Category: Drug Companies

Drug Insurers Reap $9 billion Windfall from Overestimates

On January 7, 2019

In Corporate Reform, Drug Companies, Drug Pricing, Health insurance, Medicare, Uncategorized

Major drug insurers like United Health Group, CVS Health, and Humana make estimate bids to Medicare for reimbursement for the cost of Part D prescription drug benefits. From 2006 until 2015 the Wall Street Journal examined industry records and found that insurers reaped an additional $9 billion from overestimates of drug insurance costs.

Sources: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, The Wall Street Journal – 1/4/19

From 2010 to 2017 overall Part D spending rose faster than all other Medicare components by 49 %. The bids from insurers include their profit margins and administrative costs. Medicare reimburses the firms monthly. When the year ends, Medicare audits the estimate totals versus the actuals and requests the overpayments be returned. However, the way the payment terms are setup the insurers are not required by pay the full amount of the overestimate. In 2015 insurers overestimated their Part D costs by $2.2 billion and were allowed to keep $1.06 billion.

The size and continuous overestimate pattern seems unusual. The overestimates are extraordinary to the tune of a million to one according to Memorial Sloan Kettering analysts who completed record examinations for The Wall Street Journal. Peter Bach, director of Sloan Kettering’s Center for Health Policy and Outcomes, noted, “Insurance companies use heaps of data to predict future spending. If truly unpredictable events were blowing up their statistical models, the proportion of overestimates to underestimates would be closer to 50/50.” Dr. Bach concluded, “If they start missing in one particular direction over and over they are doing it on purpose.”

The chronic overestimates are particularly a problem in the direct subsidy part of the program as the following chart shows versus the reinsurance program where estimates are far more accurate.

Sources: Medicare, The Wall Street Journal – 1/4/19

Congress designed the program in 2003 where the federal government and seniors would pay for drug insurance while the program would be operated by private companies. Legislators were concerned that insurers would not want to participate so they allowed for companies to hold back overestimated reimbursement funds. The private companies bear all the risk in the direct subsidy program, yet in the reinsurance program for high cost drugs Medicare bears the risk on underestimates causing losses.

Insurers can gain major benefits by overestimating on the routine drug costs they cover. Companies can keep any overestimated funds up to 5 % of their guess. In some cases they can keep more than 5 % based on a Medicare formula. Medicare steps in if the insurers experience a greater than 5 % loss in their estimate.

Next Steps:

From 2006 to 2015 Medicare spent $652 billion on the Part D program, with its cost increasing by 49 % over that period. Costs must be controlled by private insurers to keep premiums low for seniors and cost overruns limited for the federal government. There is too much reward built into the present direct subsidy program. Why not do as many corporations do for contracts that estimate costs and then must be reconciled at the end of the year? Return all the funds that are overestimated. Chronic overestimating companies would be hit with a penalty for overestimating reimbursement based on the opportunity cost of funds over reimbursed monthly payments. Medicare should reward the accurate estimating companies with positive ratings on their prices, and make clear who the violators are. Making the programs more competitive would bring down costs and require that companies be more accurate in their drug reimbursement estimates.

We see the pricing of drugs via insurers and pharmacy benefit companies as being too opaque to clearly design a fair pricing system. Congress needs to pass a ‘simple pricing’ sunshine bill to make drug pricing clear and accurate for all consumers and the government. Medicare should be able to use its leverage covering millions of seniors to negotiate a reduction in drug and insurance costs. California announced today a policy just signed by the newly installed governor, Gavin Newson, authorizing the California Medicaid administration to negotiate drug prices for all 13 million patients enrolled as a block and invites private employers to join the block. Drug companies and insurers need to shift their focus to make pricing programs more equitable for patients and payers or the face increased calls for price regulation.

Drug Companies Want a $4 Billion Break: No Way!

By Patrick Hill

On December 12, 2018

In Drug Companies, Drug Pricing, Stock Buybacks, Tax Bill, Uncategorized

(Editor Note: Insight Bytes focus on key economic issues and solutions for all of us, on Thursdays we spotlight in more depth Solutions to issues we have identified. Fridays we focus on how to build the Common Good. Please right click on images to see them larger in a separate tab. Click on the Index Topic Name at the beginning of each post to see more posts on that topic on PC or Laptop.)

Major drug companies are lobbying Congress to reduce the $4 billion increase in costs due to raising the discount for seniors purchasing drugs at the ‘donut hole’ level in Medicare Part D to 70 % from 50 %. The provisions for an increase in the discount was included in a spending bill passed by Congress last February.

