Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Launch HN: Evry Health (YC W18) – Better health insurance for companies (evryhealth.com)
67 points by aquaphile on March 2, 2022 | hide | past | favorite | 75 comments
Hello Hacker News! Mark, Jay and I are the cofounders of Evry Health (https://evryhealth.com). We are a full-stack health insurance company that reduces premiums by up to 20% for companies while improving the health and wellness of their employees.

People and media constantly talk about the problems in our healthcare system: prices are too high; premiums are rising faster than household income; health outcomes are lower than the rest of the developed world; mental health coverage is inadequate; and the lack of transparency and accessibility creates confusion for us all. All these are real problems, but they’re symptoms rather than root causes.

We believe the root cause is that the U.S. system is rife with misaligned incentives. For example, the fee-for-service structure incentivizes overuse and volume-based billing, rather than health. Thirty-five cents of every dollar spent goes to clinical waste, unnecessary services, administrative bloat, or fraud. (We could give footnotes, but doubt anyone needs convincing.)

We’re building Evry to realign incentives for mutual benefit. Our primary plan is an EPO (Exclusive Provider Organization), which is like an HMO, except you don’t have to choose a primary care physician and you don’t need a referral to see a specialist. We have no deductibles, almost no copays, and benefits that exceed the best plans from legacy insurers. We pay most doctors and hospitals based on patient outcomes, not fee-for-service. Telehealth is available for free 24/7. Members receive a customized care plan that provides additional resources and offers cash incentives on a debit card. All this is to remove barriers to care and improve the health of each member at no additional cost.

On top of that, we reduce premiums by up to 20% for employers. We can do this because we are a software company that owns an insurance carrier. We automate roughly half the tasks involved with claims, care coordination, underwriting and back-office operations. We aggregate data from disparate sources (claims, clinical, pharma, lab, and wellness data) to make superior decisions and aid patients. Our technology helps members identify and treat conditions earlier and more effectively. We also have a much better user experience—a single portal to access telehealth, care concierge, claims data, wellness plan, doctor lookup, rewards card, etc.

The industry is still fundamentally basing prices on 1960s approaches to accounting (ChargeMaster pricing). 1980s tech and accounting "advanced" the dialog to Diagnostic Resource Group pricing. But insurers and hospitals alike are saddled with this decades old technology and pricing that obscures transparency, adds cost, and isn't tied to patient outcomes. There are software businesses that focus on translating ChargeMaster to DRG to the more recent idea of Reference-based pricing. That is not the way to use technology to improve health care! We’re going much deeper.

The caveat is that so far, we only provide coverage to businesses with 100+ employees in Texas. We launched in our first market of Dallas Fort-Worth. That’s our beachhead, and we’re working on expanding into new states and markets (It takes a long time to get something like Evry off the ground—there are large barriers to entry). Since half of Americans get health coverage through their employer, we’re focused on companies to maximize impact.

We've built insurance, healthcare and fintech companies before. I founded the insurer that invented per-mile auto insurance ("Drive Less, Pay Less") and reduced premiums up to 50%. Mark (CFO) is a healthcare actuary with 30 years’ experience ranging from Aetna to Managing Director in Big 4 consulting. Jay (COO) is a fintech veteran who started in healthcare working with large hospital systems. What inspired us to start Evry was that we lost friends and family to the terrible dysfunction in the healthcare system. We felt we had the skill sets needed to do something about the problems, and ultimately decided we had to.

There is a lack of innovation in this space, and many things being tried—shifts to direct contracting, direct primary care, self-funded programs for individuals and SMBs—do not address the root problems. They are temporary price-oriented solutions. These are a form of moving the ball between cups—prices are better because coverage is impaired in hidden ways that the average person doesn’t discover until it’s too late.

There’s also a strong debate, of course, about governmental reforms to U.S. health care. Many support Medicare For All (MFA) for good reasons. However, MFA on its own may not be enough to address clinical variation and some of the other root problems in the system. In any case, in the absence of government action, we believe private sector innovation can address some of our shared problems. We’d be happy to discuss this, and the details of what we’re doing, in the comments below. We’d also like to hear about your own ideas!




> We believe the root cause is that the U.S. system is rife with misaligned incentives...

Involving "employers" is one of, if not the primary, root causes. I understand you're building a business, and ... you're playing in the same space as others. That may make sense financially, and allow you to take away from business from legacy insurers and save some companies 20% on existing costs.

But this doesn't seem like it's getting at the actual root problem, which is most people aren't actually involved in buying or paying for medical care (or... not until it's overwhelming).

I realize this is a national political issue, and not something a startup can actually address. The large companies, which could affect real change, have no incentive to legislate themselves out of business.

This (employer-provided health insurance) seems a perpetually intractable problem and seemingly unique to the US (based on my limited understanding of the problem space).

As a self-employed person, I'm basically an outlier and generally get little day to day benefit from any 'health insurance'. I paid $900/month (2 people) last year. 2nd covid shot caused a blackout, and I was ambulanced to an ER (I was actually only 'out' for less than a minute, but in less than 5 I was being driven away). 3 hrs in ER - nothing obviously wrong, so I was released. I got multiple bills over the next month for $4000. Insurance company graciously 'negotiated it down' so I only had to pay $2000, on top of the $11000 I already pay for this 'deal'.


I feel this. I pay $500 a month for insurance with a $6000 deductible.

I would have to have more than $12,000 in medical expenses every year before I would break even on this.


