Category Archives: Medicaid

What healthcare executives can expect under Biden presidency

Posted on by • Posted in ACA, Asymptomatic Transmission, Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC), Clinical Research, Clinical Testing, Contact Tracing, Coronavirus, Crisis, Crisis Management, Dept of Health and Human Services (HHS), Employer-Based Health Insurance, Essential Health Benefits, Evidence-based Leadership, Evidence-Based Plan, Evidence-Based Policy, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Insurance Industry, Health Policy, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Infection Control, Infection Control Plan, Infectious Virus, Interoperability, Leadership Alignment, Leadership Cares, Leadership Commitment, Leadership Intent, Market Consolidation, Market Power, Market Trends, Medicaid, Medicaid Expansion, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Mergers & Acquisitions, Mortality, National Strategy, Pandemic, Pharmaceutical Industry, Preexisting Conditions, Price Transparency, Public Health, Public Opinion, Public Option, Public Perception, Public Safety, Public Trust, Quarantine, Scientists, Social Distancing, Supply Chain, Underinsured, Unemployment, Unemployment Insurance, Uninsured, Value Creation, Value-Based Contracting, Value-Based Healthcare, Workforce Strategy, World Health Organization (WHO) • Leave a comment

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/hospital-management-administration/pwc-what-healthcare-executives-can-expect-under-biden-presidency.html?utm_medium=email

https://www.pwc.com/us/Biden2020healthagenda

President-elect Joe Biden’s healthcare agenda: building on the ACA, value-based care, and bringing down drug prices.

In many ways, Joe Biden is promising a return to the Obama administration’s approach to healthcare:

  • Building on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) through incremental expansions in government-subsidized coverage
  • Continuing CMS’ progress toward value-based care
  • Bringing down drug prices
  • Supporting modernization of the FDA

Bolder ideas, such as developing a public option, resolving “surprise billing,” allowing for negotiation of drug prices by Medicare, handing power to a third party to help set prices for some life sciences products, and raising the corporate tax rate, could be more challenging to achieve without overwhelming majorities in both the House and the Senate.

Biden is likely to mount an intensified federal response to the COVID-19 pandemic, enlisting the Defense Production Act to compel companies to produce large quantities of tests and personal protective equipment as well as supporting ongoing deregulation around telehealth. The Biden administration also will likely return to global partnerships and groups such as the World Health Organization, especially in the area of vaccine development, production and distribution.

What can health industry executives expect from Biden’s healthcare proposals?

Broadly, healthcare executives can expect an administration with an expansionary agenda, looking to patch gaps in coverage for Americans, scrutinize proposed healthcare mergers and acquisitions more aggressively and use more of the government’s power to address the pandemic. Executives also can expect, in the event the ACA is struck down, moves by the Biden administration and Democratic lawmakers to develop a replacement. Healthcare executives should scenario plan for this unlikely yet potentially highly disruptive event, and plan for an administration marked by more certainty and continuity with the Obama years.

All healthcare organizations should prepare for the possibility that millions more Americans could gain insurance under Biden. His proposals, if enacted, would mean coverage for 97% of Americans, according to his campaign website. This could mean millions of new ACA customers for payers selling plans on the exchanges, millions of new Medicaid beneficiaries for managed care organizations, millions of newly insured patients for providers, and millions of covered customers for pharmaceutical and life sciences companies. The surge in insured consumers could mirror the swift uptake in the years following the passage of the ACA.

Biden’s plan to address the COVID-19 pandemic

Biden is expected to draw on his experience from H1N1 and the Ebola outbreaks to address the COVID-19 pandemic with a more active role for the federal government, which many Americans support. These actions could shore up the nation’s response in which the federal government largely served in a support role to local, state and private efforts.

Three notable exceptions have been the substantial federal funding for development of vaccines against the SARS-CoV-2 virus, Congress’ aid packages and the rapid deregulatory actions taken by the FDA and CMS to clear a path for medical products to be enlisted for the pandemic and for providers, in particular, to be able to respond to it.

Implications of Biden’s 2020 health agenda on healthcare payers, providers and pharmaceutical and life sciences companies

The US health system has been slowly transforming for years into a New Health Economy that is more consumer-oriented, digital, virtual, open to new players from outside the industry and focused on wellness and prevention.  The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated some of those trends.  Once the dust from the election settles, companies that have invested in capabilities for growth and are moving forcefully toward the New Health Economy stand to gain disproportionately.

Shortages of clinicians and foreign medical students may continue to be an issue for a while

The Trump administration made limiting the flow of immigrants to the US a priority. The associated policy changes have the potential to exacerbate shortages of physicians, nurses and other healthcare workers, including medical students. These consequences have been aggravated by the pandemic, which dramatically curtailed travel into the US.

  • Healthcare organizations, especially rural ones heavily dependent on foreign-born employees, may find themselves competing fiercely for workers, paying higher salaries and having to rethink the structure of their workforces.
  • Providers should consider reengineering primary care teams to reflect the patients’ health status and preferences, along with the realities of the workforce on the ground and new opportunities in remote care.

Focus on modernizing the supply chain

Biden and lawmakers from both parties have been raising questions about life sciences’ supply chains. This focus has only intensified because of the pandemic and resulting shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE), pharmaceuticals, diagnostic tests and other medical products.

  • Investment in advanced analytics and cybersecurity could allow manufacturers to avoid disruptive stockouts and shortages, and deliver on the promise of the right treatment to the right patient at the right time in the right place.

Drug pricing needs a long-term strategy

Presidents and lawmakers have been talking about drug prices for decades; few truly meaningful actions have been implemented. Biden has made drug pricing reform a priority.

