Tag Archives: Bad Debt Expenses

Congress misses deadline to reauthorize CHIP

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

http://www.healthcaredive.com/news/congress-misses-deadline-to-reauthorize-chip/506252/

Dive Brief:

  • The Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), which provides coverage to 9 million children, expired this weekend after Congress failed to reauthorize the program before the Sept. 30 deadline.
  • There is still hope that Congress will approve a reauthorization quickly, but state leaders are concerned if Congress doesn’t act soon they will run out of money for the program, which is mostly paid for with federal funds. House and Senate lawmakers have said they will pursue CHIP legislation this week.
  • The Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission (MACPAC) estimated that if CHIP isn’t reauthorized three states and the District of Columbia will run out of program funding by the end of the year and another 27 states will run dry in the first quarter of 2018.

Dive Insight:

MACPAC warned that stopping CHIP funding will impact state budgets and force states to decide whether to continue coverage on their own dime. If states limit or stop CHIP coverage, hospitals and providers could feel the brunt of fewer insured children and more bad debt. This is especially true for children’s hospitals.

Jim Kaufman, vice president of public policy at Children’s Hospital Association (CHA), recently told Healthcare Dive that CHIP is important for children’s hospitals. “CHIP is good for kids, and that makes it good for children’s hospitals and children’s providers,” Kaufman said.

Not reauthorizing CHIP quickly could especially be an issue for the three states (Arizona, Minnesota and North Carolina) and the District of Columbia, which are expected to run out of CHIP money by the end of the year.

There was hope last month that Congress might be able to reauthorize the program in time. A bipartisan group of senator agreed on a reauthorization bill in September that would have extended CHIP for another five years. However, momentum for that bill stalled when Capitol Hill turned its attention to the Graham-Cassidy ACA repeal legislation. Graham-Cassidy died without a floor vote, and Congress didn’t take up CHIP reauthorization before the deadline.

CHIP, which costs about $14 billion annually, was created in 1997 as a way to provide more health insurance coverage to children of families with low and moderate incomes. The federal government sends CHIP money to states annually, based on previous spending of the funds and populations factors. The states must spend the federal money within two years. Money that isn’t used goes back to the federal government to reallocate to states with CHIP funding shortfalls.

Congress has reauthorized the program periodically since its creation. CHIP has wide support and studies have shown the program helps reduce hospitalizations and child mortality and increase quality of care. When the program was created, 15% of children were uninsured. That number is now about 5% because of CHIP, the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid expansion.

Moody’s maintains for-profit hospitals’ stable outlook

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

http://www.healthcaredive.com/news/moodys-maintains-for-profit-hospitals-stable-outlook/505680/

Image result for hospital credit ratings

Dive Brief:

  • Moody’s Investors Service announced in a recently released report that the outlook for U.S. for-profit hospitals is stable.
  • Outpatient services will drive revenue growth. Moody’s said outpatient service growth will result in EBITDA growth of 2.5-3% for for-profit hospitals over the next 18 months. That growth will be offset somewhat by higher patient costs and more uninsured Americans, which may lead to more bad debt for hospitals.
  • Moody’s warned that recent hurricanes in Florida and Texas, which are the two largest states by revenue among for-profit hospitals, may cause short-term financial issues, but Moody’s expects those hospitals will recover quickly.

Dive Insight:

Payers, both private and public, continue to squeeze hospital margins as they push patients to outpatient services. Moody’s said volumes to lower-cost settings will continue. Revenue growth from outpatient services will rise faster than inpatient services.

Moody’s said patients with high-deductible health plans, who pay more out-of-pocket costs, are going to seek less costly settings than hospitals to save money. Also, the CMS’ proposal to allow several orthopedic procedures on an outpatient basis could cause more financial harm for hospitals. “If finalized, this will further push surgeries out of the inpatient setting.”

For-profit hospitals will capture some of the added outpatient volume through their own outpatient departments and associated ambulatory surgery centers. However, some volume will go to competitors, Moody’s warned.

Moody’s expects payer rates will rise, but lower than usual — 1.5-2% net revenue per adjusted admission over the next 18 months. Some factors that will affect the slower growth include the CMS changing disproportionate share payments and proposing 1.75% rates for hospital outpatient procedures, and private payers implementing cost-controlling policies. These policies include Anthem’s plan to no longer pay for MRIs and CTs scans in hospital outpatient departments. Instead, patients will need to get the services at lower-cost, freestanding imaging centers.

Moody’s also warned that rising bad debt and expenses are pressuring margins.

