Hillary Clinton: Warren’s ‘Medicare for All’ plan would never get enacted

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/469407-hillary-clinton-warrens-medicare-for-all-plan-would-never-get-enacted?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Newsletter%20Weekly%20Roundup:%20Healthcare%20Dive%2011-09-2019&utm_term=Healthcare%20Dive%20Weekender

Image result for Medicare for All

Hillary Clinton said Wednesday that she does not think Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-Mass.) “Medicare for All” plan could ever get enacted and that she backs a public option instead. 

“You just don’t think that that plan would ever get enacted?” interviewer Andrew Ross Sorkin asked Clinton at The New York Times DealBook Conference.

“No, I don’t. I don’t, but the goal is the right goal,” the former secretary of State responded.

“I believe the smarter approach is to build on what we have. A public option is something I’ve been in favor of for a very long time,” Clinton said. “I don’t believe we should be in the midst of a big disruption while we are trying to get to 100 percent coverage and deal with costs.”

Amid the raging health care debate among the Democratic presidential candidates, Clinton, the party’s 2016 nominee, appears to line up more with former Vice President Joe Biden and South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who are pushing for an optional government insurance plan, rather than Warren and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who are pushing government insurance for all.

Clinton, though, tried to shift the debate back to highlighting the contrast between Democrats and Republicans, pointing to the fact that the GOP is trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act, including backing a lawsuit currently in the courts to overturn the entire law. 

“Yeah, we’re having a debate on our side of the political ledger, but it’s a debate about the right issue, how do we get to health care coverage for everybody that we can afford?” Clinton said, noting the GOP is “in court right now to strike the entire law down.”

 

Health insurers eat higher medical costs

https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-vitals-b6a8b813-d93a-43d6-9080-bc9ee9606440.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosvitals&stream=top

Image result for 2. Health insurers eat higher medical costs

Almost all of the major health insurance companies are spending more on medical care this year than they have in the past, Axios’ Bob Herman reports.

The big picture: Rising prices and more services for some sicker patients are among the many reasons why this is happening. That uptick in spending has freaked out Wall Street, even though insurers are still quite profitable.

Driving the news: Almost all of the eight major publicly traded insurers have shown their medical loss ratio — the percentage of premium revenues they’re spending on medical claims — is rising this year.

  • UnitedHealth Group, the largest insurer in the country, said its loss ratio was 82.4% in the third quarter this year compared with 81% in the same period a year ago.
  • But these companies are handling billions of premium dollars, so any increase in medical claims equates to hundreds of millions of dollars in additional spending, which they don’t want.

Between the lines: Medical loss ratios are often higher for health plans that cover more older adults, the disabled and the poor, because those groups typically need more care or are in the hospital more frequently.

But costs have been climbing in some commercial markets, too.

  • Anthem executives admitted on their earnings call that the company is dumping some employers with workers who had medical needs and costs that were too high.
  • CVS Health, which now owns Aetna, previously said some middle-market clients had employees that it thought were getting too many services and drugs.
  • CVS “intensified our medical management in those geographies,” an executive said on the earnings call.

The bottom line: Health insurance companies closely track their medical loss ratios and aim to hit those targets most often by charging higher premiums, denying care, forcing people to use lower-priced providers or declining to cover people they deem to be too expensive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Execs flirt with ‘Medicare for All’ at HLTH19

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/execs-flirt-with-medicare-for-all-at-hlth19-despite-trump-admin-warnings/566373/

Despite Trump administration warnings about “Medicare for All” and other expansions of public coverage upending the private market, some executives at HLTH last week seemed more agnostic about the Democrat-backed plans, some of which would eliminate private insurance altogether.

​”It’s a symptom of a pricing issue, and a rate issue,” Vivek Garpialli, CEO of Medicare Advantage plan provider Clover Health, said. “Until we see a better idea, it’s actually not a bad framework to have a debate around and, unless a better one comes along in the next three, five, 10 years, it probably is inevitable.”

Democratic candidates hoping to take on incumbent President Donald Trump in 2020 are pitching a slate of proposals to give the current healthcare system a major facelift. Former Vice President Joe Biden endorses a public option and bolstering the Affordable Care Act, while Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., are stumping for a Medicare for All-type system that would terminate private insurance.

