Ten Ways That the House American Health Care Act Could Affect Women

Ten Ways That the House American Health Care Act Could Affect Women

Women have much at stake as the nation debates the future of coverage in the United States. Because the Affordable Care Act (ACA) made fundamental changes to women’s health coverage and benefits, changes to the law and the regulations that stem from it would have a direct impact on millions of women with private insurance and Medicaid. On May 4, 2017, the House of Representatives passed the American Health Care Act (AHCA), to repeal and replace elements of the ACA (Appendix Table 1). It would eliminate individual and employer insurance mandates, effectively end the ACA Medicaid expansion, cap federal funds for the Medicaid program, make major changes to the federal tax subsidies available to assist individuals who purchase private insurance, and ban federal Medicaid funds from going to Planned Parenthood. It would also allow states to waive the ACA’s Essential Health Benefits requirements and permit health status as a factor in insurance rating for individuals who do not maintain continuous coverage with the goal of reducing insurance costs.1 The Senate will now take up legislation to repeal and replace the ACA and may consider several elements that the House has approved in the AHCA. This brief reviews the implications of the AHCA for women’s access to care and coverage.

10 Things to Know about Medicaid: Setting the Facts Straight

http://kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/10-things-to-know-about-medicaid-setting-the-facts-straight/?utm_campaign=KFF-2016-The-Latest&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=51786609&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_oPtCIH4gD4_ZRyWy2daz24TEoKyI_CXQyh75K4bbtRgDPBGs30nDlGsRdOe65M92Zu9Dja6Bmtm3TTQoDua3ac_xORQ&_hsmi=51786609

Medicaid, the nation’s public health insurance program for low-income children, adults, seniors, and people with disabilities, covers 1 in 5 Americans, including many with complex and costly needs for medical care and long-term services. Most people covered by Medicaid would be uninsured or underinsured without it. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) expanded Medicaid to reach low-income adults previously excluded from the program and provided federal funding to states for the vast majority of the cost of newly eligible adults.

President Trump and other GOP leaders have called for far-reaching changes to Medicaid, including caps on federal funding for the program. In the debate about Medicaid’s future, some critics of the program have made statements that are at odds with data, research, and basic information about Medicaid. To inform policy decisions that may have significant implications for Medicaid, the low-income people it serves, and the states, this brief highlights 10 key Medicaid facts.

 

No, Medicaid isn’t broken

https://www.axios.com/no-medicaid-isnt-broken-2404950733.html

Image result for No, Medicaid isn't broken

One reason the architects of the American Health Care Act want to cut Medicaid spending and give more responsibility to the states is that they believe that the current program is “broken,” with inadequate access to physicians and out-of-control costs. This is one of those canards that is repeated so often that many people just accept it as true. Mostly, it is not true.

Like any big messy public program, Medicaid is very far from perfect, as I learned when I oversaw a Medicaid program for a Republican governor in New Jersey. But on basic measures of access and satisfaction with care, Medicaid beneficiaries look very much like people with private employer coverage despite the fact that they are sicker and poorer. And they’re doing better than the uninsured.

The bottom line: Medicaid isn’t broken — at least, not any more than private insurance is.

Finding doctors: The biggest problem that’s usually cited with Medicaid is that people have trouble finding doctors who will take them. And there are troubles with low Medicaid provider reimbursement rates and physician access, but they vary around the country. It’s not hard to find a state, or more typically a region within a state, where physician access is a real problem.

But overall:

  • 74% of Medicaid beneficiaries see a doctor each year
  • 69% for people with employer based private coverage see a doctor each year.
  • People on Medicaid are also nearly just as satisfied with their health care as people with employer coverage.

Costs aren’t out of control: Medicaid spending did jump to 10.5% in 2015 with the Affordable Care Act coverage expansion, but it dropped to 5.9% in 2016 and is projected to grow by 4.5% this year.

And per capita Medicaid costs are not rising faster than costs for private insurance. In fact, they’re projected to grow more slowly.

