THREE BASIC TRUTHS ABOUT PEOPLE THAT BUSY LEADERS SHOULD NOT IGNORE

Three Basic Truths About People That Busy Leaders Should Not Ignore

Image result for leadership truths

Lately, I’ve been working with a company that’s about to make a big leap. They have a potentially world-changing product and are on the cusp of scaling up in a big way. It’s very exciting stuff.

Everyone from the CEO on down is super busy. There is a lot of work to do both internally and externally. With all the demands, time and attention is a scarcer resource than money.

That’s true for many of the leaders I work with. It can be really exciting when you’re running at a hundred miles per hour to get big things done. The challenge is that, in that kind of situation, it’s easy to lose sight of some basic truths about people that you just intuitively get when you’re not so absorbed by everything else you have to do.

Here, then, are three basic truths about people that busy leaders should not ignore:

People care about where you are and what you’re doing. – When you’re running hard, you’re likely to be in a lot of meetings and, possibly, on a lot of airplanes. You’re getting stuff done but it can feel to your team like you’re missing in action. Keep doing what you need to do but let them know what you’re doing and why you’re doing it. Set the context and tell the story. Nature abhors a vacuum. In the absence of solid information, people make stuff up. That’s hardly ever helpful. Avoid that by letting your people know where you are, what you’re doing and why you’re doing it.

People want predictability.  – To do their best work, most people need some amount of predictability. They need to know what’s expected of them, what others are working on and how it all hangs together. This is especially true for leadership teams. They need an operating rhythm that ensures that they can stay well informed and in sync with each other. That requires regular and consistent communications. It can be hard to stick with the rhythm of that when you’re running flat out, but it needs to be a priority. Without the predictability of that kind of communication, your team will likely lose their way.

People will hardly ever speak up if you ask, “Are there any questions?” – How many times have you been in a town hall meeting (or, worse, leading one) when, after all the presentations, someone asks, “Are there any questions?” and the response is crickets. That’s because most people are never going to step up and ask the first question in front of a room. Again, that’s especially true when there is a lot going on and a lot of change. If you really want to know what people think (and you should), don’t ask, “Are there any questions?” Instead, ask “What are we missing?” or “What’s going on that we need to pay more attention to?” If you really want to grease the skids, pose one of those questions and then give people ten minutes to talk about it in small groups and then ask for some spokespeople from each group. You’ll almost certainly get better information that way.

So, be busy and get big stuff done. Just don’t ignore the basic truths about what people need while you’re doing it. Your team will be a lot more engaged and productive if you tend to what they need.

The doctor of the future

http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/10/25/role-of-physician-in-healthcare-000554

Doctor_Lede_TOC_byLeandroCastelao.jpg

In new healthcare systems, ‘the doctor’ is increasingly a team. Can actual physicians adapt?

When patients go to see Dr. C.T. Lin for a checkup, they don’t see just Dr. Lin. They see Dr. Lin and Becky.

Becky Peterson, the medical assistant who works with Lin, sits down with patients first and asks them about their symptoms and medical history—questions Lin used to ask. When Lin comes in the room, she stays to take notes and cue up orders for tests and services such as physical therapy. When he leaves, she makes sure the patient understands his instructions.

The division of labor lets Lin stay focused on listening to patients and solving problems. “Now I’m just left with the assessment and the plan—the medical decisions—which is really my job,” Lin says in a quiet moment after seeing a patient at the Denver clinic where he works.

For generations, when Americans sought health care, they went to see their family doctor. But these days, they’ll often sit down with a physician assistant or nurse practitioner instead. Or they’ll spend a large part of their visit talking to a non-doctor, like Peterson, who takes care of an increasing number of tasks doctors used to handle.

