The Texas lawsuit could end some of the ACA’s protections for employer coverage

https://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/the-texas-lawsuit-could-end-some-of-the-acas-protections-for-employer-sponsored-coverage/

Image result for health insurance guaranteed issue

The Trump administration’s refusal to defend portions of the Affordable Care Act is shocking enough. Equally shocking is how little it seems to care what happens if it gets what it’s asking for.

One question in particular: what about legal protections for the 160 million people who get insurance through their employers? Will their insurance still cover their preexisting conditions, even if they switch jobs? I honestly have no idea.

In its brief, the Justice Department argues that the community rating and guaranteed issue provisions of the ACA must be invalidated. But it never mentions that those provisions apply not only to individual health plans, but also to employer plans.

So should those rules give way across the board? Or only for individual insurance plans?

Maybe it should be the latter. The mandate isn’t critical to securing the health of the employer market, so the ACA rules that protect employees aren’t inextricably linked to the mandate and shouldn’t be invalidated. But it could also plausibly be the former: if the rules governing community rating and guaranteed issue are inseverable, maybe the court shouldn’t do micro-surgery to save some subpart of those rules.

But guess what? In its brief, the Justice Department doesn’t say which approach it endorses.

Actually, it’s worse than that.  When the Justice Department identifies the rules governing community rating and guaranteed issue, it doesn’t cite the ACA itself (Public Law 111-948). Instead, it cites parts of the U.S. Code that codify portions of the ACA (e.g., 42 U.S.C. 300gg). The implication is that the Justice Department wants the court to enjoin those code provisions.

But the code provisions were on the books long before the ACA was adopted. Prior to the ACA, they listed protections for employer-sponsored plans that had been adopted in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. Among other things, HIPAA limited the circumstances under which an employer could refuse to cover an employee’s preexisting conditions. The protections weren’t perfect, but they were something. The ACA patched HIPAA’s gaps by amending those code provisions.

So if the U.S. Code provisions are enjoined altogether—which, again, is what the Justice Department appears to be asking for—some of the HIPAA-era protections would be wiped from the books too.* Is that really what the Justice Department wants? Because that’s the thrust of its brief.

The confusion may reflect a basic legal mistake, one that Tobias Dorsey highlighted in Some Reflections on Not Reading the Statutes: the U.S. Code is a codification of existing laws, but it’s not itself the law. That’s why code provisions shouldn’t themselves be the target of any injunction. Any injunction should run against the ACA itself. If that’s what the Justice Department really wants, then it has to clarify what it’s really asking for. Failing to do so could wreak havoc in the employer-sponsored market.

Even if the injunction only runs against portions the ACA, however, that still wouldn’t resolve whether the ACA’s protections would still apply to employer-sponsored plans. If they don’t, that’s a big deal: HIPAA’s protections are porous.

So far, however, the Trump administration hasn’t said a word—leaving 160 million people in the lurch.

 

Federal appeals court says HHS doesn’t have to make ACA risk corridor payments

https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/payer/moda-health-risk-corridor-payments-us-court-appeals-hhs-aca?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTkRBMk5UWXpOemhpT1RsaCIsInQiOiIzbWdsem9qRzZ0RDJPb0pTR1pRVVA1NjgzcmNZd1dnMzNoNWh0N2xVMlwvZXlMN0EyenFKVVFEUU9ZRFFRZXZYMm9acFVcL0creEt5TWpxY3V1aUE2b2tvZU1QcHNBSHFHN1VrUEswYVkxckRoMEh6clhFZ0lsQ3lvR2RzTm5cLzdodiJ9&mrkid=959610

Legal Review

A federal appeals court ruled the federal government does not have to make risk corridor payments, dealing a blow to insurers that claim they are owed billions in payments under the Affordable Care Act.

In a closely watched case brought by Moda Health Plans, the three-judge panel for the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a decision by the Court of Federal Claims, ruling that the Department of Health and Human Services is not obligated to make risk corridor payments to insurers under the ACA.

The payments were built into the ACA as a way to protect insurers from extreme gains or losses on the ACA exchanges in a market that was still untested by insurers.

“Although section 1342 obligated the government to pay participants in the exchanges the full amount indicated by the formula for risk corridor payments, we hold that Congress suspended the government’s obligation in each year of the program through clear intent manifested in appropriations riders,” wrote Chief Judge Sharon Proust in the decision (PDF). “We also hold that the circumstances of this legislation and subsequent regulation did not create a contract promising the full amount of risk corridors payments.”

