Many Insured Children Lack Essential Health Care, Study Finds

A new study to be released on Monday by the Children’s Health Fund, a nonprofit based in New York City that expands access to health care for disadvantaged children, found that one in four children in the United States did not have access to essential health care, though a record number of young people now have health insurance.

The report found that 20.3 million people in the nation under the age of 18 lack “access to care that meets modern pediatric standards.”

Guidelines issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics say that all children should get health maintenance visits for immunizations and other preventive services; management of acute and chronic medical conditions; access to mental health support and dental care; and have round-the-clock availability of emergency services and timely access to subspecialists.

While Medicaid and many private insurance plans recommend or require that all of those services be provided, under the umbrella of what is known as the medical home, the study found that millions of insured children are not receiving many of the benefits.

There are many children with insurance who cannot get primary care and those who do can often have problems getting specialty care.

As President-elect Donald J. Trump, a Republican, vows to repeal some, if not all, of the Affordable Care Act, which extended health care coverage to an additional 20 million people, the report’s authors worry that even more children could have trouble receiving the care they need.

“The fact that more than 20 million children in the U.S. experience insurance and noninsurance barriers to getting comprehensive and timely health care is a challenge that needs to get the highest-priority attention from the new administration,” said the report’s lead author, Dr. Irwin Redlener, president of the nonprofit Children’s Health Fund and a professor of pediatrics and health policy and management at Columbia University.

Over the past two decades, the number of children without health insurance has steadily decreased to 3.3 million last year from around 10 million in 1997, according to an analysis of federal data and the federal government’s 2015 National Health Interview Survey.

The effort to extend coverage began 50 years ago with the creation of Medicaid, which provides health insurance for the poor. It continued more recently with the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which offers low-cost coverage to those who make too much money to qualify for Medicaid and, under the Obama administration, with the Affordable Care Act, offering subsidized coverage and state exchanges.

 

Obamacare repeal plan stokes fears of market collapse

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/obamacare-repeal-market-collapses-231653?utm_campaign=CHL%3A+Daily+Edition&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=37969677&_hsenc=p2ANqtz–Wv-16E4bE7iT4jhF2j2QKWBhCJZPBLuy-TBTKYxxVNSL8KAVSAyRmDFndXujD1e6r6JMx9BX3zcgMSf3biYBAMLyJug&_hsmi=37969677

161118-obamacare-repeal-getty_1160.jpg

Republicans warned for years that Obamacare would blow up the nation’s individual insurance market. Instead, their own rush to repeal the health care law may be what triggers that death spiral.

GOP lawmakers say they plan to repeal the Affordable Care Act as soon as President-elect Donald Trump takes office, including a transition period of a year or two before it takes effect. That way, they satisfy their base while giving notice to 20 million Obamacare customers that they must find other coverage options.

But repealing the law without a replacement is likely to spook health insurers, who might bolt from the markets prematurely to avoid losses as some people stop paying their premiums, while other people rush to have expensive medical procedures before losing coverage. Insurers would have little incentive to stick around without knowing what to expect at the end of the transition. And that could spell chaos for consumers.

“The discussion right now about repeal and replacement is making the market very, very nervous,” said Washington Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler, a Democrat. “I would not be surprised to see the potential for a stampede to exit the market.”

Even if Congress delays immediate action to kill the health care law, Obamacare insurers would have just a few months to decide whether to stay in the law’s marketplaces for 2018. Deep uncertainty about the Republicans’ Obamacare replacement could drive out those companies, cutting off insurance for, potentially, millions of customers.

“A repeal that kicks the can on replace would put the market in serious jeopardy, and the American people will hold them accountable for the results,” Topher Spiro, who heads health policy at the left-leaning Center for American Progress, said on a call with Obamacare supporters last week.

Uncertainty about Obamacare’s future is occurring against the backdrop of strong demand for coverage. More than 1 million people signed up through HealthCare.gov in the first two weeks of the current enrollment season, including 100,000 who enrolled the day after the election, according to the Department of Health and Human Services. The administration projects that 13.8 million people will participate this season, which ends about two weeks after Trump takes office. Millions more — including young adults on their parents’ policies and those in expanded Medicaid — will also get coverage this cycle.

Uncertain Fate Of Health Law Giving Health Industry Heartburn

Uncertain Fate Of Health Law Giving Health Industry Heartburn

WASHINGTON, DC - NOVEMBER 10:  President-elect Donald Trump (L) talks after a meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama (R) in the Oval Office November 10, 2016 in Washington, DC. Trump is scheduled to meet with members of the Republican leadership in Congress later today on Capitol Hill.  (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Six years into building its business around the Affordable Care Act, the nation’s $3 trillion health care industry may be losing that political playbook.

Industry leaders, like many voters, were stunned by the election of Donald Trump and unprepared for Republicans’ plans to “repeal and replace” Obamacare.

In addition, Trump’s vague and sometimes conflicting statements on health policy have left industry officials guessing as to the details of any substitute for the federal health law.

“It will be repealed and replaced,” Trump said Sunday in an interview on CBS’ “60 Minutes.” At the same time, he vowed to preserve popular provisions of the law like ensuring that people with preexisting conditions can get insurance and allowing young adults to stay on their parents’ health plans.

