Category Archives: Underinsured

GOP senators in close races mislead on preexisting conditions

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, ACA, Community Rating, Essential Health Benefits, Guaranteed Issue, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Insurance Industry, Health Policy, High Deductible Health Plans, High Premiums, HIPAA, Medicaid, Medicaid Expansion, Preexisting Conditions, Supreme Court, Underinsured, Uninsured • Leave a comment

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/07/15/gop-senators-close-races-mislead-preexisting-conditions/?utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR3XOi91b1jsLf-grP_iIXALJiIvlZNItPE1ZDO0_ql4Wlw8m3GicyoHIH8

2018 midterms: Republicans mislead voters about preexisting ...

“Steve Daines will protect Montanans with preexisting conditions.”

“Of course I will always protect those with preexisting conditions. Always.”

“What I look forward to working on is a plan that protects people with preexisting conditions.”

— Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), in an interview with Colorado Public Radio, July 1, 2020

 

Sound familiar? Just like President Trump, these Republican senators say they support coverage guarantees for patients with preexisting health conditions. And just like Trump, their records show the opposite.

The president’s doublespeak — voicing support for these protections while asking the Supreme Court to strike them down — is spreading into some battleground Senate races this year.

 

It’s a classic case of buyer beware: Look under the hood of what Daines, Gardner and McSally are selling, and you’ll find a car without an engine.

THE FACTS

Republicans for a decade have tried to repeal the Affordable Care Act, President Barack Obama’s signature health-care legislation. The Supreme Court has upheld the law twice in the face of challenges from conservative groups. As coronavirus cases reached a new high in the United States, the Trump administration filed a legal brief on June 25 asking the Supreme Court to strike down the entire law, joining with a group of GOP state attorneys general who argue that the ACA is unconstitutional.

Before the ACA, insurance companies could factor in a person’s health status while setting premiums, a practice that sometimes made coverage unaffordable or unavailable for those in need of expensive treatment or facing a serious illness such as cancer.

 

The ACA PROHIBITED THIS PRACTICE through two provisions: “guaranteed issue,” which means insurance companies must sell insurance to anyone who wants it, and “community rating,” which means people in the same age group and geographic area who buy similar insurance pay similar prices. The changes made insurance affordable for people with serious diseases or even those with minor health problems, who also could have been denied coverage before the law’s passage.

Now, about 20 million people covered through the ACA could lose their health insurance if the Supreme Court strikes down the law, among many other consequences bearing directly on the U.S. response to the coronavirus pandemic.

In addition to the coverage guarantee, the ACA established online health insurance marketplaces and subsidies for participating buyers. The law also directs billions of dollars a year in federal funding to states that have chosen to expand their Medicaid programs under the Obamacare law. Millions of Americans have gained coverage through those provisions.

We asked the Daines, Gardner and McSally campaigns whether the senators support or oppose the GOP lawsuit at the Supreme Court and how they would address affordability issues for patients with preexisting conditions if the ACA falls. None of their campaigns responded to our questions.

 

“Steve Daines will protect Montanans with preexisting conditions.”

Daines voted to repeal the ACA in 2013 and has supported efforts to repeal and replace the law more recently during the Trump administration.

Regarding the GOP lawsuit, a Daines spokesperson was quoted in the Billings Gazette saying the senator “supports whatever mechanism will protect Montanans from this failed law, lower health care costs, protect those with preexisting conditions and expand access to health care for Montanans.”

 

“What I look forward to working on is a plan that protects people with preexisting conditions.” (Gardner)

Gardner has been voting to repeal, defund or replace the ACA since 2011, the year after its passage. This year, his campaign website says nothing about the law, but his official Senate website says, “Fixing our healthcare system will require repealing the Affordable Care Act and replacing it with patient-centered solutions, which empower Americans and their doctors.”

Asked by the Hill whether he supported the GOP lawsuit, Gardner said: “That’s the court’s decision. If the Democrats want to stand for an unconstitutional law, I guess that’s their choice.” In an interview with Colorado Public Radio, Gardner evaded the question six times in a row.

“Of course I will always protect those with preexisting conditions. Always.” (McSally)

In 2015, McSally voted to repeal the ACA when she served in the House. In 2017, she voted to replace the ACA with the American Health Care Act, which would have allowed insurers to charge higher premiums to patients with complicated medical histories.

McSally, now in the Senate, has declined to comment on the GOP lawsuit pending before the Supreme Court. When asked by PolitiFact, “the campaign didn’t specifically answer, but pointed to her general disapproval of the ACA.”

WHAT HAPPENS IF  THE GOP LAWSUIT SUCCEEDS?

Trump told The Washington Post days before his inauguration in 2017 that he was nearly done with his plan to replace the ACA. Three and a half years later, no replacement plan has emerged from the administration and Republicans in Congress hardly agree on what it would look like — or how to preserve the protections for preexisting health conditions.

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), who is also running for reelection this year, has introduced a 24-page bill called the Protect Act that includes language guaranteeing coverage for preexisting conditions. Daines signed on as a co-sponsor on June 24, the day before the Justice Department filed its brief in the Supreme Court. McSally signed on in April 2019. Gardner is not listed as a co-sponsor.

Experts say the Tillis proposal does not offer the same level of protection for preexisting conditions as the ACA, and they warn that millions of Americans could lose their health coverage if the ACA falls and the Protect Act is the only replacement.

