Rocket Fuel for Health Care Costs

Virginia health insurance premiums

James C. Sherlock

Elections have consequences. Democrats won fairly at the ballot box the right to pass anything they wish. I simply request that they consider the costs of legislation to their constituents, to business balance sheets, and to jobs before submitting health insurance-related bills.

Virginians who get their health insurance both at work – which includes most of us – and get it through the Affordable Care Act website paid the highest premiums in America in 2018. The employee share of those premiums is a major and growing part of the personal budget for individuals and families statewide. The employer share comes out of employee pockets in the form of lower wages.

Bills in front of the General Assembly this year will cause those costs to skyrocket by mandating coverage of a lengthy list of additional conditions and lowering co-pays for others. Insurers will assess the costs and raise rates to cover them.

Every time the cost of health insurance goes up, businesses have to consider how to pay it. There will be layoffs. Some businesses will close. Others will look elsewhere to locate.

Eight attempt to deal with surprise billing.

Several deal with association health plans, both for and against.

I count more than 50 bills in the House and the Senate that deal with healthcare and health insurance. Most, if enacted, would push insurance costs higher. Most will directly raise the costs of health insurance by mandating additional covered conditions and procedures. These include mandated coverage for: abortion; infertility treatments; gender transition related care; autism spectrum disorder (individual and small group); six visits annually for therapy or counseling for the early detection or prevention of mental illness; fertility preservation procedures for cancer patients; zero deductible coverage for diabetes; amino acid-based elemental formula; additional mammograms at earlier ages; reproductive health (nine mandated benefits); donated human breast milk; elimination of prior authorization for drugs authorized by a psychiatrist; screening of patients for prenatal and postpartum depression; additional newborn screening; limits cost-sharing payments for insulin to $30 for a 30-day supply; zero cost sharing requirements for costs of physical therapist visits that exceed costs for a physician office visit; myoelectric, biomechanics and microprocessor-controlled prosthetic devices; hearing aids for minors; formula and enteral nutrition products for inherited metabolic disorder; and co-location of mothers with infants receiving specialized care regardless of out-of-network costs at in-network rates.

Other bills require the offering of Medicare Supplement policies to Medicare disability recipients under age 65; restrict short-term medical plans; provide new guidelines for association health plans; require hospitals to provide extended treatment procedures for emergency patients with substance abuse symptoms; require case management and peer support services for a person that has a diagnosis of substance abuse or mental health disorders; and increase staffing requirement for nursing homes.

There are 15 bills that will increase the costs of workers compensation. Many of them extend the presumption of work-related PTSD, additional named cancers, and other diseases not only to firemen and police, but to DMV officers, 911 emergency call takers, animal protection officers, police dispatchers, emergency medical technicians and correctional officers. Other bills mandate coverage of psychological injuries (really?), repetitive motion injuries and foreign injuries that are under these laws presumed to be job related. No definitive cost impact statements are required, including financial impacts to those volunteer fire departments and rescue services that pay their own workers compensation insurance bills.

Additional bills grant state licensure and qualification restrictions to special interests who have sought them. These include community health workers, diagnostic medical sonographers, musical therapists, art therapists and naturopathic doctors. That bill also gives naturopathic doctors prescription authority. Requirements for health insurance coverage for these rent seekers will follow as night follows day.

There are at least four honorable exceptions.  HB 1331 (Byron-R), SB 216 (Sutterlein-R), SB 867 (Petersen-D) and HB 1094 (Miyares-R) offer paths to lower premiums.   Miyares bill to multiply by an estimated factor of 7 the current number of low cost, high quality ambulatory surgical centers in Virginia can save Virginians and their health insurers, including government insurers, $500 million a year.

The members who have reintroduced bills to raise the costs of healthcare to please individual constituencies must remember that they represent all of us, not just their biggest and loudest contributors.

Note: This column has been extensively re-written since its original publication. — JAB

James C. Sherlock, a Virginia Beach resident, is a retired Navy Captain and a certified enterprise architect. As a private citizen, he has researched and written about the business of healthcare in Virginia. 


