SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Biotech / Medical : PFE (Pfizer) How high will it go? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Anthony Wong who wrote (6295)11/16/1998 11:19:00 PM
From: Jim Lamb  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 9523
 
Anthony,all, Killerclowns is back on Yahoo msg. board today. Obviously a PFE sales rep. and always a good read on the drugs and M.D. insight. messages.yahoo.com
Jim



To: Anthony Wong who wrote (6295)11/17/1998 12:21:00 PM
From: Tunica Albuginea  Respond to of 9523
 
Anthony, the future is indeed " Blue ". Here are 2 propos articles, by the same author,Lucette Lagnado, from today's WSJ on spiriling Health care costs out of control. Next year 7-8% Health Insurance premiums are coming on, up from previous 10 -15 years' 2-3% increases. Businesses will have to tag that onto further belt tightening needed because of world wide competitive constraints brought on by world wide deflation were pricing power will be weak, Something's got to give: inline, IMHO, are the combined profits of the Health Care Industry, everybody included, drug companies too: Slim picking in 1999.
Getting ready to short PFE, and a whole bunch of other overvalued stocks. Shorting scenario is warming up I think,

TA

==================================================

November 17, 1998

Drug Costs Yield Grim Choice
Of Medicines Over Necessities

By LUCETTE LAGNADO
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

An aging black-and-white photograph sits on a coffee table in Jewel
Brown's immaculate home on a quiet street in Durham, N.C. It shows her
as she was half a century ago, a dazzlingly pretty young woman with dark,
wavy hair and a hopeful smile.

Today, Mrs. Brown is elderly, ailing and all
but broke. She suffers from chronic
emphysema, high blood pressure and arthritis.
She nearly died from pneumonia earlier this
year, and in October was hospitalized for
major complications. Now age 70, she
qualifies for Medicare, the federal
government's massive program that is
supposed to insulate the elderly from the
devastating costs of health care.

Yet Medicare has always had a glaring hole in the safety net: With few
exceptions, it doesn't cover the costs of prescription drugs -- the single
largest health-care expense for the elderly.

As a result, some months Mrs. Brown
spends up to $400 for medications, more
than 30% of her income. Prilosec calms her
stomach but sets her back $102.59 for a
30-day supply. Then there are Norvasc for
her blood pressure ($43), two inhalers to
help her breathe easier ($88 total), two pain
medications ($70), nitroglycerin patches for
angina ($27.89) and Theophylline to clear her lungs (a bargain at $16.37).
Recently, her doctor prescribed Miacalcin, a nasal spray that helps
strengthen her bones but depletes her purse by $55.43 a month.

"I need help, I need help real badly," Mrs. Brown says in a raspy voice.
She worked for years as a short-order cook and as a caretaker for
Alzheimer's patients but gets no pension, living on $780 a month in Social
Security and $500 a month in rent from a boarder. She ran up more than
$12,000 in credit-card charges between 1994 and 1996 to buy the
medications she otherwise couldn't afford. Her daughter, Rebecca, who
lives with her, took a second mortgage on their home to pay off her
mother's high-interest debt, but Mrs. Brown has had to charge another
$2,500 in drugs. She recently resorted to applying for food stamps, but
was given only $10 a month in benefits.

Pricey prescription drugs are driving a new surge
in health-care costs, but most Americans don't feel
it: Their employer insurance plans typically cover
most of the expense. But for Mrs. Brown and
millions of people in the ranks of "the uncovered,"
the impact is far more severe.

About 19 million elderly people in the U.S. have
little or no drug coverage at all, according to the
Congressional Budget Office. Nor do an estimated
43 million younger Americans -- the unemployed,
the working poor, immigrants, illegal aliens, single
mothers in part-time jobs -- who lack health
insurance of any kind.

"There is an absolute inequity in our system," says Aaron Miller, a
neurologist who treats multiple-sclerosis patients at Maimonides Medical
Center in Brooklyn, N.Y. "The sickest patients are also the most
disadvantaged when it comes to drugs." Many of his patients can't afford
the $10,000 a year that the newest MS drugs cost, so he tries to get them
into clinical trials -- even though they have only a 50% chance of getting
the real thing rather than a placebo.

Fixed-Income Busters
America's top-selling drugs are used heavily by seniors, one of the groups least able to afford them. Sales and ranking data are for January through September 1998.

