Half the Cost. Half the Jobs?

by joeflower on July 24, 2014

(Originally published in the American Hospital Association’s Hospitals and Health Networks Daily on July 22, 2014)

Healthcare costs far too much. We can do it better for half the cost. But if we did cut the cost in half, we would cut the jobs in half, wipe out 9% of the economy and plunge the country into a depression.

Really? It’s that simple? Half the cost equals half the jobs? So we’re doomed either way?

Actually, no. It’s not that simple. We cannot of course forecast with any precision the economic consequences of doing healthcare for less. But a close examination of exactly how we get to a leaner, more effective healthcare system reveals a far more intricate and interrelated economic landscape.

In a leaner healthcare, some types of tasks will disappear, diminish, or become less profitable. That’s what “leaner” means. But other tasks will have to expand. Those most likely to wane or go “poof” are different from those that will grow. At the same time, a sizable percentage of the money that we waste in healthcare is not money that funds healthcare jobs, it is simply profit being sucked into the Schwab accounts and ski boats of high income individuals and the shareholders of profitable corporations.

Let’s take a moment to walk through this: how we get to half, what disappears, what grows and what that might mean for jobs in healthcare.

Getting to half

How would this leaner Next Healthcare be different from today’s?

Waste disappears: Studies agree that some one third of all healthcare is simple waste. We do these unnecessary procedures and tests largely because in a fee-for-service system we can get paid to do them. If we pay for healthcare differently, this waste will tend to disappear.

Prices rationalize: As healthcare becomes something more like an actual market with real buyers and real prices, prices will rationalize close to today’s 25th percentile. The lowest prices in any given market are likely to rise somewhat, while the high-side outliers will drop like iron kites.

Internal costs drop: Under these pressures, healthcare providers will engage in serious, continual cost accounting and “lean manufacturing” protocols to get their internal costs down.

The gold mine in chronic: There is a gold mine at the center of healthcare in the prevention and control of chronic disease, getting acute costs down through close, trusted relationships between patients, caregivers, and clinicians.

Tech: Using “big data” internally to drive performance and cost control; externally to segment the market and target “super users;” as well as using widgets, dongles, and apps to maintain that key trusted relationship between the clinician and the patient/consumer/caregiver.

Consolidation: Real competition on price and quality, plus the difficulty of managing hybrid risk/fee-for-service systems, means that we will see wide variations in the market success of providers. Many will stumble or fail. This will drive continued consolidation in the industry, creating large regional and national networks of healthcare providers capable of driving cost efficiency and risk efficiency through the whole organization.

What’s the frequency?

So what’s the background against which this has to take place? What’s going to affect healthcare from the outside? Mainly three broad trends:

The economics of yawns: We can expect more of the same, with continued inequality, most economic gains going to the top 1%, and continued deprecation of the middle and working classes. This will express itself in an ever mounting need and demand to bring people greater access to healthcare, which includes bringing the actual costs to the consumer/patient/voter down.

Boomers again: Boomers will continue bulking up the Medicare demographic. The current trends will become even more stark: costs per beneficiary down, overall costs up. Just pre-retirement Boomers were the group hit hardest by the great sucking sound of 2008 which magically disappeared massive amounts of equity in home values, IRAs and 401Ks. The effects span generations: Not only are the Boomers struggling themselves, they have far fewer resources available to give help when their children and grandchildren sink into a health crisis.

Political momentum: The relative success of the ACA in getting people covered  gives the political momentum to expanding coverage further, such as through expansion of Medicaid in states that have not accepted it. It will especially add oomph to any political or market attempt to lower the actual cost of healthcare for the patient/consumer/voter.

What will grow anyway?

However successful we are or are not at making healthcare leaner, one thing the next few years will not be is business as usual. The current trend toward massive regulatory complexity will most likely continue. There are no forces or mechanisms emerging yet that would change that trend. At the same time, the economics of running a healthcare organization will get much more complex, which means so will strategic planning, capital planning, and every other top management task.

