Block grant funding of public health insurance: the Canadian example

Block grant funding of public health insurance: the Canadian example

Image result for medicaid block grants

Speaker Paul Ryan wants to reform Medicaid by “block granting” the program, that is,

by capping federal funding and turning control of the program over to states. The aim of such reforms is to reduce federal funding over the long term, while preserving a safety net for needy, low-income Americans. An additional valuable aim of this effort has been to advance federalism by reducing the federal government’s role and giving states and governors more freedom and flexibility in managing their Medicaid programs and helping people in their states.

What are the likely consequences of block granting? Benjamin Sommers and David Naylor write in JAMA about how Canada’s joint federal/provincial funding of health care provides lessons about the likely consequences of block granting.

Canada is a single payer health care system. However, there isn’t a Canadian single payer. Rather, there is a single payer for each province: I am covered by the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP). These plans are primarily funded by provincial taxes. However, provinces also receive a health transfer from the Canadian federal government, i. e., a block grant. The provincial health insurance plans are run by provincial health ministers, not the federal minister in Ottawa.

So, does provincial autonomy facilitate experimentation and tailoring by the provinces? Sommers and Naylor think not.

there is little evidence that the alleged advantages of block grants have materialized in Canada. Advocates argue that with greater flexibility and proper incentives, states can reduce costs by improving the efficiency of care. In Canada, however, the provinces’ primary means of coping with budget pressures under block grants has been to reduce funding to hospitals and bargain harder with provincial medical associations. Ironically, then, if this scenario plays out in the United States, it would exacerbate one of the chief Republican criticisms of Medicaid — that it pays clinicians such low rates that they have reduced incentives to care for low-income patients.

Indeed, physician refusal to take Medicaid patients is one of Speaker Ryan’s central criticisms of Medicaid.

What about the effects of a block grant system on federal funding of health care?

Once block funding was initiated in 1977, health care funding became a line item in the federal budget that could be arbitrarily cut or capped for fiscal or political reasons, as opposed to a level of spending pegged to the needs and health care use of the population. Importantly, these cuts occurred under both conservative and liberal federal governments.

When the Canadian health transfer began, the federal government paid 50% of provincial costs. However, the transfer has steadily declined, until it is now about 20%. Sommers and Naylor predict that US federal block grants would also decline, and this is clearly one of Speaker Ryan’s goals.

However, Canadian health care spending per capita has not declined.

As the cost of providing care has risen, but the federal health transfer has stayed fixed or declined, the provinces have taxed more and the federal government has taxed less. The provincial governments hate this, because they would rather have the federal government make the unpopular choice to raise taxes. But it’s not clear whether block granting has made a big difference in the health care received by Canadians.

American states could similarly increase taxes in response to a declining federal Medicaid block grant, but would they? The key difference between Canadian public health insurance and Medicaid is that the former is universal, while the latter is means-tested. Ontarians prefer lower taxes, but if Ontario decreases funding for OHIP, every Ontarian will experience longer waits for care. But American states can cut Medicaid — and reduce taxes — without affecting the health care of better off and able-bodied citizens.

The affluent and able-bodied are also the citizens most likely to vote. American states determine their own voting procedures. Block granting gives states an incentive to manage voting so as to reduce the participation of the marginalized communities who are most in need of public health insurance. Block granting is likely to undermine the health care for the poor and disabled, and it could reinforce the post-Shelby County v. Holder efforts to restrict voting.

 

Invisible Risk Sharing Program

Too little, too late

Image result for invisible law

In their latest amendment to the American Health Care Act, House Republicans have created something called an “invisible risk sharing program.” The amendment is befuddling. The invisible program is a minor tweak that won’t improve the AHCA’s dismal coverage numbers. It’s not even really a program. If there’s any prospect at all of salvaging Republican-style repeal and replace, this newest amendment isn’t it.

