Tag Archives: ACA

Interpreting National Health Expenditure Projections: Issues And Challenges

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20180214.597384/full/

Health Affairs today published the projections for health spending over the next decade from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Office of the Actuary. The top line estimate is that health spending will grow at 5.5 percent per year through 2026. This rate is about halfway between the pre-recession rate of 7.3 percent and the exceptionally low rate (3.8 percent) experienced during the recession and immediate aftermath. This projected spending growth is 1 percentage point above expected gross domestic product (GDP) growth, a smaller gap than for almost any 10-year period since 1990. These non-partisan, thorough projections are a valuable benchmark for all stakeholders anticipating the fiscal footprint of the health care system on the economy, but there are several important issues to keep in mind.

Modeling What Spending Would Be Under Current Law, Not What It Will Most Likely Be

First, these projections are predicated on “current law”. The authors are not trying to predict what spending will most likely be. Such a prediction exercise would require assessments of how policy may change. For example, will the low-fee trajectories called for by the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) productivity adjustments be realized? What will be the future of the ACA? The authors here don’t attempt to incorporate the answers to these questions. They assume that the current law will persist. Last week’s budget legislation, which included the repeal of the Medicare Independent Payment Advisory Board and other health care changes, illustrates this point because it came too late to be included in these projections. This highlights how quickly and unpredictably law and policy can change.

An Uncertain Environment

Second, as the authors recognize, there is considerable uncertainty around these projections. During the recession, we experienced a dramatic slowdown in the rate of growth in “use and intensity” of care, a catch-all phrase capturing more physician visits, hospital stays, lab tests, etc. As the ACA was implemented, use and intensity rebounded, capturing both a return to a more common rate of growth and an increase attributable to coverage expansion. (If there is one thing we know well it is that greater coverage generates greater utilization.)

The assumption moving forward is that use and intensity will revert to historical patterns, affected a bit by benefit design changes. The impact of payment reforms, in both the public and private sector, is largely not reflected in these projections. That assumption is certainly reasonable given the modest impact of such changes to date, but payment systems continue to change and their impacts may grow, suggesting that perhaps use and intensity growth will be lower than projected.

Of course, uncertainty is not one sided. Other hypotheses, such as greater introduction of new technologies or weakening commitment to controlling utilization, would yield higher spending projections.

The Policies We Choose Matter

Third, and perhaps most importantly, the actual rate of health spending growth that we experience over the next decade, and beyond, depends on what we do. Health spending is not a natural phenomenon to be predicted like the tides. Our fate is not sealed. Our actions matter. We should not ask whether health spending growth will accelerate (or not). Instead we should ask if we will let it accelerate (or not). This requires complex choices.

It is tempting to read the projections such as those by Gigi Cuckler and her CMS colleagues with alarm. The notion that health care will consume almost 20 percent of the economy in 2026 is legitimately concerning because of the implications for future taxation or borrowing to maintain publicly financed health insurance programs. In fact, Kate Baicker and Jon Skinner predicted back in 2011 that if public health spending growth consistently exceeded national income growth by 1 percentage point and was financed by taxes (increased proportionately on all income groups), the tax rate for the upper income bracket in 2060 would need to rise to 70 percent. This is unlikely to happen, but we must act to make sure it does not.

The Dual Nature Of Health Spending: Consumption And Investment

The challenge, of course, is that health spending, on average, improves health. Therefore, actions to restrain resources devoted to health—including restricting access to health care or health insurance—run the risk of slowing or reversing improvements in health. Moreover, apart from the obvious benefit associated with access to health care services, many people rely on the health care sector for jobs. Heath care is in many ways both a tapeworm on the American economy and a Keynesian stimulus— cutting health spending will have economic consequences. Moreover, while creating jobs is not a justification for waste, lower spending growth can imply lower revenue growth for health care stakeholders, which presents a significant political problem.

These two perspectives are not as hard to balance as one may think. We do not need to cut heath care spending below current levels, just slow the rate of its growth. Moreover, resources not absorbed into the health care sector can be put to valued activities. (If there are not more valued activities for these incremental resources, then more spending on health care is justified).

Beyond How Much We Spend: Does It Bring Value And How Will We Finance It?

Finally, all of this highlights the heterogeneity in value associated with greater health spending. We currently pay higher prices in the United States than in other countries. While health care price inflation slowed between 2014 and 2016, the projections assume that price growth in health care will exceed general inflation. While we cannot conclude that prices in the United States should match those in other countries (there are many differences in our economies), much of the reason for high and growing prices in the United States is a lack of competition associated with consolidation in the health care sector (largely in the commercial sector) and other institutional features. Paying too much for care or other services not only distorts behavior, but also represents a transfer from the broad population to the health care sector. Policy actions to address this issue should be high on the agenda.

Use and intensity also varies in value. While innovation and delivery of appropriate care is the centerpiece of a high-value health care system, our system too often provides care that offers little or no health benefit. Great strides have been made to quantify low value care, through initiatives such as Choosing Wisely, but a lot remains unmeasured. Eliminating such care is hard because the value of care depends on patient traits and delivery system reform requires motivation of influential and invested stakeholders, which does not occur rapidly. Nevertheless, efforts to move in this direction are important.

Ultimately, the question we should ask when we ponder projections of higher health spending is this: Will we get enough value for the added spending? We should also ask how we should finance this spending: Any way we do so—through taxation, higher premiums or cost sharing at the point of service—has dramatic distributional and moral implications.

There are no simple answers to these questions, politically or operationally. One thing is clear: We cannot continue to publicly finance health spending if it grows 1 percentage point faster than GDP. We are not in crisis yet, but at this rate, eventually we will be. Yet, changing health care takes time. Many innovations in both payment and benefit design show promise, but success is uncertain. With luck (or more importantly dedication and hard work) we will be able to spend less than these projections suggest and maintain, or even improve, the care delivered to Americans. Unless we keep trying, however, we will fail.

 

 

Will Federal Courts Uphold Trump Administration Medicaid Waiver Approvals?

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20180213.18720/full/

Court decisions are likely to have an enormous impact on the future of the Medicaid program. On January 12, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced approval of a Medicaid demonstration waiver in Kentucky incorporating unprecedented restrictions on Medicaid eligibility for adults. These restrictions have been summarized by Sara Rosenbaum on Health Affairs Blog in the context of a powerful review of Medicaid demonstration law and policy. Kentucky’s new waiver includes not only a highly publicized “work/community engagement” requirement, but additional elements new to Medicaid including lockouts for beneficiaries who do not complete the annual renewal process or who fail to report changes in income.

