Tag Archives: CMS

Where the ACA health insurance exchanges stand in 2018

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

http://www.modernhealthcare.com/reports/180411where-aca-exchanges-stand/

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 HealthCare.gov 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 HealthCare.gov 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 HealthCare.gov 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 HealthCare.gov 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

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

https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/payer/consumer-satisfaction-exchange-enrollment-up-but-premiums-continue-to-rise?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWlRReU4yTXdZelF5TUdJMyIsInQiOiJqbDN6cndBd1YwOHFvQkV3NGNvXC9xVWh3bVpNYzJ0djZyaXJOakFGaU5nQWdETG0wWE1nWDhTck5XK2JIVTZkanFidU85clo2akpIT0VvXC9MWjFjOExsUm5kUEpRZk9IQ0tYNWFQeGJaQmhJMWNTdnkweFBtTGRJME1KNzJvaTRFIn0%3D&mrkid=959610

Healthcare.gov 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 HealthCare.gov, 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 http://Healthcare.gov .

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 Healthcare.gov 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. https://twitter.com/SeemaCMS/status/981250136344088576 …

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

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

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

Air conditioners for people with asthma, healthy groceries, rides 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

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

https://www.medpagetoday.com/publichealthpolicy/healthpolicy/72001?xid=fb_o_

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

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

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

http://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/walmart-reportedly-negotiations-buy-humana?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWkRKaVpHRTBPRFZtWXpobSIsInQiOiJMQWJiXC85cGw1S2hcL3N0VlIzS2I2S3BqamJoRGFJeUxwbzgrUjVmYk5OZ2I5aDAzTmkyMXptQlpONCtsb3oyZVlqV2tZQ3haOVZWeko0cDhFbVVLbTJtU3F6ZGJUNWNNRGpMRHI4R3hBdzVYU0tLUVFpcjhpSlwvRXpmcXFtVUpVbyJ9

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.”

 

Health Care and the 2018 Midterms, Attitudes Towards Proposed Changes to Medicaid

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

Kaiser Health Tracking Poll – February 2018: Health Care and the 2018 Midterms, Attitudes Towards Proposed Changes to Medicaid

 

KEY FINDINGS:
  • Medicaid continues to be seen favorably by a majority of the public (74 percent) and about half (52 percent) believe the Medicaid program is working well for most low-income people covered by the program.
  • When asked about proposed changes to the Medicaid program, attitudes are largely driven by party identification. A large majority of Democrats (84 percent) and most independents (64 percent) oppose lifetime limits for Medicaid benefits, while Republicans are more divided in their views with half (51 percent) believing Medicaid should only be available for a limited amount of time.

    Poll: Public split on whether adding work requirements for Medicaid beneficiaries aims at reducing spending (41%) or lifting people out of poverty (33%) 

  • Party identification also drives views on what individuals believe is the main reason behind some states imposing Medicaid work requirements. A larger share of Democrats and independents believe the main reason for these work requirements is to reduce government spending (42 percent and 45 percent, respectively) than believe it is to help lift people out of poverty (26 percent and 31 percent). On the other hand, a similar share of Republicans say it is to reduce government spending (40 percent) as say it is to help lift people out of poverty (42 percent). Individuals living in states pursuing Medicaid work requirements are also divided on the main reason for these limits, even when controlling for party identification.

    54% of the public now holds favorable views of the Affordable Care Act – the highest share in more than 80 tracking polls 

  • The February Kaiser Health Tracking Poll finds a slight increase in the share of the public who say they have a favorable view of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), from 50 percent in January 2018 to 54 percent this month. This is the highest level of favorability of the ACA measured in more than 80 Kaiser Health Tracking Polls since 2010. This change is largely driven by independents, with more than half (55 percent) now saying they have a favorable opinion of the law compared to 48 percent last month. Large majorities (83 percent) of Democrats continue to view the law favorably (including six in ten who now say they hold a “very favorable” view, up from 48 percent last month) while nearly eight in ten Republicans (78 percent) view the law unfavorably (unchanged from last month).
  • The majority of the public are either unaware that the ACA’s individual mandate has been repealed (40 percent) or are aware that it has been repealed but incorrectly think the requirement is not in effect in 2018 (21 percent). Few (13 percent) are aware the requirement has been repealed but is still in effect for 2018.
  • More than twice as many voters mention health care costs (22 percent) as mention repealing/opposing the ACA (7 percent) as the top health care issue they most want to hear 2018 candidates discuss in their campaigns. Health care costs are the top issue mentioned by Democratic voters (16 percent) and independent voters (25 percent), as well as one of the top issues mentioned by Republican voters (22 percent), followed by repealing or opposing the ACA (17 percent).

