[44] in UA Exec
Re: Task Force Report: Medical copay
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Liz Denys)
Sat Sep 19 10:11:46 2009
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 10:11:18 -0400
From: Liz Denys <lizdenys@MIT.EDU>
To: John Hawkinson <jhawk@mit.edu>
CC: Daniel Hawkins <hwkns@mit.edu>, UA Executive Board <ua-exec@mit.edu>,
CSL <ua-csl@mit.edu>, medlinks-discuss@mit.edu
In-Reply-To: <20090919085142.GA16009@multics.mit.edu>
The point he really stressed was that he was not happy about this
happening. He felt that copays would not have a positive profiting effect.
1. He stated that implementing copays would create costs on Medical's
end that he wasn't interested in. This would be a one time, sunk cost
(yay economics) to set up the receiving of copay because Medical right
now is not "used to getting money" or something really similar to that.
2. More importantly/long term, he was not excited about this because he
felt that so many people used Medical's specialty services (the
non-primary care things which would get copays, ie. non-PCP,
non-urgent?, non-OBGYN, non-essential to everyone possibly at some
point, but the only ones I remember him stating for sure were OBGYN and
PCP). He believes that this copay will serve as a tax from an economic
standpoint, fewer people will use Medical. He also believes that so many
fewer people will use Medical that it won't bring profit.
Not sure if it's been stated yet, but he believes this will be
implemented in January.
-Liz
John Hawkinson wrote:
> Daniel Hawkins <hwkns@MIT.EDU> wrote on Sat, 19 Sep 2009
> at 04:30:27 -0400 in <9d4f87ed0909190130y17456038xca798ada2925b27e@mail.gmail.com>:
>
>> Yes. Thanks for filling in with better details, jhawk. The questions still
>> stand, of course... Anyone?
>
> Your question was phrased such that I could not determine your point was.
> (Not that I know the answer.) Perhaps you could be a *lot* more explicit
> and not assume everyone has context; I don't recall seeing any email
> to ua-exec and ua-csl is no longer a public list, and nothing in the
> most recent UA minutes. Could someone explain the question, please?
>
> So, for the benefit of everyone else in the same boat as me, the only
> mentions of "copay" (or "co-pay") in the task force report were these
> 3 items (all from p.68 of the PDF, p.8 of the table; Administrative
> HR/Benefits group):
>
>
> ADD COPAY FOR SERVICES RECEIVED AT MIT MEDICAL FACILITY
> Currently, there is no co-pay. Recommendation is based on a copay for
> same visit type in commercial plan. Change will be needed to comply
> with Mental Health Parity Act (effective 1/1/2010). The savings
> potential is estimated at $600,000 per year, based on 60,000 visits at
> $10 copay.
> Recommended Action: ASSIGN: VPHR
>
> CONSOLIDATE CURRENT PLAN OFFERINGS TO ONE MULTIPLE TIER OFFERING
> WITH ALL INSURED RISK IN SINGLE POOL
> Redesign current healthcare program to consolidate current plan
> offerings to one multiple tier offering with all insured risk in one
> pool. Estimated annual savings potential is $200,000.
> Recommended Action: ASSIGN: VPHR
>
> LEVERAGE EXCESS CAPACITY AT MIT MEDICAL
> Provide financial incentives, through copay differentials, to
> encourage all medical plan participants to utilize specified services
> at MIT Medical by self-referring. MIT Medical currently has excess
> capacity and can provide these services at a lower cost than the
> commercial plan networks. Services include mammograms, EKG, stress
> tests, and routine lab panels. The estimated annual savings potential
> in combination with #5 below is $500,000.
> Recommended Action: ASSIGN: VPHR Administrative
>
>
> It's perhaps also worth pointing out that Kettyle emphasized that
> MIT medical doesn't really like this situation:
>
> "We know from studies on copays that the cost of collecting them is
> nontrivial. There is a significant cost we will incur to collect
> copays. Having cash around is not something we're used to. We're not
> thrilled about it. We are also not thrilled about barriers to
> care. The most most powerful effect [of copays] is to decrease
> utilization, not to increase revenue. It's unclear now this will play
> out."
>
> --jhawk@mit.edu News Editor
> John Hawkinson The Tech +1 617 797 0250
> http://tech.mit.edu
>
>> On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 4:20 AM, John Hawkinson <jhawk@mit.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Daniel Hawkins <hwkns@MIT.EDU> wrote on Sat, 19 Sep 2009
>> at 04:12:12 -0400 in <
>> 9d4f87ed0909190112k9682c64k37ec970b07f1735b@mail.gmail.com>:
>>
>> > So I went to the first open forum about the Institute Wide Planning
>> > Task Force report, and this issue (which has been loosely assigned
>> > to CSL) was brought up. Liz, please correct me if I'm wrong (I
>> > didn't take notes), but I believe there was a doctor there from MIT
>> > Medical who spoke on the issue,
--
Elizabeth A. Denys
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Class of 2011
Department of Electrical Engineering
Department of Mathematics
630.730.1136 | lizdenys@mit.edu
