Vascular Specialist

High levels of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] and LPA genotypes were linked to increased ischemic stroke risk in a recent large, contemporary general population study, investigators are reporting in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Copyright American Stroke Association

SOURCE: Langsted A, et al. JACC 2019;74[1]: 54-66. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.03.524

High levels of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] and LPA genotypes were linked to increased ischemic stroke risk in a recent large, contemporary general population study, investigators are reporting in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Copyright American Stroke Association

SOURCE: Langsted A, et al. JACC 2019;74[1]: 54-66. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.03.524

High levels of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] and LPA genotypes were linked to increased ischemic stroke risk in a recent large, contemporary general population study, investigators are reporting in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Copyright American Stroke Association

SOURCE: Langsted A, et al. JACC 2019;74[1]: 54-66. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.03.524

On May 31, new global guidelines on the best ways to treat Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia were co-published in the Journal of Vascular Surgery and the European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery. This comes after four years of collaboration between vascular experts from around the world. According to the SVS’ own Dr. Conte, a co-editor, the group created a unique practice guideline that reflects the spectrum of the diseases and the approaches seen worldwide. Read the guidelines in the JVS here.

On May 31, new global guidelines on the best ways to treat Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia were co-published in the Journal of Vascular Surgery and the European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery. This comes after four years of collaboration between vascular experts from around the world. According to the SVS’ own Dr. Conte, a co-editor, the group created a unique practice guideline that reflects the spectrum of the diseases and the approaches seen worldwide. Read the guidelines in the JVS here.

On May 31, new global guidelines on the best ways to treat Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia were co-published in the Journal of Vascular Surgery and the European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery. This comes after four years of collaboration between vascular experts from around the world. According to the SVS’ own Dr. Conte, a co-editor, the group created a unique practice guideline that reflects the spectrum of the diseases and the approaches seen worldwide. Read the guidelines in the JVS here.

The SVS Foundation developed the Research Career Development Travel Awards program to develop strong leaders in vascular surgery research. Recipients of the award will be assigned SVS research mentors who will provide guidance and discuss academic career advancement. They’ll also receive financial support to be used for travel, hotel accommodations and registration expenses for a research course. Applicants must be an SVS Candidate or Active Member who’s completed postgraduate clinical training in vascular surgery and has been in practice no more than seven years. Apply before August 15 to be considered.

The SVS Foundation developed the Research Career Development Travel Awards program to develop strong leaders in vascular surgery research. Recipients of the award will be assigned SVS research mentors who will provide guidance and discuss academic career advancement. They’ll also receive financial support to be used for travel, hotel accommodations and registration expenses for a research course. Applicants must be an SVS Candidate or Active Member who’s completed postgraduate clinical training in vascular surgery and has been in practice no more than seven years. Apply before August 15 to be considered.

The SVS Foundation developed the Research Career Development Travel Awards program to develop strong leaders in vascular surgery research. Recipients of the award will be assigned SVS research mentors who will provide guidance and discuss academic career advancement. They’ll also receive financial support to be used for travel, hotel accommodations and registration expenses for a research course. Applicants must be an SVS Candidate or Active Member who’s completed postgraduate clinical training in vascular surgery and has been in practice no more than seven years. Apply before August 15 to be considered.

SAN FRANCISCO – Here’s potential bad news for everyone who dines on skim milk and non-fat yogurt: High-fat dairy products may be better for you, at least if you want to stave off metabolic syndrome (MetS), according to a new study.

Jupiterimages/Getty Images

The findings aren’t conclusive. Still, researchers found that “among whites and African- Americans, the whole milk/high-fat dairy pattern had a protective effect on the risk of metabolic syndrome,” said epidemiologist and study lead author Dale Hardy, PhD, of Morehouse School of Medicine, in an interview. She presented the study findings at the scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Hardy launched her research as part of a project that’s examining relationships between diet, genes, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases in whites and African-Americans.

According to a 2017 study, an estimated 34% of adults in the U.S. from 2007-2012 had MetS, defined as the presence of at least 3 of these factors – elevated waist circumference, elevated triglycerides, reduced high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, high blood pressure, and elevated fasting blood glucose (Prev Chronic Dis. 2017 Mar 16;14:E24).

MetS is linked to higher rates of a variety of ills, including cardiovascular disease, kidney disease, and early death.

For the new study, Dr. Hardy and colleagues examined data from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study (1987-1998) and food questionnaires (1987 and 1993). There were 9,778 white participants and 2,922 African-American participants.

Subjects with diets higher in whole milk/high-fat dairy diets were significantly less likely to develop MetS per 5-unit increase at risk ratio (RR) =.96 (0.90-1.00), for whites and RR = .81 (0.72-0.90), for African-Americans.

But whites with skim milk/low-fat dairy diets had significantly higher risks of MetS per 5-unit increase at RR = 1.11 (1.06-1.17). There was also a higher risk for African-Americans but it was not statistically significant.

There was an even bigger bump in significant risk for those with diets higher in red and processed meat per 5-unit increase at RR = 1.17 (1.12-1.23), for whites and RR=1.16 (1.08-1.25), for African-Americans.

The researchers also found evidence that whole milk/high-fat dairy diets had an even greater protective effect in whites when genetic risk was present.

What’s going on? “Maybe the fat in the [dairy] foods is holding back glucose absorption and decreasing the risk for MetS over time,” Hardy said. “This fat is different from the animal fats from meats. Fat from dairy has a shorter molecular structure chain compared to the hard animal fats. Hard animal fats are more dangerous in terms of increasing the risk of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular diseases.”

The dairy fat, Hardy said, could also be lowering insulin secretion.

So should everyone embrace whole milk and high-fat yogurt and cottage cheese? Hardy isn’t ready to offer this advice. “I don’t think that high-fat diary per se should be recommended as a miracle food to manage or prevent MetS,” she said. “I believe that the macronutrient composition of the meals and the day’s intake should be a more important feature of the diet. In addition, frequent exercise should be recommended to manage MetS.”

More analysis of the data is ongoing, Hardy said, and her team has found signs that diets higher in nuts and peanut butter are protective against MetS in whites.

The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The study authors had no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Hardy, D. et al. 2019 ADA annual meeting Abstract 1458-P.

SAN FRANCISCO – Here’s potential bad news for everyone who dines on skim milk and non-fat yogurt: High-fat dairy products may be better for you, at least if you want to stave off metabolic syndrome (MetS), according to a new study.

Jupiterimages/Getty Images

The findings aren’t conclusive. Still, researchers found that “among whites and African- Americans, the whole milk/high-fat dairy pattern had a protective effect on the risk of metabolic syndrome,” said epidemiologist and study lead author Dale Hardy, PhD, of Morehouse School of Medicine, in an interview. She presented the study findings at the scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Hardy launched her research as part of a project that’s examining relationships between diet, genes, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases in whites and African-Americans.

According to a 2017 study, an estimated 34% of adults in the U.S. from 2007-2012 had MetS, defined as the presence of at least 3 of these factors – elevated waist circumference, elevated triglycerides, reduced high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, high blood pressure, and elevated fasting blood glucose (Prev Chronic Dis. 2017 Mar 16;14:E24).

MetS is linked to higher rates of a variety of ills, including cardiovascular disease, kidney disease, and early death.

For the new study, Dr. Hardy and colleagues examined data from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study (1987-1998) and food questionnaires (1987 and 1993). There were 9,778 white participants and 2,922 African-American participants.

Subjects with diets higher in whole milk/high-fat dairy diets were significantly less likely to develop MetS per 5-unit increase at risk ratio (RR) =.96 (0.90-1.00), for whites and RR = .81 (0.72-0.90), for African-Americans.

But whites with skim milk/low-fat dairy diets had significantly higher risks of MetS per 5-unit increase at RR = 1.11 (1.06-1.17). There was also a higher risk for African-Americans but it was not statistically significant.

There was an even bigger bump in significant risk for those with diets higher in red and processed meat per 5-unit increase at RR = 1.17 (1.12-1.23), for whites and RR=1.16 (1.08-1.25), for African-Americans.

The researchers also found evidence that whole milk/high-fat dairy diets had an even greater protective effect in whites when genetic risk was present.

What’s going on? “Maybe the fat in the [dairy] foods is holding back glucose absorption and decreasing the risk for MetS over time,” Hardy said. “This fat is different from the animal fats from meats. Fat from dairy has a shorter molecular structure chain compared to the hard animal fats. Hard animal fats are more dangerous in terms of increasing the risk of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular diseases.”

The dairy fat, Hardy said, could also be lowering insulin secretion.

So should everyone embrace whole milk and high-fat yogurt and cottage cheese? Hardy isn’t ready to offer this advice. “I don’t think that high-fat diary per se should be recommended as a miracle food to manage or prevent MetS,” she said. “I believe that the macronutrient composition of the meals and the day’s intake should be a more important feature of the diet. In addition, frequent exercise should be recommended to manage MetS.”

More analysis of the data is ongoing, Hardy said, and her team has found signs that diets higher in nuts and peanut butter are protective against MetS in whites.

The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The study authors had no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Hardy, D. et al. 2019 ADA annual meeting Abstract 1458-P.

SAN FRANCISCO – Here’s potential bad news for everyone who dines on skim milk and non-fat yogurt: High-fat dairy products may be better for you, at least if you want to stave off metabolic syndrome (MetS), according to a new study.

Jupiterimages/Getty Images

The findings aren’t conclusive. Still, researchers found that “among whites and African- Americans, the whole milk/high-fat dairy pattern had a protective effect on the risk of metabolic syndrome,” said epidemiologist and study lead author Dale Hardy, PhD, of Morehouse School of Medicine, in an interview. She presented the study findings at the scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Hardy launched her research as part of a project that’s examining relationships between diet, genes, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases in whites and African-Americans.

According to a 2017 study, an estimated 34% of adults in the U.S. from 2007-2012 had MetS, defined as the presence of at least 3 of these factors – elevated waist circumference, elevated triglycerides, reduced high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, high blood pressure, and elevated fasting blood glucose (Prev Chronic Dis. 2017 Mar 16;14:E24).

MetS is linked to higher rates of a variety of ills, including cardiovascular disease, kidney disease, and early death.

For the new study, Dr. Hardy and colleagues examined data from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study (1987-1998) and food questionnaires (1987 and 1993). There were 9,778 white participants and 2,922 African-American participants.

Subjects with diets higher in whole milk/high-fat dairy diets were significantly less likely to develop MetS per 5-unit increase at risk ratio (RR) =.96 (0.90-1.00), for whites and RR = .81 (0.72-0.90), for African-Americans.

