Proposed Rules Would Affect Prescription Drug Plans

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has floated proposed regulations that would affect drug benefits for group plans and association plans and attempt to reduce drug expenses for health plan enrollees and drug plans.

While the rules seem to be focused on individual plans sold on government-run exchanges, three of the changes would also affect small and mid-sized group plans.

Mid-year formulary changes

Under current regulations, health insurers are barred from making changes to their drug formularies mid-year. They can only introduce changes upon renewal.

The CMS says it wants to boost incentives for drug plans to use generic drugs, so it is proposing a new rule that would allow insurers to:

  • Add a generic drug that becomes available mid-year.
  • Remove the equivalent brand-name drug from the formulary, or
  • Remove the equivalent brand-name drug to a different tier in the formulary.

Under the rules, insurers would have to notify their affected enrollees at least 60 days before the change would take effect. They must also offer a process for an enrollee to appeal the decision.

This rule would affect insurers in the individual, small group, and large group markets.

Excluding certain brand-name drugs

Under existing regulations, all prescription medications covered under an insurance contract are considered an essential health benefit, including the requirements that aim to ensure that the drug coverage is comprehensive. Under the Affordable Care Act, health plans are required to cover 10 essential benefits, and that includes the medications that are required to treat them.

The CMS wants to change this by letting insurers exclude a brand-name pharmaceutical from “essential health benefits”, or EHBs, if there is a generic equivalent that is available and medically suitable.

As with the current rule, the proposal would only apply to plans in the individual and small group markets. That’s because large group and self-insured plans are not required to cover all 10 categories of EHBs.

The proposal would also permit insurers to count only the cost of the generic equivalent (and not the cost of the brand-name drug) toward the enrollee’s out-of-pocket limit. Also, insurers would be permitted to apply an annual and/or lifetime dollar maximum to the brand-name drug, since the prohibition against annual and lifetime dollar limits only applies to EHBs.

Manufacturers’ coupon-handling

Currently, some insurers will count manufacturer coupons for brand-name drugs in addition to what the enrollee pays in calculating their out-of-pocket outlays for deductible purposes. They may do so depending on laws in the various states in which they operate.

For example, take the scenario of a drug that costs $600, and the manufacturer provides a $400 coupon that can be used to reduce the cost of the drug and the enrollee pays $200 out of pocket. Currently, insurers will count the full $600 towards the deductible and out-of-pocket maximum.

The CMS’s proposed rule would allow insurers to only include the actual out-of-pocket expense for the enrollee when calculating how much of an out-of-pocket maximum has been satisfied.

What comes next

The comment period for the proposed regulations ended on Feb. 19, 2019, and the final rules could be out before summer. We will keep you posted once the new regulations are out.

Regulators Take Steps to Help Grandfathered Plans

Regulators are in the early stages of creating rules that make it easier for health plans that were grandfathered in before the Affordable Care Act took effect to continue providing coverage.

The number of workers enrolled in plans that were in effect before the ACA was enacted in 2010 has been shrinking, and as of 2018, some 16% of American workers who were enrolled in group health plans were in grandfathered plans.

Under the ACA, those plans do not have to abide by the same regulations as plans that took effect after the law’s implementation.

In February 2019, the Internal Revenue Service, the Employee Benefits Security Administration and the Health and Human Services Department issued a request for information from grandfathered plans. The goal is to determine whether there are opportunities for the regulators to assist plans to preserve their grandfathered status in ways that would benefit employers, employees, and their families.

While the effort will only affect a small amount of employer-sponsored plans, the move is significant as it looks like the ultimate goal is to further loosen rules for grandfathered plans.

A plan is considered grandfathered under the ACA if it has continuously provided coverage for someone (not necessarily the same person, but at all times at least one person) since March 23, 2010 and if it has not ceased to be a grandfathered plan during that time.

Grandfathered plans have certain privileges that other group health plans that were created after that date do not have, as the latter are all required to comply with all of the rules under the ACA.

Under the ACA, grandfathered plans do not have to comply with certain provisions of the law.

These provisions include coverage of preventive health services and patient protections (for example, guaranteed access to OB-GYNs and pediatricians).

Other ACA provisions apply to grandfathered plans, such as the ACA’s waiting period limit.

