Selling Health Insurance Across State Lines Is Unlikely to Lower Costs or Improve Choice

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/blog/2017/apr/selling-health-insurance-across-state-lines?omnicid=EALERT1190217&mid=henrykotula@yahoo.com

Image result for selling healthcare across state lines

In the wake of the failure of the legislative effort to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the fate of another of the president’s health care priorities is unclear. In his first congressional address, President Trump articulated five principles for health care reform. His fifth and last called for giving “Americans the freedom to purchase health insurance across state lines,” a reform that, in his words, would create “a truly competitive national marketplace that will bring cost way down and provide far better care.” This concept was not in the House reconciliation bill (the “American Health Care Act” or AHCA) to repeal and replace key provisions of the ACA, but President Trump may be able to use his regulatory authority to promote the cross-border sales of health insurance.

The president has the authority to act on his own thanks in part to the ACA. That law includes a provision encouraging “health care choice compacts,” whereby an insurer could establish itself in one state and sell health insurance to consumers in multiple other states without having to follow those states’ laws and regulations. However, under President Obama, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) never published regulations enabling these cross-state sales.

While the ACA provision encourages states to enter into cross-state regulatory agreements in order to facilitate interstate sales, under Trump’s campaign and several congressional proposals, the federal government would effectively override states’ authority to regulate their markets. In the absence of legislative action, there is nothing preventing HHS Secretary Tom Price from issuing the required regulations and working with states to develop standards for interstate sales. In fact, several states already allow cross-state sales.

 

Political uncertainty doesn’t change long-term outlook for healthcare, Fitch says

http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/political-uncertainty-doesn-t-change-long-term-outlook-for-healthcare-fitch-says.html

Image result for long term healthcare industry outlook

Fitch Ratings said it maintains a stable outlook and sector rating for healthcare, even as the current political climate generates uncertainty.

The agency initially published its 2017 outlook for the industry last December, shortly after the 2016 presidential election. Since then, the agency said rating actions on healthcare companies have primarily been affirmations, and it believes the medium- to long-term fundamental outlook for healthcare is intact. Fitch analysts added the drivers of healthcare trends have not significantly changed.

“As the industry struggles to meet the cost burden of increasing healthcare demand, the long-term solution will require finding a balance between an individual’s access to healthcare and its affordability,” Megan Neuburger, managing director of U.S. Corporates at Fitch, said in a news release. “Without any concrete solutions currently on the table, near-term uncertainty may force providers to rethink aspects of their business, but this is unlikely to overhaul the industry’s broader dynamics.”

Fitch cites a number of issues it believes are current risks to healthcare, including repeal and replacement of the ACA, drug pricing, the shift from fee-for-service to value-based care and healthcare consumerism.

The GOP’s ACA replacement plan was pulled from the House floor last month. However, Fitch said HHS could still potentially cut funding for federal cost-sharing subsidies that help individuals purchase insurance coverage.

Additionally, Fitch said federal lawmakers have introduced legislation with the goal of lowering drug prices. “Policy objectives are aimed at addressing both drug manufacturers taking advantage of supply dislocations to increase prices on established products and hefty price tags for new, truly innovative therapies,” the agency said.

As far as the shift to value-based care, the agency believes “both political parties are philosophically aligned on the benefits of alternative payment models like the Medicare Comprehensive Joint Replacement bundle, so they are likely to continue in some form, although the role government will explicitly play is still up for debate.” And regarding healthcare consumerism, Fitch noted patients’ desire for price transparency will continue as they take on more financial responsibility for their care.

Collection company president accused of stealing $1.6M from NYC hospital

http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/legal-regulatory-issues/collection-company-president-accused-of-stealing-1-6m-from-nyc-hospital.html

The president of Rockville Centre, N.Y.-based collection firm MBI Associates was arrested March 29 and charged with first-degree grand larceny for allegedly stealing $1.6 million from St. Barnabas Hospital in New York City, according to Rockville Centre Patch.