2018 Midterm Elections

With still a few months until the midterm elections are in full swing, the latest Kaiser Health Tracking Poll finds health care costs as the top health care issue mentioned by voters when asked what they want to hear 2018 candidates discuss. When asked to say in their own words what health care issue they most want to hear the candidates talk about during their upcoming campaigns, one-fifth (22 percent) of registered voters mention health care costs. This is followed by a series of other health care issues, such as Medicare/senior concerns (8 percent), repealing or opposition to the Affordable Care Act (7 percent), improve how health care is delivered (7 percent), increasing access/decreasing the number of uninsured (6 percent), or a single-payer system (5 percent). Health care costs is the top issue mentioned by Democratic voters (16 percent) and independent voters (25 percent), as well as one of the top issues mentioned by Republican voters (22 percent), followed by repealing or opposing the ACA (17 percent).

Figure 1: Health Care Costs Are Top Health Care Issue Voters Want 2018 Candidates to Talk About During Their Campaigns

Battleground Voters

Health care costs are also the top issue mentioned by voters living where there are competitive House, Senate, or Governor races. One-fourth (23 percent) of voters in areas with competitive elections mention health care costs when asked what health care issue they most want to hear candidates talk about. Fewer mention other health care issues such as improve how health care is delivered (9 percent) or increasing access/decreasing the number of uninsured (6 percent).

2018 Midterm Election Analysis

As part of Kaiser Family Foundation’s effort to examine the role of health care in the 2018 midterm elections, throughout the year we will be tracking the views of voters – paying special attention to those living in states or congressional districts in which both parties have a viable path to win the election. This group, referred to in our analysis as “voters in battlegrounds” is defined by the 2018 Senate, House, and Governor ratings provided by The Cook Political Report. Congressional and Governor races categorized as “toss-up” were included in this group. A complete list of the states and congressional districts included in the comparison group is available in Appendix A.

The Affordable Care Act

This month’s Kaiser Health Tracking Poll finds a slight increase in the share of the public who say they have a favorable view of the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA). The share of the public who say they hold a favorable view of the law has increased to 54 percent (from 50 percent in January 2018) while 42 percent currently say they hold an unfavorable view. This is the highest level of favorability of the ACA measured in more than 80 Kaiser Health Tracking Polls since 2010.  This change is largely driven by independents, with more than half (55 percent) now saying they have a favorable opinion of the law compared to 48 percent last month. Large majorities (83 percent) of Democrats continue to view the law favorably (including six in ten who now say they hold a “very favorable” view, up from 48 percent last month) while nearly eight in ten Republicans (78 percent) view the law unfavorably (unchanged from last month).

Figure 2: More of the Public Hold a Favorable View of the ACA

Public Awareness of the Repeal of the ACA’s Individual Mandate

The February Kaiser Health Tracking Poll finds a slight uptick (from 36 percent in January 2018 to 41 percent this month) in the share of the public who are aware that the ACA’s requirement that nearly all individuals have health insurance or else pay a fine, known commonly as the individual mandate, has been repealed. Yet, misunderstandings persist. The majority of the public (61 percent) are either unaware that this requirement has been repealed (40 percent) or are aware that it has been repealed but incorrectly think the requirement is not in effect in 2018 (21 percent of total). Few (13 percent) are aware the requirement has been repealed but is still in effect for 2018.

Figure 3: Confusion Remains on the Status of the ACA’s Individual Mandate

Medicaid

In recent months, President Trump’s administration has supported state efforts to make changes to their Medicaid programs, the government health insurance and long-term care program for low-income adults and children. Seven in ten Americans say they have ever had a connection to the Medicaid program either directly through their own health insurance coverage (32 percent) or their child being covered by the program (9 percent), or indirectly through a friend or family member covered by the program (29 percent).

