Matthew’s health care tidbits: #What is insurance again?

Each week I’ve been adding a brief tidbits section to the THCB Reader, our weekly newsletter that summarizes the best of THCB that week (Sign up here!). Then I had the brainwave to add them to the blog. They’re short and usually not too sweet! –Matthew Holt

For my health care tidbits this week, I was reminded on Twitter that many Americans really don’t understand health insurance. A spine surgeon no less in this thread (no jokes about arrogance please) was telling me that he was paying ~$8,000 a year ($4,000 in insurance and $4,000 in deductible) before he got to “use” his insurance–which, as his medical costs were low, he never did. Others were complaining that the cost of employee premiums were over $20K. They all said they should keep the money and (presumably) pay cash when they do use the system. It’s true that most people don’t use their insurance. That’s the whole point. When you buy house insurance, you don’t expect your house to burn down. You are paying into a pool for the people whose house does burn down.

In the US we are on average spending $12k per person on health care each year. But spending on most people is way under that and for a few it’s way, way over. If you take the rough rule that 50% of the spending is on 10% of the people then 35 million people account for $2 trillion in spending–that’s ballpark $60,000 each. They are the ones with cancer, heart disease, complex trauma, etc, etc. The rest of us are “paying” our $4,000, $8,000 whatever, into the pool to cover that $60,000.

There are only two ways to lower that cost for the healthy who aren’t “using” their insurance. One is to exclude unhealthy people from that insurance pool, which makes the costs for everyone else much less. We did that for years with medical underwriting and it was nuts because it screws over the unhealthy. Fixing the pre-existing condition exclusions was the only bit of Obamacare everyone agrees on–even Trump. But now we are ten plus years into this new reality, some people have forgotten how bad it was before.

The other way is to reduce the costs in the system and lower that $4 trillion overall. How to do that is a much longer question. But it isn’t much connected to the concept of insurance.

from The Health Care Blog https://ift.tt/hfpP4gVDz

The Social Science of Covid

By MIKE MAGEE

As we enter the third year of the Covid pandemic, with perhaps a partial end in sight, the weight of the debate shows signs of shifting away from genetically engineered therapies, and toward a social science search for historic context.

Renowned historian, Charles E. Rosenberg, envisioned a similar transition for the AIDS epidemic in 1989. He described its likely future course then as a “social phenomenon” with these words, “Epidemics start at a moment in time, proceed on a stage limited in space and duration, follow a plot line of increasing and revelatory tension, move to a crisis of individual and collective character, then drift toward closure.”

The devastating human toll of HIV/AIDS, in full view of a spectacularly disinterested President Ronald Reagan, couldn’t help but force commentators of the day to search for historic context. One suggested that the epidemic in their midst was “as well suited to the concerns of moralists as to the research of scholars seeking an understanding of the relationship among ideology, social structure, and the construction of particular selves.”

Current historians have begun to parse out explanations for former President Donald Trump’s denials, deflections, and deliberate obfuscation in the early months of the Covid pandemic. Was it a “failure of imagination”, the threat to economic or political interests, emotional immaturity, complacency, or some combination? Why did the sick have to suffer and bodies have to accumulate?

For the AIDS epidemic, Rosenberg believed that “accepting the existence of the epidemic” would have forced or triggered the need to create a response. In contrast to America’s early beginnings, when the weight of responsibility could be laid at the feet of an invisible Theocratic hand, the modern citizenry (aside from the Jerry Falwell’s and Pat Buchanan’s of that day) sought a “rational understanding” and a pathway toward control.

Recognition did carry with it an expectation of collective action, and a search for context. In 2008, two decades after his piece on HIV/AIDS, and stimulated by a new crisis with H1N1 Bird Flu, Rosenberg published a paper in the Journal of Infectious Diseases titled “Siting Epidemic Disease: 3 Centuries of American History.”

In this concept piece, he laid out the variables or parameters for evaluating the long list of American epidemics including geography, ecology, demography, medical knowledge, cultural values, and collective experience.

Scientific progress, as we’ve seen with mRNA-constructed Covid vaccines, makes a difference. As Rosenberg admitted, “AIDS was configured very differently—both socially and biologically—in 1983, in 1993, and in 2003.” But he also suggested that the declaration of an end to the “era of great epidemics” in the 1950s was premature. In fact, we find ourselves still under the control of intersecting and instigating megatrends that were first ignited by discoveries a century and a half ago including new modes of transportation, economic growth, and migration-driven urbanization.

As Rosenberg suggested, progress often carries with it hidden human risks. This presents modern leaders with stark choices. In his words, “It is an occasion to balance faith in the laboratory’s power with anxieties about anticipated failures in public policy and ambivalence about the perhaps ironic fruits of global economic relationships, as well as the diversity and inequality associated with such economic growth.”