So we can expect growth in the regulatory compliance sector of healthcare employment. At the same time, healthcare planning, forecasting, financing, and strategy skills need to put on muscle, whether in-house or through consultants.

How will parts of healthcare get lean, trim down, atrophy?

Waste: Any payment system that gets around fee-for-service and puts the healthcare provider at some risk for good outcomes will push healthcare providers to compete to give the best possible outcome at the best available price. Any such competition will tend to drive wasteful, unnecessary, and unhelpful practices out of the market — you’re not going to do it if you can’t get paid for it. These include such common practices as complex back fusion surgery for simple back pain, computer analysis of mammograms, the use of anesthesiologists in routine colonoscopies, the routine use of colonoscopies for mass screening, some two thirds of all cesarean sections, over $1 billion worth of unnecessary cardiovascular stents done every year, and on and on. If your business model or your career depends on a technique that honestly doesn’t score all that well on a cost/benefit scale, this would be a good time to rethink your business model or career.=

Prices: With growing price transparency and a growing willingness of buyers to go far afield if need be to find the right deal, it will become increasingly difficult for manufacturers of devices, implants, pharmaceuticals — indeed, any supplier to healthcare – to continue to insist on outsize profit-driven prices. It will be hard to charge $21,000 for a knee implant when the exact same device can be bought in Belgium for $7000. Similarly, with reference pricing and comparison shopping becoming more common, it will be very difficult for your hospital to get business if you insist on charging over $100,000 for a new knee.

Automation: Many job categories across healthcare, from messengers and janitors to neurosurgeons and oncologists will be supplemented or in some cases entirely replaced by robots and software.  We are already seeing widespread automation of  labs and pharmacies. HVAC systems are auto controlled and remotely monitored. Security is enhanced with surveillance cameras, robotic patrols, and position sensitive ID badges. But automation will move much higher up the skill scale, as DNA analysis and volumetric CT and MRI scans replace much of the work of many oncologists, and next-generation scan-driven high precision proton beams replace neurosurgeons at some of their most delicate tasks — even as new custom-built DNA-based personal pharmaceuticals may obviate any need for surgical removal of tumors at all.

Automation of various kinds will show up increasingly in every task category throughout healthcare, extending individual’s powers, raising productivity, and increasing the team’s capacity while eliminating jobs.

Cost Accounting And Lean: Under a fee-for-service system, in which you can charge for each item, inefficiency is a business model. If you’re getting paid a bundled price or a per-patient per-month stipend, suddenly inefficiency is a drain on the bottom line. You simply must recognize your true costs and use strong “lean manufacturing” protocols to get them down. In the organizations that get this right we can expect large increases in productivity, which will mean both increases in capacity and loss of some jobs, either in the organization that is succeeding or the organizations that it is competing against.

What will grow?

In a healthcare economy that is moving toward “leaner and better,” which categories would increase?

A leaner and better healthcare will have to do far more in preventing and managing chronic disease. We are losing rather than gaining the extra primary care physicians that we need to lead that charge. The most successful disease prevention and management programs are based on team care. The most efficient and effective way to influence behavior, especially of “super users,” is through trusted lines of communication with real clinicians — being efficient requires putting a crew on it, increasing rather than decreasing the people who have actual patient contact. So we can expect strong growth in any category that could add to that crew, such as:

“Complementary and alternative” practitioners: When you get paid to do medical stuff to people, why give any business to rival modes? But when you get paid to help people be healthier, why not throw into the mix modalities such as chiropratic, acupuncture, and others which can often show strong results at a fraction of the cost? Why not try them first?

Physical therapy: Remember those Boomers massed at the gates? Many of the aches and pains of aging are better served by cortisone, ibuprofen and yoga than by back fusion surgery and new hips. Physical therapists, like chiropractors and acupuncturists, can be a first line of defense against higher medical costs.

Home health: Vulnerable populations (such as pregnant women, newborns, people with multiple chronic conditions, and the frail elderly) can often be cared for in the home for far less cost than any acute care that can be avoided. New communication technologies can make home health care cheaper, more constant, more data-driven, and more effective.

