Trump administration issues rule further watering down Obamacare

Image result for Trump administration issues rule further watering down Obamacare

The Trump administration took additional steps to weaken Obamacare on Monday, allowing U.S. states to relax the rules on what insurers must cover and giving states more power to regulate their individual insurance markets.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services issued a final rule that allows states to select essential health benefits that must be covered by individual insurance plans sold under former President Barack Obama’s healthcare law. The 2010 Affordable Care Act requires coverage of 10 benefits, including maternity and newborn care and prescription drugs. Under the new rule, states can select from a much larger list which benefits insurers must cover.

That could lead to less generous coverage in some states, according to Avalere Health, a research and consulting firm.

President Donald Trump’s administration has used its regulatory power to undermine Obamacare after the Republican-controlled Congress last year failed to repeal and replace the law. About 20 million people have received health insurance coverage through the program.

The new CMS rule also allows states the possibility of modifying the medical loss ratio (MLR) formula, the amount an insurer spends on medical claims compared with income from premiums that is also a key performance metric. A state can request “reasonable adjustments” to the medical loss ratio standard if it shows that it could help stabilize its individual market.

Insurers could also have an easier time raising their rates under the new rule. Obamacare mandated that premium rate increases of 10 percent or more in the individual market be scrutinized by state regulators to ensure that they are necessary and reasonable. The new CMS rule raises that threshold to 15 percent.


1115 Medicaid Waivers: From Care Delivery Innovations to Work Requirements

After months of debate, the Medicaid program emerged from efforts to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA) without major legislative changes. Now, however, the Trump administration is encouraging states to apply for waivers that place new conditions on Medicaid eligibility as well as additional costs on beneficiaries in the form of premiums and copayments at the point of service.

To better understand the continuing controversy over Medicaid, let’s take a look at the waiver program’s objectives and how states have used waivers in the past. Are recently proposed state waivers consistent with Medicaid’s underlying mission? And are federal and state authorities appropriately evaluating them for their impact on Medicaid populations?

What is a Medicaid Section 1115 waiver?

Medicaid grants states autonomy in how they run their programs. Under a provision of the Social Security Act, Section 1115, the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) can waive federal guidelines on Medicaid to allow states to pilot and evaluate innovative approaches to serving beneficiaries. Most waivers are granted for a limited period and can be withdrawn once they expire.

States seek 1115 waivers to test the effects of changes both in coverage and in how care is delivered to patients. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), a government agency, reviews each waiver application to ensure not only that it furthers the core objective of Medicaid — to meet the health needs of low-income and vulnerable populations — but also that the proposed demonstration does not require the federal government to spend more on the state’s Medicaid program than it otherwise would.

However, a recent General Accountability Office (GAO) review found that, because of significant limitations, evaluations of 1115 demonstrations often do not provide enough information for policymakers to understand the waivers’ full impact.1 The GAO recommended that CMS establish procedures to ensure that all states submit final evaluation reports at the end of each demonstration cycle, issue criteria for when it will allow limited evaluations of demonstrations, and establish a policy for publicly releasing findings from federal evaluations.

How have 1115 waivers been used in the past?

States have been granted waivers throughout the 53-year history of Medicaid. Most waivers were small in scope until the 1990s, when states started to use them for a wide range of purposes, including to: expand eligibility, simplify the enrollment and renewal process, reform care delivery, implement managed care, provide long-term services and supports, and alter benefits and cost-sharing. Some states have used 1115 waivers to change the way care is delivered to Medicaid patients, like encouraging investments in social interventions. Oregon, for example, used its waiver to establish Coordinated Care Organizations — partnerships between managed care plans and community providers to manage medical, behavioral health, and oral health services for a group of Medicaid beneficiaries.

