ER staffing companies can lead to increased surprise bills

http://www.healthcaredive.com/news/er-staffing-companies-can-lead-to-increased-surprise-bills/447751/

Dive Brief:

  • The New York Times reported that hospitals are turning more to companies like EmCare, which is one of the country’s largest physician-staffing companies for emergency rooms (ERs), to find ER doctors. Having outside doctors is causing patients to receive more expensive hospital bills because the ER doctors are considered out-of-network.
  • The Center for Public Priorities released a study earlier this year that found surprise billing is a problem that goes well beyond one company, but is an issue across the healthcare system.
  • Also, a new National Bureau of Economic Research study on out-of-network billing for emergency care found that patients who visited in-network hospitals for emergency care received out-of-network physician care 22% of the time. The study authors said: “Because patients cannot avoid out-of-network physicians during an emergency, physicians have an incentive to remain out-of-network and receive higher payment rates.”

Dive Insight:

Part of the issue with surprise billing, also known as balance billing, is thatmost states don’t have laws that protect consumers. Only six states have a “comprehensive” laws that protect against surprise billing, and there are no federal protections against the practice, according to The Commonwealth Fund.

The issue of surprise billing is another example of how the U.S. healthcare system confuses people. Patients who visit in-network hospitals often aren’t able to make sure each doctor working on them is in-network. So, they’re stuck with larger than expected hospital bills later.

Patients don’t like it for obvious reasons, and payors aren’t happy with the higher bills either. The hospital CEO the Times interviewed, Tom Wilbur of Newport Hospital in Spokane, Wash., said switching to EmCare turned out to be a fiasco as confused and angry patients started calling in. “Hindsight being 20/20, we never would have done that,” he told the paper.

A recent Commonwealth Fund study found that 14% of ER visits and 9% of hospital stays were likely to produce a surprise bill. Patients who were admitted to the hospital via the ER were more likely (20%)  to receive a surprise bill.

As health systems look to outside agencies more to fill gaps in coverage, surprise billing is not going away and could even intensify. What’s the solution? The Commonwealth Fund suggested it likely won’t come from Washington given the current toxic political climate — especially when it comes to healthcare. Instead, states will need to take up the issue in an attempt to protect consumers from getting large, unexpected hospital bills that are out of their control.

In Appalachia, Two Hospital Giants Seek State-Sanctioned Monopoly

http://khn.org/news/in-appalachia-two-hospital-giants-seek-state-sanctioned-monopoly/

Image result for hospital monopoly

Looking out a fourth-floor window of his hospital system’s headquarters, Alan Levine can see the Appalachian Mountains that have defined this hardscrabble region for generations.

What gets the CEO’s attention, though, is neither the steep hills in the distance nor one of his Mountain States Health Alliance hospitals across the parking lot. Rather, it’s a nearby shopping center where his main rival ­— Wellmont Health System, which owns seven area hospitals — runs an urgent care and outpatient cancer center. Mountain States offers the same services just up the road.

“Money is being wasted,” Levine said, noting that duplication of medical services is common throughout northeastern Tennessee and southwestern Virginia where Mountain States and Wellmont have been in a health care “arms race” for years, each trying to outduel the other for the doctors and services that will bring in business.

The companies now want to merge, which would create a monopoly on hospital care in a 13-county region that studieshave placed among the nation’s least healthy places. The merger’s savings would pay for a range of public health services that they can’t afford now, the companies project. And they are trying to pull it off without Washington regulators’ approval, breaking with hospitals’ usual path to consolidation.

In a typical case, a plan that eliminates so much competition in a market would almost certainly provoke a court battle with the Federal Trade Commission, which enforces antitrust laws and challenges anti-competitive behavior in the health industry.

To avert such a fight, the hospitals are using an obscure legal maneuver available in Tennessee and Virginia and some other states.

Generally known as a Certificate of Public Agreement (COPA), the process works like this: If regulators in Virginia and Tennessee agree that the merger is in the public interest, Wellmont and Mountain States would operate as one company under a state-supervised agreement governing key parts of their operations, including setting prices. The states’ approval would prevent the FTC from challenging the merger under federal antitrust law.

Their decisions could come as soon as this month.

