Showing posts with label Plans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Plans. Show all posts

Friday, June 21, 2013

Insurers Limit Doctors, Hospitals In State-Run Exchange Plans

California's health insurance rates for a new state-run marketplace came in lower than expected this week, but one downside for many consumers will be far fewer doctors and hospitals to choose from.

People who want UCLA Medical Center and its doctors in their health plan network next year, for instance, may have only one choice in California's exchange: Anthem Blue Cross. Another major insurer in the state-run market, Blue Shield of California, said its exchange customers will be restricted to 36% of its regular physician network statewide.

And Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, one of Southern California's most prestigious and expensive hospitals, said it's not included in any exchange plans at the moment.

Those types of exclusive arrangements, increasingly tight networks and outright exclusions are becoming more common as insurers and government officials search for ways to hold down rising medical costs.

The vast majority of Californians get their health coverage through their employers and won't be immediately affected by these limitations in the state-run market. But private companies are pursuing similar changes to shave costs. More employers have been adopting these narrower networks and the government's overhaul of the individual insurance market is accelerating the trend.

Some consumer advocates express concern that insurers will go too far and deprive patients of meaningful choices. State officials sought to blunt that criticism this week, pointing out that the 13 health insurers selected will offer access to about 80% of California's practicing physicians and hospitals.

"If we want to keep costs down, something has to give," said Betsy Imholz, special projects director for Consumers Union. "At first blush, it seems like Covered California has negotiated some good deals, but in any given community we will see how this network issue plays out."

Covered California, the state agency implementing the federal healthcare law, said these trade-offs are necessary in many cases to keep premiums reasonable for California's families. Officials said they took steps to ensure that health plans offer an adequate number of quality medical providers and have measures in place for expanding their networks in the event that more people than expected sign up.

More than 5 million Californians are expected to be eligible for coverage in the exchange, and about half of them could qualify for federal premium subsidies.

Details on these insurance networks aren't known yet as insurers and providers wrap up their contracts and await regulators' review in the coming weeks. It's possible some medical groups and hospitals could be added.

Health Net Inc., another exchange option in Southern California, said it expects to seek state approval to use its existing network, which includes both UCLA and Cedars-Sinai, for one of its exchange plans.

Once all those decisions are finalized by early July, Covered California said it will help consumers find out online whether particular doctors and hospitals are in a health plan's network. Enrollment in the exchange opens Oct. 1 for policies that take effect in January, when most Americans must have health insurance or pay a penalty.

"When people come to choose their plan, we will have a directory so they can make sure Dr. Ramirez is in these three plans, for instance," said Peter Lee, executive director of Covered California. "Consumers care about that information."

Meanwhile, some insurance agents said it's hard to judge these proposed prices in the state exchange without knowing what's on the menu in terms of available providers.

"Trying to determine whether these rates are low or high without knowing the provider networks is like trying to tell the value of a car when you can only see the tires — you don't know if you are looking at a Ferrari or a Yugo," said Bruce Jugan, an insurance agent in Montebello and president of Benefitscafe.com, which sells health insurance to individuals and businesses.

Paul Markovich, chief executive of Blue Shield, said renegotiating with hospitals and physician groups for lower reimbursements was a key factor for insurers in holding down rates. Medical providers are sometimes willing to accept lower payments in return for higher patient volume from these narrow networks.

Markovich said premiums for Blue Shield's existing individual policyholders will rise 13% next year on average for coverage under exchange plans.

That marked an improvement from earlier predictions of even bigger rate hikes. The state issued a report in March that estimated premiums for many consumers could go up 30%, on average.

Premiums are generally rising to reflect the federal law's requirements for richer benefits and guaranteed coverage regardless of people's medical history.

"The physicians and hospitals that signed up for our network have agreed to accept lower reimbursement specifically to make the exchange more affordable," Markovich said.

Blue Shield's exchange network in the Los Angeles area doesn't include UCLA or Cedars-Sinai. Instead, it features hospitals such as Keck Hospital of USC, Long Beach Memorial and St. John's Health Center. Blue Shield said its statewide network for exchange policies will include about 24,000 physicians, compared with 66,000 doctors in its full preferred provider organization roster.

In Los Angeles County, state officials expect 1.6 million people to be eligible for coverage in the exchange. Premiums will vary based on a person's age, location and level of coverage.