Pharma companies and major corporations with billions of dollars stashed overseas said that if tax rates were cut on dollars transferred to the U.S they would raise wages, increase R & D spending and reduce prices. Most companies did not deliver on their promises or benefits to patients either. Instead, they increased the size of their stock buybacks by 4 to 5 times in the case of the largest stock buyback company, Amgen.

Sources: SEC, The Wall Street Journal – 12/6/18

Only two of the top ten companies actually reduced share buy backs since January of this year. Corporations overall are expected to complete over $1 trillion of stock buy backs by December 31^st Goldman Sachs estimates.

Over a dozen Democratic members of the House ofRepresentatives sent letters to five top pharma companies with data showing new increases in drug prices while increasing share buy backs. The drug industry responded that they were reducing prices, increasing R & D spending and raising employee wages. Merck, CEO, Kenneth Frazier said in a reply, “We view the legislation (tax cut) as providing us with more flexibility to deploy capital in support of our strategy to invent new medicines that address key unmet medical needs, ultimately benefiting patients.” The reality is that prices for the most popular drugs are still going up.

AbbVie raised the price of Humira by 9.7 % in January the Democrats pointed out in their letter to the firm. Inflation for this past year is 2.4 % that drug increase is nearly 4 times the rate of overall consumer price increases in the U.S. economy. AbbVie sent a reply to the Congressmen outlining many programs using their tax cut funds including: a $1000 salary increase to non-executive employees, plans to invest $2.5 billion in capital projects in the U.S. over the next five years, $100 million healthcare and housing for people in Puerto Rico, an $100 million to the Ronald McDonald House to fund lodging for pediatric cancer patients and their families.

Next Steps:

Drug costs hit seniors particularly hard because they need the medication, and they are on fixed incomes. Drug companies have to do better by ending what the SEC called, “stock price manipulation”, before the Safe Harbor policy in 1982 allowed stock buybacks. Billions of dollars are wasted to goose the price of stocks to benefit executives and big investors. Investors are misled by earnings reports using fewer stock shares to compute earnings per share, often used to assess company performance. Patients are hurt by price increases, Humira costs patients $50,000 per year for the standard treatment if they have no insurance coverage. Stock buybacks by pharma companies must stop, the price gouging of patients and insurers needs to end.

Another economy that drug companies should adopt is to end direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs. Over 150 countries do not allow prescription drug advertising, only the U.S. and New Zealand allow advertising directly to patients to create “pull” sales from patients requesting a drug from their doctor. According to Kantar media, drug manufacturers spent $6 billion on direct to consumer television advertising in 2017, a 64 % jump from 2012. The billions being spent on DTC advertising are better spent on reducing drug prices. We applaud the moves by AbbVie in raising employee salaries, donations to Puerto Rico and Ronald McDonald house, these are excellent steps. Many drug firms have foundations that offer patients with low incomes a way to obtain their medicines for free or little cost. The difficult aspect of most of these drug-for-free programs is they require large volumes of paper work, with major time delays when the patient needs to the drug immediately. Drug company executives need to see the light on what is happening, the price gravy train and waste of stock buyback funds gleaned from patients needs to end. Why wait for legislation? We appeal to CEOs – make the right moves now. See that taking responsibility for solving the cost crisis you have created will be far better for your firm, patients and insurers. You may get a solution you don’t want if you wait for Congress to pass legislation.

Administration Drug Price Reduction Plan – Good Start

By Patrick Hill

On October 30, 2018

In Drug Companies, Drug Pricing, Health, Health insurance, Low Income Finance, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Responsibility

Image: blog.medicareright.org

The GOP Administration has announced a new drug price reduction program that will use a basket of prices that 16 nations pay for certain drugs in the Medicare Part B Plan (hospital and health services plans) to determine the price the federal government will pay. Biotech drugs which are extremely expensive, yet have high efficacy are to be targeted. The price reductions will be phased in over a 5 year period.

The difference between what the U.S. pays for many often prescribed medicines is huge as the following chart shows:

Sources: Bloomberg, The Washington Post – 10/26/18

How did U.S. prices get so much higher than other nations? Simply, the other countries negotiated tougher than we did. The pharma industry lobby in Washington spends tens of millions of dollars every year to persuade lawmakers and the White House to give drug makers complete pricing freedom. In effect, Americans are paying for the low prices other countries receive where the drugs are being sold with low margins or below margin. Pharma companies do not have a problem with this inequitable situation as long as they make money.

For example, in the U.S. Genentech, a division of Roche, prices a single dose macular degeneration drug Lucentis at $1000 while the same exact bio medicine – Avastin costs 10 times less. The firm says that the extra testing for the eye version requires a higher price. This premise disputed by scientists who worked in the Lucentis division and left in part due to the greed of management.