The statutory text is spare. It appropriates $15 billion over nine years—or $1.67 billion each year—and tells the Secretary of Health and Human Services to use the money “to provide payments to health insurers with respect to claims for eligible individuals for the purpose of lowering premiums for health insurance coverage offered in the individual market.” The Secretary can supplement that funding with any money from the AHCA’s high-risk pools that states don’t find a way to use.

Beyond that, however, the statute tells us next to nothing about how the program is supposed to work. Hilariously, a section of the statute titled “Details of Program” contains no details. It says, for example, that the program should include “[a] definition for eligible individuals,” but leaves the defining up to HHS. So too with “[t]he identification of health conditions” that, if an eligible person has them, would qualify her insurer for extra payments.

Oh, and the program is supposed to be in place in time for the 2018 plan year.

Read generously, this newest amendment tells HHS to create a kind of reinsurance program for insurers who enroll high-cost individuals. The statute doesn’t use the word “reinsurance,” maybe because Republicans have spent years railing against the risk corridor and reinsurance programs as insurer bailouts. But if those were bailouts, then this is too.

Judging from the title, the program is supposed to look something like the proposal pioneered by Maine and described in this Health Affairs post. But Republicans are delusional to think that the Secretary can establish and implement a complex reinsurance-style program in time for the 2018 plan year. Insurers that want to participate on the exchanges have to submit bids to HHS by June 21. Even if the AHCA passed tomorrow—which it won’t—there’s no chance that Secretary Price could ramp it up in time.

Nor does the amendment explain how the new program is supposed to interact with the ACA’s risk adjustment program, which the AHCA leaves in place. The point of risk adjustment is to equalize risk across insurers: those with healthier-than-average enrollees have to pay into a central kitty, and those with sicker-than-average enrollees get some of that money. But if insurers get “invisible” risk sharing money for high-cost individuals, should they get less in risk adjustment money? The amendment doesn’t say.

In any event, the money is too insubstantial to make much of a difference. Sure, $1.67 billion per year sounds like a lot of money. But $1.67 billion is chump change compared to the subsidy reductions that are contemplated under the AHCA. It’s like using a band-aid to treat a gunshot wound.

 

While Washington Fiddles, Calif. Leaders Forge Ideas For Universal Health Care

http://khn.org/news/while-washington-fiddles-calif-leaders-forge-ideas-for-universal-health-care/

Image result for Universal Health Care

As the nation’s Republican leaders huddle to reconsider their plans to “repeal and replace” the nation’s health law, advocates for universal health coverage press on in California, armed with renewed political will and a new set of proposals.

Organized labor and two lawmakers are leading the charge for a single, government-financed program for everyone in the state. Another legislator wants to create a commission that would weigh the best options for a system to cover everyone. And Democratic Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, who hopes to become the next governor, has suggested building on employer-based health care to plug holes in existing coverage.

The proposals are fueled both by a fear of losing gains under the Affordable Care Act and a sense that the law doesn’t go far enough toward covering everyone and cutting costs.

But heath policy experts say that creating any type of universal health plan would face enormous political and fiscal challenges — and that if it happens at all, it could take years.

“There are different ways to get there,” says Jonathan Oberlander, professor of social medicine and health policy at the University of North Carolina. “None of them is easy.”

The most specific California proposal comes from state Sens. Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens) and Toni Atkins (D-San Diego), co-authors of legislation that would take steps toward creating one publicly financed “single-payer” program.

The bill, co-sponsored by the California Nurses Association, would aim for something like a system of “Medicare for all” in which the government, not insurers, provides payments and sets coverage rules.

Lara said the approach would get California closer to a system “that covers more and costs less.”

The bill’s authors haven’t announced how the program would be funded. And that’s where the biggest obstacle lies, said Oberlander: It would largely uproot California’s present system, in which roughly half of coverage is sponsored by employers.

If “you’re going to take health insurance largely out of the market, you’re going to disconnect it from employers,” he said. “Then you have to make up all the financing that you’re going to lose.”