  • Drug manufacturers may need to start looking past the next quarter to create a new pricing strategy that maximizes access in local markets through the use of data and analytics to engage in more value-based pricing arrangements.
  • New financing models may help patients get access to drugs, such as subscription models that provide unlimited access to a therapy at a flat rate.
  • Companies that prepare now to establish performance metrics and data analytics tools to track patient outcomes will be well prepared to offer payers more sustainable payment models, such as mortgage or payment over time contracts, avoiding the sticker shock that comes with these treatments and improving uptake at launch.
  • Pharmaceutical and life sciences companies will likely have to continue to offer tools for consumers like co-pay calculators and use the contracting process where possible to minimize out-of-pocket costs, which can improve adherence rates and health outcomes.

View interoperability as an opportunity to embrace, not a threat to avoid or ignore

While the pandemic delayed many of the federal interoperability rule deadlines, payers and providers should use the extra time to plan strategically for an interoperable future.

  • Payers should review business partnerships in this new regulatory environment.
  • Digital health companies and new entrants may help organizations take advantage of the opportunities that achieving interoperability may present.
  • Companies should consider the legal risks and take steps to protect their reputations and relationships with customers by thinking through issues of consent and data privacy.

Health organizations should review their policies and consider whether they offer protections for customers under the new processes and what data security risks may emerge. They should also consider whether business associate agreements are due in more situations.

Plan for revitalized ACA exchanges and a booming Medicare Advantage market

The pandemic has thrown millions out of work, generating many new customers for ACA plans just as the incoming Biden administration plans to enrich subsidies, making more generous plans within reach of more Americans.

  • Payers in this market should consider how and where to expand their membership and appeal to those newly eligible for Medicare. Payers not in this market should consider partnerships or acquisitions as a quick way to enter the market, with the creation of a new Medicare Advantage plan as a slower but possibly less capital-intensive entry into this market.
  • Payers and health systems should use this opportunity to design more tailored plan options and consumer experiences to enhance margins and improve health outcomes.
  • Payers with cash from deferred care and low utilization due to the pandemic could turn to vertical integration with providers as a means of investing that cash in a manner that helps struggling providers in the short term while positioning payers to improve care and reduce its cost in the long term.
  • Under the Trump administration, the FDA has approved historic numbers of generic drugs, with the aim of making more affordable pharmaceuticals available to consumers. Despite increased FDA generics approvals, generics dispensed remain high but flat, according to HRI analysis of FDA data.
  • Pharmaceutical company stocks, on average, have climbed under the Trump administration, with a few notable dips due to presidential speeches criticizing the industry and the pandemic.
  • Providers have faced some revenue cuts, particularly in the 340B program, and many entered the pandemic in a relatively weak liquidity position.  The pandemic has led to layoffs, pay cuts and even closures. HRI expects consolidation as the pandemic continues to curb the flow of patients seeking care in emergency departments, orthopedic surgeons’ offices, dermatology suites and more.

Lawmakers and politicians often use bold language, and propose bold solutions to problems, but the government and the industry itself resists sudden, dramatic change, even in the face of sudden, dramatic events such as a global pandemic. One notable exception to this would be a decision by the US Supreme Court to strike down the ACA, an event that would generate a great deal of uncertainty and disruption for Americans, the US health industry and employers.

More Than Politics On The Line For Voters With Preexisting Conditions

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, ACA, Bad Debt Expense, Chronic Care Management, Chronic Conditions, Chronic Diseases, Deferred Healthcare, Election, Employer-Based Health Insurance, Essential Health Benefits, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, High Deductible Health Plans, High Drug Prices, High Premiums, High Prices, Medicaid, Medicaid Expansion, Medicare, Out of Pocket Expenses, Preexisting Conditions, Short Term Health Insurance, Skinny Health Plans, Supreme Court, Uncompensated Care, Underinsured, Unemployment, Unemployment Insurance, Uninsured • Leave a comment
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/11/02/928237198/more-than-politics-on-the-line-for-voters-with-pre-existing-conditions?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Issue:%202020-11-03%20Healthcare%20Dive%20%5Bissue:30622%5D&utm_term=Healthcare%20Dive
More Than Politics On The Line For Voters With Preexisting Conditions | WAMU

In swing states from Georgia to Arizona, the Affordable Care Act — and concerns over protecting preexisting conditions — loom over key races for Congress and the presidency.

“I can’t even believe it’s in jeopardy,” says Noshin Rafieei, a 36-year-old from Phoenix. “The people that are trying to eliminate the protection for individuals such as myself with preexisting conditions, they must not understand what it’s like.”

In 2016, Rafieei was diagnosed with colon cancer. A year later, her doctor discovered it had spread to her liver.

“I was taking oral chemo, morning and night — just imagine that’s your breakfast, essentially, and your dinner,” Rafieei says.

In February, she underwent a liver transplant.

Rafieei does have health insurance now through her employer, but she fears whether her medical history could disqualify her from getting care in the future.

“I had to pray that my insurance would approve of my transplant just in the nick of time,” she says. “I had that Stage 4 label attached to my name and that has dollar signs. Who wants to invest in someone with Stage 4?”

“That is no way to feel,” she adds.

After doing her research, Rafieei says she intends to vote for Joe Biden, who helped get the ACA passed in this first place.

“Health care for me is just the driving factor,” she says.

Even 10 years after the Affordable Care Act locked in a health care protection that Americans now overwhelmingly support — guarantees that insurers cannot deny coverage or charge more based on preexisting medical conditions — voters once again face contradicting campaign promises over which candidate will preserve the law’s legacy.

A majority of Democrats, independents and Republicans say they want their new president to preserve the ACA’s provision that protects as many as 135 million people from potentially being unable to get health care because of their medical history.

President Trump has pledged to keep this in place, even as his administration heads to the U.S Supreme Court the week after Election Day to argue the entire law should be struck down.

“We’ll always protect people with preexisting,” Trump said in the most recent debate. “I’d like to terminate Obamacare, come up with a brand new, beautiful health care.”

