Why a Bipartisan Health Care Compromise Is Simply a Delusion

https://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2017/07/13/Why-Bipartisan-Health-Care-Compromise-Simply-Delusion

Senate Republicans bought themselves a little more time this week to deliver on their top agenda item, repealing and replacing Obamacare. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell agreed to trim two weeks off the August recess, responding to a number of calls within his caucus to expand the legislative calendar. The big question, however, is whether it will help and whether there are any options left if it doesn’t.

McConnell has called a meeting Thursday morning  with the entire GOP caucus, presumably to roll out the new version of the Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA). Sen. Pat Toomey first mentioned the new effort on Monday, predicting that it would bridge the gap between moderates and conservatives within Republican ranks. “There’s still a shot at getting to 50 [votes],” Toomey said on CNBC’s Squawk Box.

It got off to a bad start even before the big reveal. Sen. Rand Paul wrote a blistering op-ed at Breitbart on Wednesday to announce his rejection of the new version of the BCRA, calling it “worse than Obamacare-lite.” Paul accused Republicans of bolstering federal authority over health insurance, retaining too much of the Affordable Care Act’s taxes and regulations, and “creating a giant insurance bailout superfund.” Paul decried the lost opportunity to fulfill pledges made during the past seven years to repeal Obamacare “root and branch.”

Unfortunately, the opportunity to repeal Obamacare “root and branch” came and went five years ago when Republicans failed to beat Barack Obama’s re-election bid. Too much of Obamacare has already been implemented, which has distorted the markets considerably and recast political incentives. Donald Trump himself recognized this in his presidential campaign, promising that the repeal of Obamacare would come with a replacement program that ensured the least amount of disruption possible.

Republican Senators from rural states worry that a flat-out repeal without any transitional support would hit hard in the very areas where they won elections. A straight repeal would require 60 votes as it goes beyond merely budgetary issues, but it would be unlikely to get close to 50 even if it qualified for the reconciliation process.

Trump made it clear in an interview with CBN’s Pat Robertson on Wednesday that he expects the Senate to act on Obamacare. “Mitch has to pull it off,” Trump said, noting that Obamacare was “a failed experiment,” and that Congress had to act. When Pat Robertson asked what would happen if McConnell failed to deliver a repeal bill, the president replied, “I think it would be very bad. I will be very angry about it, and a lot of people will be upset.”

That may be a rare case of understatement from President Trump. A new poll from Politico and Morning Consult shows that two-thirds of Republican voters expect the GOP to honor their promises and repeal Obamacare. Forty percent of voters overall want a repeal bill passed (with 47 percent opposed, it should be noted), which makes for considerable pressure on Senate Republicans. Interestingly, though, the poll also shows that a majority of GOP voters (54 percent) want Republicans to work with Democrats on a bipartisan reform of the system.

It’s not the first time that’s been suggested. Mitch McConnell warned last week that a failure of Republicans to coalesce around a solution would force him to work with Democrats on temporary fixes for Obamacare exchanges. John McCain and Bill Cassidy both called for negotiations across the aisle last week, with McCain saying, “That’s what democracy is supposed to be all about.”

Don’t expect to find any escape hatch in that direction, though. Toomey called this option “grim” on Monday for a reason; Democrats are fighting to protect Obamacare. They could get Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to work with them “as long as nothing gets repealed, the mandates don’t go away, taxes remain in place, and Medicaid stays on a completely unsustainable fiscal train wreck,” Toomey told CNBC.

Even renegade Democratic centrists don’t offer much hope for peeling off enough for a bipartisan compromise. A handful of House Democrats issued a proposal called, “Solutions over Politics” (SoP) to redirect the debate over health-care reform. “We are proposing real, concrete solutions that will stabilize and improve the individual market,” Rep. Kurt Shrader (D-OR) declared, “making Obamacare work better for everyone, and getting us closer to universal coverage for all Americans.”

Unfortunately, this agenda looks very close to the same laundry list Schumer has pushed in the Senate. Shrader wants a permanent subsidy for insurance companies to make up for the losses they incur, guaranteeing a perpetual river of red ink from Obamacare. The original reinsurance funds were time-limited because Democrats insisted that markets would stabilize after the first few years and would become self-sufficient. This “solution” concedes the Republican argument that Obamacare is unsustainable without heavy government spending, and is structurally unsound.

Even where it differs from the official Democratic Party line, the SoP proposal doesn’t stray very far. It endorses health-savings accounts (HSAs), but only for “plans compliant with the ACA,” where Republicans want to expand the use of HSAs to allow for non-compliant innovation. The SoP proposal retains all of the mandates while allowing for “catastrophic health insurance plans … for younger enrollees,” without acknowledging that Obamacare’s high-deductible plans already act in practical terms as catastrophic coverage at high premium levels. Their solution for poor enrollment figures is not to repeal the unsound structure of mandates and narrow choice of coverages that creates it, but “robust marketing around open enrollment periods.”

