Tag Archives: ACA

Something Happened to U.S. Drug Costs in the 1990s

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

International Comparison of Drug Spending

American pharmaceutical spending started taking off in the late 1990s compared with other advanced nations. 

Image result for Something Happened to U.S. Drug Costs in the 1990s

Two decades ago, the costs began rising well beyond that of other nations, and in recent years have shot up again. What can explain it?

There was a time when America approximated other wealthy countries in drug spending. But in the late 1990s, U.S. spending took off. It tripled between 1997 and 2007, according to a study in Health Affairs.

Then a slowdown lasted until about 2013, before spending shot up again. What explains these trends?

By 2015, American annual spending on prescription drugs reached about $1,000 per person and 16.7 percent of overall personal health care spending. The Commonwealth Fund compared that level with that of nine other wealthy nations: Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and Britain.

Among those, Switzerland, second to the United States, was only at $783. Sweden was lowest, at $351. (It should be noted that relative to total health spending, American spending on drugs is consistent with that of other countries, reflecting the fact that we spend a lot more on other care, too.)

Several factors could be at play in America’s spending surge. One is the total amount of prescription drugs used. But Americans do not take a lot more drugs than patients in other countries, as studies document.

In fact, when it comes to drugs primary care doctors typically prescribe — including medications for hypertension, high cholesterol, depression, gastrointestinal conditions and pain — a recent study in the journal Health Policy found that Americans use prescription drugs for 12 percent fewer days per year than their counterparts in other wealthy countries.

Another potential explanation is that Americans take more expensive brand-name drugs than cheaper generics relative to their overseas counterparts. This doesn’t hold up either. We use a greater proportion of generic drugs here than most other countries — 84 percent of prescriptions are generic.

Though Americans take a lower proportion of brand-name drugs, the prices of those drugs are a lot higher than in other countries. For many drugs, U.S. prices are twice those found in Canada, for example.

Prices are a lot higher for brand-name drugs in the United States because we lack the widespread policies to limit drug prices that many other countries have.

“Other countries decline to pay for a drug when the price is too high,” said Rachel Sachs, who studies drug pricing and regulation as an associate professor of law at Washington University in St. Louis. “The United States has been unwilling to do this.”

For example, except in rare cases, Britain will pay for new drugs only when their effectiveness is high relative to their prices. German regulators may decline to reimburse a new drug at rates higher than those paid for older therapies, if they find that it offers no additional benefit. Some other nations base their prices on those charged in Britain, Germany or other countries, Ms. Sachs added.

That, by and large, explains why we spend so much more on drugs in the United States than elsewhere. But what drove the change in the 1990s? One part of the explanation is that a record number of new drugs emerged in that decade.

In particular, sales of costly new hypertension and cancer drugs took off in the 1990s. The number of drugs with sales that topped $1 billion increased to 52 in 2006 from six in 1997. The combination of few price controls and rapid growth of brand-name drugs increased American per capita pharmaceutical spending.

“The scientific explosion of the 1970s and 1980s that allowed us to isolate the genetic basis of certain diseases opened a lot of therapeutic areas for new drugs,” said Aaron Kesselheim, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School.

He pointed to other factors promoting the growth of drug spending in the 1990s, including increased advertising to physicians and consumers. Regulations on drug ads on TV were relaxed, which led to more advertising. More rapid F.D.A. approvals, fueled by new fees collected from pharmaceutical manufactures that began in 1992, also helped push new drugs to market.

In addition, in the 1990s and through the mid-2000s, coverage for drugs (as well as for other health care) expanded through public programs. Expansions of Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program also coincided with increased drug spending. And Medicare adopted a universal prescription drug benefit in 2006. Studies have found that when the potential market for drugs grows, more drugs enter it.

In 2007, U.S. drug spending growth was the slowest since 1974. The slowdown in the mid-2000s can be explained by fewer F.D.A. approvals of blockbuster drugs. Annual F.D.A. approvals of new drugs fell from about 35 in the late 1990s and early 2000s to about 20 per year in 2005-07.

In addition, the patents of many top-selling drugs (like Lipitor) expired, and as American prescription drug use tipped back toward generics, per capita spending leveled off.

The spike starting in 2014 mirrors that of the 1990s. The arrival of expensive specialty drugs for hepatitis C, cystic fibrosis and other conditions fueled spending growth. Many of the new drugs are based on relatively recent advances in science, like the completion of the human genome project.

“Many of the new agents are biologics,” said Peter Bach, director of the Center for Health Policy and Outcomes at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. “These drugs have no meaningful competition, and therefore command very high prices.”

A U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issue brief estimated that 30 percent of the rise in drug spending between 2000 and 2014 could be attributed to price increases or greater use of higher-priced drugs. Coverage expansions of the Affordable Care Act also contributed to increased drug spending. In addition, “there has been a lowering of approval standards,” Dr. Bach said. “So more of these new, expensive drugs are making it to market faster.”

“As in the earlier run-up in drug spending, we’re largely uncritical of the price-value trade-off for drugs in the U.S.,” said Michelle Mello, a health law scholar at Stanford. “Though we pay high prices for some drugs of high value, we also pay high prices for drugs of little value. The U.S. stands virtually alone in this.”

If the principal driver of higher American drug spending is higher pricing on new, blockbuster drugs, what does that bode for the future? “I suspect things will get worse before they get better,” Ms. Sachs said. The push for precision medicine — drugs made for smaller populations, including matching to specific genetic characteristics — may make drugs more effective, therefore harder to live without. That’s a recipe for higher prices.

Democratic politicians have tended to be the ones advocating governmental policies to limit drug prices. But recently the Trump administration announced a Medicare drug pricing plan that seems to reflect growing comfort with how drug prices are established overseas, and there’s new optimism the two sides could work together after the results of the midterms. Although the effectiveness of the plan remains unclear, it is clearly a response to public concern about drug prices and spending.

CVS also recently announced it would devise employer drug plans that don’t include drugs with prices out of line with their effectiveness — something more common in other countries but unheard-of in the United States. Even if these efforts don’t take off rapidly, they are early signs that attitudes might be changing.

 

 

 

 

Trends in Health Policy and the Mid-Term Elections Results

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

http://avalere.com/expertise/life-sciences/insights/series-trends-in-health-policy-and-the-mid-term-election-results

Image result for Series: Trends in Health Policy and the Mid-Term Elections Results

Tune in to hear Avalere experts discuss potential implications of the mid-term elections on health policy. Director Chris Sloan interviews Senior Vice President Elizabeth Carpenter on the mid-term elections results and what this could mean for the future of healthcare policy.