Twelve days after the CMS approval announcement, the Kentucky Equal Justice Center, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the National Health Law Program filed suit to stop the waiver in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, representing 15 Medicaid beneficiaries in Kentucky. Similar lawsuits are virtually certain as Medicaid waivers imposing new coverage and benefits restrictions on adults are approved in Indiana and likely other states.

Why The Current Round Of 1115 Waivers Are Different

As noted by Sara Rosenbaum, Nicholas Bagley, and others, there is a limited history of federal lawsuits challenging Medicaid section 1115 demonstrations. But it is important to note the reason there have been few of these legal challenges: until 2018, over its 50-plus year history, Medicaid waiver authority was almost exclusively used to expand Medicaid eligibility and benefits rather than to restrict them, or to try a different approach to delivering existing benefits. When I oversaw Medicaid 1115 waiver review from 2013 to early 2017, the Obama administration agreed to try a variety of conservative ideas under Medicaid waiver authority for the Affordable Care Act (ACA) adult expansion population. But each of these ideas was tied into a good faith hypothesis about potential improved access or benefits within the Medicaid program. Premiums were to be tested as an alternative to cost-sharing in some states or in combined premium/cost-sharing approaches that sought to encourage and incentivize healthy behaviors; private marketplace plan networks were to be tested and evaluated as an alternative to traditional Medicaid providers; the impact of the Non-Emergency Medical Transportation benefit on unmet need would be measured closely to see if eliminating the benefit helped or hurt self-reported access to care.

The approvals in Kentucky and Indiana, and possible pending approvals in other states, base their legal claim to be promoting the objectives of the Medicaid program on a far more brazen and cynical premise. The waiver approvals assert that taking away Medicaid from statutorily eligible individuals can act as an incentive that ultimately improves health: either by forcing the beneficiary to get a job to stay insured in the case of work requirements, or by “educating beneficiaries on enrollment requirements” in the case of lockouts from eligibility for beneficiaries who fail to complete an annual renewal or inform the state of income changes.

Because the hypothesized Medicaid objectives are so dubious, a lot more than these specific waiver requests rests on the plaintiffs’ case in these states. At risk are not only specific Medicaid eligibility principles, but the entire statutory enterprise of congressional legislation of mandatory Medicaid eligibility or benefits of any kind. Consider what it would mean for Medicaid law were the justifications upheld: if waivers can overturn congressional Medicaid eligibility guarantees and claim to promote Medicaid objectives because Medicaid itself is a barrier to health, or because cutting off eligibility is a way to teach people about private insurance or enforce compliance with new extra-statutory eligibility requirements, then there is no meaningful legal limit on state waivers of federal Medicaid eligibility law. Congress’s ability—in place since 1965 and upheld in hundreds of federal court decisions—to mandate that state Medicaid agencies cover specific categories of individuals for specific periods of time and with specific benefits will be subject to an extra-statutory waiver process in toto.

Will courts allow it anyway? After all, section 1115(a) defining the scope of the demonstration authority specifically references “the judgment of the Secretary”, suggesting executive branch latitude.

Will Courts Overturn Work Requirements?

But there are a number of important legal and contextual factors that point to court action to overturn these waiver approvals. First, the work requirement component of these waivers is a particularly blatant attempt to achieve under waiver authority what could not be achieved via statutory change. Both the House and primary Senate version of “repeal and replace” 2017 included state options to impose work requirements in Medicaid. These efforts—in a rather high-profile manner—failed to pass Congress. Courts will be considering the tactic of the executive branch trying to change the Medicaid program via demonstration waivers when it failed to change the law.

Second, the primary federal court precedent for judicial review of Medicaid section 1115 demonstrations sets a high bar for legal scrutiny. Although (as summarized by Nicholas Bagley) the courts historically authorized some restrictive state section 1115 waivers with regard to Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) cash welfare in the name of supporting transitions to independence, these decisions were tied to a statutory framework for the AFDC program that itself supported transitions to work as an explicit goal beginning in the 1960s. This is not true when it comes to Medicaid: Medicaid’s statutory framework is as an ongoing health insurance program, and it now covers 70 million people, many times the enrollment level in AFDC/Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) over its history. And the limited court challenges to Medicaid section 1115 waivers have had a high success rate, with courts insisting that not only meet the “promote Medicaid objectives” standard but that they meet an additional level of scrutiny regarding research or experimental value relative to the health policy literature. Strikingly, the court in Newton-Nations v. Betlach—the primary precedent for Medicaid waiver judicial review—approvingly cited expert testimony on the health policy literature as evidence for why further research on cost-sharing was not needed. If judges are citing literature reviews to question whether waiver hypotheses involve groundbreaking experiments, that does not indicate a high degree of judicial deference.

Third, we have had strong indications in the last year that federal courts are not working with an assumption of good faith in stated agency rationales, particularly when significant published information from Trump administration leaders contradicts those ostensible public rationales. Judicial skepticism has extended from presidential tweets cited as evidence of discriminatory intent in immigration cases, to asserting “invidious partisan intent” in drawing of voting districts. And the Trump administration has made abundantly clear that its reasons for supporting restrictions on adult Medicaid enrollment have nothing to do with health: CMS Administrator Seema Verma has repeatedly stated her broad opposition to Medicaid coverage of low-income non-disabled adults as such, and the Trump administration worked vigorously to undo the Medicaid expansion during the ACA repeal effort in Congress.

Fourth, the fact that states are pairing work requirement waivers with other extra-statutory restrictions on Medicaid eligibility undermines whatever health claims they are making regarding the work requirement. With the exception of Mississippi—a state with Medicaid income eligibility levels for adults that are so low virtually no employed adults qualify—every state that has proposed a work requirement has also proposed to waive Medicaid law in other ways to take away coverage. Kentucky’s and Indiana’s new “lockout” provisions that will bar people from Medicaid for six months if they fail to report a change in income or if they fail to submit an annual redetermination of eligibility will likely lead to dramatic reductions in Medicaid coverage, given the high rates of enrollment churn associated with Medicaid’s unique annual redetermination requirements. States that are trying to cut Medicaid coverage for adults in multiple ways and a federal Administration that opposes Medicaid coverage of non-disabled adults would appear to be attacking Medicaid coverage of adults any way they can. They will not make for persuasive exponents of the health benefits of work requirements.