“Insurers before the Affordable Care Act had multiple and redundant ways that they could avoid people who had preexisting conditions,” said Karen Pollitz, a senior fellow at the Kaiser Family Foundation. The Protect Act prevents some of those practices, but it “leaves enough other loopholes that it would make it very possible and likely for insurers to be able to avoid paying benefits for the conditions they most worry about,” she said.

 

Before the ACA, an insurance company could reject an application outright, say, after reviewing a patient’s medical history. The Protect Act has language barring that practice.

“The second thing they could do is, they could sell you coverage, but they could exclude your preexisting condition. ‘Oh, you have diabetes? I’m not going to pay for any of those benefits,’” Pollitz said. “The Tillis bill says you can’t do that, so that’s good.”

In the days before the ACA, insurers were allowed to charge higher premiums based on a patient’s health status. To prevent this, the Protect Act takes language from the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), rather than the newer ACA.

“The Protect Act inserts old HIPAA nondiscrimination language that prevents employers from varying worker premium contributions based on health status,” Pollitz said. “But the Protect Act also includes the old rule of construction that says nothing limits what the insurance company can charge the employer or individual.”

Pollitz said the “community rating” language in the ACA provides clearer protections in this area. The Protect Act says “nothing … shall be construed to restrict the amount that an employer or individual may be charged for coverage under a group health plan.”

“The bill would reinstate three protections at risk in the Texas case — prohibiting insurers from denying applicants based on pre-existing conditions, charging higher premiums due to a person’s health status, and excluding pre-existing conditions from coverage,” Sarah Lueck, a senior policy analyst at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, wrote in an analysis.

“But it would leave many others on the cutting room floor,” she wrote, because insurers would be able to exclude coverage of benefits such as maternity care, mental health and substance-use treatment; set annual and lifetime limits on insurance payouts; and charge older patients more than younger patients at greater levels than the ACA allows, among other changes.

It’s important to keep in mind that the Protect Act would not replace other parts of Obamacare, such as the online marketplaces and subsidies. Neither would it continue the ACA’s Medicaid expansion, which 37 states and D.C. have now adopted. That includes Arizona, Colorado and Montana.

 

The Pinocchio Test

Voters deserve straight answers when their health care is on the line, especially in the middle of a deadly pandemic.

Daines, Gardner and McSally have voted to end the Affordable Care Act. People with preexisting conditions would have been left exposed because of those votes; insurers could have denied coverage or jacked up prices for sick patients.

The three senators’ comments about the GOP lawsuit are woefully vague, but they can all be interpreted as tacit support. Asked about the case, a Daines spokesperson said “whatever mechanism” to get rid of the ACA would do. McSally’s campaign “didn’t specifically answer, but pointed to her general disapproval of the ACA.” Gardner avoided the question six times in one interview, but in another, he said: “That’s the court’s decision. If the Democrats want to stand for an unconstitutional law, I guess that’s their choice.”

Four Pinocchios all around.

 

 

 

 

5.4 million Americans lost health insurance

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, ACA, Bad Debt Expense, Chronic Care Management, Chronic Conditions, Chronic Diseases, Coronavirus, Crisis, Crisis Management, Deferred Healthcare, Economic Crisis, Economy Reopening, Employee Furlough, Employee Hiring Freeze, Employee Layoffs, Employee Pay Cuts, Employer-Based Health Insurance, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, High Deductible Health Plans, High Drug Prices, High Premiums, High Prices, Infection Control, Infection Control Plan, Infectious Virus, Job, Job Market, Job Search, Job Security, Out of Pocket Expenses, Pandemic, Preexisting Conditions, Public Health, Public Safety, Uncompensated Care, Underinsured, Unemployment, Unemployment Insurance, Uninsured • Leave a comment

https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-vitals-285240f4-9110-4c86-ad7e-e0c37085a957.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosvitals&stream=top

Medicare for All (@AllOnMedicare) | Twitter

Roughly 5.4 million adults in the U.S. lost their health insurance from February to May after losing their jobs, according to a new estimate from Families USA, a group that favors the Affordable Care Act.

Why it matters: There are more adults under 65 without insurance in Southern states, which are the same states setting new records for single-day coronavirus infections along with rising hospitalizations, Axios’ Orion Rummler writes.

What they found: 3.9 million adults lost health insurance over one year during the Great Recession, per Families USA’s analysis. It only took four months in this current crisis for an estimated 5.4 million Americans to lose health insurance.

  • More than 20% of adults in Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Mississippi, Oklahoma and Texas were without insurance as of May.
  • All of these states have set new records in the past two weeks for their highest number of coronavirus infections in a single day, per data from the COVID Tracking Project.
  • 46% of adults who lost coverage due to the pandemic came from five states: Florida, New York, Texas, California and North Carolina.

The backdrop: 21 million Americans were unemployed in May, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ nonfarm payrolls report.

 

 

 

 

Trump admin seeks relaxed grandfathered ACA health plan rules that up out-of-pocket costs

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, ACA, Employer-Based Health Insurance, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Insurance Industry, Health Policy, High Deductible Health Plans, High Drug Prices, High Prices, Out of Pocket Expenses, Preexisting Conditions, Underinsured, Uninsured • Leave a comment

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/trump-admin-seeks-relaxed-grandfathered-aca-health-plan-rules-that-up-out-o/581463/

Paying for Health Insurance Out of Pocket Maximum, OOP Health ...

