Medicare Scams? The whole US health care "system" is a scam!

In ‘Staggering Rise in Catheter Bills Suggests Medicare Scam’, Feb 9, 2024, the NY Times suggests that up to 20% of federal spending on medical supplies may be from 7 “high-volume” suppliers of catheters, including people -- like the woman for whom Medicare paid $12,000 for 2000 catheters -- who don’t need them, don’t want them, did not order them, and didn’t receive them. If true, this is a totally illegal scam, something that we see all too frequently in the US, with criminal parasites preying on our people and on a federal agency hamstrung by budget cuts to their enforcement divisions. Perhaps “nursing homes” is what first comes to the minds of many when inflated billing for shoddy care comes to mind, and that is fair, but our medical supply companies and, of course, pharmaceutical companies are right there with scams.

Unfortunately, the biggest scam is not the obviously-illegal like catheter falsifying, but rather the skirting-the-law routine practice of many (maybe not all) health insurance companies in denying necessary, and sometimes legally-required, care to their clients. The most common method for doing so is requiring “prior authorization” and then repeatedly denying it until the client gets weary of fighting it, or recovers, or, maybe, dies from not having a procedure. And it is not like these denials are wisely made by qualified physicians sagely considering the issue; most of them are routinely denied by staff (sometimes, but not always, nurses) following algorithms. Or, increasingly, by AI.

I and others (e.g., https://wendellpotter.substack.com/p/the-great-medicare-advantage-marketing) have written about Medicare Advantage plans several times, which attract seniors with lower out-of-pocket costs (compared to paying for Medicare Part B + a supplement) and full coverage, including for some services not covered by Medicare (glasses, hearing aids, etc.) My main point has been that this is great if you are willing to use their limited network of doctors and hospitals -- until it isn’t. Until they deny you care. Which can be illegal because they are required by law to cover everything Medicare covers. But, using the “prior authorization” and “repeated denials” techniques, many (maybe not all) often (but not always) do. This is just as illegal as the catheter scam, but penalties have been rarely incurred, and when they are, are low enough to be considered a “cost of doing business”, essentially a slap on the wrist.

But it is not only Medicare Advantage (MA) that uses these techniques (I’ll call them PA&RD) to effectively deny care to the people who are paying their premiums. Indeed, the use of these strategies in MA plans was developed for the insurance companies’ non-Medicare clients, those who have coverage through employer-based plans or ACA. For a long time, the use of PA&RD was common, if not ubiquitous, but possibly legal. Unethical, maybe. Fatal for some, yes. But apparently legal. Some state legislatures stepped in to prevent these abuses, requiring coverage for certain conditions, such as diabetes, emergency care or reconstructive surgery for breast cancer. Indeed, ‘States have passed hundreds of laws to protect people from wrongful insurance denials’, but as documented by ProPublica, ‘Health Insurers Have Been Breaking State Laws for Years’. How do they get away with it? Again, lack of enforcers because of budget cuts and very powerful lobbies for the insurers (they make lots of money and are careful to spend enough of it in the “right” places!) Per ProPublica:

State insurance departments are responsible for enforcing these laws, but many are ill-equipped to do so, researchers, consumer advocates and even some regulators say. These agencies oversee all types of insurance, including plans covering cars, homes and people’s health. Yet they employed less people last year than they did a decade ago. Their first priority is making sure plans remain solvent; protecting consumers from unlawful denials often takes a backseat.

What are the results? One is that people stay sick, get worse, and sometimes die from lack of health care. I hope we can agree that is a bad thing. Another is that people are going broke more and more often from trying to pay the bills that their insurance companies don’t (yes, those insurance companies that they and/or their employers have been paying premiums to). The recent study by KFF Health News and NPR, reported in the Guardian and the Health Justice Monitor and discussed by me recently (ER backups and poor-quality but expensive insurance: The American Way!, Jan 24, 2024), but worth repeating, found that more than 100 million Americans have medical debt. More shockingly, (as reported by Kodiak Solutions, a billing and accounting firm that covers 1800, nearly 1/3 of US hospitals) in just 4 short years the proportion of that debt owed by insured people has risen from 11% to 58%! Think about that – way back in 2018 most “bad debt” was owed by uninsured people (almost all of whom were too low-income to be able to afford it) but by 2022 it was by insured people – meaning insurance companies were not doing what they were contracted to do – paying people’s medical bills – even when required to by state law.