The pending litigation will be the first time the courts have thoroughly defined the scope of executive branch section 1115 waiver authority in Medicaid. As a matter of law and policy, one way or another this important part of the Medicaid program and the American health system will likely be changed by the time the federal courts have completed their adjudication. Many thousands of lives will be at stake. But with multiple judicial imperatives at stake as well, there is good reason to expect that the courts will step in.

 

Idaho Blue Cross Jumps Into Controversial Market For Plans That Bypass ACA Rules

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

https://khn.org/news/idaho-blue-cross-jumps-into-controversial-market-for-plans-that-bypass-aca-rules/?utm_campaign=KFF-2018-The-Latest&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=60750320&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_fH8PLw8MQcK5-6PQpM5hnAT-lUReNyxbqcVv3CQftN_JErkzwdKT74g8pG-zb0KDTi4MLTSaD8zofdRUaejz_MhZWpw&_hsmi=60750320

Image result for idaho skinny healthcare plans

 

That didn’t take long.

It’s barely been two weeks since Idaho regulators said they would allow the sale of health insurance that does not meet all of the Affordable Care Act’s requirements — a controversial step some experts said would likely draw legal scrutiny and, potentially, federal fines for any insurer that jumped in.

On Wednesday, Blue Cross of Idaho unveiled a menu of new health plans that break with federal health law rules in several ways, including setting premiums based on applicants’ health.

“We’re trying to offer a choice that allows the middle class to get back into insurance coverage,” said Dave Jeppesen, the insurer’s executive vice president for consumer health care.

The firm filed five plans to the state for approval and hopes to start selling them as soon as next month.

The Blue Cross decision ups the ante for Alex Azar, the Trump administration’s new Health and Human Services secretary. Will he use his authority under federal law to compel Idaho to follow the ACA and reject the Blues plans? Or will he allow state regulators to move forward, perhaps prompting other states to take more sweeping actions?

At a congressional hearing Wednesday, even as Blue Cross rolled out its plans, Azar faced such questions.

“There are rules. There is a rule of law that we need to enforce,” Azar said. Observers noted, however, he did not specifically indicate whether the federal government would step in.

Robert Laszewski, a consultant and former insurance industry executive, thinks it should.

“If Idaho is able to do this, it will mean other … states will do the same thing,” he said. “If a state can ignore federal law on this, it can ignore federal law on everything.”

Idaho’s move stirs up more issues about individual insurance market stability.

Policy experts say that allowing lower-cost plans that don’t meet the ACA’s standards to become more widespread will pull younger and healthier people out of Obamacare, raising prices for those who remain. Supporters say that is already happening, so this simply provides more choices for people who earn too much to qualify for subsidies to help them purchase ACA coverage.

The state’s move to allow such plans, announced in January, drew harsh and swift criticism.

“Crazypants illegal,” tweeted Nicholas Bagley, a law professor at the University of Michigan and former attorney with the civil division of the U.S. Department of Justice, who said that states can’t pick and choose which parts of federal law to follow. Sabrina Corlette, a research professor at Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms, pointed out that health insurers could be liable for sharp fines if they are found to be in violation of the ACA.

But both Idaho regulators and Blue Cross officials say they are not worried.

Jeppesen said the ACA gives states regulatory authority “to make sure the market works and is stable,” and the insurer is simply “following what the state has given us guidance” to do.

Other insurers in Idaho are taking a much more cautious approach, telling The Wall Street Journal they are not stepping up immediately to offer their own plans.

Laszewski said they are likely waiting to see what legal challenges develop.

“If I were running an insurance company, there’s no way I would stick my neck out until the high court has ruled in favor of this — and they’re not going to,” he said.

Jeppesen said his company has consulted with legal experts and is moving ahead with confidence. The aim is to bring people back into the market, particularly the young, the healthy and those who don’t get a tax credit subsidy and can’t afford an ACA plan.

For some people — especially younger or healthier applicants — the new plans, which the insurer has named Freedom Blue, cost less per month than policies that meet all ACA rules.

They accomplish that by limiting coverage. If they are allowed to be sold, consumers will need to weigh the lower premiums against some of the coverage restrictions and variable premiums and deductibles, policy experts say.

The plans, for example, will include a “waiting period” of up to 12 months for any preexisting conditions if the applicant has been without coverage for more than 63 days, Jeppesen said.

Additionally, they cap total medical care coverage at $1 million annually. And premiums are based, in part, on a person’s health: The healthiest consumers get rates 50 percent below standard levels, while those deemed unhealthy would be charged 50 percent more.

All those caveats violate ACA rules, which forbid insurers from rejecting coverage of preexisting conditions or setting dollar caps on benefits or higher premiums for people with health problems.

But the rates may prove attractive to some.

Premiums for a healthy 45-year-old, for example, could be as low as $195 a month, according to a comparison issued by the insurer, while a 45-year-old with health problems could be charged $526. In that case, the 45-year old would find a lower price tag — $343 a month — for an ACA-compliant bronze plan.

While Freedom Blues plans cover many of the “essential health benefits” required under the ACA, such as hospitalization, emergency care and mental health treatment, they do not include pediatric dental or vision coverage. One of the five plans does not include maternity coverage.

When compared with one of the Blues’ ACA-compliant plans — called the Bronze 5500 — the new standard Freedom Blue plan’s annual deductibles are a mixed bag.

That’s because they have two separate deductibles — one for medical care and one for drugs. If a consumer took only generic drugs, the new plan would be less expensive, according to details provided by the plan. But with a $4,000 deductible for brand-name drugs, the Freedom Blue plan requires more upfront money before full coverage kicks in than the ACA-compliant plan it was compared with.

Jeppesen said the insurer hopes to attract many of the “110,000 uninsured state residents who cannot afford [ACA] coverage.”

That’s the total number of uninsured people who earn more than 100 percent of the federal poverty level in the state, he said.

Sarah Lueck, senior policy analyst for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, cautioned that some of those residents might actually be eligible for subsidies under the ACA, which are available to people earning up to four times as much.

“Many … could be getting subsidies for more comprehensive coverage through the [ACA-compliant state exchange] and would be better off,” Lueck said.

