Speak with an adviser 678.821.3508

START HERE
START HERE
"pbm
Uncategorized

J&J Sued Over Contracting with PBM that Overcharged Health Plan, Enrollees

by Inoventive Solutions
March 19, 2024

A new area of potential liability for employers was recently opened when a class-action suit was filed against Johnson & Johnson, accusing it of mismanaging its pharmacy benefit manager plan, resulting in the health plan and its enrollees overspending millions of dollars on medications.

Health plans contract with PBMs to tamp down pharmaceutical costs, but reports have shown that they often send enrollees to pharmacies they own and which overcharge for medications sometimes by thousands of percent.

PBMs have been drawing increasing flak from states attorneys general as well as Congress and state houses, where multiple measures that would rein them in are in play.

If the lawsuit is successful, it could leave both self-insured and insured employers exposed to lawsuits by disgruntled employees who are forking out significantly more than they should.

The case

The class action, filed Feb. 5 in the US District Court for the District of New Jersey, accuses J&J of breaching its fiduciary duty under ERISA when it mismanaged its employee health plan by paying its PBM, Express Scripts Inc., inflated prices for generic specialty drugs that are widely available at a much lower cost.

The employees suing J&J cite a number of examples of how the company’s plan overpaid for prescription drugs. One of the most egregious examples cited in the lawsuit was an instance when the plan paid more than $10,000 for a 90-pill generic drug to treat multiple sclerosis, which can be purchased without insurance on different retail and online pharmacies for $28 and $77.  

“The burden for that massive overpayment falls on Johnson and Johnson’s ERISA plans, which pay most of the agreed amount from plan assets, and on beneficiaries of the plans, who generally pay out-of-pocket for a portion of that inflated price,” the plaintiffs wrote.

“No prudent fiduciary would agree to make its plan and beneficiaries pay a price that is two-hundred-and-fifty times higher than the price available to any individual who just walks into a pharmacy and pays out-of-pocket,” they added.

It further accuses J&J of agreeing to terms under which plan beneficiaries were financially incentivized to obtain their prescriptions from the PBM’s own mail-order pharmacy, even though that pharmacy’s prices are routinely higher than the prices at other pharmacies.

The case accuses the company of:

  • Failing to regularly put PBM services out to bid.
  • Failing to negotiate favorable terms with PBMs and continually supervise PBM’s actions to ensure that the plan is reducing costs and maximizing outcomes for beneficiaries.
  • Failing to periodically attempt to renegotiate PBM contracts.
  • Failure to independently assess the PBM’s formulary placement of each prescription drug and closely supervise PBM’s formulary management to ensure the plan is paying only reasonable amounts for each prescription drug.
  • Improperly steering plan participants towards their PBM’s mail-order pharmacy, even though that pharmacy’s prices were routinely higher than what retail pharmacies charge for the same drugs.

The fallout

Legal observers say employers that offer their employees group health insurance that includes one of the nation’s large PBMs, could be targeted.

The driving argument would be that employers have been warned through news reports of how PBMs have been accused of not being transparent about their negotiated prices, and how they often pocket rebates that could be used to lower the plan’s and enrollees’ outlays.

Most at risk are employers that are in self-insured or level-funded plans. It’s not clear yet how much liability insured employers may have, but they too could be accused of choosing health plans for their employees that contracted with PBMs that allegedly overcharge for medications.

""/
Uncategorized

Moves Afoot to Improve Prior Authorization Times, Efficiency

by Inoventive Solutions
March 28, 2023

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has proposed new rules aimed at streamlining the prior approval process for most health plans in the U.S.

Under the proposal, starting in 2026, insurers would be required to render a decision within seven days for a non-urgent service or item (compared to the current 14 days), and 72 hours if it is urgent.

It would also require most group and individual health plans, Medicare Advantage, Medicaid managed care and state Medicaid agencies to implement electronic prior authorization systems by 2026 and streamline their processes for approving care.

