• Member Statistics

    • 773,328 Colleagues-to-Date [Sponsored by a generous R&D grant from iMBA, Inc.]
  • David E. Marcinko [Editor-in-Chief]

    As a former Dean and appointed Distinguished University Professor and Endowed Department Chair, Dr. David Edward Marcinko MBA was a NYSE broker and investment banker for a decade who was respected for his unique perspectives, balanced contrarian thinking and measured judgment to influence key decision makers in strategic education, health economics, finance, investing and public policy management.

    Dr. Marcinko is originally from Loyola University MD, Temple University in Philadelphia and the Milton S. Hershey Medical Center in PA; as well as Oglethorpe University and Emory University in Georgia, the Atlanta Hospital & Medical Center; Kellogg-Keller Graduate School of Business and Management in Chicago, and the Aachen City University Hospital, Koln-Germany. He became one of the most innovative global thought leaders in medical business entrepreneurship today by leveraging and adding value with strategies to grow revenues and EBITDA while reducing non-essential expenditures and improving dated operational in-efficiencies.

    Professor David Marcinko was a board certified surgical fellow, hospital medical staff President, public and population health advocate, and Chief Executive & Education Officer with more than 425 published papers; 5,150 op-ed pieces and over 135+ domestic / international presentations to his credit; including the top ten [10] biggest drug, DME and pharmaceutical companies and financial services firms in the nation. He is also a best-selling Amazon author with 30 published academic text books in four languages [National Institute of Health, Library of Congress and Library of Medicine].

    Dr. David E. Marcinko is past Editor-in-Chief of the prestigious “Journal of Health Care Finance”, and a former Certified Financial Planner® who was named “Health Economist of the Year” in 2010. He is a Federal and State court approved expert witness featured in hundreds of peer reviewed medical, business, economics trade journals and publications [AMA, ADA, APMA, AAOS, Physicians Practice, Investment Advisor, Physician’s Money Digest and MD News] etc.

    Later, Dr. Marcinko was a vital recruited BOD member of several innovative companies like Physicians Nexus, First Global Financial Advisors and the Physician Services Group Inc; as well as mentor and coach for Deloitte-Touche and other start-up firms in Silicon Valley, CA.

    As a state licensed life, P&C and health insurance agent; and dual SEC registered investment advisor and representative, Marcinko was Founding Dean of the fiduciary and niche focused CERTIFIED MEDICAL PLANNER® chartered professional designation education program; as well as Chief Editor of the three print format HEALTH DICTIONARY SERIES® and online Wiki Project.

    Dr. David E. Marcinko’s professional memberships included: ASHE, AHIMA, ACHE, ACME, ACPE, MGMA, FMMA, FPA and HIMSS. He was a MSFT Beta tester, Google Scholar, “H” Index favorite and one of LinkedIn’s “Top Cited Voices”.

    Marcinko is “ex-officio” and R&D Scholar-on-Sabbatical for iMBA, Inc. who was recently appointed to the MedBlob® [military encrypted medical data warehouse and health information exchange] Advisory Board.

    entrepreneur

    Frontal_lobe_animation

  • ME-P Information & Content Channels

  • ME-P Archives Silo [2006 – 2019]

  • Ann Miller RN MHA [Managing Editor]

    ME-P SYNDICATIONS:
    WSJ.com,
    CNN.com,
    Forbes.com,
    WashingtonPost.com,
    BusinessWeek.com,
    USNews.com, Reuters.com,
    TimeWarnerCable.com,
    e-How.com,
    News Alloy.com,
    and Congress.org

    Comprehensive Financial Planning Strategies for Doctors and Advisors: Best Practices from Leading Consultants and Certified Medical Planners(TM)

    Product Details

    Product Details

    Product Details

  • CERTIFIED MEDICAL PLANNER® program

    New "Self-Directed" Study Option SinceJanuary 1st, 2018
  • Most Recent ME-Ps

  • PodiatryPrep.org


    BOARD CERTIFICATION EXAM STUDY GUIDES
    Lower Extremity Trauma
    [Click on Image to Enlarge]

  • ME-P Free Advertising Consultation

    The “Medical Executive-Post” is about connecting doctors, health care executives and modern consulting advisors. It’s about free-enterprise, business, practice, policy, personal financial planning and wealth building capitalism. We have an attitude that’s independent, outspoken, intelligent and so Next-Gen; often edgy, usually controversial. And, our consultants “got fly”, just like U. Read it! Write it! Post it! “Medical Executive-Post”. Call or email us for your FREE advertising and sales consultation TODAY [770.448.0769]

    Product Details

    Product Details

  • Medical & Surgical e-Consent Forms

    ePodiatryConsentForms.com
  • iMBA R&D Services

    Commission a Subject Matter Expert Report [$250-$999]January 1st, 2019
    Medical Clinic Valuations * Endowment Fund Management * Health Capital Formation * Investment Policy Statement Analysis * Provider Contracting & Negotiations * Marketplace Competition * Revenue Cycle Enhancements; and more! HEALTHCARE FINANCIAL INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX
  • iMBA Inc., OFFICES

    Suite #5901 Wilbanks Drive, Norcross, Georgia, 30092 USA [1.770.448.0769]. Our location is real and we are now virtually enabled to assist new long distance clients and out-of-town colleagues.