Grandfathered status

Grandfathered health plans may make routine changes to their coverage and maintain their status.

However, plans lose their grandfathered status if they choose to make significant changes that reduce benefits or increase costs for participants.

Some of the questions that the three departments are asking plan administrators are:

  • What actions could the departments take to assist group health plan sponsors and group health insurance issuers to preserve the grandfathered status of a group health plan or coverage?
  • What challenges do health plans and sponsors face regarding retaining the grandfathered status of a plan or coverage?
  • What are your primary reasons for retaining grandfathered status?
  • What are the reasons for participants and beneficiaries remaining enrolled in grandfathered group health plans if alternatives are available?
  • What are the costs, benefits and other factors when considering whether to retain grandfathered status?
  • Is preserving grandfathered status important to group health plan participants and beneficiaries? If so, why?

Responses to the request for information are due by March 27.

DOJ Tells Court to Nullify ACA; What’s Next?

After a period of relative stability, the future of the Affordable Care Act has once again been thrown into uncertainty.

In a surprise move, the Department of Justice announced that it would not further pursue an appeal of a ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Reed O’Connor, and instead asked the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to affirm the decision he made in December 2018.

O’Connor had ruled that Congress eliminating the penalty for not complying with the law’s individual mandate had in fact made the entire law invalid.

But, even though the DOJ won’t be pursuing defense of the law and challenging the ruling on appeal, a number of states’ attorneys general have stepped up to fight the ruling.

What this means for the future of the employer mandate is unclear, as the court process still has a long way to go. The ruling could be overturned on appeal and invariably whatever the 5th Circuit decides, the case will likely be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Already there has been fallout in the private health insurance market since the individual mandate penalty was eliminated, but the employer mandate, which requires that organizations with 50 or more full-time or full-time-equivalent workers offer health coverage to their employees, remains intact.

As the case winds on, it will be some time before anything changes. The 5th Circuit has not yet scheduled arguments. The DOJ has asked for a hearing date for July 8, and Democratic states’ attorneys general agreed.

Despite the DOJ’s announcement, the law stands and applicable large employers must continue complying with its requirements.

Analysis

The move was surprising because in the past President Trump had signaled that he wanted to keep parts of the ACA, particularly the barring of insurers from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions. If the entire law is scrapped, so will that facet – as well as other popular provisions, like allowing adult children to stay on their parents’ policy until the age of 26.

Trump said his administration has a plan for something much better to replace the ACA.

Democrats have introduced some legislation to try to stabilize markets and improve on some ACA shortfalls. Their legislation aims to cut premiums for individuals buying on exchanges by expanding premium tax credits. Another bill would reaffirm the pre-existing condition protections, and restore enrollment outreach resources, which have been cut back under the Trump administration.

But with a divided Congress, the likelihood of anything reaching Trump’s desk are slim to none.

Meanwhile, the success of the ACA has been spotty. In some parts of the country, usually in areas with high population density, competition among plans ensures lower prices for people shopping on exchanges. But in smaller regions, cost increases are rampant.

A new analysis by the Urban Institute, a liberal-leaning think-tank, finds that more than half (271) of the country’s 498 rating regions have only one or two insurers participating in the ACA marketplace. Those regions are disproportionately in sparsely populated areas.

Regions with little competition tend to have much higher premiums. In a region with only one insurer, the median benchmark plan for a 40-year-old nonsmoker is $592 a month. That compares to $376 for the same consumer in a region with at least five plans.

Vision Benefits Help Workers, Who in Turn Help You

EVERY EMPLOYER benefits from a healthy workforce. But many employers do not know that an affordable way to achieve this is with voluntary vision benefits which are a win-win for both businesses and their employees.

Recent research shows that employers see average returns of $70 for every $10 invested in vision benefits. There are a few good reasons why benefits covering regular exams and eye wear are helpful to employers.

The cost of health care can go down

Even people with good vision should have an eye exam each year. Optometrists can identify the beginning stages of several other health problems during an exam.

Early signs of diabetes, brain tumors and high blood pressure can be detected. One of the most important of these points is diabetes. Although doctors may miss some of the earliest signs in a physical exam, optometrists can identify it by slightly blurred vision, which is one of the earliest signs.