CS: Hello, and welcome to a special mid-term elections Avalere podcast. This is the last in a three-part series we’re doing on the health policy implications of the mid-term elections, and this time, we actually have results from the mid-term elections! My name is Chris Sloan, I’m a director with the federal and state policy group here at Avalere. Today, we’re going to discuss the results of the mid-term elections and the implications for health policy going forward.

As a reminder for those of you living under rocks, the mid-term elections ended with Democrats taking control of the House while Republicans increased their lead in the Senate. In three states, Medicaid expansion ballot initiative passed, which is likely to lead to about 325,000 new enrollees in Medicaid in Idaho, Nebraska, and Utah. Also, Democratic candidates who campaigned on Medicaid expansion won the governors races in Kansas, Maine, and Wisconsin, potentially leading to another 300,000 Medicaid enrollees in those states if they follow through with expansion.

Joining me today to talk about all of this and what we can expect in healthcare from the new Democratically-controlled House is Elizabeth Carpenter. She’s the senior vice president of our federal and state policy group, and she’s the preeminent expert at Avalere in all things health policy. Thanks for being here.

EC: Thanks for having me.

CS: The exit polling for the elections showed that healthcare again was one of the top issues for voters in the elections, eight years after the passage of the ACA. Can you talk about why this issue has continued to be such a big part of campaigns and elections in U.S. politics?

EC: I think this election marked a new high in some ways in terms of how Americans thought and voted on health care. If you had asked me this question leading up to 2016, I would have focused on Americans talking about jobs and the economy, and I would have linked healthcare to jobs and the economy. People often talk about being worried about their job because they are worried about affording their health insurance and their healthcare. This year, from a domestic policy perspective, we saw healthcare at the top of the list, and when you look under the hood, what you see is that people were focused on healthcare costs and not necessarily those costs that are predictable—premiums ranked somewhat low on the list. People were very focused on surprise medical bills and certain areas where we’ve seen increased deductibles and coinsurance that are leading people to be more exposed to system costs. It’s clear that people were focused on healthcare, but they were really focused on having a surprise or unexpected healthcare expense where they were going to have to go out of pocket quite a bit at one time. As the economy has stabilized, people seem to be zeroing on the healthcare front. What I would say is, in all of our policy discussions of healthcare costs, you have to ask yourself, what is the policy doing to address that question? In many cases, I would opine that the policy is not doing much. So it is quite likely that we may see this issue continue as we head towards 2020.

CS: In that vein, a lot of the Democratic candidates this election cycle were campaigning on expansions of public programs, like Medicare for All, Medicare for More. Do we expect that to continue now that Democrats have taken control of the House? How big of an issue do you think recent campaign promises have been?

EC: I would say the Democrats face a choice in this moment about what they want their next step of health reform to look like in advance of 2020. In general, I would very much expect Democrats to use the next year or two to offer thought leadership and position their party in advance of the presidential race. What that looks like, I don’t think we know at this moment. There were a number of candidates, interestingly at the state and federal level, who embraced a Medicare for All or Medicare for More type of approach. Some of those candidates won and some didn’t, and it’s hard to pinpoint what role their position on this circular policy had in those results. But I think it is fair to say that there will be continued debate over what role Medicare and other public programs play in covering our citizens and that Democrats will need to land on something in advance of 2020.

CS: So that was one big issue in the campaign, and another big issue that was on both sides was pre-existing conditions protections that made its way into the campaign season this year. There is still a lawsuit in Texas challenging the Affordable Care Act and the pre-existing conditions now that the individual mandate is gone. Do you see this as an option for some sort of bipartisan consensus coming out of the divided congress? What do you see happening with this issue going forward?

EC: This is another issue where when you look under the hood, even people who say the same things mean potentially very different things. We had candidates on both sides of the isle running ads that talked about their desire to protect pre-existing condition protections, despite the fact that some of those candidates voted to uphold the Affordable Care Act and others voted to repeal it. You asked what might happen if we see the core go down this path where pre-existing conditions projections will be null and void and would Congress sweep in and produce a solution. On face, you could say both parties to some degree do want to maintain protections for some pre-existing conditions. In practice, how you do that gets complicated. Once you open up this particular issue, you’re going to have people on one side of the isle wanting to use it as an opportunity to do certain kinds of reforms, and you have people on the other side of the isle who want to change the insurance market in another way. We’ve heard already from Democrats, for example, who are interested in potentially pursuing limitations on some of the short-term plans, including association health plans and other types of plans that don’t meet all Affordable Care Act requirements. People have already said they want to pursue this in this congress. So you can imagine there being a real need to do something, but at the same time, you can envision how this gets complicated and partisan really quickly. The closer we get to 2020, the more complicated any kind of healthcare debate gets.

CS: Given those realities of a divided government and partisanship, are we in a holding pattern for health policy until 2020 and the next election?

EC: I think a TBD there. Based on what we’ve seen so far, I don’t think anyone holds out a lot of hope for kumbayah and bipartisan progress. At the same time, we’ve seen over the past 24-48 hours various lawmakers on both sides of the isle talking about, for example, the drug pricing issue. The important thing to remember here is that we have a president who is non-traditional in some of his thinking and not necessarily aligned with the positions of the historic Republican party, so to the degree that Congress can reach some kind of alignment, it’s quite possible the President would sign something that another president might not. But it really is up to Congress to decide if they can and want to work together. Both sides at this point are making a calculation about working together and governing is good for them heading into the next election or if fostering gridlock and highlighting differences is a better political path.

CS: Great. Well, thank you so much for being with us. That wraps up our final episode of our three-part Avalere mid-term elections podcast series. As always, watch for more updates and analysis from Avalere over the coming weeks. Feel free to reach out to us with any questions. You are listening to Avalere Podcasts.

 

 

FTC: Florida company made $100M selling fake insurance

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

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/legal-regulatory-issues/ftc-florida-company-made-100m-selling-fake-insurance.html

Image result for skinny health plans

A federal judge has temporarily shut down Miami-based Simple Health Plans at the request of the Federal Trade Commission.

In a federal complaint against Simple Health Plans, the company’s owner and five other entities, the FTC alleges Simple Health Plans collected more than $100 million by selling worthless health plans to thousands of people. The company allegedly misled consumers to think they were buying comprehensive “PPO” health insurance plans when they were actually purchasing plans that provided no coverage for pre-existing conditions or prescription medications.

Many of the people who purchased plans from Simple Health Plans are facing hefty medical bills for expenses they assumed would be covered by their health insurance plan. In addition, because the limited health plans do not qualify as health insurance under the ACA, some people were subject to a fee imposed on those who can afford to buy health insurance but choose not to.

The FTC is seeking to permanently shut down Simple Health Plans and to have the company return money to consumers.