Dive Brief:

  • The Trump administration proposed a rule Friday to allow some group health plans grandfathered under the Affordable Care Act to raise out-of-pocket costs for enrollees but still allow them to have health savings accounts. Such plans must not discriminate against enrollees with pre-existing conditions, but are exempt from many other ACA regulations. If they violate any rules regarding costs or structure they lose their grandfathered status and are required to follow all the mandates of the landmark 2010 law.
  • The proposed rule, issued by the U.S. Department of Labor, would relax some of the complex inflation and pricing calculations grandfathered plans must follow. The department admitted that the change could lead to higher deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs for the estimated 23.1 million enrollees in such grandfathered plans.
  • The rule stems from a 2017 executive order issued by President Donald Trump that allows regulatory changes to be made in response to perceived economic burdens imposed by the ACA. However, the Labor Department conceded in its Federal Register publication of the proposed rule that the current rules for grandfathered health plans probably weren’t that burdensome.

Dive Insight:

The administration has made no secret of its ire for the ACA and is actively trying to overturn it at the U.S. Supreme Court. A release explaining the changes notes fixed cost-sharing for high-deductible health plans would be raised, and “an alternative method of measuring permitted increases in fixed-amount cost sharing” has been introduced that “would allow plans and issuers to better account for changes in the costs of health coverage over time.”

The formal 76-page proposal, published in the Federal Register on Sunday, said premiums might go down as a result of the changes, but there were no estimates provided or circumstances where that might occur.

Moreover, the proposed rule also noted that the change could lead to more people foregoing healthcare because their out-of-pocket costs might become unaffordable.

The Labor Department also noted that there have been so few fluctuations in the state of grandfathered health plans in recent years that it was likely the current regulations were not overly burdensome in the first place.

Public comments will be solicited until mid-August before a final rule is issued.

Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., and ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, wasted little time late last week blasting the proposal.

“Regardless of what the president wants to believe, we’re in the middle of a pandemic that is devastating families’ health and finances,” Murray said in a statement.

 

 

 

 

Walgreens invests $1B in primary care clinics with VillageMD deal

Posted on by • Posted in Chronic Care Management, Chronic Conditions, Chronic Diseases, Consumerism, Outsourcing, Physician, Primary Care, Retail Healthcare, Retail Pharmacy, Telemedicine, Underinsured, Uninsured, Walgreens • Leave a comment

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/walgreens-invests-1b-in-primary-care-clinics-with-villagemd-deal/581208/

Walgreens plans to open up to 700 primary care clinics as part of ...

Dive Brief:

  • Walgreens on Wednesday announced plans to open up to 700 primary care clinics across the country over the next five years in partnership with medical services provider VillageMD, and “hundreds more” after that.
  • As part of the agreement, Walgreens will invest $1 billion in equity and convertible debt in Chicago-based VillageMD over the next three years, including a $250 million equity investment Wednesday. VillageMD will use 80% of the funds to pay for opening the clinics, called Village Medical at Walgreens, and integrate digitally with Walgreens.
  • Walgreens, which saw its stock rise slightly in early morning trading on the news, anticipates owning 30% of VillageMD once the investment is done. More details on the partnership will be released in the first quarter next year.

Dive Insight:

Retail clinics, which can generate additional script-writing and drive front-of-store sales for their owners, have seen renewed interest in recent years from giants like pharmacy rival CVS Health and retail behemoth Walmart. But Walgreens is the first national pharmacy chain to work toward building out a primary care infrastructure in stores across the U.S.

The move represents a massive investment in the healthcare delivery space for the Illinois-based company, which began trialing the full-service doctor’s offices in its stores late last year with five clinics in Houston, Texas. The pilot was successful, Walgreens said, driving high patient satisfaction scores.

Additionally, the integrated pharmacy model is correlated with increased medication adherence and better patient outcomes, according to internal VillageMD data — important factors in managing chronic conditions, which drive roughly 85% of all U.S. healthcare spend.

As such, Walgreens plans to open 500 to 700 stores over the next five years, staffed by more than 3,600 primary care physicians recruited by VillageMD, along with nurses, social workers and therapists working alongside Walgreens’ pharmacists in 30 U.S. markets.

The two companies are still finalizing what those initial markets are going to be, but the very first will be in Texas and Arizona, Walgreens’ Director of Pharmacy and Healthcare Services Communications Kelli Teno told Healthcare Dive. More than half of the clinics will be located in government-designated medically underserved areas such as Houston, which have a large share of low-income populations, migrant workers and Medicaid beneficiaries.

The stores will accept a broad array of insurance options, according to the release. Many plans VillageMD works with have a zero dollar to $10 co-pay for primary care services, Teno said.

The clinics use a sliding scale payment model for patients who don’t have insurance to try to make care more affordable for the broad range of primary care services provided, like preventative visits, acute infection or minor trauma care or chronic condition management.

Telehealth will be available around the clock for consumers via Walgreens’ healthcare marketplace app, called Find Care, or via VillageMD’s internal capabilities. VillageMD doctors can also provide at-home doctor visits for vulnerable populations, such as senior citizens or the immunocompromised.

