Five takeaways on the Supreme Court’s Obamacare decision

Obamacare Returns as Galvanizing Issue After Ginsburg Death and Barrett  Nomination - The New York Times

In what has become something of a Washington tradition, the Supreme Court again upheld the Affordable Care Act on Thursday, in the third major case from Republican challengers to reach the high court. 

The margin this time was larger, 7-2, as the High Court appears less and less interested in revisiting the health care law through the judiciary. 

Democrats hailed the ruling as a boost to their signature law, and Republicans were left to figure out a path forward on health care amid another defeat. 

Here are five takeaways:

This could be the last gasp of repeal efforts

It is impossible to ever fully rule out another lawsuit challenging the health law or another repeal push if Republicans win back Congress. 

But after more than 10 years of fighting the Affordable Care Act, GOP efforts at fighting the law are seriously deflated, as many Republicans themselves acknowledge. 

“It’s been my public view for some time that the Affordable Care Act is largely baked into the health care system in a way that it’s unlikely to change or be eliminated,” said Sen. Roy Blunt (Mo.), a member of Senate GOP leadership. 

Asked if he still wanted to repeal and replace the law, which was the GOP rallying cry for years, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said instead, “I think I want to make sure it works,” before attacking former President Obama’s promises about the law’s benefits. 

Even Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who helped bring the lawsuit against the health law as attorney general of Missouri, said Thursday that the Supreme Court had made clear “they’re not going to entertain a constitutional challenge to the ACA.”

Supporters of the law said it is now even more entrenched, despite years of GOP attacks

“The war appears to be over and the Affordable Care Act has won,” said Stan Dorn, senior fellow at the health care advocacy group Families USA. 

Still, not all Republicans are throwing in the towel on at least verbally attacking the law. 

“The ruling does not change the fact that Obamacare failed to meet its promises and is hurting hard-working American families,” said House GOP leaders Kevin McCarthy (Calif.), Steve Scalise (La.) and Elise Stefanik (N.Y.). 

And there is at least one ACA-related lawsuit still working its way through the lower courts. Kelley v. Becerra challenges provisions of the health law around insurance plans covering preventive care including birth control.

The Supreme Court was fairly united 

The margin of victory for the health law was fairly large, with even more conservative justices such as Clarence ThomasAmy Coney BarrettBrett Kavanaugh and John Roberts ruling to uphold the law, joining the opinion from liberal Justice Stephen Breyer

The court’s other two liberals, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, also joined the majority of seven. Two conservatives, Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, dissented and would have struck down the law. 

Through the three major Supreme Court cases on ObamaCare, the margin of victory has risen from 5-4 to 6-3 to 7-2. 

“There’s a real message there about the Supreme Court’s willingness to tolerate these kinds of lawsuits,” Andy Pincus, a visiting lecturer at Yale Law School, said of the growing margin of victory. 

The case was decided on fairly technical grounds. The Court ruled that the challengers did not have standing to sue, given that the penalty for not having health insurance at the center of the case had been reduced to zero, so it was not causing any actual harm that could be the basis for a lawsuit. 

Republicans did get some vindication in that Democrats had fiercely attacked Barrett during her confirmation hearings for being a vote to overturn the health law, when in fact she ended up voting to maintain the law. 

The ACA is stabilizing

The early years of the Affordable Care Act were marked with the turbulence of a website that failed at launch, premium increases, and major insurers dropping out of the markets given financial losses. 

Now, though, the markets are far more stable. For example, 78 percent of ACA enrollees now have the choice of three or more insurers, up from 57 percent in 2017, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. 

Democrats, now in control of the House, Senate and White House, were able to pass earlier this year expansions of the law’s financial assistance to help further bring down premium costs. 

The Biden administration announced earlier this month that a record 31 million people were covered under the ACA, including both the private insurance marketplaces and the expansion of Medicaid. 

“We are no longer in the Affordable Care Act, ‘How’s it going to go? Is it going to survive?’ mode,” said Frederick Isasi, executive director of Families USA. “We really are in a whole new phase. It really is: ‘How do we improve it?’”

Republicans face questions on their health care message

The Republican health care message for years was summed up with the simple slogan “repeal and replace.

But now those efforts have failed in Congress, in 2017, and have failed for a third time in the courts. 

That leaves uncertainty about what the Republican health care message is. The party has famously struggled to unite around an alternative to the ACA, so there is no consensus alternative for the party to turn to. 

