Risk-Adjustment Fix Finalized for 2018 After Bout of Uncertainty

https://www.healthleadersmedia.com/finance/risk-adjustment-fix-finalized-2018-after-bout-uncertainty

Officials have made no secret of their disdain for the ACA, so some accused them of making an excuse to destabilize the market. Not so, says the CMS administrator.


KEY TAKEAWAYS

The fix follows a brief freeze last summer, when the Trump administration said it was just following a judge’s order.

The payments are a permanent fixture of the ACA designed to compensate insurers who cover sicker groups.

Five months after the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services sent a wave of uncertainty across the health insurance industry by freezing risk-adjustment payments, the agency has finalized a fix for the 2018 benefit year.

The move seeks to appease a federal judge in New Mexico who ruled last February that the government had failed to justify its methodology for calculating the payments for benefit years 2014-2018. That ruling was the basis, CMS said, for the administration’s decision to freeze payments suddenly last July.

The freeze lasted only two-and-a-half weeks until CMS announced a final rule to resume the payments for the 2017 benefit year. That final rule re-adopted the existing methodology, with an added explanation regarding the program’s budget neutrality and use of statewide average premiums. A similar fix for the 2018 benefit year was proposed two weeks later.

Risk-adjustment payment policies for the 2019 benefit year, which weren’t subject to the judge’s ruling, were finalized in April.


The risk-adjustment payments are a permanent feature of the Affordable Care Act designed to offset the law’s requirement that insurers offer coverage without regard to a consumer’s health status. Since some insurers will inevitably attract sicker patient populations than others, the ACA redirects money from insurers with healthier populations to those with higher utilization.

Trump administration officials have made no secret of their disdain for the ACA, so some accused them of using the February ruling as an excuse to inject uncertainty into the market, one exhibit in the menagerie of alleged “sabotage.” Even the nonprofit health plan that filed the lawsuit that prompted the freeze accused the government of making “a purely self-inflicted wound” when it could have instead promulgated a new rule all along.

Conservative critics, meanwhile, accused the administration of capitulating to political and industry pressure by ending the freeze, when it should have instead “ended its micromanagement of the insurance market.”

CMS Administrator Seema Verma said in a statement Friday that the final rule “continues our commitment to provide certainty regarding this important program, to give insurers the confidence they need to continue participating in the markets, and, ultimately, to guarantee that consumers have access to better coverage options.”

Kris Haltmeyer, vice president of legislative and regulatory policy for the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, lauded the fix.

“We are pleased to see CMS issue this final rule to keep the risk adjustment program in place for the 2018 benefit year, ensuring stability in health care coverage for millions of Americans,” Haltmeyer said in a statement. “This important program has worked for years to balance the cost of care between healthy Americans and those with significant medical needs and, as CMS has stated, is working as intended.”

“The program’s continued smooth operation is vital to ensure access to a broad range of coverage options for millions of individuals and small businesses,” he added.

Verma noted that the litigation is still pending.

 

 

 

Federal Subsidies Could Expand to Health Programs That Violate Obamacare

Image result for skinny health plans

 

 The Trump administration said Thursday that states could bypass major requirements of the Affordable Care Act by using federal funds for a wide range of health insurance programs that do not comply with the law.

Federal officials encouraged states to seek waivers from provisions of the law that specify who is eligible for premium subsidies, how much they get and what medical benefits they receive.

It was “a mistake to federalize so much of health care policy under the Affordable Care Act,” Seema Verma, the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, told state officials at a conference in Washington.

The new policy outlined by the administration on Thursday upends a premise of the Affordable Care Act: that federal subsidies can be used only for insurance that meets federal standards and is purchased through public marketplaces, also known as insurance exchanges.

Under the new policy, states could use federal subsidies to help people pay for employer-sponsored insurance. Consumers could combine federal funds with employer contributions to buy other types of insurance.

Under the Affordable Care Act, premium tax credits are available to people with incomes up to four times the poverty level, roughly $83,000 a year for a family of three. With a waiver, states could provide assistance to higher-income families.

The Trump administration laid out templates for state programs — waiver concepts — that could significantly depart from the model enacted by Congress in 2010.

