Category Archives: 2020 Election Issues

The drug pricing debate is stuck in the past

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, ACA, Biologics, Biosimilars, Competition, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Gene Therapy, Generic Drugs, Generic Entry, Health Policy, High Drug Prices, High Prices, Highly Specialized Drugs, Limited Competition, Out of Pocket Expenses, Patent Protections, Precision Medicine, Preexisting Conditions • Leave a comment

https://www.axios.com/drug-pricing-debate-stuck-in-past-10ba315e-0ddf-4013-8c5a-f8ee89c2f530.html

Illustration of falling pills and coins

There’s a scientific and economic revolution happening in medicine, and the political debate over drug prices isn’t keeping up. Not only are policymakers struggling to agree on solutions, they’re mostly talking about yesterday’s problems.

Why it matters: Medical innovation is already hurtling toward a new era of highly specialized drugs — some are even tailor-made for each individual patient. They may be more effective than anything we’ve seen before, and also more expensive. But the drug-pricing debate is more focused on decades-old parts of the system.

The big picture: “We haven’t really contemplated how we’re going to absorb some of these things,” Food and Drug Administration Scott Gottlieb said. “These are good problems to have…but they are policy challenges.”

Where it stands: Congress is mainly squabbling over proposals to reduce prices by boosting competition — by making it easier to start developing generics, or by changing patent protections that help pharmaceutical companies keep their rivals at bay.

Yes, but: Those regulatory tools were designed for a world in which pharmaceutical companies develop relatively simple drugs and try to market them to a big group of people. But science is rapidly moving away from that world.

  • Gene therapy, for example, is the new wave in cancer treatment. It helps patients’ own immune systems fight off cancer — which means each dose is custom-made for each patient. It’s a highly promising approach, but treatment can come with a price tag north of $1 million once all is said and done.
  • The old dichotomy of a brand-name pill followed by a generic version of that pill doesn’t really hold up for custom-made drugs.
  • So tools that try to promote competition simply may not work as well. “I don’t think they’re solutions for gene therapies because I think you’re ultimately going to have to figure out ways to capitalize those costs,” Gottlieb said.

Even without being custom-made, many new drugs are still trying to treat smaller groups of patients — like people with the same specific genetic mutation.

  • “Generic entry might not prove to be as successful for addressing this problem as it has historically been, and I think it’s because we fundamentally have shifted into these other types of products where competition is just more challenging,” Vanderbilt’s Stacie Dusetzina said.

Most of these new drugs belong to a class known as biologics. They’re more complex than the drugs we’re used to, and therefore have the potential to be more precise in the way they interact with your body.

  • “The way drugs are produced and made now is quite different from the way they were produced and made in the early ‘80s, and that’s both because…you have a lot of these drugs being made for small populations, and for biologics the science is so much more complicated,” said Rachel Sachs, a professor at Washington University.
  • Biologics don’t have traditional generic versions; the equivalent are products known as “biosimilars.”
  • The Affordable Care Act created a pathway for the FDA to approve biosimilars, but that market has been slow to take off, and at least in the early going, biosimilars often don’t offer the same steep discounts as traditional generics.

Promoting competition isn’t the only idea in the world, but more muscular price controls are much more controversial.

  • Most of these new, complex drugs are administered at a doctor’s office, not picked up from a pharmacy. The Trump administration has proposed tying Medicare’s payments for that class of drugs to the lower prices that other countries pay, and Democrats support direct Medicare price negotiations.

The bottom line: “One version of ten years from now will have very limited competition in certain types of markets, either because the market has eroded it to be that way or because the drugs that are coming out will by definition have limited competition,” said Rena Conti, a professor at Boston University.

 

 

 

On the Doorstep With a Plea: Will You Support Medicare for All?

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Employer-Based Health Insurance, Grass Roots Support, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Insurance Industry, Health Policy, High Deductible Health Plans, High Premiums, Human Rights, Labor Union, Out of Pocket Expenses, Preexisting Conditions, Public Option, Single Payer Health System • Leave a comment

Art Miller listened patiently as the stranger on his doorstep tried to sell him on the Medicare for All Act of 2019, the single-payer health care bill that has sharply divided Democrats in Congress and on the presidential campaign trail.

The visitor, Steven Meier, was a volunteer canvasser who wanted Mr. Miller to call his congresswoman, Abby Finkenauer, the young Democrat who took a Republican’s seat last year in this closely divided district — and press her to embrace Medicare for all. Beyond congressional politics, there was the familiar role that Iowa plays as the first state to weigh in on the fight for the Democratic presidential nomination.

“I want to know how my grandkids are going to pay for it, O.K.?” Mr. Miller, 71, mused, peering at the flier that Mr. Meier had handed him.

It was a fairly typical encounter for Mr. Meier, 39, who with hundreds of volunteers around the country is working with National Nurses United, the country’s largest nurses’ union, to build grass-roots support for the single-payer bill, a long shot on Capitol Hill and a disruptive force in the party. House Democrats have declared this Saturday and Sunday to be “a weekend of action on health care” — but they are split over whether to embrace extreme change or something closer to the status quo.

