Category Archives: Uncategorized

Is it a gag rule after all? A closer look at changes to Title X funding regarding abortion.

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2018/05/23/is-it-a-gag-rule-what-changes-to-family-planning-funds-and-abortion-referrals-might-mean/

The Trump administration has released the language of a proposed rule on federal family planning funding, and abortion rights activists are raising alarm about it.

When health officials revealed Friday that they would be filing a change to which clinics would be eligible for funding, they emphasized that it was not a “gag rule.” Instead, they said they were proposing to strip away a current mandate. It requires organizations that receive Title X funding to counsel women about abortion and provide them with referrals to abortion services. Under the new rules, a provider wouldn’t have to talk about abortion at all.

This was part of a plan that would require “a bright line of physical as well as financial separation” between Title X family planning programs and ones in which abortion is “supported or referred for as a method of family planning.”

“Contrary to recent media reports,” the White House said in a statement that day, “HHS’s proposal does not include the so-called ‘gag rule’ on counseling about abortion.” The statement contrasted the new rule with a Reagan administration policy in 1988 that banned any mention of abortion.

The Department of Health and Human Services declined to make the full proposed rule available last week, but it was posted on the HHS website Tuesday. It’s consistent with the message the administration provided Friday but is more explicit about what can and cannot be said.

Page 119 states that “A Title X project may not perform, promote, refer for, or support, abortion as a method of family planning, nor take any other affirmative action to assist a patient to secure such an abortion.”

The one exception is if a woman “clearly states that she has already decided to have an abortion.” In this situation, a doctor or other provider should provide “a list of licensed, qualified comprehensive health service providers (some, but not all, of which also provide abortion, in addition to comprehensive prenatal care.)”

So is it or isn’t it a “gag rule”?

HHS’s view is that there is a difference between counseling and referrals. Counseling — as long as it is not “directive” or expressing an opinion — is allowed. It stated that referrals for abortion are, “by definition, directive” and, therefore, not allowed under its new interpretation of a 2000 regulation that pregnancy counseling be nondirective.

Planned Parenthood, which serves about 41 percent of the patients who receive services through Title X, and other groups that support abortion rights, beg to differ. On Wednesday, Planned Parenthood started a #NoGagRule campaign that will include a rally in front of the U.S. Capitol at 5:30 p.m.

“This is one of the largest-scale and most dangerous attacks we’ve seen on women’s rights and reproductive health care in this country. This policy is straight out of the Handmaid’s Tale — yet, it’s taking effect in America in 2018,” Dawn Laguens, executive vice president for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a statement that referenced Margaret Atwood’s dystopian novel.

Georgeanne Usova, legislative counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union, said the policy is “putting the health and lives of countless people at risk in service of this administration’s extreme antiabortion agenda.”

Likewise Jenn Conti, a fellow with Physicians for Reproductive Health, said the ” ‘gag rule’ is not only unconscionable, but it undermines medical ethics by allowing health-care professionals to withhold accurate and timely medical information from patients.”

 

 

It Costs $685 Billion a Year to Subsidize U.S. Health Insurance

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , • Leave a comment

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-23/it-costs-685-billion-a-year-to-subsidize-u-s-health-insurance

 

It will cost the U.S. government almost $700 billion in subsidies this year help provide Americans under age 65 with health insurance through their jobs or in government-sponsored health programs, according to a report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

The subsidies come from four main categories. About $296 billion is federal spending on programs like Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which help insure low-income people. Almost as big are the tax write-offs that employers take for providing coverage to their workers. Medicare-eligible people, such as the disabled, account for $82 billion. Subsidies for Obamacare and for other individual coverage are the smallest segment, at $55 billion.

In total, the subsidies are equivalent to about 3.4 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product.

Financing Americans’ Insurance

In 2018, subsidizing health coverage will cost taxpayers almost $700 billion.

Also known as the Affordable Care Act, Obamacare reduced the number of uninsured, but 29 million people will likely go without health coverage in an average month this year, the CBO said. Thirty-five million Americans could lack coverage by 2028 as rising premiums and the elimination of the individual mandate drive more people to drop coverage.

The subsidies in the Affordable Care Act are designed to insulate people in the program from premium increases. The CBO projected that monthly premiums for a mid-range plan in the program will increase by 15 percent by 2019, and by about 7 percent annually through 2028.