But whites with skim milk/low-fat dairy diets had significantly higher risks of MetS per 5-unit increase at RR = 1.11 (1.06-1.17). There was also a higher risk for African-Americans but it was not statistically significant.

There was an even bigger bump in significant risk for those with diets higher in red and processed meat per 5-unit increase at RR = 1.17 (1.12-1.23), for whites and RR=1.16 (1.08-1.25), for African-Americans.

The researchers also found evidence that whole milk/high-fat dairy diets had an even greater protective effect in whites when genetic risk was present.

What’s going on? “Maybe the fat in the [dairy] foods is holding back glucose absorption and decreasing the risk for MetS over time,” Hardy said. “This fat is different from the animal fats from meats. Fat from dairy has a shorter molecular structure chain compared to the hard animal fats. Hard animal fats are more dangerous in terms of increasing the risk of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular diseases.”

The dairy fat, Hardy said, could also be lowering insulin secretion.

So should everyone embrace whole milk and high-fat yogurt and cottage cheese? Hardy isn’t ready to offer this advice. “I don’t think that high-fat diary per se should be recommended as a miracle food to manage or prevent MetS,” she said. “I believe that the macronutrient composition of the meals and the day’s intake should be a more important feature of the diet. In addition, frequent exercise should be recommended to manage MetS.”

More analysis of the data is ongoing, Hardy said, and her team has found signs that diets higher in nuts and peanut butter are protective against MetS in whites.

The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The study authors had no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Hardy, D. et al. 2019 ADA annual meeting Abstract 1458-P.

On Thursday, the second night of the first Democratic primary debate, 10 presidential hopefuls took the stage and health issues became an early flashpoint.

erinrb/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Sen. Sanders: “President Trump, you’re not standing up for working families when you try to throw 32 million people off the health care that they have.”

This is one of Sanders’ favorite lines, but it falls short of giving the full story of the Republican effort to repeal and replace Obamacare. We rated a similar claim Half True.

Scrapping the Affordable Care Act was a key campaign promise for President Donald Trump. In 2017, as the Republican-led Congress struggled to deliver, Trump tweeted “Republicans should just REPEAL failing Obamacare now and work on a new health care plan that will start from a clean slate.”

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that would lead to 32 million more people without insurance by 2026. But some portion of that 32 million would have chosen not to buy insurance due to the end of the individual mandate, which would happen under repeal. (It happened anyway, when the 2017 tax law repealed the fine for the individual mandate.)

In the end, full repeal didn’t happen. Instead, Trump was only able to zero out the fines for people who didn’t have insurance. Coverage has eroded. The latest survey shows about 1.3 million people have lost insurance since Trump took office.

Sen. Bennet, meanwhile, used his time to attack Medicare for All on a feasibility standpoint.
 

Sen. Bennet: “Bernie mentioned that the taxes that we would have to pay — because of those taxes, Vermont rejected Medicare for All.”

This is true, although it could use some context.

Vermont’s effort to pass a state-based single-payer health plan — which the state legislature approved in 2011 — officially fell flat in December 2014. Financing the plan ultimately would have required an 11.5% payroll tax on all employers, plus raising the income tax by as much as 9.5%. The governor at the time, Democrat Peter Shumlin, declared this politically untenable.

That said, some analysts suggest other political factors may have played a role, too — for instance, fallout after the state launched its Affordable Care Act health insurance website, which faced technical difficulties.

Nationally, when voters are told Medicare for All could result in higher taxes, support declines.

And a point was made by author Marianne Williamson about the nation’s high burden of chronic disease.
 

Ms. Williamson: “So many Americans have unnecessary chronic illnesses — so many more compared to other countries.”

There is evidence for this, at least for older Americans.

A November 2014 study by the Commonwealth Fund found that 68% of Americans 65 and older had two or more chronic conditions, and an additional 20% had one chronic condition.

No other country studied — the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Sweden, Norway, France, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany, Austria, or Canada — had a higher rate of older residents with at least two chronic conditions. The percentages ranged from 33 percent in the United Kingdom to 56 percent in Canada.

An earlier study published in the journal Health Affairs in 2007 found that “for many of the most costly chronic conditions, diagnosed disease prevalence and treatment rates were higher in the United States than in a sample of European countries in 2004.”
 

PolitiFact’s Jon Greenberg and Louis Jacobson contributed to this story. Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente. Politifact is owned by the nonprofit Poynter Institute for Media Studies.

On Thursday, the second night of the first Democratic primary debate, 10 presidential hopefuls took the stage and health issues became an early flashpoint.

erinrb/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Sen. Sanders: “President Trump, you’re not standing up for working families when you try to throw 32 million people off the health care that they have.”

This is one of Sanders’ favorite lines, but it falls short of giving the full story of the Republican effort to repeal and replace Obamacare. We rated a similar claim Half True.

Scrapping the Affordable Care Act was a key campaign promise for President Donald Trump. In 2017, as the Republican-led Congress struggled to deliver, Trump tweeted “Republicans should just REPEAL failing Obamacare now and work on a new health care plan that will start from a clean slate.”

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that would lead to 32 million more people without insurance by 2026. But some portion of that 32 million would have chosen not to buy insurance due to the end of the individual mandate, which would happen under repeal. (It happened anyway, when the 2017 tax law repealed the fine for the individual mandate.)

In the end, full repeal didn’t happen. Instead, Trump was only able to zero out the fines for people who didn’t have insurance. Coverage has eroded. The latest survey shows about 1.3 million people have lost insurance since Trump took office.

Sen. Bennet, meanwhile, used his time to attack Medicare for All on a feasibility standpoint.
 

Sen. Bennet: “Bernie mentioned that the taxes that we would have to pay — because of those taxes, Vermont rejected Medicare for All.”

This is true, although it could use some context.

Vermont’s effort to pass a state-based single-payer health plan — which the state legislature approved in 2011 — officially fell flat in December 2014. Financing the plan ultimately would have required an 11.5% payroll tax on all employers, plus raising the income tax by as much as 9.5%. The governor at the time, Democrat Peter Shumlin, declared this politically untenable.

That said, some analysts suggest other political factors may have played a role, too — for instance, fallout after the state launched its Affordable Care Act health insurance website, which faced technical difficulties.

Nationally, when voters are told Medicare for All could result in higher taxes, support declines.

And a point was made by author Marianne Williamson about the nation’s high burden of chronic disease.
 

Ms. Williamson: “So many Americans have unnecessary chronic illnesses — so many more compared to other countries.”

There is evidence for this, at least for older Americans.

A November 2014 study by the Commonwealth Fund found that 68% of Americans 65 and older had two or more chronic conditions, and an additional 20% had one chronic condition.

No other country studied — the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Sweden, Norway, France, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany, Austria, or Canada — had a higher rate of older residents with at least two chronic conditions. The percentages ranged from 33 percent in the United Kingdom to 56 percent in Canada.

An earlier study published in the journal Health Affairs in 2007 found that “for many of the most costly chronic conditions, diagnosed disease prevalence and treatment rates were higher in the United States than in a sample of European countries in 2004.”
 

PolitiFact’s Jon Greenberg and Louis Jacobson contributed to this story. Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente. Politifact is owned by the nonprofit Poynter Institute for Media Studies.

On Thursday, the second night of the first Democratic primary debate, 10 presidential hopefuls took the stage and health issues became an early flashpoint.

erinrb/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Sen. Sanders: “President Trump, you’re not standing up for working families when you try to throw 32 million people off the health care that they have.”

This is one of Sanders’ favorite lines, but it falls short of giving the full story of the Republican effort to repeal and replace Obamacare. We rated a similar claim Half True.

Scrapping the Affordable Care Act was a key campaign promise for President Donald Trump. In 2017, as the Republican-led Congress struggled to deliver, Trump tweeted “Republicans should just REPEAL failing Obamacare now and work on a new health care plan that will start from a clean slate.”

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that would lead to 32 million more people without insurance by 2026. But some portion of that 32 million would have chosen not to buy insurance due to the end of the individual mandate, which would happen under repeal. (It happened anyway, when the 2017 tax law repealed the fine for the individual mandate.)

In the end, full repeal didn’t happen. Instead, Trump was only able to zero out the fines for people who didn’t have insurance. Coverage has eroded. The latest survey shows about 1.3 million people have lost insurance since Trump took office.

Sen. Bennet, meanwhile, used his time to attack Medicare for All on a feasibility standpoint.
 

Sen. Bennet: “Bernie mentioned that the taxes that we would have to pay — because of those taxes, Vermont rejected Medicare for All.”

This is true, although it could use some context.

Vermont’s effort to pass a state-based single-payer health plan — which the state legislature approved in 2011 — officially fell flat in December 2014. Financing the plan ultimately would have required an 11.5% payroll tax on all employers, plus raising the income tax by as much as 9.5%. The governor at the time, Democrat Peter Shumlin, declared this politically untenable.

That said, some analysts suggest other political factors may have played a role, too — for instance, fallout after the state launched its Affordable Care Act health insurance website, which faced technical difficulties.

Nationally, when voters are told Medicare for All could result in higher taxes, support declines.

And a point was made by author Marianne Williamson about the nation’s high burden of chronic disease.
 

Ms. Williamson: “So many Americans have unnecessary chronic illnesses — so many more compared to other countries.”

There is evidence for this, at least for older Americans.

A November 2014 study by the Commonwealth Fund found that 68% of Americans 65 and older had two or more chronic conditions, and an additional 20% had one chronic condition.

No other country studied — the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Sweden, Norway, France, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany, Austria, or Canada — had a higher rate of older residents with at least two chronic conditions. The percentages ranged from 33 percent in the United Kingdom to 56 percent in Canada.

An earlier study published in the journal Health Affairs in 2007 found that “for many of the most costly chronic conditions, diagnosed disease prevalence and treatment rates were higher in the United States than in a sample of European countries in 2004.”
 

PolitiFact’s Jon Greenberg and Louis Jacobson contributed to this story. Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente. Politifact is owned by the nonprofit Poynter Institute for Media Studies.

During Wednesday night’s Democratic presidential primary debate — the first in a two-night event viewed as the de facto launch of the primary season — health policies, ranging from “Medicare for All” to efforts to curb skyrocketing drug prices, were among the key issues the 10 hopeful candidates on stage used to help differentiate themselves from the pack.

Rawf8/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Health care dominated early on June 26, with Sens. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) and Cory Booker (N.J.) using questions about the economy to take aim at pharmaceutical and insurance companies. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (Minn.) emphasized the difficulties many Americans face in paying premiums.

But the candidates broke ranks on the details and not all of their claims stayed strictly within the lines.

Only two candidates — New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and Sen. Warren — raised their hands in favor of banishing private insurance to install a government-sponsored Medicare for All approach.

