Tag Archives: Health Policy

‘What The Health?’ ACA Under Fire. Again.

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

https://khn.org/news/podcast-khns-what-the-health-aca-under-fire-again/

Image result for ‘What The Health?’ ACA Under Fire. Again.

Democrats in the Senate are gearing up to fight President Donald Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, U.S. Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh. They argue he is not only a potential threat to abortion rights, but also to the Affordable Care Act.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration continues its efforts to undermine the workings of the Affordable Care Act. This week, officials announced a freeze on payments to insurers who enroll large numbers of sicker patients, and another cut to the budget for “navigators” who help people understand their insurance options and enroll for coverage.

This week’s panelists for KHN’s “What the Health?” are:

Julie Rovner of Kaiser Health News

Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times

Anna Edney of Bloomberg News

Julie Appleby of Kaiser Health News

Among the takeaways from this week’s podcast:

  • One reason Democrats are rallying around the health issue rather than the abortion issue is that there is more unity in their caucus over health than abortion. Also, the two key Republican senators who support abortion rights — Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) — also voted against GOP efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act last year.
  • The Trump administration’s action on risk-adjustment payments sent yet another signal to insurers that the federal government does not necessarily have their backs and is willing to change the rules along the way.
  • The Trump administration says it wants to cut to payments for navigators because they are not cost-effective. But the navigator money does not come from taxpayers or government sources. It is paid from insurance industry user fees. These funds also go to support ACA advertising — which has also been cut. However, the user fees have not been reduced. In theory, reducing these fees could provide savings that could be passed on to consumers.
  • After being called out on Twitter by Trump, drugmaker Pfizer this week announced it would delay some already-announced price increases on about 100 of its drugs. It is worth noting that the president used his bully pulpit and gained some success. The six-month delay will mean that consumers will not experience an increase in cost at the pharmacy for at least that time period. But it still raises questions.
  • The Trump administration worked to block a World Health Organization resolution to promote breastfeeding. But while this seemed a clear case of promoting the interests of infant formula companies over public health experts, there was pushback from some women who say they are unable to breastfeed and feel stigma when they opt for formula instead. On the other hand, formula can be dangerous in developing countries without easy access to clean water.

 

Forty Years of Winning Friends and Influencing People

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

Forty Years of Winning Friends and Influencing People

An interview with former US Representative Henry Waxman of California.

Of the more than 12,000 Americans who have served in Congress since it convened in 1789, few have had careers as fruitful as Henry Waxman’s. Representing west Los Angeles and its surrounding areas for 40 years, Waxman, 78, left a remarkable imprint on US health policy. His manifold accomplishments were capped by the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010. A son of south-central Los Angeles, he worked at his father’s grocery store, earned a law degree at the University of California, Los Angeles, and in 1968 won a seat in the State Assembly. He was elected to the US House in 1974 in an era when bipartisanship was ordinary and health care had yet to become an overwhelming economic and political force in American life. Waxman was known in Congress for his persistence at wearing down opposition. Republican Senator Alan Simpson of Wyoming famously called him “tougher than a boiled owl” after negotiating the landmark Clean Air Act amendments of 1990. Waxman led efforts to ban smoking in public places and to require nutrition labels on food products. I talked with him recently about his experiences, the future of health policy, and the changing language of health reform. The transcript has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

Q: In 1974, when Los Angeles voters first sent you to Washington, health policy wasn’t the ticket to political influence. You are a lawyer, not a doctor. What drew you to health care?

A: When I was first elected to the California State Assembly in 1968, I believed that if I specialized in a policy area I would have more impact than if I tried to be an expert on everything. Health policy fit my district in Los Angeles, and I could see that government needed to be involved in a whole range of decisions, from health care services to biomedical research to public health. I was chairman of the Assembly Committee on Health. I was elected to Congress in 1974 in a Democratic wave election. I wanted to get on a health policy committee, which was Energy and Commerce. Democrats picked up so many seats and there were so many committee vacancies that year that it was easy to claim one, and I got on that committee. Within four years there was a vacancy for chair of the health and environment subcommittee, and I stepped up to that. It gave me a lot more impact.