Since diabetes is one of the most costly health problems, this is one of the most important preventative benefits of a regular eye exam. Diabetes can be easier to control when it is caught early.

Eye exams are also helpful in identifying the early stages of serious vision problems. Some examples of these problems include retinal detachment, macular degeneration, cataracts and glaucoma.

These conditions alone cost the system over $35 billion each year. Early detection is the key to reducing the long-term costs of these conditions.

Regular exams are also helpful for people who need corrective eye wear.

Prescription needs can change, and the eyes can become strained from wearing outdated contacts or glasses. Even those who have good vision should purchase quality preventative eye with 100% UV blockage to wear outdoors.

More productive employees

If employees cannot see properly, their work performance suffers.

For office workers, this could mean typographical errors on important accounting records or crucial documents. For laborers, this could mean mistakes on the job that lead to workplace injuries.

Employees with poor vision also get headaches and become fatigued faster. Research shows that even a slight vision problem can lead to a 20% reduction in work productivity. This is especially true for employees with astigmatic vision problems.

Higher job satisfaction

Employers know that satisfied employees work better and are less likely to quit. A good comprehensive vision plan is a great way for employers to increase satisfaction enough to keep employees working there.

Research shows that 80% of employees found the idea of workplace vision benefits very satisfying. In addition to this, researchers found that workers who are satisfied with their benefits are three times more likely to not quit their jobs.

Research has also shown that about three out of every four employees will enroll in vision plans offered by their employers. But, about one of every three of those enrolled will not use their benefits.

They also do not know what lens options are available to them. This shows that employers must make a greater effort to educate workers about what is included in their plans.

Workers understand that their vision is a precious gift, and they do not want to lose it.

The high cost of vision care is prohibitive for many to seek the care they need, so they need to understand just how much their plans save them and how often they should see an optometrist.

To learn more about what options are available, call us to discuss your options.

Employers More Confused about Coverage than Ever

One of the biggest challenges for employers who offer their workers health insurance benefits is that the majority of U.S. workers are really in the dark about how insurance works, according to a new survey.

Despite employers’ best efforts to provide as much education as possible to their workers before and during open enrollment, it seems the finer points are not sinking in, according to United Healthcare’s “Consumer Sentiment Survey.”

Here are the main findings:

  • A mere 7% of those surveyed had a full understanding of all four basic insurance concepts: plan premium, deductible, coinsurance and out-of-pocket maximum.
  • More than 60% of respondents could define plan premium and deductible.
  • 36% could define out-of-pocket maximum.
  • 32% could define coinsurance.

These deficiencies result in more people spending more on coverage than they may actually need to.

Another study, carried out earlier this year by the Kaiser Family Health Foundation, concluded that not having the correct information can lead to dissatisfaction when employees discover they’ve signed up for a plan that doesn’t meet their needs.

The Kaiser survey revealed that employees are most confused when it comes to understanding these factors:

  • How to calculate out-of-pocket costs once health insurance claims are processed.
  • The concept of providers who are in network vs. out of network at an in-network hospital.
  • Understanding deductibles and out-of-pocket annual limits for their plans.
  • What a health insurance formulary is (concerning prescription coverage amounts).

What you can do

So, as open enrollment nears, you may want to consider focusing on the foregoing areas to better educate your workers. Also, it’s recommended that you approach the education process with a multi-pronged approach employing technology, meetings and the offers of one-on-one time to cater to people’s different learning styles.

It’s important for your employee morale and their pocketbooks that they understand what their choices are and what they’re buying. The more light you can shine on the process and the more stress you can reduce, the better off your employees will be.

This is especially true in light of one other finding in the United Healthcare study: One-fourth of respondents said they would rather file their annual income taxes than select a health plan.

Regulators Take Steps to Help Grandfathered Plans

Regulators are in the early stages of creating rules that make it easier for health plans that were grandfathered in before the Affordable Care Act took effect to continue providing coverage.

The number of workers enrolled in plans that were in effect before the ACA was enacted in 2010 has been shrinking, and as of 2018, some 16% of American workers who were enrolled in group health plans were in grandfathered plans.

Under the ACA, those plans do not have to abide by the same regulations as plans that took effect after the law’s implementation.

