The Mckesson software package offers all the bells and whistles plus the ability to easily scale as our business continues to grow. That a company with over $50 billion in annual revenue offers such a product is not surprising. In addition to the standard features expected in a pharmacy management system, Mckesson Enterprise also has integrated credit card processing, electronic PDMP reporting, and workflow management.  Unfortunately, it also comes with a mandatory cost of $7,000 for on-site training and purchase of one PC workstation.

The QS/1 system is installed with every feature required:  SaaS or web-based, PDMP reporting, DUR, and claims submission. Yet, there is no additional expense for training or purchase of a PC workstation.  The QS/1 account manager recommended on-site training (at an additional cost), but I inquired about remote training and my request was happily granted.  Furthermore, the monthly maintenance fee was almost 50% less than that of the Mckesson product saving us another $4,000/year!

Why does Mckesson not offer remote training?  More important, why would a company pay significantly more for a product it can attain elsewhere at a much more inexpensive price point? Consider the Benefit Pyramid below.

If a business does not provide insurance and if at least one employee receives federal insurance subsidies in the exchange, the business will pay $2,000 per employee (minus the first 30).  Example: a business with 50 employees, two of whom are subsidized, would pay $40,000 in penalty (50 employees – 30 = 20 x $2000).

If a business does provide insurance, and if at least one employee receives insurance subsidies, the business will pay $3,000 per subsidized employee OR $2,000 per employee (minus the first 30)  – whichever is less.  So a providing business with two subsidized employees would be fined $6,000. With 14 or more subsidized employees (above the tipping point for the formula), the penalty for a 50-employee firm would be $40,000.

To qualify for subsidies, an employee must meet two criteria.  First, his or her household income must be less than 400% of the federal poverty level ($89,400 for a family of four in 2011).  Second, the employee’s portion of the insurance premium must exceed 9.5% of household income.

The mandate makes it extremely expensive to cross the 50-employee threshold.  For example, a mid-sized restaurant that goes from 49 to 50 employees could face a $40,000 per year penalty. Businesses will spend resources determining how many employees they have with respect to the employer mandate.  They will face time-consuming, arbitrary administrative burdens associated with employees seeking insurance subsidies in the new insurance exchanges.

Businesses subject to the employer mandate will receive periodic government reports on subsidized employees that inadvertently reveal personal financial data on employees’ spouses and families.  This raises discomforting privacy concerns and exposure to liability for employers.

For some firms, the employer mandate will result in large fines when circumstances change in their employees’ households.  For example, an employee’s spouse losing a job could trigger thousands of dollars in annual employer penalties.  Employers will not be entitled to know the details of what triggered their penalties  – unless they challenge the employee’s honesty before a government agency.  The employer mandate will increase costs, and businesses will pass them along to the consumers.

COBRA Notifications to Medical Providers

The hospital calls to verify benefits for an employee that terminated six weeks ago.  You heard that he had been severely injured in an auto accident the previous night.  He hasn’t elected COBRA; you know he doesn’t have the money to pay for it anyway.  You advise the hospital admitting clerk that unfortunately the employee is not covered by your benefit plan.  Who will pay for his claims?

Probably your company (not your insurance company) will cover the cost of claims for the terminated employee.  Final IRS COBRA regulations require you to disclose information about COBRA status during the election period or premium payment period.  Proper disclosure to a health care provider would allow them to make or facilitate payment of the COBRA premiums so coverage would be in effect to pay the claims.  Because you failed to make the required information available to them, more than likely liability will be decided in the courts.  Employers have not fared well in these cases.

As for action that must be taken by employers, there isn’t much. Most of the changes are occurring behind the scenes at the insurance company and insurance provider level. Summary of Benefits and Coverage (SBC) documents will need to be distributed to your employees and large employers (250+ employees) will have to track and report benefit costs to the IRS.

The biggest event will be on January 1, 2014, when the much talked about insurance exchanges are to be effective. Some employers are anxiously anticipating some relief from the health care burden once the exchanges are effective, while others are not so sure. It is clear now that most states will not have a reliable exchange in place by 2014. Theoretically, the federal government will step in and provide an exchange in any state that misses the deadline.

Employers plan on “off loading” their health care coverage to the state exchange by paying a penalty and giving employees cash to buy their own coverage much like employers dropped their old pension plans in favor of the “defined contribution” 401K programs. It is all about controlling costs. Federal tax subsidies are available in the state exchange (a family of four qualifies for the subsidy if their income is less than $88,000).

Employers simply can’t overlook this windfall. The problem will be that no subsidy will be granted if employees enroll in a private or federal exchange. In other words…. No state exchange, No federal subsidy. This may leave the employers holding the bag longer than expected. Off loading benefits may not happen as quickly as 2014. Is this good or bad…it depends on who you ask.