“Higher patient responsibility and fewer insured patients will lead to lower volumes, but also higher costs of uncompensated care. Even with strong cost controls, given the high fixed costs of operating hospitals, it will be difficult to expand margins in an environment of weak patient volumes and rising bad debt expense. At the same time, nursing shortages and rising fees associated with medical specialists (including outsourced emergency departments) will also pressure margins,” said Moody’s.

However, some for-profit systems may see improved margins in the coming months. Moody’s said Quorum Health and Community Health Systems (CHS) will benefit from shedding less profitable facilities, while LifePoint Health and HCA Healthcare will improve margins over time as they improve efficiencies at recently acquired facilities.

Moody’s also warned that Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, which destroyed portions of Texas and Florida, will affect the largest for-profit hospitals: HCA Healthcare, Tenet Healthcare and CHS, which all have “significant presence” in those areas. For those states, Moody’s expects “incremental expenses,” such as cleanup and remediation, staffing and overtime, as well as transporting critically ill patients to other facilities, will play a financial role for those systems in the next two quarters.

Fitch: Failed ACA replacement efforts add to healthcare sector uncertainty

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

http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/fitch-failed-aca-replacement-efforts-add-to-healthcare-sector-uncertainty.html

Image result for negative credit outlook fitch

As ACA repeal and replace efforts stall, significant uncertainty remains surrounding how federal policy will affect nonprofit healthcare organizations, leading to a negative sector outlook for healthcare, according to Fitch Ratings.

The uncertainty and negative outlook comes as the Trump administration looks for ways to weaken the ACA even if the health reform law is not repealed.

Nonprofit hospitals experienced declines in uncompensated care under the ACA because of an increase in healthcare coverage due to Medicaid expansion, rollout of healthcare exchanges and allowing children to stay on their parent’s health insurance plan until age 26.

While repeal efforts cause uncertainty for hospitals, current discussions regarding a bipartisan healthcare bill could be beneficial for nonprofit hospitals. A bipartisan effort could potentially reduce the insurance premium price hikes, according to Fitch.

Trump’s threats to end CSR payments may mean hospitals will see a rise in uncompensated care costs

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

http://www.fiercehealthcare.com/finance/trump-s-threats-to-end-csr-payments-may-mean-hospitals-will-see-a-rise-uncompensated-care?utm_medium=nl&utm_source=internal&mrkid=959610&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiT0RKaVpETTRORE5sTURNeSIsInQiOiJ0QlwvRURDeTZRRnpcL2g1eVp4ek4yVTgwM3hcL1lqcjVJdzlqcER3S0JMbFpcL3FwVzI4VEhkYktjWDdiZ3VRcTdBVVZmMml0cHIrc3lrRmhTYWlcL1wvaVRTZTA5VlczZ3I3Z3JkN0FYYTI4VWlJb3grTXZ2UDA5XC9hVTVVN2M3U2UxT3gifQ%3D%3D

Image result for Uncompensated Care

Hospitals had better brace themselves for a possible rise in uncompensated care costs if President Donald Trump makes good on an implied threat to end cost-sharing reduction payments to health insurers.

Trump indicated on Twitter this weekend that he may end “bailouts” for both insurance companies and Congress. Those bailouts refer to CSR payments, which subsidize the out-of-pocket healthcare costs of low-income Affordable Care Act exchange customers.

And if he follows through and decides this week to end those payments, the individual marketplaces could see disastrous consequences. And that means doctors and hospitals may see a spike in uncompensated care costs and bad debt, reports Forbes.

Hospitals have seen a drop in uncompensated care costs and bad debt in the years under the ACA. A recent Politico report found that spending on charity care at the top seven hospitals in the U.S. dropped from $414 million in 2013 to $272 million in 2015.

Furthermore, a recent Kaiser Family Foundation report said that if the CSR payments are withheld, premiums for silver plans would rise by 19% and more payers will likely leave the marketplaces. Doctors and hospitals are concerned that means millions of patients who have purchased insurance through the ACA exchanges won’t be able to afford their out-of-pocket costs for care.

And they have reason to be concerned, Marc Harrison, M.D., president and CEO of Intermountain Healthcare, which operates nonprofit hospitals and clinics and insures more than 800,000 people in Utah, told NPR. Without the CSR payments, rate increases will likely skyrocket. “We’ll see [the number of] people who are uninsured, or functionally uninsured, go way, way up,” he said.