Charles (Chip) Kahn, chief executive of the Federation of American Hospitals, said that before the election, health groups had not been meeting with Republicans about a rewrite of the law “because the working assumption was we had a program that wasn’t going anywhere. That working assumption is now no longer operative.”

Upending the health law plays havoc with a health industry that had invested heavily in strategies geared to the ACA’s financial incentives. The flipped script initially left some industry groups speechless. Others issued bland statements pledging cooperation with the next administration as they awaited greater clarity from the next president.

Said Donald Crane, who heads CAPG, a national trade group for physician organizations: “Nobody was ready for this. We didn’t have a Plan B.”

The results appear to have rattled the fragile industry coalition that the Obama administration carefully crafted to support the law. Looking ahead, some health sectors might have even more reason to worry.

The hospital industry may be the most vulnerable to proposed changes, which could result in millions of Americans losing health coverage, both through the insurance exchanges and expansion in the Medicaid program for those with lower incomes.

Health Care Reform Efforts Throughout History

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obamacare-medicaid-medicare-gop-chopping-block_us_582a19b8e4b060adb56fbae7?jn7jtocg8bzqia4i&slideshow=true#gallery/55b7e5fae4b0a13f9d1a9efc/0

 

Not Just Obamacare: Medicaid, Medicare Also On GOP’s Chopping Block

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obamacare-medicaid-medicare-gop-chopping-block_us_582a19b8e4b060adb56fbae7?jn7jtocg8bzqia4i

rious about repealing Obamacare, and doing so quickly. But don’t assume their dismantling of government health insurance programs will stop there.

For about two decades now, Republicans have been talking about radically changing the government’s two largest health insurance programs, Medicaid and Medicare.

The goal with Medicaid is to turn the program almost entirely over to the states, but with less money to run it. The goal with Medicare is to convert it from a government-run insurance program into a voucher system ― while, once again, reducing the money that goes into the program.

House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) has championed these ideas for years. Trump has not. In fact, in a 2015 interview his campaign website highlighted, he vowed that “I’m not going to cut Medicare or Medicaid.” But the health care agenda on Trump’s transition website, which went live Thursday, vows to “modernize Medicare” and allow more “flexibility” for Medicaid.

In Washington, those are euphemisms for precisely the kind of Medicare and Medicaid plans Ryan has long envisioned. And while it’s never clear what Trump really thinks or how he’ll act, it sure looks like both he and congressional Republicans are out to undo Lyndon Johnson’s health care legacy, not just Barack Obama’s.

f course, whenever Trump or Republicans talk about dismantling existing government programs, they insist they will replace them with something better ― implying that the people who depend on those programs now won’t be worse off.

But Republicans are not trying to replicate what Medicaid, Medicare and the Affordable Care Act do now. Nor are they trying to maintain the current, historically high level of health coverage nationwide that these programs have produced. Their goal is to slash government spending on health care and to peel back regulations on parts of the health care industry, particularly insurers.

This would mean lower taxes, and an insurance market that operates with less government interference. It would also reduce how many people get help paying for health coverage, and make it so that those who continue to receive government-sponsored health benefits will get less help than they do now.

It’s difficult to be precise about the real-world effects, because the Republican plans for replacing existing government insurance programs remain so undefined. Ryan’s“A Better Way” proposal is a broad, 37-page outline without dollar figures, and Senate Republican leaders have never produced an actual Obamacare “replacement” plan.

But the Republican plans in circulation, along with the vague ― and shifting ― health care principles Trump endorsed during the campaign, have common themes. And from those it’s possible to glean a big-picture idea of what a fully realized version of the Republican health care agenda would mean.

20 Questions for President Trump

20 Questions for President Trump

whitehouse_featured

The last six and a half years have been uncharted territory in our nation’s century-long debate over health reform. For the first time the fight was about how to implement an attempt at near-universal coverage rather over what this plan should look like and what could win enough support in Congress. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) has survived major political, legislative, and legal tests, including dozens of repeal votes, two Supreme Court decisions, the 2012 presidential election, and state-level resistance.

I was outside the Supreme Court on June 25, 2015 when the King v. Burwell decision was released. I was there the moment activists switched their signs from saying “Don’t you dare take my care” to “The ACA is here to stay.” I wrote that we could finally say with some certainty that they were right, the law is here to stay. They were wrong. I was wrong.

Donald Trump’s victory throws the future of health reform into complete chaos. He will take office in January 2017 with Republican majorities in the House and Senate. President Trump, Speaker Ryan, and Senate Majority Leader McConnell have all made repeated promises to get rid of Obamacare. They will face enormous pressure to follow through with their threats of repeal. Approximately 21 million people are projected to lose insurance if they follow through with their initial proposals.

The first step to figuring out where to go from here is understanding what decisions are on the horizon. Here are my first 20 questions about health reform under the Trump administration , in no particular order:

What Would Block Grants or Limits on Per Capita Spending Mean for Medicaid?

