News, Analysis, Trends, Management Innovations for
Clinical Laboratories and Pathology Groups

Hosted by Robert Michel

News, Analysis, Trends, Management Innovations for
Clinical Laboratories and Pathology Groups

Hosted by Robert Michel
Sign In

Kaiser Family Foundation Estimates Approximately 16% of US Population Uninsurable under Pre-ACA Underwriting Standards

As the latest attempts to replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA) generate increased debate over protections for pre-existing conditions, Kaiser Family Foundation highlights that using pre-ACA underwriting guidelines would result in an estimated 52-million Americans unable to obtain coverage

With the American Health Care Act (AHCA) clearing the House on the way to the Senate, the public and media are scrutinizing key points. One highly-contested topic is insurance availability for people with pre-existing conditions.

Unfortunately, as most pathologists and medical laboratory managers know, media coverage—whether from the left or the right—tends to play up points that are sensational and resonate with their core audiences, but often fail to provide a full and accurate picture of the subject being covered. Thus, it is refreshing when useful information and insights about aspects of healthcare in America are presented in a fair and measured way.

Biased media coverage is certainly true on the issue of health insurance coverage for individuals who are considered to have pre-existing conditions. However, as a December 2016 Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) study highlights, protections for pre-existing conditions were not always guaranteed. In fact, if insurers currently used the medical underwriting practices in place prior to implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or ACA (also known as Obamacare), the study estimates that 52-million adults under the age of 65 would likely be denied coverage on the individual market.

According to US Census Bureau figures, at the start of 2017 there were 324-million Americans. Using KFF’s figures, this means that 16% of the population are considered to have pre-existing conditions.

Who is Impacted by the Individual Market?

KFF was quick to point out that many of the 52-million people with pre-existing conditions have always qualified for insurance through their employer or a public program such as Medicaid. The foundation’s estimates show that in 2015, only 8% of the non-elderly population relied on individual market insurance plans, such as those plans offered on the ACA healthcare exchange.

 graph above shows the percentage of American’s with pre-existing conditions who “most likely” would have been denied insurance in the Individual Marketplace

The graph above shows the percentage of American’s with pre-existing conditions who “most likely” would have been denied insurance in the Individual Marketplace prior to the Affordable Care Act (ACA). According to the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF), while the proposed American Health Care Act (AHCA) does not enable insurance companies to deny coverage for these conditions, coverage premiums could increase if a state seeks a community rating waiver. (Image copyright: Kaiser Family Foundation.)

For many patients, obtaining health insurance through individual plans is often temporary and driven by a life event, such as job loss, divorce, marriage, or reaching the threshold of an age bracket for coverage through other programs. However, for some individuals—such as the self-employed, low wage earners, or early retirees—the individual market is the only option for obtaining health insurance. For this population, pre-ACA underwriting made coverage difficult to obtain and more expensive for patients with pre-existing conditions.

Pre-Existing Conditions Cover More than Just Conditions

Study authors also note that the estimate of 52-million individuals considered to have pre-existing conditions is conservative due to other factors considered in the underwriting process. Insurance companies also based denial and uprating on a range of other factors—such as:

  • Prescription medication;
  • Doctor visits or procedures;
  • Mental health conditions; and
  • Family history.

They list a table of 30 conditions, including pregnancy and eating disorders, that might qualify as a pre-existing condition along with a list of 40 medications that might also result in a denial of coverage.

Despite the already growing list of reasons for insurance denials, there’s yet another list with job occupations that might result in ineligibility. This means that even healthy individuals could find themselves without coverage due to how they earn their income.

Neither medications nor professions were considered in KFF’s estimates due to a lack of data.

Uncertainty and Instability in Individual Market Pricing

A 2001 KFF report showed yet another hurdle faced by enrollees in the individual market.

In this KFF study, researchers created seven hypothetical applicants and compared their conditions to the underwriting practices at major insurance companies. Even if applicants cleared the underwriting process, the premiums offered by the various insurance companies differed greatly. Prices for each applicant fluctuated between hundreds and thousands of dollars per month when coverage was available. Benefits changed between plans as well, with many plans exempting coverage for pre-existing conditions.

Even with insurance, coverage for maternity care, prescriptions, or mental health fell behind the options available through most group plans. Yet, these conditions are some that might facilitate the events mentioned in the 2016 study for entering the individual market.

In the study’s conclusion, the authors found, “Insurance carriers seek to avoid covering people who have pre-existing medical conditions, and when they offer coverage, often impose limitations on the coverage they sell. This can price insurance out of the reach of many consumers in poor health or create significant gaps in coverage that could result in being underinsured.”

Decreased Demand for Clinical Laboratory Tests

Both studies show similarities to many of the concerns cited for the new AHCA. Time Magazine recently published a list of pre-existing conditions under the new proposal. The list bears striking similarity to the list offered in the 2016 KFF study. Speaking with Time, Cynthia Cox, Associate Director at KFF said, “There are plenty of other conditions, even acne or high blood pressure, that could have gotten people denied from some insurers, but accepted and charged a higher premium by other insurers.”

