Category Archives: Preexisting Conditions

Cartoon – Out of Pocket Experience

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Cartoon, Chronic Care Management, Chronic Conditions, Chronic Diseases, Employer-Based Health Insurance, Essential Health Benefits, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Insurance Industry, Health Insurance Premiums, Health Policy, High Deductible Health Plans, High Drug Prices, High Premiums, High Prices, Out of Pocket Expenses, Preexisting Conditions, Underinsured, Unemployment, Unemployment Insurance, Uninsured • Leave a comment

Out Of Pocket Cartoons and Comics - funny pictures from CartoonStock

2020 Health Care Legislative Guide

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Clinical Testing, Contact Tracing, Coronavirus, 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, Nonpartisan, Out of Pocket Expenses, Pandemic, Preexisting Conditions, Public Health, Public Safety, Telemedicine, Underinsured, Unemployment, Unemployment Insurance, Uninsured, Vulnerable Populations, Worker Protection • Leave a comment

https://unitedstatesofcare.org/resources/2020-health-care-legislative-guide/

Pennsylvania 2020 Health Care Legislative Guide - United States of Care

ABOUT THE UNITES STATES OF CARE

United States of Care is a nonpartisan nonprofit working to ensure every person in America has access to
quality, affordable health care regardless of health status, social need or income. USofCare works with elected
officials and other state partners across the country by connecting with our extensive health care expert
network and other state leaders; providing technical policy assistance; and providing strategic communications
and political support. Contact USofCare at help@usofcare.org

Health care remains one of the most important problems facing America.

Voters are concerned about access to and the cost for health care and insurance.

Health Care During the COVID Pandemic
The COVID-19 pandemic has illuminated the need for effective solutions that address both the immediate
challenges and the long-term gaps in our health care systems to ensure people can access quality health care
they can afford. Americans are feeling a mix of emotions related to the pandemic, and those emotions are
overwhelmingly negative.*

In addition, the pandemic has illuminated deficiencies of our health care system.

People feel that the U.S. was caught unprepared to handle the pandemic and our losses have
been greater than those of other countries.

People blame government for the inadequate pandemic response, not health care systems.

Health Care During the COVID Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has illuminated the need for effective solutions that address both the immediate challenges and the long-term gaps in our health care systems to ensure people can access quality health care they can afford. In the wake of COVID, policymakers have a critical opportunity to enact solutions to meet their constituents’ short- and long-term health care needs. The 2020 Health Care Legislative Candidate Guide provides candidates with public opinion data, state-specific health care information, key messages and ideas for your health care platform.

Key Messages for Candidates:

  • Acknowledge the moment: “Our country is at a pivotal moment. The pandemic, economic recession, and national discussion on race have created a renewed call for action. They have also magnified the critical problems that exist in our health care system.”
  • Take an active stance: “It is long past time to examine our systems and address gaps that have existed for decades. We must find solutions and common ground to build a health care system that serves everyone.”
  • Commit to prioritizing people’s needs: “I will put people’s health care needs first and I’m already formalizing the ways I gather input and work with community and business leaders to put effective solutions in place.”
  • Commit to addressing disparities and finding common ground: “The health care system, as it’s currently structured, isn’t working for far too many. I will work to address the lack of fairness and shared needs to build a health care system that works for all of us.”

Click to access USC_Generic_CandidateEducationGuide.pdf

 

 

Promising State Policies to Respond to People’s Health Care Needs

In the wake of COVID, policymakers have a critical opportunity to enact solutions to meet their constituents’
short- and long-term health care needs. Shared needs and expectations are emerging in response to the
pandemic, including the desire for solutions that:

Ensure individuals are able to provide for themselves and their loved ones, especially those worried about
the financial impact of the pandemic.

• Protect against high out-of-pocket costs.
• Expand access to telehealth services for people who prefer it to improve access to care.
• Extend Medicaid coverage for new moms to remove financial barriers to care to support healthier moms
and babies.

Ensure a reliable health care system that is fully resourced to support essential workers and available when
it is needed, both now and after the pandemic.

• Ensure safe workplaces for front-line health care workers and essential workers and increase the capacity to
maintain a quality health care workforce.
• Support hospitals and other health care providers, particularly those in rural or distressed areas.
• Expand mental health services and community workforce to meet increased need.

Ensure a health care system that cares for everyone, including people who are vulnerable and those who
were already struggling before the pandemic hit.