Walgreens already has 14 in-store primary care clinics operated by different partners like Partners in Primary Care, Southwest Medical — part of Optum’s physician group — and VillageMD. Late last year, Walgreens announced it was closing 160 of its internally staffed walk-in clinics, though it still has more than 400 clinics nationwide, most staffed or run by local health systems or physician groups.

Its outsourcing model flies against CVS, which built out its health-focused store network, called HealthHUBs, through acquisitions and builds. HealthHUBs designate at least a fifth of floor space to health and wellness focused products. CVS plans to have a chain of 1,500 locations by the end of 2021 as part of its enterprise growth strategy, adding to its almost 10,000 retail locations and more than 1,100 walk-in medical clinics.

For its part, Walgreens’ clinics will be between 3,300 and 9,000 square feet and use existing space within Walgreens’ locations. To make room, clinic-linked stores will offer fewer unhealthy front-end products like snacks and sodas. Tobacco products will not be sold in the first 200 Village Medical at Walgreens locations.

“Many of the stores that we’re initially looking at to build these clinics naturally sell more pharmacy and health and wellness products,” Teno said. “It will really depend on the needs of that local community.”

VillageMD, through its subsidiary Village Medical, includes more than 2,800 doctors across nine markets. The seven-year-old company, which competes with other primary care management companies like UnitedHealth-owned Optum has raised $216 million in total funding across three rounds from investors like Oak HC/FT and Town Hall Ventures, a firm founded by Andy Slavitt, former CMS administrator under President Barack Obama.

 

 

 

Canada’s “national shame”: Covid-19 in nursing homes

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Ageism, Clinical Testing, Core Values, Coronavirus, Cost Management, Cost Reduction, Crisis, Crisis Management, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Infection Control, Infection Control Plan, Infectious Virus, Long Term Care, Medicaid, Mortality, National Strategy, Nursing Home, Pandemic, Pandemic Preparedness, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), Public Health, Public Safety, Quarantine, Sexism, Social Distancing, Underinsured, Uninsured, Universal Healthcare System, Vulnerable Populations • Leave a comment

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/7/7/21300521/canada-covid-19-nursing-homes-long-term-care

Why Canada's coronavirus cases are concentrated in nursing homes - Vox

Nursing homes account for 81 percent of Covid-19 deaths in the country. How did this happen?

Canada’s response to the coronavirus pandemic has generally been viewed as a success, with experts pointing to its political leadership and universal health care system as factors.

But there has been one glaring failure in Canada’s fight against the pandemic: its inability to protect the health of its senior citizens in nursing homes and long-term care facilities.

The situation for these seniors is so dire that the police — and even the military — have been called in to investigate why so many are dying.

In Quebec, some residents have been left for days in soiled diapers, going hungry and thirsty, and 31 residents were found dead at one home in less than a month, leading to accusations of gross negligence. In Ontario, the military found shocking conditions in five homes: cockroaches and rotten food, blatant disregard for infection control measures, and treatment of residents that was deemed “borderline abusive, if not abusive.”

“It’s a national shame,” said Nathan Stall, a geriatrician at Toronto’s Sinai Health System. “I don’t think we’ve done a good job at all in Canada.”

A whopping 81 percent of the country’s coronavirus deaths are linked to nursing homes and long-term care facilities. That means roughly 7,050 out of 8,700 deaths to date have been among residents and workers in these facilities.

In terms of raw numbers, that may not seem like very much. (For comparison, more than 40,000 US coronavirus deaths have been linked to nursing homes.) And, to be clear, Canada is hardly alone in watching tragedy unfold in these facilities. The US and Europe have seen startling numbers of fatalities among nursing home staffers and residents.

But 81 percent is a staggering statistic, especially for Canada, a country that prides itself on its progressive health policies. And it’s higher than the rate in any other country for which we have good data. In European countries, roughly 50 percent of coronavirus deaths are linked to these facilities. In the US, it’s 40 percent.

Experts say a number of factors are probably involved in Canada’s collapse on the nursing home front, like the fact that Canada has done well at controlling community spread outside these facilities (making nursing home deaths account for a greater share of overall deaths) and that residents in Canadian homes tend to be older and frailer than those in US homes (and thus more vulnerable to severe cases of Covid-19). But they say the high death rate in the homes is due, in large part, to egregious problems with the homes themselves.

“I think we have serious issues with long-term care,” said Vivian Stamatopoulos, a professor at Ontario Tech University who specializes in family caregiving. Experts have been warning political leaders about this for years, but, she said, “they’ve all been playing the game of pass the long-term care hot potato.”

Furious over how their elders are being treated, some Canadians have started petitions, protests, lawsuits, and even hunger strikes outside the homes. They say the government’s failure to respond reveals a deeper failure to care about seniors and people with disabilities, and to make that care concrete by sending facilities what they urgently need: more tests, more personal protective equipment (PPE), and more funding to pay staff members so they don’t have to work multiple jobs at different facilities.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has acknowledged that the situation in the facilities is “deeply disturbing.” He’s sent hundreds of military troops to help feed and care for the seniors in certain homes, where burnout and fear have prompted some staff members to flee their charges. But to some extent, Trudeau’s hands are tied because the facilities fall under provincial jurisdiction.

That leaves families terrified for their loved ones. They’re asking: Why have things gone so terribly wrong? How could this happen in Canada?