The statement from McCarthy, Scalise, and Stefanik calling the ACA “failed,” shows that party leaders are not fully ready to accept the law.

The leaders added that “House Republicans are committed to actually lowering health care costs,” which has been a possible area for the party to focus that is not simply about repealing the ACA. 

But any discussion of health care costs is fraught with complications. Republicans, for example, overwhelmingly oppose House Democrats’ legislation to allow the government to negotiate lower drug prices, arguing it would harm innovation from the pharmaceutical industry. 

Grassley reached a bipartisan deal on somewhat less sweeping drug pricing legislation with Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) in 2019, but that bill went too far for many Republicans as well. 

Democrats want to go farther, but face an uphill climb

With the ACA further entrenched, and control of the House, Senate and White House, Democrats are looking at ways to build on the health law. 

The main health care proposal from the presidential campaign, a government-run “public option” for health insurance, has faded from the conversation and is not expected to be a part of a major legislative package on infrastructure and other priorities Democrats are pushing for this year. 

While the health care industry has largely made its peace with the ACA, pushing for a public option or lowering health care costs means taking on a fight with powerful industry groups. 

Progressives like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) have instead poured their energy into expanding Medicare benefits to include dental, vision, and hearing coverage, and lowering the eligibility age to 60. 

Allowing the government to negotiate lower drug prices also could make it into the package.

“Now, we’re going to try to make it bigger and better — establish, once and for all, affordable health care as a basic right of every American citizen,” said Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (N.Y.). “What a day.”

MedPAC: Overhaul MA payments and streamline CMMI models

Two influential advisory groups sent recommendations to Congress calling for a revamp of how health plans are paid in the lucrative Medicare Advantage program, culling how many models CMS tests and curbing high-cost drug approvals.

By many measures, the MA program has been thriving. Enrollment and participation has continued to grow, and in 2021, MA plans’ bids to provide the Medicare benefit declined to a record low: Just 87% of comparable fee-for-service spending in their markets.

But despite that relative efficiency, MA contracting isn’t saving Medicare moneyactually, in the 35 years Medicare managed care has been active, it’s never resulted in net savings for the cash-strapped program, James Mathews, executive director of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, told reporters in a Tuesday briefing.

MedPAC estimates Medicare actually spends 4% more per capita for beneficiaries in MA plans than those in FFS under the existing benchmark policy.

To save money, Medicare could change how the benchmark, the maximum payment amount for plans, is adjusted for geographic variation, MedPAC said.

Under current policy, Medicare pays MA plans more if they cover an area with lower FFS spending, despite most plans bidding below FFS in these areas. At the same time, plans in areas where FFS spending is higher bid at a lower level relative to their benchmark, and wind up getting higher rebates — the difference between the bid and the benchmark — as a result.

“Because the rebate dollars must be used to provide extra benefits, large rebates result in plans offering a disproportionate level of extra benefits,” MedPAC wrote in its annual report to Congress. “Moreover, as MA rebates increase, a smaller share of those rebates is used for cost-sharing and premium reductions — benefits that have more transparent value and provide an affordable alternative to Medigap coverage.”

The group recommended rebalancing the MA benchmark policy to use a relatively equal blend of per-capita FFS spending in a local area and standardized national FFS spending, which would reduce variation in local benchmarks, and use a rebate of at least 75%. Currently, a plan’s rebate depends on its star rating, and ranges from 65% to 70%.

MedPAC also suggested a discount rate of at least 2% to reduce local and national blended spending amounts.

The group’s simulations suggest the changes would have minimal impact on plan participation or MA enrollees, but could lead to savings in Medicare of about 2 percentage points, relative to current policy.

Finding savings in Medicare, even small ones, is integral for the program’s future, policy experts say. The Congressional Budget Office expects the trust fund that finances Medicare’s hospital benefit will become insolvent by 2024, as — despite perennial warnings from watchdogs and budget hawks — lawmakers have kicked the can on the insurance program’s snowballing deficit for years.

Fewer and more targeted alternative payment models

MedPAC also recommended CMS streamline its portfolio of alternative payment models, implementing a smaller and more targeted suite of the temporary demonstrations designed to work together.

CMS is already undergoing a review of the models, meant to inject more value into healthcare payments, following calls from legislators for more oversight in the program. The agency doesn’t have the most stellar track record: Of the 54 models its Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation has trialed since it was launched a decade ago, just four have been permanently encoded in Medicare.

New CMMI head Elizabeth Fowler said earlier this month the agency will likely enact more mandatory models to force the shift toward value, as the ongoing review has resulted in more conscious choices about where it should invest.

