Category Archives: Womens Health

Pelosi, Trump strike deal on coronavirus response package

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Abortion, Coronavirus, Health Policy, Infection Control, Infectious Virus, Novel Coronavirus, Pandemic, Sick Leave, Unemployment Insurance, Womens Health • Leave a comment

Pelosi, Trump strike deal on coronavirus response package

Image result for coronavirus response deal

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and President Trump have struck a deal on a multibillion-dollar stimulus package aimed at assisting millions of Americans directly hurt by the coronavirus outbreak.

Pelosi announced the deal on Friday evening after days of roller-coaster negotiations that put the outcome in doubt, as the nation’s leaders raced to ease public anxiety and stabilize volatile markets. Trump said on Twitter that he looked forward to signing the legislation.

“I have directed the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Labor to issue regulations that will provide flexibility so that in no way will Small Businesses be hurt. I encourage all Republicans and Democrats to come together and VOTE YES!” Trump wrote in a series of tweets.

Just hours before the deal was announced, Trump said in a Rose Garden address that he wasn’t on board, suggesting a bipartisan deal was out of reach even as the number of cases in the U.S. approached 2,000.

And even after Pelosi’s announcement, there was widespread confusion across the Capitol about whether Trump had endorsed the package. Several GOP lawmakers said no agreement had been secured, and even House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) suggested Friday evening that the talks were still in flux.

Yet Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, who has been leading the negotiations with Pelosi, seemed to put the confusion to rest just before 8 p.m. when he told Fox Business that there was, in fact, a deal.

“We have an agreement that reflects what the president talked about in his speech the other night. He’s very focused on making sure that we can deal with the coronavirus,” he said.

The frantic, eleventh-hour talks that brought the sides together highlight the urgency facing leaders from both parties to take aggressive actions to contain the fast-moving virus, for reasons of both public health and national morale.

“As Members of Congress, we have a solemn and urgent responsibility to take strong, serious action to confront and control this crisis and to put Families First and stimulate the economy,” Pelosi wrote in a letter to Democratic members announcing the deal.

The deadly pandemic has roiled the stock market, upended small businesses and large industries alike, and cancelled major sporting and political events around the country. Millions of Americans could lose income — or their jobs entirely — due to mass public closures, work-from-home orders and the economic downturn sure to follow.

The agreement announced Friday aims to ease some of the economic stress by providing financial assistance to those most directly affected by the crisis, including unemployment and paid leave benefits. Perhaps more importantly, the deal aims to calm some of the public trepidation and market turmoil of recent weeks by demonstrating that Washington policymakers can put aside partisan differences and unite quickly behind an emergency response befitting — at least in rhetoric — the severity of the crisis.

On Friday, Pelosi and Mnuchin spoke no fewer than 13 times by phone as they neared an agreement, aides said.

To get there, they had to iron out a small handful of stubborn wrinkles that threatened to sink the entire package — disagreements that were finally resolved late Friday evening.

Republicans, for instance, had insisted on the inclusion of language, known as the Hyde Amendment, explicitly barring the use of federal funds for abortions. Democrats conceded and threw it in.

Republicans also balked at Democrats’ initial paid leave provision, which would have required employers to provide the benefit not only for the coronavirus, but for all future public health emergencies. The final compromise bill removed the permanent language, limiting the benefit to the current outbreak.

In addition, Republicans were concerned about the effects of the paid-leave expansion on small businesses. The final bill provides subsidies to businesses with 500 employees or fewer, Mnuchin said.

“Obviously, we expect the bigger corporations to pick up these costs,” he told Fox.

The deal comes on the heels of an initial $8.3 billion package, signed by Trump last week, that focused largely on the most immediate health concerns surrounding the crisis, including a  boost in the nation’s efforts to locate victims, treat them and stop the spread of the deadly epidemic.

The second round of relief focuses more squarely on mitigating the economic fallout of the coronavirus, giving priority to those most directly affected by the outbreak.

House lawmakers are now set to vote on the bipartisan package late Friday night, before heading home for a 10-day break. The Senate has canceled its recess plans for next week and will take up the House-passed measure then.

The fast-moving events reflect the heightened urgency facing lawmakers as they try to assess the scope of the coronavirus and contain its economic fallout around the country and the world.

Early in the week, House leaders signaled they would pass a Democratic bill on Thursday and then leave town for their pre-scheduled 10-day recess, pushing the bipartisan negotiations to the week of March 23.

But leaders sped up their timeline for talks amid a chaotic 48-hour stretch that saw broad changes in American society.

Trump put sharp restrictions on travel from parts of Europe. The NBA and NHL suspended their seasons. The NCAA nixed March Madness. Disneyland shuttered its doors. Officials closed the U.S. Capitol to the public after a Hill staffer tested positive. One of America’s most beloved actors, Tom Hanks, and his wife Rita Wilson, announced they had tested positive for the virus. And the Dow Jones Industrial Average plunged roughly 15 percent over the course of two days, including Thursday’s 2,300-point drop, which marked its worst day in more than 30 years.

