CMS ends risk-adjustment freeze, releasing $10.4B to insurers

https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/payer/cms-risk-adjustment-final-rule-methodology-aca?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTXpNek1HSm1NRGRqWVRKayIsInQiOiI3bHlhXC8rXC9uTkhJWkNGN1lvZTRHWjZYbVZ2SXRibEo5b0o3NUd5NUZrSkpwN0VwRlZmdW5vUXB6clI3cHQwVW1uZVg2dkZtRHExM3B6SytHOWJuSmk2T2lVQlNGQ0lLaTJMZWJuTEpxYzFDcENYdXVjQnNGRk1JU1o0UG9LTUZsIn0%3D&mrkid=959610

Image result for cms risk adjustment freeze

 

The Trump administration will release billions in risk-adjustment payments to insurers this fall, ending a relatively short-lived freeze that generated pushback from payers and providers alike.

“This rule will restore operation of the risk-adjustment program and mitigate some of the uncertainty caused by the New Mexico litigation,” CMS Administrator Seema Verma said in a statement. “Issuers that had expressed concerns about having to withdraw from markets or becoming insolvent should be assured by our actions today. Alleviating concerns in the market helps to protect consumer choices.”

The final rule (PDF), released by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) on Tuesday evening, maintains the same methodology for risk-adjustment transfers previously outlined by the agency, using statewide average premiums as part of the formula. CMS included an additional explanation in the rule on the formula.

For the 2018 and 2019 benefit years, CMS will adjust statewide average premiums by 14% to account for an estimated proportion of administrative costs that do not vary with claims. The agency will not apply an adjustment to the 2017 plan payments “to protect the settled expectations of insurers” that have already calculated pricing and offering decisions based on the 2017 formula.

“Absent this administrative action, HHS would be unable in the coming months to collect charges or make payments to issuers for the 2017 benefit year,” the rule states. “These amounts total billions of dollars, and failure to make the payments in a timely manner threatens to undermine the stability of the insurance markets.”

CMS suspended the $10.4 billion in risk-adjustment payments earlier this month, citing a New Mexico court decision in February that vacated the use of statewide average premiums to calculate risk-adjustment payments. The agency asked the district court judge to reconsider his ruling, but that decision isn’t expected until the end of August.

Most policy experts expected CMS to unfreeze the payments, and late last week the agency sent an interim rule to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.

Several insurers were quick to denounce the freeze. Physician and hospital groups like the American Hospital Association and the American Medical Association had also urged CMS to reinstate the payments in recent weeks.

 

Despite shift to value-based care, hospitals still paying doctors with fee-for-service expectations, AMA says

http://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/despite-shift-value-based-care-hospitals-still-paying-doctors-fee-service-expectations-ama-says?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTXpGak1qTmhNbVUxWVRsaSIsInQiOiJwQlwvU1ZxcTU2bExreng4NXpEZ0Q2WkRYeldUbzlNM3kwWlJFeER5WlwvS3NqQ0lvMFwveHVNRExjdmVkdkRNMTBOb3FlZlwvOUJIMTYzR0tVWlNlcDJWMlRkMVM4TzZCK1I3XC9NSkFkc1U5QjhYaTZXKzhaUnY0M2RKNGNubTR5dk84In0%3D

 

A quick breakdown of the different approaches hospitals are taking to compensate physicians amid the massive shift from volume to value.

The shift from fee-for-service payment models to those based in value has been occurring steadily over the past few years. Increasingly, providers are determining physician pay through a number of different means. But what does that mean for the ways hospital pay doctors? And what approach are your competitors taking?

The options include straight salary, compensation based on personal productivity (as has been the case in a fee-for-service world), bonus structures and tieing pay to an organization’s overall financial performance.

Salary is the most common model at 52.5 percent, while productivity still accounted for 31.8 percent. Only 9 percent was based on the practice’s financial performance, meanwhile, and bonuses comprised 4.1 percent, according to an American Medical Association analysis.

Here’s where the plot thickens a bit. “Over half of physicians (54.4 percent) indicated that their compensation was based on more than one method, greater than what was observed in 2014 and 2012,” AMA said.