A single-payer health care system would more or less scrap private health insurance, including employer-sponsored coverage, for a system like Canada’s in which the government pays for everyone’s health care with tax dollars. Democrats not ready for that big a step are falling back on a “public option,” an alternative in which anyone could buy into Medicare or another public program, or stick with private insurance — a position once a considered firmly on the party’s left wing.

Lawmakers like Ms. Finkenauer, mindful of the delicate political balance in their districts, fear the “socialism” epithet that President Trump and his party are attaching to Medicare for all. On Friday, Mr. Trump called the House bill “socialist health care” that would “crush American workers with higher taxes, long wait times and far worse care.” But even Ms. Finkenauer, who beat the incumbent Republican in November by 16,900 votes, has been pulled left by the debate, embracing the public option, which could not get through Congress when the Affordable Care Act passed in 2010.

“In a divided Congress, I’m focused on what we can do to bring immediate relief to Iowans,” she said in an email.

The nurses’ union and a number of other progressive groups want nothing less than a government system that pays for everyone’s health care, seizing on the issue’s prominence and a round of Medicare for all hearings in the House with canvassing in the districts of many of the 123 House Democrats who have not thrown their support behind a single-payer system.

“Hearings are a moment for us to have a national stage for this campaign,” Jasmine Ruddy, the lead organizer for the nurse union’s Medicare for all campaign, told several dozen new volunteers on a training call last month. “It’s up to us to take advantage of the momentum we already see happening and turn it into political power.”

But building support for a single-payer health care system has been slow going. On Wednesday, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Representative Richard E. Neal of Massachusetts, convening the House’s third Medicare for all hearing, said it was about “exploring ideas.”

Republicans warned darkly of sky-high tax increases, doctor shortages and long waits for care. Representative Kevin Brady of Texas, the senior Republican on the committee, said his constituents were “frightened” about their private coverage being “ripped out from under them.”

The nurses’ union campaign began just after Democrats won the House in November, when the union and several other groups held a strategy call with Representative Pramila Jayapal, Democrat of Washington, the chief author of the Medicare for All Act, and Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who pushed Medicare for all into the mainstream during his 2016 presidential campaign.

“Rather than try to convince people it’s the right system,” Ms. Ruddy said, “our strategy is to reach the people who are already convinced that health care is a human right, to bring them in and actually make them feel the action they are taking matters.”

In Dubuque, Mr. Meier and his partner, Briana Moss, have knocked on 250 doors and gathered about 50 signatures over the past few months. About 20 volunteers, including a retired nurse and several college students, are also involved. Nationwide, canvassers have knocked on 20,000 doors and collected 14,000 signatures since February.

On a Saturday afternoon, Mr. Miller, a Vietnam veteran, told Mr. Meier about his positive experience with government health care through the Department of Veterans Affairs, saying, “I’ve seen how it can work.”

A few houses down, a woman who owns a cleaning service and would give only her first name, Sharon, and her party affiliation, Republican, said that if the bill covered abortions, “I won’t go for that.”

She added that she would be happy to stop paying $170 a month for supplemental insurance to cover what Medicare does not, but she did not want to see people who do not work receive free care. From the garage, her husband hollered that he agreed. Conceding defeat, Mr. Meier and Ms. Moss moved along.

Both Sanders supporters, they took on the cause in part because Ms. Moss has Type 1 diabetes and has struggled on and off to stay insured, though now she has Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act’s expansion of the program. Ms. Moss, 30, went to see Ms. Finkenauer in her district office this year and asked if she supported a government system that eliminated insurance. Ms. Finkenauer, she said, stated her preference for a public option.

“That’s simply a compromise that leaves the insurance companies still in the game,” said Mr. Meier, who recently started working at John Deere building backhoes and will soon have employer-based coverage after being uninsured for his entire adult life.

The Jayapal and Sanders bills would both expand traditional Medicare to cover all Americans, and change the structure of the program to cover more services and eliminate most deductibles and co-payments. There would effectively be no private health insurance, because the new system would cover almost everything; Mr. Sanders has said private coverage could be sold for extras like cosmetic surgery.

While polling does show that Medicare for all has broad public support, that drops once people learn it would involve raising taxes or eliminating private insurance. That finding bewilders Mr. Meier, given many of the conversations he has on people’s front steps.

Those conversations keep coming. Rick Plowman 66, complained bitterly about how despite having Medicare, he had to pay nearly $500 for inhalers to treat his chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Still, he was skeptical.

“I just don’t know what it’s going to look like down the road,” Mr. Plowman said. “Even Social Security for kids, you know? Even for you guys?”

“I’m willing to start making that sacrifice right now,” Mr. Meier pushed back. Mr. Plowman signed the petition.

At a white bungalow around the corner, Mr. Meier found — finally — that he was preaching to the choir with Bobby Daniels, 50, and his wife, Andrea, 46. Mr. Daniels, a forklift operator from Waterloo, said their coverage came with a $3,000 deductible and he would “most definitely” support Medicare for all. Ray Edwards, 36, an uninsured barber, also heartily signed on.

At the final stop of the day, Mr. Meier and Ms. Moss encountered Jeremy Shade, 36, a registered Republican who promptly told them his sister lived in Canada and had spent “hours and hours in the hospital, waiting for care” under that country’s single-payer system.

