FACT CHECK: Health Plan Competition and Provider Consolidation
Posted by The Campaign on February 23, 2010 at 2:31 PM
Health insurance plans operate in highly competitive markets across the country and consumers have numerous choices in the types of plans and in insurers. To the extent that research has raised the question of competition as a factor in rising health care costs, it has pointed to consolidation among providers, not health plans.
Key facts about health plan competition:
· 
There are eight or more health insurers in each of the top 40 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) in the nation.
· Physicians contract, on average, with about a dozen health plans. Only about half of their practice revenues come from health plan contracts while the rest comes from the federal government through Medicare and Medicaid.
· Aggressive competition among health insurance companies has also increased the number of product options available to both consumers and their employers. New types of products—like consumer-directed health plans, or HSAs—afford more choices, in addition to the many and varied PPO, HMO, POS, and indemnity options, both fully insured and self-funded.
· The states which are allegedly the most concentrated actually have some of the lowest health care costs in the nation.
· The list of participating insurance plans that are available through every state insurance department show that there are a variety of choices for consumers.
Additional information on provider consolidation:
· Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley recently issued a report on hospital consolidation in the state. According to a recent Boston Globe story, the report “points to the market clout of the best-paid providers as a main driver of the state’s spiraling health care costs” and “found no evidence that the higher pay was a reward for better quality work or for treating sicker patients.”
· According to a new report in Health Affairs, Paul Ginsburg and Robert Berenson found that “providers’ growing market power to negotiate higher payment rates from private insurers is the ‘elephant in the room’ that is rarely mentioned.”
· A report from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation found that hospital consolidation has contributed to rising health care costs. The report stated, “Research suggests that hospital consolidation in the 1990s raised inpatient prices by at least five percent and likely significantly more. Prices increase 40 percent or more when merging hospitals are closely located.”
· According to a brief from the National Institute for Health Care Management, “With only a few exceptions, results consistently demonstrate that hospital consolidations result in higher prices for hospital services. The magnitude of price increase varies by methodology and by the characteristics of the markets under study, ranging from low-end estimates of 5 percent price hikes to increases of more than 50 percent.”
· Recent reports show how much hospital consolidation has increased in recent years, indicating that:
o The vast majority (88 percent) of U.S. Metropolitan Areas have highly concentrated hospital markets.
o Hospitals markets have increased their concentration by 47 percent over 13 years.
Capps paper on AMA data
AHIP recently submitted a report to the DOJ and FTC on the Horizontal Merger Guidelines Review Project that calls into question the AMA data on concentration. The paper, “Federal Health Plan Merger Enforcement is Consistent and Robust,” written by Cory Capps, PhD, of Bates White, LLC is available here: http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/horizontalmergerguides/545095-00009.pdf. In our cover letter we said the following:
“…the American Medical Association market share and concentration figures (“AMA data”), which have been offered by the AMA for a number of years, are plagued by a number of significant limitations and appear to be unreliable. Most critically, the data are incomplete and omit various competitive alternatives, with the result that the market share figures do not reliably reflect the actual state of competition in such markets. While market share data are only a starting point, the review of any merger, in any industry, depends critically upon the use of accurate data. Simply put, the AMA data are no substitute for the DOJ’s practice of relying upon actual data from actual markets, and the use of these data in advocacy efforts demonstrates the danger of detaching merger analysis from specific, and accurate, market facts.”
“…critics have offered no evidence that lower payments to healthcare providers or lower quality healthcare have resulted from health insurer mergers generally or from any specific health insurer merger. Indeed, the evidence reviewed in the Capps Paper suggests that increased payments to providers of healthcare goods and services account for all or nearly all of the premium increases over the last decade. While general facts do not determine the results of individual merger reviews, this fact may be informative as DOJ and the FTC determine where to focus their enforcement resources.”