 

Trump’s Budget Would Cut HHS Funding 21%; Azar Approves

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/leadership/trumps-budget-would-cut-hhs-funding-21-azar-approves?utm_source=edit&utm_medium=ENL&utm_campaign=HLM-Daily-SilverPop_02142018&spMailingID=12931448&spUserID=MTY3ODg4NTg1MzQ4S0&spJobID=1341286596&spReportId=MTM0MTI4NjU5NgS2#

Image result for health policy

The White House calls for an increase in funding for veterans healthcare services, while proposing cuts to HHS and a repeal of the Affordable Care Act.

President Donald Trump released his budget proposalMonday for fiscal year 2019. It includes overall reductions in nondefense spending while also increasing funding for veterans healthcare services.

The White House’s $4.4 trillion budget request to Congress comes days after a two-year, $300 billion bipartisan budget deal was signed into law following the second government shutdown in as many months.

Though Congress is unlikely to vote on a singular budget, the various provisions listed in the executive proposal outline the legislative agenda the Trump administration would like to pursue in 2018.

“I applaud President Trump for laying out his vision for the country in today’s budget request and welcome his partnership as the Energy and Commerce Committee works to tackle several shared priorities,” said Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce in a statement. “Many of the administration’s other proposals to lower health care costs complement our continued commitment to addressing the cost drivers across every facet of our nation’s health care system.”

Below is a breakdown of the proposals affecting the healthcare world, including cuts to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Medicare, a repeal-and-replace plan for the Affordable Care Act (ACA), and more money for veterans healthcare.

Major cuts to HHS

The proposal features a $68.4 billion budgetary line for HHS, a 21% reduction in funding compared to FY 2017. The budget also proposes a $451 million cut to training programs for health professionals, arguing the initiatives “lack evidence that they significantly improve the nation’s health workforce.”

If adopted, the policies would extend Medicare’s solvency by eight years, according to the budget proposal. Current projections estimate Medicare will become insolvent by 2029. The Trump administration also proposed a limit on Medicaid reimbursements to federal providers at no more than the cost of providing services to beneficiaries.

“The President’s budget makes investments and reforms that are vital to making our health and human services programs work for Americans and to sustaining them for future generations,” said HHS Secretary Alex Azar in a statement. “In particular, it supports our four priorities here at HHS: addressing the opioid crisis, bringing down the high price of prescription drugs, increasing the affordability and accessibility of health insurance, and improving Medicare in ways that push our health system toward paying for value rather than volume.”

Bundled payments for community-based medication-assisted treatment would see an opportunity to expand through the budget proposal, with the White House highlighting a new Medicare reimbursement for methadone treatment.

Medicare beneficiaries would also be able to save for out-of-pocket costs by allowing tax deductible contributions to health savings accounts associated with high deductible health plans offered by employers or Medicare Advantage.

The budget proposes a ‘$5 returned for every $1 spent’ policy for the Medicare Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control, a $45 million increase compared to FY 2017 which totals $770 million,. The White House believes the additional funding will bolster the program’s efforts to “identify and prevent fraudulent or improper payments from being paid in the first place.”

Two-part ACA repeal

Arguing that “national healthcare spending trends are unsustainable,” the budget offers a solution in the form a two-part repeal of the Affordable Care Act.

Modeled on the Graham-Cassidy proposal, the first step would focus on providing block grants to states for healthcare spending plans.

The Market-Based Health Care Grant Program, the new block grant program, would offer states and consumers with options outside of the ACA’s “insurance rules and pricing restrictions.” The administration believes this will address high premium costs and rising deductibles.

The second part of the plan focuses on Medicaid reform, specifically the repeal of Medicaid expansion spurred on by the ACA, as well as reducing “state gimmicks” like provider taxes. This move would shift federal authority over healthcare access to states, which could in turn design individualized plans.

Major increase for veterans healthcare

Continuing with a campaign promise to address issues facing veterans, Trump’s budget proposal includes an increase in spending for veterans healthcare programs over the next three fiscal years.

For FY 2019, the Veterans Health Administration would receive $70.7 billion, a 9.6% increase compared to FY 2017. By 2020, that number rises to $75.6 billion in advance appropriations for VA medical care program costs.

This covers 9.3 million enrollees in the Veterans Affairs health system.

Additionally, the budget provides $8.6 billion for veterans mental health and suicide prevention programs, and $11.9 billion would be used to enhance and expand veterans’ access to high-quality community care.

The administration proposes the consolidation of the Veterans Choice Program and other community care programs into a new, unified program: the Veteran Coordinated Access & Rewarding Experiences program.

 

Budget, White Paper Provide Insight Into Trump Administration’s Strategy On Drug Pricing

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20180212.852840/full/

During his first year in office, President Donald Trump spoke often about the problem of high drug prices but took no action on the subject. President Trump’s new budget proposal and a newly released white paper from the White House Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) aim to change that by laying out a strategy for action moving forward. These documents are, of course, aspirational, but they do provide a window into the administration’s priorities, and they should be evaluated to consider whether the administration has a possibility of achieving its stated goals.

In this post, I review several of the key elements of those proposals, considering their impact on a range of relevant dimensions. I discuss what’s included in the proposals, and, as importantly, what’s left out.

Medicare Reforms

The bulk of the proposed reforms would act on the Medicare and Medicaid programs. For Medicare, the Trump administration’s proposals are largely targeted at 1) assisting beneficiaries with high out-of-pocket costs and 2) realigning incentives to alter prescribing and reimbursement practices.

First, the administration is advancing a set of proposals to assist Medicare Part D beneficiaries with high out-of-pocket costs. Both the white paper and budget proposal argue that plans should be required to share with beneficiaries at the point-of-sale some amount of the rebates the plan negotiates with drug manufacturers. In November, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) already requested public comments on the implementation of this proposal, and it seems as if the budget document’s inclusion of the proposal is evidence that the administration is hoping to move it forward.

However, like many of the other reforms in the budget proposal and white paper, there are few details proposed. In CMS’s November proposal, the agency modeled a set of scenarios in which insurers pass through 33 percent, 66 percent, 90 percent, or 100 percent of their negotiated rebates. Each scenario comes with a set of advantages for beneficiaries, but also costs for the federal government. That is, CMS anticipated that reducing cost-sharing for particular high-cost beneficiaries would increase premiums for all beneficiaries, and therefore increase CMS’ overall spending through premium subsidies. How much the proposal would increase overall spending depends on the amount of rebates being passed through.

