Category Archives: Uncategorized

PIGS DON’T LAY EGGS BUT LEADERSHIP IS INTERVENTION

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

Pigs Don’t Lay Eggs but Leadership is Intervention

Apart from intervention, the past is the future. Past performance reflects future accomplishment. Past attitudes predict future interactions.

Leadership is intervention.

Intervention is:

Disruption…Interruption…Interference.

Intervention is making failure less likely and success more probable.

Intervention is elevating good to great.

Interventions:

Place an obstacle in the path of repeated failure. Establish rigid reporting procedures to monitor progress, for example. Use this as a temporary measure, not a long-term strategy.

Disrupt thinking by reflecting on past performance with the future in mind.

  1. What would you do differently next time?
  2. When did this project begin to flounder? What did you do?
  3. Imagine yourself acting differently, what do you see yourself doing? How might you do that next time?

Make failure uncomfortable – when it’s a pattern – unless you want more of it.

Not intervention:

#1. Passive acceptance isn’t intervention. Acceptance is the beginning of successful intervention, but acceptance alone is endorsement.

Apart from acceptance, intervention is offense, but lack of intervention ratifies failure.

#2. Frustration isn’t intervention. Address the roots of frustration or frustrations escalate. Soothing anger without solving the cause opens the door to future anger.

Appeasement is approval.

#3. Optimism isn’t intervention until it inspires action.

#4. Second chances aren’t interventions. Second chances only work when first chances are learning experiences.

Nagging frustrations indicate lack of learning. Second chances won’t help.

Three considerations:

Pigs don’t lay eggs, but there’s always room for growth. It’s futile to expect people to be something they’re not. If you have a team of pigs, fall in love with bacon.

Throw sand in the gears. Make failure uncomfortable. Establish a point where negative consequences kick in. Remove responsibilities, for example.

Intervention might include doing less, if you’re inclined to quickly offer help. Instead of offering solutions, ask what they would like to try.

How might leaders intervene when failure is a pattern?

What does intervention look like when things are going well?

Parliamentarian deals setback to GOP repeal bill

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

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/343234-parliamentarian-deals-setback-to-gop-healthcare-bill

Image result for parliamentary procedures

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.), the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee. (Read the guidance here.)

The provisions that would likely be removed include polices 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.”

CBO Score on Senate Bill: 50 Million Americans Uninsured by 2026 and Sharp Increases in Premiums and Deductibles

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

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/blog/2017/jul/cbo-score-on-senate-bill?omnicid=EALERT1245625&mid=henrykotula@yahoo.com

This week the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its report on the impact of the revised Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA), the Senate bill to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. The revised bill made changes aimed at winning over Republicans who oppose the bill.

The CBO score indicates that those changes made no difference in the number of people who would lose insurance under the bill if it were to become law. The CBO projects that 22 million people would lose their coverage by 2026 — and millions more would see increased out-of-pocket costs. But the CBO score does not include an analysis of the most controversial change in the revised bill, an amendment modeled on one offered by Senator Cruz that would allow insurers to charge people more on the basis of their health. The insurance industry has already pointed out that this amendment would create conditions that could lead to a premium death spiral in the individual market and widespread losses of insurance. So it is likely that the CBO report underestimates the coverage losses under the revised BCRA.

Coverage Losses

The CBO projects that if the BCRA were to become law, the number of people without health insurance would nearly double to 50 million people by 2026, or more than the number of uninsured in the year the Affordable Care Act (ACA) passed.

Health care fight shows Washington at its worst

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

http://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/article/Health-care-fight-shows-Washington-at-its-worst-11303602.php?utm_campaign=CHL%3A%20Daily%20Edition&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=54498266&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8nW1z8XGp1RyWaBRZo1HR_YwqOWFq8gREqh7wzXohioPQ2kx3SMz2vwu8CMs2xJr1f1w3UqB1IbqGUtwIJvTN98D4mjA&_hsmi=54498266

The fight over repealing and replacing Obamacare was more about partisan politics than protecting consumers. Photo: Joe Raedle, Getty Images

The story of health care policy this week, this month and for the last decade (at least) has been a tale of partisan folly. But fear not, this isn’t another earnest pundit’s lament for the vital center to emerge, phoenix-like, to form a governing coalition of moderates in both parties. That’s not my bag.