• Adopt an integrated approach to people’s overall health by coordinating people’s physical health, behavioral health
and social service needs.
• Establish coordinated data collection to quickly address needs and gaps in care, especially in vulnerable
communities.

Provide accurate information and clear recommendations on the virus and how to stay healthy and safe.
• Build and maintain capacity for detailed and effective testing and surveillance of the virus.
• Resource and implement contact tracing by utilizing existing programs in state health departments, pursuing
public-private partnerships, or app-based solutions while also ensuring strong privacy protections.

 

BY THE NUMBERS

The pandemic is showing different impacts for people across the country
that point to larger challenges individuals and families are grappling.

A disproportionate number of those infected by COVID-19 are Black, Indigenous, and people of color. According to recent CDC data, 31.4% of cases and 17% of deaths are among Latino residents and 19.9% of cases and 22.4% of deaths were among Black residents.ix They make up 18.5% and 13.4% of the total population, respectively.

Seniors are at greatest risk. According to a CDC estimate on August 1, 2020, 80% of COVID-19 deaths were among patients ages 65 and older. In 2018, only 16% of Americans were in this age range.

Access to health care in rural areas has only become more challenging during the pandemic and will likely have lasting impacts on rural communities.

The economic fallout of the pandemic has caused nearly 27 million Americans to lose their employer-based health insurance. An estimated 12.7 million would be eligible for Medicaid; 8.4 million could qualify for subsidies on exchanges; leaving 5.7 million who would need to cover the cost of health insurance policies (COBRA policies averaged $7,188 for a single person to $20,576 for a family of four) or remain uninsured.

 

Children might play a bigger role in COVID transmission than first thought. Schools must prepare

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Asymptomatic Transmission, Chronic Care Management, Chronic Conditions, Chronic Diseases, Clinical Testing, Contact Tracing, Coronavirus, Crisis, Crisis Management, Economic Crisis, Economic Recovery, Infection Control, Infection Control Plan, Infectious Virus, Leadership Decentralized, Misinformation, Misinterpret, Mislead, Misleading, Mistake, Mistrust, Mixed Message, Mortality, National Strategy, Pandemic, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), Preexisting Conditions, Public Health, Public Opinion, Public Perception, Public Safety, Public Schools, Public Trust, Quarantine, School Reopening, Scientists, Social Distancing, World Health Organization (WHO) • Leave a comment

https://theconversation.com/children-might-play-a-bigger-role-in-covid-transmission-than-first-thought-schools-must-prepare-144947?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20August%2028%202020%20-%201715916573&utm_content=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20August%2028%202020%20-%201715916573+Version+A+CID_8719e3ecf842bc9762e48ce42f2ba6ad&utm_source=campaign_monitor_us&utm_term=Children%20might%20play%20a%20bigger%20role%20in%20COVID%20transmission%20than%20first%20thought%20Schools%20must%20prepare

Children might play a bigger role in COVID transmission than first thought—schools must prepare

Over the weekend, the World Health Organisation made an announcement you might have missed.

It recommended children aged 12 years and older should wear masks, and that masks should be considered for those aged 6-11 years. The German Society for Virology went further, recommending masks be worn by all children attending school.

This seems at odds with what we assumed about kids and COVID-19 at the start of the pandemic. Indeed, one positive in this pandemic so far has been that children who contract the virus typically experience mild illness. Most children don’t require hospitalisation and very few die from the disease. However, some children can develop a severe inflammatory syndrome similar to Kawasaki disease, although this is thankfully rare.

This generally mild picture has contributed to cases in children being overlooked. But emerging evidence suggests children might play a bigger role in transmission than originally thought. They may be equally as infectious as adults based on the amount of viral genetic material found in swabs, and we have seen large school clusters emerge in Australia and around the world.

How likely are children to be infected?

Working out how susceptible children are has been difficult. Pre-emptive school closures occurred in many countries, removing opportunities for the virus to circulate in younger age groups. Children have also missed out on testing because they typically have mild symptoms. In Australia, testing criteria were initially very restrictive. People had to have a fever or a cough to be tested, which children don’t always have. This hindered our ability to detect cases in children, and created a perception children weren’t commonly infected.

One way to address this issue is through antibody testing, which can detect evidence of past infection. A study of over 60,000 people in Spain found 3.4% of children and teenagers had antibodies to the virus, compared with 4.4% to 6.0% of adults. But Spain’s schools were also closed, which likely reduced children’s exposure.

