Death spiral? Obamacare insurers may be having ‘best year’ yet under ACA

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article160601814.html

Image result for death spiral

New data on the improving finances of the nation’s individual insurers are calling into question repeated Republican claims that Obamacare marketplaces are collapsing under the Affordable Care Act.

For months, Republican leaders from President Donald Trump and Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price to House Speaker Paul Ryan have said Obamacare was crumbling under its own weight and could not be saved. And this week, when HHS announced a 38 percent decline in the number of insurers that want to offer coverage next year in states that use the federal marketplace, Price said, “The situation has never been more dire.”

But new research released Monday by the Kaiser Family Foundation shows that profitability and other financial measures for individual insurers have dramatically improved over the last year.

“Now it looks like they’re on track to be profitable and that they’re actually having the best year that they’ve had since the ACA began,” said Cynthia Cox, associate director of health reform at Kaiser.

The share of premiums paid out as medical claims by individual insurers fell to 75 percent in the first quarter of 2017, down from 86 percent in the first three months of 2016 and 88 percent in the first quarter of 2015.

In addition, average monthly premium income exceeded monthly per-enrollee medical claims by roughly $100 in the first quarter of 2017, Kaiser reported. That’s up from about $48 in the first quarter of 2016 and just over $36 in the first quarter of 2015.

Throughout their push to repeal the Affordable Care Act, Republicans have said the market troubles in some areas were proof that Obamacare was unraveling and legislative change was needed. In a pair of tweets on May 4, Trump declared that ObamaCare was “dead” and the individual market was in a “Death spiral!,” in which insurance offerings disappear as premium hikes force all but the sickest to drop coverage.

Cox disputed that assessment: “There’s not really signs of a death spiral here,” she said.

The report, based on insurers’ first-quarter financial reports filed with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners and compiled by Mark Farrah Associates, comes as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell struggles to find 50 votes to pass his Obamacare repeal legislation. Facing opposition from some conservatives, he has expressed a willingness to negotiate with Democrats on a legislative fix of the ACA as Republicans try to re-draft their legislation and move forward next week.

But Monday’s report could make across-the-aisle appeals more difficult, as the data indicates insurers could be on the verge of righting their financial ship.

In a letter to McConnell on Monday, four Democratic senators — Charles Schumer of New York, Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, Richard Durbin of Illinois and Patty Murray of Washington — urged McConnell make “common sense reforms” such as guaranteeing the cost-sharing payments, creating a permanent reinsurance program and finding solutions for areas without insurers.

Certainly, some marketplaces remain under enormous pressure. Far fewer people than originally expected enrolled into marketplace coverage and those who did were sicker, older and more costly than insurers expected. As losses mounted, insurers sharply increased premiums in 2017, making coverage unaffordable for many as enrollment slipped. Some insurers exited unprofitable markets altogether, leaving 38 rural counties in Ohio, Indiana and Nevada with the possibility of no coverage options next year, according to Kaiser. Five states — Alabama, Alaska, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Wyoming — have only one insurer offering marketplace coverage this year.

The Trump administration added to insurers’ problems by relaxing enforcement of Obamacare’s individual mandate and refusing to reimburse insurers for billions of dollars of financial assistance, known as cost-saving reductions, that go to low-income plan members.

An analysis by the Oliver Wyman consulting firm estimated that up to two-thirds of insurer rate increases for 2018 “will be due to the uncertainty surrounding these two market influences” and the Congressional Budget Office estimates premiums will increase 20 percent next year if the individual mandate is not enforced.

Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina, which has more than 500,000 individual policy holders, wants to increase rates on their Obamacare plans by an average of 23 percent next year.

Speaking in Washington, DC at a recent Bipartisan Policy Center panel discussion, J. Brad Wilson, President and CEO of BCBS North Carolina said, “Over 50 percent of that increase is attributable to the uncertainty of CSRs.”

The industry trade group America’s Health Insurance Plans would not comment on the report.

 

Obamacare 101: Is there a smaller fix for the Affordable Care Act?

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-obamacare-101-marketplace-fixes-20170712-story.html?utm_campaign=KHN%3A%20First%20Edition&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=54139610&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_oK9ym4MAYbgjGTqJrtwWnYS7JczHHbl_O85RanUGaeiUnTcx9hvcqv7rFbgtEigUowQiiD8dTN5J0Reyhnc3D456E0Q&_hsmi=54139610

Image result for aca limited fix

With Senate Republicans struggling to find votes for sweeping legislation to roll back the Affordable Care Act, several GOP lawmakers have raised the prospect of a more limited bill — passed with help from Democrats — to stabilize health insurance markets around the country.

That may be heresy for conservative Republicans who’ve spent seven years demanding the full repeal of Obamacare, as the law is often called.

But most patient advocates, physician groups, hospitals and even many health insurers say more-targeted fixes to insurance marketplaces make more sense than the kind of far-reaching overhaul of government health programs that Republicans have been discussing.

Why do a more limited Obamacare ‘fix’?

For one thing, it would be politically easier. More-targeted legislation also wouldn’t threaten insurance protections for tens of millions of Americans.

The political debate over the 2010 healthcare law has focused for years on what has been happening to insurance marketplaces like HealthCare.gov, which were created by the law for Americans who don’t get health insurance through work.

For a variety of reasons, the marketplaces’ first several years have been rocky.

Insurers in many states struggled to figure out how much to charge for their plans and then raised premiums substantially when customers turned out to be sicker than they expected.

And as uncertainty over the future of the markets has intensified since President Trump’s election last year, several leading national insurers have decided to stop selling plans in some states, leaving consumers in some places with few if any health plans to choose from. Trump has called Obamacare a “disaster” and “dead.”

