President Trump releases his budget and suffers a loss in court

https://mailchi.mp/0ee433170414/the-weekly-gist-february-14-2020?e=d1e747d2d8

Image result for healthcare policy

This week, the Trump administration unveiled its $4.8T federal budget for the upcoming fiscal year, including major cuts to spending on healthcare programs.

Rather than proposing specific spending cuts, however, the President’s budget calls for Congress to put forward plans to “advance the President’s health reform vision”—which presumably includes the administration’s recent proposal to allow states to partially convert Medicaid to a block-grant structure—with promised savings of $844B over the coming decade.

Coupled with additional proposals targeting specific changes to Medicaid reimbursement (including further implementation of work requirements for Medicaid enrollees) and reductions in subsidies for Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace consumers, the budget envisions a total of $1T in healthcare cuts over the next 10 years.

Complicating the administration’s vision for Medicaid transformation, however, a federal appeals court on Friday unanimously ruled that the version of Medicaid work requirements proposed by Arkansas is unlawful, because it does not further the statutory purpose of the Medicaid program.

Although the ruling does not impact work requirements programs elsewhere, it does cast a shadow over the administration’s larger attempt to encourage states to implement such policies.

Like the broader fate of the ACA, the future of Medicaid work requirements will ultimately lie in the hands of the US Supreme Court.

The President’s budget, however, will face immediate opposition in Congress, where House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) called it “a complete reversal of the promises [President Trump] made in the campaign and a contradiction of the statements he made in the State of the Union.”

As the general election approaches, voters will eventually have to choose between the conservative vision for healthcare underpinning the President’s budget, and progressive proposals being advanced by Democratic candidates. With healthcare being the number one issue on the mind of the electorate, that choice could not be more stark.

 

 

 

Appeals court strikes down Trump approval of Medicaid work requirements

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/483105-appeals-court-strikes-down-trump-approval-of-medicaid-work-requirements?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=27666

Image result for Appeals court strikes down Trump approval of Medicaid work requirements

A federal appeals court on Friday struck down the Trump administration’s approval of Medicaid work requirements in Arkansas, the latest legal blow to one of President Trump‘s signature health initiatives. 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed a lower court ruling that the approval of the work requirements was “arbitrary and capricious.

More than 18,000 people lost coverage in Arkansas due to the work requirements before they were halted by a lower court.

The court found that the Trump administration disregarded the statutory purpose of Medicaid — to provide health coverage — and did not adequately account for the coverage losses that would result from the work requirements. 

“Failure to consider whether the project will result in coverage loss is arbitrary and capricious,” Judge David Sentelle, an appointee of President Reagan, wrote in the opinion.

Requiring Medicaid recipients to work or else lose coverage is a top priority of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Seema Verma. She argues that the policy helps lift people out of poverty by getting them jobs and out of Medicaid into employer-based insurance.

But Democrats and health care advocates have denounced the move, saying it imposes burdensome paperwork requirements on low-income people that cause them to lose coverage even if they are working.

The policy has also faced a string of legal losses, with courts ruling that Congress would need to act to authorize the work requirements. 

Arkansas was the only state where the requirements went into effect before being blocked by the courts. Several other states’ efforts were approved, but the initiatives have been halted as the issue works its way through the courts.

“The Court recognized the tragic harm that these work requirements have caused people in Arkansas doing their best to get ahead,” said Kevin De Liban, an attorney at Legal Aid of Arkansas, which helped challenge the requirements. “Now, more than two hundred thousand Arkansans on the program can rest easier knowing that they’ll have health care when they need it.”

Conservative changes to Medicaid have been a leading priority of the Trump administration, which also recently announced plans to let states block-grant their funding for the program. That move was also denounced by Democrats as inevitably leading to coverage losses and is also likely to be challenged in court.

Kentucky had originally also been part of the work requirement litigation, but a Democratic governor, Andy Beshear, was elected last year and ended the initiative.

 

 

 

President Trump’s budget cuts target Medicaid, Medicare

https://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/president-trumps-budget-cuts-target-medicaid-medicare?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWVRnM01UZzNaR0V6TTJFNSIsInQiOiJ6aXpsQnNCRjhHdCs4SnN0UytlZnJVUlZUeFdreEZyQ2V6RWE0YklvYmFMOGJnbWpXT3ZHeG0rOHMwNkJPcE9rMUlGb3NzVkpId3NrZHNkZmR2VlZISXZCVGgrbU94cFV3aVlNR1NYamlhazF1R1kzaXd3RXVISm9OSGJoYmVrVCJ9

Image result for medicaid cuts

Blueprint includes cuts for care in hospital outpatient departments, teaching hospitals and post-acute care providers, AHA says.

