While Healthcare.gov Scrambles, Private Exchanges Are Off to the Races

9 quarters of flat sales while healthcare costs rose 9 percent per year during that period. As healthcare costs rise faster than sales, margins (profits) get eaten alive. When a company can predict its healthcare costs and as its margins become better and more predictable, there is an improvement in a company’s bottom line and therefore, likely, its stock price. When one guy’s stock price improves, his competitors have to take notice and act accordingly or suffer the wrath of the market. In the end, I think this need to “keep up with the Joneses” may be the biggest accelerant under the private exchange flame.

So who absorbs that increase in healthcare costs if the employers cap theirs? Yes, indeed, the employee, who is now experiencing pretty dramatic increases in out of pocket costs. The hope is, of course, that some of the major changes underway in the healthcare system (ACOs, pay for performance, preventive services, yadda yadda) will help alleviate the build up of that pressure. But as they say, hope is not a strategy. Thus, employees, aka healthcare consumers, must take a serious look at how they consume healthcare and start to play a role in managing their own costs and the behaviors that drive them. No doubt this will take a while, but it may well be just the kindling needed to drive more consumer accountability. Ironic, isn’t it, that Applebees might lower their healthcare costs by using exchanges and, accidentally, cause a reduction in sales of their Riblets Platter (calories: 1720-2100; sodium: 3130-4850 mg). We can already see consumer engagement rising, even though in microscopic amounts, where consumers have access to price transparency information: who wouldn’t choose a $1000 ultrasound when the alternative down the road is twice as expensive and where information on quality is largely absent?

It is interesting to note that early indicators show that people joining exchanges definitely price shop. Aon found that 42% percent of employee populations from three companies participating in Aon Hewitt’s Corporate Health Exchange chose less expensive coverage than they had previously, 26 percent selected richer coverage and 32 percent went with a plan that was comparable to what they had, according to this article in HIX. It will be interesting to see how much this price shopping translates to more accountable or at least more cost-aware consumer behavior.

One of the most significant changes in the healthcare system, one which I have written about before but which is becoming of greater and greater urgency as exchanges proliferate, is the imperative for insurers selling products on the exchanges to learn how to market to and serve consumers. Until the exchanges, virtually all insurance was sold to employers in business-to-business mode. Now carriers have to figure out how to differentiate themselves on websites and via marketing where the guy listening is you and me. With insurance carriers loved just about as much as cable companies (aka, not), this is no mean feat.

There was a New York Times article last week about how culturally dour Russian service workers, such as waiters and flight attendants, have had to go through a pretty significant amount of “charm school” to get good at serving consumers in their newer capitalist system. I can imagine that the next class to enroll will be the US insurance carriers. Health insurers are going to have to get good at consumer acquisition and, more importantly, retention, if Aon’s data is any indication: they found that nearly 80 percent of the more than 100,000 U.S. employees enrolled in plans through their exchange chose a different plan for 2013 than they had in 2012—with more opting for cheaper coverage than better benefits.

One discussion I haven’t seen anywhere yet is the impact that all of this exchange upheaval will have on the health/wellness/prevention market, particularly as it pertains to small companies selling products to payers and employers. It has long been true that health insurers want to see a return on investment of no more than 1-2 years when they invest in programs that profess to reduce costs. Why? Because they don’t have those enrollees for very long, usually a couple of years, and they want to realize the return from spending money on weight loss and smoking cessation and disease management and all the rest. If health plan members are switching every year, and if insurers are required to spend 80 percent of all premiums on care, not administration (as they are as a result of the ACA), will they keep investing in these programs?

And furthermore, if employers are going to be getting out of the health benefits business, will they also turn away from these purchases? I see a billion little companies trying to sell a variety of niche wellness, prevention and care management programs directly to employers and I am wondering if they have a future if employers want to forget about this topic entirely. I imagine that some employers will see the provision of these programs as key to employee recruitment and retention, but not because it lowers cost. Rather they will look for meaningful perks–and they may be unrelated to health–that make employees happy to come to work. Instead of smoking cessation it might be ping-pong tables in the lunch room or time off to do charity work or free ice cream on Fridays; after all, they don’t have to care that much about whether the ice cream leads to worsening health if they have capped their costs.

Yes, I know, employers are worried about absenteeism and productivity and all that jazz, but those things are incredibly hard to measure and even harder to correlate with specific initiatives on the health front. Thus, should all those health and wellness entrepreneurs be worried? Maybe so. I would love to hear from employers on this or see the Pacific Business Group on Health study this potential phenomenon. I think this could become a real objection for investors looking at all of these little companies; one has to wonder whether their market will still be there 5-10 years from now when it is time to exit or whether the marketplace of purchasers will have declined precipitously.

Many of those entrepreneurs will say that the solution is building direct-to-consumer products. I have to say that answer makes me wince. Perhaps I am too much the cynic after all these years watching healthcare costs fiddle while consumers burn. It is definitely possible that the rise in exchange purchasing, alongside its companion effect, the rise in high deductible health plans, will drive better consumer purchasing behavior and increased health accountability; as I noted above, I genuinely believe it will have some impact. But will consumers ever really invest large quantities of their own cold hard cash in preventive health products on a big enough basis to sustain all those aspiring wellness entrepreneurs? Perhaps if they have money left after that yummy platter of Riblets.

Author: Lisa Suennen

Lisa Suennen is a managing director with GE Ventures and former managing member of the Psilos Group, as well as the co-author of Tech Tonics: Can Passionate Entrepreneurs Heal Healthcare With Technology? and author of the blog Venture Valkyrie. Prior to 2014, Lisa was a Senior Advisor to Psilos Group, a healthcare-focused venture capital and growth equity firm that focuses on the healthcare information technology, healthcare services and medical device sectors. Lisa was a co-founder of Psilos Group and a Partner at the firm from 1998-2014. Prior to Psilos, Lisa was at Merit Behavioral Care (formerly American Biodyne, Inc), an $800mm behavioral healthcare company where she held various senior executive roles from its early start-up days through exit. Previously, Lisa held various positions in marketing and product management in companies in the high technology field. Lisa was a Board Member of the Dignity Health Foundation, and Board Member of health IT company Beyond Lucid Technologies and is still a Board Member of medical device company AngioScore, a member of the Qualcomm Life Advisory Board, and an Advisor to the California Health Care Foundation Innovation Fund. Lisa also previously served as an Advisor to innovation consulting firm Accelevate, Inc. as a member of the Advisory Board of the U.S. Health and Human Services Office of the National Coordinator Investing in Innovations program. Lisa holds an M.A. in political science, a B.A. in political science and a B.A. in mass communications, all from the University of California, Berkeley, where she is now Vice Chair of the National Advisory Council of the Institute of Governmental Studies at the University. Lisa is also a visiting lecturer at the U.C. Berkeley Haas School of Business where she teaches the annual course on healthcare venture capital. Lisa also writes a widely read blog on healthcare and healthcare investing at www.venturevalkyrie.com. She has recently published her first book, entitled: Tech Tonics, Can Passionate Entrepreneurs Heal Healthcare with Technology, coauthored with Dr. David Shaywitz.