Productivity was a greater chunk of compensation for private practice owners, at 44.7 percent; that number dipped to 22.3 percent for employed physicians.

Partly that’s because employed physicians were more likely to have a salary, decreasing the need for productivity to factor into their overall compensation equation, the AMA said. The group said some physicians are likely feeling pressure to increase their productivity by doing things like increasing their patient volume, or hiring outside help to perform more menial tasks.

It’s worth noting that while the AMA just published the findings, they are based on surveys conducted during September of 2012, 2014 and 2016 with approximately 3,500 respondents each year — and a lot has happened in value-based care since then.

“We also find evidence that the use of multiple methods to determine physicians’ overall compensation has been on the upswing,” AMA said.

 

Payer trade groups slam short-term health plan proposal

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/payer-trade-groups-slam-short-term-health-plan-proposal/521941/

 

More organizations, including Aetna and the American Medical Association, submitted comments on the proposed rule Monday.

Dive Brief:

  • The Alliance of Community Health Plans (ACHP) and America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) both slammed CMS’ proposal to expand short-term, limited duration (STLD) insurance plans, saying the proposed rule would undermine key consumer protections, lead to higher premiums in the individual market and jeopardize market stability.
  • The proposed rule, pushed by the Trump administration as a way to increase access to cheaper plan alternatives and sidestep the Affordable Care Act, would allow consumers to purchase plans for up to 12 months that do not adhere to federal rules for individual health insurance. STLD plans can charge those with pre-existing conditions more and may not cover ACA essential health benefits such as prescription drug coverage.
  • The insurance lobbies argued that other policy mechanisms would be more effective at improving the individual health insurance market. AHIP pointed to increasing 1332 state waiver flexibility and the adoption of regulations aimed at preventing improper steering of Medicare and Medicaid consumers into the individual market, and ACHP advocated for the creation of a federal reinsurance program as more effective ways to promote affordable coverage.

Dive Insight:

The comments are indicative that many insurers are hesitant to back health plans that lack the consumer protections the ACA put into place due to a fear such plans would destabilize the individual market. Monday is the last day to submit comments on the rule.

new Kaiser Family Foundation brief notes that many middle-income people not shielded by premium subsidies in the individual market would likely see premium costs increase. Combined with the individual mandate penalty being zeroed out, the effort to increase STLD plans could result in fewer individuals enrolled in the ACA market, adversely impacting its stability.

“Short-term plans were designed for consumers to use as temporary, stop-gap measures when moving between plans – not as long-term replacements for health insurance,” ACHP CEO Ceci Connolly said in a statement. “A broad, stable risk pool is crucial for providing affordable coverage and care. ACHP believes that other policy options, such as reinsurance, would be far more effective at promoting high-quality, affordable coverage and care for all Americans.”

ACHP argued the proposed rule should not be finalized, saying the current status-quo limit of 90 days should be maintained.

AHIP called for any final rule to limit the duration of STLD plans to six months, adding that the plans should be required to have a plain-language disclosure that the plans should not be considered comprehensive health insurance. The group argued that the effective date of any final rule should come no sooner than Jan. 1, 2020.

“As the Departments advance policies to expand access to lower-cost coverage choices for a subgroup of consumers, it is critical to improve the affordability of comprehensive coverage options for all Americans, regardless of health status,” Matthew Eyles, AHIP COO, wrote in the group’s comment.

But major insurer Aetna, which left AHIP in 2016, said in its comment STLD plans “can be a valuable option for many consumers.”

The insurer argued that such plans must be transparent with disclosure language, limit any look-back period for pre-existing conditions to 12 months and define a minimum floor of benefits including inpatient hospital services, physician services, mental health and substance abuse services and one annual physical and annual well-woman visit before the deductible.

A group of Senate Democrats were among those asking for the rule to not be finalized, arguing it “could increase costs and reduce access to quality coverage for millions of Americans, harm people with pre-existing conditions, and force premium increases on older Americans.”

The American Medical Association also echoed the insurance lobby’s concern, saying STLD plans would endanger the coverage gains of the past decade and destabilize the market. AMA argued the administration should withdraw the proposed rule, saying it is “a step in the wrong direction and will lead to a proliferation of inadequate health insurance policies in the market.”