One reason for the rising premiums is the actions of President Donald Trump. Last year, Trump topped funding for the cost-sharing reduction payments made to insurers under Obamacare to help Americans afford health costs.

The non-payment of those subsidies, less enforcement of a rule requiring people to have insurance and limited competition caused insurers to raise their premiums by about 34 percent in 2018, compared to 2017. That increased the cost of the subsidies to the federal government, according to the CBO.

It’s the Monopolies, Stupid!

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/blog/2018/may/drug-monopolies-pricing?omnicid=EALERT1410094&mid=henrykotula@yahoo.com

Image result for pharmaceutical monopoly

At the core of the nation’s drug pricing problem is one fundamental fact: Drug companies enjoy government-sanctioned and -enforced monopolies over the supply of many drugs.

These monopolies result from patents awarded under federal law for novel molecules. Patents allow manufacturers to prevent competitors from selling the same drug for 20 years from the time the patent is filed. Given that the process of gaining regulatory approval to market their new drug takes time, research suggests new drugs have, on average, 12 to 13 years of market exclusivity.

Once new drugs are approved by the Food and Drug Administration, the monopolies assured by patents enable pharmaceutical companies to charge any price they choose. They generally pick prices that not only cover their development costs, but also generate profits that exceed those of most other industries: for example, the average profit margin for the 25 largest software companies (which are cited as having the same high R&D investment and low production and distribution costs as pharmaceutical companies) was 13.4 percent in 2015, while the average profit margin for the 25 largest drug companies was 20.1 percent in 2015. Drugmakers are also free to raise prices whenever they want at rates they alone determine.

The existence of patents does not totally prevent competition. Often, other companies introduce drugs that are distinct enough to justify their own separate patents and accomplish the same therapeutic goal. This results in competition that lowers drug prices, but often by not enough to make the medications affordable for many patients. In addition, the makers of patented drugs — for example, Mylan’s EpiPen and the weight-loss drug Suprenza — have developed effective mechanisms to extend the lives of their patents beyond 20 years. These approaches include making minor modifications in the formulations or packaging of drugs that have no clinical significance, as well as paying potential generic competitors not to introduce generic drugs.

That said, patents eventually expire, at which point generic drug companies can manufacture the drug and sell it at a much lower price. But even generic drug competition has been weakened recently by generic drug market monopolies, as these manufacturers have bought up their competition. As a result, the prices of old and familiar drugs have risen dramatically. The price of the cardiac drug isuprel has increased more than sixfold between 2013 and 2015, and the price of the antibiotic doxycycline has soared 90-fold over the same period.

As long as drug companies (or a small group) hold monopoly (or oligopoly) power over potent new therapies, there is no free market solution to lowering drug prices. Only a countervailing nonmarket force of equal strength can bring those prices down. Other western industrial countries, recognizing this, authorize their governments to step in and moderate drug prices for the benefit of their citizenry. Some set prices by fiat, while other negotiate with drug companies. In the latter case, the negotiations are sometimes guided by comparative effectiveness analysis that estimates the value of new drugs to patients. Of course, drug companies are free to walk away from such deals, but they generally choose not to, presumably because they still make money from those sales.

Drug companies say their monopoly earnings are necessary to sustain the research and development that produce new drugs. In effect they are saying that they need to be able to charge the very high prices we now see for patented drugs so they can innovate. This raises the questions of how much money society should allocate toward pharmaceutical innovation and who should decide. Setting those questions aside for the moment, we should be very clear about one thing: As long as pharmaceutical companies have uncontested market power to set prices for many patented and generic drugs, those prices will remain a huge problem for Americans and their elected representatives.

States Take the Lead on Reinsurance to Stabilize the ACA Marketplaces

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , • Leave a comment

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/blog/2018/may/reinsurance-to-stabilize-marketplaces?omnicid=EALERT1408707&mid=henrykotula@yahoo.com

 

Image result for reinsurance

Recent actions by Congress and the Trump administration are likely to disrupt Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplaces in 2019, leading to higher premiums for individuals and families. These actions include Congress’ termination of financial penalties for failing to obtain health insurance and the administration’s resistance to paying cost-sharing reductions for low-income purchasers of marketplace coverage, its encouragement of the sale of short-term policies and association health plans, and its defunding of advertising and outreach in federally facilitated marketplaces. Recent estimates suggest that there have already been small but significant declines in coverage.