Sen. Klobuchar, a single-payer skeptic, expressed concern about “kicking half of America off their health insurance in 4 years.” (That’s correct: In 2017, a majority of Americans had private coverage, with 49% getting that insurance through work, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.)

Former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke, who also supports maintaining a private insurance system, outlined his own universal health care plan, based on a “Medicare for America” bill in Congress.

The single-payer talk set off other discussions about the role of health insurance and the cost of care. We fact-checked some of the biggest claims.
 

Sen. Warren: “The insurance companies last year alone sucked $23 billion in profits out of the health care system. $23 billion. And that doesn’t count the money that was paid to executives, the money that was spent lobbying Washington.”

We contacted Warren’s campaign, who directed us to a report from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, a nonpartisan group of industry regulators. It supports her assessment.

The report says that in 2018, health insurers posted $23.4 billion in net earnings, or profits, compared with $16.1 billion a year prior.

This came up in the context of Warren’s support for eliminating private insurance under a Medicare for All system. However, the financing and price tag of such a system is unclear.
 

Sen. Booker: “The overhead for insurers that they charge is 15%, while Medicare’s overhead is only at 2%.”

This is a flawed comparison. Booker said administrative overhead eats up much more for private carriers than it does for Medicare, the government insurance program for seniors and the disabled. But Medicare piggybacks off the Social Security Administration, which covers costs of enrollment, payments, and keeping track of patients.

Also, Medicare relies on private providers for some of its programs, and overhead charges there are higher. Medicare’s overhead is less than that of private carriers, but exact figures are elusive.

The insurance companies’ trade group, America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), reported in 2018 that 18.1% of private health care premiums went to non–health care services. That includes taxes of 4.7% and profits of 2.3%. The Medicare trustees reported that in 2018, total expenses were $740.6 billion, with administrative expenses of $9.9 billion. That comes to 1.3%, less than Booker said.
 

Sen. Warren: “I spent a big chunk of my life studying why families go broke, and one of the No. 1 reasons is the cost of health care, medical bills. And that’s not just for people who don’t have insurance. It’s for people who have insurance.”

Is the No. 1 reason people go broke the cost of health care? We’ve rated similar statements Half True — partially accurate but lacking important context.

A 2005 study Warren coauthored and a 2009 paper both found that health care expenses were a leading cause of personal bankruptcy. But these claims have come under dispute, in particular from academics who suggest that people may overstate the role medical bills play in their financial problems. Other research suggests a far narrower impact, though that, in turn, has been criticized for focusing only on adult hospitalizations.

That said, research from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau found that medical bills are a leading cause of personal debt — in 2014, the CFPB found that nearly 20% of credit reports included a medical debt tradeline.

But Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (Hawaii) drew on examples of universal health coverage in other countries to explain why she still supported some private insurance options.
 

Rep. Gabbard: “If you look at other countries in the world who have universal health care, every one of them has some form of a role of private insurance.”

This is correct. Virtually every country with universal health care includes a role for private insurance. Some allow it to cover services not addressed by the national plan. Others allow it as a means to get care faster. Others heavily regulate it as a principal source of coverage.

For instance, Canada, the model for the principal Medicare for All bill, allows private insurance to address prescription drug coverage, private rooms in hospitals, and vision and dental care. (It is not allowed to compete with the government plan.) In England, about 10% of people — mostly wealthier people — elect for private coverage, which can yield faster access to care. Countries such as the Netherlands and Switzerland heavily regulate private coverage.

Beyond Medicare for All, candidates touched on strategies to bring down drug prices as well as other issues.
 

Sen. Klobuchar: “2,500 drug prices have gone up in double digits since [Donald Trump] took office.”

This is accurate, according to a report from Pharmacy Benefits Consultants, an industry group, which listed a number of pharmaceutical products experiencing price increases as high as 1,468%.

And the numbers are even less flattering than Sen. Klobuchar suggested.

An analysis by the Associated Press found that, between January and July 2018, more than 4,400 branded prescription drugs experienced price increases. Meanwhile, data compiled by Rx Savings Solutions found that the list price of more than 3,000 drugs went up this year.
 

Rep. O’Rourke: “In Texas, the single largest provider of mental health care is the county jail system.”

This is correct. Texas jails are the largest mental health care systems in the state, according to a report from the University of Texas at Austin. The Harris County jail, which includes a 108-bed unit, identifies itself as the largest mental health care facility in Texas.

This is not a Texas-specific issue. According to a 2011 NPR report, it is more common to see Americans getting mental health care in jails and prisons than in hospitals or other dedicated treatment facilities.

Election Day is 495 days away.
 

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente. Politifact is owned by the nonprofit Poynter Institute for Media Studies.

During Wednesday night’s Democratic presidential primary debate — the first in a two-night event viewed as the de facto launch of the primary season — health policies, ranging from “Medicare for All” to efforts to curb skyrocketing drug prices, were among the key issues the 10 hopeful candidates on stage used to help differentiate themselves from the pack.

Rawf8/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Health care dominated early on June 26, with Sens. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) and Cory Booker (N.J.) using questions about the economy to take aim at pharmaceutical and insurance companies. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (Minn.) emphasized the difficulties many Americans face in paying premiums.

But the candidates broke ranks on the details and not all of their claims stayed strictly within the lines.

Only two candidates — New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and Sen. Warren — raised their hands in favor of banishing private insurance to install a government-sponsored Medicare for All approach.

Sen. Klobuchar, a single-payer skeptic, expressed concern about “kicking half of America off their health insurance in 4 years.” (That’s correct: In 2017, a majority of Americans had private coverage, with 49% getting that insurance through work, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.)

Former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke, who also supports maintaining a private insurance system, outlined his own universal health care plan, based on a “Medicare for America” bill in Congress.

The single-payer talk set off other discussions about the role of health insurance and the cost of care. We fact-checked some of the biggest claims.
 

Sen. Warren: “The insurance companies last year alone sucked $23 billion in profits out of the health care system. $23 billion. And that doesn’t count the money that was paid to executives, the money that was spent lobbying Washington.”

We contacted Warren’s campaign, who directed us to a report from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, a nonpartisan group of industry regulators. It supports her assessment.

The report says that in 2018, health insurers posted $23.4 billion in net earnings, or profits, compared with $16.1 billion a year prior.

This came up in the context of Warren’s support for eliminating private insurance under a Medicare for All system. However, the financing and price tag of such a system is unclear.
 

Sen. Booker: “The overhead for insurers that they charge is 15%, while Medicare’s overhead is only at 2%.”

This is a flawed comparison. Booker said administrative overhead eats up much more for private carriers than it does for Medicare, the government insurance program for seniors and the disabled. But Medicare piggybacks off the Social Security Administration, which covers costs of enrollment, payments, and keeping track of patients.

Also, Medicare relies on private providers for some of its programs, and overhead charges there are higher. Medicare’s overhead is less than that of private carriers, but exact figures are elusive.

The insurance companies’ trade group, America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), reported in 2018 that 18.1% of private health care premiums went to non–health care services. That includes taxes of 4.7% and profits of 2.3%. The Medicare trustees reported that in 2018, total expenses were $740.6 billion, with administrative expenses of $9.9 billion. That comes to 1.3%, less than Booker said.
 

Sen. Warren: “I spent a big chunk of my life studying why families go broke, and one of the No. 1 reasons is the cost of health care, medical bills. And that’s not just for people who don’t have insurance. It’s for people who have insurance.”

Is the No. 1 reason people go broke the cost of health care? We’ve rated similar statements Half True — partially accurate but lacking important context.

A 2005 study Warren coauthored and a 2009 paper both found that health care expenses were a leading cause of personal bankruptcy. But these claims have come under dispute, in particular from academics who suggest that people may overstate the role medical bills play in their financial problems. Other research suggests a far narrower impact, though that, in turn, has been criticized for focusing only on adult hospitalizations.

That said, research from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau found that medical bills are a leading cause of personal debt — in 2014, the CFPB found that nearly 20% of credit reports included a medical debt tradeline.

But Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (Hawaii) drew on examples of universal health coverage in other countries to explain why she still supported some private insurance options.
 

Rep. Gabbard: “If you look at other countries in the world who have universal health care, every one of them has some form of a role of private insurance.”

This is correct. Virtually every country with universal health care includes a role for private insurance. Some allow it to cover services not addressed by the national plan. Others allow it as a means to get care faster. Others heavily regulate it as a principal source of coverage.

For instance, Canada, the model for the principal Medicare for All bill, allows private insurance to address prescription drug coverage, private rooms in hospitals, and vision and dental care. (It is not allowed to compete with the government plan.) In England, about 10% of people — mostly wealthier people — elect for private coverage, which can yield faster access to care. Countries such as the Netherlands and Switzerland heavily regulate private coverage.

Beyond Medicare for All, candidates touched on strategies to bring down drug prices as well as other issues.
 

Sen. Klobuchar: “2,500 drug prices have gone up in double digits since [Donald Trump] took office.”

This is accurate, according to a report from Pharmacy Benefits Consultants, an industry group, which listed a number of pharmaceutical products experiencing price increases as high as 1,468%.

And the numbers are even less flattering than Sen. Klobuchar suggested.

An analysis by the Associated Press found that, between January and July 2018, more than 4,400 branded prescription drugs experienced price increases. Meanwhile, data compiled by Rx Savings Solutions found that the list price of more than 3,000 drugs went up this year.
 

Rep. O’Rourke: “In Texas, the single largest provider of mental health care is the county jail system.”

This is correct. Texas jails are the largest mental health care systems in the state, according to a report from the University of Texas at Austin. The Harris County jail, which includes a 108-bed unit, identifies itself as the largest mental health care facility in Texas.

This is not a Texas-specific issue. According to a 2011 NPR report, it is more common to see Americans getting mental health care in jails and prisons than in hospitals or other dedicated treatment facilities.

Election Day is 495 days away.
 

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente. Politifact is owned by the nonprofit Poynter Institute for Media Studies.

During Wednesday night’s Democratic presidential primary debate — the first in a two-night event viewed as the de facto launch of the primary season — health policies, ranging from “Medicare for All” to efforts to curb skyrocketing drug prices, were among the key issues the 10 hopeful candidates on stage used to help differentiate themselves from the pack.

Rawf8/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Health care dominated early on June 26, with Sens. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) and Cory Booker (N.J.) using questions about the economy to take aim at pharmaceutical and insurance companies. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (Minn.) emphasized the difficulties many Americans face in paying premiums.

But the candidates broke ranks on the details and not all of their claims stayed strictly within the lines.

Only two candidates — New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and Sen. Warren — raised their hands in favor of banishing private insurance to install a government-sponsored Medicare for All approach.