 

 

MID-TERM MESSAGE: DON’T MESS WITH MY HEALTHCARE!

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

https://www.healthleadersmedia.com/mid-term-message-dont-mess-my-healthcare

Tired of the partisanship and dithering in Congress, voters took matters into their own hands Tuesday and largely embraced initiatives and politicians who vowed to expand Medicaid and protect coverage for pre-existing conditions.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

You can’t undo an entitlement.

‘Repeal and replace’ is dead. Drug pricing reforms a likely area of bipartisan consensus.

Democrats can push Medicare For All at their own peril.

For healthcare economist Gail Wilensky, the big message that voters sent to their elected officials during Tuesday’s mid-term elections was straightforward and simple.

“Don’t mess with my healthcare,” says Wilensky, a senior fellow at Project HOPE and a former MedPAC chair.

“It’s as clear as that. There were no subtleties involved here,” she says. “That includes protections for pre-existing conditions and added coverage under Medicaid.”

Consider what happened on Tuesday:

  • Overall, Democrats wrested control of the House from Republicans in an election where healthcare was seen as the single biggest issue. Democrats ceaselessly hammered Republicans with the claim that the GOP would eliminate protections for pre-existing conditions.
  • Ballot initiatives in three bright-red Republican states all passed with healthy margins. A similar ballot initiative in Montana failed, but observers blamed the failure on an unpopular $2-per-pack tax on cigarettes that would have paid for the expansion.
  • Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel, a lead plaintiff in a Texas v. Azar, was ousted by Democrat Josh Kaul, who promised to withdraw Wisconsin from the suit.
  • Three-term Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker lost a re-election bid to Democrat Tony Evers, likely scuttling that state’s recent waiver approval for Medicaid work requirements. Evers also pledged to expand Medicaid.
  • Phil Weiser, Colorado’s Democratic Attorney General-elect, and a former Obama administration staffer, told Colorado Public Radio that one of his first actions would be to join the 17 Democratic attorneys general intervening to defend the ACA in Texas v. Azar.  

Wilensky says the mid-terms results reinforce one of the oldest truisms in politics: Once an entitlement is proffered, there’s no going back.

“There is no precedent that I’m aware of in American political history where a benefit can be taken away,” she says. “Once granted, it can be modified, it can be increased, it can be augmented in some way, but there’s no taking it away after it’s been in place.”

When Democrats took control of the House, Wilensky says, they drove a stake through the heart of the “repeal and replace” movement.

“Republicans couldn’t even get that done when they control both houses of Congress, she says. “It’s a non-issue, in part because a lot of Republicans support major provisions of the Affordable Care Act.”

With repealing the ACA off the table, Democrats and Republicans might find common ground on issues such as drug pricing.

“That’s clearly is the most obvious, in general, but the specifics of what you want to do become much more challenging,” Wilensky says. “Typically, Democrats want to use administered pricing the way that we use administer pricing in parts of Medicare. I don’t know how much Republican support there is for that.”

The two parties could reach some sort of bipartisan agreement on Medicare Part B drugs, Wilensky says, because it’s a smaller program and the drugs are generally much more expensive.

“Most members of Congress are not talking about messing around with Part D, the ambulatory prescription drug coverage,” Wilensky says. “So it really has to do either with the expensive infusion drugs that are administered in the physician’s office or maybe something about drug advertising. Even then, it’s going to be hard lift when you actually get down to the specifics.”

Besides, Wilensky says, it’s not the cost of drugs that’s at the heart of voter agitation.

“You have to unpack what they’re saying to figure out what they’re actually pushing for,” she says. “People couldn’t care less about drug prices. They only care about what it costs them. So when they talk about drug prices they mean, ‘I want to spend less for the drugs I want, and I don’t want any constraints about what I can order.’

More likely, she says, common ground could be found in arcane areas such as mandating greater transparency for pharmacy benefits managers, and changing PBMs’ rebate structure.

Wilensky warns that giddy Democrats should learn from the mistakes of Republicans in the mid-terms and not attempt to force a Medicare-For-All solution on a wary public.

“First of all, they’re going to have to define what it means,” she says. “But, you have to be very careful because historically there’s not been warm and fuzzy response to taking away people’s employer-sponsored insurance.”

“Again, historically, when candidates mess around with employer-sponsored insurance they have gotten themselves into trouble,” she says. “Most people would like to keep what they have, because keeping what you have is much safer than going with something as yet to be defined.”

“DON’T MESS WITH MY HEALTHCARE. IT’S AS CLEAR AS THAT. THERE WERE NO SUBTLETIES INVOLVED HERE,”

 

What the 2018 Midterm Elections Means for Health Care

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

https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/%2010.1377/hblog20181107.185087/full/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=What+the+Midterms+Mean+For+Health+Care%3B+%22Stairway+To+Hell%22+Of+Health+Care+Costs%3B+Patient+Safety+In+Inpatient+Psychiatry&utm_campaign=HAT%3A+11-07-18

Whatever you want to call the 2018 midterm elections – blue wave, rainbow wave, or purple puddle – one thing is clear: Democrats will control the House.

That fundamental shift in the balance of power in Washington will have substantial implications for health care policymaking over the next two years. Based on a variety of signals they have been sending heading into Tuesday, we can make some safe assumptions about where congressional Democrats will focus in the 116th Congress. As importantly, there were a slew of health care-related decisions made at the state level, perhaps most notably four referenda on Medicaid expansion.

In this post, I’ll take a look at which health care issues will come to the fore of the Federal agenda due to the outcome Tuesday, as well as state expansion decisions. And it should of course be noted that, in addition to positive changes Democrats are likely to pursue over the next two years, House control will allow them to block legislation they oppose, notably further GOP efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

Drug Pricing

Democrats have long signaled they consider pharmaceutical pricing to be one of their highest priorities, even after then-candidate Trump adopted the issue as part of his campaign platform and maintained his focus there through his tenure as President.

While aiming to use the issue to drive a wedge between President Trump and congressional Republicans, who have historically opposed government action to set or influence prices, Democrats will also strive to distinguish themselves by going further on issues like direct government negotiation of Medicare Part D drug reimbursement.

Relevant House committee chairs, perhaps especially likely Oversight and Investigations chair Elijah Cummings (D-MD), will also take a more aggressive tack in investigating manufacturers and other sector stakeholders for pricing increases and other practices. Democratic leaders believe it will be easier to achieve consensus on this issue than on more contentious issues like single payer (more detail below) among their diverse caucus, which will include dozens more members from “purple” districts as well as members on the left flank of the party

Preexisting Condition Protections

If you live in a contested state or district, you have probably seen political ads relating to protecting patients with preexisting conditions. As long as a Republican-supported lawsuit seeking to repeal the ACA continues, Democrats believe they can leverage this issue to demonstrate the importance of the ACA and their broader health care platform.