But the marketplaces — where about 10 million Americans currently get coverage — represent a very small fraction of the U.S. healthcare system.

By contrast, more than 70 million Americans rely on Medicaid and the related Children’s Health Insurance Plan, the government safety net plans for the poor.

Altering Medicaid, as proposed under the GOP plan, would be far more disruptive. And, as congressional Republicans are learning, it is much more controversial.

But isn’t Medicaid a big problem, too?

Many conservatives have long argued the federal government can’t afford to provide so much healthcare assistance to the poor.

But Medicaid has become a vital lifeline for tens of millions of Americans. Medicaid provides assistance to more than one in three U.S. children, protects millions of Americans with disabilities and is the largest funder of nursing home care for elderly Americans, in large part because Medicare does not cover nursing homes.

Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion, which made coverage available to working-age adults in many states, is credited with driving down the nation’s uninsured rate to the lowest levels ever recorded.

And a growing body of evidence shows it is improving low-income Americans’ access to needed medical care, reducing financial strains on families and improving health.

That is why Medicaid has been fiercely defended by patient groups, doctors, nurses, educators and even some Republican governors.

What would it take to stabilize insurance markets?

Probably not that much, actually.

There is widespread agreement that the federal government must first continue funding assistance through Obamacare to low-income consumers to help offset their co-pays and deductibles.

This aid — known as cost-sharing reduction, or CSR, payments – was included in the original law.

But the payments have become a political football as Republicans argued the aid can’t be provided without an appropriation by Congress. And Trump administration officials keep threatening to cut off the payments.

Many insurers say that would be devastating, forcing them to raise premiums by double digits.

Congress could simply put an end to that uncertainty by voting to appropriate the CSR money.

Secondly, most insurance industry officials and independent experts say the federal government must create a better system to protect insurers from big losses if they are hit with very costly patients.

Such reinsurance systems are used in other insurance marketplaces such as the Medicare Part D prescription drug program and are seen as critical to stabilizing markets.

Thirdly, current and former marketplace officials say, the federal government should aggressively market and advertise to get younger, healthier people to buy health plans on the marketplaces.

This strategy has helped Covered California, that state’s marketplace, which has not been beset by some of the problems in other markets.

Finally, many experts say, federal officials likely will have to come up with additional incentives to convince health insurers to offer plans in remote, rural areas.

Some Republicans have suggested that consumers in these areas could be allowed to buy health plans that don’t meet standards set out in the current law.

Would these steps cost more money?

Yes.

But both the House and Senate GOP bills to roll back Obamacare included billions of dollars to stabilize markets over the next several years.

So could Congress put that aid in a smaller healthcare bill?

That’s still unclear.

Many congressional Republicans are reluctant to spend any more money on healthcare aid, especially for a law that most have sworn to repeal.

But polls indicate that Americans now hold congressional Republicans and the Trump administration responsible for the fate of the nation’s healthcare system, including the insurance marketplaces.

That suggests that there could be a political price to pay for the GOP if the markets are not stabilized.

At the same time, Senate Democrats have signaled a willingness to work with Republicans on marketplaces fixes if GOP lawmakers agree to drop their repeal campaign.

But major hurdles remain, including demands from many GOP lawmakers that at least some of Obamacare’s provisions be repealed, such as the highly unpopular mandate requiring Americans to have health insurance.

Rather than stabilizing markets, however, eliminating the insurance requirement could lead to even more turmoil, experts say.

Sounding The Alarms On Children’s Health Coverage

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2017/06/26/sounding-the-alarms-on-childrens-health-coverage/

Amari Carter, 5, protests the U.S. House passage of the plan to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act at the south gate of the Capitol in Austin, Texas, on Friday May 5, 2017. (Jay Janner/Austin American-Statesman via AP)

Buried beneath a very intense discussion on the future of adult coverage in this country has been a far more serious issue in children’s coverage many years in the making.

The American Health Care Act (AHCA) and the president’s recent budget proposal certainly have those who care for children concerned about the future of children’s insurance. The AHCA’s proposed changes to Medicaid would undo a half century of health care standards that were designed to maximize child development and well-being outcomes, such as guaranteed comprehensive health care coverage that includes access to mental health services, dental care, and school-based assistance for children with special health care needs. For special needs children, they have also insured that children with autism have aides to assist them in school, or that a child with cerebral palsy has access to appropriate transportation for themselves and their durable medical equipment to and from school, as well as the assisted nursing to support them while they are there.

But it’s not just the direct impact to children that is concerning. To the extent the AHCA rolls back the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) Medicaid expansion, it would strip health insurance coverage from many low-income parents, whose own health is critical to that of their children.

There have also been proposed cuts to Medicaid that are at a magnitude never seen before: the president’s budget recommends reducing Medicaid funding by more than $600 billion dollars over 10 years, above and beyond the more than $800 billion in Medicaid cuts written into the AHCA.

These changes to Medicaid would not be trivial: more than 36 million children and adolescents in this country are insured through Medicaid, a number that grows every day. These are not simply children living in poverty; most hail from working families. Many of these children have complex medical or behavioral health concerns, intellectual disabilities, or are in foster care. Medicaid’s reach among children is huge.

The Risk To Families Is A Perfect Storm That’s Been Brewing For Some Time

Although the dramatic changes proposed by the AHCA and the president’s budget are more immediate, the truth is that their impact would negate the gains made in reducing the uninsured rate in children and leave families with fewer options for their children’s health care. When the ACA became law in 2010, children’s uninsurance rates in this country were much lower among children than adults (and continued to decline to only 5 percent by 2015). Lawmakers, therefore, designed the ACA principally to address uninsurance among adults, but nonetheless, added regulations that guaranteed a set of essential benefits to families who purchased coverage through the exchanges, including maternity, pediatric, mental health, and substance abuse benefits.