The rule is aimed at tackling one of the biggest headaches for patients and practitioners alike. Prior authorization can sometimes take time to receive, often delaying much-needed care. Waiting for approval can have serious consequences, with studies finding:

  • It often leads to delays in care for serious conditions like cancer.
  • It often leads to more people being hospitalized as their condition worsens as they wait for care or medicine to be approved.

Prior authorization rules can also be confusing, time-consuming and frustrating for both patients and doctors, with the latter often feeling as if the insurer is questioning their expertise.

Insurers use prior authorization as a cost-containment tool that requires providers to seek approval from them before referring a patient for certain services and prescribing some medications. Studies have found that the number of prior authorization requests has exploded in the last few years, straining the system and delaying care.

The proposed rule

The goal of the rule is to reduce the bureaucracy around prior authorizations and cut wait times for responses that some providers say sometimes take weeks to get approved.

The proposed rule — a revised version of a similar one floated by the Trump administration that was withdrawn due to cost concerns — applies to all Affordable Care Act-qualified health plans, Medicare Advantage plans and state Medicaid programs.

As mentioned above, the time insurers have to approve a prior authorization request would be reduced to seven days, and 72 hours if it is urgent. Additionally, if the insurer denies the request, it would be required to include a specific reason for doing so.

Under the proposed rule, insurers will be required to build and maintain a system for electronically approving prior authorizations, known as a fast healthcare interoperability resources application programming interface (FHIR API).  

The FHIR API must be able to ascertain whether a prior authorization request is required and “facilitate the exchange of prior authorization requests and decisions” from the provider’s electronic health records or practice management system.

Some doctor’s groups have said the new rule doesn’t go far enough and that seven days is still too long.

""/
Uncategorized

Most Employees Spend Little Time Choosing Their Health Plan

by Inoventive Solutions
February 28, 2023

A new study has found that individuals enrolled in high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) are more engaged than their traditional plan counterparts during open enrollment, spending more time on choosing plans and using employer-provided tools to help them make their choices.

Despite their higher engagement though, overall, 72% of group health plan enrollees spent less than an hour on their plan during last year’s open enrollment, according to the “2023 Consumer Engagement in Health Care Survey” by the Employee Benefits Research Institute and Greenwald Research.

Additionally, one in five didn’t spend any time researching or tending to their health plan and were just automatically re-enrolled.

The study’s authors said there are likely a few reasons U.S. workers are not spending a significant amount of time researching health plans during open enrollment, including:

Satisfaction with their plan — The study found that 90% of employees were satisfied or somewhat satisfied with their employer’s open enrollment process. As mentioned, 20% of participants auto-renewed, indicating they are likely satisfied with their plan.

More choices — Employees that have more plans to choose from may find the process of comparing and contrasting plans overwhelming.

Too many obligations — Many employees likely want to spend more time researching plans, but everyday work, family, social and community obligations can get in the way.

HDHP enrollees more engaged

HDHP enrollees on most metrics were more involved in plan selection and research during open enrollment than their traditional plan counterparts.

For example, 29% of HDHP enrollees spent more than an hour researching plans during open enrollment, compared to 23% of those enrolled in traditional plans.

HDHP enrollees were also more likely to have three or more choices of health plans than their traditional plan counterparts. In fact, while 29% of HDHP enrollees had a choice of three plans, only 17% of traditional plan enrollees had three choices. Meanwhile, 36% of those in traditional plans had only one choice, compared to 29% of those in HDHPs

They were also more likely to use employer-provided tools to choose a plan:

  • Annual employee benefits guide from employer: 58% of HDHP enrollees used it, compared to 38% of traditional plan enrollees.
  • Employee benefits online portal: 41% HDHP, 29% traditional plan
  • Online research: 23% HDHP, 32% traditional plan.
  • Employer-provided educational videos: 25% HDHP, 24% traditional plan
  • HR/benefits department consultations: 13 HDHP, 14% traditional plan
  • Insurance carrier/provider website: 11% HDHP, 16% traditional plan

One of the driving factors for plan choice among high-deductible health plan recipients was whether the plan covered preventative care for chronic conditions, pre-deductible.

