Needle vending machines are the future of helping drug users, Las Vegas bets

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article145112354.html

Needle exchange programs help drug users prevent disease.

Most vending machines are full of things — like soda and candy — that can contribute to health problems. But Las Vegas is hoping its new vending machines can help its drug using-population avoid additional ones.

By the end of May, Las Vegas will have debuted three new vending machines that dispense clean needles. They hope to keep drug users who get their fix via syringe from contracting diseases by reusing needles that could carry bloodborne infections. HIV, hepatitis C and other diseases can be transmitted when needles are used repeatedly.

The machines resemble an average vending machine but will instead dispense kits of clean needles and disposal containers for used ones. There will also be wound cleaning and safe sex kits. The machines will be available in three separate organizations that all work with drug users.

“Having access to clean syringes is a harm-reduction approach that’s going to allow people to protect themselves against getting communicable diseases such as HIV and hepatitis C,” Chelsi Cheatom, program manager for Trac-B Exchange, told the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Trac-B Exchange provides community consulting focused on preventing infectious diseases and safer alternatives to syringe use and disposal.

To gain access to the needle vending machines, users will register to receive a card that will allow them two kits each week.

According to the Harm Reduction Coalition, needle exchange programs lower health care costs. A sterile syringe costs as little as 97 cents and could save between $3,000 and $5,000 per HIV infection prevented. Intravenous drug users have also seen a decrease in hepatitis C infection following the spread of needle exchanges. Treatment for that disease can cost $25,000 to $30,000 per person. Programs that provide sterile needles can also provide other healthcare services and counseling to a population that can be uninsured.

Last year, Congress partially lifted the federal ban on funds for syringe exchange programs. It had orginally been repealed in 2009 after being in place for more than 20 years, but the Republican House put it back in place in 2011. Currently, federal funds can’t be used for needles themselves but can be used for other aspects of needle exchange programs, like staff salaries and counseling services.

Medicaid expansion didn’t cause unexpected state budget problems, study finds

http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/medicaid-expansion-didn-t-cause-unexpected-state-budget-problems-study-finds.html

Image result for medicaid expansion states 2017

A study published in Health Affairs Wednesday found the states that expanded their Medicaid programs under the ACA didn’t encounter unforeseen budget problems as a result of the expansion.

Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia have expanded their Medicaid programs under the ACA. To determine the fiscal effects of Medicaid expansion on state budgets, researchers used data from the National Association of State Budget Officers for fiscal years 2010 to 2015.

Medicaid spending increased by 11.7 percent overall in states that expanded their programs, but this spending growth was covered by federal funds. Under the ACA, the federal government paid for 100 percent of the costs for newly eligible Medicaid enrollees from 2014 through 2016 in states that expanded the program.

The researchers also found states didn’t have to take funding away from education or other programs to fund their expanded Medicaid programs.

Since the data used in the analysis was only for years during which the federal government covered up to 100 percent of the cost of expanding Medicaid, the study likely underestimates the budgetary implications of the expansion beginning in 2017. That’s because states become responsible for 5 percent of expansion costs this year, and, absent any legislative changes, will be responsible for 10 percent of costs by 2020.

 

High-Risk Pools for People with Preexisting Conditions: A Refresher Course

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/blog/2017/mar/high-risk-pools-preexisting-conditions?omnicid=1196155&mid=henrykotula@yahoo.com

During the recent effort to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA), some members of Congress and the Trump administration seemed to be experiencing a certain nostalgia for high-risk pools, which operated in 35 states before the ACA was enacted. At a CNN Town Hall Meeting in January, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan responded to a question about coverage for people with preexisting conditions by saying:

We believe that state high-risk pools are a smart way of guaranteeing coverage for people with preexisting conditions. We had a really good one in Wisconsin. Utah had a great one . . . . What I mean when I say this is, about 8 percent of all the people under 65 have that kind of preexisting condition . . . . So, by financing state high-risk pools to guarantee people get affordable coverage when they have a preexisting condition, what you’re doing is, you’re dramatically lowering the price of insurance for everybody else. So, if we say let’s just, as taxpayers—and I agree with this—finance the coverage for those 8 percent of Americans under 65 in a condition like yours, they don’t have to be covered or paid for by their small business or their insurer who is buying the rates for the rest of the people in their insured pool, and you’d dramatically lower the price for the other 92 percent of Americans.