Another method is to look at what happens to people living in the same household as a known case. The results of these studies are mixed. Some have suggested a lower risk for children, while others have suggested children and adults are at equal risk.

Children might have some protection compared to adults, because they have less of the enzyme which the virus uses to enter the body. So, given the same short exposure, a child might be less likely to be infected than an adult. But prolonged contact probably makes any such advantage moot.

The way in which children and adults interact in the household might explain the differences seen in some studies. This is supported by a new study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Children and partners of a known case were more likely to be infected than other people living in the same house. This suggests the amount of close, prolonged contact may ultimately be the deciding factor.

How often do children transmit the virus?

Several studies show children and adults have similar amounts of viral RNA in their nose and throat. This suggests children and adults are equally infectious, although it’s possible children transmit the virus slightly less often than adults in practice. Because children are physically smaller and generally have more mild symptoms, they might release less of the virus.

In Italy, researchers looked at what happened to people who’d been in contact with infected children, and found the contacts of children were more likely to be infected than the contacts of adults with the virus.

Teenagers are of course closer to adults, and it’s possible younger children might be less likely to transmit the virus than older children. However, reports of outbreaks in childcare centres and primary schools suggest there’s still some risk.

What have we seen in schools?

Large clusters have been reported in schools around the world, most notably in Israel. There, an outbreak in a high school affected at least 153 students, 25 staff members, and 87 others. Interestingly, that particular outbreak coincided with an extreme heatwave where students were granted an exemption from having to wear face masks, and air conditioning was used continuously.

At first glance, the Australian experience seems to suggest a small role for children in transmission. A study of COVID-19 in educational settings in New South Wales in the first half of the year found limited evidence of transmission, although a large outbreak was noted to have occurred in a childcare centre.

This might seem reassuring, but it’s important to remember the majority of cases in Australia were acquired overseas at the time of the study, and there was limited community transmission. Also, schools switched to distance learning during the study, after which school attendance dropped to 5%. This suggests school safety is dependent on the level of community transmission.

Additionally, we shouldn’t be reassured by examples where children have not transmitted the virus to others. Approximately 80% of secondary COVID-19 cases are generated by only 10% of people. There are also many examples where adults haven’t transmitted the virus.

As community transmission has grown in Victoria, so has the significance of school clusters. The Al-Taqwa College outbreak remains one of Australia’s largest clusters. Importantly, the outbreak there has been linked to other clusters in Melbourne, including a major outbreak in the city’s public housing towers.

Close schools when community transmission is high

This evidence means we need to take a precautionary approach. When community transmission is low, face-to-face teaching is probably low-risk. But schools should switch to distance learning during periods of sustained community transmission. If we fail to address the risk of school outbreaks, they can spread into the wider community.

While most children won’t become severely ill if they contract the virus, the same cannot be said for their adult family members or their teachers. In the US, 40% of teachers have risk factors for severe COVID-19, as do 28.6 million adults living with school-aged children.

Recent recommendations on mask-wearing by older and younger children mirror risk-reduction guidelines for schools developed by the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health. These guidelines stress the importance of face masks, improving ventilation, and the regular disinfection of shared surfaces.

The changing landscape

As the virus has spread more widely, the demographic profile of cases has changed. The virus is no longer confined to adult travellers and their contacts, and children are now commonly infected. In Germany, the proportion of children in the number of new infections is now consistent with their share of the total population.

While children are thankfully much less likely to experience severe illness than adults, we must consider who children have contact with and how they can contribute to community transmission. Unless we do, we won’t succeed in controlling the pandemic.

 

 

 

 

Trump Unveils Healthcare Agenda

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Abortion, ACA, 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, Pandemic, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), Pharmaceutical Industry, Preexisting Conditions, Prescription Drugs, Social Security, Supreme Court, Surprise Bills, Underinsured, Unemployment, Unemployment Insurance, Uninsured, Vaccine, Vague, Womens Health • Leave a comment

https://www.medpagetoday.com/washington-watch/electioncoverage/88250?xid=nl_mpt_DHE_2020-08-26&eun=g885344d0r&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily%20Headlines%20Top%20Cat%20HeC%20%202020-08-26&utm_term=NL_Daily_DHE_dual-gmail-definition

What's in, and out, of Biden's health care plan

List of bullet points prompts debate over lack of detail, potential for actual achievement.