Nearly one-half (45%) reported that pre-deductible coverage of preventive care for chronic conditions affected their decision to select the HDHP to a great extent. Another 25% reported that it impacted their decision to a minor extent.

Additionally, 25% of traditional plan enrollees said they would be extremely or very likely to select an HDHP if it covered preventative care for chronic conditions before they reach their deductible. Another 39% reported being somewhat likely to select an HDHP if such care were covered pre-deductible.

Despite these numbers, the percentage of workers enrolled in HDHPs has ebbed since 2020, when 34% of U.S. workers were enrolled in them. In 2022, 32% were.

The takeaway

With so few employees spending more than an hour researching plans during open enrollment, some of your workers may be choosing the wrong coverage for their life circumstances.

While open enrollment only happens during the last few months of the year, you can still provide educational resources to your staff during the rest of the year to educate them on their plan choices and how to choose the best one for their life situation.

You can also encourage them to use the resources you and we provide them to help make educated decisions about their coverage.

""/
Uncategorized

Is Health Plan Self-Funding Right for Your Firm?

by Inoventive Solutions
November 18, 2022

As group health costs continue climbing and more employees struggle with the cost of premiums and out-of-pocket expenses, some employers are starting to take a second look at self-funded, or partially self-funded plans.

These plans give employers more skin in the game and the ability to better address cost drivers and tailor their offerings to fit the needs of their employees.

But while the plans can save both employer and their workers money, they are not for every organization. Plus, there is a degree of risk as a few serious health issues among group participants can blow open claims costs.

Small employer considerations

While medium-sized and large organization are more apt to self-fund due to their resources, 21% of employers with three to 199 plan participants were self-funded in 2021, according to a study by the Kaiser Family Foundation. That’s compared to employers with:

  • 200 to 999 plan participants: 63%
  • 1,000 to 4,999 plan participants: 86%
  • 5,000 and more plan participants: 87%

Recently, insurers have been trying to address small and mid-sized employers’ concerns about risk and costs by rolling out “level-funded” plans. These vehicles provide a lower level of self-funding with a stop-loss insurance program that has lower attachment points than typical plans.

For level-funded plans, the insurer estimates the employer’s expected monthly expenses, which include:

  • A portion of the estimated annual cost for benefits,
  • The stop-loss protection premium, and
  • An administrative fee.

The employer pays the above to the insurer every month. If, at the end of the year, claims were significantly higher or lower than expected, there will be financial reconciliation between the employer and the carrier.

These level-funded plans differ from fully self-funded plans, where the employer assumes direct financial responsibility for the costs of enrollees’ medical claims. The employer will usually contract with a third party administrator or insurer to handle claims and provide administrative services for the plan.

Employers may purchase stop-loss coverage to protect against catastrophic claims.

Stop-loss basics

While these plans are called self-funded, there is still a portion of the costs that is insured to protect against catastrophic claims or unexpectedly high utilization.

There are different types of stop-loss insurance that pay the cost of claims at a certain attachment point, when plan, individual or claims spending exceeds a designated value:

Specific stop-loss coverage — This policy provides protection for the employer against a high claim on any one individual. This is protection against abnormal severity of a single claim, rather than abnormal frequency of claims in total.

Aggregate stop-loss coverage — This policy may limit the total amount the plan sponsor must pay for all claims over the plan year.

The benefits

Customization — Self-funded plans let employers customize their plan to meet the needs of their workforce.

Cost control — Self-funded plans only pay the actual costs, as opposed to fully insured plans where the premium goes towards the expected health care costs the insurer has forecast, plus its overhead, reserves, profit margin, and more.

Access to claims data — The employer gets detailed access to claims costs, so they can see what claims are driving costs. By looking at claims and plan participant needs, the employer can better decide which benefits to provide, enhance or remove if they are not being used.