For instance, in the north Los Angeles County region, the rates for a 40-year-old purchasing a Silver plan range from $222 a month for Health Net to $294 a month for Kaiser Permanente. There will still be other individual policies for sale outside those offered through Covered California, but federal subsidies can be used only inside the exchange.

Health Net sees growing acceptance of these narrower networks. The Woodland Hills insurer said enrollment among employers in California, Arizona and Oregon in those smaller networks has grown 37% in the last year.

chad.terhune@latimes.com


View the original article here

Friday, May 24, 2013

Employers Eye Bare-Bones Health Plans Under New Law

Employers are increasingly recognizing they may be able to avoid certain penalties under the federal health law by offering very limited plans that can lack key benefits such as hospital coverage.

Benefits advisers and insurance brokers—bucking a commonly held expectation that the law would broadly enrich benefits—are pitching these low-benefit plans around the country. They cover minimal requirements such as preventive services, but often little more. Some of the plans wouldn't cover surgery, X-rays or prenatal care at all. Others will be paired with limited packages to cover additional services, for instance, $100 a day for a hospital visit.

Federal ...

Continue reading article with pop up player

View the original article here

Sunday, May 5, 2013

UPDATE 1-Royalty Pharma plans to tap Elan investors on offer -source

* Royalty has not received response from Elan

* Biggest shareholder is Johnson & Johnson

(Adds Royalty Pharma declined to comment, updates share price, analyst comment)

By Jessica Toonkel

NEW YORK, Feb 26 (Reuters) - New York-based investment firm Royalty Pharma does not want to take "no" for an answer to its $6.6 billion offer for Irish drugmaker Elan Corp .

The company plans to spend the next few weeks calling Elan shareholders about its offer made on Feb. 18, according to a source familiar with the situation.

Royalty Pharma, which buys royalty streams of patented drugs and whose portfolio includes rheumatoid arthritis treatments Humira and Remicade, is turning to Elan's investors because it has received no formal response from the company about its offer, said the source, who wished to remain anonymous because of not being allowed to speak to the media.

Elan's biggest shareholder is Johnson & Johnson with an 18 percent stake.

An Elan spokesman declined to comment, as did Johnson & Johnson. A Royalty Pharma spokesman did not return a request for comment.

Royalty Pharma's offer, worth $11 per Elan share, came just days after Elan announced it had sold its 50 percent interest in multiple sclerosis drug Tysabri for $3.25 billion plus future royalty payments to U.S. partner Biogen Idec.

As a result of the Tysabri sale, Elan announced on Friday that it would return $1 billion to shareholders and make acquisitions with the rest of the $3.25 billion raised from the deal. Elan did not disclose the Royalty Pharma offer, which was not a formal bid.

Elan, in a statement on Monday, said Royalty Pharma's bid was an "indicative, conditional, proposal which may or may not lead to an offer being made for the entire issued share capital of the Company".

Elan also called the Royalty Pharma bid "highly opportunistic", given that shareholders had not had the opportunity to assess the full benefits of the Tysabri sale.

However, Royalty Pharma does not think Elan's management had the experience to make acquisitions, the firm said in its statement announcing its proposed offer on Monday.

Still, Royalty Pharma may have a tough time buying Elan given its $11-a-share offer, wrote Corey Davis, an equity analyst for Jefferies, in a note on Tuesday.

Royalty Pharma will have to get closer to $20 a share if it wants to buy the company, wrote Davis, who has a "buy" on Elan.

Elan's stock on Tuesday closed slightly above the offer price at $11.03, a 7 percent increase from Friday's close on the New York Stock Exchange.

(Reporting By Jessica Toonkel; Editing by Maureen Bavdek and Dale Hudson)

((Jessica.toonkel@thomsonreuters.com)(646-223-7882)(Twitter:

@jtoonkel)(Reuters Messaging: jessica.toonkel@thomsonreuters.com))

Keywords: ROYALTYPHARMA ENDO/


View the original article here

Saturday, April 13, 2013

Obamacare Regs Obama Plans to Ignore

There’s a widespread refrain that insurance premiums in the small group and individual market are set to spike this fall, once the full complement of Obamacare regulations hit that market. The insurers have been making the rounds on Capitol Hill, inside think tanks, and the White House, quietly previewing their new rates. The hikes are substantial. There’s even a term for it in Washington: “rate shock”.