  • ME-P Publishing

  • SEEKING INDUSTRY INFO PARTNERS?

    If you want the opportunity to work with leading health care industry insiders, innovators and watchers, the “ME-P” may be right for you? We are unbiased and operate at the nexus of theoretical and applied R&D. Collaborate with us and you’ll put your brand in front of a smart & tightly focused demographic; one at the forefront of our emerging healthcare free marketplace of informed and professional “movers and shakers.” Our Ad Rate Card is available upon request [770-448-0769].

  • Reader Comments, Quips, Opinions, News & Updates

  • Start-Up Advice for Businesses, DRs and Entrepreneurs

    ImageProxy “Providing Management, Financial and Business Solutions for Modernity”
  • Up-Trending ME-Ps

  • Capitalism and Free Enterprise Advocacy

    Whether you’re a mature CXO, physician or start-up entrepreneur in need of management, financial, HR or business planning information on free markets and competition, the "Medical Executive-Post” is the online place to meet for Capitalism 2.0 collaboration. Support our online development, and advance our onground research initiatives in free market economics, as we seek to showcase the brightest Next-Gen minds. ******************************************************************** THE ME-P DISCLAIMER: Posts, comments and opinions do not necessarily represent iMBA, Inc., but become our property after submission. Copyright © 2006 to-date. iMBA, Inc allows colleges, universities, medical and financial professionals and related clinics, hospitals and non-profit healthcare organizations to distribute our proprietary essays, photos, videos, audios and other documents; etc. However, please review copyright and usage information for each individual asset before submission to us, and/or placement on your publication or web site. Attestation references, citations and/or back-links are required. All other assets are property of the individual copyright holder.
  • OIG Fraud Warnings

    Beware of health insurance marketplace scams OIG's Most Wanted Fugitives at oig.hhs.gov

PP-ACA Silver Plan Premium Costs

Changes for 2017

By http://www.MCOL.com

***

***

Conclusion

Your thoughts and comments on this ME-P are appreciated. Feel free to review our top-left column, and top-right sidebar materials, links, URLs and related websites, too. Then, subscribe to the ME-P. It is fast, free and secure.

Speaker: If you need a moderator or speaker for an upcoming event, Dr. David E. Marcinko; MBA – Publisher-in-Chief of the Medical Executive-Post – is available for seminar or speaking engagements. Contact: MarcinkoAdvisors@msn.com

OUR OTHER PRINT BOOKS AND RELATED INFORMATION SOURCES:

Risk Management, Liability Insurance, and Asset Protection Strategies for Doctors and Advisors: Best Practices from Leading Consultants and Certified Medical Planners™8Comprehensive Financial Planning Strategies for Doctors and Advisors: Best Practices from Leading Consultants and Certified Medical Planners™

***

Impact of Repeal/Replace Uncertainty on Stakeholder Budgets and Business Plans

An Electronic Voting Poll

By http://www.MCOL.com

We encourage you to participate in the this brief e-Poll on the impact of the uncertainties surrounding repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) on your organization’s budgets and business plans.

Participants will receive a free report of the findings from the survey results. In order to participate, your responses are due by Friday April 21st, 2017.  

The e-poll asks the following questions:

  • Are you a purchaser, provider or vendor/other?
  • Has the uncertainty during the last five months regarding repeal and replacement of the ACA affected your organization’s business plan, budget and hiring plans?
  • Overall, how do you feel the uncertainty during regarding repeal and replacement of the ACA will impact your organization for the 2017 calendar year?
  • Ultimately, how do you feel the current environment will lead to challenges vs. opportunities?

Assessment

To take the e-poll now, go VOTE: http://register.healthwebsummit.com/mcolepoll0417

***

Blue Cross Blue Shield, Independent / Provider – Sponsored Plans

Join Our Mailing List

Transcripts and Slides

DougBy Douglas B. Sherlock, CFA sherlock@sherlockco.com

The Affordable Care Act is intended to create strong incentives to reduce the administrative costs of health insurers. The medical loss ratio rules and the new ACA-related taxes are manifestations of this policy, and the recent announced business combinations between leading national health insurers are adaptations to these incentives.

It follows that the most recent rate of increase in health plan administrative expenses, excluding the new taxes, is dramatically lower than in recent years. Sherlock Company materials summarizing the results of our surveys are found below.