Figure 4: Seven in Ten Americans Say They Have Ever Had A Connection to Medicaid

Majority of the Public Holds Favorable Views of Medicaid and Thinks the Program is Working Well

Overall, the majority of the public (74 percent) holds favorable views of Medicaid, including four in ten who have a “very favorable” view. About one-fifth of the public (21 percent) hold unfavorable views of the program. Unlike attitudes towards the ACA, opinions towards Medicaid are not drastically different among partisans and majorities across parties report favorable views. However, a larger share of Republicans do hold unfavorable views (29 percent) compared to independents (21 percent) or Democrats (13 percent).

Figure 5: Large Shares Across Parties Say They Have a Favorable Opinion of Medicaid

In addition, more believe the program is working well than not working well for most low-income people covered by the program. This holds true across partisans with about half saying the Medicaid program is “working well” and about one-third saying it is “not working well.”

Figure 6: Larger Shares Say Medicaid Is Currently Working Well for Most Low-Income People Covered by the Program

Support for Medicaid Expansion in Non-Expansion States

One of the major changes brought on by the ACA was the option for states to expand Medicaid to cover more low-income people. As of February 2018, 18 states have not expanded their Medicaid programs.

Figure 7: Status of Medicaid Expansion Among States

Among individuals living in states that have not expanded their Medicaid programs, most (56 percent) say they think their state should expand Medicaid to cover more low-income uninsured people while four in ten (37 percent) say their state should keep Medicaid as it is today. Slightly more than half of Republicans living in non-expansion states say their state should keep Medicaid as it is today (54 percent) while four in ten (39 percent) say their state should expand their Medicaid program. Majorities of Democrats (75 percent) and independents (57 percent) say their state should expand their Medicaid program.

Figure 8: Democrats and Independents Are More Likely to Want Their State to Expand Medicaid Than Republicans

Proposed Changes to Medicaid

SECTION 1115 WORK REQUIREMENT WAIVERS

In January, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) provided new guidance for Section 1115 waivers, which would allow states to impose work requirements for individuals to be covered by Medicaid benefits. As of February 21, CMS has approved work requirement waivers in two states (KY and IN) and eight other states have pending requests.1 When asked what they think the reasoning is behind these proposed changes to Medicaid, a larger share of the public (41 percent) believe the main reason is to reduce government spending by limiting the number of people on the program than say the main reason is to help lift people out of poverty (33 percent). There are differences among demographic groups with a larger share of Democrats and independents believing the main reason is to reduce government spending, while Republicans are more divided with similar shares saying the main reason is to lift people out of poverty (42 percent) as reduce government spending (40 percent).

Figure 9: Republicans Are Divided on the Main Reason Behind the Trump Administration Permitting Work Requirements

There are also differences between individuals living in states that have either filed a Medicaid waiver for a work requirement or have had a waiver approved and those living in states that do not have Medicaid work requirement waivers pending or approved.2 Individuals living in states with pending or approved Medicaid work requirements are divided on whether the main reason for these limits is to lift people out of poverty (37 percent) or reduce government spending (36 percent). This holds true even when controlling for other demographic variables such as party identification and income that may influence beliefs.

Figure 10: Those in States with Medicaid Work Requirements Are Divided on the Main Reason Behind Them

SECTION 1115 LIFETIME LIMIT WAIVERS

In addition to work requirement waivers, five states are currently seeking waivers from the Trump administration to impose Medicaid coverage limits. These “lifetime limits” would cap Medicaid health care benefits for non-disabled adults. When asked how they think Medicaid should work, two-thirds of the public say Medicaid should be available to low-income people for as long as they qualify, without a time limit, while one-third say it should only be available to low-income people for a limited amount of time in order to provide temporary help. The vast majority of Democrats (84 percent) and most independents (64 percent) say Medicaid should be available without lifetime limits, while Republicans are divided with similar shares saying they favor time limits (51 percent) as saying they do not favor such limits (47 percent). Seven in ten (71 percent) of individuals who have ever had a connection to Medicaid say they do not support lifetime limits compared to three in ten (28 percent) who say it should only be available for a limited amount of time in order to provide temporary help.

