Repeal push complicates state efforts to get ObamaCare waivers

Repeal push complicates state efforts to get ObamaCare waivers

Image result for ACA waiver program

A number of states are readying blueprints for substantial changes under an ObamaCare waiver program, but a renewed push to repeal the law is complicating their plans.

The Affordable Care Act’s 1332 State Innovation Waiver lets states skip some of the law’s regulations if their healthcare plan covers a comparable number of people without increasing the federal deficit. States can apply for the waivers starting this year.

But a revived attempt to repeal the health law is throwing a wrench in those plans, since states don’t know what a new bill will entail. While House Republicans moved forward an amendment in committee to their larger repeal bill on Thursday, the party is far from reaching a consensus.

“The way we are tackling those great uncertainties is that we have to continue to move forward with plans to make the market more stable and proceed along a path that works within the current regulatory framework,” said Oklahoma Health Care Authority Chief Strategy Officer Buffy Heater. “Now we have to of course be mindful of any other proposals that may come up, or any movements that may be made at that time, and be flexible and adapt to whatever changes those might bring.”

Oklahoma is preparing to file a plan with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services later this summer that would implement sweeping changes to the state’s individual insurance market.

If approved, the waiver would establish what Duke University health policy researcher David Anderson calls a “backdoor Medicaid expansion” by shifting subsidies from people between 100 percent to 400 percent of the federal poverty level to those between 0 percent to 300 percent.

The waiver would also allow insurers to charge older members more, restructure subsidies based on age and income, eliminate tiers in favor of two broader categories and require insurers to establish a minimum amount of value-based agreements. Officials also want to regulate outcomes in a number of areas, including mental health, diabetes and obesity.

The stakes are high. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Oklahoma is the only carrier left on the state exchanges, and the state suffers from low enrollment rates. Heater said CMS has promised the state an expedited waiver review but no assurances that things won’t change.

 

GOP leaders under pressure to bring House back to vote on Trumpcare

https://www.axios.com/gop-leaders-under-pressure-to-bring-house-back-to-vote-on-trumpcare-2347805897.html

Image result for GOP leaders under pressure to bring House back to vote on Trumpcare

House GOP leaders are checking to see whether the latest Trumpcare revisions have changed enough votes to bring it closer to passage — especially with the conservative Freedom Caucus. If there’s enough movement, they could bring the House back from recess as early as next week, according to two leadership sources.

Don’t get too excited: It’s all part of a frantic effort to show movement on the health care bill to satisfy President Trump, who doesn’t want the House to leave for a two-week recess without some action to satisfy Republicans’ Obamacare repeal promises. But even Republicans close to the leadership don’t think the latest changes are enough to make this the final bill — and there’s no sign yet that the GOP has picked up enough Freedom Caucus votes.

The problem: All they’ve settled on is the addition of a $15 billion risk-sharing fund to help health insurers with high-cost patients. Not only is it similar to an Obamacare reinsurance program — with less money — it doesn’t do anything to solve the basic dispute with the Freedom Caucus. It wants to let states get rid of the Obamacare rules requiring insurers to cover sick people, and banning them from charging higher premiums for those patients. The rest of the GOP doesn’t want to touch that.

The bottom line: Leadership sources say it’s all up to the Freedom Caucus now.

Update: From AshLee Strong, spokeswoman for House Speaker Paul Ryan: “Member discussions will continue and should a path toward 216 votes emerge, the speaker wouldn’t hesitate to bring members back to fulfill our promise to repeal and replace Obamacare.”

 

Estimates: Average ACA Marketplace Premiums for Silver Plans Would Need to Increase by 19% to Compensate for Lack of Funding for Cost-Sharing Subsidies

Estimates: Average ACA Marketplace Premiums for Silver Plans Would Need to Increase by 19% to Compensate for Lack of Funding for Cost-Sharing Subsidies

A new Kaiser Family Foundation analysis finds that the average premium for a benchmark silver plan in Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplaces would need to increase by an estimated 19 percent for insurers to compensate for lost funding if they don’t receive federal payment for ACA cost-sharing subsidies.

Established by the health law to reimburse insurers for the cost of reducing out-of-pocket costs for lower-income people buying marketplace plans (with incomes from 100% to 250% of the poverty level), the subsidies have been challenged in a lawsuit from the U.S. House. With a legal appeal pending, the federal government and Congress are in a position to choose whether to continue reimbursing insurers for their cost.

Among 12.2 million people who selected a 2017 ACA marketplace plan, about 58 percent, or 7.1 million, are receiving cost-sharing reductions. An earlier Foundation analysis of 2017 plans found the subsidies lower combined medical and prescription drug deductibles by as much as $3,354 and reduce annual out-of-pocket maximums by up to $5,587.