Optimism abounded and many hoped that the exchanges’ success might one day eliminate the need for the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). CHIP is a federally subsidized state program, which, at its peak, has insured an additional 8 million children in low- and moderate-income families who were not offered affordable coverage through their employers and could not qualify for Medicaid because their families were just above the federal poverty line.

From that high point, there has been a steady erosion of children’s coverage under their parents’ employer-sponsored plans that has gone largely unseen. Even as we’ve climbed out of recession and more low-income individuals are gaining employment, they’re not being provided affordable family coverage by their employers. Facing soaring benefits costs, many employers are dropping dependent coverage for their employees, or offering ever-more-expensive coverage. Escalating family deductibles and premiums have far outpaced those for single-adult enrollees, making such coverage unaffordable for many families.

Lacking affordable options to cover their children, it’s not surprising that many low- and moderate-income families have responded by flocking to public insurance. We reported on this trend in a recent Health Affairs article, in which we found that in 2013, nearly one-third of children in low-income working families above the poverty line got their health coverage through Medicaid or CHIP, up 8 percent from just six years earlier.

Today, more than 40 percent of children and adolescents in this country are now covered by Medicaid and CHIP, second only to employer-sponsored insurance. As a result, children are disproportionately vulnerable to health care reforms that cut public programs. In making any changes, caution is needed, as is an awareness of the many factors leading to families’ heavy reliance on public programs, if we are to improve, or at least maintain, children’s health.

Potential Solutions To Weather The Storm

Children largely remain on the outside of the ongoing health care debate, yet they have the most to lose. Beyond protecting Medicaid as an entitlement with certain guaranteed benefits there are other potential solutions that could help mitigate this risk.

CHIP Reauthorization

While the AHCA works its way through Congress, some may not have noticed that CHIP funding expires this fall. Without re-appropriation, more than 8 million children may lose coverage immediately. States are already sounding alarms; they have been unable to project their CHIP budgets for next year. The immediacy of the CHIP re-appropriation debate in Congress offers a “NOW” opportunity to stake a new way forward and present pragmatic solutions to strengthen children’s insurance, embracing the realities that have reshaped the family insurance market.

Guarantee Of Essential Health Benefits

The most critical issue arising from any children’s insurance plan today, whether in the employer-sponsored or public insurance market, is the promise of a set of health standards to all children regardless of their insurance. The House-passed AHCA proposes removing the requirement of federally guaranteed essential health benefits from all plans. Should this become law, states will have the choice of whether or not to provide these benefits. So, one solution for protecting children is to require these states to provide families access to a CHIP plan that meets a comprehensive and standard set of federally legislated and guaranteed essential benefits, such as vision, developmental, and behavioral health screenings.

Private Market Reforms

Beyond essential benefits, it may be time to address the affordability and quality of dependent coverage on the employer-sponsored and exchange markets. We may need stronger caps on deductibles as a proportion of income, and limits to exorbitant cost-sharing for child dependents. Furthermore, prohibitions of narrow networks—or the increase of cost-sharing for enrollees who seek out-of-network services—in the pediatric market would go a long way to ensuring that families have critical access to pediatric subspecialty care should their children develop cancer, diabetes, or other debilitating illnesses. While narrow networks may work in the adult health care arena, they are not nimble for families whose children have special health care needs and require specialists based solely in children’s hospital networks that may be tiered out in such plans. All told, the private market is not working for families, and if Congress wishes to halt the migration of families onto public insurance, they may need to hold employers and commercial insurers responsible for their own contributions to crowding families out of that market.

We are at an inflection point in the historic success we’ve had at providing near- universal children’s coverage in this country. While our leaders get mired in discussions around the future of adult coverage, they need to be mindful of immediate vulnerability within the children’s market that could threaten their coverage. It’s time we uncover this threat and make it a bigger part of the mainstream conversation.

Senate health bill a ‘death sentence’ for rural hospitals

http://www.fiercehealthcare.com/healthcare/senate-health-bill-a-death-sentence-for-rural-hospitals?utm_medium=nl&utm_source=internal&mrkid=959610&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWVRKa1kyRmhOemN6TXpOaSIsInQiOiI2U1oxdXAzN2xlRmx3S2lLSGc0aHpWWk5JZ2ducVduYTF6emxLR0JLOEdRQ2lLbHhTTFBcL0VPYjREUkVcLzJKS1BCV3U3NFdBN3NoZnRmUFV2bXJQUElwMGFUamxiTTN4QjhNdGlsV0x1U0lZZWxDdEhZcFVISFBBd2J0enliWkhqIn0%3D

costs

The Senate’s healthcare bill, if passed, could spell doom for some cash-strapped rural hospitals, many of which are already vulnerable to closure, experts say.

Much of the concern is centered on cuts to Medicaid in the bill—a proposal that is also worrying to large hospitals and health systems—which could leave millions more uninsured and significantly increase uncompensated care costs.

“These hospitals are hanging on by their fingernails,” Maggie Elehwany, vice president of government affairs for the National Rural Health Association, told CNN. “If you leave this legislation as is, it’s a death sentence for individuals in rural America.”

The cuts wouldn’t only hurt patients, according to a new report. Some of the bill’s proposals could also lead to thousands of rural healthcare workers losing their jobs. The Chartis Center for Rural Health, a part of strategic planning firm The Chartis Group, estimated that the BCRA, if passed as is, could cause 34,000 rural healthcare jobs to be eliminated.