“I get that concern, and it’s something I’m worried about, too,” Mr. Meier said as Mr. Shade’s dog barked. “Would you be interested in maybe just calling Abby Finkenauer and saying, ‘Hey, what are we doing about the health care problem in this country?’”

“My wife would,” Mr. Shade said, explaining that she was a Democrat. “I’m real wary about it.”

Two hours of hot canvassing amid swarms of gnats had yielded six petition signatures and a few pledges to call Ms. Finkenauer. Mr. Meier was determined to end on a positive note. “I really think health care could be the issue that could get people to stop being so on one side or the other,” he said, a point that Mr. Shade accepted, shaking his hand before retreating inside.

 

 

 

Healthcare consolidation goes beyond usual players

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Antitrust, Barriors to Entry, Competition, Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Health Policy, Market Consolidation, Market Power, Monopoly, Monopoly Behavior • Leave a comment

https://www.modernhealthcare.com/mergers-acquisitions/healthcare-consolidation-goes-beyond-usual-players?utm_source=modern-healthcare-daily-finance&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20190610&utm_content=article1-readmore

Consolidation in the health system and health insurance industries has been a focus for years. But a new report sheds light on how the “bigger is better” mantra has taken hold in companies that make syringes, X-ray machines or other healthcare products.

The report, prepared by the Open Markets Institute using data from IBISWorld, shows a small handful of companies dominate their respective markets in certain healthcare sectors that tend to get less of a spotlight than their payer and provider counterparts. The largest three pharmacy and drugstore companies represent 67% of market share and the largest two ambulance manufacturers represent 83% of market share. Just two dialysis providers dominate 76% of market share.

Open Markets has released data on monopolization in other sectors of the economy, and Phil Longman, the group’s policy director, said with healthcare approaching 20% of the U.S. gross domestic product, it’s important to direct attention there, too.

“Pretty much anywhere you go in this economy, whether it’s eyeglasses or beer or automobiles or airplanes, if you ask the right questions, you’ll find it’s much more concentrated than it was before,” he said. “That’s true in healthcare, including all of its component parts.”

Pharmacy benefit management draws $453.4 billion in revenue, according to the report, and just four companies hold three-quarters of its market share: CVS, Express Scripts, UnitedHealth and Humana. The four largest healthcare consulting firms represent 76% of their sector, which draws $6 billion in revenue.

Two companies, LabCorp and Quest, have 37% of diagnostic and medical laboratory market share, a $52.6 billion industry, the report said. And three of the largest medical patient financing companies, Synchrony, Citigroup and Wells Fargo, make up 77% of that market, which draws $4.1 billion in revenue.

The report highlighted consolidation across several different healthcare manufacturers, including those that produce hospital beds, surgical apparel, PET imaging, pacemakers and wheelchairs. Three firms own 88% of the $10.6 billion orthopedic products manufacturing sector: Stryker Corp., Zimmer Holdings and Johnson & Johnson.

Healthcare in the U.S. costs more than in other countries because the prices are higher, Longman said. That’s almost always because there is a barrier to entry that thwarts competition. Longman noted that health systems typically purchase the supplies they need, from bed sheets to bandages, from group purchasing organizations.

“That adds up to serious money,” he said.

One of the factors driving consolidation across these subsectors of healthcare is the continued decline in government and commercial health insurance reimbursement for medical products and services, which puts the squeeze on the associated costs like equipment and doctor’s fees, said Beth Everett, managing director of healthcare banking and head of middle-market healthcare with MUFG in New York. Consolidation may help achieve healthcare cost reduction by creating economies of scale, she said. Whether this ultimately happens is “the million-dollar question,” Everett said.

Greater consolidation and integration in the healthcare system is widely recognized as necessary for improving patient care, Longman said. But it should come with some means of regulation to ensure the benefits of the resulting efficiencies go to the consumer. In this case, that hasn’t happened, and monopolistic corporations are holding the benefits of greater scale, efficiencies and coordination of care rather than passing them along.

“We’ve just really mismanaged competition policy in healthcare,” Longman said.

 

A Large Employer ‘Frames’ The ‘Medicare For All’ Debate

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Business Case, Competition, Economic Case, Employer-Based Health Insurance, Health Insurance Industry, Health Policy, Labor Union, Medicare, Medicare for All, Single Payer Health System • Leave a comment

https://www.healthleadersmedia.com/finance/large-employer-frames-medicare-all-debate

As health costs continue to grow, straining employer budgets and slowing wage growth, the business community is beginning to take the option more seriously.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

More than 156 million Americans get employer-paid healthcare, making it by far the single-largest form of coverage.

Medicare-for-all supports say the health system overall would see savings from a coordinated effort to lower prices and administrative costs and eliminate insurance company profits.

While large business lobbying groups strongly oppose Medicare for all, the resolve of many in the business community — especially among smaller firms — may be shifting.

Walk into a big-box retailer such as Walmart or Michaels and you’re likely to see MCS Industries’ picture frames, decorative mirrors or kitschy wall décor.

Adjacent to a dairy farm a few miles west of downtown Easton, MCS is the nation’s largest maker of such household products. But MCS doesn’t actually make anything here anymore. It has moved its manufacturing operations to Mexico and China, with the last manufacturing jobs departing this city along the Delaware River in 2005. MCS now has about 175 U.S. employees and 600 people overseas.