A joint comment of 21 consumer advocates, including March of Dimes and the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, also called for withdrawing the proposal.

PhRMA voiced concern in its comment over the lack of prescription drug coverage in STLD plans, citing an analysis that found than 71% of such plans do not cover outpatient prescription drugs. “If consumers can renew these plans for an extended period, it increases the chances that consumers may find themselves diagnosed with a new condition that can be effectively treated by an innovative drug at a time when they are covered by a short-term plan that does not cover prescriptions drugs,” PhRMA wrote.

 

 

Hospitals look inward, add C-suite officer to boost staff wellness

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/hospitals-look-inward-add-c-suite-officer-to-boost-staff-wellness/516451/

Chief wellness officers are becoming more mainstream.

As healthcare organizations look for ways to reduce physician burnout, some are placing their bets on a new C-suite role: chief wellness officer.

Hospitals that appoint an executive to oversee wellness anticipate not only happier employees but also improved patient experience and outcomes.

Physician burnout is at an all-time high. In a recent Medscape survey, nearly two-thirds of doctors reported feeling burned out, depressed or both. Worse, 33% of respondents said those feelings impacted their patient interactions. Burnout rates were highest among family physicians, intensivists, internists, neurologists and OB-GYNs, and were higher among women than men.

This epidemic, if you will, comes as the nation faces a growing shortage of doctors. The Association of American Medical Colleges projects the physician shortage could reach 105,000 by 2030.

Among factors fueling burnout are long hours, increasing regulatory and recordkeeping requirements and administrative and computer tasks. An Annals of Family Medicine report in September found that primary care physicians spend more than half their workday on EHR tasks. But the implications go beyond the looming shortage; physician burnout has been linked to lower productivity and absenteeism, medical errors, poorer outcomes and lack of engagement with patients.

Enter the chief wellness officer, or chief physician wellness officer as the title is sometimes called. The idea is not new, says Linda Komnick, a senior partner and co-leader of the physician integration and leadership practice at Witt/Kieffer. Companies and large organizations have employed them for more than a decade. However, it’s only in the past couple of years that they’ve started cropping up in healthcare.

“I would not call it a ‘trend’ yet,” she told Healthcare Dive. “What is a definite trend is that healthcare organizations are trying to be more holistic in supporting employees.”

The idea of CWOs aligns with the shift toward value-based, patient-centric care. Hospitals are trying to differentiate themselves culturally while they manage cost and risk. And there’s growth in self-insured plans and the overall societal thrust toward wellness.

Last summer, Stanford Medicine became the first academic medical center in the U.S. to designate a CWO, naming Dr. Tait Shanafelt, a hematologist who spearheaded an anti-burnout initiative at the Mayo Clinic.

Creating incentives for wellness

Concerns about chronic disease and rising healthcare costs led the Cleveland Clinic to appoint the C-suite role a decade ago. The question was “could we change the culture and environment of the organization by figuring out incentives to help people stay well and then reward them for staying well?” explains CWO Dr. Michael Roizen. “And what would that do to absenteeism and productivity?”

To do that, the clinic asked employees to achieve six “normal” vital signs — blood pressure, fasting blood sugar, body mass index, LDL cholesterol, healthy urine, learn to manage stress and see a primary care physician once a year. Those who meet those targets or are on a clear path to achieving them get the insurance rates and benefits in effect in 2008, when the CWO program took off. Everybody else gets rates in line with the current economy.

Preventing burnout is a big part of Roizen’s role. He says stress levels for healthcare workers were five deviations above the mean in 1983 when the Perceived Stress Scale was developed. To address the problem, the clinic offers an online stress management program. Those who take it see their stress and burnout levels fall by about 75% and 44%, respectively, he says.

The clinic also designated two physicians to work solely on reducing EHR clicks for physicians and uses scribes to assist its primary care practices.

There have been environmental changes as well, such as removing sugary products from vending machines, eliminating fried foods and trans fats in its eateries and making on-campus fitness centers free to employees.

The effort has paid off. In 2008, about 6% of clinic employees had six normal vital signs. Today, 63.8% of employees are in chronic care management programs and 40% have the six normal numbers. “That’s saved us, compared with competitors, $254 million for 101,000 employees in the past three years,” Roizen tells Healthcare Dive.