Under the Senate’s bill, the cuts could cost rural hospitals $1.3 billion in lost revenue. Much of this would be felt in reduced Medicaid payments; expansion states, this would be about $442,000 lost each year per facility, while it would equal about $224,000 in lost revenue. It would likely push nearly 150 more rural facilities into the red, according to the analysis.

One such vulnerable facility is Lincoln Community Hospital, the small, regional hospital in Hugo, Colorado. The 50-bed hospital serves the the town of about 825, according to an article from National Public Radio, with many of its patients on either Medicare or Medicaid.

The funding cuts proposed in the Better Care Reconciliation Act have given leaders at Lincoln pause, and if the hospital were to close it would leave local residents in a “medical desert,” as it’s more than 100 miles to the next nearest hospital.

The facility was nearly shut down several decades ago, and former board member Ted Lyons said that, though the Affordable Care Act is far from perfect, he hopes that members of Congress work to protect rural hospitals if they intend to move forward with a repeal.

“You don’t drown the duck to get the feather out of him,” Lyons told NPR.

Rural healthcare leaders in Pennsylvania expressed similar concerns. Washington Health System operates two hospitals, one with 260 beds and one with 49 beds, in the western part of the state. CEO Gary Weinstein told WESA that if its smaller Waynesburg hospital closed, patients would have to travel at least 30 minutes for care.

The Waynesburg facility is located in Greene County, which is ranked 60th out of 67 Pennsylvania counties in per capita income, so many of its patients are Medicaid recipients. If a patient without insurance comes into the hospital, it recoups just 5% of its costs, Weinstein said.

“We don’t make money when somebody is insured by Medicaid, but at least we get something,” Weinstein said. “But when somebody has no insurance at all, a lot of times they just aren’t able to pay any part of the bill.”

Weinstein said he has spoken to Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pennsylvania, one of the 13 senators involved in crafting the Senate’s bill, about that possibility, asking him to make additional changes to the legislation.

Survey Says: Medicaid Recipients Really Like Their Coverage And Care

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/07/10/536448362/survey-says-medicaid-recipients-like-their-coverage-and-care?utm_campaign=KHN%3A%20First%20Edition&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=54085585&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8rNlf0k5iol44O4gm3FRwTaRjuC-Lp8KrW3SmKnA47P5GSjFZs6vqrj0T8BhF2o6xMmEuD54wck2uvPmP2AL9qBq6Tnw&_hsmi=54085585

Is Medicaid the best health care possible?

A lot of people who use it seem to think so.

A new study released by Harvard’s Chan School of Public Health shows that people enrolled in Medicaid are overwhelmingly satisfied with their coverage and care.

The researchers looked at survey data collected by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services from more than 270,000 people who were enrolled in Medicaid in 2013. They gave the program an average rating of 7.9 out of 10, where 10 was considered “the best health care possible.” Nearly half of the respondents rated Medicaid a 9 or 10.

“If nearly half the people are giving it nearly a perfect score, that’s pretty good,” says Michael Barnett, a researcher in the Department of Health Policy and Management at Harvard’s Chan School. “There aren’t a lot of services that we get for anything, government or not, where you’d give it a perfect score.”

The study, published as a research letter in the July 10 issue of JAMA Internal Medicine, also shows that 84 percent of Medicaid recipients felt they were able to get all the medical care they needed in the last six months. Only 3 percent said they could not get care because of long wait times or because doctors would not accept their insurance.

The results applied across the board to those in traditional Medicaid, Medicaid managed care plans and among the elderly and disabled. The study did not include people who got Medicaid through the Affordable Care Act expansion or people in nursing homes.

The survey results come just as Republicans in the Senate are debating a complete overhaul of the Medicaid program, and they counter some of the major arguments for those changes.

House Speaker Paul Ryan, who has championed the Medicaid overhaul, often argues that many doctors refuse to accept Medicaid patients.

“I mean, what good is your coverage if you can’t get a doctor?” he asked in a presentation to reporters in March.

Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price made a similar argument in testimony to the House Ways and Means Committee last month.

“One-third of doctors in America do not accept new Medicaid patients,” he told the committee. His office didn’t respond to a request for comment on the new study.

Barnett, the study’s author, says the new data is the first that shows what Medicaid users think of the program.

“Part of what motivated this study is that there is a lot of rhetoric and what we would call misinformation around ‘What does Medicaid do, how effective is it, and how satisfied are enrollees with their coverage?'” he says. “This is the survey that really provides the most reliable large scale information that we have to date, [with] over 270,000 enrollees, and they’re largely satisfied.”

The bill being considered by the Senate would slowly roll back the expansion of Medicaid benefits to many poor, non-disabled adults, that happened as part of the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. And it would change Medicaid from an open-ended program that pays for all the care beneficiaries need, to one that offers states a set amount of money each year based on the number of people who qualify for Medicaid in that state.

The analysis issued by the Congressional Budget Office last month estimates spending on Medicaid would be $770 billion less over ten years under the Senate bill than under current law and that 15 million people would lose Medicaid coverage by 2026.

The Better Care Reconciliation Act: Economic and Employment Consequences for States

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2017/jul/bcra-economic-employment-consequences-states?omnicid=CFC1239758&mid=henrykotula@yahoo.com

Issue: A draft Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA) has been introduced in the U.S. Senate as an alternative to the American Health Care Act (AHCA), which was passed by the House of Representatives on May 4, 2017. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the BCRA would raise the number of uninsured by 22 million by 2026.