The administration is also planning on developing ways to give the private sector more leverage in negotiating prices with drug makers. Plus, HHS wants to create new policies that would reduce incentives for doctors to prescribe expensive drugs.

Next Steps:

We applaud the GOP Administration for taking on the drug companies and their money making over all else approach to drug pricing. The pharma companies most affected are stung by the plan and charged it with ‘socializing medicine’. We don’t see their gouging prices to Americans as fair and equitable, so controlling prices to reasonable margins is common sense not a value shift of the health industry.

A good place to start cutting costs is to end prescription drug TV advertising like over 100 countries worldwide ban – that would allow the firms to cut billions off prices each year. Next, they need to end stock buybacks which take shares off the market to increase share price.

Sources: Leerink Group, Market Watch – 10/30/18

These are the top 6 of all pharma firms wasting money on goosing their stock price with stock buybacks to increase stock compensation to executives while patients get hit with soaring drug prices. Nearly $100 billion dollars spent in the last year would go a long way to bringing down the price of drugs. When the industry cries it does not have funding for research it needs to start here and drug advertising if they tried harder to find the money they could. The executives just don’ want to take a pay cut and run their firm with reasonable margins, yet are fine with driving patients into bankruptcy or adding thousands of dollars of debt to patient accounts.

The GOP plan does not go far enough, all medicines purchased by Medicare and HHS should be negotiated. The negotiating authorization for HHS has been in numerous bills in Congress repeatedly defeated in by the drug lobby. Congress needs to pass the bill, and get moving with a fair drug pricing model, with complete transparency from insurers and pharmacies to patients. The federal government can learn from the assertive approaches many states are taking by looking a efficacy based pricing to bring prices within reason as well.

It is time the pharma industry took a hard look at its financial engineering and redesign a more equitable pricing and reasonable profit model for patients, hospitals and suppliers.

U.S. Healthcare Spending 41 % More Than OECD Countries

By Patrick Hill

On October 1, 2018

In Corporate Power, Corporate Reform, Drug Companies, Drug Pricing, Health, Health insurance

Image: consumersunion.org

The United States healthcare system is an expensive healthcare system compared to the OECD countries that spend 41 % less per person as a percent of GDP with a 4 year higher life expectancy rate.

Sources: The Daily Shot, The Wall Street Journal – 10/1/18

As U.S. spending continues to increase life expectancy rates are stagnant, simply not improving. Note that while OECD spending continues to grow at a much slower pace the life expectancy rate continues to climb. Americans are not getting the health care system performance that our European sister countries are achieving.

Sources: OECD, CMS – US, Moody’s Investors Services, The Daily Shot, The Wall Street Journal – 10/1/18

Even when looking at similar income level countries the cost difference is highly apparent in cost per capita.

What are OECD countries doing that the U.S. is not doing? For starters they do not have a private health insurance system which adds a profit motive to treatment, triages services to the higher income people and increases drug prices to consumers. Administrative costs in the U.S. are 8 % of the total healthcare spending versus the OECD countries which range from 1 to 3 %. One reason for the high administrative burden is administrative hiring was 650 % more than hiring of health services workers since 1970. Generalist physician salaries are significantly higher in the U.S. by 50% compared to developed countries. Drugs in America cost twice the average prices in comparable developed countries. The drug costs are distorted in the U.S. largely due to price controls in European countries so drug manufacturers charge as much as they can to U.S. providers and patients to make up the difference. Finally, another key reason is about 10 % of the U.S. patients are not covered by insurance. Which means they do not receive care from birth, let medical issues fester and go to emergency rooms for all their care (as U.S. law requires hospitals to serve all who come regardless of insurance). A study of the healthcare delivery system in Philadelphia showed that overall healthcare costs in the city could be reduced by 20 % if patients that needed care had services offered in doctor offices covered by insurance.

Next Steps:

We have recommended in previous posts that we have one insurance system in the U.S. as other developed countries. Administered by the Health and Human Services department, a health account would start as soon as a baby was born. Contributions by individuals, their employer and the government would go into one account. Private insurance could continue in those years where a worker is on the payroll of a company with benefits. In the event the worker is between jobs he or she would be covered by the government supported part of the plan. There would be only one formulary for drugs, and schedule for treatments and procedures. The administrative overhead could be cut to the 1 to 3 % range that other countries enjoy. Staffs in providers offices dealing with insurance idiosyncrasies and byzantine rules could be cut by 75 %. Drug companies would be prohibited from implementing stock buybacks which would make billions of dollars available to cut prices and innovate new medicines instead of lining the pockets of executives.