After all, I have always argued that bipartisanship is overrated.

Bipartisan support often means unthinking support (as the founders could have told you). Partisans may be annoying from time to time, but they also can be relied upon to point out the shortcomings of what the other side is doing. When partisan criticism is missing, it might be a sign that politicians in both parties are helping themselves, not the country. Or, it might mean they’re pandering to the passions of the public and press rather than doing the hard work of thinking things through.

So you’ll get no warm and fuzzy pleading for moderates to scrub clean the word “compromise” so that it’s no longer a dirty word in Washington. Others can make the case for that. And besides, that argument misses the essence of this spectacular failure. Honest partisanship isn’t the problem, bipartisan dishonesty is.

Both parties have become defined by their lies and their refusal to accept reality. It’s a problem bigger than health care, but health care is probably the best illustration of it.

For seven years Republicans campaigned to repeal Obamacare. We now know that for many of those politicians, that pledge was a sales pitch that expired after the sale — i.e., the election — was final.

But before liberal readers pull a muscle nodding their heads: The Democrats aren’t any better. Obamacare itself was lied into passage. “You can keep your plan!” “You can keep your doctor!” “Your premiums won’t go up!” These were lies. If those promises were remotely true, Obamacare wouldn’t be the mess it is.

But these aren’t even the lies I have in mind.

The Republican “repeal and replace” bills debated for the last six months did not in fact repeal Obamacare. They kept most of its regulations intact — particularly the popular ones. The GOP did seek to repeal and reform the Medicaid expansion under Obamacare, but that’s not the same thing as repealing Obamacare.

Yet Republicans insisted it was a repeal because they wanted to claim that they fulfilled their repeal pledge. Actually fulfilling the substance of the pledge was a low-order priority. Heroically winning the talking point: This was their brass ring.

So, too, for the White House. Donald Trump just wanted a win. He has made it abundantly clear that he would sign anything the Republicans sent him — up to and possibly including the head of Alfredo Garcia if someone had written “Obamacare: Repealed” on the poor chap’s forehead. Trump has shown zero preference for any specific policy or approach during these debates. He just wants the bragging rights.

And that is the one thing Democrats are most determined to deny him. The Democrats know that Obamacare has been an albatross for their party. They often acknowledge, through gritted teeth, that the law needs a substantial overhaul.

More important, they also know that the GOP wasn’t pushing an actual repeal. But they couldn’t tolerate for a moment the idea that the Republicans would get to claim it was repeal. So the one thing both sides could agree upon was that this was a zero-sum war over repealing Obamacare — when it wasn’t.

This was all about bogus gasconade and rodomontade for Republicans and insecure rhetorical wagon-circling around Barack Obama’s “legacy” for Democrats. If Trump and the GOP agreed to abandon “repeal,” as Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer wants, one can only wonder how much replacing of Obamacare Schumer would allow the GOP to get away with.

Likewise, if Democrats could somehow give Republicans the ability to say they repealed Obamacare, many Republican senators — and certainly Trump — would probably be happy to leave the bulk of it intact.

It is this fact that makes the polarized, tribal climate in Washington so frustrating. I like partisan fights when those fights are about something real. The Medicaid fight was at least about something real. But most of this nonsense is a battle of liars trying to protect past lies in the hope of being able to make new lies seem just plausible enough for the liars to keep repeating them.

Trump’s war of attrition against Obamacare

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

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/21/trumps-war-of-attrition-against-obamacare-240777?utm_campaign=CHL%3A%20Daily%20Edition&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=54498266&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9ek2u9ksxXcgIEhuqarS0spfhGiKMzLANnn_6r5sJmtFLcRJplq-a0Zqexn1eqaf_s9_sbG_p8WdTzuQUliN0eqfaVBA&_hsmi=54498266

Image result for healthcare war of attrition

The administration can do plenty to undermine the law even if Republicans are unable to repeal it.

Obamacare may escape another GOP repeal effort, but surviving a hostile administration could be a much tougher challenge.

If a last-ditch repeal effort fails in Congress next week, all indications are the Trump administration will continue chipping away at the Affordable Care Act — if not torching it outright.

