Jan 27, 2020

Self-insured companies do no better on cost control

Data: Kaiser Family Foundation; Chart: Axios Visuals

Conventional wisdom holds that big, self-insured companies do a better job controlling health care costs than firms that rely entirely on insurance companies to provide their workers’ coverage. But that’s not true.

Why it matters: Although a handful of big self-insured companies get a lot of attention for their cost-control efforts, the data tell a different story: Self-insured and fully insured companies are equally bad at controlling health care costs.

By the numbers: The average family premium for fully insured firms last year was a whopping $20,627.

  • For larger self-insured firms, it was $20,739.
  • There hasn't been a meaningful difference for the past 20 years.

Self-insured firms would seem to have an advantage because they cut out the middleman.

  • Big self-insured firms can contract directly with providers and limit their networks to only cover lower-cost providers.
  • They can implement the latest payment reforms and wellness programs, and even open up their own clinics.
  • And a few very large companies, including Disney, Safeway and Comcast, have received a lot of attention for their efforts.

Yes, but: Most large insured firms have implemented similar strategies. And they buy insurance from the same companies that administer self-insured plans.

  • Big companies also are often spread across the country and the world, which greatly diminishes their bargaining power. No firm or collection of firms has even close to the leverage Medicare and Medicaid have.

The fundamentals have not changed since I started studying corporate cost-control efforts at MIT decades ago.

  • Most firms live by the same unspoken rule: Do what you can to control health costs without angering the workers you need too much.
  • That’s especially true in strong economies with tighter labor markets.

Other dynamics may be at work, too.

  • Benefits officers do everything they can, but CEOs often serve on the boards of the best and most expensive hospitals and socialize with the leading doctors where they live.
  • Taking on the cost problem would mean reducing the incomes and revenues of people who have their ears.

The bottom line: Even large, self-insured companies with all the advantages still have a poor track record on cost control.

Go deeper

Zolgensma's lucrative Q4

Novartis said yesterday that Zolgensma — the gene therapy that's the most expensive drug in the world — brought in $186 million in the fourth quarter of 2019, STAT reports.

Why it matters: It suggests that the drug's enormous price tag isn't blocking patients from accessing it, although the costs are ultimately borne through premiums and by taxpayers.

Go deeperArrowJan 30, 2020

Health care IPOs had a very good 2019

Data: Yahoo Finance; Chart: Andrew Witherspoon/Axios

Two-thirds of the 68 health care companies that went public in 2019 traded above their IPO price by the end of year — many of which provided huge initial returns to owners and outside investors.

The big picture: The vast majority of health care companies that go public are biotechnology firms. Several of those biotechs in the 2019 class benefited from some promising, but extremely early, clinical trial data.

Go deeperArrowJan 9, 2020

Most companies expect little to no benefit from China deal

A cargo ship in a port in Longbeach, California, in 2019. Photo: Mark Ralston/AFP via Getty Images

The phase one U.S.-China trade deal will have little to no impact on sales this year, according to 63% of companies who participated in the latest business conditions survey released today by the National Association for Business Economics.

Why it matters: President Trump has championed the agreement as a "sea change in international trade" and the deal's signing has helped power U.S. stock indexes to fresh record highs, but business owners and economists are less enthusiastic.

Go deeperArrowJan 27, 2020