With the ACA’s enactment, a new category of low-income adults became eligible for Medicaid. After the Supreme Court ruled in 2012 that this eligibility expansion was optional for states, eight states applied for 1115 demonstration waivers from the Obama administration to test different approaches to expanding eligibility, including the introduction of premiums and copayments that exceeded federal guidelines. One of those states, Arkansas, has used Medicaid funds to purchase private health insurance for marketplace enrollees.

How are 1115 waivers changing?

With encouragement from the Trump administration, many states are applying for waivers to make employment, volunteer work, or the performance of some other service a requirement for Medicaid eligibility. The administration has also encouraged waivers to impose premiums and increases in cost-sharing.

States can take different approaches to work or service requirements. Some might require them only for the Medicaid-expansion population (working-age adults with incomes up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level), while other states might also require employment of the traditional Medicaid population.

As of early April 2018, three states — Kentucky, Indiana, and Arkansas — have received approval for work- or service-requirement waivers. Seven others have pending waivers for new applications, amendments to existing waivers, or requests for renewals or extensions.

In Kentucky — the first state to have its work-requirement waiver approved — affected beneficiaries must complete 80 hours per month of community-engagement activities, such as employment, education, job skills training, or community service. Documentation of meeting this requirement is required to remain eligible for coverage. Exemptions are granted to pregnant women, people considered medically frail, older adults, and full-time students. Indiana and Arkansas have received approval for similar waivers.

Shortly after Kentucky’s waiver was approved, attorneys representing 15 Medicaid beneficiaries sued the HHS secretary in federal court (Stewart v. Azar), arguing that the objective of promoting work is not consistent with Medicaid’s core purpose of “providing medical assistance (to people) whose income and resources are insufficient to meet the cost of necessary medical services.”2 The lawsuit’s outcome will affect whether some of the state demonstrations will be able to proceed.

What’s the bottom line?

The 1115 demonstration waiver program is intended to fulfill the primary purpose of Medicaid: to provide health care protection to poor and disabled Americans. The new waivers seeking to impose work or service requirements, as well as others that would impose lifetime coverage limits or premiums, should be fully and carefully evaluated to determine whether they meet this goal. In addition to state and federal evaluations, independent assessments of state demonstrations will be important to informing policymakers and the public about the waivers’ full impact.


Where the ACA health insurance exchanges stand in 2018

Image result for Where the ACA health insurance exchanges stand in 2018

The Affordable Care Act’s health insurance exchanges have proven to be quite sturdy despite a barrage of federal actions that threatened to topple them. The picture of the exchanges that emerges from the CMS’ final open-enrollment data is far from the imploding market that the Trump administration and countless headlines over the past year warned about.

Though enrollment in the exchanges slipped and insurers hiked premiums by an average of 30%, the size of the premium tax credits available to most exchange enrollees ballooned enough that the average subsidized shopper paid a lower premium for coverage than the year before.

Even so, the individual on-exchange ACA plans remain unaffordable for millions of people who aren’t eligible for financial help. Congress has yet to pass legislation to bolster the market and bring down premiums, and is unlikely to do so before insurers must file 2019 rates later this spring. New threats, including the expansion of short-term medical and association health plans, are coming down the pike, promising to lure healthy people away and cause even higher premium hikes next year that unsubsidized enrollees may not accept. If consumers can’t afford coverage and drop it, insurers have a smaller incentive to keep selling plans in the individual market. The more people become uninsured, the more uncompensated care hospitals must swallow.

What’s left? “A weird mix of having a relatively persistent subsidized market, coupled with only the sickest nonsubsidized enrollees, which is not the way anyone would design this to work,” said Erin Trish, associate director of health policy at the University of Southern California’s Schaeffer Center.

Here’s a look at the current state of the ACA exchanges.

Enrollment dips modestly

Enrollment in the ACA exchanges dipped just 3.3% to 11.8 million this year from 12.2 million in 2017. Leading up to open-enrollment, which ran from Nov. 1 to Dec. 15 in most states, experts were expecting sign-ups to fall sharply. The Trump administration slashed funding for open enrollment advertisements as well as enrollment assistance. It also gave shoppers less time to pick a plan, truncating the open-enrollment period to 45 days from the usual 90 days.