Also on Thursday, lawmakers in both chambers had been briefed behind closed doors by public health experts and other administration officials leading the coronavirus response. Many lawmakers emerged from those meetings exasperated that, weeks after the first case was diagnosed in the U.S., test kits have been slow to be analyzed and the number of cases remains anyone’s guess.

“There’s too many basic numbers that they don’t have,” said a frustrated Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), who represents much of hard-hit Seattle. “Lab capacity. It doesn’t matter how many kits are out there; if you don’t have the lab capacity to process those tests, then it means nothing.”

The crush of calamities put pressure on leaders of both chambers to roll up their sleeves and secure an agreement, prodded by vulnerable lawmakers wary of facing voters in their districts without doing so first.

While House and Senate Republicans had objected to the Democrats’ initial bill, Trump’s support for the revised package is likely to convince many Republicans in both chambers to get on board.

Central to the package are provisions to provide paid sick leave for affected workers; bolster unemployment insurance for those who lose their jobs as a result of the crisis; expand federal food aid for low-income families and children; and ensure free coronavirus testing.

Pelosi said Friday that it’s the last provision that’s the most crucial.

“We can only defeat this outbreak if we have an accurate determination of its scale and scope, so that we can pursue the precise, science-based response that is necessary,” she said.

 

 

 

California accuses healthcare sharing ministry of misleading consumers

Posted on by • Posted in ACA, Deceptive Advertising, Essential Health Benefits, Health Insurance Benefit Design, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, Individual Health Insurance, Individual Mandate, Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Preexisting Conditions, Short Term Health Insurance, Skinny Health Plans, Womens Health • Leave a comment

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/california-accuses-healthcare-sharing-ministry-of-misleading-consumers/573900/

Image result for California accuses healthcare sharing ministry of misleading consumers

Dive Brief:

  • The California Department of Insurance issued a cease and desist order to a major Christian group Wednesday for misleading consumers about their health insurance plans and acting as a payer without proper certification, joining a handful of other states scrutinizing the limited coverage.
  • Deceptive marketing by Aliera Healthcare, which sells health ministry plans, and Trinity, which runs them, led to roughly 11,000 Californians belonging to the unapproved “lookalike” plans that don’t cover pre-existing conditions and other required benefits, with no guarantees their claims will be paid, the state’s insurance regulator said.
  • Healthcare sharing ministries (HCSMs) are organizations where members share a common set of religious or ethical beliefs and agree to share the medical expenses of other members. They’re increasingly controversial, as policy experts worry the low-cost insurance attracts healthier individuals from the broader insurance market, creating smaller and sicker risk pools in plans compliant with the Affordable Care Act.

Dive Insight:

Aliera, founded in 2011 and based in Georgia, and Trinity allegedly trained sales agents to promote misleading advertisements to consumers, peddling products that don’t cover pre-existing conditions, abortion, or contraception. The shoddy coverage also doesn’t comply with the federal Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act and the ACA.

The deceptive advertising could have pressured some Californians to buy a health sharing ministry plan because they believed they missed the deadline for buying coverage through Covered California, the state’s official insurance marketplace.

“Consumers should know they may be able to get comprehensive coverage through Covered California that will protect their health care rights,” California Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara said in a statement.

HCSMs, which began cropping up more than two decades ago as a low-cost alternative approach to managing growing medical costs, operate either by matching members with those who need help paying medical bills or sharing costs on a voluntary basis. They’re often cheaper than traditional insurance, but they don’t guarantee payment of claims, rarely have provider networks, provide limited benefits and usually cap payments, which can saddle beneficiaries with unexpected bills.

About 1 million Americans have joined the groups, according to the Alliance of Health Care Sharing Ministries.

At least 30 states have exempted HCSMs from state regulation, according to the Commonwealth Fund, meaning the ministries don’t have to comply with health insurance requirements. California does not exempt the religious-based groups from the state insurance code.

In January, Aliera and its subsidiaries, which includes Trinity, were banned from marketing HCSMs in Colorado after being accused of acting as an unlicensed insurer. One month later, Maryland issued a revocation order against Aliera for trying to sell an unauthorized plan in the state. Earlier this month, Connecticut issued a cease and desist order for conducting an insurance business illegally.

Aliera argues states are limiting the choices available to consumers, telling Healthcare Dive it was “deeply disappointing to see state regulators working to deny residents access to more affordable programs.”

“We will utilize all available opportunities to address the false claims being made about the support and management services we provide to Trinity HealthShare and other health care ministries we represent,” Aliera said.

However, Aliera and Trinity don’t meet the Internal Revenue Code’s definition of a health sharing ministry, according to California’s cease and desist, meaning their beneficiaries don’t meet California’s state individual insurance mandate.

The state can impose a fine of up to $5,000 a day for each day the two continue to do business, along with other financial penalties.

