The G.O.P. Health Care Plan’s Fatal Flaw

Senator Robert Byrd helped save the Affordable Care Act once already. In December 2009, the wizened West Virginia Democrat overcame fragile health to cast a crucial vote for the act’s passage. It was one of the last votes in the career of the Senate’s longest-serving member: Just weeks after President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law, Byrd died at age 92.

Now, nearly seven years after his death, Senator Byrd may ensure that the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, lives another day. One of Byrd’s many legislative accomplishments over a half-century in the Senate was the eponymous “Byrd rule,” which governs the process of budget reconciliation. Republicans on Capitol Hill are trying to use the reconciliation process to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. The Byrd rule stands in their way.

Reconciliation is a fast-track process that allows budget-related legislation to pass the Senate without the prospect of a filibuster. The Byrd rule prevents reconciliation from being used to pass any measure for which the budgetary effects — “changes in outlays or revenues” — are “merely incidental to the non-budgetary components.” Republicans know they lack the 60 votes to break a filibuster in the Senate, so they designed their repeal-and-replace bill to satisfy the Byrd rule’s requirements. Yet there is a surprising flaw in their design — one that has so far drawn little notice, but that Senate Democrats will surely seize on.

The flaw is found in a provision of the bill with the innocuous title “Encouraging Continuous Health Insurance Coverage.” Under that provision, individuals who go without coverage for more than two months must pay a penalty the next time they buy health insurance. The penalty is equal to 30 percent of their new plan’s premium. Significantly, individuals must pay this 30 percent penalty to their new insurer, not to the federal government.

And therein lies the problem. If the penalty were paid to the federal government, as with the individual mandate penalty under the Affordable Care Act, the provision would comply with the Byrd rule because it would have an obvious positive budgetary effect: Penalty payments would increase federal revenues. But the drafters of the repeal-and-replace bill chose not to adopt that approach, lest the penalty look too much like the Obamacare mandate. Instead, they are hoping that the threat of a future penalty averts an insurance market “death spiral,” in which healthy individuals run for the exits and the sick are left behind.

 

 

Per Capita Caps in Medicaid — Lessons from the Past

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1615696?query=featured_home&

Image result for Medicaid — Lessons from the Past

Medicaid’s introduction also generated large benefits. Medicaid reduced mortality among infants and children, provided financial protection for their families, and led to better health, higher employment, and lower use of public benefits when they grew up. Moreover, by increasing tax revenue and reducing cash transfers, Medicaid currently saves federal and state governments $21 billion per year.5

How do these historical policies compare with today’s Medicaid-reform proposals? Ryan’s proposed caps apply only to Medicaid spending and recipients, since Medicaid was long ago decoupled from cash welfare. The cap amounts would initially equal average 2016 Medicaid spending by eligibility category and by state, rather than a single statutorily defined amount. Yet the caps would be “set to grow more slowly than under current law,” so over time they cease being related to actual Medicaid costs, thereby limiting the ability of states to adjust to rapid advances in technology, epidemics, or other unforeseen events. Nevertheless, as in the 1950s, discouraging Medicaid recipients from receiving costly care or keeping the highest-cost patients out of the program would be the clearest ways to limit state outlays. Toward that end, the Ryan plan would allow states to impose work requirements, charge premiums, offer a limited benefit package, shift beneficiaries into the individual insurance market, and create enrollment caps or waiting lists.

Medicaid creates a divisive relationship between the federal and state governments. Federal mandates and open-ended federal cost sharing are meant to provide incentives for state spending, but states often balk at the large costs. Both state and federal budgets would benefit if each Medicaid recipient cost less. Unfortunately, a per capita cap on federal Medicaid spending is unlikely to achieve this aim. Rather than “modernize” Medicaid, the historical experience in the United States suggests per capita caps would simply shrink the program.

 

Trump budget would force tough choices in disease research

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/trump-budget-force-tough-choices-disease-research-46183046

Image result for disease research

What goes on the chopping block: Research into cancer or Alzheimer’s? A Zika vaccine or a treatment for superbugs?

Health groups say President Donald Trump’s proposal to slash funds for the nation’s engine of biomedical research would be devastating for patients with all kinds of diseases — and for jobs.

