Medicare proposed changes would cut home health reimbursement

http://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/home-health-agencies-concerned-about-cuts-proposed-medicare-payments?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTXpOa01qUXhaVGd5TnpkaiIsInQiOiJudFozOHVLS1VVNXZZRE42Y0RmTWdIZHpkOU0yNERUSmlXU0VCMlJDMEFyMmVTUUc4aVwvcXRVc0gzXC9ndUdJVjhHT1drZkkzdDhBVFhHZ3BHVjI1NmhIVHY1RmNXSENVdWtwb3RVVnVtaFNWbXNFdnBzb0JVenRcL1ZuR1p0MW0zRyJ9

Home health agencies could see decreases of $80 million in 2017 and $950 million in 2019.

Home health providers object to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ proposed rule that would reduce Medicare payments by 0.4 percent, or $80 million, in 2018, and up to  $950 million in 2019.

The Partnership for Quality Home Healthcare is especially concerned about a groupings model proposal starting in 2019 that  would change the unit of payment from 60-day episodes of care to 30-day periods of care and places patients in payment groups based on how they fit in six clinical categories.

“CMS is proposing a major reform to home health reimbursement without having worked collaboratively with industry partners like the Partnership and we expect to be included in payment reform development going forward,” said Partnership Chairman Keith Myers. “We question whether CMS has the unilateral authority to make such a proposed change without action by Congress.”

CMS said the six clinical groups used to categorize 30-day periods of care are based on the patient’s primary reason for home healthcare.

The new model could result in a $950 million Medicare payment cuts for home health providers in 2019 if it is implemented in a non-budget neutral manner, according to Home Health Care News. If implemented in a partially-budget-neutral manner, it could reduce payments by $480 million, the report said.

CMS is not proposing a revision to the split percentage payment approach in the change to a 30-day period. However, the agency said it is proposing to phase-out of the split percentage payment approach in the future and is soliciting feedback now.

For 2018, Medicare payments to home health agencies would be reduced by 0.4 percent, or $80 million, based on the proposed policies, CMS projects.

The $80 million decrease reflects the effects of a $190 million increase from a 1 percent home health payment update, a $170 million decrease from a -0.97 percent adjustment to the 60-day episode payment rate to account for nominal case-mix growth, and a $100 million decrease due to the sunset of the rural add-on provision.

The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act, or MACRA extended until Jan. 1, 2018 the rural add-on, which increased by 3 percent the payment amount otherwise made for home health services in a rural area.

Additionally, the proposed rule for 2018 refines the home health value-based purchasing model. It revises the applicable measure for receiving performance scores for any of the home health consumer assessment of healthcare providers and systems, or HHCAHPS.

The Partnership for Quality Home Health Care said it plans to release an analysis of the proposed payment model and its impacts on home health delivery.

The coalition is concerned that Affordable Care Act directives for high-risk beneficiaries to receive access to home health services would result in disproportionate cuts to provide the care if the payments are implemented as drafted.

Tuesday’s home health rule is among several proposals that reflect a broader strategy by CMS to relieve regulatory burdens for providers, support the patient-doctor relationship in healthcare and promote transparency, flexibility, and innovation in the delivery of care, CMS said.

“CMS is committed to helping patients and their doctors make better decisions about their healthcare choices,” said CMS Administrator Seema Verma. “We’re redesigning the payment system to be more responsive to patients’ needs and to improve outcomes. The new payment system aims to encourage innovation and collaboration and to incentivize home health providers to meet or exceed industry quality standards.”

U.S. governors urge Trump to make insurance payments

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-healthcare-idUSKBN1AI28L

Image result for U.S. governors urge Trump to make insurance payments

Democratic and Republican U.S. governors on Wednesday urged the Trump administration, as well as Congress, to continue funding payments to health insurance companies that make Obamacare plans affordable, calling it critical to stabilizing the insurance marketplace.

Republican President Donald Trump, frustrated that Obamacare survived attempts to repeal it, has threatened to cut off about $8 billion in subsidies that help control costs for low-income Americans under the Affordable Care Act, Democratic former President Barack Obama’s signature domestic initiative.

“The Administration has the opportunity to stabilize the health insurance market across our nation and ensure that our residents can continue to access affordable health care coverage,” said a statement by the Health and Human Services Committee of the National Governors Association.

