Gubernatorial Hopefuls Look To Health Care For Election Edge

Gubernatorial Hopefuls Look To Health Care For Election Edge

 

California’s leading gubernatorial candidates agree that health care should work better for Golden State residents: Insurance should be more affordable, costs are unreasonably high, and robust competition among hospitals, doctors and other providers could help lower prices, they told California Healthline.

What they don’t agree on is how to achieve those goals — not even the Democrats who represent the state’s dominant party.

“Health care gives them the perfect chance to crystalize that divide” between the left-wing progressives and the “moderate pragmatists” of the Democratic Party, said Thad Kousser, a political science professor at the University of California-San Diego.

Consider the top two Democratic candidates, who both aim to cover everyone in the state, including immigrants living here without authorization.

Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom — billed as a liberal Democrat — supports a single-payer health care system. That means gutting the health insurance industry to create one taxpayer-funded health care program for everyone in the state.

But former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has called single-payer “unrealistic.” He advocates achieving universal health coverage through incremental changes to the current system.

Under California’s “top-two” primary system, candidates for state or congressional office will appear on the same June 5 ballot, regardless of party affiliation. The top two vote-getters advance to the November general election.

A poll in late April by the University of California-Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies puts Newsom in first place with the support of 30 percent of likely voters, followed by Republicans John Cox, with 18 percent, and Travis Allen with 16 percent. Trailing behind were Democrats Villaraigosa, with 9 percent, John Chiang with 7 percent and Delaine Eastin with 4 percent. Thirteen percent of likely voters remained undecided.

Health care is in the forefront of this year’s gubernatorial campaign because of recent federal attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which would have threatened the coverage of millions of Californians, said Kim Nalder, professor of political science at California State University-Sacramento. California has pushed back hard against Republican efforts in Congress to dismantle the law.

“There’s more energy in California around the idea of universal coverage than you see in lots of other parts of the country,” Nalder said. Democrats and those who indicate no party preference make up almost 70 percent of registered voters. Those voters care more about health coverage than Republicans, she said.

“Whoever is most supportive [of universal health care] is likely to win the votes,” she said.

The top Republican candidates, Cox and Allen, are not fans of increased government involvement, however. They favor more market competition and less regulation to lower costs, expand choice and improve quality.

“Governments make everything more expensive,” said Cox, a former adviser to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich during his presidential run. “The private sector looks for efficiencies.”

California Healthline reached out to the top six candidates based on the institute’s poll, asking about their positions on health insurance, drug prices, the opioid epidemic and hospital consolidation.

Let the ACA rate hikes begin

Image result for ACA Rate Hikes

Get ready for about six more months of headlines like this: Insurers in Maryland are proposing premium hikes as high as 91% for coverage sold through the Affordable Care Act.

This will keep happening, nationwide. Proposed increases have been steep in Maryland and Virginia, the first two states to release them. But all signs point to steep hikes across the country, especially in rural areas. Some insurers also will likely decide to simply quit offering coverage in some parts of the country.

The latest: Insurers in Maryland’s individual market are seeking rate hikes for next year that range from 18% (for the biggest plan in the state) to 91% (for the smallest). They average out to roughly 32%.

  • These rates are still preliminary — Maryland can approve or reject proposed increases, and it’s also pursuing a reinsurance program that would help bring these increases down.

Why you’ll hear about this again: More preliminary rates will trickle out until the summer, as will any insurers’ decisions to pull up stakes in some markets. After negotiations with state regulators, rates will be finalized a few weeks before the midterms.

  • Expect to hear Democrats making hay of these increases as they accuse Republicans of “sabotaging” the ACA.
  • There’s really no denying that the repeal of the ACA’s individual mandate, coupled with some of the Trump administration’s regulatory moves, is a big driver — though not the only driver — of these staggering increases.

The other side: Expect the Trump administration to cite these same figures as it finalizes regulations that would loosen access to options outside the ACA’s exchanges, saying they’re providing new options to people who simply can’t afford ACA coverage.

  • Don’t forget, though, that some of those options would only benefit the healthiest consumers.

Medically tailored food is the future of health care

Medically tailored food is the future of health care

Medically tailored food is the future of health care

Imagine you’re living with type 2 diabetes. You’ve been trying to manage the condition for years with a typical medication. What if instead of metformin — a drug that works to lower sugar in the blood, — our doctor could simply prescribe meals tailored to your unique diagnosis that help control your blood sugar? A growing body of research indicates that such a shift in treatment, away from Big Pharma and towards common-sense treatment measures, is the future of U.S. health care.