Sen. Klobuchar, a single-payer skeptic, expressed concern about “kicking half of America off their health insurance in 4 years.” (That’s correct: In 2017, a majority of Americans had private coverage, with 49% getting that insurance through work, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.)

Former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke, who also supports maintaining a private insurance system, outlined his own universal health care plan, based on a “Medicare for America” bill in Congress.

The single-payer talk set off other discussions about the role of health insurance and the cost of care. We fact-checked some of the biggest claims.
 

Sen. Warren: “The insurance companies last year alone sucked $23 billion in profits out of the health care system. $23 billion. And that doesn’t count the money that was paid to executives, the money that was spent lobbying Washington.”

We contacted Warren’s campaign, who directed us to a report from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, a nonpartisan group of industry regulators. It supports her assessment.

The report says that in 2018, health insurers posted $23.4 billion in net earnings, or profits, compared with $16.1 billion a year prior.

This came up in the context of Warren’s support for eliminating private insurance under a Medicare for All system. However, the financing and price tag of such a system is unclear.
 

Sen. Booker: “The overhead for insurers that they charge is 15%, while Medicare’s overhead is only at 2%.”

This is a flawed comparison. Booker said administrative overhead eats up much more for private carriers than it does for Medicare, the government insurance program for seniors and the disabled. But Medicare piggybacks off the Social Security Administration, which covers costs of enrollment, payments, and keeping track of patients.

Also, Medicare relies on private providers for some of its programs, and overhead charges there are higher. Medicare’s overhead is less than that of private carriers, but exact figures are elusive.

The insurance companies’ trade group, America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), reported in 2018 that 18.1% of private health care premiums went to non–health care services. That includes taxes of 4.7% and profits of 2.3%. The Medicare trustees reported that in 2018, total expenses were $740.6 billion, with administrative expenses of $9.9 billion. That comes to 1.3%, less than Booker said.
 

Sen. Warren: “I spent a big chunk of my life studying why families go broke, and one of the No. 1 reasons is the cost of health care, medical bills. And that’s not just for people who don’t have insurance. It’s for people who have insurance.”

Is the No. 1 reason people go broke the cost of health care? We’ve rated similar statements Half True — partially accurate but lacking important context.

A 2005 study Warren coauthored and a 2009 paper both found that health care expenses were a leading cause of personal bankruptcy. But these claims have come under dispute, in particular from academics who suggest that people may overstate the role medical bills play in their financial problems. Other research suggests a far narrower impact, though that, in turn, has been criticized for focusing only on adult hospitalizations.

That said, research from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau found that medical bills are a leading cause of personal debt — in 2014, the CFPB found that nearly 20% of credit reports included a medical debt tradeline.

But Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (Hawaii) drew on examples of universal health coverage in other countries to explain why she still supported some private insurance options.
 

Rep. Gabbard: “If you look at other countries in the world who have universal health care, every one of them has some form of a role of private insurance.”

This is correct. Virtually every country with universal health care includes a role for private insurance. Some allow it to cover services not addressed by the national plan. Others allow it as a means to get care faster. Others heavily regulate it as a principal source of coverage.

For instance, Canada, the model for the principal Medicare for All bill, allows private insurance to address prescription drug coverage, private rooms in hospitals, and vision and dental care. (It is not allowed to compete with the government plan.) In England, about 10% of people — mostly wealthier people — elect for private coverage, which can yield faster access to care. Countries such as the Netherlands and Switzerland heavily regulate private coverage.

Beyond Medicare for All, candidates touched on strategies to bring down drug prices as well as other issues.
 

Sen. Klobuchar: “2,500 drug prices have gone up in double digits since [Donald Trump] took office.”

This is accurate, according to a report from Pharmacy Benefits Consultants, an industry group, which listed a number of pharmaceutical products experiencing price increases as high as 1,468%.

And the numbers are even less flattering than Sen. Klobuchar suggested.

An analysis by the Associated Press found that, between January and July 2018, more than 4,400 branded prescription drugs experienced price increases. Meanwhile, data compiled by Rx Savings Solutions found that the list price of more than 3,000 drugs went up this year.
 

Rep. O’Rourke: “In Texas, the single largest provider of mental health care is the county jail system.”

This is correct. Texas jails are the largest mental health care systems in the state, according to a report from the University of Texas at Austin. The Harris County jail, which includes a 108-bed unit, identifies itself as the largest mental health care facility in Texas.

This is not a Texas-specific issue. According to a 2011 NPR report, it is more common to see Americans getting mental health care in jails and prisons than in hospitals or other dedicated treatment facilities.

Election Day is 495 days away.
 

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente. Politifact is owned by the nonprofit Poynter Institute for Media Studies.

A bill aimed at ending the practice of surprise billing, along with a number of other health care cost-containment measures, passed by an overwhelming majority during a mark-up session of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. 

S. 1895, the Lower Health Care Costs Act of 2019, passed 20-3; Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Bernie Sanders (D-Ver.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) voted against it.

A summary of the bill’s provisions can be found here.

With Sen. Sanders and Sen. Warren not present, presumably out to prepare for the Democratic presidential nominee debates and voting by proxy, only Sen. Paul was present to speak against the bill. He questioned whether it would have any impact on lowering health care cost.

Alicia Ault/MDedge News

Among other provisions, the bill would ban all gag clauses that would keep pricing data from being released; all anticompetitive clauses in facility and insurance contracts that would otherwise limit access to higher-quality, lower-cost care; would designate a nongovernment entity focused on price transparency; and would improve the accuracy of directory information.

But government-induced transparency is not the solution, Sen. Paul said.

He called it a “fallacy” that “you can mandate transparency, and you’ll create a marketplace.” Rather, you need to create a marketplace, and transparency will naturally follow, he said.

Sen. Paul noted that just having institutions publishing prices that no one pays and prices that are not freely fluctuating “doesn’t work.”

“The irony here is that, when you have no insurance involved, you actually have a marketplace,” he said. “The people without insurance are the only true marketplace,” he said, adding that those with high deductibles would also fall into that category.

The crux of S. 1895 is protections to end so-called “surprise bills” that occur when patients receive medical services from out-of-network health care professionals at in-network hospitals. These out-of-network services are not constrained by prior agreements and can add up to tens of thousands of dollars.

“There are those who have seen the history of price controls and know that you never get what you intended,” he said, and predicted that this could lead to a shortage of physicians.

The American Medical Association also criticized the surprise billing provisions of the bill.

In a June 25 letter, the AMA noted that “the approach outlined in S. 1895 fails to address some of the fundamental reasons why surprise billing occurs – inadequate provider networks, higher patient-cost sharing requirements for out-of-network services, and noncompetitive local markets that empower plans to offer take-it-or-leave-it contracts.”

AMA also criticized the use of benchmark pricing to settle out-of-network billing issues. “By setting a payment maximum at the individual plans’ median in-network amount, insurers will have even less incentive to negotiate contracts with individual providers,” according to the letter. “They can drive down the median in-network amount by simply dropping from their networks providers who are currently paid above the median. Or, they can simply stop negotiating altogether, knowing that their financial obligation is limited to their own median in-network payment amounts.”

The Physicians Advocacy Institute agreed. In a June 26 statement, the organization stated that it remains “deeply concerned that arbitrary, government-set payment benchmarks championed by the health insurance industry will further undermine provider networks and devastate patients’ access to critical medical services.”

A collective of hospital organizations, including the Federation of American Hospitals and the American Hospital Association also opposed the use of benchmark pricing.

In a June 25 letter to committee leadership, the groups stated that they are “concerned that the rate-setting provision of the legislation is a plan-determined, nontransparent process that will upend private payment negotiation. A default rate will become the payment ceiling and remove incentives for insurers to develop comprehensive networks, as there are already increasing numbers of narrow network products offered that exclude certain types of providers.”

The bill also addresses the cost of prescription drugs, including providing clearer information about patents, ensuring a more timely access to generics, altering exclusivity rules to help get generics to market quicker, reporting requirements for price increases, and a number of other provisions aimed at increasing competition in an effort to lower drug pricing.

Other areas covered by the bill include more oversight of pharmacy benefit managers, strengthening parity in mental health laws, and a number of provisions aimed at public health and health information technology.

[email protected]

A bill aimed at ending the practice of surprise billing, along with a number of other health care cost-containment measures, passed by an overwhelming majority during a mark-up session of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. 

S. 1895, the Lower Health Care Costs Act of 2019, passed 20-3; Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Bernie Sanders (D-Ver.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) voted against it.

A summary of the bill’s provisions can be found here.

With Sen. Sanders and Sen. Warren not present, presumably out to prepare for the Democratic presidential nominee debates and voting by proxy, only Sen. Paul was present to speak against the bill. He questioned whether it would have any impact on lowering health care cost.

Alicia Ault/MDedge News

Among other provisions, the bill would ban all gag clauses that would keep pricing data from being released; all anticompetitive clauses in facility and insurance contracts that would otherwise limit access to higher-quality, lower-cost care; would designate a nongovernment entity focused on price transparency; and would improve the accuracy of directory information.

But government-induced transparency is not the solution, Sen. Paul said.

He called it a “fallacy” that “you can mandate transparency, and you’ll create a marketplace.” Rather, you need to create a marketplace, and transparency will naturally follow, he said.

Sen. Paul noted that just having institutions publishing prices that no one pays and prices that are not freely fluctuating “doesn’t work.”

“The irony here is that, when you have no insurance involved, you actually have a marketplace,” he said. “The people without insurance are the only true marketplace,” he said, adding that those with high deductibles would also fall into that category.

The crux of S. 1895 is protections to end so-called “surprise bills” that occur when patients receive medical services from out-of-network health care professionals at in-network hospitals. These out-of-network services are not constrained by prior agreements and can add up to tens of thousands of dollars.

“There are those who have seen the history of price controls and know that you never get what you intended,” he said, and predicted that this could lead to a shortage of physicians.

The American Medical Association also criticized the surprise billing provisions of the bill.

In a June 25 letter, the AMA noted that “the approach outlined in S. 1895 fails to address some of the fundamental reasons why surprise billing occurs – inadequate provider networks, higher patient-cost sharing requirements for out-of-network services, and noncompetitive local markets that empower plans to offer take-it-or-leave-it contracts.”

AMA also criticized the use of benchmark pricing to settle out-of-network billing issues. “By setting a payment maximum at the individual plans’ median in-network amount, insurers will have even less incentive to negotiate contracts with individual providers,” according to the letter. “They can drive down the median in-network amount by simply dropping from their networks providers who are currently paid above the median. Or, they can simply stop negotiating altogether, knowing that their financial obligation is limited to their own median in-network payment amounts.”

