The feds have been ordered to cough up risk corridor money.

The feds have been ordered to cough up risk corridor money.

Image result for risk corridor money

A judge on the Court of Federal Claims has entered a $214 million judgment against the United States in favor of Moda Health, an Oregon insurer. Moda sued to recover money owed to it under the risk corridor program, a three-year program that was supposed to protect insurers from excessive losses on the exchanges. In emphatic language, the court ordered the government to pay up.

The Court finds that the ACA requires annual payments to insurers, and that Congress did not design the risk corridors program to be budget-neutral. The Government is therefore liable for Moda’s full risk corridors payments under the ACA. In the alternative, the Court finds that the ACA constituted an offer for a unilateral contract, and Moda accepted this offer by offering qualified health plans on the [exchanges]. …

Today, the Court directs the Government to fulfill [its] promise. After all, “to say to [Moda], ‘The joke is on you. You shouldn’t have trusted us,’ is hardly worthy of our great government.” Brandt v. Hickel, 427 F.2d 53, 57 (9th Cir. 1970).

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1612486#t=article

 

Judge, Citing Harm to Customers, Blocks $48 Billion Anthem-Cigna Merger

Today a federal judge blocked the proposed $48 billion merger of giant health insurers Anthem and Cigna, just two weeks after another federal judge blocked the proposed $37 billion merger between Aetna and Humana. (That judge found Aetna had lied when it said its decision to pull out of Obamacare was triggered by mounting losses; it was triggered by its desire to merge with Humana.)

Both judges agreed with Justice Department that the mergers would violate antitrust laws — giving the combinations too much economic power to raise prices.

Both decisions will almost certainly be appealed by the companies. But Trump’s and Jeff Session’s Justice Department might back down and allow the mergers to proceed.

Which will reveal the underlying choice America faces: Either a private-for profit health insurance system run by a few giant corporations charging as much as possible, or a single-payer system run to keep Americans health at the lowest cost.

What do you think?

Everything You Need to Know About Block Grants: The Heart of GOP’s Medicaid Plans

http://www.realclearhealth.com/articles/2017/01/24/everything_you_need_to_know_about_block_grants_the_heart_of_gops_medicaid_plans_110404.html

Image result for block grant medicaid

President Donald Trump’s administration made explicit this weekend its commitment to an old GOP strategy for managing Medicaid, the federal-state insurance plan that covers low-income people — turning control of the program to states and capping what the federal government spends on it each year.

It’s called “block granting.” Right now, Medicaid, which was expanded under the 2010 health reform to insure more people, covers almost 75 million adults and children. Because it is an entitlement, everyone who qualifies is guaranteed coverage and states and the federal government combine funds to cover the costs. Conservatives have long argued the program would be more efficient if states got a lump sum from the federal government and then managed the program as they saw fit. But others say that would mean less funding for the program —eventually translating into greater challenges in getting care for low-income people.

Block granting Medicaid is a centerpiece of health proposals supported by House Speaker Paul Ryan and Rep. Tom Price, Trump’s nominee to run the Department of Health and Human Services. This weekend, Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway emphasized the strategy as key to the administration’s health policy.

But what would this look like, and why is it so controversial? Let’s break down how this policy could play out, and its implications — both for government spending and for accessing care.

Q: How would a block grant work?

 

Medicaid Reform: The Elephant in the Room

http://www.realclearhealth.com/articles/2017/01/04/medicaid_reform_the_elephant_in_the_room_110358.html

While headlines fixate on the future of the Affordable Care Act’s health insurance exchanges, a more consequential fight is brewing over the future of Medicaid. Proposed reforms would affect tens of millions of Americans and state governments across the country. Previous attempts have failed, however, and longstanding roadblocks may sink this administration’s efforts as well.

With over 70 million enrollees, Medicaid covers more Americans than any other insurer.   Responsibility for funding the program – which accounts for nearly 20 percent of all healthcare spending – is shared between states and the federal government. At a minimum, the federal government covers 50 percent of costs, with that share rising to nearly 75 percent in the poorest states and more than 90 percent for those covered through ACA Medicaid expansions. This amounts to nearly $350 billion in federal funding per year.

Importantly, this money is allocated in an open-ended manner. As states increase the generosity of their Medicaid programs, the federal government is obliged to pay its portion of the higher costs.

During his campaign, Donald Trump joined a long list of Republican lawmakers who argue that this gives states the wrong incentives. Because the federal government covers at least half of each dollar spent, they argue, states may take less care to weed out inappropriate and inefficient spending as they otherwise would.