Health policy scholars critiqued the Trump campaign’s broad strokes healthcare agenda for his potential second term. While some found it overly vague, even dishonest, one suggested it was precisely what voters want.

Released Sunday night as a list of bullet points, the “Fighting for You” agenda will apparently serve as the Republican platform for the 2020 election. The GOP’s platform committee voted over the weekend to dispense with the customary detailed policy document for this cycle, in favor of simply backing President Trump’s agenda.

That agenda, which the Trump campaign promised would be fleshed out in future speeches and statements, included the following points relevant to healthcare:

Eradicate COVID-19

  • Develop a vaccine by the end of 2020
  • Return to normal in 2021
  • Make all critical medicines and supplies for healthcare workers
  • Refill stockpiles and prepare for future pandemics

Healthcare

  • Cut prescription drug prices
  • Put patients and doctors back in charge of our healthcare system
  • Lower healthcare insurance premiums
  • End surprise billing
  • Cover all pre-existing conditions
  • Protect Social Security and Medicare
  • Protect our veterans and provide world-class healthcare and services

Reliance on China

  • Allow 100% expensing deductions for essential industries like pharmaceuticals and robotics who bring back their manufacturing to the U.S.
  • No federal contracts for companies who outsource to China
  • Hold China fully accountable for allowing the virus to spread around the world

Joseph Antos, PhD, a resident scholar in healthcare and retirement policy at the American Enterprise Institute, characterized Trump’s strategy as “Don’t explain it. Just say what your goals are.”

He applauded the brevity of the document, 6 pages in total, covering 10 different policy areas from jobs to healthcare to immigration, as a “smart strategy.”

Voters don’t want to read lengthy policy briefs and gave the “Biden-Sanders Unity Task Force Recommendations” which were over 100 pages long and “unbelievably complicated stuff” as an example of how not to reach voters.

“I think [Trump] got it right. He’s not running a think tank…. He’s running for office. He does have a keen eye for what the average voter could stand to listen to.”

Gail Wilensky, PhD, an economist and senior fellow at Project Hope in Bethesda, Maryland, and CMS administrator under President George H.W. Bush, agreed that a platform packed with policy details doesn’t sway many voters.

This election, she said, is about one thing only: “Trump or not Trump.”

Whither the ACA?

Nevertheless, the Trump campaign’s goals merit attention, often for what they don’t include as well as what they do.

As for the substance of the agenda, the key difference between the Trump administration’s proposed agenda and that of the Democratic nominee, former Vice President Joe Biden, is that the latter aims to expand access to health insurance using the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) framework, said Wilensky.

While Trump’s 2016 healthcare agenda centered around repealing the ACA, his second-term agenda doesn’t mention the law by name.

Wilensky said she’s glad that Trump did not include ACA repeal among his goals, given that “there’s no historical precedence” for eliminating the core benefits of such far-reaching legislation, now on the books for 10 years and fully implemented for 6.

Kavita Patel, MD, a primary care physician and Brookings Institution scholar in Washington, D.C., who was an advisor on the Democrats’ platform, said, “This is all just posturing and politics and almost a continuation of things [Trump’s] been saying without any real details behind it.”

Many of these items — such as ending surprise billing, lowering health insurance premiums, and cutting prescription drug prices — would have Democrats’ support “but they would get there in a different way,” Patel said.

One thing she was surprised not to see in the agenda were references to abortion or other reproductive health issues, she noted.

Insurance Coverage Neglected

Rosemarie Day, founder and CEO of Day Health Strategies and author of Marching Toward Coverage: How Women can Lead the Fight for Universal Healthcare, was dumbfounded by the overall lack of substance in the agenda, and particularly by the absence of a plan to deal with rising rates of uninsurance related to the pandemic.

Day thought the Trump campaign could have at least included a plan for returning to the “baseline” on the number of uninsured. Another administration might have chosen to promote Medicaid coverage or encourage unemployed workers to enroll on the health insurance exchanges, but not this administration, she said.

“So, they’re really just leaving people out in the cold,” Day said.

Wilensky, too, suggested it would have been “useful” for the Trump campaign to have “talked about how they envision getting more people covered.”

Paul Ginsburg, PhD, director of the USC-Brookings Schaeffer Initiative for Health Policy, said much of the agenda is “just aspirations.”

“‘Put patients and doctors in charge of our healthcare system’? … I don’t know what the policy is, [but] who’s going to quarrel with that?”