Drug
----

Usage
-----
Price (one-month supply)
------------------------

1997 Sales (billions)
------------------------

% of Sales to Seniors
-----------------------


Prilosec
Anti-ulcer
$116.09, 20 mg
$2.1
33%

Prozac
Antidepressant
$75.04, 20 mg
1.7
9

Lipitor
Controls cholesterol
$84.60, 20 mg
1.2
38

Zocor
Controls cholesterol
$105.48, 20 mg
1.2
47

Zoloft
Antidepressant
$71.41, 50 mg
1.1
16

Claritin
Anti-allergy medication
$69.57, 10 mg
1.0
12

Paxil
Antidepressant
$71.84, 20 mg
0.9
16

Prevacid
Anti-ulcer drug
$107.83, 30 mg
0.9
28

Norvasc
Controls high blood
pressure
$70.23, 10 mg
0.9
49

Augmentin
Antibiotic
$97.34*, 875 mg
0.7
7

*10-day therapy

Sources: Scott-Levin, Newtown, Pa.; Upchurch Drugs & Optical

Center, Durham, N.C.


The drug crunch is worst for America's elderly. People age 65 or older
make up 12% of the U.S. population but consume almost 35% of all
prescription drugs. Excluding insurance premiums, drugs account for 34% of older people's total health-care bill, more than doctor visits (31%) and
hospital admissions (14%), according to David Gross, a senior policy
adviser at the American Association of Retired Persons.

What's more, about 65% of people 65 and older have two or more
chronic diseases, as do 80% of people over 85, the AARP says. As a
result, one in five elderly people takes at least five prescription drugs a day.
About 2.2 million seniors shell out more than $100 a month for medication,
and many pay even more.

Yet Medicare pays for none of it. Medicare, the Great Society program
enacted under President Johnson in 1965, now covers health care for
nearly 40 million people, including millions with disabilities, at a cost of
$200 billion a year. Expanding it to pay for drugs would cost an extra $20
billion annually, according to the CBO. But in an era when balancing the
federal budget has been a top priority, Congress has consistently resisted
such action -- in no small part because of intense opposition from the drug
industry, which fears that Medicare coverage might open the way for
government price controls.

Five of the 10 top-selling prescription drugs in
the U.S. are products heavily used by elderly
patients. The aged account for 33% of the
sales of No. 1-ranked Prilosec, the anti-ulcer remedy, and generate almost
50% of the sales of the No. 9 entry, Norvasc for high blood pressure,
according to Scott-Levin, a research firm in Newtown, Pa.

Roughly half of Medicare-covered patients get some drug assistance,
because they are also covered under employer-sponsored insurance plans
for retirees, are members of HMOs or are poor enough to qualify for state
Medicaid programs, which do pay for prescriptions. But the other half go it
alone, and the sicker they are, the less likely they are to get any kind of
prescription benefits from insurers. "They don't sell insurance plans to
houses already on fire," says Michael Knipmeyer, a lawyer at a legal clinic
for seniors run by the George Washington University Law School in
Washington, D.C.

Left to their own devices, millions of these
elderly resort to resourceful but dubious
solutions. They rack up big credit-card debts,
plead with their doctors for free samples and
forgo basic necessities and little luxuries. Some
cross the border into Mexico or Canada,
where some drugs are much cheaper because
of government price controls. Others go without their prescriptions
altogether or skip doses to stretch out their supply, often resulting in
medical complications that can send them to the hospital.

Cora Albright, an 84-year-old widow who lives 10 minutes away from
Jewel Brown, sometimes skips her medications to make them stretch, a
classic habit of the "near poor" elderly. Mrs. Albright, who worked for
more than 30 years in a hospital laundry, subsists on a pension of about
$90 a month and $700 a month in Social Security. But she spends $200 a
month -- more than 25% of her income -- to stock her medications,
including Prilosec, the Astra anti-ulcer drug that costs her more than $100
out-of-pocket, Megace to increase her appetite and Remeron, an
antidepressant.

"Then there is the oil bill, the telephone bill, the water bill, the light bill. I
have to pay them, and it is a struggle," says Mrs. Albright, who spends
much of the day in a wheelchair in her dark living room, her swollen legs
swathed in bandages. "It takes about everything I get to make ends meet."

"People are making big-time decisions on what
medicines they'll take versus what utility bills they
will pay," says Gina Upchurch, director of Senior
PharmAssist, an organization she founded in
Durham that helps seniors who make too much to
qualify for Medicaid but are too poor to afford
their medicines. Yet hers is a small program, and
there is a long waiting list of people hoping to get
in, including Mrs. Brown and Mrs. Albright.