“A first critical step … is to fully fund CSRs (cost-sharing reduction payments) for the remainder of calendar year 2017 through 2018,” the statement said, adding this was needed as Congress and the administration address long-term reform efforts.

The committee is led by Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, a Democrat, and Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker, a Republican. Earlier this year, the governors sent a letter calling on Congress to fully fund the cost-sharing payments.

Some Congressional Republicans have joined Democrats in urging Trump to continue the payments. Republican Senator Lamar Alexander, chairman of the health committee, said Tuesday the president should pay the subsidies through September while lawmakers work on bipartisan legislation to fund the outlays for another year.

But the Senate’s No. 2 Republican John Cornyn hesitated when asked Wednesday if he would support such legislation.

“I’ve said before that I’m not in favor of throwing money at insurance companies without reform, so that’s going to be the nature of the conversation,” Cornyn told reporters outside his office.

Asked what reforms he’d like to see, Cornyn mentioned the “skinny” Obamacare repeal bill the Senate voted down last week. Among other things, it would have repealed the requirement that every American have health insurance or pay a penalty.

Insurers say that the cost-sharing payments are passed onto customers in the form of lower deductibles and co-pays that make care more affordable for low income Americans.

Insurers are finalizing 2018 premium rates for the individual Obamacare market, with many saying their decision hinges on government guarantees for cost-sharing subsidies.

Molina Healthcare Inc said on Wednesday it would stop selling Obamacare plans in Utah and Wisconsin, joining a slew of health insurers that have exited Obamacare markets amid uncertainty over the healthcare law.

Anthem Inc, one of the largest sellers of these plans in 2017, has pared back offerings or mostly exited five states including California and may exit more.

White House budget director Mick Mulvaney told CNN the administration was still considering whether to end cost-sharing subsidies.

 

Bipartisan drive to pay health insurers faces Senate hurdles

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/bipartisan-drive-pay-health-insurers-faces-senate-hurdles-48995691

Image result for political hurdles

A bipartisan Senate effort to continue federal payments to insurers and avert a costly rattling of health insurance markets faces a dicey future. The uncertainty shows that last week’s wreck of the Republican drive to repeal the Affordable Care Act hasn’t blunted the issue’s sharp-edged politics.

President Donald Trump is threatening to halt the payments in hopes of forcing Democrats to negotiate an end to the Obama-era law. The insurance industry and lawmakers from both parties say blocking the money would lead insurers to raise premiums for people buying individual policies and might induce companies to abandon some markets.

Into the fray has stepped Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.

He said he will work with the committee’s top Democrat, Sen. Patty Murray of Washington state, on a bill next month that would pay insurers through 2018. In exchange, he wants Democrats to agree to make it easier for states to choose their own health coverage standards that insurers must provide, and not heed consumer-friendly requirements of former President Barack Obama’s law.

While that is an idea Democrats say they will discuss, it’s unclear whether the two parties can reach a deal.

For the GOP’s failed effort to repeal and replace Obama’s overhaul, Senate Republicans used special rules allowing passage by a simple majority. But this developing bill would need 60 votes to succeed. Republicans hold a 52-48 advantage in the Senate, which means Democratic backing will be crucial.

Democrats will be reluctant to strike an agreement that would pull back far on Obama’s protections, which include a set of services insurers must cover and guarantees that premiums for healthy and seriously ill people are equal.

“It’s going to be hard to get common ground,” said Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., a committee member. “Republicans are going to want some initial flexibility” for coverage requirements, “and that’s not an easy thing to achieve.”

Republicans are divided, too.

Many, including Trump, have called the payments an insurers’ bailout. Conservatives are reluctant to continue payments to help sustain a law the GOP has pledged for years to toss out.

“I was a total repeal guy,” said Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala. “I don’t know if I want to prop it up.”

Added GOP Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas: “I think it’s a mistake to bail out insurance companies.”

Obama’s law requires insurers to reduce out-of-pocket costs such as deductibles and copayments for millions of low- and middle-income customers. It also requires the government to reimburse insurers for those costs.

But a federal court found that Congress hasn’t properly approved money to do that. Both Obama and Trump have continued making the payments as the case has dragged on.

Besides the outright opponents, some Republicans say they would be reluctant to support an Alexander bill unless whatever eased regulations Democrats agree to are worthwhile. It’s unclear what Alexander or other Republicans are willing to accept.