Goal: To determine the consequences of the draft BCRA on employment and economic activity in every state. This report updates an earlier analysis of the effects of the AHCA.

Methods: We compute changes in federal spending and revenue from 2018 to 2026 for each state and use the PI+ model to project the effects on states’ employment and economies.

Findings and Conclusions: While the draft BCRA and the AHCA would have similar effects on the number of uninsured Americans, the BCRA would lead to significantly larger job losses and deeper reductions in states’ economies by 2026. A brief spurt in employment would add 753,000 more jobs in 2018, but employment would then deteriorate sharply. By 2026, 1.45 million fewer jobs would exist, compared to levels under the current law. Every state except Hawaii would have fewer jobs and a weaker economy. Employment in health care would be especially hard hit with 919,000 fewer health jobs, but other employment sectors lose jobs too. Gross state products would be $162 billion lower in 2026. States that expanded Medicaid would be especially hard hit.

 

FAQ: How Would The Republican Health Care Bills Affect You?

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/07/10/535851043/faq-how-would-the-republican-health-care-bills-affect-you?utm_campaign=KHN%3A%20First%20Edition&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=54032167&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9yFPlLzwv6bv_veGcOtV5zmWKdGx8baekhyREYNZdar_-_VxZ4wchI5YAMcbTiK8BX2YEBDLdvhyvjM-5iylDldRkDoQ&_hsmi=54032167

Image result for npr health news

 

Americans Don’t Want Senate’s Health Care Plan, But It’s Unclear What They Do Want

http://www.npr.org/2017/07/10/536007571/americans-dont-want-senates-health-care-plan-but-its-unclear-what-they-do-want?utm_campaign=KHN%3A%20First%20Edition&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=54032167&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9MlH8sIbFZ3DG2JdoJpFn-kOELhmH8atRdphJiCTQa9Fc2GOVrT9UWiFKkp64ZyolZD49IO-n0szUI7L_CfeRozmbmkg&_hsmi=54032167

Americans really, really don’t like the Senate bill to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.

Only 17 percent of U.S. adults approve of the health care bill, according to a recent NPR/Marist/PBS NewsHour poll. In fact, a majority of Americans now approve of the ACA, also known as Obamacare — but just nine months ago, that wasn’t true.

So what do they want?

Maybe they want single-payer health care — a slight majority of Americans now say they would like that kind of system, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. But then, they don’t like it once they hear about the trade-offs. So maybe they simply want Obamacare to go further — that’s what a plurality of respondents told NPR. Or to be more specific, they favor most Obamacare provisions…but not the individual mandate (which is needed to make the ACA work). Or they want to keep the Affordable Care Act but scrap Obamacare (or vice versa).

Some of this uncertainty is perhaps to be expected — as a certain president has pointed out, health care is “complicated.” But if lawmakers are looking to Americans to know what their next move should be, they could be waiting a while. Messy, contradictory, easily swayable opinions on health care are a common theme in American politics, as it turns out.

Inconsistent, changeable opinions

Recent polls on health care show a few areas where Americans’ views on health care are less than clear:

1) Single-payer

A slight majority of the population — 53 percent — approves of a single-payer system, according to a new Kaiser Family Foundation poll, up from 39 in the early 2000s.

But then, the Kaiser pollsters found that they could easily — and substantially — swing that 53 percent by presenting people with potential arguments for and against a single-payer system.

When people heard the argument that the system would “give the government too much control over health care,” opposition rose from 40 to 62 percent. But on the other hand, when presented with the argument that a single-payer system would “reduce health insurance administrative costs,” the share of Americans in favor swung from 55 to 72 percent.

…all of which makes logical sense (people can be swayed by arguments for and against a particular policy — who knew?). But it suggests that it may be a mistake to take Americans’ support or opposition for a given health care policy at face value.

Moreover, in a more intense debate over single-payer, all of these arguments would be made at once, meaning many Americans could easily be swung from one side to another or simply left in a “don’t know” place.

2) Obamacare is relatively popular now. It wasn’t before.

Obamacare was never a super-popular policy. But it did suddenly become more well-liked just after President Obama left office. According to data from Gallup, the law hit its highest popularity ever in April, at 55 percent approval — the first time it ever had majority support in Gallup’s polling (which began in 2012). And that swing was despite the fact that nothing major changed in Obamacare in recent months that would easily account for that swing.

3) Government responsibility for health care has also grown more popular

Relatedly, Americans during the Obama presidency were closely divided over whether the government is responsible for making sure “all Americans have healthcare coverage,” and at times a majority believed it was not the government’s responsibility.

But before the Obama presidency, a majority of Americans consistently said yes, and a majority once again do, according to data from the Pew Research Center and Gallup.

4) Only some of Obamacare is popular

When it comes to Obamacare, Americans tend to like many of the provisions: they like people being able to stay on their parents’ insurance until age 26, and they like the idea of exchanges. But they don’t like the individual mandate — the fact that people must buy insurance or pay a penalty. In fact, as the Kaiser Family Foundation found, out of seven Obamacare provisions, the individual mandate was the only one without majority support.

“The elements of the Affordable Care Act are more popular than the act itself,” said Kathleen Weldon, director of data operations and communications at the Roper Center for public opinion. “And that’s largely a political question.”

Again, this isn’t necessarily surprising — the threat of a penalty is understandably less appealing to many than the convenience and security of the age-26 provision. But it does show that what Americans want doesn’t always match up with what is feasible — that individual mandate is a big part of what makes the Affordable Care Act work.

“It would be very hard to put together a functional health policy that wouldn’t have some elements that people disliked,” said Weldon.