In addition, absentee rates have dropped from 1.07% to 0.70%. That change alone, if all the clinic did was replace the nurses, saves about $7 million a year, he adds.

It’s a win for employees, too, Roizen notes. The lower insurance rates translate to about $200,000 more in retirement funds, and employees live about eight years younger, meaning their risk of getting a chronic disease is that of someone younger.

A holistic approach

Dr. Edward Ellison, executive medical director and chairman of Southern California Permanente Medical Group, hired a CWO six years ago after physicians ranked the organization “very low” on wellness support in an internal survey. The response stood in contrast to that of managers and other staff.

The survey was trigger of sorts, Ellison says. “I had been a practicing physician and I knew the stresses. I knew the challenges of the electronic health record and how it had made many positive gains for systems of care and caring for patients, but created an added burden for physicians.” The survey was a “data point for me and what really prompted me to appoint a chief physician wellness officer,” he adds.

To increase physician satisfaction, the group now offers flexible and alternate work schedules, reduced hours, mental health resources and peer-to-peer support. Specified teams help physicians prioritize administrative tasks so that others can handle the clerical work. There is also a physician concierge to help with non-work life planning, social events aimed at reducing the isolation physicians can feel in their job. Doctors are taught to practice personal preventive care and provided access to workout equipment.

“You have to take a very holistic approach,” Ellison tells Healthcare Dive. “It starts with culture, but it’s also about the practical, tactical time in your day. It’s about reducing the hassle factor and some of the bureaucracy of systems, and it’s about personal care and resilience and connecting people so that they don’t feel isolated.”

SCPMG has repeated the survey that showed physicians did not feel the organization supported their wellness. The response today: double-digit improvements on culture and wellness, Ellison says.

An evolving role

So what qualities does a CWO need? Healthcare organizations are still figuring that out, says Komnick. Some are tacking physician and employee wellness onto medical director, chief human resource officer or chief experience officer roles. For those focused on physician wellness, it helps to have someone with a medical degree or research credentials. Other assets include the ability to lay out a vision for long-term wellness and supportive programs and exceptional collaborative and communication skills to get people on board with new ways of working in organizations that are traditionally resistant to change, she says.

The challenges for CWOs are huge and call for a wide continuum of solutions. “It’s not one size fits all, and we have to do this in the face of enormous change in healthcare, a lot of ongoing changes in reimbursement strategies and systems of care,” says Ellison, noting CWOs have to navigate all of that while focusing on wellness and resilience.

Meanwhile, the problem of burnout is only getting worse. Ellison sees a parallel in airline passengers being told to don their own oxygen mask before helping others. “We need to make sure that our physicians are as healthy as they can be because they are then going to be able to be their for their patients and support them,” he says. “It is in line with taking care of our patients.”

 

 

Anthem to cut pay for some same-day services by 25%: 4 things to know

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/payer-issues/anthem-to-cut-pay-for-some-same-day-services-by-25-4-things-to-now.html

Image result for anthem blue cross

Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield plans to reduce payment by 25 percent for some separate services administered on the same day as a wellness exam or another procedure.

Here are four things to know about the proposed policy.

1. The insurer lowered the planned payment cut for some same-day services from 50 percent to 25 percent following pushback from the American Medical Association. Anthem also postponed the rollout of the cuts — initially slated for Jan. 1 — to March 1, 2018. The insurer postponed implementation after AMA sent a letter to Anthem and met with senior Anthem officials to oppose the policy.

2. One example the Kentucky Medical Association provided of a same-day service that may face payment reduction is the instance of a patient coming in for a nosebleed. After the physician packs a patient’s nose to stop the bleeding, the physician may evaluate the patient for moderate hypertension and adjust their medication. In this instance, KMA argued, the hypertension service was medically necessary, though separate from packing the nose.

3. The policy begins March across the following states: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio and Wisconsin. The policy will also take effect in Georgia and Virginia after network contract renewal.

4. Jack Resneck Jr., MD, chair-elect of the AMA board of trustees, said, “Anthem’s decision to reduce the magnitude of the proposed payment cuts in response to evidence supplied by AMA is a positive step. However, the AMA continues to challenge Anthem’s rationale for the unjustified 25 percent reduction proposed in the revised policy.”