Independent / Provider – Sponsored Plans

Blue Cross Blue Shield Plans

Assessment

The contents above are a very small portion of the 1,000 page Sherlock Benchmarks for each of these universes. The Sherlock Benchmarks are essential tools to manage administrative costs for your health plan.

budget

Conclusion

Your thoughts and comments on this ME-P are appreciated. Feel free to review our top-left column, and top-right sidebar materials, links, URLs and related websites, too. Then, subscribe to the ME-P. It is fast, free and secure.

Speaker: If you need a moderator or speaker for an upcoming event, Dr. David E. Marcinko; MBA – Publisher-in-Chief of the Medical Executive-Post – is available for seminar or speaking engagements. Contact: MarcinkoAdvisors@msn.com

OUR OTHER PRINT BOOKS AND RELATED INFORMATION SOURCES:

Product DetailsProduct Details

[Foreword Dr. Phillips MD JD MBA LLM] *** [Foreword Dr. Nash MD MBA FACP]

***

The “Selling-Out” of a Profession [Dentistry]?

Join Our Mailing List 

Dentistry …?

[By D. Kellus Pruitt DDS]

1-darrellpruittSeveral years ago, a president-elect of the American Dental Association proclaimed, “The electronic health record may not be the result of changes of our choice. They are going to be mandated. No one is going to ask, ‘Do you want to do this?’ No, it’s going to be, ‘You have to do this.’” (ADA News, October 2008).

Looking back, it is easy to recognize the ADA’s renegade capitulation to HHS as a warning sign of things to come.

The ADA is the same national healthcare institution whose leaders joined Delta Dental in persuading dentists to volunteer for HIPAA’s NPI numbers – never revealing what they are to be used for. It’s the same not-for-profit Chicago corporation which continues to protect non-dues revenue by misleading the nation about the “savings and convenience” of EHRs in dentistry. Among all healthcare organizations, the ADA is alone in their enthusiasm for EHRs and Meaningful Use requirements.

And to top it off, the ADA leadership has progressively become less accessible by the community it serves – NEVER entering into open discussions of urgent dental issues on the internet, even to the extent of ending its commitment to answering dental questions for visitors to Dr. Oz’s Sharecare.com. It’s only dentistry for crying out loud!

As a matter of fact, Dr. Maxine Feinberg, the new ADA President, recently suggested in an interview with the ADA’s Judy Jakush that telephone conversations are “The best kept secret of the ADA which members don’t understand.” What?

Dr. Feinberg: “The best-kept secret is that if you have a problem or complaint, you will likely walk away with a positive experience. And, on the rare occasion that the staff can’t help you, there is a good chance that you will speak to Dr. Kathy O’Loughlin, the executive director. That’s amazing customer service.”

***

Insightful or clueless dentist?

***

What’s not to understand? I understand that ADA membership numbers have taken a hit over the last few years, but nevertheless, the dues of a little over 150,000 dentists still help pay the salaries of ADA employees. That’s a lot of phone calls that will have to be transferred to the right person (the first time), scheduled to call back later or be completely ignored. Isn’t email, or even the US Mail a better idea? Or is lousy communication (unaccountability) with dentists and patients the goal?

About that NPI number

How do you feel about the ADA leading the effort to assess and report your value to your community without ever stepping into your office or talking with a satisfied patient? When you volunteered for your National Provider Identifier at the insistence of the ADA and Delta Dental, you agreed to CMS terms. What? Nobody mentioned that?:

“Spread the mission of the DQA – The DQA, formed in 2008 through a request from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, is comprised of multiple stakeholders from across the oral health community who are committed to development of consensus-based quality measures.” By Kelly Soderlund for the ADA News, November 3, 2014.

Does “multiple stakeholders” sound as costly to you as it does to me, Doc? I say we already have too many stakeholders. What about the principals (dentists and their patients) who pay the stakeholders’ bills?

***

eHRs

***

Does anyone disagree that DQA looks like the ADA’s desperate mission creep for cash? With the chronic drop in membership, the Chicago corporation has turned to vigorous pursuit of non-dues revenue – probably in the form of federal grants and stimulus money from HHS. The ADA (which prefers clumsy communication via telephone), is asking state and local dental leaders to put their own personal credibility at risk by persuading uninformed dentists to unquestioningly accept multiple stakeholders’ assessment of their value to society – just like clueless dentists cooperated in the NPI effort.

Dr. David Schirmer, chair of the DQA’s education committee, tells ADA News: “Eventually, all of dentistry will need to understand quality measures. But before we reach our grass roots membership, we need our leaders in dentistry to understand.” He adds, “I’m challenging those leaders to pave the way for their younger colleagues and help them understand the long-term impact this will have on dentistry.”