“We certainly should get some structural change to bring down premiums in exchange for that,” said Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis. “We can’t just throw money at the problem.”

That echoes what Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said last Friday after the Senate rejected the third health proposal he advanced, effectively sinking the repeal effort.

“Bailing out insurance companies with no thought of any kind of reform is not something I want to be part of,” McConnell said.

Alexander said Wednesday that he has kept McConnell apprised of his effort. Asked if he had received a commitment that McConnell would bring such legislation to the full Senate, Alexander said, “Well, he doesn’t know what bill we’re going to have.”

But Alexander does have allies.

“We’ll eventually repeal Obamacare and put something in its place,” said Sen. John Kennedy, R-La. “In the meantime, I think it’s very important not to see any Americans get hurt.”

If the GOP divisions persist, McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., might have to decide whether to have votes on legislation opposed by substantial numbers of Republicans. That’s always an uncomfortable proposition for party leaders.

“That’s a question for McConnell,” said the second-ranking Democratic senator, Illinois’ Dick Durbin, said asked whether he thought the GOP leader would allow a vote on a bill opposed by many Republicans.

Durbin said if Republicans are truly concerned about keeping insurance markets stable, “they have to do something.”

Would Ryan support a measure like Alexander’s?

The speaker “believes repeal and replace is the best course of action and that the Senate needs to act,” spokeswoman AshLee Strong said.

Court complicates Trump’s threat to cut ‘Obamacare’ funds

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal_government/trump-on-tricky-legal-ground-with-obamacare-threat/2017/08/01/436cfc8e-771e-11e7-8c17-533c52b2f014_story.html?utm_term=.35d0bd8ec053

Image result for us court of appeals circuits

President Donald Trump’s bold threat to push “Obamacare” into collapse may get harder to carry out after a new court ruling.

The procedural decision late Tuesday by a federal appeals panel in Washington has implications for millions of consumers. The judges said that a group of states can defend the legality of government “cost-sharing” subsidies for copays and deductibles under the Affordable Care Act if the Trump administration decides to stop paying the money.

Trump has been threatening to do just that for months, and he amped up his warnings after the GOP’s drive to repeal and replace “Obamacare” fell apart in the Senate last week. The subsidies help keep premiums in check, but they are under a legal cloud because of a dispute over the wording of the ACA. Trump has speculated that he could force Democrats to make a deal on health care by stopping the payments.

The court’s decision is “a check on the ability of the president to sabotage the Affordable Care Act in one very important way,” said Tim Jost, professor emeritus at Washington and Lee University School of Law in Virginia, a supporter of the ACA who has followed the issue closely.

Because of the ruling, legal experts said, states can now sue if the administration cuts off the subsidies. Also, they said, the president won’t be able to claim he’s merely following the will of a lower court that found Congress had not properly approved the money.

“We’re not going to wait to find out what Donald Trump wants to do,” said California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who is helping steer the states’ involvement. “My team is ready to defend these subsidies in court.”

The Justice Department had no comment. The White House re-issued an earlier statement saying, “the president is working with his staff and his Cabinet to consider the issues raised by the … payments.”

Trump has made his feelings clear on Twitter. “If ObamaCare is hurting people, & it is, why shouldn’t it hurt the insurance companies,” he tweeted early Monday.

He elaborated in an earlier tweet, “If a new HealthCare Bill is not approved quickly, BAILOUTS for Insurance Companies…will end very soon!”

In a twist, the appeals court panel seemed to take such statements into account in granting 17 states and the District of Columbia the ability to intervene on behalf of consumers.

The judges’ decision said states’ doubts that the administration could adequately defend their interests in court were fanned by “accumulating public statements by high-level officials…about a potential change in position.”

“He’s really a terrible client, President Trump is,” University of Michigan law professor Nicholas Bagley said. “The states point to his public statements and say, ‘Are you kidding me? We know the president is poised to throw us under the bus and we know because he said so.’”

The health law requires insurers to help low-income consumers with their copays and deductibles. Nearly 3 in 5 HealthCare.gov customers qualify for the assistance, which can reduce a deductible of $3,500 to several hundred dollars. The annual cost to the government is about $7 billion.

The law also specifies that the government shall reimburse insurers for the cost-sharing assistance that they provide.