There’s no way to make up for those lost employer contributions other than to introduce “very visible taxes,” Oberlander said. And that’s not the only reason why a single payer plan would be controversial. “A lot of people are satisfied with what they have,” he said.

 

Blame Game Over High Drug Prices Escalates With New Ad

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-06/blame-game-over-high-drug-prices-gets-worse-with-lobby-s-new-ad

Image result for Blame Game Over High Drug Prices Escalates With New Ad

New punches were thrown in the blame game over U.S. drug prices Thursday.

Broadening its efforts to defuse outrage over skyrocketing prices, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the industry’s lobbying association, started an advertising campaign urging insurers to share with customers more of the benefits of rebates they’ve negotiated. In response, the main health-insurance lobby pushed the blame back on drugmakers: “Enough with the distractions.”

Meanwhile, the head of one of the largest pharmacy benefit managers, who are often criticized by drugmakers for their lack of transparency, said his industry helps save money and manufacturers should stop faulting the middlemen.

Pharmacy benefit managers like Express Scripts Holding Co. — which manage drug benefits for employers and insurers, and privately negotiate prices on their behalf — receive discounts from manufacturers. The rebates lead to lower prices, but it’s up to insurers whether they are ultimately passed down to patients, Express Scripts Chief Executive Officer Tim Wentworth said in an interview on Bloomberg Television on Thursday.

“A hundred percent of the time, payers determine how they pass through,” he said.

Drug companies that raise prices “would blame the middleman,” the CEO said. Yet pharmacy benefit managers, or PBMs, are transparent with how they work within the health-care sector with payers. “For us it’s a real simple challenge: get the net cost as low as possible for our clients.”

Opaque System

The three main groups that are involved in the complex and opaque system of setting drug prices in the U.S. — drugmakers, insurance companies and PBMs — started to strongly fight off criticism months ago. The sector escalated its defense against Washington this year after drug prices became a frequent target for President Donald Trump. He’s threatened to use the government’s buying power to force prices down, which is the industry’s most dreaded option, but so far has not unveiled any specifics about how.

The new ad from PhRMA, which represents more than 50 companies and is one of the most powerful interest groups, is another step in its endeavor to demonstrate that other parts of the health-care industry are responsible for the costs faced by patients. In January, the group started a major initiative, including TV, radio and digital ads. Unlike most developed countries in the world, the U.S. doesn’t directly regulate medicine prices, and drugmakers have strongly resisted it.

The new campaign, “Share the Savings,” will include advertising across various mediums to educate the public about how the rebates for commercially insured patients with high deductibles and coinsurance aren’t passed along to consumers, PhRMA said in a statement. “Robust negotiations” have resulted in major discounts, the group said.

Repeal push complicates state efforts to get ObamaCare waivers

Repeal push complicates state efforts to get ObamaCare waivers

Image result for ACA waiver program

A number of states are readying blueprints for substantial changes under an ObamaCare waiver program, but a renewed push to repeal the law is complicating their plans.

The Affordable Care Act’s 1332 State Innovation Waiver lets states skip some of the law’s regulations if their healthcare plan covers a comparable number of people without increasing the federal deficit. States can apply for the waivers starting this year.

But a revived attempt to repeal the health law is throwing a wrench in those plans, since states don’t know what a new bill will entail. While House Republicans moved forward an amendment in committee to their larger repeal bill on Thursday, the party is far from reaching a consensus.

“The way we are tackling those great uncertainties is that we have to continue to move forward with plans to make the market more stable and proceed along a path that works within the current regulatory framework,” said Oklahoma Health Care Authority Chief Strategy Officer Buffy Heater. “Now we have to of course be mindful of any other proposals that may come up, or any movements that may be made at that time, and be flexible and adapt to whatever changes those might bring.”

Oklahoma is preparing to file a plan with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services later this summer that would implement sweeping changes to the state’s individual insurance market.