And yet the Trump administration has not unveiled a health care plan or identified any specific components it might include. In 2017, the administration joined with congressional Republicans to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, but none of the GOP-backed replacement plans could summon enough votes. The Republicans’ final attempt, a limited “skinny repeal” of parts of the ACA, failed in the Senate because of resistance within their own party.

In an attempt to reassure wary voters, Trump recently signed an executive order that asserts protections for preexisting conditions will stay in place, but legal experts say this has no teeth.

“It’s basically a pinky promise, but it doesn’t have teeth,” says Swapna Reddy, a clinical assistant professor at Arizona State University’s College of Health Solutions. “What is the enforceability? The order really doesn’t have any effect because it can’t regulate the insurance industry.”

Since the 2017 repeal and replace efforts, the health care law has continued to gain popularity.

Public approval is now at an all-time high, but polling shows many Republicans still don’t view the ACA as synonymous with its most popular provision — protections for preexisting conditions.

Democrats hope to change that.

“If you have a preexisting condition — heart disease, diabetes, breast cancer — they are coming for you,” said Biden’s running mate, California Sen. Kamala Harris, during her recent debate with Vice President Pence.

Voters support maintaining ACA’s legal protections

In key swing states, many voters say protecting preexisting conditions is their top health concern.

Rafieei, the Phoenix woman with colon cancer, still often has problems getting her treatments covered. Her insurance has denied medications that help quell the painful side effects of chemotherapy or complications related to her transplant.

“During those chemo days, I’d think, wow, I’m really sick, and I just got off the phone with my pharmacy and they’re denying me something that could possibly help me,” she says.

Because of her transplant, she will be on medication for the rest of her life, and sometimes she even has nightmares about being away and running out of it.

“I will have these panic attacks like, ‘Where’s my medicine? Oh my god, I have to get back to get my medicine?'”

Election season and talk of eliminating the ACA has not given Rafieei much reassurance, though.

“I cannot stomach politics. I am beyond terrified,” she says.

And yet she plans to head to the polls — in person — despite having a compromised immune system.

“It might be a long day. But you know what? I want to fix whatever I can,” she says.

A few days after she votes, she’ll get a coronavirus test and go in for another round of surgery.

A key health issue in political swing states

Rafieei’s home state of Arizona is emblematic of the political contradictions around the health care law.

The Republican-led state reaped the benefits of the ACA. Arizona’s uninsured rate dropped considerably since 2010, in part because it expanded Medicaid.

But the state’s governor also embraced the Republican effort to repeal and replace the law in 2017, and now Arizona’s attorney general is part of the lawsuit that will be heard by the Supreme Court on Nov. 10 that could topple the entire law.

Depending on how the Supreme Court rules, ASU’s Reddy says any meaningful replacement for preexisting conditions would involve Congress and the next president.

“At the moment, we have absolutely no national replacement plan,” she says.

Meanwhile, some states have passed their own laws to maintain protections for preexisting conditions, in the event the ACA is struck down. But Reddy says those vary considerably from state to state.

For example, Arizona’s law, passed just earlier this year, only prevents insurers from outright denying coverage — consumers with preexisting conditions can be charged more.

“We are in this season of chaos around the Affordable Care Act,” says Reddy. “From a consumer perspective, it’s really hard to decipher all these details.”

As in the congressional midterm election of 2018, Democrats are hammering away at Republican’s track record on preexisting conditions and the ACA.

In Arizona, Mark Kelly, the Democratic candidate running for Senate, has run ads and used every opportunity to remind voters of Republican Sen. Martha McSally’s votes to repeal the law.

In Georgia, Democratic challenger Jon Ossoff has taken a similar approach.

“Can you look down the camera and tell the people of this state why you voted four times to allow insurance companies to deny us health care coverage because we may suffer from diabetes or heart disease or have cancer in remission?” Ossoff said during a debate with his opponent, Republican Sen. David Purdue.

Republicans have often tried to skirt health care as a major issue this election cycle because there isn’t the same political advantage to pushing the repeal and replace argument, says Mark Peterson, a professor of public policy, political science and law at UCLA.

“It’s political suicide, there doesn’t seem to be any real political advantage anymore,” says Peterson.

But the timing of the Supreme Court case — exactly a week after election day — has somewhat obscured the issue for voters.

Republicans have chipped away at the health care law by reducing the individual mandate — the provision requiring consumers to purchase insurance — to zero dollars.

The premise of the Supreme Court case is that the ACA no longer qualifies as a tax because of this change in the penalty.

“It is an extraordinary stretch, even among many conservative legal scholars, to say that the entire law is predicated on the existence of an enforced individual mandate,” says Peterson.

The court could rule in a very limited way that does not disrupt the entire law or protections for preexisting conditions, he says.

Like many issues this election, Peterson says there is a big disconnect between what voters in the two parties believe is at stake with the ACA.

“Not everybody, particularly Republicans, associates the ACA with protecting preexisting conditions,” he says. “But it is pretty striking that overwhelmingly Democrats and Independents do — and a number of Republicans — that’s enough to give a significant national supermajority.”

What’s at stake in the ACA case

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, ACA, Bad Debt Expense, Chronic Care Management, Chronic Conditions, Chronic Diseases, Coronavirus, Deferred Healthcare, Economic Crisis, Economic Recovery, Election, Employer-Based Health Insurance, Essential Health Benefits, Financial Viability, Financially Distressed, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Insurance Industry, Health Policy, Health System, High Deductible Health Plans, High Drug Prices, High Premiums, High Prices, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Medicaid, Medicaid Expansion, Pandemic, Physician, Preexisting Conditions, Supreme Court, Uncompensated Care, Underinsured, Uninsured • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/2480e0d1f164/the-weekly-gist-october-30-2020?e=d1e747d2d8

5 Key Points To Understanding New Court Skirmish Over Obamacare : Shots - Health News : NPR

Since the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was signed into law a little more than a decade ago, it has fundamentally reshaped the American healthcare system. As the graphic below highlights, the far-reaching law expanded insurance coverage, increased consumer protections, led to new payment models, established minimum coverage standards, reformed the Indian Health Service—and even gave us calorie counts on menus, among myriad other things.