President Donald Trump, who regularly says Obamacare is dead, has already taken steps to undermine the law even as the legislative battle over repeal drags on. His administration has slashed crucial advertising dollars, cut the enrollment window in half, and regularly pumps out anti-Obamacare videos and graphics — actions sure to reduce the number of people who sign up.

Trump has plenty of other options to roll back a program covering roughly 20 million Americans. Those include ending enforcement of the mandate to carry insurance, imposing work restrictions and nominal premiums on low-income adults who qualify for Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion and letting states relax the law’s robust coverage rules.

The man charged with the oversight of many of these decisions, Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price, noted in his confirmation hearing that Obamacare grants him broad authority about how to enact it — powers that in his hands could be used to the scale back the law’s reach.

“Fourteen hundred and forty-two times the ACA said ‘the secretary shall’ or ‘the secretary may,’” Price noted in March.

One possible brake on the administration might be the pushback from some Republican governors and lawmakers who oppose letting insurance markets crumble on their watch — even as Trump insists voters will blame Democrats. After the Senate’s repeal effort appeared to unravel earlier this week, Sen. Lamar Alexander, chairman of a key health care committee, announced plans to hold hearings on stabilizing Obamacare’s shaky insurance marketplaces.

“The best next step is for both parties to come together and do what we can all agree on: fix our unstable insurance markets,” wrote 11 governors this week in a bipartisan letter led by John Kasich of Ohio and John Hickenlooper of Colorado.

However, there’s no sign that most Republicans in Washington are ready to drop their longtime vow to dismantle Obamacare, even with a planned Senate vote on repeal next week likely to fail.

The most devastating thing the administration could do to Obamacare is pull insurance subsidies, worth about $7 billion this year, that are paid to insurers to cover the out-of-pocket costs of low-income consumers. That could lead to an exodus of insurers from the Obamacare markets, send premiums soaring, and lead already wobbly markets in some states to collapse.

“We pay hundreds of millions of dollars a month in subsidy … and when those payments stop, it stops immediately,” Trump said in a meeting with Republican senators Wednesday. “It doesn’t take two years, three years, one year — it stops immediately.”

The Trump administration confirmed Wednesday it will make this month’s subsidy payments. However, insurers fear the administration could nix the subsidy at any time.

The other immediate concern for insurers is whether the administration will continue enforcing the individual mandate penalty for Americans who do not purchase insurance. Many saw Trump’s Day One executive order instructing agencies to weaken Obamacare as a green light for the IRS to stop enforcing the tax penalty for skipping coverage. So far, however, the mandate remains.

While the mandate has proven weaker than insurers had hoped to induce Americans — particularly the young and healthy — to purchase coverage, the industry still sees it as a key tool for keeping down costs and stabilizing the markets. Many are boosting premiums higher than planned due to fears Trump will no longer enforce it.

Signals that the mandate will no longer be enforced are sure to worry insurance companies whose participation in Obamacare’s marketplaces are key to making them function. Some major national and regional insurers have already said they will pull out of the marketplaces next year, with most citing uncertainty about the effort to roll back the law.

“If there are questions, if there are unknowns, [insurers] have to proceed conservatively,” said Ceci Connolly, CEO of the Alliance of Community Health Plans. “If they price on wishful thinking, they will come up short next year.”

Trump health officials have already shown a willingness to flex executive power to whack at the law.

Weeks after taking office, the Trump administration canceled $5 million in HealthCare.gov advertising in the final days of the previous enrollment season — a particularly crucial time for attracting young and healthy customers. On Wednesday, Trump’s HHS confirmed it will soon terminate two contracts for outreach programs designed to sign up people for insurance across the country.

“The contracts were never intended to be long term,” said Jane Norris, a spokeswoman for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which oversees the law’s implementation.

The administration could also pare back federal funding for enrollment outreach programs. The Obama administration awarded $63 million in grants last September to help states bolster enrollment efforts, and another tranche of funding is supposed to be released by this fall. However, the administration hasn’t signaled whether it would continue this funding, and an appropriations bill advancing in the House would block dollars for the so-called navigator programs.

The next enrollment period starting Nov. 1 is looming. The Trump administration has already cut the sign-up period in half — to six weeks in the nearly 40 states using HealthCare.gov — worrying advocates that the shortened window will depress sign-up numbers.