Figure 11: Majorities of Democrats and Independents Say Medicaid Should Be Available Without a Time Limit; Republicans Are Divided

 

 

Sharp HealthCare ACO is evaluating its legal options after leaving Next Generation

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

http://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/sharp-healthcare-aco-evaluating-its-legal-options-after-leaving-next-generation?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTkRsaU5HTTJNVEV5WldaaSIsInQiOiJFSTVVaHdzRmdQTGVCSXZORmhReEkrbVVWNjZOdzhlOWRuRUwxeUVXNktOa2FyNVpQWkc1dXk5SGNTQjc0YndcL3BuUTkrV2xkWEVLd01qWnd2UGNrWTBFTFFzRWxWaGM3bVFOclwvYjNlbXBPSjA2d1prU0tyMmNpQ0Qwdlg4TGhUIn0%3D

Image result for sharp healthcare ACO

 

ACOs have left because of a surprise risk adjustment that pushed some from receiving bonus payments to paying penalties, expert says.

Sharp HealthCare ACO, one of the seven that has dropped out of Next Generation, is evaluating its legal options after the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services introduced a risk adjustment factor midstream, a decision that will cause the ACO to lose rather than save money, according to the CEO of the accountable care organization.

“We are evaluating what our legal options are,” said Alison Fleury, CEO of Sharp HealthCare Accountable Care Organization and senior vice president of Business Development for Sharp HealthCare in San Diego, California. “The sections of the agreement that CMS adjusted unilaterally are not sections they are able to adjust unilaterally.”

Sharp HealthCare ACO is awaiting the results of a preliminary settlement report, expected in April, that will give a clearer financial picture, according to Fleury.

The ACO, which signed on to Next Generation for two years on January 1, 2017, is now on the hook for losses from 2017, but not for 2018.

Sharp’s ACO of two medical groups and the ACO parent organization made the decision to withdraw from Next Generation effective this past February 28. Its Sharp Health Plan is not part of the ACO.

Fleury did not say how much money the ACO is losing from its year spent in Next Generation, a CMS model intended to reward health systems for assuming higher levels of financial risk.

Had CMS not introduced the risk adjustment factor, the ACO would have come out on the plus side and would have achieved savings, she said.

Six other ACOs have also left Next Generation, with one of those, KentuckyOne Health Partners, also citing the risk adjustment factor as a reason.

Sharp HealthCare ACO, which had been in the previous Pioneer model from 2012 to 2014, joined Next Generation after the Pioneer program stopped at the end of 2016. In Pioneer, Sharp neither lost nor gained savings but did well from a utilization standpoint, Fleury said.

One reason the ACO was optimistic about Next Generation was that unlike Pioneer, that used national inflation factors in its benchmark,  CMS took regional factors into account.

Another was because CMS said Next Generation would be predictable, Fleury said, compared to Pioneer, in which benchmarks changed every quarter.

But on October 1, 2017, CMS introduced a risk adjustment factor into the model that reduced actual risk scores by 4.82 percent.

“It’s a material impact,” Fleury said. “One of the key things CMS said about this model, was that it’s predictable. I think it’s unfortunate that this has not become a predictable model.”

In October, CMS gave ACOs the option of signing on to the 4.82 percent risk adjustment and receiving certain benefits, or not signing.

Sharp decided not to sign as the ACO would have gone from financial gain to loss, but on December 7, 2017, CMS mandated the amendment to the original participation agreement on benchmark calculations, that forced the 4.82 percent risk adjustment, Fleury said.

CMS made the change because the agency predicted risk scores would go down as younger, healthier baby boomers went on  Medicare, according to Fleury. CMS actually saw risk scores go up, but believed this was due to health systems doing a better job of coding, rather than actually having a sicker population.

Sharp HealthCare’s Medicare beneficiaries are older, on average about 74-years-old, according to Fleury.

The senior population in San Diego has grown by 12.4 percent between 2013 and 2016, and the Medicare Advantage population has grown by more than 16 percent, she said.

Also putting the ACO at a disadvantage for CMS’s risk adjustment, Sharp is already cost effective, having been in capitation models for 30 years. Both primary care physicians and specialists are in the ACO, meaning that the traditionally sicker population that sees specialists would also be in the model.