The debate itself is a “good example of the fact that the status quo needs to change,” Tom Richards, global strategy and business development leader at Cigna, told Healthcare Dive.

Many healthcare tech startups have configured their products to be compatible within multiple platforms or companies, including myriad providers, Medicare, insurance on the ACA exchanges or employer-based coverage, so the payer platform doesn’t matter as much to them — or their margins.

“So long as innovation is maintained, I think it could go either way,” Pranay Kapadia, CEO of voice-enabled digital assistant startup Notable, said.

But executives, even on the startup side, seemed leery about the uncertainty Medicare for All would inject into the system.

“At the end of the day, the government is already unable to fully fund its obligations, from Social Security, to Medicare, to Medicaid,” Ali Diab, CEO of employer-sponsored insurance startup Collective Health, said.

“Unless someone proposes a means to actually fund it that’s credible, I just don’t see a way for the government to take on more of the financial burden,” he said, though he clarified he didn’t have an opinion on the politics either way.

Moving to some form of a nationalized healthcare system could drag down profit margins across the industry (especially for payers). Cost estimates for the plans vary in the tens of trillions, from Sanders’ $33 trillion to Warren’s $52 trillion, both spread out over a decade.

Democratic backers say Medicare for All will drive down overall costs in the long run, despite hiking federal spending. Warren, who released her plan Friday, pledged there would be no middle-class tax increases and that Americans’ pocketbooks would be helped overall due to the elimination of premiums and other out-of-pocket costs.

But industry isn’t so sure the government could implement such a sweeping plan, even if it wanted to.

“I just don’t see the legislators getting their act together to make this happen and, frankly, I don’t want to wait for them,” Marijka Grey, executive leader for transformation implementation at 150-hospital CommonSpirit Health, said.

At HLTH, Trump administration officials kept up their drumbeat of criticism of the idea.

It would “hand the reins to government bureaucrats to fix all our problems” and is marked by an “unwarranted confidence in government central planners,” CMS Administrator Seema Verma said, while White House policy official and ex-pharma lobbyist Joe Grogan said Democrats “cannot accept no one is smart enough to design a healthcare system for all Americans.”

Few Democrats have released comprehensive healthcare proposals, though 11 of the remaining 16 candidates support some version of single-payer healthcare.

“Quite frankly, branding-wise it’s not horrible,” Adam Boehler, the former head of CMS’ innovation center, said. “In my opinion, it’s the content versus the brand in terms of whether something will work or not.”​

 

 

 

 

Number of Uninsured Children Increases by 400,000

https://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2019/10/30/Number-Uninsured-Children-Increases-400000

A new report from the Georgetown University Health Policy Institute says the number of uninsured children in the U.S. increased by more than 400,000 between 2016 and 2018.

Some key findings from the report:

  • The number of uninsured children rose above 4 million by the end of 2018.
  • Insurance coverage losses are concentrated in 15 states — Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia,
  • Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia.
  • States that have not expanded Medicaid, as allowed by the Affordable Care Act, have seen much larger increases in uninsured rates.
  • Children in non-expansion states are nearly twice as likely to be uninsured compared to states that have expanded Medicaid.
  • White and Latino children saw the largest increases in the uninsured rate.
  • Households with low to moderate income – $29,000 to $53,000 per year for a family of three – were the hardest hit.

The report’s authors said it’s no coincidence that the increases in the number of uninsured children have occurred since President Trump took office in 2017.

“This serious erosion of child health coverage is likely due in large part to the Trump Administration’s actions that have made health coverage harder to access and have deterred families from enrolling their eligible children in Medicaid and CHIP,” they wrote in their conclusion. “These actions include attempting to repeal the ACA and deeply cut Medicaid, cutting outreach and advertising funds, encouraging states to put up more red tape barriers that make it harder for families to enroll or renew their eligible children in Medicaid or CHIP (or ignoring it when they do), eliminating the ACA’s individual mandate penalty, and creating a pervasive climate of fear and confusion for immigrant families.”