 

Canada’s crisis was a long time in the making

The first thing to understand is that Canada’s universal health care system does not cover nursing homes and long-term care facilities. That means these institutions are not insured by the federal system. Different provinces offer different levels of cost coverage, and even within a given province, you’ll find that some homes are publicly run, others are run by nonprofits, and still others are run by for-profit entities.

“This is the main problem — they don’t fall under the Canada Health Act,” said Stamatopoulos, adding that the same is not true of hospitals. “That’s why you see that the hospitals did so well. They had the resources.”

From the standpoint of someone in the US, where more than 132,000 people have died of Covid-19, Canada may seem to be doing well overall: The death toll there is around 8,700. Per capita, Canada’s coronavirus death rate is roughly half that of America’s. It’s clear that the northern neighbor has been doing better at keeping case numbers down, partly because it’s giving safer advice on easing social distancing.

Which makes the dire situation in nursing homes stand out even more. Longstanding problems with Canada’s nursing homes have clearly fueled the tragic situation unfolding there.

These homes are chronically understaffed. They tend to hire part-time workers, underpay them, and not offer them sick leave benefits. That means the workers have to take multiple jobs at different facilities, potentially spreading the virus between them. Many are immigrants or asylum seekers, and they fear putting their precarious employment at risk by, say, taking a sick day when they need it. (These problems aren’t unique to Canada, but as in other countries, they’ve been thrown into stark relief by the pandemic.)

A lot of Canadian homes also have poor infrastructure, built to the outdated design standards of the 1970s. Residents often live four to a room, share a bathroom, and congregate in crowded common spaces. That makes it very difficult to isolate those who get sick.

These problems are even worse in Canada’s for-profit nursing homes. Research shows that these private facilities provide inferior care for seniors compared to the public facilities, in large part because they hire fewer staff members and put fewer resources into upgrading or redesigning their buildings. The for-profit model incentivizes cost-cutting. (Similarly problematic profit motives and poor living conditions persist in US nursing homes, too.)

Canadian experts have been raising the alarm about these issues for more than a decade. So why haven’t they been addressed?

“Frankly, overall, it really reflects ageism in society. We choose not to invest in frail older adults,” Stall said. He added that early on in the pandemic, the public imagination latched onto stories of relatively young people on ventilators in hospitals. The hospitals and their staff got resources, free food, nightly applause. Homes for older people didn’t get the same attention.

“Nursing homes are not something we’re proud of societally. There’s a lot of shame around even having someone in a nursing home,” Stall said.

Stamatopoulos noted there are other forces at play, too. “I’d say it’s a trifecta of ageism, racism, and sexism,” she said. “When you look at this industry, it’s majority female older residents being cared for by majority racialized women.”

Ronnie Cahana, a 66-year-old rabbi who lives with paralysis at the Maimonides Geriatric Centre in Montreal, recently wrote a letter to Quebec’s premier. “I am not a statistic. I am a fully sentient, confident human being, who needs to have my humanity honored,” he wrote, adding that the premier should help the workers who take care of people like him. “Many of them are immigrants, newly beginning their lives in Quebec. … Please give them all the resources they require. Listen to their voices.”

 

How to make nursing homes safer — in Canada and beyond

If you want to keep nursing homes from becoming coronavirus hot spots, look to the strategies that have proven effective elsewhere. For months now, Canadian public health experts and advocates have been begging leaders to do just that.

All residents and workers in nursing homes should be tested regularly, whether they show symptoms or not. Anyone who gets sick should be isolated in a separate part of the building or taken to the hospital. Workers should be given adequate PPE, and universal masking among them should be mandatory. Working at multiple homes during the pandemic should be disallowed.

“Look at South Korea. They’ve had no deaths in long-term care because they treated it like SARS right from the get-go,” Stamatopoulos said. “They did aggressive testing. They were strict in terms of quarantining any infected residents and were quick to move them to hospitals. We’ve done the opposite.” Earlier in the pandemic, some Canadian hospitals sent recovering Covid-19 patients back to their nursing homes too soon; they inadvertently infected others.

“And look at New York state,” Stamatopoulos continued. “Gov. Cuomo signed an executive order on May 10 requiring all staff and residents to be tested twice a week. That aggressive testing helped halt the outbreaks in the homes.” Quebec and Ontario have yet to do this.

British Columbia, a Canadian standout at preventing deaths in nursing homes, adopted several wise measures early on. Way back on March 27, the western province made it illegal to work in more than one home — and topped up workers’ wages so they wouldn’t have to. It gave them full-time jobs and sick leave benefits.

It’s clear that so long as long-term care falls under provincial jurisdiction, nursing home residents will be better off in some provinces than in others. So some Canadian experts, including Stamatopoulos, are arguing that these facilities should be nationalized under the Canada Health Act. Others are not sure that’s the answer; Stall thinks it may make sense to target only for-profit homes, compelling them to improve their poor infrastructure. In the long term, any homes that do not meet modern standards should be redesigned.

Another lesson for the long term comes from Hong Kong, which has managed to totally avoid deaths in its nursing homes. Even before the coronavirus came along, all homes had a trained infection controller who put precautions in place to prevent the spread of infections. (US homes saw a similar system enacted under President Obama, but President Trump has proposed that it be rolled back.) Four times a year, Hong Kong’s homes underwent pandemic preparedness drills so that if an outbreak occurred, they’d be ready with best practices. It did, and they were.