A three-legged stool serves under current law to protect patients with chronic conditions: (1) the ban on preexisting condition exclusions; (2) guaranteed issue; and (3) community rating. Democrats will likely seek to bolster these protections with measures to shore up the ACA exchange markets. In the same vein, they will likely strive to rescind Trump Administration proposals to expand association-based and short-term health plans, which put patients with higher medical costs at risk by disaggregating the market.

Opioids

Congressional Democrats believe that there were some stones left unturned in this year’s opioid-related legislation, especially regarding funding for many of the programs it authorized. This is a priority for likely Ways & Means Committee Chair Richie Neal (D-MA) and could potentially be a source of bipartisan compromise.

Medicare for All

While this issue could become a bugaboo for old guard party leaders, the Democratic base will likely escalate its calls for action on Medicare for All now that the party has taken the House. Because the details of what various camps intend by this term are still vague (some believe it is tantamount to single payer, others view it as a gap-fill for existing uninsured, etc.), we will likely see a variety of competing proposals arise in the coming two years. Expect less bona fide committee action and more of a public debate aired via the presidential primary season that will kick off about, oh, right now.

Surprise Bills

The drug industry is not the only health care sector that can expect heightened scrutiny of their pricing practices now that Democrats control the people’s chamber. Most notably, the phenomenon of surprise bills (unexpected charges often stemming from a hospital visit) has risen as a salient issue for the public and thus a political winner for the party. Republicans have shown interest in this issue as well, so it could be another source of bipartisanship next year.

Regulatory Oversight

Democrats believe they are scoring well with the public, and certainly their base, every time they take on President Trump. The wide range of aggressive regulation (and deregulation) the Administration has pursued will be thoroughly investigated and challenged by Democratic committee leaders, especially administration efforts to dismantle the ACA and to test the legal bounds of the hospital site neutrality policy enacted in the Bipartisan Budget Act (BBA) of 2015.

Extenders

While it instituted permanent policies for Medicare physician payments and some other oft-renewed ‘extenders’, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) of 2015 left a variety of policies in the perennial legislative limbo of needing to be repeatedly extended. While the policies in the Medicare space have dwindled to subterranean, though not necessarily cheap, affairs like the floor on geographic adjustments to physician payments, a slew of Medicaid-related and other policies are up for renewal in 2019.

For example, Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) payments face a (previously delayed) cliff next year. That and the most expensive extender, ACA-initiated funding for community health centers, alone spring the cost of this package into the high single digit billions at least, driving a need for offsetting payment cuts and creating a vehicle for additional policy priorities.

A likely addition to this discussion will be the fact that Medicare physician payments, per MACRA, are scheduled to flatline for 2020-2025 before beginning to increase again, albeit in divergent ways for doctors participating in the Merit-Based Incentive Payment Program (MIPs – 0.25 percent/year) and Advanced Alternative Payment Models (APMs – 0.75 percent/year). The AMA assuredly noticed this little wrinkle in the celebrated legislation but hundreds of thousands of doctors probably did not.

Medicaid Expansion

Of the variety of state-level health policy decisions voters made on Tuesday, perhaps the most significant related to Medicaid expansion. In there states where Republican leaders have blocked expansion under the ACA – Nebraska, Idaho, and Utah – voters endorsed it via public referenda. Increasing the Medicaid eligibility level in those three states to the ACA standard will bring coverage to approximately 300,000 people.

Notably, voters in Montana rejected a proposal to continue funding the Medicaid expansion the state enacted temporarily in 2015 by an increase to the state’s tobacco tax. Their expansion is now scheduled to lapse in July 2019 if the legislature doesn’t act to maintain it. If they do not act, about 129,000 Montanans will lose Medicaid coverage.

Finally, Democratic gubernatorial wins in Maine, Kansas, and Wisconsin will make Medicaid expansion more likely in those states.

As they say, elections have consequences. While the Republican-controlled Senate and White House can block any Democratic priorities they oppose, the 2018 midterm elections assure a busy two years for health care stakeholders.

 

 

HEALTHCARE WINNERS AND LOSERS FROM ELECTION NIGHT 2018

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

https://www.healthleadersmedia.com/strategy/healthcare-winners-and-losers-election-night-2018

The most significant developments of the night focused around Medicaid expansion, how healthcare leaders who ran for public office fared in the elections, and several down-ballot healthcare initiatives.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Healthcare leaders who were elected: Gov. Rick Scott, Lauren Underwood, RN, and former HHS Secretary Donna Shalala.

Races where healthcare was a major factor: mixed bag for vulnerable House Republicans who voted to repeal-and-replace the ACA, as well as Medicare for All proponents.

Healthcare ballot initiatives: Three states approve Medicaid expansion, one does not; Massachusetts votes down Question 1.

The 2018 midterm elections are over but made a significant impact on healthcare policies at the federal and state level across the country, while also determining who will be in office to enact them.

The future of healthcare policymaking will be influenced by the decisions made by millions of voters on Tuesday night, as Democrats took back the House while Republicans held onto control in the Senate.

Healthcare was a top priority for voters as they made their way to the polls to vote on issues such as Medicaid expansion and the healthcare leaders seeking to represent them on Capitol Hill.

Below are some of the most significant healthcare-related developments from the 2018 midterms:

MEDICAID EXPANSION APPROVED IN 3 RED STATES, DEFEATED IN MONTANA

Three traditionally conservative states joined Maine in approving Medicaid expansion via ballot initiative, while voters in Montana sank the measure which was attached to a proposed tobacco tax hike proposal.

More than 300,000 residents across Nebraska, Idaho, and Utah are likely to receive extended Medicaid coverage as a result of expansion. The number of places with Medicaid expansion now totals 37 states as well as the District of Columbia.

Support for the measure exceeded 60% in Idaho, while Utah and Nebraska approved Medicaid expansion with 54% and 53% of the vote, respectively.

Montana, voting on the most expensive ballot measure in state history, voted down the expansion proposal, which will sunset at the end of the year.

NURSE STAFFING RATIO PROPOSAL SHOT DOWN IN MASS.

Last night, Massachusetts voters had their say on ballot Question 1, which sought to implement nurse- to-patient ratios in hospitals and other healthcare settings.

It was met with a resounding ‘no’ from the electorate, with about 70% voting against the measure and almost 30% voting for it.

For months, the law has been hotly debated. Those in favor said it would improve patient safety and care. Those opposed said it didn’t account for patient acuity and would create a financial burden on hospitals and healthcare systems.

Had the law passed, Massachusetts would have joined California as the only other state to require that level of mandatory ratios.