The court acknowledged the section of the ACA requiring the HHS Secretary to establish risk corridor payments is “unambiguously mandatory,” but said Congress included appropriations riders during each of the program’s three years to ensure risk corridor payments were budget neutral.

The court added that the program “lacks the trappings of contractual agreement,” rebuffing Moda Health’s argument that HHS is required to make payments.

In a statement to FierceHealthcare, Moda Health President and CEO Robert Gootee said the insurer plans to appeal the decision.

“We are disappointed by today’s decision,” he said. “If it is upheld on appeal, it will effectively allow the federal government to walk away from its obligation to provide partial reimbursement for the financial losses Moda incurred when we stepped up to provide coverage to more than 100,000 Oregonians under the ACA. We continue to believe, as our trial court did, that the government’s obligation to us is clearly stated in the law and we will continue to pursue our claim on appeal.”

In a dissenting opinion, Judge Pauline Neman argued that the appropriations riders did not cancel out HHS’s obligation to make risk corridor payments. She said the court’s decision “undermines the reliability of dealings with the government.”

So this isn’t the end of the road for insurers, and there’s some good language in the majority opinion about their statutory entitlement. But it’s a Michigan-size pothole in their path to getting paid.

Dozens of insurers have sued the government to reclaim billions in unpaid risk corridor payments. Moda Health claimed it is owed $214 million, while Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina filed for nearly $150 million in unpaid payments and Humana claims its owed $611 million.

 

 

 

Two Lawsuits with Implications for the Coverage of Millions of Americans

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/blog/2018/jun/lawsuits-implications-for-coverage?omnicid=EALERT1421015&mid=henrykotula@yahoo.com

Image result for us district court of district of columbia

Significant legal challenges have marked the history of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) since its passage in 2010, and have largely determined the outlines of the law’s current structure. Similarly, as Sara Rosenbaum argues in a brief published this week, the courts have substantially shaped the Medicaid program over its 53-year history. Two recent legal challenges have potentially far-reaching implications for both the Affordable Care Act and the Medicaid program, and the millions of Americans who depend on them for their health insurance. While the plaintiffs take different positions regarding the ACA and Medicaid, the cases and the Trump Administration’s responses to them reveal an executive branch that is consistent in its efforts to reduce the federal government’s role in guaranteeing health insurance coverage for Americans.

Stewart v. Azar

Oral arguments in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia begin today in a class action lawsuit brought by 15 Kentucky Medicaid enrollees. The case challenges the legality of several aspects of Kentucky’s 1115 Medicaid demonstration waiver, which allows the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and states to test time-limited innovations in Medicaid and other public welfare programs without congressional action. Set to go into effect on July 1, the Kentucky waiver’s most controversial provision is the requirement that Medicaid beneficiaries work or perform community service for at least 80 hours per month to retain coverage. The suit also challenges the authority of HHS, now led by Secretary Alex Azar, to both encourage and approve Medicaid work demonstrations generally and the approval of Kentucky’s demonstration in particular.   The suit also challenges the legality of other aspects of the waiver, including the imposition of premiums, the use of six-month lock-out periods for beneficiaries who don’t comply with work requirements or pay their premiums on time, and the elimination of Medicaid’s requirement that new beneficiaries receive three months of retroactive coverage. Three other states have received approval for similar waiversseven states have applications under review at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and several others are developing them. Because the case challenges both the Kentucky waiver and HHS policy, it has implications for these states, as well as the future of the Medicaid program.

A critical issue highlighted by the case goes to the heart of the entitlement nature of the Medicaid program. Under the Medicaid Act and subsequent amendments, Congress has determined certain groups of people to be eligible for Medicaid coverage by virtue of their age, income, or health needs. These mandatory coverage groups include children, pregnant women, and the elderly, blind and disabled. Because working-age adults with low incomes were the least likely to work in a job that comes with health benefits, the ACA created a new mandatory eligibility category for adults with income less than 138 percent of the federal poverty level. The Supreme Court decision in 2012 effectively made this optional for states. But once a state elects to cover people who fall into this group, individuals at this income level become a mandatory coverage group. Kentucky expanded eligibility for this group in 2014, and most, but not all, of its waiver provisions apply only to this group. The lawsuit argues that suspending a beneficiary’s coverage for failure to comply with the new waiver requirements would be in violation of their entitlement to coverage under the Medicaid Act. In public speeches, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Administrator Seema Verma, also named as a defendant in the suit, has maintained that Congress’s decision to expand eligibility for Medicaid to “able-bodied” adults was a departure from the historical mission of the program and that states should have the opportunity to alter that through work and other requirements. While the vast majority of adults who have coverage through the ACA’s Medicaid expansion have jobs, work requirements will likely impose significant administrative barriers that could trigger eligibility losses even among those working full time. Estimates of coverage losses range from 95,000 to nearly 300,000 people in Kentucky. Because low-income workers remain the least likely group in the U.S. workforce to have coverage through their jobs, many will likely become uninsured.