When the bad actions of health insurance companies are combined with the bad actions of health care providers, now often owned by private equity companies seeking only profit (see example of Steward Health Care, or overcrowded ERs in Massachusetts, as well as Arizona) it is obvious that get real pain being is being suffered by – really, inflicted upon -- the American people. On the other hand, insurers like UnitedHealth (which also operates the largest chain of physician practices, Optum), and private equity companies like that which owns Steward Health Care, are doing just fine, thank you, making record profits.  And the drug companies finding all the loopholes in laws to charge more and telling Sen. Sanders and the health committee that sure they charge American consumers more for drugs, but, hey, why the heck not, since we’re allowed to here – and, by the way, don’t change that – are continuing, as they always have, to make out like, well, bandits, which they have always been. They argued to the Senate that Americans get access to new drugs first as part of paying more, but Sen. Sanders appropriately responded that this was of no help to people who were unable to get the drugs because of their cost! Duh!

There are those who think that the money we pay – in premiums, taxes, co-pays, etc. – should be spent on delivering health care, not corporate profits. But so far enough politicians have been willfully deaf and blind on the issue to prevent really significant change to the system so that (as in most countries) it does the latter.

They need to hear from you to tell them that’s what matters.

Why are we paying wealthy corporations billions to limit our healthcare?

In an excellent “Guest Essay” in the New York Times (July 18, 2023) Linan Eirav and Amy Finkelstein ask a very important question: ‘We’re Already Paying for Universal Health Care. Why Don’t We Have It?’ It is a question that many people, including me, have asked many times over many years. This article answers several important concerns. One, as indicated in the title, is that the economic argument against it (“It will cost too much”) is nonsense, as we (the US) already pays more from public funds (per capita and overall) than other countries that have universal healthcare coverage. This has been documented for decades by authors such as Woolhandler and Himmelstein; when we consider Medicare, Medicaid, government employees and retirees at all levels, military retirees and families, and (least obvious) the lost revenue from the taxes not paid on employee health insurance contributions by employers (when it would be if it were salary) it is not only more than other countries pay for covering everyone, it is more than half US health expenditures.

The authors emphasize that while the emphasis is often on those Americans who are uninsured (and despite decreases as a result of the ACA, it is still far too many), there is also great suffering and uncertainty among those who have health insurance. This is because 1) their health insurance may be of poor quality, not covering all their health needs, and subject to the whims of insurance company denials, and 2) because there is uncertainty about whether they will continue to have it. The former is a real concern:

Many insured people still face the risk of enormous medical bills for their “covered” care. A team of researchers estimated that as of mid-2020, collections agencies held $140 billion in unpaid medical bills, reflecting care delivered before the Covid-19 pandemic. To put that number in perspective, that’s more than the amount held by collection agencies for all other consumer debt from nonmedical sources combined.

And the latter, losing health insurance, can be because temporary government programs end or because employer coverage (and amount of employee contribution) changes. Or because the requirements for qualifying for many programs can leave people out because they didn’t know they were eligible, because they weren’t aware of or able to fill out the paperwork, or for many other reasons. The most simple, profound, and perhaps important paragraph in the article is:

The risk of losing coverage is an inevitable consequence of a lack of universal coverage. Whenever there are varied pathways to eligibility, there will be many people who fail to find their path.

This is incredibly important. The risk of losing coverage is an inevitable consequence of a lack of universal coverage.  The cobbling together of different mechanisms for covering different groups of people (employer based insurance, various government funded insurance, self-pay, etc.) intrinsically leaves the opportunity for people to lose their insurance coverage. Only one solution prevents this, one so subtle and elusive that every other wealthy – and most middle income – country in the world has done it: cover everyone. Period. No qualification, no sign-up, no criteria, and preferably in one program. Just cover everybody. You are American, you are alive, you are covered.

That would take care of who is covered – everyone – but in itself is insufficient, as the coverage must be good coverage. It must pay for all needed healthcare and none that is unneeded. Thus, if we were to accomplish this by passing Medicare for ALL, that Medicare program would need to pay 100% (not 80%) of what is covered and cover all health needs include mental health, eyeglasses, hearing aids, and long-term care, without payments from users at the time of service. Unlike Eirav and Finkelstein, I do not think that the best answer is to provide basic coverage to everyone and allow wealthier people (or their employers) to purchase “upgrades”  as if it were an airline. Indeed, the best way to ensure that poor, uneducated, or unempowered people get the coverage and care that they need is to require the wealthy, educated, privileged and empowered to be in the same program. They will make sure that it works for them, and that will mean it works for everyone. The “upgrades” (if you like that term) should only be to allow people to purchase things they’d like but are not medically needed (most commonly cited is purely cosmetic surgery).

