• 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.

Disagreements are healthy; personal attacks are not.

One of our two political parties is a cult whose leader admires Vladimir Putin.

There are some who say that there are too many strawmen arguments on this blog.

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

Let’s bury these fuckers at the polls 2 years from now.

Technically true, but collectively nonsense

Giving in to doom is how authoritarians win.

They fucked up the fucking up of the fuckup!

People really shouldn’t expect the government to help after they watched the GOP drown it in a bathtub.

They punch you in the face and then start crying because their fist hurts.

The next time the wall street journal editorial board speaks the truth will be the first.

I’d hate to be the candidate who lost to this guy.

Balloon Juice, where there is always someone who will say you’re doing it wrong.

This fight is for everything.

Let the trolls come, and then ignore them. that’s the worst thing you can do to a troll.

Dear elected officials: Trump is temporary, dishonor is forever.

Usually wrong but never in doubt

He seems like a smart guy, but JFC, what a dick!

You are so fucked. Still, I wish you the best of luck.

Perhaps you mistook them for somebody who gives a damn.

Accountability, motherfuckers.

Why is it so hard for them to condemn hate?

This has so much WTF written all over it that it is hard to comprehend.

If rights aren’t universal, they are privilege, not rights.

Mobile Menu

  • Seattle Meet-up Post
  • 2025 Activism
  • Targeted Political Fundraising
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Anderson On Health Insurance / Paying enough for prevention

Paying enough for prevention

by David Anderson|  March 6, 20197:41 am| 18 Comments

This post is in: Anderson On Health Insurance

FacebookTweetEmail

Most vaccines create a cost in the current time period for a benefit at some distant point in the future of an avoided disease. This creates a “have to” versus “want to” situation for insurers.

Insurers, for most preventive care services, are in the same mindset I was in as a teenager when it came to cleaning my room. Good enough was a low bar to clear. Clean claims will be paid on time and in full but without extra motivation, the business case to promote most prevention services is weak for an insurer that figures they’ll not cover that person in a few years. Motivation is needed.

Insurers will pay claims if they come in as they have to. They may not want to encourage more people to get the preventive services who otherwise would not have.

My Duke Margolis colleague, Dr. Peter Ubel, raises this point from the provider perspective on HPV vaccination rates and reimbursement. HPV vaccines are administered to young teens. The pay-off is a decade or more later in avoided cervical, throat and lip cancers.

something else that’s preventing kids from getting vaccinated ….

The HPV vaccine is expensive. According to the CDC, the 3 doses needed for complete vaccination cost almost $500….

According to a study out of the CDC, there is sizable geographic variation in how well providers are reimbursed for vaccine administration. The most generous state is Pennsylvania, where private insurers pay an average of $194 to physician practices for administering the vaccine, and thus almost $600 for all three. The next most generous state is Nebraska: go cornhuskers! But in last place stands the terrapin state, Maryland, where providers can expect to receive an average of only $150, with neighboring Washington, D.C. not far behind (ahead?) at a rate of only $154.

What is the result of this stinginess? Areas with lower vaccine reimbursement rates also have lower vaccination rates. According to the CDC team, a $1 decrease in reimbursement for the vaccine is associated with 25,000 fewer adolescents getting at least 2 doses of the vaccine.

This is an area where the business case for vaccination falls apart from the point of view of the current insurer. They spend money now and there is no way in hell they will ever see a benefit in averted costs. Therefore, they’ll pay the HPV claim if it is presented to them but they will work hard to not get the services sent to them.

The business case solution is to make offering HPV a break even or a profitable service for both the clinicians and the insurer. That means raising the payment rate insurers send to clinicians so that the docs will shoot their patients up with the vaccine. It also means adding HPV and other potentially expensive vaccines with long/slow payoffs to risk adjustment systems. Doing that will create a strong business reason for insurers to both want to and have to cover HPV vaccinations.

Right now, the solution of mandating HPV vaccine claims to be paid is not working as the insurers have to but don’t want to.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « On the Road and In Your Backyard
Next Post: Nielsen on Capitol Hill »

Reader Interactions

18Comments

  1. 1.

    Dr. Ronnie James, D.O.

    March 6, 2019 at 8:40 am

    The ACA created a Prevention and Public Health Fund, which at least in the beginning, HHS was seemingly struggling to spend: it’s mandate was pretty discretionary, and a lot of questionable “public health” expenditures got funded. The GOP cut away a lot of it, but this use case – providing funding incentives to defray the upfront cost of preventive services (which in some cases ACA mandates) seems like a pretty great use. HHS can index the rates to estimated preventive benefit and local reimbursement rates, ideally in a way that matches insurer outlays to avoid obvious moral hazard. It also addresses the issue that USPSTF guidelines do not rate cost-effectiveness, just preventive benefit.