Q: What role do you think health care will play in the upcoming elections?

A: If the Democrats do as well as I expect and hope, it will be more because of what Trump was doing in the health area than anything else. Even though people value health care services and insurance, the idea that the president and the GOP wanted to take away health insurance and reduce benefits for people who needed it — that was something they didn’t expect and were angry about.

Q: Is it feasible to provide health coverage to everyone?

A: I have always felt we needed access to universal health coverage. It wasn’t until we got the ACA under Obama that we were able to narrow the gap of the uninsured — those who couldn’t get insurance through their jobs, who weren’t eligible for Medicare and Medicaid, who had preexisting conditions, or who couldn’t afford the premiums. The ACA helped people have access to an individual health policy by eliminating insurance company discrimination and giving a subsidy to those who couldn’t afford coverage. It wasn’t a perfect bill, but it was important. The idea that Republicans would come along and bring back preexisting conditions as a reason to deny people coverage is what drove enough GOP senators to stop the GOP repeal bill from going forward last year. We’ll see what they do by way of executive orders or through the courts to try to frustrate people’s ability to buy insurance.

The Republican ACA repeal bill last year was a real shock because they also wanted to repeal the Medicaid program and allow states to cut funds for people in nursing homes, people with disabilities, and low-income patients who rely so heavily on that program. And they had proposals to hurt Medicare that House Speaker Paul Ryan had been advancing. The American people do not want to deny others insurance coverage and access to health services.

Q: Bipartisanship has gone out of style. Can it be revived?

A: It doesn’t look very likely now, but I built my legislative career on the idea that there could be bipartisan consensus to move forward on legislation. All the big bills had bipartisan support. The only bill that got through on a strictly partisan basis was the Obamacare legislation, and I regretted that. The Republicans just wanted to denigrate it and scare people into believing the ACA would provide for death panels, hurt people, take away their insurance, and keep them from getting access to care. None of that was true.

Q: A growing number of Democrats want to establish a single-payer health care system for the state. Do you agree with them?

A: A lot of people mistake the phrase “single payer” with universal health coverage. While I share the passion of people who want to cover everybody, single payer is not a panacea. My goal is universal health coverage. The Republican attempt last year to repeal the ACA and send 32 million Americans into the ranks of the uninsured was an albatross around their necks.

But the Democrats could turn this winning issue into a loser if some make a single-payer bill such as Medicare for All into a litmus test. I cosponsored single-payer legislation in Congress with Senator Ted Kennedy, and I always sought to bring the nation closer to universal coverage. I authored laws to bring Medicaid to more children and to establish the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and I led the fight to enact the ACA. These bills were very important. If we passed something like a single-payer bill, which would be extremely hard to do, we would be passing up opportunities to make progress. A lot of people who want a Medicare for All bill don’t realize that those of us on Medicare have to pay for supplemental insurance, because Medicare doesn’t cover everything. Medicare doesn’t generally cover certain services like nursing home care, so to get help you have to impoverish yourself to qualify for Medicaid.

One organization is sending out letters telling voters to support a single-payer bill and you won’t have to pay anything anymore. We can’t afford something like that. Democrats can embrace a boundless vision for a health care future without being trapped by a rigid model of how to get there. We should increase the number of people with comprehensive health insurance and focus on lowering costs. People with Medicare don’t want to give it up. People have health insurance on the job.

I would rather expand on what we have and build it out to cover everybody.

People don’t seem to remember that Democrats could barely muster the votes for the ACA when we had 60 votes in the Senate and a 255–179 majority in the House. Even if we recapture Congress and the presidency, I don’t think we would get a Medicare for All bill passed. It would require such a high tax increase that people would be absolutely shocked.

Q: What would be the national impact of California adopting a universal coverage plan?

A: Californian progress would be a model for the rest of the country, and we would be doing what’s right for the people of California who don’t have access to coverage. I think California is a trendsetter — for good and for bad. Proposition 13 and term limits started in California and spread to other states, and I think they have been a disservice. We’ve also done a lot of good things in California, and the rest of the country follows those things as well.

