The policy analysis and guidance you need by the experts you trust, daily.
- After Hours
- Agent Oversight
- Brain Food
- Health Insurance Exchanges
- Part D
- Performance Optimization
- Policy & Health Reform
- Prospective Evaluations
- Provider Relations
- Risk Adjustment
- Sales & Marketing
- Star Ratings
- William on Will Trump and Price Pull Out the Scalpels for Star Ratings?
- Bobby on January Release of the Draft MMG – Perfect Timing
- Pam Lassila on Best Practices and Common Conditions of Audit Preparation
- Capitol Hill Healthcare Update | Gorman Health Group Blog on What Trump Could Actually Do to ObamaCare, Day One, Without Congress
- Are You Ready for the Medicare Advantage Advance Notice & Draft Call Letter? | Gorman Health Group Blog on 21st Century Cures Bill Slips in Some Changes to Medicare and Medicaid Programs
The Voice of John Nimsky
Private label health plans or co-branded health plans are joint efforts between like minded health plans and provider organizations interested in enhancing market share, achieving improved patient outcomes, minimizing duplication of services and achieving financial accountability. In its purest form, a private label health plan combines the strengths of the participating providers such as reputation, innovative practice patterns, trusted referral patterns and coordination of care techniques with those of the participating health plan such as benefit design, network design, contract administration and other insurance plan core competencies.
Many of you are aware of the recently published Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Affordable Care Act (ACA) initiative to support care coordination nationwide.
Once again we are in the midst of application season for health plans applying to become a Medicare Advantage Health Plan, expanding their MA geographic footprint or getting into the Health Insurance Exchange space. Regardless of the scope or the specific enterprise, network adequacy and accessibility is a major cornerstone of any MA or Exchange initiative.
When it comes to healthcare, two truism’s are that medical costs are going up along with demand for healthcare services. And when it comes to organic growth of healthcare volume and expenses, government programs represent a major driver, particularly when considering that on a daily basis thousands of baby boomers age into Medicare. During the last several years CMS has published a number of demonstration programs which are intended to improve the quality of Medicare patient outcomes while promoting financial efficiency on a unity cost or per procedure basis.
For many, the medical loss ratio (MLR) is the ratio of the health plan’s incurred medical claims to the total premiums earned. However under the Affordable Care Act and for government health programs, the MLR is the ratio of medical claims plus quality improvement costs divided by earned premiums minus federal and state taxes and fees and payments in lieu of taxes.
Many of the Medicare Shared Savings program ACOs are now in their second year of operation and some of the Pioneer ACOs are approaching year three. As a result, we are beginning to see published data on which of those ACOs are achieving shared savings. For those ACOs that began operating in 2012, (only ones for which any credible data is available), we know that of the 32 Pioneer ACOs only 23 continue to operate. We know that of those 23 operational Pioneers less than half generated shared savings. We also know that of the MSSP ACOs launched in 2012, about 25% shared in interim savings.
Here we are on November 15th one day after President Obama unexpectedly delayed a key provision of the Affordable Care Act, which allows insurance companies to continue, for one year, offering health care plans that fall short of the requirements as outlined in the ACA . The next day our “stewards of national well being” elected to pass a bill in the House of Representatives which is intended to allow insurance companies to sell individual health coverage to anyone who wants it, irrespective of any required standards in the ACA. As expected, the vote was justified on the grounds that the House is concerned that people will be left without health insurance under the current law, no consideration at all, wink wink , was given to 2014 reelection concerns.