ADA Editor Soderlund: “The DQA has taken the lead on developing quality measures within oral health care. These measures touch every practicing dentist in the United States, and with dentistry, how it’s modeled and how it’s financed changes in the future — specifically as a result of the Affordable Care Act — they’ll become even more prevalent. The mission of the DQA is to advance performance measurement as a means to improve oral health, patient care and safety through a consensus-building process.”

“— specifically as a result of the Affordable Care Act —“ Since you never respond, ADA, how do we know you haven’t sold us out once again for taxpayers’ money?

Assessment

If it’s difficult for the ADA to hold onto membership now, just wait until the nation’s dentists figure out that Obamacare cannot give everyone A’s on their internet report cards. This means the majority of dentists are going to be pissed at the ADA for their bad grades, no matter what.

Conclusion

Your thoughts and comments on this ME-P are appreciated. Feel free to review our top-left column, and top-right sidebar materials, links, URLs and related websites, too. Then, subscribe to the ME-P. It is fast, free and secure.

Speaker: If you need a moderator or speaker for an upcoming event, Dr. David E. Marcinko; MBA – Publisher-in-Chief of the Medical Executive-Post – is available for seminar or speaking engagements. Contact: MarcinkoAdvisors@msn.com

OUR OTHER PRINT BOOKS AND RELATED INFORMATION SOURCES:

Product DetailsProduct Details

The PP-ACA [Game Changer for Health Care Financing]

Join Our Mailing List 

The fuel which fires the self-funded engine of employee health and welfare plans

[By William Rusteberg]

A SPECIAL ME-P REPORT

PP-ACA Taxes for 2015

Introduction

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) has had a fundamental impact on health care financing in this country. It has effectively provided added incentives for plan sponsors to consider modified self-funding arrangements for their employee health and welfare plans in lieu of fully-insured plans. The advantages of doing so are clear.

Health care costs continue to rise despite passage of the ACA. While the ACA addresses many aspects surrounding the delivery of health care, it does little or nothing to identify and offer solutions to constantly rising costs. On the contrary, many ACA provisions are driving cost up.

Plan sponsors have a choice between assuming a passive strategy with little or no control through fully-insured funding arrangements or the alternative. The alternative affords more control and less cost. It rewards innovation and creativity. It utilizes all the tools a risk manager requires as part of his trade.

More plan sponsors are turning to self-funding in response to the ACA.

Product DetailsProduct DetailsProduct Details

The Market Leading Up To the ACA

The financial and benefit advantages of self-funded health and welfare plans became evident with the passage of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) of 1974. Dramatic growth in self-funding occurred when ERISA preemption, clarified legal environment, rising health care costs, widespread use of risk management, the cost containment movement (Managed Care) and high interest rates were all being experienced.

Fully insured plans continued to be a large segment of the market, especially among smaller employer groups. However, a significant number larger groups remaining fully-insured moved towards minimum premium plans, or plans which were rated retrospectively on an administration cost plus basis. This approach among larger employers mirrored self-funding advantages to some degree, however the insurance companies ultimately bore the entire risk and maintained full control over plan expenses and claim costs. These types of fully-insured funding arrangements were the carrier’s response to the growing phenomenon and popularity of self-funding.

With the advent of managed care in the early 1980’s, the entire dynamics of health care delivery changed. Third party intermediaries became an important element in the health care equation.  These intermediaries performed valuable services in cost containment which initially had a positive impact on health care benefits and costs to the advantage of both the consumer and payer.

Carefully selected health care givers were aggregated into exclusive networks of preferred providers. The theory behind the scheme was valid; selected health care providers would agree to discount their usual fees for service in return for more patients. Steerage was accomplished by rewarding consumers with improved benefits when seeking care through these “preferred” providers. All worked well, with health care costs temporarily softening.

Consumers no longer had to satisfy deductibles to receive most care. Instead, co-pays as low as $10 to see a doctor became the norm. Prescription drugs benefits, now accounting for as much as 25% of a plan’s total spend in today’s market, were easily accessed by paying a small co-pay. Access to care became easier and affordable. Utilization increased.

With increased utilization, consumers began to demand more doctors and hospitals to be added to networks. Over time, just about every doctor and hospital in a given geographic area were all on networks. Competition among insurance companies hinged upon who had the broadest network. The pressure to add medical providers became intense. A seller’s market for medical providers became an established trend that continues to this day. Preferred Provider Organizations (PPO) thus gained the advantage of a seller’s market they created while end users became subject to a weakened and impotent buyer’s market.

Over time PPO’s lost their core characteristic. There was no longer any steerage. The scheme that worked so well in the beginning began to unravel. Costs increased dramatically, year after year.