As high-risk pools and other changes to the ACA continue to be debated, it is critical to deconstruct statements such as these and remind ourselves of how high-risk pools really worked and how unaffordable they were. It is important to remember that high rates of uninsurance and lack of affordability for all buyers in the individual market existed before the ACA, even in states with high-risk pools. In addition, policymakers seem to substantially underestimate the number of Americans with preexisting conditions who might be forced to purchase coverage through a high-risk pool if insurers are allowed to deny coverage in the marketplace.

Reality Check

The reality is that high-risk pool coverage was prohibitively expensive and there is little evidence to suggest that the existence of such pools made coverage less costly for others in the individual insurance market. Without substantially more federal funding than currently proposed, these facts are not likely to change. People with preexisting conditions may have “access” to coverage, but most will not be able to afford it and those who can will face limited benefits and extremely high deductibles and out-of-pocket payments.

Obamacare repeal bill is the zombie GOP can’t kill — or bring back to life

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/obamacare-repeal-bill-gop-zombie-237215

Image result for aca repeal

Republicans in Congress for the first time are lowering expectations for how much of Obamacare they can repeal and how quickly they can do it.

As they meet constituents back home, GOP lawmakers seem trapped between the reality of their failed repeal effort and President Donald Trump’s renewed promises this week to finish off Obamacare before taking on tax reform. Vice President Mike Pence is also still trying to keep the repeal dream alive, working with conservatives on new tweaks to the stalled House bill. But even if the ultra-conservatives come on board, there’s no sign that the moderate Republicans needed to pass a bill are ready to sign on.

Those dynamics mean the Obamacare repeal effort that has helped define the Republican Party for seven years may live on in a sort of political purgatory — with no one willing to pull the plug even though there are few signs of life. The uncertainty created by that zombie state could compel health insurers to stop offering coverage in the exchanges next year, paralyze action on other legislative priorities on Capitol Hill and come back to haunt Republicans at the polls in 2018.

Lawmakers back in their districts during their first recess since the collapse of the House effort are downplaying the repeal agenda as if the rallying cry to eliminate the law “root and branch” has been pared down to some leaves. Some constituents are conveying their displeasure.

Joe Barton (R-Texas), a Freedom Caucus member, was confronted at a town hall meeting Tuesday by a self-described Republican who blasted the GOP for not repealing all of Obamacare on “Day One of the Trump administration.”

 

Trump Threatens Health Subsidies to Force Democrats to Bargain

In the weeks since President Trump’s attempts to replace the Affordable Care Act collapsed, the administration has debated what to do: Try again? Shore up the insurance marketplaces? Or let the whole system collapse?

Mr. Trump has failed to get enough support from his own party, but he hopes to get the Democrats’ help by forcing them to the negotiating table with hints about the chaos he could cause.

His bargaining chip is the government subsidies paid to insurance companies so they can reduce deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs for low-income consumers — seven million people this year.

In an interview with The Wall Street Journal this week, Mr. Trump threatened to withhold the subsidy payments as a way to induce the Democrats to bargain with him.

For now, Democrats are resisting and using his maneuver against him to energize their own party. And they warn that Mr. Trump will be blamed if the insurance markets collapse and people lose coverage next year.

“Republicans are in control of government,” Senator Claire McCaskill, Democrat of Missouri, said Thursday after a town-hall-style meeting in her home state. “If they blow up what access to health care there is right now, they’re going to own it.”

The president’s tone differs from that of Republicans in Congress, who have repeatedly promised a smooth transition away from the law they call Obamacare. “We don’t want to pull the rug out from under people,” the House speaker, Paul D. Ryan, has said.

If the subsidies are interrupted, insurers say, some health plans will increase premiums and others will withdraw from the individual insurance market. That will, in turn, affect millions of other people who do not receive the subsidies.

The issue could come to a head within weeks. When the House reconvenes on April 25, the first order of business will be a spending bill to replace the current stopgap law, which expires three days later. Democrats are determined to put money for the health insurance subsidies into that bill, and some Republicans on the House and Senate Appropriations Committees are open to the idea. But ultimately, the decision will be made by Republican leaders in the two chambers.

If the spending is allowed to continue, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the federal government will pay $135 billion in cost-sharing subsidies to insurers from 2018 to 2027.

The cloud of uncertainty swirling around the subsidies stems from a court ruling in a lawsuit that House Republicans filed against the Obama administration in 2014. Judge Rosemary M. Collyer of the Federal District Court in Washington ruled last year that spending on the subsidies “violates the Constitution” because Congress never appropriated money for them. She ordered a halt to the payments, but suspended her order to allow the government to appeal.

