Is U.S. Preeminence in High-Tech Medicine a Myth?

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/blog/2017/apr/us-preeminence-in-high-tech-medicine?omnicid=EALERT1189645&mid=henrykotula@yahoo.com

U.S. health care has many well-documented shortcomings. However, it is often assumed that, because we invest so heavily in technology and specialists, our health care system performs well for patients who have rare or complex diseases.

New research shows that we should be skeptical of that assumption. A recent study in the Annals of Internal Medicine compares the health outcomes of U.S. and Canadian patients with cystic fibrosis, an incurable, genetic disease that affects about one in 10,000 people in both countries. The results are disturbing: on average, Canadian patients live 10 years longer than American patients. And the gap has been widening for the past two decades (see exhibit).

Median Age of Survival for Patients with Cystic Fibrosis over Time

Median age of survival (years)

The researchers suggest the likely culprit is the significant gaps in health insurance coverage among U.S. children and adults under age 65. Uninsured patients with cystic fibrosis, they find, face a much greater risk of early death than their insured peers. Of particular note, given recent events in Washington, D.C., Medicaid patients have significantly better health outcomes than those without insurance, despite the fact that they tend to be poorer and more socially vulnerable.

In Canada, of course, there are no uninsured: the government provides universal health coverage for all residents, without copayments for physician visits or hospital stays. (The study also finds that Canadian patients are much more likely to receive a lung transplant than U.S. patients—shattering another common assumption about the U.S. health system’s technological superiority.)

When one considers the medical needs of people with cystic fibrosis, it is obvious why lacking health insurance could lead to an early death. The disease causes abnormal secretions to impair functioning of the lungs, pancreas, and other organs, which in turn leads to infections and lung damage, and prevents the body from properly digesting food. Inhibiting the build-up of these secretions and ensuring proper nutrition and wellness are crucial to preventing the rapid progression of the disease. In this context, staying well requires constant self-management and frequent contact with the health care system—which comes at a cost. Coverage gaps and financial barriers to care are incredibly dangerous for these patients and can quickly undermine their health.

And while several promising pharmaceuticals that treat cystic fibrosis have hit the market in recent years, these are priced at a quarter of a million dollars . . . per year. High-quality care is simply out-of-reach for patients without insurance.

In medical terms, we might call uninsurance a “comorbidity”—one unique to the United States among all industrialized nations, and just as deadly as pneumonia or diabetes.

The study is a reminder, if one was needed, of the fundamental problem with the U.S. health insurance system: not everyone is covered. The focus of would-be health reformers should be—not solely on whether the 20+ million Americans who gained coverage under the ACA should be allowed to keep it—but rather how to extend those gains to the 28 million remaining uninsured. For some, their lives will depend on it.

Rolling Back the ACA’s Medicaid Expansion: What Are the Costs for States?

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/blog/2017/feb/states-roll-back-aca-medicaid-expansion

Millions of people have gained health insurance coverage though the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) Medicaid eligibility expansion, adopted by 31 states and Washington, D.C., over the past three years. Should Congress decide to eliminate or reduce federal funding for this coverage as part of ACA repeal, states that expanded will be faced with the prospect of either maintaining coverage out of their own funds or dropping the new beneficiaries from the program. Along with the loss of coverage or the creation of large budget holes, rolling back Medicaid benefits would present states with expensive and complex administrative challenges.

Were Congress to repeal federal funding for the expansion group, coverage for these newly eligible enrollees—estimated at 11 million as of 2015—inevitably would disappear. No state is in a position to support this population without considerable federal funding. For example, were ACA Medicaid expansion funding to disappear, California would lose more than 27 percent of the total federal Medicaid funding the state is projected to receive over the 2019 to 2028 time period; federal funding would drop from $364 billion to $265 billion, a $99 billion loss.

If a repeal bill retains the Medicaid expansion but reduces federal funding for the expansion group to traditional Medicaid funding levels,1  some states might seek flexibility to roll back coverage to a lower level such as 75 percent of poverty, rather than the eligibility standard used under the expansion (138 percent of poverty). Rather than terminate insurance eligibility altogether for populations without an alternative source of coverage, states also might try to trim benefits or reduce or freeze provider payments.

But even if funding is eliminated completely, federal laws place important brakes on the process. For example, federal Medicaid rules dating back decades require states to determine if there is another basis of eligibility prior to terminating coverage. At least some of the people covered as part of the expansion population may qualify for Medicaid on other grounds such as pregnancy, being the parent of a minor child, or disability.

Cartoon – US Healthcare Options

Image result for cartoon health insurance benefits

Healthcare Triage News: Many with Employer Insurance Still Need CHIP to Insure Their Kids

Healthcare Triage News: Many with Employer Insurance Still Need CHIP to Insure Their Kids

Image result for Healthcare Triage News: Many with Employer Insurance Still Need CHIP to Insure Their Kids

As employer-sponsored insurance becomes more expensive for children, public programs are picking up the slack. This is Healthcare Triage News.

Covering the Coming Battle Over the ACA: What You Need to Know

Click to access PDF%20WebinarBattleOverACA12192016Adams.pdf

Image result for Battle for Obamacare

Click to access PDF%20WebinarBattleOverACAResources.pdf

 

California’s Projected Economic Losses under ACA Repeal

Click to access Californias-Projected-Economic-Losses-under-ACA-Repeal.pdf

Image result for California’s Projected Economic Losses under ACA Repeal

 

If Congress follows through on President-elect Trump’s campaign promise to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA), 3.7 million Californians enrolled in the Medi-Cal expansion would lose that coverage,1 and another 1.2 million individuals enrolled through California’s health benefit exchange, Covered California, would lose federal subsidies to make private health insurance more affordable.2 These two ACA provisions are the largest drivers of the historic reduction in the state’s uninsured rate from 17.2% in 2013 to 8.6% in 2015.

Not only would repeal of the ACA reverse much of these coverage gains, but California would lose approximately $20.5 billion in annual federal funding for the Medi-Cal expansion and Covered California subsidies. The economic losses associated with these lost federal dollars would be partially offset by limited economic gains from other provisions that may be included as part of the repeal of the ACA, which could yield $6.3 billion in tax cuts to California insurers and high-income households and nearly $1.3 billion in eliminated penalties for uninsured individuals and employers not offering affordable coverage.

In this brief, we estimate the effects on employment, gross domestic product (GDP), and state and local tax revenue in California with the elimination of the major health insurance expansions, reduction in taxes, and removal of penalties under a partial repeal of the ACA. A summary of these estimates is shown in Exhibit 1. We also estimate losses for select medium and large counties that would be especially harmed economically by ACA repeal because of their high share of population (more than 10%) enrolled in the Medi-Cal expansion: Fresno, Kern, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare Counties.

CONCLUSION

The ACA not only significantly expanded access to health insurance in California, but it also provided economic stimulus at a time when the state was still recovering from the Great Recession. As California is one of the states that made the greatest gains in health coverage under the ACA,16 it is also one of the states with the most to lose economically if key components of the ACA are repealed. The partial repeal of the ACA would not only lead to a substantial decline in health coverage in California, but it would also lead to significant economic losses, including more than 209,000 lost jobs, $20 billion in lost GDP, and $1.5 billion in lost state and local tax revenue. Some medium and large California counties’ economies – Fresno, Kern, San Bernardino, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare – would be especially harmed due to their residents’ high level of reliance on the Medi-Cal expansion and above-average unemployment rates.

 

ACA Repeal in California: Who Stands to Lose?

Click to access ACA-Repeal-in-California.pdf

Image result for ACA Repeal in California: Who Stands to Lose?

California has a lot to lose if the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is repealed. The state made significant investments in implementing the law successfully, and under the ACA cut the number of uninsured residents in half, from 6.5 million in 2013 to 3.3 million in 2015—the largest decline in the uninsured rate of any state.1 The two major reasons for this drop in uninsurance were the expansion of Medicaid and the provision of financial assistance for purchasing coverage through the state health insurance marketplace, Covered California. As a result of these policies, California experienced a significant reduction in health coverage disparities: the biggest drops in the uninsurance rate were among those least likely to have coverage before the ACA, namely those with the lowest income, young adults, part-time workers, and Latinos.2 Repealing the ACA threatens not only to leave millions without health insurance, but also to undo the progress California has made in reducing inequality of health insurance access. This brief focuses on Californians enrolled in expanded Medi-Cal (the state’s Medicaid program) and those who receive subsidized coverage through Covered California, the two groups most immediately affected if the ACA is repealed. However, many more Californians could see diminished health coverage under various Congressional Republicans’ proposals to repeal and replace the ACA.

Premium support is back. What is it?

Premium support is back. What is it?

Image result for cost shifting to the elderly

Click to access premium-support.pdf

A number of Republican health care policy proposals that seemed out of favor in the Obama era are now being given new life. One of these involves Medicare, the government health insurance program primarily for older Americans, and is known as premium support.

Right now, the federal government subsidizes Medicare premiums — those of the traditional program, as well as private plan alternatives that participate in Medicare Advantage. The subsidies are established so that they grow at the rate of overall per enrollee Medicare spending. No matter what Medicare costs, older Americans can be sure that the government will cover a certain percentage of it. That’s the main thing that panics fiscal conservatives, because that costs the government more each year.

Premium support could quiet that fear. Subsidies would be calculated so they don’t grow as quickly, thus protecting the federal government (that is, taxpayers) from runaway spending. There are lots of variants, but there are really two principal ideas.

More families with employer-sponsored insurance are needing public assistance

http://www.academyhealth.org/blog/2017-01/more-families-employer-sponsored-insurance-are-needing-public-assistance

Image result for More families with employer-sponsored insurance are needing public assistance

As employer-sponsored insurance becomes more expensive for children, public programs are picking up the slack.

The Medicaid Expansion, which was responsible for a large part of the reduction in uninsurance in the United States over the last few years, was mostly aimed at adults. This is because Medicaid has traditionally covered nearly all children in poverty for some time. The CHIP program has bolstered that coverage, so that uninsurance in children fell steadily in the 1990’s and well into the 21st century.

The passage of the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA) assured that CHIP coverage would continue for some time. But even before that, trouble was brewing with respect to the coverage of children. These troubles were not in the Medicaid  program, though. Issues were arising in the employer-sponsored insurance market.

As I’ve written about in many posts here before, the cost of employer-sponsored insurance has been rising quite steadily for some time. Further, the out-of-pocket costs for such insurance have also been increasing. Deductibles, co-pays, and co-insurance – not to mention premiums – can put the cost of insurance out of reach for many employees even when it is “offered” as a benefit from their job. The costs of insurance have outpaced both income and wages for more than a decade, meaning that more and more must come out of employee’s pockets if they want to maintain coverage for themselves and their children.

 

Price Vows ‘Access to Coverage’ Under Health Executive Order

https://morningconsult.com/2017/01/24/hhs-nominee-vows-access-to-coverage-under-aca-executive-order/

Image result for health insurance access

President Donald Trump’s nominee to be the nation’s top health official would not promise every American would get to keep their coverage under an executive order signed last week.

“What I commit to the American people is to keep patients at the center of health care, and what that means to me is making certain that every single American has access to affordable health coverage,” Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) told Finance Committee ranking member Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) when asked if he would commit to no one losing coverage.

The distinction between “access” to health insurance and “health coverage” appears to be a growing division between members of Congress and Trump, who vowed insurance for everyone in interviews ahead of his inauguration.