In its report, MedPAC pointed out many of CMMI’s models generated gross savings for Medicare, before performance bonuses to providers were shelled out. That suggests the models have the power to change provider practice patterns, but their effects are tricky to measure. Many providers are in multiple models at once, and the same beneficiaries can be shared across models, too.

Additionally, some models set up conflicting incentives. Mathews gave the example of accountable care organizations participating in one model to reduce spending on behalf of an assigned population relative to a benchmark, but its provider participants could also be in certain bundled models with incentives to keep the cost of care per episode low — but not reduce the overall number of episodes themselves.

“The risk of these kinds of inconsistent incentives would be minimized again if the models were developed in a manner where they would work together at the outset,” Mathews said. MedPAC doesn’t have guidance on a specific target number of alternative models, but said it should be a smaller and more strategic number.

Curbing high-cost drugs in Medicaid

Another advisory board, on the Medicaid safety-net insurance program, also released its annual report on Tuesday, recommending Congress mitigate the effect of pricey specialty drugs on state Medicaid programs.

High-cost specialty drugs are increasingly driving Medicaid spending and creating financial pressure on states. The Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission (MACPAC) didn’t recommend Congress change the requirement that Medicaid cover the drugs, but recommended legislators look into increasing the minimum rebate percentage on drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration through the accelerated approval pathway, until the clinical benefit of the drugs is verified.

The accelerated approval pathway, which can be used for a drug for a serious or life-threatening illness that provides a therapeutic advantage over existing treatments, allows drugs to come to market more quickly. States have aired concerns about paying high list prices for such drugs when they don’t have a verified clinical benefit.

That pathway has faced growing scrutiny in recent days in the wake of the FDA’s high-profile and controversial approval of Biogen’s aducanumab for Alzheimer’s disease.

Several advisors to the FDA have resigned over the decision, as it’s unclear if aducanumab actually has a clinical benefit. What aducanumab does have is an estimated price tag of $56,000 a year, which could place severe stress on taxpayer-funded insurance programs like Medicare and Medicaid if widely prescribed.

MEDPAC also recommended an increase in the additional inflationary rebate on drugs that receive approval from the FDA under the accelerated approval pathway if the manufacturer hasn’t completed the postmarketing confirmatory trial after a specified number of years. Once a drug receives traditional approval, the inflationary rebate would revert back to the standard amounts.

The recommendations would only apply to the price Medicaid pays for the drug and doesn’t change the program’s obligation to cover it.

Supreme Court upholds ACA in 7-2 decision, leaving intact landmark US health law during pandemic

The Supreme Court on Thursday issued an opinion upholding the Affordable Care Act by a 7-2 vote, allowing millions to keep their insurance coverage amid the coronavirus pandemic.

In the decision, the court reversed a lower court ruling finding the individual mandate unconstitutional. However, the court did not get to the key question of whether the individual mandate is severable from the rest of the law. Instead, the court held the plaintiffs do not have standing in the case, or a legal right to bring the suit.

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the opinion while Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch filed dissenting opinions.

Breyer wrote that a court must address a plaintiffs’ injuries. But Breyer found there were no injuries, so he asked: “What is that relief? The plaintiffs did not obtain damages.” Breyer added, “There is no one, and nothing, to enjoin.”

A wide swath of industry cheered Thursday’s news.

The American Medical Association called it a victory for patients, so too did America’s Essential Hospitals, a safety net trade group that called it a win. The American Hospital Association said the more than 30 million of Americans who obtained coverage from the law can “breathe a sigh of relief.”

Millions of Americans gained health insurance coverage as a result of the Affordable Care Act, President Barack Obama’s landmark law passed in 2010 and reshaped virtually every corner of American healthcare. The latest challenge threatened to undo coverage gains under the law that helped drive down the uninsured rate to a record low.

Proponents feared the law was in greater jeopardy following the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, part of the court’s liberal wing, which shrunk to just three of a total of nine justices without her.

Those fears now seem to be overblown. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the courts liberals in upholding the law, as did two of President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court picks, Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

In a rare move, Trump’s DOJ declined to defend the ACA, when the challenge was brought by a group of red states and two men with marketplace plans. Former California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, now HHS secretary, led a group of blue states to defend the law in federal court. 

Recap of the controversial case

The case centers on the individual mandate, the part of the law that compelled Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a fee. The framers of the ACA believed the mandate would help drive healthy people to ensure they weren’t just filled with sick people, risking higher costs and adverse selection for insurers.