To eliminate this open-ended feature, Trump’s plan calls for federal money to be allocated in fixed lump sum payments known as block grants.

First proposed in 1981 by President Reagan, block granting of Medicaid hardly represents a novel policy option. Why then has the current system endured, and what does this portend for the resistance Trump’s efforts may encounter?

To understand, consider the most basic decision for any block grant policy: How should each state’s grant be initially determined?

Conservatives Urge Speed Up Of Health Law Repeal, Dismiss Calls for Caution

http://www.realclearhealth.com/articles/2017/02/08/conservatives_urge_speed_up_of_health_law_repeal_dismiss_calls_for_caution_110431.html?utm_source=RealClearHealth+Morning+Scan&utm_campaign=27c31f5bae-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_02_09&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b4baf6b587-27c31f5bae-84752421

Image result for Conservatives Urge Speed Up Of Health Law Repeal, Dismiss Calls for Caution

Leading conservative Republicans from the House and Senate say Congress is moving too slowly on efforts to “repeal and replace” the Affordable Care Act. But their potential resistance to compromise — even with other members of their own party — underscores just how hard a task Republicans have set for themselves.

“We think it’s time to do something, and that’s to get rid of this law,” Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, told reporters at an event sponsored by the conservative Heritage Foundation. “The biggest problem with waiting is that’s not what we told the voters.”

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, one of the leading conservative voices in that chamber, said he will vigorously oppose efforts for Republicans to wait until they have a plan ready to replace the law before they repeal it. “There is a lot less agreement about what comes next,” he said. “If we load down the repeal bill with what comes next, it’s harder to get both of them passed.”

After getting off to a quick start, GOP efforts to dismantle the health law appear to have slowed considerably. House and Senate committees have already missed a deadline of Jan. 27 to write and pass their proposed repeal and replace provisions, although Senate leaders acknowledged early this year that marker would likely not be met. At a party retreat last month, Republicans still seemed uncertain exactly how and when they would proceed.

And in an interview that aired just before the Super Bowl, President Donald Trump for the first time acknowledged that the effort to remake the health law could last into next year.

Conservatives, however, are pushing back.

 

Since the Election, Americans Grow More Supportive of ACA

http://www.npr.org/2017/02/08/514161163/since-the-election-americans-grow-more-supportive-of-obamacare

Image result for Save the ACA

There are now more people who think Obamacare is a good idea than those who don’t. It’s basic human nature: People tend to get upset if they think they are about to lose something they feel entitled to or previously had. It’s also the idea that fueled Donald Trump’s electoral base, and ironically, now fuels those who are opposed to him.

 

Centene to stay on ACA exchanges; WellCare grows Medicaid membership

http://www.fiercehealthcare.com/payer/centene-to-stay-aca-exchanges-wellcare-adds-medicaid-members?utm_medium=nl&utm_source=internal&mrkid=959610&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTnpFeU1tVmxaV00yWmpRMCIsInQiOiJxQk1keWdtNzdGSUZvT2huUTZiZFJ4SDl4akhmRG1wMGE4ZzV2eGtIUXNmUGJ1TTJjbTRxRTJ4cjNcL3NvVWNZZUZlRWxnMnh2bHJVdiswWmVFR3VcL2l3RmpwWXFaZ3JBUG4ya3oyVGp5bHNoUjl4dU1wUnNNYWpTZmc1TURcL09LbyJ9

finance earnings

Unlike some of the other major for-profit health insurers, Centene has no plans to consider exiting the Affordable Care Act exchanges in 2018.

“I’m not backing off at all,” CEO Michael Neidorff said during the company’s fourth-quarter earnings call Tuesday. In recent discussions with the company’s board members, he said, “everybody is of one mind; you maintain business as usual.”

Recently, the CEOs of Anthem and Cigna both indicated they are still deciding whether to participate on the exchanges in 2018. Aetna, meanwhile, does not plan to re-enter any markets in 2018 after pulling out of many in 2017.

As of Dec. 31, Centene served about 540,000 exchange members, in line with its expectations, and it anticipates having a little more than 1 million paid members in 2017. Indications are that the demographics of these members will be consistent with years past, with 90% of them subsidy-eligible and most on silver-tier plans, Neidorff said.

While Centene is folding an “extra level of conservativism” into its expectations for its exchange products to guard against any uncertainty, it continues to expect that line of business to be profitable this year, he added.

Another ACA provision, Medicaid expansion, has also proved profitable for Centene. At the end of 2016, it had 1,080,500 members in Medicaid expansion programs in 10 states, compared to 449,000 members at the end of 2015, according to the company’s earnings statement.