People who try to marginalize California do so at their own risk. People around the country look at California as a leader. California embraced the ACA, expanded Medicaid, and has been moving forward on making sure our public health care system is reforming itself to represent the needs for population health care and to ensure that uninsured low-income patients get access to decent, good-quality health care.

Q: More states are adopting work requirements in Medicaid. Do you think that will become the standard nationwide?

A: Work requirements are inconsistent with the Medicaid law. We’re talking about making people go to work to get health care when they’re sick. I just don’t think it makes sense. The courts may throw it out, and if not, at some point there will be a reaction against it, and it will be repealed by a future Congress.

Q: Some see parallels between the conduct of tobacco companies and opioid makers. Do you think “Big Pharma” will be held to account like “Big Tobacco?”

A: In the difficult fight against big tobacco, one of the lessons we learned was that even an extremely powerful group like the tobacco industry could be beaten if you keep pushing back. Even though there was overwhelming public support for regulation of tobacco, it took until 2009 before we could enact tobacco regulation by giving the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authority to act. In the meantime, there were lawsuits by states to recover money they spent under Medicaid programs to cope with the harm from smoking. With opioids, there will be more and more lawsuits against distributors and manufacturers whose actions resulted in deaths of people from opioid addiction. Congress now is grappling with many bills to help people who are addicted, to prevent addiction from spreading further, and to restrict the ability to get the drug product. I’m optimistic we can come to terms with this crisis.

Q: What have you been doing since retiring from Congress?

A: I wanted to stay in the DC area near my son, Michael Waxman, and his family. He had a traditional public relations firm and he asked me to join him. In the health area, we represent Planned Parenthood in California, public hospitals in California, community health centers at the national level, and hospitals that get 340b drug discounts because they serve many low-income patients. We have foundation grants to work on problems of high pharmaceutical prices, and foundation grants to have a program to make sure women know about the whole range of health services available to them for free under the ACA. I enjoy working with my son and pursuing causes I would have pursued as a member of Congress.

 

 

 

Proposed changes to 340B program would cut DSH eligibility by half

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/hospital-management-administration/proposed-changes-to-340b-program-would-cut-dsh-eligibility-by-half.html

Image result for 340b program changes 2018

A new congressional proposal would raise the minimum disproportionate share hospital adjustment percentage that DSH hospitals must meet to qualify for the 340B drug discount program, eliminating 340B eligibility for over half the participating hospitals, according to a study by 340B Health.

Under the bill, proposed by Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, 573 of the 1,115 DSH hospitals enrolled in the 340B program would no longer be eligible for the drug discounts. Under the current rules, DSH hospitals are eligible for the 340B program if their Medicare DSH adjustment percentage is greater than 11.75 percent. The proposal would raise the qualifying rate to 18 percent.

Here are the 10 states with the most DSH hospitals that would lose 340B eligibility under the proposal:

  1. California (39)
  2. Texas (35)
  3. North Carolina (33)
  4. Georgia (31)
  5. Ohio (29)
  6. Michigan (23)
  7. New York (21)
  8. Illinois (19)
  9. Alabama (19)
  10. Pennsylvania (18)

 

 

Medigap Enrollment and Consumer Protections Vary Across States

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

Medigap Enrollment and Consumer Protections Vary Across States

One in four people in traditional Medicare (25 percent) had private, supplemental health insurance in 2015—also known as Medigap—to help cover their Medicare deductibles and cost-sharing requirements, as well as protect themselves against catastrophic expenses for Medicare-covered services. This issue brief provides an overview of Medigap enrollment and analyzes consumer protections under federal law and state regulations that can affect beneficiaries’ access to Medigap. In particular, this brief examines implications for older adults with pre-existing medical conditions who may be unable to purchase a Medigap policy or change their supplemental coverage after their initial open enrollment period.