Lowering healthcare premiums also sounds “nice” but how that would be achieved is unclear, he said.

One agenda item in the document that really really irked Day was the Trump administration’s pledge to protect people who have pre-existing conditions.

“I consider the ‘covering all pre-existing conditions’ an outright lie,” she said. “I find it incredibly upsetting that [Trump] continues to say that” because he spent his first term attacking the ACA, which does protect pre-existing condition coverage.

Day also noted that the administration has repeatedly promised an ACA replacement without ever delivering an actual proposal.

Responding to the Pandemic

The Trump campaign agenda lists “eradicate COVID-19” on its bullet list, but Patel said it’s “probably not an achievable goal.” A more realistic target is to control it better.

“We have deaths every year and hospitalizations from influenza, but we have a vaccine and we have … strategies to protect people like seniors and young children,” Patel said. “That’s exactly the kind of attitude we have to take” with regard to COVID-19.

For both Patel and Ginsburg, “return to normal” is another aspiration that’s beyond the government’s power to deliver.

“So much depends on a vaccine and its acceptance and how quickly it can be produced,” Ginsburg said.

As for making all critical medicines and supplies for healthcare workers in the United States, Ginsburg acknowledged that it’s theoretically doable, but still unrealistic because it would be “way too expensive.”

“Brand name drugs are routinely produced in other countries as well as the U.S.; I wouldn’t want to upset that supply chain, especially for drugs that are in shortage,” he said.

 

 

 

The future of the ACA takes center stage yet again

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, ACA, Chronic Care Management, Chronic Conditions, Chronic Diseases, Employer-Based Health Insurance, Essential Health Benefits, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, High Deductible Health Plans, High Drug Prices, High Premiums, High Prices, Medicaid, Medicaid Expansion, Medicare, Medicare for All, Out of Pocket Expenses, Preexisting Conditions, Public Option, Supreme Court, Underinsured, Uninsured • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/0e13b5a09ec5/the-weekly-gist-august-21-2020?e=d1e747d2d8

The 2020 ACA Reporting & Regulation Landscape for US Employers ...

Across four nights of a national convention that was anything but conventional, with the nominating process, acceptance speeches, and traditional pomp and circumstance forced into a virtual format due to the coronavirus pandemic, Democrats returned to the healthcare playbook widely viewed as successful in the 2018 midterm elections.

In addition to promising a more robust and concerted response to the COVID crisis gripping the nation, party leaders vowed to protect and expand the Affordable Care Act (ACA), rather than aiming to replace it with the more aggressive “Medicare for All” (M4A) approach that dominated much of the discussion during the primary campaign.

In his acceptance speech on Thursday, Democratic nominee Joseph R. Biden, Jr. promised “a healthcare system that lowers premiums, deductibles, and drug prices by building on the Affordable Care Act he’s trying to rip away,” referring to President Trump’s continued support for the full repeal of the 2010 healthcare reform law.

Earlier, progressive runner-up and vocal M4A advocate Sen. Bernie Sanders signaled a closing of the party’s ranks around Biden’s more moderate approach: “While Joe and I disagree on the best path to get to universal coverage, he has a plan that will greatly expand healthcare and cut the cost of prescription drugs. Further, he will lower the eligibility age of Medicare from 65 to 60.”

Several other speakers highlighted the need to protect the ACA’s guarantee of affordable insurance to those with preexisting conditions, most powerfully the prominent M4A crusader Ady Barkan, who suffers from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).

“Even during this terrible crisis,” Barkan said, “Donald Trump and Republican politicians are trying to take away millions of people’s health insurance.”

 

 

 

 

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

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Chronic Care Management, Chronic Conditions, Chronic Diseases, Employer-Based Health Insurance, Essential Health Benefits, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, High Deductible Health Plans, High Drug Prices, High Premiums, High Prices, Mental Health, Out of Pocket Expenses, Preexisting Conditions, Primary Care, Recruiting, Talent Management, Underinsured, Unemployment, Unemployment Insurance, Uninsured, Virtual Healthcare, Virtual Visit • Leave a comment

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.