For too long, the sickest patients in this country have been ill-served by a system that rewards doctors and insurers for the volume of services they render versus the quality of health outcomes their methods deliver. “Food Is Medicine” is a new approach that nonprofits, politicians, medical centers and nutrition experts are increasingly recommending as a low-cost, high-impact intervention that complements or supplants the use of expensive, pharmaceutical drugs.

In recognition of this growing medical consensus, the House Hunger Caucus recently launched a bipartisan Food is Medicine Working Group, led by Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) and other caucus members, the overarching goal of which is the better alignment of government nutrition policy and health outcomes.

Some of the group’s suggestions are policy initiatives including: incentivizing the purchase of healthy food, strengthening the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), adding medically tailored meals to the care plans of those fighting severe and chronic diseases and programs through which doctors can prescribe well-balanced diets.

Chronic diseases afflict 120 million Americans and account for an astounding 75 percent of U.S. healthcare spending. The need for creative solutions to help our nation’s highest need consumers of health services is significant. By taking steps like those outlined above by McGovern in January, we will be moving towards a more effective system for keeping people healthy and out of the doctor’s office. We will also be saving patients and insurers a lot of money.

The Hunger Caucus’ Food is Medicine Working Group meets this week to discuss the research, policy and practice of incorporating medically tailored meals into healthcare across the country.

Medically tailored meals (MTM) are meals tailored to the specific medical conditions, medications, side effects, allergies and other needs of a person living with severe or chronic illness. In this briefing, two recent studies will be discussed, both of which present compelling evidence that MTM can significantly improve health outcomes while curbing care costs. Both studies involved MTM provided by Food is Medicine Coalition nonprofit organizations. FIMC is a national alliance of MTM providers that I am proud to lead as the President & CEO of God’s Love We Deliver.

As a result of the findings published in a 2013 study, MANNA in Philadelphia partnered with Pennsylvania-based Medicaid managed care organization Health Partners Plans on an ongoing contract that resulted inthe delivery of medically tailored meals to HPP members living with illnesses like diabetes, heart disease, malnutrition and kidney failure.

That study found a 28 percent reduction in inpatient hospitalization and 9 percent reduction in ED visits, when members received medically tailored meals. Another MTM provider, Community Servings in Boston, conducted a retrospective claims analysis study with Massachusetts General Hospital and determined a 16 percent net healthcare cost savings with MTM. Results were published in Health Affairs.

In each instance, medical diets helped keep ill patients out of the hospital, which is critically important considering that one can provide half a year’s worth of medically tailored meals for the cost of one night in a hospital.

God’s Love We Deliver has found similar results in people living with HIV and FIMC agency Project Open Hand in San Francisco demonstrated cost savings for patients with type 2 diabetes and increased adherence for people living with HIV.

The Food is Medicine Coalition strives for a positive continuation of the trend towards expanded healthcare access brought to this country by the Affordable Care Act close to a decade ago. The ACA allowed organizations focusing on the medically underprivileged, like those within the Food is Medicine Coalition, to work in a grassroots manner with regional Medicaid programs to implement additional benefits, like medically tailored food and nutrition, to high-need patients’ care plans.

The good sense of keeping a healthy diet shouldn’t be news to anyone. We sometimes lose sight, however, of how our basic everyday behaviors influence our long-term health. “Food Is Medicine” is more than a quaint cliché. It’s a proven, viable healthcare solution that must become a more central aspect to how we deal with an American epidemic of chronic illness.

 

 

Massive UC workers’ strike disrupts dining, classes and medical services

http://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-uc-workers-strike-20180507-story.html

Image result for Massive UC workers' strike disrupts dining, classes and medical services

A massive labor strike across the University of California on Monday forced medical centers to reschedule more than 12,000 surgeries, cancer treatments and appointments, and campuses to cancel some classes and limit dining services.

More than 20,000 members of UC’s largest employee union, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 3299, walked off their jobs on the first day of a three-day strike. They include custodians, gardeners, cooks, truck drivers, lab technicians and nurse aides.

