S&P report: ACA individual market is fragile, but not in a ‘death spiral’

http://www.fiercehealthcare.com/aca/s-p-report-aca-individual-market-fragile-but-no-death-spiral

Wall Street

Based on 2016 results and enrollment so far in 2017, the Affordable Care Act’s individual market is not in a “death spiral” as some have claimed—but it also isn’t on very stable footing, according to a new report from Wall Street analysts.

The report, from the ratings agency Standard & Poor’s, noted that 2016 brought the first signs that the ACA’s marketplaces could be manageable for insurers after a rough 2014 and 2015.

For example, the weighted average of the medical loss ratios of Blue Cross Blue Shield plans included in the analysts’ study dipped below 100% for the first time last year. That’s a positive sign, but insurers with MLRs above 90% still generally face an underwriting loss after factoring in administrative costs, suggesting more room for improvement.

This year, the analysts believe that meaningful premium increases, product and network changes, as well as “regulatory fine-tuning” of ACA rules, will get insurers closer to breaking even. But it will take another year or two of improvements for most to get to their target profitability levels.

Notably, the premium hikes insurers put in place didn’t result in a major drop in enrollment—and potential death spiral—the analysts wrote. In fact, open-enrollment signups dropped only slightly from 2016 to 2017, in part because the ACA’s subsidies increase along with premiums.

Looking ahead, the analysts expect premiums to rise in 2018, but “at a far lower clip” than they did this year. If the ACA’s rules stay largely intact, they predict low-single-digit growth in individual market membership next year, with most counties continuing to have at least one insurer. Recent insurer exits, however, might leave certain counties with no options on the exchanges.

But the analysts note that their predictions for the rest of this year and 2018 won’t hold if there is a major legislative overhaul of the marketplaces, like an ACA repeal. In addition, much depends on whether insurers will get clarification about cost-sharing subsidies, and whether the Trump administration will continue to conduct enrollment outreach and enforce the individual mandate.

The market still needs time to mature, the report argues, and “every time something new (and potentially disruptive) is thrown into the works, it impedes the individual market’s path to stability.”

What You Need to Know About High-Risk Insurance Pools

http://time.com/money/4748384/high-risk-insurance-pools/?xid=homepage

Image result for health insurance high risk pools

High-risk health insurance pools are back in the news after it was reported House Republicans are considering making them a component of their plan to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.

The GOP is toying with the idea of allowing states to seek a waiver to the ACA’s prohibition on charging sick people higher premiums if the states set up high-risk pools. Insurers would still be prohibited from denying people coverage outright, but they would be able to jack up premiums for people with a range of conditions and illnesses, effectively pricing them out of the individual market. Instead, people with pre-existing conditions—which ran the gamut, from cancer to high blood pressure, in the pre-ACA days—would be segregated into “high-risk pools.”

Many states had these pools in place before the passage of the ACA, and research showed that they did not keep costs down. So what exactly are high-risk pools, and why didn’t they work before? Here’s what you need to know.

5 Things to Know About Health That Could Shut Down the Government

http://www.realclearhealth.com/articles/2017/04/26/5_things_to_know_about_health_that_could_shut_down_the_government_110565.html?utm_source=RC+Health+Morning+Scan&utm_campaign=5d3df6bbc3-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_04_26&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b4baf6b587-5d3df6bbc3-84752421

Image result for 5 Things to Know About Health That Could Shut Down the Government

Congress must pass a bill this week to keep most of the government running beyond Friday, when a government spending bill runs out. It won’t be easy.

The debate over a new spending bill focuses on an esoteric issue affecting the Affordable Care Act.

The question is whether Congress will pass — and President Donald Trump will sign — a bill that also funds subsidies for lower-income people who purchase health insurance under the law. These “cost-sharing reductions” (CSR) have become a major bargaining point in the negotiations between Republicans and Democrats, because the spending bill will require at least some Democratic votes to pass.

Here are five things to know about these cost-sharing subsidies:

How are these subsidies different from the help people get to purchase insurance?

There are two types of financial aid for people who buy insurance from an ACA exchange. People with incomes up to four times the poverty line, or $81,680 for a family of three, are eligible for tax credits to help pay their premiums.

In addition to that help, people with incomes up to two-and-a-half times the poverty line, or $51,050 for a family of three, get additional subsidies to help pay their out-of-pocket costs, including deductibles and copayments for care, as long as they purchase a silver-level plan. Insurance companies are required in their contracts with the government to provide these cost-sharing reductions to eligible people, then get reimbursed by the government.