 

200 health, business groups endorse bipartisan ObamaCare bill

200 health, business groups endorse bipartisan ObamaCare bill

Image result for aca business group support

More than 200 health and business groups have endorsed a bipartisan bill to shore up ObamaCare’s insurance markets.

Senate Health Committee Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and ranking member Patty Murray (D-Wash.) announced the support Wednesday as part of their latest push to get the bill passed.

Those in support include influential groups such as the American Medical Association and the American Hospital Association.

But the bill still faces an uphill battle to becoming law. While it appears to have the support needed to pass the Senate, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has said he won’t call it for a vote without approval from President Trump.

The bill would fund ObamaCare’s insurer subsidy payments for two years and give states additional flexibility to change their ObamaCare requirements.

Trump has called the bill a bailout for insurance companies and is pushing for more conservative changes.

But Murray said Tuesday she hasn’t had any discussions with the White House about making changes to the legislation, calling for it to be brought up as is.

The bill thus appears to be at a standstill. Many observers think its only real chance is to be included in a larger deal on spending in December.

Healthcare groups blast skinny repeal, warn premiums will spike

Healthcare groups blast skinny repeal, warn premiums will spike

Image result for higher premiums

Healthcare groups are coming out against the Senate GOP’s plan to pass a scaled-down ObamaCare repeal bill, saying it would spike insurance premiums.

The American Medical Association, the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association and the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network are among the range of healthcare groups blasting the bill.

The scaled-down, “skinny” repeal bill would repeal ObamaCare’s mandate for people to have insurance, which insurers and other groups warn would lead to a sicker group of enrollees and spiking premiums.

The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association warned of “steep premium increases and diminished choices that would make coverage unaffordable and inaccessible.”

“Eliminating the mandate to obtain coverage only exacerbates the affordability problem that critics say they want to address,” said Dr. David Barbe, president of the American Medical Association.

“We again urge the Senate to engage in a bipartisan process — through regular order — to address the shortcomings of the Affordable Care Act and achieve the goal of providing access to quality, affordable health care coverage to more Americans,” Barbe said.

The Congressional Budget Office previously found that repealing the individual mandate would lead to 15 million more uninsured people and cause premiums to increase by about 20 percent.

Republican senators argue the scaled-down repeal bill will never actually become law, and is just a way to set up negotiations with the House on a larger plan. But the House is making no guarantees that it won’t simply vote on the bill and send it to the president.

“The continuing effort by Senate leaders to figure out by trial and error some bill that might gain the needed 50 votes to pass is a threat to millions of Americans including cancer patients and survivors who must have comprehensive coverage in order to access prevention and medical treatment,” the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network said in a statement.

“The legislation could cause the individual insurance market to collapse putting millions of American families at financial risk,” the cancer group said.

In addition to repealing the individual mandate, the skinny bill would also defund Planned Parenthood, cut the ObamaCare prevention and public health fund, and repeal the employer mandate.

Many healthcare groups have been strongly opposed to the GOP effort to repeal ObamaCare throughout the process, instead urging a bipartisan approach.

Medicaid cuts had been a major focus, though those are not be included in the current bill.

Regardless, America’s Essential Hospitals, which is strongly opposed to Medicaid cuts, said it is still opposed to the “skinny bill.”

“While it doesn’t directly affect Medicaid, it still would badly undermine coverage and access by destabilizing the private marketplace,” Bruce Siegel, the group’s president, said in a statement.

The AARP, a powerful senior group, also warned against it.

“The bill will leave millions uninsured, destabilize the health insurance market and lead to spikes in the cost of premiums,” it wrote in a letter to congressional leaders.

“AARP will inform our members and the public how their Senators voted,” the letter added.

Healthcare weighs in on BCRA failure: 6 reactions

http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/hospital-management-administration/healthcare-weighs-in-on-bcra-failure-6-reactions.html

Image result for aca repeal failure

The Senate GOP’s revised Better Care Reconciliation Act stalled indefinitely Monday evening after two more Republican senators defected from the bill. With the bill dead, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has proposed a full ACA repeal strategy that involves repealing the ACA and initiating a two-year delay.