Plan sponsors failed to recognize the slow progression towards failure of managed care. They continued to subscribe to the theory behind managed care based upon reliance of advice and guidance from “trusted” insurance companies, third party administrators, agents, brokers and insurance experts posing as consultants. Unfortunately, and unknown to plan sponsors, these trusted advisors maintained a vested interest in continuing the scheme. A de facto conspiracy of third party intermediaries formed. The conspiracy continues to this day. It is one of the health care industry’s best kept secrets.

No one can dispute that managed care has failed. Health care costs have continued to increase at double digits year after year, becoming unaffordable for most Americans. Plan Sponsors, concerned and desperate for answers and solutions continue to rely on advice and guidance from third party intermediaries whose vested interests is in maintaining the status quo. To more and more employers health care costs can mean the difference between profit and loss.

The perception that private enterprise has failed in reining in costs is widespread. Private and public budgets can no longer sustain the current level of spending, let alone future health care inflation.

Pointing to failure of the market to keep medical costs affordable, many looked to government for solutions.

Product DetailsProduct Details

The Affordable Care Act & The Impact on Health Care Financing

With the passage of the ACA, we find ourselves in a dynamic and somewhat unpredictable market, particularly the political dimensions as the ACA continues to evolve. However, we do know to a large degree, how the market will be affected and what plan sponsors must do to maintain affordable health care for their employees.

The ACA’s most significant impact centers upon how group medical plans will be financially structured for years to come. The ACA effectively makes fully-insured plans less attractive while providing advantages to self-funded arrangements. Carriers have come to recognize this and are moving to increase their market share. Currently the BUCA’s (Blue Cross, United HealthCare, Cigna and Aetna) administer more self-funded business than fully-insured business on their respective large group blocks of business. They are now actively expanding this funding method to the small group market.

The ACA’s universal intent is to provide government mandated means for affordable health care for all Americans. However, the ACA as it is now written does not address cost of care nor does it mandate parameters around which cost of care is to be based. Instead, the ACA mandates rigid requirements that address what insurance companies can offer in the way of benefits, as well as profit and operating margins. There is nothing in the Act that addresses what medical providers charge and what they are paid.

These far reaching rules have dramatically impacted fully-insured plans. All ACA mandates apply to these plans, whereas self-funded plans are exempt from many of them. Fully-insured plans are effectively handcuffed affording little leeway to be proactive and innovative in plan design and cost basis. Unlike self-funded plans, little can be done to control costs under fully insured plans.

An example of a reverse outcome of good intentions pertains to the Minimum Loss Ratio mandate required of all fully insured plans but exempted under self-funded plans. Fully insured large groups are required to maintain a loss ratio wherein health care claims cannot be less than 85% of premium leaving insurance companies with15% of premium to cover their costs and earn profits. However this has had a reverse effect, the opposite of which is higher costs. The greater the cost (claims), the greater the profit to the insurance company. Fifteen percent of a larger number is larger than 15% of a smaller number.

Insurance companies remaining in the fully-insured market have little or no incentive to reduce health care costs except to remain competitive in the market. With only a handful of fully-insured carriers in any given market there is less competition. Shadow pricing between competitors can very often be an effective means of maximizing insurance company profits at the expense of the plan sponsor and plan participants. A 15% operating and profit margin becomes greater when insurance rates are higher.

A good example of a constricted market can be found in San Antonio, Texas, a market we know well. There are only four major players in the fully-insured market: Blue Cross, United Healthcare, Aetna and Humana. Employer groups who continue to fully-insure will contract with one of these four carriers.

The Lower Rio Grande Valley in deep South Texas, on the other hand, has only one major carrier in the fully-insured market. Blue Cross is the dominant carrier, with occasional, cyclical and short lived forays into the Valley by Aetna and Humana..

Fully insured health insurance carriers have developed proprietary provider networks as an integral part of their insurance plans. None to our knowledge market plans that do not utilize their PPO network as part of the offering. There is an economic reason for this and it has nothing to do with lowering health care costs.

To insure continuing higher profits, health claim costs must continue to escalate. Third party intermediaries negotiate provider agreements in secrecy with both parties agreeing to non-disclose of terms, conditions and pricing to the public. It is our opinion that if you are not allowed to see a contract you are probably paying more than you should. Plan sponsors have simply become third party beneficiaries, accessing provider agreements they cannot see, examine or audit.

Fully insured group medical insurance in today’s market requires accessing proprietary, secretive PPO contracts. These contracts drive costs up each year primarily due to automatic escalator clauses. Other contract provisions include provider re-pricing fees and shared savings provisions based on egregious charge master rates no one ever pays. There are other contract provisions that guarantee continued cost increases but we will save that discussion for another day.