A total collapse of ACA marketplaces is unlikely because of continuing federal subsidies for the purchase of insurance by individuals with incomes below 400 percent of the federal poverty level. But those not eligible for subsidies may face higher premiums in some states, and some may be forced to forgo coverage. Those who remain in the market may be sicker than average, leading to a higher-risk pool and fueling premium increases.

A key way to mitigate the adverse effects of these recent policies is by offering reinsurance, a policy that is garnering bipartisan support at the federal and state levels.

What Is Reinsurance?

Reinsurance was a critical feature of ACA marketplaces in their first three years. The marketplaces were new, and insurers faced considerable uncertainty about the health status of enrollees. The law thus offered insurers some protection against unexpectedly high claims through a reinsurance program. Reinsurance protects insurers by limiting their exposure to very high, unpredictable medical expenses incurred by their members by covering some of those expenses when they exceed a certain threshold. For example, the ACA stipulated that insurers with claims costs that exceeded a threshold amount for a particular individual — $45,000 in 2014 — qualified for reinsurance payments for 100 percent of the excess up to $250,000. The program was financed by fees on both individual and employer plans, including self-insured employers, and was thus deficit neutral. It is estimated that reinsurance reduced average premiums in the marketplaces by as much as 14 percent.

The ACA legislation phased down the reinsurance program over 2014–2016 since it was assumed that as insurers gained more familiarity with enrollees, they could price their products with greater certainty. After the program ended in 2016, premiums rose in 2017 more sharply than they had in prior years, an increase that was partly attributed to the loss of reinsurance.

Industry stakeholders and health policy experts have suggested that reinsurance could stabilize the individual market. Researchers Chrissy Eibner and Jody Liu of RAND estimated that reinstating the reinsurance program could reduce premiums in the marketplaces by 3.9 percent to 19.3 percent in 2020, depending on the generosity of the program. Because lower premiums also reduce what the federal government spends on tax credits, the researchers projected federal deficit savings of $2.9 billion to $13.1 billion. However, the researchers also assume that some of those fees ultimately would be passed on to people enrolled in private plans.

Federal reinsurance programs have appeared in a number of recent Congressional bills. Last year, ACA repeal-and-replace bills included reinsurance programs for the individual market that would be financed directly by the federal government. Senators Susan Collins (R–Maine) and Bill Nelson (D–Fla.) introduced a bill with a similarly structured reinsurance program at the end of 2017. And a recently introduced bill from Senators Jeff Merkley (D–Ore.) and Chris Murphy (D–Conn.) proposing that a Medicare plan be offered through the marketplaces and by employers also includes a reinsurance program.

Some of these proposals would fund reinsurance through upfront federal expenditures, rather than charging fees to insurers. Deficit reductions could be lower under this scenario, but may still be possible because the federal expenditures on reinsurance would be offset by savings on lower tax credit expenditures as premiums fall. However, the RAND researchers find that the cost to taxpayers would be about the same under both approaches, since insurers would likely pass on fees to their customers in the form of higher premiums.

States Take the Lead

In the absence of consensus in Congress on how to strengthen the marketplaces, several states have secured, or are seeking, approval from the federal government to establish state-based reinsurance programs through the ACA’s innovation waiver program. Under the waiver program, states can make changes to their marketplaces as long as they cover at least the same number of people and maintain the same levels of affordability. Reinsurance has been the most common innovation pursued by states.

Alaska, Minnesota, and Oregon have received federal approval to establish reinsurance programs. There are notable differences in their approaches:

  • In Alaska, medical claims for individuals with at least one of 33 high-cost conditions are covered by the Alaska Reinsurance Program. The program was responsible for preventing the state’s last remaining insurer from leaving the individual market in 2017.
  • In Minnesota, the reinsurance program covers 80 percent of claims for individuals up to $250,000 once a $50,000 threshold is passed. For the 2018 plan year, insurers submitted two sets of premiums, one assuming reinsurance and one without it. The rates accounting for reinsurance were approximately 20 percent lower.
  • Oregon’s waiver application sought approval for a program that would reimburse 50 percent of claims between a yet-to-be-established threshold up to $1 million. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services approved the proposal in October 2017.

Six more states have passed legislation or submitted applications to establish reinsurance programs.