So what’s the Obama Administration to do? Most likely, phase in some of the regulations that are the biggest culprit of the premium surge. That means, letting some of the historically based underwriting remain in place for a time.

The easiest target is the statutory limit on pricing health insurance premiums with respect to a beneficiary’s age. This Obamacare provision (also known as the “age rating”) bars insurers from varying premiums between old and young enrollees by more than 3:1. So if a 25-year-old’s premium cost $500, than a 60-year-old’s premium can’t cost more than $1,500. At the time Obamacare passed, critics held that these regulations would spike premiums. That day is about to arrive.

Some think that the Obama team can’t suspend these regulatory provisions since they are hardwired into the law. But there is ample precedent where the administration took its own discretion to largely ignore implementation deadlines and otherwise tweak or delay key aspects of the statute.

For instance, the Obama team unilaterally decided to phase-in the guaranteed issue requirements of child-only policies, even though the law required this provision to be fully implemented by the fall of 2010. The administration delayed and then limited the W-2 reporting provisions for employers. These are just two examples.

To the degree that delaying implementation of the insurance market regulations will help insurance companies secure profits and ease the burden on consumers, there is likely to be little political opposition standing in the Administration’s way. Even AARP is likely to step aside. While delay of the age rating provisions will keep costs higher for seniors, the old peoples’ lobby is likely to be more focused on its bigger political goal: making sure Obamacare gets implemented smoothly.

All of these regulations, and especially the caps on insurance company margins (AKA the Medical Loss Ratio) have a more pervasive and longstanding effect than the just these near term price increases, as painful as those hikes will be. The combined effect of these regulations will make it harder for new insurance plans to enter the market. That means limiting competition and thwarting innovation in the kinds of insurance products that people will have access to.

The regulations raise the costs to insurers, while at the same time limiting their profitability. Since most new insurance plans see their profitability erode over time, to the degree that their profit margins are capped at the outset, and their costs driven higher, these provisions will make it nearly impossible for new plans to enter the market. The net effect will be to lock in the legacy insurance plans, handing the market the existing players.

What does that mean for you? If you like your insurance plan you will indeed be able to keep it. Maybe not the benefit package, but at least the provider. Because there won’t be many new firms entering the market.


View the original article here

Tuesday, April 9, 2013

Pharmacyclics jumps on drug approval plans

NEW YORK -- Shares of Pharmacyclics Inc. climbed to an all-time high Friday after the company said it expects to file for marketing approval of its cancer drug ibrutinib this year. If approved, it would be Pharmacyclics first drug for sale.

Pharmacyclics announced earlier this week that the Food and Drug Administration has deemed ibrutinib a breakthrough therapy as a treatment for mantle cell lymphoma. The FDA created the breakthrough therapy program in 2012 as a way to speed up the approval process for drugs that could be significant improvements in the treatment of serious or life-threatening diseases from what's currently on the market.

Through a partnership with Johnson & Johnson, Pharmacyclics is studying ibrutinib as a treatment for several types of lymphoma and leukemia, including mantle cell lymphoma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

Shares of Pharmacyclics rose $6.79, or 8.5 percent, to close at $87 on Friday and set an all-time high of $87.82 during the session. The stock has surged nearly 24 percent over the three trading days since the company announced that the drug won breakthrough status.

Stifel Nicolaus analyst Joel Sendek said the company is filing for approval sooner than he expected, and said he now thinks ibrutinib will reach the market in late 2014 as a treatment for mantle cell lymphoma and chronic lymphocytic leukemia. He said sales could reach $158 million in 2015.

Pharmacyclics also reported its quarterly results after the market closed on Thursday. Over the three months ended Dec. 31, the Sunnyvale, Calif., company said it earned $41.9 million, or 56 cents per share, down from $56.3 million, or 78 cents per share. Excluding one-time items, adjusted earnings totaled 62 cents per share, compared with 82 cents per share in the prior-year period.

Revenue fell to $58 million from $77.9 million as the amount of money that it received for licensing and reaching drug development milestones declined. Most of Pharmacyclics' revenue comes from license payments from its drug development partners. In the latest quarter, that included a $50 million payment from Johnson & Johnson and $5 million from Novo Nordisk AS. Operating costs linked to research and development expenses also increased, shrinking profit margins.

The company is switching from a fiscal year ending in June to one ending in December. Over the last six months Pharmacyclics said its net income nearly tripled to $117.5 million, or $1.58 per share. Revenue more than doubled to $160.7 million from $77.9 million.