“It is possible that the next cure for some cancer is sitting there waiting to be discovered, and it won’t get to the table,” said Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association.

In his budget blueprint Thursday, Trump called for a cut of $5.8 billion from the National Institutes of Health. That’s a staggering 18 percent drop for the $32 billion agency that funds much of the nation’s research into what causes different diseases and what it will take to treat them.

It comes despite Trump recently telling Congress about the need to find “cures to the illnesses that have always plagued us.”

“All of us woke up this morning in a state of shock about this number,” said Dr. Blase Polite, a cancer specialist at the University of Chicago who chairs the American Society for Clinical Oncology’s government relations committee.

Trump’s proposal would roll back NIH’s 2018 budget to about what it was in 2003. The president called for a “major reorganization” of NIH to stress the “highest priority research,” but only specifically targeted for elimination the $69 million Fogarty International Center that focuses on global health and has played a big role in HIV research abroad.

Drops in deaths from cancer and heart disease, breakthroughs in genetics, and new ways to treat and prevent HIV and other infectious diseases all are credited to decades of NIH-funded basic research.

 

GOP’s 3-Bucket Strategy To Repeal And Replace Health Law Is Springing Leaks

GOP’s 3-Bucket Strategy To Repeal And Replace Health Law Is Springing Leaks

Republicans in Washington working to overhaul the Affordable Care Act say their strategy consists of “three buckets.” But it appears that all three may be leaking.

The plan to dismantle and replace Obamacare emerged after the Republican congressional retreat in late January. The first bucket is a fast-track budget bill that needs only a simple majority to pass the Senate. Because of congressional rules, however, it can only address parts of the health law that have immediate impact on federal spending.

The second consists of changes to regulations and other policies put in place by the Obama administration that could theoretically be undone by new Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price. And the third is separate legislation that would do things Republicans have been advocating for many years, such as imposing caps on medical malpractice damages and selling health insurance across state lines.

All three are proving problematic at this point — among Republicans.

 

Trump budget proposes 19 percent cut in NIH funding, leaving life science institutions reeling

Trump budget proposes 19 percent cut in NIH funding, leaving life science institutions reeling

Researcher-using-a-multi-pipet-35766563

As part of Trump’s budget proposal, he wants to chop $5.8B from the National Institutes of Health, or 19 percent, as part of a spending overhaul the Department of Health and Human Services.  The budget calls for a major reorganization of NIH’s institutes and centers, describing the move as a way to “help focus resources on the highest priority research and training activities.”

The proposal would also consolidate the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality within NIH, and it would also mean “other consolidations and structural changes across NIH organizations and activities”.

Life science institutions are horrified.

It seems like only yesterday that Congress was prepared to boost NIH spending by $2 billion  — the biggest increase in 12 years.

Here is a round-up of reactions from national and regional institutions.

The American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network released a statement estimating that the NIH budget cuts were likely to cut $1 billion from the National Cancer Institute, noting it would be the biggest budget cut to the institution in its history.

Chris Hansen, president of the network said the cuts would be a significant setback for millions of American cancer patients, survivors and their families and would “dramatically constrain the prospect for breakthrough American medical innovation”.

For the last 50 years every major medical breakthrough can be traced back to investments in the NIH. Because of these investments, there are more than 15.5 million American cancer survivors alive today and researchers stand on the cusp of numerous innovative new diagnostic tools and treatments. From new immunotherapies that harness the body’s own immune system to destroy cancer cells to less toxic and more precise chemotherapies and advanced diagnostic and preventive tools.

“These developments save lives and spur economic progress. NIH-funded medical research is conducted in thousands of labs and universities across the country. These grants in turn spawn increased private investment and development. Drastically reducing NIH’s budget would jeopardize our nation’s potential to save more lives while simultaneously risking America’s position as the global leader in medical research.