Nonetheless, the payments remain under a cloud because of a disagreement over whether they were properly approved in the health law, by providing a congressional “appropriation.”

House Republicans trying to thwart the ACA sued the Obama administration, arguing that the law lacked specific language appropriating the cost-sharing subsidies.

A district court judge agreed with House Republicans, and now the case is before the U.S. appeals court in Washington

If Trump makes good on his threat, experts estimate that premiums for a standard “silver” plan would increase by about 19 percent. And more insurers might decide to leave already shaky markets.

In Congress, some prominent lawmakers in both parties are saying they hope to provide at least a temporary guarantee for the subsidies before open enrollment season for 2018 starts Nov. 1.

California, 16 other states pledge to defend Obamacare subsidies if Trump drops out of lawsuit

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/health-and-medicine/article165045532.html

Image result for California, 16 other states pledge to defend Obamacare subsidies if Trump drops out of lawsuit

Now that California, 16 other states and the District of Columbia have been given legal standing in a critical court appeal, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said Wednesday they will fight to preserve the federal funds that underpin their Obamacare health exchanges if the Trump administration bows out of the lawsuit.

“My team is ready to defend these (federal) subsidies in court,” Becerra said. “We’re going to do everything we can to work with whoever is interested, whether it’s the Trump administration or Congress, to make sure that we continue to provide people with affordable health care. … We’re not going to go back to the days when health care was for the healthy or the wealthy.”

In this legal case, Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives filed suit in 2014 against then-Secretary of Health and Human Services Sylvia Burwell, asserting that she had overstepped her authority by appropriating billions of dollars to cover discounts that insurers were mandated to give low-income consumers under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly called Obamacare.

While the Affordable Care Act promised reimbursement for the discounts, it provided no mechanism to pay the so-called cost-sharing reductions. Last year, U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer ruled that, while Congress clearly authorized the program, it had not appropriated funds and thus it was unconstitutional to pay the subsidies. However, she put her decision on hold, pending appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The dean of the UC Davis School of Law, Kevin R. Johnson, said the states could argue that since Congress mandated the cost-sharing program, that body should be compelled to provide the funding that states and insurers need to make it work.

Becerra, a Democrat who represented the 34th congressional district from 2013 to 2017, said the states would argue that Congress did contemplate the cost-sharing subsidies. “I say that, not only as someone who will argue that in court, I say that as a former member of Congress who helped draft the legislation,” Becerra said.

Becerra said he and other attorneys general filed a motion to join the appeal in May because they thought the president wasn’t going to protect health insurance marketplaces such as Covered California. Before and after the U.S. Senate failed to pass legislation to repeal the Affordable Care Act, Trump has tweeted that he and the Republican leadership should “let Obamacare implode” and then broker a deal.

“You could smell it. You could read it in tweets,” Becerra said. “When we intervened in May, we saw no one was really standing up for the millions of American families that rely upon the Affordable Care Act insurance plans to be able to send their kids to doctors and believe that they could afford to have their child in a hospital. The record is replete with evidence that the Trump administration is not willing to defend the Affordable Care Act.”

The appeals court ruled Tuesday that the states had standing in the lawsuit. Becerra said his office will work in concert with attorneys general in New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington, and the District of Columbia. Ten of the states are led by Democratic governors and seven by Republicans.

Because of ongoing uncertainty about the availability of federal funds, Covered California announced Tuesday that it was planning to impose a surcharge on premiums for those consumers whose copayments and deductibles qualified for the insurer discounts.

While the action sounds ominous for the 650,000 silver-tier policy holders it affects, it is actually a bit of creative accounting that protects them from seeing sharp increases in payments and ensures financial stability for insurers. The health law imposes a cap on out-of-pocket costs for those consumers, whose incomes cannot exceed 250 percent of the federal poverty level. Under the Affordable Care Act, the federal government must pick up costs once consumer spending hits that out-of-pocket ceiling.

The insurers still discount copayments and deductibles on a sliding scale linked to income, and the premiums provide enough funding to cover those discounts on the front end rather than after care is provided.

Peter Lee, executive director of Covered California, has said California will move forward with the plan if an annual appropriation is not made for cost-sharing reductions. All rate changes are subject to state regulatory approval.

“We hope that we do not need to implement this work-around that would cause unnecessary confusion and ultimately cost the federal government more than it would to continue to make the payments directly,” Lee said.