“The American people need this funding to lower what they pay for coverage and be able to see their doctor,” Kristine Grow, a spokeswoman for America’s Health Insurance Plans told Forbes.

Trump is threatening a move that could make Obamacare implode — here’s which states have the most to lose

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

http://www.businessinsider.com/obamacare-cost-sharing-reductions-states-benefit-2017-8

Image result for Trump is threatening a move that could make Obamacare implode — here's which states have the most to lose

The Trump administration is threatening a move that could make Obamacare implode.

On Tuesday, the administration is expected to make a decision on whether it will stop payments  to insurers that that help offset healthcare costs. President Donald Trump referred to these payments as “bailouts” in a a tweet on Saturday.

“If a new HealthCare Bill is not approved quickly, BAILOUTS for Insurance Companies and BAILOUTS for Members of Congress will end very soon!” Trump tweeted.

If the Trump administration does decide to end the payments, known as cost-sharing reductions, it could lead to higher premiums and fewer insurance plan choices in the exchanges. CSRs are paid to insurance companies to help offset the cost of discount health plans they provide to Americans making 200% of the federal poverty limit.

Deadline for 2018 coverage

Insurance companies have until late September to raise rates and finalize their coverage areas for 2018. Not receiving CSRs in 2018 could have a serious impact on what those look like.

Already, the market is in flux. On Wednesday, Anthem, the second-largest insurer in the US, said it might leave more markets in 2018. And on Monday, Ohio said it had managed to find insurers for 19 of the 20 counties that had no insurance plans on the exchanges. Ultimately, without the CSRs, many Americans could lose their health insurance.

EHR installs carry huge financial risks, Moody’s says

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

http://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/ehr-installs-carry-huge-financial-risks-moodys-says?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTXpVelkyRXhZMkpqTmpKaSIsInQiOiJFVjFscVRVVDdXZmZqek02STNMSVNjelwvREEwMmZmckZrWmNyZjNrQnVcL0szTGZuNXA4ZGdrOGRhT1V5bnREanBwWitPbTNkQllLZW5BTmd4VDk5TDg0ak1NNStnTllqdEllQlNpQmRZbDUwcm5JdVNaZ1lJcmpVVXJNYWxcL0JcL28ifQ%3D%3D

Hospitals run the risk of incurring operating losses, lower patient volumes and receivables write-offs if there are problems, Moody’s says.

Rolling out new electronic health record systems puts hospitals at a significant risk of financial losses, according to a new report by credit rating firm Moody’s.

“Hospitals run the risk of incurring operating losses, lower patient volumes, and receivables write-offs if there are problems with adoption of a new EMR system,” Moody’s said in its Monday report.

Add to that the operational and financial disruptions that typically accompany complex IT projects, and hospitals could find themselves walking an even thinner financial margin than they are used to, Moody’s said.

“In a sample of hospitals that have recently invested in major EMR and revenue cycle system conversions, increased expenses and slower patient volumes contributed to a median 10.1 percent decline in absolute operating cash flow and 6.1 percent reduction in days of cash on hand in the install year,” Moody’s found.

The good news is that many hospitals returned to pre-install levels within a year, owing to strong risk management.

When Epic Systems founder and CEO Judy Faulkner talked with Healthcare IT News at HIMSS17 last February, she said Epic customers had done well financially. True, Epic EHR installations cost millions of dollars. However, from 2004 to 2015, she said Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s statistics showed that Epic customers reaped profitability unsurpassed by clients who implemented her competitors’ EHRs.

Despite the risks, hospitals will continue to invest in EHRs, Moody’s said. Hospital executives want to improve patient safety, clinical quality and provide decision support. IT will also continue to be a selling point in physician recruitment and retention, as new data reporting will be required by Medicare for professional reimbursement.

While hospitals may be exposed to a number of risks during massive IT rollouts, the threats that come with cyber attacks make them even more vulnerable, according to Moody’s.

As example, Moody’s points to Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center in Hollywood, California, which acknowledged paying ransom after an attack in 2016.

Moody’s expects cybersecurity to become an even stronger focus than it already is.

“As IT investments represent a growing portion of hospital budgets, an increasing amount will be allotted to guarding confidential patient data, which make hospitals a prime target for cyberattacks and ransomware events,” according to Moody’s. “We expect cybersecurity to be a primary focus of hospital management teams and their boards, with annual capital and operating budgets allotting appropriate levels of expenditures to protect patient data and testing vulnerabilities.”

