Tag Archives: Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy

3 Ways the Senate Budget Reopens the Door for ACA Repeal

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

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/news/2017/09/29/440039/3-ways-senate-budget-reopens-door-aca-repeal/

After the latest failed attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in the Senate, Sens. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) and Ron Johnson (R-WI) declared that they would only support a new budget resolution that enabled them to keep trying to force through their own health care bill. The Senate has not had to meet the 60-vote standard to pass ACA repeal because of the budget reconciliation process, which lets the Senate pass legislation with a simple majority vote. This process began with reconciliation instructions included in the fiscal year 2017 budget that Congress passed in January 2017, but those instructions expire on September 30.

While the new FY 2018 budget resolution from the Senate Budget Committee retreats from ACA repeal to some extent—after massive public opposition—it would still enable Congress to revive major elements of ACA repeal using reconciliation. Here are three ways the proposed Senate budget supports ACA repeal.

1. An overly broad reconciliation instruction to the Senate Finance Committee

The Senate Finance Committee has jurisdiction over both tax policy and several federal health care programs, including Medicare and Medicaid. If the Senate wanted to limit the scope of a reconciliation bill to tax policy, the budget resolution could give instructions to the Senate Finance Committee that only cover revenues. Instead, the budget instructs the Finance Committee to produce legislation that increases deficits by up to $1.5 trillion over 10 years.

Since deficit changes can be accomplished via changes to both spending and revenues, the Finance Committee could use this reconciliation instruction to repeal ACA-related taxes as well as much of the spending that helps people purchase health insurance under current law. Politico reports that “95 percent of health care policy” goes through the Senate Finance Committee, according to a Republican Congressional staffer discussing ACA repeal. As a result, the staffer said, “it’s not like we couldn’t slip it in anyway.”

Every dollar the Finance Committee cuts from health care could be used to pay for tax cuts for the rich that would be on top of the $1.5 trillion tax cut financed by deficits. This reconciliation instruction could let Congress pass a huge deficit-financed tax cut for the wealthy and corporations, combined with major elements of ACA repeal, in a single omnibus reconciliation bill. If the Finance Committee’s overall bill does not increase deficits by more than $1.5 trillion over 10 years, the Senate could pass it on a party-line vote under reconciliation.

Aside from the Finance Committee, the only other committee involved in ACA repeal in the Senate is the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee. The Senate budget resolution does not give a reconciliation instruction to the HELP Committee, which signals a meaningful retreat from full ACA repeal. Nevertheless, the Finance Committee instruction would still enable the Senate to change major parts of the law, which could include nullifying the ACA mandate for individuals to purchase health insurance, repealing the ACA-related taxes that finance the coverage expansion, and making all of the Medicaid cuts in earlier ACA repeal legislation, such as repealing the Medicaid expansion and making further cuts by turning the program into a block grant.

2. A deficit-neutral reserve fund for ACA repeal

The Senate budget resolution further smooths the path for ACA repeal with a deficit-neutral reserve fund for “repealing or replacing” the ACA. This allows Senate Budget Committee Chairman Mike Enzi (R-WY) to adjust the aggregates that are included in the budget resolution, such as overall spending and revenue levels, to accommodate ACA repeal. This reserve fund helps the Senate majority avoid points of order that could otherwise create hurdles for passing a future health care bill. A similar reserve fund was also included in the FY 2017 budget resolution.

Budget resolutions often include many reserve funds that are mostly designed to signal rhetorical support for an issue. Not only does the reserve fund for health legislation smooth the way for ACA repeal, it also shows that supporters of the Senate budget continue to endorse ACA repeal even after the FY 2017 reconciliation instructions expire on September 30.

3. Deficit-financed tax cuts

Even if Congress does not go after the ACA using reconciliation instructions in the FY 2018 budget, the deficits from the tax cuts the Senate budget enables will be used by the ACA’s opponents to attack the law in the future. Whipping up hysteria about budget deficits is a common tactic to advocate cuts to programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, and it is already being used to justify ACA repeal. When asked a question on CNN from a person who had recovered from substance abuse addiction and who worried about loss of Medicaid coverage for treatment for others suffering from addiction, Sen. Graham responded, “Let’s talk about $20 trillion of debt.”

If lawmakers increase the debt with the very tax cuts that Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin says will be “done by the end of the year,” it will add further fuel to their drive to slash programs for low- and middle-income Americans using reconciliation instructions in their next budget resolution for FY 2019. This will not be a long delay—the FY 2019 budget would be passed by April 15, 2018, if Congress follows the schedule for the regular budget process.

Lawmakers can cut taxes, increase deficits, and use those higher deficits to justify a renewed push to repeal the ACA, all before the 2018 midterm elections.

Conclusion

The window is closing for Congress to pass ACA repeal using the FY 2017 reconciliation instructions, but the Senate Budget Committee is reopening it with the FY 2018 budget. The quest to repeal the ACA—thereby cutting taxes for the wealthy, taking health insurance from tens of millions of Americans, eliminating protections for preexisting conditions, and driving up out-of-pocket costs—will continue if Congress passes the Senate budget resolution.

What’s Past Is Prologue: CBO’s Score for the House-Passed AHCA Reminds Us Why Insurance Markets Need Regulation

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

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/blog/2017/jun/why-insurance-markets-need-regulation

Related image

 

The Trump administration has been arguing for months that the insurance market reforms of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) are not working and are even harming consumers. But four years of accumulated data on Americans’ experiences in a reformed individual market provides considerable evidence to the contrary. Americans’ ability to buy comprehensive health plans on their own has improved significantly since the reforms went into effect in 2014. Most people with marketplace plans are satisfied with them and have used their plans to get health care they couldn’t have obtained in the past. A majority of those eligible for subsidies have premiums and deductibles similar to those in employer plans. And while policy fixes are needed to improve affordability, as well competition in some areas of the country, the marketplaces were looking increasingly stable for both consumers and insurers at the beginning of this year.

It is actually the lack of certainty about the administration’s actions regarding the enforcement of the market reforms, rather than the reforms themselves, that are the primary source of the marketplace’s current problems. The importance of the ACA’s insurance market reforms were underscored last week in the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) analysis of the House-passed American Health Care Act (AHCA), the Republican’s ACA repeal-and-replace bill. The report included an assessment of an amendment that would allow states to undo some of the reforms. That assessment is a powerful illustration of why these reforms were needed in the first place.

The MacArthur Amendment Relaxes ACA Individual Market Reforms

In the week before the House vote in May, Representative Tom MacArthur sponsored an amendment to the AHCA that provided waivers for states that wanted to relax two major sets of ACA reforms:

  • The requirement that insurance companies sell policies that cover a standard set of health benefits similar to those in employer-based coverage
  • The ban that prevents insurance companies from charging people more based on their health.

Under the first waiver, states could let insurers eliminate coverage for many services, significantly driving up out-of-pocket costs for people who need these services. Under the second waiver, states could allow insurers to price, or underwrite, people’s insurance based on their health if they applied for a plan and had a gap in their insurance of 63 days or more. States with the waivers would be required to establish high-risk pools or reinsurance programs to make coverage affordable for people who had higher premiums as a result. They could draw funds from the AHCA’s Patient and State Stability Fund, a pool of $10–$15 billion a year over 2018–2026 that was supplemented for various purposes through amendments.1

CBO Estimated About Half the U.S. Population Lives in States That Would Request Waivers

If there were doubts about whether any states would apply for the waivers, the CBO had some news: half the U.S. population could live in states that would use these waivers to begin deregulating their individual insurance markets. The basis for their estimate? In part, they considered state approaches to their individual markets prior to the ACA. States that had previously allowed insurers the freest rein in consumer coverage denials, rating on health, and flexibility in what services they would cover were expected to loosen the reins again.

CBO also expected that states that sought the waivers would implement them in different ways. Some states might modestly deregulate their markets while others might make more dramatic changes. For example, some states might require insurers to cover a core set of benefits but allow them to exclude maternity or mental health services. Using 2014 data, RAND researchers have estimated that this could increase the costs to families of having a baby by $6,900 to $9,300 and the annual costs of mental health care by $1,300 to over $12,000. Other states might go a step further and let insurers determine the entire content of their benefit packages as they did in many states prior to the ACA, leaving many people with preexisting conditions stuck with the full cost of their care.

Likewise, CBO assumed that some states would take different approaches to reintroducing individual underwriting in their markets. Because healthy people would face lower premiums if they were rated on the basis of their health, they would have little incentive to maintain continuous coverage, since they would prefer the lower rate they would receive if carriers rated them on health. In order to keep healthy people in the community-rated risk pool (the one with both healthy and unhealthy enrollees), a state might only allow underwriting of people with health problems.

Other states might go whole hog and allow underwriting on health for everyone who had a coverage gap, regardless of their health status. These markets over time would begin to look like those of the pre-ACA past: markets segmented into pools where people in good health could find affordable plans and those with health problems were priced out of the market. The CBO concluded that the funds set aside for state high-risk pools for people with health problems were inadequate to make coverage affordable for people with preexisting conditions in these states.

What’s Past Is Prologue

Decades of experience with the individual market in the United States has shown that without considerable regulation the market simply cannot function for all those who rely on it. Allowing insurers in the past to price each individual’s policy according to their health penalized those who were the sickest and rewarded those who were the healthiest. The 35 states that tried to patch high-risk pools onto their individually rated markets and the ACA’s own transitional Preexisting Conditions Insurance Plan program left robust evidence that high-risk pools were expensive for states and the people who enrolled in them, left millions uninsured, and were ultimately unsustainable. States that had attempted to ban pricing based on health status (like New York and New Jersey) also experienced instabilitybecause the lack of premium subsidies and an individual mandate left their markets lopsided: too many people in poorer health without the balance provided by those in better health.  As a result, premiums soared.

In contrast, four years of experience with the ACA’s insurance market reforms demonstrates that it is possible for this market to offer affordable, comprehensive insurance to people with diverse health needs. In 2010, 60 percent of adults who tried to buy a plan in the individual market said that they found it very difficult or impossible to find one they could afford. By 2016, that number had fallen by nearly half, to 34 percent. While this rate leaves plenty of room for improvement, the substantial decline suggests that the U.S. has been headed in the right direction if private markets are the nation’s preferred path to universal coverage. But any future movement along this path will require the full commitment of the Trump administration and Congress to enforcing and improving the ACA’s reforms of our complex private health insurance markets.

Following the ACA Repeal-and-Replace Effort, Where Does the U.S. Stand on Insurance Coverage?

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

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2017/sep/post-aca-repeal-and-replace-health-insurance-coverage

Image result for Following the ACA Repeal-and-Replace Effort, Where Does the U.S. Stand on Insurance Coverage?

Conclusion and Policy Implications

The findings of this study could inform both short- and long-term actions for policymakers seeking to improve the affordability of marketplace plans and reduce the number of uninsured people in the United States.

Short-Term

The most immediate concern for policymakers is ensuring that the 17 million to 18 million people with marketplace and individual market coverage are able to enroll this fall.

Congress could take the following three steps:

  1. The Trump administration has not made a long-term commitment to paying insurers for the cost-sharing reductions for low-income enrollees in the marketplaces, which insurers are required to offer under the ACA. Congress could resolve this by making a permanent appropriation for the payments. Without this commitment, insurers have already announced that they are increasing premiums to hedge against the risk of not receiving payments from the federal government. Since most enrollees receive tax credits, higher premiums also will increase the federal government’s costs.9
  2. While it appears that most counties will have at least one insurer offering plans in the marketplaces this year, Congress could consider a fallback health plan option to protect consumers if they do not have a plan to choose from, with subsidies available to help qualifying enrollees pay premiums.
  3. Reinsurance to help carriers cover unexpectedly high claims costs.10 During the three years in which it was functioning, the ACA’s transitional reinsurance program lowered premiums by as much as 14 percent.

The executive branch can also play an important role in two ways:

  1. Signaling to insurers participating in the marketplaces that it will enforce the individual mandate. Uncertainty over the administration’s commitment to the mandate, like the cost-sharing reductions, is leading to higher-than-expected premiums for next year.
  2. Affirming the commitment to ensuring that all eligible Americans are aware of their options and have the tools they need to enroll in the coverage that is right for them during the 2018 open enrollment period, which begins November 1. The survey findings indicate that large shares of uninsured Americans are unaware of the marketplaces and that enrollment assistance makes a difference in whether people sign up for insurance.

Long-Term

The following longer-term policy changes will likely lead to affordability improvement and reductions in the number of uninsured people.

  1. The 19 states that have not expanded Medicaid could decide to do so.
  2. Alleviate affordability issues for people with incomes above 250 percent of poverty by:
    1. Allowing people earning more than 400 percent of poverty to be eligible for tax credits. This would cover an estimated 1.2 million people at an annual total federal cost of $6 billion, according to a RAND analysis.11
    2. Increasing tax credits for people with incomes above 250 percent of poverty.
    3. Allowing premium contributions to be fully tax deductible for people buying insurance on their own; self-employed people have long been able to do this.
    4. Extending cost-sharing reductions for individuals with incomes above 250 percent of poverty, thus making care more affordable for insured individuals with moderate incomes.
  3. Consider immigration reform and expanding insurance options for undocumented immigrants.

In 2002, the Institute of Medicine concluded that insurance coverage is the most important determinant of access to health care.12 In the ongoing public debate over how to provide insurance to people, the conversation often drifts from this fundamental why of health insurance. At this pivotal moment, more than 30 million people now rely on the ACA’s reforms and expansions. Nearly 30 million more are uninsured — because of the reasons identified in this survey. It is critical that the health of these 60 million people, along with their ability to lead long and productive lives, be the central focus in our debate over how to improve the U.S. health insurance system, regardless of the approach ultimately chosen.

 

Healthcare Triage News: Let’s Talk Cassidy-Graham

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

Healthcare Triage News: Let’s Talk Cassidy-Graham

Image result for Healthcare Triage News: Let’s Talk Cassidy-Graham

We had a whole other video planned for today but we have to talk about the Cassidy-Graham bill, which is getting closer to passing despite our predictions last week.

What Graham-Cassidy means for pre-existing conditions

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

https://www.axios.com/what-graham-cassidy-really-means-for-pre-existing-conditions-2487720743.html

Image result for What Graham-Cassidy means for pre-existing conditions

Jimmy Kimmel’s takedown of Sen. Bill Cassidy, and Cassidy’s response, ripped open the question of whether the GOP’s latest health reform bill protects people with pre-existing conditions. Cassidy and co-sponsor Sen. Lindsey Graham insist it does — as did President Trump in a tweet last night — but experts say that’s not really the case.

The bottom line: The bill’s funding cuts could pressure states — even blue states — to waive protections for sick people, as a way to keep premium increases in check. Older, sicker people in every state could end up paying more as states try to make up for a funding shortfall.

What the bill does: The bill wouldn’t repeal the Affordable Care Act’s rules about pre-existing conditions. But they might end up only existing on paper, the Kaiser Family Foundation’s Larry Levitt said.

Graham-Cassidy doesn’t let states waive the part of the Affordable Care Act that says insurers have to cover sick people. But it does allow states to opt out of several other ACA rules that can cause people with pre-existing conditions to pay more for their health care. Those provisions include:

  • The ban on charging sick people higher premiums than healthy people.
  • The requirement that insurers cover “essential health benefits,” including prescription drugs. People who need expensive drugs might not have access to a plan that covers those drugs, requiring them to pay out of pocket.
    • Services that aren’t “essential” benefits aren’t subject to the ACA’s ban on annual and lifetime limits.
  • The bill also would also loosen rules about how much insurers can raise their premiums because of a customer’s age. (Older people are more likely to have pre-existing conditions.)

What supporters will argue: The bill requires states to say how their waivers would provide affordable and accessible coverage for people with pre-existing conditions. But there’s no definition of what that means, and there’s also no enforcement mechanism.

  • “The bottom line is these protections are much more at risk under this bill than they are now,” said Cori Uccello, a senior health fellow with the American Academy of Actuaries.

Another level: At least theoretically, because the bill gives states so much control, a more liberal state like California might choose to preserve more of the ACA’s regulations than, say, Alabama. But this bill would radically redistribute federal health care funding — generally away from blue and purple states and toward red states. Those cuts could back blue states into seeking more expansive waivers.

  • Caroline Pearson of Avalere told me: “if you have less money, you either cover fewer people, or you cover the same amount of people with less generous coverage. People with pre existing conditions are very reliant on having access to affordable insurance and need insurance that is comprehensive. So if a bill reduces the availability of comprehensive insurance, people with chronic conditions are going to be disproportionately harmed.”

 

Stat of the Day

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

Senate GOP Has 12 Days to Repeal Obamacare and No Room for Error

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

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-19/senate-gop-has-12-days-to-repeal-obamacare-and-no-room-for-error

Image result for time running out

Senate Republicans making one last-ditch effort to repeal Obamacare have the daunting task of assembling 50 votes for an emotionally charged bill with limited details on how it would work, what it would cost and how it would affect health coverage — all in 12 days.

They need to act by Sept. 30 to use a fast-track procedure that prevents Democrats from blocking it, but the deadline doesn’t leave enough time to get a full analysis of the bill’s effects from the Congressional Budget Office. The measure would face parliamentary challenges that could force leaders to strip out provisions favored by conservatives. Several Republicans are still withholding their support or rejecting it outright.

And even if Republicans manage to get it through the Senate by Sept. 30, the House would have to accept it without changing a single comma.

Most Senate Republicans are still trying to figure out what it’s in the bill, which was authored by Republicans Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana. Until the past few days, most assumed that GOP leaders had no interest in reviving the Obamacare repeal effort after their high-profile failure to pass a measure this summer.

Republican Senator Steve Daines of Montana said he’s still trying to figure out how the bill will affect his state and wants to hear what GOP leaders say at a closed-door lunch Tuesday.

‘Active Discussion’

“It will be a very active discussion,” he said.

The new repeal bill would replace the Affordable Care Act’s insurance subsidies with block grants to states, which would decide how to help people get health coverage. The measure would end Obamacare’s requirements that individuals obtain health insurance and that most employers provide it to their workers, and it would give states flexibility to address the needs of people with pre-existing medical conditions.

But lawmakers won’t have much more information about the legislation by the time the Senate would have to vote. The CBO said Monday it will offer a partial assessment of the measure early next week, but that it won’t have estimates of its effects on the deficit, health-insurance coverage or premiums for at least several weeks. That could make it hard to win over several Republicans who opposed previous versions of repeal legislation.

So far, President Donald Trump has suggested he’d support the bill, but he hasn’t thrown his full weight behind it.

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has told senators he would bring up the bill if it had 50 votes, and under fast-track rules he could do so at any time before Sept. 30. That’s the end of the government’s fiscal year, when the rules expire and the GOP would have to start over.

Several Holdouts

Republicans can only lose two votes in the 52-48 Senate and still pass the measure, with Vice President Mike Pence’s tie-breaker. There are at least four holdouts, and getting any of them to back the measure would require the senators to change their past positions. Pence, who would cast the potentially deciding vote, will return to Washington from New York Tuesday, where he’s been taking part in United Nations General Assembly events, to attend Senate GOP lunches.

Republican Rand Paul of Kentucky said Monday he’s opposed to the Graham-Cassidy bill, saying it doesn’t go far enough. John McCain of Arizona said he’s “not supportive” yet, citing the rushed legislative process.

Two other Republicans — Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska — have voted against every repeal bill considered this year in the Senate, citing cuts to Medicaid and Planned Parenthood as well as provisions that would erode protections for those with pre-existing conditions. The Graham-Cassidy bill contains similar provisions on those three areas.

“I’m concerned about what the effect would be on coverage, on Medicaid spending in my state, on the fundamental changes in Medicaid that would be made,” Collins told reporters Monday evening.

She said that Maine’s hospital association has calculated the state would lose $1 billion in federal health spending over a decade compared to current law.

“That’s obviously of great concern to me,” she added.

Hard Sell

Murkowski is getting a hard sell from Republican backers of the bill.

“What I’m trying to figure out is the impact to my state,” Murkowski told reporters Monday. “There are some formulas at play with different pots of money with different allocations and different percentages, so it is not clear.”

McCain, who is close friends with Graham, cast the deciding vote to sink an earlier repeal bill in late July when he made a dramatic return to the Senate after a brain cancer diagnosis. At the time, he made an eloquent plea for colleagues to work with Democrats and use regular legislative procedures instead of trying to jam it through on a partisan basis.

John Weaver, a former top adviser to McCain, said supporting Graham-Cassidy would require the Arizona senator to renege on his word.

‘Fair Process’

“I cannot imagine Senator McCain turning his back not only on his word, but also on millions of Americans who would lose health care coverage, despite intense lobbying by his best friend,” Weaver said in an email. “Graham-Cassidy, if truly attempted to pass, will bypass every standard of transparency and inclusion important to people who care about fair process.”

Despite the obstacles, the bill’s backers are putting on a good face about the prospects.

“We’re making progress on it,” said Republican Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin. “I’m still cautiously optimistic, but there are a lot of moving parts.” Johnson is planning a Sept. 26 hearing on the measure in the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, which he leads. The Senate Finance Committee is planning its own hearing Sept. 25 on the measure.

“There’s a lot of interest,” Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania said Monday. “Those guys have done some very good work.”

A number of Republicans are still pushing for changes to the bill, so the final version may evolve. It’s also subject to parliamentary challenges under the reconciliation process being used to circumvent the 60-vote threshold in the Senate. That could allow Democrats to strike provisions that take aim at Obamacare’s regulatory structure.

Last Chance

If it passed the Senate, the House would have to pass the bill without any changes. House Speaker Paul Ryan said Monday that the measure is Republicans’ last best chance to repeal Obamacare.

“We want them to pass this, we’re encouraging them to pass this,” Ryan told reporters at a news conference in Wisconsin. “It’s our best, last chance of getting repeal and replace done.”

But that won’t be easy either. The measure strives to equalize Medicaid funding between states, which means that some House Republicans from Medicaid expansion states could find it hard to support. That includes states like New York and California, which stand to lose federal funds under Graham-Cassidy. Those states have only Democratic senators, but have some GOP House members.

Another Run

In some ways, it’s remarkable that Republicans are mounting another run at repeal.

Two months ago, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s effort to pass a replacement with only Republican support suffered a spectacular defeat in the Senate. When members of the Senate health committee then began working on a bipartisan plan to shore up Obamacare, Graham and Cassidy revved up a new bid to get their GOP-only bill to the Senate floor.

Graham and Cassidy are hoping to channel the GOP’s embarrassment at failing to repeal Obamacare this summer after seven years of promising to do so. But Paul said Monday this legislation shouldn’t be treated like a “kidney stone” you pass “just to get rid of it.”

Despite all the obstacles, Democrats quickly geared up for another campaign against repeal, warning that the latest bill is a serious threat.

“This bill is worse than the last bill,” Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York told reporters Monday. “It will slash Medicaid, get rid of pre-existing conditions. It’s very, very bad.”

Hospital group comes out against new ObamaCare repeal effort

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

Hospital group comes out against new ObamaCare repeal effort

Hospital group comes out against new ObamaCare repeal effort

America’s Essential Hospitals announced its opposition to a new ObamaCare repeal and replace bill, warning of cuts and coverage losses.

The group, which represents hospitals that treat a high share of low-income people, said it is opposed to a last-ditch bill to repeal ObamaCare from Sens. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Dean Heller (R-Nev.) and Ron Johnson (R-Wis.).

Dr. Bruce Siegel, the group’s president and CEO, said in a statement the bill “would shift costs to states, patients, providers, and taxpayers.”

“Further, by taking an approach so close to that of the earlier House and Senate plans, it’s reasonable to conclude it would have a similar result: millions of Americans losing coverage,” he added.

America’s Essential Hospitals is one of the first major health groups to come out in opposition to the bill. Most have not yet weighed in on the measure, which was only introduced on Wednesday.

Many are also skeptical of the bill’s chances, but it appears to be gaining at least some momentum.

Cassidy told reporters Friday that he thought the bill had the support of 48-49 senators, just shy of the needed 50. Still, the effort faces long odds and a fast-approaching procedural deadline of Sept. 30.

America’s Essential Hospitals was one of the most outspoken opponents of the earlier repeal bills, along with other hospital groups. Many doctors groups were also opposed and many insurers eventually weighed in against provisions to change ObamaCare pre-existing condition rules.

WHY RETURNING TO A PRE-ACA MARKET ISN’T AN OPTION

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

http://www.managedhealthcareconnect.com/article/why-returning-pre-aca-market-isn-t-option

Image result for aca

 

After the recent failed attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA), it is anyone’s guess as to what comes next. Tax reform and infrastructure now appear to have moved ahead of health care on the legislative agenda—leaving the ACA largely out of lawmakers’ hands, and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) at the helm.

The President has implied that the federal government might halt federal payments to insurance companies meant to provide financial assistance to consumers who qualify for subsidies if they purchase health insurance on the ACA exchange. So far that has not happened. In a recent appearance on ABC’s “This Week” Sunday newsmagazine, HHS Secretary Tom Price, MD, said that he and his team are combing through the specifics of the ACA law, “asking the question, ‘does this help patients or does it harm patients? Does it increase costs or does it decrease costs?’”

There are more than 1400 instances in the law where the HHS Secretary has discretion to make changes, making the HHS the most likely source for any forthcoming health reform.

Republicans generally favor pushing more decision-making down to the states, and offering more choice to consumers. Dr Price has talked up a provision drafted by Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) that was included in the Senate’s plan. It would have given consumers the choice to purchase insurance that does not meet the ACA’s standard of the essential health benefits, but instead meets a given State’s definition of which service it deems essential. Coupled with the ability to grant state waivers for changes to the current law, many have suggested this could lead to consumers purchasing plans that do not cover most services.

“Dusting Off” The Old Way

The so-called Consumer Freedom Option is strongly opposed by the nation’s largest health insurers, which seemed to bewilder Secretary Price.

“It’s really perplexing, especially from the insurance companies, because all they have to do is dust off how they did business before Obamacare,” he said during the This Week interview. It is “exactly the kind of process that has been utilized for decades.”

Even though the Cruz provision went down with the rest of the Senate bill in July, it is not unreasonable to wonder if Secretary Price might try to figure out how to offer low-cost “skinny plans.” Or if Congress might do that same if and when health care moves back into the limelight.

This begs two questions:

  1. Can the United States ever go back to the way health insurance worked before the ACA, dusting things off, as Secretary Price suggested?
  2. Can selling insurance inside and outside of the ACA—as the Cruz provision envisioned—work?

Most industry experts offer a resounding “no” to both questions. As we have reported previously, it is difficult to take benefits away once they are given. For that reason, there is consensus that the ACA in some form or fashion is here to stay. There is also near universal agreement that certain parts of the ACA—notably the exchanges—need work. But experts also point out that provisions like Sen Cruz’s, that propose parallel systems where different rules apply, will not improve the exchanges, and indeed will likely hasten the so-called death spiral.

AHIP Objects, Actuaries Agree

In a July letter to Senate leaders, America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) pointed out that even though the Cruz provision calls for a single risk pool, such a pool would be established “in name only. In fact, it creates two systems of insurance for healthy and sick people.”

A paper published this year by the American Academy of Actuaries, reinforces this claim.

“If insurers were able to compete under different issue, rating, or benefit coverage requirements, it could be more difficult to spread risks in the single risk pool…. Changes to market rules, such as increasing flexibility in cost-sharing requirements, could require only adjustments to the risk adjustment program. Other changes, such as loosening or eliminating the essential health benefit requirements, could greatly complicate the design and effectiveness of a risk adjustment program, potentially weakening the ability of the single risk pool to provide protections for those with preexisting conditions.”

Such a system, according to the paper, would effectively create two risk pools, and premiums in the ACA plans would be much higher than in those not subject to ACA regulations, leading to a destabilized ACA market. Moreover, things would get worse if people were allowed to move between plans depending on their health status.

Making the Problems Worse

The experts we spoke with agreed, citing the potential for confusion and flawed benefit design. Additionally, it does not adequately address the ACA exchange problems, and indeed may exacerbate them.

“The Cruz amendment would not likely achieve anything other than allowing young/healthy individuals to purchase cheaper, inadequate coverage at a lower price,” David Marcus, director of employee benefits at the National Railway Labor Conference, explained. “It would generally do nothing to lower premiums for ACA-compliant coverage.”

Gary Owens, MD, president of Gary Owens Associates, a medical management and pharmaceutical consultancy firm, implied that Cruz’s plan is a half-baked solution that most would have a difficult time navigating.

“This seems to just one more attempt to cobble together a solution to address the issue of healthcare access and coverage,” he said. “It would probably create more confusion for consumers about which plan is appropriate for their needs.”

Norm Smith, president of Viewpoint Consulting, Inc, which surveys managed markets decision-makers for the pharmaceutical industry, concurred.

“Many of the people buying these plans would not be able to define what’s covered, and what’s not,” he said. “Plans would be difficult for state insurance commissions to control without standardized benefit design.” He added that ACA plans would be crippled as younger, healthier people leave in favor of non-ACA coverage.

F Randy Vogenberg, PhD, RPh, principal at the Institute for Integrated Healthcare, said that the Cruz approach is a tepid response to what he sees as failure on the ACA exchanges.

“It has no merit because it does not address the need to change from the current exchange products,” he explained.

More Choice or Inadequate Coverage?

Proponents cite the fact that skinny plans give more choice to consumers, and that free-market principles are needed, vs increased government intervention. Mr Smith reminded us that the ACA—which is based on the Romney plan that became law in Massachusetts—already contains free-market components. For that reason, he said that introducing more choice could work in theory. However, in practice, “with the level of medical insurance literacy being so low, I’m not sure most members will understand what they are buying.”

Mr Marcus added that “The marketplace is already designed to have market principals, though the insurance that is available through [it] is limited to certain types of coverage.  Offering more choice means certain people can get cheaper plans, but those cheaper plans are generally inadequate methods of protecting against health costs.”

Dr Owens explained that health reform will take much more than simply going back to the way insurance was sold in the 1990s, or tacking piecemeal amendments onto the ACA one after the other.

“Trying to glue on a piecemeal solution is not the answer,” he said. “Congress needs to drop the partisan approaches, put together a real working group that will take the needed time and use the available expertise to develop a comprehensive plan that takes the ACA to the next level.”

New Consumer Expectations

In the end, a big reason that insurers cannot simply dust off their plans from the past may be due to customer preference. Consumers often feel hamstrung when it comes to buying appropriate, affordable coverage. Yet they possess more power than many believe, as evidenced by the backlash Washington lawmakers have faced at local town hall meetings. This, in large part, led to the downfall of ACA repeal efforts.

The term “pre-existing conditions” is now a part of almost every health consumer’s lexicon, and people do not expect to be shut out of the market or forced to buy an exorbitantly expensive plan just because they have such a condition. The ACA appears to have cemented that mindset.

Dr Owens explained that insurers are more eager to work within the already established system of regulations, as opposed to wading into uncharted regulations.

“I don’t think the insurers want to increase the complexity of the marketplace,” he said.

Mr Smith agreed, adding that there would need to be “an awful lot of explaining before members knew what they were buying.”

“Going back just doesn’t make sense,” Mr Marcus noted. “Insurance carriers have spent huge sums of money developing systems to comply with the ACA. Profits at the largest carriers are the highest they have ever been. Insured individuals now have an expectation for ACA market reforms to be continued, but the concept behind the Cruz amendment would not change that.”

Additionally, the health insurance industry as a whole is probably concerned about payers who would choose to sell substandard plans outside of the ACA exchanges. Consumers would be left “in a bind when they need to access coverage,”  Dr Owens said, which would not reflect well on the industry. — Dean Celia

Why We Need Medicare for All

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

This is a pivotal moment in American history. Do we, as a nation, join the rest of the industrialized world and guarantee comprehensive health care to every person as a human right? Or do we maintain a system that is enormously expensive, wasteful and bureaucratic, and is designed to maximize profits for big insurance companies, the pharmaceutical industry, Wall Street and medical equipment suppliers?

We remain the only major country on earth that allows chief executives and stockholders in the health care industry to get incredibly rich, while tens of millions of people suffer because they can’t get the health care they need. This is not what the United States should be about.

All over this country, I have heard from Americans who have shared heartbreaking stories about our dysfunctional system. Doctors have told me about patients who died because they put off their medical visits until it was too late. These were people who had no insurance or could not afford out-of-pocket costs imposed by their insurance plans.

I have heard from older people who have been forced to split their pills in half because they couldn’t pay the outrageously high price of prescription drugs. Oncologists have told me about cancer patients who have been unable to acquire lifesaving treatments because they could not afford them. This should not be happening in the world’s wealthiest country.

Americans should not hesitate about going to the doctor because they do not have enough money. They should not worry that a hospital stay will bankrupt them or leave them deeply in debt. They should be able to go to the doctor they want, not just one in a particular network. They should not have to spend huge amounts of time filling out complicated forms and arguing with insurance companies as to whether or not they have the coverage they expected.

Even though 28 million Americans remain uninsured and even more are underinsured, we spend far more per capita on health care than any other industrialized nation. In 2015, the United States spent almost $10,000 per person for health care; the Canadians, Germans, French and British spent less than half of that, while guaranteeing health care to everyone. Further, these countries have higher life expectancy rates and lower infant mortality rates than we do.

The reason that our health care system is so outrageously expensive is that it is not designed to provide quality care to all in a cost-effective way, but to provide huge profits to the medical-industrial complex. Layers of bureaucracy associated with the administration of hundreds of individual and complicated insurance plans is stunningly wasteful, costing us hundreds of billions of dollars a year. As the only major country not to negotiate drug prices with the pharmaceutical industry, we spend tens of billions more than we should.

The solution to this crisis is not hard to understand. A half-century ago, the United States established Medicare. Guaranteeing comprehensive health benefits to Americans over 65 has proved to be enormously successful, cost-effective and popular. Now is the time to expand and improve Medicare to cover all Americans.

This is not a radical idea. I live 50 miles south of the Canadian border. For decades, every man, woman and child in Canada has been guaranteed health care through a single-payer, publicly funded health care program. This system has not only improved the lives of the Canadian people but has also saved families and businesses an immense amount of money.

On Wednesday I will introduce the Medicare for All Act in the Senate with 15 co-sponsors and support from dozens of grass-roots organizations. Under this legislation, every family in America would receive comprehensive coverage, and middle-class families would save thousands of dollars a year by eliminating their private insurance costs as we move to a publicly funded program.

The transition to the Medicare for All program would take place over four years. In the first year, benefits to older people would be expanded to include dental care, vision coverage and hearing aids, and the eligibility age for Medicare would be lowered to 55. All children under the age of 18 would also be covered. In the second year, the eligibility age would be lowered to 45 and in the third year to 35. By the fourth year, every man, woman and child in the country would be covered by Medicare for All.

Needless to say, there will be huge opposition to this legislation from the powerful special interests that profit from the current wasteful system. The insurance companies, the drug companies and Wall Street will undoubtedly devote a lot of money to lobbying, campaign contributions and television ads to defeat this proposal. But they are on the wrong side of history.

Guaranteeing health care as a right is important to the American people not just from a moral and financial perspective; it also happens to be what the majority of the American people want. According to an April poll by The Economist/YouGov, 60 percent of the American people want to “expand Medicare to provide health insurance to every American,” including 75 percent of Democrats, 58 percent of independents and 46 percent of Republicans.

Now is the time for Congress to stand with the American people and take on the special interests that dominate health care in the United States. Now is the time to extend Medicare to everyone.