It’s not Obamacare anymore. It’s our national health-care system.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/its-not-obamacare-anymore-its-our-national-health-care-system/2017/07/28/1a6583fe-73d3-11e7-9eac-d56bd5568db8_story.html?_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_10xQ2TJnkCz4MEJsaDnsHXCCw3ER2NJ8zCVrmfYjiPqgmqdP6OWrjVnUOubPP6QShf6CbIdNe4UZ2tz5kzjWXqpTvTQ&_hsmi=54785729&utm_campaign=7.29.17-drewlarry-wpost&utm_content=54785729&utm_medium=email&utm_source=hs_email&utm_term=.b68e51293cb3

Image result for how the obamacare repeal failed in two minutes

Drew Altman is president and chief executive of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Larry Levitt is senior vice president of the Kaiser Foundation.

Republicans failed to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act early Friday because of divisions within their own ranks, and because they tried not only to repeal and replace the ACA but also to cut and cap the Medicaid program, generating opposition from many red-state governors and their senators.

But most of all, they failed because they built their various plans on the false claim — busted by the Congressional Budget Office — that they could maintain the same coverage levels as the ACA and lower premiums and deductibles, while at the same time slashing about a trillion dollars from Medicaid and ACA subsidies and softening the ACA’s consumer protection regulations. Had they succeeded, they would have won a big short-term victory with their base, which strongly supports repeal, but suffered the consequences in subsequent elections as the same voters lost coverage or were hit with higher premiums and deductibles.

The challenge now is to stabilize the ACA’s insurance marketplaces. They are not in free fall or imploding, as President Trump suggests, and in most markets insurer profits have been improving. But these are fragile markets, especially in rural areas, and there are 38 “bare counties” where no insurer currently intends to participate in 2018. About 20 percent of marketplace enrollees have access to only one insurer, with the biggest problems in rural areas.

Senate Republicans failed to pass their ‘skinny bill’ that would repeal parts of the Affordable Care Act on July 28. Three republicans, including Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), voted against the bill. (Video: Amber Ferguson/Photo: Melina Mara/The Washington Post)

Insurers have submitted their initial rates to state regulators for 2018, and in some areas, the increases are steep. These companies are hedging their bets in the face of uncertainty emanating from Washington, and who can blame them? Now, with ambiguity over legislative action to repeal and replace the law lifted, the remaining uncertainty is whether Congress and the administration will take steps to stabilize markets or instead undermine them.

The immediate question is whether the administration will implement the law as intended or, in a sense, enact “skinny repeal” through administrative action. To stabilize the marketplaces, the administration would need to enforce the individual mandate as intended, commit to providing payments to insurers that compensate for reducing cost-sharing for low-income enrollees, and continue to provide outreach funds to support enrollment and consumer education activities.

Insurers need to finalize their 2018 rates soon and sign contracts with the federal marketplace by the end of September, so clarity on the $7 billion in cost-sharing payments to insurers is key. If they’re not made, insurers will need to raise premiums by about 19 percent, or they might just decide to exit the market entirely. These payments are subject to a lawsuit filed the House, so Congress might need to step in and assure that the payments will continue.

It is unclear whether Republicans and Democrats can work together on narrow legislation to stabilize the marketplaces without once again opening up a broader debate about the ACA. Republican bills included significant federal funds to help insurers cover the cost of high-risk patients, an idea that was also part of the ACA for its first three years of implementation. These reinsurance or risk-sharing pools would bring premiums down, especially for middle-class consumers not eligible for tax credits in the marketplaces, a primary goal for both parties.

Conservatives may be resistant to such spending, so Congress might also consider ideas they advocated in the recent debate, such as allowing premiums to be paid from health savings accounts. This, too, would provide premium relief to middle-class people buying their own insurance.

Still, only 7 percent of the American people get their insurance through the individual market. Finding consensus on the narrow issue of stabilizing this slice of the health insurance system should be possible if the larger, partisan debate about Obamacare is truly over.

It is also possible as the smoke clears on the health-care battlefield that more states will want to move forward with Medicaid expansions, now that federal funding for those expansions appears secure. Red states will likely seek a conservative stamp on their expansions, adding elements such as work requirements, drug testing, premium payments, time limits or testing private insurance models. Some of these policies will be controversial, and others may stretch what’s allowed under federal law too far. But some wrinkles will no doubt be necessary if Medicaid is to be expanded to the millions of people in the 19 holdout states.