Preparedness clearly saves lives. Hopefully, Canada and other countries will learn that lesson going forward so that no more lives are needlessly lost.

As Cahana, the resident in the Montreal home, said, “Each of us is crying to be heard. We say: More life! Please! We are not afraid of the future. We are afraid that society is forgetting us.”

 

 

 

 

 

June’s cautious economic recovery is based in part-time work and vulnerable industries

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Coronavirus, Economic Crisis, Economic Recovery, Economy Reopening, Employer-Based Health Insurance, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Job, Job Growth, Job Market, Job Search, Job Security, Market Outlook, Pandemic, Underinsured, Unemployment, Unemployment Insurance, Uninsured • Leave a comment

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/07/02/junes-cautious-economic-recovery-is-based-part-time-work-vulnerable-industries/?fbclid=IwAR290sM5RZgwuxNMBDi1chv_i1ulzy4zY2KF4f1cDUMCsiTTpME2wkGVM6s&utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook

 

The June unemployment rate of 11.1 percent, down from a peak of 14.7 percent in April, reflects a continuing, cautious economic recovery. What those numbers don’t show is an increase in employment driven disproportionately by part-time work and industries that are vulnerable to another shutdown.

The unemployment rate is a blunt tool. It takes into account anyone who works, even if they work for only one hour a week. And part-time employment has recovered much more quickly from April’s catastrophic losses than full-time employment. While full-time employment is still 12 percent lower than it was in February, part-time employment is back to pre-pandemic levels.

According to the Labor Department’s survey of American households, many of those workers would work full-time if they could and are working part-time only because of poor economic conditions. The number of people pushed into part-time work has more than doubled since February. Meanwhile, the number of people who work part-time by choice is still down by 23 percent.

 

 

The unemployment rate isn’t wrong: Part-time work is still work. However, those jobs have already proved to be vulnerable to a slowing economy. Anyone pushed into part-time work by the coronavirus’s initial shock to the economy may be even more vulnerable in the case of future shutdowns. And part-time workers may not have access to benefits such as health insurance that are available to full-time workers.

The industries that bounced back in May and June are also at the mercy of future shutdowns as coronavirus cases surge across the Sun Belt. For instance, unemployment in leisure and hospitality is still very high but dropped by 10 percentage points from April’s staggering 40 percent. Retail and wholesale unemployment dropped by a third. In contrast, finance, government and professional services have had a slow start to recovery. Unemployment in the information industry actually increased from May to June.

 

 

If the greatest gains in employment are in industries that suffered most in the early stages of the pandemic, those gains are vulnerable to future waves of shutdowns. Meanwhile, less-volatile industries may continue to be slow to bounce back. A Congressional Budget Office report predicted that the unemployment rate is expected to stay above its pre-pandemic levels through the end of 2030.

 

 

Pre And Post Coronavirus Unemployment Rates By State, Industry, Age Group, And Race

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Coronavirus, Crisis, Crisis Management, Economic Crisis, Economic Recovery, Economic Stimulus, Economy Reopening, Employee Furlough, Employee Hiring Freeze, Employee Layoffs, Employee Pay Cuts, Employer-Based Health Insurance, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, High Deductible Health Plans, High Drug Prices, High Prices, Infection Control, Infection Control Plan, Infectious Virus, Job, Job Market, Job Search, Job Security, National Strategy, Out of Pocket Expenses, Pandemic, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), Public Health, Public Safety, Quarantine, Social Distancing, Underinsured, Unemployment, Unemployment Insurance, Uninsured • Leave a comment

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2020/06/28/pre-and-post-coronavirus-unemployment-rates-by-state-industry-age-group-and-race/#65c42c6555eb

Unemployment by State-May 2019 to May 2020

The coronavirus has decimated the U.S. economy and benched nearly 40 million American workers. In the past several days, the U.S. has logged its highest number of new Covid-19 cases since the pandemic began. These combined with other factors, which we will discuss, is jeopardizing the future employment of millions of workers and the viability of thousands of businesses. Here’s how unemployment has increased for every state, industry, age group, and race, and why.

Unemployment by State

The coronavirus and subsequent stay at home orders hit the labor force especially hard. As states attempted to reopen, a resurgence in the virus is causing many businesses to close again, some by choice, others by government mandate.

Nevada has been hit the hardest as the unemployment rate in the Silver State rose from 4.0% in May 2019 to a whopping 25.3% in May 2020. Nevada’s economy is heavily reliant on leisure and hospitality, which had the brunt of the job losses. Hawaii, the second hardest hit state saw unemployment rise from 2.7% in May 2019 to 22.6% in May 2020. Which is the only other state with unemployment above 20% in May 2020? Michigan, where unemployment rose from 4.2% to 21.2% year over year. What state has fared best? Nebraska, which also has one of the most diverse economies of all states. Deriving nearly 50% of its total GDP from five different industries, unemployment in the Cornhusker State rose from 3.1% to a modest 5.2% from May 2019 to May 2020. Unemployment numbers for all states are shown in the following chart.

Unemployment by Industry

As mentioned in the previous section, the states that have fared best either have a more diverse economy or do not rely heavily on industries that have been hardest hit by the coronavirus. The most negatively affected is the leisure and hospitality industry where unemployment rose 618% from a low of 5.0% in May 2019 to a staggering 35.9% in May 2020. At a distant second, but still reeling, is the wholesale and retail trade industry, which saw unemployment rise from 4.2% to 15.1% during the same period. The rest of the industries are listed in the following chart.