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2016/nov/medicaid-block-grants

ABSTRACT

Issue: President-elect Trump and some in Congress have called for establishing absolute limits on the federal government’s spending on Medicaid, not only for the population covered through the Affordable Care Act’s eligibility expansion but for the program overall. Such a change would effectively reverse a 50-year trend of expanding Medicaid in order to protect the most vulnerable Americans.

Goal: To explore the two most common proposals for reengineering federal funding of Medicaid: block grants that set limits on total annual spending regardless of enrollment, and caps that limit average spending per enrollee.

Methods: Review of existing policy proposals and other documents.

Key findings and conclusions: Current proposals for dramatically reducing federal spending on Medicaid would achieve this goal by creating fixed-funding formulas divorced from the actual costs of providing care. As such, they would create funding gaps for states to either absorb or, more likely, offset through new limits placed on their programs. As a result, block-granting Medicaid or instituting “per capita caps” would most likely reduce the number of Americans eligible for Medicaid and narrow coverage for remaining enrollees. The latter approach would, however, allow for population growth, though its desirability to the new president and Congress is unclear. The full extent of funding and benefit reductions is as yet unknown.

New 11-Country Health Care Survey: U.S. Adults Skip Care Due To Costs, Struggle Financially, And Have The Worst Health

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/press-releases/2016/nov/international-survey-release

A new 11-country survey from The Commonwealth Fund finds that adults in the United States are far more likely than those in 10 other high-income nations to go without needed health care because of costs and to struggle to afford basic necessities such as housing and healthy food. The survey findings, published today as a Health Affairs Web First article, also indicate that Americans are sicker than people in other countries and experience high levels of emotional distress.

Despite a significant decline from 2013, about one-third (33%) of U.S. adults went without recommended care, did not see a doctor when sick, or failed to fill prescriptions because of cost. By comparison, as few as 7 percent in the U.K. and Germany and 8 percent in the Netherlands and Sweden experienced these cost problems. The U.S. also stands out for its exceptionally high rate of material hardship. Fifteen percent of U.S. adults reported worrying about having enough money for nutritious food and 16 percent reported struggling to afford their rent or mortgage.

Adults in the U.S. were also the most likely to be in poor health. More than a quarter (28%) of U.S. respondents reported having multiple chronic illnesses—by far the highest rate of any country surveyed—and a similar proportion (26%) said they experienced emotional distress in the past year that was difficult to cope with on their own. Respondents in Canada (27%) and Sweden (24%) reported similar levels of emotional distress.

The Commonwealth Fund’s 2016 international survey interviewed 26,863 adults from Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Questions focused on people’s experiences with their country’s health care system—comparing their assessments of health care access, quality, and affordability—as well as on self-reported health and well-being. The study’s authors note that by examining the variation in performance of national health systems, the U.S. can gain useful insights as it implements new reforms and seeks to meet the needs of vulnerable patients.

“Previous surveys have shown that, especially compared to other industrialized nations, the U.S. has far too many people who can’t afford the care they need, even when they have health insurance,” said Robin Osborn, Vice President and Director of The Commonwealth Fund’s International Program in Health Policy and Practice Innovations and the study’s lead author. “This survey underscores that we can do better for our sickest and poorest patients, and that should be a high priority in efforts to improve our current system.”

What’s going to happen with House v. Burwell?

What’s going to happen with House v. Burwell?

Image result for house vs burwell

I’m getting a lot of head-scratching questions about the lawsuit, which is now pending at the D.C. Circuit. Let me see if I can help.

As I see it, there are two distinct questions in play:

  1. Does President Trump want to stop making cost-sharing payments on Day One, leading to the immediate collapse of the individual insurance market in many states? Or does he want to keep making the payments during a transition period?
  2. What approach will the Trump administration take to the litigation?

Value-based care will likely continue under Trump

http://www.fiercehealthcare.com/finance/value-based-care-will-likely-continue-under-trump-administration?utm_medium=nl&utm_source=internal&mrkid=959610&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWVRsaVpESTVOVGN5TW1ZeCIsInQiOiJ4SUR1VG42K1ltRHorVmE5QUgwZ1A5ZGJMMjhDZ1g0Um4rczVTZVVFMHBGYkVZQjVKTGlBekduM005OEVuTklVdmdyMmNOakx2NVNYOTh3TVpNV0ZHXC9ydndRSTZDMTIrNEw0QlVTb2J6V0E9In0%3D

Doctor talking to senior patient and her husband

Despite President-elect Donald Trump’s campaign promises to repeal the Affordable Care Act, industry experts say value-based care initiatives will likely continue under the new White House administration.

Healthcare finance takes the spotlight

Although it’s likely that certain aspects of the ACA will change, demand for value-based care will not go away, write NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital’s Emme L. Deland, senior vice president and chief strategy officer, and Jonathan Gordon, director of NYP Ventures, in a post for NEJM Catalyst.

“At the moment, it seems likely that healthcare financing will get more attention than healthcare delivery under the new administration,” they write.

François de Brantes, executive director for the Health Care Incentives Improvement Institute, agrees, writing in a separate post for NEJM Catalyst that the bipartisan Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act will help fuel the movement away from fee-for-service payments.