5) Obamacare vs. ACA

As of February, 35 percent of Americans didn’t know the Affordable Care Act and Obamacare were the same, according to polling organization Morning Consult…a fact famously hammered home when late-night TV host Jimmy Kimmel asked people on the street of Los Angeles whether they favored the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare.

None of this is new

Inconsistent opinions on health care have been around for a long time. In one 2001 review of 50 years of public opinion data, for example, experts remarked that “it is striking to see how many conflicting views the public holds on health policy issues,” before laying out an array of messy public views:

“On the one hand, Americans report substantial dissatisfaction with our mixed private/public health care system and with the private health insurance and managed care industries. A majority of Americans indicate general support for a national health plan financed by taxpayers, as well as increased national health spending. On the other hand, these surveys portray a public that is satisfied with their current medical arrangements, in many years does not see health care as a top priority for government action, does not trust the federal government to do what is right, sees their federal taxes as already too high, and does not favor a single-payer (government) type of national health plan.”

Much of this sounds familiar today — indeed, a majority of Americans now believe that it’s government’s responsibility to make sure people have care, but an overwhelming majority of Americans also distrusts the government.

“Over the years these conflicts in beliefs have been difficult to resolve in legislative debates, particularly around the issues of large-scale national health care reform. This is likely to remain the case in the years ahead” they wrote — something lawmakers on Capitol Hill know all too well.

So what do Americans want?

Americans’ views on health care are hard to understand for a number of reasons. One is a lack of knowledge. Some of that knowledge is basic — not knowing there is no difference between the ACA and Obamacare, for example — but many Americans may also not understand how the individual mandate makes other parts of Obamacare work.

Another reason is fear.

“There are some things we do know. Americans fear big changes on something that is an acutely sensitive subject,” said Karlyn Bowman, an expert on public opinion at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute.

She compares it to another policy area Congress continually talks about overhauling.

“In tax reform, change is not at all concerning. It’s just so interesting,” said Bowman. “[Tax policy] is so much less sensitive than health care, which scares the heck out of us because we don’t understand it.”

But that fear is nuanced. People like the broad idea of change, said Ashley Kirzinger, senior survey analyst at the Kaiser Family Foundation, a health policy research organization. But it’s the particulars that scare people off.

“People kind of have this enthusiasm for health reform,” she said. She points to the Affordable Care Act. “Once it became a plan that had pros and cons and winners and losers, favorability tends to fall off rather dramatically.”

But then, it’s those very particulars that may have made more Americans suddenly decide they approve of Obamacare.

“A lot of the attitudes towards the ACA and why we’re seeing this trend upwards in favorability is because people weren’t quite sure what was in it, and once they’re hearing about benefits being taken away, then it’s really like, ‘Oh, but we really liked that.'”

And then there’s politics. On all of these questions, there are, of course, sharp political divides driving people’s opinions. The Affordable Care Act became widely known as Obamacare, meaning that many Americans (that is, those who know the two are synonymous) may have linked their approval of the act with their approval of Obama.

Given all this, there are still at least a couple of constants in Americans’ views on health care. Kinzinger says one pops up over and over again.

“Always lower costs,” she said. “When individuals say they want health care reform, what they mean is they want to reduce their own costs when it comes to health care. Premiums, deductibles, any of that. It’s all about cost.”

But most Americans have a more selfless instinct as well, Bowman added.

“[Americans] generally want us to try to cover more people, to give more, because we’re such a generous people,” she said. “We really want to move to that end. But I don’t think we’re very knowledgeable about specifics.”

It’s not that people’s opinions don’t matter or that they’re always unclear — clearly, Americans dislike the Senate bill (according to an Axios analysis, it’s the most unpopular major legislation in 30 years).

But what they want is also hard to deliver — plenty of politicians would certainly like to know how to bring down America’s extremely high health care costs once and for all, and to make sure all Americans can get health care coverage if they want it. But doing so without scaring voters too much, whether it’s by trade-offs or the simple act of overhauling the system, may well be impossible.

 

With Senate Republicans at an impasse over Obamacare, many ask: Now what?

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-senate-healthcare-20170710-story.html?utm_campaign=KHN%3A%20First%20Edition&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=54032167&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9CNFoqnSpWx2lz8NGi-WyCSSZU-joG6QBMWRo05gf8W0IDA6rR0EH5o6j8J0B3bvFt-Bqh8XtJLzUpo8onDvfiDjLLQA&_hsmi=54032167

Image result for With Senate Republicans at an impasse over Obamacare, many ask: Now what?

Senate Republicans, having hit an apparent impasse in their long campaign to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, return to Washington this week in search of a way forward, with support dwindling, time running out and deep divisions within their ranks.

Options are limited as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) assesses the legislative landscape for his Obamacare replacement, which has virtually no hope of passing unless it is substantially amended.

The Better Care Reconciliation Act, which threatens to toss 22 million more Americans into the ranks of the uninsured, has been almost universally panned by patient advocacy groups, doctors and other healthcare providers. It is backed by less than 20% of the public, polls show.

And for the last week, rank and file Republican lawmakers have faced rowdy crowds back home opposing the repeal bill.

At the same time, GOP senators return to work aware that federal intervention is needed to stabilize some Obamacare insurance markets. If not, insurance premiums in some parts of the country could skyrocket, and many Americans — especially those in rural areas — could be left with few healthcare options.

Now, with President Trump sending mixed signals on the path forward, Republicans confront the very real possibility that their promises to end Obamacare might need to be shelved in favor of a bipartisan agreement to improve it.

“For seven years, they pretended like they were all committed to repeal and there were just tactical differences,” said Michael A. Needham, CEO of Heritage Action, a leading conservative advocacy group.

