiling.”

“The ‘ceiling’ part is the issue for us,” Keough said in an interview. “They are shifting the risk from the federal government, for a program that has experienced huge cost overruns on a per-member basis, to states. And that’s a tall order.”

At his news conference this week, Obama acknowledged the rollout of PPACA wouldn’t be perfect. There will be “glitches and bumps” he said, and his team is committed to working through them. However, it’s unclear how PCIP could get more money without the cooperation of Republicans in Congress.

PCIP was intended only as a stopgap. The law’s main push to cover the uninsured starts next year, with subsidized private insurance available through new state-based markets, as well as an expanded version of Medicaid for low-income people. At the same time, virtually all Americans will be required to carry a policy, or pay a fine.

States are free to accept or reject the Medicaid expansion, and the new problems with PCIP could well have a bearing on their decisions.