Unfortunately, although antitrust agencies are paying attention to recent court actions against mergers, the FTC investigates only 1-2% of consolidations (McCanne, 2014). It is also important to remember than public payers such as Medicare and Medicaid set prices to physicians and hospitals with no room for negotiating and conversely private insurers may use their market-share leverage to negotiate reimbursements. Integrative care in the form of hospital consolidation has been shown to reduce costs by 10-20% but this cost has not been shown to produce a cost savings to private insurers (Cutler & Morton, 2014).
Local merger impact On the local level, in Illinois, the FTC filed an administrative complaint against a merger between Rockford Health System and Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis (OSF) Healthcare System. The FTC argued that the merger “would lead to significantly higher costs that would be passed on to employers and to health care consumers in Rockford” and would harm local employers and patients (FTC.gov, 2011). The FTC further alleges that competition would be reduced and local business would be impacted by higher insurance rates and patients would see hikes in co-pays, insurance premiums and “other out of pocket expenses” (FTC.gov, 2011). Moreover, in violation of the Clayton Antitrust Act, the merger would have reduced acute-care inpatient services, and primary care physician services from three provider systems to two creating a monopoly and
In He and Mellor’s article, cuts in the Medicare payments would increase the amount of care provided to the uninsured by for-profit hospitals (He and Mellor, 2016). In the article, “How Much Do Hospitals Cost Shift?” Frakt explains that nonprofit and for-profit hospitals are in competition with each other. Nonprofit hospitals encourage for-profit hospitals to enhance trustworthiness and quality. For-profit hospitals persuade nonprofit hospitals to cut costs and become more efficient (Frakt,
Founded in 1946, Seattle’s Group Health Cooperative was created by doctors and community members who believed that there needed to be a health care program that was affordable, member centered, and held principles of social justice. This cooperative was one that had been successful for many years, but just recently was acquired by the not for profit Kaiser Permanente health-care company on February 1, 2017 for 1.8 billion dollars. Although Group Health is a cooperative and Kaiser Permanente is a nonprofit healthcare company, they have similar views on how they run their companies because both have missions to put their members and employees first. This is something that the articles stressed because this merge is going to affect thousands of members and employees. I plan on focusing on the process Kaiser Permanente had when wanting to take over Group Health Cooperative, the pros and cons of the final decision to merge the two healthcare programs, and ultimately how Group Health’s marketing and management strategies will be implemented in the merge. (12)
The short term decision to start in a limited area and then only grow by one state in 2015 may have served the purpose of limiting risk during a time of uncertainty, however, in the long term, penetrating into new markets may be difficult because individuals currently enrolled are automatically re-enrolled at the end of the period. For Aetna, it may be harder to pull a member from a plan that they currently have. The largest healthcare insurance company UnitedHealth was more conservative than Aetna in the first two years, with participating starting in five states in year one then increasing to 24 in year two. With the addition of UnitedHealth in the same markets as Aetna and the unknown risks associated with new enrollees for the 2015 plan year, the short term could be crucial for Aetna. If Aetna is able to add to 2014’s positive results, and increase membership in markets that UnitedHealth entered, it will go a long way toward their long term goals of increasing membership in the individual and small group sector (Demko, 2014).
Carol Liebau discusses in her article, “ObamaCare Limits Patient Choice”, that hospitals such as Cedars-Sinai and the Mayo Clinic are high-priced and under competitive pressure because of Obamacare. Insurance corporations are in a larger hurry than ever to cut costs (Liebau). However, Americans are coming to realize that those hospitals aren't just thoughtless profit centers. They are pricey because they provide advanced medical care or they offer the specialized treatments that the most ill patients require. Many Americans who had plans they could afford and had access to leading healthcare providers, find that under ObamaCare, they are being excluded from high-quality care unless they want to pay much more for
Critics believe that the present functioning of managed-care is degenerative to health care. Managed-care firms control costs by requiring patients to use a “network” of approved doctors and hospitals, and by reviewing the actions of doctors. Patients have to pay more to visit a doctor who does not participate in the “network.” Managed-care firms second-guess doctors, considering only the costs. Patients are often prevented from visiting specialists to reduce costs. A managed-care company might insist that its doctors prescribe inexpensive generic drugs instead of commercial products. Many patients must, also, receive the insurer’s approval before undergoing treatments or operations. HMOs have been criticized for refusing to pay when a patient goes
The case of Ledina Lushko, a patient enrolled in a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois individual plan, highlights many of the issues that have plagued the United States healthcare system for some time. As an insurance plan provider, BCBS of Illinois takes pride in the health outcomes of our members and has a responsibility to contribute positively to their care. The fractured, ineffective care Mrs. Lushko received is disappointing, however, this case provides strong support for a shift in focus towards managed care and specifically, the Accountable Care Organization structure. The following details several aspects of Mrs. Lushko’s experience and how her care could have been improved by enrollment in BCBS of
In Massachutettes, health plans wanted to eliminate “continuous open enrollment, assess the full annual penalty for any significant period of continuous un-insurance, impose waiting periods for certain services and bar consumers from buying in the merged market if they had access to employer sponsored coverage” (case study). Doing these things, the insurance companies hoped to lower premiums. Bill 2585 did pass but the law did not go as far as the insurance companies had hoped. It only “limited open enrollment in the merged market to twice a year in 2011 and once a year after that” (case study), which didn’t really help much. Due to loss in the small market group in 2009, health plans “planned double digit premium increases in 2010” (case study), but the government stepped in and put a stop to it. Even though the big name hospitals were driving up cost, the insurance companies were seen as the bad guys. This caused local plans to “record sizable operating losses for the first quarter of 2010 and had to draw on reserves to cover expected losses resulting from the rate rollbacks” (case study). The insurance companies, especially the smaller ones, suffered financially.