 

 

 

 

More choices and stable premiums for ‘Obamacare’ next year

https://apnews.com/2843740a7cb84d8f8e0df0307abe5dde

Image result for More choices and stable premiums for ‘Obamacare’ next year

Consumers will have more health insurance choices next year under the much-debated Obama health care law and premiums will dip slightly for many, the Trump administration announced Tuesday.

President Donald Trump was elected on a promise to repeal “Obamacare.” But despite his repeated efforts the program has stabilized three years into his administration. That may be short-lived.

The administration is asking a federal appeals court in New Orleans to overturn the entire Affordable Care Act as unconstitutional, an overhang of uncertainty clouding its future.

For now, the Department of Health and Human Services is touting a second consecutive year of positive-sounding numbers. An additional 20 insurers will participate for 2020, expanding consumer choice in many states, officials said. Nearly 70 percent of customers will have three or more insurers from which to pick a plan.

About 10 million people are covered through the health law’s insurance markets, which offer taxpayer-subsidized private plans for people who aren’t covered on the job. Former President Barack Obama’s namesake law will be 10 years old next year.

Premiums for a hypothetical 27-year-old choosing a standard plan will decline 4% on average in 2020 for states served by the federal HealthCare.gov website, the Trump administration said. About a dozen states run their own sign-up websites, but most rely on HealthCare.gov.

A low-cost midrange plan for that hypothetical 27-year-old will charge monthly premiums of $374 next year, officials said. The law’s income-based subsidies can drop that to around $50.

However, people who don’t qualify for income-based assistance must pay full price, and that’s before any deductibles and copays. Unsubsidized customers may just decide to go uninsured, particularly if they’re healthy.

A previous Republican Congress repealed the law’s unpopular penalty to get more people signed up — fines for going without coverage.

Six states will see premiums decline by 10% or more, officials said. They are Delaware, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma and Utah.

Three states — Indiana, Louisiana and New Jersey — will see premiums increase 10% or more.

Even as it pursues “Obamacare’s” demise in the courts, the Trump administration is trying to take credit for the program’s current stability.

“Until Congress gets around to replacing it, the president will do what he can to fix the problems created by this system for millions of Americans,” HHS Secretary Alex Azar said. “The president who was supposedly trying to sabotage this law has been better at running it than the guy who wrote it.”

Independent experts say it’s more complicated than that.

They credit the Trump administration for working with a dozen states to approve waivers that can bring down premiums by setting up a backstop system to pay bills from the costliest patients.

However, experts say the original design of the law’s subsidies is probably the major stabilizing force. People eligible for financial assistance are insulated from price spikes because they pay only a fixed percentage of their income. Because their own costs didn’t change much, customers with subsidies kept coming back to the market through years of double-digit increases in list-price premiums.

“As long as the subsidies are in place the changes that are happening … are not going to push this market off a cliff,” Standard & Poor’s director and lead analyst Deep Banerjee said.

Experts say yet another factor is that insurers that have stuck with the program have learned over time how to operate profitably.

Although the program is stable, enrollment has been slowly eroding since Trump took office, from 12.2 million in 2017 to 11.4 million this year. The slippage has come mainly in the HealthCare.gov states, where the federal government runs sign-up season. Slashing the ad budget was one of the Trump administration’s early actions.

The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office has recommended that the administration follow standard federal practices by setting sign-up goals and actively managing the program to meet enrollment targets. Seema Verma, head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said the administration doesn’t believe such targets are needed and instead her agency has focused on keeping the HealthCare.gov website running smoothly and improving the enrollment experience for customers.

Verma also disclosed that the administration has made some “minor” changes in how it reports data about the program. While those tweaks appear to be in the weeds, they’re likely to get close attention from Democrats who accuse Trump of “sabotage” of the health law.

Sign-up season starts Nov. 1 in most states and runs through Dec. 15. States that run their own open enrollment may have different dates. Coverage starts Jan. 1.

The appeals court in New Orleans could issue its ruling during this time, but Azar said he’s not concerned even if the judges say the whole program should be tossed.

“Our messaging would be to keep calm and carry on,” he said, noting that the case is expected to go to the Supreme Court. “There will be no immediate disruption to anyone.”