“We were going to lose the business because we were no longer competitive,” CEO Richard Master explained. And one of the biggest impediments to keeping labor costs in line, he said, has been the increasing expense of health coverage in the United States.

Today, he’s at the vanguard of a small but growing group of business executives who are lining up to support a “Medicare for All” national health program. He argues not that healthcare is a human right, but that covering everyone with a government plan and decoupling healthcare coverage from the workplace would benefit entrepreneurship.

In February, Master stood with Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) outside the Capitol after she introduced her Medicare for All bill. “This bill removes an albatross from the neck of American business, puts more money in consumer products and will boost our economy,” he said.

As health costs continue to grow, straining employer budgets and slowing wage growth, others in the business community are beginning to take the option more seriously.

While the influential U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other large business lobbying groups strongly oppose increased government involvement in healthcare, the resolve of many in the business community — especially among smaller firms — may be shifting.

“There is growing momentum among employers supporting single-payer,” said Dan Geiger, co-director of the Business Alliance for a Healthy California, which has sought to generate business support for a universal healthcare program in California. About 300 mostly small employers have signed on.

“Businesses are really angry about the system, and there is a lot of frustration with its rising costs and dysfunction,” he said.

Geiger acknowledged the effort still lacks support from any Fortune 500 company CEOs. He said large businesses are hesitant to get involved in this political debate and many don’t want to lose the ability to attract workers with generous health benefits. “There is also a lingering distrust of the government, and they think they can offer coverage better than the government,” he said.

In addition, some in the business community are hesitant to sign on to Medicare for All with many details missing, such as how much it would increase taxes, said Ellen Kelsay, chief strategy officer for the National Business Group on Health, a leading business group focused on health benefits.

Democrats Propel the Debate

For decades, a government-run health plan was considered too radical an idea for serious consideration. But Medicare for All has been garnering more political support in recent months, especially after a progressive wave helped Democrats take control of the House this year. Several 2020 Democratic presidential candidates, including Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, strongly back it.

The labor unions and consumer groups that have long endorsed a single-payer health system hope that the embrace of it by employers such as Master marks another turning point for the movement.

Supporters of the concept say the health system overall would see savings from a coordinated effort to bring down prices and the elimination of many administrative costs or insurance company profits.

“It’s critical for our success to engage employers, particularly because our current system is hurting employers almost as much as it is patients,” said Melinda St. Louis, campaign director of Medicare for All at Public Citizen, a consumer-rights group based in Washington.

Master, a former Washington lawyer, worked on Democratic Sen. George McGovern’s presidential campaign before returning to Pennsylvania in 1973 to take over his father’s company, which made rigid paper boxes. In 1980, he founded MCS, which pioneered the popular front-loading picture frame and steamless fog-free mirrors for bathrooms. The company has grown into a $250 million corporation.

Master frequently travels to Washington and around the country to talk to business leaders as he seeks to build political support for a single-payer health system.

In the past four years, he has produced several documentary videos on the topic. In 2018, he formed the Business Initiative for Health Policy, a nonprofit group of business leaders, economists and health policy experts trying to explain the financial benefits of a single-payer system.

Dan Wolf, CEO of Cape Air, a Hyannis, Mass.-based regional airline that employs 800 people calls himself “a free market guy.” But he also supports Medicare for All. He said Master helps turn the political argument over single-payer into a practical one.

“It’s about good business sense and about caring for his employees and their well-being,” he said, adding that employers should no longer be straddled with the cost and complexity of healthcare.

“It makes no more sense for an airline to understand health policy for the bulk of its workers than for a health facility to have to supply all the air transportation for its employees,” he said.

Employers are also an important voice in the debate because 156 million Americans get employer-paid healthcare, making it by far the single-largest form of coverage.

Master said his company has tried various methods to control costs with little success, including high deductibles, narrow networks of providers and wellness plans that emphasize preventive medicine.

Insurers who are supposed to negotiate lower rates from hospitals and doctors have failed, he added, and too many premium dollars go to covering administrative costs. Only by having the federal government set rates can the United States control costs of drugs, hospitals and other health services, he said.

“Insurance companies are not watching the store and don’t have incentives to hold down costs in the current system,” he said.

Glad The Boss Is Trying To Make A Difference

What’s left of MCS in Pennsylvania is a spacious corporate office building housing administrative staff, designers and a giant distribution center piled high with carton boxes from floor to ceiling.

MCS pays an average of $1,260 per month for each employee’s healthcare, up from $716 in 2009, the company said. In recent years, the company has reduced out-of-pocket costs for employees by covering most of their deductibles.

Medicare for All would require several new taxes to raise money, but Master said such a plan would mean savings for his company and employees.

MCS employees largely support Master’s attempt to fix the health system even if they are not all on board with a Medicare for All approach, according to interviews with several workers in Easton.

“I think it’s a good idea,” said Faith Wildrick, a shipper at MCS who has worked for the company 26 years. “If the other countries are doing it and it is working for them, why can’t it work for us?”

Wildrick said that even with insurance her family struggles with health costs as her husband, Bill, a former MCS employee, deals with liver disease and needs many diagnostic tests and prescription medications. Their annual deductible has swung from $4,000 several years ago to $500 this year as the company has worked to lower employees’ out-of-pocket costs.