President Trump’s proposed $4.8 trillion budget slashes billions of dollars from Medicaid, food stamps and other safety net programs in an attempt to shrink the federal deficit.

Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act see about $1 trillion in cuts over the next decade, according to The Hill. The budget eliminates the enhanced federal match for Medicaid expansion enrollees. An additional $150 billion is expected to be shaved off of Medicaid from the implementation of work requirements, which is expected to result in people losing their healthcare coverage.

The “President’s health reform vision” to ax the Affordable Care Act takes $844 billion over 10 years from the ACA, the report said.

The decrease in federal spending on Medicare would total about $750 billion over 10 years, but that includes shifting two programs out of the budget. After accounting for those changes, the reduction is just over $500 billion, according to CNN. Much of that cut comes from reducing payments to providers.

The budget needs Congressional approval and is not expected to get past a Democratic-controlled House without changes.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tweeted: “The budget is a statement of values. Once again, the #TrumpBudget makes it painfully clear how little the President values the good health, financial security and well-being of America’s hard-working families.”

Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard E. Neal, D-MA, said, “When I saw the President’s proposed budget today, I felt an immense sense of relief – relief that there is absolutely no chance of his ruthless cuts to critical programs ever becoming law. Slashing billions from Medicare and Medicaid will only make it harder for Americans to access the healthcare they need.

Cutting nutrition assistance and Social Security benefits for the disabled won’t enable people to get back on their feet financially.”

Senator Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn said, “Under the Constitution, it is Congress’ job to set spending priorities and pass appropriations bills, and as a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, my priorities will continue to be making sure our national defense, national laboratories, the National Institutes of Health and national parks have the resources they need. I am encouraged to see the president is calling to end surprise medical billing.”

The budget adds money to the National Institutes of Health. The NIH will invest $50 million for new research on chronic diseases, using AI and related approaches, according to the White House briefing. It adds $7 billion over 10 years to fight opioid abuse and for mental health in the Medicaid program.

WHY THIS MATTERS

Cuts to Medicare and Medicaid mean uncompensated care to providers, or a reduction in the government payments.

The American Hospital Association said, “The budget request, which is not binding, proposes hundreds of billions of dollars in reductions to Medicare and Medicaid over 10 years.”

AHA President and CEO Rick Pollack said, “Every year, we adapt to a constantly changing environment, but every year, the Administration aims to gut our nation’s healthcare infrastructure. The proposals in this budget would result in hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts that sacrifice the health of seniors, the uninsured and low-income individuals. This includes the one in five Americans who depend on Medicaid, of which 43% of enrollees are children.

“In addition to the hundreds of billions in proposed reductions to Medicare, the blueprint includes cuts we strongly oppose for care in hospital outpatient departments, teaching hospitals and post-acute care providers. These cuts fail to recognize the crucial role hospitals serve for their communities, such as providing 24/7 emergency services. Post-acute cuts threaten care for patients with the most medically complex conditions.”

 

Public Charge Rule Could Erode Enrollment in Insurance Coverage

Public Charge Rule Could Erode Enrollment in Insurance Coverage

Mother and baby at clinic with doctor. Baby is looking directly into the camera.

In a 5-4 vote reflecting the ideological split among the justices, the US Supreme Court on January 27 decided to allow the Trump administration to commence enforcement (PDF) of its “public charge” rule nationwide. Only Illinois, where a statewide injunction is currently in effect, will not begin enforcing the rule. The regulation was slated to take effect last October, but federal judges in California, Illinois, Maryland, New York, and Washington blocked its implementation after states and immigrant rights groups challenged its legality. Federal appeals courts later lifted all but New York’s nationwide injunction and Illinois’ statewide injunction. The Supreme Court has now “stayed,” or put on hold, New York’s injunction, allowing the rule to take effect while the litigation continues.Essential Coverage

The US Citizenship and Immigration Services agency said the new rule will become effective February 24.

The public charge rule sparked controversy because it “would expand the government’s ability to refuse green cards or visas for legal immigrants determined to be a ‘public charge,’ or dependent on public assistance,” Susannah Luthi explained in Politico. “Those using or likely to use Medicaid, food stamps, and other safety-net programs would face greater scrutiny from immigration officials.”