Here are six reactions from healthcare industry leaders, provided via emailed statements.

American Medical Association President David Barbe, MD, stressed that the debate over healthcare reform is ongoing, and said a collaborative process must commence among lawmakers “that produces a bipartisan approach to improve healthcare in our country.”

“The status quo is unacceptable. Near-term action is needed to stabilize the individual/nongroup health insurance marketplace. In the long term, stakeholders and policymakers need to address the unsustainable trends in health care costs while achieving meaningful, affordable coverage for all Americans. The American Medical Association is ready to work on short- and long-term solutions.”

American Hospital Association President and CEO Rick Pollack called for “protect[ing] care for patients.”

“This [consistent call from the organization] is grounded in the belief that coverage must be preserved for all who currently have it. Repeal without any effort to replace would leave millions of patients at risk during their most vulnerable times. We have urged Congress to consider advancing solutions aimed at making our healthcare system stronger, protecting access and coverage, and exploring new delivery system reforms that have the potential to make care both more affordable and safer. Our hope is that the Senate will use this opportunity to regroup and work in a bipartisan manner to make the much-needed repairs and refinements, creating a healthcare system that can stand the test of time. We ask Congress to extend the Children’s Health Insurance Program and vital rural health programs and stabilize the health insurance marketplaces by funding the cost-sharing reduction payments.”

American Association of Medical Colleges President and CEO Darrell Kirch, MD, said his organization has maintained that an ACA repeal “must be accompanied by a simultaneous replacement that provides at least comparable healthcare coverage.”

“Patients — particularly those with complex conditions — require stability and continuity in their care. Without access to affordable meaningful coverage, many would forego or delay necessary medical care. This puts millions of Americans, including the most vulnerable patients, at risk. Any healthcare reform legislation must put patients first by maintaining or improving current levels of coverage.”

America‘s Essential Hospitals President and CEO Bruce Siegel, MD, said his organization welcomes the BCRA failure.

“We hope lawmakers seize on this opportunity to bring all stakeholders to the table and develop a plan to protect coverage for everyone — especially those in greatest need. The newly surfaced plan to repeal the ACA’s core provisions with a two-year delay is not the way to protect coverage and almost certainly would jeopardize care for people who face financial hardships.”

He added, “The repeal-and-delay strategy would leave millions of lives in limbo and create uncertainty that would destabilize insurance markets and paralyze hospitals and other providers. Needed improvements and expansion of services would stall without a clear path forward, threatening access in communities across the country. Insurers might abandon the ACA marketplace, further degrading access.”

Physicians for Reproductive Health Board Chair Willie Parker, MD, hopes congressional leaders realize ” it is time to cease efforts to destroy what is a literal lifeline for millions of Americans.”

“It’s time to stop inventing ways to deny people the right to affordable, comprehensive health care. It’s time to stop targeting women’s healthcare via making it more expensive and finding new ways to restrict care. It’s time to start treating abortion care as what is it is: a part of comprehensive healthcare that should be covered by all forms of insurance, including public insurance. It’s time to listen to evidence: birth control without extra copays has helped patients be healthier and thrive, access to preventive care saves lives, and comprehensive sex education and resources work. It’s time for healthcare equity for all. It’s time to stop attacking Medicaid, one of the most successful health care programs in our country’s history. It’s time to close the gap between Americans who have healthcare and those who don’t. In short, repeal of the ACA is an idea whose time will never come.”

Catholic Health Association of the United States President and CEO Sister Carol Keehan penned a letter to senators.

“On behalf of the Catholic Health Association of the United States, the national leadership organization of more than 2,000 Catholic healthcare systems, hospitals, long-term care facilities, sponsors, and related organizations, I strongly urge you to start anew in an open dialogue and bipartisan effort to improve healthcare coverage in our country. We believe that this moment calls for statesmanship on the part of both political parties to work together to make the improvements in our healthcare system that will stabilize the individual insurance market, improve affordability, and strengthen and expand the coverage gains already achieved.”

