Over one third of all healthcare costs in the U.S. were due to
insurance company overhead and provider time spent on billing,
versus about 17% spent on administration in Canada, researchers
reported in Annals of Internal Medicine.
Cutting U.S. administrative costs to the $550 per capita (in 2017
U.S. dollars) level in Canada could save more than $600 billion, the
researchers say.
"The average American is paying more than $2,000 a year for useless
bureaucracy," said lead author Dr. David Himmelstein, a
distinguished professor of public health at the City University of
New York at Hunter College in New York City and a lecturer at
Harvard Medical School in Boston.
"That money could be spent for care if we had a 'Medicare for all
program'," Himmelstein said.
To calculate the difference in administrative costs between the U.S.
and Canadian systems, Himmelstein and colleagues examined Medicare
filings made by hospitals and nursing homes. For physicians, the
researchers used information from surveys and census data on
employment and wages to estimate costs. The Canadian data came from
the Canadian Institute for Health Information and an insurance trade
association.
When the researchers broke down the 2017 per-capita health
administration costs in both countries, they found that insurer
overhead accounted for $844 in the U.S. versus $146 in Canada;
hospital administration was $933 versus $196; nursing home, home
care and hospice administration was $255 versus $123; and
physicians' insurance-related costs were $465 versus $87
They also found there had been a 3.2% increase in U.S.
administrative costs since 1999, most of which was ascribed to the
expansion of Medicare and Medicaid managed-care plans. Overhead of
private Medicare Advantage plans, which now cover about a third of
Medicare enrollees, is six-fold higher than traditional Medicare
(12.3% versus 2%), they report. That 2% is comparable to the
overhead in the Canadian system.
Why are administrative costs so high in the U.S.?
[to top of second column] |
It's because the insurance companies and health care providers are
engaged in a tug of war, each trying in its own way to game the
system, Himmelstein said. How a patient's treatment is coded can
make a huge difference in the amount insurance companies pay. For
example, Hammerstein said, if a patient comes in because of heart
failure and the visit is coded as an acute exacerbation of the
condition, the payment is significantly higher than if the visit is
simply coded as heart failure.
This upcoding of patient visits has led insurance companies to
require more and more paperwork backing up each diagnosis,
Himmelstein said. The result is more hours that healthcare providers
need to put in to deal with billing.
"(One study) looked at how many characters were included in an
average physician's note in the U.S. and in other countries,"
Himmelstein pointed out. "Notes from U.S. physicians were four times
longer to meet the bureaucratic requirements of the payment system."
The new study is "the first analysis of administrative costs in the
U.S. and Canada in almost 20 years," said Dr. Albert Wu, an
internist and professor of health policy and management at the Johns
Hopkins School of Public Health in Baltimore. "It's an important
paper."
"It's clear that health costs in the U.S. have soared," Wu said.
"We're paying for an inefficient and wasteful fee-for-services
system."
"Some folks estimate that the U.S. would save $628 billion if
administrative costs were as low as they are in Canada," said Jamie
Daw, an assistant professor of health policy and management at
Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health in New York
City.
"That's a staggering amount," Daw said in an email. "It's more than
enough to pay for all of Medicaid spending or nearly enough to cover
all out-of-pocket and prescription drug spending by Americans."
SOURCE: https://bit.ly/2N0hCLk Annals of Internal Medicine, online
January 6, 2020.
[© 2020 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2020 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content. |