Experts have warned of a “chilling effect” among immigrant communities, meaning that even those who are not subject to the public charge rule could disenroll or avoid public benefits out of fear. The Institute for Community Health estimated that 195,000 to 455,000 California children in need of medical attention could leave Medi-Cal if the rule takes effect. Including adults, this estimate grows to between 317,000 and 741,000 Californians disenrolling from Medi-Cal, according to researchers from UCLA and UC Berkeley (PDF).

The chilling effect has been documented on a national scale. According to the Urban Institute, in 2018, the year when the Trump administration proposed expanding the public charge rule, about 14% of adults in immigrant families reported that fear prompted them or a family member not to apply for a public benefit program or to disenroll from one. Of the adults who experienced chilling effects, 42% said they or their family members did not participate in Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program.

Soon after the rule was finalized last year, Eisner Health, a community clinic in Los Angeles, started getting phone calls from patients enrolled in Medi-Cal and CalFresh who wanted to end their families’ coverage, Claudia Boyd-Barrett reported in California Health Report. Many of those patients were not yet permanent residents or were members of mixed immigration status families who feared being penalized for using public benefits.

New Rule Doesn’t Apply to Many Immigrants

It is important to note that many immigrants are not subject to the new public charge rule. “It is urgent that all of us working with immigrant communities — via government, legal aid, health care, and more — have accurate and accessible information for families,” Sandra R. Hernández, president and CEO of CHCF, wrote on Twitter.

Mark Ghaly, California Health and Human Services Agency secretary, released a statement emphasizing that immigrant families should learn their rights. “You can find a list of nonprofit organizations providing free legal immigration services on the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) website, here,” Ghaly said.

CDSS offers a list of legal services providers across California who can assist with public charge questions. Protecting Immigrant Families (a partnership of the National Immigration Law Center and The Center for Law and Social Policy) also has resources on the public charge rule.

Following the Supreme Court’s order to stay the nationwide injunction, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra reiterated his commitment to fighting the rule. “We are a nation of immigrants, so we will lean forward in the face of heartless attacks on working families,” Becerra said in a statement. “Together, we’ll continue our fight to stand up for the right of each and every person who calls the United States their home.”

The legal challenges to the public charge rule will continue to move forward in courts around the nation — including in California — the New York Times’s Adam Liptak reported.

Medicaid Block Grants Could Reduce Access for Many

The Trump administration has announced its plan to let states volunteer to convert a portion of their Medicaid funding into block grants. The program, which has been branded a “Healthy Adult Opportunity,” represents a radical change in financing for Medicaid. Medicaid programs, which are operated by states with significant federal funding and oversight, constitute the nation’s health insurance program for Americans with low incomes. Covering over 75 million people, or one in five Americans, Medicaid programs provide services to 83% of children from low-income families, 48% of children with special health care needs, and 45% of nonelderly adults with disabilities.

On January 30, the administrator of the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Seema Verma, sent to state Medicaid directors a letter (PDF) about the new block grant program. Verma gave states “the possibility of trading away an entitlement program that expands and contracts depending on how many poor people need the government health coverage,” Amy Goldstein wrote in the Washington Post. “In exchange, for able-bodied adults in the program, states could apply to receive a fixed federal payment and freedom from many of the program’s rules.”

Additionally, participating states would be allowed to limit the health benefits and drugs offered by their Medicaid programs, Rachel Roubein and Dan Diamond reported for Politico. According to one official, patients with behavioral health needs or HIV would be protected under the new plan.

Criticism from Medicaid advocates was swift. Twenty-seven patient and consumer groups, including the American Lung Association, American Cancer Society, and National Alliance on Mental Illness, issued a statement expressing strong opposition to the new guidance. “Block grants and per capita caps will reduce access to quality and affordable health care for patients with serious and chronic health conditions and are therefore unacceptable to our organizations,” they wrote.

“Worst Medicaid Idea Ever”

Frederick Isasi, executive director of Families USA, said in a statement, “Having spent many years working with governors and Medicaid programs, block grants are possibly the worst Medicaid idea ever presented to states by a federal administration. They would allow the federal government to off-load shared Medicaid responsibility at the expense of deep cuts to state budgets, vital programs supported by states, and the people who rely on those programs.”