 

 

 

 

Supreme Court Will Hear First Major Abortion Case Since Two Trump Appointees Joined

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Abortion, Health Policy, Health System, Hospital, Physician, Roe v. Wade, Supreme Court, Womens Health • Leave a comment

https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-will-hear-first-major-abortion-case-since-two-trump-appointees-joined-11583192925?mod=hp_lista_pos2

Image result for Supreme Court Will Hear First Major Abortion Case Since Two Trump Appointees Joined

Case will test new conservative makeup’s approach to precedent.

The Supreme Court hears its first major abortion case Wednesday since two Trump nominees joined the bench, potentially signalling whether—and how much——reproductive rights may change under a bolstered conservative majority.

“There’s a lot on the line in this case, and more than most people realize,” said Mary Ziegler, a law professor at Florida State University and author of the forthcoming book “Abortion and the Law in America.”

Most prominently, the case involves the Supreme Court’s approach to precedent, since it largely is a replay of an issue the court decided in 2016, when by a 5-3 vote it struck down a Texas law requiring that abortion providers obtain admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.

The case also tests the strategy for antiabortion forces, who have been divided over the best way to roll back court precedents recognizing women’s constitutional right to end pregnancy. While some advocates seek to reverse outright Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision recognizing abortion rights, others believe a more prudent approach is to carve away at the precedent through increasingly restrictive regulations that would spare the Supreme Court the controversy of directly overruling a landmark case.

The law in question, known as the Louisiana Unsafe Abortion Protection Act, isn’t based on a state policy to protect potential life, an interest that the Supreme Court has recognized as valid justification for some abortion restrictions.

Instead, it is based on the argument that abortion itself can be harmful to women, and that restricting access to the procedure therefore is beneficial to women. For that reason, the state’s brief contends that abortion providers shouldn’t be permitted to challenge the law on behalf of their patients, arguing that “a serious conflict of interest” exists between them and Louisiana’s women.

In striking down the Texas law in 2016, the court found the admitting-privilege requirement provided no health benefits to women while forcing many of the state’s abortion clinics to close.

The opinion, by Justice Stephen Breyer, cited evidence that admitting privileges do little to ensure continuity of care, as the state maintained, because when abortion has complications, they generally arise not at the clinic but days after the procedure, when the patient would visit her regular physician or local hospital. The court also observed that hospital admitting privileges aren’t a general credential but are granted for other purposes, such a doctor’s ability to bring in patients for treatment.

Statistically, however, only a tiny number of women require hospitalization after abortion, the court said. “In a word, doctors would be unable to maintain admitting privileges or obtain those privileges for the future, because the fact that abortions are so safe meant that providers were unlikely to have any patients to admit,” Justice Breyer wrote.

But that decision, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, hinged on since-retired Justice Anthony Kennedy, a maverick conservative who joined more liberal justices in the majority. With the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat vacant, three conservatives dissented, contending that the majority skirted procedural rules to throw out the Texas law.

President Trump, who appointed Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the vacancy, had as a candidate predicted his Supreme Court picks would vote to overrule Roe v. Wade.

In September 2018, three months after Justice Kennedy’s retirement, the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in New Orleans, upheld a Louisiana admitting-privileges law that critics argue is identical to the Texas measure struck down two years earlier. The appellate court found the Louisiana Unsafe Abortion Protection Act wouldn’t burden abortion rights in Louisiana to the degree the Texas law did in its state.

An abortion clinic in Shreveport, La., June Medical Services LLC, and three doctors who perform the procedure appealed to the Supreme Court.

That puts the spotlight particularly on Justice Kavanaugh, whose remarks and writings, which have praised the dissent in Roe and supported a Trump administration policy to prevent an underage illegal immigrant from obtaining an abortion, have given hope to abortion opponents.

However, the focus may equally fall on Chief Justice John Roberts, who typically has voted against abortion-rights positions in Supreme Court cases—but he also has stressed an institutional interest in distinguishing the courts from political bodies, where outcomes on legislation can swing wildly based on the latest election results. For that reason, he may be hesitant to overrule even a decision he opposed simply because Justice Kennedy’s retirement presents an opportunity.

In February 2019, he joined the court’s liberal wing to block implementation of the Louisiana law while the appeal proceeded; four other conservatives dissented, although Justice Kavanaugh appended a statement suggesting he was taking a middle ground. He said he wasn’t persuaded that the Louisiana doctors had fully explored opportunities to obtain hospital-admitting privileges.

Should a frontal assault on recent precedent alienate the chief justice or another conservative justice, it probably would end prospects for similar admitting-privilege laws.

But the door could remain open for other abortion restrictions that aren’t covered by existing precedent, particularly if the court signals a readiness to pare back the ability of abortion providers to challenge regulations, or suggests it is more inclined to defer to legislative judgments regarding the safety of abortions rather than evidence, such as scientific research or the views of the medical profession, presented at trial court.