If fewer people can access affordable preventative care, prescriptions, and medical laboratory services, disease diagnosis is delayed. In a 2013 KFF study into the impact a lack of insurance has on healthcare, study authors noted, “Consequently, uninsured patients have increased risk being diagnosed in later stages of diseases, including cancer, and have higher mortality rates than those with insurance.”

Supporters of the proposed AHCA legislation are quick to point out that it does not eliminate protections for people with pre-existing conditions. It simply provides a process for state governments to provide an alternative solution to the federal framework and regulations.

Regardless of the outcome, KFF’s studies make it clear that a decrease in access to insurance means patients skip medical procedures they do not see as essential or cannot afford. This could result in decreased demand for screening and prevention diagnostics, such as those offered by pathology groups and clinical laboratories.

—Jon Stone

Related Information:

An Estimated 52 Million Adults Have Pre-existing Conditions That Would Make Them Uninsurable Pre-Obamacare

50 Health Issues That Count as a Pre-existing Condition

The Uninsured a Primer 2013 – 4: How Does Lack of Insurance Affect Access to Health Care? 

How Accessible Is Individual Health Insurance for Consumers in Less-Than-Perfect Health?

GOP Health Bill Leaves Many ‘Pre-existing Condition’ Protections Up to States

Key Facts About the Uninsured Population

Gaps in Coverage Among People with Pre-Existing Conditions

 

Clinical Laboratory Companies, Hospitals, and Other Providers Preparing to Comply with FASB’s ‘ASC 606–Revenue Recognition Standard’

All medical laboratory companies and hospitals following GAAP must comply as early as 2018 and 2019; revenue and profit impact can be either beneficial or negative

There is a big change coming to clinical laboratory companies, hospitals, and other providers that report their organization’s financial performance under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). Such organizations will need to assess their contracts in a different way to comply with the upcoming implementation of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) ASC 606: Revenue Recognition Standard.

Simply said, ASC 606 makes fundamental changes in the way all contracts must be analyzed and reported each quarter. Every lab company and organization that follows GAAP in their financial rules, and which is audited by an outside CPA firm, must comply with ASC 606. Moreover, when your lab company undergoes an outside audit, the auditor will verify that all contracts are being handled according to the requirements of the FASB ASC 606. (more…)

CMS’s ‘Innovation Center’ May Be the Affordable Care Act’s Lasting Legacy, Particularly as It Works to Replace Fee-for-Service Payments with New Reimbursement Models

Clinical laboratories and pathology groups feel the impact of many of the Center’s demonstration projects that move healthcare toward value-based reimbursement

One perennial criticism of this nation’s healthcare system is that it is slow to innovate. Technologies and management principals widely adopted by many industries may take a decade or longer to gain acceptance by hospitals, physicians, and clinical laboratories.

To encourage faster adoption by useful technologies and innovations by providers, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has a section that is not well known. This part of the law, passed in 2010, created  the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation.

The Innovation Center was included in the ACA legislation for the purpose of testing “innovative payment and service delivery models to reduce program expenditures … while preserving or enhancing the quality of care” for Medicare, Medicaid, or Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) beneficiaries.” (more…)

Medscape Ranks Physician Compensation for 2015: How Do Pathologists Fare?

Pathologists’ incomes, which declined in 2013, are back up in 2014 and pathologists’ overall job satisfaction remains strong

When it comes to physician income, pathologists rank just below the median out of 25 medical specialties, according to the “2015 Medscape Physician Compensation Report.” The Medscape study for 2015 put pathologist compensation at $267,000.

This represented a 12% increase over the average pathologist compensation of $239,000 that was reported in the “2014 Medscape Physician Compensation Report.”

According to Medscape’s 2015 report, orthopedists are the highest earners, averaging $421,000 a year. At the other end of the scale are pediatricians who earn less than all other specialties with an average annual compensation of $189,000.

All but two physician specialties saw an increase in their earnings this year. The exceptions were rheumatologists and urologists. (more…)

Some Accountable Care Organizations Are Showing Improved Patient Outcomes and Lower Costs: Still Unclear How Payment Will Be Made for Clinical Laboratory Tests

Clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups should develop business strategies designed to support better patient outcomes and reduced costs for ACO patients

Accountable Care Organizations (ACO) are not only growing in number but some ACOs are also reporting outcomes that indicate their value-based reimbursement model may produce better results for patients than traditional fee-for-service (FFS) medicine.

For the pathology profession, this news further emphasizes the need for medical laboratories and group pathology practices to have a seat at the table during the organization of ACOs so they can make a clinical contribution and negotiate adequate reimbursement from the fixed fees paid to ACOs. At the moment, one big question for labs is how they are to be paid under  a value-based reimbursement model. (more…)

;