Momentum for GOP Health Care Bill Boosted by $8 Billion Deal

https://morningconsult.com/2017/05/03/momentum-gop-health-care-bill-boosted-8-billion-deal/

Image result for high risk pools

House GOP leaders and Trump administration officials on Wednesday agreed to pour an additional $8 billion into the latest version of their health care bill, part of a last-minute effort aimed at garnering enough support for a potential floor vote before a week-long recess starts on Friday.

The revision won over at least two moderates who had previously opposed the legislation, but it remains unclear whether House Republican leaders, who can afford to lose only 22 GOP lawmakers, have the support needed to send the bill to the Senate before legislators face their constituents next week. A House floor vote has not been scheduled.

The revision, offered by Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), aims to quell the concerns of more than a dozen moderate Republicans who worry that people with pre-existing conditions wouldn’t be able to afford health insurance under the new measure.

The GOP bill lets states opt out of a federal mandate that bars insurers from setting premiums based on a person’s health status if they establish a risk-sharing or high-risk pool mechanism. Upton and Rep. Billy Long (R-Mo.) announced their support for the revised legislation after reaching a deal with President Donald Trump on Wednesday at the White House. The $8 billion would be allocated over a period of five years to states that opt out of the federal mandate.

“I think it is likely now to pass in the House,” Upton, a former chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, told reporters at the White House following the meeting.

But it’s uncertain whether more GOP moderates will reverse course and back the bill. One holdout, Rep. Ryan Costello (Pa.), told reporters he was still opposed to the bill despite the latest updates.

In an interview before Upton’s Wednesday meeting at the White House, Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) appeared unfazed that conservatives who now back the legislation could balk at the Upton amendment.

“Fred Upton identified something that he thinks will make the bill better that is mutually agreed to by people from all parts of our conference,” Ryan said in a radio interview with commentator Hugh Hewitt.

Even with the additional funding, some experts question whether people with pre-existing conditions could find adequate health insurance if the legislation were signed into law. The bill would let a state waive the federal requirement only if it is participating in a federal risk-sharing program or has established a high-risk pool.

Previous experience with high-risk pools have shown the cost challenges associated with them. The $8 billion would be in addition to more than $100 billion already in the bill to help states fund such programs.

“The amendment at hand focuses on high-risk pools, but the $8 billion amount is a pittance,” Robert Graboyes, a health care scholar at the Mercatus Center, said in a statement.

If the House passes the bill, the Upton amendment and other parts of the legislation may violate the Senate’s arcane budget rules. Congressional Republicans are using the budget reconciliation process to prevent Democrats from filibustering the bill in the Senate. But under the budget rules, all provisions in a reconciliation bill must directly reduce federal spending or revenues.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Wednesday said the Upton amendment may not pass that test because it could increase federal spending.

Healthcare Triage: Orphan Drugs part 4 – Fixing the System

Healthcare Triage: Orphan Drugs part 4 – Fixing the System

Image result for Healthcare Triage: Orphan Drugs part 4 – Fixing the System

Drug companies love the Orphan Drug Act. They say it encourages research into breakthrough therapies for people with rare disease. And sometimes that’s true. Lots of the time, though, the companies would’ve pursued the research anyhow. And those same companies have learned to game the Orphan Drug Act in a bunch of different ways, allowing them to jack up their prices for no good reason.

How could we fix the Orphan Drug Act? That’s the topic of this week’s Healthcare Triage.

 

Financial Performance of Health Insurers: State-Run Versus Federal-Run Exchanges

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/in-the-literature/2017/may/financial-performance-state-federal-exchanges?omnicid=EALERT1204178&mid=henrykotula@yahoo.com

Synopsis

Researchers compared health insurers’ profitability in 2013 and 2014, the years before and after the introduction of the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) insurance marketplaces. The median loss for insurers overall in both years was 4 percent. Insurers performed better in states that operated their own health insurance marketplaces than in states that used the federal marketplace, with the difference largely driven by medical loss ratios.

The Issue

“Millions of newly covered beneficiaries presented insurers a golden business opportunity, but the new restrictions on medical underwriting meant that insurers faced uncertain actuarial risk in pricing their products.”

The ACA changed the dynamics of the individual health insurance market with rules intended to expand coverage and reforms to how individual insurance is priced and sold. In the years since the law went into effect, there have been concerns over insurers’ profitability, as some companies have sustained losses or left the market entirely. A Commonwealth Fund–supported study published in Medical Care Research and Review examined insurers’ key financial measures over two years (2013 and 2014) to assess profitability, identify factors driving financial performance, and compare performance in states that ran their own health insurance marketplace and those that used the federal marketplace.