 

The growth of private equity investment in physician practice

Posted on by • Posted in Cardiology, Dermatology, Gastroenterology, Market Consolidation, Market Power, Ophthalmology, Orthopedics, Physician, Physician Practice Management, Private Equity, Specialty Care, Strategy, Urology, Venture Capital, Womens Health • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/192abb940510/the-weekly-gist-february-7-2020?e=d1e747d2d8

Private equity (PE) investment in US healthcare has ballooned over the past decade—2018 and 2019 saw record numbers of deals, representing more than $100 billion in total value. As we show below, in 2018 just under a fifth of these transactions were in the physician practice space, with the largest number of deals in dermatology and ophthalmology.

While these two specialties remain active areas of PE investment, a growing number of recent deals have focused on women’s health, gastroenterology, and urology practices.

Across all these areas, PE firms see an opportunity to grow revenue from high-margin ancillary services, cash procedures, and retail products.

Physician groups are pursuing PE investment as an alternative to joining health systems or large payer-owned physician organizations to access capital and fund buyouts of legacy partners. Doctors’ heads are increasingly being turned by the current sky-high multiples PE firms are offering, often up to 10 or even 12 times EBITA.

Private equity roll-ups of physician practices are far from over. Recent activity suggests that the behavioral health market is heating up, as it remains very fragmented in a time of increasing consumer demand.

And we predict a rush for further investment in cardiology and orthopedic practices, as investors look to profit from the shift of lucrative joint and heart valve replacement procedures to outpatient facilities.

 

Supreme Court to take up Trump appeal in ObamaCare birth control case

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, ACA, Birth Control, Birth Control Coverage, Roe v. Wade, Supreme Court, Womens Health • Leave a comment

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/478838-supreme-court-to-take-up-trump-appeal-in-obamacare-birth-control

Image result for Supreme Court to take up Trump appeal in ObamaCare birth control case

The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear the Trump administration’s appeal in a legal fight over religious exemptions for ObamaCare’s requirement that employer-based health plans cover birth control.

The administration is seeking to expand exemptions for religious objectors to the Affordable Care Act’s so-called “contraceptive mandate.”

It will mark the third time the Supreme Court has heard a case regarding the mandate, a controversial provision of ObamaCare that has been fiercely opposed by conservatives and religious groups for years.

The Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to overturn a nationwide injunction issued by a lower court blocking the rule from taking effect.

The rule would allow most businesses to claim a religious exemption to the mandate and opt out of covering contraception for their employees. 

Rules issued by the Obama administration already provided exemptions for religiously-affiliated organizations. But the Trump rule would also allow exemptions for almost all other businesses, including nonprofits, for-profit companies, higher education institutions and other non-government employers.

Civil rights groups argue the rules would essentially let employers discriminate against employees who use birth control. 

“Allowing employers and universities to use their religious beliefs to block employees’ and students’  birth control coverage isn’t religious liberty — it’s discrimination,” said Brigitte Amiri, deputy director at the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project.

 

 

 

 

U of Iowa Hospitals & Clinics CEO: ‘Everything in healthcare doesn’t need to be done by a hospital CEO’

Posted on by • Posted in Board, CEO, Connected Care, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Maternal Care, Mental Health, Retail Healthcare, Strategic Leadership, Strategy, Team-Based Care, Urgent Care, Womens Health • Leave a comment

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/hospital-management-administration/u-of-iowa-hospitals-clinics-ceo-everything-in-healthcare-doesn-t-need-to-be-done-by-a-hospital-ceo.html

Despite branching out through nearly 60 outpatient clinics, the University of Iowa Hospitals & Clinics in Iowa City — which includes the only comprehensive university medical center in the state — by and large remains a healthcare destination.

As such, demand for inpatient services hasn’t waned, but has kept on par with the surge in outpatient demand that the entire industry is seeing, Suresh Gunasekaran, the CEO of University of Iowa Hospitals & Clinics and associate vice president for the University of Iowa Health Care, told Becker’s Hospital Review.

That’s not to say strategic threats don’t exist. The biggest ones threatening the University of Iowa Hospitals & Clinics are retail medicine providers that cherry-pick services but aren’t able to provide coordinated care, Mr. Gunasekaran said.

“It’s great that today there’s more convenient care being provided by retail providers. The biggest threat, though, is if healthcare consumers start believing that getting disconnected care is worth it,” he said. “We’re in the business of connected care.”

Tackling this challenge will require input from all parties, not just the hospital CEO, he said. Here, Mr. Gunasekaran expands on how University of Iowa Hospitals & Clinics is facing the threat of uncoordinated retail medicine, and answers questions on board oversight and the changing role of the hospital CEO.

 

Question: What do you consider your biggest strategic threat?

Suresh Gunasekaran: Major threats are those healthcare services that don’t believe in team-based care, that focus on cherry-picking a corridor of healthcare without thinking about the health of the whole person.

There’s unmet demand in communities for [accessible healthcare]. If Walmart is willing to offer a clinic, they may be the only clinic for 20 miles. What I’d hope is these kinds of Walmart and CVS providers look at how they partner with players like us. In that sense, we don’t view retail medicine as a threat as much as an opportunity. But when they’re not collaborative, that’s a threat to us. It’s only good if the care is coordinated.