The fate of the ACA is once again in the Supreme Court’s hands—and the nine Justices, now including Amy Coney Barrett, are scheduled to hear arguments starting November 10th. Eighteen states with Republican leadership are asking the court to determine whether the individual mandate is constitutional without a financial penalty, and whether the mandate is severable from the rest of the law.
 
The process of unwinding a law that touches nearly every facet of the US healthcare system would mean a confusing and financially detrimental road ahead for many. Although we believe it’s unlikely that the entire law will be ruled unconstitutional, if it is—and no replacement legislation is passed—the effects could be devastating.

An estimated 21 million people would be at serious risk of losing their health insurance. This risk is magnified for Hispanic and Black Americans, who are also hardest hit by COVID-19. As many as 133M people with pre-existing conditions could face insurance disqualification or significantly higher premiums.

The lost coverage would result in a significant revenue hit for doctors and hospitals. While the impact would vary by state depending on Medicaid expansion terms, an Urban Institute report projects that total uncompensated care would grow an average of 78 percent for hospitals and 68 percent for physician services if the ACA is struck down. Although the Court is not expected to rule on the fate of the law until mid-2021, the direction and pace of future health reform legislation will be set by the ruling, under either a Trump or Biden administration.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is b6862796-d236-4b80-8c09-5877c73ac1db.png

TrumpCare Versus BidenCare: A Potential Shift For 45 Million Americans

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, ACA, Access & Quality of Healthcare, Coronavirus, Deferred Healthcare, Election, Employer-Based Health Insurance, Essential Health Benefits, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, Health System, High Deductible Health Plans, High Drug Prices, High Premiums, High Prices, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Medicaid, Medicaid Block Grants, Medicaid Expansion, Medicare, Out of Pocket Expenses, Pandemic, Severability, Short Term Health Insurance, Skinny Health Plans, Supreme Court, Uncompensated Care, Underinsured, Unemployment, Unemployment Insurance, Uninsured • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/burroughshealthcare/april-16-3240709?e=7d3f834d2f

Healthcare policy is a defining issue for America | Financial Times

Less than three months from now, either Donald Trump will begin his second term as President, or Joe Biden will begin his first. What the U.S. healthcare system on that date and moving forward could be starkly different depending on who is sworn in.
 
The policy differences between the two men are essentially on opposite poles. If fully enacted, Trump’s policies could potentially cause tens of millions of Americans to lose their healthcare coverage. Biden’s policies would likely provide healthcare access to tens of millions more Americans compared to today.
 
In November, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case called California v. Texas. It stems from the 2017 tax bill that zeroed out the penalty individuals paid if they did not obtain health insurance. The argument put forth by the 20 Republican state attorney generals in that case is if the individual mandate no longer has taxing power, the entire law should be declared unconstitutional based upon a lack of severability of the entire law.
 
Many legal scholars have noted that this case is premised on a shaky argument. But with a 6-3 majority of conservative justices now on the high court, many bets are off as to the ACA’s survival. And President Trump just said in an interview with “60 Minutes” he fervently hoped the ACA is eliminated. He put forth no alternatives to the ACA in that interview.
 
Should the ACA be declared unconstitutional, health insurance for some 23 million people would be imperiled. That includes some 12 million Americans who are eligible for Medicaid under the ACA’s expanded income guidelines, and another 11 million who purchase insurance on the state and federal health insurance exchanges – roughly 85% of whom receive premium subsidies that make it more affordable. Moreover, another 14 million Americans who are estimated to have lost their employer-based health plans during the COVID-19 pandemic may not have another place to turn for coverage.
 
Before the ACA case, the Trump administration also promoted so-called “off-exchange” health plans, and health sharing ministries. The first is often a form of short-term health insurance, the second operates as a cooperative serving those of the same religious stripe. Both offer health coverage that is potentially cheaper that what is offered on the exchanges, but both also tend to cap it at low dollar levels. Many also bar applicants for a variety of claims, such as for maternity or cancer care, or if they have pre-existing medical conditions – practices prohibited for ACA plans.
 
Should Trump be re-elected and the ACA survives constitutional muster, expect to see many states apply for more waivers from that law. Georgia just received approval to modestly expand Medicaid eligibility, primarily for those poor already working 80 hours or more a month. The state is also on the cusp of being able to opt out of the healthcare.gov exchange entirely and have consumers work directly with insurance brokers to purchase coverage. However, there is nothing in the pending waiver to prevent those brokers from offering stripped-down coverage without the ACA protections that the Trump administration is already promoting.
There could also be more block grants to states for their Medicaid budgets, which most experts have concluded would reduce the number of enrollees in that program.
 
If Biden is elected and both incoming houses of Congress are also Democratic, the entire Supreme Court case can be mooted simply by reattaching a financial penalty to the individual mandate. That hasn’t been mentioned at all during the campaign, presumably because Biden does not want to discuss what would essentially be a promise to raise taxes. But it is the most direct way to skirt the risk of an adverse Supreme Court decision.
 
Biden’s campaign has also put forth numerous proposals to enlarge the ACA and the Medicare program. They include expanded premium subsidies for individuals and families to purchase coverage, and a public health plan option – which would allow those who live in the states that have yet to expand Medicaid to obtain coverage. Biden has also proposed a buy-in to Medicare at age 60.
 
The estimates are that an expanded ACA and other Biden plans could net another 20 to 25 million Americans healthcare coverage. That would leave fewer than 10 million – 2% to 3% of the population – without access to coverage. It would probably be as close to universal healthcare as the United States could get given its current political realities.
 
