Health Care in the 2020 Presidential Election — A Commonwealth Fund Blog Series

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/blog/2020/introducing-health-care-2020-presidential-election-series

Comparing the Candidates' Health Care Plans

Before each presidential election, the Commonwealth Fund analyzes the major health policy positions of the Democratic and Republican candidates to assist Americans in making informed choices. In 2020, with health care rising to the top of the electorate’s concerns for myriad reasons, this information has never been more important.

In the next week, we will be publishing a series of analyses that compare the positions of President Donald Trump and his challenger, former Vice President Joe Biden, on topics like:

prescription drug policy;

the affordability and availability of health care and insurance, including the issue of preexisting conditions;

questions concerning older adults, like Medicare; how best to control the costs of health care;

addressing mental and behavioral health concerns;

and strategies for advancing health care equity.

In most previous presidential election years, we have had the opportunity to compare fairly well-delineated party and candidate programs. In 2020, President Trump and the Republican party have chosen not to issue any party platform or formal policy positions. Therefore, we have derived our description of President Trump’s program from the policies he espoused, and decisions made during his first term. Vice President Biden’s information comes from his campaign platform.

We hope you find these summaries helpful as you weigh your choices for Election Day.

New Laws Strengthen California’s Response to Mental Health Crises

Governor Newsom signs legislation expanding access to quality behavioral health care.

Governor Newsom signs into law four bills expanding access to quality behavioral health care at a ceremony in Sacramento on September 25, 2020. Photo: Paula Ginsborg via YouTube

Governor Gavin Newsom has signed into law four bills intended to improve Californians’ access to mental health and substance use disorder services.

I pledged to put these critical services within reach of more Californians,” Newsom said in a September 25 statement. “The bills I am signing today will help Californians access the behavioral health services they need to recover.”

Essential Coverage

The coronavirus pandemic and the resulting economic downturn have persuaded Americans of the importance of behavioral health care services. In the last half of August, a National Council for Behavioral Health poll (PDF) found that the gap has widened considerably between demand for mental health and addiction treatment services and the financial viability of organizations that provide them. Over half of NCBH member organizations reported that in the three months before the survey, more Americans sought their services even as these providers lost, on average, 23% of their annual revenue.

A different survey, conducted in the last week of June, showed that one in four people age 18 to 24 seriously considered suicide in the past 30 days. That troubling finding was published in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In California, where the wildfire season got off to an early and destructive start, the converging crises are expected to worsen residents’ mental health. “We are very concerned about the layering of multiple stresses on the people of California,” Jim Kooler, DrPH, assistant deputy director of behavioral health in the California Department of Health Care Services, told Jocelyn Wiener in CalMatters.

Newsom, who signaled his commitment to mental health during his campaign for governor, became visibly emotional at the end of the September 25 virtual bill-signing ceremony. “Thanks for leading, thanks for making a difference,” he said to the legislators and mental health advocates on the video call. “This is making a difference in real people’s lives.”

Here are the four behavioral health bills that the governor approved:

Strengthening California’s Mental Health Parity Law

Gaps in California’s mental health parity law will be bridged under SB 855 by State Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco). “Current state law requires health plans to cover medically necessary treatment of just nine serious mental illnesses,” Jocelyn Wiener reported in an article about SB 855.

Mental health parity laws “have existed in both state and federal law for years, but insurers have used a complex determination of ‘medical necessity’ to deny care” for mental health issues and substance use disorders, Sigrid Bathen wrote in Capitol Weekly. (A recently published CHCF paper by researchers at Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms assessed California’s progress in enforcing the 2008 federal Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act.)

The new state law requires commercial health plans and insurers outside of Medi-Cal (which is regulated by different standards) to provide full coverage for treatment of all mental health conditions and substance use disorders. This includes treatments for post-traumatic stress disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and opioid use disorder, Sophia Bollag wrote in the Sacramento Bee. The new law also establishes specific standards for what constitutes medically necessary treatment and criteria for the use of clinical guidelines.

Creating a Certification Process for Peer Support Specialists

Under SB 803 by State Senator Jim Beall (D-San Jose), California will create a system to certify peer support specialists, define their roles, and help to scale up the Medi-Cal workforce.