“I’m really glad someone is fighting for this and trying to make a difference,” said Wildrick.

Jessica Ehrhardt, the human resources manager at MCS, said the effort to reduce employees’ out-of-pocket health costs means the company must pay higher health costs. That results in less money for salary increases and other benefits, she added.

Asked about Medicare for All, Ehrhardt said, “It’s a drastic solution, but something needs to happen.”

For too long, Master said, the push for a single-payer health system has been about ideology.

“The movement has been about making healthcare a human right and that we have a right to universal healthcare,” he said. “What I am saying is this is prudent for our economy and am trying to make the business and economic case.”

 

“This is prudent for our economy and am trying to make the business and economic case.”

 

 

Trump administration adds new restrictions for fetal tissue research

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Abortion, Clinical Research, Clinical Research Funding, Fetal Tissue, Health Policy, Planned Parenthood • Leave a comment

https://www.axios.com/trump-admin-new-funding-issued-fetal-tissue-research-eb644a59-72d2-44c7-b0ca-ea9c2708214b.html

Image result for fetal tissue research

The Trump administration eliminated funding for fetal tissue medical research by government scientists on Wednesday.

Why it matters: The decision is considered a win for anti-abortion rights supporters and a major blow to scientists who rely on the tissue from elective abortions for research into diseases like cancer, HIV and Zika, the Washington Post reports.

The administration also revoked a multimillion-dollar contract for a University of California at San Francisco lab that uses the tissue to test HIV treatments, per the Post.

  • UCSF’s multiyear government contract was terminated on Wednesday without further detail.

Context: The debate over the federal use of fetal tissue — obtained from abortions — got off the ground in 2015, when an anti-abortion rights group released videos alleging Planned Parenthood profited from selling the material. Planned Parenthood claimed the footage had been doctored to mislead, and after several state and congressional inquiries, the health care provider was cleared of misconduct.

  • Trump’s health department conducted a several-month audit of fetal tissue research “in light of the serious regulatory, moral, and ethical considerations involved,” per the Department of Health and Human Services.

The National Institutes of Health funds about 200 external research products that use fetal tissue, which will be unaffected. There are only 3 NIH-run projects that will be impacted.

  • Future grant applicants will be reviewed by an ethics advisory board.

What they’re saying: While the move is supported by anti-abortion advocates, scientists say it’s an impediment to finding new medical treatments.

  • The new rules “further erode the unique potential fetal tissue research holds for addressing such critical objectives as fighting blindness, ending Parkinson’s Disease, and advancing maternal and child health,” Research!America said in a statement.
  • “Valuable research that is directed at helping to develop therapies for terrible diseases will be stopped,” Larry Goldstein, a distinguished professor in the University of California, San Diego, told the Washington Post.

While scientists say that there is no equally effective alternative to fetal tissue in research, opponents of its use say that some newer methods show potential, the Post reports.

 

 

Supreme Court rejects HHS’ Medicare DSH changes

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Health Policy, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Medicare, Medicare Disproportionate Share Reimbursement, Supreme Court • Leave a comment

https://www.modernhealthcare.com/legal/supreme-court-rejects-hhs-medicare-dsh-changes?utm_source=modern-healthcare-alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20190603&utm_content=hero-readmore

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled that HHS improperly changed its Medicare disproportionate share hospital payments when it made billions of dollars in cuts.

In a 7-1 decision, the justices said HHS needed a notice-and-comment period for the Medicare DSH calculation change. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the decision that HHS’ position for not following the procedure was “ambiguous at best.”

“Because affected members of the public received no advance warning and no chance to comment first, and because the government has not identified a lawful excuse for neglecting its statutory notice-and-comment obligations, we agree with the court of appeals that the new policy cannot stand,” Gorsuch wrote.

The case was highly technical, and hinged on a dueling interpretations of agency activity that constitutes a “substantive legal standard” in a payment policy change to Medicare.

Under the new Medicare DSH formula, the CMS began to lump Medicare Advantage enrollees in with traditional Medicare enrollees to calculate a hospital’s DSH payment.

But Medicare spending is about $700 billion per year, and the program covers nearly one-fifth of Americans.
“Not only has the government failed to document any draconian costs associated with notice and comment, it also has neglected to acknowledge the potential countervailing benefits,” Gorsuch wrote. “Notice and comment gives affected par-ties fair warning of potential changes in the law and an opportunity to be heard on those changes—and it affords the agency a chance to avoid errors and make a more informed decision.”

The majority opinion also emphasized the size and scope of Medicare, noting that “even seemingly modest modifications to the program can affect the lives of millions.” “As Medicare has grown, so has Congress’s interest in ensuring that the public has a chance to be heard before changes are made to its administration,” Gorsuch wrote.

During oral arguments in the case in January, Gorsuch and Justice Sonia Sotomayor doubled down on the economic magnitude of the change, which HHS estimated to be between $3 billion and $4 billion between fiscal 2005 and 2013.

Justice Stephen Breyer dissented from the majority, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh recused himself because he participated in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruling that the Supreme Court upheld.