Hi - Mark here - I'm curious to know what you get for your $500 monthly premium. Do you get anything else of value, any incentive programs, knowledge support, coaching, etc. I am assuming you get free access to telehealth. I would like to know if you use any of these other things


I'm not the OP, but my insurance program (BCBSNC) offers some things. I get

* a 'wellness portal' (which... doesn't open anything when I click on it) - nope - goes to 'werally.com'

* a 'nurse support program' - which seems to be a bullet point list of things they say they help me with, but... no call to action, or phone number, or.. anything actionable.

* 'Behavioral Health Support' - which takes me to quartethealth.com, which says their service is free, but it's just the matching portion - services still cost something (and I've got... $7000 in deductibles to hit first, only for 'in-network' - out of network, it's... $35k)

* a 'blog' where I can 'explore articles and videos on fitness, nutrition and more to help keep you healthy.'

* 'nutritional counseling' - 'Simply make an appointment for nutritional counseling with a registered dietitian. If you see an in-network dietitian in an office setting, your copayment can be waived...' - except if you have a high-deductible plan, which is the only thing I can remotely afford.

"Telehealth" services are from 'Teledoc', and are 0% for me once I hit my deductible. Yay.

What I would value is being able to go visit a doctor more than once a year. If I'm physically ill (bad cough, aches, headaches, etc) I would like to be able to go see someone for some basic inspection without it costing hundreds of dollars or more. My wife broke a bone in her foot years ago - this was at least a couple of thousand dollars out of pocket on top of the (at the time)... $7k year in insurance premiums. But... it's my own fault because I 'chose' "high deductible". If I'd just have been willing years ago to commit to paying $12k/year for the two of us, perhaps we might have gotten away with 'out of pocket' for her foot of under $1k.

Essentially, between 'premiums', and 'deductibles' and 'copays', I have to be willing to commit to ... $15k-$20k up front before I see any 'benefit' from a health care encounter. I don't see how this is sustainable, but... I've been saying that for years, and... I'm hanging in there - I don't know how other people do it. 5 years ago a friend's insurance was $1900/month for him, wife and a kid. And.. yes, high deductible.


Sounds like each one of those "integrated" components are actually separate things and each has an expense to you. And theres noone at the plan to help you navigate or coordinate what you access or why you should. All up to you. Our approach is to make these types of things to be inside the benefit plan (e.g. no copays, no deductibles for telemedicine solutions), and support you with care guides and incentives. I hear your pain though - its why we are trying to do this. Better access, easy as well as affordable.


They do have free teleheath and I do appreciate that. If I don’t absolutely need to be seen in person, I use the telehealth option. No other features, tbh. It’s a bronze ACA plan in the NY State exchange.

The yearly out of pocket maximum is about $7000 so it’s essentially only for catastrophic situations. I just wish there were a cheaper option. At this point, I’d take a plan with a much higher deductible/ out of pocket limit if the premiums could be half of what they are.


Now I am curious why you buy health insurance. Are you insuring against the risk of a high cost claim, like a heart attack or premature baby, cancer or transplant? Is it just something you think you should have (but from your comments, dont really use the healthcare system very often)?


I actually didn’t have health insurance a few years ago and signed up for one of the non religious “health shares”. But I ended up in the hospital for a few days with a condition that was never fully diagnosed before I was discharged and the health share refused to pay anything and I was left with a $45k bill. For just 3 days of inpatient.

Imagine cancer or a car accident. If you have no income or assets, you can often get that written off by the hospital, but if you have income or assets, they will absolutely bill you for everything and a major health event like that could easily rack up $500k or more in bills.


Oh yeah it can get crazy expensive. I was just asking to gauge your sense of risk aversion. One of the things I think is missing is being able to bring value to you even if you do not have claims. Kind of like how we have responded to others in this conversation, we are trying to get a membership card in your wallet that provides you with a sense of value even if you only go to the pharmacy for Slim Jims. We think theres an opportunity to engage with people in a way that encourages maintenance, or sustaining, your health, or if you think, improve your health. All too often we wait for someone to get sick before offering care - we want to get in front of that. Identify and manage emerging issues. and so on.


Absolutely, if there was a way for insurance to provide value on a non-catastrophic basis, I’d be all for it. Right now it feels like The worst of all worlds. Expensive and only useful in worst-case circumstances.


My family tried the "health share" thing too, before we created Evry Health. We used to have proper insurance, then post-ACA the prices were so outrageous it became a choice of a) pay for normal insurance via ACA or b) save/pay for our kids' education. Given those choices, we opted to use Medi-share? for a few years.


I’m sorry to hear about the bad reaction you had to the vaccine and then the terrible experience you had with the care system. You are correct, individuals do need to have better understanding and connection to the cost of care, and the cost dialog is convoluted and lacking transparency for a long list of reasons. We are operating within the system but are looking to change it. What we can change is how you, as an individual, receive value from your insurance company. The most obvious way is to be protected against the super high cost of some catastrophic circumstance, like a massive heart attack or surgery. But another way to receive value is through incentives and rewards that support you in your pursuit of wellness, whatever that means to you, as well as making it easy for you to get access to things that are of interest to you that individuals or smaller employers do not typically get access to because there are no economies of scale to encourage these vendors to offer their products and services to the retail public. I understand and appreciate your pain as a self-employed or small group.


> We are operating within the system but are looking to change it. What we can change is how you, as an individual, receive value from your insurance company

But only if this is something an employer pays for.