Enhanced medical home: The Vermont Blueprint and other programs have shown the efficiency and effectiveness of expanding the “medical home” home concept into teams staffed by physician assistants, nurse practitioners, community health specialists, behavioral health specialists, indeed any category of helper that can strengthen and deepen the bond with the family caregiver or the patient.

Behavioral health and addiction: In a fee-for-service world, the behavioral practices have been given short shrift. Considering how much illness and accident is driven in one way or another by addictions and other behavioral problems, any healthcare system run by “value” rather than “volume” is going to hire a lot more psychologists and family counselors.

IT support: The Next Healthcare will be modulated not only through docs’ BYO devices, but through multiple types of cheap sensors, gadgets, dongles, and apps. In order for them to be medically useful, they must be integrated into the system’s IT and EMRs. The need for integration and support of the device swarm will grow rapidly.

Tech industry: We can expect that creating such devices and software, especially those connecting the patient and caregiver to the clinic and clinician, will be a big growth area in the tech industry.

What’s the trend?

The shift can’t be captured in one Big Trend That Devours Everything. But there is this: Most of the things we will doing less are the kinds of things that have made a lot of the “procedure guys” rich over the last few decades, unnecessary procedures and tests that use lots of big machines, expensive implants and other hardware. Most of the parts that will grow emphasize real patient contact, though often at a lower skill and expense level. “Fewer back surgeons and implants, more physical therapists and exercise classes” could stand as a metaphor for the shift.

So while “healthcare at half the cost” would definitely mean fewer jobs in healthcare, it would not mean half the jobs. It would mean more jobs in direct patient handling, especially in primary care, while allowing less profit for suppliers and providers and high-end procedure specialists doing unnecessary work as well as charging unsupportably high prices. And that, my friends, would be a success.


Will Tech Revolutionize Health Care This Time?

by joeflower on May 27, 2014

First published in Hospitals and Health Networks Daily, the online publication of the American Hospital Association, on May 27, 2014.

After decades of bravely keeping them at bay, health care is beginning to be overwhelmed by “fast, cheap, and out of control” new technologies, from BYOD (“bring your own device”) tablets in the operating room, to apps and dongles that turn your smart phone into a Star Trek Tricorder, to 3-D printed skulls. (No, not a souvenir of the Grateful Dead, a Harley decoration or a pastry for the Mexican Dia de Los Muertos, but an actual skullcap to repair someone’s head. Take measurements from a scan, set to work in a cad-cam program, press Cmd-P and boom! There you have it: new ear-to-ear skull top, ready for implant.)

Each new category, we are told, will Revolutionize Health Care, making it orders of magnitude better and far less expensive. Yet the experience of the last three decades is that each new technology only adds complexity and expense.

So what will it be? Will some of these new technologies actually transform health care? Which ones? How can we know? 

There is an answer, but it does not lie in the technologies. It lies in the economics. It lies in the reason we have so much waste in health care. We have so much waste because we get paid for it.

Yes, it’s that simple. In an insurance-supported fee-for-service system, we don’t get paid to solve problems. We get paid to do stuff that might solve a problem. The more stuff we do, and the more complex the stuff we do, the more impressive the machines we use, the more we get paid.

A Tale of a Wasteful Technology

A few presidencies back, I was at a medical conference at a resort on a hilltop near San Diego. I was invited into a trailer to see a demo of a marvellous new technology — computer-aided mammography. I had never even taken a close look at a mammogram, so I was immediately impressed with how difficult it is to pick possible tumours out of the cloudy images. The computer could show you the possibilities, easy as pie, drawing little circles around each suspicious nodule.

But, I asked, will people trust a computer to do such an important job?

Oh, the computer is just helping, I was told. All the scans will be seen by a human radiologist. The computer just makes sure the radiologist does not miss any possibilities.

I thought, Hmmm, if you have a radiologist looking at every scan anyway, why bother with the computer program? Are skilled radiologists in the habit of missing a lot of possible tumors? From the sound of it, I thought what we would get is a lot of false positives, unnecessary call-backs and biopsies, and a lot of unnecessarily worried women. After all, if the computer says something might be a tumor, now the radiologist is put in the position of proving that it isn’t.