Q: U of Iowa Hospitals & Clinics has its own retail clinics. How do they play into the larger consumerism trend healthcare is seeing?

SG: We’re in our fifth year of offering retail urgent care clinics. We offer a setting that’s lower cost and very competitive with other retail clinics. We’ve seen a lot of uptake and growth within this model, but it’s our ability to say: Hey, urgent care and retail healthcare absolutely have a place, but they need to be connected to our lab in radiology and to our specialists.

The next frontier for us is how to partner with other retail clinics. It’s easy to partner with yourself, but it’s more challenging to make it work with others.

Q: U of Iowa Hospitals & Clinics is a state agency, so your board is really the board of regents of the state of Iowa. Have you faced increased pressure from the board to take up any initiatives?

SG: The board of regents has asked we keep a couple issues front and center. There continues to be inadequate maternal healthcare resources for the young moms of Iowa, with more and more hospitals unable to recruit staff to deliver babies. Data shows maternal death is increasing in Iowa, which is a very, very troubling statistic. So we are bringing the full strength of the University of Iowa together on this. We just got a huge research grant from the federal government to create better models for maternal health across the state.

Mental health is another area, and a huge area of priority for our governor. We are looking at expanding our residency program to rural areas that are underserved for mental health. Other things we’re looking at is the workforce shortage and social determinants of health.

Q: How do you think the CEO role will evolve over the next decade? Will we see more hospital CEOs take stances on bigger public issues?

SG: Hospitals within the healthcare industry have [historically] been very insular. You almost could run your business without worrying about the rest of the system. Now with healthcare reform and greater governmental and employer scrutiny of healthcare costs, folks are asking hospital systems to answer for what’s going on in a broader industry. And of course, CEOs have to embrace that journey.

Are we going to get involved in those multiple different steps? Not just access to care, not just the pricing of care, not just care coordination, not just how to get the community to get engaged in their own health. The CEO of the future has to have a stance on all of these, because it’s impossible to go where we need to go without being involved.

Perhaps the CEO is not that important. At the end of the day when you look at these issues, it’s important that we’re at the table, but the community needs to come first. It’s an opportunity for employers to take the lead. It’s an opportunity for the government to take a lead. Everything in healthcare doesn’t need to be done by a hospital CEO, and in the future, probably isn’t best done by a hospital CEO. We need to be one part of the team.

Q: You’ve been leading the University of Iowa Hospitals & Clinics for a little over a year now. Is there any piece of advice you would go back and give yourself on day one?

SG: Never lose the voice of the patient. I got that at the end of my first year, and I think that beginning with the voice of the patient would’ve been very, very powerful. It’s somewhat impractical that you show up to a new job, and of course, you’re going to meet the people within your organization first. But never forgetting the voice of the patient and being able to hear who you are in their eyes and in their words would have been very powerful [on day one]. But I’m making up for lost time.

 

2019 WAS A ROUGH YEAR FOR RURAL HOSPITALS

Posted on by • Posted in Abandoned Hospitals, ACA, Bankruptcy, Health Policy, Hospital, Hospital Bankruptcy, Medicaid, Medicaid Expansion, Mortality, Primary Care, Rural Health, Rural Hospital, Womens Health • Leave a comment

https://www.healthleadersmedia.com/clinical-care/2019-was-rough-year-rural-hospitals?spMailingID=16767558&spUserID=MTg2ODM1MDE3NTU1S0&spJobID=1781791709&spReportId=MTc4MTc5MTcwOQS2

Since 2005, 162 rural hospitals have shuttered, with 60% of the closures occurring in southern states that did not expand Medicaid enrollment.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

19 rural hospitals closed in 2019, up from 15 closures in 2018, and continuing a steady double-digit trend in closures since 2013.

Most hospitals closed because of financial problem, and 38% of rural hospitals are unprofitable.

Patients in communities affected by closure travel 12.5 miles on average for care. However, 43% of the closed hospitals are more than 15 miles to the nearest hospital, and 15% are more than 20 miles.

Despite a booming national economy, 2019 was the worst year for hospital closings since at least 2005.

The North Carolina Rural Health Research Program says that 19 rural hospitals closed this year, up from 15 closures in 2018, and continuing a steady double-digit trend in closures since 2013.

Since 2005, the North Carolina researchers tracked 162 hospital closings, with 60% of the closures occurring in southern states that did not expand Medicaid enrollment.

Texas led the way, with 23 hospital closures since 2005, followed by Tennessee with 13, and North Carolina with 11.

The closures have been blamed on a number of factors, including: the older, sicker, poorer, and less-concentrated rural demographic; bypassing by local residents seeking care at regional hospitals; hospital consolidation; value-based care; referral patterns of larger hospitals; the transition to outpatient services; and mismanagement.