According to Ingols and Brem (as cited in Swayne, Duncan, and Ginter, 2006), Massachusetts is known across the world for computer technology, education, and health care. In the words of the authors, Massachusetts' "health care expenditures per capita were between 27 and 29 percent higher than the national average from 1990 to 2000." At the time, there was a general consensus that Boston's health care was relatively expensive as a result of the region's cutting edge and high quality services (Ingols and Brem, 2006). During the 1990s, a number of healthcare insurance plans at the national level chose to merge in an attempt to further enhance their ability to compete effectively. This trend according to Ingols and Brem (as cited in Swayne, Duncan, and Ginter, 2006) was also replicated in Massachusetts where the eventual formation of three large competitors had far-reaching consequences. One consequence of the increasing power of these three formations in the marketplace was reduced payments.
The external stakeholders are the community, patients, MedKey System members, CMS, HMOs (ie. Blue Cross Blue Shield and Tri-Care), and any other private insurances (Richards & Slovensky, 2004). Medicare reimbursement in Alabama was the lowest rate in the nation. This was a constant struggle for the hospital administrators to try to operate on such low reimbursements for their services, which is a threat. Eighty percent of patients were Medicare or Blue Cross in which there was difficulty-negotiating prices with Blue Cross due to monopoly. Buyers have high bargaining power as reimbursements rates are low from Medicare and Blue Cross held monopoly in the services area so negotiating prices was difficult. Suppliers have lower bargaining power due to low Medicare reimbursements and difficulty negotiating prices with Blue
A merger is a partial or total combination of two separate business firms and forming of a new one. There are predominantly two kinds of mergers: partial and complete. Partial merger usually involves the combination of joint ventures and inter-corporate stock purchases. Complete mergers are results in blending of identities and the creation of a single succeeding firm. (Hicks, 2012, p 491). Mergers in the healthcare sector, particularly horizontal hospital mergers wherein two or more hospitals merge into a single corporation, are increasing both in frequency and importance. (Gaughan, 2002). This paper is an attempt to study the impact of the merger of two competing healthcare organization and will also attempt to propose appropriate
Although Anthem is regarded as highly lucrative, the company’s profit margins are extremely low due to the highly competitive and regulated industry. Because there is limited opportunities for market growth, health insurance companies remain competitive by merging with other companies. Anthem is currently in the process of finalizing an acquisition deal with Cigna. This deal has been faced with much scrutiny and pushback from government due to monopoly regulations. If the deal does not go through, Anthem will have to pay a large penalty fee to Cigna. Along with this financial cost, Anthem would also lose time and resources that they have dedicated to this strategy over the past two years. Because of the competitive environment and high stakes, Anthem began cutting costs throughout the company.
Anti-trust laws in the United States have been effectively used to prevent monopolies in industries like telecommunications, oil and gas and computer software. Anti-trust laws are enforced in order to maintain free competition in the marketplace, which generates lower prices and incentivizes the development of high quality products. Today, hospital systems are experiencing an era of heavy consolidation, which include mergers and acquisitions and physician practice buy-outs. According to the Wall Street Journal, hospitals completed 86 merger and acquisition deals valued at $7.9 billion in 2011, which was the most in a decade. Like in other industries, this developing trend in hospital consolidations encourages price fixing and
The health sector is among the most important sectors in the United States economy. The government has enacted certain laws that affect the corporation’s activities and the insurance industry in general. The regulation affects competition among the health insurance companies, and the insurance industry in general.
Another group often blocked is complementary or alternative health care practitioners. These restrictions and the insurance industry unwillingness to pay for these services, gives the physicians an almost monopolist control over health care. Providers must be able to enter the market for competition to work and there must be many providers vying for the patient. To get the most out of health insurance plans Consolidation of hospitals and multispecialty group practices increases the negotiating leverage of the group but in certain areas of the US a single large medical system has become the sole provider of major health service thereby restricting competition (Shi & Singh, 2008). This consolidation while giving the hospitals and group practice leverage when negotiating prices of supplies and services tends to increase the price of health care to the patient because there is no longer any competition (Shi & Singh, 2008). For these reason “competition will remain less effective in most health care markets, because the prerequisite for fully competitive markets are not fully met” (Federal Trade, 2004, p. 20).
Apart from the Affordable Care Act, there has been increased government and court involvement in the determination of how healthcare issues are run, like the recent denial of the nonprofit tax exemption status to some hospitals in Chicago (Bergen 2). These hospitals, which include the Northwestern Memorial Hospital and the Prentice Women’s Hospital, are known to provide important healthcare services to patients who cannot afford to pay the expensive costs in private hospitals (Bergen 2). These unfavorable healthcare policies among others are bound to be more frequent and the resultant problems may promote the emergence of other bigger ones unless immediate action is taken.