In 2019, CHCF’s Lisa Aliferis visited Washington State to learn about its innovative statewide peer support program. A certified peer support specialist “identifies as having a significant life-altering mental health [or substance use] challenge and has been in recovery for at least a year,” Aliferis was told by Patti Marshall, the peer support program administrator for the Washington Health Care Authority’s behavioral health and recovery division.

Last year, California had not adopted a similar program — even though the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued Medicaid reimbursement guidelines for peer providers in 2007. Now, research has shown that peer support for those with co-occurring mental health and substance use diagnoses prevents rehospitalizations and facilitates their ability to live in the community. “When we say [peer support] saves lives, it’s not hyperbole,” Michelle Cabrera, executive director of the County Behavioral Health Directors Association of California, told Jocelyn Wiener in an article about peer support specialists. “It really is a linchpin in moving people [with mental health and substance use disorder issues] into recovery and stabilizing them long-term.”

Expanding Community Paramedicine

Community paramedicine is a locally designed, community-based, collaborative model of care that leverages the skills of paramedics and emergency medical services (EMS) systems to take advantage of collaborations between EMS and other health care and social service providers. Among other expanded roles, community paramedics are trained to handle behavioral health needs and, depending on the locally designed program, can transport intoxicated patients to sobering centers or mental health treatment, and help frequent 911 callers to obtain behavioral health, medical, housing, and social services. All of these protocols take pressure off hospital emergency departments that traditionally have been the only permitted destinations for patients cared for by EMS agencies.

In 2015, California began testing the model of care through 13 community paramedicine pilot projects across the state. An external evaluation conducted by the Healthforce Center at UCSF found that “community paramedics are collaborating successfully with physicians, nurses, behavioral health professionals, social workers, and outreach workers to fill gaps in the health and social services safety net.”

AB 1544 by Assemblymember Mike Gipson (D-Carson) will expand the pilot projects by authorizing local EMS agencies to develop alternative destination programs.

Learn how community paramedics in San Francisco and San Diego have been deployed by their local jurisdictions to help people experiencing homelessness during the pandemic.

Making Substance Use Disorder Treatment More Accessible

One-third of adults who receive county services for serious mental illnesses have a co-occurring substance or alcohol use disorder, according to Assemblymember Sharon Quirk-Silva (D-Fullerton). She authored AB 2265, which will authorize counties to use Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) funds — historically limited to mental health services — to treat Californians with co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders.

By removing barriers to using MHSA-funded services for such conditions, AB 2265 will “[increase] access to substance use disorder treatment, [improve] care coordination, and [lead] to a more integrated behavioral health care system,” according to the governor’s office.

Survey: Health plans to cost $15,500 per employee next year

https://www.cfodive.com/news/health-plans-employee-cost/583816/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Issue:%202020-08-21%20CFO%20Dive%20%5Bissue:29224%5D&utm_term=CFO%20Dive

Is Trump's debate claim about health care costs rising true? | PBS ...

More plans are expected to cover virtual office visits and expanded mental health and well-being offerings.

Dive Brief:

  • Large employers are projecting their health care benefit costs to surpass $15,500 per employee in 2021, Business Group on Health’s annual survey finds.
  • That would represent a 5.3% increase in costs, estimated at $14,769 this year.
  • The health plans are also expected to expand virtual care, mental health and emotional well-being offerings to employees.

Dive Insight:

The 5.3% increase is slightly higher than the 5% increases employers projected in each of the last five years, according to the 2021 Large Employers’ Health Care Strategy and Plan Design Survey.

In line with recent years, employers will cover nearly 70% of costs while employees will bear about 30%, or nearly $4,500, in 2021. 

“Health care costs are a moving target and one that employers continue to keep a close eye on,” said Ellen Kelsay, president and CEO of Business Group on Health. “The pandemic has triggered delays in both preventive and elective care, which could mean the projected trend for this year may turn out to be too high. If care returns to normal levels in 2021, the projected trend for next year may prove to be too low. It’s difficult to know where cost increases will land.”