Unemployment by Industry-May 2019 to May 2020

Unemployment by Age Group

Businesses need two things to exist: workers and customers. Without customers, there is no need for workers or the business for that matter. Some businesses require highly skilled workers while others operate well using unskilled labor. It is this unskilled labor group that has been hardest hit.

The greatest rise in unemployment is among workers under age 25. This is likely due to three factors. Younger workers typically have fewer marketable skills, less work experience, and less seniority. Many of these workers are in industries that have felt the greatest pain. Unemployment rates by age group are contained in the following chart.

Unemployment by Age Group-May 2019 to May 2020

Unemployment by Race/Ethnicity

Question: Prior to Covid-19, was unemployment among blacks / African Americans at a record low as President Trump has claimed? Using the available data, which extends back to January 1972, the answer is yes. This new record low was achieved in October and November of 2019 when unemployment among black or African American workers fell to 5.1%. The previous record low was 5.2% in December 1973. The current rate is 16.8%, which is less than the highest rate of 20.7% logged in December 1982. The most recent high in unemployment for this group was 19.3% in March 2010. It has been steadily declining since then. Numbers for White, Asian, and Hispanic or Latino and black or African American workers are listed in the following chart.

Unemployment by Race or Ethnicity-May 2019 to May 2020

Businesses need workers, workers need businesses, and both depend on customers. Since the pandemic began, consumer demand has fallen sharply. With the probability that a vaccine will not be available until early 2021 at the soonest, plus a disregard for recommended safety protocols by many individuals, namely wearing masks and social distancing, it is highly unlikely that the economy will return to normal for several years.

Will the president continue to hold rallies? Will he set an example by wearing a mask? Will the protests and violence continue? Will other large gatherings continue? Unless Americans make a collective and conscious choice to mask up and social distance, we will be forced to live in a depressed economy for longer than necessary. The choice is up to us.

 

 

 

 

 

As Americans lose job-based coverage, ACA marketplace sets record with near 500K signups

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, ACA, Coronavirus, Employer-Based Health Insurance, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, Medicaid, Medicaid Expansion, Pandemic, Supreme Court, Underinsured, Unemployment, Unemployment Insurance, Uninsured • Leave a comment

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/as-americans-lose-job-based-coverage-aca-marketplace-sets-record-with-near/580623/

Dive Brief:

  • Millions of individuals have lost their jobs as a result of the pandemic, allowing them to enroll in Affordable Care Act marketplace coverage via Healthcare.gov due to their special circumstances. CMS said this week that this special enrollment coverage due to job loss specifically has reached a record, with about 487,000 consumers gaining coverage, a 46% increase compared with the same time last year.
  • April saw the biggest jump in enrollment following job loss, an increase of 139% compared to April of last year.
  • Due to a number of factors, CMS said it “remains unclear how many people will eventually look to Exchanges using HealthCare.gov to replace job-based coverage.”

Dive Insight:

The pandemic has battered the economy, causing historic levels of unemployment. For many Americans, healthcare coverage is tethered to their jobs. As such, the pandemic is not only a threat to Americans’ health but their ability to pay for the care they need, sick with COVID-19 or not.

As many as 27 million Americans may have lost job-based coverage between March and May of this year, according to a recent analysis from the Kaiser Family Foundation. 

Of the newly uninsured, about half (12.7 million) would be eligible for Medicaid coverage, according to Kaiser’s estimates. There are a few options for workers out of a job and insurance. They can opt to extend their coverage through COBRA, enroll in coverage through the exchanges, or check to see if they qualify for Medicaid.

This week, CMS attempted to quantify just how many out-of-work Americans were turning to the exchanges.

About 500,000 out-of-work consumers enrolled in coverage so far this year. However, there are other life events that qualify a consumer to shop for coverage during a special enrollment period. Overall, special enrollment period sign-ups garnered more than 890,000 enrollees, dwarfing other periods. 

If the trend continues, it may fuel a significant shift in health insurance. For years, a majority have received commercial coverage through work. Even health insurers recognize disruption is on the horizon.

Many of the nation’s largest insurers are bracing for a shift from their commercial book of business to covering more Medicaid enrollees through their contracts with states. Earlier this year, Molina, Centene and Anthem all said they expect upticks in their Medicaid membership and exchange products.

Molina executives said in April they already saw 30,000 more Medicaid members from the prior-year period.

 

 

 

 

Trinity Health expects $2B revenue plunge as it cuts, furloughs more staff

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Cash, Cash Reserves, Coronavirus, Crisis, Crisis Management, Deferred Healthcare, Economic Crisis, Economic Recovery, Economy Reopening, Employee Benefits, Employee Furlough, Employee Hiring Freeze, Employee Layoffs, Employee Pay Cuts, Employer-Based Health Insurance, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health System, High Deductible Health Plans, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Job, Job Market, Job Search, Job Security, Liquidity, Market Outlook, Market Trends, Market Uncertainty, Net Income, Nonoperating Income, Operating Expenses, Operating Income, Operating Margin, Operating Performance, Operating Revenue, Out of Pocket Expenses, Pandemic, Public Health, Public Safety, Quarantine, Restructure, Social Distancing, Turnaround, Turnaround Plan, Underinsured, Unemployment, Unemployment Insurance, Uninsured • Leave a comment