Disadvantages

Compliance — Since the employer will be paying for the claims, they will be responsible for fiduciary and compliance issues.

Cash flow — The plan will need to have sufficient money going into its accounts regularly to pay for claims as they arise.

Volatility — Medical outlays can be unpredictable. A spate of high-cost claims can wipe out any potential savings.

The takeaway

If you’re fed up with rising group health plan premiums, talk to us about self-funding. We can review your current insurance arrangement and your plan costs to help you decide if it’s right for you.

""/
Uncategorized

Time to Comply with Health Plan Transparency Rules

by Inoventive Solutions
July 7, 2022

July 1 was the deadline for health plans to make public their in-network negotiated rates, out-of-network billed charges, and more.

While health plans will be required to post this information, employers who sponsor their group health insurance for their employees will need to take steps to ensure that their plans comply with the law, if they have not already done so.

The transparency rules taking effect were ushered in by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 and rulemaking from the 2020 Transparency in Coverage Rules by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

The rules require that non-grandfathered insured and self-insured group health plans post machine-readable files on a public website no later than July 1, 2022. A public website, under the rules, is one that does not require a log-in or password to access.

The machine-readable files should include:

  • In-network rates for each item or service provided by in-network providers, including any negotiated rates, fee schedule rates used to determine cost-sharing, or derived amounts — whichever rate is applicable to the plan.
    If a rate is percentage-based, include the calculated dollar amount, or the calculated dollar amount for each National Provider Identifier-identified provider if rates differ by providers or tiers. Bundled items and services must be identified by relevant code.
  • Out-of-network allowed amounts and billed charges with respect to covered items or services, furnished by out-of-network providers during the 90-day period starting 180 days prior to the machine-readable file publication date.

What you need to do

Plan sponsors:

  • Must update the machine-readable files at least monthly. So, you should establish processes to coordinate regularly with the carrier in an insured plan, and with the third party administrator in a self-funded plan. You should confirm the date your insurer will make available the machine-readable files each month.
  • Should check with your insurance company if they will be hosting on their public-facing websites the machine-readable files, or if the insurer expects the employer to post the machine-readable files on their own public site.
  • Should Identify the plan or plans you sponsor and retrieve the links to the machine-readable files for each plan.
  • Should post the machine-readable files on your public-facing website if the insurance company has decided to delegate this responsibility to the employer.
  • Should post a link on your website to the insurance carrier’s website if the insurance company plans to publish the machine-readable files on its site. However, if the group health plan contract states that the insurer is fully responsible for posting these files, this may not be necessary.
"health
Uncategorized

What You Need to Know About New Health Plan Transparency Rules

by Inoventive Solutions
August 11, 2021

Regulations are slated to take effect over the next few years that will greatly increase the transparency requirements for group health plans.

The regulations issued under the Trump administration will require health insurers in the individual and group health markets to disclose cost-sharing information upon request, make cost-sharing information available on their websites and disclose negotiated rates with in-network providers.

The rules are designed to help health plan enrollees choose the plan that is best for them and their family, as well as to give them a full picture of what they can expect to pay for services as part of their deductibles, copays and coinsurance.

There are a few different parts to the rules: one focuses on personalized cost-sharing information and another focuses on other pricing and information that insurers are required to post on their websites.

Personalized cost-sharing information

The new rules require health plans to provide personalized estimates for enrollees upon request, so they can calculate their potential out-of-pocket expenses prior to receiving medical treatment.

The following must be provided to a plan enrollee upon inquiry ahead of receiving care:

Estimated cost-sharing liability — This covers how much the enrollee would have to pay out of pocket under their plan for deductibles, coinsurance and copays for a specific medical service. These estimates must be specific to the individual that’s inquiring and not a general estimate.

Accumulated out-of-pocket payments — Enrollees can inquire to their health plans about how much they’ve paid out towards their deductibles and their plan’s out-of-pocket maximums as of the date requested.