 

An infographic of healthcare cuts in Trump’s draft budget

An infographic of healthcare cuts in Trump’s draft budget

V2_Fed_Budget_Healthcare_2017

 

Healthcare groups bash Trump’s budget proposal: Cuts threaten public health

http://www.fiercehealthcare.com/healthcare/trump-s-budget-proposal-faces-opposition-from-healthcare-industry-groups-members-both?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWXpoa05EZzFZamxrTkdVMiIsInQiOiJYVXpYMVo4VThobmJJdXRqUUlSempJc0dBeUdTVkRcL3ZDTW9qZHU5eStXdnAxOHdwbkUwTlQrdjA3bldVYXRiQ1Z2a2FQYTdKSFVxWG9qd2hlTTRmNCt5MHFZdTZKTlB5aWY4Zm5DSzBvcHVLRjBQWDNlalwvSW9LRk4xT2Jyd2JHIn0%3D&mrkid=959610&utm_medium=nl&utm_source=internal

Image result for Trump's budget proposal graphic

Nurses, docs and medical research groups said the budget cuts proposed by President Donald Trump threaten the future of healthcare.

Among the cuts: Nearly 18% of HHS’ budget, with the largest cuts coming to National Institutes of Health. The agency would see a $5.9 million decrease in its budget and a significant reorganization effort that would fold the Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research into its ranks and close the Fogarty International Center

Nurses came out in force against the budget cuts. The American Nurses Association urged Congress to reject Trump’s proposal, which they said in a statement will  “weaken the nation’s healthcare system and jeopardize the scientific research needed to keep America healthy.”

The ANA is especially upset about plans to reduce funding for health professions and nursing workforce programs by $403 million. The proposal “drastically hampers efforts to address critical faculty shortages and recruit new nurses into the profession,” the association said.

Furthermore, the National Nurses United called the cuts a “broad attack on public protections that also targets some of the nation’s most vulnerable people while shifting resources to the least needed areas.”

The American Public Health Association agreed, stating that the proposal undermines the health and well-being of Americans.

“Cuts to these agencies would threaten programs that protect the public from the next infectious disease outbreak, polluted air and water, health threats due to climate change and our growing chronic disease epidemic,” APHA Executive Director Georges C. Benjamin, M.D., said in the statement.

And Andrew Gurman, M.D., president of the American Medical Association, said the cuts cause great concerns about future medical research and public health in general and in the wake of Zika, Ebola.

The Association of American Medical Colleges noted in a statement that medical research can’t be “turned on and off like a faucet.” Indeed, “the proposed cuts would set back progress toward critical advancements that could take decades to regain, prevent new ideas from being explored, and have a chilling effect on those who would potentially enter the biomedical research workforce.”

And the American Cancer Society said the reduction in funding would set cancer research back at least two decades.

“For the last 50 years every major medical breakthrough can be traced back to investments in the NIH,” Chris Hansen, president of the ACS Cancer Action Network, said in the statement. “Because of these investments, there are more than 15.5 million American cancer survivors alive today and researchers stand on the cusp of numerous innovative new diagnostic tools and treatments.”

The Hill’s Whip List: Where Republicans stand on ObamaCare repeal plan

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/322903-the-hills-whip-list-where-republicans-stand-on-obamacare-repeal-plan

Image result for The Hill's Whip List: Where Republicans stand on ObamaCare repeal plan

Republican leaders are aiming to move quickly on legislation to repeal and replace ObamaCare, with a vote by the full House slated for Thursday.

But the plan faces a difficult path. Conservatives were quick to criticize the legislation, saying it falls short of full repeal and would create new entitlements. Centrist Republicans and many from districts won by Hillary Clinton in 2016 have also balked at measures rolling back the Medicaid expansion or defunding Planned Parenthood.

A number of conservative lawmakers in the Republican Study Committee, though, backed the bill after a Friday meeting with President Trump. Trump and GOP leaders are working on changes to the legislation that would change how it handles tax credits and create a work requirement for Medicaid.

Members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, however, say those changes may not be enough.

With a vote in days, the margin for error is slim. Assuming all Democrats vote against the legislation, GOP leaders cannot afford more than 21 defections in the House and two in the Senate.

Here’s a list of how Republican lawmakers stand on the ObamaCare repeal and replace legislation.

