Advertisement
AlertSubscribe to Email Alert
American Medical News

American Medical News

 
BUSINESS

AMA survey: Health plan market domination virtually complete

In just about every metropolitan area, one or two firms control at least half the HMO/PPO market. Doctors aren't the only ones noticing.

By Bob Cook, amednews staff. May 8, 2006.

  • PRINT|
  • E-MAIL|
  • RESPOND|
  • REPRINTS|
  • Share SHARE Share
  •  

The AMA's latest study of health plan competition shows that local market domination is a fact of life in just about every metropolitan area in the country -- a clue as to why physicians, businesses and others are trying to find a way out from the current third-party payer system.

The report found that out of 294 metropolitan areas studied, only 15 markets in six states -- California, Colorado, New Jersey, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania -- did not meet the U.S. Justice Dept.'s definition of a "highly consolidated" HMO/PPO market. And those markets, the study says, are hardly competitive free-for-alls. They meet Justice's definition of "consolidated" HMO/PPO markets.

A highly consolidated market usually has two plans with at least 50% of the HMO/PPO market, while a consolidated market usually has two plans capturing at least 40%.

The AMA has sounded the alarm for years over health plan consolidation, saying it takes away physician leverage in contract negotiations and increases consumer premiums. But AMA Trustee J. James Rohack, MD, a Temple, Texas, cardiologist, said it is not just physicians taking notice of market consolidation. That issue, he said, has greater awareness among the public. Businesses are dropping or curtailing coverage because of increasing premiums, creating more uninsured and underinsured patients.

"Now all of a sudden the light bulbs have [turned on]," he said. "This is the time where you've got record profits being made by these for-profit insurance companies. ... Some people are coming to a realization that there needs to be a balance of providing affordable insurance."

But health plans dispute the AMA's conclusions. "There are no studies that conclude lack of competition as a factor in rising health care costs," said Susan Pisano of America's Health Insurance Plans. "It strikes me as ironic that at a time when one of the criticisms of the Medicare Part D prescription drug plan has been too many choices that we somehow have a report that suggests there aren't enough choices."

Plans note that if lack of competition were really considered a problem, the Justice Dept. would have put conditions on more than the merely two out of more than 400 health plan mergers over the last 12 years.

Markets are still competitive, said James Kappel, spokesman for Indianapolis-based WellPoint, and mergers reduce overall costs, making plans more affordable to consumers.

Consolidation over?

The fifth edition of the study, "Competition in Health Insurance: A Comprehensive Study of U.S. Markets," released in late April, is the most comprehensive yet. The 294 metro areas studied, using available public sources and market research by other private sources, was up from 92 last year and 40 in the first study.

Survey results, put together by the AMA's Private Sector Advocacy group, were current as of 2004. So they predate such 2005 consolidations as WellPoint's purchase of New York-based WellChoice, and UnitedHealth Group's acquisitions of California-based PacifiCare Health Systems and John Deere Health Plan in the Midwest.

The United-PacifiCare deal was a rarity in that the Justice Dept. put conditions on the deal before approving it; namely, selling certain operations in Boulder, Colo., and Tucson, Ariz., because the deal would give the new company too much market power.

Oddly, Boulder is one of 15 markets not listed as "highly concentrated" in the study, though it's listed as "concentrated," meaning Justice would look at any merger in those markets as possibly having "significant competitive concerns." But in the other deals, the plans being acquired already held a dominant position, and the plans doing the acquiring were nonexistent or barely existent in those markets.

So how did markets get so concentrated? Analysts say it's not by consolidation but by attrition.

In the 1990s, when managed care firms held premiums down to compete for market share, many plans grew by acquisitions, but many also grew when other plans with small market shares pulled out.

In fact, though large health plans have not ruled out future acquisitions, Wall Street analysts say the age of the megamergers is over, because plans no longer can buy others without raising Justice Dept. hackles. Meanwhile, they said plans also will be under increasing pressure from their business customers, despite a dominant market position, to stop raising premiums the usual 12% to 15% a year.

The rise in popularity of lower-cost consumer-directed health plans, in which a high-deductible plan is paired with a health savings account, is partly a result of the premium hikes dominant health plans have been able to pass on, Center for Studying Health System Change President Paul Ginsburg, PhD, said at a recent health plan industry conference.

But while HSAs have the support of business groups and the AMA, that market is small. Physicians are more worried about how they're supposed to survive under, as they see it, the thumb of dominant health plans.

The majority of members "have no ability to negotiate with health plans anymore unless they are members of extremely large medical groups," said Richard May, MD, a Denver orthopedic surgeon and president of the Colorado Medical Society. "We feel this compromises our physicians' ability to advocate on behalf of their patients because the plans hold undue sway over their professional survival."

Back to top


 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: 

Large and in charge

The AMA's latest study on health plan market power shows overwhelming domination by a few plans in almost every area of the country. Some highlights from the survey:

  • 95%, or 279, of the 294 metropolitan areas studied meet the Dept. of Justice definition of highly concentrated (roughly, two plans carrying more than 50% of the market share) in the combined HMO/PPO business.
  • 99%, or 290, of the 294 metro areas are highly concentrated in the HMO business while 99%, or 293, of the 294 metro areas are highly concentrated in the PPO business.
  • One insurer has a 90% or greater share of combined HMO/PPO business in 11 metro areas. For PPO business alone, one insurer has a 90% share in 26 metro areas, and for HMO business alone, in 50 metro areas.

Source: "Competition in Health Insurance: A Comprehensive Study of U.S. Markets, 2005 Update," AMA Private Sector Advocacy group

Back to top


Almost total domination

The AMA Private Sector Advocacy group's 2005 update of its annual "Competition in Health Insurance: A Comprehensive Study of U.S. Markets" survey shows that plans are more dominant locally than ever. The study looked at 294 metropolitan areas, the most ever in the five-year history of the study. In the combined HMO/PPO product market, 95% (279) of metro areas were "highly concentrated" based on 1997 Justice Dept. merger guidelines (a market concentration index of 1800 or greater). Here are the 15 that weren't, in reverse order of concentration -- though their ratings would be high enough to be considered "concentrated" markets:

MetroRating
Fort Lauderdale-Pompano-Deerfield Beach, Fla.1399
New York-Wayne-White Plains, N.Y.-N.J.1449
Miami-Miami Beach-Kendall, Fla.1463
San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, Calif.1634
Santa Ana-Anaheim-Irvine, Calif.1677
Akron, Ohio1692
Colorado Springs, Colo.1695
Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, Pa.-N.J.1723
Boulder, Colo.1726
Modesto, Calif.1741
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, Fla.1750
Edison, N.J.1755
Riverside-San Bernardino, Calif.1774
Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, Calif.1789
Newark-Union, N.J.-Pa.1792

Notes: For HMO market concentration only, Miami (1310) and Oxnard, Calif., (1778) were the only two metro areas to fall below the "highly concentrated" level. For PPO market concentration only, Allentown, Pa., (1370) was the only metro area to fall below the "highly concentrated" level.

Source: "Competition in Health Insurance: A Comprehensive Study of U.S. Markets, 2005 Edition," AMA Private Sector Advocacy group

Back to top


The dominated

Even in major metro areas, a few plans dominate either the total HMO/PPO market, or the HMO and PPO markets individually. Ratings for some of the largest metro areas:

MetroHMO/PPOHMO onlyPPO only
New York-Wayne-White Plains, N.Y.-N.J.144921312694
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale, Calif.199222244516
Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, Ill.318838543042
Houston-Baytown-Sugar Land, Texas249529123024
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, Ga.357832014374
Philadelphia512959134297
Dallas-Plano-Irving, Texas300023083597
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, Ariz.229919884412
Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, Mass.313931294885
Detroit-Livonia-Dearborn, Mich.333729906239

Source: "Competition in Health Insurance: A Comprehensive Study of U.S. Markets, 2005 Update," AMA Private Sector Advocacy group

Back to top


Almost total control

The study showed that 11 metropolitan areas had one plan that carried more than 90% of the combined HMO/PPO marketplace. Mostly, these are the kinds of smaller markets some plans have avoided or left because they weren't deemed large and profitable enough:

MetroPlanNearest competitor
Bismarck, N.D.BlueCross BlueShield of North Dakota (95%)Great West (One Health) (3%)
Auburn-Opelika, Ala.BlueCross BlueShield of Alabama (94%)Cigna (3%)
Dothan, Ala.BlueCross BlueShield of Alabama (94%)Cigna (3%)
Gadsden, Ala.BlueCross BlueShield of Alabama (93%)Cigna (3%)
Fairbanks, AlaskaPremera Blue Cross (92%)Great West (One Health)
(3%)
Michigan City-LaPorte, Ind.WellPoint (92%)Cigna (4%)
Battle Creek, Mich.Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (92%)Cigna (3%)
Blacksburg-Christianburg-Radford, Va.WellPoint (92%)Coventry (3%)
Roanoke, Va.WellPoint (92%)Coventry (4%)
Anniston-Oxford, Ala.BlueCross BlueShield of Alabama (91%)UnitedHealth Group (3%)
Savannah, Ga.WellPoint (90%)Cigna (6%)

Source: "Competition in Health Insurance: A Comprehensive Study of U.S. Markets, 2005 update," AMA Private Sector Advocacy group

Back to top


The billion-dollar man

If you find it mind-boggling that William McGuire, MD, CEO and chair of United HealthGroup, is sitting on $1.6 billion in unrealized stock option gains, you're not the only one.

The California Public Employees' Retirement System, a United stockholder, sent an angry letter to United, saying the options are "an insult and add injury in a market of skyrocketing health care costs in America." The attorney general in Minnesota, United's home state, urged stockholders (including the state pension investment board he oversees) to vote against the re-election of four United board members, including Dr. McGuire, at the company's May 2 annual meeting. Another group of shareholders has sued over the deal.

The issue isn't just the money. It's how Dr. McGuire got it. As The Wall Street Journal pointed out in a recent article, in the late 1990s Dr. McGuire was allowed to structure his stock options -- contracts that allow their holder to buy stock at a certain price, no matter its true market price -- so that they kicked in at the date of his choosing, rather than on a randomly assigned date. Looking at 12 option grants between 1994 and 2002, the Journal found that if the options had been randomly dated, "the odds of their occurring at such propitious times were about 1 in 200 million."

Various reports show the SEC looking at United and other companies whose CEOs seem to benefit from such fortuitous timing by means such as backdating the exercise date to the stock's bottom. Though most analysts say it's likely the companies violated no laws, ethically they were on shaky ground. The SEC also recently closed a comment period on proposed rules that would make companies give further details on executive pay.

United board members have told multiple media outlets that they did not want to change Dr. McGuire's compensation formula because they didn't want him to think they suddenly thought he was doing a lousy job. After all, United's stock price has grown 112-fold since he became CEO in 1991, and the firm has grown to the second-largest health plan, by membership, in the country.

After the Journal report, however, Dr. McGuire announced that he would recommend that the board "forego for the foreseeable future further equity-based grants or awards for our most-senior and longest-tenured executives, for whom equity positions are well-established from prior years of service," among other reforms.

But Dr. McGuire would still keep his $1.6 billion in unrealized stock option gains, as well as the other $488 million he's already cashed in.

Back to top


Copyright 2006 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.
 
Advertisement