Katherine Hempstead, who directs the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s work on health insurance coverage, said the fact that just 400,000 fewer people enrolled shows “health insurance is a need-to-have for most people. People who are subsidized are going to really stick with it as much as possible.”

The final enrollment tally bodes well for health insurers, who are more likely to keep selling coverage if a large group of consumers sign up. Insurers have a harder time turning a profit when selling plans to a smaller, sicker pool of enrollees with few healthy consumers to balance out the risk. If they don’t make a profit, insurers aren’t likely to keep selling individual coverage. Several large national insurers, UnitedHealth, Aetna and Humana, have already called it quits or scaled back their participation.

Where the exchanges are working and where they’re not

Some states’ exchanges are performing better than others. States that use the federal platform generally fared worse, with enrollment dropping an average 5%. Sign-ups in the 12 states that run their own exchanges were virtually flat compared with 2017. Many state-based marketplaces stepped up advertising in the face of federal marketing budget cuts, which could explain in part why they performed better.

Rhode Island, which operates a state-based marketplace known as HealthSource RI, experienced the largest enrollment growth at 12.1%. The state offered exchange plan members the lowest-cost benchmark plan in the country, according to HealthSource RI. At the same time, federal financial assistance to exchange members in the state increased by 46% to $7.5 million.

On the flip side, Louisiana, which uses the platform, saw the largest decrease in enrollment for the second year in a row at 23.5% over the previous year. Last year, Louisiana’s exchange enrollment plummeted by 33%. The enrollment drop isn’t necessarily a bad thing: Louisiana expanded Medicaid in mid-2016, so ACA plan members likely continued to switch to Medicaid for cheaper insurance.

Premiums vary widely across states

Premiums shot up more than 30% in the 39 states, averaging $621 per month, compared with $476 in 2017. An analysis of CMS data shows that the average 2018 premium across all states was a bit higher at $631 per month, but missing 2017 data for some states makes it difficult to show a comparison. Unsubsidized members across all states paid an average $522 per month for 2018 coverage. Increasing premiums—along with reducing their footprints—has helped many health insurers, such as Anthem, Cigna and Highmark Health, turn a profit on the insurance exchanges for the first time in 2017.

Many Americans who don’t receive financial assistance can’t afford those sticker-shock prices, and more and more are thinking about going uninsured or opting for a cheaper alternative, like a short-term medical plan. As the number of uninsured and under-insured rises, so does the amount of uncompensated care at hospitals.

Like enrollment rates, premiums varied widely by state. Exchange enrollees in Wyoming were hit with the highest premiums at an average $983 per month, while those in Massachusetts paid the lowest rates at $385 per month.

The effects of “silver-loading”

Most exchange enrollees didn’t pay those sky-high prices. About 83% of consumers across the nation had their premiums reduced by an advanced premium tax credit, which is one type of federal financial assistance available to people with incomes less than 400% of the federal poverty level (roughly $48,000 for an individual). The average enrollee who received a premium tax credit paid about $89 per month for coverage, down from $106 in 2016. In Oklahoma, the average subsidized enrollee paid just $37 a month—the lowest of any state.

Subsidized premiums dropped because tax credits increased. Last year, savvy state regulators and insurers deployed a strategy to offset the effects of the Trump administration’s decision to end another form of financial assistance—cost-sharing reduction payments—that lowers exchange enrollees’ out-of-pocket costs. CSRs have historically lowered copayments and deductibles for ACA plan members with incomes lower than 250% of the federal poverty level.

When President Donald Trump stopped paying the CSRs at the end of 2017, insurers built rate increases attributable to the CSR cutoff into only silver plan premiums, which are used to determine the premium tax credit. As premiums went up, so did the size of the tax credit consumers received, meaning that most subsidized enrollees never felt the effects of big price hikes.