PROPONENTS OF MEDICAID WORK REQUIREMENTS

As expected, two of the three governors who received federal approval for Medicaid work requirements and were on the ballot for the midterms, Gov. Chris Sununu, R-N.H. and Gov. Asa Hutchinson, R-Ark., cruised to election night victories.

Sununu defeated Democratic challenger Molly Kelly by a 52% to 46% margin while Hutchinson dispatched Democratic opponent Jared Henderson with 65% of the vote.

The most vulnerable of the three Republican incumbents, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, was unseated by Democratic opponent Tony Evers by just over a single percentage point.

Wisconsin had just received CMS approval for its Medicaid work requirements last week, which was the latest development in a race dominated by healthcare issues that ultimately pushed Walker out of office. 

ADDITIONAL HEALTHCARE BALLOT INITIATIVES YIELD MIXED RESULTS

Oklahoma voters rejected the Walmart-backed Question 793, which would have amended the Oklahoma Constitution to give optometrists and opticians the right to practice in retail stores. Walmart gave nearly $1 million in the third quarter alone to proponents of the initiative, which was narrowly defeated by less than 6,000 votes.

Nevada voters approve exemption of durable medical goods from state sales tax. Local media in Nevada are reporting that more than 67% of voters in state voted for Question 4, which amends the Nevada Constitution to require the state legislature to exempt some durable medical goods, including oxygen delivery equipment and prescription mobility-enhancing equipment, from sales tax.

California voters roundly rejected an initiative to cap the profits of kidney dialysis providers at 15% above direct patient cost. However, Golden State voters approved a ballot initiative that authorizes $1.5 billion in bonds to fund capital improvements at the state’s 13 children’s hospitals.

BITTERSWEET NIGHT FOR VULNERABLE HOUSE REPUBLICANS AND MEDICARE FOR ALL PROPONENTS

The race in Kentucky’s 6th Congressional District set the tone for the night among House races, as Rep. Andy Barr, who was targeted by Democrats for his support of House GOP plans to repeal-and-replace the ACA, faced Democratic challenger Amy McGrath, who voiced support in Medicare-for-All legislation.

A neck-and-neck race throughout the early part of the evening, Barr ultimately defeated McGrath, but other vulnerable House Republicans did not fare as well.

In New York, Rep. John Faso lost to Democratic challenger Antonio Delgado in the 19th Congressional District, a race highlighted by disagreements over healthcare policy, and Rep. Claudia Tenney, a vocal critic of the ACA, was unseated by Democratic opponent Anthony Brindisi in the 22nd Congressional District.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-VT, and Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., two of the most notable proponents of Medicare for All were reelected, while newcomer Alexandria Ocasio-Cortz, a self-described Democratic Socialist, became the youngest woman ever elected to Congress in New York’s 14th Congressional District.

However, other Medicare for All proponents did not perform as expected across the country, with Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum losing a tight gubernatorial race in Florida to Republican Rep. Ron DeSantis, and Rep. Beto O’Rourke falling to Republican incumbent Sen. Ted Cruz in the Texas Senate race.

HEALTHCARE LEADERS ON THE BALLOT

After a lengthy primary season and contentious general election cycle, numerous healthcare leaders won their respective elections Tuesday night.

Healthcare was one of the most prominent issues concerning voters in the midterm election cycle, punctuated by more than 60 declared candidates with healthcare backgrounds running for public office in 2018.

Around 35 candidates made it to the general election ballot and more than two dozen received a stamp of approval from the voters.

Most notably were Gov. Rick Scott, former head of Columbia/HCA, who won a neck-and-neck race against Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla.,Lauren Underwood, RN, a former HHS adviser under former President Barack Obama, who defeated Rep. Randy Hultgren, R-Illi., and former HHS Secretary Donna Shalala, who won a hotly contested campaign in Miami.

 

 

Shifting the Healthcare Debate

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

http://click1.email.thehill.com/ViewMessage.do?m=ndkqkwkw&r=jnjbrjrv&s=ugcmvzybchhjzjhgnccmmcykhyhddfcbzpk&q=1541641771&a=view

Related image

 

Welcome to Wednesday’s Overnight Health Care, where Democrats have won back the House, opening the door to a shift in the health care debate.

Here’s what we’ll be watching for on health care when the new Democratic House majority takes over:

  1. Oversight. Democrats are sure to launch investigations and hearings into all sorts of actions Republicans have taken that they think undermined the Affordable Care Act, from expanding skimpier short-term health insurance plans to cutting outreach efforts. They could also bring up different industry executives to testify, for example those from drug companies. We’ve seen some of this happen already with Martin Shkreli and Heather Bresch, but Democrats may want to go even further to shame the industry for high prices.
  2. Drug pricing. Speaking of which, legislation to fight high drug prices is an early priority for House Democrats. They think it could be an area for bipartisan support, as President Trump has also focused on the issue. Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said Tuesday she thinks there could be “common ground” with Trump on the idea, and Trump listed the issue as a possible area of cooperation Wednesday as well. But any drug pricing action always faces an uphill climb.
  3. Pre-existing condition protections. If a federal judge rules in favor of Texas and the other Republican state attorneys general challenging the law, Congress is going to need to have a backstop in place. Republicans in the Senate already passed their versions of such legislation, but left the door open to insurers charging higher premiums for people with pre-existing conditions. If the law’s protections are truly at risk, Senate Republicans will need to back up their campaign rhetoric with action.
  4. Medicare for All. The most sweeping change Democrats have discussed does not have any real chance of being enacted into law with a Republican Senate and president. But it’s worth watching whether liberal Democrats start planning and agitating for some action on Medicare for all, with hearings, revised legislation, etc.

 

Medicaid wins big at the polls

It was a big night for Medicaid. Three red states voted to expand Medicaid, giving health coverage to potentially hundreds of thousands of newly eligible people.

Idaho voters approved expansion with more than 61 percent of the vote, Utah passed expansion with 54 percent and Nebraska passed it with 53 percent. In Nebraska and Utah, the approval came despite opposition from the states’ Republican governors.

Democrats also won close gubernatorial races in Kansas and Wisconsin, putting expansion on the table. In Kansas, expansion legislation passed in 2017 but former Gov. Sam Brownback (R) vetoed it. In Wisconsin, Gov. Scott Walker (R) lost to Democrat Tony Evers, who campaigned on a platform that included expansion.

 

The Trump administration finalized two rules today making it easier for some employers to avoid complying with the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate. Here’s what they do:

  • The first rule provides an exemption to the mandate for entities that object to contraception based on their “sincerely held religious beliefs.”
  • The second rule gives ax exemption to nonprofits, small businesses and individuals that have non-religious, moral objections to the mandate.

