California Governor Signs Flurry Of Health Laws

California Governor Signs Flurry Of Health Laws

Image result for california state law

AB 72: “Surprise medical bill” legislation by Assemblyman Rob Bonta (D-Oakland) was among the most-talked-about measures of the year in Sacramento. It promises to better protect consumers against unexpected medical bills.

SB 482: Amid a national opioid epidemic, Brown approved legislation that requires doctors to check a patient’s prescription history in a state database before prescribing any potentially addictive drugs.

SB 586: The legislation, a compromise between the Department of Health Care Services and children’s advocates, aims to slow down and improve plans to overhaul the way the state’s most medically fragile children receive care.

SB 908: This bill will allow consumers to learn when their health insurance premium rates have been considered “unreasonable” by state officials. Current law requires that unreasonable rate hikes be posted online by one of the two state agencies that regulate insurers — the Department of Managed Health Care or the California Department of Insurance. But consumers don’t check online, the bill’s supporters argued.

SB 1076: This law, sponsored by the California Nurses Association, was designed to protect hospital patients in “observation” care. It requires that observation units meet the same staffing standards — nurse-to-patient ratios — as those in the emergency room.

Specialty Drug Costs Soar 30% For California Pension Fund

Specialty Drug Costs Soar 30% For California Pension Fund

drug-price-hikes_770

Specialty drug costs jumped 30 percent last year to $587 million for the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, one of the nation’s largest health care purchasers.

Though they amount to less than 1 percent of all prescriptions, specialty drugs accounted for more than a quarter of the state agency’s $2.1 billion in total pharmacy costs. Those overall drug costs have climbed 40 percent since 2010.

The new figures show just how much financial pressure many employers and government agencies face from rising drug costs and why it’s become such a hot topic in California politics and on the presidential campaign trail.

Hepatitis C drugs drove much of the increase for the state retirement system during 2015, as did two rheumatoid arthritis drugs. Drugs for cancer and multiple sclerosis were also among the top 10 specialty drugs for CalPERS.

CalPERS spent the most, $94.5 million, on Harvoni, a hepatitis C drug. It is sold by Gilead Sciences Inc., whose steep prices have drawn public outrage and government scrutiny. The agency spent an additional $16.6 million on Sovaldi, another Gilead drug for hepatitis C.

Apart from specialty medications, CalPERS’ highest-cost drugs were Lantus, for diabetes; Advair, an asthma inhaler; and Crestor, a cholesterol medicine. Painkiller OxyContin rounded out the top 10 at $14.3 million, according to state data.

More than 5 percent of CalPERS’ total drug spending — $118 million — went for Humira and Enbrel, two anti-inflammatory biotech drugs that don’t face competition from lower-priced generics.

POLITICO-Harvard poll: Americans blame drug companies for rising health costs

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/americans-blame-drug-companies-for-rising-health-cost-poll-228866?utm_campaign=KHN%3A+Daily+Health+Policy+Report&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=35091656&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8PbV9cRcxweGuejnRZArmy5BpOsVlplZlnpP5Tlh3Bb4D0hvTxsoCG-nghADRTV3uBXXBbgZHO8RPcxFGbLEAOLxGfVw&_hsmi=35091656

A pharmacist is pictured. | Getty

The poll found 43 percent of Americans are “very or somewhat” worried about medical costs in the coming year, and the top concern (31 percent) is their out-of-pocket costs.

Big-name hospitals often fail to prevent C. diff infections

http://www.fiercehealthcare.com/hospitals/report-c-diff-infections-continue-to-be-a-struggle-for-big-name-medical-centers?utm_medium=nl&utm_source=internal&mrkid=959610&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTVdZNE9UbGtZemxtTXpBMCIsInQiOiJVS01rMXhPNVNhS1c0V2JKaE53TSthTHg0dWFnaXVtcUtXeEZlK0VqQTk3SFBNTG01aEJpVVN0aFhqRDZ5cmFGYitGUmtrZHV0K0JGMHBcL2twN2RBeUpSSk5MaW5vS0NcL25JQTk3T2FFTUhrPSJ9

MicroscopeMicroscope

Some of the most well-known hospitals in the nation rank among the worst in preventing deadly Clostridium difficile infections, according to a new Consumer Reports analysis.

