• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

When your entire life is steeped in white supremacy, equality feels like discrimination.

Republicans seem to think life begins at the candlelight dinner the night before.

Damn right I heard that as a threat.

Let us savor the impending downfall of lawless scoundrels who richly deserve the trouble barreling their way.

Let’s not be the monsters we hate.

Infrastructure week. at last.

This really is a full service blog.

And we’re all out of bubblegum.

Within six months Twitter will be fully self-driving.

Optimism opens the door to great things.

Let there be snark.

Anyone who bans teaching American history has no right to shape America’s future.

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Is it irresponsible to speculate? It is irresponsible not to.

I’d try pessimism, but it probably wouldn’t work.

Whoever he was, that guy was nuts.

This year has been the longest three days of putin’s life.

Putin must be throwing ketchup at the walls.

Since when do we limit our critiques to things we could do better ourselves?

I see no possible difficulties whatsoever with this fool-proof plan.

Battle won, war still ongoing.

If senate republicans had any shame, they’d die of it.

We are builders in a constant struggle with destroyers. let’s win this.

I did not have this on my fuck 2022 bingo card.

Mobile Menu

  • Winnable House Races
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Balloon Juice 2023 Pet Calendar (coming soon)
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • War in Ukraine
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • 2021-22 Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Anderson On Health Insurance / Medicare Advantage and provider pricing

Medicare Advantage and provider pricing

by David Anderson|  July 11, 20178:24 am| 4 Comments

This post is in: Anderson On Health Insurance

FacebookTweetEmail

There is a really nice little paper in this week’s JAMA that looks at what a single major Medicare Advantage insurer pays its providers.**

physician reimbursement in Medicare Advantage was more strongly tied to traditional Medicare rates than to negotiated commercial prices, although Medicare Advantage plans tended to pay physicians less than traditional Medicare. However, Medicare Advantage plans take advantage of the commercial market’s favorable pricing for services for which traditional Medicare overpays, including laboratory tests and durable medical equipment….
mean MA reimbursement ranged from 91.3% of TM for cataract removal in an ambulatory surgery center (CPT 66984; 95% CI, 90.7%-91.9%) to 102.3% of TM for complex evaluation and management of a patient in the emergency department (CPT 99285; 95% CI, 102.1%-102.6%)….
for laboratory services and durable medical equipment, where commercial prices are lower than TM rates, MA plans take advantage of these lower commercial prices, ranging from 67.4% for a walker (HCPCS code E0143; 95% CI, 66.3%-68.5%) to 75.8% for a complete blood cell count

This is a big, comprehensive study with very tight error bands. I find it persuasive with one caveat that I’ll get to in a minute. The big result is that the administrative prices set by Medicare Fee for Service matter a lot on procedure codes. Medicare probably currently overpays for labs and durable medical equipment.

I think this is good evidence that Medicare Advantage (MA) is able to get a better deal than Traditional Medicare (TM) because they have the ability to say no to providers. Medicare Advantage can create networks that are only enforced by cost sharing arrangements where they try to drive their members away from low value providers. From a policy perspective, this is a win as we want to force low value providers to stop being low value providers. That change is that they either go out of business or they get better or less expensive.

From a political angle, this finding along with other evidence that Medicare Advantage providers are getting fairly paid by the Federal government makes the long run case of a Medicare Advantage for all style universal coverage schema more plausible.

I do have one reservation about this study and it is the generalization of the findings.

The data is impressive. It is national in scope.

We analyzed claims data for MA and commercial enrollees from a large national insurer operating in both markets from 2007 through 2012. In 2012, the insurer held 17% of nationwide MA market share and offered 1 or more MA plans in 98% of counties, in which 94% of Medicare beneficiaries lived. The data include the full set of adjudicated and paid claims for all enrollees; enrollment increased from 1.7 million in 2007 to 2.6 million in 2012.

It is from a single insurer.

They acknowledge this limitation but I think they could be stretching it a bit far:

Our findings have some important limitations. First, the MA and commercial data included in our study are only from 1 insurer and therefore may not necessarily be representative of the experience of other private insurers or of geographic locations not served by this particular insurer. However, the insurer has a large presence in the MA market and thus the findings are reflective of common pricing patterns in the MA market.

Roberts, Chernew, McWilliams ^^ in January 2017’s Health Affairs has an article that I’ve gone back to a few times which looks at the influence of market power on pricing:

Using multipayer claims for physician services provided in office settings, we estimated that—within the same provider groups—insurers with market shares of 15 percent or more (average: 24.5 percent), for example, negotiated prices for office visits that were 21 percent lower than prices negotiated by insurers with shares of less than 5 percent.