68% of Consumers Did Not Pay Patient Financial Responsibility

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

https://revcycleintelligence.com/news/68-of-consumers-did-not-pay-patient-financial-responsibility?elqTrackId=f58bd47466634010a6e670a643500477&elq=235b6caa09e94e4eb4db871c5d4f6292&elqaid=2897&elqat=1&elqCampaignId=2683

Two in three individuals did not fully pay their patient financial responsibility to hospitals in 2016, a study revealed

 

The number of consumers failing to pay full patient financial responsibility to hospitals increased 15 percentage points from 2015 to 2016, a study showed.

About 68 percent of patients with medical bills of $500 or less did not fully pay their patient financial responsibility to hospitals in 2016, according to a recent TransUnion Health study.

The proportion of individuals failing to pay off full medical bill balances increased from 53 percent in 2015 and 49 percent in 2014.

“There are many reasons why more patients are struggling to make their healthcare payments in full, the most prominent of which are higher deductibles and the increase in patient responsibility from 10% percent to 30 percent over the last few years,” stated Jonathan Wiik, TransUnion Principal for Healthcare Revenue Cycle Management. “This shift in healthcare payments has been taking place for well over a decade, but we are seeing more pronounced changes in how hospital bills are paid during just the last few years.”

• 63 percent of hospital medical bills were $500 or less between 2014 and 2016 and 68 percent of these bills were not paid in full by 2016

• 14 percent of hospital medical bills between 2014 and 2016 were $3,000 or more and hospitals did not receive full patient financial responsibility for 99 percent of the bills in 2016

• 10 percent of hospital medical bills were between $500 and $1,000 from 2014 to 2016 and patients did not pay the full balance on 86 percent of them in 2016

The TransUnion Health analysis confirmed that as patient out-of-pocket costs increase, hospital patient financial responsibility collection rates drop. A recent Crowe Horwath study also revealed that patient collection rates for accounts with balances exceeding $5,000 were four times lower than patient collection rates for accounts with low-deductible health plans.

For patient balances between $1,451 and $5,000, hospitals reported a 25.5 percent collection rate. In contrast, hospitals saw collection rates drop to just 10.2 percent for patient balances between $5,001 and $7,500.

Consequently, patients are more likely to partially pay hospitals for their financial responsibility. The TransUnion Health analysis showed that the proportion of individuals making partial payments toward their hospital medical bills rose from about 89 percent in 2015 to 77 percent in 2016.

Hospitals may see these patient collection trends continue, researchers stated. They projected the percentage of individuals neglecting to fully pay their patient financial responsibility to grow to 95 percent by 2020.

Researchers pointed to the popularity of high-deductible health plans as the primary driver of increased hospital patient collection challenges. In 2015, almost one-quarter of all workers belonged to a high-deductible health plan with a savings options versus just 8 percent in 2009, a 2016 Health Affairs blogpost stated.

The number of employees enrolled in high-deductible health plans is likely to increase, the blogpost continued. More than four of ten employers are considering offering only high-deductible health plans over the next three years.

Provider organizations continue to feel the pressure from increased patient financial responsibility under high-deductible health plans. About 72 percent of providers in a recent InstaMed survey cited patient financial responsibility and collection as their top healthcare revenue cycle management concerns in 2016.

The greatest challenge impacting healthcare revenue cycle management was the growth of patient financial responsibility with 29 percent of respondents, followed by cash flow issues with 21 percent, longer days in accounts receivable with 14 percent, and rise in bad medical debt due to insufficient patient collections with 8 percent.

With unpaid patient financial responsibility reducing hospital revenue, TransUnion Health researchers reported that hospitals wrote off about $35.7 billion as bad medical debt or charity care in 2015. Although overall uncompensated care costs declined in 2015, they added.

“Higher deductibles and the increase in patient responsibility are causing a decrease in patient payments to providers for patient care services rendered,” stated John Yount, TransUnion Vice President for Healthcare Products. “While uncompensated care has declined, it appears to be primarily due to the increased number of individuals with Medicaid and commercial insurance coverage.”

Conservative Koch Network Criticizes U.S. Senate Healthcare Bill

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

https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2017/06/25/us/politics/25reuters-usa-healthcare-koch.html?utm_campaign=CHL%3A%20Daily%20Edition&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=53556425&_hsenc=p2ANqtz–djYFrda8WaYTSvjAGXvhQeoYibGMMBXE0-JZ8fkciqAicltqEnzobfmLi5nqpEe85UhjPan-YY-HNpx57iUBW7xUyKA&_hsmi=53556425

Related image

Officials with the conservative U.S. political network overseen by the Koch brothers say they are unhappy with the healthcare bill that may be voted on by the Senate this week and will lobby for changes to it.