In exchange for approval, Mountain States and Wellmont promise to use money saved from the merger to offer mental health and addiction treatment services and attack public health concerns, such as obesity and smoking — areas previously neglected by the systems that don’t increase hospital admissions and bring in big revenue, hospital officials said

“The question that needs to be asked is whether tight state oversight of a monopoly is better than failed competition,” said Robert Berenson, a health policy expert at the Urban Institute.

Little-Used And Rarely Challenged Mechanism

The federal antitrust exemption made possible under a COPA dates to a Supreme Court ruling in the 1940s used only about a dozen times to allow hospital mergers. One was an hour away from here, in Asheville, N.C.

There’s little scholarly research on COPAs’ results.

Last summer, the FTC dropped its challenge to a merger of two West Virginia hospitals after the state adopted a COPA law and permitted the deal.

In recent years, hospital mergers and acquisitions have created behemoth health systems that have used their status to demand high payments from insurers and patients. Studies by health economists have repeatedly found that consolidation means higher prices.

But the same calculus may not apply here and in other regions where a preponderance of patients are poor or uninsured, officials from both Mountain States and Wellmont say.

While President Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress stress the value of free-market principles in health care, both hospitals argue that in their part of Appalachia the market has led to unnecessary spending, driven up health costs and forced them to focus on services that produce the highest profits rather than meet the community’s most pressing health needs. In this deeply conservative region where death rates from cancer and heart disease are among the nation’s highest, the hospitals say only a state-sanctioned monopoly can help them control rising prices and improve their population’s health.

Without their proposed merger, Levine said, both hospital systems would likely have to sell to an out-of-market chain. That would likely eliminate local control of the facilities and could lead to massive layoffs and the closure of hospitals and services, he said. Together, the two hospital systems employ about 17,000 people.

The FTC, which is urging the states to reject the hospitals’ plan, contends the hospitals could form an alliance or take other steps short of a merger to accomplish the benefits they say one will bring. The agency says the hospitals’ market probably would be no worse off if one chain merged with a company outside the area.

Feds Wary Of Promises

The hospitals are making big promises to sell their deal. They say no hospitals would close for at least five years, although some could be converted to specialized health facilities to treat problems such as mental health or drug addiction. After the merger, all qualified doctors would have staff privileges at all hospitals to treat patients. No insurer would pay lower rates than others. The new hospital system would spend at least $160 million over 10 years to improve public health, expand medical research and support graduate medical education for work in rural areas.

The FTC maintains the hospitals’ pledges are unreliable and dismissed them as having “significant shortcomings, gaps and ambiguities” in an analysis filed with state regulators in January.

Levine said the plan is the best deal for the community given the factors that handicap the hospitals. Those include declining populations and Medicare reimbursement rates that are lower here than other parts of the country because of lower average wages. Another concern is the cost of caring for uninsured people — neither Virginia nor Tennessee expanded Medicaid under the health law, which would have lowered uninsured rates.

“Competition is and should be the first choice, but in an area where competition becomes irrational and there are limited choices, there has to be a Plan B. If not this, then what?” he said.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Tennessee, the state’s largest health insurer, is not opposing the hospitals’ combination, a spokesman said. But its counterpart in Virginia, Anthem, hasn’t been persuaded.

“Anthem does not believe that there are any commitments that will protect Southwest Virginia and Northeast Tennessee health care consumers from the negative impact of a state-sanctioned monopoly,” the company said in a statement.

Wanted: Better Job Prospects

The proposed COPA has strong support among large employers in the region, including Eastman, a Kingsport, Tenn., chemical company with $9 billion in annual revenue that employs more than 7,000 people locally. “We get local governance, input and control … and that’s a lot better situation for us,” said David Golden, a senior vice president at Eastman.

Still, walking around Johnson City — the region’s largest city with almost 67,000 people — it’s easy to feel an unease among small employers and residents about a merger. Many worry about possible job cuts.

“Eliminating duplication of services means eliminating people,” said Dick Nelson, 60, who runs a coffee and art shop downtown and has lived here for 27 years. “I don’t care how much health care costs because my insurance will pay it,” he said.