Why are cost-sharing reductions suddenly front and center?

The fight dates to 2014, when Republicans in the House of Representatives filed suit against the Obama administration, charging that Congress had not specifically appropriated money for the cost-sharing subsidies and therefore the administration was providing the funding illegally.

A year ago, a federal district court judge ruled that the House was correct and ordered the payments stopped. However, she put that ruling on hold while the Obama administration appealed. That’s where things stood when Trump was inaugurated.

If the Trump administration drops the appeal, the funding would cease. However, Congress could also opt to approve funding the payments, which is what Democrats are pushing in the spending bill.

What would happen if these subsidies are stopped?

First, Do No Harm to Patients With Pre-Existing Conditions

http://www.realclearhealth.com/articles/2017/04/26/first_do_no_harm_to_patients_with_pre-existing_conditions__110567.html?utm_source=RC+Health+Morning+Scan&utm_campaign=5d3df6bbc3-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_04_26&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b4baf6b587-5d3df6bbc3-84752421

Image result for First, Do No Harm to Patients With Pre-Existing Conditions

The recent U.S. House decision to pull the first iteration of the American Health Care Act (AHCA) off the floor doesn’t necessarily mean efforts to reform health care are at an end. As members of Congress work to develop legislation that will change the current health care system, they must develop policy that ensures people with pre-existing conditions will receive coverage without additional costs in premiums, deductibles or coinsurance for their pre-existing condition.

As it stands, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) prohibits insurers from denying coverage to Americans with pre-existing conditions – no matter how severe or costly their medical care might be. Had the AHCA passed, a new provision would have required that patients with pre-existing conditions maintain continuous coverage without a lapse of more than 63 days.

Theoretically, this provision should ensure all Americans have constant coverage. In reality, however, it’s possible many patients with pre-existing conditions would have difficulty meeting this requirement. For starters, many individuals with chronic conditions, such as spina bifida or sickle cell disease, often earn lower incomes precisely because of their medical needs – which in turn makes it difficult for them to afford meaningful insurance that covers their care. Further, millions of sick patients with chronic diseases rely on Medicaid for coverage. Any health reform legislation must ensure that these patients don’t lose coverage altogether by 2020.

These changes could inflict grave harm on Americans. A recent report from the Department of Health and Human Services estimates that anywhere from 61 million to 133 million non-elderly Americans have pre-existing conditions. All of these Americans could have been denied coverage, or offered coverage at extraordinarily steep prices, had they needed to shop for individual health insurance before 2014, when the ACA’s coverage provisions went into effect. In fact, between 2010 and 2014, the number of uninsured Americans with pre-existing conditions fell by 22 percent – a clear sign of the impact of the ACA’s market reforms.

The ACA is not perfect. Changes such as reducing prescription costs, addressing cost barriers created by high deductible plans and reducing unnecessary administrative burdens on physicians and patients would improve the law.

However, the current law’s provisions like the ban on discriminating against Americans with pre-existing conditions have led to an historically low number of uninsured Americans – estimated at 8.9 percent last November. In turn, that coverage, combined with access to primary physicians, leads to more timely prevention and treatment of disease and, ultimately, improved public health for all Americans.

Family physicians serve on the front lines of our health care system, and we know how important it is that chronically ill patients receive the care the need to get healthy. We have witnessed firsthand the positive effects of the ACA’s prohibition on discriminating against Americans with pre-existing conditions, and we urge our leaders in Washington – both in Congress and in the administration – to continue to protect them.

The Evolving Purpose of Leadership: Why More is Expected Now

The Evolving Purpose of Leadership: Why More is Expected Now

Image result for Leading in Context

What ever happened to transactional leadership and what has taken its place? How is our understanding of the purpose of leadership changing? Where is it headed?

In this video, I explain our evolving understanding of the purpose of leadership, and provide a context that explains why more is expected of leaders now. This trend update is based on Part 3 of my book 7 Lenses. 

Leaders across industries are stretching to meet expectations as the bar continues to be raised. Understanding the trends can help us get there.

Moderates mum on repeal bill changes that would strip consumer protections

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/24/obamacare-repeal-consumer-protections-237541

Image result for aca repeal

While hardline House conservatives are falling in line behind the latest Republican Obamacare repeal bill, there’s ominous silence from most moderates whose support is also essential to getting the measure passed in the House.