The structure of the underlying health plan and the amount of control granted to the individual over the account distinguish one type of CDHP from another. Employers typically use one or both types of consumer driven health plans. These are health savings accounts (HSA) and health reimbursement arrangements (HRA). Health Savings Accounts (HSA) A HSA is an individual account that can be funded with employer and/or employee money, from which individuals can be reimbursed tax-free for qualified medical care.

Otherwise, the money accumulates with tax-free interest until retirement, when an individual can continue to withdraw funds for medical care tax-free or withdraw funds for any purpose and pay normal income taxes. Individuals own their HSAs. Individuals with a High Deductible Health Plan (HDHP) can open HSAs and make tax-free contributions in 2013 of up to $3,250 for individuals and $6,450 for families.

HDHPs are defined in 2013 as plans with deductibles of at least $1,250 for individual and $2,500 for family coverage. A HSA can be established for an individual who is covered by a HDHP that includes annual out-of-pocket limits of no more than: $6,250 for individual; $12,500 (for family); is not covered by another plan, except for certain permitted insurance; is not eligible to be claimed as a dependent on another person’s tax return; and is not enrolled in Medicare benefits.

Proponents of HSAs say that these accounts will reduce a participant’s overall health care costs without adversely affecting the participant’s health. HSAs also create a tax incentive to save for future health care expenses and decrease dependency on health insurance. They could offer a way to help employees accumulate funds over time to pay for retiree medical coverage. The overall intent is to shift some small health care spending decisions to the cost conscious individual consumer.

Health Reimbursement Arrangements (HRA) Employer-funded HRAs can allow annual unlimited rollover of unused balances and may be tax-free to employees provided they meet certain requirements. HRAs typically are used with HDHPs, in which part or all of the deductible can be reimbursed through the HRA. HRAs are available to current employees and retirees, their spouses and dependents, spouses and dependents of deceased employees, and COBRA qualified beneficiaries, but not to the self-employed.

HRAs are not taxable to employees and cover only medical expenses as defined by the plan provisions. They must comply with the nondiscrimination requirements of a self-funded health care plan and are subject to COBRA continuation coverage requirements. Employers own the HRAs and can determine whether and how the money may be used (rolled over) in subsequent years.

Click here for a side-by-side comparison:  HSA vs. HRA

• Automatic enrollment: Employers with more than 200 employees are required to enroll new employees in their health care plan, subject to any waiting period. Employers must provide notice of employees’ right to opt out of automatic enrollment.

• Notice of coverage options: Employers must give employees notice about the availability of an insurance exchange.

• Penalty for not providing insurance: Employers with over 50 employees that do not provide insurance must pay a penalty of $2,000 for every employee in the company if even one employee opts to obtain insurance through an exchange. However, the first 30 employees are not counted in calculation of the penalty. Example: an employer with 75 employees would pay the penalty for 45 workers, or $90,000 (45 x $2.000).

• Penalty for providing insurance that is “too expensive”:  Employers with more than 50 employees that do provide insurance must pay a penalty if any of their employees obtain a subsidy to help pay for insurance. The penalty equals $3,000 per worker who uses the subsidy OR $750 for every employee at the company, whichever is less.

I’ve discussed, at length, in previous posts the inability of Walgreens and Express Scripts to come to a mutual agreement. Now Walgreens, the largest chain drugstore in the USA by almost 2/1, has agreed to purchase a 45% stake in Alliance Boots for $6.4 billion. Boots is a leading international, pharmacy-led health and beauty group delivering a range of products and services to 21 countries primarily in Europe. This investment makes Walgreens the largest single purchaser of prescription drugs in the world.

Why would Walgreens make such a large investment even before the Supreme’s Court ruling on PPACA? In cities all across America small healthcare entities are being gobbled up by behemoth healthcare organizations. Small physician practices are closing their doors only to become salaried employees at hospitals. Not independent contractors as is customary, but salaried employees taking a steep pay cut.

Small hospitals are being acquired by larger hospital corporations and these hospitals are purchasing specialty physician groups. Take the Kansas University Hospital acquisition of a 42,000-square-foot inpatient surgical hospital building to add to its system of services. The hospital plans to hire the facility’s more than 130 non-physician employees. KU Hospital intends to use the building for surgery by a variety of specialties. A new name for the building will be announced later, along with the specialties using the new space.

KU Hospital did not disclose the cost of the transaction, which is expected to close in the early summer. The Heartland Surgical Specialty Hospital plans to relocate its operations to a new location, according to the KU Hospital release. This is the purchase of a business disguised as a “building” purchase.

Heartland is going to relocate without its 130 non-physician employees, really? Many of Heartlands physicians will join KU hospital as salaried employees.