The Physicians Advocacy Institute agreed. In a June 26 statement, the organization stated that it remains “deeply concerned that arbitrary, government-set payment benchmarks championed by the health insurance industry will further undermine provider networks and devastate patients’ access to critical medical services.”

A collective of hospital organizations, including the Federation of American Hospitals and the American Hospital Association also opposed the use of benchmark pricing.

In a June 25 letter to committee leadership, the groups stated that they are “concerned that the rate-setting provision of the legislation is a plan-determined, nontransparent process that will upend private payment negotiation. A default rate will become the payment ceiling and remove incentives for insurers to develop comprehensive networks, as there are already increasing numbers of narrow network products offered that exclude certain types of providers.”

The bill also addresses the cost of prescription drugs, including providing clearer information about patents, ensuring a more timely access to generics, altering exclusivity rules to help get generics to market quicker, reporting requirements for price increases, and a number of other provisions aimed at increasing competition in an effort to lower drug pricing.

Other areas covered by the bill include more oversight of pharmacy benefit managers, strengthening parity in mental health laws, and a number of provisions aimed at public health and health information technology.

[email protected]

A bill aimed at ending the practice of surprise billing, along with a number of other health care cost-containment measures, passed by an overwhelming majority during a mark-up session of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. 

S. 1895, the Lower Health Care Costs Act of 2019, passed 20-3; Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Bernie Sanders (D-Ver.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) voted against it.

A summary of the bill’s provisions can be found here.

With Sen. Sanders and Sen. Warren not present, presumably out to prepare for the Democratic presidential nominee debates and voting by proxy, only Sen. Paul was present to speak against the bill. He questioned whether it would have any impact on lowering health care cost.

Alicia Ault/MDedge News

Among other provisions, the bill would ban all gag clauses that would keep pricing data from being released; all anticompetitive clauses in facility and insurance contracts that would otherwise limit access to higher-quality, lower-cost care; would designate a nongovernment entity focused on price transparency; and would improve the accuracy of directory information.

But government-induced transparency is not the solution, Sen. Paul said.

He called it a “fallacy” that “you can mandate transparency, and you’ll create a marketplace.” Rather, you need to create a marketplace, and transparency will naturally follow, he said.

Sen. Paul noted that just having institutions publishing prices that no one pays and prices that are not freely fluctuating “doesn’t work.”

“The irony here is that, when you have no insurance involved, you actually have a marketplace,” he said. “The people without insurance are the only true marketplace,” he said, adding that those with high deductibles would also fall into that category.

The crux of S. 1895 is protections to end so-called “surprise bills” that occur when patients receive medical services from out-of-network health care professionals at in-network hospitals. These out-of-network services are not constrained by prior agreements and can add up to tens of thousands of dollars.

“There are those who have seen the history of price controls and know that you never get what you intended,” he said, and predicted that this could lead to a shortage of physicians.

The American Medical Association also criticized the surprise billing provisions of the bill.

In a June 25 letter, the AMA noted that “the approach outlined in S. 1895 fails to address some of the fundamental reasons why surprise billing occurs – inadequate provider networks, higher patient-cost sharing requirements for out-of-network services, and noncompetitive local markets that empower plans to offer take-it-or-leave-it contracts.”

AMA also criticized the use of benchmark pricing to settle out-of-network billing issues. “By setting a payment maximum at the individual plans’ median in-network amount, insurers will have even less incentive to negotiate contracts with individual providers,” according to the letter. “They can drive down the median in-network amount by simply dropping from their networks providers who are currently paid above the median. Or, they can simply stop negotiating altogether, knowing that their financial obligation is limited to their own median in-network payment amounts.”

The Physicians Advocacy Institute agreed. In a June 26 statement, the organization stated that it remains “deeply concerned that arbitrary, government-set payment benchmarks championed by the health insurance industry will further undermine provider networks and devastate patients’ access to critical medical services.”

A collective of hospital organizations, including the Federation of American Hospitals and the American Hospital Association also opposed the use of benchmark pricing.

In a June 25 letter to committee leadership, the groups stated that they are “concerned that the rate-setting provision of the legislation is a plan-determined, nontransparent process that will upend private payment negotiation. A default rate will become the payment ceiling and remove incentives for insurers to develop comprehensive networks, as there are already increasing numbers of narrow network products offered that exclude certain types of providers.”

The bill also addresses the cost of prescription drugs, including providing clearer information about patents, ensuring a more timely access to generics, altering exclusivity rules to help get generics to market quicker, reporting requirements for price increases, and a number of other provisions aimed at increasing competition in an effort to lower drug pricing.

Other areas covered by the bill include more oversight of pharmacy benefit managers, strengthening parity in mental health laws, and a number of provisions aimed at public health and health information technology.

[email protected]

Get rid of “incident-to” billing and have nurse practitioners and physician assistant bill Medicare under their own numbers – that’s the unanimous recommendation the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission made in its June report to Congress.

TheaDesign/Thinkstock

Incident-to billing occurs when an advanced practicing registered nurse (APRN) or a physician assistant (PA) performs a service but bills Medicare under the physician’s national provider number and receives full physician fee schedule payment, as opposed to 85% of the fee under their own number.

“Medicare beneficiaries increasingly use APRNs and PAs for both primary and specialty care,” according to MedPAC’s June report. “APRNs are furnishing a larger share and a greater variety of services for Medicare beneficiaries than they did in the past. Despite this growing reliance, Medicare does not have a full accounting of the services delivered and beneficiaries treated.”

Currently, identical coding requirements obscure whether the physician or the APRN/PA is providing the service, making it difficult to track volume and quality.

MedPAC estimated that, in 2016, 17% of all nurse practitioners billed all their services as incident to, as that was the number of nurse practitioners who never appeared in the performing provider field for reimbursement but ordered services/drugs or at least one Medicare fee-for-service beneficiary.

Another 34% billed some of their services as incident to as their name appeared at least once in the performing provider they ordered services/drugs for, but ordered more services/drugs for patients where they were not listed as the performing provider.

That leaves just about half (49%) who did not billing their services as incident to.

Requiring APRNs and PAs to bill directly for all of their services provided would update Medicare’s payment policies to better reflect current clinical practice, according to the MedPAC report. “In addition to improving policy makers’ foundational knowledge of who provides care for Medicare beneficiaries, direct billing could create substantial benefits for the Medicare program, beneficiaries, clinicians, and researchers that range from improving the accuracy of the physician fee schedule, reducing expenditures, enhancing program integrity, and allowing for better comparisons between cost and quality of care provided by physicians and APRNs/PAs.”

At their October 2018 meeting, MedPAC commissioners discussed how to appropriately compensate APRNs and PAs, should incident-to billing be eliminated; they ultimately recommended maintaining the 85% rate.

The American Academy of Family Practitioners spoke out against the idea of eliminating incident-to billing.

However, lowering all APRN/PA payments to 85% of what physicians make would impact doctors in a negative way, according to AAFP President Michael Munger, MD.

Dr. Munger described primary care as a team sport, and “this is certainly going to be felt in terms of the overall mission of delivering quality care.”

Access to care also could be reduced along with the reduced payment level.

“You have to make business decisions at the end of the day,” he said in an interview. “You need to make sure that you can have adequate revenue to offset expenses, and if you are going to take a 15% cut in your revenue in, you have to look at where your expenses are, and obviously salary is your No. 1 expense. If you are not able to count on this revenue and you can’t afford to have NPs and PAs as part of the team, it is going to become an access issue for patients.”

The MedPAC commissioner saw it differently.

“Most of these clinicians are already paid at this lower rate, and yet the supply of these clinicians has increased dramatically over the last several years,” the report states, adding that the salary differential between these clinicians and physicians “is large enough that employing them likely would remain attractive even if all of their services were paid at 85% of physician fee schedule rates.”

MedPAC, as an advisory body to Congress, makes no disclosures.

[email protected]

Get rid of “incident-to” billing and have nurse practitioners and physician assistant bill Medicare under their own numbers – that’s the unanimous recommendation the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission made in its June report to Congress.

TheaDesign/Thinkstock

Incident-to billing occurs when an advanced practicing registered nurse (APRN) or a physician assistant (PA) performs a service but bills Medicare under the physician’s national provider number and receives full physician fee schedule payment, as opposed to 85% of the fee under their own number.

“Medicare beneficiaries increasingly use APRNs and PAs for both primary and specialty care,” according to MedPAC’s June report. “APRNs are furnishing a larger share and a greater variety of services for Medicare beneficiaries than they did in the past. Despite this growing reliance, Medicare does not have a full accounting of the services delivered and beneficiaries treated.”

Currently, identical coding requirements obscure whether the physician or the APRN/PA is providing the service, making it difficult to track volume and quality.

MedPAC estimated that, in 2016, 17% of all nurse practitioners billed all their services as incident to, as that was the number of nurse practitioners who never appeared in the performing provider field for reimbursement but ordered services/drugs or at least one Medicare fee-for-service beneficiary.

Another 34% billed some of their services as incident to as their name appeared at least once in the performing provider they ordered services/drugs for, but ordered more services/drugs for patients where they were not listed as the performing provider.

That leaves just about half (49%) who did not billing their services as incident to.

Requiring APRNs and PAs to bill directly for all of their services provided would update Medicare’s payment policies to better reflect current clinical practice, according to the MedPAC report. “In addition to improving policy makers’ foundational knowledge of who provides care for Medicare beneficiaries, direct billing could create substantial benefits for the Medicare program, beneficiaries, clinicians, and researchers that range from improving the accuracy of the physician fee schedule, reducing expenditures, enhancing program integrity, and allowing for better comparisons between cost and quality of care provided by physicians and APRNs/PAs.”

At their October 2018 meeting, MedPAC commissioners discussed how to appropriately compensate APRNs and PAs, should incident-to billing be eliminated; they ultimately recommended maintaining the 85% rate.

The American Academy of Family Practitioners spoke out against the idea of eliminating incident-to billing.

However, lowering all APRN/PA payments to 85% of what physicians make would impact doctors in a negative way, according to AAFP President Michael Munger, MD.

Dr. Munger described primary care as a team sport, and “this is certainly going to be felt in terms of the overall mission of delivering quality care.”

Access to care also could be reduced along with the reduced payment level.

“You have to make business decisions at the end of the day,” he said in an interview. “You need to make sure that you can have adequate revenue to offset expenses, and if you are going to take a 15% cut in your revenue in, you have to look at where your expenses are, and obviously salary is your No. 1 expense. If you are not able to count on this revenue and you can’t afford to have NPs and PAs as part of the team, it is going to become an access issue for patients.”

The MedPAC commissioner saw it differently.