Lobby groups to watch in Senate healthcare fight

Lobby groups to watch in Senate healthcare fight

Image result for Lobby Groups to Watch in Senate Health Care Fight

Lobbying groups opposed to the House’s healthcare reform bill are pinning their hopes on the Senate for big changes.

Industry groups felt largely cut out of the House’s drafting and passage of the American Health Care Act and now are clamoring for action to fix what they view as serious defects in the legislation.

Major hospital and doctor associations, for example, want people with health insurance to stay covered and are pushing to ensure adequate funding for the Medicaid program.

Characterizing this wish list, one healthcare lobbyist put it simply: “Coverage, coverage, coverage.”

AARP, meanwhile, is urging the Senate to start from scratch on a new healthcare bill. The powerful lobbying group for senior citizens believes the legislation, in its current form, creates  “an unaffordable age tax” for older Americans.

Here are the industries and groups to watch as senators write their healthcare reform bill.

Hospitals

Just a day after the House released its bill, the American Hospital Association (AHA) sent a letter to lawmakers in opposition — and that position hasn’t changed.

In a statement after the bill’s passage through the House, AHA President and CEO Rick Pollack said he was “disappointed” because the bill “jeopardize[s] coverage for millions of Americans” and “makes deep cuts to Medicaid.”

The association’s voice carries weight, as it represents nearly 5,000 member hospitals and healthcare systems and is the sixth-highest spender on lobbying this year, according to OpenSecrets.

About 24 million people would become uninsured under the House bill, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO). An updated score from the CBO is expected next week.

Other hospital organizations have also panned the House’s healthcare bill, including the Federation of American Hospitals and America’s Essential Hospitals.

Hospital associations want a bill that won’t result in millions more without health coverage and are looking to prevent the CBO-estimated $880 billion in Medicaid cuts. They say the proposed reductions will make it more difficult for hospitals to deliver care.

One hospital advocate said its group is having serious conversations on the policy recommendations it can make to the Senate to help protect patients and hospitals from the costs that could fall on their shoulders.

Healthcare providers

The fourth-largest lobbying spender this year, the American Medical Association (AMA), is also a vocal critic of the House bill.

On Monday, the group representing physicians and medical students sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) to “reaffirm the principles” that they say should guide any bill that changes ObamaCare.

Health coverage is a top priority for the group.

“Throughout the current debate we have consistently recommended that any proposals to replace portions of the current law should pay special attention to ensure that individuals currently covered do not lose access to affordable, quality health insurance coverage,” AMA CEO James Madara wrote in the letter.

The group is pushing to retain protections for pre-existing conditions and ensure states that expanded Medicaid under ObamaCare isn’t put at risk.

The AMA also says the new tax credits in the Republican bill for purchasing insurance should factor in income, geography and age. The House-passed bill only factored in age for determining a credit, increasing the size of the subsidy as a person gets older.

The American College of Surgeons, consisting of more than 80,000 members, didn’t formally oppose the House bill. Yet it had concerns about the bill’s access to surgical care and ability to let states opt out of requiring insurers to cover a list of 10 categories of services.

“Making sure that patients have insurance that is needed to making sure that they have timely access to surgical care was important, and I know will continue to be important to the American College of Surgeons as we review a Senate bill,” Christian Shalgian, the director of the group’s division of advocacy and health policy, said.

He added: “I think we’re definitely getting a receptive ear from the Senate. They’re interested in where we’re at with what they’re going to be doing in the coming weeks and months.”

Insurers

The leading lobbying group for health insurers, America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), didn’t oppose the House bill.

But it did see room for improvement — and was quick to provide recommendations to the Senate.

Just two hours after the House passed its bill, Marilyn Tavenner, AHIP president and CEO, detailed a few proposed changes in a statement. They included bolstering tax credits for lower-income Americans, older adults and those living in areas with high healthcare costs and providing enough time for people to adjust to Medicaid changes, among others.

Insurers also have an immediate request, though: getting certainty from the administration and Congress that crucial ObamaCare payments to insurers, to the tune of about $7 billion, will continue to be made.

The Association for Community Affiliated Plans (ACAP) did come out against the bill. ACAP represents 60 nonprofit safety net plans serving those enrolled in public health programs, such as Medicaid and the children’s health insurance program.