At a weekend event with conservative donors, top aides to Charles Koch, the billionaire energy magnate, said the Senate bill does not go far enough to dismantle former President Barack Obama’s signature healthcare law, also known as Obamacare.

“We have been disappointed that movement has not been more dramatic toward a full repeal,” said Tim Phillips, president of Americans for Prosperity, a grassroots advocacy group backed by Charles Koch and his brother, David.

The Senate’s 142-page proposal, worked out in secret by a group led by Senate Majority Leader McConnell, aims to deliver on a central campaign promise of President Donald Trump to repeal Obamacare, which has provided coverage to 20 million Americans since its passage in 2010.

Republicans view the law, formally called the Affordable Care Act, as a costly government intrusion and say individual insurance markets created by it are collapsing.

Phillips and other aides to the Koch network told Reuters they want to see the Senate bill do more to roll back Obamacare’s expansion of the Medicaid program for poor and disabled Americans. They also contend the bill does not do enough to reform the U.S. healthcare system and cut costs.

The aides said lobbying efforts to reshape the bill are continuing ahead of a planned vote.

Similar concerns helped steer the House’s version of the bill in a more conservative direction. A primary mover of that effort, Mark Meadows, a Republican congressman from North Carolina, attended the Koch donor event.

Meadows, chairman of the conservative Freedom Caucus in the House, said he is prepared to support the Senate bill if it clears that chamber, a sign that quick action to land the legislation on Trump’s desk is possible.

However, Meadows said the Senate version of the bill would need to be amended to allow insurers who sell plans on Obamacare’s insurance exchanges to offer less-expensive plans that do not comply with that law’s coverage requirements.

Republican Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, who currently opposes the Senate bill, has offered an amendment along those lines. Cruz attended the Koch event here, as did Senators Jeff Flake of Arizona and Ben Sasse of Nebraska, who remain undecided.

Meadows also seeks an amendment that would allow some consumers who have private health savings accounts to deduct the cost of insurance premiums from their taxes.

Senate leaders have set a goal of passing the healthcare measure by the end of this week, ahead of the July 4 congressional recess, which would then send it back to the House.

If the Senate passes legislation this week that is palatable to the House, Meadows said it is conceivable the House could pass that version and choose to forgo a formal conference committee that would reconcile the Senate and House bills. That, he said, could result in sending the bill to Trump’s desk for his signature before the recess.

Getting a vote by the end of the week could be difficult.

Five Senate Republicans, including Cruz, have publicly voiced their opposition to the current Senate draft. No Senate Democrats are expected to back it, which means McConnell cannot afford to lose more than two Senate Republicans.

As a sign of the Koch network’s influence, Phillips said his organization is prepared to spend as much as $400 million before next year’s congressional elections to advocate for the network’s conservative causes.

The doctor is out: PCP availability beyond 2020

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

The doctor is out: PCP availability beyond 2020

In 2020 and beyond, under the Senate’s BCRA, the working poor will have a very hard time finding primary care providers (PCP) who will schedule appointments with them. Providers, rightly, fear bad debt from high deductible plans. They will discriminate on the ability to pay upfront.

In the NEJM, Karin Rhodes, Genevieve Kenney, and Ari Friedman† looked at PCP appointment availability in the from the end of 2012 to Spring 2013. They found that appointments were usually quickly available if the person had insurance and unavailable if they were cash paying patients who could not afford the median price of services.**

The overall rate of new patient appointments for the uninsured was 78.8% with full cash payment at the time of the appointment (Figure 2). The median cost of a new patient primary care visit was $120, but costs varied across the states, as indicated in the figure legend. Only 15.4% of uninsured callers received an appointment that required payment of $75 or less at the time of the visit, because few offices had low-cost appointments and only one-fifth of practices allowed flexible payment arrangements for uninsured patients.

Why does this matter in the BCRA environment?

The baseline plan will be a plan with a $7,500 deductible for a single person. For people with means, paying $120 for a PCP visit is unpleasant but not onerous. If I had to do that this afternoon, I would grumble as I pull out a credit card. I would pay that credit card off tomorrow after I got the transaction points. Not everyone can do that.

Craig Garthwaite raises a good point this morning:

Primary care providers will seek to minimize their net bad debt.

Michael Chernew and Jonathan Bush looked at how bad debt accumulates as a function of out of pocket expenses at professional offices.