  2. 2.

    Bobby Thomson

    March 6, 2019 at 8:57 am

    is this a Coasean argument or am I missing something?

  3. 3.

    David Anderson

    March 6, 2019 at 9:04 am

    @Bobby Thomson: It’s at least a kissing cousin of a Coasean argument, more of a time shifting argument so think more like a Cochrane residual health bond idea but the same family of arguments.

  4. 4.

    whippybear

    March 6, 2019 at 9:11 am

    Are insurers missing the point of vaccines as something that collectively and not just individually decreases future cost. Sure the person who got the vaccine might not be with the same insurance carrier, but vaccination is still decreasing the chance that people with the insurance carrier will get infected while covered.

  5. 5.

    Betty Cracker

    March 6, 2019 at 9:12 am

    What a stark example of an amoral system, where delivering shareholder value in the short term trumps saving lives and alleviating needless suffering. Thanks for calling our attention to it!

  6. 6.

    Starfish

    March 6, 2019 at 9:18 am

    Could we look at the STD rates for these states and see if it would make sense for some of these places to throw more funding at HPV vaccine based on the rate of other sexually transmitted stuff?

    I recall someone telling me that a pharma rep enthusiastically told her that “yes, we sell a lot of that medicine here in Baltimore” before the pharma rep realized that what she was selling was something to either treat gonorrhea or syphilis.

  7. 7.

    David Anderson

    March 6, 2019 at 9:20 am

    @Betty Cracker: It is a free rider problem.

    Lets assume 2 insurers: A and B

    A pays for HPV at a level that is sufficiently high enough to make it a “want to” for clinicians. A pays out a lot of claims for HPV vaccines. Premiums are equal to Claims + Admin. Premiums are high.

    B pays for HPV at a low level. B pays out few HPV claims. Premiums are low.

    Most people are price sensitive insurance shoppers because they are relatively healthy and low cost in this time period. A gets no benefit from being socially good in this time period and it loses a ton of business to B.

  8. 8.

    Haroldo

    March 6, 2019 at 9:51 am

    @David Anderson:

    @Betty Cracker: It is a free rider problem.

    Have folks looked into a shared resource/funding base for preventative measures? (Even if this were to be, I suspect we’d have a tragedy of the commons problem.)

  9. 9.

    some_doc

    March 6, 2019 at 9:55 am

    So insurers have to be bribed to follow the explicit law and provide effective middle-man services for some of the cheapest and most cost-effective health care measures out there. What value does the insurer bring to this situation again?

    David, your comment at #7 is a classic argument for why a market approach does not work for health care. For example, the consumer making the decision does not and cannot have any clue about provider HPV reimbursement rates or how that will impact their health if they choose A or B (or a million other variables). You also describe a company effectively circumventing (i.e. breaking) the law that requires coverage of a service, intended to prevent exactly the situation you describe. Again, what value or purpose does the insurer provide in this situation?

    Like Betty said, thank you for calling out the absurdity of the “insurance industry”.

  10. 10.

    Another Scott

    March 6, 2019 at 10:05 am

    I remember back in ye olden days (~ 1968?) of getting vaccinations in my elementary school. The kind with the big scary air gun that left a round scar on our shoulder. Smallpox? The whole school was done, IIRC.

    Presumably that was done via the Public Health Service.

    I don’t recall any paperwork that involved any insurance company. Maybe our parents had to sign permission slips or something, but there was no obvious costs to them (or to us 3rd graders).

    Why can’t we do things like that for the HPV vaccine? Surely the companies would love to sell more of the vaccines without having to deal with the uncertainty of when they would get paid…

    (sigh)

    The Public Health Service could be a huge benefit in improving vaccination levels, reducing preventable disease, reducing our abysmally high infant mortality rate, etc., etc.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  11. 11.

    stinger

    March 6, 2019 at 10:24 am

    @Betty Cracker: Yep. Never let anybody tell you that health insurance companies care about your health. They exist solely to make profits.

    Another Scott: I remember lining up, accompanied by siblings and our parents and a hundred other people, to get a sugar cube. No idea how it was paid for, but it couldn’t have been much if my dirt farmer dad got his six kids the vaccine that day. Same with the upper-arm airgun — though I can’t remember which was first/the more modern delivery method.

  12. 12.