The budget proposal simply says that sponsors must pass through “at least one-third” of total rebates, so it does not provide further clarity on this proposal. However, it states that this proposal will cost the government $42.2 billion over 10 years. That estimate lies between CMS’s November estimates for 33 percent ($27.3 billion in spending) and 66 percent ($55.1 billion in spending), so it is possible that the administration has in mind a pass-through provision at 50 percent or so.

Another proposal aimed at out-of-pocket costs would establish an out-of-pocket maximum for patients who enter the Medicare Part D catastrophic phase. Currently, patients who reach the catastrophic phase of the Part D benefit are responsible for 5 percent of the costs of their prescription drugs, with no upper limit. The budget proposal would reduce their payments to 0 percent, although it is light on the details as to how this would be accomplished. The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation estimated that just over one million Part D enrollees have out-of-pocket costs above this threshold, and those patients would likely be the primary beneficiaries of this proposal. At the same time, however, the budget proposes to exclude manufacturer discounts from patient out-of-pocket cost calculations, which would likely slow the rate at which patients move into the catastrophic phase.

Second, the Trump administration proposes a number of changes to drug classification and reimbursement that would both enable plan sponsors to negotiate more effectively and alter prescribing behavior. The budget proposal would change current Part D plan formulary rules, requiring sponsors to cover just one drug per class, rather than two. The proposal also mentions increased use of utilization management tools for the six protected classes of drugs, suggesting that the general coverage requirement for those classes would remain as-is. This proposal is projected to save $5.5 billion over ten years.

More interestingly, both the budget proposal and CEA white paper suggest the possibility of moving a set of Part B drugs (those administered in an outpatient setting) into Part D coverage. Medicare Part B does not presently have a number of the tools that enable Part D plan sponsors to negotiate discounts with drug manufacturers, and Secretary Alex Azar spoke during his confirmation hearing about the need to “take the learnings from Part D and apply them to Part B.” This proposal would accomplish that goal, just through the reverse mechanism: by shifting drugs from Part B into Part D. The budget proposal envisions giving the authority to do this to the Secretary, noting that “[t]he Secretary will exercise this authority when there are savings to be gained from price competition.” As such, it does not provide any particular budgetary impact.

The budget proposes two other changes to Part B reimbursement. At present, when a physician is reimbursed for providing a drug under Part B, she is reimbursed based on the Average Sales Price (ASP) of the drug plus 6 percent. There is widespread concern that this reimbursement system encourages physicians to prescribe and administer more expensive drugs than may be medically necessary. The Obama administration proposed a demonstration project that would have moved from the current ASP+6 percent system to a system of ASP+2.5 percent+a flat fee for prescribing the product. After extensive criticism from a range of stakeholders, the administration shelved the initiative. Now, the administration is proposing to reduce payment rates for new drugs (for which the ASP information is not yet available, and so for which the only price available is the Wholesale Acquisition Cost (WAC)). Instead of paying 106 percent for these new products, the administration would pay 103 percent of the WAC during the period before ASP information has yet to be provided. This proposal is quite narrow in its scope, applying only to new drugs and only during the brief period before ASP information is available; it is therefore unlikely to save much money.

The Trump administration is also proposing to establish an inflation limit for the reimbursement of Part B drugs more generally. Instead of continually updating the ASP+6 percent figure if the ASP increases, this proposal would limit the growth of the reimbursement to the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers. CMS would therefore pay “pay the lesser of (1) the actual ASP +6 percent or (2) the inflation-adjusted ASP +6 percent.” At present, Medicaid is protected from price increases when the Average Manufacturer Price (AMP) for a drug increases faster than inflation. The Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General has proposed that CMS and Congress consider extending this provision to Medicare Part D, but as yet Congress has not moved to do so. This budget proposal can be thought of as proposing a similar constraint on Part B pricing.

Medicaid Reforms

The Medicaid portion of the budget proposal puts forth an idea which is potentially ground-breaking, but which is also potentially a sign of the administration’s recalcitrance to move on drug pricing (depending on the details). Specifically, the administration is proposing “new statutory demonstration authority to allow up to five states more flexibility in negotiating prices with manufacturers, rather than participate in the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, and to make drug coverage decisions that meet state needs.” The idea is something like this: at present, state Medicaid programs must cover essentially all drugs approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which limits their ability to extract discounts. To be sure, Medicaid programs are already entitled by statute to large discounts off of the AMP, and to the inflation clawback as noted above. But many state Medicaid programs are worried that pharmaceutical spending has become an unsustainable part of their budget and are seeking ways to control their costs in this area. This proposal might empower them to do so.

Here’s the thing: Massachusetts has already submitted an 1115 waiver to CMS along these lines. Massachusetts is seeking 1) to pay for a single drug in each therapeutic class (as noted above, this is a reform the administration is proposing to make to Medicare Part D), and 2) to exclude entirely from coverage drugs “with limited or inadequate evidence of clinical efficacy,” likely to be those approved through the FDA’s accelerated approval process. This budget proposal may be a sign that the administration is interested in approving Massachusetts’ waiver. However, the fact that the budget explicitly calls for new statutory authority to do so suggests that the administration may not think it has the legal authority to approve Massachusetts’ waiver, as is. And given Congress’ inability to act thus far on drug pricing, the administration may be seeking to hide behind Congress’ inaction here.

Yet the call for new statutory authority is puzzling. At present, pharmaceutical coverage is an optional benefit under the Medicaid program. States do not have to cover drugs and therefore are not required to participate in the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, although all have chosen to do so, and choosing to do so comes with a set of requirements. But it is not clear to me why CMS could not conduct this demonstration at present, under the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation’s (CMMI) existing authority.

A potential clue may lie in the administration’s statement that the demonstration would “exempt prices negotiated under the demonstration from best price reporting.” Having written recently on the topic of the Medicaid best-price rule and innovative contracting for pharmaceuticals, it is not clear to me exactly why this is a sticking point. The Medicaid best price rule entitles Medicaid to the “best price” available for a particular drug for a particular set of providers. The statute contains large carve-outs—for instance, discounts provided to the Department of Veterans Affairs or to Medicare Part D are exempt from the best-price calculation. But it is strange to talk about needing to exempt Medicaid programs from the best-price rule when the best-price rule was intended to benefit Medicaid itself. I imagine that the administration sees the 340B program as a potential concern here, but again it is not obvious why CMMI could not waive the best-price rule as part of its existing authority.