Some would say that’s because Medicaid underpays providers, and it does pay substantially less than Medicare in many states. Others would say, good for Medicaid; it drives a tougher bargain with providers while getting results comparable to other payers.

The AHCA would take more than 800 billion dollars out of Medicaid over the next decade by reducing funding for the Medicaid expansion and capping federal Medicaid spending. The architects of the AHCA may believe Medicaid dollars are better spent elsewhere or not spent at all, or that somehow states can make Medicaid work better with far less money.

There are many principled conservative arguments for smaller government. But the argument that Medicaid is “broken” is not one of them; it is more urban legend than fact.

California Employer Health Benefits: Prices Up, Coverage Down

http://www.chcf.org/publications/2017/03/employer-health-benefits

Employers Offering Coverage, by Firm Characteristics, California, 2016

The majority of Californians rely on their employers for health insurance, but these benefits continue to shrink as the cost to workers continues to rise.

Since 2000, the percentage of employers offering health benefits has declined in California and nationwide, although coverage rates among offering firms have remained stable. Only 55% of California firms reported providing health insurance to employees in 2016, down from 69% in 2000. Implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2014 does not appear to have impacted the overall trend in employer offer rates.

Nineteen percent of California firms reported that they increased cost sharing in the past year, and 27% of firms reported that they were very or somewhat likely to increase employees’ premium contribution in the next year. The prevalence of plans with large deductibles also continues to increase.

ACA Repeal Resource: California’s Individual Market Before Health Reform

http://www.chcf.org/publications/2017/02/ca-indiv-market-before-aca

Image result for California's Individual Market Before Health Reform

This overview describes California’s individual market before the Affordable Care Act and identifies potential concerns if the ACA is repealed.

The individual (nongroup) market is an important fallback option for those who are not offered health insurance coverage through their employers and do not qualify for public programs such as Medi-Cal or Medicare. Independent contractors, part-time employees, low-wage workers at businesses that do not offer coverage, people moving between jobs, and the unemployed all fall into this category of people who will need to turn to the individual market if they want health coverage.

Prior to the ACA, fewer than 10% of Californians obtained individual health insurance at any given time. The ACA established new health insurance marketplaces, provided new financial subsidies for low- and moderate-income people to purchase individual health insurance, imposed new regulations on health plans (like guaranteed issue, banning insurers from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions), and required individuals to maintain coverage or face penalties. By 2015, two years into ACA implementation, almost 17% of Californians received coverage through the individual market.

This overview offers historical context about California’s individual market before the ACA and identifies potential concerns in the event that the ACA’s provisions reshaping the individual market are repealed.

States Seek to Join Appeal of House Obamacare Lawsuit

https://morningconsult.com/2017/05/18/states-seek-join-appeal-house-obamacare-lawsuit/

Image result for aca cost sharing reduction payments

More than a dozen states and the District of Columbia filed a motion on Thursday to intervene in the appeal of a lawsuit targeting the Affordable Care Act’s cost-sharing reduction payments, which have become a focal point for how President Donald Trump plans to treat the 2010 health care law.

The 15 states argue that the executive branch is not adequately defending its authority to make the CSR payments and does not represent their interests. They also said that if the appeals court agrees with the previous ruling that the Obama administration unconstitutionally paid the subsidies, states and their residents would be harmed and there would be significantly higher costs for health care.

The subsidies are at the center of a lawsuit brought by the U.S. House of Representatives against the Obama administration, which the Trump administration must now deal with.

“Because of an intervening presidential election, the current parties appear ready to agree to allow the injunction to stand, without giving this Court the opportunity to determine whether the district court had either jurisdiction to enter it or a legal basis to enjoin the permanent appropriation that Congress intended to provide,” the motion reads.

House Republicans argued the Obama administration paid the subsidies — which help lower-income people afford out-of-pocket costs under the ACA — without an appropriation from Congress. A district court judge ruled in favor of the House last year, and the Obama administration appealed the ruling.

