Home  >  Engagement   >   Looking at Healthcare Through Payer Lenses: Part Two

Looking at Healthcare Through Payer Lenses: Part Two

by John Moore | June 22, 2011

Payers, as with the rest of the healthcare industry, have a lot on their plate right now. Healthcare reform, via the Affordable Care Act (ACA) continues its march forward despite legal and political uncertainty. Struggling to define the payer role in Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs), understanding the impact of Health Insurance Exchanges (HIXs) on their business (McKinsey survey results likely have many payers wondering how to market to what may be an enormous uptick in individual purchasers of coverage – something that most are ill-prepared for), and how to better engage consumers/members in proactively managing their health are a few of the top issues that were addressed at the AHIP Institute last week.

But when one sits back and reflects on the AHIP Institute – all of the sessions, all the discussions, the chatter in the halls, underlying messages within the message, the exhibit hall – it boils down to three key themes that this sector of the healthcare industry is grappling with, which much like the three stages of meaningful use, build upon one another:

  • Establishing Trust
  • Engagement
  • Collaboration

Establishing Trust
Health insurers have a major image problem and they know it. Providers don’t trust them, consumers don’t trust them and who knows, maybe even their spouses don’t trust them. Without that trust it is extremely difficult for payers to engage providers and members at a deeper level to improve overall population health and lower their risk exposure (MLR=medical loss ratio).

With the passage of the ACA, payers are now looking at the prospect of at least 30M more members (a significant portion Medicaid) joining their ranks. The 30M estimate could easily be tripled if McKinsey’s research (see above link) is indeed accurate. This creates a two-fold challenge for payers:

  1. How to market to these potential new members through a state-sponsored and run HIX. Payers do not know how to market to a market of one as they are more accustomed to marketing to employers or through brokers to reach that end consumer. Payers need to develop strategies that will assist them in attracting new members through these exchanges and one would imagine that ideally, a payer would prefer to attract the healthiest consumers on the HIX to join their ranks, again to lower MLRs. Successful marketing begins with establishing trust in a given brand and with a consumer trust ranking for payers that is towards the bottom, payers have a long road ahead of them.
  2. How to ensure that these new members receive appropriate care when they need it and not have them turn to the local, and the far more expensive, Emergency Room (ER). Many of these new members are unaccustomed to having a primary care physician and have typically gone to the local clinic or ER for care. Ensuring that these new members receive effective, value-based care will require close collaboration (and education) not only with the new member, but more importantly, the care community in which that new member resides. Payers will need to establish a higher level of trust than they have today with that care community, be they ACOs, Patient Centered Medical Homes (PCMH), clinics, you name it to develop value-based care models. With a gapping shortage in primary care, that will only be exacerbated with ACA, very creative approaches are needed to develop these new care models and trust is often a foundational element to the creative process.

If and when trust is established, the next stage is engagement and for payers it appears that such engagement is sporadic at best. Sure, there are many examples where payers have established partnerships with provider organizations, but it has not been easy. As stated in Part One of this series, Blue Shield of California worked closely with Catholic Healthcare West to establish an ACO model that worked for both parties. This effort took four long years to accomplish which makes one wonder: if Kaiser-Permanente wasn’t beating up both parties in the market, would this ACO even exist?

Payers need this type of deeper engagement with providers to develop new models of care but do they have the time, do they have four years for each significant ACO they wish to establish in a given community/region? With 2014 a short 2.5 years away, one would have to logically conclude: No, there is not enough time. Payers will certainly take lessons learned from initial efforts, but definitely need to accelerate engagement of the provider community. But where is that engagement? While there were representatives of provider groups in attendance at AHIP Institute, AHIP’s failure to put such representatives on the stage to talk of their experiences and what they, the provider community seeks from payers is shocking almost to the point of disbelief.

Not sure if the payers are anymore successful on the member side but with an increasing number of future members being individuals, payers need to seriously rethink their consumer engagement strategies, which today rank dead last of major industries surveyed. Yes, most payers have a PHR offering for their members. Yes, most payers are seeking to engage members via calls to those with a condition. But is any of this gaining traction, engaging consumers/members in a meaningful way to help payers reign  in ever rising healthcare costs? Sure doesn’t look like it and payers will never make it to Stage 3 if they do not get members and providers engaged.

Collaboration is the final Stage 3 for payers. It is the nirvana of deep and meaningful collaboration between all stakeholders to improve healthcare delivery in the US – a new delivery model that reigns in costs, equitably distributes risk, and ensures accountability. This is a very elusive goal that the payer sector, which AHIP represents, is not even close to achieving today.