 

Do You Speak Repeal And Replace? Click Thought Bubbles For Translations

http://khn.org/news/do-you-speak-repeal-and-replace/

Image result for aca repeal and replace

President Donald Trump and many congressional Republicans campaigned on repealing the Affordable Care Act and replacing it with their own plan to overhaul the nation’s health care system. As the GOP develops its offering, its representatives are tossing around wonky health policy terms to describe their core strategies.

Below you’ll find some brief definitions. Click on the word bubbles in the photo above for KHN’s fuller translation of what each phrase means — for U.S. health care and for ongoing efforts to replace the ACA.

MEDICAID BLOCK GRANTS AND PER-CAPITA CAPS: The federal government gives states a set amount of money to pay for coverage for Medicaid recipients. This would be a shift from the current Medicaid program, where the federal government matches state Medicaid spending on a percentage basis. Learn more.

HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNTS: Also known as HSAs, these allow consumers to put money away on a tax-free basis as long as they use it for medical expenses. Learn more.

BUDGET RECONCILIATION: Legislative process that allows measures to pass with a simple majority in Congress. Budget reconciliation bills can’t be filibustered but must focus on provisions that have a budgetary impact. Learn more.

ESSENTIAL HEALTH BENEFITS: ACA-mandated categories of benefits that health plans must cover. They include emergency services, hospitalization and maternity care. Learn more.

INDIVIDUAL MARKET: Where people who do not have health coverage through the government or their employer purchase a plan directly from an insurer. It is sometimes called the non-group market. Learn more.

TAX CREDITS/SUBSIDIES: Financial assistance to help consumers purchase health insurance. Learn more.

HIGH-RISK POOLS: Insurance groups that cover individuals with high health insurance costs, such as people who have a past serious illness or a chronic condition. Learn more.

Visit Repeal & Replace Watch for more KHN coverage of the health law debate.

 

How Should We Measure The Distribution Of Health In A Population?

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2017/03/17/how-should-we-measure-the-distribution-of-health-in-a-population/

Population health has been defined as “the health outcomes of a group of individuals, including the distribution of such outcomes within the group.” Measuring population health and its distribution can unite groups across sectors around a set of clear, defined goals. However, no one metric can capture the intricate and complex nature of population health. Instead, we need a matrix of indicators to gain a full picture of health and how it is changing. (see Figure 1). For example, rather than measuring only end-of-the-line health outcomes such as mortality, we need to measure a range of metrics across the health pathway, including the determinants of health, risk factors, prevention and treatment.

In addition, to understand the distribution of health in a population and address inequalities, we need to measure health across different subpopulations.

Yet there is little evidence on which sub-population groups should be considered. Commonly used segmentations are based on socioeconomic status, geography, gender and ethnicity. However, population health can also be explored across different disease or age groups. In addition, risk factors play an important part in determining population health, and could provide a basis to segment the population. There also exist specific societal or clinical groups that carry particular relevance to policymakers, such as employees, prisoners, homeless people, disabled people or people with drug dependencies.

While all these population groups are important to population health, it is not practically possible, or desirable, to measure and present health outcomes across all possible dimensions. Therefore, we conducted an expert Delphi study, which uses several rounds of questionnaires, where the results from earlier rounds feed into the next in order to reach a consensus among participants. Our goal was to prioritize population segmentation approaches, and guide both the collection and presentation of population health data.

Implications For Policymakers

There exists a clear consensus among health care experts around the need for population segmentation in order to measure population health and health equity. However, there is no single way to do this. All ten population segmentation approaches were considered important by the panel. These results highlight the value of considering the wide range of different population groups that may influence health outcomes.

The results of this study can help researchers and policymakers prioritize the way they analyze and present population health data. In addition, these results should guide the collection of data. For example, the panel considered socioeconomic status and risk factors to be very important, but administrative datasets collect information on these issues in different ways and according to different definitions. Standardizing the collection of segmentation variables would allow population-wide analysis of the distribution of health.

Policymakers should also consider using a data-driven approach to identify population segments, rather than a priori defined population groups. Big data and data mining techniques can help quantify the distribution of outcomes in a population and identify the factors driving these differences.

It is important to note that measuring the distribution of health is only one of the many steps we can and should take to create healthier populations. We must continue to explore how population health will benefit from emerging innovations in technology, service model design and big data and analytics.