Where the laboratory scientist might see Covid as a challenge for medical innovators, social scientists see it as an opportunity for humankind to focus on what really matters. For them, epidemics are “sampling devices that enable us to see, at one moment in time, the configuration of values and attitudes…a natural experiment, a kind of strength-of-materials test for the precise relationships among society’s social values, technical understanding, and capacity for a public and private response.”

While the microbes continue to evolve at a frightening speed, humans are slower to learn and adapt to these biological threats. What social scientists like Rosenberg suggest, is that epidemics have always been, and remain, “a mirror for social thought and plausible action.”

Mike Magee, MD is a Medical Historian and Health Economist, and author of “CodeBlue: Inside the Medical Industrial Complex.“

from The Health Care Blog https://ift.tt/1bhNZtius

Inside Wheel’s $150M Series C: CEO Talks “Long Game” for Stealthy Virtual Care Infrastructure Biz

By JESSICA DaMASSA, WTF HEALTH

Wheel’s CEO Michelle Davey says the white-label virtual care startup’s $150M Series C – led by notable health tech mega-funders Lightspeed Venture Partners & Tiger Global – is “really about the long-game.” We get into the details of this purposeful funding round and what it means for the future of Wheel, as well as the play-by-play analysis of what happened over the past 9 months, since the company closed its $50M Series B. (FYI: Wheel’s total funding is at $216 million to-date.)

Wheel is currently running behind-the-scenes for an undisclosed client list of brands, facilitating 1.6 million virtual visits a year for digital health companies, digital pharmacies, retailers, and, now, even traditional healthcare providers. That number is expected to triple by the end of 2022, and we get into what’s fueling that growth and whether or not Michelle believes that this institutional push toward online care will persist as the pandemic wans and the world continues re-opening.

Armed with this fresh funding, how will three-year-old Wheel continue to differentiate its offering from legacy telehealth infrastructure providers like Amwell and Teladoc? How will it win against their legacy relationships with legacy healthcare providers? Or, is Wheel’s big bet on the continued scaling of what Michelle calls “next generation healthcare”? Wheel has added A LOT of tech to its own infrastructure recently, providing asynchronous options, better clinician matching, more triaging and navigating, and, with this funding, are is now talking about adding “diagnostic services” to round out their service line. What, exactly are we talking about here in terms of business model evolution? Tune in and find out what this stealthy startup is up to!

from The Health Care Blog https://ift.tt/3fZjuSZ

THCB Gang Episode 80, Thursday Jan 27 — 1pm PT- 4pm ET

Joining Matthew Holt (@boltyboy) on #THCBGang at 1pm PT 4pm ET Thursday for an hour of conversation on what’s happening in health care and beyond will be regulars medical historian Mike Magee  (@drmikemagee) and writer Kim Bellard (@kimbbellard), and TWO special guests.

Shantanu Nundy @DrNundy  is Chief Medical Officer of Accolade and last year we had him on to talk about his book Care After Covid. This week, with Lisa Cooper and Kedar Mate he wrote in Jama adding “advancing health equity” as a new part of the “quintuple aim.”

Our second guest is Janae Sharpe @CoherenceMed from the Sharp Index, which is dedicated to increasing awareness of and reducing physician suicide and burnout through support and data science

Are we going to be able to cover everything about physician burnout and health equity in just one hour? Unlikely but we’ll give it our best shot!

Video will be live (and then preserved) below. If you’d rather listen to the episode, the audio is available from Friday as a weekly podcast available on our iTunes & Spotify channels. 

from The Health Care Blog https://ift.tt/3G0zD56

THCB Gang Episode 80, Thursday Jan 27 — 1pm PT- 4pm ET

Joining Matthew Holt (@boltyboy) on #THCBGang at 1pm PT 4pm ET Thursday for an hour of conversation on what’s happening in health care and beyond will be regulars medical historian Mike Magee  (@drmikemagee) and writer Kim Bellard (@kimbbellard), and TWO special guests.

Shantanu Nundy @DrNundy  is Chief Medical Officer of Accolade and last year we had him on to talk about his book Care After Covid. This week, with Lisa Cooper and Kedar Mate he wrote in Jama adding “advancing health equity” as a new part of the “quintuple aim.”

Our second guest is Janae Sharpe @CoherenceMed from the Sharp Index, which is dedicated to increasing awareness of and reducing physician suicide and burnout through support and data science

Are we going to be able to cover everything about physician burnout and health equity in just one hour? Unlikely but we’ll give it our best shot!