According to prosecutors, from Nov. 25, 2012, to Feb. 18, 2015, MBI Associates failed to give St. Barnabas Hospital $1.6 million the company had collected for services provided to the hospital’s patients. Norman Alpren, the 71-year-old president of MBI Associates, allegedly used the $1.6 million to cover operating expenses for his company, according to the report.

Mr. Alpren’s lawyer Robert Abiuso told Rock Centre Patch he expects his client to be “vindicated at trial.” If convicted, Mr. Alpren faces up to 25 years in prison.

Healthcare’s Lipstick on a Goldfish

Healthcare’s Lipstick on a Goldfish

Image result for Healthcare’s Lipstick on a Goldfish

Had I titled this post ‘Lipstick on a Pig,’ you may have skipped it thinking it was a bit too much Sarah Palin and not enough healthcare.  Hence, ‘Lipstick on a goldfish.’  Besides, I found it amusing wondering how one gets a goldfish to stay still long enough to apply the lipstick.

Sticking with the pig theme, Winston Churchill, Mr. Prime Minister to those of us who had a less formal relationship with the man—those who were decades away from the zygote phase of our lives, stated, ‘I am fond of pigs.  Dogs look up to us.  Cats look down at us.  Pigs treat us as equals.”

Knowing that, I dedicate myself each day to be a better pig (or fish).  Having realized that dedicating myself once a day was not yielding the results for which I aspired, I commenced to rededicating myself twice a day.  Having rededicated myself twice a day, I wrestled the pig to the ground and schmeared on Katy Kat Pearl Lipstick.

Anyway.

For more than a decade I have been running on a trail along a river.  During that same decade, weather permitting, I always encountered two groups of individuals; cyclists and fly fishermen.  And for more than a decade, there was a singular constant.  Both groups dressed the part of their respective sports.

The fishermen—I could have written the fishermen or the fisherwomen, but by now you know I have little patience when it comes to appeasing those who are politically correct. The people standing in the river are dressed like they had bought every possible fishing accessory from Orvis.  Neoprene waders, a fly-fishing vest—one with enough pockets to resemble the type of vest a war photographer in Falluja wore, a Filson Parker Hat, and a Wetfly wooden catch and release net.

The cyclists also dressed the part.  They dressed as though they were competing in the Tour de France—expensive cycling shoes, and cycling jerseys and pants festooned with labels of manufacturers of different cycling products.  Had I bothered to look closer, I am certain I would have noticed that many of them had shaved their legs to streamline their ride.

During that decade, I never saw a single fishing-person—my attempt to be gender neutral—catch a single fish.  Also, I never saw a cyclist who looked like he or she would be competitive in a cycling time-trial.

It is almost as though their mindset is that if they dress the part, good things will happen.  Lipstick on a goldfish—or is it goldfishes?

Dressing it up does not yield favorable results.

How Republicans Can Escape Their Health Care Dilemma, Part 3: Responsible Federalism

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2017/03/31/how-republicans-can-escape-their-health-care-dilemma-part-3-responsible-federalism/#46636dd45063

Image result for How Republicans Can Escape Their Health Care Dilemma, Part 1: Universal Catastrophic Coverage

This is the last in a series of three posts. I’ve proposed three approaches that Republicans might use to get out of  the dilemma they are in over health care:

  • Universal catastrophic coverage (Part 1)
  • Universal safety net (Part 2)
  • Responsible federalism (Part 3)

The Case for a Responsible Federalism

We have had federalism in health care for many decades. The grandaddy of them all is the open-ended Medicaid program which obligates Uncle Sam to pony up federal matching dollars in lock-stop with state willingness to put up their dollars. As AEI health policy expert Joe Antos recently pointed out, Medicaid has needed fixing for 50 years. But even before that we have had federal grant-in-aid programs dating back to the 1930’s that channeled federal dollars into health care. In my view, responsible federalism in health care would entail reforming the perverse fiscal incentives embedded in Medicaid while also offering states much greater flexibility to solve their health problems without the heavy hand of Uncle Sam.