Alex M. Azar II, the secretary of health and human services, said states could use the suggestions to “create more choices and greater flexibility in their health insurance markets, helping to bring down costs and expand access to care.”

Democrats assailed the initiative as an audacious effort to undermine the Affordable Care Act. And they said the administration was ignoring the midterm election success of Democrats who had promised to defend health care that they said was threatened by President Trump and Republicans in Congress.

“The American people just delivered an overwhelming verdict against Republicans’ cruel assault on families’ health care,” said the House Democratic leader, Nancy Pelosi of California. “But instead of heeding the will of the people or the requirements of the law, the Trump administration is still cynically working to make health insurance more expensive and to leave more Americans without dependable coverage.”

Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, the senior Democrat on the Finance Committee, said the administration was creating a fast lane for swift approval of “junk insurance.”

The Affordable Care Act prohibits insurers from denying coverage or charging higher premiums to people with pre-existing medical conditions. At campaign rallies this fall, Mr. Trump repeatedly promised: “We will always protect Americans with pre-existing conditions. Always.”

Ms. Verma said Thursday that “the A.C.A.’s pre-existing condition protections cannot be waived.

But states could use federal funds to subsidize short-term plans and “association health plans,” in which employers band together to provide coverage for employees. Such plans are free to limit or omit coverage of benefits required by the Affordable Care Act, such as mental health care, emergency services and prescription drugs.

A provision of the Affordable Care Act allows waivers for innovations in state health policy. The federal law stipulates that state programs must provide coverage that is “at least as comprehensive” as that available under the Affordable Care Act and must cover “at least a comparable number” of people.

Two powerful House Democrats said the new guidance issued by the Trump administration was illegal because it did not meet the standards for waivers set forth in the Affordable Care Act.

“It is contrary to the plain language of the statute, and it appears to be part of the administration’s ideologically motivated efforts to sabotage the Affordable Care Act,” said a letter sent to Mr. Azar by Representatives Frank Pallone Jr. of New Jersey and Richard E. Neal of Massachusetts.

In issuing the guidance, they said, Mr. Azar also violated the Administrative Procedure Act, which generally requires agencies to provide an opportunity for public comment before adopting new rules.

Republican governors have been pleading with federal officials to give states more authority to regulate health insurance.

Paul Edwards, a deputy chief of staff to Gov. Gary Herbert of Utah, a Republican, said, “Utah welcomes all efforts that give us maximum flexibility to structure our health care programs to the unique needs of our citizens.” State officials “will look closely at how these new rules could benefit Utahns,” he said.

Brenna Smith, a spokeswoman for Gov. Kim Reynolds of Iowa, a Republican, said the governor “has a proven track record of expanding health care options for Iowans and is eager to see the new opportunities this proposal might open up.”

Iowa tried last year to get a waiver under Obama-era guidance, seeking essentially to opt out of the Affordable Care Act marketplace by offering customers a single plan with lower premiums and a high deductible.

Ms. Reynolds ultimately withdrew the request in frustration, saying at the time that “Obamacare’s waiver rules are as inflexible as the law itself.”

One option for states is to take federal funds and put the money into accounts that consumers could use to pay insurance premiums or medical expenses.

Likewise, Ms. Verma said: “States can develop a new state premium subsidy structure and decide how premium subsidies should be targeted. States can set the rules for what type of health plan is eligible for state premium subsidies.”

She was speaking Thursday at a conference of the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative group that promotes limited government and drafts model legislation.

 

Calls for trying again on bipartisan ObamaCare fix

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/418689-dem-senator-murray-calls-for-trying-again-on-bipartisan-obamacare-fix

Image result for aca cost sharing reduction payments

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) on Wednesday called for reviving bipartisan efforts to reach a deal to fix ObamaCare after an agreement she was part of collapsed last year.

“Mr. Chairman, I’m really hopeful that we can revive discussions in the new Congress and find a way past the ideological standoffs of the past,” Murray said to Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), her Republican partner in forging last year’s deal, at a hearing on health care costs.

The deal last year, which came to be known as Alexander-Murray, sought to lower premiums and stabilize the ObamaCare markets, but was stalled for months amid the bitter partisan divide over the health law and a dispute about including abortion restrictions on the funding in the bill.

Alexander on Wednesday expressed skepticism about the ability to reach a new agreement, but said he is willing to try if Murray wants to.