Texas v. Azar

Secretary Azar is also the defendant in this case, brought by Texas and 19 other Republican-led states. So-called amici, or friend of the court briefs, are due today and several groups have filed briefs. The suit claims that Congress’s repeal of the individual mandate penalty renders the individual mandate — still part of the ACA — unconstitutional. Because the mandate is essential to the operation of the law, the case argues that the entire law is invalid. In an extraordinary departure from executive branch precedent — and as noted by Tim Jost — Attorney General Jeff Sessions notified Congress last Thursday that the administration agreed with the plaintiffs that the individual mandate was unconstitutional. Because of this, the administration argues that insurers selling policies in the individual market can no longer be banned from denying people coverage or charging higher premiums because of their health, gender, or age. However, the administration maintains that other parts of the law, including the Medicaid expansion, are not affected.

Looking forward

Taken together, these cases underscore the Trump Administration’s ongoing interest in reducing the number of people covered under the Affordable Care Act by withdrawing federal support for the law. Today’s oral arguments in the Stewart case will provide early indications as to how the courts will view the administration’s actions. The insurance coverage of millions of Americans and the future of the Medicaid program are at stake.

 

 

The fight over preexisting conditions is back. Here’s why the Obamacare battle won’t end.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/6/11/17441858/obamacare-repeal-debate-lawsuit

 

There is a persistent divide in the US: Is insurance a privilege to be earned through hard work? Or is it a right?

President Trump and Republicans are so committed to killing Obamacare they’ve decided, just months before the midterm elections, to take aim at the most popular part of the law: coverage for preexisting conditions.

The Trump administration signed on to a long-shot lawsuit this week that would overturn the parts of the law that require insurers to cover preexisting conditions and not charge more for them.

The lawsuit, which you can read more about from Vox’s Dylan Scott, is, in some ways, a perplexing move mere months before midterm elections. Polling finds that both Democrats and Republicans think it’s a good idea to ensure that sick people have access to health insurance.

Politically, though, Republicans spent eight years campaigning on a promise to repeal Obamacare. They believe they have a responsibility to do something, even if the something doesn’t poll well.

But after eight years of covering the Affordable Care Act, I think there is a much deeper tension that keeps the fight over Obamacare alive. It is a persistent, unresolved split in how we think about who deserves health insurance in the United States: Is insurance a privilege to be earned through hard work? Or is it a right?

The United States hasn’t decided who deserves health insurance

Since World War II, the United States has had a unique health insurance system that tethers access to medical care to employment. Changes to the tax code created strong incentives for companies to provide health coverage as a benefit to workers. Now most Americans get their insurance through their employer, and, culturally, health insurance is thought of as a benefit that comes with a job.

Over time, the government did carve out exceptions for certain categories of people. Older Americans, after all, wouldn’t be expected to work forever, so they got Medicare coverage in 1965. Medicaid launched the same year, extending benefits to those who were low-income and had some other condition that might make it difficult to work, such as blindness, a disability, or parenting responsibilities.

Then the Affordable Care Act came along with a new approach. The law aimed to open up the insurance market to anybody who wanted coverage, regardless of whether he or she had a job.

It created a marketplace where middle-income individuals could shop on their own for private health coverage without the help of a large company. It expanded Medicaid to millions of low-income Americans. Suddenly, a job became a lot less necessary as a prerequisite for gaining health insurance.

This, I think, is the divide over health insurance in America. It’s about whether we see coverage as part of work. In my reporting and others’, I’ve seen significant swaths of the country where people push back against this. They see health as something you ought to work for, a benefit you get because of the contribution you make by getting up and going to a job each day.

This came out pretty clearly in an interview I did in late 2016 with a woman I met on a reporting trip to Kentucky whom I’ll call Susan Allen. (She asked me not to use her real name because she didn’t want people to know that she uses the Affordable Care Act for coverage.)

Allen used to do administrative work in an elementary school but now is a caregiver to her elderly mother. Her husband has mostly worked in manual labor jobs, including the coal industry.