FDA Activities

As I have written here previously, FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb has been at the forefront of the Trump administration’s efforts on drug pricing. He has taken a number of actions to promote generic competition, and although it will take some time to observe their benefits, the FDA’s existing legal authority to address drug pricing issues is quite narrowly circumscribed. The CEA white paper and budget proposal largely acknowledge this point, with the white paper lauding the actions the FDA has taken thus far on expediting review of generic drug applications, providing guidance on the development of complex generics, and other similar activities.

President Trump’s budget proposal calls for Congress to give the FDA more power to promote generic competition, by “ensur[ing] that first-to-file generic applicants who have been awarded a 180-day exclusivity period do not unreasonably and indefinitely block subsequent generics from entering the market beyond the exclusivity period.” More specifically, the concern is that first-to-file generic applicants—perhaps those whose initial applications may be rejected—can unduly delay generic entry while they remedy the deficiencies in their application. The administration projects that this reform will save the government $1.8 billion in Medicare savings over 10 years.

Other pieces of legislation have called for reform of the 180-day exclusivity period in different ways. Last year, Democrats in both the House and Senate introduced the Improving Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs Act, which included provisions preventing generic entrants from receiving the statutory 180-day exclusivity benefit if they had engaged in pay-for-delay conduct (Sections 402 and 403). But the idea in the president’s budget proposal may dovetail nicely with the FDA’s efforts to improve first-cycle approval rates for abbreviated new drug application products, as well.

What’s Missing

Perhaps what’s most notable about the budget proposal and the CEA white paper is not what’s included, but rather what is missing. Gone are some of President Trump’s older arguments that Medicare should negotiate drug prices, or that drug importation should be permitted more widely. Some of the more significant cost-saving provisions from President Obama’s budget, like a reform that would have put low-income patients back on Medicaid prices, are also absent.

A key set of missing proposals are those which would directly assist privately insured patients. The budget’s focus on Medicare and Medicaid may well have a positive impact on the more than 100 million Americans enrolled in those programs. But for the roughly half of Americans (closer to 160 million) with employer-sponsored insurance, these reforms will provide no assistance. Growing numbers of Americans with employer-sponsored insurance are enrolled in high-deductible plans, and many of them may face the same affordability concerns that Medicare beneficiaries are facing.

You could imagine proposals that would address the drug pricing problem more broadly, rather than just within the publicly-insured population. The above-mentioned Improving Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs Act would have addressed the problem of drug pricing for a broader segment of the population. As I’ve explained here, the Act would have taxed companies which engage in large, year-over-year list price increases. It would also have capped patient out-of-pocket costs in Affordable Care Act-regulated plans, at $250 per month for an individual or $500 per month for a family.

More generally, even these proposals which would affect drug companies directly would have a minimal impact on their bottom lines. This set of proposals is largely very friendly to the pharmaceutical industry and is primarily aimed at curtailing patients’ financial burdens and tweaking incentives for stakeholders at the margin.

In this blog post, I have covered just a handful of the many different drug pricing-related proposals included in the new budget proposal and in the CEA white paper. As usual, observers should stay tuned to the actions CMS and the FDA take on this front, as they will show whether the administration is serious about these proposals or is merely posturing.

 

Trump budget seeks savings through ObamaCare repeal

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

Trump budget seeks savings through ObamaCare repeal

Trump budget seeks savings through ObamaCare repeal

The White House budget for fiscal 2019 seeks major savings by repealing ObamaCare and endorsed a Senate GOP bill as the best way to do so.

“The Budget supports a two-part approach to repealing and replacing Obamacare, starting with enactment of legislation modeled closely after the Graham-Cassidy-Heller-Johnson (GCHJ) bill as soon as possible,” the White House said in its budget request.

The legislation from Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Bill Cassidy (R-La.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) and Dean Heller (R-Nev.) would replace ObamaCare with a series of block grants to states.

The budget proposes over $90 billion in savings over 10 years if the policies in the Graham-Cassidy bill were enacted. Combined with other provisions like Medicaid changes, the White House projects there would be nearly $675 billion in savings over a decade tied to repealing ObamaCare.

Advocacy groups were quick to denounce the proposal, which is unlikely to gain traction in Congress.

“By asking Congress to revive the deeply unpopular Graham-Cassidy repeal bill that ended protections for Americans with pre-existing conditions, gutted Medicaid, ripped away coverage from millions, and raised costs for millions more, while also proposing drastic cuts to Medicare, Trump has chosen to ignore the American public’s overwhelming preference for a bipartisan path forward on health care,” said Protect Our Care campaign director Brad Woodhouse.

Republican leaders have signaled that they are not interested in diving back into the contentious ObamaCare repeal fight this year. The Senate last year failed to pass a repeal bill, and there is no indication that the votes have shifted since then.

A number of Republicans have even discussed taking bipartisan actions to stabilize ObamaCare markets and try to bring down premiums through actions such as funding known as reinsurance.

Graham has said he will continue fighting for his bill and is not completely alone. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) is also calling for Congress to not give up on repeal this year.

 

Hospital Impact—Medicaid on the chopping block in 2018

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/hospitals/hospital-impact-medicaid-chopping-block-2018?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTnpReE1EaGhZamt5TVRsbSIsInQiOiJ0UHBtVE1DclpRckhmUjVyMUF2ZWF1ZStSRE93QmtRYWM0ckdYXC9lalRYbERcL1E0R2o5S3g4blhTN2VZU1NsVkNndjRWZ1RRMnhJVXJHdmp6Z1liRWNXS2JyWHlrTyt6Y3hEeVVHZ0xxRWFUYmdjU2RsZWVhYzZmWWZxTCtBUjlcLyJ9&mrkid=959610

Filling out job application

Medicare and Medicaid have always been a “work in progress,” as they’ve evolved from entitlement programs for the elderly and the poor in the 1960s to the largest health insurers—public or private—in the nation.

Medicaid is the more controversial program of the two, as its original intent was to provide temporary, safety-net health coverage for the poor and not as a permanent entitlement. This issue has been politicized by both parties as of late with little attention paid to the impact that nonclinical determinants—such as genetics, socioeconomics, environment and lifestyle choices—have on healthcare outcomes and life expectancy.

Democrats support expanding Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act to every state for everyone within 138% of the federal poverty level. Republicans favor increasing beneficiary responsibilities to take greater control and responsibility over their own healthcare and are encouraging states to pursue waivers to experiment with different Medicaid models designed to optimize quality, drive down costs and enable beneficiaries to move toward greater economic self-sufficiency.