“Most of these clinicians are already paid at this lower rate, and yet the supply of these clinicians has increased dramatically over the last several years,” the report states, adding that the salary differential between these clinicians and physicians “is large enough that employing them likely would remain attractive even if all of their services were paid at 85% of physician fee schedule rates.”

MedPAC, as an advisory body to Congress, makes no disclosures.

[email protected]

Get rid of “incident-to” billing and have nurse practitioners and physician assistant bill Medicare under their own numbers – that’s the unanimous recommendation the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission made in its June report to Congress.

TheaDesign/Thinkstock

Incident-to billing occurs when an advanced practicing registered nurse (APRN) or a physician assistant (PA) performs a service but bills Medicare under the physician’s national provider number and receives full physician fee schedule payment, as opposed to 85% of the fee under their own number.

“Medicare beneficiaries increasingly use APRNs and PAs for both primary and specialty care,” according to MedPAC’s June report. “APRNs are furnishing a larger share and a greater variety of services for Medicare beneficiaries than they did in the past. Despite this growing reliance, Medicare does not have a full accounting of the services delivered and beneficiaries treated.”

Currently, identical coding requirements obscure whether the physician or the APRN/PA is providing the service, making it difficult to track volume and quality.

MedPAC estimated that, in 2016, 17% of all nurse practitioners billed all their services as incident to, as that was the number of nurse practitioners who never appeared in the performing provider field for reimbursement but ordered services/drugs or at least one Medicare fee-for-service beneficiary.

Another 34% billed some of their services as incident to as their name appeared at least once in the performing provider they ordered services/drugs for, but ordered more services/drugs for patients where they were not listed as the performing provider.

That leaves just about half (49%) who did not billing their services as incident to.

Requiring APRNs and PAs to bill directly for all of their services provided would update Medicare’s payment policies to better reflect current clinical practice, according to the MedPAC report. “In addition to improving policy makers’ foundational knowledge of who provides care for Medicare beneficiaries, direct billing could create substantial benefits for the Medicare program, beneficiaries, clinicians, and researchers that range from improving the accuracy of the physician fee schedule, reducing expenditures, enhancing program integrity, and allowing for better comparisons between cost and quality of care provided by physicians and APRNs/PAs.”

At their October 2018 meeting, MedPAC commissioners discussed how to appropriately compensate APRNs and PAs, should incident-to billing be eliminated; they ultimately recommended maintaining the 85% rate.

The American Academy of Family Practitioners spoke out against the idea of eliminating incident-to billing.

However, lowering all APRN/PA payments to 85% of what physicians make would impact doctors in a negative way, according to AAFP President Michael Munger, MD.

Dr. Munger described primary care as a team sport, and “this is certainly going to be felt in terms of the overall mission of delivering quality care.”

Access to care also could be reduced along with the reduced payment level.

“You have to make business decisions at the end of the day,” he said in an interview. “You need to make sure that you can have adequate revenue to offset expenses, and if you are going to take a 15% cut in your revenue in, you have to look at where your expenses are, and obviously salary is your No. 1 expense. If you are not able to count on this revenue and you can’t afford to have NPs and PAs as part of the team, it is going to become an access issue for patients.”

The MedPAC commissioner saw it differently.

“Most of these clinicians are already paid at this lower rate, and yet the supply of these clinicians has increased dramatically over the last several years,” the report states, adding that the salary differential between these clinicians and physicians “is large enough that employing them likely would remain attractive even if all of their services were paid at 85% of physician fee schedule rates.”

MedPAC, as an advisory body to Congress, makes no disclosures.

[email protected]

AMSTERDAM – A new clinical prediction model can determine the risk of venous thromboembolism in patients with leukemia, according to investigators.

Will Pass/MDedge News

The scoring system, which incorporates historical, morphological, and cytologic factors, was internally validated at multiple time points over the course of a year, reported lead author, Alejandro Lazo-Langner, MD, of the University of Western Ontario, London.

“It is important that we can predict or anticipate which patients [with acute leukemia] will develop venous thrombosis so that we can develop preventions and aim for better surveillance strategies,” Dr. Lazo-Langner said at the annual congress of the European Hematology Association. Venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk modeling is available for patients with solid tumors, but a similar prognostic tool for leukemia patients has been missing.

To fill this practice gap, Dr. Lazo-Langner and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study involving 501 patients with acute leukemia who were diagnosed between 2006 and 2017. Of these patients, 427 (85.2%) had myeloid lineage and 74 (14.8%) had lymphoblastic disease. VTE outcomes of interest included proximal lower- and upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis; pulmonary embolism; and thrombosis of unusual sites, such as splanchnic and cerebral. Patients were followed until last follow-up, VTE, or death. Single variable and multiple variable logistic regression were used sequentially to evaluate and confirm potential predictive factors, with nonparametric bootstrapping for internal validation.

After last follow-up, 77 patients (15.3%) had developed VTE; specifically, 44 patients had upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis, 28 had lower-extremity deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, and 5 had cerebral vein thrombosis. The median time from leukemia diagnosis to VTE was approximately 2 months (64 days). Out of 20 possible predictive factors, 7 were included in the multivariable model, and 3 constitute the final model. These three factors are platelet count greater than 50 x 10⁹/L at time of diagnosis (1 point), lymphoblastic leukemia (2 points), and previous history of venous thromboembolism (3 points).

Dr. Lazo-Langner explained that leukemia patients at high risk of VTE are those with a score of 3 or more points. Using this risk threshold, the investigators found that the overall cumulative incidence of VTE in the high-risk group was 44.0%, compared with 10.5% in the low-risk group. Temporal analysis showed a widening disparity between the two groups, from 3 months (28.8% vs. 6.3%), to 6 months (41.1% vs. 7.9%), and 12 months (42.5% vs. 9.3%).

When asked if treatment type was evaluated, Dr. Lazo-Langner said that treatment type was evaluated but proved unfruitful for the model, which is designed for universal use in leukemia.

“We did include a number of different chemotherapy regimens,” he said. “The problem is, because we included both AML [acute myeloid leukemia] and ALL [acute lymphoblastic leukemia] lineage, and the cornerstone of treatment is different for both lineages. It’s difficult to actually include what kind of chemotherapy [patients had]. For instance, it is known that anthracyclines increase risk of thrombosis, but in both lineages, you use anthracyclines, so you really cannot use that as a predictor.”

Looking to the future, the next step will be validation in other cohorts. If this is successful, then Dr. Lazo-Langner speculated that clinicians could use the scoring system to direct monitoring and treatment. For example, patients with high scores and low platelet counts could receive earlier transfusional support, while all high-risk patients could be placed under more intensive surveillance and given additional education about thrombosis.

“I think recognizing symptoms early is important,” Dr. Lazo-Langner said, “and that would be training not only clinicians, but also nursing personnel and the patients themselves to be aware of the symptoms, so they can actually recognize them sooner.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Lazo-Langner is an investigator with the Canadian Venous Thromboembolism Clinical Trials and Outcomes Research (CanVECTOR) Network.

SOURCE: Lazo-Langner A et al. EHA 2019, Abstract S1642.

AMSTERDAM – A new clinical prediction model can determine the risk of venous thromboembolism in patients with leukemia, according to investigators.

Will Pass/MDedge News

The scoring system, which incorporates historical, morphological, and cytologic factors, was internally validated at multiple time points over the course of a year, reported lead author, Alejandro Lazo-Langner, MD, of the University of Western Ontario, London.

“It is important that we can predict or anticipate which patients [with acute leukemia] will develop venous thrombosis so that we can develop preventions and aim for better surveillance strategies,” Dr. Lazo-Langner said at the annual congress of the European Hematology Association. Venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk modeling is available for patients with solid tumors, but a similar prognostic tool for leukemia patients has been missing.

To fill this practice gap, Dr. Lazo-Langner and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study involving 501 patients with acute leukemia who were diagnosed between 2006 and 2017. Of these patients, 427 (85.2%) had myeloid lineage and 74 (14.8%) had lymphoblastic disease. VTE outcomes of interest included proximal lower- and upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis; pulmonary embolism; and thrombosis of unusual sites, such as splanchnic and cerebral. Patients were followed until last follow-up, VTE, or death. Single variable and multiple variable logistic regression were used sequentially to evaluate and confirm potential predictive factors, with nonparametric bootstrapping for internal validation.

After last follow-up, 77 patients (15.3%) had developed VTE; specifically, 44 patients had upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis, 28 had lower-extremity deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, and 5 had cerebral vein thrombosis. The median time from leukemia diagnosis to VTE was approximately 2 months (64 days). Out of 20 possible predictive factors, 7 were included in the multivariable model, and 3 constitute the final model. These three factors are platelet count greater than 50 x 10⁹/L at time of diagnosis (1 point), lymphoblastic leukemia (2 points), and previous history of venous thromboembolism (3 points).

Dr. Lazo-Langner explained that leukemia patients at high risk of VTE are those with a score of 3 or more points. Using this risk threshold, the investigators found that the overall cumulative incidence of VTE in the high-risk group was 44.0%, compared with 10.5% in the low-risk group. Temporal analysis showed a widening disparity between the two groups, from 3 months (28.8% vs. 6.3%), to 6 months (41.1% vs. 7.9%), and 12 months (42.5% vs. 9.3%).

When asked if treatment type was evaluated, Dr. Lazo-Langner said that treatment type was evaluated but proved unfruitful for the model, which is designed for universal use in leukemia.

“We did include a number of different chemotherapy regimens,” he said. “The problem is, because we included both AML [acute myeloid leukemia] and ALL [acute lymphoblastic leukemia] lineage, and the cornerstone of treatment is different for both lineages. It’s difficult to actually include what kind of chemotherapy [patients had]. For instance, it is known that anthracyclines increase risk of thrombosis, but in both lineages, you use anthracyclines, so you really cannot use that as a predictor.”

Looking to the future, the next step will be validation in other cohorts. If this is successful, then Dr. Lazo-Langner speculated that clinicians could use the scoring system to direct monitoring and treatment. For example, patients with high scores and low platelet counts could receive earlier transfusional support, while all high-risk patients could be placed under more intensive surveillance and given additional education about thrombosis.

“I think recognizing symptoms early is important,” Dr. Lazo-Langner said, “and that would be training not only clinicians, but also nursing personnel and the patients themselves to be aware of the symptoms, so they can actually recognize them sooner.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Lazo-Langner is an investigator with the Canadian Venous Thromboembolism Clinical Trials and Outcomes Research (CanVECTOR) Network.

SOURCE: Lazo-Langner A et al. EHA 2019, Abstract S1642.

AMSTERDAM – A new clinical prediction model can determine the risk of venous thromboembolism in patients with leukemia, according to investigators.