Larger tax credits allowed some exchange shoppers to find zero-premium bronze plans or lower-cost gold plans. As a result, fewer people—62.6%—enrolled in silver plans in 2018, down from 71.1% in 2017. Enrollment in bronze and gold plans, on the other hand, increased. Metal tiers represent the actuarial value, or the average share of health costs covered, by the plan. Gold plans pay for a larger share of the patient’s health costs.

Experts worry that people switching to bronze plans may have higher out-of-pocket costs they can’t afford, prompting them to forgo care or take on debt. Bronze plans have higher deductibles and often don’t offer cost-sharing for services before the deductbile is met.

“When you enroll in plans with higher deductibles, you use less care,” Trish explained. “People dramatically reduce their use of healthcare and not necessarily in smart ways.”

Emerging threats

The zeroed-out individual mandate penalty, potential expansion of short-term and association health plans, and the CMS’ final rule allowing states greater flexibility in determining a menu of essential health benefits all threaten to destabilize the individual market and cause higher premiums and lower enrollment in 2019. Americans who don’t qualify for subsidies will bear the brunt of any premium hikes that stem from these challenges come the sixth open-enrollment period, kicking off in November.

With a federal administration and Congress unwilling to implement policies or pass legislation that would help to keep premiums lower, such as cost-sharing reduction payments or a reinsurance pool for high-risk consumers, experts say it will be up to states to bolster their markets. Some, particularly Democratic states, are considering their own coverage mandates, though such policies are unpopular. Others may work to put restrictions on short-term medical plans. But one thing is for certain: The pervasive uncertainty surrounding healthcare rules and regulations that was a hallmark of 2017 is not dissipating any time soon and will once again be a challenge for states, insurers and consumers come the sixth open-enrollment.


Consumers are paying less for ACA plans, even as premiums continue to rise site on computer

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) proclaimed its 2018 open enrollment period a success, citing relatively stable enrollment on reduced costs of outreach and a tightened enrollment period.

The agency’s final report on 2018 enrollment data provides insight on the 11.8 million individuals who enrolled or renewed coverage through the exchanges in 2018. That number includes approximately 8.7 million who signed up through, where the average premium rose 30% from $476 last year to $621 this year. A solid majority of consumers opted for the middle-tier silver plans, with 29% choosing bronze plans and only 7% purchasing gold plans.

CMS Administrator Seema Verma lauded the agency’s efforts on Twitter, but pointed to the 30% jump in premiums as an indication that “more affordable options are needed,” particularly for those that don’t qualify for tax credits.

Despite delivering the most successful consumer experience to date, Americans continue to experience skyrocketing premiums and limited choice on .

Despite higher premiums, consumers that qualified for the tax credit actually saw a 16% decline in their final cost, with average monthly costs dropping from $106 in 2017 to $89 in 2018.

“The reduction in price that consumers paid was staggering,” Josh Peck, co-founder of Get America Covered and former chief medical officer of under President Barack Obama, told FierceHealthcare.

“To be totally honest, enrollment would have been far higher had they tried,” he added.

While the total number of enrollees dipped slightly year over year, they remained relatively stable given the shortened time frame rolled out by the Trump administration. Verma also pointed to consumer satisfaction scores of 90%, up from 85% last year, as proof the agency had met its primary goal of ensuring “a seamless experience” for consumers.

Critics, however, lashed out at CMS for doing little to educate the public about open enrollment options.

Lori Lodes@loril

Really weird (and gobsmacking) to see @SeemaCMS take credit for 11.8 million people signing up for health care when she refused to do anything to educate people about Open Enrollent. 

The agency also touted the cost effectiveness of the enrollment period, after CMS slashed its advertising spending from approximately $11 per enrollee last year to just over $1 per enrollee in 2018. Those cuts spurred increased advertising dollars from private insurers in an attempt to make up the gap.