"The system makes no bloody sense," says Frank
Larkin, president of Good Samaritan Hospital in
Brockton, Mass. "Does it make sense that we give
people costly surgeries but we can't give them prescriptions?"

The uncovered elderly, moreover, can end up paying higher prices than the
rates paid by HMOs and drug-benefit programs. The drug industry has
always denied that such "cost-shifting" occurs. But experience reveals
otherwise. At Upchurch Drugs, an independent pharmacy in Durham,
owner David Upchurch notes that HMOs get a month's supply of
Norvasc, for hypertension, for $33.80 -- 25% less than what Jewel Brown
pays.

"Prices are going up for those people who pay cash," Mr. Upchurch says.
"We don't have any choice. If you are forced to raise prices, it will happen
only where you can -- and that tends to be the elderly."

Medicaid's Role

In the absence of a federal drug-benefit program, the poorest of the elderly
get some help from Medicaid programs for the indigent. In the past four
years, Medicaid's costs have grown by 6% a year, while the cost of drug
benefits rose at more than twice that rate, according to data collected by
the federal Health Care Financing Administration. "It's one of the
fastest-growing parts of the Medicaid budget, and a part that is
exceptionally hard to control," says James Verdier, a Medicaid expert at
Mathematica Policy Research Inc., a Washington, D.C., social-service
research firm.

But even Medicaid is a patchwork. In North Carolina, people's earnings
must be 26% below the poverty level to qualify for Medicaid (the federal
poverty level is pegged at $8,052 a year for an individual and $10,860 a
year for a couple). In Illinois, an older person's earnings must be 46% of
the poverty level. In Massachusetts, patients can earn 33% more than the
federal poverty level and still get state benefits; that, however, doesn't
apply to the elderly, who have to be at the poverty level to qualify,
according to Health-Care for All, a Boston advocacy group.

So in some states, thousands of older and disabled people are too poor to
afford their prescriptions, yet not impoverished enough to receive
coverage. Experts use a buzz-phrase for these patients: the near poor.

Not Poor Enough

Roland and Bessie Pennington, who have been married for 57 years and
live in a modest housing project in the shadow of the Capitol in
Washington, would seem to be a slam-dunk for Medicaid. Mr. Pennington
is 84 and has been retired from his boiler-repairman job for 26 years. He
takes 10 prescription drugs to quell high blood pressure, gout, arthritis pain
and angina, meticulously tracking every expense and saving every receipt.
Last February, for example, he spent $235.09 on drugs, 32% of his
monthly Social Security payment of $739. Mrs. Pennington's
$350-a-month Social Security check is used by the couple to buy
groceries and pay $255 in monthly rent, which was recently reduced to
$83.

Yet Mr. Pennington has applied for -- and been rejected by -- Medicaid
four times. Under local Medicaid rules, the couple's combined income is
$154 a month over the limit.

So Mr. Pennington improvises. Early each month, he buys only half the
prescribed quantity of his most expensive drugs, such as Nitrodur for
angina ($51.29 for a full month's supply); then he buys the rest two weeks
later -- his fear is that he will run low on cash, and so this is his way of
budgeting. And rather than use the drugstore a block away from his home,
he drives his temperamental 1987 Chevrolet six miles to his old
neighborhood and the Safeway he has patronized for 20 years. When he is
short of money, the Safeway pharmacist advances him some pills, knowing
Mr. Pennington will promptly return to pay up when his Social Security
check arrives. The pharmacy near his current home refused to do that.

Sue Andersen, a lawyer at the George Washington University legal clinic,
has been trying to help the Penningtons qualify for Medicaid. "The very
poor get a free ride, but it is the lower-middle classes who are stuck with
bills of $2,000 or more a year," she says.

A $300 a Month Drug Bill

Even aging patients who are financially better-off can feel the pressure.
Nathaniel Ashkenaz, 79, a retired appliance repairman, and his wife
Thelma, 75, live in El Paso, Texas, on a comfortable pension of $22,800 a
year. Yet he worries constantly about how to pay $300 a month in drugs
to treat his ulcer and Thelma's diabetes. He crosses the border into Juarez,
Mexico, each month to buy 100 Zantac tablets for his ulcer for $24,
one-fourth the price he would pay in Texas. But his wife's medications
must be purchased stateside: $117 for Rezulin, $126 for
cholesterol-lowering Zocor, $33 for Norvasc.