Will Pass/MDedge News

The scoring system, which incorporates historical, morphological, and cytologic factors, was internally validated at multiple time points over the course of a year, reported lead author, Alejandro Lazo-Langner, MD, of the University of Western Ontario, London.

“It is important that we can predict or anticipate which patients [with acute leukemia] will develop venous thrombosis so that we can develop preventions and aim for better surveillance strategies,” Dr. Lazo-Langner said at the annual congress of the European Hematology Association. Venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk modeling is available for patients with solid tumors, but a similar prognostic tool for leukemia patients has been missing.

To fill this practice gap, Dr. Lazo-Langner and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study involving 501 patients with acute leukemia who were diagnosed between 2006 and 2017. Of these patients, 427 (85.2%) had myeloid lineage and 74 (14.8%) had lymphoblastic disease. VTE outcomes of interest included proximal lower- and upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis; pulmonary embolism; and thrombosis of unusual sites, such as splanchnic and cerebral. Patients were followed until last follow-up, VTE, or death. Single variable and multiple variable logistic regression were used sequentially to evaluate and confirm potential predictive factors, with nonparametric bootstrapping for internal validation.

After last follow-up, 77 patients (15.3%) had developed VTE; specifically, 44 patients had upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis, 28 had lower-extremity deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, and 5 had cerebral vein thrombosis. The median time from leukemia diagnosis to VTE was approximately 2 months (64 days). Out of 20 possible predictive factors, 7 were included in the multivariable model, and 3 constitute the final model. These three factors are platelet count greater than 50 x 10⁹/L at time of diagnosis (1 point), lymphoblastic leukemia (2 points), and previous history of venous thromboembolism (3 points).

Dr. Lazo-Langner explained that leukemia patients at high risk of VTE are those with a score of 3 or more points. Using this risk threshold, the investigators found that the overall cumulative incidence of VTE in the high-risk group was 44.0%, compared with 10.5% in the low-risk group. Temporal analysis showed a widening disparity between the two groups, from 3 months (28.8% vs. 6.3%), to 6 months (41.1% vs. 7.9%), and 12 months (42.5% vs. 9.3%).

When asked if treatment type was evaluated, Dr. Lazo-Langner said that treatment type was evaluated but proved unfruitful for the model, which is designed for universal use in leukemia.

“We did include a number of different chemotherapy regimens,” he said. “The problem is, because we included both AML [acute myeloid leukemia] and ALL [acute lymphoblastic leukemia] lineage, and the cornerstone of treatment is different for both lineages. It’s difficult to actually include what kind of chemotherapy [patients had]. For instance, it is known that anthracyclines increase risk of thrombosis, but in both lineages, you use anthracyclines, so you really cannot use that as a predictor.”

Looking to the future, the next step will be validation in other cohorts. If this is successful, then Dr. Lazo-Langner speculated that clinicians could use the scoring system to direct monitoring and treatment. For example, patients with high scores and low platelet counts could receive earlier transfusional support, while all high-risk patients could be placed under more intensive surveillance and given additional education about thrombosis.

“I think recognizing symptoms early is important,” Dr. Lazo-Langner said, “and that would be training not only clinicians, but also nursing personnel and the patients themselves to be aware of the symptoms, so they can actually recognize them sooner.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Lazo-Langner is an investigator with the Canadian Venous Thromboembolism Clinical Trials and Outcomes Research (CanVECTOR) Network.

SOURCE: Lazo-Langner A et al. EHA 2019, Abstract S1642.

Anyone who has tried to “shop” for hospital services knows one thing: It’s hard to get prices.

President Donald Trump on Monday signed an executive order he said would make it easier.

The order directs agencies to draw up rules requiring hospitals and insurers to make public more information on the negotiated prices they hammer out in contract negotiations. Also, hospitals and insurers would have to give estimates to patients on out-of-pocket costs before they go in for nonemergency medical care.

The move, which officials said will help address skyrocketing health care costs, comes amid other efforts by the administration to elicit more price transparency for medical care and initiatives by Congress to limit so-called surprise bills. These are the often-expensive bills consumers get when they unwittingly receive care that is not covered by their insurers.

“This will put American patients in control and address fundamental drivers of health care costs in a way no president has done before,” said Health & Human Services Secretary Alex Azar during a press briefing on Monday.

The proposal is likely to run into opposition from some hospitals and insurers who say disclosing negotiated rates could instead drive up costs.

Just how useful the effort will prove for consumers is unclear.

Much depends on how the administration writes the rules governing what information must be provided, such as whether it will include hospital-specific prices, regional averages, or other measures. While the administration calls for a “consumer-friendly” format, it’s not clear how such a massive amount of data – potentially negotiated price information from thousands of hospitals and insurers for tens of thousands of services – will be presented to consumers.

“It’s well intended, but may grossly overestimate the ability of the average patient to decipher this information overload,” said Dan Ward, a vice president at Waystar, a health care payments service.

So, does this new development advance efforts to better arm consumers with pricing information? Some key point to consider:

Q: What does the order do?

It may expand on price information consumers receive.

The order directs agencies to develop rules to require hospitals and insurers to provide information “based on negotiated rates” to the public.

Currently, such rates are hard to get, even for patients, until after medical care is provided. That’s when insured patients get an “explanation of benefits [EOBs],” which shows how much the hospital charged, how much of a discount their insurer received, and the amount a patient may owe.

In addition to consumers being unable to get price information upfront in many cases, hospital list prices and negotiated discount rates vary widely by hospital and insurer, even in a region. Uninsured patients often are charged the full amounts.

“People are sick and tired of hospitals playing these games with prices,” said George Nation, a business professor at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pa. who studies hospital contract law. “That’s what’s driving all of this.”

Some insurers and hospitals do provide online tools or apps that can help individual patients estimate out-of-pocket costs for a service or procedure ahead of time, but research shows few patients use such tools. Also, many medical services are needed without much notice – think of a heart attack or a broken leg – so shopping simply isn’t possible.

Administration officials say they want patients to have access to more information, including “advance EOBs” outlining anticipated costs before patients get nonemergency medical care. In theory, that would allow consumers to shop around for lower-cost care.

Q: Isn’t this information already available?

Not exactly. In January, new rules took effect under the Affordable Care Act that require hospitals to post online their “list prices,” which hospitals set themselves and have little relation to actual costs or what insurers actually pay.

What resulted are often confusing spreadsheets that contain thousands of a la carte charges – ranging from the price of medicines and sutures to room costs, among other things – that patients have to piece together if they can to estimate their total bill. Also, those list charges don’t reflect the discounted rates insurers have negotiated, so they are of little use to insured patients who might want to compare prices hospital to hospital.

The information that would result from President Trump’s executive order would provide more detail based on negotiated, discounted rates.

A senior administration official at the press briefing said details about whether the rates would be aggregated or relate to individual hospitals would be spelled out only when the administration puts forward proposed rules to implement the order later this year. It also is unclear how the administration would enforce the rules.

Another limitation: The order applies only to hospitals and the medical staff they employ. Many hospitals, however, are staffed by doctors who are not directly employed, or laboratories that are also separate. That means negotiated prices for services provided by such laboratories or physicians would not have to be disclosed.

Q: How could consumers use this information?

In theory, consumers could get information allowing them to compare prices for, say, a hip replacement or knee surgery in advance.

But that could prove difficult if the rates were not fairly hospital specific, or if they were not lumped in with all the care needed for a specific procedure or surgery.

“They could take the top 20 common procedures the hospital does, for example, and put negotiated prices on them,” said Mr. Nation. “It makes sense to do an average for that particular hospital, so I can see how much it’s going to cost to have my knee replaced at St. Joe’s versus St. Anne’s.”

Having advance notice of out-of-pocket costs could also help patients who have high-deductible plans.

“Patients are increasingly subject to insurance deductibles and other forms of substantial cost sharing. For a subset of so-called shoppable services, patients would benefit from price estimates in advance that allow them to compare options and plan financially for their care,” said John Rother, president and CEO at the advocacy group National Coalition on Health Care.

Q: Will this push consumers to shop for health care?

The short answer is maybe. Right now, it’s difficult, even with some of the tools available, said Lovisa Gustafsson, assistant vice president at the Commonwealth Fund, which has looked at whether patients use existing tools or the list price information hospitals must post online.

“The evidence to date shows patients aren’t necessarily the best shoppers, but we haven’t given them the best tools to be shoppers,” she said.

Posting negotiated rates might be a step forward, she said, but only if it is easily understandable.

It’s possible that insurers, physician offices, consumer groups, or online businesses may find ways to help direct patients to the most cost-effective locations for surgeries, tests or other procedures based on the information.

“Institutions like Consumer Reports or Consumer Checkbook could do some kind of high-level comparison between facilities or doctors, giving some general information that might be useful for consumers,” said Tim Jost, a professor emeritus at the Washington and Lee University School of Law in Lexington, Va.

But some hospitals and insurers maintain that disclosing specific rates could backfire.

Hospitals charging lower rates, for example, might raise them if they see competitors are getting higher reimbursement from insurers, they say. Insurers say they might be hampered in their ability to negotiate if rivals all know what they each pay.

“We also agree that patients should have accurate, real-time information about costs so they can make the best, most informed decisions about their care,” said a statement from lobbying group America’s Health Insurance Plans. “But publicly disclosing competitively negotiated, proprietary rates will reduce competition and push prices higher – not lower – for consumers, patients, and taxpayers.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Anyone who has tried to “shop” for hospital services knows one thing: It’s hard to get prices.

President Donald Trump on Monday signed an executive order he said would make it easier.

The order directs agencies to draw up rules requiring hospitals and insurers to make public more information on the negotiated prices they hammer out in contract negotiations. Also, hospitals and insurers would have to give estimates to patients on out-of-pocket costs before they go in for nonemergency medical care.

The move, which officials said will help address skyrocketing health care costs, comes amid other efforts by the administration to elicit more price transparency for medical care and initiatives by Congress to limit so-called surprise bills. These are the often-expensive bills consumers get when they unwittingly receive care that is not covered by their insurers.

“This will put American patients in control and address fundamental drivers of health care costs in a way no president has done before,” said Health & Human Services Secretary Alex Azar during a press briefing on Monday.

The proposal is likely to run into opposition from some hospitals and insurers who say disclosing negotiated rates could instead drive up costs.

Just how useful the effort will prove for consumers is unclear.

Much depends on how the administration writes the rules governing what information must be provided, such as whether it will include hospital-specific prices, regional averages, or other measures. While the administration calls for a “consumer-friendly” format, it’s not clear how such a massive amount of data – potentially negotiated price information from thousands of hospitals and insurers for tens of thousands of services – will be presented to consumers.

