Emergency vs. Urgent – What’s the Difference in Walk-In Care?

Emergency vs. Urgent – What’s the Difference in Walk-In Care?

We’ve all been there – once or twice (or more)—when a child, spouse or family member has had to gain access to healthcare quickly. Whether a fall that requires stitches; a sprained or broken bone; or something more serious, it can be difficult to identify which avenue to take when it comes to walk-in care. With the recent boom in stand-alone ERs  (Emergency Care Clinics or ECCs), as well as, Urgent Care Clinics (UCCs) it’s easy to see why almost 50% of diagnoses could have been treated for less money and time with the latter.
It’s key to educate yourself and your employees on the difference between the two so as not to get pummeled by high medical costs.

  • Most Emergency Care facilities are open 24 hours a day; whereas Urgent Care may be open a maximum of 12 hours, extending into late evening. Both are staffed with a physician, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants, however, stand alone ECCs specialize in life-threatening conditions and injuries that require more advanced technology and highly trained medical personnel to diagnose and treat than a traditional Urgent Care clinic.
  • Most individual ERs charge a higher price for the visit – generally 3-5 times higher than a normal Urgent Care visit would cost. The American Board of Emergency Medicine (ABEM) physicians’ bill at a higher rate than typical Family-Medicine trained Urgent Care physicians do (American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM). These bill rates are based on insurance CPT codes. For example, a trip to the neighborhood ER for strep throat may cost you more than a visit to a UC facility. Your co-insurance fee for a sprain or strain at the same location may cost you $150 in lieu of $40 at a traditional Urgent Care facility.
  • Stand alone ER facilities may often be covered under your plan, but some of the “ancillary” services (just like visit rates) may be billed higher than Urgent Care facilities. At times, this has caused many “financial sticker shock” when they first see those medical bills. The New England Journal of Medicine indicates 1 of every 5 patients experience this sticker shock. In fact, 22% of the patients who went to an ECC covered by their insurance plan later found certain ancillary services were not covered, or covered for less. These services were out-of-network, therefore charged a higher fee for the same services offered in both facilities.

So, what can you and your employees do to make sure you don’t get duped into additional costs?

  • Identify the difference between when you need urgent or emergency care.
  • Know your insurance policy. Review the definition of terms and what portion your policy covers with regard to deductibles and co-pays for each of these facilities.
  • Pay attention to detail. Understand key terms that define the difference between these two walk-in clinics. Most Emergency Care facilities operate as stand-alone ERs, which can further confuse patients when they need immediate care. If these centers, or their paperwork, has the word “emergency”, “emergency” or anything related to it, they’ll operate and bill like an ER with their services. Watch for clinics that offer both services in one place. Often, it’s very easy to disguise their practices as an Urgent Care facility, but again due to CPT codes and the medical boards they have the right to charge more. Read the fine print.

It’s beneficial as an employer to educate your employees on this difference, as the more they know – the lower the cost will be for the employer and employee come renewal time.

What Employers Need to Know about the Senate Proposed Healthcare Bill

On June 22, 2017, the United States Senate released a “Discussion Draft” of the “Better Care Reconciliation Act of 2017” (BCRA), which would substitute the House’s House Resolution 1628, a reconciliation bill aimed at “repealing and replacing” the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). The House bill was titled the “American Health Care Act of 2017” (AHCA). Employers with group health plans should continue to monitor the progress in Washington, D.C., and should not stop adhering to any provisions of the ACA in the interim, or begin planning to comply with provisions in either the BCRA or the AHCA.
Next Steps

  • The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is expected to score the bill by Monday, June 26, 2017.
  • The Senate will likely begin the voting process on the bill on June 28 and a final vote is anticipated sometime on June 29.
  • The Senate and House versions will have to be reconciled. This can be done with a conference committee, or by sending amendments back and forth between the chambers. With a conference committee, a conference report requires agreement by a majority of conferees from the House, and a majority of conferees by the Senate (not both together). Alternatively, the House could simply agree to the Senate version, or start over again with new legislation.