Market share matters. The data for the JAMA article is from a medium to high market share insurer. They should be able to get a good rate from most providers. They should be able to get a better rate than typical in most markets than most insurers. This is merely a quibble. I think the general direction of the finding is real. It is in concordance with the CBO research using HCCI data.

Here is where the Health Care Cost Institute data set is hyper valuable. They actually have a majority of the Medicare Advantage claims universe from their data contributors. I am assuming the JAMA data set is not an HCCI contributor so combining these data sets gives us 70% or so of the Medicare Advantage universe. At that point there is deepness and richness to exploit.

** Trish E, Ginsburg P, Gascue L, Joyce G. Physician Reimbursement in Medicare Advantage Compared With Traditional Medicare and Commercial Health Insurance. JAMA Intern Med. Published online July 10, 2017. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.2679

^^ Roberts, E. T., Chernew, M. E., & Mcwilliams, J. M. (2017). Market Share Matters: Evidence Of Insurer And Provider Bargaining Over Prices. Health Affairs, 36(1), 141-148. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2016.0479

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « You know what to do…
Next Post: Another Russiagate Open Thread: Projection That IMAX Can Only Envy »

Reader Interactions

4Comments

  1. 1.

    Bradley

    July 11, 2017 at 8:37 am

    Dave
    Did the investigators ask nicely for this data and just receive it? Seems at odds with all the propriety cover MA information usually encumbers.
    Brad

  2. 2.

    Another Scott

    July 11, 2017 at 8:41 am

    I have been under the impression that Medicare Advantage was a sop to the GOP that allowed the federal government to support Medicare during some trying period, but that it costs much more than it should. I’m no expert on it, and I’m sure there are some good things about it (“X made the trains run on time!”), but it seems like the camel’s nose/death of a thousand cuts problem. And the all too tempting fraud problems.

    And it’s things like this (whether MA works as well as it should given its costs) that make me suspicious of “Medicare for All”. Medicare doesn’t cover everything – just about everyone on it needs some sort of supplemental insurance (J’s parents had BC-BS from her federal retirement + Medicare). It’s not out of the range of possibility that “Medicare for All” will be some sort of pot-metal basic plan + some MA-like system that is too expensive, covers too little, has too many restrictions for normal people, etc., and is too easily gamed by the big insurance companies and the healthcare industry.

    In general, buzzwords are appealing, but they’re not legislation and they’re not policy. Policy and outcomes are what matter. We can’t get distracted by the talking points.

    Thanks.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  3. 3.

    David Anderson

    July 11, 2017 at 9:24 am

    @Another Scott: Medicare Advantage was a garbage scow for a while but between 2003, 2006 amendments and the ACA, it looks like Medicare Advantage is providing at least the same value as Medicare if not a slight improvement. And more importantly, from my point of view, the Medicare Advantage model caps total exposure instead of the open ended exposure that someone without a supplement has on Medicare A&B

    @Bradley: Insurers are starting to be willing to share (I have a couple of discussions going on with a couple of insurers to try go get data) They won’t allow precise publication as they’ll want data rolled-up to hide local business knowledge or they’ll allow lagged data to go out

  4. 4.

    Dennis

    July 11, 2017 at 12:47 pm

    Wow, 70% is a lot of the Medicare Advantage universe. It’s definitely significant enough to make real decisions and changes based on the data. If more insurers made the capital investment instead of relying on the insured, the costs would come down. However, I understand what you mean that they could be overpaying and their costs are something to look at too.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8

Recent Comments

  • Geminid on Late Night Open Thread: There’s *One* Senator Gonna Miss ‘Leader’ Mitch… (Mar 25, 2023 @ 7:41am)
  • Frankensteinbeck on Late Night Open Thread: There’s *One* Senator Gonna Miss ‘Leader’ Mitch… (Mar 25, 2023 @ 7:35am)
  • Baud on Late Night Open Thread: There’s *One* Senator Gonna Miss ‘Leader’ Mitch… (Mar 25, 2023 @ 7:34am)
  • Aussie Sheila on Late Night Open Thread: There’s *One* Senator Gonna Miss ‘Leader’ Mitch… (Mar 25, 2023 @ 7:34am)
  • Aussie Sheila on Late Night Open Thread: There’s *One* Senator Gonna Miss ‘Leader’ Mitch… (Mar 25, 2023 @ 7:31am)

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
We All Need A Little Kindness
Classified Documents: A Primer
State & Local Elections Discussion

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Twitter / Spoutible

Balloon Juice (Spoutible)
WaterGirl (Spoutible)
TaMara (Spoutible)
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
TaMara
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
ActualCitizensUnited

Join the Fight!

Join the Fight Signup Form
All Join the Fight Posts

Balloon Juice Events

5/14  The Apocalypse
5/20  Home Away from Home
5/29  We’re Back, Baby
7/21  Merging!

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2023 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!