“We can revisit the so-called Alexander-Murray proposal if you would like,” Alexander said, but added that Democrats opposed the previous version, in his view, because they would not support restrictions on abortion funding known as the Hyde Amendment. Democrats countered that the measure actually would have expanded the scope of the abortion restrictions in an unacceptable way.

“I regretted that that didn’t work and maybe we can find a way to make it work in the new session,” Alexander added. “Certainly we’ll try on the issue of health care costs, which are the larger issue.” 

There is still no clear path beyond the abortion dispute, making a new agreement difficult.

The ground has also shifted since last year, making many Democrats call for bolder action, like expanding the generosity of ObamaCare’s financial assistance and overruling actions President Trump has taken that Democrats say undermine the market.

Both of those proposals would be hard for many Republicans to support.

Still, Alexander and Murray have not sat down to reopen negotiations and it is unclear what each side would be pushing for in these early stages.

One change is that Democrats will control the House next year, which could add new pressures. Many Democrats saw House Republicans as the main obstacle to a deal last year, so it could change the dynamic that House Republicans will have less power next year in the minority.  

 

The Curious Case of Reinsurance

https://www.thinkrevivehealth.com/blog/curious-case-reinsurance

Image result for Reinsurance

Although much of the Affordable Care Act has been contentious, one provision that has bipartisan support as well as proven efficacy is reinsurance. Simply put, reinsurance is insurance for health insurance companies. It essentially provides individual and small-group insurers “coverage” purchased from the federal government to protect against risk of high cost enrollees. Importantly, reinsurance is a market stabilization mechanism. It protects against risk, keeps premiums increases at bay, and encourages market competition in the individual insurance market.

Unfortunately, it’s also a temporary solution. In the ACA, the “innovation” waiver was only designed to be active for three years, 2014 through 2016. In March 2017, former Secretary Price issued a letter to states reiterating the law’s key requirements for “innovation” waivers and offered states assistance in the development and implementation of innovation programs. It’s still up in the air how the waiver will be interpreted, but for now states should take the waiver on its face and consider ways in which the waiver can make improvements to their healthcare markets.

It’s no secret that the individual market is not thriving. Although few states have signaled an interest in using reinsurance programs, recent exits from the individual insurance market like Aetna and Humana may encourage more states to consider waivers to stabilize these markets.

Below are a few states that decided to enact reinsurance programs:

Alaska was the first state to try on the program. With a small population and massive size, it’s no surprise the state has the highest premiums in the country. Adopting the reinsurance program kept premium hikes at bay, a 7% increase versus the expected 42%. In 2018, the federal government will fund $48M in reinsurance and the state will pay $11M.

Minnesota also approved a reinsurance program of $600M through shifting funds that would otherwise come from its MinnesotaCare program for low-income residents. The hope is the program will have an immediate effect on premium affordability for consumers in 2018, but it has been widely hailed as a semi-bipartisan solution.

Iowa is seeking to alter multiple ACA requirements, with the threat of having no insurers participate in the marketplace in 2018. Despite a large and dominant Blue Cross plan, Iowa is proposing several changes to the insurance marketplace. Their Iowa PSM plan would cost around $304M, $220M of tax credits and the remaining to pay for reinsurance.

Other states are considering the possibility but their buy-in will likely depend on how health reform policy changes shake out. And the latest news out of Washington, D.C. indicates a quick resolution or a clean solution isn’t likely.

So, what does all of this mean? A few things:

  1. The rising cost of health insurance premiums directly affects the ability of small businesses and self-employed workers to provide or obtain healthcare coverage.
  2. State-sponsored reinsurance programs that target health insurance markets for small groups and individuals make insurance more affordable and accessible.
  3. If reinsurance continues to expand to other states, new (or returning entrants) to the individual and small-group market can be expected to expand as well.

Whether you’re a health system, a health plan, or a health services organization, the opportunity for reinsurance to drive down premium costs and increase market competition directly impact your business. The revitalization of the individual market has direct impact on managed care, hospital operations, and access to care for patients. Keep an ear to the ground and watch this trend closely, especially as the open enrollment period approaches.

