IBJNews

Study rebuts hospitals' argument on Medicare, rising costs

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Rather than aggressively raising prices on private health insurers to make up for inadequate payments from the government, hospitals across the country—including in Indianapolis—have been raising prices just because they can, according to a new study.

The study, published last week in the journal Health Affairs, found no widespread evidence of so-called “cost shifting” by hospitals. Hospitals have argued for years that, as payments from the federal Medicare program have stagnated, they have been forced to pass on higher costs to privately insured patients.

The new study found that, indeed, hospitals' inpatient prices to private health insurers have risen sharply. However, in nearly all markets where the prices paid by private health insurers were rising, Medicare payments were also rising.

Private health insurers, such as Indianapolis-based Anthem Blue Cross & Blue Shield, negotiate prices with hospitals on behalf of employers and their workers. By contrast, the federal Medicare program tells hospitals what it will pay them, without any negotiation.

Since the mid-1990s, hospitals in 55 percent of all markets in the United States have raised prices for inpatient procedures for patients covered by private health insurance faster than Medicare payments. The prices paid by private health insurers have also risen faster than hospitals' costs.

In Indianapolis, inpatient prices hospitals charged to private insurers rose 4.1 percent per year, on average, from 1995 to 2009. During that same period, Medicare inpatient payments rose 3.5 percent per year.

Over 15 years, the different growth rates meant private insurers and their customers paid 9 percent more—even though Medicare’s payments to hospitals kept rising.

And they kept rising at rates fast enough to cover hospitals’ rising costs, according to White’s study. He noted that labor costs for Indianapolis-area hospitals—which account for roughly 60 percent of typical hospitals’ total expenses—rose 3.4 percent per year—a tick less than Medicare’s payments.

“The study found that when Medicare pays lower rates for inpatient hospital care, private insurers’ rates end up growing more slowly, too—it’s the opposite of what hospitals would have the public believe,” said Chapin White, the study’s author, in a prepared statement.

White’s study, if its findings hold up in other analyses, could give significant momentum to recent efforts by the Obama administration and Congress to cut Medicare payments to hospitals in order to help reduce the nation’s budget deficit.

The 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act called for $155 billion in cuts to hospital reimbursement. Then the fiscal-cliff deal on Jan. 1 this year chopped out another $15 billion. And the budget sequester, which hit March 1, looked ready to sap another $10 billion.

Hospitals have argued that such cuts will only magnify the “hidden tax” paid by employers and their insured workers, because hospitals will have to charge them more to make up losses forced on them by Medicare.

“Hospital executives, understandably, want higher payment rates from private payers,” said White, a former staffer at the Congressional Budget Office who is now a researcher at the Center for Studying Health System Change in Washington, D.C. “To put a socially acceptable spin on higher rates, they blame Medicare for being a stingy payer—this study should put that notion to rest.”
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • There is not much difference...
    Between for-profit and not-for-profit hospitals (one is answerable to shareholders while the other is not). They pay agregous salaries to executives at the expense of providing care. Again, the profit-motive need to be removed. I'm not saying that doctors, nurses and staff shouldn't be paid what their worth, but the CEO of a hospital system should NOT be raking in millions. Time Magazine has a great article on the issue...http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2136864,00.html
  • Too many
    St Francis opens next to IU North, which opened hear St Vincent Carmel. In addition, there are the ortho hospitals. As a result, they spend a bundle on advertising. No wonder many states require 'proof of need' before a new hospital opens.
  • J K's Right
    J K's right. There are only a handful of for profit hospitals in Indiana and none in Indy. Still, the NFPs are spending stratospheric amounts to grab and hold market share. They compete tooth and nail. Physician integration gives them control over the docs and a built in referral system. Look at how many new hospitals are going up or are already operating in Indy. Do we really need an IU Health hospital and a St Vincent hospital across the street from each other like the ones up off of I-69?
  • Just a note
    It may be worth noting, HoosierLib, that all the hospital systems in the Indianapolis market are not-for-profits. However, the manner in which these not-for-profit hospital systems manage themselves is not really any different from for-profit companies.
    • Less Advertising
      How about a little less advertising? We don't need to be reminded every 10 minutes that you have the most 'top doctors' and your maternity suites are on par with luxury hotels!
    • Shocked!
      For-profit hospitals system just raise prices to increase their profits. Well no cr@p! That's what wrong with or system, that and paying health insurers a 15% "management" fee. Take the profit motive out of the system (like every other industrialized nation) and healtchcare becomes much more manageable and affordable. When will we wake up?

      Post a comment to this story

      COMMENTS POLICY
      We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
       
      You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
       
      Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
       
      No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
       
      We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
       

      Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

      Sponsored by
      ADVERTISEMENT

      facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

      Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
      Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
       
      Subscribe to IBJ
      1. Those of you yelling to deport them all should at least understand that the law allows minors (if not from a bordering country) to argue for asylum. If you don't like the law, you can petition Congress to change it. But you can't blindly scream that they all need to be deported now, unless you want your government to just decide which laws to follow and which to ignore.

      2. 52,000 children in a country with a population of nearly 300 million is decimal dust or a nano-amount of people that can be easily absorbed. In addition, the flow of children from central American countries is decreasing. BL - the country can easily absorb these children while at the same time trying to discourage more children from coming. There is tension between economic concerns and the values of Judeo-Christian believers. But, I cannot see how the economic argument can stand up against the values of the believers, which most people in this country espouse (but perhaps don't practice). The Governor, who is an alleged religious man and a family man, seems to favor the economic argument; I do not see how his position is tenable under the circumstances. Yes, this is a complicated situation made worse by politics but....these are helpless children without parents and many want to simply "ship" them back to who knows where. Where are our Hoosier hearts? I thought the term Hoosier was synonymous with hospitable.

      3. Illegal aliens. Not undocumented workers (too young anyway). I note that this article never uses the word illegal and calls them immigrants. Being married to a naturalized citizen, these people are criminals and need to be deported as soon as humanly possible. The border needs to be closed NOW.

      4. Send them back NOW.

      5. deport now

      ADVERTISEMENT