Two altercations involving protesters and people driving near the rallies were reported at UCLA and UC Santa Cruz. At UCLA, police took a man into custody Monday after he drove his vehicle into a crowd, hitting three staff members. They were treated for minor injuries at the scene and released, said Lt. Kevin Kilgore of the UCLA Police Department.

The system’s 10 campuses remained open, largely operating on regular schedules, and protests were peaceful and even festive.

At UCLA, workers marched through campus in green union shirts that said “We run UC” and held signs calling for equality, respect and more staff. Some brought children and walked dogs. Drivers honked in solidarity. Hundreds of workers rallied in front of the Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, taking taco breaks under green balloons.

Oscar Rubio, a UCLA food services worker, said that staffing at some dining hall stations has been cut from five workers to three, leading to more injuries for those who remain.

Top UC officials “make more money … while we suffer,” Rubio said. “We’re not asking to make like they make. We’re asking to support us enough to pay our rent.”

The walkout is expected to widen Tuesday, when two other unions will join sympathy strikes. About 14,000 members of the California Nurses Assn., who work at UC’s medical centers and student health clinics, are set to walk off their jobs, along with 15,000 members of the University Professional & Technical Employees, who include pharmacists, clinical social workers, physical therapists, physician assistants and researchers.

The union and university reached a bargaining impasse last year. Subsequent mediation efforts have failed to produce an agreement on wage increases, healthcare premiums and retirement terms. A recent union study on pay disparities angered workers, said AFSCME spokesman John de los Angeles. The study used UC data, union officials say, to show that starting wages of blacks and Latinos were about 20% lower than white workers in comparable jobs.

“The strong showing sent a clear message to administrators that our workers are very concerned about inequity and they’re willing to be on the picket line until UC comes up with a proposal to address their concerns,” De los Angeles said.

UC officials say they cannot confirm the study’s accuracy. They criticized the union’s demands, which include a multiyear contract with annual pay raises of 6%, no increase in healthcare premiums and continued full pension benefits at the retirement age of 60. The university is offering 3% annually over four years, which officials say is equal to raises given to other UC employees. UC also wants to raise the retirement age to 65 for new employees who choose a pension instead of a 401(k) plan and to raise monthly health insurance premiums by a maximum $25.

“Unfortunately, the only thing union leaders accomplished today is hurt the care we provide our patients and the services for our students,” UC spokeswoman Claire Doan said in an email Monday. “It will do nothing to change UC’s position on AFSCME’s unreasonable demands for excessive raises and benefits.”

At UC’s request, a Sacramento County Superior Court judge issued a temporary restraining order Friday barring certain essential employees, such as pharmacists and respiratory therapists, from participating in order to protect public health and safety. AFSCME also assembled a “patient protection task force” to respond to life-threatening emergencies.

UC’s five medical centers hired contract workers to fill in during the strike and scrambled to reschedule exams and treatments. UC San Francisco rescheduled more than 12,000 appointments for surgeries and treatments, including chemotherapy and radiation.

UC Davis rescheduled several hundred appointments, including more than 100 cancer surgeries and 150 radiology exams. But campus spokeswoman Kimberly Hale said 78% of UC Davis health workers showed up for work. UC San Diego directed emergency room patients to other hospitals.

At UC Santa Cruz, where more than 150 protesters assembled at both entrances Monday, Chancellor George Blumenthal canceled most morning classes. Services were limited for hours at the student health center and some libraries and dining halls. Santa Cruz Metro buses did not enter the campus, dropping riders off at the entrance.

Samuel Walcoff, a sophomore studying computer science, said he had to trek up the hills to get to his afternoon lab and scrounge for food.

“I’m not at all opposed to people protesting and striking, but to have students who are powerless pay the price is extremely unfair,” he said.

At UC Berkeley, however, freshman Ella Smith said she supported the workers even though there was no Peet’s Coffee service inside the Golden Bear Cafe.

“Us not getting our morning coffee does not compare to the injustice UC workers face due to the inequity and inequality in their work experience,” she said in an email.

Some faculty members chose to teach off-campus to avoid crossing the picket line or to use the strike to discuss labor rights.

Paul Spickard, a UC Santa Barbara professor, has invited striking workers to speak Tuesday to the more than 300 students in his modern world history class.

“The UC system has been starved of money by the state,” he said in an email. “We have chosen to pay even lower wages to staff … than to faculty. That is shameful. They are our colleagues and the university would not run without them.”

