Blog | Payment Reimbursement and Managed Care

Survey data highlights shortcomings in private insurance coverage compared with Medicare

Blog | Payment Reimbursement and Managed Care

Survey data highlights shortcomings in private insurance coverage compared with Medicare

Indicators of coverage gaps were more likely to be seen among individuals with private insurance.

Commercial insurance coverage is better for a healthcare provider’s payer mix, but a new study indicates Medicare has advantages for consumers.

Examining survey data from a representative sample of more than 149,000 individuals residing in 17 states and Washington, D.C., researchers found that those with private insurance were more likely than those with government-sponsored coverage to report poor access to care, higher care costs and less satisfaction with care.

Disparities especially were seen when comparing Medicare coverage with private insurance (both individually purchased and employer-sponsored), according to data from the study, which was published in JAMA Network Open. Individuals in the latter category were less likely to report having a personal physician and more likely to report:

  • Instability in insurance coverage
  • Difficulty seeing a physician because of costs
  • Not taking medication because of costs
  • Having medical debt

Differences were less notable when comparing private insurance coverage to Medicaid. Those with employer-sponsored insurance were more likely to report having medical debt but less likely to report difficulty seeing a physician or not taking medication because of cost-related issues.

Individuals with employer-sponsored coverage reported lower satisfaction with their care compared with Medicare beneficiaries, while there was no difference when compared with Medicaid enrollees.

The concern for providers

The study findings indicate that “efforts to increase the number of individuals covered by public insurance programs or improve protections for individuals covered by private insurance against increasing costs are needed," according to the authors.

Hospital advocates oppose initiatives to expand public insurance programs, such as through a single-payer system or via a federally run public option that would be added to individual-insurance markets.

That’s because private insurers pay significantly more for services, offering a vital recenue source. According to a 2020 literature review by the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF), private insurers pay 199% of Medicare rates for all services, including 264% for outpatient services. When discounting supplemental payments, Medicaid rates are lower than those for Medicare and generally don’t cover the cost of care.

Combined, hospitals experience an annual shortfall of $57.8 billion from providing care for Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries, according to a 2017 brief by the American Hospital Association.

“If provider payments were phased down closer to Medicare levels, providers would have stronger incentives to become more efficient, which could help make health coverage and care more affordable for patients and employers,” the KFF authors wrote.

“However, even some relatively efficient providers appear to have been losing money on Medicare patients over the past few years, prompting some leading public option and Medicare for all proposals to set hospital payments somewhat above current Medicare rates.”

About the Author

Nick Hut

is a senior editor with HFMA, Westchester, Ill. (nhut@hfma.org).

Sign up for a free guest account and get access to five free articles every month.

Advertisements

Related Articles | Payment Reimbursement and Managed Care

Fact Sheet | Payment Reimbursement and Managed Care

CY 2022 Physician Fee Schedule Final Rule Summary - Part I

HFMA presents a detailed summary of the final rule relating to the Medicare physician fee schedule for CY 2022 and other revisions to Medicare Part B policies.

Column | Cost Effectiveness of Health

Accelerated drug approvals present a mounting challenge to oncologists and raises concerns about cost effectiveness for health system finance leaders

In the past year, Americans have witnessed two extremes of the FDA’s accelerated approval process, exposing both profound strengths and worrisome weaknesses. Finance leaders should keep informed about new drug treatment options, their associated costs and efficacy and whether lower-cost alternatives that have the same efficacy are available so they can engage in meaningful conversations with clinicians about which options truly promote cost effectiveness of health.

Comment Letter | Payment Reimbursement and Managed Care

HFMA Comments on Requirements Related to Surprise Billing, Part II Interim Final Rule

HFMA presents its comment letter to CMS on the Interim Final Rule with comment period implementing certain provisions of the No Surprises Act; Part II issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Labor, and the Office of Personnel, published in the October 7, 2021, Federal Register.

Column | Healthcare Reform

Gail Wilensky: Physician payment and SDoH challenges loom large on nation’s path to value

Two primary obstacles stand in the way of the nation's ability to achieve cost-effective health and healthcare delivery: the slow transition to value-based payment by physicians and the need to address social determinants of health.