Breyer wrote he believed the government had the legal grounds to skip the public comment period in this policy.
“The statutory language, at minimum, permits this interpretation, and the statute’s history and the practical consequences provide further evidence that Congress had only substantive rules in mind,” he wrote. “Importantly, this interpretation of the statute, unlike the court’s, provides a familiar and readily administrable way for the agency to distinguish the actions that require notice and comment from the actions that do not.”

 

 

 

Why Are at So Many Children Losing Medicaid/CHIP Coverage?

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Children's Health, Children's Health Insurance Coverage, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, Medicaid, Medicaid Childrens Health Insurance Program (CHIP), Underinsured, Uninsured • Leave a comment

Why Are So Many Children Losing Medicaid/CHIP Coverage?

Along with the American Academy of Pediatrics, First Focus and Children’s Defense Fund, Georgetown University CCF held a press tele-conference and released a report examining an alarming trend in children’s health coverage. The report shows that more 800,000 fewer children had Medicaid/CHIP coverage at the end of 2018 compared to 2017. This trend comes amid broader efforts to restrict access to health coverage and discourage participation by legal immigrants.

The report found little evidence to support claims that the improving economy was responsible for the 2.2 percent decline in enrollment. Instead data suggest this 2018 could be the second year in a row that the rate of uninsured children increases. The U.S. Census Bureau will release the 2018 child uninsured rate data later in the fall.

Enrollment declines are concentrated in seven states – California, Florida, Illinois, Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee, and Texas – which account for nearly 70 percent of the losses. Nine states – Idaho, Illinois, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee, Utah, and Wyoming – had decreases of more than double the national average.

Please listen to the recording of the press call or read the report for more details. Here a few excerpts from Thursday’s press conference:

Joan Alker of CCF moderated the call and explained why this drop in child enrollment is so alarming.

“We are extremely concerned about what we are seeing and what it portends for the uninsured numbers these fall,” she said. “For many years there’s been a national bipartisan commitment to reduce the number of uninsured children and the effort have borne fruit. Unfortunately, today we do not feel confident that this national commitment still exists.”

Tricia Brooks, lead author of the report, explained the many factors have likely led to the decline in child enrollment.

“Knowing that the economy had a minimal impact at best, we must call on state and national policymakers to address the factors contributing to the enrollment decline,” said Brooks. “From systems and renewal issues to enrollment barriers to threats like public charge, we must take a hard look at what these administrative actions and barriers to coverage mean for our kids’ health.”

Dr. Laura Guerra-Cardus, Deputy Director for the Children’s Defense Fund of Texas  said overly cumbersome eligibility checks are causing thousands of eligible children to lose coverage in her state. Nine out of every 10 Texas children being dropped are losing coverage due to red-tape. She said this is causing significant confusion for families and throughout the Texas health care system as many families don’t learn their children are uninsured until they show up for an appointment with their health care provider.

“These income checks are erroneously flagging families – at the very least 30% of the time. Families are not being given enough time to respond,” she said. “They are given only ten days to respond and the timeline starts once flagged by the system which could be before the parents even receive notification.”

Bruce Lesley, President of First Focus, pointed out that bipartisan legislation in the U.S. Congress would address the issues raised by Dr. Guerra by requiring 12 months continuous health coverage for children. He also cited polls that show strong support for children’s health coverage in general.

“The American public is with us on this. Kids are a priority but we’re seeing a failure of policymakers to adhere to what voters want and make children a priority,” Lesley said.

Dr. Lanre Falusi, a pediatrician at the Children’s National Health System and national spokesperson for the American Academy of Pediatrics said pediatricians are very concerned about the decline in Medicaid and CHIP enrollment. In addition to cumbersome enrollment process and administrative burdens discouraging families from enrolling eligible children, she pointed out that immigrant families also encounter the chilling effect the proposed public charge rule.

“The public charge proposal presents immigrant families with an impossible choice: keep your family healthy but risk being separated or forgo vital services like Medicaid so your family can remain together in this country. Although the final rule has yet to be issued, the proposal has already caused immigrant families to avoid or even disenroll from programs they are eligible for out of fear, like Medicaid. I have seen this myself,” Dr. Falusi said.

“We need all children in the United States to reach their full potential if we are to reach ours as a nation. Ensuring children are enrolled in health coverage designed to meet their needs is necessary to making that possible. Our lawmakers must pass policies that keep programs like Medicaid and CHIP strong, not those that jeopardize the critical gains we’ve made in children’s coverage.”

 

 

 

The hospitals staying silent on Medicare for All

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, America's Essential Hospitals, Ascension, Critical Access Hospitals, Health Policy, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Medicaid, Medicaid Supplemental Payments, Medicare, National Rural Health Association, Partnership for America's Health Care Future, Rural Health, Rural Hospital, Safety Net Hospitals, Single Payer Healthcare System, Underinsured, Uninsured • Leave a comment

https://www.axios.com/hospitals-medicare-for-all-health-care-bernie-sanders-5d28dc00-05cd-411b-98cc-556ddfa12c9b.html

Doctors and nurses treat a patient in a hospital trauma room.

Large hospital systems and trade groups have vociferously criticized Democrats’ “Medicare for All” proposals, but rural facilities and public hospitals that treat mostly low-income patients are sitting on the sidelines of the debate.