The two different approaches will either lead to a country where virtually everyone has access to healthcare coverage and services, or one where 50 million or more people could potentially be uninsured. It’s a shift that could impact a minimum of 45 million people – and that’s not even counting those who lost their coverage during the current public health crisis. 
 
Elections have consequences. Less than three months from now, this one will determine whether the U.S. healthcare system will take one consequential path over another.

Nebraska gets the nod for Medicaid work requirements

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, ACA, Access & Quality of Healthcare, Chronic Care Management, Chronic Conditions, Chronic Diseases, Deferred Healthcare, Essential Health Benefits, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, High Deductible Health Plans, High Drug Prices, High Premiums, High Prices, Lawsuit, Medicaid, Medicaid Expansion, Medicaid Work Requirements, Out of Pocket Expenses, Preexisting Conditions, Underinsured, Unemployment, Unemployment Insurance, Uninsured • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/f2794551febb/the-weekly-gist-october-23-2020?e=d1e747d2d8

Federal judge blocks Kentucky's Medicaid work requirements

This week Nebraska became the latest state to receive waiver authority from the Trump administration to implement work requirements as part of its Medicaid expansion program.

The program, called “Heritage Health Adult”, will be a two-tiered system, with expansion-eligible adults choosing between “Basic” and “Prime” coverage levels. The lower tier will provide coverage for physical and behavioral health services, with a prescription drug benefit, and is open to adults not eligible for traditional Medicaid with incomes under 138 percent of the federal poverty line.

“Prime” enrollees will get additional dental, vision, and over-the-counter drug benefits, in exchange for agreeing to 80 hours per month of work, volunteering, or active job seeking, which must be reported to the state.

Nebraska voters approved the Medicaid expansion two years ago, although enrollment only began this August, and the work-linked demonstration project is slated to start next year. An estimated 90,000 additional Nebraskans are expected to enroll in Medicaid under the expanded program.
 
The approval of Nebraska’s Medicaid work requirement comes a week after the Trump administration approved a partial expansion of Medicaid in Georgia, called “Pathways to Coverage”, which is also tied to a requirement to seek or engage in employment or education activities.

The Georgia program also requires premium payments by eligible adults who make between 50 and 100 percent of the federal poverty line. Court challenges will inevitably ensue for both the Nebraska and Georgia programs—only Utah has successfully implemented Medicaid work requirements, with 16 other state programs either pending approval, held up in court, or awaiting implementation. We continue to be deeply skeptical of Medicaid work requirements, and believe they only serve to deter those who would otherwise qualify for coverage from enrolling, and that the expense of their implementation and ongoing operation often outweighs any savings to the state.

The argument that “work encourages health”, often advanced by proponents of work requirements, gets it exactly backwards—rather, health security encourages work, a reality that has become ever more urgent as the COVID pandemic has drawn on. 

As the economy continues to falter, Medicaid’s importance as a safety net program grows ever greater, and work requirements create an unhelpful obstacle to basic healthcare access.

Trump claims COVID “will go away,” Biden calls his response disqualifying

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, ACA, Chronic Care Management, Chronic Conditions, Chronic Diseases, Clinical Testing, Contact Tracing, Coronavirus, Crisis, Crisis Management, Deferred Healthcare, Economic Crisis, Economic Recovery, Election, Employer-Based Health Insurance, Evidence-based Leadership, Evidence-Based Plan, Evidence-Based Policy, False Hope, False Narrative, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, High Deductible Health Plans, High Drug Prices, High Premiums, High Prices, Infection Control, Infection Control Plan, Infectious Virus, Medicaid, Medicaid Expansion, Mortality, National Strategy, Out of Pocket Expenses, Pandemic, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), Preexisting Conditions, Public Health, Public Opinion, Public Perception, Public Safety, Public Trust, Quarantine, Scientists, Social Distancing, Supreme Court, Underinsured, Uninsured, Vaccine, Vaccine Distribution • Leave a comment

https://www.axios.com/trump-biden-debate-coronavirus-14b6e962-e968-4547-933d-6d7105df24b9.html

The Final Presidential Debate: The Moments That Mattered - WSJ

President Trump repeated baseless claims at the final presidential debate that the coronavirus “will go away” and that the U.S. is “rounding the turn,” while Joe Biden argued that any president that has allowed 220,000 Americans to die on his watch should not be re-elected.

Why it matters: The U.S. is now averaging about 59,000 new coronavirus infections a day, and added another 73,000 cases on Thursday, according to the Covid Tracking Project. The country recorded 1,038 deaths due to the virus Thursday, the highest since late September.

What they’re saying: “More and more people are getting better,” Trump said. We have a problem that’s a worldwide problem. This is a worldwide problem. But I’ve been congratulated by the heads of many countries on what we’ve been able to do … It will go away and as I say, we’re rounding the turn. We’re rounding the corner. It’s going away.”

  • Trump later disputed warnings by public health officials in his administration that the virus would see a resurgence in the winter, claiming: “We’re not going to have a dark winter at all. We’re opening up our country.”

Biden responded: “Anyone responsible for that many deaths should not remain as president of the United States of America.”

  • “What I would do is make sure we have everyone encouraged to wear a mask all the time. I would make sure we move in the direction of rapid testing, investing in rapid testing.”
  • “I would make sure that we set up national standards as to how to open up schools and open up businesses so they can be safe and give them the wherewithal, the financial resources, to be able to do that.”

The bottom line: Biden and Trump are living in two different pandemic realities, but Biden’s is the only one supported by health experts.

Go deeper: The pandemic is getting worse again

Are you ready for price transparency?

Posted on by • Posted in Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Cost Management, Cost Reduction, Cost Shifting, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Leadership, Medicaid, Medicare, Operating Expenses, Operating Income, Operating Margin, Operating Metrics, Operating Performance, Planning, Price Transparency, Strategy • Leave a comment

https://interimcfo.wordpress.com/2020/10/22/are-you-ready-for-price-transparency/

Exploring the Fundamentals of Medical Billing and Coding

Abstract:  This article focuses on the correct strategic response to the impending implementation of price transparency on New Year’s Day of next year.