The majority of consumers using the exchanges continues to rely on premium subsidies. The age mix among consumers trended older, as enrollees aged 55 and over ticked up two percentage points to 29%, while the share of those aged 18-34 declined slightly.

Final Exchange Enrollment Report also shows most consumers on the Exchanges relied on premium subsidies. Approximately 83% of consumers nationwide had their premiums reduced by tax credits.

In a statement, Verma said she was pleased with the rise in customer satisfaction, but expressed concerns about the future. “Even with the success of this year’s open enrollment, the individual market continues to see premiums rise and choices diminish,” she said.



Medicare Advantage Plans Cleared To Go Beyond Medical Coverage — Even Groceries

Medicare Advantage Plans Cleared To Go Beyond Medical Coverage — Even Groceries

Air conditioners for people with asthma, healthy groceriesrides to medical appointments and home-delivered meals may be among the new benefits offered to Medicare beneficiaries who choose private sector health plans, when new federal rules take effect next year.

On Monday, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) expanded how it defines the “primarily health-related” benefits that private insurers are allowed to include in their Medicare Advantage policies. And insurers would include these extras on top of providing the benefits traditional Medicare provides.

“Medicare Advantage beneficiaries will have more supplemental benefits, making it easier for them to lead healthier, more independent lives,” said CMS Administrator Seema Verma.

Of the 61 million people enrolled in Medicare last year, 20 million opted for Medicare Advantage, the privately run alternative to the traditional government program. Advantage plans limit members to a network of providers, and similar restrictions may apply to the new benefits. In California, 40 percent of Medicare beneficiaries have joined Medicare Advantage.

Many Medicare Advantage plans already offer some health benefits not covered by traditional Medicare, such as eyeglasses, hearing aids, dental care and gym memberships. However, the new rules, which the industry sought, will expand that list significantly, adding more items and services that are not directly medical.

CMS said the insurers will be permitted to provide care and devices that prevent or treat illness or injuries, compensate for physical impairments, address the psychological effects of illness and injuries, or reduce the need for emergency medical care.

Addressing a patient’s health and social needs outside the doctor’s office isn’t a new concept. In California, for example, the Institute on Aging, a nonprofit, offers social, psychological and health-related services for seniors and adults with disabilities. It has helped people in San Francisco and Southern California move from nursing homes back to their own homes, and it provides a variety of services and goods — from kitchen supplies to wheelchair ramps — that help improve their quality of life.

“By taking a more integrated approach to address people’s social and health needs, we have seen up to a 30 percent savings in health care costs compared to the costs of the same individuals before they joined our program,” said Dustin Harper, the institute’s vice president for strategic partnerships. The agency serves 20,000 Californians a year, including former nursing home residents who qualify for Medicare, the federally funded health insurance program for seniors, or Medicaid, the federal-state program for low-income people — or both.

The institute also provides a number of other innovative services. Volunteers and staff members answer calls to its toll-free, ’round-the-clock Friendship Line (800-971-0016), which is intended to combat social isolation and loneliness. In partnership with the city and county of San Francisco, the institute also offers subsidized home care for a small group of low- and middle-income people who don’t qualify for other assistance and could not otherwise afford it.

The organization also runs one of California’s 38 Multipurpose Senior Service Program sites, providing Medicaid-funded, home-based care. Some 33 social service organizations are MSSP providers, including the Partners in Care Foundation in Los Angeles, which operates four sites. About 2 million older adults and people with disabilities rely on Medicaid for home-based services to live at home for as long as possible.

Although Medicare Advantage insurers are still in the early stages of designing their 2019 policies, some companies have ideas about what they might include. In addition to transportation to doctors’ offices or better food options, some health insurance experts said additional benefits could include simple modifications inside beneficiaries’ homes, such as installing grab bars in the bathroom, or aides to help with daily activities, including dressing, eating and other personal care needs.