“What we learned this year is there are not tactical differences. There are large numbers of Republicans in the House and the Senate who don’t want to repeal Obamacare.”

That’s not the outcome Republicans had in mind when they set out seven years ago to undo President Obama’s signature domestic achievement.

But as Congress resumes work this week, McConnell is under mounting pressure to develop a face-saving way out.

“They need to start over,” said Dr. Jack Ende, a University of Pennsylvania primary care doctor and president of the American College of Physicians.

“This is a bill that takes away much needed health insurance and healthcare from the people who need it most. You can’t tweak it a little here and little there. … The right strategy is to work on improving what we have.”

Democrats say they are willing to work with Republicans to fix Obamacare, but only after the GOP drops its repeal campaign.

Conservatives warn that doing so would be a political disaster for the GOP, sapping enthusiasm from activists who will be needed soon to start knocking on doors and turning out votes for the 2018 midterm elections.

“If this party switches from repeal of Obamacare to a bailout of Obamacare,” said Needham, “that is catastrophic.”

McConnell, often considered an opportunistic strategist, might still be able to salvage his bill.

But even senators are unsure of his next moves. And the heathcare legislation has shown the limits of his ability to cobble together the 50 votes needed from a 52-seat Senate GOP majority. Votes are not expected until mid-July, at the earliest.

“Clearly, the draft plan is dead,” said Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), a physician who has offered his own proposal.

“Is the serious rewrite plan dead?” he asked in an interview on “Fox News Sunday.” “I don’t know. I haven’t seen the serious rewrite.”

McConnell’s efforts have been complicated by the deep divisions among Republican senators. The majority leader was forced to put off a vote on the bill last month amid opposition from both conservatives and centrists.

“Whether or not we can come together, I don’t know,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Sunday on “Meet the Press.”

Conservatives want the most complete repeal of Obamacare possible, and they have opened a direct line of negotiation with the White House, appearing to turn Trump to their side, for now.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) back a proposal that would dramatically roll back insurance protections in the current law, allowing insurers to offer cheaper, skimpier health policies they say would drive down costs, at least for healthy consumers.

An assessment of Cruz’s “consumer choice” plan is expected this week from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

“There’s no doubt this has been a rocky path,” Cruz said Sunday on “Face the Nation.” “But I continue to believe we can get this done.”

But other GOP senators and advocacy groups are warning that Cruz’s plan would further destabilize insurance markets by dividing healthier and sicker consumers.

Republican Sen. Charles E. Grassley of Iowa said last week he worried that the Cruz amendment could be a “subterfuge” to get around Obamacare’s protections for those with preexisting conditions. “Obviously, I would object to that,” he told Iowa Public Radio.

Politically, the Cruz approach does little to help McConnell amass 50 votes for passage. Although it pleases conservatives who say the Senate GOP bill does not go far enough in ending Obamacare’s insurance mandates, it is almost certain to drive away more centrist Republicans.

The centrists have been most concerned about steep cuts to Medicaid. McConnell’s bill would slash nearly $800 billion from the government’s healthcare safety net over the decade and leave millions of poor Americans without access to care. Particularly hard hit would be poorer, rural counties, many of which backed Trump last year.

In Nevada, the Medicaid cuts would leave nearly 200,000 uninsured, prompting the state’s Republican senator, Dean Heller, to oppose the bill.

Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.V.), whose states rely heavily on Medicaid money to address the opioid crisis, are also opposed to the bill. They have sought tens of billions of dollars to make up for the lost funds.

One idea floated to preserve some healthcare aid would retain a 3.8% tax in investment income imposed by Obamacare on high-income households. That would maintain about $175 billion in revenue over the decade that could help with Medicaid.

But making a concession like that for centrist senators risks losing conservatives who want all taxes in the current healthcare law repealed.

McConnell has been trying to stitch together enough votes by tacking on amendments and provisions to meet the needs of both flanks of his party.

But with barely a dozen legislative days before Congress recesses for the monthlong August break — and other priorities that need action — the Senate has limited time.

Trump has further complicated McConnell’s task, giving mixed signals about how he wants to proceed.

Earlier this year, the president pushed to repeal the current law and replace it “simultaneously,” undermining the Senate Republican leader’s original plan to repeal the law now and replace it in a few years.

Last week, Trump abruptly shifted positions, siding with Sens. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) who have revived McConnell’s original plan as their own.

That repeal now, replace later concept has long been the preferred approach of the powerful Koch network of conservative advocacy organizations and was floated again last month at the group’s semi-annual retreat for wealthy donors.

“The president gets our concerns. I think he shares our concerns,” said Paul’s spokesman. “Also he wants to get to a final bill.”

As the debate continues, resistance is building. Protesters have been camping out and picketing lawmakers’ offices. As many as a dozen Republican senators now oppose the bill, a number that will likely grow.

“There’s no constituency for this bill,” said one GOP aide in the Senate, granted anonymity to discuss the private assessments. “If we don’t vote for it, who’s going to be burning up our phones?”

 

Here’s What a Bipartisan Health Care Deal Might Look Like

https://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2017/07/08/Here-s-What-Bipartisan-Health-Care-Deal-Might-Look

Image result for bipartisanship

Practically overnight, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) placed the once-unthinkable notion of a bipartisan deal with the Democrats to salvage the Affordable Care Act well within the realm of possibility.

For months, McConnell, House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) and President Trump vowed to move with alacrity to repeal and replace Obamacare with a far superior GOP health insurance plan that would bring down premium costs , provide tax relief for wealthier Americans and the health care industry, and phase out expanded Medicaid coverage for millions of poor and disabled people.