The Foundation’s new analysis examines the amount insurers would need to increase premiums to make up for the lack of funding, if federal payments cease for the cost-sharing reduction program.

 

GOP Has No Choice But To Keep Pushing Health Care Rock Up The Hill

http://khn.org/news/gop-has-no-choice-but-to-keep-pushing-health-care-rock-up-the-hill/

Related image

This week’s effort to resurrect the GOP bill to overhaul the Affordable Care Act has apparently met the same end as the first try in March — not even a vote on the floor of the House. Apparently the roadblock was the same, too. Efforts to gain votes from holdout conservatives repelled moderate Republicans in the House, while efforts to placate moderates kept conservatives from signing on.

So what was the purpose of the new effort, which was led mostly from the White House?

Republican health analysts said party officials had little choice but to keep trying to reach consensus — or at least enough consensus to pass a bill out of the House.

GOP House members, particularly those from conservative areas, “are going to go home and get hammered for not repealing Obamacare,” said Thomas Scully, a health policy official in both Bush administrations.

The latest Kaiser Family Foundation monthly tracking pollsuggests that might well be the case. Although three-quarters of the population wants President Donald Trump and his administration to make the health law work, 54 percent of Republicans said it was “a bad thing” that the House GOP bill failed to pass in March, and 58 percent of Republicans said the bill “did not go far enough to end Obamacare.” (Kaiser Health News is an editorially independent project of the foundation.)

Chris Jacobs, a longtime GOP congressional staffer, said there are two imperatives still pushing for some kind of deal. “First, a seven-year commitment by the Republican Party” to repeal and replace the health law, “and second, the administration very clearly wants a win” on some sort of major policy initiative.

But apparently the ideas put forward by the White House to gain more conservative votes without losing moderate ones did not work as the administration hoped.

Conservatives were reportedly pleased early in the week when it appeared states would be allowed to opt out of most of the ACA’s insurance regulations — including rules on what benefits must be covered and whether insurers can charge sicker people higher premiums or deny them coverage.

But moderates complained that would violate promises that the GOP would keep intact protections for people with preexisting health conditions. And the proposal was apparently scaled back.

What remained “was a substantial narrowing in an unproductive way for the proposal,” Michael Needham of the conservative group Heritage Action told reporters on a conference call. Needham called the new version “a nonstarter” for conservatives.

On Thursday, Republicans announced agreement on an amendment to the health bill that would provide $15 billion to help compensate insurers for very high-cost patients.

But at a hastily called meeting of the House Rules Committee, even Chairman Pete Sessions (R-Texas) conceded that the amendment, at least for now, mostly provides a way for members to say they are making progress as they head home to face their constituents.

“What we’re trying to do is lock in ideas so we [Republicans] have an opportunity to go home and amplify,” he said.

Now Congress is poised to leave Washington for a two-week spring recess, from Monday through April 21, without their promised health bill. And what happens when they come back is unclear.

“They put themselves in this box canyon and have no way out of it,” said political scientist Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute. “I just don’t see a strategy here.”

 

Why an Open Market Won’t Repair American Health Care

AN AMERICAN SICKNESS
How Healthcare Became Big Business and How You Can Take It Back
By Elisabeth Rosenthal
406 pp. Penguin Press. $28.

A few years back, the future of American health policy appeared to hinge on how similar medical care was to broccoli. It was March 2012, and the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) was before the Supreme Court. Justice Antonin Scalia zeroed in on its controversial requirement that all Americans purchase health insurance. Yes, everybody needs health care, Scalia conceded, but everybody needs food too. If the government could make people buy insurance, why couldn’t it “make people buy broccoli”?

The Affordable Care Act survived, of course — though not before a fractured court made the expansion of Medicaid optional, leaving millions of poorer Americans without its promised benefits. But the question Justice Scalia asked remains at the heart of a debate that has only intensified since: Why is health care different? Why does it create so much more anxiety and expense, heartache and hardship, than does buying broccoli — or cars or computers or the countless other things Americans routinely purchase each day?

For those leading the charge to roll back the 2010 law, the question has a one-word answer: government. President Trump’s point man on health policy, the former congressman (and ultrawealthy orthopedic surgeon) Tom Price, has said that “nothing has had a greater negative effect on the delivery of health care than the federal government’s intrusion into medicine through Medicare.” Senator Rand Paul (another surgeon) and House Speaker Paul Ryan have claimed that the affordability of Lasik eye surgery — generally not covered by health insurance — shows that a much freer health care market would be much less expensive. Their idea of “reform” is to cut back public and private insurance so consumers have “more skin in the game” and thus shop more wisely.