President Donald Trump’s proposed budget last May recommended $800 billion in Medicaid cuts as well as cuts in nutritional assistance ($192 billion) and welfare programs ($272 billion). With the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act adding $1 trillion to the federal deficit, Republicans are making cuts to Medicaid a priority for 2018.

The rise of work requirements

Last month, the Trump administration announced that it would grant states the right to impose work requirements for able-bodied Medicaid recipients. Pregnant women, full-time students, primary caretakers of children under 19, disabled adult dependents and frail elderly individuals would be exempt from these requirements.

There are many complex issues that arise from this proposal, including:

  • The likelihood that it will be challenged in federal court (as is already the case in Kentucky)
  • The impact that denial of coverage would have on healthcare costs with elimination of preventive healthcare services, treatment for opioid addiction and job restrictions for those with chronic addictions
  • The requirement that states would bear the burden of job training, child care, transportation to work sites and other administrative costs with limited resources.

Democrats responded that this proposal violates the Medicaid statute as well as the original intent of the state waiver program. They also pointed out that the majority of Medicaid beneficiaries who can work do work, and often carry more than one low-paying service job that does not permit them to afford commercial health insurance coverage.

Many Republican governors support the proposal, as they would like to see a greater number of Medicaid beneficiaries receive health insurance through an employer rather than through the state. Earlier this month, Kentucky became the first state to receive approval to impose job requirements as a part of its Medicaid program, followed in short order by Indiana.

Cost-sharing considerations

Another approach to reducing Medicaid costs is cost-sharing, which is already permitted under federal law. Like the job-requirement proposal, children, pregnant women and others are partially waived from this requirement with lower premiums and cost-sharing limits.

In addition, states may impose higher premiums and cost-sharing limits for the option to purchase brand as opposed to generic prescription drugs and the nonemergency use of emergency departments as determined by a medical screening exam under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act.

All about the execution

There is no question that the United States cannot sustain the current unfunded liabilities that include Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security. In addition, cuts to the Medicaid program are supported by a significant number of Americans. However, doing this successfully will be complicated by the fact that those receiving this coverage deeply appreciate its benefits and that many studies support the positive economic value of Medicaid expansion.

Imposing work requirements and cost-sharing on Medicaid beneficiaries will only work if the jobs available to them are not minimum-wage service jobs and provide employer-based insurance. Thus, the main question is: Can states invest in the infrastructure necessary to help get their most vulnerable populations on their feet in an economically meaningful way? Or is the intent to merely withhold healthcare services to compensate for federal and state budgets that have spiraled out of control?

 

Senate strikes 2-year budget deal: 5 takeaways for healthcare leaders

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/hospital-management-administration/senate-strikes-2-year-budget-deal-5-takeaways-for-healthcare-leaders.html

Image result for let's make a deal

Republican and Democrat Senate leaders unveiled a two-year budget deal Wednesday that would boost federal spending for several health programs.

Here are five things to know about the budget agreement.

1. The budget deal includes an additional four-year extension of the Children’s Health Insurance Program. That extension is on top of the six years of CHIP funding Congress approved in late January.

2. The plan includes more than $7 billion in funding over two years for the nation’s community health centers. Federal funding for community health centers, which serve more than 27 million people, expired Sept. 30.

3. The spending deal would delay payment cuts to Disproportionate Share Hospitals mandated by the ACA, which have been pushed back since 2010, according to Kaiser Health News.

4. The budget deal includes $2 billion in additional funding for the National Institutes of Health and $495 million for the National Health Service Corps.

5. The budget deal would repeal the ACA’s Independent Payment Advisory Board, which was intended to hold down Medicare payments if the program’s spending exceeded a certain threshold. Members have never been appointed to the IPAB, according to Kaiser Health News.

 

Health Care Is a Universal Value. It’s Time for a Universal Effort.

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

Health Care Is a Universal Value. It’s Time for a Universal Effort.

Image result for california healthcare foundation

California is the most diverse place on earth. You see that diversity in our people, our culture, and our landscape. Our differences are our strength – but only if we remember the things that bind us together and the values we all share.

The belief that everyone should have health care is one of those universal values. From the day we are born, health care gives people the opportunity to have full lives and the vitality to pursue their dreams. And no one should lack support when illness strikes.

Over the last year, the California Health Care Foundation (CHCF) has been re-examining the work we do, because we want to make sure our efforts and our dollars are making the greatest possible impact in light of what’s happening in the world around us. As we went through that process, one unavoidable truth remained as our top concern: Too many low-income Californians are held back or suffer because it is too hard to get the care they need. Our board of directors and CHCF’s deeply committed staff have decided that the foundation’s top priority should be to address that problem.

Certainly, this undertaking will not be easy, but the good news is that there are clear ways to make health care work for low-income Californians. Here are three that are top of mind for us now.

1. All Californians Should Have Health Coverage

California has made huge gains in recent years under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). We’ve cut our number of uninsured by half. Now we must finish the job and work to ensure everyone has health benefits.

Achieving universal coverage would level the playing field in two key ways. It would allow all Californians to meet basic needs for care, and it would protect all Californians financially from extraordinary health care expenses. Today, three million of our friends and neighbors remain uninsured. Most have jobs and are contributing to our economy and communities, but those jobs do not include health insurance. We must also remember that one in three uninsured Californians is an undocumented immigrant. These people are part of the fabric of California’s society; if we allow them to remain vulnerable, all of California will pay the price.

Never has California been so close to achieving universal coverage. There is no one pathway to get to that goal, but get there we must.

2. Coverage Must Lead to Better Care

Coverage is not an end in itself – it’s really just the gateway to better health. To deliver on this promise, coverage must lead to better care. Our biggest opportunity to improve care for low-income Californians is to make sure that California’s approach to coverage for low-income populations – the Medi-Cal program – delivers high-value care. The program covers one in three Californians. And two-thirds of Californians say Medi-Cal is important to them and their families. When we get Medi-Cal right, the impact is broad and deep because of the program’s overall reach and the profound ways in which it improves a person’s prospects for health.

In the last year, we have seen major new federal threats to Medicaid’s fiscal and policy stability. Given the importance of Medi-Cal to California, we must continue working together locally and with other states to protect Medicaid from ill-advised budget and policy changes.