I didn’t see any reason that this technology would catch on. I didn’t see it because the reason was not in the technology, it was in the economics.

Years later, as we are trending toward standardizing on this technology across the industry, the results of various studies have shown exactly what I suspected they would: lots of false positives, call-backs and biopsies, and not one tumor that would not have been found without the computer. Not one. At an added cost trending toward half a billion dollars per year.

It caught on because it sounds good, sounds real high-tech, gives you bragging rights (“Come to MagnaGargantua Memorial, the Hospital of the Jetsons!”) — and because you can charge for the extra expense and complexity. There are codes for it. The unnecessary call-backs and biopsies are unfortunate, but they are also a revenue stream — which the customer is not paying for anyway. It’s nothing personal, it’s just business. Of course, by the time the results are in saying that they do no good at all, you’ve got all this sunk cost you have to amortize over the increased payments you can get. No way you’re going to put all that fancy equipment in the dumpster just because it fails to do what you bought it for.

Is this normal? Or an aberration? Neither. It certainly does not stand for all technological advances in health care. Many advances are not only highly effective, they are highly cost effective. Laparoscopic surgery is a great example — smaller wounds, quicker surgeries, lower infection rates, what’s not to like? But a shockingly large number of technological advances follow this pattern: unproven expensive technologies that seem like they might be helpful, or are helpful for special rare cases, adopted broadly across health care in a big-money trance dance with Death Star tech.

Cui Bono?

But that is in health-care-as-it-has-been, not in health-care-as-it-will be. How we think about the impact of new technologies is bound up with the changing economics of health care.

Under a fee-for-service system the questions about a new technology are, Is it plausible that it might be helpful? What are the startup costs in capital and in learning curve? And: Can we bill for it? Can we recoup the costs in added revenue?

In any payment regime that varies at all from strict fee for service (bundled payments, any kind of risk situation), whether we can bill for it becomes irrelevant. The focus will be much more on efficiency and effectiveness: Does it really work? Does it solve a problem? Whose problem?

Many times, extra complexity and waste are added to the system for the convenience and profit of practitioners, not for the good of patients. For example, why do gastroenterologists like to have anaesthesiologists assisting at colonoscopies, when the drugs used (Versed and fentanyl) do not provoke general anaesthesia and can be administered by any doctor? The reason is simple: It turns a 30-minute procedure into a 20-minute procedure. The gastroenterologist can do three per hour instead of two per hour. In the volume-based health care economy, they make more money. The use of the anaesthesiologist adds an average of $400 per procedure to the cost without adding any benefit, lowering the value to the patient. Altogether this one practice adds an estimated $1.1 billion of waste to the health care economy every year.

[Edit: Diane Brown, MD reminds me that for safety it is best to have a pair of eyes dedicated to monitoring the anesthesia. But it need not be an anesthesiologist. It can be a nurse trained to the task, a regular member of the endoscopy team.]

So in thinking about whether these new technologies will propagate across health care, we can ask how exactly they will fit into the ecology of health care, who will benefit from their use, and how that benefit will tie in to the micro economy of health care in that system, with those practitioners and those patients.

Change Is Systemic

A cardiologist in an examining room whips out his iPhone and snaps it into what looks like a special cover. He hands it to the patient, shows the patient where to place his fingers on the back of the cover, and in seconds the patient’s EKG appears on the screen. Dr. Eric Topol, speaking at last summer’s Health Forum Summit, performs a sonogram on himself on stage using a cheap handheld device. These things are easy to imagine in isolation, as something a single doctor or nurse might do with an individual patient.

In reality, in most of health care, the things we need to do to incorporate such technologies are systemic. To be secure, reliable, HIPAA-compliant and connected to the EMR, they can’t be used randomly by the clinicians who happen to like them. They must be tied into and supported by the IT infrastructure.