Driven by efforts to control costs and improve outcomes, it’s one of the biggest shifts in the American health care workforce. Medicine increasingly looks like team sport, with duties and jobs that used to fall to a family doctor now executed by a team, from nurses who sit down with patients to discuss diet and exercise to clinical pharmacists who monitor a patient’s medication. The doctor, in this model, is a kind of quarterback, overseeing care plans, stepping in mostly for the toughest cases and most difficult decisions.

Under some models, the doctor may recede even further into the background, leaving advanced practice nurses or other highly qualified professionals in charge.

It’s no longer true “that you’re a sole cowboy out there, saving the patient on your own,” says Mark Earnest, head of internal medicine at the University of Colorado medical school.

The shifting role of doctors is expected to accelerate in the coming decades, as the number of older Americans increases dramatically, many of them living longer with chronic diseases that need monitoring but not necessarily the expensive attention of a physician at every visit.

Doctors increasingly oversee the work of a team of medical professionals, including nurses and medical assistants, who handle much of the direct interaction with patients.

This isn’t the job many physicians trained for—or that some want. Even doctors who support team-based care have trouble adjusting to the new workflow. Some don’t like the idea that they aren’t always the ones in charge. Others, sick of the industry pressures, are opting out and setting up independent practices that don’t accept health insurance.

But most doctors will have to adapt. Change is coming, regardless of the fate of the Affordable Care Act or other laws designed to reward health systems for outcomes rather than the number of procedures performed, says Randall Wilson, an associate research director for Jobs for the Future, a nonprofit that advocates for increasing job skills. “People see the writing on the wall,” he says.

New models

Americans spend more on health care than people in other wealthy nations. Yet Americans live shorter lives and are more likely to be obese or hospitalized for chronic conditions, such as asthma or diabetes.

Health care experts have long blamed these lousy results on our fragmented health care system. Americans rely on a mix of specialists and settings for care, but those pieces of the health care system don’t necessarily communicate or coordinate with each other.

They also blame the high costs partly on the fee-for-service payment system, which rewards hospitals, clinics and doctors for the volume of procedures they provide. Health insurers will pay for a patient sit down with a doctor. What they sometimes don’t pay for are other services that help patients stay healthy, such as a visit from a community health or a phone call with a nurse. Yet such services can prevent medical emergencies and save her and her insurer a lot of money on expensive treatments.

New payment models encourage health systems to deploy their workers more efficiently — while also avoiding unnecessary services and costly errors. For instance, Medicare already gives some hospitals a single payment to cover everything that happens to a patient from the moment he enters a hospital for knee replacement surgery to three months after he goes home.

Distributing work across team members can help keep costs down, relieve doctors of the busywork that jams up their day, and make everyone more productive.

At least, that’s the idea. There isn’t yet strong research that proves teams provide better or cheaper care, says Erin Fraher, director of the Carolina Health Workforce Research Center, a national research center at the University of North Carolina. Studies do show that nurse practitioners can deliver care as well as physicians, “but talking about substitution of one provider for another is not team-based care,” she says.

Major physician associations support improving teamwork and collaboration among health care professionals. So do medical school leaders. For some years now, accreditors have required colleges and universities that train doctors, nurses, pharmacists, dentists and public health experts to teach students to work in interprofessional teams.

But when it comes to the question of who is in charge, that’s where friction arises. Many doctors aren’t comfortable with the idea that they don’t always need to be in charge. The American College of Physicians will say a physician must always lead care teams, says Ken Shine, professor of medicine at the Dell Medical School at the University of Texas at Austin, but he disagrees.

“My argument is there are situations where another health professional needs to be directing the team,” Shine says. For instance, a nutritionist could create and manage a care plan for a diabetic patient.

Medical associations have also pushed back against proposals to expand the medical decisions non-doctors are able to do make on their own. Health professionals’ so-called “scope of practice” is governed by laws that vary from state to state. “While some scope expansions may be appropriate, others definitely are not,” the American Medical Association says on its website.

In a statement, the association says it “encourages physician-led health care teams that utilize the unique knowledge and valuable contributions of all clinicians to enhance patient outcomes.” It noted that top hospital systems are using physician-led teams to improve patients’ health while reducing costs.