Health Providers Not Paying Care Workers Enough, Administrators Too Much

By Patrick Hill

On August 27, 2018

In Drug Companies, Drug Pricing, Health, Health insurance, Medicaid, Medicare, Uncategorized

Photo: aarp.org

There are 3.5 million direct health care workers in the workforce today. The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that another 1 million direct health care workers will be hired by 2024. Direct healthcare workers include mostly all the assistant positions except a registered nurse: personal care workers, home health aides, and nursing assistants.

Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Vox – 7/3/2017

Direct care workers often receive a wage below $15.00@hr. About 90 % of personal assistants receive $30,000 or less per year in income. One reason wages are so low is that 70 % of all long term care costs are paid by Medicare and Medicaid. These agencies reimburse care providers on a fixed cost basis. There is another reason. A high number of administrators are being hired rather than physicians, nurses or direct care workers.

Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics, National Center for Health Statistics – 2010

When viewed from the perspective of healthcare spending per capita, administrator hiring was about 650 % more than overall per capita services. Healthcare is a lucrative sector for business, so they focus on hiring more administrators and managers rather than nurses and direct care workers. Healthcare providers can take the wages they pay too many administrators and give caregivers the wages they need to take are of themselves and their families. The byzantine way the healthcare industry is structured with insurance companies between the providers and workers when we only need one government agency to manage insurance is a good example. Most providers have who departments devoted to interacting with insurers and Medicare staff, which expensive to staff with specialized expertise due the idiosyncrasies of insurance policies.

Next Steps:

We clearly need to use computer systems and software to reduce the number of administrators and overhead in the system to the norm of per capita costs. End the use of private insurers except as contractors to a single government agency, use a standard reimbursement procedure with no middle layers of pharmacy benefit managers and end go to middle managers for insurance companies.

In previous posts we have recommended:

“The core need is to provide low cost effective health insurance for all people (like all developed countries do), so when illness strikes patients receive high quality care and become healthy again. Why do we need multiple insurance payers – private and the federal government? If we were running a corporation we would not have two accounts payable departments? We need to transition to individual health accounts that stay with the patient regardless of employment status beginning at birth. Here are ideas on how this transition could work.

Complete Analysis of ACA – We need to learn from the public exchanges that work – California’s public exchange has been quite successful covering new patients, and keeping costs reasonable for low income patients. Yet, we also need to look at why those exchanges like Oregon are not working well and expensive. Let’s summarize the analysis and publish the results so we can build a consensus around the solution, extending what works and recommendations for changes.

Priority One Cover the 9 Million Uninsured – those not covered by insurance need insurance now, we need to figure out how to cover 100 % of our citizens immediately. Offering a public option on the exchanges for basic health services and drug coverage would be a good start.

End State by State Coverage – state pools not large enough to make insurance work for all. With 360 million people in the US we can make our health insurance pool work to reduce costs. Plus, legislation needs to be passed to reverse the Supreme Court decision to allow states to opt out of subsidies. For example, Texas opted out on $10 billion subsidies leaving many low income families without insurance or very high premiums they cannot afford. Interestingly, a few months ago I talked with a small business office manager in Texas, she complained that ACA was not working (her firm did not offer health insurance), for her hourly staff. Obviously, one reason is that Texas opted out of the subsidy program. Using a national pool would help to spread out the disparities between regions in terms of the rising cost of insurance versus stagnant wage increases.

Create Individual Health Accounts – funding can be setup via a payroll tax, accrued to a personal national health insurance account when working (if they don’t have employer options – to be transitioned later). For individuals or families below the regional poverty level they would pay no health payroll tax. For those individuals who are not contributing to their health account, the federal government would fund a basic health and drug account by progressive taxes on wealthy individuals over $250k and the increase taxes on corporate profits. Corporations can offset the increased tax, by offering lower cost insurance, medigap plans or encouraging their employees to move to the basic national health insurance program.

End COBRA – by setting up health accounts regardless of being employed, there is no need for COBRA plans. Otherwise, for those unemployed to continue coverage often they have to pay soaring COBRA premiums up to 400 % of their employed premium rate. For this author, two major illnesses occurred when I was unemployed, often with the stress of being unemployed is the time we need health insurance. COBRA is another example where health insurers are charging outrageous rates to those who need the insurance badly but can least afford it. For the unemployed they could rely on basic health coverage in their individual health account.

Transition Employer Plans – convert employer plans over 4 years into a national personal health care account. Rollovers can be accomplished in a similar way to 401K to IRA rollovers (without the penalty for early withdrawal). Ending employer programs will cut a layer of administration in benefits departments that more rightly belongs to the individual regardless of employment status.