 

 

 

 

Millions of U.S. jobs to be lost for years, IRS projections show

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Chronic Care Management, Chronic Conditions, Chronic Diseases, Deferred Healthcare, Economic Crisis, Economic Recovery, Employer-Based Health Insurance, Essential Health Benefits, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, High Deductible Health Plans, High Drug Prices, High Premiums, High Prices, Job, Job Loss, Job Market, Job Search, Job Security, Out of Pocket Expenses, Preexisting Conditions, Underinsured, Unemployment, Unemployment Insurance, Uninsured • Leave a comment

https://www.accountingtoday.com/articles/millions-of-u-s-jobs-to-be-lost-for-years-irs-projections-show?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Issue:%202020-08-21%20CFO%20Dive%20%5Bissue:29224%5D&utm_term=CFO%20Dive

Millions of US Jobs to Be Lost for Years After Covid, IRS ...

The Internal Revenue Service projects that lower levels of employment in the U.S. could persist for years, showcasing the economic fallout of the coronavirus pandemic.

The IRS forecasts there will be about 229.4 million employee-classified jobs in 2021 — about 37.2 million fewer than it had estimated last year, before the virus hit, according to updated data released Thursday. The statistics are an estimate of how many of the W-2 tax forms that are used to track employee wages and withholding the agency will receive.

Lower rates of W-2 filings are seen persisting through at least 2027, with about 15.9 million fewer forms filed that year compared with prior estimates. That’s the last year for which the agency has published figures comparing assumptions prior to the pandemic and incorporating the virus’s effects.

W-2s are an imperfect measure for employment, because they don’t track the actual number of people employed. A single worker with several jobs would be required to fill out a form for each position. Still, the data suggest that it could take years for the U.S. economy to make up for the contraction suffered because of COVID-19.

The revised projections also show fewer filings of 1099-INT forms through 2027. That’s the paperwork used to report interest income — and serves as a sign that low interest rates could persist.

There’s one category that is expected to rise: The IRS sees about 1.6 million more tax forms for gig workers next year compared with pre-pandemic estimates.

That boost “likely reflects assumptions with the shift to ‘work from home,’ which may be gig workers, or may just be that businesses are more willing to outsource work — or have the status of their workers be independent contractors — now that they work from home,” Mike Englund, the chief economist for Action Economics said.

 

 

 

Supreme Court to hear ACA arguments after November election

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, ACA, Employer-Based Health Insurance, Essential Health Benefits, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, Medical Loss Ratio (MLR), Out of Pocket Expenses, Preexisting Conditions, Supreme Court, Underinsured, Unemployment, Unemployment Insurance, Uninsured • Leave a comment

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/supreme-court-will-hear-aca-case-after-november-election/583804/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Issue:%202020-08-20%20Healthcare%20Dive%20%5Bissue:29204%5D&utm_term=Healthcare%20Dive

Dive Brief:

  • The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the Republican-led case seeking to overturn the Affordable Care Act on November 10, exactly one week after the presidential election, according to the court’s online docket on Wednesday.
  • A hearing post-election was the likeliest choice from the outset. The justices’ October schedule did not include the highly anticipated case, leaving just one day for arguments to potentially be heard before the election.
  • Still, Wednesday’s news does not mean the Supreme Court will make a ruling on the case in 2020. Legal experts say a final ruling is still expected next year.

 

Dive Insight:

The ACA court case has loomed large as the nation has been ravaged by the novel coronavirus pandemic that has sickened millions, killed thousands and severed millions of people from their employer-sponsored health insurance coverage. 

Alternative coverage options introduced or strengthened by the ACA, such as expanded Medicaid coverage or marketplace plans, have served as an important safety net for those who have lost coverage as a result of the pandemic. 

Onlookers have long been waiting for the court to set a date for final arguments in the case against the ACA. Wednesday’s updated docket means the country is one step closer to knowing whether the ACA and its popular provisions, such as protections for pre-existing conditions, will remain the law of the land. 

Waiting to schedule oral arguments until after the election may have been intentional, legal experts say.

The highly unusual decision by the Trump administration’s DOJ to refuse to defend the law is likely to change with the election result, if former Vice President Joe Biden, the Democratic presidential nominee and a staunch ACA backer, wins the White House.

Republicans for years have been trying to dismantle President Barack Obama’s landmark health law, including by eliminating the financial penalty for not holding insurance.

The central argument in the case, brought primarily by a group of red states, is whether the entire law is invalid because it no longer contains the so-called individual mandate. The red states have argued that because Congress lowered the penalty to zero that the individual mandate can no longer be considered a tax and therefore renders the entire law unconstitutional.

Lower courts have ruled in favor of the red state plaintiffs, though the appeals court did not weigh in on whether the rest of the law could be severed from the mandate.