The payments have been made while the lawsuit is pending, but the Trump administration has wavered on whether it will continue to make them in the future, worrying insurers as they prepare to set their premium rates for 2018. Insurers say they need to know the payments’ status before filing their requests by the June 21 deadline.

The states in the lawsuit say their “concerns are concrete and immediate,” due to the urgency insurers face. If the payments are not made, insurance premiums would likely rise and insurers could abandon the individual market, which could trigger a “death spiral” and cause people to lose health coverage, the states warned.

Trump is using the payments as “political bargaining chips,” meaning states and their residents can’t rely on the administration to represent their position, they said.

“The public record makes clear that the current Administration does not represent the States’ interests,” according to the motion jointly filed by California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Washington state and the District of Columbia.

The Kaiser Family Foundation has estimated that the average premiums for silver plans sold on the ACA exchanges would increase by about 19 percent to compensate for insurers’ lack of funding without the CSR payments.

The Trump administration and the House are set to update the court on Monday on how they plan to proceed with the case. In February, an appeals court agreed to keep the case on hold while both sides continued to work toward a resolution.

Telehealth Parity Laws

http://www.healthaffairs.org/healthpolicybriefs/brief.php?brief_id=162

Image result for Telehealth Parity Laws

Ongoing reforms are expanding the landscape of telehealth in the US health care system, but challenges remain.

What’s the issue?

Preserving The Bipartisan Commitment To Health Care Delivery System Reform

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2017/05/18/preserving-the-bipartisan-commitment-to-health-care-delivery-system-reform/

Bipartisan agreement between the republican and democrat organiization as a symbol for a two party system with a flag of the United States connecting two mountain cliffs shaped as an elephant and donkey.

Improving and reforming our health care delivery system is not a partisan issue. The need to improve health care delivery models, as a means for ensuring better patient outcomes and a more efficient health care system, enjoys broader consensus than elements surrounding health insurance coverage and financing. It is important for Congress, the Trump administration, and the health care industry to continue bipartisan efforts to shift our health care delivery system and provider payment models toward value-based care.

The Long History Of Bipartisanship In Medicare

For more than 30 years, Democrats and Republicans have worked together on incremental approaches to fostering smarter payment models in federal health programs, which seek to reward providers and health plans for delivering cost-efficient, high-quality care. In 1983, Democratic and Republican leaders of the Senate Finance Committee and House Ways and Means Committee agreed to modernize Medicare’s payment system for inpatient hospital stays, moving from cost-based reimbursement to a pre-set prospective payment for a duration of care for a specific condition.

In 2000 and again in 2003, Congress enacted bipartisan legislation to authorize Medicare payment demonstrations that laid the groundwork for the accountable care organization and bundled payment programs that are in operation today. Most recently, Democrats and Republicans worked together to pass the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015, which reshaped Medicare’s payment system for physician and practitioner services to better link payment to quality performance and encourage clinician participation in alternative payment models. The passage of the 21st Century Cures Act last December was also bipartisan legislation. It created policies to address site-of-service payment differences in our health care delivery system, while improving interoperability of health information technology systems.

It is critical that we continue to build upon these delivery reform efforts, as shifting payment incentives for both providers and managed care plans represents our best chance to improve quality and control health care cost growth without limiting access to services or reducing the scope of covered benefits.

While many programs are still working through growing pains, we have some early evidence of success. Medicare’s voluntary bundled payment program for orthopedic surgery cases produced savings of $864 per 90-day episode of care, on average during 2014. Meanwhile, the Independence at Home Demonstration resulted in average annual savings of $3,070 per participating beneficiary in the demonstration’s first year of operation. Under this demonstration, primary care practices share in Medicare savings that result from care coordination and in-home visits tailored to chronically ill patients’ needs. Finally, a recent Medicare demonstration to address avoidable hospitalizations among nursing home residents showed significant reductions in avoidable hospital admissions, achieved through enhanced medication management and nurse-led care coordination across primary and specialty care.