 

 

New insurance guidelines would undermine rules of the Affordable Care Act

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/new-insurance-guidelines-would-undermine-rules-of-the-affordable-care-act/2018/11/29/ff467f46-f357-11e8-aeea-b85fd44449f5_story.html?utm_term=.c279fcb895a6&wpisrc=al_news__alert-hse–alert-national&wpmk=1

Image result for aca

The Trump administration is urging states to tear down pillars of the Affordable Care Act, demolishing a basic rule that federal insurance subsidies can be used only for people buying health plans in marketplaces created under the law.

According to advice issued Thursday by federal health officials, states would be free to redefine the use of those subsidies, which began in 2014. They represent the first help the government ever has offered middle-class consumers to afford monthly premiums for private insurance.

States could allow the subsidies to be used for health plans the administration has been promoting outside the ACA marketplaces that are less expensive because they provide skimpier benefits and fewer consumer protections. In an even more dramatic change, states could let residents with employer-based coverage set up accounts in which they mingle the federal subsidies with health-care funds from their job or personal tax-deferred savings funds to use for premiums or other medical expenses.

If some states take up the administration’s offer, it would undermine the ACA’s central changes to the nation’s insurance system, including the establishment of nationwide standards for many kinds of health coverage sold in the United States.

Another goal of the ACA, the sprawling 2010 law that was President Barack Obama’s preeminent domestic accomplishment, was to concentrate help on the individual insurance market serving people who do not have access to affordable health benefits through a job. Prices were often out of control and discrimination against unhealthy people was more prevalent before the ACA imposed required benefits, prohibited insurers from charging more to people with preexisting conditions and created a federal health exchange and similar state-run marketplace in which private insurance companies compete for customers.

The ACA health plans have been the only ones for which consumers can use the subsidies, designed to help customers with incomes up to the middle class — 400 percent of the federal poverty line — afford the premiums.

The new advice, called “waiver concepts” because they are ideas for how states could get federal permission to deviate from the law’s basic rules, stray from both of those goals. And it would allow states to set different income limits for the subsidies — higher or lower than the federal one.

The day before they were released by Seema Verma, administrator of the Department of Health and Human Services’ Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, an analysis by the Brookings Institution questioned the legality of the content and method of these concepts. The analysis by Christen Linke Young, a Brookings fellow and HHS employee during the Obama administration, contends that “there are serious questions” about whether the changes are allowable under the law and that “at the very least, it is likely invalid” for CMS to issue the advice to states without going through the formal steps to change federal regulations.

In a statement Thursday, HHS Secretary Alex Azar said: “The Trump administration is committed to empowering states to think creatively about how to secure quality, affordable healthcare choices for their citizens.” He said the four recommendations issued Thursday, including new accounts in which consumers could pool federal subsidies and other funds, are intended to “show how state governments can work with HHS to create more choices and greater flexibility in their health insurance markets, helping to bring down costs and expand access to care.”

In a midday speech before a gathering of the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council, Verma delivered a broadside against the health-care law in explaining the rationale for freeing states to rework health policies on their own. “It was such a mistake to federalize so much of health care in the ACA,” said Verma, who worked as a consultant to states before becoming one of Trump’s senior health-care advisers. While the law sought to make health coverage more available and affordable, she said, “the insurance problem has not been solved. For many Americans it’s even been made worse.”

In urging states to consider the changes, CMS is renaming a provision of the law, known as 1332, which until now has mainly been used to give states permission to create programs to ease the burden on insurers of high-cost customers. CMS is switching the name to “State Relief and Empowerment Waivers,” emphasizing the administration’s desire to hand off health-care policies to states.

The changes go beyond a variety of other steps Trump administration health officials have taken in the past year to weaken the ACA, which the president has opposed vociferously.

Until now, they have focused on bending the ACA’s rules for health plans themselves. The administration has rewritten regulations to make it easier for Americans to buy two types of insurance that is relatively inexpensive because it does not contain all the benefits and consumer protections that the ACA typically requires.

The new steps go further by undercutting the basic ACA structure of the individual insurance marketplaces created for those who cannot get affordable health benefits through a job.

During a conference call with journalists, Verma said that no state would be allowed to retreat from a popular aspect of the ACA that protects people with preexisting medical conditions from higher prices or an inability to buy coverage.