 

 

 

 

Getting a flu shot this year is more important than ever because of COVID-19

Posted on by • Posted in Chronic Care Management, Chronic Conditions, Chronic Diseases, Coronavirus, Deferred Healthcare, Flu Shot, Infection Control, Infection Control Plan, Infectious Virus, Mortality, Pandemic, Preexisting Conditions, Primary Care, Public Health, Public Safety, School Reopening, Scientists, Social Distancing, Vaccine • Leave a comment

https://theconversation.com/getting-a-flu-shot-this-year-is-more-important-than-ever-because-of-covid-19-144034?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20August%2019%202020%20-%201707616486&utm_content=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20August%2019%202020%20-%201707616486+Version+A+CID_ee5f6e1a20d69ba14ac919d3b2025202&utm_source=campaign_monitor_us&utm_term=Getting%20a%20flu%20shot%20this%20year%20is%20more%20important%20than%20ever%20because%20of%20COVID-19

Flu shot more important than ever during COVID-19 pandemic, expert ...

With the coronavirus still spreading widely, it’s time to start thinking seriously about influenza, which typically spreads in fall and winter. A major flu outbreak would not only overwhelm hospitals this fall and winter, but also likely overwhelm a person who might contract both at once.

Doctors have no way of knowing yet what the effect of a dual diagnosis might be on a person’s body, but they do know the havoc that the flu alone can do to a person’s body. And, we know the U.S. death toll of COVID-19 as of Aug. 17, 2020 was 170,000, and doctors are learning more each day about the effects of the disease on the body. Public health officials in the U.S. are therefore urging people to get the flu vaccine, which is already being shipped in many areas to be ready for September vaccinations.

Flu cases are expected to start increasing early in October and could last late into May. This makes September and early October the ideal time to get your flu shot.

But there’s reason to be concerned that flu vaccination rates could be lower this year than in past years, even though the risk of getting seriously ill may be higher because of widespread circulation of the coronavirus.

In an effort to avoid getting sick, millions of Americans avoided seeing their health care provider the past few months. Social distancing and stay-at-home orders have resulted in a decreased use of routine medical preventive services such as vaccinations. Many employers that often provide the flu shot at no cost to employees are allowing employees to work from home, potentially limiting the number of people who will get the flu shot at their jobs.

As a health care professional, I urge everyone to get the flu vaccine in September. Please do not wait for flu cases to start to peak. The flu vaccine takes up to two weeks to reach peak effectiveness, so getting the vaccine in September will help provide the best protection as the flu increases in October and later in the season.

A lifesaver in previous years, but more so now

Both COVID-19 and the flu are contagious respiratory illness that present with similar symptoms. Both viruses can impact the elderly and those with certain chronic conditions, such as heart and lung disease, the hardest.

Data on flu vaccination rates from 2018-2019 show that only 49% of Americans six months of age and older received the flu vaccine. The vaccine’s effectiveness varies each season, with early data from the 2019-2020 flu season indicating a vaccine effectiveness rate of 50% overall, and 55% in youth.

While some may think this effectiveness rate is low, the flu vaccine remains the single best way to prevent the flu and related complications. For example, during the 2018-2019 flu season, flu vaccination was estimated to prevent 4.4 million flu illnesses, 58,000 flu hospitalizations and 3,500 deaths. Early data from the 2019-2020 flu season estimates there were 39-56 million flu illnesses, 18-26 million flu-related medical visits, 410-740,000 hospitalizations and up to 62,000 deaths. Much of this disease burden is preventable from higher flu vaccination rates.

It is now quite apparent that COVID-19 will still be circulating during flu season, which makes getting a flu vaccine more important than ever. As schools, our communities and our economy continue to reopen, it is vital to get the flu vaccine for personal, family and community protection.

A flu camp in Lawrence, Maine during the 1918 influenza pandemic. Nurses and doctors tried desperate measures to stop the spread of the disease, which ultimately killed more than 675,000 people in the U.S. alone. Bettmann/Getty Images

Severe cases of both COVID-19 and the flu require the same lifesaving medical equipment. This highlights the importance of getting the flu vaccine for not only your own personal health but also the health of your community. Receiving the flu vaccine will help reduce the burden of respiratory illness on our already very overstretched health care system. By increasing flu vaccination rates, we can reduce the overall impact of respiratory illnesses on the population and hence lower the resulting burden on the health care system during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Because flu vaccination protects against one of these respiratory illnesses, the CDC recommends everyone (with few exceptions) six months of age and older get an annual flu vaccine. While the flu vaccine will not protect you against COVID-19, the flu vaccine will reduce your risk of developing the flu as well as reduce your risks of flu-related complications including hospitalization and even death.