These rules are largely similar to two interim final rules released by the administration last year. But the second rule was amended to state that the moral exemptions don’t apply to publicly traded businesses and government entities.

The rules take effect 60 days after their publication in the Federal Register.

Context: These rules are already the subject of multiple lawsuits against the administration. From National Women’s Law Center President Fatima Goss Graves:

“The Trump Administration decided to finalize these outrageous rules, despite several pending lawsuits and two federal courts blocking them. It’s clear that this Administration will stop at nothing to attack women’s health care… if the Administration thinks it can move these rules forward without a fight, they’re wrong.”

 

On the topic of abortion, two states last night laid the groundwork to ban abortion if the Supreme Court makes changes to Roe v. Wade.

Voters in Alabama and West Virginia approved sweeping amendments to state constitutions that could put major limitations on access to abortions if Roe v. Wade is overturned by the Supreme Court.

Alabama’s amendment makes it state policy to protect “the rights of unborn children” and “support the sanctity of unborn life.” It also says there are no constitutional protections for a woman’s right to an abortion.

Fifty-nine percent of voters approved the measure.

West Virginia narrowly passed a similar amendment that states nothing in the state Constitution “secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of abortion.” That vote was 52 percent to 48 percent.

Read more here.

 

 

Health Care Is on Agenda for New Congress

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

https://www.scripps.org/blogs/front-line-leader/posts/6546-ceo-blog-health-care-is-on-agenda-for-new-congress

After months of polls, mailbox fliers, debates and seemingly endless commercials, the mid-term elections are over and the results are in. As predicted by many, the Democrats have won back the majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, while the Republicans have expanded their majority in the Senate.

This means that for the first time since 2015 we have a divided Congress, which leaves me pondering the possible consequences for Scripps Health and the broader health care sector.

Without a doubt, health care will be on the agenda for both parties over the coming months. That became apparent during pre-election campaigning as voters on both sides of the political spectrum voiced concerns about a wide range of health care-related issues.

Exit polls found that about 41 percent of voters listed health care as the top issue facing the country, easily outpacing other issues such as immigration and the economy.

That’s really no surprise. Health care affects all of us, whether we’re young or old, poor or well off, or identify as more conservative or more liberal. And despite all of the division around the country, most Americans seem to agree on at least a few things – health care costs too much, more needs to be done to rein in those costs, everyone should have access to health insurance, and pre-existing condition shouldn’t be a disqualifier for getting coverage.

When the new Congress convenes on Jan. 3, a wide range of health care issues will be on the agenda.

Here are a few of the issues that I’ll be watching as our lawmakers adjust to the reshuffled political dynamics in Washington.

  • Repealing elements of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is likely off the table now that Democrats control the House. Previously, House Republicans had voted to change a number of ACA provisions that required health insurance policies to cover prescription drugs, mental health care and other “essential” health benefits. But even before the election, Republicans had reassessed making changes to measures that protect people with pre-existing conditions as that issue gained traction with voters.
  • Efforts to expand insurance coverage and achieve universal health care will likely increase. A number of newly elected Democrats vowed to push for a vote on the single-payer option, but other less politically polarizing options such as lowering the eligibility age for Medicare and expanding Medicaid likely will draw more support.
  • While Republicans used their majority in the House to reduce the burden of government regulations in health care and other industries, Democrats might use their new-found power to initiate investigations on a wide range of matters such as prescription drug costs.

We could see some significant changes take place at a more local level as well. On Tuesday, voters in three states approved the expansion of Medicaid, the government program that provides health care coverage for the poor.

And here in California, we will be watching newly elected Governor Gavin Newsom to see what plans he will put forward for expanding health care coverage in this state.

At Scripps, we believe everyone should have access to the health care services that they need, and we have worked hard in recent years to do all that we can to bring down the costs of delivering that care to our patients.

In this new world of divided government, gridlock likely will prevail and President Trump’s initiatives will struggle in the Democrat-controlled House. Everyone will be focused on positioning themselves and their party for the next presidential and congressional elections in two years.

Compromise and bipartisanship are clearly the best options for addressing the health care challenges we now face in ways that have the best chance to win wide public support.

If Democrats in the House fail to reach across the aisle to Republicans or try to make too many changes too quickly, they surely will face many of the same pitfalls that confronted Republicans over the last two years.

 

 

THE RACES AND ISSUES HEALTHCARE LEADERS NEED TO WATCH ON ELECTION NIGHT

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

https://www.healthleadersmedia.com/strategy/races-and-issues-healthcare-leaders-need-watch-election-night

The 2018 midterm elections will decide the fate of numerous healthcare-related ballot measures as well as which leaders will shape health policy in the coming years.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Issues to watch: Medicaid expansion in 4 states, a healthcare bond initiative in California, and the debate over preexisting condition protections.

Candidates to watch: Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, former Gov. Phil Bredesen, former HHS Secretary Donna Shalala, and others.

Healthcare has been an overarching issue for voters in the 2018 midterm election cycle, with many focusing on the future of the Affordable Care Act when it comes to national health policy but also taking stock of state and local ballot initiatives as well.

Several traditionally Republican states will decide whether to expand Medicaid under the ACA; staffing requirements for nurses are a hot-button topic in Massachusetts; and a major children’s hospital bond is on the table in California. 

Beyond the issues are the candidates, including many Republican leaders on Capitol Hill in tight races to defend their seats after voting to repeal and replace the ACA. At the state level, Republican governors and their attorneys general are having their healthcare records put to the test as Democrats make protecting preexisting conditions and rejecting Medicaid work requirements key parts of the campaign.

Here are the key issues and candidates healthcare leaders will be watching as results begin rolling in Tuesday evening, with voters determining the direction of healthcare policymaking for years to come.

MEDICAID EXPANSION IN 4 RED STATES

One year after voters approved Medicaid expansion in Maine, the first state to do so through a ballot initiative, four other states have the opportunity to join the Pine Tree State.

Montana: The push to extend Medicaid expansion in Montana before the legislative sunset at the end of the year is tied to another issue: a tobacco tax hike. The ballot measure, already the most expensive in Montana’s history, would levy an additional $2-per-pack tax on cigarettes to fund the Medicaid expansion which covers 100,000 persons.

Nebraska: Initiative 427 in traditionally conservative Nebraska, could extend Medicaid coverage to another 90,000 people. The legislation has been oft-discussed around the Cornhusker State, earning the endorsement of the Omaha World-Herald editorial board.

Idaho: Medicaid expansion has been one of the most talked about political items in Idaho throughout 2018. Nearly 62,000 Idahoans would be added to the program by Medicaid expansion, some rural hospitals have heralded the move as a financial lifeline, and outgoing Gov. Bruce Otter, a Republican, blessed the proposal last week.