“But the model is risk-adjusted so that’s OK,” Fleury said was the thinking.

In fact, expecting savings out of Next Gen, Sharp spent $1.9 million integrating its Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries, about 9 percent of its Medicare population, to its alignment of PCPs and specialists.

Fleury said she has not coordinated Sharp’s argument with the six other ACOs that have left Next Generation. Each system would be impacted differently by the risk adjustment, but she feels that the reasons why they left would be consistent.

KentuckyOne Health Partners ACO is among those. President Don Lovasz also referred to the unpredictable nature of the model and its risk adjustment as a reason for leaving.

“Since 2013, KentuckyOne Health Partners has participated in CMS Medicare ACO programs, including the 2017 Next Generation ACO model, with excellent outcomes,” Lovasz said. “Because the Next Generation ACO Model is still maturing and is demonstrating to be unpredictable with changes to risk coding intensity adjustments and mandatory caps on risk adjustments, KentuckyOne Health Partners chose not to participate in the 2018 performance year.  Through our membership in the America’s Physician Group, and along with other accountable care organizations across the country, we are working with CMS and CMMI to improve the predictability and transparency of their programs so we may participate in future Medicare value- based programs.

David Muhlestein, chief research officer for Leavitt Partners who gave the names of the ACOs which left Next Gen through a tweet said, “In short, the ACOs I’m familiar with were concerned with changes to risk adjustment that, for some, pushed them from receiving bonus payments to paying penalties.”

U.S. Prescription Drug Costs Are a Crime

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

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-02-27/prescription-drug-costs-in-the-u-s-are-a-crime

 

And just tweaking the system won’t solve the problem.

President Donald Trump has complained that U.S. drug companies are “getting away with murder.” For once the hyperbole is forgivable: It suggests he takes the problem of drug costs seriously and might be willing to do something about it. Unfortunately, his administration’s efforts up to now suggest the opposite.

The White House has proposed tweaks to government health-care programs. Some of these measures are worth trying — they could help at the margin — but tweaks aren’t enough. The underlying problem is drug prices that are indeed murderous: Americans and their insurers often pay many times what people in other developed countries pay for the same medicines. That’s what policy needs to confront.

The administration wants insurers participating in Medicare’s prescription-drug program, for instance, to share more directly with beneficiaries the discounts they arrange with drug companies. Out-of-pocket drug costs for some people on Medicare would be capped, and reimbursement for medicines administered by doctors would be trimmed. In Medicaid, a handful of states would be allowed to decline coverage for certain drugs, increasing their leverage in negotiating discounts.

Such changes could lower drug spending for some Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries. But they miss the main point by shifting costs within the health-care system rather pressing down on the costs themselves. Unless this changes, the U.S. will continue to be overcharged for its drugs.

The companies often say that high U.S. prices pay for research into new lifesaving products. Leaving aside why U.S. patients should be asked to shoulder that burden for the entire world, the evidence shows that the argument is false: The premium companies collect in the U.S. market is substantially greater than the amount they spend on research and development.

State legislatures have aimed closer to the mark with efforts to expose the math behind price increases. Vermont, Nevada and California have new lawsrequiring that drug companies provide cost breakdowns to justify big price hikes on popular drugs (including, in Nevada’s case, drugs for diabetes). Several other states are considering doing the same.

Even if these laws stand — they’re being challenged in court — transparency gets you only so far. Pushing prices down will take stronger efforts from the federal government to increase competition.

One good way to do that is to speed the uptake of generics. Scott Gottlieb, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, has been pressuring drug makers to stop trying to extend the monopolies they’ve been granted (via FDA approval and patents) for brand-name drugs. But only Congress can forbid those practices, and it has yet to act on bipartisan legislation that would do the job. Trump could show he’s serious about lowering drug prices by urging Congress to pass the law.

Another way to boost competition would be to let people and pharmacies import some drugs from other countries with sound pharmaceutical regulation, such as Canada. Almost one in 10 Americans say they already do, despite the official prohibition.