To offset some of the cost, Mrs. Ashkenaz tried to purchase through the
AARP a "Medigap" insurance policy, which typically covers half of drug
costs. But she was turned down because she was on too many medicines,
her husband says. "They said 'Sorry, we can't accept you.' " Then in
September, his wife underwent an emergency quintuple-bypass operation,
and since has required a slew of additional medications, including
Coumadin, at $47, and Amaril for diabetes, at $23.29.

"We are retired and we are getting by, but we aren't rich," Mr. Ashkenaz
says. "We can't afford luxuries. We would like to take a trip or go on a
cruise, but it isn't feasible."

Waiting for Free Prescriptions

The high cost of drugs also shakes the lives of the young and uninsured. In
Brockton, a depressed mill town in eastern Massachusetts, local churches
and synagogues have banded together to raise money to dispense free
drugs to the poor. On a recent evening, the small waiting room of the
Brockton Neighborhood Health Center is crowded with two dozen people
hoping to snare free prescriptions -- mothers struggling to rein in their
children, young men, elderly couples -- most of them immigrants from
Haiti, Cape Verde, Puerto Rico, Swaziland and the Caribbean.

Maria Chadderton, 41, sits nervously fingering the six prescriptions she has
never filled. They are dated from June, and include drugs she needs to
manage her diabetes and high blood pressure. "I couldn't fill them. I
scarcely have money to get to work," she says. Her take-home pay for
working up to 12 hours a day as a home health-care aide has been at most
$800 a month, she says. Filling the prescriptions, which include pricey
drugs such as Vasotec for blood pressure and Glucophage for diabetes,
would set her back a couple of hundred dollars, leaving her unable to pay
the rent and buy groceries, she says.

As someone who cares for the ill, Ms. Chadderton has no illusions about
the risks she is taking by forgoing the drugs. "I can go into a coma," she
says.

"We see this all the time," says Sue Joss, the Brockton clinic's director. "It
becomes a choice between filling a prescription and eating." Even so, she
says, clinic doctors are under strict orders to give out free medication only
to those who expressly state they can't afford it. "If we met all the demand,
we would go bankrupt," she says.

The Costs of No Medication

Yet even higher costs loom when people don't get adequate access to
prescription drugs, says Stephen Soumerai, who has studied the issue and
is chairman of Harvard University's Drug Policy Research Institute. Elderly
people who don't get sufficient medication often get too sick to stay
independent and end up in the hospital or a nursing home, where care is far
more expensive, he says. About 75% of doctor visits result in
prescriptions, yet Medicare pays for the visit but won't pay for the resulting
therapies, he complains.

"Drugs are the glue that holds the medical system together," Dr. Soumerai
says. "We can't afford not to cover people with chronic illnesses, or whose
independence rests on access to medications."

Four hours away from Brockton, in the quaint Norman Rockwell country
of western Massachusetts, day laborer Ralph Carsno is learning the hard
way what it means to be both unhealthy and uninsured. A 38-year-old
diabetic, he returned to North Adams, his hometown, a year ago after
losing his job in Florida. In July he underwent emergency surgery to clear
blocked heart arteries. The surgery was free under a Massachusetts
program for the uninsured, but he balked when the pharmacy wanted to
charge him more than $200 out of pocket for two pricey medications --
Lipitor and Zestril -- to manage his cholesterol and hypertension problems.

Half a Prescription

"It was a pretty good chunk of money to spend the day I got out of the
hospital, and it really would have put a dent in my budget," Mr. Carsno
recalls. He purchased only half the prescription, hoping to scrape together
enough money to fill the rest later on. So far, though, he has been
recuperating and hasn't earned enough to follow through.

A local aid group, Ecu-Health Care, which comprises local doctors,
hospital executives and volunteers, has been trying to help Mr. Carsno.
Officials successfully prevailed upon the two companies that make Lipitor
and Zestril -- the Parke Davis division of Warner-Lambert Co. and
Zeneca Group PLC -- to hand out free supplies to tide Mr. Carsno over
for several months until he can find a job with full drug benefits.

The industry pledged to redouble its efforts to help the indigent even as it
fought the Clinton health-reform plan in the early 1990s, but progress has
been uneven. The industry says it helped nearly a million people last year
with drug giveaways, but the application and approval process differs from
company to company.