Congress effectively killed the mandate in 2017 by setting the penalty to $0.

The plaintiffs’ legal argument was strategic. They directly targeted the linchpin that saved the law in 2012. The Supreme Court largely upheld the ACA in 2012 when it ruled the mandate could be considered a tax and therefore was constitutional. Roberts infuriated conservatives by siding with liberals in that case.

Take that penalty away, by zeroing it out, and the plaintiffs argue the law is no longer constitutional because it can no longer be considered a tax if no money is collected

The key question before the Supreme Court was whether they could simply pluck the individual mandate from the remainder of the monumental health law, throw the entire law out or find some middle ground. 

The plaintiffs have argued that the individual mandate is so intertwined and closely linked to the rest of the law that the entire piece of legislation must fall if the individual mandate is ruled unconstitutional.

Before arriving at the Supreme Courta lower court ruled in 2019 the mandate was unconstitutional but sent back the key question of whether the mandate could be extracted from the remainder of the law back to the district court. The federal appeals court ruling by a three-judge panel came down along party lines: two Republicans and one Democrat.     

A question of standing

Some legal experts have criticized the challenge because the individual plaintiffs, two Texas men, no longer face any financial penalty if they were to forgo coverage. SCOTUS’ ruling agrees with that logic.

The two men joined the case originally brought by a group of red states. Legal experts said it would have been harder for the group of red states to prove an injury than the two men, John Nantz and Neill Hurley.    

The court seemed skeptical of whether the plaintiffs had standing to bring the case during oral arguments in November. Justices spent a large portion of the two-hour hearing on the topic. 

The word standing was mentioned at least 59 times, according to the court’s transcript of the hearing, outnumbering other key words such as severability, another important legal concept in the case. 

In one now-telling exchange from oral arguments, Gorsuch seemed confused over the premise of the challenge to begin with: “I guess I’m a little unclear who exactly they want me to enjoin and what exactly do they want me to enjoin them from doing?”

Supreme Court upholds Affordable Care Act

https://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/supreme-court-upholds-affordable-care-act

The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act in a decision released this morning. 

The Republican state plaintiffs, led by Texas, have failed to show they have standing to attack as unconstitutional the ACA’s minimum essential coverage provision, the justices said. 

“Therefore, we reverse the Fifth Circuit’s judgment in respect to standing, vacate the judgment, and remand the case with instructions to dismiss,” they said.

Justice Stephen Breyer delivered the majority opinion, in which Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett joined. 

Justice Samuel Alito filed the dissenting opinion in which Judge Neil Gorsuch joined. 

Medicaid insurers at heart of Nevada public option plan

Nevada Plans To Launch Their “Public Option” Medical Coverage By 2026 – Dr.  Daliah

The state will bid out the business to private insurance carriers instead of doing the work in-house. Medicaid managed care organizations will be required to submit a bid.

Nevada’s plan to launch a public option health plan hinges on participation from the state’s Medicaid managed care organizations.

After passing both houses of the legislature, Democratic Gov. Steve Sisolak told reporters Tuesday he will sign the bill that will likely crown Nevada as the second state to pass a public option — a government-run plan that promises to lower premiums and increase access to care by creating an additional insurance option for residents.

To achieve its aims, Nevada’s public option plan requires premiums to be 5% lower than the benchmark silver Affordable Care Act plan in each ZIP code and, ultimately, premiums must be reduced by 15% over a four-year period. At the same time, reimbursement to providers must not go below Medicare rates.

Coverage under the public option would begin in 2026. The bill is just the beginning of a process in which Nevada will seek a waiver from the federal government to enact the public option plan. In short, the state is asking to capture the savings it may generate for the federal government.

Similar to other public health programs, the state of Nevada will bid out the public option business to insurance carriers instead of doing the work in-house. The state will rely heavily on Medicaid managed care organizations, at least at first, as it tries to spur participation.

“As a condition of continued participation in any Medicaid managed care program,” Medicaid MCOs will be forced to offer a public option plan if they want a Medicaid contract with the state, according to the bill sponsored by a Democratic state senator and Nevada’s majority leader, Nicole Cannizzaro, which passed the body earlier this week.

The bill says Medicaid MCOs must submit a “good faith proposal,” in response to an eventual RFP.

Sabrina Corlette, a research professor at Georgetown’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms, said she “assumed they wanted a guaranteed pool of potential bidders for the public option. Maybe they were afraid that if they didn’t require some bidders, they might not get any.”