But it isn’t enough for California to protect the status quo. There is so much potential for improvement in Medi-Cal, which serves Californians with the greatest health burdens. We must be diligent and vigilant in finding new ways to reduce the struggle of those who depend on the program and to give them opportunities to live healthy lives. We can and should make the system easier to navigate and care easier to access. We must modernize the state’s health workforce to make treatment more effective and more cost-effective. And we can and should expect innovation in Medi-Cal to keep pace with the evolution of care in the private sector.

3. Stop Treating Conditions and Start Treating People

Our health care safety net still is organized around the outdated assumption that one person’s body and mind require two or more separate systems of care. Today we know that physical health and mental health are inextricably bound together. It is past time to update our health care system to reflect that understanding.

It is especially important that we better integrate care for low-income Californians who experience mental illness, drug or alcohol addiction, or other complex health conditions. Even though they comprise a relatively small share of the population, they account for half of health care spending. Siloed systems of care cause needless and profound suffering.

Health care leaders and providers across California have been working harder than ever to address this problem. Innovations in policy, like Medi-Cal’s Whole Person Care and Drug Medi-Cal pilots, are giving communities new opportunities to integrate care. Technology innovations can help providers extend those opportunities to larger and larger numbers of people.

Solutions Are Out There. It’s Time to Put Them to Work Everywhere.

California has the power to accomplish each of these goals. We boast the world’s sixth largest economy. California is rich in health care and innovation talent. But even with those advantages, we cannot succeed without working together across sectors, across professions, and across ideological camps.

Health care is a universal value. It will take a universal effort to make sure all Californians can meet their basic need for care.

 

What’s at Stake: States’ Progress on Health Coverage and Access to Care, 2013–2016

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2017/dec/states-progress-health-coverage-and-access

Image result for What’s at Stake: States’ Progress on Health Coverage and Access to Care, 2013–2016

 

Abstract

  • Issue: Given uncertainty about the future of the Affordable Care Act, it is useful to examine the progress in coverage and access made under the law.
  • Goal: Compare state trends in access to affordable health care between 2013 and 2016.
  • Methods: Analysis of recent data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System.
  • Findings and Conclusions: Between 2013 and 2016, the uninsured rate for adults ages 19 to 64 declined in all states and the District of Columbia, and fell by at least 5 percentage points in 47 states. Among children, uninsured rates declined by at least 2 percentage points in 33 states. There were reductions of at least 2 percentage points in the share of adults age 18 and older who reported skipping care because of costs in the past year in 36 states and D.C., with greater declines, on average, in Medicaid expansion states. The share of at-risk adults without a recent routine checkup, and of nonelderly individuals who spent a high portion of income on medical care, declined in at least of half of states and D.C. These findings offer evidence that the ACA has improved access to health care for millions of Americans. However, actions at the federal level — including a shortened open enrollment period for marketplace coverage, a failure to extend CHIP funding, and a potential repeal of the individual mandate’s penalties — could jeopardize the gains made to date.

Background

The year 2017 marked a turning point in the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. Republicans in Congress attempted to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act numerous times, ultimately failing but promising to try again. In addition, the Trump administration significantly cut funding for outreach and enrollment activities during 2018’s open enrollment period for the marketplaces, and disrupted markets by declining to pay insurers money owed to them for providing cost-reduced plans for lower-income enrollees. In December, Senate Republicans passed a tax bill that included a provision to repeal the ACA’s individual mandate penalties, paid by most people who do not have health insurance. Given these developments, many Americans are confused about the ACA’s status, which could reduce the number of people who enroll in health plans for the coming year, despite strong enrollment thus far.

It is useful to assess the changes in coverage and access that happened across states under the law before this tumultuous year. Between 2013, the year before the ACA’s major coverage expansions took effect, and the end of 2016, the number of uninsured Americans under age 65 fell by an estimated 17.8 million.1 Uninsured rates declined in every state and the District of Columbia (Exhibit 1).

In this issue brief, we examine the extent to which health care access and affordability improved from 2013 to 2016 for residents in each of the 50 states and D.C. We use six indicators: uninsured rates for working-age adults and for children, three measures of adults’ access to care, and the percentage of individuals under age 65 with high out-of-pocket medical costs relative to their income (Exhibit 2). These measures align with those reported in the Commonwealth Fund’s ongoing series of Health System Performance Scorecards.

Implications

After three years of the ACA’s major coverage expansions, the number of uninsured working-age adults and children in the United States had fallen to a record low. This historic decline was accompanied by widespread reductions in cost-related access problems and improvements in access to routine care for at-risk adults, particularly in states that expanded Medicaid. If the 19 states that have not yet expanded Medicaid decided to expand, they could see similar positive effects for their residents.

There is no deadline for adopting the Medicaid expansion. In November, Maine residents voted to expand Medicaid under a citizen-initiated ballot referendum, indicating that popular support for expanding the program may exist in states where elected officials have rejected it. While implementation in Maine could face hurdles because of opposition from the state’s governor, similar efforts are now under way in other nonexpansion states.

Actions at the federal level could, however, jeopardize the gains made under the ACA. Recent actions by the Trump administration, including a shortened open enrollment period for marketplace coverage and deep cuts in advertising and outreach, could reduce enrollment for 2018.10 In addition, Congress has yet to extend funding for the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which expired at the end of September. In the absence of an extension, more than half of states are projected to run out of federal CHIP dollars by March 2018.11 The result could be a loss of coverage for millions of children.12

Further, the tax bill passed by Senate Republicans included a repeal of the ACA’s individual mandate penalties, which would mean a cancellation of the penalties owed by people who do not take up insurance. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that repealing the penalties would reduce the number of Americans with health insurance by 13 million by 2027 and significantly increase premiums for plans purchased in the individual market. This is because healthy individuals would be the most likely to forgo coverage, leaving sicker people (who are more expensive to insure) in the risk pool.13

People who buy their own coverage on the individual market and who have incomes above 400 percent of the federal poverty level (about $48,200 for an individual and $98,400 for a family of four) — the threshold for ACA premium subsidies — would face the brunt of the premium increase.14 A recent Commonwealth Fund analysis estimates that a 40-year-old buying unsubsidized individual market coverage in one of the 39 states that uses the federally facilitated marketplace would face an average dollar increase in premiums ranging from $556 in North Dakota to $1,264 in Nebraska (Exhibit 10).15