Why it matters: Safety nets and many rural hospitals could hypothetically benefit under Medicare for All, but expressing support would put them at odds with their larger brethren.

Between the lines: The Partnership for America’s Health Care Future has become one of the loudest industry-funded voices against Medicare for All.

  • Pharmaceutical companies, health insurers and others are part of PAHCF. But 10 hospital systems and lobbying groups, like Ascension and the American Hospital Association, drive PAHCF.
  • Chip Kahn, the head of the Federation of American Hospitals, said PAHCF was his “brainchild,” according to Modern Healthcare.

Yes, but: Some hospital constituencies aren’t part of the anti-single-payer lobbying.

  • America’s Essential Hospitals, the trade group for safety net hospitals, and the National Rural Health Association, which represents rural hospitals and providers, are not part of PAHCF. They also don’t have official positions on Medicare for All.
  • A spokesperson for AEH said the group recognizes industry peers “have raised reasonable questions” about Medicare for All, but “our focus right now is where our members want it: on stopping the $4 billion cut” to supplemental Medicaid payments.
  • “With specific legislation not moving forward at this time, I don’t see us weighing in anytime soon,” NRHA CEO Alan Morgan said. “I don’t see us at odds. We just haven’t entered the national debate yet.”
  • In an interview, Kahn would not discuss on the record why those two groups were not part of PAHCF.

The big picture: Hospitals that mostly care for poor and uninsured patients could see higher, more stable revenues if everyone had Medicare — a program that often pays higher base rates than Medicaid and infinitely higher rates than nothing at all.

  • Cook County’s public hospital system in Chicago, for instance, gets 79% of its gross patient revenue from the uninsured and Medicaid. That system and multiple other hospitals did not respond to interview requests.
  • Separately, Medicare pays rural “critical access” hospitals 101% of their allowable costs, although those payments have suffered since Congress instituted mandated cuts in 2013.

The intrigue: “If you’re trying to solve the problem that we want to get everybody covered and we want to level the playing field between the hospitals that take care of the poor people and hospitals that take care of the rich people, Medicare for All is something we better take a look at,” Eric Dickson, CEO of UMass Memorial Health Care, told Politico.

 

 

 

White House runs into health-care industry hostility as it plans executive order

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, ACA, Executive Orders, Health Policy, Health System, Hospital, Price Transparency, Short Term Health Insurance, Skinny Health Plans • Leave a comment

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/white-house-runs-into-health-care-industry-hostility-as-it-plans-executive-order/2019/05/29/a7ce7f2e-817e-11e9-bce7-40b4105f7ca0_story.html?fbclid=IwAR0EnUsQBnp5IKWUK_vB-4C4ec8VMgC9-2uKFVS4NFd8aNxazbSeBr1R2us&noredirect=on&utm_term=.baee5a12d03f

Image result for executive orders

 

President Trump is preparing to issue an executive order to foster greater price transparency across a broad swath of the health-care industry as consumer concerns about medical costs emerge as a major issue in the lead-up to next year’s presidential election.

The most far-reaching element favored by the White House aides developing the order would require insurers and hospitals to disclose for the first time the discounted rates they negotiate for services, according to health-care lobbyists and policy experts familiar with the deliberations.

The idea has stirred such intense industry opposition, however, that it may be dropped from the final version, the sources said.

Compelling disclosure of negotiated rates “would have the ultimate anti-competitive effect,” said Tom Nickels, the American Hospital Association’s executive vice president for government relations and public policy. “I know they are aware of the concerns.”

Other parts of the order are expected to make it easier for people on Medicare, the federal insurance program for older and disabled Americans, to find out what they would pay for treatment at various hospitals by widening the range of services for which hospitals must post their prices.

The order also may include an effort to promote more competition among hospitals by slowing a trend toward consolidation, according to an administration official who spoke on the condition of anonymity about details that continue to take shape.

“We’re still ironing it out,” the official said.

The executive order, likely to be announced by mid-June and first reported by the Wall Street Journal, would carry the force of law but not bring about immediate change. Such orders essentially direct federal agencies to rewrite rules to advance their goals — in this instance, the departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and Justice, according to people familiar with the White House’s plans.

The order’s moving parts reflect a conservative conception of how to tame rising health-care costs, relying on competition — the idea that consumers will make prudent, price-minded choices if they are given enough information and options about where to get their care. Critics say that patients are seldom in a position to comparison-shop, following their doctors’ recommendations or confronting medical emergencies.

With surveys showing that voters trust Democrats significantly more than Republicans to solve problems in the health-care system, the order is, in part, a strategy by the White House to portray Trump as an ally of consumers for his reelection campaign.

“My understanding is they are trying to figure out what is going to have high splash value,” said Dan Mendelson, founder of Avalere Health, a Washington-based consulting firm.

The executive order would be Trump’s third relating to health care. Hours after his inauguration, he signed an order giving agencies broad powers to undo regulations the Obama administration had created under the Affordable Care Act. In October 2017, Trump signed another order intended to bypass rules under that law, by making it easier for individuals and small businesses to buy alternative insurance with lower prices, less coverage and fewer consumer protections.

Unlike the first two, the upcoming order would be the first on a theme embraced by both political parties.