I understand it's a big problem, and you'd like to make changes to the system. I wish you good luck in your efforts :)


We are embedding several programs into the benefit plan and still charging a lower price. We think its the best solution to the employer demanding positive ROI on the disease management and telehealth based solutions


> We think its the best solution to the employer demanding positive ROI on the disease management and telehealth based solutions

Just rereading this one line - again, I'm pretty sure your motives are noble, and perhaps you can move the needle a bit. But... why should employers be demanding positive ROI on something that isn't their core business? "Employers" as a whole, having to learn about various 'insurance' options and dedicated people to help guard their investments in Human Resources - something about this troubles me greatly. It's... as if... unless I'm somehow 'good enough' to warrant the protection/benefit of a 'good employer'... I'm less than worthy of good health, or access to necessary care. And... once that employer has no more use for my services (or someone else can provide them cheaper)... I'm essentially on the scrap heap (someplace we'll all be, metaphorically, at some point, sometimes through no fault of our own).

Again, I wish you the best of luck, but "employer provided health insurance" is just something that really is past its sell-by date, even if you can squeeze out some savings for employers and provide some good for the select few special/lucky enough to be employed by a company so forward-thinking as to engage your services.


You nailed it on the head.

Employer based insurance is at the core a monstrosity. I hope these founders make a dent in cost but ultimately i dont see how any ROI will translate to lower industry costs, especially since outcomes-based billing is just another more confusing way to ration care and squeeze independent doctors to work for larger systems that can do the accounting.

And squeeze the little guys, and everyone else ends up paying ASC or Hospital pricing.

The only real solution is to actively get rid of employer based insurance and to break down barriers to independence practice.

I dont see how this startup does either, unfortunately.


Hi Mark here - Just to be clear we are not using ROI, but rather clinical impact. The expectation being that the expense of encouraging better care through facilitating coordination, clinical teaming, and incentives addresses issues of access, transparency, and engagement/compliance. We are looking to change the healthcare experience from being confusing, disjointed, costly, and wasteful.

As for employer-based insurance, it is the market that more than 50% of all people get their insurance from currently [1]. Is it the best way to make sure people get access to care? No, its just a convenient way to pool risk, and there are significant tax and regulatory support structures in place to prop it up. No private enterprise is going to change this and it is unreasonable to expect that outside of massive political and regulatory changes. And when that revolution happens, our technology and infrastructure will be able to continue delivering the same positive benefits to the disaggregated community because quite frankly we are agnostic to whether 50,000 people are insured by us through 250 employers or as individuals - we are still treating the issues being faced by the people in the community.

[1] KFF Data https://bit.ly/3IFQkoB


> We pay most doctors and hospitals based on patient outcomes, not fee-for-service.

I'm curious how you convinced providers to bill based on outcome. The metric seems very hard to quantify. How are the outcomes measured? How are chronic conditions handled (e.g. there is no clear resolution to the underlying issue)? Is it a sliding scale or a binary? What happens when a pt visit does in fact involve expensive labs and procedures?

Anyway, congratulations on the launch! I'm a huge fan of anyone trying to improve the healthcare system.


thallium205 does a great job of summarizing some of the common approaches insurers have used to try and get outcomes to be part of the payment of care delivery. We find that most physicians have not been asked what they consider to be critical outcomes related measurements and benchmarks. We are approaching the physicians we contract with on a basis of partnership rather than combatant, and as a result we have been able to achieve direct physician contracts with value-based metrics and payment components that they are comfortable with. We have the technology and analytics to support the timely and accurate reporting of the emerging experience to support them because quite frankly we are only successful if they are as well. To the point about chronic patients, we support the physicians with extensive care coordination capabilities and analytic support to identify gaps in care, opportunities for broadening the clinical team, and to leverage efficient solutions in telemedicine. We make sure all of the efforts are being communicated back to the primary care and/or specialists so they know what’s going on with their patient when their patient is not in their office.

There is a long way to go however because there is not a lot of trust and there are significant technology barriers. We believe our approach is a breath of fresh air.


Typically what they do is pay one time for a particular "case". So if you came into the doctor's office consecutively for the same symptoms for a week straight, they'd treat that as an episode of care and pay it as if it's one visit.

Another strategy is to pay a flat rate for seeing a patient. So if they come in once or come in 20 times that month, they get paid the same.

For hospitals what they like to do is pay only on discharge events. So again if you had a 9 day stay vs a 2 day stay, it's the same. They particularly like this because the third party hospitalists and all outpatient care have a difficult time getting the discharge data out of the hospital system resulting in many denials from the payers.

This is by no means an exhaustive explanation of "value" based care.


Thanks for the great summary!


> We pay most doctors and hospitals based on patient outcomes, not fee-for-service.

Wouldn't doctors be incentivized by this fee structure to walk away from difficult cases, where a treatment is risky but is the last hope for the patient, if they won't be paid for the likely bad outcome?


Good question, and thank you for asking it. The short answer is No.

We have “escape” codes to make sure the doctor is not penalized. For example, if there is a risk of embolism or if there is an aneurysm complication during surgery, then the payment reverts to a fee for service. The point is to ensure patient safety and high quality of care, not penalize the doctor for events not in their control.

If the care being sought is highly experimental or risky, we work with physicians to determine if there are centers of excellence that may provide higher quality of care.


Good observation. This already happens within certain hospital systems, based on "protecting the numbers". So for instance a surgeon not wanting to take on a patient because it is a likely mortality on their record.


Any fee structure will have certain incentives; it's unavoidable. The trick is to try to find incentives for the providers that also align with positive results for the patients.

Having the actual results align with the intended ones is easier said than done, as anyone who has ever tried to design and administer any kind of measurement-based compensation or bonus plan will tell you.


> The trick is to try to find incentives for the providers that also align with positive results for the patients.

That part is easy.

The hard part is aligning providers, patients, and the payers, since the patients cannot afford to align the providers with themselves. Enter politics, because you are now distributing limited healthcare resources with demand far greater than supply, meaning you have to either pony up more from the payers and/or ration various quality of healthcare to various populations, per their political power.