The physician-turned-journalist Elisabeth Rosenthal offers a very different answer in her eye-opening “An American Sickness.” Rosenthal — formerly a reporter for The New York Times, now the editor in chief of the nonprofit Kaiser Health News — is best known for a prizewinning series of articles, “Paying Till It Hurts.” In them, Rosenthal chronicled the seemingly endless pathologies of America’s medical-industrial complex, from prescription drugs that grew more costly as they became more dated to hip-replacement surgery so expensive it was cheaper for a patient to fly to a hospital in Belgium.

Rosenthal thinks the health care market is different, and she sums up these differences as the “economic rules of the dysfunctional medical market.” There are 10 — some obvious (No. 9: “There’s money to be made in billing for anything and everything”); some humorous (No. 2: “A lifetime of treatment is preferable to a cure”) — but No. 10 is the big one: “Prices will rise to whatever the market will bear.” To Rosenthal, that’s the answer to Scalia’s question. The health care market doesn’t work like other markets because “what the market will bear” is vastly greater than what a well-functioning market should bear. As Rosenthal describes American health care, it’s not really a market; it’s more like a protection racket — tolerated only because so many different institutions are chipping in to cover the extortionary bill and because, ultimately, it’s our lives that are on the line.

Consider the epicenter of America’s cost crisis: the once humble hospital. Thanks in part to hit TV shows, we think of hospitals as public-spirited pillars of local communities. Yet while most are legally classified as nonprofits, they are also very big businesses, maximizing surpluses that can be plowed into rising salaries and relentless expansion even when they are not earning profits or remunerating shareholders. And they have grown much bigger and more businesslike over time.

Rosenthal tells the story of Providence Portland Medical Center, a Northwest hospital system founded by nuns. Four decades ago, its operational hub in Portland, Ore., consisted of two modest hospitals: Providence and St. Vincent. As it happens, my mother was a nurse at St. Vincent for more than half those years, and thus had a front-row seat as Providence transformed from a Catholic charity into one of the nation’s largest nonprofit hospital systems, with annual revenues of $14 billion in 2015.

Along the way, Providence jettisoned most of its original mission, replacing nuns with number crunchers. Once run mainly by doctors, it filled its growing bureaucracy with professional coders capable of gaming insurance-reimbursement rules to extract maximum revenue. Meanwhile, Providence stopped paying doctors as staff and reclassified them as independent contractors (though not so independent they could skip a “charm school” designed by its marketers). Yet even as its C.E.O. earned more than $4 million, Providence touted itself as a “not-for-profit Catholic health care ministry” upholding the “tradition of caring” started by the nuns (now listed as “sponsors” in promotional materials). Rosenthal sums up the result as “a weird mix of Mother Teresa and Goldman Sachs.”

 

 

Trump’s New Plan to Penalize the Sick

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/healthcare/news/2017/04/06/430156/trumps-new-plan-penalize-sick/

Image result for penalizing the sick

Republicans need to stop making a terrible health care bill even worse. A little over a week ago, President Donald Trump declared that the White House would be moving on from its efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, or ACA. However, in an abrupt about-face, the administration is now reportedly considering a new proposal in an attempt to reinvigorate talks: allowing insurers to drastically raise prices on people with pre-existing conditions, even to the point of preventing them from obtaining insurance at all.

First Republicans had a proposal that would lead to skyrocketing uninsurance and out-of-pocket costs while increasing premiums. Then they argued for driving up coverage prices for services like maternity care and substance abuse treatment while simultaneously weakening protections for employer-provided insurance. Now they’re threatening to eliminate protections for the up to 133 million individuals who have pre-existing conditions.

Selling Health Insurance Across State Lines Is Unlikely to Lower Costs or Improve Choice

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/blog/2017/apr/selling-health-insurance-across-state-lines?omnicid=EALERT1190217&mid=henrykotula@yahoo.com

Image result for selling healthcare across state lines

In the wake of the failure of the legislative effort to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the fate of another of the president’s health care priorities is unclear. In his first congressional address, President Trump articulated five principles for health care reform. His fifth and last called for giving “Americans the freedom to purchase health insurance across state lines,” a reform that, in his words, would create “a truly competitive national marketplace that will bring cost way down and provide far better care.” This concept was not in the House reconciliation bill (the “American Health Care Act” or AHCA) to repeal and replace key provisions of the ACA, but President Trump may be able to use his regulatory authority to promote the cross-border sales of health insurance.

The president has the authority to act on his own thanks in part to the ACA. That law includes a provision encouraging “health care choice compacts,” whereby an insurer could establish itself in one state and sell health insurance to consumers in multiple other states without having to follow those states’ laws and regulations. However, under President Obama, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) never published regulations enabling these cross-state sales.