The money is there. It is currently going into the pockets and profits of insurance companies and pharmaceutical manufacturers (see, for example, How a Drug Maker Profited by Slow-Walking a Promising H.I.V. Therapy in the Jul 22, 2023 NY Times). Their greed is without limits. As I have discussed (Why do drugs cost so much? And what can we do about it?, Apr 18, 2023) Medicare is the only drug purchaser in the US with sufficient clout to negotiate down drug prices (other than the VA and TriCare, which already do). In response, the administration has carried through with its promise to the American people to let it do so, originally forbidden by the pharma-supported legislation creating the Medicare drug program, “Part D” (Fantastic (& fantastical) hospital charges: The industry + insurers + Pharma making money hand over fist!, Mar 26, 2023). This is  incredibly popular among Americans of all political persuasions, but not, of course, among the drug companies, who the NY Times reports are going all out to keep us paying the highest drug prices in the world (Drugmakers Are ‘Throwing the Kitchen Sink’ to Halt Medicare Price Negotiations, NY Times, Jul 23, 2023).

The money is also there and being pocketed by the owners of hospitals, health systems and practice groups, whether for-profit (often owned by private equity) or ostensibly non-profit but making and socking away money hand over fist. It is outrageous, but these companies are able to limit people’s access to healthcare and provide administrative or paperwork obstacles that discourage access, as shockingly demonstrated in another recent article by Chavi Karkowsky, (NY Times July 20, 2023), The Overlooked Reason Our Health Care System Crushes Patients. In discussing how her patient almost died because of the bureaucracy, Karkowsky says

This is the story of our medical system — quick, massive, powerful, able to assemble a team in under an hour and willing to spend thousands of dollars when a patient is sick.

This is also the story of a medical system that didn’t think my patient was worth a $12 medication to prevent any of this from happening.

This patient’s story is a result of the space between the care that providers want to give and the care that the patient actually receives. That space is full of barriers — tasks, paperwork, bureaucracy. Each is a point where someone can say no.

Why should we want to say no? In a rational system, everyone would be eligible and get the same benefit. No obstacles are necessary. Then the money we already spend would not only get us better healthcare, it would leave enough left over to begin to ensure that people have sufficient housing, food, and education.

All that would suffer would be the already bloated wealth of billionaires and huge corporations. And that should have zero weight.

"Non-profit" hospital systems behaving worse than for-profits: No end to the scams

I have often written about the greed of hospitals and “health systems”. In a competitive environment (especially in big metropolitan areas) they have combined and consolidated and become enormously powerful. This has been good for them, as they have made a lot of money. Now these large health systems and the insurance companies stand almost as warriors in the gladiatorial arena, each believing that the other is the problem; the hospitals complain that the insurers don’t pay enough and the insurance companies complain that the hospitals charge too much. Nowhere in this equation is the “consumer”, the “patient”, the “person” who is supposed to be the focus of this whole system. If the hospitals and insurers are the gladiators, people are the ants crushed under foot.

“For-profit” healthcare organizations -- incorporated tax-paying, investor-owned -- that run hospitals, nursing homes, and virtually any other kind of healthcare related operation (obviously including all pharmaceutical companies) have long been callously evil in their pursuit of profit, although they have never claimed they were not. Many university teaching hospitals, and even publicly-owned hospitals, were taken over by such companies when their former owners could not afford them (didn’t want to support with tax money, in the case of public hospitals, and were losing money from a combination of caring for people without insurance and overspending on administrators in the case of university hospitals). Predictably, this led to no improvement in the quantity or quality of care being delivered – the quantity, especially for the poor was always less. But it did bail out the former owners.

What has become more and more apparent over the years and decades is that “non-profit” hospitals (called “voluntary” in  New York) have become just as callous and evil, including those associated with religious orders that founded them on the basis of serving the ill and those in need. These hospital systems do not have owners or shareholders and are free from paying taxes, in acknowledgement of the community service that they – ostensibly -- provide. The problem is that they continue to receive the tax break, while cutting back and back on the community service, until in many cases it is not only negligible but even negative – actively hurting the community.

In recent days, the New York Times has featured an exposé on this situation, focusing on two systems, Providence (based in Washington state) and Bon Secours (in Virginia). Both have ravaged and ripped off the people who should be receiving their care, acting in at least as predatory a manner as any for-profit, while legally (so far, maybe) gaming the systems put in place by state and federal governments to regulate them and ensure that they deliver community service.

