Results of Managed Care's 'Fax-Back' Survey

The "fax-back" survey printed on page 24 of Managed Care's February issue was a small, informal and decidedly unscientific enterprise. That's fortunate for the administrators of HMOs and other managed care organizations, because the survey's findings, were they to be upheld by a more rigorous polling process, would be troubling indeed.

Perhaps most striking was the response to Question #4, in which readers were asked for their views on a characterization of "today's managed care" as a "contradiction" because cost competition promotes plan-switching, which negates long-term benefits. The word "today's" gave a green light to those who might approve of the prepaid health care concept to emphasize nevertheless a negative view of its current application. Still, this was a serious critique, and the fact that more than 80 percent of the Managed Care readers who took the trouble to respond voiced agreement with it should give pause to anyone who claims all is right in the HMO world.

Notable, too, was the near-unanimity with which responding Managed Care readers implicitly trashed the "gag" rules that have been the subject of recent public controversy. Even managed care boosters — those, for example, who gave ringing endorsements to managed care's outcomes research (Question #1) and to its superiority to key alternatives (Question #5) — joined the 90 percent of respondents who agreed, in Question #6, that patients should be told "if physicians are paid in a way that potentially penalizes them for recommending referrals or procedures."

Readers apparently voiced that conclusion with an appreciation of its cost. "This is right, but just makes our job that much harder," scribbled one 40-year-old female physician in the margins of her "fax-back" form. "The system of capitation and full risk needs to be abolished!"

Respondents were asked if they "disagreed strongly," "disagreed somewhat," were " undecided" or had "no opinion," "agreed somewhat" or "agreed strongly" with the statements quoted. Total respondents = 60


1. "By promoting practice guidelines and outcomes research, managed care organizations offer exciting possibilities for improving the quality of American health care."

2. "Sometimes a physician is morally justified in exaggerating the seriousness of a patient's condition to a managed care organization to make sure the patient will receive needed care."


3. "Capitated payment of physicians is no more wrong than traditional fee-for-service payment; both have their 'perverse incentives' that dedication and common sense must overcome."

4. "Today's managed care is a contradiction: It's theoretically based on the medical and financial benefits of preventing disease in the long term, yet the force that drives it, cost-cutting, promotes a level of plan-switching and discontinuity that makes the long term almost irrelevant."

5. "With all its imperfections, managed care is preferable to full reliance on medical savings accounts, which could encourage people to neglect their health, or a government-run system, which could create a huge new bureaucracy."

6. "If physicians are paid in a way that potentially penalizes them for recommending referrals or procedures, patients should be aware of this so they can make informed choices."

Managed Care’s Top Ten Articles of 2016

There’s a lot more going on in health care than mergers (Aetna-Humana, Anthem-Cigna) creating huge players. Hundreds of insurers operate in 50 different states. Self-insured employers, ACA public exchanges, Medicare Advantage, and Medicaid managed care plans crowd an increasingly complex market.

Major health care players are determined to make health information exchanges (HIEs) work. The push toward value-based payment alone almost guarantees that HIEs will be tweaked, poked, prodded, and overhauled until they deliver on their promise. The goal: straight talk from and among tech systems.

They bring a different mindset. They’re willing to work in teams and focus on the sort of evidence-based medicine that can guide health care’s transformation into a system based on value. One question: How well will this new generation of data-driven MDs deal with patients?

The surge of new MS treatments have been for the relapsing-remitting form of the disease. There’s hope for sufferers of a different form of MS. By homing in on CD20-positive B cells, ocrelizumab is able to knock them out and other aberrant B cells circulating in the bloodstream.

A flood of tests have insurers ramping up prior authorization and utilization review. Information overload is a problem. As doctors struggle to keep up, health plans need to get ahead of the development of the technology in order to successfully manage genetic testing appropriately.

Having the data is one thing. Knowing how to use it is another. Applying its computational power to the data, a company called RowdMap puts providers into high-, medium-, and low-value buckets compared with peers in their markets, using specific benchmarks to show why outliers differ from the norm.
Competition among manufacturers, industry consolidation, and capitalization on me-too drugs are cranking up generic and branded drug prices. This increase has compelled PBMs, health plan sponsors, and retail pharmacies to find novel ways to turn a profit, often at the expense of the consumer.
The development of recombinant DNA and other technologies has added a new dimension to care. These medications have revolutionized the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and many of the other 80 or so autoimmune diseases. But they can be budget busters and have a tricky side effect profile.

Shelley Slade
Vogel, Slade & Goldstein

Hub programs have emerged as a profitable new line of business in the sales and distribution side of the pharmaceutical industry that has got more than its fair share of wheeling and dealing. But they spell trouble if they spark collusion, threaten patients, or waste federal dollars.

More companies are self-insuring—and it’s not just large employers that are striking out on their own. The percentage of employers who fully self-insure increased by 44% in 1999 to 63% in 2015. Self-insurance may give employers more control over benefit packages, and stop-loss protects them against uncapped liability.