I have stated before that I have multiple articles in process at any given time.  Some of them have been ‘in process’ for years because newer topics sometimes rise to the queue’s top.  Price transparency is an example of such a case.  I have a friend who is developing AI-enabled solutions to help organizations respond to price transparency government diktats.  Few people beyond healthcare CFOs, healthcare financial consultants, and accountants have any useful understanding of how convoluted hospital pricing has become due to decades of ill-conceived government policy for the most part.

Another problem is endless confusion over terms.  People frequently interchange the terms ‘price’, ‘cost’, ‘payment’, and ‘reimbursement’ in situations where the polar opposite is true on the other side of the issue.  In other words, ‘cost’ to a payor is price or reimbursement to a provider.

Anyway, my friend’s questions finally inspired me to go to the Federal Register, acquire the final rule, and begin the process of learning where government is headed with these regulations.  There are probably at least fifty diatribe angles I could launch into over the final rule, but I will confine my rant to only a couple of points.  

First, the final draft of the rule is ‘only’ 331 pages long. The three-column final rule in the Federal Register is ‘only’ 83 pages long.  That pales compared to Obamacare that is over 1,200 pages long, so by government standards, this is but a trifle of regulation.  

Secondly, some parts of the final rule are actually funny.  For example, CMS estimates that the average hospital will spend only 150 staff hours in the first and 46 staff hours in subsequent years complying with price transparency requirements.  Is it constitutional for government to compel private enterprises to disclose the terms of what they thought were private contracts?  Apparently so.  Once government breaks this ice, will any agreement of any type ever be private?

As I have discussed price transparency with healthcare leaders, I sense that leaders are currently focused on technical compliance with the regulations.  With COVID on their plate simultaneously, they have little capacity to take on strategic financial planning.

The final rule lays out in excruciating detail what providers face complying with the regulation.  Reading the comments and responses is equally entertaining.  CMS repeatedly says something to the effect; we heard your concern, and we’re proceeding as planned anyway.  Litigation brought by the AHA and others has to date been unsuccessful in slowing stopping the price transparency snowball that is now most of the way down the mountain.

So, what are you supposed to do?  The CFO and CIO will work, possibly with consultants’ assistance, to prepare the organization’s data release.  Soon after the release occurs, expect the defecation to hit the rotary oscillator.  The press will call out organizations with high prices, and the rancor over learning what some systems have been able to get from third-party payors will be entertaining, to say the least.  Many people believe that one of the primary motivators of the massive consolidation occurring in the healthcare industry is the market leverage exerted by growing systems on third-party payors to obtain otherwise unachievable reimbursement rates.

Regardless of the course of action following price releases in January, the intended and most likely result of this initiative is to drive prices to a lower common denominator.  A lot of people think Medicare rates will become that benchmark.  There are two significant issues that I did not see addressed in the pricing rule that will have the effect of transferring substantial risk to providers.  

The first is that there will be little if any provision for recognition of complications, comorbidities, and hospital-acquired conditions that can dramatically impact the cost of care in a given diagnosis.  

The second is the elephant in the room. The current pricing system has developed over time to facilitate cross-subsidization among payors.  There is a reason that commercial rates are so high that has nothing to do with the cost of providing care.  I have stated before that, government has turned the entire healthcare industry into a taxing authority to extract tax from commercial payors for the benefit of government payors that routinely reimburse providers below the cost of providing care.  It has been entertaining to watch the reaction of Boards of Directors when they first realize that the healthcare system has been forced by government into a wealth redistribution mechanism.

So, what happens as providers lose the ability to cross-subsidize the cost of care?  Very few hospitals (<10%) are profitable on Medicare, and it is doubtful that any hospital is breaking even on services provided to Medicaid patients.  In my experience, hospital reimbursement for self-pay patients is less than 5% of charges.  If the prices hospitals realize for services start falling and they lose the current ability to cross-subsidize the cost of care . . . . . well, you don’t need an MBA to understand the likely outcome.

What to do?  If (when) prices start falling and providers lose pricing leverage, the only place to turn is operating expense.  Hospitals that have failed to undertake serious, highly focused, and robust operating cost reduction programs that yield quantifiable results may not have a very bright future.  If your organization is not in the bottom quartile of operating cost compared to its peer group and part of your mission is to remain independent, you must be losing sleep.  In a recent article related to COVID Response, I argued that the time has come to get after clinical process variance that is the source of most of the high cost, waste, and abuse in the healthcare system. For most organizations, the days of sourcing cheaper supplies and sending nurses home early are, for the most part, over as there is little if any juice remaining in that lemon.

If, as a leader, you do not have a plan that gets you to break-even on Medicare within the next 12-18 months, you had better have a plan B, something like tuning up your CV.  I can help you with your response to price transparency, working on your CV, or helping manage your next career transition as the case may turn out.  I am as close as your phone.  Best of luck.

Contact me to discuss any questions or observations you might have about these articles, leadership, transitions, or interim services. I might have an idea or two that might be valuable to you. An observation from my experience is that we need better leadership at every level in organizations. Some of my feedback comes from people demonstrating interest in advancing their careers and inspiring content to address those inquiries.

The easiest way to keep abreast of this blog is to become a follower. You are then notified of all updates as they occur. To become a follower, click the “Following” bubble that usually appears near each web page’s bottom.

I encourage you to use the comment section at the bottom of each article to provide feedback and stimulate discussion. I welcome input and feedback that will help me to improve the quality and relevance of this work.

This article is an original work. I copyright this material with reproduction prohibited without attribution. I note and provide links to supporting documentation for non-original material. If you choose to link any of my articles, I’d appreciate a notification.