The growth in virtual care is one of the trends identified in the survey. Eight in 10 health plan executives said virtual health will play a significant role in how care is delivered, up from 64% last year and 52% in 2018. More than half (52%) will offer more virtual care options next year.

Nearly all employers will offer telehealth services for minor, acute services while 91% will offer telemental health, and that could grow to 96% by 2023.

Virtual care for musculoskeletal management shows the greatest potential for growth. While 29% will offer musculoskeletal management virtually next year, another 39% are considering adding it by 2023. Employers are also expanding other virtual services including the delivery of health coaching and emotional well-being support. These offerings are expected to increase in the next few years.

“Virtual care is here to stay,” said Kelsay. “The pandemic caused the pace to accelerate at an astronomical rate. And virtual care is now garnering growing interest and receptivity from both employees and providers who increasingly see its benefit.”

Another key trend for employer plans in 2021 is the expansion of access to virtual mental health and emotional well-being services. More than two-thirds (69%) said they provide access to online mental health support resources such as apps, videos, and articles. That number is expected to jump to 88% in 2021.

Other findings:

  • More employers are linking health care with workforce strategy: The number of employers who view their health care strategy as an integral part of their workforce strategy increased from 36% in 2019 to 45% this year.
  • On-site clinics continue to grow: Nearly three in four respondents (72%) either have a clinic in place or will by 2023. Some employers are expanding services — 34% offer primary care services at the worksite, and an additional 26% plan to have this service available by 2023.
  • Growing interest in advanced primary care strategies: Over half of respondents (51%) will have at least one advanced primary care strategy next year up from 46% in 2020. These primary care arrangements, which move toward patient-centered population health management emphasizing prevention, chronic disease management, mental health and whole person care are key focus areas for employers.
  • Employers remain concerned about high-cost drug therapies. Two-thirds of respondents (67%) cited the impact of new million-dollar treatments as their top pharmacy benefits management concern.

 

 

 

 

How will Covid-19 affect employers’ healthcare costs? It depends, says PwC report

https://medcitynews.com/2020/06/how-will-covid-19-affect-employers-healthcare-costs-it-depends-says-pwc-report/?utm_campaign=MCN%20Daily%20Top%20Stories&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=90212485&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_yxVYJ-KPqLWePqF49EqIVP4Ca8AfsO5zVEzr3oseXQAZKeZI4EpC67d02dlcVim6PhZfM–3Kbpb8tmDBXhD-xatSIQ&utm_content=90212485&utm_source=hs_email

How will Covid-19 affect employers' healthcare costs? It depends ...

A report by PricewaterhouseCoopers said employer spending on healthcare could increase anywhere from 4% to 10% next year. The report highlighted three potential scenarios depending on what happens with the Covid-19 pandemic.

As the Covid-19 pandemic and resulting economic slowdown strain company budgets, employers are trying to calculate how much they will spend on healthcare next year. Soon, they will be picking health plans for 2021, and the pandemic will certainly go into that calculus.

A new report by PricewaterhouseCoopers attempts to forecast healthcare costs for next year. But there are still lots of unknowns. According to the report, the medical cost trend could increase between 4% and 10% in 2021.

Researchers with PwC’s Health Research Institute interviewed health plan actuaries from 12 national and regional payers over the past three months. The consensus? They were still unsure about the pandemic’s effect on spending now and what it will mean for 2021.

PwC considered three potential scenarios:

  • If healthcare spending remains down in 2021, PwC expects a 4% medical cost trend
  • If spending continues to grow at the same rate that it has from 2014 to 2019, PwC forecasts a 6% medical cost trend
  • If spending increases significantly next year in part due to pent-up demand from delayed care during the pandemic, PwC forecasts a 10% medical cost trend.

Employers are already considering measures to reduce their costs next year. For instance, a growing number are looking at narrow-network plans as a way of negotiating down prices.

“As the pandemic continues and the economic pressures increase, the shift towards narrow network will likely continue and accelerate,” PwC Health Research Institute Leader Ben Isgur wrote in an email.

In particular, large companies with more than 5,000 employees are more likely to consider this strategy, with 25% offering narrow-network plans, according to a 2019 survey by PwC.