Similarly, in moving from “volume” to “value” we are talking about changes that don’t happen at the level of a single doctor or single patient. In most cases we cannot treat the patients for whom we are at risk differently from those we are treating on a fee-for-service basis. When you are paid differently, you are producing a new product. When you are producing a new product, you are a beginner. The shift from “volume” to “value” demands and dictates broad systemic changes in revenue streams, which dictate changes in business models, compensation regimes and governance structures. Getting good at these new businesses means changing practice patterns, collaboration models and cultures.

Hospitals, integrated health systems and medical groups face a stark choice: They can either abandon the growing part of the market that demands a “value” business arrangement and stick to the shrinking island represented by old-fashioned “volume” arrangements. Or they can transform their entire business.

The use and propagation of these new low-cost technologies are entirely wrapped up in that decision. In old-fashioned fee-for-service systems, they will be used only where their use can be billed for, or where they lower the internal costs of something that can be billed for. They will not be used to replace existing services that can be billed at higher rates.

“That’s a Lot of Money”

Dr. Topol in his talks likes to make the point that there are over 20 million echocardiograms done in the United States every year at an average billing of $800. As he puts it, “Twenty million times $800 — that’s a lot of money. And probably 70 to 80 percent of them will not need to be done, because they can be done as a regular part of the patient encounter.”

Precisely: That is a lot of money. In fact, it’s a big revenue stream. It’s difficult to imagine that fee-for-service systems for which various types of imaging, scanning and tests represent large revenue streams are going to be early adopters of such technologies that diminish the revenue streams to revenue trickles. When you are paid for waste, being inefficient is a business strategy.

In the “value” ecology of the Next Health Care, the questions are much more straightforward: Does it work? Does the technology make diagnosis and treatment faster, more effective, more efficient? Does it make it vastly cheaper?

Imagine replacement bones (and matrices for regrowing bones) 3-D printed to order. Imagine replacement knee joints, now sold at an average price of €7000 in Europe and $21,000 in the United States, 3-D printed to order. (Imagine how ferociously the legacy makers of implants will resist this change, and how disruptive it will be to that part of the industry.)

Imagine the relationship between the doctor, the nurse and the patient with multiple chronic conditions, now a matter of a visit every now and then, turned into a constant conversation through mobile monitoring.

Imagine a patient at risk for heart attack receiving a special message accompanied by a special ring tone on his cell phone — a message initiated by nano sensors in his bloodstream — warning him of an impending heart attack, giving him time to get to medical care.

Imagine all of this embedded in a system that is redesigned around multiple, distributed, inexpensive sensors, apps and communication devices all supporting strong, trusted relationships between clinicians and patients.

Imagine all this technological change supported with vigor and ferocity because the medical organizations are no longer paid for the volume they manage to push through the doors, but for the extraordinary value they bring to the populations they serve.

That’s the connect-the-dots picture of a radically changed, mobile, tech-enabled, seamless health care that is not only seriously better but far cheaper than what we have today.


Being against Obamacare has been the keystone, the capstone, the mighty sledgehammer, the massive metaphor of your choice for the right for five years now. They couldn’t stop it from being passed. They couldn’t stop it at the Supreme Court. They weren’t able to choke it off by “defunding” it. They rejoiced at the rubber-meets-the-sky rollout of Healthcare.gov, but then the kinks got worked out of that. They railed at the administration using discretionary powers built into the law to help it work better. Every horror story of Obamacare ruining people’s lives they came up with turned out to be false. Almost all of the people cynically cancelled by the insurance companies as a way to sell them more expensive insurance got insured again fairly quickly. Then 7 million people signed up on the exchanges, and altogether some 10 million formerly uninsured people now have medical coverage.

But the right still needs to call it a “train wreck.” The magic mantra has to work for them. Just this morning, here’s a Republican Congressman saying that we have to cut Food Stamps because: Obamacare. Say that again slowly?

It’s getting harder and harder on the right to come up with new ways to say it isn’t working when it actually seems to be working. I have to hand it to them, though: Those spin factories are filled with hard-working creative people. Get to work early, stay late, trash Obamacare. Hey, it’s a living.

So what’s the latest?