“It’s well intended, but may grossly overestimate the ability of the average patient to decipher this information overload,” said Dan Ward, a vice president at Waystar, a health care payments service.

So, does this new development advance efforts to better arm consumers with pricing information? Some key point to consider:

Q: What does the order do?

It may expand on price information consumers receive.

The order directs agencies to develop rules to require hospitals and insurers to provide information “based on negotiated rates” to the public.

Currently, such rates are hard to get, even for patients, until after medical care is provided. That’s when insured patients get an “explanation of benefits [EOBs],” which shows how much the hospital charged, how much of a discount their insurer received, and the amount a patient may owe.

In addition to consumers being unable to get price information upfront in many cases, hospital list prices and negotiated discount rates vary widely by hospital and insurer, even in a region. Uninsured patients often are charged the full amounts.

“People are sick and tired of hospitals playing these games with prices,” said George Nation, a business professor at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pa. who studies hospital contract law. “That’s what’s driving all of this.”

Some insurers and hospitals do provide online tools or apps that can help individual patients estimate out-of-pocket costs for a service or procedure ahead of time, but research shows few patients use such tools. Also, many medical services are needed without much notice – think of a heart attack or a broken leg – so shopping simply isn’t possible.

Administration officials say they want patients to have access to more information, including “advance EOBs” outlining anticipated costs before patients get nonemergency medical care. In theory, that would allow consumers to shop around for lower-cost care.

Q: Isn’t this information already available?

Not exactly. In January, new rules took effect under the Affordable Care Act that require hospitals to post online their “list prices,” which hospitals set themselves and have little relation to actual costs or what insurers actually pay.

What resulted are often confusing spreadsheets that contain thousands of a la carte charges – ranging from the price of medicines and sutures to room costs, among other things – that patients have to piece together if they can to estimate their total bill. Also, those list charges don’t reflect the discounted rates insurers have negotiated, so they are of little use to insured patients who might want to compare prices hospital to hospital.

The information that would result from President Trump’s executive order would provide more detail based on negotiated, discounted rates.

A senior administration official at the press briefing said details about whether the rates would be aggregated or relate to individual hospitals would be spelled out only when the administration puts forward proposed rules to implement the order later this year. It also is unclear how the administration would enforce the rules.

Another limitation: The order applies only to hospitals and the medical staff they employ. Many hospitals, however, are staffed by doctors who are not directly employed, or laboratories that are also separate. That means negotiated prices for services provided by such laboratories or physicians would not have to be disclosed.

Q: How could consumers use this information?

In theory, consumers could get information allowing them to compare prices for, say, a hip replacement or knee surgery in advance.

But that could prove difficult if the rates were not fairly hospital specific, or if they were not lumped in with all the care needed for a specific procedure or surgery.

“They could take the top 20 common procedures the hospital does, for example, and put negotiated prices on them,” said Mr. Nation. “It makes sense to do an average for that particular hospital, so I can see how much it’s going to cost to have my knee replaced at St. Joe’s versus St. Anne’s.”

Having advance notice of out-of-pocket costs could also help patients who have high-deductible plans.

“Patients are increasingly subject to insurance deductibles and other forms of substantial cost sharing. For a subset of so-called shoppable services, patients would benefit from price estimates in advance that allow them to compare options and plan financially for their care,” said John Rother, president and CEO at the advocacy group National Coalition on Health Care.

Q: Will this push consumers to shop for health care?

The short answer is maybe. Right now, it’s difficult, even with some of the tools available, said Lovisa Gustafsson, assistant vice president at the Commonwealth Fund, which has looked at whether patients use existing tools or the list price information hospitals must post online.

“The evidence to date shows patients aren’t necessarily the best shoppers, but we haven’t given them the best tools to be shoppers,” she said.

Posting negotiated rates might be a step forward, she said, but only if it is easily understandable.

It’s possible that insurers, physician offices, consumer groups, or online businesses may find ways to help direct patients to the most cost-effective locations for surgeries, tests or other procedures based on the information.

“Institutions like Consumer Reports or Consumer Checkbook could do some kind of high-level comparison between facilities or doctors, giving some general information that might be useful for consumers,” said Tim Jost, a professor emeritus at the Washington and Lee University School of Law in Lexington, Va.

But some hospitals and insurers maintain that disclosing specific rates could backfire.

Hospitals charging lower rates, for example, might raise them if they see competitors are getting higher reimbursement from insurers, they say. Insurers say they might be hampered in their ability to negotiate if rivals all know what they each pay.

“We also agree that patients should have accurate, real-time information about costs so they can make the best, most informed decisions about their care,” said a statement from lobbying group America’s Health Insurance Plans. “But publicly disclosing competitively negotiated, proprietary rates will reduce competition and push prices higher – not lower – for consumers, patients, and taxpayers.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Anyone who has tried to “shop” for hospital services knows one thing: It’s hard to get prices.

President Donald Trump on Monday signed an executive order he said would make it easier.

The order directs agencies to draw up rules requiring hospitals and insurers to make public more information on the negotiated prices they hammer out in contract negotiations. Also, hospitals and insurers would have to give estimates to patients on out-of-pocket costs before they go in for nonemergency medical care.

The move, which officials said will help address skyrocketing health care costs, comes amid other efforts by the administration to elicit more price transparency for medical care and initiatives by Congress to limit so-called surprise bills. These are the often-expensive bills consumers get when they unwittingly receive care that is not covered by their insurers.

“This will put American patients in control and address fundamental drivers of health care costs in a way no president has done before,” said Health & Human Services Secretary Alex Azar during a press briefing on Monday.

The proposal is likely to run into opposition from some hospitals and insurers who say disclosing negotiated rates could instead drive up costs.

Just how useful the effort will prove for consumers is unclear.

Much depends on how the administration writes the rules governing what information must be provided, such as whether it will include hospital-specific prices, regional averages, or other measures. While the administration calls for a “consumer-friendly” format, it’s not clear how such a massive amount of data – potentially negotiated price information from thousands of hospitals and insurers for tens of thousands of services – will be presented to consumers.

“It’s well intended, but may grossly overestimate the ability of the average patient to decipher this information overload,” said Dan Ward, a vice president at Waystar, a health care payments service.

So, does this new development advance efforts to better arm consumers with pricing information? Some key point to consider:

Q: What does the order do?

It may expand on price information consumers receive.

The order directs agencies to develop rules to require hospitals and insurers to provide information “based on negotiated rates” to the public.

Currently, such rates are hard to get, even for patients, until after medical care is provided. That’s when insured patients get an “explanation of benefits [EOBs],” which shows how much the hospital charged, how much of a discount their insurer received, and the amount a patient may owe.

In addition to consumers being unable to get price information upfront in many cases, hospital list prices and negotiated discount rates vary widely by hospital and insurer, even in a region. Uninsured patients often are charged the full amounts.

“People are sick and tired of hospitals playing these games with prices,” said George Nation, a business professor at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pa. who studies hospital contract law. “That’s what’s driving all of this.”

Some insurers and hospitals do provide online tools or apps that can help individual patients estimate out-of-pocket costs for a service or procedure ahead of time, but research shows few patients use such tools. Also, many medical services are needed without much notice – think of a heart attack or a broken leg – so shopping simply isn’t possible.

Administration officials say they want patients to have access to more information, including “advance EOBs” outlining anticipated costs before patients get nonemergency medical care. In theory, that would allow consumers to shop around for lower-cost care.

Q: Isn’t this information already available?

Not exactly. In January, new rules took effect under the Affordable Care Act that require hospitals to post online their “list prices,” which hospitals set themselves and have little relation to actual costs or what insurers actually pay.

What resulted are often confusing spreadsheets that contain thousands of a la carte charges – ranging from the price of medicines and sutures to room costs, among other things – that patients have to piece together if they can to estimate their total bill. Also, those list charges don’t reflect the discounted rates insurers have negotiated, so they are of little use to insured patients who might want to compare prices hospital to hospital.

The information that would result from President Trump’s executive order would provide more detail based on negotiated, discounted rates.

A senior administration official at the press briefing said details about whether the rates would be aggregated or relate to individual hospitals would be spelled out only when the administration puts forward proposed rules to implement the order later this year. It also is unclear how the administration would enforce the rules.

Another limitation: The order applies only to hospitals and the medical staff they employ. Many hospitals, however, are staffed by doctors who are not directly employed, or laboratories that are also separate. That means negotiated prices for services provided by such laboratories or physicians would not have to be disclosed.

Q: How could consumers use this information?

In theory, consumers could get information allowing them to compare prices for, say, a hip replacement or knee surgery in advance.

But that could prove difficult if the rates were not fairly hospital specific, or if they were not lumped in with all the care needed for a specific procedure or surgery.

“They could take the top 20 common procedures the hospital does, for example, and put negotiated prices on them,” said Mr. Nation. “It makes sense to do an average for that particular hospital, so I can see how much it’s going to cost to have my knee replaced at St. Joe’s versus St. Anne’s.”

Having advance notice of out-of-pocket costs could also help patients who have high-deductible plans.

“Patients are increasingly subject to insurance deductibles and other forms of substantial cost sharing. For a subset of so-called shoppable services, patients would benefit from price estimates in advance that allow them to compare options and plan financially for their care,” said John Rother, president and CEO at the advocacy group National Coalition on Health Care.

Q: Will this push consumers to shop for health care?

The short answer is maybe. Right now, it’s difficult, even with some of the tools available, said Lovisa Gustafsson, assistant vice president at the Commonwealth Fund, which has looked at whether patients use existing tools or the list price information hospitals must post online.

“The evidence to date shows patients aren’t necessarily the best shoppers, but we haven’t given them the best tools to be shoppers,” she said.

Posting negotiated rates might be a step forward, she said, but only if it is easily understandable.

It’s possible that insurers, physician offices, consumer groups, or online businesses may find ways to help direct patients to the most cost-effective locations for surgeries, tests or other procedures based on the information.

“Institutions like Consumer Reports or Consumer Checkbook could do some kind of high-level comparison between facilities or doctors, giving some general information that might be useful for consumers,” said Tim Jost, a professor emeritus at the Washington and Lee University School of Law in Lexington, Va.

But some hospitals and insurers maintain that disclosing specific rates could backfire.

Hospitals charging lower rates, for example, might raise them if they see competitors are getting higher reimbursement from insurers, they say. Insurers say they might be hampered in their ability to negotiate if rivals all know what they each pay.

“We also agree that patients should have accurate, real-time information about costs so they can make the best, most informed decisions about their care,” said a statement from lobbying group America’s Health Insurance Plans. “But publicly disclosing competitively negotiated, proprietary rates will reduce competition and push prices higher – not lower – for consumers, patients, and taxpayers.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.