Joan Alker, executive director and a cofounder of Georgetown University’s Center for Children and Families, warned in a statement that “if states accept a fixed cap on federal funding to meet their health care needs, they may be able to get by in the short term, but they put the health of their citizens and future state budgets at serious risk down the road.”

The block grant program is unlikely to affect California, which has invested heavily in expanding Medi-Cal access and is not expected to apply to participate.

Nonetheless, the block grant proposal shows that the Trump administration continues to prioritize changes that weaken the foundation of the nation’s health care safety net and could dramatically reduce health coverage for millions of Americans with low incomes.

 

 

 

Kansas has reached a deal to expand Medicaid, covering 150,000 people

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/1/9/21058531/kansas-medicaid-expansion-obamacare-trump

Image result for welcome to kansas sign

It looks like Kansas will become the 37th state to expand Medicaid through the Affordable Care Act, the latest breakthrough in more conservative territory for the health care law.

Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly, a moderate elected in 2018 in the anti-Trump wave driven largely by health care, and Sen. Jim Denning, the Republican leader of the state Senate announced Thursday that they had reached a deal on Medicaid expansion.

Under Obamacare, states can expand coverage to anybody with an income 138 percent of the federal poverty level or less (about $17,000 for an individual or $29,000 for a family of three) and receive a generous federal funding match.

Between 130,000 and 150,000 people are expected to be covered by Medicaid expansion in Kansas, mostly adults without children or parents currently ineligible for benefits despite living in or near poverty. Roughly 9 percent of Kansans are uninsured.

According to the AP, the agreement between Kelly and Denning includes a provision for state support to reduce private insurance premiums, to prevent people eligible for Medicaid expansion from leaving their current private plan (if they have one) to join the public program:

Denning had proposed financing his new program by increasing tobacco taxes, including a $1-per-pack increase in the state’s cigarette tax, to $2.29. His compromise with Kelly gives the state a year to develop the premium-reduction program and drops the tax increase, which Kelly and many lawmakers thought wasn’t likely to pass anyway.

It’s a relatively small concession for Republican support. An estimated 50,000 people would be expected to make the switch. The compromise notably does not include work requirements, which some other GOP-led states have sought (though they are on hold in the courts) as a condition of expansion. There will also be small premiums (about $25 a month), a provision approved in other Republican-leaning states looking to expand.

In some ways, Medicaid expansion has proven the most important part of Obamacare, covering 20 million or so people, but it has yet to reach its full potential. That’s because the Supreme Court ruled in 2012 that states must have the option to refuse to expand the program, and many Republican-led states have. About 2.5 million people, half of them in Texas and Florida, don’t have health coverage because their state has blocked Medicaid expansion.

But the number of non-expanding states has shrunk over the years, with a number of Republican states unable to refuse the ACA’s deal of more federal funding and more people with insurance. Even Vice President Mike Pence had cut a deal as governor with President Obama to expand Medicaid in Indiana. Voters in Idaho, Nebraska, and Utah have approved Medicaid expansion at the ballot box in the last few years.

Now Kansas looks like it will join the expansion ranks. Previous attempts to expand Medicaid ran up against the veto pen of a GOP governor. But Kelly’s election changed the situation.

Its decision is also a small act of defiance: Even as 20 red states and the Trump administration fight to overturn Obamacare in the courts, government leaders in Kansas are pushing to expand the law’s reach in their state to cover more people. Though the ideological battle over the law isn’t totally over, in practice, its reach is only growing.

 

 

 

The most expensive health care option of all? Do nothing.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/09/medicare-for-all-health-care-096367?utm_source=The+Fiscal+Times&utm_campaign=b67cf54986-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_01_09_10_31&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_714147a9cf-b67cf54986-390702969

Image result for healthcare policy

‘Medicare for all’ debate sidesteps cost of current system.

The projected multitrillion-dollar cost of “Medicare for All” has pitted Democratic presidential candidates against each other as they argue about the feasibility of single-payer health care.

But the reality is the current health system may cost trillions more in the long run and be less effective in saving lives.

Spending on Medicare, Medicaid, private health insurance and out-of-pocket expenses is projected to hit $6 trillion a year — and $52 trillion over the next decade. At the same time, the number of people with insurance is dropping and Americans are dying younger.

Sen. Bernie Sanders and other single-payer advocates say Medicare for All would cost the government far less — between $20 trillion and $36 trillion over a decade — by slashing overhead, eliminating out-of-pocket costs and empowering federal officials to bargain directly with hospitals and drugmakers. But the streamlined system would have to care for millions of currently uninsured people at a significant cost to taxpayers, and experts disagree whether it would actually save money in the long run.