The BCRA
Like the AHCA, the BCRA makes numerous changes to current law, much of which impact the individual market, Medicare, and Medicaid with effects on employer sponsored group health plans. Also like the AHCA, the BCRA removes both the individual and the employer shared responsibility penalties. The BCRA also pushes implementation of the Cadillac tax to 2025 and permits states to waive essential health benefit (EHB) requirements.
The BCRA would change the excise tax paid by health savings account (HSA) owners who use their HSA funds on expenses that are not medical expenses under the Internal Revenue Code from the current 20 percent to 10 percent. It would also change the maximum contribution limits to HSAs to the amount of the accompanying high deductible health plan’s deductible and out-of-pocket limitation and provide for both spouses to make catch-up contributions to HSAs. The AHCA contains those provisions as well.
Like the AHCA, the BCRA would remove the $2,600 contribution limit to flexible health spending accounts (FSAs) for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017.
The BCRA would allow individuals to remain on their parents’ plan until age 26 (the same as the ACA’s regulations, and the AHCA) and would not allow insurers to increase premium costs or deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions. Conversely, the AHCA provides for a “continuous health insurance coverage incentive,” which will allow health insurers to charge policyholders an amount equal to 30 percent of the monthly premium in the individual and small group market, if the individual failed to have creditable coverage for 63 or more days during an applicable 12-month look-back period.
The BCRA would also return permissible age band rating (for purposes of calculating health plan premiums) to the pre-ACA ratio of 5:1, rather than the ACA’s 3:1. This allows older individuals to be charged up to five times more than what younger individuals pay for the same policy, rather than up to the ACA limit of three times more. This is also proposed in the AHCA.
The ACA’s cost sharing subsidies for insurers would be eliminated in 2020, with the ability of the President to eliminate them earlier. The ACA’s current premium tax credits for individuals to use when purchasing Marketplace coverage would be based on age, income, and geography, and would lower the top threshold of income eligible to receive them from 400 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) to 350 percent of the FPL. The ACA allowed any “alien lawfully present in the US” to utilize the premium tax credit; however, the BCRA would change that to “a qualified alien” under the definition provided in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. The BCRA would also benchmark against the applicable median cost benchmark plan, rather than the second lowest cost silver plan.

By Danielle Capilla
Originally Posted By www.ubabenefits.com

Self-Funding Dental: Leave No Stone Unturned

Self-Funding Dental: Leave No Stone Unturned

With all of the focus that is put into managing and controlling health care costs today, it amazes me how many organizations still look past one of the most effective and least disruptive cost-saving strategies available to employers with 150 or more covered employees – self-funding your dental plan. There is a reason why dental insurers are not quick to suggest making a switch to a self-funded arrangement … it is called profit!
Why self-fund dental?
We know that the notion of self-funding still makes some employers nervous. Don’t be nervous; here are the fundamental reasons why this requires little risk:

  1. When self-funding dental, your exposure as an employer is limited on any one plan member. Benefit maximums are typically between $1,000 and $2,000 per year.
  2. Dental claims are what we refer to as high frequency, low severity (meaning many claims, lower dollars per claim), which means that they are far less volatile and much more predictable from year to year.
  3. You pay for only what you use, an administrative fee paid to the third-party administrator (TPA) and the actual claims that are paid in any given month. That’s it!

Where do you save when you self-fund your dental?
Trend: In our ongoing analysis over the years, dental claims do not trend at anywhere near the rate that the actuaries from any given insurance company project (keep in mind these are very bright people that are paid to make sure that insurance companies are profitable). Therefore, insured rates are typically overstated.
Claims margin: This is money that insurance companies set aside for “claims fluctuation” (i.e., profit). For example, ABC Insurer (we’ll keep this anonymous) does not use paid claims in your renewal projection. They use incurred claims that are always somewhere between three and six percent higher than your actual paid claims. They then apply “trend,” a risk charge and retention to the overstated figures. This factor alone will result in insured rates that are overstated by five to eight percent on insured plans with ABC Insurer, when compared to self-funded ABC Insurer plans.
Risk charges: You do not pay them when you self-fund! This component of an insured rate can be anywhere from three to six percent of the premium.
Reserves: Money that an insurer sets aside for incurred, but unpaid, claim liability. This is an area where insurance companies profit. They overstate the reserves that they build into your premiums and then they earn investment income on the reserves. When you self-fund, you pay only for what you use.
Below is a recent case study
We received a broker of record letter from a growing company headquartered in Massachusetts. They were hovering at about 200 employees enrolled in their fully insured dental plan. After analyzing their historical dental claims experience, we saw an opportunity. After presenting the analysis and educating the employer on the limited amount of risk involved in switching to a self-funded program, the client decided to make the change.
After we had received 12 months of mature claims, we did a look back into the financial impact of the change. Had the client accepted what was historically a well-received “no change” fully insured dental renewal, they would have missed out on more than $90,000 added to their bottom line. Their employee contributions were competitive to begin with, so the employer held employee contributions flat and was able to reap the full financial reward.
This is just one example. I would not suggest that this is the norm, but savings of 10 percent are. If you are a mid-size employer with a fully insured dental plan, self-funding dental is a cost-savings opportunity you and your consultant should be monitoring at every renewal.
By Gary R Goodhile, Originally Published By United Benefit Advisors