Among the findings highlighted by the North Carolina Rural Health Research Program:

  • More than half of the rural hospitals that close cease to provide any type of health care, which were define as abandoned.
  • Most closures and “abandoned” rural hospitals are in South (60%), where poverty rates are higher, people are generally less healthy and less likely to have public or private health insurance.
  • Most hospitals closed because of financial problems. 38% of rural hospitals are unprofitable.
  • In 2016, 1,375 acute care hospitals out of 4,471 urban and rural acute care hospitals (31%) were unprofitable, including 847 rural hospitals (versus 528 unprofitable urban hospitals).
  • Patients in communities affected by closure travel 12.5 miles on average for care. However, 43% of the closed hospitals are more than 15 miles to the nearest hospital, and 15% are more than 20 miles.
  • The typical rural hospital employs about 300 people, serves a community of about 60,000. When the only hospital in a county closes, there is a decrease of about $1,400 in per capita income in the county.
  • University of Minnesota research shows that between 2004 and 2014, 179 rural counties lost all hospital-based OB services.
  • Over the last 15 years, the difference in mortality between rural and urban areas has tripled – from a 6% difference to an 18% difference in 2015.

 

 

 

The Presidential Campaign, Policy Issues and the Public

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Artificial Intelligence, Campaign Financing, Electoral College, Gerrymandering, Governance, Gun Control, Gun Related Deaths, Gun Violence, Health Policy, Job, Job Growth, Job Security, Leadership, Medicare, Roe v. Wade, Social Security, Supreme Court, Womens Health • Leave a comment

https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/269717/presidential-campaign-policy-issues-public.aspx

The Presidential Campaign, Policy Issues and the Public

The U.S. presidential campaign is ultimately a connection between candidates and the people of the country, but the development of the candidates’ policies and positions is largely asymmetric. Candidates develop and announce “plans” and policy positions that reflect their (the candidates’) philosophical underpinnings and (presumably) deep thinking. The people then get to react and make their views known through polling and, ultimately, through voting.

Candidates by definition assume they have unique wisdom and are unusually qualified to determine what the government should do if they are elected (otherwise, they wouldn’t be running). That may be so, but the people of the country also have collective wisdom and on-the-ground qualifications to figure out what government should be doing. That makes it useful to focus on what the people are telling us, rather than focusing exclusively on the candidates’ pronouncements. I’m biased, because I spend most of my time studying the public’s opinions rather than what the candidates are saying. But hopefully most of us would agree that it is worthwhile to get the public’s views of what they want from their government squarely into the mix of our election-year discourse.

So here are four areas where my review of public opinion indicates the American public has clear direction for its elected officials.

1. Fixing Government Itself.

I’ve written about this more than any other topic this year. The data are clear that the American people are in general disgusted (even more than usual) with the way their government is working and perceive that government and elected leaders constitute the most important problem facing the nation today.

The people themselves may be faulted here because they are the ones who give cable news channels high ratings for hyperpartisan programming, keep ideological radio talk shows alive, click on emotionally charged partisan blogs, and vote in primaries for hyperpartisan candidates. But regardless of the people’s own complicity in the problem, there isn’t much doubt that the government’s legitimacy in the eyes of the people is now at a critically negative stage.

“Fixing government” is a big, complex proposition, of course, but we do have some direction from the people. While Americans may agree that debate and differences are part of our political system, there has historically been widespread agreement on the need for elected representatives to do more compromising. Additionally, Americans favor term limits, restricting the amount of money candidates can spend in campaigns and shifting to a 100% federally funded campaign system. (Pew Research polling shows that most Americans say big donors have inordinate influence based on their contributions, and a January Gallup poll found that only 20% of Americans were satisfied with the nation’s campaign finance laws.) Americans say a third major party is needed to help remedy the inadequate job that the two major parties are doing of representing the people of the country. Available polling shows that Americans favor the Supreme Court’s putting limits on partisan gerrymandering.

Additionally, a majority of Americans favor abolishing the Electoral College by amending the Constitution to dictate that the candidate who gets the most popular votes be declared the winner of the presidential election (even though Americans who identify as Republicans have become less interested in this proposition in recent years because the Republican candidate has lost the popular vote but has won in the Electoral College in two of the past five elections).

 

2. Fix the Backbone of the Nation by Initiating a Massive Government Infrastructure Program.

I have written about this at some length. The public wants its government to initiate massive programs to fix the nation’s infrastructure. Leaders of both parties agree, but nothing gets done. The failure of the Congress and the president to agree on infrastructure legislation is a major indictment of the efficacy of our current system of representative government.

 

3. Pass More Legislation Relating Directly to Jobs.

Jobs are the key to economic wellbeing for most pre-retirement-age Americans. Unemployment is now at or near record lows, to be sure, but there are changes afoot. Most Americans say artificial intelligence will eliminate more jobs than it creates. The sustainability of jobs with reasonably high pay in an era when unionized jobs are declining and contract “gig” jobs are increasing is problematic. Our Gallup data over the years show clear majority approval for a number of ideas focused on jobs: providing tax incentives for companies to teach workers to acquire new skills; initiating new federal programs to increase U.S. manufacturing jobs; creating new tax incentives for small businesses and entrepreneurs who start new businesses; providing $5.5 billion in federal monies for job training programs that would create 1 million jobs for disadvantaged young Americans; and providing tax credits and incentives for companies that hire the long-term unemployed.