In past enrollment seasons, the Obama administration rolled out a full-court marketing press, with top administration officials making media appearances to push enrollment. It’s hard to imagine Price and other top HHS officials making a similar effort after his department has trumpeted Obamacare’s struggles on a daily basis.

“They have to sign up millions of enrollees just to maintain the same amount of total enrollment,” said Larry Levitt of the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. “If there’s minimal outreach … there could be a big drop-off in enrollment.”

While the previous administration also took an active role in boosting insurer participation in the marketplaces, the Trump administration has taken a hands-off approach. There are no signs that HHS is looking to persuade insurers to sell coverage in the 40 counties that potentially won’t have any insurers selling Obamacare plans next year. Trump and administration officials often tout these “bare” counties as another sign of Obamacare’s flaws.

“40 counties in 3 states are currently projected by @CMSgov to have zero insurers on #Obamacare,” Price tweeted on Thursday.

HHS could also give red states much wider latitude to limit who can sign up for Medicaid. Arkansas, Arizona, Kentucky, Indiana, Maine and Wisconsin are among the states with Republican governors seeking federal permission to add work requirements or make able-bodied adult beneficiaries pay more for care. The Obama administration largely shunned similar requests because they would shrink enrollment.

At least one state is seeking the Trump administration’s permission to significantly overhaul Obamacare’s coverage rules in order to attract insurers back to its struggling marketplace. Iowa, which is at risk of having no insurer sell coverage statewide next year, wants to scrap Obamacare’s subsidies helping customers pay for premiums and medical bills and replace them with a limited tax credit. That could make lower-income and sick enrollees pay a lot more for coverage.

Iowa also wants to implement a single, standardized health insurance option instead of allowing insurers to sell a range of health plans as they now do under Obamacare. Finally, the state would create a reinsurance program meant to backstop insurers with particularly expensive customers, an idea pursued by Alaska, Minnesota, New Hampshire and other states.

At least one insurer said it would re-enter Iowa’s marketplace if the plan goes through. Though some Obamacare advocates have questioned whether Iowa can legally roll back Obamacare standards as the state has proposed, the Trump administration is expected to greenlight the plan.

Senate Leaders Press for Health Care Vote, but on Which Bill?

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

 

Image result for band aid on a gunshot wound

Senate Republicans ended a demoralizing week on Thursday with their leaders determined to press ahead with a vote to begin debating health care next week, but with little progress on securing the votes and no agreement even on which bill to take up.

With President Trump urging them to move forward on their seven-year quest to erase the Affordable Care Act, Republican senators on Thursday still had not decided whether to revive a proposal to replace former President Barack Obama’s health care law with one of their own, or to simply repeal it and work on a replacement later.

The choice is unpalatable: The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said on Thursday that the latest version of the bill to repeal and replace the health law would increase the number of people without health insurance by 15 million next year and by 22 million in 2026. Those figures are the same as the estimates in the budget office’s previous analysis, despite numerous changes to the bill intended to win votes.

On the other hand, if senators opted simply to repeal the existing law, the budget office said on Wednesday, 32 million more people would be uninsured in 2026 compared with current law.

The majority leader, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, remained unswerving in his drive toward a vote next week on a procedural motion to begin debating health care. But he has not specified which version of the legislation he intends to put before the Senate. In effect, he is asking 50 senators to roll the dice and hope they land on an option they can work with.

“You can’t debate something that you don’t initiate the debate on,” said Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the No. 2 Senate Republican. “And everybody can offer endless amendments, so if anybody’s got a better idea, they can offer that and get a vote on it. And in the end, 50 people are going to decide whether we’re going to have an outcome or not.”

Asked whether senators want to know the plan before they vote, Mr. Cornyn said that was “a luxury we don’t have.” (He later wrote on Twitter that it was “hard to predict” the final legislation because of the amendment process.)

The release of the budget office’s analysis capped a tumultuous period that began with the seeming collapse of Mr. McConnell’s health care bill. Then Mr. Trump’s changing demands added to the disarray. Finally, the week turned heavy-hearted with the news that Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, has brain cancer.

It remained far from clear whether Republicans would be able to assemble the votes to begin debate, let alone coalesce around legislation to repeal the health law and, possibly, to replace it.