Utah: Similar to Montana’s proposal, Utah’s opportunity to expand Medicaid in 2018 would be funded by a 0.15% increase to the state’s sales tax, excluding groceries. The measure could add about 150,000 people to Medicaid if approved by voters, who back the measure by nearly 60%, according to a recent Salt Lake Tribune/Hinckley Institute poll.

4 MORE BALLOT INITIATIVES

In addition to the four states considering whether to expand Medicaid, there are four others considering ballot initiatives that could significantly affect the business of healthcare.

Massachusetts mulls nurse staffing ratios. Question 1 would implement nurse-to-patient staffing ratios in hospitals and other healthcare settings, as Jennifer Thew, RN, wrote for HealthLeaders. The initiative has backing from the Massachusetts Nurses Association.

Nurses have been divided, however, on the question, and public polling prior to Election Day suggested a majority of voters would reject the measure, which hospital executives have actively opposed. The hospital industry reportedly had help from a major Democratic consulting firm.

California could float bonds for children’s hospitals. Proposition 4 would authorize $1.5 billion in bonds to fund capital improvement projects at California’s 13 children’s hospitals, as Ana B. Ibarra reported for Kaiser Health News. With interest, the measure would cost taxpayers $80 million per year for 35 years, a total of $2.9 billion, according to the state’s Legislative Analyst’s Office.

Proponents say children’s hospitals would be unable to afford needed upgrades without public assistance; opponents say the measure represents a fiscally unsound pattern. (California voters approved a $750 million bond in 2004 and a $980 million bond in 2008.)

Nevada nixing sales tax for medical equipment? Question 4 would amend the Nevada Constitution to require the state legislature to exempt certain durable medical goods, including oxygen delivery equipment and prescription mobility-enhancing equipment, from sales tax. The proposal, which passed a first time in 2016, would become law if it passes again.

Bennett Medical Services President Doug Bennett has been a key proponent of the measure, arguing that it would bring Nevada in line with other states, but opponents contend the measure is vaguely worded, as the Reno Gazette Journal reported.

Oklahoma weighs Walmart-backed optometry pitch. Question 793 would add a section to the Oklahoma Constitution giving optometrists and opticians the right to practice in retail mercantile establishments.

Walmart gave nearly $1 million in the third quarter alone to back a committee pushing for the measure. Those opposing the measure consist primarily of individual optometrists, as NewsOK.com reported.

INCUMBENTS, PLAINTIFFS, PREEXISTING CONDITIONS

It’s been more than two months since Republican attorneys general for 20 states asked a federal judge to impose a preliminary injunction blocking further enforcement of the Affordable Care Act, including its coverage protections for people with preexisting conditions. Some see the judge as likely to rule in favor of these plaintiffs, though an appeal of that decision is certain.

Amid the waiting game for the judge’s ruling, healthcare policymaking—especially as it pertains to preexisting conditions—rose to the top of voter consciousness in the midterms. That explains why some plaintiffs in the ACA challenge have claimed to support preexisting condition protections, despite pushing to overturn them.

The lawsuit and its implications mean healthcare leaders should be watching races in the 20 plaintiff states in the Texas v. Azar lawsuit: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine Gov. Paul LePage, Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Thirteen of those plaintiff states have active elections involving their state attorneys general, and several have races for governor in which the ACA challenge has been an issue, including these noteworthy states:

  • Texas: Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican representing the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, is facing a challenge from Justin Nelson, a Democrat, and the race seemed to be competitive, as The Texas Tribune reported. Gov. Greg Abbott was expected to win against Democratic challenger Lupe Valdez.
  • Florida: Attorney General Pam Bondi, a Republican, is term-limited, so she’s not running for reelection. Ashley Moody, a Republican, and Sean Shaw, a Democrat, are facing off for Bondi’s position. Moody expressed support for Florida’s participation in the ACA challenge, while Shaw said he would pull the state out, calling the case a “partisan stunt,” as the Tampa Bay Times reported. Bondi has campaigned, meanwhile, for Republican gubernatorial candidate Ron DeSantis, who’s facing off with Democrat Andrew Gillum. Gillum said he would back a state law to protect people with preexisting conditions, while DeSantis said he would step in if federal action removed the ACA’s preexisting condition protections, as the Miami Herald reported. Gillum and DeSantis are vying to succeed term-limited Gov. Rick Scott, a Republican who’s running for U.S. Senate.
  • Wisconson: Attorney General Brad Schimel, a Republican, is facing a challenge from Josh Kaul, a Democrat who has slammed Schimel’s participation in the ACA challenge, as The Capital Times reported. Gov. Scott Walker, a Republican, said he supports preexisting condition protections, despite authorizing his state’s participation in the lawsuit. Democratic challenger Tony Evers accused Walker of “talking out of both sides of his mouth,” as the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported.

PROPONENTS OF MEDICAID WORK REQUIREMENTS

Five states have received approvals from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to institute Medicaid work requirements: Kentucky, Indiana, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, and Arkansas. (Only four have active approvals, however, since a federal judge blocked Kentucky’s last summer.)

Three incumbent governors who pushed for work requirements are running for reelection:

New Hampshire: After receiving approval for New Hampshire’s Medicaid work requirements, Republican Gov. Chris Sununu said the government is committed to helping Granite Staters enter the workforce, adding that it is critical to the “economy as a whole.” Despite spearheading a controversial topic in a politically centrist state, Sununu has not trailed against his Democratic opponent Molly Kelly in any poll throughout the midterm elections.

Arkansas: Similarly, Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, is running in a race where he has held a sizable lead over his Democratic challenger Jared Henderson. Since enacting the work requirements over the summer, the state has conducted two waves where it dropped more than 8,000 enrollees.

Wisconsin: The most vulnerable Republican governor of a state with approved Medicaid work requirements is Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who has been neck and neck with Democratic nominee Tony Evers. While the Badger state only received approval for its Medicaid work requirements last week, healthcare has been a central issue of the campaign as Walker, a longtime opponent of the ACA, works to address premium costs in the state and defend his record on preexisting conditions.

Indiana and Kentucky: Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb and Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin are not on the ballot this year.

When HealthLeaders issued its first list in April of the healthcare leaders running for public office during the primaries, there were more than 60 candidates with relevant healthcare backgrounds out on the campaign trail.

Now, for the general election, that list has nearly been halved, with 35 candidates still remaining. 

This collection of healthcare leaders includes registered nurses, former insurance company executives, physicians, and former government health policy leaders.

U.S. Senate: Running for the Senate are Florida Gov. Rick Scott, former Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen, former Celgene CEO Bob Hugin, and State Sen. Leah Vukmir.