Walmart is a recent example. The company began offering “curated physician networks” in Arkansas, Florida and Texas in 2020. In March, the company indicated it would expand on its network strategies.

More companies are also expanding their telehealth services, in part a direct result of the pandemic. While this may not save them money in the short-term — most insurers are currently reimbursing the same for telehealth visits as in-office visits — in the long term, it is expected to reduce costs.

“Employers understand the benefits of telehealth including lower costs, easier access, less time away from work and a good consumer experience,” Isgur wrote. “89 percent of employers surveyed by PwC in spring 2019 offered telemedicine either through their medical vendor or a carve-out vendor, up from 56 percent in 2016. Over the past few months, we have seen telehealth accelerate even faster.”

A couple of ongoing factors could increase spending next year. Employers are adding mental health services to their health plans, and have seen increased demand for those services, especially in light of the pandemic. According to a recent survey by the Health Research Institute, 12% of individuals on employer plans said they had sought mental health services, and another 18% planned to do so.

Specialty drug spending is also expected to drive up costs, as the majority of pharmaceuticals planned for release next year are specialty drugs. This is not a new trend; of companies’ total drug spending, specialty drugs grew from 21% of the total in 2010 to 58% in 2017.

Many patients have delayed care as a result of the pandemic. Even as medical offices begin to offer in-person visits again, volumes are still down. It’s still too early to tell whether that will lead to a surge in spending next year due to postponed — but needed — procedures.

According to PwC, 22% of patients with employer-sponsored insurance have delayed care since March.

“We could see the population risk increase for 2021 if members with chronic conditions are not able to manage their health as effectively in 2020 due to Covid-19,” Amy Yao, senior vice president and chief actuary at Blue Shield of California, told PwC’s Health Research Institute.

 

 

 

 

Californians increasingly concerned about access to mental healthcare and rising cost of care

https://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/node/139807?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTldNMllXTmpNVEJpTVRNMSIsInQiOiI1MVlQdys0d2FHbVZESVVjMDNFS2tnQVNJSlNjS2xsT1BCXC9FdGFZbWI2TDZQcnBJZHZIU2p4Qm9GNEw1K1ZsM1M5SVVPYU51OGxxOVJNRndtTlY1UXFkaFNueDVXbTlWbHRmSHF2YWhhVVdZdkthc0FzOHBIWFN3ZTNXdHVoVTkifQ%3D%3D

For the second year in a row, residents say making sure people with mental health problems can get treatment is their top healthcare priority.

Mental healthcare access remains a top priority for nine in 10 Californians, while the rising cost of physical and mental healthcare is causing increasing numbers of Californians to struggle to pay for prescription drugs, medical bills, and healthcare premiums, finds a new poll from the California Health Care Foundation.

The poll, Health Care Priorities and Experiences of California Residents, offers detailed insight into Californians’ views on a range of critical health issues, including healthcare affordability and access, perceptions on homelessness, the healthcare workforce, Medi-Cal, and the experiences of the uninsured. Results from the survey are also compared to a 2019 CHCF poll on the same topics to identify emerging trends.

WHAT’S THE IMPACT

For the second year in a row, California residents say making sure people with mental health problems can get treatment is their top healthcare priority. Nine in 10 said this was extremely or very important, and 52% said it was “extremely” important — topping all other health issues.

More than one in four Californians (27%) say that they or a family member received treatment for a mental health condition in the past 12 months; 7% say they or a family member received treatment for an alcohol or drug use problem.

Among those with insurance who tried to make an appointment for mental healthcare in the past 12 months, almost half (48%) found it very or somewhat difficult to find a provider who took their insurance. More than half (52%) of those who tried to make an appointment (with or without insurance) believe they waited longer than was reasonable to get one.

Nearly nine in 10 (89%) respondents are in favor of increasing the number of mental healthcare providers in parts of the state where providers are in short supply. And 89% favor enforcing rules requiring health insurance companies to provide mental healthcare at the same level as physical health care.

WHAT ELSE YOU SHOULD KNOW

Meanwhile, a little more than half of Californians (51%) have skipped or postponed physical or mental healthcare due to cost — up from 44% last year. Of those who took this step, 42% said it made their condition worse.