The Trump administration has not made clear whether it will press the appeal filed by the Obama administration. In a letter to Mr. Trump this week, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce joined the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association and insurers in seeking “quick action” to guarantee continuation of the subsidies. Without the subsidies, they said, more people will be uninsured and unable to pay medical bills.

Democrats say they will not negotiate with Mr. Trump until he stops his drive to repeal the Affordable Care Act. “President Trump is threatening to hold hostage health care for millions of Americans, many of whom voted for him, to achieve a political goal of repeal that would take health care away from millions more,” said the Senate Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer of New York.

 

 

A critical priority is to stabilize the individual health insurance market

Click to access Joint-CSR-Letter-to-President-Trump-04.12.2017.pdf

April 17, 2017

Quote

“We urge the Administration and Congress to take quick action to ensure cost-sharing reductions are funded. We are committed to working with you to deliver the short-term stability we all want and the affordable coverage and high-quality care that every American deserves. But time is short and action is needed. By working together, we can create effective, market-based solutions that best serve the American people.”

—Letter to the President from America’s Health Insurance Plans; American Academy of Family Physicians; American Benefits Council; American Hospital Association; American Medical Association; Blue Cross Blue Shield Association; Federation of American Hospitals and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce

What Now? Healthcare or Tax Reform

GOP wrestles with big question: What now?

Image result for healthcare or tax reformImage result for healthcare or tax reform

Republicans at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue are facing a big question this spring: What now?

As President Trump approaches his 100-day mark at the end of this month, congressional Republicans have few accomplishments to point to and are divided over how to proceed on his two biggest priorities: healthcare and tax reform.

Congress is at the start of a two-week recess, and lawmakers say they will listen to feedback from constituents as they mull the next legislative steps of 2017. The internal debate boils down to whether they should stick to their strategy of working strictly along party lines to pass big-ticket bills or try to find common ground with Democrats, perhaps on smaller proposals.

Republicans are divided over whether to take another shot at healthcare reform, which failed in the House last month, or move on to tax reform.

 

What Trump Can Do Without Congress to Dismantle Obamacare

Image result for What Trump Can Do Without Congress to Dismantle Obamacare

House Republicans left for spring break last week, without reaching a deal to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. Their bill to overhaul the health care system collapsed on the House floor last month, amid divisions in the caucus.

Even without Congress, however, President Trump has the authority to modify important provisions of the health law, including many that House Republicans sought to change or repeal. Here are some examples of actions he could take (or has already taken):

Healthcare Triage: Orphan Drugs: An Introduction

Healthcare Triage: Orphan Drugs: An Introduction

Image result for Healthcare Triage: Orphan Drugs: An Introduction

We at Healthcare Triage couldn’t be more excited about this month. We’re doing a whole month on orphan drugs, with the help of Nick Bagley. He wrote a lot about them, and we begged him to let us adapt his work into a series. This is the Introduction. Over the next few weeks, there will be three more. Enjoy!

 

ACA Cost-Sharing Subsidies: How One Decision Could Disrupt Obamacare Marketplaces

Web Briefing for Journalists – ACA Cost-Sharing Subsidies: How One Decision Could Disrupt Obamacare Marketplaces

Image result for Web Briefing for Journalists – ACA Cost-Sharing Subsidies: How One Decision Could Disrupt Obamacare Marketplaces

Premiums, insurer choice, and overall stability of 2018 Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplaces could be affected by decisions from Congress and the Trump Administration on the health law’s cost-sharing reduction provision. With a legal appeal pending on a lawsuit from the U.S. House, the federal government and Congress are in a position to choose whether to continue reimbursing insurers for the subsidies, which were established as part of the ACA to reduce out-of-pocket costs for lower-income people buying plans through the marketplaces. Failure to continue the payments would not only disrupt the marketplaces, but it also might signal a more obstructionist approach to the ACA, following House Republicans’ failed attempt at repeal. Continuing the payments could help to avoid further exits and premium increases by insurers.

On Thursday, April 6, the Kaiser Family Foundation hosted a web briefing for the media to explain how the cost-sharing reduction program works, where it stands now, and how consumers could be affected by either choice from the federal government. Panelists presented new analysis on the magnitude of the cost-sharing payments and how much premiums would have to rise in different states to compensate for insurers’ loss of federal funding.

Panelists included Gary Claxton and Larry Levitt, co-executive directors of the Foundation’s Study of Health Reform and Private Insurance. Rakesh Singh, the Foundation’s vice president of communications, moderated the discussion.