“I want us to remember that our attempt here is to lower the cost of health care; it’s not just about getting 50 votes,” said Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee. Mr. Corker said a repeal-only measure now seemed like the best course of action, and he expressed concern about the continuing negotiations for a broader bill that would replace the health law.

“I’m beginning to fear that it’s taking on some of the same characteristics that Obamacare took on when it was passed,” Mr. Corker said. “It’s beginning to feel a little bit like a bazaar, if you will, where, ‘Let’s throw $50 billion here, $100 billion there.’”

How the Number of Uninsured Would Change

The increase in the number of uninsured is virtually the same under the initial and the revised versions of the proposed Senate Republican health plans.

To start debate, Mr. McConnell can afford to lose only two Republican votes — or just one if Mr. McCain is absent. It was unclear on Thursday whether Mr. McCain would be able to travel to Washington in the near future, and Senator Susan Collins of Maine remained firmly in opposition, barring a drastic change in the direction of the Senate’s efforts. She said the Senate should hold hearings on the problems with the Affordable Care Act and try to produce bipartisan bills on the subject.

“As long as we are fundamentally changing Medicaid and taking some $700 billion out of the program, I do not see myself voting for a bill that does that,” Ms. Collins said. “And to do that without holding a single hearing on what the implications would be for some of our most vulnerable citizens, for our rural hospitals and our nursing homes, is not an approach that I can endorse.”

The budget office said the latest version of the Senate bill would cut projected federal spending on Medicaid by $756 billion in the coming decade, and in 2026, it said, 15 million fewer people would be enrolled in Medicaid, compared with current law.

Senators from states that have expanded Medicaid worry about the loss of coverage. To address those concerns, Republican leaders are considering a proposal to add $200 billion to the bill to help reduce the costs of private insurance for people who lose Medicaid.

“It sounds like a lot of money, and it is a lot of money,” said Senator Christopher S. Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut. But he said it represented just a slice of the funds that are being cut and described it as only “a temporary Band-Aid on a much bigger problem.”

The budget office has yet to take into account a provision that would allow insurers to offer low-cost, stripped-down insurance plans, an idea that has been pushed by Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, and is critical to winning his vote and that of another conservative, Mike Lee of Utah.

Mr. Cruz’s proposal was included in a version of the bill released last week, but it has been assailed by the insurance industry. The provision was omitted from the latest version of the bill that was released on Thursday, but congressional aides said that was because an assessment from the budget office was not ready yet, not because the proposal had been jettisoned.

The budget office did have good news about the latest version’s fiscal impact: It would reduce federal budget deficits by a total of $420 billion over 10 years, about $100 billion more than an earlier version of the legislation. The change resulted mainly from the decision of Senate leaders to keep two taxes on high-income people that were imposed by the Affordable Care Act, but that would have been eliminated under the earlier version.

The latest version of the Senate bill would increase average insurance premiums by about 20 percent next year for a typical “benchmark plan,” the budget office estimated, but would reduce premiums after 2019, so that in 2026 premiums for a benchmark plan would be about 25 percent lower than under current law.

But, the budget office said, the Senate bill could sharply increase deductibles, raising the amount that a person would pay out of pocket for most services before insurance made any contribution. For a single person, it said, the annual deductible could soar to $13,000 in 2026. That could push many lower-income Americans into the ranks of the uninsured.

“Because a deductible of $13,000 would be a large share of their income, many people with low income would not purchase any plan even if it had very low premiums,” the budget office said.

Moreover, the budget office said, even though average premiums for a standard benchmark plan would fall after 2019, many older people would face substantial increases in premiums.

For example, it said, the net premium, after tax credits, for a midlevel “silver plan” for a 64-year-old person with annual income of $26,500 would be $5,500 a year in 2026, more than three times the amount projected under current law.

Trump Plan Might Cut Expenses For Some Insured Patients With Chronic Needs

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

http://californiahealthline.org/news/trump-plan-might-cut-expenses-for-some-insured-patients-with-chronic-needs/?utm_campaign=CHL%3A%20Daily%20Edition&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=54498266&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8C_svwCm5E3S6UrC_iEr8sdxdcweXEnWnmQvUYPlzA1Gj2o009d6NiGFKAkr02fB2hNT3xVlz6hKS4TXEdZjmHIJpNXA&_hsmi=54498266

Image result for high deductible health plan

Erin Corbelli takes three medications to treat high blood pressure, depression and an anxiety disorder. Her health plan covers her drugs and specialist visits, but Corbelli and her family must pay a $3,000 annual deductible before the plan starts picking up any of that tab.