Video will be live (and then preserved) below. If you’d rather listen to the episode, the audio is available from Friday as a weekly podcast available on our iTunes & Spotify channels. 

from The Health Care Blog https://ift.tt/3IKFRIb

Big Health’s Softbank Money, FDA Board Member Send Strong Signals About Digital Therapeutics Market

By JESSICA DaMASSA, WTF HEALTH

With a $75 million investment from Softbank last week, and the addition of former FDA Deputy Commissioner Dr. Anand Shah to its Board of Directors this week, Big Health has sure kicked 2022 off with some noise! But, this is more than just big news for Big Health as CEO Peter Hames is here to tell us. This is a story about the market potential for an all-tech approach to mental health care, AND an important endorsement for digital therapeutics – specifically, those that do NOT require a prescription.

Big Health sits at the intersection of two of the hottest health-tech markets: digital mental health care and digital therapeutics. Its approach, via apps Daylight (for anxiety) and Sleepio (for insomnia), has been flagged as unique because 1) unlike other leading digital mental health companies like Headspace Health or Lyra Health, Big Health’s approach to care is tech-driven and does not depend on coach or clinician intervention, and 2) unlike its digital therapeutics rivals, Pear Therapeutics or Click Therapeutics, Big Health’s business model isn’t relying on prescriptions to get paid.

Big Health is, in other words, proving the market potential for a different “breed” of tech-first, PBM-backed digital therapeutics, and I ask Peter about it head-on as we discuss Softbank’s investment. The mega-fund has placed bets on all sides now, having invested in Cerebral, which delivers clinician-first mental health care and prescription medication, and prescription DTx company Pear, which went public in December 2021. So, what should the market make of the fact that Softbank sees room for Big Health alongside Cerebral and Pear? How have high-profile deals with CVS Health and the NHS in Scotland proven out the model? And, what does the addition of Anand Shah (and his insider perspective on the FDA’s sentiment toward digital therapeutics) indicate about what’s ahead when it comes to the regulatory environment for DTx in the future? So many market dynamics at play, so much to talk about!

from The Health Care Blog https://ift.tt/32ydoWq

#HealthTechDeals Episode 5: Wellster, Casana, Babylon, and Atlas Health

How many more beloved TV characters does Peleton have to give a heart attack to before somebody steps in? Jess can’t take it anymore, and we hash out some new deals: Infermedica raises $30 million; Wellster gets a fresh $20 million; Casana the smart toilet seat maker raises $30 million; Babylon buys DaytoDay Health and Higi; Atlas Health raises $40 million. -Matthew Holt

from The Health Care Blog https://ift.tt/3AvK4MU

Infermedica raises a big round and demos new product

Infermedica is a company that started by creating symptom checking and chatbot functionality in Poland back in 2012. It’s spread to delivering that patient-facing diagnosis functionality via API and now as preparation for a physician visit. Today they announce a $30m series B and demo their new product which helps prepare a visit, and integrates into the clinician workflow. I spoke with CEO Piotr Orzechowski and Chief Product Officer Tim Price–Matthew Holt.

from The Health Care Blog https://ift.tt/3KKuMIL

Writing the Book on Digital Health: Roberto Ascione on “The Future of Health”

By JESSICA DaMASSA, WTF HEALTH

In Milan, just outside the Frontiers Health conference, I caught up with Roberto Ascione, conference Chairman and CEO of Healthware Group, about his newly released book, “The Future of Health: How Digital Technology Will Make Care Accessible, Sustainable, and Human.”

A primer on digital health and its role in shaping care and well-being, the book is intended to provide an overview of the digital health market and what it means for the way healthcare will be delivered and consumed in the future.

Loaded with real-world examples and guest perspectives from a number of Roberto’s fabulous friends from across the healthcare and life sciences industries, the book aims to tell the story of health-and-tech in a way that is fun and fast – and doesn’t require healthcare expertise to understand!

Roberto and I quickly cover the main themes of the book, and why it’s so important RIGHT NOW for patients, clinicians, and healthcare entrepreneurs, investors, and innovators to read about where health tech came from, where it’s at, and where it’s headed. You know your market category is coming-of-age when it hits the bookshelves!

from The Health Care Blog https://ift.tt/3H14iRd

The Tests were a Test

By KIM BELLARD

Raise your hand if you’ve gone out shopping for home COVID tests, only to find empty shelves and signs apologizing for the lack of availability.  Raise your hand if you’ve been able to obtain one, but were surprised at its cost.  Raise your hand if you took one and weren’t quite sure you did it right, or wondered who, if anyone, would be getting the results.