Yes you are right - And we recognize this as part of our outreach and contract development efforts. Our collaboration seems to be working and we are getting great reaction from physicians. We believe in a simple approach to keep it understandable and easy to administer to build that relationship


Harvard Business Review on the disbanding of Haven, the venture to disrupt U.S. health care formed by Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway, and JPMorgan Chase:[1]

>Perverse incentives. We still live in a world where the larger portion of hospitals’ beds that are utilized, the more they get paid. Consequently, the U.S. health system is focused on treating sickness rather than preventing illness in the first place.

It seems like your root cause analysis is broadly known. Do you expect the market to shift quickly once your approach gains traction?

[1] https://hbr.org/2021/01/why-haven-healthcare-failed


I have a different take. Haven was an attempt to get 3 large, very different, groups to reach consensus on some very contentious issues. It was akin to asking everyone at the Thanksgiving dinner table to agree on a political issue.

Were they able to come to consensus on anything? There was going to be winners and losers if they changed benefit plans to be on a common platform across all 3 organizations. Maybe one organization had more losers than winners.

Then Haven made the Great Vaporware Mistake with a huge public relations and marketing campaign before they actually did the hard work.

Then reality set in.


Chris (CEO) here. Thanks for the HBR citation regarding incentives. I can hope the market will someday shift quickly, because that would benefit more people more quickly. Realistically, though, I think it will take at least 10-20 years for a broad shift in the market. Large organizations (such as legacy insurers) are very slow to change – even when it is in their long-term interests.


I do not understand how that analysis fails to mention the root problem of extremely high demand relative to supply of high quality healthcare. And of course, tort reform because there needs to be a ton of cover your ass work in the US.


Curious on your medical and pharmacy trend combined, how does it compare to other insurance carriers like Aetna, United, Kaiser Permanente, etc.

There is only so much you could do on the administration/retention side of the cost puzzle, I believe for KP it's around 3-4% of the total PMPM, a lot of the cost savings will come from

1) not participating in the government programs (medicaid, medicare, aca), which the commercial market largely subsidizes 2) controlling the provider costs, how much control/influence do you really have with a small membership base to negotiate from?

Interesting concept, I think the legacy carriers are working to improve their tech stack and providing this on-demand type of care. I wish you a lot of luck!


Thank you!

Medical + Rx trend: Our trends are a little lower than the published trend figures because of the shifts we are creating through embedded telehealth and telemedicine solutions. For competitive reasons, we cannot disclose exactly how much lower but it is substantial.

Admin cost savings: A regional Blue Cross Blue Shield plan typically spends 12-15% of their revenue on general and administrative expenses (G&A). That number does not include Sales expenses – it is pure G&A. We are confident in hitting 4% or 5% thanks to all the technology we’ve built and automated, and we pass through the savings to our customers.

Controlling provider costs: It’s not all about controlling costs. You’re certainly correct that our rates across the board would be better if we had a large membership base to illustrate how our programs help physicians be successful and encourage broader collaboration on the care coordination efforts that drive better outcomes and higher quality. Sometimes we end up paying more for a procedure. That’s okay and working as intended! Good doctors should get paid more; bad care should be worth less. But even if we pay more for certain care, if outcomes are aligned and the patient is healthier, it will generate a financial return for us across a population. We offer up to 3-year rate lock-in agreements for employers so we can still capture the savings of, for example, reduced readmission even if it doesn’t occur immediately.

Legacy insurer efforts: Legacy insurers are attempting to address the situation, but their patchwork efforts cannot address the fundamental chassis that they are tied to. That legacy infrastructure and broader employment base is not easily transitioned to modern technology, value-based care, and virtual business models. Also, the innovation-based pilots they roll out may impact one market, like a specific city, or a specific market segment, like Medicare membership, and one service, like pain management for arthritis, but they are not necessarily rolling out solutions that impact their whole population. At the end of the day, the current system is not sustainable.


Super interesting, really awesome stuff. Congratulations and looking forward to some much needed disruption!


I’m a big fan of any and all alternatives in health care payments. The ACA is a massive influence here that isn’t being discussed though. The free mental health services discussed in the comments by Evry seem generous and excessive on their part, until you realize that the mental health parity rule can easily and casually stick them with $50k or more of bills for in-patient treatment, where over-admission frequently happens to the detriment of the patient in some cases [1] and merely the insurer in others [2,3]. Getting ahead of this and trying to divert patients from this wasteful system is a fantastic and profitable idea for the insurer. This seems to be a success of the ACA and what insurance is supposed to be doing. But this is somewhat of a cat and mouse game in the long term because they ultimately can not choose they cover.

[1] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/rosalindadams/intake [2] https://fee.org/articles/how-obamacare-created-massive-addic... [3] luxuryrehabs.com


> Getting ahead of this and trying to divert patients from this wasteful system is a fantastic and profitable idea for the insurer.

We try to provide on-demand care whenever reasonable and possible. While it increases utilization of things like mental health and telehealth and wellness for us in the short-term, over the long-term it yields benefits in the overall health of the member (especially when considered across a whole population).

> ACA

The ACA brought approximately 40 million net-new insureds into the marketplace who were previously uninsured. It was/is a hugely ambitious law, with (I think) good intentions, that had (to your point) some unintended consequences. Also, many of the initial assumptions going in on the ACA turned out to be far too optimistic.


Very interesting. Couple questions:

1) I can see how this model works with an EPO, but do you plan to build any products that would necessarily support OON like PPO/POS? How does the model work there once you have to integrate with the rest of the healthcare value chain that may not see eye to eye with you right now or for a while (at least until the government forces them to)?