In Kingsport, where Wellmont and Mountain States each has a hospital, Thorp is leery about a merger, too. “It’s an economic move, not an enhancement of medical care,” said Thorp, who runs a newsstand downtown. “We pride ourselves here for having good education and health care. They say there won’t be any services or jobs cut, but if that’s the case then what’s the point of the merger?”

Levine said no place better supports the case for a hospital merger than Wise County in southwestern Virginia, a scenic area with about 40,000 people whose three hospitals all operate below half their capacity. Mountain States and Wellmont each own a hospital in Norton, the county seat with 4,000 residents. Despite few patients, the hospitals still bear hard-to-cut costs for buildings, equipment and adequate staffing levels, Levine said.

On a recent weekday morning, Lonesome Pine Hospital, a Wellmont facility in Big Stone Gap, Va., looked nearly deserted. No volunteers or staffers were visible inside its main entrance and fewer than a fifth of its 70 acute-care beds were being used.

A five-minute drive away, Mountain States’ Norton Community Hospital’s 129 beds are about a quarter filled. Its maternity unit delivers fewer than five babies a week. The hospital offers hyperbaric oxygen therapy — a treatment that pays well under Medicare’s reimbursement rates — to help diabetics heal their wounds. But it has no endocrinologists to help diabetics manage their disease to avoid such complications. Despite a high rate of heart disease in the community, there’s no cardiologist on staff.

Whether a state-sanctioned merger will resolve the incongruities — here or in other poor regions — depends on how firmly regulators hold the hospitals to their pre-merger commitments. If the merger plan gets rejected, Mountain States and Wellmont will resume arch-competitive business practices that do not always put community interests first, said Bart Hove, Wellmont’s CEO.

“It’s about competing for the dollar in any way you can and extracting a dollar from your competition,” Hove said. “You do what you can to drive patients to your hospital.”

Digital Therapeutics: The Future of Health Care Will Be App-Based

https://www.forbes.com/sites/eladnatanson/2017/07/24/digital-therapeutics-the-future-of-health-care-will-be-app-based/#797cc5b37637

Image result for clinical mobile applications

Last month, healthcare startup Omada Health secured a $50 million C round led by major insurer Cigna, which brings the 5-year-old company’s total funding to over $127 million.  That kind of nine-figure investment isn’t unusual for a company with the next blockbuster drug or game changing medical device, but Omada’s core product is a diabetes-preventing mobile app!  Omada is a leader in one of the hottest new sectors of the app economy: Digital Therapeutics.

Digital therapeutics are a new category of apps that help treat diseases by modifying patient behavior and providing remote monitoring to improve long-term health outcomes.  Depending on the disease, they can encourage patients to stick to diet and exercise programs or help them adhere to drug intake regimes.  Wait a minute, doesn’t that sound a lot like wellness apps?  There are already hundreds of apps that help us manage our workouts or meditate more effectively!

The key difference is that digital therapeutics implement treatment programs tailored to specific ailments, especially major chronic diseases like diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, and pulmonary diseases like COPD.  Because patient behavior is so crucial in preventing and limiting the severity of these life-threatening illnesses, the early evidence is that these digital health programs, often combined with human coaching/interaction, can make a significant difference in health outcomes.

To provide hard data of their efficacy (and differentiate themselves from wellness apps), newcomers like Omada have taken a page from the pharma industry and have performed clinical trials with major healthcare networks like Humana.  In recently published research, prediabetic patients that participated in a year-long  Omada-based program lost 7.5% of their initial body weight and showed improved glucose control and decreased cholesterol.

These results are one reason why health insurance firms are among the big investors in the leading startups.  Mobile app-based digital treatment programs can be delivered at massive scale and low cost, and by helping to prevent disease progression, can potentially save insurers billions of dollars.  On the other side of the equation, the prospect of health insurance covered recurring subscription revenues has VC’s salivating.   Omada proved early validation of this prospect when last year it got Medicare to agree to reimburse the cost of its digital diabetes prevention program.

Another reason the insurers are excited about the potential of mobile-delivered health programs is data.  Once clinical trials are complete, most pharmaceutical companies don’t track real-world results for their drugs.  With precise regimes and daily monitoring, digital therapeutics can offer mountains of data that can potentially provide doctors unprecedented insights into patient behavior and create feedback/optimization loops for individual patients.   Enabling patients to take greater control over managing their chronic illnesses and preventing disease progression could yield huge cost savings throughout the entire healthcare system.