But with the Senate’s 52 Republicans still badly divided over how best to proceed and time running out before a long August recess, McConnell said Thursday during a speech in Kentucky that if his party cannot muster at least 50 votes to rewrite the Obamacare law, it would have no choice but to work with the Democrats to produce a more modest bill to support the law’s existing insurance market.

“No action is not an alternative ,” McConnell said during a speech at a Rotary Club lunch in Glasgow, Kentucky. “We’ve got the insurance markets imploding all over the country, including in this state.”

The Republicans have long argued that Obamacare is in a “death spiral,” with premiums going through the roof and more and more major health care insurers pulling out of the market after incurring huge losses on the ACA exchanges. The Trump White House, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Internal Revenue Service have also taken executive actions that have undercut enrollment and insurer participation.

But the veteran Senate majority leader has begun facing up to the harsh political reality that as many as a dozen conservative and moderate Republicans currently oppose a bill that McConnell almost single-handedly drafted behind closed door. Now it will take a herculean effort to muster a minimum of 50 votes needed to pass the bill under expedited budget reconciliation rules that were designed to avert a filibuster.

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former Congressional Budget Office director and Republican economic adviser, said on Friday that McConnell “has done the [political] arithmetic right” and that there may be no choice but to cut a deal with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY).

“We know that the exchanges are melting down under current law,” Holtz-Eakin, president of the American Action Forum, said in an interview. “We know that the cost-sharing money [to subsidize insurers] has to come from somewhere or they will continue to melt down, and insurers will leave, and premiums will continue to skyrocket.”

However, he warned that such an agreement would have serious political ramifications for the GOP and could touch off a conservative backlash, especially in the House. “It’s going to be a really bad deal for Republicans, and House Republicans are going to have to eat it.”

Michael F. Cannon, director of health policy at the libertarian Cato Institute, said McConnell might have raised the idea of working with Democrats to force recalcitrant Republicans into line. However, he said it was high risk for a party that for the past seven years has promised to repeal and replace Obamacare.

“If he does pursue a bill with Democrats to bail out the exchanges, then it will cause a rift in his own party much bigger than the rift he sees right now,” Cannon cautioned.

Schumer on Thursday called McConnell’s comments encouraging, and that his caucus is “eager to work with Republicans to stabilize the markets and improve the law.” The minority leaders have said for weeks that the Democrats were ready to bargain with the GOP and the White House on virtually any issue provided the Republicans abandoned their effort to repeal former President Barack Obama’s signature program.

According to several policy experts, here are five areas where a bipartisan health care compromise might be struck:

  1. Cost sharing — One of the pillars of the Obamacare markets is the $7 billion a year in federal cost-sharing subsidies to insurance companies that allow them to help offset the cost of the monthly premiums and copayments of low and moderate income Americans who make between $12,000 and $48,000 a year. House Republicans challenged the constitutionality of those subsidies in court, and Congress and the Trump administration have agreed to continue the payments pending a final outcome of the case.
    But without more certainty of the future of those subsidies, many major insurance companies have begun pulling out of markets throughout the country. If both parties are concerned about stabilizing the Obamacare insurance markets and making sure they don’t go under, making the cost-sharing subsidies permanent would be a good place to start.
  2. Reviving Risk Corridors –Before the Republicans succeeded in turning off the spigot, an Obamacare reinsurance program or so-called “risk corridors” funneled billions of dollars to insurers to offset the unforeseen costs of their most expensive enrollee.
    Republicans led by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) led an effort to kill off the program, arguing that it constituted an unjustifiable “bailout” of the insurance industry. But Republican and Democratic negotiators would likely have to reconsider reviving the program – and tax revenue to pay for it – to further stabilize the insurance market.
  3. Tax Repeal – The Senate GOP plan includes a tax cut of $700 billion over the coming decade, which would be achieved by repealing all the tax hikes in Obamacare passed to help finance the health insurance program. The cost of that massive tax relief for mainly wealthy Americans and the pharmaceutical, health care and insurance industries, would be offset by deep cuts in Medicaid for millions of poor and disabled Americans.
    Democrats are adamant about blocking wholesale cuts in Medicaid. However, they might be open to some horse trading to repeal some of the Obamacare taxes while preserving others, in order to prevent massive cuts in Medicaid.
  4. Medicaid Spending– The Senate GOP bill would allow 31 states that expanded Medicaid to millions of childless, able-bodied, low-income adults to continue receiving bonus federal funding through 2013, before beginning to reduce it between 2021 and 2024.
    Democrats would be insistent on preserving expanded Medicaid even longer and would have considerable leverage in order to achieve that goal. Moreover, there is virtually no interest on their part in transforming Medicaid from an open-ended entitlement to a per-capita-cap block grant to the states. But amid growing concern about the long-term impact of growing entitlements on the debt, Democratic negotiators might be open to reforms to slow the rate of growth of Medicaid.
  5. Lowering premiums – There is little disagreement between the two parties on the need to bring down premiums and copayments that have literally priced many families out of the market, even with tax subsidies. Yet finding a compromise that satisfies the Democrats demands to preserve Obamacare levels of benefits – including a ban on insurers discriminating against people with preexisting medical conditions — and GOP insistence on allowing skimpier, less expensive policies for younger and healthier people – will be hard to do.
    “All of this adds up to huge new spending, but the Democrats would be in charge, and McConnell knows it,” Joe Antos, a health care expert with the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute, said. “They won’t get everything, but I don’t expect any compromise to look like a Republican bill. Nonetheless, if the Democrats aren’t too greedy, such a bill could pass in the Senate, but would be rejected in the House.”