Key Findings

  • For established insurers with significant enrollment, profit/loss levels remained statistically the same, with median losses of about 4 percent in both 2013 and 2014.
  • Insurers did better in states that operated their own marketplaces. In states with state-run marketplaces, 24 insurers went from a negative profit margin to a positive one in 2014, while 10 were positive in both 2013 and 2014. In total, 34 out of 76 insurers (45%) had positive profit margins in the state-run marketplaces in 2014.
  • In the federal marketplace, only four insurers went from a negative to a positive margin in 2014; 15 insurers were positive in both 2013 and 2014. Nineteen of 68 insurers (28%) had positive profit margins in the federal marketplace.
  • In states that used the federal marketplace, insurers’ median medical loss ratio—the percentage of insurance premium dollars spent on medical expenses and quality improvement—increased by 10 percentage points, while their median administrative cost ratio dropped by five percentage points. In states with their own marketplaces, there was no significant change in insurers’ medical loss ratio, but the administrative cost ratio dropped three percentage points.

The Big Picture

The authors conclude that the ACA’s implementation in 2014 “did not substantially disrupt the individual market among existing insurers of credible size.” However, they noted differences, largely driven by medical loss ratios, between states that operated their own marketplaces and those using the federal marketplace. Factors that likely contributed to higher profitability include:

  • greater efforts by some states to publicize their exchange and generate more enrollment, which may have resulted in a more balanced risk pool;
  • political cultures that were more supportive of the ACA in general;
  • greater accuracy in actuarial projections; and
  • a higher likelihood of expanding Medicaid, which takes higher-risk people out of the marketplace pool.

By focusing on the more manageable of these factors, like expanding outreach and enrollment efforts or improving actuarial projections, states might be able to improve the financial outlook for insurers participating in the marketplaces, the authors say.

About the Study

The authors used two data sets maintained by the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight, based on mandatory reporting by all regulated health insurers. The final sample included 144 insurers with a total of 7.8 million members. The authors looked at medical loss ratios, administrative costs, and operating profit.

The Bottom Line

The median insurer reported losses of 4 percent in the individual market in both 2013 and 2014, suggesting that the ACA did not substantially disrupt the individual market among established insurers.

Why supply chain is a healthcare leader’s most strategic asset

http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/supply-chain/why-supply-chain-is-a-healthcare-leader-s-most-strategic-asset.html

Image result for Why supply chain is a healthcare leader's most strategic assetImage result for Why supply chain is a healthcare leader's most strategic asset

Healthcare’s movement toward value-based care is not only underscoring the importance of an efficient healthcare supply chain, but also redefining the supply chain leader role.

Once a very transactional process, the supply chain is now considered a core competency for hospitals to reduce waste and lower costs, while supporting patient care initiatives. More and more, supply chain leaders are also taking a seat in C-suite discussions to help executives mitigate potential financial penalties and make more informed decisions under the ever-changing value-based care programs.

To ensure they’re using devices and medical supplies in the most efficient ways possible, hospitals must turn to data, according to Peter Mallow, PhD, program director of health economics, market access and reimbursement for Dublin, Ohio-based Cardinal Health.

Dr. Mallow and Steve Thompson, director of strategic solutions for Cardinal Health, recently spoke with Becker’s Hospital Review about the evolving role of supply chain leaders and shared strategies for using data to better inform patient care and reduce supply chain inefficiencies.

Hackensack Meridian Health, JFK Health sign definitive agreement to merge

http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/hospital-transactions-and-valuation/hackensack-meridian-health-jfk-health-sign-definitive-agreement-to-merge.html

Image result for Hackensack Meridian Health, JFK Health sign definitive agreement to mergeImage result for JFK Health

The boards of trustees of Edison, N.J.-based JFK Health and Hackensack Meridian Health, also in Edison, signed a definitive agreement to merge the two health systems following five months of due diligence.

The transaction is subject to regulatory approval. If the merger is successful, the combined entity will consist of a total of 15 hospitals and academic medical centers, along with a network of physician practices, ambulatory surgery centers, assisted living facilities and outpatient centers, among other health facilities. The merged entity will employ a staff of more than 33,000 individuals and more than 7,000 physicians.

The organizations first revealed plans to affiliate in November 2016.

The financial terms of the deal were not disclosed.

“Choosing the right partner that provides the highest-quality care and value to the communities we serve is essential. We are thrilled JFK wants to be part of Hackensack Meridian Health. We believe JFK Health will be a great addition to our network,” said Robert Garrett, co-CEO of Hackensack Meridian Health. “We will continue to improve the well-being of communities with more cost-effective care that delivers quality, safe outcomes, clinical excellence and a superior experience.”

“In a rapidly changing healthcare environment that stresses the efficient delivery of care, this merger strengthens and aligns our two organizations to maximize our population health initiatives and increase access for everyone,” said Raymond Fredericks, president and CEO of JFK Health. “Hackensack Meridian Health’s culture of caring is one that matches our values and principles sustained during JFK’s 50-year history.”