2) How do you package the pharmacy benefit? Are you aiming for employers that carve out the pharmacy benefit anyways, or for employers that need it packaged into a fully insured plan (which is common at the 100 lives size)?

3) What approaches are you considering for go to market? Are you going to scale up direct sales to the employer (direct but costly) or consider other approaches, and if so, what?

I love seeing innovation in this space. You're right to call out the issues with self-funded programs for individuals/SMBs for not addressing the funny business in contracting. On the other hand, if you're building a provider network from scratch and not layering in someone else's, you are going to run straight into the existential risk of cold-start scaling up a two sided network, so I am curious how you are planning to avoid that.


Product: It is possible that in the future we would roll out a PPO based product to have a broader out of network option. Right now we do not have any plans to do so. Our target employer groups are focused geographically which fits nicely with our EPO approach. Sales to larger groups and greater, or prolonged work from home trends, may accelerate our consideration of PPO product development.

Pharmacy benefit: We integrate the pharmacy benefit into the overall benefit plan. We are selling a full package, and to fully insured groups. We work with a great, NCQA/URAC accredited national pharmacy benefits manager. I think we provide pretty good pharmacy benefits (broad network, comprehensive formulary, decent prices) but it has been an interesting process to standup. Still not a lot of price transparency (even for the insurer). There is broad opportunity in this space for other players.

Sales: We are using a combined approach of direct and brokered sales efforts. As Jay responded to another question, we have been expanding our broker relationships.

Network: I am not sure I understand what you mean by two-sided network. We are building our network from scratch, which enables us to establish relationships with physicians and collaborate with them on the outcomes-based approach we prefer to use in our contracting. We use a national network to wrap around the direct contracted network so there is national coverage for emergencies. We do not believe high deductible plans and pervasive use of high copays translates into effective consumer use of healthcare services because at these levels the cost to the individual has become punitive and encourages delaying care not accessing care. incidentally, we have had a couple of self-insured employers’ express interest in our approach because even with the high deductible plan, their stop loss expenses were so high that the combination of self-insured administration fees and stop loss protection was just as expensive as being fully insured (as we offer better benefits and more care support).

There are employers and physicians that don’t see eye to eye will not want to work with us on this basis. Regardless we have built a network that satisfies all regulatory requirements. Some things will always be more expensive because of the specialization. Neonatology, for example, will always be extremely expensive for us because of the limited number of medical providers.


Congrats on the launch! This seems like a great beachhead / GTM strategy for an insurer to get off the ground.

Curious about the footnotes you mentioned: "Thirty-five cents of every dollar spent goes to clinical waste, unnecessary services, administrative bloat, or fraud. (We could give footnotes, but doubt anyone needs convincing.)" Is there any one good source, or a few good sources, on this breakdown?


There are several studies and analysis about waste in the US healthcare system. This one gives a great overview and summarizes several other studies as well.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31589283/

The waste usually comes down to (1) variation in clinical approaches, like a heart patient being treated differently by several different doctors, (2) administrative inefficiency, such as transposing from paper or using fax machines, and not working collaboratively, (3) abuse and fraud, like we saw in the news recently.

Here’s another one along the same lines about clinical variation

https://www.bcbs.com/the-health-of-america/reports/study-of-...


Congrats -- great post, new health insurance options are much needed! How did you assemble your provider network and how do major hospital options compare to other major carriers (eg. BCBS Texas PPO)? Does this EPO plan offer any out of network / outside of Dallas coverage? What is your target employee demographic? How has your experience been getting brokers to distribute this new plan?


Thanks! We’ve built our primary network ourselves. We have about half of the major regional hospital options working with us, as well many of the top specialist provider groups. It’s narrower than the network of a BCBS but growing rapidly. An EPO does not support out-of-network coverage but we do handle out-of-area through a partner, so people don’t need to worry while traveling, etc.

The target employee demographic is younger/Millennial focus but we’ll work with any employer group that has 100+ employees.

For distribution, it took time to build trust with brokers. We went through a lot of introductions and meetings to find people we trusted, and to help them also trust us. It required a lot of personal interaction. Currently, we work with two commercial brokerages, and will continue expanding and growing our broker relationships. We are "broker-friendly."


The phrase "technical solutions to social problems" comes to mind. Read Kenneth Arrow's 1963 paper Uncertainty and the Welfare Economics of Medical Care to understand why health care is a market good, and private sector solutions are not up to the task of providing adequate health care to all.

The solution is for the government to provide health care to all. You are trying to fix things it is only within the government's power to fix -- and the political will is not actually there to fix them because leaving things broken makes vastly more money for all involved.

If you want adequate health care at a reasonable price, emigrate from the USA and live elsewhere.


And for those of you willing to stick it out and help make change happen here, we are hopeful that our differentiated product, use of technology, and processes will stir dialog and stimulate change. There is a saying "eat the mammoth one bite at a time" or something like that - basically when a problem is so big the best you can do is take it in bite sizes pieces. We - by ourselves - cannot change how everyone gets access to healthcare. We can start small and build from there. Our objectives are achievable and objective in the near term, aspirational in the long term. Thanks for contributing your thoughts to the debate!


1) Are there deductibles and co-pays for members who visit an emergency room with an out of network hospital?

2) What is your national payer id? Do you support 837s with electronic attachments, 835, 270/271, and 276/277 transactions to help providers manage claims? What about corrected claims?

3) What kind of contract would an in-network provider expect to get from you all? Some kind of capitated/case rate thing?

4) Are you all using any third party administrators to do the dirty work of negotiations?

Edit

5) Who is reinsuring you in the event of big losses?