Self-funding provides plan sponsors a means to comply with the ACA with less restrictive mandates and lower costs. In addition, plan sponsors have the ability to design benefits that are far more flexible. They gain the freedom to choose provider reimbursement methods based on transparency, benchmarked off costs instead of phony discounts based on inflated sticker prices no one ever pays. They have the ability to eliminate expensive third party intermediaries that bring no value, They have the ability to directly contract with willing providers based on transparent benchmarking, achieving savings of 20% or more.

The ACA’s adverse impact on fully insured plans include community rating and minimum essential benefit requirements, 3:1 age band rating, pre-existing condition inclusion, and benefit expansions. All of these mandates drive cost up.

A self-funded plan is not subject to community rating nor are they required to include all ten (10) essential benefits. In addition, self-funded plans are not subject to the 3:1 rating rule and can mitigate pre-existing inclusion through selective lasers. Lasers are an underwriting technique that increases exposure/costs only when a loss occurs. If no loss occurs, there is no effective additional load to plan costs unlike fully-insured plans that load the premium costs at the beginning of the plan year, effectively passing on a cost that may or may not be necessary.

Complementing the advantages of self-funding under the ACA, ERISA preempts the state’s ability to mandate health insurance contract terms and benefits, impose premium taxes, impose underwriting constraints and mandated premiums (varies by state) and limit employee benefit plan options.

Product Details  Product Details

The Future under the ACA

Health care costs continue to escalate. Both private and public sector budgets can no longer sustain the current level of spending, let alone future health care inflation.

Over 170 million Americans are insured through employer sponsored health plans today. These employers, fearing the effects of the ACA on their bottom line, are concerned and desperate for answers and solutions to ever increasing health care costs. To more and more of them health care costs can mean the difference between profit and loss.

Acceptance to change, historically, has been slow among employers who have traditionally relied on third party intermediaries to guide them through the complicated maze of our health care system. The ACA has effectively changed that mindset among many plan sponsors.

We are seeing a movement away from managed care by some employers, and to a lesser degree, by health care providers, particularly health care professionals. Employers, for the first time, are questioning managed care contracts they cannot see but upon which their health care costs are based.

We are seeing a major shift to self-funded arrangements which enable plan sponsors to effectively manage costs through avoidance of certain ACA requirements, underwriting advantages, and pro-active risk management.

Assessment

Product Details

Although ERISA was passed into law over 35 years ago, with the advent of the ACA more plan sponsors are accepting full fiduciary responsibility to assure that plan assets are expended prudently and in the best interests of plan participants.

Conclusion

As it stands today, the ACA is the fuel which fires the self-funded engine of employee health and welfare plans, providing flexibility, control and lower costs. It is the parking brakes of fully-insured plans.

About the Author

Bill Rusteberg is a fee based insurance consultant and principal of RiskManagers.us since 1998. He has been involved in the insurance industry for over 41 years specializing in self-funded employee welfare plans. Bill has spoken nationally on continuing changes affecting our health care delivery system, most recently at the Physician Hospital of America (PHA) annual forum in 2013 and the Health Care Administrators Association (HCAA) Executive Forum in 2014. Bill walks his audience through the complicated maze of the American health care delivery system. He exposes industry secrets that drive costs by outlining specific findings not generally known to Plan Sponsors. Bill offers common sense solutions to ever increasing health care costs. Armed with the knowledge industry insiders have kept hidden for years, Plan Sponsors are, for the first time, empowered to negotiate with insurance companies, managed care organizations and other third party intermediaries from a position of strength and can better achieve cost effective health care for their employees while often improving benefits at the same time. Bill is a licensed Risk Manager, Life & Health Counselor, Property & Casualty / Life & Health Insurance agent and Surplus Lines broker in Texas. He holds reciprocal licenses in several other states.

About RiskManagers.us

RiskMangers.us is a specialty company in the benefits market that, while not an insurance company, works directly with health entities, medical providers, and businesses to identify and develop cost effective benefits packages, emphasizing transparency and fairness in direct reimbursement compensation methods

Conclusion

Your thoughts and comments on this ME-P are appreciated. Feel free to review our top-left column, and top-right sidebar materials, links, URLs and related websites, too. Then, subscribe to the ME-P. It is fast, free and secure.

Speaker: If you need a moderator or speaker for an upcoming event, Dr. David E. Marcinko; MBA – Publisher-in-Chief of the Medical Executive-Post – is available for seminar or speaking engagements. Contact: MarcinkoAdvisors@msn.com

OUR OTHER PRINT BOOKS AND RELATED INFORMATION SOURCES:

Financial Planning MDs 2015

Comprehensive Financial Planning Strategies for Doctors and Advisors: Best Practices from Leading Consultants and Certified Medical Planners™

Two Healthcare Sectors the Stock Market Got Wrong on Election Day 2012

Join Our Mailing List

How various sectors in the Health Care Industry fared under the PP-ACA legislation?