But one thing is clear: 59 percent of the public says President Trump and the Republicans are now in control of government and are responsible for making the ACA work, and 74 percent says they should “do what they can to make the law work.”

It’s apparent what needs to be done to stabilize the marketplaces and who owns the ACA going forward. It’s no longer Obamacare; it’s now just the nation’s health insurance system.

CMS moves forward with $43B in DSH payment cuts

http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/cms-moves-forward-with-43b-in-dsh-payment-cuts.html

Image result for cutting currency

CMS issued a proposed rule Thursday that lays out a methodology for implementing cuts to Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital allotments under the ACA beginning in fiscal year 2018.

With the expectation of lower uninsured rates and lower levels of hospital uncompensated care, the ACA adjusted the amounts of funding available to states under the Medicaid program for hospitals that serve a disproportionate share of low-income patients. The ACA calls for aggregate reductions to Medicaid DSH payments annually from FY 2014 through FY 2020. Subsequent legislation delayed the start of the reductions until FY 2018 and pushed the end date back to FY 2025.

Medicaid DSH allotments are slated to be reduced by $2 billion in FY 2018. The reductions will grow by $1 billion per year through FY 2024, when payments will be cut by $8 billion. DSH allotments will be reduced by another $8 billion in FY 2025.

CMS proposed a methodology that would account for new data sources, some of which were unavailable during prior rulemaking. Those sources include DSH Medicaid Inpatient Utilization Rate data, U.S. Census Bureau data and existing state DSH allotments. “We are proposing to utilize the most recent year available for all data sources and are proposing to align data sources whenever possible,” said CMS.

The proposed methodology would help ensure DSH payments reach hospitals with the most need for financial assistance due to high volumes of Medicaid inpatients and high levels of uncompensated care, according to CMS.

CMS will accept comments on the proposed rule until Aug. 28 at 5:00 p.m.

Scripps CEO Chris Van Gorder responds to healthcare vote

http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/hospital-management-administration/scripps-ceo-chris-van-gorder-responds-to-healthcare-vote.html

Image result for chris van gorder

When Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., cast his decisive vote Thursday night to stall GOP efforts to repeal the ACA, Chris Van Gorder, president and CEO of San Diego-based Scripps Health, took it not as a rejection of specific policies but instead a rejection of partisan politics.

In a written statement, Mr. Van Gorder emphasized that while healthcare has been subject to divisive political rhetoric during recent reform efforts, it is vital not to lose sight of the actual goal of healthcare professionals — to provide patients with quality care.

“The health care vote in Washington is important, but not as important as what we do every day and ensuring we’re able to do it,” says Mr. Van Gorder. “For now at least, the ACA will continue with its current provisions for care delivery. Despite its challenges with reduced reimbursements, this will provide us some increased stability as we plan for the future.”

Mr. Van Gorder points out that the political process is vital to deciding how care is paid for and delivered, and he encourages politicians to work across the aisle to craft legislation that provides Americans with robust coverage.

“That said, when it comes to health care legislation, representatives from both parties agree the ACA needs to be changed. But any healthcare bill passed unilaterally by one party — whether it’s the ACA in 2010 or repeal/replace in 2017 — will not stand the test of time,” said Mr. Van Gorder. “Something as complex, life changing and personal as healthcare deserves thoughtful consideration and debate and a true dialogue with those on the front lines of health care delivery.”

MinnesotaCare Buy-In: Maybe Not A Long Shot

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2017/08/02/minnesotacare-buy-in-maybe-not-a-long-shot/

Capitol Building St Paul Minnesota

States are developing creative policy options to address the high cost of premiums for those purchasing coverage in the individual market. Given the inaction and lack of leadership at the federal level, states need to continue to move forward. Minnesota, of course, is leading the way.

Under a proposal introduced in the Minnesota state legislature earlier this year, Minnesotans shopping for health insurance on the individual market would have been able to purchase public coverage through MinnesotaCare, Minnesota’s Basic Health Plan (BHP). The public buy-in was supported by the Democratic-Farmer-Labor (DFL) Party Governor Mark Dayton and introduced by key DFL legislators (Senator Tony Lourey and Representative Clark Johnson), but it was not seriously considered by the Republican-controlled legislature.