Currently, there are three Medicaid MCOs in the state of Nevada: Centene, UnitedHealthcare and Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield.

None of the companies responded to a request for comment.

The Nevada bill comes at a time when there is a renewed interest at the federal level for a public option plan, and a push from a handful of other states interested in creating an affordable health plan option for residents who have found themselves ineligible for Medicaid but unable to afford a marketplace plan.

Washington was the first state to implement a public option plan, which went live this year. 

President Joe Biden is a proponent of a public option plan — instead of “Medicare for All” — as it would build on the ACA, a law he helped usher in under former President Barack Obama, instead of dismantle it.

The insurance lobby is strongly opposed to a public option and previously expressed concern over Nevada’s plan via an opposition letter dated May 3 and addressed to Cannizzaro and the state’s Health and Human Services Committee.

AHIP, America’s Health Insurance Plans, took aim at the way in which the bill requires premiums for the public option plan to be lower than certain competitive plans on the exchange. AHIP characterized it as arbitrary “government rate setting.”

The tactic of prodding insurers into offering a separate business line in a specific state is not new.

The exchanges, launched under the ACA, relied on insurers to voluntarily sell plans to a relatively new market. At times, some counties were at risk of having no exchange plan at all. Some states tried to alleviate this problem by creating incentives for Medicaid MCOs if they also offered an exchange plan.

In a more extreme example, New York banned insurers from providing plans to any other program, including Medicaid, if they exited the exchange, according to a 2017 executive order from Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

Over time, the exchanges have become a core business for Medicaid MCOs.

Selling exchange plans is a complementary business for Medicaid MCOs that traditionally contract with states to care for Medicaid-eligible members. By selling exchange plans, Medicaid MCOs attempt to attract the Medicaid members they were serving as they churn off the program as their income fluctuates. It’s a key strategy for players like Centene.

However, if they’re forced to participate in the public option plan they will have to undercut their own premium prices on the exchange.

In Nevada, UnitedHealthcare and Centene command the largest market share on the exchange, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

ACLA appeals dismissal of PAMA lawsuit, pushes legislative fixes

Dive Brief:

  • A trade group representing LabCorp and Quest Diagnostics has appealed the dismissal of its lawsuit challenging the implementation of the Protecting Access to Medicare Act, which sets laboratory payment rates according to market data reported by industry.
  • Federal district courts have previously dismissed the lawsuit, most recently in March, but the American Clinical Laboratory Association continues to argue that PAMA is a case of “harmful regulatory overreach” that forces an “unsustainable reimbursement model” on its members.
  • ACLA is targeting PAMA through the courts while continuing to push for Congress to change the law. The trade group said that, regardless of the outcome of the appeal, a legislative solution is needed to a law it argues has led to artificially low Medicare rates.

Dive Insight:+

ACLA began its legal case against the implementation of PAMA late in 2017, weeks after the release of the final private payer rate-based clinical laboratory fee schedule. As ACLA sees it, HHS diverged from PAMA directives by exempting “significant categories and large numbers of laboratories” from reporting market data, meaning “Medicare rates will not be consistent with market-based rates.”

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the case on the grounds that ruling on the establishment of PAMA payment amounts was barred by the statute. ACLA successfully appealed that ruling in 2019. However, the lower court again dismissed the case in late March.

The trade group said the court relied “on the same conclusions that the D.C. Circuit [appeals court] rejected.” The court ruling said the case was dismissed “for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”

ACLA’s filing of a notice of appeal restarts a process that could take months to play out. The last time the trade group appealed, there was a nine-month wait between the submission of a notice and the delivery of the opinion of the court.

While preparing its opening brief and then waiting on the decision of the appeals court, ACLA will try to tackle PAMA from another angle.

“ACLA will continue to work with policymakers to establish a Medicare Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule that is truly representative of the market and supports continued innovation and access to vital laboratory services, as Congress originally intended,” Julie Khani, president of ACLA, said in a statement.

Congress has already delayed the next set of fee cuts until 2022. ACLA said the cuts will reduce rates for certain tests used to diagnose chronic diseases by 15%, potentially threatening access to testing. Rates were previously cut in 2018, 2019 and 2020.

Talking to investors in April, LabCorp CEO Adam Schechter said he expects the 2022 impact to “be about the same as it was in 2019, around the $100 million mark.”