 

How Republicans Can Escape Their Health Care Dilemma, Part 2: Universal Safety Net

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2017/03/31/dilemma-part-2-universal-safety-net/#215199391108

Image result for How Republicans Can Escape Their Health Care Dilemma, Part 1: Universal Catastrophic Coverage

This is the second in a series of three posts. In my last post I posed a dilemma: President Trump has argued repeatedly for “coverage for all.”  The CBO score showing that the AHCA would result in a loss of coverage for 24 million Americans was devastating for its political prospects. Yet Obamacare, despite leaving tens of millions of Americans uninsured, is universally viewed by Republicans as fiscally unsustainable over the long term. I’ve proposed three approaches to getting out of  this box:

  • Universal catastrophic coverage (Part 1)
  • Universal safety net (Part 2)
  • Responsible federalism (Part 3)

The Case for a Universal Safety Net

A universal safety net offers the possibility of a bipartisan reform that is politically feasible at an affordable cost. Again, there is more than one way to achieve this, but I will provide two examples.

 

How Republicans Can Escape Their Health Care Dilemma, Part 1: Universal Catastrophic Coverage

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2017/03/31/how-republicans-can-escape-their-health-care-dilemma-part-i-universal-catastrophic-coverage/#64adb55c193e

Image result for How Republicans Can Escape Their Health Care Dilemma, Part 1: Universal Catastrophic Coverage

The demise of the American Health Care Act (AHCA) on March 24 was a humiliating defeat for both President Trump and Speaker Paul Ryan, both of whom had pledged the repeal and replacement of Obamacare would be the first order of business under a Trump administration. Now they both plan to move on to tax reform and it remains to be seen when or how a repeal and replacement effort will be resurrected.

I sit in an ivory tower, so perhaps my views will be dismissed as hopelessly unrealistic. But having studied health reform for more than four decades, the prospects for success are not as dim as most might think. This three part series by no means exhausts the possibilities, but should give readers a rough sense of three possible paths out of this mess. These include:

  • Universal catastrophic coverage (Part 1)
  • Universal safety net (Part 2)
  • Responsible federalism (Part 3)

President Trump has argued repeatedly for “coverage for all.”  The CBO score showing that the AHCA would result in a loss of coverage for 24 million Americans was devastating for its political prospects [1]. Yet Obamacare, despite leaving tens of millions of Americans uninsured, is universally viewed by Republicans as fiscally unsustainable over the long term. Therein lies the Republican’s political dilemma.

 

California Cost & Quality Atlas Helps Map Path to Higher-Value Care

http://www.chcf.org/articles/2017/04/ca-cost-quality-atlas

Bringing Together California Commercial Quality-Cost Performance, by Region, 2013

California is often celebrated for its rich diversity. Geographic, population, and cultural differences are embraced as key ingredients that make our state successful. But when it comes to health care services, differences are neither expected nor valued.

Study after study indicates that where you live has a direct impact on your health and well-being. In fact, as Dr. Tony Iton of The California Endowment has said about determinants of health status, your zip code is probably more important than your genetic code. One look at the results from an Integrated Healthcare Association online tool, the California Regional Health Care Cost & Quality Atlas, confirms wide geographic variation in health care measures across the state — and the tremendous opportunities that exist to improve quality and contain costs.

What drives this variation? More importantly, what can be done to minimize it? While some of the variation in care delivery may reflect differences in patient populations and needs, other differences are unexplained and likely unwarranted.

Benchmarking and tracking performance on key health care quality and cost measures is a critical first step in reducing unwarranted variation.

Dramatic Variations Across the State

As shown in the table below, quality gaps for people enrolled in commercial insurance products are common across the state’s 19 geographic regions, and the atlas data pinpoint significant opportunities to improve care for hundreds of thousands of people.