Compared to last year’s survey, Californians are more worried about paying for unexpected medical bills (63% last year; 69% today), out-of-pocket healthcare costs (55% vs. 66%), prescription drugs (42% vs. 50%), and health insurance premiums (39% vs. 44%).

Nearly a quarter of residents said they or someone in their family had problems paying, or an inability to pay medical bills in the past 12 months, while almost one-third of those with incomes under 200% of the federal poverty level report having problems paying their medical bills, compared to 19% of those with higher incomes. Uninsured adults report trouble paying their medical bills (45%) at twice the rate of those with employer-sponsored health insurance (20%).

More than eight in 10 (82%) respondents say it is important to lower the price of prescription drugs — up from 75% last year.

When compared to other issues facing the state, Californians rank healthcare affordability as their top priority among a range of public challenges presented in the poll — with 84% of respondents citing it as extremely or very important.

Improving public education received the same response (84%), closely followed by addressing homelessness (83%), attracting and retaining businesses and jobs (78%), and making housing more affordable (76%). Support for making healthcare more affordable cut across party identification, race, and income lines.

THE LARGER TREND

Ninety-six percent of employers believe improving mental health in the workplace is good for their business, but only 65% indicate their company provides adequate mental health services, according to findings from a December survey released by national nonprofit Transamerica Center for Health Studies.

Generally, there’s awareness that an employee’s physical health has an impact on absenteeism and productivity. But mental health, formerly a taboo subject, is garnering increasing recognition as well, and for the same reasons.

While almost all employers believe improving mental health in the workplace is good for their business, 17% of employers acknowledge not offering any resources at all. The most common mental health resources offered by employers are stress management classes (39%) and mental health awareness training (39%).
 

California Health Policy Poll Released

https://elink.clickdimensions.com/m/1/52313696/02-b20044-0c24a5f919b04c9baf7a61e0f9656ec6/6/989/a24990fd-e009-4b4b-be17-ea9b7c8eef0e

Increases in Worry Over Health Care Costs and Skipping/ Postponing Treatment Due to Cost Over the Last Year

PERCENTAGE WHO SAY THEY ARE VERY OR SOMEWHAT WORRIED ABOUT…

 

For 2020, California Goes Big On Health Care

For 2020, California Goes Big On Health Care

https://www.comstocksmag.com/kaiser-health-news/2020-california-goes-big-health-care

California is known for progressive everything, including its health care policies, and, just a few weeks into 2020, state leaders aren’t disappointing.

The politicians’ health care bills and budget initiatives are heavy on ideas and dollars — and on opposition from powerful industries. They put California, once again, at the forefront.

The proposals would lower prescription drug costs, increase access to health coverage, and restrict and tax vaping. But most lawmakers agree that homelessness will dominate the agenda, including proposals to get people into housing while treating some accompanying physical and mental health problems.

“This budget doubles down on the war on unaffordability — from taking on health care costs and having the state produce our own generic drugs to expanding the use of state properties to build housing quickly,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a letter to the legislature, which accompanied the $222.2 billion budget proposal he unveiled last Friday. About a third of that money would be allocated to health and human services programs.

But even with a Democratic supermajority in the legislature, these proposals aren’t a slam-dunk. “There are other factors that come into play, like interest groups with strong presence in the Capitol,” including Big Pharma and hospitals, said Shannon McConville, a senior researcher at the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California.

Drug Pricing

Newsom’s plan to create a state generic drug label is perhaps his boldest health care proposal in this year’s budget, as it would make California the first state to enter the drug-manufacturing business. It may also be his least concrete.

Newsom wants the state to contract with one or more generics manufacturers to make drugs that would be available to Californians at lower prices. Newsom’s office provided little detail about how this would work or which drugs would be produced. The plan’s cost and potential savings are also unspecified. (Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, proposed a similar plan at the federal level.)

Because the generics market is already competitive and generic drugs make up a small portion of overall drug spending, a state generic-drug offering would likely result in only modest savings, said Geoffrey Joyce, director of health policy at USC’s Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics.

However, it could make a difference for specific drugs such as insulin, he said, which nearly doubled in price from 2012 to 2016. “It would reduce that type of price gouging,” he said.