So what’s the latest? This fall, Obamacare premiums are going to “skyrocket”!

Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius went before a House Ways and Means Committee hearing a few weeks ago and claimed outrageously that premiums on the exchanges are likely to rise for 2015, but not by much, and certainly more slowly that in the past.

What? How can this be? Yet another Administration figure has been trotted out to claim baldly to Congress and the American people that Obamacare is basically going to do all right.

TheHill.com got right to work and managed to come up with what they claimed were health insurance company officials eager to forecast that they would have to triple their premiums or more — and they would be rolling out those jack-ups right in time to deal a blow to Democratic chances in the fall elections. TheHill then published it under the breathless headline: “O-Care premiums to skyrocket.”

Neat, huh? Maybe a little too neat. Let’s see whether this claim makes sense.

Capped MLRs: Under the ACA, insurance companies must pay out at least 80% to 85% of premiums for actual medical costs, depending on the type of plan. These are “medical loss ratios” (MLRs). That’s the law. The other 15 to 20% is all they get for administration, advertising, executive bonuses — and profit. If they arbitrarily jack up rates, so that they are paying out a lower proportion in medical costs, they have to give the excess back to the rate-payers. The federal government has already forced some insurance companies to do this.

Those anonymous company officials who complained to TheHill claimed that “everybody knows” that higher costs imposed on the insurance companies by the botched Obamacare rollout will have to be passed on to consumers. Is this is true? Were there huge costs to the insurance companies? Doesn’t matter. Unless they plan to break the law and falsely report their MLRs, these alleged extra costs still have to be absorbed in that 15 to 20%.

So the only reason that they would be able to make premiums “skyrocket” is if the actual healthcare costs per person “skyrocket.” So how are healthcare costs doing?

Healthcare costs: Yes, healthcare costs (National Medical Expenditures) are continuing to go up — at a rate lower than 2%, the lowest rate that has been counted in the 50 years that they have been counting. Not a skyrocket.

But maybe they mis-guessed on 2014, and holy moly, they’re suffering! Or maybe they purposely under-priced their offerings in 2014 to gain market share. So they have to make up for it in 2015?

Price war: Talk to insurance marketing and sales people. I do a lot. They’ll tell you that you really don’t want to be the low-price leader. If you purposely under-price the market, you get the people who buy on price alone, and these are not anybody’s favorite customers. They will buy the cheapest product you offer this year, then drift away for someone else next year, when you have to raise the premiums. And you will have to raise your premiums, because your MLR came in at 110% — you’re spending more on medical care than the premium brought in, and you just can’t do that year after year.

So no, price wars are not the thing to do in healthcare insurance.

But maybe they guessed wrong on how expensive these new people are going to be with their new medical insurance?

Actuarial risk: It would be reasonable to assume that the insurance companies took their best shot at the actuarials for 2014. These are new markets and new customers, and there are lots of them. It’s a “bet the company” deal to get it wrong by any major amount. They have already figured in the really sick people who couldn’t get insurance before, and the bump in utilization from not-sick people who are newly insured and getting various problems taken care of, and so on. Looking forward to 2015, there is no new, extra actuarial bump in the offing, except that more of the uninsured, having missed the window this year, are likely to sign up when the window opens again in the fall.

But what about the balance of young and old?

Death spiral: What about the dreaded “demographic death spiral,” with too few healthy young people signing up to balance out the 50-somethings and the chronically ill? Didn’t happen. Apparently a pretty good percentage of young healthy people signed up, especially in the last surge, enough to come close to the Administration’s projections and hopes. Now, of course, you can always just claim that the Administration is “cooking the books,” that’s an easy out. But my read is that the Administration, having been seriously burned on the “you can keep your insurance, you can keep your doctor” misstatement, is actually being quite cautious in its claims. I am not seeing any dancing in the end zone here.

But what if a particular insurance company got it wrong in a particular market? Won’t they get burned badly and have to jack up rates to make the loss back?