Some digital therapeutics is meant to entirely replace medication with behavioral-based treatment, such as apps that use visualization exercises to help insomnia sufferers as an alternative to sleeping pills like Ambien.  Others are designed to work in conjunction with medications by helping patients better manage their treatment regimes.  A company that has taken this approach is Propeller Health, which makes a sensor that attaches to inhalers used by people who suffer from chronic asthma and COPD.  The sensor monitors inhaler usage and provides feedback via a mobile app.  Propeller has partnered with GlaxoSmithKline to create a digital therapy platform to guide patients in using its asthma medications.

Another innovative digital drug adherence platform is the one created by startup Proteus Digital Health.  Proteus has built an ingestible radio tag the size of a grain of sand.  It can be put inside a pill and can send data to a wearable patch on the patient’s torso.  For elder patients managing multiple chronic conditions with an array of daily medications, Proteus’ sensors and the app can send alerts to patients as well as family and primary care providers when a key dose has been missed.  Trials have shown that Proteus’ system has shown reductions in blood pressure among patients taking medication for hypertension.

From these examples, it becomes clearer to see how digital health programs, which can be tailored and optimized for individual patients and delivered at scale via mobile, represent a transformational development in healthcare.  As Andreessen Horowitz partner Vijay Pande calls it, digital therapeutics, by enabling the kind of behavioral meditation which is the only effective way of managing chronic illness, represent a true “third phase” of medicine, after small-molecule drugs and protein biologics.  I predict that someday, apps that help people manage illness and prevent long-term disease will no longer have a special name.  They will just be another form of software on our phones.  More than anything else, the rise of digital therapeutics demonstrates once again the power of mobile computing as the most transformational technology platform the world has ever seen.

12 US cities ranked by cost per square foot to build a hospital

http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/facilities-management/12-us-cities-ranked-by-cost-per-square-foot-to-build-a-hospital.html?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Issue:%202017-07-25%20Healthcare%20Dive%20%5Bissue:11297%5D&utm_term=Healthcare%20Dive

Image result for hospital construction

The most expensive U.S. city to build a hospital in is Honolulu, according to a report by Rider Levett Bucknall. In fact, the cost per square foot to build a hospital in Honolulu is about 60 percent higher than in Las Vegas, which has the lowest per square foot hospital construction costs of any city on the list.

For the report, values were based on hard construction costs per square foot of gross floor area.

Here is the range of costs to build a hospital per square foot in 12 large U.S. cities, ranked from most to least expensive.

Please note that some of the costs are equal so there are more than 11 cities listed.

1. Honolulu: $475 to $760 per square foot
2. New York City: $475 to $700
3. Los Angeles: $470 to $700
4. San Francisco: $450 to $650
5. Boston: $400 to $650
5. Washington. D.C.: $400 to $650
6. Chicago: $360 to $630
7. Portland, Ore.: $380 to $525
8. Seattle: $385 to $530
9. Phoenix: $350 to $500
10. Denver: $370 to $455
11. Las Vegas: $285 to $455

Healthcare CEO pay climbs steadily since ACA passage

http://www.healthcaredive.com/news/healthcare-ceo-pay-climbs-steadily-since-aca-passage/447772/

Dive Brief:

  • Earnings of healthcare CEOs have continued to grow under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the pay packages give them little incentive to rein in spending, a new Axios analysis concludes.
  • Since the ACA was passed in 2010, CEOs of the 70 largest healthcare companies have cumulatively earned a whopping $9.8 billion — or almost 11% more money on average each year. However, because most of the pay is in vested stock, CEOs often base decisionmaking on what boosts stock prices (e.g., bigger sales, more tests and procedures) and not the ACA goals of patient-centered, value-based care.
  • The analysis was based on financial reports from 70 publicly traded U.S. healthcare companies comprising more than $2 trillion in annual revenues. Not-for-profit hospital CEOs were not included.