1. There is a $300 copay for an emergency room visit (both in-network and out-of-network). This is actually our only copay period. It is to encourage people to only use emergency rooms for emergencies. There are no deductibles for our primary plan though we do offer a HDHP as well (for employers with HSAs), so for the secondary product a deductible does apply. Emergency care is always covered as an in-network benefit and no copay would apply for inpatient care/admissions.

2. Payor ID is EH001. Yes to all except 276/277 for right now.

3. Naturally, this depends on the type of provider. We work with our providers to contract on a basis that is comfortable for them. Not all physicians are ready to accept something like capitation. We collaborate with physicians on the quality parameters to track. Some agreements are done as bundles for the entire episode of care. Some agreements are case rates or capitation payments. Some are still benchmarked off of Medicare but tied more closely to patient outcomes. For example, with primary care doctors we target avoiding poor control of diabetic A1C levels to be below 15% and to do depression or anxiety screenings for more than 80% (among other metrics).

4. Nope. We contract directly and do all the claims processing ourselves. Sometimes that means negotiations can take awhile (for large health systems) but it almost always means we reach favorable terms with a mutually beneficial structure.


Can you speak more to the “free mental health coverage”? I assume this includes psychotherapy.

What kinds of therapy are covered? How did you build your network of therapists?


Chris (CEO) here. We approach the mental health dialog differently. We consider access to mental health to be an extension of primary care, a fundamental piece of the care continuum that is needed to sustain people in their pursuit of health and wellness. As a result we have not only contracted with physicians directly in the market but have also expanded access to care through teleheath and telemedicine solutions. We had a press release recently about the innovations we are making in this space (see https://lnkd.in/dDCTGaYs.

“free mental health coverage” -> We combine our network of therapists and behavioral facilities with online digital health solutions that have their own providers. In person therapy is included as preventive care. No copay, no deductible, no limitation. We combine that with targeted digital solutions for specific mental health conditions (burnout, depression, stress management, etc.) These solutions, again, are made available to members usually without any costs (except for very specific programs). Engagement and participation is incentivized and rewarded with cash on their Evry card. We are making an effort to make therapy – of all kinds – accessible, convenient, affordable, and effective (whether digital or in-person).

How did we build our network of therapists? -> Same as the medical providers (see other Q&A in this post). It requires time and “boots on the ground” having conversations, building trust, and creating contracts that avoid the traditional games played by both sides. We’ve had good success getting digital networks to work on PHQ-9 type metrics and outcomes, sometimes with 100% of payment being tied to a tangible improvement by the patient.


With many new disruptions in the private medical sector for example CostPlus bringing prescription drug costs down considerably, do you see any opportunities for collaboration between these newer startups in adjacent industries? If so can you speak to some that could benefit me as a customer in addition to the standard insurance that is provided?


There are a lot of opportunities to partner with other innovators / startups. We are always looking for ways to do things differently. For you, it translates into a different experience with greater access and more convenience. It should also mean lower cost because of the shift to virtual and at-home care.

As for who - its a big universe. There are innovations in primary care, gut biome / nutrition, biometrics, physical therapy / activity, sleep, mental health, fertility / family planning, cancer, community resources / counseling, and so on. We have a running list of over 300 companies we have reviewed and have considered in terms of how to include. The hard part is to sponsor a mix that does not overlap too much. We've done that work.


Do you have any plans to white label your software and license it to other providers?

For example I use Kaiser, which is basically "full stack" where they are both the insurance and health provider. The upside to that is that they are big on preventative care, since they are on the hook for the cost if you get sicker.

But their software still sucks, especially their billing software. I just lost my insurance for a week because of their billing mistake, and it took me a week to get it fixed (and it's still not settled but at least my insurance is active now).

So for example I'd be really happy if Kaiser had better billing software, and they probably would too because their costs would go down.


Chris (CEO) here. What happened with your billing software experience is unacceptable, but it isn’t the primary use case we are solving for.

Yes, we’ll happily white label/license our tech to other insurers, TPAs, etc. We can license tech, and we can also act as a TPA. We built the technology to solve our own problems, but in effect and to your point, we’ve created a platform that others could leverage. If other players want to imitate us or leverage anything we’ve built – great – it’s a business opportunity for us and it helps more people.

If Kaiser calls us and wants to use our software, we’ll take their call ;)


Congrats on the launch guys! We need to invite y'all to Texas Medical Center in Houston. A long of companies here (with employees in the state) that need to know about your product. How's your coverage in southeast TX?


@arpitrao, we’d love to meetup in Houston. Our @jstartz26 (COO) is based there. Currently we cover SE TX and Houston with a provider network partner, but we growing our directly contracted network too.


Have you thought about allowing different, unrelated employers to combine to insure one person? A lot of people find that a part time job does not give them enough hours to be insured, so they get a second job, but don't get enough hours there either, and end up working 40 hours with no insurance.

What about allowing different employers to pay parts of insurance, and another employer pays another part, to allow the employee to get insured?

A person just needs to come up with any amount of employers willing to pay the amount that adds up to 100% of the cost.


Chris (CEO) here. I’m not aware of anyone that has created a model to fractionally insure a single person as you have described.

There are models and mechanisms for multiple smaller employer groups to band together. For example, association health plans are common with professional trade groups.

While an interesting thought experiment, no, we have never thought about multiple employers combining and contributing to insure a single individual.


Would it be difficult? If you market to consumers, you could give businesses a cost over the phone just like any other business, just on a per person level.


A pooling mechanism is needed. Additionally, the pooling entity would want to meet (or make sure the various fractional employers trying to insure "Hank" meet) federal ERISA requirements for the favorable tax treatment of paying a fractional employee's fractional health insurance premiums.