End Penalties For No Insurance – we want to to tax behavior we don’t want and support or subsidize behavior we do want. All Americans who have Social Security numbers should be able to enroll in a personal health insurance account, if they do not have a employer sponsored program. Parents can apply for a SSN for their child to be covered. A public insurance option should be offered to all those families not in employer sponsored programs. The public option run by Medicare is a basic health insurance program run similar to basic Medicare for seniors with medigap plans to cover the other 80 % of coverage needed.

Use the Medicare Drug Formulary – we don’t need multiple formularies and tiers of drug coverage. Medicare already provides one formulary which should be used as the industry formulary. We need to empower Medicare to negotiate all drug prices and health procedures with providers with provision for regional differences on procedures. A critical medication list can be created by Medicare for life threatening (Epipens) or serious chronic conditions (diabetes) capped at 5% profit for drug manufacturers.

End Stock Buybacks by Insurers – insurers need to end stock manipulation and the waste of stock buybacks. Companies like Aetna have spent billions of dollars on stock buybacks which would go a long way to reducing premiums and costs to patients.

Pricing needs to be transparent – similar to a mortgage disclosure statement. The explanation of benefits and drug claim form needs to be clear about the provider or drug price, any discounts and rebates, the price the insurer is paying, the price the provider is actually requiring, the price the pharmacy is paying and the exact out of pocket cost to the patient, with patient accruals in out of pocket and co pays toward insurance coverage.

Do it Without Waiting – let’s get progressive investors to back drug manufacturers that adhere to drug cost reasonable, critical med list, transparent pricing innovative insurance, publicize get more investors on board. Work with Wall Street to setup an ETF stock to focus on companies adhering to the progressive national health programs demonstrating good returns.

Awareness of What Works – A media campaign with surrogates, leadership in Congress, interest groups like the AMA, and the insurers to bring the American people along on the solution journey and to put pressure on Congress to pass the necessary legislation.

Health insurers would focus on medigap plans, taking risk out of innovative drugs to help speed them to market, vision and integrative medicine, personalized medicine, telemedicine – taking their layer out with reduce costs dramatically. They can be contractors to Medicare for transition to health accts. Or insurers can be contract administrators to Medicare, keeping costs low and utilizing their expertise.

Lets establish a lifetime health insurance program that provides good quality care, and low cost medications for all Americans.”

GOP Administration Panders to Infant Formula Companies

By Patrick Hill

On July 10, 2018

In Drug Companies, GOP Administration, Health, Public Interest, Social Responsibility

Photo: elle

Last May, the U.S. attended a multi-lateral World Health Assembly meeting held in Ecuador to finalize the language for promotion of breast feeding to developing countries with poor regions. The policy recommended mothers breast feed their babies to promote better health than using possibly contaminated water with dry formula. The risks of mixing infant formula with polluted water outweighed the possibly less breast milk that some mothers give their infants.

Source: Down to Earth – 3/22/18

About 11 % of the world’s population and 19 % of people in India alone do not have access to clean water. For developing nations developing sources of clean water is crucial for their long term economic, and societal development. People drinking contaminated water suffer from multiple GI diseases, growth deformities and death.

U.S. representatives dropped long time support of over 40 years of research and other investigations in poor regions of the world noting the good health practice of breast feeding. Instead, the administration wanted all language recommending breast milk over infant formula deleted, including language focused on monitoring infant formula companies overly promoting their formula products.

Taking the corporate side is not new. In 1981, during the Reagan Administration U.S. representatives at a WHO conference took the only position out of 118 countries against promoting the use of the breast milk over infant formula.

Breast milk provides anti-bodies, nutrients and other substances not available in infant formulas which are synthesized. Obviously, when breast milk is not available infant formula maybe a good substitute temporarily when using clean water.

Next Steps:

The infant formula market is estimated to be $26 billion in 2017 growing to $66 billion by 2027. The industry is adding GMOs to its formula, offering organic versions and other approaches focused particularly on emerging countries where birth rates are much higher offering greater sales opportunities than in developed countries. It is clear the infant formula industry has successfully lobbied the GOP Administration when it shifts policy that has been settled for decades promoting breast milk is best for babies to promote good health and longevity. Plus, other studies show the nurturing relationship of the mother with her baby during breast feeding is beneficial to the social, and psychological health of the child.

The infant formula industry ought to understand their products depend on access to clean water to be effective as a compliment to breast feeding. The industry should shift its resources from blind product promotion and lobbying efforts and instead help to increase access to clean water worldwide. The infant formula industry needs to recognize their responsibility to support the common good promoting clean water and good health overall.