In February 2019, the Internal Revenue Service, the Employee Benefits Security Administration and the Health and Human Services Department issued a request for information from grandfathered plans. The goal is to determine whether there are opportunities for the regulators to assist plans to preserve their grandfathered status in ways that would benefit employers, employees, and their families.

While the effort will only affect a small amount of employer-sponsored plans, the move is significant as it looks like the ultimate goal is to further loosen rules for grandfathered plans.

A plan is considered grandfathered under the ACA if it has continuously provided coverage for someone (not necessarily the same person, but at all times at least one person) since March 23, 2010 and if it has not ceased to be a grandfathered plan during that time.

Grandfathered plans have certain privileges that other group health plans that were created after that date do not have, as the latter are all required to comply with all of the rules under the ACA.

Under the ACA, grandfathered plans do not have to comply with certain provisions of the law.

These provisions include coverage of preventive health services and patient protections (for example, guaranteed access to OB-GYNs and pediatricians).

Other ACA provisions apply to grandfathered plans, such as the ACA’s waiting period limit.

Grandfathered status

Grandfathered health plans may make routine changes to their coverage and maintain their status.

However, plans lose their grandfathered status if they choose to make significant changes that reduce benefits or increase costs for participants.

Some of the questions that the three departments are asking plan administrators are:

  • What actions could the departments take to assist group health plan sponsors and group health insurance issuers to preserve the grandfathered status of a group health plan or coverage?
  • What challenges do health plans and sponsors face regarding retaining the grandfathered status of a plan or coverage?
  • What are your primary reasons for retaining grandfathered status?
  • What are the reasons for participants and beneficiaries remaining enrolled in grandfathered group health plans if alternatives are available?
  • What are the costs, benefits and other factors when considering whether to retain grandfathered status?
  • Is preserving grandfathered status important to group health plan participants and beneficiaries? If so, why?

Responses to the request for information were due March 27.

Drug Prices, Employee benefits, Pharmaceutical Inflation

Retail prescription drug spending grew 36% over the four-year period ended Dec. 31, 2016, but out-of-pocket spending for health plan enrollees remained steady, according to a recent study by the Pew Charitable Trusts.

The study, “The Prescription Drug Landscape, Explored,” found that patients are covering the lion’s share of the cost through higher premium outlays, while large pharmacy benefit managers are passing on a larger portion of the manufacturer rebates they receive to insurance plans.

The study found health plan enrollees have largely been sheltered from rapidly rising drug costs due to:

  • More of the health insurance premium being dedicated to pharmacy benefits. The percentage of health insurance premiums allocated to pharmacy benefits increased to 16.5% in 2016 from 12.8% in 2012.
  • Policies that cap out-of-pocket expenses.
  • Cost-sharing assistance from manufacturers (like Medicare Part D coverage gap discounts and copay coupons).

Overall health retail prescription drug spending grew to $341 billion in 2016 from $250.7 billion in 2012. Here’s who spent what:

Patients: $103.8 billion – This includes the percentage of the premium they pay that goes towards drug benefits, in addition to out-of-pocket spending.

Employers: $97.5 billion – The premiums that employers pay that go towards drug benefits.

Government: $139.8 billion – This is both federal and state spending on retail drug coverage through Medicare Part D, Medicaid fee-for-service, and the share of premiums for retail drug coverage in Medicaid managed care.

Employers have grown increasingly concerned by the rapidly increasing cost of medications and the effect on the premiums they and their employees pay.

The National Business Group on Health in 2018 surveyed 170 large employers and found that:

  • 14% said the pricing and rebate system needed to be more transparent,
  • 35% said rebates needed to be reduced,
  • 50% said the pharmaceutical supply chain was inefficient and too complex and needed to be overhauled and simplified.
  • 56% said rebates were not an effective tool for helping drive down costs.
  • 53% said rebates did not benefit customers at the point of sale.