But Ecu-Health Care officials see the Carsno victory as merely a
temporary and unsatisfactory solution. "It's hit and miss -- we don't know
what we are going to do for folks from month to month," says Charles
Joffe-Halpern, Ecu's director. He offers people hope only "on a temporary
basis," he says.




To: Anthony Wong who wrote (6295)11/17/1998 12:22:00 PM
From: Tunica Albuginea  Respond to of 9523
 
Anthony, : Blue market ", part 2:
WSJ,November 17, 1998

Medicare Program Considers
Reform to Cover Drug Costs

By Lucette Lagnado

Since its establishment 33 years ago, Medicare has never covered the cost
of prescription drugs. Now, would-be Medicare reformers are trying --
one more time -- to plug the gap.

As the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare
grapples with how to shore up the embattled program, some insiders
predict it will attempt to patch up the hole caused by a lack of drug
coverage. Forcing the issue: the soaring costs of new medicines, along with
the growing ranks of the elderly.

Commission member Bruce Vladeck, who until last year ran the Health
Care Financing Administration, the agency that oversees Medicare, says
the push for coverage has "gained momentum" and is increasingly central to
the work of the panel, which will issue its recommendations for reforming
Medicare in the spring.

"It is still a long shot," cautions Mr. Vladeck. "But whereas a year ago I
would have said it was a decade away, I would now say that it will be a lot
less time." There are, he says, "glimmerings in the wind" that point to the
enactment of a drug benefit.

Such efforts have a long history of failure, however. Says fellow
commission member Deborah Steelman: "I have no interest in creating a
dinosaur." She estimates that inserting such a benefit could wind up costing
$40 billion a year, double the $20 billion that proponents say it would cost
to add drug coverage. "There has to be another answer," she adds.

Ms. Steelman is a Medicare expert and Washington lawyer who also
lobbies for the pharmaceutical industry, though she says her work on the
commission doesn't necessarily dovetail with the views of the industry she
represents.

Any renewed effort to add drug benefits to Medicare is likely to encounter
harsh resistance from the drug industry, which has long feared government
price controls and a squeeze on profits. In 1997, the pharmaceutical
industry spent $74.4 million on lobbying -- more than any other industry or
interest group, according to the Center for Responsive Politics in
Washington. "I have no idea what that number refers to or what it may
include, but the pharmaceutical industry is not out of line compared to any
other health-care sector," says Ms. Steelman.

PhRMA, the industry's lobbying arm, says it has never been against the
idea of a Medicare prescription benefit, per se. The problem, says
spokeswoman Jackie Cottrell, is in the details. "The industry wants to be
part of the solution in 1999," she says. "But what is the solution?"

Mr. Vladeck, for one, sees signs that some drug firms may be changing
their position. "The industry is hardly monolithic, and I have had some
perception that some of the companies were beginning to wonder," he
says. As baby boomers age, and the potential market for prescription
drugs swells, government coverage of drugs could be a boon for some
companies, not a detriment, he adds.

But others doubt that drug companies want to change the status quo. "The
industry can, in principle, be in favor, but then make sure nothing happens,"
says Philip Lee, a Stanford University consulting professor who headed a
task force in 1969 that strongly pushed for a Medicare drug benefit. That
proposal came to naught in the face of industry opposition and
congressional inaction. Another attempt in 1972 collapsed, as did
numerous other efforts through the years, culminating in President Clinton's
own ill-fated health-care reform, which also included potential price
controls and a Medicare drug benefit.

Will this Medicare commission change all that? Prof. Lee predicts not. "It is
destined to fail," he says.




To: Anthony Wong who wrote (6295)11/17/1998 12:44:00 PM
From: Tunica Albuginea  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 9523
 
Anthony, oops! Part 3 ! of Health Care Biz news. Almost forgot, sorry.Here it is:

November 17, 1998


Small Firms Are Hit Hard
By Rising Health Premiums

By DALE D. BUSS
Special to THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

After several years of relatively flat health-insurance costs, U.S. businesses
are starting to be hit with a startling increase in premiums -- and small
businesses are being whacked the hardest.

Premium increases in health-policy renewal notices for 1999 are running as
high as 50% for some small companies, according to benefits consultants.
Even medium and large companies are seeing rises of about 5%, after flat
or even declining health costs in the past few years.

"Thirty days ago, the average increase already was 14% to 15%, and just
since then, the average has moved into the high-teens -- and it's not
uncommon now to see increases of 30% to 50%," said James Mueller,
president of the employee-benefits group of Frank Haack & Associates, a
Milwaukee-based health-insurance broker.