Simply put, there is no basis for compromise between one side that sees Obamacare as an abject failure in need of repeal, and another that sees a lack of government funding and a better PR campaign as the only problems in need of solutions.

No, Republicans must do this on their own if it is to be done at all. That is the Hobson’s choice that faces Senate Republicans, and the sooner they realize it, the quicker they will find a way to move forward on a solution. If they don’t, Trump will almost certainly be proven prescient when voters weigh in on seven years of broken promises.

AHIP: Cruz proposal would destabilize the ACA exchanges

http://www.fiercehealthcare.com/aca/ahip-cruz-proposal-would-destabilize-individual-marketplaces?utm_medium=nl&utm_source=internal&mrkid=959610&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiT1RFeFl6QTBOalV4WlRsayIsInQiOiJ2ZkV5eXJiTVp5ZGZQYk5NRlozSzYwdEdoVTduQW1SMDkyVVdqR0lPbXVGMDNJUjJEN0U3b2dDcmp1NlNncSthUStTeFordHNGcVwvMFRtNnFGXC9mczBpa3NDU0NkZHBSa003NkQ4bjVcL3krTkZ1R2ZNb3R4MGtWYWo3UVwvcjkwZVIifQ%3D%3D

Image result for aca repeal

The health insurance industry’s largest trade group is warning that a proposed amendment to the Senate’s healthcare bill could not only destabilize the individual marketplaces, but also harm patients with pre-existing conditions.

The amendment, introduced by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, would allow insurers to sell health plans that aren’t compliant with the Affordable Care Act’s rules in any given state as long as they sell at least one ACA-compliant plan on that state’s exchange.

Cruz and the amendment’s other supporters in the Senate said the concept would allow insurers to offer a wider variety of coverage options and help lower premiums. Senate Majority Leader even reportedly went so far as to ask the Congressional Budget Office to score the proposal.

But the idea also has plenty of critics, including America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP).

In a document (PDF) posted on its website, the trade group said that allowing health insurance products to be governed by different rules would effectively “fracture and segment insurance markets into separate risk pools and create an un-level playing field that would lead to widespread adverse selection and unstable health insurance markets.”

The trade group pointed out that part of the exchanges’ current woes stemmed from the Obama administration’s transitional policy, which allowed individuals to renew their non-ACA-compliant plans. In states that opted to adopt this policy, actuaries estimated that exchange market premiums were an average of 10% higher.

Cruz’s amendment, which would essentially make that transitional policy permanent, “would create even greater instability,” AHIP said.

The fact that the proposal would require insurers to also offer an ACA-compliant plan, the group said, is not enough to protect consumers with pre-existing conditions or higher-than-average healthcare costs. The ACA’s consumer protection provisions, such as guaranteed issue and community rating, AHIP notes, “only work if there is broad participation to assure stable markets and affordable premiums,” which wouldn’t be the case under Cruz’s proposal.

In fact, a newly released analysis from the Kaiser Family Foundation estimated that the amendment could result in 1.5 million people with pre-existing conditions facing higher premiums.

Finally, it’s simply not practical to maintain a single risk pool if all health plans don’t have to provide coverage for the same benefits, AHIP stated, adding that the Cruz amendment also would make programs like risk adjustment “unworkable.”

Revised Senate healthcare bill includes version of Ted Cruz’s controversial amendment

http://www.fiercehealthcare.com/aca/revised-senate-healthcare-bill-includes-version-ted-cruz-s-controversial-amendment?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiT1RFeFl6QTBOalV4WlRsayIsInQiOiJ2ZkV5eXJiTVp5ZGZQYk5NRlozSzYwdEdoVTduQW1SMDkyVVdqR0lPbXVGMDNJUjJEN0U3b2dDcmp1NlNncSthUStTeFordHNGcVwvMFRtNnFGXC9mczBpa3NDU0NkZHBSa003NkQ4bjVcL3krTkZ1R2ZNb3R4MGtWYWo3UVwvcjkwZVIifQ%3D%3D&mrkid=959610&utm_medium=nl&utm_source=internal

Image result for aca repeal

Despite opposition from the health insurance industry, Senate Republicans’ revised healthcare bill includes a version of a proposal that would allow the sale of slimmed-down individual market plans.

A new discussion draft (PDF) of the Better Care Reconciliation Act includes a provision based on an amendment proposed by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas. The provision would allow insurers to sell plans that don’t comply with the Affordable Care Act’s benefits requirements as long as they sell at least one plan in that state that does comply.

America’s Health Insurance Plans, which has largely avoided passing judgement on the GOP’s ACA repeal measures, said this week the Cruz amendment would “would create even greater instability” in the individual marketplaces. A separate report estimated that it could result in 1.5 million people with pre-existing conditions facing higher premiums.