If you would like to discuss any of this content, provide private feedback or ask questions, I may be reached at ras2@me.com.

https://interimcfo.wordpress.com/

Health Care in the 2020 Presidential Election: What’s at Stake

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, ACA, Chronic Care Management, Chronic Conditions, Chronic Diseases, Coronavirus, Crisis, Crisis Management, Deferred Healthcare, Employer-Based Health Insurance, Essential Health Benefits, Evidence-based Leadership, Evidence-Based Plan, Evidence-Based Policy, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, High Deductible Health Plans, High Drug Prices, High Premiums, High Prices, Medicaid, Medicaid Expansion, Medicare, National Strategy, Out of Pocket Expenses, Pandemic, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), Preexisting Conditions, Public Health, Public Opinion, Public Perception, Public Safety, Public Trust, Quarantine, Scientists, Social Distancing, Underinsured, Unemployment, Unemployment Insurance, Uninsured • Leave a comment

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/blog/2020/health-care-2020-presidential-election-whats-stake

Health Care in the 2020 Presidential Election: Summary

As the presidential election draws near, we reflect on the meaningful differences in health policy priorities and platforms between the two candidates, which we’ve described more fully in our recent blog series.

While similarities exist in some areas — most notably prescription drug pricing and proposals to control health care costs — the most striking differences between the positions taken by President Donald Trump and those of former Vice President Joe Biden are on safeguarding access to affordable health care coverage, advancing health equity for those who have been historically disadvantaged by the current system, and managing the novel coronavirus pandemic.

The importance of maintaining or expanding access to affordable health care in the midst of a pandemic cannot be understated. Going into the crisis, 30 million Americans lacked health coverage, with many more potentially at risk as a result of the current economic downturn. And even for many with coverage, costs are a barrier to receiving care. Moreover, despite efforts by Congress and the Trump administration to ease the financial burden of COVID-19 testing and treatment, many people remain concerned about costs; examples of charges for COVID-related medical expenses are not uncommon.

In this context, President Trump’s efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is the most important signal of his position on health care. The administration’s legal challenge of the law will be considered by the Supreme Court this fall. With no Trump proposal for a replacement to the ACA, if the Court strikes the law in its entirety or in part, many voters cannot be certain that their health coverage will be secure. By undermining the ACA — the vast law that protects Americans with preexisting health conditions and makes health coverage more affordable through a system of premium subsidies and cost-sharing assistance — the president has put coverage for millions at risk.

Trump issued an executive order to preserve preexisting condition protections. If the ACA remains intact, the order is redundant. But if the ACA is repealed by the Court, the order is meaningless because it lacks the legal underpinning and legislative framework to take effect.

In contrast, Vice President Biden has proposed expanding coverage through the ACA by adding a public option, enhancing subsidies to make health care more affordable, filling the gap for low-income families living in states that did not expand Medicaid, and giving people with employer health plans the option to enroll in marketplace coverage and take advantage of premium subsidies. For sure, if Biden is elected, many policy details must be ironed out; passing legislation in a deeply divided Congress is never easy. Despite these challenges, Biden proposes expanding health coverage rather than revoking it.

Just as COVID-19 has exposed gaps in health coverage and affordability, it also has highlighted the poor health outcomes stemming from racial and ethnic inequities in the U.S. health system. Communities of color — Black, Hispanic, and American Indian and Alaska Native people — have higher rates of COVID cases, hospitalizations, and deaths compared to white people. These disparities are a result of myriad factors, many of which are deeply rooted in structural racism. The candidates’ plans to address health disparities and advance health equity set them apart.

The ACA has played a critical role in reducing disparities in access to health care and narrowed the uninsured rate among Black and Hispanic people compared to white people. Medicaid expansion has been key to improving racial equity. Repealing the ACA, as President Trump has sought to do, would reverse these gains. Even beyond repealing the ACA, this administration has pursued policies intended to limit Medicaid eligibility — for example, by permitting states to impose work requirements and other restrictions that would lead to fewer people covered. These measures and others are already having an impact; coverage gains achieved through the ACA have eroded since 2016. Health care for legal immigrants also has declined as a result of policies like the recently finalized “public charge” rule, which seems also to have caused an increase in uninsurance among children. The administration has further revoked ACA antidiscrimination and civil rights protections for LGBTQ people.

In addition to restoring and expanding coverage under the ACA, Vice President Biden has pledged to address health disparities and reinstate antidiscrimination protections. He has a proposal to advance racial equity not just in health care but across the economy. If successful, his plan could address underlying factors contributing to higher rates of COVID-19 cases and deaths among people of color, as well as their higher rates of heart disease, diabetes, and other health conditions tied to social determinants of health.

Finally, the candidates differ deeply in their approaches to the coronavirus pandemic. President Trump has failed to orchestrate a national strategy for combating coronavirus and has routinely undermined accepted public health advice with respect to mask-wearing and social distancing. He has delegated to the states responsibility for controlling the pandemic when it is clear that the virus travels freely across the country, regardless of state borders. Lax states can negate the efforts of those states sacrificing to bring the pandemic under control. Vice President Biden has strongly signaled, though his personal conduct and rhetoric, that he intends more aggressive federal leadership in fighting the virus.

In a recent Commonwealth Fund survey of likely voters, control of the pandemic and covering preexisting conditions were very important factors in choosing a president. In seven battleground states, protections for preexisting conditions outweighed COVID-19 and health costs as the leading health care issue voters are considering. In all 10 battleground states included in the survey, Vice President Biden was viewed as the more likely candidate to address these critical health care issues.

Perhaps since the Civil War, the United States has never faced starker choices in a presidential election. In health and other areas, there are profound differences in the positions of President Trump and former Vice President Biden. Voting this November is literally a matter of life and death for the American people.