The U.S. should also do what so many other countries do: negotiate. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ought to use its enormous purchasing power on behalf of the 42 million Americans in the Medicare drug-benefit program, ensuring that prices better reflect the drugs’ actual medical value. Again, for this to happen, Congress would need to change the law. Incredible as this will seem elsewhere in the world, the U.S. government has denied itself permission to apply pharmaceutical cost-benefit analysis and negotiate prices.

Trump is right to deplore the cost of drugs in the U.S. There’s no great mystery about the causes — and no doubt that much bolder measures than the administration has in mind will be needed to bring prices down.

UPDATE: CMS seeks expansion of short-term plans to sidestep ACA

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

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/cms-seeks-expansion-of-aca-skirting-short-term-plans/517399/

Image result for Out of Pocket expenses

Dive Brief:

  • HHS issued a proposed rule on Tuesday that expands the availability of short-term health insurance by allowing the purchase of plans providing coverage for up to 12 months, the latest in the Trump administration’s plans to weaken the Affordable Care Act. The action builds off a request for information by HHS last June on ways to increase affordability of health insurance.
  • The current maximum period for such plans is less than three months, a change made by the Obama administration in 2016. The proposed rule would mark a return to the pre-2016 era, but CMS noted that it is seeking comment on offering short-term plans for periods longer than 12 months.
  • Short-term plans are not required to comply with federal rules for individual health insurance under the ACA, so the plans could charge more for those with preexisting conditions and not provide what the ACA deemed essential health benefits like maternity care.

Dive Insight:

The proposed rule builds off of an executive order President Donald Trump signed in October, which instructed the federal government to explore more access to association health plans, expanding short-term limited duration plans and changes to health reimbursement arrangements or HRAs.

Consumers buying these short-terms plans could lose access to certain healthcare services and providers and experience an increase in out-of-pocket expenditures for some patients, according to the proposal.

The short-term plans “would be unlikely to include all the elements of ACA-compliant plans, such as the preexisting condition exclusion prohibition, coverage of essential health benefits without annual or lifetime dollar limits, preventive care, maternity and prescription drug coverage, rating restrictions and guaranteed renewability,” according to the proposed rule.

The Trump administration argues that expanding access to short-term plans is increasingly important due to rising premiums in the individual markets.

But if young and healthy people leave the individual market for short-term plans, it could contribute to an unbalanced risk pool. HHS itself states that the exodus of young and healthy exchange members could contribute to rising premiums within the ACA exchange markets.

“If individual market single risk pools change as a result, it would result in an increase in premiums for the individuals remaining in those risk pools,” the proposed rule stated.

But when asked about concerns that the idea might hurt the stability of the ACA marketplaces by siphoning healthy people away, CMS Administrator Seema Verma argued there would be little impact.

“No, we don’t think there’s any validity to that — based on our projections only a very small number of healthy people will shift from the individual market to these short-term limited duration plans. Specifically, we estimate that only 100,000 to 200,000 people will shift. And this shift will have will have virtually no impact on the individual market premiums,” Verma said on a press call.

But the insurance lobby cautioned that the action could increase insurance prices for the most vulnerable.

The American Hospital Association and Association for Community Affiliated Plans also slammed the short-term plans, saying they would increase the cost of comprehensive coverage.

“Short-term, limited-duration health plans have a role for consumers who experience gaps in coverage. They are not unlike the small spare tire in a car: they get the job done for short periods of time, but they have severe limitations and you’ll get in trouble if you drive too fast on them,” ACAP CEO Margaret Murray said in a statement.

“While we are reviewing the proposed rule to understand its impact on the people we serve, we remain concerned that expanded use of short-term policies could further fragment the individual market, which would lead to higher premiums for many consumers, particularly those with pre-existing conditions,” said Kristine Grow, SVP of communications at America’s Health Insurance Plans.

HHS anticipates most individuals switching from individual market plans to short-term coverage plans would be relatively young or healthy and not eligible to receive ACA’s premium tax credits.

CMS said the proposal is one to help the 28 million Americans without health insurance, pointing to the 6.7 million who chose to pay the individual mandate penalty in 2015 as evidence that ACA-compliant plans are too expensive.