The publication analyzed C. diff infections at hospitals across the country, based on data reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention between 2014 and 2015. It found well-known teaching hospitals like the Cleveland Clinic, Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas, Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles had the lowest or second-lowest ranking, indicators that these hospitals fall short against the national benchmark to control such infections.

“Teaching hospitals are supposed to be places where we identify the best practices and put them to work,” Lisa McGiffert, director of Consumer Reports‘ Safe Patient Project, said in an announcement of the findings. “But even they seem to be struggling against this infection.”

The report analyzed data from more than 3,100 U.S. hospitals and found that more than a third received a low score for C. diff infection control.

Only two large teaching hospitals, Mount Sinai Medical Center in Miami Beach, Florida and Maimonides Medical Center in Brooklyn, New York, earned top marks from Consumer Reportson controlling C. diff.

This is America on drugs: A visual guide

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/23/health/heroin-opioid-drug-overdose-deaths-visual-guide/index.html?utm_campaign=KHN%3A+Daily+Health+Policy+Report&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=34947841&_hsenc=p2ANqtz–YrF401_rgY2Eu0quZOGu9hf5HBQemDWKYHgHZO3RCn4jyYo6VVlHRZJMTNcd5dddYZkCJpItslmEaGArXyBnjA1Y4IA&_hsmi=34947841

Image result for This is America on drugs: A visual guide

In modern history, few things have caused such a sharp spike in US deaths as drug overdoses.

CNN reached out to every state for the latest statistics on drug deaths, with half providing data from 2015. It found that drugs deaths continue to rise rapidly in many states.

Snapshot of Where Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Stand on Seven Health Care Issues

Snapshot of Where Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Stand on Seven Health Care Issues

Image result for Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump on Health Care Issues

While health care has not been central to the 2016 Presidential campaign, the election’s outcome will be a major determining factor in the country’s future health care policy. A number of issues have garnered media attention, including the future of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), rising prescription drug costs, and the opioid epidemic.

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have laid out different approaches to addressing these and other health care issues. Central among these is their position on the future of the ACA. Hillary Clinton would maintain the ACA, and many of her policy proposals would build on provisions already in place. Donald Trump, in contrast, would fully repeal the ACA, and although his policy proposals and positions do not offer a full replacement plan, they do reflect an approach based on free market principles.

See where the candidates stand on seven key health policy issues.

Hillary Clinton’s Health Care Reform Proposals: Anticipated Effects on Insurance Coverage, Out-of-Pocket Costs, and the Federal Deficit

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Publications/Issue-Briefs/2016/Sep/Clinton-Presidential-Health-Care-Proposal

Image result for Impact of Hillary Clinton Proposed Reforms on the number of people with insurance coverage

Issue: Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has proposed modifications to the Affordable Care Act to limit consumers’ out-of-pocket health spending.

Goal: We analyzed four of these policies—cost-sharing tax credits to offset spending above 5 percent of income; reduced premium contributions for marketplace enrollees; a fix to the ACA’s “family glitch,” which leaves some families with expensive employer coverage; and the introduction of a public option on the marketplaces.

Methods: RAND’s COMPARE microsimulation model.

Key findings and conclusions: These policies would increase the number of insured individuals by 400,000 to 9.6 million, and decrease consumers’ health spending relative to current law. Cost-sharing tax credits have the biggest effect—increasing coverage by 9.6 million and decreasing average spending by up to 33 percent for those with moderately low incomes. However, the policies with the largest coverage gains also increase the federal deficit, with impacts ranging from –$0.7 billion to $90 billion.

Donald Trump’s Health Care Reform Proposals: Anticipated Effects on Insurance Coverage, Out-of-Pocket Costs, and the Federal Deficit

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Publications/Issue-Briefs/2016/Sep/Trump-Presidential-Health-Care-Proposal

Image result for Donald Trump's Health Care Reform Proposals: Anticipated Effects on Insurance Coverage, Out-of-Pocket Costs, and the Federal Deficit

Issue: Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has proposed to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and replace it with a proposal titled “Healthcare Reform to Make America Great Again.” Proposed reforms include allowing individuals to deduct the full amount of premiums for individual health plans from their federal tax returns, providing block grants to finance state Medicaid programs, and allowing insurers to sell insurance across state lines.

Goal: To assess how each of these reforms, when implemented individually, would affect insurance coverage, consumer out-of-pocket spending on health care, and the federal deficit in 2018.

Methods: RAND’s COMPARE microsimulation model.

Key findings and conclusions: The policies would increase the number of uninsured individuals by 16 million to 25 million relative to the ACA. Coverage losses disproportionately affect low-income individuals and those in poor health. Enrollees with individual market insurance would face higher out-of-pocket spending than under current law. Because the proposed reforms do not replace the ACA’s financing mechanisms, they would increase the federal deficit by $0.5 billion to $41 billion.

The Health Care Reform Proposals of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/blog/2016/trump-clinton-presidential-health-care-proposals?utm_medium=Facebook&utm_campaign=Health+Coverage&utm_source=Candidates+Blog

Image result for The Health Care Reform Proposals of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump

As president, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump would take the nation down distinctly different paths on health care. In this post, we summarize the health reform proposals of each candidate, and—drawing on new estimates by Christine Eibner and colleagues at RAND Health—compare the proposals’ implications for the total number of people with insurance coverage, people’s out-of-pocket health care costs, and the federal budget.

RAND’s analysis is based on publicly available health care proposals on the candidates’ websites. Where these proposals lacked sufficient clarity for modeling, RAND sought additional information from the campaigns. When answers were not forthcoming, or did not fully resolve questions, RAND made reasonable assumptions that were reviewed and critiqued by independent experts. RAND modeled only those proposals for which it had adequate detail and technical capacity.

The Starting Point

As a starting point, Clinton and Trump propose dramatically different approaches to the Affordable Care Act (ACA): Clinton would maintain the ACA and Trump would repeal it. In estimating the impact of Trump’s proposal, RAND assumes a full repeal of the law including insurance subsidies, expanded eligibility for Medicaid, and individual market reforms such as bans against preexisting condition exclusions. RAND also assumes that repeal would eliminate the ACA’s financing mechanisms such as its Medicare payment reforms and taxes on health plans and medical devices. Consequently, RAND estimates that compared to maintaining the ACA as is, repeal would cause nearly 20 million people to lose their insurance in 2018, increase average premium and out-of-pocket costs for people who buy insurance on their own, and increase the federal deficit. Trump’s repeal of the ACA would increase the federal deficit because the loss of savings from the law’s Medicare reforms and revenues from fees and taxes would be greater than savings from the elimination of insurance subsidies and the Medicaid expansion.

Why the U.S. Needs Medicaid

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/blog/2016/oct/value-of-medicaid?omnicid=EALERT1104254&mid=henrykotula@yahoo.com

Image result for Why the U.S. Needs Medicaid

While most news stories about Medicaid focus on states’ decisions on whether to expand eligibility, the collective impact of the program on beneficiaries, health providers and systems, and state economies is rarely discussed. Given the large share of federal funds devoted to Medicaid, it’s reasonable to assume that policymakers on both sides of the aisle will be considering programmatic or financing changes for the program—or both—early in a new presidential administration. To inform that process, it’s helpful to look at the multifaceted role Medicaid plays in our health system.

When it was signed into law in 1965 as an extension of welfare, few would have anticipated Medicaid would evolve into the nation’s largest health insurer, covering nearly 73 million Americans.1 Today, Medicaid is at the center of the American health care safety net, providing benefits to adults and children otherwise unable to afford care—and helping to support and drive innovation in the hospitals and clinics that treat these patients, as well as supporting state economies.

Medicaid provides people with good insurance. While the program can vary somewhat by state, a growing body of evidence finds that Medicaid provides a comprehensive set of benefits as well as strong financial protections. A 2015 analysis of the Commonwealth Fund Biennial Health Insurance Survey suggests that people with Medicaid coverage have better access to health care services, including proven preventive care, and fewer medically related financial burdens than those who lack insurance (Exhibit 1). The same study found that Medicaid enrollees have nearly equivalent access to care as those with private coverage in many areas.