The purpose of defragmentation is control. The federal government wants to have more say about how healthcare is distributed in this country. Small self-insured (grandfathered) businesses have largely been unaffected by healthcare reform. In fact, my opinion is that PPACA has offered small and medium size businesses more choices at least until now.

The Obama administration is investigating the possibility of imposing limits on stop-loss coverage that could severely undermine the ability of small and midsize businesses to offer self-insured plans. It stems from a formal request for information about federal rules relating to stop-loss insurance, which is seen as a precursor to a regulation.

Critics contend that such a move would force these employers to adopt less flexible, fully insured plans and funnel millions of Americans into health insurance exchange that are slated to take effect in 2014 under PPACA. They also are crying foul about big business having an unfair advantage and raising questions about what may be motivating regulators to pursue this action.

Several leading Republican senators have sought an explanation from the Departments of Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services as to why they submitted an RFI. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), Michael Enzi (R-Wyo.) and Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-Okla.) recently wrote in a letter that stop-loss insurance “is critical for operating a predictable, affordable self-insured health plan. Any possible disruption of these services is of paramount concern to lawmakers, employers, and tens of millions of plan participants.”

Lobbyists for small businesses and self-insured plans are sounding their own alarms over the prospect of stop-loss restrictions on self-insurance.  “The preamble of the RFI clearly demonstrates that the regulators have received significant disinformation about how the self-insurance marketplace actually operates and the role of stop-loss insurance,” explains Mike Ferguson, COO of the Self-Insurance Institute of America, Inc. in Simpsonville, S.C.

Amanda Austin, director of federal public policy for the National Federation of Independent Business in Washington, D.C., believes that the proposal is partly driven by a desire to ramp up PPACA insurance exchanges, calling it “one of many examples of PPACA-inspired micromanagement of health care.” NFIB fears that requiring its members to shuffle more paper will interfere with business growth.

The writing is on the wall. With help from the federal government, large healthcare firms are in acquiring mode. From pharmacy chains to hospitals to PBMs each is looking for a way to account for lower margins. The federal government will foot more of the bill thus profit margins will come down. But, any loss in profit margin will be made up for through volume.

The lower the number of players in the market the more control and power the government exerts. This ultimately will lead to higher prices and lower quality services. Consider the airline industry. There are fewer players and prices have drastically increased while the quality of service has suffered. In fact, airline industries have become down right arrogant. In the case of healthcare reform, history will undoubtedly repeat itself.

Wikipedia Definition

The simplest definition of rent-seeking is to expend resources in order to gain wealth by increasing one’s share of currently existing wealth instead of trying to create wealth. Since resources are expended but no new wealth is created, the net effect of rent-seeking is to reduce total social wealth. It is important to distinguish between profit-seeking and rent-seeking.

Profit-seeking is the creation of wealth, while rent-seeking is the use of social institutions such as the power of government to redistribute wealth among different groups without creating new wealth. Rent-seeking generally implies extraction of uncompensated value from others without making any contribution to productivity.

The origin of the term refers to gaining control of land or other pre-existing natural resources. In a modern economy, a more common example of rent-seeking would be political lobbying to obtain government benefits/subsidies or to impose burdensome regulations on competitors in order to increase market share.

Studies of rent-seeking focus on efforts to capture special monopoly privileges such as manipulating government regulation of free enterprise competition. The term monopoly privilege rent-seeking is an often-used label for this particular type of rent-seeking. Often-cited examples include a lobby that seeks tariff protection, quotas, subsidies, or extension of copyright law.

How does a traditional PBM employ a rent-seeking methodology?

Most recently, the FTC approved the acquisition of Medco by Express Scripts. The net effect of this purchase is not a creation of new wealth, but instead a reduction in social wealth. The FTC approval of this acquisition will ultimately benefit only the government, Express Script and Medco stockholders.

Patients won’t pay lower prices or see a real difference in their health care outcomes. Retail pharmacies and PBM competitors certainly won’t benefit from this acquisition. History tells us that greed will supersede social responsibility almost 100% of the time. Express Scripts has used the government, with powerful lobbying, to attain near monopolistic privileges.

Some state governments, Texas for example, require PBMs to take on the role of a fiduciary. The problem is that this requirement doesn’t extend to private enterprise. I say it’s a problem not because the government hasn’t interfered, but the opposite. Private enterprise hasn’t exercised its right to require a fiduciary role from their PBM. A transparent PBM, acting as a fiduciary, shares the risk and essentially agrees to be 100% transparent in all of its related business dealings.

This transparency includes sharing third party pricing contracts with pharmacies and rebates from manufacturers. It also includes offering real-time access to MAC price lists for retail and captive mail-order pharmacies. As specialty drugs become a larger part of the dispensing mix, it’s imperative to be fully aware of pricing arrangements between biotechnology companies as well. Here is an example of a typical fiduciary disclosure in a transparent PBM contract.