To be sure, doctors aren’t being displaced anytime soon. But shifting tasks to other professionals reduces the need to train so many of them. According to a study by the Rand Corporation, a nonpartisan think tank, a standard primary care team model requires about 7 doctors per 10,000 patients. Increasing the numbers of nurse practitioners and physician assistants can drop that ratio to six doctors per 10,000, and in clinics run by highly trained nurses (known as nurse-managed health centers) the ratio drops to less than one doctor per 10,000.

Culture Change

Hospital systems like UCHealth, the University of Colorado-affiliated system where Lin and Peterson work, are betting that the future of health care involves a mix of professionals sharing responsibility for patients. Doctors will still run the show, but they’ll have to give up some control.

That culture change makes many doctors uneasy at first. Doctors want to protect their one-one-one relationship with patients. They may not understand what their non-physician colleagues have been trained to do, or are legally able to do. And many worry that change will make them even busier, by forcing them to manage the lower-credentialed professionals around them.

Lin is the chief information officer for UCHealth. As an administrator, he’s always pushing for change—his latest project is a system that releases certain test results to patients in real time. But as a practicing doctor, he also understands that change is hard.

He says that having Peterson in the examination room with him took some getting used to. “Like many doctors, I have a fear of letting go of all the things I traditionally do,” he says. That includes documenting a visit. “I’m getting over it, because I don’t want to be the only one here at 8 o’clock at night, typing.”

Matt Moles, a doctor who practices in the same clinic, says he also initially felt uncomfortable. Sharing the examination room went against his medical training, he says: “We’re trained to trust no one.”

It’s still possible for doctors to have jobs that resemble the Norman Rockwell era of long consultations—if they’re willing to opt out of the mainstream. A small but growing number are setting up or joining practices that, rather than taking health insurance, charge patients a monthly fee—typically around $75— for unlimited visits.

“I personally have the mentality of—leave me alone, I’ll take care of my patients,” says Dr. Cory Carroll, when reached by phone at his family care practice in Fort Collins, Colorado. He’s been a solo practitioner for most of his 25-year career.

Carroll has about 300 patients, a fraction of the patient load of a typical doctor in a big health care system. He sits with patients for over an hour if he has to. He visits them at home. He helps them connect with social services and community organizations. And he can focus on what he loves most: teaching patients to eat a healthier diet.

His practice is proof that it’s still possible for a family doctor to do it all. But he emphasizes that his experience is unusual. “I’m absolutely an outlier,” he says. Less than a quarter of all internal medicine doctors in the U.S. have a solo practice, according to the American Medical Association’s latest survey. And although the model Carroll has embraced is growing, it serves a more affluent slice of the patient population than a major hospital system such as UCHealth.

The team-based future

UCHealth’s leaders are so sure that team-based care is the future that newly built clinics, such as the one in Denver’s Lowry neighborhood at which Lin and Peterson work, are literally built for teamwork. Examination rooms don’t line long hallways; instead, they ring desk space where nurses, physicians and medical assistants sit side-by-side.

But the clinic is still in the early stages of transforming its teams. The best place in Denver to watch a diverse set of health professionals working together is across town, at a facility run by Denver Health, the city’s public safety-net hospital system. The facility includes a primary care clinic, an urgent care center and a pharmacy.

One recent morning, the distant wail of a baby in the waiting room announced the start of another busy day. Doctors, physician assistants, nurse practitioners and medical assistants were already typing away at the computers in their cubicles, trying to get a head start before the first patients were shown in to examination rooms.

“A lot of Denver Health patients are so complex,” explains Dr. Benjamin Feijoo, looking up from his desk. Patients often have multiple health issues, too many to handle in a typical 20-minute visit. “It’s a bit of a crunch,” he says.