My read of the data is that the public generally will support almost any government effort to increase the availability of high-paying, permanent jobs.

 

4. Pass Legislation Dealing With All Aspects of Immigration.

Americans rate immigration as one of the top problems facing the nation today. The majority of Americans favor their elected representatives taking action that deals with all aspects of the situation — the regulation of who gets to come into the country in the first place and the issue of dealing with individuals who are already in the country illegally. As I summarized in a review of the data earlier this year: “Americans overwhelmingly favor protecting the border, although with skepticism about the need for new border walls. Americans also overwhelmingly favor approaches for allowing undocumented immigrants already living in the U.S. to stay here.”

Recent surveys by Pew Research also reinforce the view that Americans have multiple goals for their elected representatives when it comes to immigration: border security, dealing with immigrants already in the country, and taking in refugees affected by war and violence.

 

More Direction From the People

What else do the people want their elected representatives to do? The answer can be extremely involved (and complex), but there are several additional areas I can highlight where the data show clear majority support for government policy actions.

 

Americans See Healthcare and Education as Important but Don’t Have a Clear Mandate

There are two areas of life to which the public attaches high importance, but about which there is no clear agreement on what the government should be doing. One is healthcare, an issue that consistently appears near the top of the list of most important problems facing the nation, and obviously an issue of great concern to presidential candidates. But, as I recently summarized, “Healthcare is clearly a complex and often mysterious part of most Americans’ lives, and public opinion on the issue reflects this underlying messiness and complexity. Americans have mixed views about almost all aspects of the healthcare system and clearly have not yet come to a firm collective judgment on suggested reforms.”

Education is another high priority for Americans, but one where the federal government’s role in the eyes of the public isn’t totally clear. Both the American people and school superintendents agree on the critical importance of teachers, so I presume the public would welcome efforts by the federal government to make the teaching profession more attractive and more rewarding. Americans also most likely recognize that education is a key to the future of the job market in a time of growing transition from manual labor to knowledge work. But the failure of the federal government’s massive effort to get involved in education with the No Child Left Behind legislation underscores the complexities of exactly what the federal government should or should not be doing in education, historically a locally controlled part of our American society.

 

 

 

Supreme Court sets date for Louisiana abortion case

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Health Policy, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Medical Group, Physician, Roe v. Wade, Supreme Court, Womens Health • Leave a comment

Supreme Court sets date for Louisiana abortion case

Image result for supreme court

The Supreme Court has set a date, March 4, to hear oral arguments in a case over a Louisiana abortion law. 

The hot-button case is about a Louisiana law that would require doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a local hospital. Critics say this is aimed at forcing abortion clinics to close. 

In February, the court ruled to prevent the law from taking effect while it faces a legal challenge. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the liberal justices in this decision, but it is unclear whether he would vote to block the law permanently.

A similar law in Texas was struck down 5-3 in 2016, but Roberts voted to uphold that law at the time. Justice Anthony Kennedy has retired since then.

The case will be the first abortion case heard by the high court since Trump nominees Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh have joined the bench.

“All eyes must be on the Supreme Court come March. This case will have lasting consequences for abortion access across the country. Many states have been openly defying Supreme Court decisions in an effort to criminalize abortion,” the Center for Reproductive Rights CEO Nancy Northup said in a statement Tuesday.

“At this critical juncture, the Court needs to set those states straight. If they don’t, Louisiana will be left with a single abortion provider at just one clinic, and other states could soon follow,” Northup added.

In recent months, a number of states have passed laws to restrict abortion. Many have been challenged or blocked in court. 

 

 

Efforts to save new moms clash with GOP’s Medicaid cuts

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Block Grants, Health Policy, Maternal Mortality, Medicaid, Safety-Net Providers, Underinsured, Uninsured, Vulnerable Populations, Womens Health • Leave a comment

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/14/new-moms-clash-gop-medicaid-cuts-1364564

Image result for medicaid cuts

The push to address the soaring U.S. maternal morality rate is colliding with a broader, more ideological public health imperative: Republican-led efforts to scale back Medicaid.

The safety net program pays for half of all births in the nation. Democrats and many public health experts see it as a natural vessel for slowing the death toll of pregnant women and new mothers, by extending care in the crucial year following childbirth.

But concern over the potentially staggering cost has already quashed efforts in states such as Texas and left liberals in Congress glum over the prospects for a nationwide legislative fix.

“Medicaid represents the best of America and the administration’s effort to gut it would be a massive step backwards on confronting America’s maternal mortality crisis,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) wrote in an email.