In continuing implementation of delivery system reform, policy makers must work to develop payment models that avoid unneeded complexity. The new payment arrangements must be understandable to participating providers and patients, to achieve necessary engagement of both patients and providers in the care model.

The Broader Landscape For Delivery System Innovation

The delivery system innovation movement allows for the prospect of federal health programs building off of successful private-sector models, such as the Pacific Business Group on Health’s value-based payment programs for large employer-sponsored health plans. Such complementary efforts will help encourage the public and private sectors to coalesce around a unified long-term vision for delivery reform.

Delivery system reform efforts have most often focused on breaking down payment silos in fee-for-service medicine and providing incentives for care coordination. Although these steps are critical to improving quality and promoting efficiencies, delivery system reform also presents an opportunity to foster person-centered care, including through the provision of non-medical social supports, for high-need, high-cost chronically ill individuals. Heightened focus on the high-need, chronically ill population will be increasingly important for delivery system reform, as these individuals incur medical expenses that are more than four times the national average.

While Democrats and Republicans will continue to disagree on key aspects of health care policy, we firmly believe that the bipartisan work to enhance and improve the health care delivery system must continue unabated. In forthcoming publications through this series, our Bipartisan Policy Center colleagues and policy leaders from both sides of the aisle will present potential paths forward in the ongoing march toward a smarter, value-based health care delivery system.

House GOP may have to vote again on healthcare bill

http://www.fiercehealthcare.com/aca/house-gop-may-have-to-vote-again-healthcare-bill?utm_medium=nl&utm_source=internal&mrkid=959610&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWlRsbE5tRmhNVGsxWVRnMSIsInQiOiIrSG9qdHJ5aEdETGxnaVl4QWYybXJqdnhZN0JqREZCVWF4NWFPRXZ0TnhqdFRZOVZtbFBrbjVhS0doQXhvNCtLOEVkditHSUpCOHkyQXVlVDVyQUV6Wmlpa3NleHhETzNQMm9QbnU1NkxKZjhlWFl4cGxsWiszQkI2SHpobnpGcSJ9

capitol building above trees

House Republicans, who voted on the American Health Care Act before the Congressional Budget Office scored the bill, might have to take another vote on the measure if the CBO finds it doesn’t reduce spending by at least $2 billion.

The bill has yet to be sent to the Senate as the House awaits the CBO’s report to see if it meets budget reconciliation rules. If it doesn’t, it will need 60 Senate votes to pass instead of 51—a threshold that would be be impossible without support from at least some Democrats.

HHS delays 340B drug program regulations: 4 things to know

http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/hhs-delays-340b-drug-program-regulations-4-things-to-know.html

Image result for 340b drug pricing program

HHS on Thursday delayed a regulation preventing drug companies from overcharging hospitals under the 340B drug discount program.

Here are four things to know.

1. The 340B drug pricing program, enacted in 1992, ensures hospitals treating a large proportion of low-income patients can buy drugs from manufacturers at a discount of 20 to 50 percent, according to the report. About one-third of U.S. hospitals — or 2,000 — participate in the program, purchasing about $12 billion in discounted drugs in 2015, reports The Washington Post.

2. In 2010, Congress instructed HHS to implement program regulations to set price ceilings fordrugs and establish civil monetary penalties on manufacturers that “knowingly and intentionally overcharge 340B covered entities,” according to a statement from HHS. The agency in January issued a final rule for the regulations to take effect March 6.

3. After President Donald Trump initiated a hiring freeze on all federal agencies in early March, HHS pushed back the rule until May 22. The agency also requested comments over a proposal to further delay implementation of the regulations until October. After reviewing the comments, HHS decided to officially push back the regulations to take effect Oct. 1.

4. 340B Health, a lobby group representing hospitals and health systems in the 340B program, shared an emailed statement with Becker’s, saying it was “disappointed with HHS’ decision to further delay … a long-overdue regulation to police the pharmaceutical industry.”