Nevada’s Democratic state legislature also passed a Medicaid Buy-In bill which was subsequently vetoed by Republican Governor, Brian Sandoval. The Nevada Care Plan would have allowed Nevada’s uninsured to buy into Nevada’s Medicaid program, a current Medicaid expansion state. The buy-in plan would have been offered on the Health Insurance Marketplace, Nevada Health Link, and income-eligible applicants would access federal advanced premium tax credits (APTCs). These latter provisions were contingent on approval of a 1332 State Innovation Waiver.

These state buy-in proposals are really not too far out of the mainstream of viable policy options. Over the years, public program buy-ins have been used to target specific populations whose incomes fall just above program eligibility guidelines and where health insurance coverage is considered essential. Below, I present a few of these programs to highlight the well-established use of public buy-in programs to achieve state coverage goals. I also include additional detail on Minnesota’s public buy-in proposal and encourage additional discussion and debate about these and other state options to secure access to affordable coverage for all.

Medicaid Buy-In For People With Disabilities And Children

Most states already have at least one Medicaid buy-in program tailored specifically to the needs of people with disabilities. Medicaid allows states to offer coverage to adults with disabilities who earn more than would otherwise be allowed in order to keep their Medicaid coverage. The policy goal of the program was to provide opportunities for those with disabilities to work and retain their health insurance coverage. It allows the disabled to work in jobs that may not provide health insurance coverage, including part-time work, low-wage positions, and intermittent employment. Participants pay premiums based on a sliding fee scale, and states receive federal matching payments to help offset the costs of the program. As of December 2011, 44 states have implemented this program.

Similarly, the Family Opportunity Act of 2005 provides federal matching payments to states that offer Medicaid Buy-In coverage to children with disabilities and incomes below 300 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL). This bill was initially introduced by Representative Pete Sessions (R-Texas) in 2003 to honor a young child born with Down syndrome and a severe heart defect. The family was deemed ineligible for public coverage when the father accepted a bonus at work, raising his income above the eligibility levels. The goal of this Medicaid Buy-In option was to protect families from the need to become impoverished in order to receive Medicaid-covered services for their child with disabilities. To date, five states have implemented this program: ColoradoIowaLouisianaNorth Dakota, and Texas.

Several states also use state funds only (i.e., no federal match) to allow families to buy-in to Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) coverage. For example, Maine provides a Full Cost Purchase Option for Children under 19 Years of Age for families with incomes between 140 and 213 percent FPL and charges premiums on a sliding scale. Until 2014, New Jersey also offered a CHIP Buy-In for children with family incomes above 350 percent FPL who were not eligible for the subsidized New Jersey FamilyCare coverage.

Minnesota’s Public Buy-In: The Details

The drafters of the MinnesotaCare Buy-In thought through many of the details of how a public buy-in program would work. MinnesotaCare would offer two plans on Minnesota’s Health Insurance Marketplace, MNsure—a Silver plan that covers 70 percent of health care expenses—and a Gold plan that would cover 80 percent (i.e., 30 percent and 20 percent consumer cost sharing, respectively). Enrollees would pay the full cost of the premiums, so there would be no ongoing cost to the state after the program is set up.

If a federal 1332 State Innovation Waiver were secured, Minnesotans who purchase coverage through the public buy-in option would be eligible for federal premium tax credits offered through MNsure. Each health plan that currently contracts with the state of Minnesota to provide managed care services for Medicaid and the BHP would be required to offer at least one buy-in product on MNsure — either through its existing managed care contract or through a Medicaid Accountable Care Organization.

How The Public Buy-In Option Would Help In Minnesota

Key benefits of the MinnesotaCare buy-in include a lower-cost coverage option to compete with private plans on the Marketplace and increased access to coverage, particularly for areas with limited or no plan options. The buy-in would provide access to the broad network of physicians and care providers that are available through MinnesotaCare, ensuring that people could keep their local doctors and hospitals.

The concerns raised by health plans is that the low-cost public MinnesotaCare Buy-In would edge them out of the market with its significantly lower rates achieved through paying providers at the lower Medicaid payment rate. If everyone was allowed to purchase the buy-in plan, most would chose the lowest-cost plan. Private plans worry about being priced out of some markets completely through an unfair competitive advantage. Providers worry about the low Medicaid provider rates with additional concern about the willingness of providers to accept Medicaid enrollees or at least new enrollees.