The dynamic mirrors the federal response to the opioid epidemic, in which Republicans and the Trump administration support making addiction services more available while simultaneously working to shrink Medicaid, the largest single payer of behavioral and maternal health care.

Research has shown the risk of death after childbirth persists for a full year, from such factors as heart disease, stroke, infections and severe bleeding. Black and Native American women are about three times more likely to die from a pregnancy-related cause as white women, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Warren, along with fellow 2020 Democratic presidential contenders Sens. Bernie Sanders, Cory Booker and Amy Klobuchar, back extending Medicaid’s current requirement to cover new mothers from 60 days to one year after childbirth. Democratic proposals in the Senate from Dick Durbin of Illinois, and in the House, from Reps. Robin Kelly of Illinois and Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts would do that along with provide states grants to improve hospital deliver practices, among other things.

But the efforts aren’t yielding GOP buy-in across the country, as conservative lawmakers keen on shrinking the program press for narrower fixes, such as increased data collection on deaths and a national standard of best medical practices. Proposals to enhance Medicaid coverage to address maternal mortality haven’t attracted a single Republican co-sponsor in Congress, with both sides at loggerheads on whether to grow or shrink the entitlement program.

“All mothers must have access to adequate care before and after delivery, and we should provide states with the tools and flexibility they need to ensure coverage of their most vulnerable populations,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) told POLITICO.

A Republican aide said GOP lawmakers are focused on getting a better picture of how many pregnant and postpartum women actually need coverage before exploring how to expand access to care. “That is a laborious process to undertake as we have to talk to both the states, stakeholders, and CMS to discern what coverage gaps exist. And we need to know the role other sources of coverage play as well,” the aide said.

Democrats say the prospect of expanding Medicaid benefits scares Republicans in an era of pitched partisan battles over health policy.

“Following the ACA and repeal Obamacare debates, health care, especially Medicaid experience, has become a hot issue — not quite a third rail but definitely hot and our GOP counterparts are a little squeamish,” a Democratic aide working on the issue said.

President Donald Trump last year signed a maternal care measure that directed millions of dollars in new spending to help states collect data on maternal mortality, but has been mum on extending Medicaid coverage to new mothers. His administration will weigh whether to allow Missouri to use its Medicaid programs to offer extended coverage to mothers struggling with addiction — but not the broader Medicaid population.

Meanwhile, the administration is aggressively pursuing an overhaul of Medicaid, finalizing proposals to allow states to apply for block grants that cap program spending and approving requests to condition benefits on work. The administration’s separate efforts to overturn Obamacare would also jeopardize federal subsidies that low-income mothers use to purchase coverage.

The focus on maternal mortality is driven by rising trend lines showing about 700 women die each year due to pregnancy related conditions a rate that’s more than doubled over the last three decades. About a third of the fatalities occur between one week and one year postpartum, according to a recent CDC report, putting the U.S. behind other developed countries for maternal health. And 60 percent of maternal deaths are preventable, with African American women and other minorities disproportionately affected.

Researchers studying the pattern say that extending Medicaid coverage would provide comprehensive benefits for chronic health conditions like heart disease, which accounts for a quarter of maternal deaths.

“The postpartum period is such a period of vulnerability,” said Houston physician Lisa Hollier, immediate past president of American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and chair of Texas’s Maternal Mortality and Morbidity task force. “The transition time [from pregnancy to full recovery] is one when we see unmet health needs.”

Obamacare helped boost coverage for new mothers. The uninsured rate for women who reported giving birth in the past year fell to 11.3 percent in 2016 from 19.2 percent in 2013 according to a study in Health Affairs.

The gains in states that expanded their Medicaid programs under Obamacare were especially pronounced, with the uninsured rate among new mothers falling 56 percent compared with 29 percent in non-expansion states.

But the Republican-led push to dial back Medicaid expansion has put a spotlight on controlling spending across the entire program.

Some states are exploring alternatives. Missouri’s Department of Social Services this month intends to ask the Trump administration for a waiver that would allow it to offer Medicaid coverage to postpartum women struggling with substance abuse for one year after they give birth. The move would cover about 1,500 of the 24,000 women in the state whose benefits lapse 60 days after childbirth.

The state’s Republican-controlled legislature endorsed the idea last year after killing a broader expansion of Medicaid benefits to postpartum women.

In Texas, where 382 women died within a year of giving birth between 2012 and 2015, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott this week downplayed the state’s maternal mortality rate on Twitter and said that the state was already doing enough to deal with the issue.

Last month, legislators opted to develop postpartum care services within an existing state program geared towards family planning, which will cost about $56 million over five years, instead of extending Medicaid for 12 months, which carried a five-year price tag of nearly $1 billion in state and federal funds.

Kay Ghahremani, the state’s Medicaid director disputes the cost analysis, saying it would actually save money in the long run by promoting wellness and averting potential emergencies.

“It’s the most important thing we can do for maternal health in this state,” said Ghahremani, now president of the Texas Association of Community Health Plans. “We don’t want to see a single mom die from things that are avoidable.”