The latest version would allow states to opt out of several key Obamacare protections, allowing insurers to charge older and sicker people more than younger and healthier people, according to a summary obtained by POLITICO. So far, none of the moderates who opposed an earlier repeal bill have publicly committed to supporting the latest version.

“This amendment doesn’t do anything to change my position on the health care bill,” said Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.), who co-chairs the centrist Tuesday Group. “This amendment seems too much about meeting an artificial 100-day timeline,” he added, referring to President Donald Trump’s upcoming milestone date.

A proposal from Tom MacArthur (R-N.J.), and negotiated with the leader of the Freedom Caucus, would allow states to decline to require insurers to offer a minimum set of benefits and provisions allowing health plans to charge people more based on their age and health status. States can also opt out of enforcing a 30 percent surcharge for people who don’t maintain insurance coverage, according to a brief update sent to Energy and Commerce members.

The legislative text had been expected over the weekend. But the House has no plans to take up a repeal measure this week, despite the White House’s urging last week to do so. Republicans are expected to remain focused on funding the government past a Friday deadline for a new spending bill, with Obamacare repeal discussions likely continuing in the background. Members of the Freedom Caucus are expected to review the legislation together on Tuesday or Wednesday.

So far, moderates have largely remained mum on the latest changes to the repeal bill. Several moderates who opposed the bill said Monday through spokespersons that they hadn’t yet seen the legislative text.

“That hurts any timeline of [a vote] this week or next week,” said an aide to one lawmaker.

MacArthur is one of three co-chairmen of the Tuesday Group. At least some of the group of moderate Republicans would have to support the repeal bill if it has any chance of getting through the House.

“It’s our party, frankly, that has to get together and really realize sometimes you can’t vote for a perfect bill,” Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) said. “We need to work together, and that’s a learning process, I think, for Republicans in the House right now.”

MacArthur spent the congressional recess negotiating the deal directly with Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), leaving the Tuesday Group largely out of the loop. Indeed, some members had not seen any of the proposal’s details until drafts of the amendment were leaked out through the press.

States would be allowed to opt out of several of Obamacare’s consumer protections as long as they have set up high-risk pools, where consumers with costly medical expenditures would presumably be able to get coverage.

The waivers would strongly encourage people to maintain continuous coverage — even more than prior versions of the Republican repeal bill. In states that get a waiver, people who don’t stay insured can be charged more for insurance policies based on their health status.

The latest changes appear to preserve Obamacare’s requirement that insurers accept anyone regardless of their pre-existing conditions. But critics of the repeal bill argue that allowing insurers to charge sicker people more could in effect shut out those individuals because insurers will be able to charge whatever they want.

Under the Affordable Care Act, insurers had to charge sick and healthy consumers the same, with only a limited number of exceptions, including for age and tobacco use.

And with the House set to return to Washington on Tuesday, members of the Tuesday Group said there hasn’t been any coordination aimed at building support for the changes.

“Mr. LoBiondo has tweeted his thoughts thus far on the discussion — nothing additional to add at this point,” said an aide to Frank LoBiondo (R-N.J.), who tweeted Friday he’ll continue to oppose the bill. “I’m sure Politico will have any copy of the legislative text before members do.”

Should I pursue professional credentialing?

Should I pursue professional credentialing?

I need to start this article with a disclaimer.  I am HIGHLY BIASED in favor of professional credentialing.  If this is offensive to you, stop reading this now.  I am fairly well credentialed.  I have a Masters of Business Administration degree and a Doctorate of Science in Healthcare Administration.  I hold Fellowship certifications from both the Healthcare Financial Management Association (HFMA) and the American College of Healthcare Executives (ACHE).  I hold HFMA certifications in Managed Care and Patient Financial Services (PFS).  I am in the first class to be certified by HFMA in managed care and I was the national valedictorian in my HFMA PFS exam class.  I served a sentence on HFMA’s Board of Examiners (BOE) including a year as Chairman of the BOE.  The BOE is responsible for HFMA’s professional certification program.  Other than this, I have not done much to improve myself professionally or promote professional certification.

Lest this come across as self aggrandizing, you should know that I had a rough time in high school but ended up being the first in my family to earn a bachelor’s degree and that undergraduate degree was bestowed by The University of Virginia’s McIntire School of Commerce.  One of the highlights of my service to the healthcare profession is my service on HFMA’s BOE.  A number of changes to the HFMA certification process occurred during my service on the Board and as the Chairman of the BOE that I am very proud of.  Changes that were focused on making the certification process more objective and making the preparation process more efficient.

You’re damn right I think credentialing is important.