“This will allow us to build off the existing benefits that we already have in place that are focused more on prevention of avoidable injuries or exacerbation of existing health conditions,” said Alicia Kelley, director of Medicare sales for Capital District Physicians’ Health Plan, a nonprofit serving 43,000 members in 24 upstate New York counties.

Although a physician’s order or prescription is not necessary, the new benefits must be “medically appropriate” and recommended by a licensed health care provider, according to the new rules.

Many beneficiaries have been attracted to Medicare Advantage because of its extra benefits and the limit on out-of-pocket expenses. However, CMS also cautioned that new supplemental benefits should not be items provided as an inducement to enroll.

The new rules “set the stage to continue to innovate and provide choice,” said Cathryn Donaldson, of America’s Health Insurance Plans, a trade group.

“CMS is catching up with the rest of the world in terms of its understanding of how we keep people healthy and well and living longer and independently, and those are all positive steps,” said Ceci Connolly, chief executive officer of the Alliance of Community Health Plans, which represents nonprofit health insurance plans. Some offer non-emergency medical transportation, low-cost hearing aids, a mobile dental clinic and a “grocery on wheels,” to make shopping more convenient, she said.

UnitedHealthcare, the largest health insurer in the U.S., also welcomes the opportunity to expand benefits, said Matt Burns, a company spokesman. “Medicare benefits should not be one-size-fits-all, and continued rate stability and greater benefit design flexibility enable health plans to provide a more personalized health care experience,” he said.

This is one of several vans that provides door-to-door service for seniors and adults with disabilities going to medical appointments and programs at the Institute on Aging in San Francisco.

But patient advocates including David Lipschutz. senior policy attorney at the Center for Medicare Advocacy, are concerned about those who may be left behind. “It’s great for the people in Medicare Advantage plans, but what about the majority of the people who are in traditional Medicare?” he asked. “As we tip the scales more in favor of Medicare Advantage, it’s to the detriment of people in traditional Medicare.”

The details of the 2019 Medicare Advantage benefit packages must first be approved by CMS and will be released in the fall, when the annual open enrollment begins. It’s very likely that all new benefits will not be available to all beneficiaries since there is “tremendous variation across the country” in what plans offer, said Gretchen Jacobson, associate director of the Kaiser Family Foundation’s Program on Medicare Policy. (Kaiser Health News, which produces California Healthline, is an editorially independent program of the foundation.)

In addition to next year’s changes in supplemental benefits, CMS also noted that a new federal law allows Medicare Advantage plans to offer benefits that are not primarily health-related for Medicare Advantage members with chronic illnesses. The law and the agency’s changes are complementary, CMS officials said. They promised additional guidance in the coming months to help plans differentiate between the two.


Five Worrisome Trends in Healthcare

healthcare; insurance; drugs; drug companies; Government-run Insurance Program Sure to Backfire |

A reckoning is coming, outgoing BlueCross executive says.

A reckoning is coming to American healthcare, said Chester Burrell, outgoing CEO of the CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield health plan, here at the annual meeting of the National Hispanic Medical Association.

Burrell, speaking on Friday, told the audience there are five things physicians should worry about, “because they worry me”:

1. The effects of the recently passed tax bill. “If the full effect of this tax cut is experienced, then the federal debt will go above 100% of GDP [gross domestic product] and will become the highest it’s been since World War II,” said Burrell. That may be OK while the economy is strong, “but we’ve got a huge problem if it ever turns and goes back into recession mode,” he said. “This will stimulate higher interest rates, and higher interest rates will crowd out funding in the federal government for initiatives that are needed,” including those in healthcare.

Burrell noted that 74 million people are currently covered by Medicaid, 60 million by Medicare, and 10 million by the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), while another 10 million people are getting federally subsidized health insurance through the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA’s) insurance exchanges. “What happens when interest’s demand on federal revenue starts to crowd out future investment in these government programs that provide healthcare for tens of millions of Americans?”