Representatives of Big Pharma said they’re more concerned about a Newsom proposal to establish a single market for drug pricing in the state. Under this system, drug manufacturers would have to bid to sell their medications in California, and would have to offer prices at or below prices offered to any other state or country.

Californians could lose access to existing treatments and groundbreaking drugs, warned Priscilla VanderVeer, vice president for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the industry’s lobbying arm.

This proposal could “let the government decide what drugs patients are going to get,” she said. “When the governor sets an artificially low price for drugs, that means there will be less money to invest in innovation.”

Newsom’s drug pricing proposals build on his executive order from last year directing the state to negotiate drug prices for the roughly 13 million enrollees of Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program for low-income residents. He also ordered a study of how state agencies could band together — and, eventually, with private purchasers such as health plans — to buy prescription drugs in bulk.

 

Homelessness

California has the largest homeless population in the nation, estimated at more than 151,000 people in 2019, according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. About 72% of the state’s homeless slept outside or in cars rather than in shelters or temporary housing.

Newsom has asked for $1.4 billion in the 2020-21 state budget for homelessness, most of which would go to housing and health care. For instance, $695 million would boost health care and social services for homeless people via Medi-Cal. The money would fund programs such as recuperative care for homeless people who need a place to stay after they’ve been discharged from the hospital, and rental assistance if a person’s homelessness is tied to high medical costs.

A separate infusion of $24.6 million would go to the Department of State Hospitals for a pilot program to keep some people with mental health needs out of state hospitals and in community programs and housing.

 

Surprise Bills

California has some of the strongest protections against surprise medical bills in the nation, but millions of residents remain vulnerable to exorbitant charges because the laws don’t cover all insurance plans.

Surprise billing occurs when a patient receives care from a hospital or provider outside of their insurance network, and then the doctor or hospital bills the patient for the amount insurance didn’t cover.

Last year, state Assembly member David Chiu (D-San Francisco) introduced legislation that would have limited how much hospitals could charge privately insured patients for out-of-network emergency services. The bill would have required hospitals to work directly with health plans on billing, leaving the patients responsible only for their in-network copayments, coinsurance and deductibles.

But he pulled the measure because of strong opposition from hospitals, which criticized it as a form of rate setting.

Chiu said he plans to resume the fight this year, likely with amendments that have not been finalized. But hospitals remain opposed to the provision that would cap charges, a provision that Chiu says is essential.

“We continue to fully support banning surprise medical bills, but we believe it can be done without resorting to rate setting,” said Jan Emerson-Shea, a spokesperson for the California Hospital Association.

 

Medi-Cal For Unauthorized Immigrants

California is the first state to offer full Medicaid benefits to income-eligible residents up to age 26, regardless of their immigration status.

Now Democrats are proposing another first: California could become the first to open Medicaid to adults ages 65 and up who are in the country illegally.

Even though Medicaid is a joint state-federal program, California must fund full coverage of unauthorized immigrants on its own.

Newsom set aside $80.5 million in his 2020-21 proposed budget to cover about 27,000 older adults in the first year. His office estimated ongoing costs would be about $350 million a year.

Republicans vocally oppose such proposals. “Expanding such benefits would make it more difficult to provide health care services for current Medi-Cal enrollees,” state Sen. Patricia Bates (R-Laguna Niguel) said in a prepared statement.

 

Vaping

Dozens of California cities and counties have restricted the sale of flavored tobacco products in an effort to curb youth vaping.

But last year, state legislators punted on a statewide ban on flavored tobacco sales after facing pressure from the tobacco industry.

Now, state Sen. Jerry Hill (D-San Mateo) is back with his proposed statewide flavor ban, which may have more momentum this year. Since last summer, a mysterious vaping illness has sickened more than 2,600 people nationwide, leading to 60 deaths, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In California, at least 199 people have fallen ill and four have died.

Hill’s bill would ban retail sales of flavored products related to electronic cigarettes, e-hookahs and e-pipes, including menthol flavor. It also would prohibit the sale of all flavored smokable and nonsmokable tobacco products, such as cigars, cigarillos, pipe tobacco, chewing tobacco, snuff and tobacco edibles.