The next challenge is non-payment of premium. Lets assume Companies A, B, and C each respectively insure "Hank" respectively for 50%, 25%, 25%. They respectively pay $50, $25 and $25 per month in premiums to PoolingEntity. What happens when any of A/B/C fail to pay a premium? The insurance contract would eventually be terminated for non-payment (after a statutory notice period), and poor Hank would be back to being uninsured.

Technologically, I think it could be done. But the legal, regulatory, and administrative complexity would need to be addressed.

Separately, a great resource for reading up on where/how Americans get their healthcare coverage is the Kaufman Family Foundation. Many Americans have more than one source for their coverage. https://bit.ly/3KazKNN


You say that MFA on its own may not be enough. What would be enough? What do you think we're missing that other countries have?


I wouldn't necessarily say we're missing something that other countries have. Each system has strengths and weaknesses. Reform on this scale is difficult to do correctly even if your major political parties can compromise and work together on something.

Personally, I'm more excited about the potential of MFA than Mark; however, I'm equally frustrated by the national conversation around it. It's a political battleground and the public debate lacks nuance or depth. MFA, in my opinion, solves a set of problems and introduces a set of unknown problems while doing nothing for certain root issues (clinical variation, potentially avoidable events, etc.). The focus on who pays and taxes is a very small part of a much larger conversation and many of the voices talking about it lack industry knowledge or experience. But the same can be said about a bunch of different controversial issues right now and I'm off topic.

To actually get to your question - it's MFA+Medicare reform+a whole bunch of other reforms related to the delivery of care. MFA is not enough because it's just one piece of the puzzle. If we're missing anything as a country, is a political environment that would make this sort of widespread societal reform possible because it truly isn't as simple as switching to single payer.


Hi – Mark (Chief Actuary) here. Now we’re talking.... rolls up sleeves ...thanks for asking the fun question.

Medicare for All (MFA) is a proposal to provide the Medicare-based basic basket of medical services as a baseline for health coverage. The common assumption is the reference here is the scope of services covered by Medicare Part A and B (hospital and physician related services, respectively). This is a limited basket of services. For example, there are restrictions on how many nursing days or physical therapy sessions, and it does not cover drugs. There is no oversight in the form of quality in its current form. There are thousands of search results for the search terms “OIG” and “Medicare fraud”.

And cost - rolls eyes Funding is a political nightmare because of the need to increase taxes and likely a need to adjust physician fee schedules upwards (I.e. the inherent cost to CMS becomes higher). Most physicians look to charge commercial based business as much as 4 times what Medicare pays in order to offset what they believe to be as inadequate rates set by MedPac. That dynamic would not be sustainable in a system where Medicare was being used for everyone’s basic care needs.

We said MFA by itself may not be enough because it does not address clinical variation in care delivery or just quality of care in general, it does not address prevalence of fraud, and it does nothing to address the cost issue. We all would end up spending an extra $10,000 a year on taxes for what would likely be inadequate health benefits and still end up buying private insurance just like current seniors do with Medicare Supplemental Plans. BTW – the most popular MedSupp plans are Plan F, G and N, all of which cover the deductible of Part B and add pharmacy coverage.

Comparisons to other countries is tricky because most other countries work from an appropriations model, I.e. in United Kingdom the government sets the budget for the National Health System, and the NHS in turn sets the budget for each region, which in turn sets the budget for each hospital in that region. If you need a knee replacement inside the NHS, the hospital you live near may not have the budget to buy one or you do not meet the priority based guidelines, you will be put in queue to wait. Its not an approach we have patience for, but hopping (!?) on a plane to get one in another country is not covered. As you can see, comparing countries health systems is difficult at best, and even misleading.


Chris here. Medicare is the current lightning rod, but in the US we have several federal health plans: 1. Medicare, 2. Medicaid, 3. Federal Employees Health Insurance Program, 4. Department of Defense / TriCare, 5. VA

Personally, I’d love to have what we had as kids in DoD. As a kid in a US-military household, I had the benefit of full healthcare and dental care and vision care. Our great healthcare was paid for by taxpayers who funded the DoD’s budget. Each child, irrespective of their parent’s income/rank/station/race, received great care. Personally, as a society, I wish we could all agree that every child and young adult should receive healthcare without obstacles or payment fears.


Hey we're launch buddies. :-) Congrats on the launch!


Thank you!


Looking forward to testing this


First of all congrats on the launch, we need more innovation in the space and I applaud your efforts. Here are some thoughts / questions if you want to answer them

> We have [...] benefits that exceed the best plans from legacy insurers.

You claim that your product is better than some of the competition, but do not demonstrate it (here or on your website). At this point it seems to me that every insurer claim that they have the best plan with no way for me to know easily.

I think the key issue of the industry as a whole is that there is no way for client to compare insurance product beyond pricing. A product that could look better at covering lenses for example because it cover up to $2000/year vs another that cover up to $350 may actually be worse because of some widely applicable exclusion written into the contract.

What are your thoughts on this point?

> On top of that, we reduce premiums by up to 20% for employers. We can do this because we are a software company that owns an insurance carrier. We automate roughly half the tasks involved with claims, care coordination, underwriting and back-office operations. We aggregate data from disparate sources (claims, clinical, pharma, lab, and wellness data) to make superior decisions and aid patients. Our technology helps members identify and treat conditions earlier and more effectively. We also have a much better user experience—a single portal to access telehealth, care concierge, claims data, wellness plan, doctor lookup, rewards card, etc.