Medicare Part D: Creditable Coverage Disclosures

Medicare Part D: Creditable Coverage Disclosures

Entities such as employers with group health plans that provide prescription drug coverage to individuals that are eligible for Medicare Part D have two major disclosure requirements that they must meet at least annually:

  • Provide annual written notice to all Medicare eligible individuals (employees, spouses, dependents, retirees, COBRA participants, etc.) who are covered under the prescription drug plan.
  • Disclose to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) whether the coverage is “creditable prescription drug coverage.”

Because there is often ambiguity regarding who in a covered population is Medicare eligible, it is best practice for employers to provide the notice to all plan participants.
CMS provides guidance for disclosure of creditable coverage for both individuals and employers.
Who Must Disclose?
These disclosure requirements apply regardless of whether the plan is large or small, is self-funded or fully insured, or whether the group health plan pays primary or secondary to Medicare. Entities that provide prescription drug coverage through a group health plan must provide the disclosures. Group health plans include:

  • Group health plans under ERISA, including health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs), dental and vision plans, certain cancer policies, and employee assistance plans (EAPs) if they provide medical care
  • Group health plans sponsored for employees or retirees by a multiple employer welfare arrangement (MEWA)
  • Qualified prescription drug plans

Health flexible spending accounts (FSAs), Archer medical savings accounts, and health savings accounts (HSAs) do not have disclosure requirements. In contrast, the high deductible health plan (HDHP) offered in conjunction with the HSA would have disclosure requirements.
There are no exceptions for church plans or government plans.

By Danielle Capilla, Originally Published By United Benefit Advisors

Keeping Pace with the Protecting Affordable Coverage for Employees Act

Keeping Pace with the Protecting Affordable Coverage for Employees Act

Last fall, President Barack Obama signed the Protecting Affordable Coverage for Employees Act (PACE), which preserved the historical definition of small employer to mean an employer that employs 1 to 50 employees. Prior to this newly signed legislation, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) was set to expand the definition of a small employer to include companies with 51 to 100 employees (mid-size segment) beginning January 1, 2016.
If not for PACE, the mid-size segment would have become subject to the ACA provisions that impact small employers. Included in these provisions is a mandate that requires coverage for essential health benefits (not to be confused with minimum essential coverage, which the ACA requires of applicable large employers) and a requirement that small group plans provide coverage levels that equate to specific actuarial values. The original intent of expanding the definition of small group plans was to lower premium costs and to increase mandated benefits to a larger portion of the population.
The lower cost theory was based on the premise that broadening the risk pool of covered individuals within the small group market would spread the costs over a larger population, thereby reducing premiums to all. However, after further scrutiny and comments, there was concern that the expanded definition would actually increase premium costs to the mid-size segment because they would now be subject to community rating insurance standards. This shift to small group plans might also encourage mid-size groups to leave the fully insured market by self-insuring – a move that could actually negate the intended benefits of the expanded definition.
Another issue with the ACA’s expanded definition of small group plans was that it would have resulted in a double standard for the mid-size segment. Not only would they be subject to the small group coverage requirements, but they would also be subject to the large employer mandate because they would meet the ACA’s definition of an applicable large employer.
Note: Although this bill preserves the traditional definition of a small employer, it does allow states to expand the definition to include organizations with 51 to 100 employees, if so desired.
 
By Vicki Randall, Originally Published By United Benefit Advisors