Dive Insight:

The biggest payout — $863 million — went to John Martin, CEO of biotechnology company Gilead Sciences, according to the analysis. Other takeaways include:

  • Just four of the 113 healthcare CEOs in the analysis were women
  • 11 of the top 20 top earners were CEOs of pharma and drug-related companies;
  • CEOs earned a little less as a whole last year versus 2015 due to market uncertainty over the presidential election.

Rising salaries are drawing increased scrutiny and some pushback. In April, North Carolina lawmakers approved a bill that would bar compensation for CEOs of behavioral health managed care organizations from exceeding by more than 30% the average salary of other behavioral health managed care businesses in the state. The bill seemed targeted at Cardinal Healthcare Innovations CEO Richard Topping, whose salary was $435,000 more than the average salary for a managed care organization in the state.

Salaries of executives at nonprofit organizations have also been growing. According to a Wall Street Journal report in March, many nonprofits are embracing salary strategies used in the for-profit world and offering packages totaling more than $1 million, with possibility of bonuses and deferred payments. In 2014, about 75% of nonprofit pay packages totaling $1 million or more went to healthcare executives.

In Massachusetts, in fact, pay for hospital CEOs outpaced state health spending. The largest compensation package went to Elizabeth Nabel, president of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, who received $5.4 million in 2014, up 119% from the previous year. By contrast, overall healthcare spending in Massachusetts rose 4.8% that year.

In an analysis earlier this year, Axios found that Sutter Health CEO Patrick Fry gets paid the most per patient stay ($6.88 a day) among the 20 largest hospital systems. Greenwich Hospital CEO Norman Roth earned the most ($56.40 a day) among other studied hospitals.

https://www.axios.com/the-sky-high-pay-of-health-care-ceos-2442398819.html

 

The Medicaid Fund: Beware of Gifts

http://thenews.pl/1/11/Artykul/317380,Poland-to-open-new-museum-at-German-Nazi-Treblinka-death-camp

Image result for medicaid

Press reports have suggested that to get the Affordable Care Act repeal-and-replace effort back on track, Senate leaders are now offering, as part of their Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA), a $200 billion fund to help states partially offset the nearly $800 billion dollars in lost federal Medicaid funding they would face over the next decade if BCRA became law. This fund, to be administered by the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), would apparently be used to help low-income people transition from Medicaid to private insurance.

The offer, if accurate, still amounts to a 75 percent reduction in funding. So the fund does little to address the human and financial consequences of BCRA’s original Medicaid cuts. It’s also unclear how it would work or affect the private insurance market. Furthermore, it’s uncertain whether the Senate parliamentarian would allow a new program. Even if permitted under the strict rules governing the Senate reconciliation process, the program would encounter major legal and operational hurdles in implementation, as well as questions about the lack of public accountability for drawing on the money. It is also worth noting that this type of strategy, in which the HHS secretary is given vast powers over how to allocate funds under the loose rubric of “transition,” may itself raise questions about whether Congress simply has thrown a handful of dollars at the problem, and coupled these dollars with an extraordinary delegation of its constitutional legislative powers to the executive branch.

Today, if a state chooses to insure a Medicaid-eligible population, the federal government will pay a percentage of actual costs. Like insurance generally, these costs can vary by the type of population insured (healthy people versus those who are sick), the amount and intensity of services furnished, and the prices paid. In any year, and in any state, costs vary enormously, a fact driven home by the economic fallout from the opioid epidemic or the Zika virus. The federal Medicaid contribution to state programs ranges from 50 percent to about 75 percent, with higher contributions for low-income adults covered under the ACA’s Medicaid expansion. Equally importantly, there is real accountability in federal Medicaid payments spent to insure people — we know how many people are covered and what services are paid for.

Over the past several weeks, a blizzard of analyses and reports has made clear just how essential Medicaid is to states, their populations, their economies, and their ability to maintain operational health care systems for everyone. Receiving 25 cents on the dollar in lieu of guaranteed Medicaid financing would be little consolation; this is particularly true since presumably, like other special payments to states under the bill, the fund can be expected to be time-limited, after which more action from Congress would be needed to extend its life.