She said that, in evaluating states’ proposals, CMS would focus on several considerations, including whether changes would foster comprehensive coverage and affordability and would not increase the federal deficit. She said federal officials would favor proposals that help, in particular, low-income residents and people with complex medical problems.

Verma reiterated an administration talking point that insurance rates have escalated since the ACA was passed and that health plan choices within ACA marketplaces have dwindled. However, the current ACA enrollment period, lasting until mid-December, is different from the previous few because prices for the most popular tier of coverage have stabilized in many places and more insurers are taking part in the marketplaces.

 

ACA Slow Enrollment as Uninsured Rate Remains Steady

https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20181120.831184/full/

Image result for ACA Slow Enrollment as Uninsured Rate Remains Steady

In most states across the country, the open enrollment period for 2019 began on November 1 and will end on December 15, 2018. As we near the halfway point for enrollment—at least for the states with a federal marketplace—recent federal data suggests that enrollment in Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace plans is lagging relative to last year.

In its “week 2” enrollment snapshot, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced that nearly 1.2 million consumers selected a plan between November 1 and November 10 in the 39 states that use HealthCare.gov. Of these consumers, about 275,000 were new consumers while about 901,000 were renewing their coverage from last year. This reflects a significant increase from the first three days of open enrollment when about 371,000 consumers selected a plan.

“Week 2” plan selections are down by about 302,000 consumers relative to last year. This can be read as between an 8 to 13 percent decline in plan selections compared to last year, when a total of 11.8 million consumers in all 50 states and DC selected or were automatically reenrolled in a marketplace plan. Enrollment remained largely stable from 2017 to 2018 despite a shortened open enrollment period and significant cuts to advertising and navigator funding.

This year, however, brings additional changes that could be contributing to what is, at least so far, depressed enrollment through HealthCare.gov. These changes include repeal of the individual mandate penalty; 2019 is the first year that consumers will no longer pay a penalty for being uninsured under the ACA. In addition, new federal rules are enabling expanded access to non-ACA plans (such as short-term, limited-duration insurance and association health plans). These non-ACA plans typically have a much lower premium than ACA plans and could lure consumers away from the marketplace.

It is too early to tell if the reduced enrollment trend will hold and if this pattern will continue. Enrollment may increase significantly before the December 15 deadline, and millions of Americans will enroll in coverage before the end of the year.

The declines are, however, significant. The former chief marketing officer for HealthCare.gov recently noted that the data “should be a wake-up call to everyone who cares about people having health care … on the need to step up efforts to raise awareness.” CMS intends to release enrollment snapshots on a weekly basis. Each snapshot also includes point-in-time estimates of call center activity and visits to HealthCare.gov and CuidadoDeSalud.gov, among other data.

The new open enrollment data comes at a time when the uninsured rate continues to remain steady. Data from the National Center for Health Statistics—in reports both from late August and November—shows that the uninsured rate of about 8.8 percent for 2018 remains largely unchanged from 2017. Although there was not a significant shift from 2017 to 2018, there has been a sizable drop in the uninsured rate since the ACA was enacted in 2010. Between 2010 and the first six months of 2018, the uninsured rate dropped from 16 percent (48.6 million people) to 8.8 percent (28.5 million people).

 

 

Five controversial health actions on Trump’s agenda

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/417949-five-controversial-health-actions-on-trumps-agenda

Image result for controversial healthcare policies

The Trump administration is expected to push ahead with a range of controversial health policies next year despite Democrats retaking the House.

Democrats captured the House majority in part on their health-care message. But despite that there are a slew of actions where the administration is moving ahead on its own agenda.

Here are five controversial moves Trump officials are expected to make on health care.

 

Roll back transgender protections

A new policy from the Trump administration could limit or completely eliminate federal protections for transgender individuals.

The move would narrow the definition of gender under a federal civil rights law to either male or female, as defined by a person’s sex at birth.  It’s being spearheaded by the Department of Health and Human Services and reportedly being pushed across multiple agencies.

The potential change has alarmed activists and medical professionals. The American Medical Association, the country’s largest physician lobbying group, said it will “oppose efforts to deny an individual’s right to determine their stated sex marker or gender identity.”

