New policies targeting drug pricing
by jerry on November 20, 2020
At DocSpot, our mission is to connect people with the right health care by helping them navigate publicly available information. We believe the first step of that mission is to help connect people with an appropriate medical provider, and we look forward to helping people navigate other aspects of their care as the opportunities arise. We are just at the start of that mission, so we hope you will come back often to see how things are developing.
An underlying philosophy of our work is that right care means different things to different people. We also recognize that doctors are multidimensional people. So, instead of trying to determine which doctors are "better" than others, we offer a variety of filter options that individuals can apply to more quickly discover providers that fit their needs.
by jerry on November 20, 2020
The Wall Street Journal reported on two new policies expected to be adopted by the current administration with the aim of lowering drug prices: limiting rebates that are paid to pharmacy benefit managers and indexing the price of some drugs in the US according to prices in other countries. Both of these policies appear to have some winners (payers such as Medicare, possibly also patients) and some losers (pharmacy benefit managers and pharmaceutical manufacturers). Backlash against rising drug prices in the current political and economic climate might give the administration enough cover that the losers will not have enough clout to stop these policies.
It is unclear whether the upcoming administration will uphold these policies, or perhaps enact more sweeping reforms. It is also unclear whether the stakeholders in these industries will find new ways of maintaining their profits.
by jerry on November 14, 2020
NPR published a piece about a recent study that estimated the number of Americans that experienced "catastrophic medical expenses" (defined as spending more than 40% of income after food and housing costs). While we hear about people facing expensive medical bills, there is some expectation that those with health insurance should be shield from devastating financial effects from healthcare expenditures. The study referenced in the article found that about 6 million Americans (ages between 20 and 64) with private health insurance suffered "catastrophic medical expenses" in 2017. That translates to about 3.5% of the US population in that age range experiencing expensive medical bills despite having private insurance.
One of the study's authors cited high-deductible plans and out-of-network medical bills as being two reasons that insurance might not have offered adequate financial protection. Despite the push for more Americans to get insurance coverage, little progress has been achieved by way of managing the underlying costs.
by jerry on November 07, 2020
The past couple of weeks have been very busy for us, as we have worked on some major behind-the-scenes changes. The first major change was with our colocation provider, where we run our servers. Coupled with short notice, we also fit in a different configuration for our servers. Preceding the change in colocation providers, we have also been working on replacing the underlying database. Both changes are done now.
There were a few rough edges with the transitions. Ironically, the more successful we were with these changes, the less that people would notice. In the long-term, we hope that both changes will benefit our service. We're particularly hopeful that the database change will help streamline future development.
by jerry on November 01, 2020
Kaiser Health News reported on one elected official's campaign to reduce health expenses for the state. North Carolina's treasurer has been trying to secure a better deal for the insurance that the state pays for its over 700,000 employees and their dependents. Apparently, the hospital association has felt threatened enough by the treasurer's efforts that it lobbied for legislation to prevent reference pricing and has not resorted to contributing to the campaign of the treasurer's challenger.
The article suggests that the size of the hospital networks has made it difficult for the treasurer to extract pricing concessions, although the treasurer has resisted further expansions of those chains. When a payer is too reliant on a few large provider networks, the payer has little leverage given how its members may be out of realistic options for providers. In this situation, it is perhaps surprising that the treasurer expected to be able to willingly give up tens of millions of dollars in annual revenue.
by jerry on October 24, 2020
Addressing a claim by the presidential challenger that the incumbent will "slash Medicare benefits," Kaiser Health News published a piece that consulted various health policy experts and reported on their opinions. The current White House administration has supported a challenge to overturn the Affordable Care Act (ACA); the Supreme Court is schedule to hear oral arguments in November. The presidential challenger's staff has taken that as evidence that the current president will slash Medicare benefits, a potentially helpful charge in this political climate. Independent of the political effectiveness of charge, Kaiser Health News' reporting on what might happen if the ACA is indeed overturned is interesting.
For example, the ACA mandated that certain preventive services such as an annual wellness visit would not cost Medicare patients anything. In theory, those benefits could be at risk. There is also a question of whether repealing ACA will cause Medicare to spend more, and whether that would ultimately lead to the slashing of benefits (versus, say, an increase of funding from Congress).
Even after so many years, there seems to still be some doubt regarding the legal viability of the ACA. If the Supreme Court finds the ACA unconstitutional, undoubtedly, the health insurance industry will experience much commotion, at a time that is less than ideal for such confusion.