Let’s imagine that this fund becomes law, with details to be hashed out later. A host of questions would arise, all of which would need to be translated into complex and contentious regulations, issued following a lengthy rulemaking process. For example, will normal federal matching rules apply when states draw on this fund, or will states have to put up more funding or perhaps none at all? What types of costs will be recognized as eligible for fund payments? Will all states be able to participate or just those losing expansion funding? Will states be permitted to help only selected Medicaid expansion beneficiaries losing coverage? Although the fund is billed as transitional assistance for beneficiaries, would this include direct payments to providers to allow for continuity of care? Under laws that govern agency policymaking and spending decisions such as when, where, and how to spend $200 billion, these questions and many more would need to move a formal policy development process. The HHS secretary cannot simply dole out unstructured funding that could be used for purposes only tangentially related to transitions.

No vague promises or pennies-on-the-dollar slush fund can take the place of what Medicaid does for people and for states. Nor can it compensate for the consequences of ending the compact on which Medicaid has rested for over 50 years.

Parliamentarian deals setback to GOP repeal bill

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/343234-parliamentarian-deals-setback-to-gop-healthcare-bill?utm_content=buffer1343d&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Image result for senate parliamentarian

Major portions of the Republican bill to repeal and replace ObamaCare will require 60 votes, according to the Senate parliamentarian, meaning they are unlikely to survive on the floor.

The parliamentarian has advised senators that several parts of the bill could be stripped out, according to a document released Friday by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee. (Read the guidance here.)

The provisions that would likely be removed include policies important to conservatives, such as restrictions on tax credits being used for insurance plans that cover abortion.

Language in the bill defunding Planned Parenthood for a year also violates budget rules, according to the parliamentarian. That guidance is sure to anger anti-abortion groups who backed the bill specifically because of those provisions.

In a statement, Planned Parenthood said it was “obvious” that the defunding provision would be a violation of the reconciliation rules.

“No amount of legislative sleight of hand will change the fact that the primary motivation here is to pursue a social agenda by targeting Planned Parenthood,” the group said.

The parliamentarian has also not yet ruled on a controversial amendment from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) that would allow insurers to sell plans that do not meet ObamaCare regulations. If that provision were struck, conservative support for the bill would be in doubt.

Republicans are trying to use the budget reconciliation process to pass their healthcare bill with only a simple majority. The provisions deemed impermissible under that process can be stripped if a senator on the floor raises an objection.

Democrats would be virtually certain to deny Republicans the 60 votes they would need to keep portions of the bill intact.

The result is that the arcane rules of the Senate could end up making the bill harder for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to pass.

A spokesman for McConnell was quick to point out that the parliamentarian only provides guidance on the legislation to help inform subsequent drafts. The bill will have to change before it gets to the floor if Republicans want to salvage any of provisions in question.

GOP leaders have said they want to vote on a procedural motion to begin debate on ObamaCare repeal legislation early next week. However, it’s still not clear if they have the votes or which legislation they will be voting on: the replacement bill or repeal-only legislation.

Some conservatives were already questioning Friday why the Senate parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, would rule against Planned Parenthood defunding, when that provision was allowed under reconciliation in 2015.

A spokesman for Sanders said the guidance has changed because it is now clear that Planned Parenthood would be the only organization affected by the defunding language.

“It passed last time because there was at least a question that other entities could be affected by the language,” the spokesman said. “In the interim, Republicans have not been able to show that any entity other than Planned Parenthood is affected, and the new [Congressional Budget Office] score confirms that.”

In a blow to the insurance industry, the parliamentarian has advised that two key market stabilization provisions in the bill would be against the rules. First, the legislation can’t appropriate the cost-sharing reduction subsidies insurers rely on to keep premiums and deductibles low; it can only repeal them.

Additionally, a “lockout” provision requiring consumers with a break in coverage to wait six months before buying insurance also violates the rules, according to the guidance.

The provision was added to the bill to address concerns that people would only sign up for health insurance when they’re sick, if insurers are still prevented from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions.

The parliamentarian also advised that a specific provision dealing with New York state’s Medicaid program would be a violation of the rules. Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) seized on that decision.

“The parliamentarian made clear that state-specific provisions” violate the rules, Schumer said. “This will greatly tie the majority leader’s hands as he tries to win over reluctant Republicans with state-specific provisions. We will challenge every one of them.”