While a large portion of the “collaboration problem” can be laid at the feet of this industry sector, in all fairness, payers are not completely to blame. Providers, while by and large well meaning, do have some in their ranks that are less so and unnecessarily drive up costs. On the consumer side, for far too long consumers have not been held responsible for taking better care of themselves. There is very little personal, consumer accountability in today’s healthcare system but that is changing, will need to change if we as a nation wish to truly grapple with the extremely serious issue that we can no longer afford the healthcare system (system used loosely as it is hard to call the US healthcare industry a system) that we have today. As one of the keynote presenters, economist Laura Tyson so eloquently put it:

We do not have a debt problem in the US economy, we have a healthcare problem.

Without deep, meaningful collaboration among all stakeholders the debt problem we face today will seem a mere pittance to what we will face in the future. Payers can play an extremely important role in that collaboration but they have some very hard work yet to do to establish trust in the market and then engagement. Based on what we heard and saw at this year’s AHIP Institute, payers are seriously behind in these efforts and at times almost seem oblivious to just how critical these efforts are to their very survival.

11 responses to “Looking at Healthcare Through Payer Lenses: Part Two”

  1. Andrew says:

    Terrific post, thanks John. I know it is easy to be skeptical but I am encouraged by these discussions. And, I will share from my experience, they are not just hallway fodder and consultant yammering from the AHIP shindig. I met with two executives, one from a well respected IDN, the other a large regional Plan, and they have very explicit and sincere convictions to address some of the very challenges outlined in your post.

  2. Paulo says:

    Great Post John!
    As usual right on the mark. While the challenges are HUGE… the incentives for transformation are even LARGER! Several insurers have already begun their change by acknowledging the need to become healthcare companies not merely insurers & claims processors. It will be a painful process that will require a great deal of innovation, retooling, training and courage. The options after all are simple – each of them must choose to lead, follow or get out of the way.
    The transformation that Insurers (and all other Healthcare stakeholders) must undergo will lead us to a Healthcare Renaissance that will be well worth the challenges of this undertaking.

  3. […] from: Looking at Healthcare Through Payer Lenses: Part Two Posted in Medical Insurance | Tags: adoption, apple, cycling, google, iphone, security, […]

  4. danmunro says:

    Great double post! Couldn’t agree more on the need and importance of trust – and consumer trust can be the hardest/longest to earn.

    It doesn’t help when an article just this week (Kaiser Health News) highlights a GAO finding that the odds of winning an appeal for a denied claim are about 50/50: http://bit.ly/kyFC3q Ouch!

    Another one just this week? AMA reported that commercial insurers had an average electronic claims processing error rate of 19.3% this year (a 2% increase from 2010). [To create the report card, AMA analyzed a random sample of 2.4 million electronic claims for about four million medical services submitted between February and March of this year] : http://bit.ly/lAjG1q

    Double Ouch!

  5. […] Chilmark Research: Looking at Healthcare Through Payer Lenses: Part Two […]

  6. JacAHammer says:

    what is the usefulness of this…ZERO.

    oh wait, delete my comment quick, before you get bad press…

  7. […] at Healthcare through Payer Lens Looking at Healthcare through Payer Lens (so far Part I and Part II) gives great insight on how the healthcare industry can successfully work with with individuals and […]

  8. Catherine says:

    Great analysis, with just one possible correction–the McKinsey report referred to has been extremely controversial. Here is one of many commentaries on the validity of their “findings.” http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_06/mckinsey_report_unravels_will030454.php

    • danmunro says:

      “… extremely controversial …” is itself – well a bit extreme. The math is pretty simple. If it’s cheaper for an employer to be fined ($2K) for not offering coverage vs. providing coverage – many will select that option. More importantly – that’s not necessarily a bad thing (post today in the Washington Post on that exact point here: http://wapo.st/kx1yy2 ).

      What we can’t afford to do is think that the status-quo is sustainable. It’s always easier to challenge/criticize change – especially to a heavily entrenched status-quo. It’s 10X harder to suggest and support viable alternative solutions.

  9. […] impact provider-patient relations. John Moore of Chilmark Research expands on this idea in a recent blog series. He stresses the need for health plans to establish trust to drive consumer engagement and […]

  10. […] payers however, it does make sense when cast against the backdrop of rising competition. (Chilmark noted this challenge after attending the AHIP confab last summer.) Insurers are fighting with each other […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Stay up to the minute.