“In a market that is experiencing double-digit rate increases, allowing short-term, limited-duration insurance to cover longer periods gives Americans options and could be the difference between someone getting coverage or going without coverage at all,” Verma said in a statement.

Senate HELP Committee Chair Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., praised the action, but cautioned that states still have a responsibility to protect consumers.

“Millions of Americans who are between jobs and who pay for their own insurance will welcome this extended option for lower-cost, short-term policies. States will have the responsibility for making sure these policies benefit consumers,” Alexander said in a statement.

Democrats largely oppose the move, arguing it will further destabilize the market for millions of Americans in the ACA exchanges. “Widespread marketing of these bare bones, junk plans will further destabilize health insurance markets, and will lead to higher premiums for everyone,” a group of House Democrats said in a joint statement.

As Republicans are not likely to take up ACA repeal again any time soon, the Trump administration has been working to pare back the law in the past several months. It halved the enrollment period and stopped paying cost-sharing reduction payments to insurers. Also, the recent tax overhaul included a repeal of the law’s requirement that most people have coverage.

Will Federal Courts Uphold Trump Administration Medicaid Waiver Approvals?

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

https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20180213.18720/full/

Court decisions are likely to have an enormous impact on the future of the Medicaid program. On January 12, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced approval of a Medicaid demonstration waiver in Kentucky incorporating unprecedented restrictions on Medicaid eligibility for adults. These restrictions have been summarized by Sara Rosenbaum on Health Affairs Blog in the context of a powerful review of Medicaid demonstration law and policy. Kentucky’s new waiver includes not only a highly publicized “work/community engagement” requirement, but additional elements new to Medicaid including lockouts for beneficiaries who do not complete the annual renewal process or who fail to report changes in income.

Twelve days after the CMS approval announcement, the Kentucky Equal Justice Center, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the National Health Law Program filed suit to stop the waiver in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, representing 15 Medicaid beneficiaries in Kentucky. Similar lawsuits are virtually certain as Medicaid waivers imposing new coverage and benefits restrictions on adults are approved in Indiana and likely other states.

Why The Current Round Of 1115 Waivers Are Different

As noted by Sara Rosenbaum, Nicholas Bagley, and others, there is a limited history of federal lawsuits challenging Medicaid section 1115 demonstrations. But it is important to note the reason there have been few of these legal challenges: until 2018, over its 50-plus year history, Medicaid waiver authority was almost exclusively used to expand Medicaid eligibility and benefits rather than to restrict them, or to try a different approach to delivering existing benefits. When I oversaw Medicaid 1115 waiver review from 2013 to early 2017, the Obama administration agreed to try a variety of conservative ideas under Medicaid waiver authority for the Affordable Care Act (ACA) adult expansion population. But each of these ideas was tied into a good faith hypothesis about potential improved access or benefits within the Medicaid program. Premiums were to be tested as an alternative to cost-sharing in some states or in combined premium/cost-sharing approaches that sought to encourage and incentivize healthy behaviors; private marketplace plan networks were to be tested and evaluated as an alternative to traditional Medicaid providers; the impact of the Non-Emergency Medical Transportation benefit on unmet need would be measured closely to see if eliminating the benefit helped or hurt self-reported access to care.

The approvals in Kentucky and Indiana, and possible pending approvals in other states, base their legal claim to be promoting the objectives of the Medicaid program on a far more brazen and cynical premise. The waiver approvals assert that taking away Medicaid from statutorily eligible individuals can act as an incentive that ultimately improves health: either by forcing the beneficiary to get a job to stay insured in the case of work requirements, or by “educating beneficiaries on enrollment requirements” in the case of lockouts from eligibility for beneficiaries who fail to complete an annual renewal or inform the state of income changes.

Because the hypothesized Medicaid objectives are so dubious, a lot more than these specific waiver requests rests on the plaintiffs’ case in these states. At risk are not only specific Medicaid eligibility principles, but the entire statutory enterprise of congressional legislation of mandatory Medicaid eligibility or benefits of any kind. Consider what it would mean for Medicaid law were the justifications upheld: if waivers can overturn congressional Medicaid eligibility guarantees and claim to promote Medicaid objectives because Medicaid itself is a barrier to health, or because cutting off eligibility is a way to teach people about private insurance or enforce compliance with new extra-statutory eligibility requirements, then there is no meaningful legal limit on state waivers of federal Medicaid eligibility law. Congress’s ability—in place since 1965 and upheld in hundreds of federal court decisions—to mandate that state Medicaid agencies cover specific categories of individuals for specific periods of time and with specific benefits will be subject to an extra-statutory waiver process in toto.