    Alex

    March 6, 2019 at 10:40 am

    I don’t think it’s about rational calculation for many insurers– they just deny everything rather than trying to figure out what’s valuable, just like a consumer with a high deductible avoiding all medical care. My insurer, BCBS, is currently making it as hard as possible for me to get a low-cost generic medication that will take the risk of premature birth in my high-risk pregnancy down by about 20 absolute percentage points. This is not about a long time horizon making it unprofitable, or about a high NNT. They could pay for thousands of people to get this medication and still break even if they prevented one NICU stay. But they put up lots and lots of barriers (weird time windows for getting preauthorization, requiring it to be given weekly in the doctor’s office, etc) clearly designed to discourage people from using it. They’ve done similarly stupid things in that past that make me think their strategy is just blanket denial.

  13. 13.

    daveNYC

    March 6, 2019 at 11:32 am

    @whippybear: With something like measles, there’s a good chance that the vaccine will prevent the disease while the vaccinated person is still on that company’s coverage. The complications from HPV are so crazy out in the future though, that there’s no guarantee that the company will benefit from providing the vaccine.

    And that’s assuming they’re not just being dicks about things.

  14. 14.

    Thistle313

    March 6, 2019 at 12:09 pm

    When my kids were young, the HPV vaccine was fairly new — and not covered by insurance. It was also ~$280 per dose. I took the kids over to the county health department (in Michigan) and they gave it to the kids for $9/dose. I wonder if this is still an option today, and if so, how many people know about it.

  15. 15.

    jl

    March 6, 2019 at 12:46 pm

    If we go the route of improving Obamacare (Go Swiss!) we might find this issue is intractable. Immunization rates in Switzerland (and I think other Obamacare done right model, Netherlands) are just average in Europe. And since they have uniform fees, and immunizations are covered under their mandatory health benefit package, seems that high immunization rates are hard to achieve due to lack of ‘business case’ even in much more highly regulated systems with better incentives for long run health investments.

    Many cantons in Switzerland have resorted to providing childhood immunizations as part of their public health school programs (along with physical examinations, and primary dental and eye care, though IIRC, some of that care is in the national school health service program).

  16. 16.

    BruceFromOhio

    March 6, 2019 at 12:55 pm

    @daveNYC: That’s what I was wondering. It’s not HPV, but it’s a similar lane?

    the business case to promote most prevention services is weak for an insurer that figures they’ll not cover that person in a few years. Motivation is needed.

    Childhood vax is for childhood diseases, you bet your ass you’re gonna pay if little Susie or Johnny winds up in ICU for chronic pertussis because Mom & Dad are morons. Let there be one (just one!) case where an insurer recoups losses for covering treatment of a measles patient because some other kid’s parents live in denial, and vax requirements to be insured will descend like avenging angels.

  17. 17.

    jl

    March 6, 2019 at 12:56 pm

    Oops, should have looked up Netherlands to make sure I am up-to-date. Netherlands had to establish a national childhood immunization public benefit to get high immunization rates. Childhood immunizations are part of free (to patients) national public health program, and most of them appear to be given at public health clinics, some devoted to childhood immunization.

    The Netherlands was the model of gubernator Arnold’s failed attempt to reform California health care (which was viciously torpedoed by his own miserable state GOP party). Seems like high immunization rates are hard to achieve in any Obamacare type system, no matter how well designed.

    Details are available at the WHO European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, under publications, Health System Reviews, Netherlands (no link to pdf since they are massive reports)

  18. 18.

    Dr. Ronnie James, D.O.

    March 6, 2019 at 3:45 pm

    @Haroldo: [cough! Comment #1! cough!]

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

On The Road - BarcaChicago  - Off the Gunflint Trail/Boundary Waters 8
Image by BarcaChicago (7/11/25)

World Central Kitchen

Donate

Recent Comments

  • WereBear on Immigration Open Thread: ICE Is Wearing Out Its Welcome (Jul 11, 2025 @ 1:58pm)
  • Doc Sardonic on Immigration Open Thread: ICE Is Wearing Out Its Welcome (Jul 11, 2025 @ 1:57pm)
  • Steve LaBonne on Immigration Open Thread: ICE Is Wearing Out Its Welcome (Jul 11, 2025 @ 1:50pm)
  • trollhattan on Immigration Open Thread: ICE Is Wearing Out Its Welcome (Jul 11, 2025 @ 1:46pm)
  • pieceofpeace on On The Road – dmkingto – Papua New Guinea Sculpture Garden (possibly NSFW) (Jul 11, 2025 @ 1:44pm)

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
No Kings Protests June 14 2025

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

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

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Social Media

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

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

Feeling Defeated?  If We Give Up, It's Game Over

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

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

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

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

Email sent!