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. Apologies for the wall of text. I promise I had this nicely formatted in paragraphs in Notepad before pasting here.

      2. I believe that is incorrect Sir, the people's tax-dollars are NOT paying for the companies investment. Without the tax-break the company would be paying an ADDITIONAL $11.1 million in taxes ON TOP of their $22.5 Million investment (Building + IT), for a total of $33.6M or a 50% tax rate. Also, the article does not specify what the total taxes were BEFORE the break. Usually such a corporate tax-break is a 'discount' not a 100% wavier of tax obligations. For sake of example lets say the original taxes added up to $30M over 10 years. $12.5M, New Building $10.0M, IT infrastructure $30.0M, Total Taxes (Example Number) == $52.5M ININ's Cost - $1.8M /10 years, Tax Break (Building) - $0.75M /10 years, Tax Break (IT Infrastructure) - $8.6M /2 years, Tax Breaks (against Hiring Commitment: 430 new jobs /2 years) == 11.5M Possible tax breaks. ININ TOTAL COST: $41M Even if you assume a 100% break, change the '30.0M' to '11.5M' and you can see the Company will be paying a minimum of $22.5, out-of-pocket for their capital-investment - NOT the tax-payers. Also note, much of this money is being spent locally in Indiana and it is creating 430 jobs in your city. I admit I'm a little unclear which tax-breaks are allocated to exactly which expenses. Clearly this is all oversimplified but I think we have both made our points! :) Sorry for the long post.

      3. Clearly, there is a lack of a basic understanding of economics. It is not up to the company to decide what to pay its workers. If companies were able to decide how much to pay their workers then why wouldn't they pay everyone minimum wage? Why choose to pay $10 or $14 when they could pay $7? The answer is that companies DO NOT decide how much to pay workers. It is the market that dictates what a worker is worth and how much they should get paid. If Lowe's chooses to pay a call center worker $7 an hour it will not be able to hire anyone for the job, because all those people will work for someone else paying the market rate of $10-$14 an hour. This forces Lowes to pay its workers that much. Not because it wants to pay them that much out of the goodness of their heart, but because it has to pay them that much in order to stay competitive and attract good workers.

      4. GOOD DAY to you I am Mr Howell Henry, a Reputable, Legitimate & an accredited money Lender. I loan money out to individuals in need of financial assistance. Do you have a bad credit or are you in need of money to pay bills? i want to use this medium to inform you that i render reliable beneficiary assistance as I'll be glad to offer you a loan at 2% interest rate to reliable individuals. Services Rendered include: *Refinance *Home Improvement *Inventor Loans *Auto Loans *Debt Consolidation *Horse Loans *Line of Credit *Second Mortgage *Business Loans *Personal Loans *International Loans. Please write back if interested. Upon Response, you'll be mailed a Loan application form to fill. (No social security and no credit check, 100% Guaranteed!) I Look forward permitting me to be of service to you. You can contact me via e-mail howellhenryloanfirm@gmail.com Yours Sincerely MR Howell Henry(MD)

      5. It is sad to see these races not have a full attendance. The Indy Car races are so much more exciting than Nascar. It seems to me the commenters here are still a little upset with Tony George from a move he made 20 years ago. It was his decision to make, not yours. He lost his position over it. But I believe the problem in all pro sports is the escalating price of admission. In todays economy, people have to pay much more for food and gas. The average fan cannot attend many events anymore. It's gotten priced out of most peoples budgets.

      ADVERTISEMENT