Reyna and Dennis Avila both work at UCLA Medical Center — he as a hospital assistant, she as a secretary, monitor technician and nurse’s assistant. To juggle their schedules with one car and different work shifts, the couple leave their home in Inglewood at 2:45 a.m. Dennis starts work at 4 a.m. while Reyna sleeps in the car until her shift begins at 7 a.m. He takes the car home, and she returns by bus.

Reyna said her pay increases over two decades at UCLA have not kept up with rising rent.

“It’s gotten harder to make ends meet,” she said.

 

 

 

Trump Proposing Billions in Spending Cuts to Congress

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2018-05-07/trump-sending-spending-cuts-of-up-to-15b-to-congress

Image result for children's health insurance program

The Trump administration is unveiling a multibillion-dollar roster of proposed spending cuts but is leaving this year’s $1.3 trillion catchall spending bill alone.

The cuts wouldn’t have much impact, however, since they come from leftover funding from previous years that wouldn’t be spent anyway.

The White House said it is sending the so-called rescissions package to lawmakers Tuesday. Administration officials, who required anonymity because they weren’t authorized to speak publicly on the matter, said the package proposes killing $15 billion in unused funds. A senior official said about $7 billion would come from the Children’s Health Insurance Program, or CHIP, which provides health care to kids from low-income families, though that official stressed the cuts won’t have a practical impact on the popular program.

The administration is trying to use its authority to prod Congress to “rescind” spending approved years ago, but even if the package is approved it would only have a tiny impact on the government’s budget deficit, which is on track to total more than $800 billion this year. Some of the cuts wouldn’t affect the deficit at all since budget scorekeepers don’t give credit for rescinded money that they don’t think would have ever been spent.

For instance, more than $4 billion in cuts to a loan program designed to boost fuel-efficient, advanced-technology vehicles wouldn’t result in fewer loans since the loans are no longer being made. And $107 million worth of watershed restoration money from the 2013 Superstorm Sandy aid bill is going unused because local governments aren’t stepping up with matching funds. Another $252 million is left over from the 2015 fight against Ebola, which has been declared over.

Still, the cuts, if enacted by Congress, would take spending authority off the table so it couldn’t be tapped by lawmakers for other uses in the future. The catchall spending bill, for instance, contained $7 billion in cuts to CHIP that were used elsewhere to boost other programs.

“This is money that was never going to be spent,” a senior administration official said on a press call ahead of Tuesday’s submission. “The only thing it would be used for is offsets down the line.”

Democrats have supported such cuts in the past, eager to grab easy budget savings to finance new spending. But some Democrats howled over the White House proposal anyway.

“Let’s be honest about what this is: President Trump and Republicans in Congress are looking to tear apart the bipartisan Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), hurting middle-class families and low-income children,” said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

Pressure from party conservatives to increase cuts in a tentative $11 billion proposal contributed to a delay from Monday’s original release date.

The White House and tea party lawmakers upset by the budget-busting “omnibus” bill have rallied around the plan, aiming to show that Republicans are taking on out-of-control spending. The administration says it will propose cuts to the omnibus measure later in the year.

The spending cuts are also a priority for House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., who likens them to “giving the bloated federal budget a much-needed spring cleaning.” But while the package may pass the House it faces a more difficult path — and potential procedural roadblocks — in the Senate.

McCarthy wants to succeed soon-to-retire House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and some of his allies view the project as a way to improve his standing with fractious GOP conservatives who blocked his path to the speakership in 2015.

The proposal has already had a tortured path even before its unveiling. More pragmatic Republicans, including the senior ranks of the powerful House and Senate Appropriations committees, rebelled against the measure. They argued that it would be breaking a bipartisan budget pact just weeks after it was negotiated. In response, White House budget director Mick Mulvaney cleansed the measure of cuts to the huge omnibus bill.

Last month, Mulvaney told lawmakers the plan could have totaled $25 billion or so. Now he says he’s planning to submit several different packages of spending cuts — and it’s likely they’ll get more conservative with each new proposal.

Either way, the idea faces a challenging path in Congress — particularly the Senate, where a 51-49 GOP majority leaves little room for error even though budget rules permit rescissions measures to advance free of the threat of Democratic filibusters. But the cuts to the popular children’s health insurance program probably could still be filibustered because they are so-called mandatory programs rather than annual appropriations.