Tackling drug costs

The National Business Group study also looked at what employers are doing to combat drug costs, including:

  • Adopting recently developed capability by pharmacy benefit managers to pull rebates forward at the point-of-sale to benefit consumers.
  • Implementing point-of-sale rebates to benefit the enrollees.
  • Educating employees about the value of buying generic, so they can save money for you and themselves. According to the Federal Drug Administration, generic medications save more than $150 billion annually.
  • Half-tablet programs – These programs aim to reduce the number of tablets participants consume, while still receiving the same strength of medication. For instance, individuals might need 15 milligrams of a daily medication, so they receive a prescription for 30 tablets. With the half-tablet program, individuals would receive a prescription for 15 tablets, with 30mg strength each.
    Instead of taking one daily, they would only take half of a tablet. Despite the higher-strength pills, participants in this program only pay half of their usual prescription copay because they are receiving half the number of tablets. Likewise, individuals who pay coinsurance would be paying a smaller percentage for fewer tablets.

Surprise Medical Bills and ‘Balance Billing’ in Crosshairs

When your medical care provider charges more than your insurance company is willing to reimburse, you may get a bill asking you to pay the difference – a practice called “balance billing.” The Trump administration is moving to put a stop to the practice.

In a recent White House round table on limiting health care expenditures, President Trump vowed to end balance billing, citing a report from the Kaiser Family Foundation that showed that four out of 10 Americans had received a surprise medical bill in the past year.

The practice is already banned for participating Medicare and Medicaid providers, though non-participating Medicare providers who haven’t completely opted out of the program can still impose a surcharge of up to 15%.

How does balance billing happen?

Balance billing often results in a surprise medical bill, received after the services are rendered. It’s especially common when:

  • A patient doesn’t ask about actual medical costs at the time of service.
  • A patient accidentally receives services from an out-of-network provider.
  • A patient receives a service not covered under their plan.

In theory, it should be easy to check whether your provider is in your network before seeking medical services. In practice though, things aren’t so easy. For example, even if your hospital is in-network, you can get a surprise invoice via balance billing under circumstances like these:

  • They bring in an out-of-network radiologist;
  • They use an out-of-network laboratory;
  • They hire an out-of-network anesthesiologist; or
  • They bring in an out-of-network consultant.

This is true even though someone else picked the provider, not you. You may not even have been conscious at the time.

Some states have already moved to restrict the practice – but state laws so far have generally only protected people on state-regulated plans. Those on self-insured employer plans, for example, don’t receive much protection under these state laws.

But federal officials are pushing for more transparency: The Department of Health and Human Services has already required hospitals to publicly post their list prices of all their services online, effective Jan. 1 this year.

There is also some legislation pending in Congress. Under the No More Surprise Medical Bills Act of 2018 (S. 3592) sponsored by Maggie Hassan (D-NH), providers can only charge a patient an in-network amount, unless the patient has been properly notified about the charge and has consented to it.

That bill was referred to committee last year, though its future in the new Congress is uncertain.

There’s also yet unnamed draft legislation from a bipartisan group of senators that would protect patients from out-of-network billing, set payment standards, and prevent balance billing.

The draft was written by Bill Cassidy, M.D. (R-LA), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Tom Carper (D-DE), Todd Young (R-IN) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO).

HDHP Enrollees More Likely to Consider Costs and Quality

A new study has found that people enrolled in high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) actually are more likely to consider costs and quality when considering non-emergency care.

The 14th annual “Consumer Engagement in Health Care” study by the Employee Benefits Research Institute and market research firm Greenwald & Associates surveyed 2,100 adults, most of whom receive health coverage via their employers.

The survey found that people enrolled in health plans with a deductible of at least $1,350 for self only, and $2,700 for families, were more likely to take costs into account when making health care decisions.

Evidence of cost-conscious behavior:

  • 55% of HDHP enrollees said they checked whether their health plan would cover their care or medication prior to purchase, compared to 41% in traditional health plans.
  • 41% of HDHP enrollees said they checked the quality rating of a doctor or hospital before receiving care, compared to 33% of those in traditional plans.
  • 41% of HDHP enrollees asked for a generic drug instead of a brand name drug, compared to 32% of traditional plan enrollees.
  • 40% of HDHP enrollees talked to their doctor about prescription options and costs, compared to 29% of traditional plan participants.
  • 25% of HDHP enrollees used online cost-tracking tools provided by their health plans to manage their health expenses, compared to 14% of people in traditional plans.
  • HDHP enrollees also were more likely to take preventive measures to preserve health, including enrolling in wellness programs.