The new policy could be related to a broader proposed rule that’s been under review by the White House Office of Management and Budget since April, that opponents say would make it easier for doctors and hospitals to deny treatment to transgender patients and women who have had abortions.

That rule is expected to roll back a controversial anti-discrimination provision buried within ObamaCare, which prohibits health care providers and insurers who receive federal money from denying treatment or coverage to anyone based on sex, gender identity, or termination of pregnancy, among other conditions.

Religious providers say they expect the Trump administration’s rule would merely reinforce their right not to provide treatment that’s against their beliefs.

 

Limit abortion providers from getting federal money

The administration is expected to finalize regulations in January that would make it harder for Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers to receive federal family planning money.

The rule would ban clinics that receive Title X family planning funds from referring women for abortions while also removing a requirement that clinics counsel women on abortion as an option.

It would also require Title X grantees have a physical and financial separation from abortion providers.

Anti-abortion groups, like the Susan B. Anthony List, have pushed the Trump administration to implement these rules as a way to cut Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers from the program.

Title X funds organizations offering family planning services, like birth control and pregnancy tests, to low-income women and men.

Similar regulations were issued under former President Ronald Reagan, and later upheld by the Supreme Court, but never went into effect due to a lengthy legal battle.

The regulations are expected to be in effect for the next batch of Title X grants, which begin in April.

 

Approve more state Medicaid work requirements

The Department of Health and Human Services is committed to allowing states to impose work requirements on Medicaid beneficiaries.

The administration has approved work requirements in five states so far, and several more are expected in the coming months.

Just this week, the administration reapproved a plan in Kentucky to charge premiums, impose work requirements and remove people from the Medicaid program if they don’t comply.

The initial effort was blocked by a federal judge, but by re-approving it with only technical changes, the administration showed its commitment to forge ahead despite criticism.

Opponents say the requirements are a way to punish poor people. They argue the requirements are only meant to kick people off Medicaid and save states money.

Arkansas was the first state to implement a work requirement, and more than 12,000 people have lost health coverage as a result.

The administration insists work requirements are empowering, and help people lift themselves out of poverty and government dependence.

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Administrator Seema Verma sounded a defiant tone when she announced the administration’s approval of Wisconsin’s work requirements at the end of October.

“We will not retreat from this position,” Verma said. “Community engagement requirements in Medicaid are not a blunt instrument. This is a thoughtful and reasonable policy, and one that is rooted in compassion.”

 

Indefinitely detain migrant families

The Trump administration is seeking to indefinitely jail migrant children with their families, a policy that would overturn 20 years of protections for immigrant children.

The administration is expected to issue final regulations that would terminate and replace the Flores agreement, which has governed the detention of migrant children since 1997.

The plan, which was issued in September, would allow immigration officials to keep children and their parents detained together for the entire length of their court proceedings, which could take months in some cases.

Comments on the proposal were due earlier this month, and the rule could be made final next year.

The Flores rules are the result of a settlement in a federal class-action lawsuit over the physical and emotional harm done to children held in jail-like settings for extended periods. The settlement was only meant to be temporary, until it could be written into federal law.

Multiple administrations have challenged the rules and attempted to extend the time migrant children can be detained, but the federal judge overseeing the case has rejected those attempts.

The Trump administration is trying something novel; no administration has attempted to replace the Flores agreement with new regulations. It’s not a guarantee of success, and advocates have promised a challenge as soon as the final rules are announced.

 

Loosen nursing home emergency preparedness rules

Senate Democrats are decrying a move by the Trump administration to change safety rules for nursing homes.

The administration says the proposal would reduce a regulatory burden and save money for providers. But critics say that instead of making nursing homes safer, the proposal would put seniors at risk.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, said the administration is moving in the opposite direction of what they should be doing in the wake of hurricanes last year that left dozens of people dead across multiple states.

Last year, 12 people died when a Florida nursing home lost power in the wake of Hurricane Irma. In Texas, multiple facilities decided not to evacuate after Hurricane Harvey, despite warnings about the threat of catastrophic flooding.

The original emergency preparedness requirements went into effect just last year, more than a decade after the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General first called for reform in the wake of hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

A report from Senate Finance Committee Democrats included 18 recommendations to improve nursing home safety during natural disasters. But Wyden said the administration is ignoring them in order to “pad the pockets of medical providers.”