While it may seem like there is so much out of our control during this pandemic, getting the flu vaccine, practicing proper hand washing, social distancing and wearing face coverings are within our control and will protect not only you but also your family and community.

If you are not getting the flu vaccine from your employer, think about alternative sources now. Vaccines should be available in most areas by Sept. 1.

  • Call you doctor’s office to ask how you can get a flu shot.
  • Call your local public health department.
  • Consider getting a vaccine while you are grocery shopping or picking up prescriptions.

Mainly, make sure you take advantage of this potentially lifesaving vaccine. Get it on your calendar for early September now. And remember, the flu shot cannot give you the flu.

 

 

 

 

 

Patient-provider encounter trends have stabilized, but remain significantly lower than before COVID-19

Posted on by • Posted in Ad Campaign, Children's Health, Children's Hospital, Deferred Healthcare, Employer-Based Health Insurance, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health System, High Deductible Health Plans, High Drug Prices, High Premiums, High Prices, Hospital, Marketing, Office Visit, Out of Pocket Expenses, Pandemic, Physician, Preexisting Conditions, Primary Care, Telemedicine, Underinsured, Unemployment, Unemployment Insurance, Uninsured, Virtual Care Strategy, Virtual Healthcare, Virtual Hospital, Virtual Visit • Leave a comment

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/patient-provider-encounter-trends-stabilized-below-normal/583599/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Issue:%202020-08-17%20Healthcare%20Dive%20%5Bissue:29123%5D&utm_term=Healthcare%20Dive

Measuring a patient's vital signs without any contact - ISRAEL21c

Dive Brief:

  • In-person doctor visits plummeted during the start of the COVID-19 crisis in the United States, but have rebounded to a rate somewhat below pre-pandemic levels, according to a new analysis issued by The Commonwealth Fund and conducted by researchers from Harvard Medical School, Harvard University and the life sciences firm Phreesia.
  • According to data compiled through Aug. 1, all physician visits were down 9% from pre-pandemic levels. That’s significantly improved compared to data from late March, when visits were down 58%. Although the rebound got major traction beginning in late April, it began plateauing in early June, when all visits were 13% lower than normal. As of early August, in-person visits were down 16% compared to pre-COVID levels. States that are currently coronavirus hot spots are seeing bigger declines than states where the case levels are lower.
  • Meanwhile, telemedicine encounters have settled in at rates much higher than pre-pandemic levels. However, they still make up just a fraction of patient-provider encounters for care. As of the start of this month, they comprised 7.8% of all such encounters. That’s compared to a peak of 13.8% in the latter part of April. Prior to COVID-19, they were only 0.1% of all visits.

Dive Insight:

COVID-19 has widely disrupted healthcare delivery in the United States. However, it is becoming clear that as the pandemic has become a part of everyday life for the time being, how patients visit their medical providers has also settled into a pattern.

According to Harvard researchers using data from Phreesia’s more than 50,000 provider clients, the plunge in patients seeing their physicians has rebounded from its nearly 60% dive in early spring. However, with all patient-physician encounters still consistently down from pre-COVID levels, the study’s authors warn that “the cumulative number of lost visits since mid-March remains substantial and continues to grow.”

Meanwhile, COVID-19 hotspots in the South and Southwest are depressing patient-provider encounters for the time being. Encounters were down as of late July by 15% in Arizona, Florida and Texas, compared to 12% in the Northeast and 8% in all other states.

Among medical specialties, only dermatology has seen a rebound beyond pre-COVID levels, with encounters up about 8% overall. But primary care visits are down 2%; surgery encounters, 9%; orthopedics, 18%; and pediatrics are in a 26% decline.

That the encounters between patients, doctors and other providers remains lower than normal has sparked some concerns about practices and other medical enterprises moving forward. HHS just earmarked $1.4 billion for nearly 80 children’s hospitals across the United States to try to shore them up financially.

The private sector has also undertaken an initiative to encourage patients to return to their providers. Insurer Humana, along with the Providence and Baylor Scott & White healthcare systems, launched an advertising campaign last month to encourage patients to seek out healthcare needs, even during the historic pandemic.