U.S. House: Among those aiming to join the House are Lauren Underwood, RN, former HHS Secretary Donna Shalala, and Dr. Kim Schrier.

 

 

Pre-existing conditions: Does any GOP proposal match the ACA?

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

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2018/oct/17/pre-existing-conditions-does-any-gop-proposal-matc/?fbclid=IwAR2QXSwiwRryxaHWJVgO3evTUtJPk6QcV1HkxkaI2qq3iPWqsrXqGA0qPeY

From a routine visit to a critical exam, the stethoscope remains one of the most common physician tools. (Alex Proimos, via Flickr Creative Commons)

In race after race, Democrats have been pummeling Republicans on the most popular piece of Obamacare, protections for pre-existing conditions. No matter how sick someone might be, today’s law says insurance companies must cover them.

Republican efforts to repeal and replace Obamacare have all aimed to retain the guarantee that past health would be no bar to new coverage.

Democrats aren’t buying it.

In campaign ads in Nevada, Indiana, Florida, North Dakota, and more, Democrats charged their opponents with either nixing guaranteed coverage outright or putting those with pre-existing conditions at risk. The claims might exaggerate, but they all have had a dose of truth.

Republican proposals are not as air tight as Obamacare.

We’ll walk you through why.

The current guarantee

In the old days, insurance companies had ways to avoid selling policies to people who were likely to cost more than insurers wanted to spend. They might deny them coverage outright, or exclude coverage for a known condition, or charge so much that insurance became unaffordable.

The Affordable Care Act boxes out the old insurance practices with a package of legal moves. First, it says point-blank that carriers “may not impose any preexisting condition exclusion.” It backs that up with another section that says they “may not establish rules for eligibility” based on health status, medical condition, claims experience or medical history.

Those two provisions apply to all plans. The third –– community rating –– targets insurance sold to individuals and small groups (about 7 percent of the total) and limits the factors that go into setting prices. In particular, while insurers can charge older people more, they can’t charge them more than three times what they charge a 21-year-old policy holder.

Wrapped around all that is a fourth measure that lists the essential health benefits that every plan, except grandfathered ones, must offer. A trip to the emergency room, surgery, maternity care and more all fall under this provision. This prevents insurers from discouraging people who might need expensive services by crafting plans that don’t offer them.

At rally after rally for Republicans, President Donald Trump has been telling voters “pre-existing conditions will always be taken care of by us.” At an event in Mississippi, he faulted Democrats, saying, “they have no plan,” which ignores that Democrats already voted for the Obamacare guarantees.

At different times last year, Trump voiced support for Republican bills to replace Obamacare. The White House said the House’s American Health Care Act “protects the most vulnerable Americans, including those with pre-existing conditions.” A fact sheet cited $120 billion for states to keep plans affordable, along with other facets in the bill.

But the protections in the GOP plans are not as strong as Obamacare. One independent analysis found that the bill left over 6 million people exposed to much higher premiums for at least one year. We’ll get to the congressional action next, but as things stand, the latest official move by the administration has been to agree that the guarantees in the Affordable Care Act should go. It said that in a Texas lawsuit tied to the individual mandate.

The individual mandate is the evil twin of guaranteed coverage. If companies were forced to cover everyone, the government would force everyone (with some exceptions) to have insurance, in order to balance out the sick with the healthy. In the 2017 tax cut law, Congress zeroed out the penalty for not having coverage. A few months later, a group of 20 states looked at that change and sued to overturn the entire law.

In particular, they argued that with a toothless mandate, the judge should terminate protections for pre-existing conditions.

The U.S. Justice Department agreed, writing in its filing “the individual mandate is not severable from the ACA’s guaranteed-issue and community-rating requirements.”

So, if the mandate goes, so does guaranteed-issue.

The judge has yet to rule.

Latest Republican plan has holes

In August, a group of 10 Republican senators introduced a bill with a title designed to neutralize criticism that Republicans don’t care about this issue. It’s called Ensuring Coverage for Patients with Pre-Existing Conditions. (A House Republican later introduced a similar bill.)

The legislation borrows words directly from the Affordable Care Act, saying insurers “may not establish rules for eligibility” based on health status, medical condition, claims experience or medical history.

But there’s an out.

The bill adds an option for companies to deny certain coverage if “it will not have the capacity to deliver services adequately.”

To Allison Hoffman, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, that’s a big loophole.

“Insurers could exclude someone’s preexisting conditions from coverage, even if they offered her a policy,” Hoffman said. “That fact alone sinks any claims that this law offers pre-existing condition protection.”

The limit here is that insurers must apply such a rule across the board to every employer and individual plan. They couldn’t cherry pick.

But the bill also gives companies broad leeway in setting premiums. While they can’t set rates based on health status, there’s no limit on how much premiums could vary based on other factors.

The Affordable Care Act had an outside limit of 3 to 1 based on age. That’s not in this bill. And Hoffman told us the flexibility doesn’t stop there.

“They could charge people in less healthy communities or occupations way more than others,” Hoffman said. “Just guaranteeing that everyone can get a policy has no meaning if the premiums are unaffordable for people more likely to need medical care.”

Rodney Whitlock, a health policy expert who worked for Republicans in Congress, told us those criticisms are valid.

“Insurers will use the rules available to them to take in more in premiums than they pay out in claims,” Whitlock said. “If you see a loophole and think insurers will use it, that’s probably true.”

Past Republican plans also had holes

Whitlock said more broadly that Republicans have struggled at every point to say they are providing the same level of protection as in the Affordable Care Act.

“And they are not,” Whitlock said. “It is 100 percent true that Republicans are not meeting the Affordable Care Act standard. And they are not trying to.”

The House American Health Care Act and the Senate Better Care Reconciliation Act allowed premiums to vary five fold, compared to the three fold limit in the Affordable Care Act. Both bills, and then later the Graham-Cassidy bill, included waivers or block grants that offered states wide latitude over rates.

Graham-Cassidy also gave states leeway to redefine the core benefits that every plan had to provide. Health law professor Wendy Netter Epstein at DePaul University said that could play out badly.

“It means that insurers could sell very bare-bones plans with low premiums that will be attractive to healthy people, and then the plans that provide the coverage that sicker people need will become very expensive,” Epstein said.

Insurance is always about sharing risk. Whether through premiums or taxes, healthy people cover the costs of taking care of sick people. Right now, Whitlock said, the political process is doing a poor job of resolving how that applies to the people most likely to need care.

“The Affordable Care Act set up a system where people without pre-existing conditions pay more to protect people who have them,” Whitlock said. “Somewhere between the Affordable Care Act standard and no protections at all is a legitimate debate about the right tradeoff. We are not engaged in that debate.”