Perhaps in a nod to these concerns, the Senate’s revised measure includes an additional $70 billion to help states lower insurance premiums. States with exceptionally high premiums would also get some assistance, as the Kaiser Family Foundation’s Larry Levitt points out:

The reworked Senate bill also maintains the ACA’s taxes on wealthy individuals, and it adds $45 billion in funding to fight the opioid crisis.

Though the cuts to Medicaid that have concerned moderates are left largely intact in the revised bill, the new version does offer some Medicaid funding flexibility for states in the event of a public health crisis. States would also be able to add the newly eligible Medicaid population to coverage under the block grant funding option.

The new Senate bill: Better for the healthy, worse for the sick

https://www.axios.com/the-new-senate-bill-better-for-the-healthy-worse-for-the-sick-2458657128.html

Related image

The most significant revisions Senate Republicans have made to their health care bill, taken together, point largely in the same direction: They would make the individual insurance market even better for healthy people — and thus worse for sick people.

And they aim to soften the blow to health insurance markets by spending more money on sick customers, rather than trying to prevent disruptions from happening in the first place.

Ted Cruz’s “consumer choice” option: As the insurance industry has explained, if Cruz’s proposal becomes law, healthier people would likely gravitate toward a new set of insurance plans with lower premiums, less coverage, and fewer benefit mandates/consumer protections. If people with pre-existing conditions are the only ones buying policies that have to cover pre-existing conditions, those policies will get pretty expensive — maybe prohibitively expensive.

Catastrophic coverage: The revised bill would let people use their premium subsidies to buy the most bare-bones policies on the market today — those that only cover catastrophic care. And it would let anyone buy those policies through the exchanges; the ACA limited them to people younger than 30. That would, again, nudge more people into plans with less coverage, lower premiums and higher deductibles — a great option for people who don’t need much health care.

This was already the underlying dynamic of the initial Senate bill. The new version turns up the volume:

  • It still repeals the individual mandate.
  • It eventually repeals the ACA’s subsidies for co-pays, deductibles and other cost-sharing — expenses people only incur when they go to the doctor.
  • It retains the ACA’s subsidies for insurance premiums, but pins the value of those subsidies to plans with less coverage and higher deductibles (again — a better deal for people who don’t need much health care).
  • It adjusts those subsidies based on age, giving some young people (who tend to be healthier) more help than they’re getting now, while many older people (who tend to use more health care) would get less.
  • The main solution to the problems those changes would create for sick people: more money. Republicans added another $70 billion to help fund temporary stabilization programs — mainly, direct payments to insurance companies that end up with especially expensive customers.

Bottom line: Health care for sick people is wildly expensive. Within the individual market, the ACA tried to offset those costs in two ways: with direct federal spending; and by heightening the “subsidy” healthy people’s premiums provide for sick people’s expenses. With each revision, Republicans’ bills increasingly accept the first half of that equation while dismantling the second.

Providence plans aggressive cost-cutting, layoffs, amid health care high anxiety

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2017/07/providence_plans_aggressive_co.html

Providence Health & Services, Oregon’s largest private-sector employer, is preparing an aggressive cost-cutting campaign that will include layoffs.

The move is clearest sign to date that hospitals face a difficult, uncertain future.

Providence saw its financial position deteriorate markedly in 2016, posting an operating loss of more than $255 million, filings show. Though its annual revenue topped $22 billion and, as a non-profit, it pays no income taxes, Providence is looking to cut costs across its seven-state network, multiple sources say. David Underriner, chief executive of the medical provider’s Oregon operation, would not disclose numbers or locations, but did say, “there will be an impact on people.”

Providence has already cut back in Oregon. Last year, it closed its open-heart surgery program at Providence Portland Medical Center and consolidated that work at St. Vincent’s Medical Center on the city’s westside, Underriner said.

Providence is not alone. St. Charles Health System in Bend has also scaled back spending as its own bottom line suffered in 2016. Oregon Health & Sciences University in Southwest Portland announced a hiring freeze in March.

The new financial weakness comes at a time of high anxiety in health care. A bill to foist a new multi-million-dollar provider tax on hospitals—which would help fund the state’s contribution to Medicaid — was signed into law this week. In Washington, D.C., meanwhile, Senate Republicans continue their efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, a move that Providence’s Underriner and many other hospital executives oppose.