If approved, the waiver would establish what Duke University health policy researcher David Anderson calls a “backdoor Medicaid expansion” by shifting subsidies from people between 100 percent to 400 percent of the federal poverty level to those between 0 percent to 300 percent.

The waiver would also allow insurers to charge older members more, restructure subsidies based on age and income, eliminate tiers in favor of two broader categories and require insurers to establish a minimum amount of value-based agreements. Officials also want to regulate outcomes in a number of areas, including mental health, diabetes and obesity.

The stakes are high. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Oklahoma is the only carrier left on the state exchanges, and the state suffers from low enrollment rates. Heater said CMS has promised the state an expedited waiver review but no assurances that things won’t change.

 

GOP leaders under pressure to bring House back to vote on Trumpcare

https://www.axios.com/gop-leaders-under-pressure-to-bring-house-back-to-vote-on-trumpcare-2347805897.html

Image result for GOP leaders under pressure to bring House back to vote on Trumpcare

House GOP leaders are checking to see whether the latest Trumpcare revisions have changed enough votes to bring it closer to passage — especially with the conservative Freedom Caucus. If there’s enough movement, they could bring the House back from recess as early as next week, according to two leadership sources.

Don’t get too excited: It’s all part of a frantic effort to show movement on the health care bill to satisfy President Trump, who doesn’t want the House to leave for a two-week recess without some action to satisfy Republicans’ Obamacare repeal promises. But even Republicans close to the leadership don’t think the latest changes are enough to make this the final bill — and there’s no sign yet that the GOP has picked up enough Freedom Caucus votes.

The problem: All they’ve settled on is the addition of a $15 billion risk-sharing fund to help health insurers with high-cost patients. Not only is it similar to an Obamacare reinsurance program — with less money — it doesn’t do anything to solve the basic dispute with the Freedom Caucus. It wants to let states get rid of the Obamacare rules requiring insurers to cover sick people, and banning them from charging higher premiums for those patients. The rest of the GOP doesn’t want to touch that.

The bottom line: Leadership sources say it’s all up to the Freedom Caucus now.

Update: From AshLee Strong, spokeswoman for House Speaker Paul Ryan: “Member discussions will continue and should a path toward 216 votes emerge, the speaker wouldn’t hesitate to bring members back to fulfill our promise to repeal and replace Obamacare.”

 

Estimates: Average ACA Marketplace Premiums for Silver Plans Would Need to Increase by 19% to Compensate for Lack of Funding for Cost-Sharing Subsidies

Estimates: Average ACA Marketplace Premiums for Silver Plans Would Need to Increase by 19% to Compensate for Lack of Funding for Cost-Sharing Subsidies

A new Kaiser Family Foundation analysis finds that the average premium for a benchmark silver plan in Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplaces would need to increase by an estimated 19 percent for insurers to compensate for lost funding if they don’t receive federal payment for ACA cost-sharing subsidies.

Established by the health law to reimburse insurers for the cost of reducing out-of-pocket costs for lower-income people buying marketplace plans (with incomes from 100% to 250% of the poverty level), the subsidies have been challenged in a lawsuit from the U.S. House. With a legal appeal pending, the federal government and Congress are in a position to choose whether to continue reimbursing insurers for their cost.

Among 12.2 million people who selected a 2017 ACA marketplace plan, about 58 percent, or 7.1 million, are receiving cost-sharing reductions. An earlier Foundation analysis of 2017 plans found the subsidies lower combined medical and prescription drug deductibles by as much as $3,354 and reduce annual out-of-pocket maximums by up to $5,587.

The Foundation’s new analysis examines the amount insurers would need to increase premiums to make up for the lack of funding, if federal payments cease for the cost-sharing reduction program.

 

GOP Has No Choice But To Keep Pushing Health Care Rock Up The Hill

http://khn.org/news/gop-has-no-choice-but-to-keep-pushing-health-care-rock-up-the-hill/

Related image

This week’s effort to resurrect the GOP bill to overhaul the Affordable Care Act has apparently met the same end as the first try in March — not even a vote on the floor of the House. Apparently the roadblock was the same, too. Efforts to gain votes from holdout conservatives repelled moderate Republicans in the House, while efforts to placate moderates kept conservatives from signing on.