Newsom has also called for a new tax on e-cigarette products — $2 for each 40 milligrams of nicotine, on top of already existing tobacco taxes on e-cigarettes. The tax would have to be approved by the legislature as part of the budget process and could face heavy industry opposition.

Tobacco-related bills are usually heard in the Assembly Governmental Organization Committee, “and that is where a lot of tobacco legislation, quite frankly, dies,” said Assembly member Jim Wood (D-Healdsburg), who supports vaping restrictions.

 

 

 

 

The fight to keep Medicaid for inmates

https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-vitals-cd5b1e39-4d51-47d8-840c-1d446b3fccc4.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosvitals&stream=top

Image result for inmate healthcare

Some local and state officials want Medicaid to start picking up the tab for inmates’ health care, Stateline reports.

How it works: Medicaid beneficiaries lose their coverage while they’re incarcerated — including pretrial detention for people who can’t make bail — and county governments are generally responsible for providing their care, Axios’ Marisa Fernandez writes.

State and local officials want Medicaid to start paying those bills. A single seriously ill inmate — someone with HIV, for example — can quickly strain county budgets, they said.

40 states have already changed their rules so that Medicaid coverage kicks back in more quickly once people are released from jail.

  • Delays in restoring coverage can hurt patients, and in some cases — for example, people who are being treated for certain mental-health issues — can make recidivism more likely.

 

https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2020/01/08/in-reversal-counties-and-states-help-inmates-keep-medicaid?utm_campaign=KHN%3A%20First%20Edition&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=81622772&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9fRnR81-4_9cmDmN8j3MExD7qzNBRPYm6sv1h4nr5zvhn30jRbLmYp0MzuYjC0oPKJWRpJjmwImumSI6_5jWU0ZYmBHQ&_hsmi=81622772

 

U of Iowa Hospitals & Clinics CEO: ‘Everything in healthcare doesn’t need to be done by a hospital CEO’

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/hospital-management-administration/u-of-iowa-hospitals-clinics-ceo-everything-in-healthcare-doesn-t-need-to-be-done-by-a-hospital-ceo.html

Despite branching out through nearly 60 outpatient clinics, the University of Iowa Hospitals & Clinics in Iowa City — which includes the only comprehensive university medical center in the state — by and large remains a healthcare destination.

As such, demand for inpatient services hasn’t waned, but has kept on par with the surge in outpatient demand that the entire industry is seeing, Suresh Gunasekaran, the CEO of University of Iowa Hospitals & Clinics and associate vice president for the University of Iowa Health Care, told Becker’s Hospital Review.

That’s not to say strategic threats don’t exist. The biggest ones threatening the University of Iowa Hospitals & Clinics are retail medicine providers that cherry-pick services but aren’t able to provide coordinated care, Mr. Gunasekaran said.

“It’s great that today there’s more convenient care being provided by retail providers. The biggest threat, though, is if healthcare consumers start believing that getting disconnected care is worth it,” he said. “We’re in the business of connected care.”

Tackling this challenge will require input from all parties, not just the hospital CEO, he said. Here, Mr. Gunasekaran expands on how University of Iowa Hospitals & Clinics is facing the threat of uncoordinated retail medicine, and answers questions on board oversight and the changing role of the hospital CEO.

 

Question: What do you consider your biggest strategic threat?

Suresh Gunasekaran: Major threats are those healthcare services that don’t believe in team-based care, that focus on cherry-picking a corridor of healthcare without thinking about the health of the whole person.

There’s unmet demand in communities for [accessible healthcare]. If Walmart is willing to offer a clinic, they may be the only clinic for 20 miles. What I’d hope is these kinds of Walmart and CVS providers look at how they partner with players like us. In that sense, we don’t view retail medicine as a threat as much as an opportunity. But when they’re not collaborative, that’s a threat to us. It’s only good if the care is coordinated.

Q: U of Iowa Hospitals & Clinics has its own retail clinics. How do they play into the larger consumerism trend healthcare is seeing?