That said, the study did find some negative behavior among HDHP enrollees as well, including that 30% of HDHP enrollees said they had delayed health care in the past year because of costs, compared to 18% of traditional plan participants.

What you can do

In order to help HDHP enrollees get the most out of their plans, it’s recommended that their employers also offer health savings accounts.

This can help them pay for services that are not covered until they meet their deductible. Employers can help by matching (fully or in part) employees’ HSA contributions. This encourages them to participate.

Employers should also push preventative care. The Affordable Care Act requires all plans to cover a set of preventative care services outside of the plan deductible. Unfortunately, many people don’t know that these services must be covered by insurance with no out-of-pocket expenses for the enrollees.

Some employee benefits experts are recommending that employers tie the amount of premiums employees are required to contribute to how well they comply with preventative guidelines.

Non-enrollment in HSAs

These are the reasons employees cite for not enrolling in their company’s HSA:

  • Do not see any advantages: 57%
  • Do not have enough money to contribute to the account: 24%
  • Their employer doesn’t contribute to the account: 10%
  • Did not take the time to enroll: 8%
  • Do not understand what the HSA is for: 6%

The key to getting your staff to take advantage of the tax-savings feature of HSAs is education. You should make sure all of your eligible staff understand how they work.

And if you are not currently contributing some funds to their HSAs, now might be the time to consider doing that.

Helping Your Staff Get the Most from Their HSA Plans

As more employers adopt high-deductible health plans, which leave their employees with more “skin in the game,” it’s important that you educate them on how to get the most out of the attached health savings accounts.

Unfortunately, your employees may not be using the funds in their HSAs as efficiently as they should, and they could be leaving money on the table. One of the most common ways that happens is spending those funds on inappropriate care or misdiagnosed afflictions. It’s estimated that up to $1 trillion a year is spent on this type of erroneous care.

The nice thing about HSAs is that they have a threefold tax benefit:

  • Money goes into the accounts pre-tax,
  • The funds in the HSA grow tax-free, and
  • Funds are withdrawn tax-free if used for qualified medical expenses.

Also, funds in an HSA remain in the account. There is no use-it-or-lose-it provision and workers retain ownership of the account even if they switch employers. They also can be kept until retirement and, like an IRA, your staff can roll over or combine HSAs if they have more than one.

But it behooves your employees to learn how they may be squandering the funds they have put into their HSAs.

Examples of unnecessary care

  • Duplicate tests, because doctors don’t have access to a patient’s full medical records when they go to two or more treatment centers.
  • Overtreatment for common conditions such as back and joint pain, some types of cancer, and stable heart disease.
  • False positives from tests, leading to follow-up tests.
  • Replacement of less costly gold-standard medications and treatments with new and more expensive alternatives that may not yield better results.
  • Care that was delivered on the insistence of a patient when it was not needed or medically appropriate.

Tools for corraling health spending

Fortunately, there are means available to help your employees better decide how to spend their HSA funds.

First and foremost, the majority of medical expenses, like office visits, are reimbursable and the employee should tap the HSA whenever they incur a copay, deductible or outlays for medicine.

Shopping around – If they are told they need a procedure, they can take matters into their own hands and shop around for the procedure among the available treatment facilities in the group network. Doing this can save thousands of dollars.

Second opinions – Getting a second opinion is important, particularly after:

  • Receiving a diagnosis of a serious or complex health problem,
  • A doctor recommends elective surgery, or
  • If the diagnosis is not clear.

Fortunately, many group plans have second-opinion programs as stand-alone services or included as part of an advisory or vendor management program, and through medical centers of excellence.

Objective, evidence-based research – Supplying employees with evidence-based information on treatment options, presented in plain English, can help them understand their options, make more informed decisions, and avoid inappropriate testing and treatment.

It’s also helpful if this resource includes the option to speak with someone via phone or web chat who can answer questions about the information and suggest additional resources.

Referrals to experienced health care providers– Accurate diagnosis begins with connecting employees with the right physicians. The ability to connect workers with physicians who have proven experience and expertise in treating the condition that they’ve been diagnosed with can lower the risk of misdiagnosis and inappropriate treatment.

© 2023 ScriptSourcing LLC  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms  |  Careers