View the original article here

Monday, April 1, 2013

Cincinnati Archdiocese Plans To Fire Principal For Supporting Marriage Equality

The Catholic Archdiocese of Cincinnati, Ohio is planning to fire the assistant principal at Purcell Marian High School for supporting marriage equality. On his personal blog last month, Mike Marosi wrote, “I unabashedly believe that gay people SHOULD be allowed to marry,” supporting his position with his Catholic faith. For that, he was placed on administrative leave on February 4, with the expectation that he would be fired if he didn’t recant the statements, which he has no intentions of doing.

Moroski has acknowledged that he violated the Archdiocese’s social media policy, but he denies that he has violated the terms of his contract, which require that he  ”comply with and act consistently in accordance with the stated philosophy and teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.” Though he knows the Roman Catholic Church does not approve marriage equality, he argues that speaking his conscience was in line with that obligation. He posted the following statement on his blog:

As a proud Catholic, I’m heartbroken that my belief that all committed, loving couples should be able to make a public pledge to take responsibility for each other for a lifetime has led to this ultimatum. The expressions of solidarity I have already received from Catholic priests, sisters and justice leaders in the community strengthen my faith during this difficult time. Due to my formation in Catholic grade school, high school and three Catholic universities – not to mention my marriage to the best Catholic I know, my relationship with numerous clergy and a devout Catholic family – I have firmly rooted my life in the Gospel principles of love and justice.

After twelve years of working with teenagers whose respect I have earned, I simply can’t teach them the wrong lesson now and deny my convictions. I would not be able to look them in the eye. I have tried to instill a sense of faith and fortitude in all of them regarding issues of justice for my entire adult life. I did not turn down the Archdiocese’s terms in spite of my faith. I turned them down because of my faith.

A Change.org petition is calling on the Archdiocese not to follow through on firing Moroski. The Archdiocese has said it will not comment on a personnel matter.


View the original article here

Friday, January 25, 2013

How Walgreens Plans To Lower America’s Health Care Costs

ThinkProgress has previously reported that a massive contributor to America’s annual $2.7 trillion health care expenditures is the staggering 50 percent of Americans who simply do not take their prescribed medications properly.

Now, Wonk Blog’s Sarah Kliff is reporting that corporate pharmacy giant Walgreens wants to start bucking that trend by forming “accountable care organizations” (ACOs) in conjunction with local physicians and hospitals. ACOs are coordinated care systems that are paid on the basis of their performance. If an ACO successfully provides Medicare beneficiaries with quality care while keeping costs under a year-to-year target, it is rewarded with higher Medicare reimbursements from the government by netting the savings — but if it goes over the annual target, it has to swallow the losses.

Although most ACO applications so far have been partnerships between more specialized health care providers, more convenient access to local pharmacies might make them effective venues for managing and tracking Americans’ treatments after their hospital visits:

While a pharmacy-run ACO is not the traditional model, [Walgreens' Senior Vice President Jeffrey Kang] argues it actually makes a lot of sense. Pharmacy stores are open every day of the year, making them a more accessible point of contact than most doctor offices. They have begun to handle basic health care, like vaccination and preventive check-ups, right in the store, which could prevent more costly diseases down the line.

Health care research shows that unnecessary hospital readmissions are often caused by a patient not following the prescribed medical regiment after discharge, creating another place where pharmacists could easily intervene. [...]

“The way I like to describe it is as a physician-led plan where we’re an active partner,” Kang says. “They’re the quarterback who creates the treatment plan. We can be care extenders who help implement and execute the plan.”

In order to make that active partnership work, Walgreens is working to become better integrated with its partner health care systems. While both the pharmacies and doctors, for example, already have electronic medical records, they now need to ensure that each system can interface, allowing all health care providers to track a given patients’ care.

Walgreens’ decision to venture into the coordinated care market underscores the broad innovative potential of Obamacare provisions such as ACOs. Centering medical treatment followups in pharmacies could go a long way towards making sure that Americans stay on their treatment regimens, thus reducing sickness, deaths, and costly hospital re-admissions.

However, lawmakers should make sure that pharmacies that provide more extensive services have the proper oversight, so as not to fall into the same pitfalls as laxly regulated compounding pharmacies in the wake of last year’s deadly meningitis outbreak.


View the original article here