The article on the Providence system, one of the largest in the nation with 51 hospitals, originally founded by a caring order of nuns, is called 'They Were Entitled to Free Care. Hospitals Hounded Them to Pay.’ It is enough to make you throw up if you are at all a caring person, or one who might ever need healthcare. The gist of the piece is that their prior level of “community service”, the justification for paying no tax, was providing 1.29% “charity care” (well below the already-pitiful national average of 2%), and that this was slashed to below 1% by a new campaign by management to wring every nickel out of every patient, especially those with no or terrible insurance and no money. The article details the methods utilized (such as never offering people, regardless of poverty, the option of not paying, but only how they would pay). These details are sufficient to ensure that, if the perpetrators are religious, they know where they are headed after this life. Even the people who ended up not paying (essentially because they had no money) were subjected to terrible oppression and dunning not only by the hospital itself but by the collection agencies they hired, including garnishing wages from those who were lucky enough to even have jobs. The federal government does not prescribe a specific percent of charitable care that must be done to stay tax-free, but squeezing the poorest is clearly not the intention.

Providence avoids more than $1 billion a year in taxes. In exchange, the Internal Revenue Service requires them to provide services, such as free care for the poor, that benefit the communities in which they operate.

They’re not doing much of that! Meanwhile,

Providence is one of the largest nonprofit health systems in the country, with 51 hospitals and more than 900 clinics. Its revenue last year exceeded $27 billion.

Providence is sitting on $10 billion that it invests, Wall Street-style, alongside top private equity firms. It even runs its own venture capital fund.

What they are doing contravenes any conception of why a hospital (or system) should be tax-free; indeed, it makes the for-profits look good, because while they act no better, at least they pay taxes!

The next day’s article, about Bon Secours Mercy Health, ‘How a Hospital Chain Used a Poor Neighborhood to Turn Huge Profits’, describes

‘Richmond Community Hospital … consists of little more than a strapped emergency room and a psychiatric ward. It does not have kidney or lung specialists, or a maternity ward,’

and how it is the most profitable hospital in Virginia, making over $100M a year profit.  The scam here is just as reprehensible as Providence’s, but is a little more difficult to understand. It involves gaming  a federal program called 340B. This program was developed to allow people who were poor but not on Medicaid to get reduced costs for their drugs. This is a good thing, but this example also shows how evil corporations can misuse even well-intended programs.

Here’s basically how it works: an eligible entity buys outpatient drugs from pharmaceutical companies and then gets a rebate from them, which can be tens of millions of dollars. The federal government likes this because, unlike money for Medicaid drugs, it doesn’t come out of their coffers but from the drug companies (and thus, of course, the drug companies hate it). What is an eligible entity? Some are categorical, like Federally-Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs). Hospitals become eligible if more than a designated percent of their inpatients are on Medicaid. This is ironic on two counts, since Medicaid patients are not eligible for 340B drugs (because their drugs are already purchased at a discounted rate, and must be separated from 340B drugs) and the drugs are not for use on inpatients. The qualification is an on/off threshold;  you either qualify with a certain % of Medicaid inpatient days or you don’t. Once you do qualify, any outpatient medications you dispense are eligible for rebates; there is no income restriction on who you can sell these drugs to.

 

Maybe you see where this is going. Bon Secours Mercy qualifies for 340B at Richmond Community Hospital since it is an inner-city hospital serving almost entirely poor people. And the outpatient pharmacy there would surely be entitled to use 340B drugs, and that would be the intent of the program. But…here’s the genius: Bon Secours set up a network of clinics in high-income communities that were legally tied to the “mother” hospital of Richmond, and thus received its 340B designation. So now they could sell drugs on which they got huge rebates to people with money and insurance! Cool! Great idea if you are an MBA student! You might get a good mark for coming up with such a project, provided you can demonstrate that it was not illegal and the management won’t go to jail or pay a huge fine. In this case, I hope that they do. What is wrong with it? Well, for starters they’re not investing any of that money back into Richmond Community, the source of their 340B designation, the hospital that is miserably inadequate to care for its patients…

Of course, not all hospitals and hospital systems are Bon Secours or Providence. Some, especially in small towns and rural areas, and inner cities, are barely surviving. Of course: the rich get richer, even on the backs of the poor, as in the Richmond case. But the ones that are successful (i.e., making money) are almost all doing similar things, gaming the system, and providing as little charitable care as possible, while paying no tax and, if they can, maximizing income from programs such as 340B.

There is a solution. A national health insurance system, Improved and Enhanced Medicare for All, in which everyone’s medical bills are paid by the federal government and hospital budgets are negotiated annually, and there is little or no opportunity for such scams.