UnitedHealthcare to crack down on ER visits, potentially exposing patients to bigger bills

TeeMichelle on Twitter: "UnitedHealthcare to crack down on ER visits, potentially  exposing patients to bigger bills | Healthcare Dive https://t.co/bLNYAczNjB  #SmartNews"

Dive Brief:

  • The nation’s largest commercial insurer is taking a closer look at whether visits to the emergency room by some of its members are necessary. Starting July 1, UnitedHealthcare will evaluate ER claims using a number of factors to determine if the visit was truly an emergency for its fully insured commercial members across many states, according to a provider bulletin
  • If UnitedHealthcare finds the visit was a non-emergency, the visit will be “subject to no coverage or limited coverage,” the provider alert states.
  • However, a statement provided to Healthcare Dive said the insurer will reimburse for non-emergency care according to the member’s benefit plan. In other words, the amount paid by UnitedHealthcare may be less if deemed a non-emergency.    

Dive Insight:

Patients seeking out the pricey ER setting for minor illnesses that could have been treated elsewhere has been a perennial issue for the healthcare industry. Misuse of the nation’s emergency departments for minor ailments costs the nation’s healthcare system $32 billion a year, according to a previous report from UnitedHealth Group, the parent firm of UnitedHealthcare.

Providers worry such policies will lead to a chilling effect, causing patients to hesitate even in a true emergency such as a heart attack or stroke. Some of those concerns about the effects on patients were aired on Twitter this week after the provider bulletin became public. 

UnitedHealthcare’s policy contains exclusions, including observation stays, visits by children under the age of two and admissions from the ER.  It’s not clear precisely how many patients will be impacted but UnitedHealthcare had a total of 26.2 million commercial members at the end of 2020.

The insurer said this is an attempt to ensure healthcare is more affordable. To curb costs, they want patients to seek out treatment in a more “appropriate setting” like an urgent care facility. 

Other major insurers have enacted similar policies in the past and faced pushback from the public and providers.

Anthem in recent years has also enacted policies that put patients on the hook for the ER bill if they sought care that didn’t warrant a trip to the ER. The policy also attracted scrutiny from then Senator Claire McCaskill, a Missouri Democrat, who requested Anthem turn over internal documents over the policy and the Blues player ultimately scaled back some of its policies amid pushback from doctors and others.

Providers have argued these policies collide with federal law that require emergency rooms to treat any patient that shows up, regardless of their ability to pay.

UnitedHealthcare does have a process in place for those to contest a visit that was deemed a non-emergency.

1 in 3 Americans skip care due to cost concerns, survey shows

Americans most likely to skip health care due to cost: survey

In the past year, cost was a bigger factor driving Americans to skip recommended healthcare than fear of contracting COVID-19, according to a report released June 1 by Patientco, a revenue cycle management company focusing on patient payment technology.

Patientco surveyed 3,116 patients and 46 healthcare providers, finding 34 percent of female patients and 30 percent of male patients have avoided care in the past year citing concerns about out-of-pocket costs.

Below are three more notable findings from the report:

  1. Healthcare affordability is not an issue that affects only Americans with low incomes, as 85 percent of patients with household incomes greater than $175,000 are less likely to defer care when flexible payment options are offered.
  2. Across all ages, income levels and education levels, most patients said they struggled to understand their medical bills and what they owed. Nearly two-thirds of patients said they did not understand their explanation of benefits, did not know what they should do with the information in their explanation of benefits, or waited too long to obtain their explanation of benefits.
  3. Forty-five percent of patients said they would need financial assistance for medical bills that exceed $500, and 66 percent of patients said the same for medical bills that exceed $1,000.

Supreme Court’s ACA ruling looms

Some States Make Obamacare Backup Plans, As Supreme Court Decision Looms :  Shots - Health News : NPR

The U.S. Supreme Court is heading into the last month of its current term with one major healthcare case, the move to invalidate the ACA, yet to be decided, The New York Times reported June 1. 

A coalition of Republican-leaning states, led by Texas, have asked the court to strike down the ACA, signed into law in 2010. The states argue that the entire ACA is invalid because, in December 2017, Congress eliminated the law’s tax penalty for failing to purchase health insurance. The states argue that the individual mandate requiring Americans to gain health insurance or pay a penalty is inseparable from the rest of the law and became unconstitutional when the tax penalty was eliminated.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case in November, and at least five Supreme Court justices indicated support for not striking down the entire ACA.

The court is expected to rule on the matter before its nine-month term ends at the end of June, Reuters reported.