Will courts allow it anyway? After all, section 1115(a) defining the scope of the demonstration authority specifically references “the judgment of the Secretary”, suggesting executive branch latitude.

Will Courts Overturn Work Requirements?

But there are a number of important legal and contextual factors that point to court action to overturn these waiver approvals. First, the work requirement component of these waivers is a particularly blatant attempt to achieve under waiver authority what could not be achieved via statutory change. Both the House and primary Senate version of “repeal and replace” 2017 included state options to impose work requirements in Medicaid. These efforts—in a rather high-profile manner—failed to pass Congress. Courts will be considering the tactic of the executive branch trying to change the Medicaid program via demonstration waivers when it failed to change the law.

Second, the primary federal court precedent for judicial review of Medicaid section 1115 demonstrations sets a high bar for legal scrutiny. Although (as summarized by Nicholas Bagley) the courts historically authorized some restrictive state section 1115 waivers with regard to Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) cash welfare in the name of supporting transitions to independence, these decisions were tied to a statutory framework for the AFDC program that itself supported transitions to work as an explicit goal beginning in the 1960s. This is not true when it comes to Medicaid: Medicaid’s statutory framework is as an ongoing health insurance program, and it now covers 70 million people, many times the enrollment level in AFDC/Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) over its history. And the limited court challenges to Medicaid section 1115 waivers have had a high success rate, with courts insisting that not only meet the “promote Medicaid objectives” standard but that they meet an additional level of scrutiny regarding research or experimental value relative to the health policy literature. Strikingly, the court in Newton-Nations v. Betlach—the primary precedent for Medicaid waiver judicial review—approvingly cited expert testimony on the health policy literature as evidence for why further research on cost-sharing was not needed. If judges are citing literature reviews to question whether waiver hypotheses involve groundbreaking experiments, that does not indicate a high degree of judicial deference.

Third, we have had strong indications in the last year that federal courts are not working with an assumption of good faith in stated agency rationales, particularly when significant published information from Trump administration leaders contradicts those ostensible public rationales. Judicial skepticism has extended from presidential tweets cited as evidence of discriminatory intent in immigration cases, to asserting “invidious partisan intent” in drawing of voting districts. And the Trump administration has made abundantly clear that its reasons for supporting restrictions on adult Medicaid enrollment have nothing to do with health: CMS Administrator Seema Verma has repeatedly stated her broad opposition to Medicaid coverage of low-income non-disabled adults as such, and the Trump administration worked vigorously to undo the Medicaid expansion during the ACA repeal effort in Congress.

Fourth, the fact that states are pairing work requirement waivers with other extra-statutory restrictions on Medicaid eligibility undermines whatever health claims they are making regarding the work requirement. With the exception of Mississippi—a state with Medicaid income eligibility levels for adults that are so low virtually no employed adults qualify—every state that has proposed a work requirement has also proposed to waive Medicaid law in other ways to take away coverage. Kentucky’s and Indiana’s new “lockout” provisions that will bar people from Medicaid for six months if they fail to report a change in income or if they fail to submit an annual redetermination of eligibility will likely lead to dramatic reductions in Medicaid coverage, given the high rates of enrollment churn associated with Medicaid’s unique annual redetermination requirements. States that are trying to cut Medicaid coverage for adults in multiple ways and a federal Administration that opposes Medicaid coverage of non-disabled adults would appear to be attacking Medicaid coverage of adults any way they can. They will not make for persuasive exponents of the health benefits of work requirements.

The pending litigation will be the first time the courts have thoroughly defined the scope of executive branch section 1115 waiver authority in Medicaid. As a matter of law and policy, one way or another this important part of the Medicaid program and the American health system will likely be changed by the time the federal courts have completed their adjudication. Many thousands of lives will be at stake. But with multiple judicial imperatives at stake as well, there is good reason to expect that the courts will step in.