Republicans and Democrats alike have introduced nearly two dozen bills related to transparency so far this year, and two major bills are in draft form. Most are focused on curbing the price of prescription drugs, and others are designed to protect patients from what have been termed “surprise” hospital bills involving treatment by physicians outside their insurance networks.

The administration official said the executive order would focus on urging hospitals to increase price transparency for consumers, but the official did not specify how far the policy will go.

The work is being directed by Joe Grogan, director of the White House’s Domestic Policy Council, although senior HHS officials are heavily involved, according to several people who have had conversations with those engaged in the process.

The hospital industry has been consulted by the White House, according to one industry lobbyist. But an insurance industry official said the White House has not reached out to health insurers and has “declined to discuss its thinking on an executive order when asked by industry representatives.”

Both hospitals and insurers are vehemently opposed to being told they need to disclose the rates that they negotiate with one another.

“There is good transparency and bad transparency,” said Kristine Grow, spokeswoman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, a main industry trade group. “Good transparency provides consumers with information they can use to make their own smart decision, and causes health-care prices to go down for everyone

“This is bad transparency, because it is highly likely to cause prices to go up for everyone,” Grow said. If all the parties need to expose what rates they were willing to accept, she said, “it creates a floor for negotiations, not a ceiling.”

Nickels of the American Hospital Association said, “In order for entities in any sector of the economy — health care included — to be able to create a situation where there is give and take, there has to be some privacy.”

A Secret to Better Health Care

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Health Policy, Social Determinants of Health • Leave a comment

https://www.realclearhealth.com/2019/05/28/a_secret_to_better_health_care_279059.html?utm_source=morning-scan&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mailchimp-newsletter&utm_source=RC+Health+Morning+Scan&utm_campaign=e0c8de7485-MAILCHIMP_RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b4baf6b587-e0c8de7485-84752421

 

A Secret to Better Health Care

 

It seems obvious: better social services. So why are things like food stamps and housing not part of the conversation?

Health care is at the center of the national policy conversation, and with the 2020 presidential election now in full swing, that is where it will probably remain. But for all the talk about how to increase access and reduce costs, we’re missing a critical piece of the puzzle: the inverse relationship between health care costs and spending on social programs.

One reason the United States spends more on health care than any other nation — more than 17 percent of gross domestic product, compared with an average of 9 percent for other advanced economies — is that we spend far less on social services like food stamps, free school lunches and public housing.

If our spending on social programs were more in line with other developed countries, our health care costs would fall. That means that as policymakers evaluate a social program, they should weigh not only its direct and second-order benefits — from reducing crime and recidivism to increasing productivity — but also its effect on lowering federal health care costs.

These safety net programs can lower health care costs by strengthening what medical professionals call the “social determinants of health”: the environment in which people are born, grow, live and work. Effective social programs provide access to good nutrition, clean and safe shelter and a subsistence income, which are critical to avoiding disease. They help food-insecure children receive nutrient-dense meals rather than empty calories, and families with incomes below the poverty line to live in sanitary environments free of serious health risks.

Especially important are programs that ameliorate poor housing conditions and prevent disease, including lead abatement, control of mold and dampness and heating-system repairs. Consider a real-life example.

Days after an elderly patient was treated for heart failure at Mount Sinai Hospital and returned home, the elevator in his apartment building broke down. Lacking the ability to climb stairs, he became a prisoner in his own home, unable to go out for a walk, shop for fresh food and visit his doctors for follow-up care.

A social service worker took up his case, and the elevator was repaired. His substandard housing was literally a threat to his health; the intervention of the social worker may have saved his life — and certainly saved him from a possible relapse and expensive hospital care.

Two programs — one in Chicago, the other in Los Angeles — show the multidimensional benefits of social spending. The Chicago program supplemented federal housing subsidies to help patients with chronic health problems afford stable housing. It reduced health care costs in the University of Illinois hospital system for participating patients by roughly 18 percent. And once in stable housing, beneficiaries can better pursue public benefits and job opportunities.

The Los Angeles program showed even greater cost savings, according to a study by the nonpartisan RAND Corporation. After receiving housing assistance, beneficiaries’ costs to the public health system plummeted. Inpatient services fell by 75 percent. Over all, the study found that, even accounting for the increased housing costs, recipients’ total social service and health care costs fell by 20 percent. And beneficiaries showed signs of reduced involvement in crime and improved mental health.

All of this is intuitive and supported by reams of data. But the United States continues to spend a relative pittance on such programs. Housing programs, including rental assistance, public housing and homeless-assistance grants, account for one-quarter of 1 percent of G.D.P. Nutrition programs, such as food stamps and the Women, Infants and Children nutrition program, amount to one-half of 1 percent of G.D.P.

Our underinvestment sets us apart from other advanced nations around the globe, particularly in Western Europe. France, Sweden and Britain commit far more than the United States to social services, as a percentage of their economy, while spending significantly less per capita and as a percentage of their economy on health care — and boast a higher life expectancy.

Many factors influence discrepancies in health care spending and outcomes between the United States and its counterparts: vastly different views about the financial incentives in health care; the high cost of prescription drugs, diagnostic tests and administrative expenses; and cultural expectations about end-of-life care. But we won’t effectively reduce costs, and improve outcomes, until we think bigger and recognize the critical link between health care spending and social programs.