[A SPECIAL R&D REPORT FOR THE ME-P]

By David K. Luke MIM, MS-PFP, CMP™ [Certified Medical Planner™]

Website: http://www.networthadvice.com

David K. LukeThere has been a lot of speculation since the words “Affordable Care Act” were first whispered years ago on how the various sectors in the Health Care Industry would fare under such legislation. I proposed that a good indicator would be to look at the performance of the individual health care sector stocks on the first trading day after the election.

(See With Obama Election Win, “Mr. Market” Weighs in on the ACA Equity Winners and Losers by David K. Luke on November 16, 2012).

Link: With Obama Election Win “Mr. Market” Weighs in on the ACA Equity Winners and Losers

The day after Pres. Obama’s reelection on Wednesday, November 7, 2012 the stock market was down over 2% as measured by the S&P 500 and the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA). The common reason given was increased doubt that the impending “fiscal cliff” issue, which was splitting the House and the Senate, would be resolved. There was however, another big concern on investor’s mind: the future of the Affordable Care Act. While the election was close when measured by the popular vote with President Obama earning 51.06% versus Mitt Romney with 47.20%, the electoral vote showed a hands-down Obama victory with 332 versus 206 votes. Investors voted with their pocketbooks with that first trading session following the election showing certain healthcare sectors up in price, other healthcare sectors with moderate returns, and certain healthcare sectors down in price.

Disparate Health Care Sector Returns

It is interesting to look back now over a year and a half later and see how accurate those investor votes were on that first day of realization that health care reform was continuing forward at a much faster pace now that President Obama would be serving a second term. Keeping in mind that the day was a very negative day as a whole in the stock market, a number of healthcare sectors were up in price. This group includes Hospital Stocks and Medicaid HMOs. Note the phenomenal one-day returns (in a down 2% market!) on the sample stocks in these two groups:

Hospital Stocks

  • Health Management Associates (HMA) +7.3%
  • HCA Holdings Inc. (HCA) +9.4%
  • Community Health Systems Inc. (CYH) +6.0%
  • Tenet Healthcare Corp. (THC) +9.6%

Medicaid HMOs

  • Molina Healthcare Inc. (MOH) +4.6%
  • Centene Corp. (CNC) +10.1%
  • WellCare Health Plans Inc. (WCG) +4.4%

Such positive returns on a big down day in the market indicates investors assessing these healthcare sectors being good investments under an Obama presidency and a positive outlook for the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. The other up sector on that day was the Drug Wholesalers, up almost 1% on that negative day. (See “Selected Health Care Performance” Chart – below).

The market had a tepid response to the Pharmacy Benefit sector, as well as the Generic Pharmacy, Testing Labs, and Big Pharma. In my sample group, these sectors were down -.4%, -7%, -1.7%, and -1.4% respectively. It is important to note however that these sectors while slightly positive or barely negative still performed better than the general market that day.

Two Sectors

But, the two healthcare sectors that the stock market severely punished with the voting of substantially more sellers than buyers by investors on that first post-election day were the Medical Device Companies (down 2.5% in the sample group) and the Medicare Part D Companies (down 4.7% in the sample group). The thought at the time was that Medical Device Companies, facing an impending medical device excise tax of 2.3% on the sale of most medical devices in the United States, would be devastated, and that Medicare Part D Companies would face severe profit constraints with tighter-fisted government regulations imposed by the ACA.

***

Stock_Market

***

The Retro-Specto-Scope

In hindsight, investors were correct on two out of the three predictions based on stock market prices on the various healthcare sectors. Hospital Stocks, Medicaid HMOs, and Drug Wholesalers, the leading sectors indicated to be winners with the impending implementation of the ACA, are up 69.8%, 63.6% and 76.5% respectively in the sample groups since November 7, 2012. This remarkable and closely parallel return for these three sectors seemed to prove that the stock market on November 7, 2012 correctly picked the three winning health care sectors! The S&P 500 index for the same time is up 32.02%, a nice return for 1 ½ years but about half the return of these apparently huge benefactors of the ACA. The healthcare sectors that investors felt less positive about (but more positive than the general stock market) on that first postelection day were Pharmacy Benefit Companies, Generic Pharmacy Companies, Testing Labs, and Big Pharma. These four health care sectors are up 43.8%, 40.5%, 6.4%, and 20.5% respectively. Again, in terms of ranking the sectors, these four sectors performed in line based on the comparative returns of the other healthcare sectors.

Wisdom of Crowds

Amazingly, it appears that the emotional Mr. Market predicated quite accurately on Wednesday, November 7, 2012, in one day of trading, not just which health sectors would be good investments for the near future, but the actually ranking of the future performance of the sectors! It seems as though the stock market, as one large voting machine, precisely dissected the over 20,000 pages + of resulting legislation created from the original 906 pages (pdf here) of the PPACA law and distilled it down to profits and losses with the resulting winners and losers in the health care industry in one trading session.