Centrist Democrats are pushing narrower plans that would, among other things, expand tax credits for people just above the Obamacare subsidy threshold. Virtually no one is arguing for maintaining the status quo, but that’s precisely what could happen given that congressional gridlock has stymied even popular, and bipartisan, causes like halting surprise medical bills.

“It’s really hard to see anything breaking through, especially when the industry interests and the money they’re willing to spend on lobbying and campaign contributions is just mind-boggling,” said Sabrina Corlette, a researcher at Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms. “And, without question, we are on an unsustainable trajectory.”

With Medicare for All and its price tag likely to come up in the next Democratic debate Jan. 14 in Iowa, here are five of the costliest consequences of inaction:

National health spending keeps rising

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services estimates that nationwide health spending will hit $6 trillion a year by 2027 absent any changes in law. That would be nearly a fifth of the economy. In total, the United States is slated to spend about $52 trillion over the coming decade.

The cost drivers include hospitals, physician and clinical services and prescription drugs. Some local health systems have become monopolies that can largely set prices as they please — leading to higher premiums and more out-of-pocket spending for consumers.

“Even the biggest insurance plans are not big enough to bargain down the cost of services, and they don’t have an incentive to,” said Wendell Potter, a former Cigna executive-turned whistleblower and single-payer advocate.

An aging population is driving up Medicare spending, but the rising cost of private insurance is the biggest factor. A recent Kaiser Family Foundation analysis found per capita spending for private insurance grew by nearly 53 percent over the last decade, or more than double the hike in per capita Medicare spending.

More people will be uninsured

The Census Bureau reported in September that the number of Americans without insurance grew by 2 million people since 2017 — the first increase in nearly a decade. Even with a healthy economy and low unemployment, more than 27 million people weren’t covered at any point last year. That could grow to 35 million by 2029, per the Congressional Budget Office, under current law.

The number of people enrolling in the Obamacare marketplace has declined, and more people are dropping employer-sponsored insurance due to cost and other concerns.

Part of this is President Donald Trump’s doing — the administration has slashed efforts to push Obamacare enrollment and rolled back the massive marketing effort that the Obama administration rolled out for years.

There are also more than 400,000 additional uninsured children than just two years ago — and 4 million in all — and states that haven’t expanded Medicaid are seeing the biggest spikes.

“What we also miss in the debate is the number of people temporarily uninsured, who miss open enrollment, who are between jobs, who fall through the cracks,” said Adam Gaffney, a Harvard Medical School researcher and the president of Physicians for a National Health Program. “I see people all the time in my practice in that situation who don’t fill prescriptions and experience serious complications.”

Going without insurance hits patients and health care providers: Average hospital spending on care for the uninsured was $13 million in 2018 up roughly 3 percent annually since 2016.

Coverage will be skimpier

As the cost of health care has skyrocketed, insurance companies have squeezed patients, charging higher premiums, deductibles and co-pays, and creating narrow networks of providers and aggressively billing for out-of-network care.

Since 2009, the amount workers have had to pay for health insurance has increased 71 percent, while wages have only risen 26 percent over that time.

More than 80 percent of workers now have to pay a minimum amount out of pocket before insurance kicks in — and the amount of that deductible has doubled over the last 10 years, now standing at an average of $1,655, though many workers have to pay a lot more.

These costs are putting care out of reach for millions.

new Gallup poll found that a full quarter of adults have put off treatment for a serious medical condition due to the cost — the highest since Gallup began asking the question three decades ago. A full third say they’ve delayed or deferred some kind of health care service over the past year. Another Gallup and West Help survey found that 34 million people know at least one friend or family member who died over the past five years after skipping treatment due to costs.

 

Needed drugs will become more out of reach

U.S. patients pay vastly more for prescription drugs than people in other developed countries and the disparity is set to grow. The United States spent $1,443 per person on prescription drugs in 2018, while other developed countries fell somewhere between $466 and $939.

In just five years, national spending on prescription drugs increased 25 percent, according to the Government Accountability Office, and CMS expects that increase to “accelerate” over the next several years.

Increasingly, patients are responding by forgoing their medications. Gallup found in November that nearly 23 percent of adults — roughly 58 million people — said they haven’t been able to “pay for needed medicine or drugs that a doctor prescribed” over the past year.