Yet, given the uncertainty of health reform activity at the federal level, there is a real possibility that non-metro areas in Minnesota as well as in other states, now estimated at 38 of the 3,000 counties, will go without any health plan option in the non-group market. The buy-in plan could be limited to rating areas with one or fewer plan offerings and/or targeted to families where premiums exceeded more than 9 percent of their income (i.e., the current limit for federal tax credits). To encourage provider support and participation, the Minnesota legislation included a provision that for buy-in enrollees, providers would be paid 100 percent of Medicare payment rates.

Public Buy-In, Other Creative Solutions Must Be On The Table

State policy analysts have learned with the implementation of the Affordable Care Act that a one-size-fits-all policy did not work for states. Targeted and creative solutions, including a public program buy-in, should be considered in an effort to ensure affordable and accessible coverage. Waiting for Washington to act becomes a less viable strategy daily — states must develop innovative policy strategies of their own that align with their policy objectives and their unique health insurance markets. Minnesota is well situated to move forward with one such strategy by putting the MinnesotaCare buy-in back on the table and giving it a full opportunity for public debate.

The Latest Motion In House v. Price Has A Significant Impact On The Future Of CSR Payments

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2017/08/01/the-latest-motion-in-house-v-price-has-a-significant-impact-on-the-future-of-csr-payments/

On August 1, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia granted the motion of the attorneys general of 17 states and the District of Columbia to intervene in House v. PriceHouse v. Price is before the D.C. Circuit on appeal from the ruling of a district court judge in favor of the House of Representatives in its lawsuit claiming that the reimbursement of insurers for reducing cost sharing for low-income qualified health plan enrollees is illegal because Congress had not appropriated funding for the payments. The judge enjoined the payments but stayed her order pending an appeal and the Obama administration in fact appealed. The states had moved to intervene, claiming that they had an interest in the action and that the Trump administration was not adequately defending their interest.

The three-judge appellate panel held first that the states had demonstrated that they had standing to intervene because they “would suffer concrete injury if the court were to grant the relief the plaintiffs seek.” The states established that a judgment for the House terminating the payments would “lead directly and imminently to an increase in insurance prices, which in turn will increase the number of uninsured individuals for whom the States will have to provide health care.” This would in turn result in state-funded hospitals suffering financially when they have to cover emergency care for uninsured individuals.

The court further held that the states had established a right to intervene in the action. First, the states had established an interest in the subject matter of the lawsuit.

Second, the court held that allowing the injunction of the court below would impair the states’ rights. The court observed that the administration’s “claim that it could unilaterally suspend payments is a debated legal question, not an answer to the injury the States have evidenced. The injunction sought, which would forbid the payments at issue, would erect a roadblock to the States’ goal of either persuading or compelling the Department to make the payments.”

Third, the court held that the states had raised a sufficient doubt concerning the adequacy of the administration’s representation of their interest. The court noted that the administration had nowhere argued that it would protect the states’ interest or continue to pursue the appeal.

Fourth, the court held that the motion to intervene was timely. The states, the court held, “had filed within a reasonable time from when their doubts about adequate representation arose due to accumulating public statements by high-level officials both about a potential change in position and the Department’s joinder with the House in an effort to terminate the appeal.” The court, in short, took President Trump’s threats to terminate the cost-sharing reduction (CSR) payments seriously.

Finally, the court held that permissive intervention was also warranted in the case.

The court further ordered that the case would continue to be held in abeyance, with status reports at 90-day intervals and the next one due on October 30, 2017. With their status as parties to the case, however, the states may well next seek to get the case moving again.

The decision does not mean that the Trump administration is barred from ending the cost-sharing reduction payments. It does mean, however, that the administration cannot unilaterally stop the CSR payments, dismiss the appeal, and claim judicial imprimatur for its doing so. If the administration does stop making the payments, the states—or insurers, or possibly consumers—would be able to sue to require the payments to be made and the injunction entered by the lower court would not be as much of a “roadblock” to their prevailing. Finally, if the states ultimately convince the appellate court that the CSR funding has in fact been appropriated, the administration would be required to pay it. The decision is, therefore, a major development in the ongoing CSR saga.