Health Care in the 2020 Presidential Election: Health Insurance Coverage and Affordability

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, ACA, Health Equity, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, High Deductible Health Plans, High Drug Prices, High Premiums, High Prices, Medicaid, Medicaid Expansion, Medicare, Out of Pocket Expenses, Preexisting Conditions, Supreme Court, Underinsured, Unemployment, Unemployment Insurance, Uninsured • Leave a comment

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/blog/2020/health-care-2020-presidential-election-health-insurance-coverage-and-affordability

Health Care in the 2020 Presidential Election: Coverage

The Issue

  • The number of uninsured people has increased since 2016, rising from 29 million, following the reforms of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), to 35.7 million by the end of 2019. The economic recession has left an estimated 3 million more people uninsured this year.
  • Racial inequities in coverage narrowed after the ACA, but uninsured rates among people of color exceed those of white people.
  • Many insured people pay premiums that consume an increasingly large share of their income.
  • An estimated 40 million people with insurance are effectively underinsured because of deductibles and cost-sharing.
  • An estimated 133 million people under age 65 have preexisting health conditions; COVID-19 has already increased that number by an estimated 3.4 million nonelderly adults (20–59) as of October 7.

The Candidates’ Approaches

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP

Overall approach: Repeal the ACA and replace it with market-driven coverage options aimed at lowering premiums and increasing choice of plans tailored to individual preferences; give states more flexibility in designing coverage options; require more accountability for people with low incomes enrolled in public programs; protect preexisting conditions.

Medicaid: Repeal the ACA Medicaid expansion for adults; provide block grants to states to design their own programs; increase accountability through work requirements.

Individual market and marketplaces: Has promoted weaker regulations on plans that don’t comply with the ACA’s preexisting condition protections and other requirements; elimination of advertising and enrollment assistance during open enrollment; elimination of payments to insurers to offer lower-deductible plans.

Employer coverage: Has promoted weaker regulations on association health plans that don’t comply with the ACA and allowed employers to fund accounts for employees to buy health plans on their own, including products that don’t comply with the ACA.

VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN

Overall approach: Protect insurance for people with preexisting conditions by supporting and building on the ACA; expand insurance coverage and reduce consumers’ health care costs by enhancing the ACA’s marketplace subsidies, covering people currently eligible for Medicaid in nonexpansion states, and giving more people in employer plans the option to enroll in marketplace plans with subsidies.

Medicaid: Expand enrollment by allowing eligible people in 12 states without Medicaid expansion to enroll in a public plan through the marketplaces with no premiums; make enrollment easier with autoenrollment.

Individual market and marketplaces: Expand enrollment through enhanced subsidies, greater advertising and enrollment assistance: no one pays more than 8.5 percent of income on marketplace coverage; change the benchmark plan from silver to gold to reduce deductibles and cost-sharing.

Employer coverage: Allows anyone with employer coverage to enroll in a public plan through the marketplaces and be eligible for subsidies.

Medicare: Would allow people ages 60 to 65 to enroll in a Medicare-like heath plan.

Implications of the Candidates’ Approaches

I DON’T HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE. WILL THE APPROACHES PROVIDE ME WITH NEW OPTIONS?

Trump: The number of people without health insurance has increased under the president’s watch in part because of policies that have eliminated the promotion and advertising of marketplace open-enrollment periods, enrollment restrictions in Medicaid, and immigration policies that have had a chilling effect on enrollment of legal immigrants and their children. Trump supports a lawsuit now before the Supreme Court that argues for repeal of the ACA, which would eliminate coverage for as many as 20 million people. Says he will come up with a replacement but has yet to do so.

Biden: Has introduced proposals to build on the ACA by covering people in the 12 states that haven’t expanded Medicaid and enhance subsidies for marketplace plans. This would provide new options for people who are currently uninsured and increase coverage over time.

I HAVE A PREEXISTING HEALTH CONDITION. WILL THE APPROACH GUARANTEE THAT I CAN ALWAYS GET COVERED?

Trump: The ACA currently provides this protection. Trump supports the lawsuit before the Supreme Court that argues for repeal of the ACA and its preexisting conditions provision. Trump issued an executive order that said preexisting conditions are protected, but without the ACA or new legislation the order has no effect and is purely symbolic.

Biden: The vice president pledges to support and build on the ACA, retaining its preexisting condition protections.

MY PREMIUMS AND DEDUCTIBLES ARE BECOMING LESS AFFORDABLE; WILL THE CANDIDATES’ APPROACHES LOWER THEM?

Trump: The president eliminated payments to insurers to reimburse them for offering lower-deductible plans in the ACA marketplaces to people with lower incomes, as required by the law. This had the effect of increasing premiums for people not eligible for subsidies. He has promoted the sale of non-ACA-compliant health plans, like short-term plans. These plans have lower premiums for healthy people but screen for preexisting conditions and often provide little cost protection if someone becomes sick. He has loosened regulations for association health plans, although that was turned back under legal challenge. The repeal of the ACA would mean the loss of marketplace subsidies and preexisting-condition protections, making coverage unavailable or unaffordable for people with low and moderate incomes and those with health problems.

Biden: The vice president’s proposal to enhance marketplace subsidies will cap the amount of premiums people pay at 8.5 percent of income, including people in employer plans who would have the option to enroll in the marketplaces. By linking subsidies to gold plans, deductibles would also fall for those who choose those plans.

I AM WORRIED ABOUT RACIAL INEQUITY IN HEALTH CARE. WILL THE APPROACH MAKE HEALTH COVERAGE MORE EQUITABLE?

Trump: Uninsured rates among Hispanic people have risen under the president’s watch. Repealing the ACA would further eliminate coverage gains made by Hispanics, as well as Black people and Asian Americans, widening racial disparities in coverage and access.

Biden: The vice president’s proposals to expand coverage under the ACA will particularly benefit people of color. This is because people living in the 12 states that have not yet expanded Medicaid are disproportionately Black and Hispanic.