So what was the purpose of the new effort, which was led mostly from the White House?

Republican health analysts said party officials had little choice but to keep trying to reach consensus — or at least enough consensus to pass a bill out of the House.

GOP House members, particularly those from conservative areas, “are going to go home and get hammered for not repealing Obamacare,” said Thomas Scully, a health policy official in both Bush administrations.

The latest Kaiser Family Foundation monthly tracking pollsuggests that might well be the case. Although three-quarters of the population wants President Donald Trump and his administration to make the health law work, 54 percent of Republicans said it was “a bad thing” that the House GOP bill failed to pass in March, and 58 percent of Republicans said the bill “did not go far enough to end Obamacare.” (Kaiser Health News is an editorially independent project of the foundation.)

Chris Jacobs, a longtime GOP congressional staffer, said there are two imperatives still pushing for some kind of deal. “First, a seven-year commitment by the Republican Party” to repeal and replace the health law, “and second, the administration very clearly wants a win” on some sort of major policy initiative.

But apparently the ideas put forward by the White House to gain more conservative votes without losing moderate ones did not work as the administration hoped.

Conservatives were reportedly pleased early in the week when it appeared states would be allowed to opt out of most of the ACA’s insurance regulations — including rules on what benefits must be covered and whether insurers can charge sicker people higher premiums or deny them coverage.

But moderates complained that would violate promises that the GOP would keep intact protections for people with preexisting health conditions. And the proposal was apparently scaled back.

What remained “was a substantial narrowing in an unproductive way for the proposal,” Michael Needham of the conservative group Heritage Action told reporters on a conference call. Needham called the new version “a nonstarter” for conservatives.

On Thursday, Republicans announced agreement on an amendment to the health bill that would provide $15 billion to help compensate insurers for very high-cost patients.

But at a hastily called meeting of the House Rules Committee, even Chairman Pete Sessions (R-Texas) conceded that the amendment, at least for now, mostly provides a way for members to say they are making progress as they head home to face their constituents.

“What we’re trying to do is lock in ideas so we [Republicans] have an opportunity to go home and amplify,” he said.

Now Congress is poised to leave Washington for a two-week spring recess, from Monday through April 21, without their promised health bill. And what happens when they come back is unclear.

“They put themselves in this box canyon and have no way out of it,” said political scientist Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute. “I just don’t see a strategy here.”

 

Why an Open Market Won’t Repair American Health Care

AN AMERICAN SICKNESS
How Healthcare Became Big Business and How You Can Take It Back
By Elisabeth Rosenthal
406 pp. Penguin Press. $28.

A few years back, the future of American health policy appeared to hinge on how similar medical care was to broccoli. It was March 2012, and the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) was before the Supreme Court. Justice Antonin Scalia zeroed in on its controversial requirement that all Americans purchase health insurance. Yes, everybody needs health care, Scalia conceded, but everybody needs food too. If the government could make people buy insurance, why couldn’t it “make people buy broccoli”?

The Affordable Care Act survived, of course — though not before a fractured court made the expansion of Medicaid optional, leaving millions of poorer Americans without its promised benefits. But the question Justice Scalia asked remains at the heart of a debate that has only intensified since: Why is health care different? Why does it create so much more anxiety and expense, heartache and hardship, than does buying broccoli — or cars or computers or the countless other things Americans routinely purchase each day?

For those leading the charge to roll back the 2010 law, the question has a one-word answer: government. President Trump’s point man on health policy, the former congressman (and ultrawealthy orthopedic surgeon) Tom Price, has said that “nothing has had a greater negative effect on the delivery of health care than the federal government’s intrusion into medicine through Medicare.” Senator Rand Paul (another surgeon) and House Speaker Paul Ryan have claimed that the affordability of Lasik eye surgery — generally not covered by health insurance — shows that a much freer health care market would be much less expensive. Their idea of “reform” is to cut back public and private insurance so consumers have “more skin in the game” and thus shop more wisely.