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/trinity-health-cutting-cost-cutting-2-billion-revenue-shortfall/580738/

The Dumbest Things You Can Do With Your Money | Work + Money

Dive Brief:

  • Trinity Health, one of the nation’s largest nonprofit health systems, said Monday it will take more measures to cut costs due to the downturn spurred by the novel coronavirus. The restructuring plan includes eliminating positions, extending furloughs, severances and reductions in schedules. The decisions are being “customized” across the system based on factors that include volume projections and the cost and revenue challenges in each market.
  • The Livonia, Michigan-based hospital operator said it continues to treat COVID-19 patients, however, it has “for now seen declining numbers of very sick patients with COVID-19.”
  • The system said it expects revenue to be depressed or “below historical levels” for the remainder of this fiscal year and much of the next. It projects revenue to drop by $2 billion to $17.3 billion for fiscal year 2021, which starts after its June 30 year end.

Dive Insight:

In May, Trinity said it planned to furlough nearly 12% of its workforce — or 15,000 employees out of the 125,000 nationally.  

Trinity, one of the nation’s largest hospital operators with 92 facilities and operations across 22 states, is now broadening that restructuring, extending and adding new furloughs.

In a Monday bond filing, Trinity said its operations were “significantly” impacted by the effects of the pandemic as many operators saw depressed volumes due to shelter-in-place orders, which started in most of Trinity’s markets during the last two weeks of March.

“The effect of COVID-19 on the operating margins and financial results of Trinity Health is adverse and significant and, at this point, the duration of the pandemic and the length of time until Trinity Health returns to normal operations is unknown,” according to Monday’s bond filing.

The system said relief funds provided by the federal government have not been enough to cover its operating losses. Trinity has received $600 million in relief funds that do not have to be repaid and more in loans through the advanced Medicare payment program, according to a previous analysis by Healthcare Dive.

Still, the system said it has drawn on credit facilities totaling $1 billion to provide adequate liquidity during the pandemic. Trinity reported having 178 days cash on hand as of March 30.

Some nonprofits are faring better than Trinity and pulling back on earlier staffing cuts.

Mayo Clinic said last week it will call back its furloughed workers by the end of August and restore pay that had been cut due to the pandemic.

Mayo has some of the most cash on hand in terms of days when comparing other major nonprofit systems. Mayo had 252 days of cash on hand as of March 30, more than the other 20 largest nonprofits except Cleveland Clinic and New York-Presbyterian.

 

 

U.S. Healthcare System vs. Socialized Medicine during the Pandemic

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Deferred Healthcare, Employer-Based Health Insurance, Essential Health Benefits, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, High Deductible Health Plans, High Drug Prices, High Premiums, High Prices, Managed Care, Medicare for All, Out of Pocket Expenses, Preexisting Conditions, Single Payer Health System, Single Payer Healthcare System, Underinsured, Uninsured, Vulnerable Populations • Leave a comment

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/06/25/why-socialized-system-medicare-all-beats-profit-healthcare-one-chart-covid-19?fbclid=IwAR1qT_AI5KFreoEKOqQfvdWUHPyW80fa2Iefxb5Ul5wJQtf8rSvZXkL8RHM

 

“All countries successfully combatting this virus have robust public health systems, which provide for coordination of effort.”

A recent rise in cases of Covid-19 and the overt failure of the for-profit healthcare system throughout the pandemic in the U.S. are making the case for Medicare for All, advocacy groups and activists say, as countries with socialized systems see their infection rates decline.

“All countries successfully combatting this virus have robust public health systems, which provide for coordination of effort,” remarked a popular healthcare advocate who uses the @AllOnMedicare handle on Twitter.

Calls for the U.S. to adopt a single-payer heathcare system have increased as the pandemic has raged around the country. Cases and deaths in the U.S are now the highest in the world, a result critics blame on both the private healthcare system and the mismanagement of the crisis by President Donald Trump.

Public Citizen’s health care policy advocate Eagan Kemp told Common Dreams that the current for-profit healthcare system that has driven millions of Americans in to bankruptcy and leaves millions more without care will only continue to exacerbate the pain of the outbreak. 

“While no health care system can completely protect a country from Covid-19, the U.S. has failed to respond for a number of reasons, not least of which is a for-profit health care system where Americans are too afraid to go to the doctors for fear of the cost,” said Kemp. “Far too many Americans will face medical debt and even bankruptcy if they are lucky enough to survive getting Covid-19, something unheard of in all other comparably wealth countries.”

As University of Massachusetts professor Dean E. Robinson wrote in a piece that appeared at Common Dreams earlier this month, the coronavirus is impacting people of color at a disproportionate rate in cities and communities nationwide—a dynamic that bolsters the call for a universal Medicare for All program to help close those gaps.

“The obvious and immediate need of Black and other working class populations caught in the teeth of the pandemic is the right to health care treatment without the burden of cost,” wrote Robinson. “Even before the pandemic, lower-income, Latino, and younger workers were more likely to be uninsured. Undocumented workers had the highest rates of uninsurance.”

On June 18, Ralph Nader in an opinion piece for Common Dreams expressed his hope that the ongoing pandemic would make essential workers in the health field “the force that can overcome decades of commercial obstruction to full Medicare for All.”