You claim to be able to reduce cost because of your tech, and I believe compare to legacy carrier, your IT / Process are cheaper to run today (I believe that legacy carrier spend ~5-10% of their revenue on IT). From my observation the insurance industry is quite bad at getting ride of legacy systems (for compliance, once you decommission a system you sometime need to prove that the new system run the old policy the same way, or just because to many process optimisation software has been build on top of the legacy system making it extremely costly to sunset). How do you plan to maintain this cost down once you extend to new states / product /over time, to keep this cost advantage?

> Since half of Americans get health coverage through their employer, we’re focused on companies to maximize impact.

I understand that B2B distribution is easier than B2C, but this can go against your mission of changing healthcare incentives for mutual benefits. You customer are the Employers, and their incentives are to reduce cost and to maintain their employee healthy short term, whereas employee would like to have better access to healthcare (higher cost) and to stay healthy Long term. How will you find balance here? What happen when a a major client as you to cut cost for their plan to the expense of the employee coverage and you need to keep them as a client to keep the company afloat.


Product comparison: that’s fair – only so much you can fit in an announcement post. We completely agree it is difficult to compare benefits (even for competent HR departments) but it is even more confusing for individuals. We try to make this clearer and transparent when working with employers during the quoting process. Benefit coverage gets boiled down to “actuarial value” and quantified as a number relative to the benefits mandated under the Affordable Care Act. This is presented alongside the financial quote and compared to competing bids. It also helps to actually read through our Schedule of Benefits Coverage– even at the individual level it is apparent what the differences are in our benefit plan vs every other SBC we have seen.

If you were to judge the quality only by price (all else equal), underwriting for this segment is done at the employer level – so savings can vary significantly from company to company. We’ve had quotes that matched other bids, and we’ve presented offers as much as 35% less (on a cash basis, not actuarial) than other insurer’s annual price hikes.

Overall, I cannot agree more with your comment that comparison is hard. There is not a lot of transparency in this market segment because of the unique considerations that go into underwriting each group. Plus, a lot of the companies (startups included) that people find appealing are playing games with coverage, especially playing around with deductibles and copays. It’s currently very difficult to make it super clear without just sitting down with the person/employer and talking through the benefits.


Regarding product comparaison it is possible to build a computable model of your policy and the major competitor, and from there automatically benchmark them to find key difference in coverage (what is the maximum delta) or running them through a set predefined claim scenario. It will however require ~3-5 day of work per policy to build the models. Beyond the marketing effort this models can also be reused for risk management / claim management / leakage prevention if implemented right.


Yes it would be possible - and I know of a couple of benefits consultants that have tried to do this, but bias and independence is a vexing issue. Keep the ideas coming!


> How do you plan to maintain this cost down once you extend to new states / product /over time, to keep this cost advantage?

You are correct that the legacy insurance industry struggles with tech and compliance. I've had the fortune (misfortune?) of being a part of writing and managing policy, claims, rating, and other insurance systems. It is common for a large, legacy insurer to have tens of policy systems and tens of claims systems operating in parallel due to many years of acquisitions and mergers.

Technology is a huge part of our cost advantage, but it isn’t the only factor. We also benefit from our product design, underwriting, provider network structure, etc.

Technology automation and efficiency allows us to a) lower G&A about 10 points and pass through the savings to our customers, and b) reduce delays and duplications in care.

The pure technology cost actually decreases for us over time, on a PMPM basis, as we grow membership. Adding new states and products doesn’t require new systems for us. We just have to make some configuration additions. Architecturally, we’ve built a federation of micro-services and we host on a cloud provider (Azure).


For B2B, it’s worth noting that most Americans still receive their health coverage through employers, and this is especially true for the 200-2,000 company size segment. Meeting the majority of people where they are seems to be a reasonably impactful way of starting change. We can make a considerable impact for companies with 100 employees. We can make a massive impact for companies with more than 400. We currently are not geared to do much for individuals, but we’ll get there. https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/total-population/

B2B is scalable for launch, giving us access to information and leverage that is not achievable in the individual space without significant expense and economic loss. Starting in this market segment gives us a profitable platform to expand into other coverage areas and consider adjacent market segments. That said, we believe our approach which is intensely focused on quality will drive cost savings that satisfy employers. The 3-year rate-lock option helps to demonstrate results and builds confidence in our approach without demanding changes to plan designs that may be injurious to the employee’s long-term health.

I’m not sure I completely follow your question about changing coverage to keep an employer to keep the company afloat. Our plans are approved by the state and we cannot change benefits during the year. We cannot slash benefits to reduce costs to keep a client. That would be detrimental to the employer’s business model too because it would severely impact their ability to attract and retain talent. Trying to reduce benefits would have the opposite effect and increase costs, like the delays caused by high deductibles.


Thanks for your answer. I'm not American so not really familiar with your health system. Agreed that B2B will be easier to scale given acquisition cost. However scaling with corporate client limit you in your ability to do good risk selection as I believe you will have to accept all employees.


Underwriting a whole group actually gives us protection from risk selection and creates a more population based risk which is more stable. Yes there will be individuals that have extreme expenses, which is why we have reinsurance. It is the principle of risk pooling and credibility.


> We believe the root cause is that the U.S. system is rife with misaligned incentives. For example, the fee-for-service structure incentivizes overuse and volume-based billing, rather than health. Thirty-five cents of every dollar spent goes to clinical waste, unnecessary services, administrative bloat, or fraud. (We could give footnotes, but doubt anyone needs convincing.)

This is exactly what caused me to launch Wyndly (https://www.wyndly.com). It's simply not profitable for the existing medical infrastructure to offer our treatment through insurance, so there's an inherent inefficiency.

It's awesome to see someone pushing this forward.


Wyndly looks great. Allergies are a tricky problem to solve for a broad population. Why do you say it's not profitable? Is it because you are being asked by health plans for an expected ROI?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: