The effect of the shift from HMO to PPO plans on the prevalence of hospital bad debt in the insured population: A case study in two Houston-area hospitals

In spite of the dramatic increase and general concern with U.S. hospital bad debt expense (AMNews, January 12, 2004; Philadelphia Business Journal, April 30, 2004; WSJ, July 23, 2004), there appears to be little available analysis of the precise sources and causes of its growth. This is particularly true in terms of the potential contribution of insured patients to bad debt expense in light of the recent shift in managed care from health maintenance organization (HMO) plans to preferred provider organization (PPO) plans (Kaiser Annual Survey Report, 2003). This study examines and attempts to explain the recent dramatic growth in bad debt expense by focusing on and analyzing data from two Houston-area hospital providers within one healthcare system. In contrast to prior studies in which self-pay was found to be the primary source of hospital bad debt expense (Saywell, R. M., et al., 1989; Zollinger, T. W., 1991; Weissman, Joel S., et al., 1999), this study hypothesizes that the growing hospital bad debt expense is mainly due to the shifting trend away from HMOs to PPOs as a conscious decision by employers to share costs with employees. Compared to HMO plans, the structure of PPOs includes higher co-pays, coinsurance, and deductibles for the patient-pay portion of medical bills, creating the potential for an increase in bad debt for hospital providers (from a case study). This bad debt expense has a greater impact in the community hospital than in the Texas Medical Center hospital. ^

The medical malpractice insurance "crises" and federal medical malpractice tort reform: Collection and analysis of bills passed by the United States House of Representatives from 1995--2005

There have been three medical malpractice insurance "crises" in the United States over a time spanning roughly the past three decades (Poisson, 2004, p. 759-760). Each crisis is characterized by a number of common features, including rapidly increasing medical malpractice insurance premiums, cancellation of existing insurance policies, and a decreased willingness of insurers to offer or renew medical malpractice insurance policies (Poisson, 2004, p. 759-760). Given the recurrent "crises," many sources argue that medical malpractice insurance coverage has become too expensive a commodity—one that many physicians simply cannot afford (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [HHS], 2002, p. 1-2; Physician Insurers Association of America [PIAA], 2003, p. 1; Jackiw, 2004, p. 506; Glassman, 2004, p. 417; Padget, 2003, p. 216). ^ The prohibitively high cost of medical liability insurance is said to limit the geographical areas and medical specializations in which physicians are willing to practice. As a result, the high costs of medical liability insurance are ultimately said to affect whether or not people have access to health care services. ^ In an effort to control the medical liability insurance crises—and to preserve or restore peoples' access to health care—every state in the United States has passed "at least some laws designed to reduce medical malpractice premium rates" (GAO, 2003, p.5-6). More recently, however, the United States has witnessed a push to implement federal reform of the medical malpractice tort system. Accordingly, this project focuses on federal medical malpractice tort reform. This project was designed to investigate the following specific question: Do the federal medical malpractice tort reform bills which passed in the House of Representatives between 1995 and 2005 differ in respect to their principle features? To answer this question, the text of the bills, law review articles, and reports from government and private agencies were analyzed. Further, a matrix was compiled to concisely summarize the principle features of the proposed federal medical malpractice tort reform bills. Insight gleaned from this investigation and matrix compilation informs discussion about the potential ramifications of enacting federal medical malpractice tort reform legislation. ^