In-network rates — Upon request, the plan must divulge how much the enrollee will have to pay out of pocket in relation to the rates it has negotiated for a specific procedure by an in-network provider.

The plan or insurer must disclose the negotiated rate, expressed as a dollar amount, even if it is not the rate the plan or insurer uses to calculate cost-sharing liability. The plans must also disclose out-of-pocket liability for an individual as well as the negotiated rates for prescription drugs. The health insurer does not have to disclose drug discounts or rebates as part of the inquiry.

Out-of-network allowed amount — The insurer must disclose the maximum amount its plan will pay for an “item or service” from an out-of-network provider.

Notice of prerequisites to coverage — If the service the enrollee is inquiring about prior authorization, concurrent review or step-therapy, the insurer must include this information in the answer to the request.

This part of the regulation will take effect in two phases:

  • 1, 2023: Insurers will be required to provide personalized cost-sharing information on 500 specific services.
  • 1, 2024: Insurers will be required to provide personalized cost-sharing information on all specific services.

Publicly available cost-sharing information

The new regulations also require health plans (not including grandfathered ones) and health insurers to post on their websites machine-readable files with detailed pricing information. They must post this information starting Jan. 1, 2022.

The website must include the following information, which has to be updated on a monthly basis:

  • Rates for all covered items and services that the plan has negotiated with its in-network providers.
  • Historical payments the insurer has made to out-of-network providers, as well as the billed charges.
  • The plan’s in-network negotiated rates and historical net prices for all covered prescription drugs at the pharmacy location level.

"price
Uncategorized

Few Health Plan Enrollees Know About New Price Transparency Rules

by Inoventive Solutions
July 20, 2021

Despite a new law requiring hospitals to post detailed pricing information for their treatments and procedures online, fewer than 10% of U.S. adults are aware of the requirement.

That’s a problem considering that a growing number of Americans have high-deductible health plans, which come with up-front lower premiums but with higher out-of-pocket expenses.

One of the driving forces behind HDHPs is that they give the enrollee more “skin in the game,” by incentivizing them to shop around for care since they will have to pay for it themselves up to their deductible.

But if people are not aware they can find pricing for medical services on providers’ websites, they may not know how to begin comparing prices.

A new study by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that only 9% of those surveyed were aware that hospitals are required to publish the prices for their services online, in line with new price transparency regulations that took effect Jan. 1, 2021.

The price transparency rule, implemented by the Trump administration, requires hospitals to post on their websites:

  • A plain language description of each shoppable service and item.
  • A description of charges, including:
    • Payer-specific negotiated charge, or the price a third party payer such as a health insurance company would pay.
    • Discounted cash price, or the price a patient would pay without insurance.
    • Gross charge, or the charge absent any discounts.
    • De-identified maximum and minimum negotiated charges for each.
  • Any primary code used by the hospital for purposes of accounting or billing.

Here’s what the survey found:

  • 69% of respondents were unsure whether hospitals are required to disclose the prices of treatments and procedures.
  • 22% believed hospitals are not required to disclose this information.
  • 9% were aware hospitals are required to disclose the prices of treatments and procedures on their websites.
  • 14% said that they or a family member had gone online in the past six months to research the price of a treatment at a hospital.
  • Younger adults (ages 18 to 49) were more likely to say they or a family member had searched for the price of care online.

Educating your staff

Employers with HDHPs should inform their staff about the price transparency rule so that they can research pricing ahead of any procedures they may have. Most health system websites should be posting their pricing by now, but it may take some digging to find them. 

If they have been ordered to get a certain procedure, they can start by going to each provider available to them through their health insurance and researching the pricing on their website. If they can’t find the information, they should call the provider to get the information. They will need the negotiated price between their health plan and the provider.

Prices can vary dramatically between providers, and your staff need to make sure they are comparing the exact same service between them.

They should also consider calling the providers and inquiring about the cash price for the services. In some instances, the cash price may end up being even less than their deductible or copay.