So Feijoo turns to his colleagues for help. For instance, if a patient has both a medical and a mental health issue, Feijoo can address the medical problem and then ask a mental health specialist to step into the examination room and tackle the mental health problem.

If a patient needs, say, a crash course on prenatal health, she can meet with a nurse for an hourlong discussion. And if a living situation is compromising a patient’s health—such as unstable housing, or insufficient access to healthy food—the clinic’s social worker will try to find a solution.

The clinic also employs two community health workers, who spread the word about Denver Health in low-income neighborhoods, and a patient navigator, who calls the clinic’s patients when they leave a Denver Health hospital (and, for a subset of patients, other major local hospitals) and helps them schedule a follow-up appointment with their primary care provider.

Denver Health began expanding its care teams in 2012, when it received a $20 million federal grant. The system spent about half the money on hiring staff such as social workers, patient navigators and clinical pharmacists and the rest on software that identifies patients who are spending avoidable time in the hospital, including people who are homeless or have a serious but treatable condition, such as HIV. New, smaller clinics wrap even more services around those patients, allowing them to come in for multi-hour visits.

The new system now saves Denver Health—an integrated system, which includes a health plan—so much money on hospital stays and emergency room visits that it covers the salaries of the additional hires, says Tracy Johnson, the director of health reform initiatives for the system.

Reconfiguring care teams has made financial sense for UCHealth, too. Although the clinic where Lin and Peterson work has roughly twice as many medical assistants today as it had a year ago—plus a social worker and nurse manager—the configuration saves doctors so much time that they’re able to see more patients each day. The extra visits bring in enough money to cover the cost of adding more employees.

“The reason a lot of this happened is physician burnout was significant, especially in primary care,” says Dr. Carmen Lewis, the medical director of the Lowry clinic. The redesigned teams launched earlier this year aim to make doctors’ lives less stressful.

Patients across the UCHealth system don’t seem to mind the change. A few will ask to speak with their doctor in private, but others are more open with the medical assistant than with their doctor. “Sometimes, they don’t feel as judged,” Peterson says.

Lin says that since he’s started working with Peterson, his patients have been better able to keep their blood pressure and diabetes under control. “Patients will forget to tell me that they’re out of prescriptions,” he says—or he’ll be so busy tackling a more immediate problem that he’ll forget to ask.

With a medical assistant methodically asking all the opening questions, crucial details such as prescription renewals no longer slip through the cracks.

Rethinking medical school

Medical school leaders want to make sure the next generation of doctors has the skills and mind-set the jobs of the future will require—such as the ability to lead teams effectively, draw insights from data sets and guide patients through a system full of bewildering treatments, care settings and payment options.

Students traditionally spend the first two years of medical school learning science in classrooms and two years getting hands-on experience at clinical sites. That’s no longer enough, says Susan Skochelak, group vice president for medical education at the American Medical Association.

She says students need to understand “health system science”—everything from how health insurance works to how factors such as income and education affect health. “We had medical students who were graduating, not knowing the difference between Medicare and Medicaid,” she says.

So in 2013 the AMA began issuing grants to medical schools that wanted to do things differently. One program allowed Indiana University to put anonymous patient data into an electronic health record students can use to search for clues to a patient’s health—such as whether he is showing signs of opioid addiction. Another grant allowed Pennsylvania State University to create a new curriculum that requires medical students to work as patient navigators.

“Brand new medical students—they totally get the need for this,” says Robert Pendleton, a professor of internal medicine at the University of Utah and the university hospital system’s chief medical quality officer. At this year’s kickoff for an elective curriculum on data and performance measurement, he says, students packed the auditorium.

And all medical schools are trying to emphasize teamwork. At the University of Colorado medical school, the idea that doctors should treat non-doctors as partners—not subordinates—is impressed on students from Day One, says Harin Parikh, a second-year student.