SG: We’re in our fifth year of offering retail urgent care clinics. We offer a setting that’s lower cost and very competitive with other retail clinics. We’ve seen a lot of uptake and growth within this model, but it’s our ability to say: Hey, urgent care and retail healthcare absolutely have a place, but they need to be connected to our lab in radiology and to our specialists.

The next frontier for us is how to partner with other retail clinics. It’s easy to partner with yourself, but it’s more challenging to make it work with others.

Q: U of Iowa Hospitals & Clinics is a state agency, so your board is really the board of regents of the state of Iowa. Have you faced increased pressure from the board to take up any initiatives?

SG: The board of regents has asked we keep a couple issues front and center. There continues to be inadequate maternal healthcare resources for the young moms of Iowa, with more and more hospitals unable to recruit staff to deliver babies. Data shows maternal death is increasing in Iowa, which is a very, very troubling statistic. So we are bringing the full strength of the University of Iowa together on this. We just got a huge research grant from the federal government to create better models for maternal health across the state.

Mental health is another area, and a huge area of priority for our governor. We are looking at expanding our residency program to rural areas that are underserved for mental health. Other things we’re looking at is the workforce shortage and social determinants of health.

Q: How do you think the CEO role will evolve over the next decade? Will we see more hospital CEOs take stances on bigger public issues?

SG: Hospitals within the healthcare industry have [historically] been very insular. You almost could run your business without worrying about the rest of the system. Now with healthcare reform and greater governmental and employer scrutiny of healthcare costs, folks are asking hospital systems to answer for what’s going on in a broader industry. And of course, CEOs have to embrace that journey.

Are we going to get involved in those multiple different steps? Not just access to care, not just the pricing of care, not just care coordination, not just how to get the community to get engaged in their own health. The CEO of the future has to have a stance on all of these, because it’s impossible to go where we need to go without being involved.

Perhaps the CEO is not that important. At the end of the day when you look at these issues, it’s important that we’re at the table, but the community needs to come first. It’s an opportunity for employers to take the lead. It’s an opportunity for the government to take a lead. Everything in healthcare doesn’t need to be done by a hospital CEO, and in the future, probably isn’t best done by a hospital CEO. We need to be one part of the team.

Q: You’ve been leading the University of Iowa Hospitals & Clinics for a little over a year now. Is there any piece of advice you would go back and give yourself on day one?

SG: Never lose the voice of the patient. I got that at the end of my first year, and I think that beginning with the voice of the patient would’ve been very, very powerful. It’s somewhat impractical that you show up to a new job, and of course, you’re going to meet the people within your organization first. But never forgetting the voice of the patient and being able to hear who you are in their eyes and in their words would have been very powerful [on day one]. But I’m making up for lost time.

 

Medicare for All’s missing mental health discussion

https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-vitals-852bf32f-c3b0-4a2c-9d1f-271843830128.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosvitals&stream=top

Illustration of a health plus on a therapist couch.

America’s mental health care system is in dire need of an overhaul, but the real specifics are largely missing from the 2020 debate about health care.

Why it matters: Suicide and drug overdose rates continue to rise, and the U.S. faces a shortage of mental health providers and a lack of access to treatment.

The big picture: Private insurance is plagued with holes in mental health coverage. Even even though insurers are legally required to cover behavioral health the same way as physical health, they don’t.

Yes, but: “Medicare to All” may not solve the problem, Mental Health America president and CEO Paul Gionfriddo told me.

  • “Medicare would need to be redesigned significantly,” he said.
  • Medicare has its own coverage flaws. It would also be crucial to design a system that encourages preventive and early identification services rather than just post-crisis care.

There’s also a shortage of mental-health providers. Paying mental health providers more could help address this, but care delivery would also need to be redesigned, Gionfriddo said.

  • Rural areas, for example, would likely still struggle to attract and support these providers because of their remoteness and population size.
  • The big wild card is how many mental health providers would participate in a Medicare for all program or opt out of insurance entirely,” said the Kaiser Family Foundation’s Larry Levitt.

For Democrats who support Medicare for All, highlighting how it could help mental health care could have a political upside.

  • Talking about mental health care needs humanizes the candidates, indicts the shortcomings of private insurance and provides rationale for the need for significant reforms around the current system,” Democratic health consultant Chris Jennings said.