While the ACA provision encourages states to enter into cross-state regulatory agreements in order to facilitate interstate sales, under Trump’s campaign and several congressional proposals, the federal government would effectively override states’ authority to regulate their markets. In the absence of legislative action, there is nothing preventing HHS Secretary Tom Price from issuing the required regulations and working with states to develop standards for interstate sales. In fact, several states already allow cross-state sales.

 

What’s Next for the ACA and the People It Covers?

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/blog/2017/mar/whats-next-for-the-aca-and-the-people-it-covers?omnicid=EALERT1187962&mid=henrykotula@yahoo.com

If Republicans are unable to revive last week’s failed effort to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the nation will need to turn back to ensuring the long-term success of the law. Decisions made by the Trump administration and Congress as well as state policymakers over the next few years will help determine how many people the ACA covers, how affordable the coverage is, and its cost to federal and state governments. Such decisions include whether and how the administration will use its executive authority to sustain, or undermine, the law’s key provisions, and how Congress might ensure the stability of individual health insurance markets nationwide.

Policymakers will need to keep in mind what’s at stake: the health and well-being of real people with real health care problems. The ACA has enabled more than 30 million Americans to get health insurance or to purchase more valuable coverage. Provisions of the law aimed at improving the delivery system have reduced the number of people treated in hospitals who have to be readmitted for more care, and have contributed to a slowdown in the rate of growth in health care costs. As elected and executive branch officials contemplate their choices, they should consider these human benefits—and the consequences of jeopardizing them.

 

California Employer Health Benefits: Prices Up, Coverage Down

http://www.chcf.org/publications/2017/03/employer-health-benefits?_cldee=aGVucnlrb3R1bGFAeWFob28uY29t&recipientid=contact-58e265c0591ce51180f7c4346bac4b78-22293f7225824dd0a2a16e01c6e7b1e7&esid=7e382ea0-c114-e711-80fa-5065f38a19e1

Since 2000, the percentage of employers offering health benefits has declined in California and nationwide, although coverage rates among offering firms have remained stable. Only 55% of firms reported providing health insurance to employees in 2016, down from 69% in 2000. These findings underscore the important role that Medi-Cal and Covered California play in providing insurance to working Californians — coverage that could be negatively impacted if the Republicans repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.

Nineteen percent of California firms reported that they increased cost sharing in the past year, and 27% of firms reported that they were very or somewhat likely to increase employees’ premium contribution in the next year. The prevalence of plans with large deductibles also continues to increase.

California Employer Health Benefits: Prices Up, Coverage Down presents data compiled from the 2016 California Employer Health Benefits Survey.

Other key findings include:

  • Health insurance premiums for family coverage grew by 5.6%. Family coverage premiums have seen a cumulative 234% increase since 2002, compared to a 40% increase in the overall inflation rate.
  • The average monthly health insurance premium, including the employer contribution, was $597 for single coverage and $1,634 for family coverage in California, and was significantly higher than the national average.
  • 41% of workers in small firms faced an annual deductible of at least $1,000 for single coverage, compared to 17% of workers in larger firms. The prevalence of these higher deductibles in small firms has increased substantially in the past five years.
  • Only one in four firms with many low-wage workers (those earning $23,000 or less) offered health coverage to employees in 2016.
  • In the past year, 24% of large firms extended eligibility for health benefits to workers not previously eligible.

The complete Almanac report, as well as past editions, is available under Document Downloads.

Fitch: Uncompensated care could increase next year under ACA

http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/fitch-uncompensated-care-could-increase-next-year-under-aca.html

Image result for uncompensated care

Without modifications to the ACA, exchange enrollment could suffer and hospitals are likely to see uncompensated care rise next year, according to Fitch Ratings.

Last Friday, the GOP’s proposal to repeal and replace the ACA was pulled from the House floor, leaving the ACA in effect for the time being.

Hospitals are not expected to see a rise in uninsured patients this year since those enrolled in an ACA plan for 2017 will keep it, Fitch said in a news release. However, with premiums rising and insurers leaving the exchanges, ACA enrollment is likely to decrease, the agency noted. Total signups for open enrollment fell 4 percent from 2016 to 2017.

“The failure of the AHCA [American Health Care Act] to move forward means that the ACA exchanges will be ostensibly functioning in 2018, but hospital companies will likely face higher levels of uncompensated care as fewer individuals enroll in exchange products,” Fitch said.

Still, Fitch said it is the ACA’s Medicaid expansion — not the exchanges — that have primarily driven a decrease in uncompensated care for hospitals.

“The AHCA’s changes to the ACA related Medicaid expansion were relatively more benign than the expected dislocation in the exchange covered lives with respect to the ultimate influence on hospital companies’ patient payer mix and the financial burden of treating uninsured patients,” Fitch said. “However, while current Medicaid enrollment is likely to be stable, more states will not likely expand eligibility given the uncertainty of future funding.”