ACAP CEO Margaret Murray said the House’s bill, if enacted, “would cause considerable damage to our health care system.” Areas of concern included Medicaid cuts and phasing out the enhanced federal funding to states that expanded the health program for the poor and disabled.

“[The bill] will severely limit access to services for the more than 70 million people who rely on Medicaid for effective health coverage — and locks states’ funding to what they spent on Medicaid in 2016,” Murray said in a statement an hour before the bill passed.

AARP

AARP says the bill has an “age tax.”

The group, which represents nearly 38 million people, opposes a provision in the House bill that would let insurance companies charge older adults five times more than younger people.

This is a change from ObamaCare, which operates under a 3-to-1 ratio — a ratio that AARP would like to keep, said David Certner, AARP’s legislative counsel. “Already at 3-to-1, it’s quite expensive,” he said.

AARP is concerned that the change to the age ratio, coupled with reduced financial assistance, will result in premiums older adults can’t afford. The CBO estimated a 64-year-old making $26,500 a year would have to pay more than half of their income in premiums under the American Health Care Act.

“AARP urges you to ‘start from scratch’ and craft health care legislation that ensures robust insurance market protections, controls costs, improves quality, and provides affordable coverage to all Americans,” AARP Executive Vice President Nancy LeaMond wrote in a letter sent to senators Monday.

Healthcare groups bash Trump’s budget proposal: Cuts threaten public health

http://www.fiercehealthcare.com/healthcare/trump-s-budget-proposal-faces-opposition-from-healthcare-industry-groups-members-both?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWXpoa05EZzFZamxrTkdVMiIsInQiOiJYVXpYMVo4VThobmJJdXRqUUlSempJc0dBeUdTVkRcL3ZDTW9qZHU5eStXdnAxOHdwbkUwTlQrdjA3bldVYXRiQ1Z2a2FQYTdKSFVxWG9qd2hlTTRmNCt5MHFZdTZKTlB5aWY4Zm5DSzBvcHVLRjBQWDNlalwvSW9LRk4xT2Jyd2JHIn0%3D&mrkid=959610&utm_medium=nl&utm_source=internal

Image result for Trump's budget proposal graphic

Nurses, docs and medical research groups said the budget cuts proposed by President Donald Trump threaten the future of healthcare.

Among the cuts: Nearly 18% of HHS’ budget, with the largest cuts coming to National Institutes of Health. The agency would see a $5.9 million decrease in its budget and a significant reorganization effort that would fold the Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research into its ranks and close the Fogarty International Center

Nurses came out in force against the budget cuts. The American Nurses Association urged Congress to reject Trump’s proposal, which they said in a statement will  “weaken the nation’s healthcare system and jeopardize the scientific research needed to keep America healthy.”

The ANA is especially upset about plans to reduce funding for health professions and nursing workforce programs by $403 million. The proposal “drastically hampers efforts to address critical faculty shortages and recruit new nurses into the profession,” the association said.

Furthermore, the National Nurses United called the cuts a “broad attack on public protections that also targets some of the nation’s most vulnerable people while shifting resources to the least needed areas.”

The American Public Health Association agreed, stating that the proposal undermines the health and well-being of Americans.

“Cuts to these agencies would threaten programs that protect the public from the next infectious disease outbreak, polluted air and water, health threats due to climate change and our growing chronic disease epidemic,” APHA Executive Director Georges C. Benjamin, M.D., said in the statement.

And Andrew Gurman, M.D., president of the American Medical Association, said the cuts cause great concerns about future medical research and public health in general and in the wake of Zika, Ebola.

The Association of American Medical Colleges noted in a statement that medical research can’t be “turned on and off like a faucet.” Indeed, “the proposed cuts would set back progress toward critical advancements that could take decades to regain, prevent new ideas from being explored, and have a chilling effect on those who would potentially enter the biomedical research workforce.”

And the American Cancer Society said the reduction in funding would set cancer research back at least two decades.

“For the last 50 years every major medical breakthrough can be traced back to investments in the NIH,” Chris Hansen, president of the ACS Cancer Action Network, said in the statement. “Because of these investments, there are more than 15.5 million American cancer survivors alive today and researchers stand on the cusp of numerous innovative new diagnostic tools and treatments.”