The medical school shares a campus with education programs for six other health professions. Students hang out on the same quad, grab lunch in the same places, and even take some classes together. In a required first-year class, students from a mix of health fields are split into teams and are asked to plan a response to given scenarios. One day, a nursing student might lead the team; the next, a pharmacy student.

Parikh says the team-based approach makes sense to him. “From a provider perspective, it’s about checks and balances,” he says. When multiple people, with different kinds of expertise, come together around a patient, one may notice something the others don’t.

Reorienting medical schools, like reorienting hospital systems, will take time. Scheduling barriers can make it hard to get students from different health fields in one room, for instance. Some faculty members aren’t prepared to teach a new kind of curriculum. And when students leave school for their clinical training, they work in real-life settings that are all over the spectrum when it comes to teamwork.

“We’re working on an ideal,” says John Luk, assistant dean for interprofessional integration at the Dell Medical School at the University of Texas at Austin. “But the reality is, many of us have not been practicing at the ideal.”

Ascension Rebrands Six Health System Markets

http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/leadership/ascension-rebrands-six-health-system-markets?spMailingID=12228675&spUserID=MTY3ODg4NTg1MzQ4S0&spJobID=1262308916&spReportId=MTI2MjMwODkxNgS2

Image result for Rebranding

 

The move follows last year’s rebranding of markets in Michigan and Wisconsin and reflects the nation’s largest Catholic healthcare company’s unification of diverse brands as well as its transition from holding company to operating company model.

St. Louis-based Ascension announced it will rebrand under the Ascension brand six of its markets that have been known locally for years by other names.

The hospitals and other sites of care that will take on the Ascension identity are:

  • Texas: Seton in the Austin region and Providence in Waco
  • Gulf Coast: Sacred Heart in the Pensacola, Florida, region and Providence in Mobile, Alabama
  • Binghamton, New York: Lourdes
  • Birmingham, Alabama: St. Vincent’s
  • Jacksonville, Florida: St. Vincent’s
  • Kansas: Via Christi in Wichita and central Kansas

The brand strategy helps unify the affiliation of the various regions and the health systems within them, according to Ascension executives. The company began this move last year in Michigan with six previously distinct health systems, and in Wisconsin, with four, that were brought under the Ascension brand.

“Our brand identity is rooted in our mission to deliver compassionate, personalized care to all, with special attention to persons living in poverty and those most vulnerable,” said Anthony R. Tersigni, Ascension’s president and CEO, in a press release. “The adoption of a consistent identity across our systems of care fosters collaboration and ultimately ensures our patients receive the right care in the right setting at the right time through a truly integrated national system.”

Beyond the unified identity, Chief Marketing and Communications Officer Nick Ragone said that a consistent brand makes it easier for consumers to navigate sites of care both physically and online, where most healthcare engagements now begin. He added that Ascension’s unified identity supports its shift to a more quantitative marketing model that helps the health system better understand patients and anticipate their needs.

Patricia A. Maryland, president and CEO of Ascension’s Healthcare division, its patient care arm, said the rebranding supports the creation of a culture of clinical excellence and safety, adding that the it also encourages collaboration across Ascension’s systems of care to improve population health and eliminate healthcare disparities.

Ascension’s Healthcare Division operates 2,500 sites of care, including 141 hospitals and more than 30 senior living facilities, in 22 states and the District of Columbia.

CBO: Alexander-Murray Bill Would Trim Deficit, Keep Americans Insured

http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/health-plans/cbo-alexander-murray-bill-would-trim-deficit-keep-americans-insured?spMailingID=12228675&spUserID=MTY3ODg4NTg1MzQ4S0&spJobID=1262308916&spReportId=MTI2MjMwODkxNgS2#

Image result for congressional budget office

Is the Senate’s bipartisan compromise a workable fix or a ‘futile’ stopgap?

The bipartisan Alexander-Murray bill aimed at propping up the Affordable Care Act long enough for more substantial changes to be made is receiving a mixed response from lobbying groups and legislators, with some saying the bill only extends the life of a system that should be allowed to die.