Allen told me a story about when she worked in the school. At Christmas, there would be a drive to collect present for the poorest families, presents she sometimes couldn’t afford for her own kids. It made her upset.

”These kids that get on the list every year, I’d hear them saying, ‘My mom is going to buy me a TV for Christmas,’” Allen says. “And I can’t afford to buy my kid a TV, and he’s in the exact same grade with her.”

Allen saw her health insurance as the same story: She works really hard and ends up with a health insurance plan that has a $6,000 deductible. Then there are people on Medicaid who don’t work and seem to have easier access to the health care system than she does.

”The ones that have full Medicaid, they can go to the emergency room for a headache,” she says. “They’re going to the doctor for pills, and that’s what they’re on.”

Is health insurance a right or a privilege?

More recently, Atul Gawande wrote a piece for the New Yorker exploring whether Americans view health care as a right or a privilege.

He reported the story in his hometown in Appalachian Ohio, where he kept running into this same idea: that health insurance is something that belongs to those who work for it.

One woman he interviewed, a librarian named Monna, told him, “If you’re disabled, if you’re mentally ill, fine, I get it. But I know so many folks on Medicaid that just don’t work. They’re lazy.”

Another man, Joe, put it this way: “I see people on the same road I live on who have never worked a lick in their life. They’re living on disability incomes, and they’re healthier than I am.”

As Gawande noted in his piece, “A right makes no distinction between the deserving and undeserving.” But he often found this to be the key dividing line when he asked people whether everyone should have health coverage. Often, it came down to whether that person was the type who merited such help.

This isn’t a debate that happens in most other industrialized countries. If you asked a Canadian who deserves health care, you’d probably get a baffled look in return. Our northern neighbors decided decades ago that health insurance is something you get just by the merit of living in Canada. It’s not something you earn; it’s something you’re entitled to.

But in the United States, we’ve never resolved this debate. Our employer-sponsored health care system seems to have left us with some really deep divides over the fundamental questions that define any health care systems.

Those are the questions we’ll need to resolve before the debate over Obamacare ever ends.

 

 

CBO’s Revised View Of Individual Mandate Reflected In Latest Forecast

https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20180605.966625/full/?utm_term=Read%20More%20%2526gt%3B%2526gt%3B&utm_campaign=HASU&utm_content=email&utm_source=06-10-18&utm_medium=Email&cm_mmc=Act-On%20Software-_-email-_-Health%20Affairs%20June%20Issue%3A%20Hospitals%2C%20Primary%20Care%20%2526%20More%3B%20ACA%20Round-Up%3B%20Harassment%20In%20Medicine-_-Read%20More%20%2526gt%3B%2526gt%3B

On May 23, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released updated projections of federal spending and tax expenditures related to supporting enrollment in health insurance, along with a new forecast of the number of Americans younger than age 65 who will have coverage or will be uninsured in the coming years.

The bottom line: The CBO continues to expect that the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA’s) markets will have relatively stable enrollment, more states will expand their Medicaid programs, and per-person health costs will rise at rates that exceed economic growth. Federal spending on subsidies for health insurance enrollment, along with tax breaks for employer coverage, will continue to grow at a rapid rate, thus intensifying pressure within the overall federal budget.

While the CBO’s new forecast looks in many ways quite similar to previous projections, the agency has revised its views on one very important aspect of its forecast—the effectiveness of the individual mandate—and also updated its forecast to reflect the effects of relevant executive decisions and proposed regulations by the Trump administration. These revisions and updates to the forecast are the primary reasons the current baseline does not differ more than it does from those issued by the CBO previously.

CBO’s Revised View Of The Individual Mandate

The most notable change in the CBO’s new forecast is the agency’s revised view of the effectiveness of the ACA’s individual mandate. During 2017, as Republicans in Congress attempted to pass legislation substantially rolling back and replacing the ACA, the CBO estimated that these efforts would dramatically increase the number of Americans going without insurance coverage. For instance, in July 2017, the CBO estimated that the version of repeal and replace assembled by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) would have increased the number of uninsured from 28 million in 2017 to 41 million in 2018 and 50 million in 2026. There were several reasons that the McConnell proposal would have led to more people going without coverage, but the CBO specifically cited the planned repeal of the individual mandate as the most important factor.

In December, Congress repealed the penalty associated with the individual mandate as part of the sweeping individual and corporate tax reform law. At the time of enactment, the CBO estimated that the repeal would eventually lead to an increase in the number of people going without health insurance by 13 million people annually.