The median PCP cash visit price is a large payment in the Chernew/Bush schema. Most of it will be paid as people with means take out their credit card, their HRA debit card, or their HSA card and swipe it through the machine. But a simple PCP visit will produce significant chasing and write-downs. The study is limited as it only looked at people who were commercially insured. It excludes most low income people who are in the Medicaid gap on an income qualification basis by design. The average income in the study group is highly likely to be higher than the income of people who would move from Medicaid to benchmark plans. Even so, there is significant chasing and write downs. I would predict that applying 100% first dollar obligations on people with even less income than the study population will lead to more provider bad debt. This is because these programs are income qualified and if a person income qualifies for these programs, they probably don’t have a spare $120 floating around or easy access to cheap, revolving credit.

If we assume that some normal PCP visits will include some extra services that increase the contracted payment rate to $200 or more (very large obligations in Chernew/Bush) significant sums will be written down and off. For provider practice viability concerns, providers will very aggressively screen against people with very high deductible insurance who can’t pay the entire amount of the contracted rate price up front at the receptionist desk. This is a very patient unfriendly system.

Most payment reform models focus on delivering more primary care. The objective is to substitute cheap primary care for expensive specialist, inpatient hospital stays and post-acute rehabilitation. This is the concept behind value based insurance design. VBID is supposed to encourage the routine, low cost, regular maintenance of chronic conditions in outpatient or community settings instead of having people end up in the hospital for preventable admissions.

Yet, under the very understandable incentives of primary care physicians wanting to stay in business, access to primary care for the working poor who would have several thousand dollar deductibles that apply to all services, will be greatly restricted because of the cost barrier. If we want all members of our shared society to have decent health and decent lives, should want people to have easy and ready access to primary care. This bill creates strong business incentives to create barriers to primary care access.

Like the AHCA, the Senate’s health care bill could weaken ACA protections against catastrophic costs

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

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2017/06/23/like-the-ahca-the-senates-health-care-bill-could-weaken-aca-protections-against-catastrophic-costs/?utm_campaign=Brookings%20Brief&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=53522663

Image result for catastrophic health

Editor’s Note:This analysis is part of USC-Brookings Schaeffer Initiative on Health Policy, which is a partnership between the Center for Health Policy at Brookings and the USC Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics. The Initiative aims to inform the national health care debate with rigorous, evidence-based analysis leading to practical recommendations using the collaborative strengths of USC and Brookings.

On Thursday, Senate Republicans unveiled the Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA), its Affordable Care Act (ACA) repeal bill. One provision of that legislation would greatly expand states’ ability to waive a range of provisions of federal law that affect health insurance. As both my Brookings colleague Jason Levitis and Nicholas Bagley have explained in pieces published earlier today, states would need to meet only very weak standards in order to obtain a waiver under the Senate bill, and waivers could have wide-ranging implications for the extent and affordability of insurance coverage.

One potential effect of these state waivers is weakening a pair of protections against catastrophic costs included in the ACA. In particular, states can directly use this expanded waiver authority to eliminate the requirement that individual and small group plans cap annual out-of-pocket spending. States can also indirectly weaken or effectively eliminate both the ACA’s requirement that plans limit out-of-pocket spending and its ban on individual and lifetime limits by setting a definition of “essential health benefits” that is weaker than the definition under current law. Both of these protections against catastrophic costs apply only with respect to care that is considered essential health benefits, so as the definition of essential health benefits narrows, the scope of these protections narrows as well.

Allowing states to change the definition of essential health benefits unavoidably weakens these protections against catastrophic costs in waiver states’ individual and small group markets. But waivers’ effects could also cross state lines and weaken these protections for people covered by large employer plans in every state.[1]  Under current regulations, large employer plans are allowed to choose the definition of essential health benefits in effect in any state in the country for the purposes of determining the scope of these protections against catastrophic costs. If the Trump Administration maintains that approach as it implements the BCRA and even one state uses the waiver process under the BCRA to set a lax definition of essential health benefits, then these protections against catastrophic costs could be weakened or effectively eliminated for people working for large employers nationwide.

The potential effects of the the BCRA waiver provisions on the ACA’s protections against catastrophic costs are essentially identical to those of a waiver provision included in the House-passed American Health Care Act (AHCA), which I have written about previously. The only substantive difference is that the Senate version would allow states to directly waive the out-of-pocket maximum requirement for some plans; under the House-passed bill, states could only affect this requirement indirectly by changing the definition of essential health benefits.

The remainder of this blog post examines these issues in greater detail.