Supporters say the bill would stabilize a volatile healthcare insurance market and preserve coverage for millions of Americans by continuing the cost sharing reduction (CSR) payments that health plans say are essential to helping them survive the ACA.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) released an assessment Wednesday of the measure, finding that the deal would reduce the deficit by $3.8 billion over the next decade “without substantially changing the number of people with health insurance coverage, on net.” By contrast, earlier proposals to overhaul the ACA lost steam this year after CBO scores indicated that they would likely drive down the number of insured Americans by tens of millions.

“This nonpartisan analysis shows that our bill provides savings and ensures that funding two years of cost-sharing payments will benefit taxpayers and low-income Americans, not insurance companies,” Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) said Wednesday in a joint statement.

The CSR payments are intended to compensate insurers for providing coverage to lower-income consumers at below cost, and many say losing those payments will drive premiums higher and force some insurers to leave certain markets.

The compromise

Alexander and Murray developed the compromise bill in a bid to maintain the CSR subsidies that the Trump administration announced October 12 it would halt. The White House argues the CSRs were never authorized by Congress.

California is leading the charge in a legal challenge of President Trump’s stated intention to stop the payments, and the American Hospital Association, along with several other groups representing hospitals and other healthcare organizations, has filed a brief in support of the CSRs. But a federal judge in California sided Wednesday with the White House, ruling that the government doesn’t have to continue making the payments while states challenge the move in court, Reuters reported.

A bipartisan coalition of 24 senators—12 Republicans and 12 Democrats—have signed on to the healthcare legislation as cosponsors. Preserving the CSRs was a major priority of the Democrats, who compromised by agreeing to the Republican push to allow states to seek waivers of ACA requirements in their own states.

Ending the subsidies is expected to result in healthcare plans raising premiums even higher than otherwise planned. But the Alexander-Murray bill would authorize the CSR payments for two years and tie them to the changes in the ACA that give states more flexibility to seek waivers from the law’s requirements.

The proposed legislation also would allow insurance companies to sell less comprehensive plans to all consumers. Republican leaders say the allowance would make more affordable plans available, which, in turn, would encourage more people to buy coverage and help the insurers remain profitable.

“This is a first step: Improve it, and pass it sooner rather than later. Our purpose is to stabilize and then lower the cost of premiums in the individual insurance market for the year 2018 and 2019,” Alexander said.

Bill opposition

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) opposes the bill, saying it seeks to stabilize the insurance marketplace by forcing taxpayers to pay insurers to lower out-of-pocket costs for certain plan members.

Jane M. Orient, MD, executive director of AAPS, says the ACA actually makes insurance unaffordable.

“The deceitfully named Affordable Care Act did not just destabilize the individual insurance market; it destroyed it by outlawing genuine, voluntary insurance,” Orient says. “ACA-compliant plans are not true insurance, but coercive prepayment schemes for a federally dictated package that might be rejected by most subscribers.”

Orient says the bill being considered should be seen as an inappropriate form of legislative life support.

“Resuscitating Obamacare with Alexander-Murray would only prolong its dying process, but at great expense,” Orient says.

“Instead of running a futile Code Blue on Obamacare, we should be attending to American medicine and the American economy,” she adds.

Bill ‘provides critical stability’

American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) President Becky Parker, MD, FACEP, disagrees.

She says ACEP supports the Alexander-Murray legislation because it will provide critical stability for the individual health insurance marketplace, ensuring that millions of Americans have continued access to the health coverage they need and deserve.

“This legislation is a good-faith bipartisan effort that will help limit increases in health insurance premiums and preserve important consumer protections, such as the Essential Health Benefits package that includes emergency services, while also providing additional flexibility for states to implement innovative approaches to coverage,” Parker says.