This widespread inability to take needed medication, a government-funded study found last year, is responsible for as much as 10 percent of hospital admissions. And the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that medication nonadherence accounts for somewhere between $100 and $300 billion in national health spending every year.

 

Americans will continue to get sicker and die younger

The cost of maintaining the status quo is evident not only in dollars but in human lives.

Life expectancy in the United States has declined over the last three years, even as other developed countries around the world saw improvements.

Though the United States spends nearly twice as much on health care as other high-income countries, there’s been a stark increase in mortality between the ages of 19 and 64, with drug overdoses, alcohol abuse, suicide and organ diseases driving the trend. It’s cut across race and gender with the worst effects felt in rural areas.

The opioid epidemic only accounts for a fraction of the problem. The National Research Council found that the United States has higher mortality rates from most major causes of death than 16 other high-income countries.

Researchers at USC estimate that if these trends continue, it would take the United States more than a century to reach the average life expectancy levels other countries hit in 2016.

 

 

Pros and Cons of Different Public Health Insurance Options

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/journal-article/2018/nov/pros-cons-public-options-2020-democratic

Image result for Pros and Cons of Different Public Health Insurance Options

Options for Expanding Health Care Coverage

It is more than likely that Democratic candidates for the 2020 presidential election will propose some type of public health insurance plan. In one of two Commonwealth Fund–supported articles in Health Affairs discussing potential Democratic and Republican health care plans for the 2020 election, national health policy experts Sherry Glied and Jeanne Lambrew assess the potential impact and trade-offs of three approaches:

 

  • Incorporating public-plan elements into private plans through mechanisms such as limits on profits, additional rules on how insurers operate, or the use of Medicare payment rates.
  • Offering a public plan — some version of Medicare or Medicaid, for example — alongside private plans. Such a plan could be offered to specific age groups, like adults 50 to 64 who are not yet eligible for Medicare, to enrollees in the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) marketplaces, or to everyone under 65, including those working for self-insured employers. It also could be made available in regions of the country where there is little health care competition.
  • Replacing the current health care financing system with a “Medicare for all” single-payer system administered by the federal government. Some single-payer proposals would allow consumers to purchase supplementary private insurance to help pay for uncovered services.

 

Issues for Consideration in 2020

The authors find trade-offs in each type of public plan. First, a single-payer system would significantly increase the federal budget and require new taxes, a politically challenging prospect. On the other hand, federal spending might decrease if a public plan were added to the marketplace or if public elements were added to private plans. In 2013, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that a public plan, following the same rules as private plans, would reduce federal spending by $158 billion over 10 years, while offering premiums 7 percent to 8 percent lower than private plans. A single-payer approach would lower administrative costs and profits, and likely reduce health care prices as well. By assuming control over the financing of health care, the federal government could reduce administrative complexity and fragmentation. On the flip side, the more than 175 million Americans who are privately insured would need to change insurance plans.

 

public–private choice model would help ensure that an affordable health plan option is available to Americans. While politically appealing, this option presents implementation challenges: covered benefits, payment rates, and risk-adjustments all need to be carefully managed to ensure a fair but competitive marketplace. A targeted choice option might be adopted by candidates interested in strengthening the ACA marketplaces in specific regions or for specific groups (as with the Medicare at 55 Act). It would benefit Americans whose current access to affordable coverage is limited, but the same technical challenges associated with a more comprehensive choice model would apply.

 

Finally, to lower prices for privately insured individuals, public plan tools such as deployment of Medicare-based rates could be applied to private insurance, either across the board or specifically for high-cost claims, prescription drugs, or other services. The major challenge here is setting prices that would appropriately compensate providers.

 

The Big Picture

Under the ACA, the percentage of Americans who had health insurance had reached an all-time high (91 percent) in 2016, an all-time high, and preexisting health conditions ceased to be an obstacle to affordable insurance. But Americans remain concerned about high out-of-pocket spending and access to providers, and fears over losing preexisting-condition protections have grown. While most Democratic presidential candidates will likely defend the ACA and seek to strengthen it, most recognize that fortifying the law will not be enough to cover the remaining uninsured, rein in rising spending, and make health care more affordable.

 

While the health reform proposals of Democratic candidates in 2020 will likely differ dramatically from those of Republican candidates, recent grassroots support for the ACA’s preexisting condition clause may indicate a willingness by both political parties to support additional government intervention in private insurance markets.