Vox says that the COVID home test reimbursement process “is a microcosm of US health care,” and I think they’ve understated the situation.  Testing has been a microcosm for the US health care system generally.  It was a test, and our healthcare system failed.

Throughout the pandemic, we’ve never had enough tests or done enough testing.  You could start back in the early days when snafus in the CDC/FDA meant there weren’t approved tests quickly enough, or how, even when tests become more available, we didn’t do enough to keep ahead of COVID’s spread.  By the time we knew COVID had penetrated a nursing home or a community, it was too late.  We didn’t take advantage of macro-tracking approaches like wastewater monitoring.

We developed “rapid” tests but questioned their accuracy.  The “gold standard” PCR tests took/takes too long to return results.  As we encountered the highly transmissible variant Omicron, we didn’t scale up the production of tests – or the labs to process them — enough to keep up with the demand, much less with the number of acquired cases.  We had, and continue to have, leaders at both the state and federal level criticizing testing, suggesting that the problem is not too many cases but too many tests.  

In our free-for-all pricing system, it’s anyone’s guess what a test might cost.  Most PCR tests have been required to be covered “first dollar” by insurance plans, so consumers haven’t been immediately faced with how much those tests cost, but costs picked by insurance end up in premiums eventually.  Home tests have not been, and costs might vary ten-fold or more depending on the manufacturer and/or seller.  

The Biden Administration has belatedly attempted to address these problems, but in a ham-handed way that is also typical for our healthcare system.  Earlier this month, it set up a system to for each household to order 4 free home tests.  The goal is to have 500 million, perhaps a billion, such tests available, although whether it has actually procured anywhere near that number is unclear.

The Biden Administration also required private insurers – but not Medicare — to pay for 8 home tests per member per month, which seems to have come as a surprise to the insurers.  In many, perhaps most, cases, individuals would have to submit claims to their insurer to get reimbursed for these tests.  Insurers only have to pay up to $12 per test; consumers must pay anything above that.  Surprise!

When I read about that process, as a former health insurance executive, I immediately thought: that is not going to work.

There was a time when people submitting their own claims to their health insurers was not atypical.  Insurers used to refer to the “shoebox effect,” where people would save their receipts in a literal or metaphorical shoebox and send them in en masse, often at the end of the year, and armies of claim examiners would process them.  Between the development of preferred networks and electronic submission of claims, though, those days are long gone.  Indeed, one of the reasons that network plans like HMOs and PPOs became popular was because they didn’t require members to file claims.

These days, few companies have staff of claim examiners sitting around trying to decipher paper claims, much less the processes to receive and sort them.  The fact that the rules were announced on a Monday but went into effect the following Saturday made things worse.  Ceci Connolly, president, and C.E.O. of the Alliance of Community Health Plans, told The New York Times: “It is going to be exceedingly difficult for most health plans to implement this in four days.”  No kidding. 

What documentation needs to be submitted (receipts, product codes, pictures of the test, etc.), and how, are still unclear, and will vary between health insurers.  A survey of 13 major health insurers by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 6 had some form of “direct reimbursement” (e.g., pay nothing upfront and network pharmacies deal with payment), 4 required claims to be mailed or faxed, and 2 had an online submission option.  KFF couldn’t determine what the remaining insurer required.

As you can imagine the Twitterverse found the fax option ludicrous…as it is.

As bad as all that is, we now have a scenario where there are potentially hundreds of millions of tests being taken, but no system for tracking how many are used, by who, or how many positive results there are.  We thought we were doing a bad job counting how many people have received how many doses of the vaccine, but at least there was some reporting system in place.  With these tests, we’re pretty much going to be in the dark.  We’ll never know how many positive cases we’ve had.

———–

Initially, we had no testing strategy.  Then our testing strategy was just “get tested,” with no supporting tactics to make that feasible.  Then, almost 2 years in, we get grand announcements about directly providing free tests, but not enough for everyone, plus mandates on insurers for more free tests that don’t do anything to make the tests more available, affordable, or easy to get reimbursed for.

Yeah, all that sounds like a microcosm of our healthcare system.  As Vox put it, “It’s a needlessly complicated process that provides little benefit but creates plenty of problems.”

Countries with universal coverage have an easier time.  They can negotiate the price and dictate where and how their citizens can obtain tests.  We prefer, or, at least, choose to tolerate, a fragmented system where even getting tests during a pandemic ends up putting the burden on us.   

Shame on us.  It’s not just the healthcare system that failed the test.

Kim is a former emarketing exec at a major Blues plan, editor of the late & lamented Tincture.io, and now regular THCB contributor.

from The Health Care Blog https://ift.tt/3IFegbj