Bipartisan Bill to Stabilize the ACA Marketplaces Estimated to Save $3.8 Billion and Protect Coverage

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/blog/2017/oct/bipartisan-bill-to-stabilize-the-aca-marketplaces?omnicid=EALERT1300653&mid=henrykotula@yahoo.com

Image result for bipartisan

Yesterday, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its estimate of the effects of a bipartisan health care bill drafted by Senators Lamar Alexander (R–Tenn.) and Patty Murray (D–Wash.) to help stabilize the Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplaces. CBO projects that the Bipartisan Health Care Stabilization Act would save the federal government $3.8 billion by 2027. In contrast to this year’s Republican-led repeal-and-replace bills, which were estimated to lead to as many as 32 million people losing insurance, the bill would preserve coverage gains made under the ACA. But the bill is limited in scope and is not expected to substantially increase coverage, either.

Making Good on an IOU…

One of the most important provisions in the bill would appropriate the money to pay for so-called cost-sharing reductions (CSRs). These federal payments reimburse insurance companies for lowering deductibles and copayments for lower-income people with marketplace plans. The Trump administration ended those payments two weeks ago, calling them a bailout for insurers. But because insurers are required to offer the discounts to consumers and the federal government is required to pay for them, in its analysis, CBO assumed the payments were already an obligation of the federal government. This means the bill’s formal appropriation for the money won’t increase the deficit; it simply makes good on an IOU.

Since most insurers have already increased their premiums for the coming year to compensate for the anticipated lack of CSR payments, the Alexander–Murray bill won’t affect 2018 rates. Rate-setting for the 2018 plan year was fraught for states and insurers given the uncertainty about whether cost-sharing payments would be made. But if passed, the bill would reassure insurers who are already planning for 2019 and encourage more stability.

…But No Double-Dipping by Insurers in 2018

Because most insurers built the cost of the cost-sharing reductions into their 2018 premiums, there is thus a risk that if the Alexander–Murray Bill becomes law, these insurers would receive double payments — once in the form of higher premiums and a second time from the federal government. The proposed law requires states to ensure that insurers rebate any such windfall to the federal government. CBO estimates that most insurers would likely owe a rebate under the policy, totaling about $3.1 billion over 2018–2027.

New Source of Outreach and Enrollment Funds

To promote enrollment, the bill directs the federal government to spend $105.8 million to help people who are eligible for ACA coverage sign up in 2018 and 2019. It also requires the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to report on its marketplace outreach activities. (By contrast, the Trump administration cut $90 million, or 90 percent, of the HHS budget for advertising.) Since the bill draws its outreach dollars from existing ACA funds, this provision does not increase the deficit. While the boosted outreach funding might be expected to lead to enrollment gains, CBO states that it could not predict the effect on coverage. However, Commonwealth Fund survey data has found that 40 percent of currently uninsured adults are not aware of the marketplaces, suggesting a strong need for ongoing advertising and outreach — and the possibility that the bill could lead to some coverage gains.

Allowing People of All Ages to Buy Catastrophic Plans Could Lower Premiums in Other Plans

In an effort to offer lower-cost plans for people who are not eligible for premium tax credits, the bill opens up to everyone the ACA’s catastrophic health plans, which had previously been limited to young adults and older people who could not find affordable plans. Few people have enrolled in these plans, and the CBO doesn’t expect that to change. But the bill requires the plans’ enrollees to be pooled with the rest of an insurer’s health plans’ individual market enrollees. The presence of the healthy people who tend to buy catastrophic health plans in the broader pool could lower premiums for everyone, as well as tax credits paid by the federal government. CBO projects this would result in $1.1 billion in subsidy savings to the federal government over 2019–2027.

Looking Forward

Until the emergence of the Bipartisan Health Care Stabilization Act, “bipartisan” and “agreement” rarely appeared in the same sentence in the coverage of this year’s health care saga. Yesterday’s CBO score indicates that congressional work through the regular legislative process can result in sound policy that benefits consumers and taxpayers — and that is agreeable to policymakers on both sides of the aisle.