The CBO’s new forecast, however, places less weight on the importance of the mandate. The agency states that, for a number of reasons, it now believes that the mandate’s role in expanding coverage after 2013 is only about two-thirds of what it previously assumed. So instead of repeal adding 13 million more people to the ranks of the uninsured, the CBO now estimates the effect at slightly more than 8 million people.

The CBO cites a number of considerations for making this important revision to its forecast. Among other things, the agency is placing more emphasis on the financial reasons for expanded enrollment into coverage after 2013, such as the ACA’s subsidy structure, instead of nonfinancial factors, such as the expectation, or social norm, of insurance enrollment that the mandate was intended to create.

Summing Up 

In the aggregate, the CBO’s updated projections of health insurance enrollment and federal subsidies for coverage do not differ all that much from previous projections. What’s different are some of the assumptions. The CBO expects there will be more uninsured in the future than is the case today, but the agency does not expect a reversion back to the uninsured levels of the pre-ACA era. Furthermore, because of changes in policies set in motion by the Trump administration, there are likely to be more people enrolled in non-ACA compliant insurance plans than is the case today, and that coverage, while different, will still provide a reasonable level of financial protection to enrollees.

 

 

California’s Attorney General Vows National Fight To Defend The ACA

California’s Attorney General Vows National Fight To Defend The ACA

Image result for aca

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra pledged Friday to redouble his efforts as the Affordable Care Act’s leading defender, saying attacks by the Trump Administration threaten health care for millions of Americans.

Becerra’s pledge came in response to an announcement from the administration Thursday that it would not defend key parts of the Affordable Care Act in court. The administration instead called on federal courts to scuttle the health law’s protection for people with preexisting medical conditions and its requirement that people buy health coverage.

Becerra accused the administration of going “AWOL.” It “has decided to abandon the hundreds of millions of people who depend on” the law, he said in an interview with California Healthline.

“It’s, simply put, an attack on the health care that millions of Americans have come to count on, and California, being the most successful state in implementing the Affordable Care Act, stands to lose perhaps more than anyone else.”

About 1.5 million Californians buy coverage through the state’s ACA exchange, Covered California, and nearly 4 million have joined Medicaid as a result of the program’s expansion under the law.

The state has been at the forefront in resisting many Trump Administration policies, including on health care and immigration.

“This is not a new experience for us under this new Trump era of having to defend Californians,” Becerra said. In the case of health care, “fortunately we have 16 other  [Democratic attorneys general] who are prepared to do it with us. ”

At issue is a lawsuit filed by 20 Republican state attorneys general on Feb. 26, which charged that Congress’ changes to the law in last year’s tax bill rendered the entire ACA unconstitutional. In the tax law, Congress repealed the penalty for people who fail to have health insurance starting in 2019.

Becerra is leading an effort by Democratic attorney generals from others states and the District of Columbia to defend the ACA against that lawsuit. In May, the court allowed them to “intervene” in the case.

 

An Estimated 52 Million Adults Have Pre-Existing Conditions That Would Make Them Uninsurable Pre-Obamacare

https://www.kff.org/health-reform/press-release/an-estimated-52-million-adults-have-pre-existing-conditions-that-would-make-them-uninsurable-pre-obamacare/

Image result for pre existing conditions

In Eleven States, 3 in 10 Non-Elderly Adults Would Likely Be Denied Individual Insurance Under Medical Underwriting Practices.

A new Kaiser Family Foundation analysis finds that 52 million adults under 65 – or 27 percent of that population — have pre-existing health conditions that would likely make them uninsurable if they applied for health coverage under medical underwriting practices that existed in most states before insurance regulation changes made by the Affordable Care Act.

In eleven states, at least three in ten non-elderly adults would have a declinable condition, according to the analysis: West Virginia (36%), Mississippi (34%), Kentucky (33%), Alabama (33%), Arkansas (32%), Tennessee (32%), Oklahoma (31%), Louisiana (30%), Missouri (30%), Indiana (30%) and Kansas (30%).

States with the most people estimated to have the conditions include: California (5,865,000), Texas (4,536,000), and Florida (3,116,000).

Using data from two large government surveys, the analysis estimates the total number of nonelderly adults in each state with a health condition that could lead to a denial of coverage in the individual insurance market, based on pre-ACA field underwriting guides for brokers and agents. The results are conservative because the data don’t include some declinable conditions. The estimates also don’t include the number of people with other health conditions that wouldn’t necessarily cause a denial, but could lead to higher insurance costs based on underwriting.