Corbelli’s insurance is linked to a health savings account so that she and her husband can put aside money tax-free to help cover their family’s drug and medical expenses. But there’s a hitch: Plans like theirs can’t cover any care for chronic conditions until the deductible is satisfied.

Those out-of-pocket expenses could shrink under a Trump administration draft executive order that would change Internal Revenue Service rules about what care can be covered before the deductible is met in plans linked to health savings accounts, or HSAs.

“It would save us a lot of money,” said Corbelli, 41, who lives in Orlando with her husband and their two children, ages 3 and 5.

Health plans with deductibles of thousands of dollars have become increasingly commonplace. Plans often cover services like generic drugs or doctor visits before consumers have satisfied their deductibles, typically requiring a copayment or coinsurance rather than demanding that consumers pony up the entire amount.

But plans that link to health savings accounts have more restrictions than other high-deductible plans. In addition to minimum deductibles and maximum HSA contribution limits, the plans can’t pay for anything but preventive care before consumers meet a deductible. Under current IRS rules, such preventive care is limited to services such as cancer screenings and immunizations that prevent a disease or condition, called “primary prevention.” With HSA-eligible plans, medical services or medications that prevent an existing chronic condition from getting worse or prevent complications from occurring — called “secondary prevention” — can’t be covered before the deductible is paid.

The Trump administration’s draft executive order, which was first obtained last month by The New York Times and has yet to be issued, would allow such secondary preventive services to be covered.

Under the Affordable Care Act, most health plans, including HSA-eligible plans, are required to cover services recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force without charging consumers anything for them. That requirement is generally limited to primary prevention.

“We know health savings accounts are here to stay and we’d like to make them better,” said Dr. A. Mark Fendrick, an internist who is director of the University of Michigan’s Center for Value-Based Insurance Design and who has advocated for the change.

If people have diabetes, for example, they need regular eye and foot exams to prevent complications such as blindness and amputations down the road. But HSA plans can’t pay anything toward that care until people satisfy their deductible. “The executive order gives plans the flexibility to do that,” he said.

Similarly, it’s critical to remove obstacles to treatment for people like Corbelli with high blood pressure or heart disease, said Sue Nelson, vice president for federal advocacy at the American Heart Association.

“For people with cardiovascular disease, affordability is their No. 1 concern,” Nelson said.

The draft executive order is short on details, and administration officials would have to determine which new preventive services should be covered pre-deductible. Guidelines from medical specialty boards and quality metrics that many physicians are already being measured against could be used, said Roy Ramthun, president and founder of HSA Consulting Services who led the Treasury Department’s implementation of the HSA program in the early 2000s.

Back then, they took a conservative approach. “We said we can be more flexible later, but we can’t put the genie back in the bottle,” said Ramthun, who supports expanding preventive services coverage.

Many more employers would offer HSA-eligible plans if the list of services that could be covered pre-deductible were expanded, said Tracy Watts, a senior partner at human resources consultant Mercer. Fifty-three percent of employers with 500 or more workers offer HSA-eligible plans, according to Mercer survey data. Three-quarters of employers put money into their employees’ HSA accounts, she said.

Erin Corbelli’s husband’s employer contributes up to $1,500 every year to their health savings account, which can help cover their pre-deductible costs.

Not everyone is so fortunate. “You’re kind of at the mercy of what your employer can offer and what your disposable income is,” she said.

Republicans have long advocated for the expanded use of health savings accounts as a tax-advantaged way for consumers to get more financial “skin in the game.”

Consumer advocates have been much less enthusiastic, noting that the accounts typically benefit higher-income consumers who have cash to spare.

Still, given the reality of the growing prevalence of high-deductible plans, with or without health savings accounts, it’s a sensible proposal, many say.

“This is not a silver bullet or a solution to the problems that high-deductible plans can pose,” said Lydia Mitts, associate director of affordability initiatives at Families USA, an advocacy group. “But this is a good step in thinking about how we offer access to treatment people need in a timely and affordable way.”