One problem: Many hospitals have not published their rates and there has been a lack of consistency between providers in terms of how they are providing the information.

This has prompted the CMS to audit hospitals’ websites and complaints, and it recently started sending out notices to hundreds of hospitals that are not complying with the transparency regulations.

Finally, many insurance carriers offer searchable online databases for their enrollees where people can research the approximate cost of certain procedures among all the providers available to them.

"health
Uncategorized

Health Plan Rebates in 2021 to Be Second Highest on Record

by Inoventive Solutions
May 25, 2021

Group health plan insurers are expected to pay out $618 million in rebates to plan sponsors for the 2020 policy year after seeing use of health care services plummet during the COVID-19 pandemic.

That’s according to a Kaiser Family Foundation estimate in April, which also projects that insurers will pay out $1.5 billion in rebates to enrollees in the individual market. 

The total $2.1 billion estimated payout this year is second only to the $2.5 billion insurers paid out in 2020 since the Affordable Care Act took effect and started requiring these rebates.  Small and large group health plans received $689 million in rebates in 2020.

The ACA requires insurance companies that cover individuals and small businesses to spend at least 80% of their premium income on health care claims and quality improvement, leaving the remaining 20% for administration, marketing and profit. If they spend less than 80%, the shortfall has to be returned to policyholders in the form of a rebate.

The threshold for large group health plans is 85%. This threshold is called the medical loss ratio (MLR). 

The rebates that will be paid in 2021 are based on a three-year MLR average loss ratio (2020, 2019 and 2018). Rebates this year will be paid to sponsors who had group health policies in effect in 2020, and only to those who were in plans that failed to spend enough on medical services. Many plans spend more than the MLR cap on medical services and do not have to pay.

There are two main drivers of larger rebates this year:

There was a significant drop in health care utilization in 2020 — The pandemic depressed the use of medical services as many people who would normally have gone to the doctor for ailments chose to stay home to avoid the risk of contracting COVID-19.

Also, hospitals cancelled elective care early in the pandemic and when COVID-19 cases were cresting, so that they could free up resources for coronavirus patients and reduce the virus’s likelihood of transmission. In fact, an analysis by the Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker found that health care spending fell slightly in 2020, making it the first year on record to see spending decline.

Insurers in the individual market had record profits in 2018 and 2019 — The Kaiser Family Foundation earlier reported that individual market insurers were very profitable in 2018 and 2019, even though the individual mandate penalty was eliminated in 2018 and insurers had been reducing their rates the previous few years.

How to handle rebates

Health insurers may pay MLR rebates either in the form of a premium credit (for employers that are still using the insurer) or as a lump-sum payment. More than 90% of group plan rebates come as a lump sum.

Once an employer receives this money, it is their responsibility to distribute the rebate to plan beneficiaries appropriately within 90 days, or risk triggering ERISA trust issues.

How the employer distributes the check will depend on how much their employees contribute to the plan, if at all. Here are the basic rules for employers handling their MLR rebate checks:

  • If you paid 100% of the premiums, the rebate is not a plan asset and you can retain the entire rebate amount and use it as you wish.
  • If the premiums were paid partly by you and partly by the participants, the percentage of the rebate equal to the percentage of the cost paid by participants must be distributed to the employees.

If you have to distribute funds to the plan participants, the Department of Labor provides a few options (if the plan document or policy does not already prescribe how they should be distributed):

  • The funds can be used to reduce your portion of the annual premium for the subsequent policy year for all staff who were covered by all of your group health plans.
  • The funds can be used to reduce your portion of the annual premium for the subsequent policy year for only those workers covered by the group health policy on which the rebate was based.
  • You can provide a cash refund to subscribers who were covered by the group health policy on which the rebate is based.
"COVID-19
Uncategorized

Group Health Plans Must Cover COVID-19 Testing for Asymptomatic People

by Inoventive Solutions
March 30, 2021

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced in late February that private group health plans cannot deny coverage or impose cost-sharing for COVID-19 diagnostic testing, regardless of whether or not the patient is experiencing symptoms or has been exposed to someone with the disease.