  • On May 9, Maine became the latest state to submit a waiver application to the federal government seeking funding for a state-based reinsurance program. Earlier this year on April 18, Wisconsin also submitted a waiver application for a reinsurance program.
  • New Hampshire and Louisiana are developing similar applications, and New Jersey and Maryland passed legislation in April to establish state-operated reinsurance programs.

Experience with reinsurance programs clearly demonstrates their efficacy in reducing health insurance premiums in the private individual market. Implemented at the federal level, such programs also reduce federal spending and deficits. Though enterprising states are moving forward with these initiatives, a more comprehensive national effort to help private insurers manage unpredictable risks in individual health insurance markets has enduring appeal.

 

 

Red states find there’s no free pass on Medicaid changes

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

Red states find there’s no free pass on Medicaid changes from Trump

Image result for medicaid waiver

Red states are getting a reality check from the Trump administration in just how conservative they can remake their Medicaid programs.

Earlier this month, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) rejected a request from Kansas to limit Medicaid eligibility to just three years.

CMS Administrator Seema Verma followed up on the Kansas decision by saying the administration will not allow any states to impose lifetime limits on Medicaid.

“We’ve indicated that we would not approve lifetime limits and I think we’ve made that pretty clear to states,” Verma said last week at a Washington Post event on health care.

The Trump administration has made state innovation a priority and has promised to fast-track Medicaid waivers, especially those that will impose work requirements on beneficiaries.

Four states have been granted permission to do so — Arkansas, Kentucky, Indiana and New Hampshire — and six others have pending waivers.

States have also been allowed to impose lockout periods if beneficiaries can’t meet the work requirements and to charge higher premiums than the Obama administration allowed.

But the decision on lifetime limits marks the first time the administration completely rejected a policy favored by conservatives and shows there is no blank check for red states.

Verma never promised automatic approvals of conservative ideas, though some might have interpreted it that way, according to Jeff Myers, president and CEO of the Medicaid Health Plans of America.

He said it’s becoming clear that what the Trump administration wants is to construct policies that will make Medicaid beneficiaries self-sufficient, but that will not take away their benefits entirely.

Verma has long argued that promoting self-sufficiency is key to any changes states make to Medicaid. In explaining the decision to reject lifetime limits, Verma noted that states only temporarily suspend benefits if work requirements aren’t met.

“An individual may not comply with a requirement around cost-sharing and they could potentially lose coverage. But we want to make sure that there’s a pathway back into the program … if they’re compliant with the requirements,” Verma said last week.

Medicaid experts said officials in Kansas and other red states were mistaken if they thought they could get the Trump administration to approve changes just because they happen to be conservative.

“Contrary to some states’ expectations, there really is a waiver approval process,” said Joe Antos, a health policy expert at the American Enterprise Forum, a conservative think tank.

“Decisions will move more rapidly than they were … [but] that doesn’t mean approvals,” he said.

Matt Salo, executive director of the National Association of Medicaid Directors, said any time there’s a change in administration, states jockey to see what policies they can get approved.

“There’s a lot of pent-up interest in pursuing flexibility and changes that the Obama administration would not entertain, [but] I don’t think anyone thought it was a blank check, do whatever you want,” Salo said.

The administration has yet to make a decision on other conservative wish list policies, such as Wisconsin’s proposal for drug testing Medicaid recipients, and partial Medicaid expansion, which would let states expand coverage for only a fraction of the population and still receive full federal funding under ObamaCare.

Salo said federal officials want to make sure that any waivers they approve will survive the inevitable lawsuits that follow.

“People are pretty savvy … if you’re just going to approve something that gets torn down in the courts, you’re wasting everyone’s time,” Salo said. “The granting of a wish list that gets trounced doesn’t do any good, and even sets the agenda back somewhat. Everyone’s better off if there’s a real rationale.”

CMS recently declined to issue a decision on a request by Arkansas to roll back the eligibility levels for Medicaid beneficiaries. The agency also declined to rule on Kansas’s request to impose work requirements, which experts have speculated could be an implicit rejection of the proposals.

Unlike the other four states that have been approved, Kansas is not a Medicaid expansion state, and the administration has not approved work requirements in any nonexpansion states.

Kansas officials indicated they were still working with federal officials.

“While we will not be moving forward with lifetime caps, we are pleased that the Administration has been supportive of our efforts to include a work requirement in the 1115 waiver. This important provision will help improve outcomes and ensure that Kansans are empowered to achieve self-sufficiency,” Gov. Jeff Colyer (R) said in a statement.