The physician-turned-journalist Elisabeth Rosenthal offers a very different answer in her eye-opening “An American Sickness.” Rosenthal — formerly a reporter for The New York Times, now the editor in chief of the nonprofit Kaiser Health News — is best known for a prizewinning series of articles, “Paying Till It Hurts.” In them, Rosenthal chronicled the seemingly endless pathologies of America’s medical-industrial complex, from prescription drugs that grew more costly as they became more dated to hip-replacement surgery so expensive it was cheaper for a patient to fly to a hospital in Belgium.

Rosenthal thinks the health care market is different, and she sums up these differences as the “economic rules of the dysfunctional medical market.” There are 10 — some obvious (No. 9: “There’s money to be made in billing for anything and everything”); some humorous (No. 2: “A lifetime of treatment is preferable to a cure”) — but No. 10 is the big one: “Prices will rise to whatever the market will bear.” To Rosenthal, that’s the answer to Scalia’s question. The health care market doesn’t work like other markets because “what the market will bear” is vastly greater than what a well-functioning market should bear. As Rosenthal describes American health care, it’s not really a market; it’s more like a protection racket — tolerated only because so many different institutions are chipping in to cover the extortionary bill and because, ultimately, it’s our lives that are on the line.

Consider the epicenter of America’s cost crisis: the once humble hospital. Thanks in part to hit TV shows, we think of hospitals as public-spirited pillars of local communities. Yet while most are legally classified as nonprofits, they are also very big businesses, maximizing surpluses that can be plowed into rising salaries and relentless expansion even when they are not earning profits or remunerating shareholders. And they have grown much bigger and more businesslike over time.

Rosenthal tells the story of Providence Portland Medical Center, a Northwest hospital system founded by nuns. Four decades ago, its operational hub in Portland, Ore., consisted of two modest hospitals: Providence and St. Vincent. As it happens, my mother was a nurse at St. Vincent for more than half those years, and thus had a front-row seat as Providence transformed from a Catholic charity into one of the nation’s largest nonprofit hospital systems, with annual revenues of $14 billion in 2015.

Along the way, Providence jettisoned most of its original mission, replacing nuns with number crunchers. Once run mainly by doctors, it filled its growing bureaucracy with professional coders capable of gaming insurance-reimbursement rules to extract maximum revenue. Meanwhile, Providence stopped paying doctors as staff and reclassified them as independent contractors (though not so independent they could skip a “charm school” designed by its marketers). Yet even as its C.E.O. earned more than $4 million, Providence touted itself as a “not-for-profit Catholic health care ministry” upholding the “tradition of caring” started by the nuns (now listed as “sponsors” in promotional materials). Rosenthal sums up the result as “a weird mix of Mother Teresa and Goldman Sachs.”

 

 

Trump’s New Plan to Penalize the Sick

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/healthcare/news/2017/04/06/430156/trumps-new-plan-penalize-sick/

Image result for penalizing the sick

Republicans need to stop making a terrible health care bill even worse. A little over a week ago, President Donald Trump declared that the White House would be moving on from its efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, or ACA. However, in an abrupt about-face, the administration is now reportedly considering a new proposal in an attempt to reinvigorate talks: allowing insurers to drastically raise prices on people with pre-existing conditions, even to the point of preventing them from obtaining insurance at all.

First Republicans had a proposal that would lead to skyrocketing uninsurance and out-of-pocket costs while increasing premiums. Then they argued for driving up coverage prices for services like maternity care and substance abuse treatment while simultaneously weakening protections for employer-provided insurance. Now they’re threatening to eliminate protections for the up to 133 million individuals who have pre-existing conditions.