2. The increasing obesity problem. “Thirty percent of the U.S. population is obese; 70% of the total population are either obese or overweight,” said Burrell. “There is an epidemic of diabetes, heart disease, and coronary artery disease coming from those demographics, and Baby Boomers will see these things in full flower in the next 10 years as they move fully into Medicare.”

3. The “congealing” of the U.S. healthcare system. This is occurring in two ways, Burrell said. First, “you’ll see large integrated delivery systems [being] built around academic medical centers — very good quality care [but] 50%-100% more expensive than the community average.”

To see how this affects patients, take a family of four — a 40-year-old dad, 33-year-old mom, and two teenage kids — who are buying a health insurance policy from CareFirst via the ACA exchange, with no subsidy. “The cost for their premium and deductibles, copays, and coinsurance [would be] $33,000,” he said. But if all of the care were provided by academic medical centers? “$60,000,” he said. “What these big systems are doing is consolidating community hospitals and independent physician groups, and creating oligopolies.”

Another way the system is “congealing” is the emergence of specialty practices that are backed by private equity companies, said Burrell. “The largest urology group in our area was bought by a private equity firm. How do they make money? They increase fees. There is not an issue on quality but there is a profound issue on costs.”

4. The undermining of the private healthcare market. “Just recently, we have gotten rid of the individual mandate, and the [cost-sharing reduction] subsidies that were [expected to be] in the omnibus bill … were taken out of the bill,” he said. And state governments are now developing alternatives to the ACA such as short-term duration insurance policies — originally designed to last only 3 months but now being pushed up to a year, with the possibility of renewal — that don’t have to adhere to ACA coverage requirements, said Burrell.

5. The lackluster performance of new payment models. “Despite the innovation fostering under [Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation] programs — the whole idea was to create a series of initiatives that might show the wave of the future — ACOs [accountable care organizations] and the like don’t show the promise intended for them, and there is no new model one could say is demonstrably more successful,” he said.

“So beware — there’s a reckoning coming,” Burrell said. “Maybe change occurs only when there is a rip-roaring crisis; we’re coming to it.” Part of the issue is cost: “As carbon dioxide is to global warming, cost is to healthcare. We deal with it every day … We face a future where cutbacks in funding could dramatically affect accessibility of care.”

“Does that mean we move to move single-payer, some major repositioning?” he said. “I don’t know, but in 35 years in this field, I’ve never experienced a time quite like this … Be vigilant, be involved, be committed to serving these populations.”

Walmart reportedly in negotiations to buy Humana

Credit: Google Street View


Deal has been long speculated since announced $69 billion merger between CVS Health and Aetna.

Walmart is in preliminary negotiations to buy Humana, The Wall Street Journal has reported.

There are few details in the potential deal that has not been announced publicly by either the retailer or the insurer.

But speculation has existed among industry analysts for months after the announced $69 billion merger between CVS Health and Aetna.

Two years ago, Aetna was in a proposed $34 billion deal to buy Humana.

Walmart is facing increased competition from such an integrated pharmacy business and is currently in an arms race against Amazon as the online giant has made strides into the Medicaid market by offering those beneficiaries a discounted Prime membership.

Humana specializes in Medicare Advantage plans for seniors, a fast-growing demographic as baby boomers enter retirement age.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has shown support for MA plans, said David Friend, MD, chief transformation officer of The BDO Center for Healthcare Excellence & Innovation.

Friend predicts that due to the partnerships and mergers between healthcare companies, retailers and insurers, the traditional pharmacy benefit model could become extinct.

“The CVS-Aetna merger was a watershed moment in healthcare. But Walmart-Humana signifies the beginning of the avalanche that will cause the entire healthcare system to converge,” Friend said by statement. “And as this deal signifies, the healthcare organization that accurately captures and analyzes the data of the fast-growing U.S. demographic — seniors — stands to lead the industry of the future.”