Two [2] Big Misses

Investors however were way off on their concerns about Medical Device Companies and Medicare Part D Companies. The two sample groups were up 71.3% and 66.4% in the time of November 7, 2012 to May 19, 2014 respectively, more than double the S&P 500 for the same period, and in line with the best performing sectors! This is spite of the fact that stock sample of these two groups were the two worst performers on post-election day trading. What happened?

***

Bear + A Falling Stock Chart

***

The “Medical Device Excise Tax” Fable and the “Private Insurers Will Control Costs” Fairy Tale

Wall Street has sharpened their pencils in the last year and a half and realized they have gravely underestimated the profit potential of the Medical Device makers and the Managed Care Health Insurers, in spite of the ACA. Based on stock price performance of the sample group of major players in the past 18 months, fewer sectors look as profitable as the Medical Device Industry and the Medicare Part D Industry. What happened?

The Medical Device industry states that the tax will cost the US “tens of thousands of jobs” and that those jobs will be shipped overseas. A number of issues that are involved here however refute these claims (http://www.factcheck.org/2013/10/boehner-and-the-medical-device-tax/. It appears that any targeted reductions were not related to the implementation of the tax, which became effective January 1, 2013, in spite of heavy protest by the industry. Medical technology continues to have a bright future regardless of the tax.

The notion that the “Affordable” Care Act will help reign in the rampant cost increases of Medicare’s “Part D” program seem to be elusive. Private insurers have done a poor job of keeping drug prices down, especially when compared to the discounts the government gets for Medicaid. Medicare Part D companies wield significant influence on Capitol Hill, and impending steeper discounts look unlikely.

Everybody Wins, Except …

Before the ACA implementation, about 85% of Americans had health insurance. Currently with an additional 7 million Americans with health insurance thanks to Obamacare, an additional 2.2% of Americans now have coverage, or about 87% of all Americans. How can such a slight increase in new health care consumers be responsible for such large anticipated profits in the health care sector? It cannot. Wall Street is telling us that the new health law is not about new customers, but about increased profit margins for the health care industry. I can draw three conclusions:

  1. The Affordable Care Act may not be so affordable for health consumers
  2. Most companies in the Health Care Industry stand to gain financially with ACA. There is one sure loser with ACA: The physician, who can only look forward to increased workloads and mpending Medicare SGR pay cuts.

THE CHART [Research and Development]

Selected Health Care Sector Stock Performance Random Sampling of Publically Traded Companies From President Obama Re-election Date to Present

Chart

Conclusion

Your thoughts and comments on this ME-P are appreciated. Feel free to review our top-left column, and top-right sidebar materials, links, URLs and related websites, too. Then, subscribe to the ME-P. It is fast, free and secure.

Link: http://feeds.feedburner.com/HealthcareFinancialsthePostForcxos

Speaker: If you need a moderator or speaker for an upcoming event, Dr. David E. Marcinko; MBA – Publisher-in-Chief of the Medical Executive-Post – is available for seminar or speaking engagements. Contact: MarcinkoAdvisors@msn.com

OUR OTHER PRINT BOOKS AND RELATED INFORMATION SOURCES:

Product DetailsProduct DetailsProduct Details

Product DetailsProduct Details

Product Details  Product Details

Product Details

How the ACA Affects Your RXs

Join Our Mailing List

On Four Large Groups of Import

By http://www.HelpRx.info

To give you a jumpstart about how the Affordable Care Act will impact you and your prescription drug coverage we’ve researched the major impacts on four large groups of people who could see the greatest impact.

Review the info-graphic below to learn about the benefits and requirements of the ACA and share it with your friends and family that still have questions about how the ACA will affect them.

***

infographic

***

Assessment

See more at: http://www.helprx.info/blog/infographics/infographic-how-the-affordable-care-act-impacts-you#sthash.6bk5zU0D.dpuf

Conclusion

Your thoughts and comments on this ME-P are appreciated. Feel free to review our top-left column, and top-right sidebar materials, links, URLs and related websites, too. Then, subscribe to the ME-P. It is fast, free and secure.

Link: http://feeds.feedburner.com/HealthcareFinancialsthePostForcxos

Speaker: If you need a moderator or speaker for an upcoming event, Dr. David E. Marcinko; MBA – Publisher-in-Chief of the Medical Executive-Post – is available for seminar or speaking engagements. Contact: MarcinkoAdvisors@msn.com

OUR OTHER PRINT BOOKS AND RELATED INFORMATION SOURCES:

Product DetailsProduct DetailsProduct Details

Product DetailsProduct Details

Product Details

%d bloggers like this: