Analysis: Time for GOP to prove it has a better plan for healthcare reform

http://www.fiercehealthcare.com/payer/analysis-time-for-gop-to-prove-it-has-a-better-plan-for-healthcare-reform?utm_medium=nl&utm_source=internal&mrkid=959610&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTnpkaFpqRm1ZVEZpWkdZMiIsInQiOiJxY1NBT1ZDbGdDQWsxVzRQQ21iOVwvcEVkOFdDVTBIUG9hZWllQ0tiYmFuM2lUVU52Y2JGWkxnNW9BWDJhTWNZSTVTR2QwVmdTYWdIQkFPWGdxZ3FRWlwvRXVuSFFvZ2pKa3NaTUlwU0M1YmVJPSJ9

With Donald Trump headed to the White House and his party firmly in control of Congress, Republicans will finally have a chance to prove what they’ve been saying all along: that they can produce a better version of healthcare reform than the Affordable Care Act.

It’s clear that the ACA is as imperiled as it has ever been. Trump has fervently vowed to repeal it–and with Republican control of both chambers of Congress, he may well get his wish. After all, the law’s most visible component, the exchanges, are on shaky ground as it is, with premiums rising and some health insurers retreating from the marketplaces.

Plus, President Barack Obama’s last attempt at convincing Republicans to work on fixing the ACA–not repealing it–fell on deaf ears even before the party’s resounding victory Tuesday.

What gets lost in all the talk about the ACA’s uncertain future, though, is the fact that while some insurers have struggled to make a profit in the individual marketplaces, there are other aspects of the law to which they have become quite attached.

Take Medicaid expansion, an idea championed by Democrats (and even once embraced by Vice President-Elect Mike Pence) that has been a boon to insurance companies in the form of lucrative managed care contracts. Some companies that specialize in slimmed-down Medicaid plans have also thrived on the exchanges where others have floundered.

Then there’s the ACA’s provisions that encourage the transition to value-based payments, which insurers have embraced and largely retooled their business models to reflect. Accountable care organizations, for example, have sprung up like wildfire, producing promising results for some companies.

A wholesale repeal of the ACA would also erase the law’s historic gains in reducing the uninsured rate. Though many of the newly insured have turned out to be costlier to cover than expected, such a move would still rob insurers of millions of new customers.

The question, then, becomes what will replace the law–and that’s where it gets interesting.

Trump has a plan, but it is short on details. Perhaps most visibly, he has advocated for selling insurance across state lines–a timeworn GOP talking point that many experts agree is not feasible. He would also repeal Medicaid expansion and convert Medicaid federal matching funds into a block grant, the latter of which would drastically cut Medicaid funding and coverage.

One analysis from The Commonwealth Fund says that his plan could add nearly 20 million peopleto the ranks of the uninsured, and even more if his Medicaid proposals come to fruition.

Obamacare defenders vow ‘total war’

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/obamacare-defenders-vow-total-war-231164

Donald Trump is pictured. | Getty

Shell-shocked Democrats on Capitol Hill are preparing to make a fight for Obamacare their top priority in the opening days of the Trump administration, with leading advocacy groups ready to wage “total war” to defend President Barack Obama’s universal health care program and his domestic policy legacy.

“We’ve got the battle of our lifetime ahead of us,” Ron Pollack, executive director of advocacy group Families USA, said the day after Donald Trump was elected on a pledge to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which now the law that covers 22 million people. “We’re going to have a huge number of organizations from all across the country that will participate in this effort.

But their options are limited. They have enough votes to block a total repeal of the law on Day One of a Trump administration. But they can’t block Republicans from passing targeted legislation in the coming months, and Trump — like Obama before him — can pick up a pen as early as Jan. 20 and use executive powers to block, change, or put on hold key elements of the massive six-year-old legislation.

The road to repeal is more complex than Trump acknowledged on the campaign trail. The law is baked into the health care system, touching every American’s life and a fifth of the economy.

But with the Republican sweep of both the executive and legislative branches, expectations for big and bold action are high.

California Faces Major Reversal If Trump, Congress Scrap Health Law

California Faces Major Reversal If Trump, Congress Scrap Health Law

Attendees speak with heath care volunteers during the WeConnect Health Enrollment Information & Wellness Event in Oakland, California, U.S., on Saturday, Sept. 21, 2013. The battle over Obamacare is taking on political importance as Democrats hope a successful roll-out among Hispanics will further bind those voters to the Democratic Party and undermine Republican efforts to build more support before the 2016 presidential election. Photographer: David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty Images

California has a lot to lose if President-elect Donald Trump and the Republican-led Congress fulfill their campaign pledge to repeal Obamacare.

The Golden State fully embraced the Affordable Care Act by expanding Medicaid coverage for the poor and creating its own health insurance exchange for about 1.4 million enrollees. Supporters held California up as proof the health law could work as intended.

But now President Barack Obama’s signature law is in serious jeopardy and California officials are left wondering what Republicans in Washington may put in its place.

“There is no doubt that Obamacare is dead,” said Robert Laszewski, a health care consultant and expert on the California insurance market. “The only question is just exactly how Republicans will get rid of it.”

Health policy experts don’t expect Republicans to immediately kick millions of people off their insurance policies. Instead, they predict lawmakers may repeal parts of the law and allow for some transition period for consumers while a replacement plan is put together.

Still, the personal and financial impact for the state could be jarring. The number of uninsured Californians would more than double to 7.5 million people if the Affordable Care Act was repealed, according to a recent study by the Urban Institute.

Researchers also said California stands to lose an estimated $15 billion annually in federal funding for Medicaid expansion and insurance subsidies — more than any other state. That loss of federal money would make it difficult for California to pursue health reform on its own.

Winners and losers in the health-care industry under President Trump

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/09/winners-and-losers-in-the-health-care-industry-under-president-trump/?utm_campaign=CHL%3A+Daily+Edition&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=37396635&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_aZfGmLhlqwRrHfyWGaWVnP2SQe2RHw8m3kbimVOST7YMyMDvZ_OTnMxlqsd-LmZGL6bFWQzYvKA4rnjFsD0fmc46A2Q&_hsmi=37396635

Image result for obamacare repeal

With much about President-elect Donald Trump’s health-care agenda still unclear, the health-care industry’s initial response to his election has been scattered. Hospital stocks were down. Health insurers’ stock prices were mixed. Pharmaceutical and biotech stocks, on the other hand, got a big bump.

Trump’s clearest policy position in health care has been his commitment to repealing the Affordable Care Act and replacing it with another policy. But the responses to his election varied in large part because the details of exactly what would replace the Affordable Care Act and how that transition would occur have been vague. Without knowing those details, it’s hard for investors to have a clear response, said Benjamin Isgur, a leader in the PwC Health Research Institute.

“These health organizations are like large ships, and you can’t turn them on a dime,” Isgur said. “When you think back to what it took to get ready for the ACA, for many health-care companies, it was two to three years of developing plans and provider networks and marketing plans. . . . There’s a lot of work that is required to implement any new program.”

 

Drug companies just scored a big election victory

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/09/drug-companies-just-scored-a-big-election-victory/?utm_campaign=CHL%3A+Daily+Edition&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=37396635&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_W9hw9hWlg0AQFUq1cLUPfn0SXReW9k_cFDC9jbI6Zl4cBvWUVMRBRYn4CTOFOJ73ZuwJiGhF17XPX8efxYaSLMidFSA&_hsmi=37396635

California voters rejected a closely watched ballot initiative aimed at capping how much most state-funded health insurance programs pay for prescription drugs, a possible bellwether of the lack of political appetite for more widespread policies to tackle high drug prices.

State agencies would have been barred from paying more than the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs does for prescription drugs. VA gets at least a 24 percent discount off the average manufacturer’s price of a drug and is insulated against price hikes larger than inflation.

Proposition 61 was losing with just 46 percent of the vote Wednesday morning, with more than 90 percent of precincts reporting.

The ballot measure was narrowly constructed and would have applied to an estimated 4.4 million people. Still, it had attracted national attention and $109 million in opposition funding, led by the pharmaceutical industry.

It was, in many ways, a test of Sen. Bernie Sanders’s (I-Vt.) sway and of the viability of a key piece of his agenda, which has involved repeated attacks on the pharmaceutical industry over drug pricing. He appeared at last-minute rallies in Sacramento and Los Angeles on Monday to support the measure, called Proposition 61.

Regulatory, Legal Uncertainties Are Barriers To Value-Based Agreements For Drugs

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2016/11/04/regulatory-legal-uncertainties-are-barriers-to-value-based-agreements-for-drugs/

blog_value_price

The past several years have seen an increasing number of new and innovative therapies entering the drug market. Many of these are precision medicines developed to treat a narrowly defined patient population, often with a previously unmet need. These treatments have demonstrated success in improving quality of life and other important health outcomes among indicated patients in clinical trials, but there is uncertainty about patient response rates in real-world settings. These uncertainties have led payers to express concerns about the costs of some new medicines and to implement policies to control patients’ access to those medicines, such as higher cost sharing, health technology assessments, and step therapy (which requires patients to try certain, often less expensive medications before progressing to costlier drugs). This creates a potential problem, as delays in receiving health care, whether due to step therapy or other factors, can be detrimental to patient health outcomes.

Performance-based risk-sharing arrangements (PBRSAs) and value-based agreements (VBAs) have received attention of late because of the flexibility they give private payers, providers, and biopharmaceutical companies to better understand the value of new medicines and align payment with it. By tying payment to real-world outcomes, these arrangements—collectively referred to in this post as VBAs—have the potential to support patients’ prompt and affordable access to new, innovative treatments while also addressing payers’ cost concerns.

Despite considerable interest from stakeholders on both sides of the negotiations, there were few successful examples of VBAs in the U.S. until very recently: Between 1993 and 2013, there were fewer than 20 VBAs executed in the U.S. However, more of these arrangements have recently been announced, although they remain rare, and payers are expressing increased interest.

The academic literature provides information about some of the existing agreements and suggests possible barriers to their execution, but it leaves many questions unanswered. We conducted two-part interviews with a group of five stakeholders regarding their experience with these types of contracts. All respondents had direct experience developing and negotiating VBAs, four as representatives of private insurers and pharmacy benefit managers, and one on behalf of a large pharmaceutical firm launching branded products.

The interviews focused on respondents’ overall perceptions and expectations of VBAs, barriers to adoption, and possible solutions to those barriers (see note 1). In order to solicit unbiased responses, the interviews were double blinded: the sponsor of the research was not revealed to interviewees, and the identity of respondents is not known by the sponsor. We conducted the initial interviews during the summer of 2015 and followed up with the respondents this fall (2016) to understand how perception of VBAs and the barriers to them may have shifted.

No Matter What, Congress Will Act On Health Care Next Year

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2016/11/07/no-matter-what-congress-will-act-on-health-care-next-year/

Blog_Capitol

When Congress passed the Medicare Access and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Reauthorization Act (MACRA) last year, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) said “stick a fork in it; it’s finally done.” While some elements—especially Medicare’s long-flawed Sustainable Growth Rate formula—were permanently remedied, other provisions were temporarily addressed by the bill and come due again in September or December of next year.

So, while the presidential candidates and others consider broad-based health care policies, the passage of which in the near term is dubious, there is a wide array of issues we can bank on Congress taking up, likely in one, consolidated legislative package.

Funding for the CHIP program may be the foremost among these issues, accompanied by a batch of expiring Medicare “extenders” that Congress typically addresses before they lapse. These provisions, which used to reliably hitch a ride on perennial “doc fix” legislation, are expected to travel together in a bill that, along with Food and Drug Administration user fee reauthorizations, is among a few must-pass health bills in 2017. The package will begin to take shape early in the next Congress and ideally gain focus by spring to give states lead-time for budgetary planning, especially with regard to the CHIP and Medicaid components.

Last year, Senate Democrats pushed for a four-year CHIP funding reauthorization, which would have aligned CHIP funding with the Affordable Care Act’s reauthorization of the program itself through 2019. Their efforts fell short in MACRA, although a two-year funding reauthorization keeps the program in the clear until Sept. 30, 2017.

While it’s early to predict what will be included, we anticipate the following potential items will likely be considered in this CHIP funding and Medicare extenders package:

The 2016 Election Reveals The Differences On Health Care Are Deeper Than Ever

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2016/11/07/the-2016-election-reveals-the-differences-on-health-care-are-deeper-than-ever/

mcdonough_exhibit1

We are nearing the grand finale of our long and disheartening election opera, one we dare not ignore because the outcomes matter so much. While the election results will not be determined by public reactions to the Affordable Care Act, the ACA’s fate will be mightily determined by Tuesday’s outcomes. What have we learned about our collective health future over the past 18 months and what might this mean for our health system’s future?

Public Opinion On Health Reform Is As Frozen Today As It Was In Spring, 2015

Kaiser monthly tracking polls show reliably unfavorable attitudes toward the ACA, slightly beating favorables, and stuck since 2014 in 40 percent purgatory. The advantages millions of Americans feel from ACA insurance coverage expansions and other access reforms are balanced by those who now blame the ACA for everything bad that happens in health care. The misnamed Pottery Barn rule—“if you break it, you own it”—applies here even though the dish was broken well before the ACA. Beyond this, if there is one thing on which both sides of the new Republican divide concur, it is a deep hostility towards ObamaCare. The election cycle seems to have only hardened these views.

After shocker election, what are the ramifications for healthcare?

After shocker election, what are the ramifications for healthcare?

Healthcare and Medicine Political Changes Symbolized by USA Flag, Stethoscope

Tuesday’s election was, thankfully, about much more than finding a new U.S. president, though the majority of the electorate shocked the pundits by electing Donald Trump to occupy the White House for the next four years. It was an ugly, contentious campaign, so let’s now turn our attention to healthcare in the name of our sanity.

Beyond efforts to legalize recreational use of marijuana and raise taxes on cigarettes and soft drinks in multiple states, several jurisdictions had ballot initiatives that could fundamentally change aspects of the healthcare delivery system.

Trump vs. Clinton: Voters divided over ACA but 66 percent favor public option

http://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/trump-vs-clinton-voters-divided-over-aca-66-percent-favor-public-option?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTkdNeE1qSTFZelJrT1RFMiIsInQiOiJUS0pqblliV0Y3MUF6SCtjZ1hmWks0eDVvYVpOeCtvZlJcL0RFNWg3WWFFWEU5ajJjQkxGbDIwXC9MMzhubmZBZXdWaENPSWx5bVZBN3JyQWkydU9tS2FONDhhZE5aYnNcL3ppcmNZdlF2Z1V2bz0ifQ%3D%3D

Respondents supporting the idea of the government providing an insurance option to compete with commercial plans could be swayed, researchers say.