The Three Rs: The insurance companies are back-stopped by each other and the federal government if they guessed seriously wrong through the provisions in the law called the “Three Rs” (reinsurance, risk corridors, and risk adjustment). No one is going to be “forced” to make their rates “skyrocket.” If they want to stay in the market, they will be looking for very moderate increases.

Still, aren’t the insurance companies themselves saying that things are way out of whack, they are taking it in the shorts, and they are going to have to jack up premiums for 2015? Actually, no, they are not.

How the insurance companies really see it: There are plenty of reasons to believe that running most citizens’ healthcare financing through for-profit public companies is a bad idea. But it does have at least one advantage: unlike not-for-profits, for-profit public companies by law have to show a certain amount of transparency. They have to open the doublet and show us what they’ve got. In annual reports, in 10Ks, and in conference calls with Wall Street analysts, what CEOs and CFOs say has legal weight. Of course they want to sound positive, because they would like to drive the stock price up. But material forward-looking misstatements can get you sued by your shareholders. So unlike in alleged anonymous unattributed whines to political blogs, public company executives have some care about what they say.

And what are they saying? They’re doing fine. Wellpoint, one of the nation’s largest health insurers (it operates many of the for-profit Blue Cross/Blue Shield plans) recently raised its earnings projections. Why? According to CEO Joseph Swedish, mostly because way more people signed up for its Obamacare plans than it expected. Think about that: This also clearly means that Wellpoint expects to make money off of all those new customers at the prices they were quoted. Absent some huge demographic or actuarial bump, they don’t expect that they will have to “skyrocket” premiums next year to make up for some mistake.

This is just the latest in a string of positive financial projections since the first of the year from all the big for-profit insurance companies, including Aetna, Cigna, Humana, and UnitedHealth Group. Swedish at least doesn’t think this is temporary. In the same analysts call, he predicted that Wellpoint is currently in a position to “drive profitable growth over the next several years.”

So: Actual healthcare costs are almost flat. Healthcare insurers don’t really do price wars. They were serious about their actuarial guesses for 2014, including all the new expenses of really sick people and the previously uninsured. The “demographic death spiral” did not really appear. The Three R’s protect the insurance companies from getting the risk seriously wrong. And in public, when misstating things could get them into big lawsuits, they say they are doing fine, they can handle the risks, and they expect to make money.

So no, there is no reason to believe that rates for 2015 are going to shoot up, “skyrocket,” explode, use metaphor of your choice here. None.

There is plenty to find fault with in the ACA, and plenty of room to debate about the perfect way to reform healthcare. But I would expect people who want to add to that debate to come armed — with things like research, logic, facts, real quotes from real people, and an understanding of how this industry actually works.


Strategies for Doing More with Less

March 29, 2014

How can hospitals and health systems survive on a lot less money? What are the strategies that turn “impossible” to “not impossible”?

Read the full article →

What About the Poor?

January 28, 2014

In comparison with the actual scale of the problems, most of the business models and strategies in health care have been sleeping like overfed dogs. It’s wake-up time in America.

Read the full article →

The Mind of the Building: Capital Planning in the Next Healthcare

September 24, 2013

Health care organizations are changing shape — and building. Think it through — or you will fetter your change.

Read the full article →

The Missing Ts: Four Key Dimensions of Strategy

July 31, 2013

If you don’t have a structured way of driving your choices through the four Ts — transparency, targeting, trust and trim — you’re headed for T as in trouble.

Read the full article →

How to Fail at the Next Health Care

June 4, 2013

The Next Health Care calls for very different strategies and tool sets. Many systems are acting as if they read a manual on how to do it wrong. How many of these critical strategic and tactical mistakes is your system making?

Read the full article →

The Ghost of Steve Jobs and Your Bottom Line

March 19, 2013

The progeny of the iPhone and the iPad will change the shape of every healthcare institution — and their balance sheets — in ways that are hard to imagine.

Read the full article →

The Next Health Care — and the Dark Side

February 16, 2013

The very forces creating a better, cheaper and more available health care industry also can be used to create monopolies, raise costs and degrade care. Which future strategic model will prevail? Which works best? Which is right?

Read the full article →