HHS announces ‘largest fraud takedown in history’

http://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/hhs-announces-largest-fraud-takedown-history-charging-400-defendants-schemes-involving-13?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTTJVNFlXUTBOR0pqTmpJMSIsInQiOiJ3S01TRnZaWE5GT2NZMG13bGNnMENVdEc0OTRaNHVac1RJemUzNlhBRjY1ckY3dDQ5TCtlM1RqcTN5NHN0NktPU3Vud3dvUTJMM2ZHdG12R0RGaXZ1SzRGVjdYbE9KVFwvcTVwVENVWVdMbFwvYzh4RGlkNlRcLzY0SFZhMmpDZlBwUiJ9

The Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, state and federal law enforcement executed a massive fraud takedown this month that charged more than 400 defendants in connection with healthcare fraud schemes that involved roughly $1.3 billion in fraudulent billings to government payers including Medicare and Medicaid, the OIG announced.

The takedown is being called the largest in history, both for the number of defendants charged and the amount of money lost, OIG said.

Additionally, OIG issued exclusion notices to 295 doctors, nurses, and other providers related to opioid diversion and abuse. The notices ban participation in or claim submissions to, all Federal healthcare programs.Those who got the notices include 57 doctors, 162 nurses, and 36 pharmacists.

“Takedowns protect Medicare and Medicaid and deter fraud — sending a strong signal that theft from these taxpayer-funded programs will not be tolerated. The money taxpayers spend fighting fraud is an excellent investment: For every $1.00 spent on health care-related fraud and abuse investigations in the last three years, more than $5.00 has been recovered,” OIG said in a statement.

The schemes spanned the entire nation, from Washington to Puerto Rico, and 115 of those charged are medical professionals, specifically doctors and nurses. Among the fraud schemes, a Texas provider was charged with overprescribing narcotics to patients who had no medical need for them, and some of whom died from drug overdoses. The doctor allegedly fraudulently billed Medicare, netting more than $1.2 million in reimbursement. Another scheme involved seven Michigan defendants, including five physicians, who allegedly perpetrated illegal kickbacks and billing for medically unnecessary joint injections, drug screenings, and home health services. One of the defendants owned multiple health-related businesses and allegedly billed Medicare $126 million as part of the fraud scheme.

Another notable fraud case recently announced by the Department of Justice involved a landmark settlement with historically unique requirements. Pharmaceutical manufacturer Mallinckrodt, one of the largest manufacturers of generic oxycodone, agreed to pay $35 million to settle allegations that it violated the Controlled Substances Act when it failed to report “suspicious orders” for controlled substances, as well as record-keeping infractions. The DOJ said that from 2008 until 2011, Mallinckrodt supplied distributors an “increasingly excessive quantity” of oxycodone pills but didn’t notify the DEA of these suspicious orders. The distributors then supplied various U.S. pharmacies and pain clinics.

The DOJ called the settlement groundbreaking for a couple reasons. First, it involves requiring a manufacturer to utilize chargeback and similar data to monitor and report suspicious sales of its oxycodone at the next level in the supply chain. This typically means sales from distributors to independent and small chain pharmacy and pain clinic customers. Also, it requires a parallel agreement with the DEA through which the company will analyze data it collects on orders from customers down the supply chain to identify suspicious sales.

It is clear government agencies and law enforcement are increasingly zeroing in on healthcare fraud, with other notable settlements in recent months with well-known providers related to False Claims Act violations. Those systems include Carolinas Healthcare, Freedom Health, Los Angeles hospital Pacific Alliance Medical Center, Genesis Healthcare, and even Walmart.

Joe Natoli named executive VP and chief administrative officer of Baptist Health

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/article159423834.html

Related image

Joe Natoli, a former publishing executive who most recently served as an executive at the University of Miami and its Health System, has been named executive vice president and chief administrative officer of Baptist Health South Florida.

Natoli will succeed George Foyo, who is retiring. The change takes effect on July 10.

In his new post, Natoli will oversee human resources, legal counsel, corporate diversity, business relations and other duties for the non-profit healthcare organization, the largest in Florida.

“Baptist Health is a leader in healthcare delivery and innovation with a true focus on putting patients and families first,” Natoli said in a statement. “I am honored and excited to join the Baptist Health team and to work with them to provide compassionate, quality care in a community that I love.”

Natoli most recently served as senior vice president for business and finance and chief financial officer for the University of Miami and interim chief operating officer for the University of Miami Health System. He previously had an esteemed run in the newspaper industry, serving as president of the Miami Herald Publishing Company and publisher of other Knight Ridder publications, including The Philadelphia Inquirer and the San Jose Mercury News.

He will report to Baptist chief executive officer Brian E. Keeley.

“Joe is an exceptional individual and is uniquely qualified to join the senior leadership of our organization,” Keeley said in a statement. “His extensive experience and thorough knowledge of South Florida and our local healthcare market along with his keen interest in research and innovation and long history of philanthropy will be tremendous assets to Baptist Health, our patients and community.”

Baptist Health South Florida has 16,000 employees and 2,400 affiliated physicians and is comprised of eight hospitals, including Baptist Hospital and South Miami Hospital, and more than 50 outpatient and urgent care facilities.