The CMS said it had issued the new guidance to make it easier for people to get tested with no out-of-pocket costs if they are planning to visit family members or take a flight, for example. Up until now, some health plans have not covered testing if a person is not experiencing symptoms or has not come into contact with someone who is later confirmed as being infected with COVID-19.

The guidance covers the part of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act of 2020 that required that plans and issuers must cover COVID-19 diagnostic testing without any cost-sharing requirements, prior authorization or other medical management requirements. Still, many people were denied getting tests because they had no symptoms or hadn’t been exposed to someone infected with the virus. 

According to the guidance:

“Plans and issuers must provide coverage without imposing any cost-sharing requirements (including deductibles, copayments, and coinsurance), prior authorization, or other medical management requirements for COVID-19 diagnostic testing of asymptomatic individuals when the purpose of the testing is for individualized diagnosis or treatment of COVID-19.

“However, plans and issuers are not required to provide coverage of testing such as for public health surveillance or employment purposes. But there is also no prohibition or limitation on plans and issuers providing coverage for such tests.”

""/
Uncategorized

New Rule Requires Greater Health Plan Transparency

by Inoventive Solutions
December 3, 2020

The Trump Administration has issued a new rule that will require greater price transparency on the part of health insurers, including the rates charged by in-network physicians and copays and costs of drugs.

The final rule requires health plans and health insurers to disclose on a public website their in-network negotiated rates, billed charges and allowed amounts paid for out-of-network providers, and the negotiated rate and historical net price for prescription drugs.  

The aim of the new rule is to give health plan enrollees more information when it comes to making decisions when seeking out and price-comparing care and choosing medications. With more information about health care costs, health plan enrollees can:

  • Make cost-conscious decisions,
  • Face fewer out-of-pocket surprise bills, and
  • Potentially lower their overall health care costs.

The drug price transparency part of the final rule came as a surprise because it was not included in the original proposed regulations.

The new rules do not, however, take effect right away and different parts will be implement at different times. Nonetheless, it’s important for health plan sponsors and employers to be aware of the rules as they will greatly affect how their employees access and shop for coverage and medications.

Most of the rules do not apply to grandfathered plans. Here’s what they will do once they come into effect:

Transparency for enrollees

Insurers will be required to make available to health plan enrollees the following information:

  • Personalized out-of-pocket cost information (for their particular plan) for all covered health care items and services, including prescription drugs.
  • All underlying negotiated rates for all covered health care items and services, including prescription drugs.

This information must be provided through an online tool on their website and in paper form upon request. Items or services include encounters, procedures, medical tests, supplies, drugs, durable medical equipment, and fees (including facility fees). 

Insurers will be required to make available an initial list of 500 shoppable services that will be determined by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, starting with the 2023 plan year. The remainder of all items and services will be required for these self-service tools for plan years that begin on or after Jan. 1, 2024.

Public transparency

Health insurers will be required to make available to the public, consumers, researchers and others the following information in “machine-readable” files:

  • Negotiated rates for all covered items and services with in-network providers.
  • Historical payments to, and billed charges from, out-of-network providers.
  • In-network negotiated rates and historical net prices for all covered prescription drugs by plan or issuer at the pharmacy location level.

The idea behind these changes is to provide opportunities for detailed research studies, data analysis, and offer third party developers the ability to create private apps and websites to help consumers shop for health care services and prescription drugs.

These files are required to be made public starting with the 2022 plan year.

The takeaway

These are final rules but, as mentioned, the part of the rule that affects your group health plan and your employees doesn’t take effect until 2023 as the industry will need time to prepare and comply. 

Once the rules take effect, your covered employees should have a wealth of information at their fingertips when they are shopping and comparing health services and drug information.

1 2
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
    Archives
    Categories
    Meta