Average 10.3% Increase Forecast

For large companies, the rise in premiums isn't nearly as painful. According
to health-care consultants, the most aggressively managed health plans at
large companies are seeing annual increases of between 4% and 5%, after
flat increases last year. But overall, says Edwin Hustead, senior vice
president of Hay Group, a benefits consulting firm, insurers "probably are
going to be asking for rate increases of 6% to 7% or as much as around
10%" for 1999. And a recent survey of Fortune 500 benefits managers by
BT Alex. Brown found that they expect an average 10.3% increase in
premiums for health-maintenance-organization coverage. That compares
with an average increase of 5.9% for 1998.

Small companies have always been hit harder than large companies by
health-care inflation, largely because their tiny employment bases pose
much greater actuarial risks to insurers. In large companies, the costs of
sudden medical events is spread over hundreds or thousands of workers.
But in a small company, if just a few employees bear children at the same
time, for example, the increased cost to the insurer for medical and hospital
expenses, in percentage terms, could be enormous, and insurers try to
recover those costs through large premium increases.

That may explain why Romano Brothers & Co. recently received a notice
that its health-insurance premium will rise 26% after three straight years of
no increases. "Maybe it's because suddenly our employees have been
having kids, so they have a lot more dependents to cover," says William
Romano, owner of the family investment concern. "I asked, and
[insurance-company representatives] really didn't give us any reasoning."

More Costly 'Fee-for-Service'

But there are additional reasons for the discrepancy between small and
large companies. Small firms badly lag behind their larger counterparts in
enrolling in managed-care plans, which are generally cheaper than
traditional "fee-for-service" coverage. Nearly a third of the National
Federation of Independent Business members with fewer than 50
employees who offer health insurance provide only fee-for-service
coverage.

Regulatory fallout is landing more heavily on small companies, too. Many
states have been issuing new mandates on insurers to include specialties
such as fertility and mental-health treatment in their policies. Larger
companies can take cover under a federal law that exempts firms that
underwrite their own health plans from state mandates. But most small
companies can't afford to self-insure. "So, they're particularly vulnerable to
all the craziness that goes on at the state level," says Grace-Marie Arnett,
president of Galen Institute, an Arlington, Va., group advocating
"free-market" health-care reform.

Many small companies never enjoyed the reprieve from spiraling health
costs that followed the collapse of President Clinton's health-care overhaul
effort in 1994, because they couldn't afford coverage in the first place.
Only 49% of employers with fewer than 200 workers offered health
insurance in 1996, according to figures from the Health Insurance
Association of America and KPMG Peat Marwick, an accounting firm.
That's just a slight rise from 46% in 1989. For the tiniest firms, the numbers
are even worse. Only 30% of businesses with fewer than six employees
provide health insurance of any sort, according to the NFIB.

Grimmer Outlook

Insurance-industry representatives caution that the apprehension about
escalating rates may be premature, arguing that similar concerns about
1998 didn't come to pass. After dire predictions, health costs at firms with
fewer than 1,000 workers rose only 0.6% last year, according to a study
by J&H Marsh & McLennan, a New York insurer.

But this year, other experts say, there are stronger reasons to have a grim
outlook. Wall Street is partly to blame. "Many insurance companies have
been pricing their products low on the premise that they've been making
money on their investment portfolio," says Gary Wetstein, a director of
SelectCare, a Troy, Mich., HMO.

Adds Paul Ginsburg, president of the Center for Studying Health System
Change, a Washington group funded by the Robert Wood Johnson
Foundation: "A large majority of insurers are losing money this year, and
they've raised premiums more slowly than underlying costs [were rising] for
a few years now."

What's more, HMOs have eased their price-slashing battles for market
share and have made it clear that they now are focusing on restoring their
tattered profitability by raising premiums.

Moreover, managed care largely has lost its impetus as a force for driving
down costs, since the majority of businesses have used up their one-time
cost savings from the switch to managed care over the past few years.
Nearly 85% of Americans already are covered by managed-care plans.

At the same time, some experts argue that managed care has done little to
change fundamental high-cost patterns in American health care. "They got
the easy piece under control by getting [hospital] bed days cut in half," says
Dr. Charles Peck, director of physician and managed-care services for
Arthur Andersen & Co., in Atlanta. "Now comes the really hard work:
redesigning the way we deliver health care, preventing illnesses, changing
bad habits."