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

24 responses to “Rocket Fuel for Health Care Costs”

  1. Steve Haner Avatar
    Steve Haner

    On the insurance mandates, the Assembly is continuing to abide by law and precedent and send those that are new ideas to a standing commission, which exists to review proposed new mandates and foster negotiations between providers, insurers and advocates. So new mandates that pass into laws have been vetted by that process and many do not make the cut. But the trend is strong to keep adding them…..and cost is not a consideration usually (see my new article on the offshore wind mandates.)

  2. sherlockj Avatar

    There are 32 bills with various mandates before this year’s General Assembly. The mandates include new coverage benefits, new preventive services, mandates on co-pay amounts, mandates on providers, and so on. There are a couple of Republican-endorsed bills, but looking at whole stack and their sponsors, I think my characterization of a vast proliferation under the 2020 Democrats is fair. Jim

  3. Great points! I can only carry so many on my back before I drop.

  4. LarrytheG Avatar

    Well, once again, we see that there is a partisan approach on the issue of health care with sherlockj looking ONLY at this year rather than also the years that the GOP was in control.

    The bigger question though – that is thoroughly non-partisan is – do these coverages apply to all people whether they are Dem or GOP or Ind?

    If they do then why make this about partisanship?

    If we have people whose health conditions are not covered – and we make them the enemy of those who do not have those conditions and who would deny coverage in order to keep their premiums lower – then what is a good solution for that?

    Don’t blame the Dems or anyone else. Give me an answer to this problem.

    If you cannot or will not, then exactly what are you advocating for?

    The GOP basically has supported denial of pre-existing conditions – and it has cost them at elections but what the above advocacy is – is just a subset of that – i.e. the specifics coverages in question – should they be covered or not?

    To a certain extent, all of us are weasels are this. We all want to pay less money for coverage and to a certain extent if it comes at a cost to others who have health conditions and cannot get coverage, we pretty much either oppose coverage for them or pretend we don’t know it’s an issue.

    Come on folks.

    Step up here and weigh in on how it should be.

    don’t weasel and don’t point to someone to blame.

    answer the simple question.

    1. How about people try to take care of as much as possible on their own before spending money to fix issues? I’m trying to eat less and healthier now. I don’t do sodas. I’m trying to exercise when I can.
      The same needs to be said of all people. I have to ration when I go to the doctor, people need to do the same. I have to do without, others can also.
      At some point we have to be honest and say you can’t have barely 1/2 of America paying for the other half.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        re: ” At some point we have to be honest and say you can’t have barely 1/2 of America paying for the other half.”

        is that true?

        Are we talking about people who are NOT getting Medicaid, people who work and need to buy heath insurance – along with the people who work and have employer-provided?

        the question is of the folks who do have insurance – what should be “covered” and what not?

        Assume that the folks on Medicaid and Medicare already have an answer to that question but what about the other group of those who have employer-provided insurance and those who do not and have to buy ObamaCare or other?

        we’re back to the same question which is who decides what IS “covered” and what is is not?

        who decides that?

        Right now – every insurer decides. If you work for company X they will, Company Y – no. May also be true for Obamacare – not sure.

        But it was my impression that insurers could not deny pre-existing conditions and could not have caps on coverage.

        If govt steps in and says that all kinds of insurance has to cover something – for everyone – how is that a contest between those who have insurance and those who do not or have Medicaid?

        Do we need to understand this issue in order to hold an informed opinion?

  5. LarrytheG Avatar

    One presumes that these “extra” coverages relate to real people who have these conditions – right?

    So if we don’t cover them – then those folks as individuals will have to cover them or not afford them, correct?

    I’m NOT advocating covering any/all conditions by insurance companies and therefore the folks who pay the premiums, but I am asking a simple question that is – how do we decide what will be “covered” and what will not be covered?

    Right now, the Federal government has decreed that employer-provided and Obamacare cannot deny pre-existing conditions so why do we now have these bills mandating coverage for some conditions?

    Are they not covered by “pre-existing” rules?

    Right now, the advocacy in this blog post is essentially arguing that some people not be covered because it will make insurance less affordable for others.

    correct?

    1. sherlockj Avatar

      Larry, this column does not advocate for or against any bill. It just asks that the public be made aware of how much each bill will raise the premiums for everyone and who voted for and against it. We know, however, that at some cost point many employers either will drop coverage for their employees or shift if they can to self insured group plans. State mandates generally don’t apply to self-insured group health plans in that state, since self-insured plans are regulated under federal law rather than state law. Some businesses, however, won’t have the resources to do that. This may have particularly bad implication for small for profit and nonprofit businesses, the job engines in our economy. Jim

  6. Steve Haner Avatar
    Steve Haner

    On the insurance mandates, the Assembly is continuing to abide by law and precedent and send those that are new ideas to a standing commission, which exists to review proposed new mandates and foster negotiations between providers, insurers and advocates. So new mandates that pass into laws have been vetted by that process and many do not make the cut. But the trend is strong to keep adding them…..and cost is not a consideration usually (see my new article on the offshore wind mandates.)

  7. sherlockj Avatar

    I failed to note here that the Committees refer such bills to the Health Insurance Reform Commission which in turn refers such bills to the Bureau of Insurance for cost analysis, but not job loss analysis. The other issues are
    1. publishing of the costs associated with each mandate on the Department of Insurance website http://www.scc.virginia.gov/boi/index.aspx with bill numbers attached so that constituents can know the dollar costs with a link on that site to:
    2. votes on the bills with members names attached on the General Assembly website so that citizens can discover the General Assembly members responsible for them
    2. the vast proliferation of mandates under the Democrats in 2020. The Bureau of Insurance has never had to deal with an avalanche of bills like this. Nor have Virginians in general.

    1. Steve Haner Avatar
      Steve Haner

      It is a flood, agreed, but in my experience this isn’t partisan. Plenty of R’s have come forward with new, often very expensive, mandates. Speaker Howell for example was the chief mover on autism coverage….

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      okay, so you’re arguing that those without coverage are increasing cost to those who have coverage?

      Who should pay for those who go to the ERs and don’t have coverage?

      or should they be turned away if they do not have coverage?

      Right now, requires Medicare-participating hospitals with emergency departments to screen and treat the emergency medical conditions of patients in a non-discriminatory manner to anyone, regardless of their ability to pay, insurance status, national origin, race, creed or color.

      but I wonder if this is the reason why health care costs are increasing.

      here’s an interesting chart of health care cost trends over several decades:

      https://www.kff.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/health-spending-trends-and-impacts-health-costs-051012.png

  8. sherlockj Avatar

    There are 32 bills with various mandates before this year’s General Assembly. The mandates include new coverage benefits, new preventive services, mandates on co-pay amounts, mandates on providers, and so on. There are a couple of Republican-endorsed bills, but looking at whole stack and their sponsors, I think my characterization of a vast proliferation under the 2020 Democrats is fair. Jim

  9. Great points! I can only carry so many on my back before I drop.

  10. LarrytheG Avatar

    Well, once again, we see that there is a partisan approach on the issue of health care with sherlockj looking ONLY at this year rather than also the years that the GOP was in control.

    The bigger question though – that is thoroughly non-partisan is – do these coverages apply to all people whether they are Dem or GOP or Ind?

    If they do then why make this about partisanship?

    If we have people whose health conditions are not covered – and we make them the enemy of those who do not have those conditions and who would deny coverage in order to keep their premiums lower – then what is a good solution for that?

    Don’t blame the Dems or anyone else. Give me an answer to this problem.

    If you cannot or will not, then exactly what are you advocating for?

    The GOP basically has supported denial of pre-existing conditions – and it has cost them at elections but what the above advocacy is – is just a subset of that – i.e. the specifics coverages in question – should they be covered or not?

    To a certain extent, all of us are weasels are this. We all want to pay less money for coverage and to a certain extent if it comes at a cost to others who have health conditions and cannot get coverage, we pretty much either oppose coverage for them or pretend we don’t know it’s an issue.

    Come on folks.

    Step up here and weigh in on how it should be.

    don’t weasel and don’t point to someone to blame.

    answer the simple question.

    1. How about people try to take care of as much as possible on their own before spending money to fix issues? I’m trying to eat less and healthier now. I don’t do sodas. I’m trying to exercise when I can.
      The same needs to be said of all people. I have to ration when I go to the doctor, people need to do the same. I have to do without, others can also.
      At some point we have to be honest and say you can’t have barely 1/2 of America paying for the other half.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        re: ” At some point we have to be honest and say you can’t have barely 1/2 of America paying for the other half.”

        is that true?

        Are we talking about people who are NOT getting Medicaid, people who work and need to buy heath insurance – along with the people who work and have employer-provided?

        the question is of the folks who do have insurance – what should be “covered” and what not?

        Assume that the folks on Medicaid and Medicare already have an answer to that question but what about the other group of those who have employer-provided insurance and those who do not and have to buy ObamaCare or other?

        we’re back to the same question which is who decides what IS “covered” and what is is not?

        who decides that?

        Right now – every insurer decides. If you work for company X they will, Company Y – no. May also be true for Obamacare – not sure.

        But it was my impression that insurers could not deny pre-existing conditions and could not have caps on coverage.

        If govt steps in and says that all kinds of insurance has to cover something – for everyone – how is that a contest between those who have insurance and those who do not or have Medicaid?

        Do we need to understand this issue in order to hold an informed opinion?

        1. The ones footing the bill decide. The fact remains that those who are covered are paying for more procedures, pills, etc. and those who are not, are costing more and more. You can’t have a system set up like that that doesn’t go broke. The hospitals get profits from the payers and the govt, who is in reality, the payers.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            Aren’t ALL who are “covered” is the issue with non-govt insurance?

            not clear what you are saying V N.

            are you arguing that Medicaid and Medicare are increasing costs for private insurance or what?

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      okay, so you’re arguing that those without coverage are increasing cost to those who have coverage?

      Who should pay for those who go to the ERs and don’t have coverage?

      or should they be turned away if they do not have coverage?

      Right now, requires Medicare-participating hospitals with emergency departments to screen and treat the emergency medical conditions of patients in a non-discriminatory manner to anyone, regardless of their ability to pay, insurance status, national origin, race, creed or color.

      but I wonder if this is the reason why health care costs are increasing.

      here’s an interesting chart of health care cost trends over several decades:

      https://www.kff.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/health-spending-trends-and-impacts-health-costs-051012.png

  11. LarrytheG Avatar

    What the chart above shows is that health care costs have been steadily rising over the decades.

    so here’s a more specific chart and it does not appear to have any sharp increases that would indicate changes in health insurance laws:

    https://healthaffairs.imgus11.com/public//332ce71d3968fad1b21322a40b70faa7.png?r=1700548808

    My issue here is that when we write about these things that we TRY to be objective and TRY NOT to present a political or ideological perspective. We’re never going to get to a point where we can agree on what to do – if we cannot agree with what the actual reality is.

    When we continue to portray things in a way that tend to confirm people’s biases – we’re not doing anything constructive – we’re just widening the gaps between us.

  12. LarrytheG Avatar

    What the chart above shows is that health care costs have been steadily rising over the decades.

    so here’s a more specific chart and it does not appear to have any sharp increases that would indicate changes in health insurance laws:

    https://healthaffairs.imgus11.com/public//332ce71d3968fad1b21322a40b70faa7.png?r=1700548808

    My issue here is that when we write about these things that we TRY to be objective and TRY NOT to present a political or ideological perspective. We’re never going to get to a point where we can agree on what to do – if we cannot agree with what the actual reality is.

    When we continue to portray things in a way that tend to confirm people’s biases – we’re not doing anything constructive – we’re just widening the gaps between us.

Leave a Reply