7 Ways Obamacare's Caving to Hospital and Big Pharma Profits May End Up Being Painful for Most of Us

June 11, 2013

Like this article?

Join our email list:

Stay up to date with the latest headlines via email.

With the one-year anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling upholding the Affordable Care Act near, it’s time to ask if the decision to put the burden of cutting costs on patients, not corporate healthcare profiteering, is the fatal flaw in the plan.

The law’s tepid cost control measures targeted at healthcare spending that is gobbling up an increasing percentage of the economy and pricing more people than ever out of access to care have been widely viewed as the ACA’s biggest pitfall. But from the outset, the Obama administration dismissed the most effective means to reduce costs by a) refusing to consider a single payer alternative that combines genuine universal coverage not based on ability to pay with global budgeting, b) rejecting a proposal to authorize the federal government to negotiate bulk purchasing (a concession to the drug companies), and c) failing to regulate price gouging by hospitals, drug companies, insurers and other healthcare corporations. Those fateful decisions left only one option for significant reduction of overall health expenditures — saving money in the delivery of care by shifting costs to those who use health services and discouraging them from getting care even if they have insurance.  Perhaps that’s not surprising given the decision to craft the ACA in concert with pharmaceutical, insurance, hospital, and Chamber of Commerce lobbyists, and, as recently reported, top Wall Street investment firms and hedge fund executives.  Here are several ways the ACA shifts the hardship of cost cutting to those who need care, and promotes delivery models that result in limiting care, even among those with health insurance. 1.      What they’re not telling us about the exchanges The ACA health exchanges are marketplaces set up to enable the uninsured who the law requires to buy private insurance or pay a financial penalty to choose among competing private insurance and qualify for a federal subsidy to cover some of the costs.  But premiums, deductibles, co-pays and other fees can run to thousands of dollars. Even in the cheapest plans buyers are expected to pay 40 percent of the cost. Subsides may not make these plans “affordable.” Many younger, healthier people are likely to select the cheapest plan, one outside the exchange with fewer covered services, or just go without coverage entirely and pay the fine. Further, small businesses can buy coverage for employees through the exchanges, but the premium and co-pay subsidies will not cover family dependents, a huge hole that will leave many uncovered.  Insurers offering lower rates the first year in hopes of acquiring many new customers are likely to raise rates later, as has occurred in Massachusetts, the model for the ACA. A recent study in the journal Health Affairs found that 38 percent of families buying plans through the Massachusetts exchange reported a financial burden and 45 percent said costs were higher than they had expected.   2.      The high cost of taxing health benefits 

For the first time, the law will tax health benefits beginning in 2018 through the misnamed “Cadillac tax” a 40 percent excise tax on comprehensive health plans. The inevitable result will be fewer employers offering good health benefits, and far more people pushed into skeletal, high deductible plans with far less coverage and much higher out-of-pocket costs. The New York Times just reported that 17 percent of employers this year are stepping up cost shifting five years before the tax goes into effect.

3.      An incentive to employers to cut coverage or full-time jobs

Under the ACA employers with 50 workers or more must offer coverage to full time employees or pay a fine, but not to part-timers. Nurses and other workers are increasingly in battles with employers who are demanding elimination of coverage for part time employees, citing the ACA as their pretext. Regal Entertainment, Papa John’s and other companies are reducing workers’ hours to under 30 per week.    4.      The wellness scam “Wellness” programs that enable businesses to transfer more healthcare costs to workers with “unhealthy” factors like smoking or high blood pressure or cholesterol levels are rapidly spreading, actively encouraged by the ACA which offers premium discounts to participating employees. However, health disorders are as likely to derive from chronic or genetic conditions as “life style choices” and economic factors which have a disproportionate impact on the poor. The cost reductions also fall far short of the hype. The federal government apparently buried a report it mandated for the ACA from the Rand Corporation on wellness programs which showed the overall savings are, at best, modest.  The programs make insurance unaffordable for some workers, and “keep the sickest workers from affording the care they need,” said Alan Balch, vice president of the Preventive Health Partnership, an alliance of the American Cancer Society, the American Diabetes Association, and the American Heart Association. 

  1. Self-rationing on the rise

With its weak controls on pricing practices by the insurers and hospitals, and encouraging cost shifting and high deductible plans, the ACA provides no relief for those who postpone needed care because of the high price tag. A survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention just released in early June found that 20 percent of Americans, or 54.2 million people in 2011 said their families had difficulty paying for health care services including physician visits, hospital procedures and medications within the prior 12 months.  Among the effects, people delay getting care include less containment for the spread of infectious diseases and more people ending up in emergency rooms. ER visits as the point of entry for patients to needed healthcare have been on a big upswing, a worrisome trend for the increased pain and suffering for patients and the overall health expenditures.  

6.      New barriers to care

This article originally appeared on: AlterNet