 

 

Advocates submit signatures to get Medicaid expansion on Oklahoma ballot in 2020

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/467382-advocates-submit-signatures-to-get-medicaid-expansion-on-oklahoma-ballot-in

Advocates submit signatures to get Medicaid expansion on Oklahoma ballot in 2020

Supporters of Medicaid expansion in Oklahoma said they submitted more than enough signatures on Thursday to get the measure on the ballot in 2020.

The “Yes on 802” campaign said it submitted more than 313,000 signatures, far more than the roughly 178,000 it needed, to qualify to get Medicaid expansion on the ballot in Oklahoma next year. 

Campaign manager Amber England said in a statement that her group had “a mandate from a record-breaking number of Oklahoma voters who want the chance to bring more than a billion of our tax dollars home from Washington every single year to deliver healthcare to our neighbors, keep our rural hospitals open, and boost our economy.”

Oklahoma is one 14 GOP-controlled states that have not accepted the expansion of Medicaid under ObamaCare. Republicans have traditionally raised concerns about the cost of the program. 

More states have been expanding recently, however. Utah, Idaho and Nebraska voters approved ballot measures approving Medicaid expansion in last year’s elections. 

The Yes on 802 campaign estimates almost 200,000 people in Oklahoma would gain coverage if expansion were adopted in next year’s election.

The Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, a conservative think tank in the state, has vowed an opposition effort.

“There will obviously be significant opposition once it gets to the campaign stage,” the group’s president, Jonathan Small, told The Oklahoman earlier this month.

 

 

 

Feds owe health insurers $1.6 billion in unpaid subsidies, judge rules

https://www.modernhealthcare.com/legal/feds-owe-health-insurers-16-billion-unpaid-subsidies-judge-rules

Image result for Feds owe health insurers $1.6 billion in unpaid subsidies

A federal judge this week ordered HHS to pay about 100 health insurance plans a total of $1.6 billion in unpaid subsidies.

While the federal government will likely appeal the case, the judgment illustrates the sheer magnitude of the funds the Trump administration could be forced to pay.

The insurers are part of a class action brought by Wisconsin-based Common Ground Healthcare Cooperative, which challenged the federal government’s failure to pay cost-sharing reduction subsidies that were intended to lower healthcare costs for certain people who bought coverage on the Affordable Care Act exchanges.

The amounts owed to each insurer range from tens of thousands to hundreds of millions of dollars. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan is owed the largest amount—$220.3 million for 2017 and 2018 across its plans in several states, according to Modern Healthcare’s analysis of damages outlined in the order.

The federal government owes $159 million to Blue Shield of California and $132.1 million to Blue Cross and Blue Shield of South Carolina to make up for the unpaid cost-sharing reduction subsidies. Utah-based SelectHealth, Dayton, Ohio-based CareSource and Oscar Health, headquartered in New York, are also owed some of the largest amounts.

Judge Margaret Sweeney in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in February 2019 ruled in favor of Common Ground and other insurers that brought similar lawsuits, finding that the government violated its obligation to pay the cost-sharing reduction subsidies when the Trump administration abruptly cut them off at the end of 2017. The government argued that Congress never appropriated the payments.

Insurers responded by hiking premiums to make up for the absence of those subsidies. Because of the way ACA premium tax credits are structured, the federal government ended up paying higher premium tax credits as a result.

But Sweeney said the lack of an appropriation and the insurers’ strategy for mitigating the loss of the cost-sharing reduction subsidies by hiking premiums doesn’t get rid of the government’s liability. Sweeney ordered the insurers to file a report indicating the amounts they each were owed for 2017 and 2018 and entered judgment on the claims on Tuesday.

Katie Keith, a health law professor at Georgetown University and ACA expert, said the judgment, while big, is less than the $2.4 billion that insurers initially estimated they were owed.

Nicholas Bagley, law professor at the University of Michigan Law School, said the government will likely appeal now that a judgment has been entered; the merits of that appeal will likely be resolved by some consolidated cases related to the cost-sharing reduction payments already pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which has not yet set a date for oral arguments.