Key Findings

  • The share of beneficiaries with Medigap varies widely by state—from 3 percent in Hawaii to 51 percent in Kansas.
  • Federal law provides limited consumer protections for adults ages 65 and older who want to purchase a supplemental Medigap policy—including, a one-time, 6-month open enrollment period that begins when they first enroll in Medicare Part B.
  • States have the flexibility to institute consumer protections for Medigap that go beyond the minimum federal standards. For example, 28 states require Medigap insurers to issue policies to eligible Medicare beneficiaries whose employer has changed their retiree health coverage benefits.
  • Only four states (CT, MA, ME, NY) require either continuous or annual guaranteed issue protections for Medigap for all beneficiaries in traditional Medicare ages 65 and older, regardless of medical history (Figure 1). Guaranteed issue protections prohibit insurers from denying a Medigap policy to eligible applicants, including people with pre-existing conditions, such as diabetes and heart disease.
  • In all other states and D.C., people who switch from a Medicare Advantage plan to traditional Medicare may be denied a Medigap policy due to a pre-existing condition, with few exceptions, such as if they move to a new area or are in a Medicare Advantage trial period.

Medigap is a key source of supplemental coverage for people in traditional Medicare

Medicare beneficiaries can choose to get their Medicare benefits (Parts A and B) through the traditional Medicare program or a Medicare Advantage plan, such as a Medicare HMO or PPO. Roughly two-thirds of Medicare beneficiaries are in traditional Medicare, and most have some form of supplemental health insurance coverage because Medicare’s benefit design includes substantial cost-sharing requirements, with no limit on out-of-pocket spending. Medicare requires a Part A deductible for hospitalizations ($1,340 in 2018), a separate deductible for most Part B services ($183), 20 percent coinsurance for many Part B (physician and outpatient) services, daily copayments for hospital stays that are longer than 60 days, and daily copays for extended stays in skilled nursing facilities.

To help with these expenses and limit their exposure to catastrophic out-of-pocket costs for Medicare-covered services, a quarter of beneficiaries in traditional Medicare (25 percent) had a private, supplemental insurance policy, known as Medigap in 2015 (Figure 2). Medigap serves as a key source of supplemental coverage for people in traditional Medicare who do not have supplemental employer- or union-sponsored retiree coverage or Medicaid, because their incomes and assets are too high to qualify. Medicare beneficiaries also purchase Medigap policies to make health care costs more predictable by spreading costs over the course of the year through monthly premium payments, and to reduce the paperwork burden associated with medical bills.1

Medigap policy benefits were standardized through the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, which also included additional consumer protections discussed later in this issue brief.2 Of the 10 standard Medigap policies available to beneficiaries, Plan F is the most popular, accounting for over half of all policyholders in 2016, because it covers the Part A and B deductibles (as does Plan C), and all cost-sharing for Part A and B covered services.3

The share of all Medicare beneficiaries with Medigap coverage varies widely by state—from 3 percent in Hawaii to 51 percent in Kansas in 2016 (Figure 3, Appendix Table). In 20 states, at least one-quarter of all Medicare beneficiaries have a Medigap policy. States with higher Medigap enrollment tend to be in the Midwest and plains states, where relatively fewer beneficiaries are enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans.4

Medigap coverage is substantially more common for Medicare beneficiaries ages 65 and older than it is for younger Medicare beneficiaries, many of whom qualify for Medicare because of a long-term disability. Only 5 percent of traditional Medicare beneficiaries under age 65 had Medigap in 2015—considerably lower than the shares in older age brackets (Figure 4). The low enrollment in Medigap by beneficiaries under age 65 is likely due to the absence of federal guarantee issue requirements for younger Medicare beneficiaries with disabilities (discussed later in this brief) and higher rates of Medicaid coverage for people on Medicare with disabilities who tend to have relatively low incomes.

Federal law provides limited consumer protections for Medigap policies

In general, Medigap insurance is state regulated, but also subject to certain federal minimum requirements and consumer protections. For example, federal law requires Medigap plans to be standardized to make it easier for consumers to compare benefits and premiums across plans. Federal law also requires Medigap insurers to offer “guaranteed issue” policies to Medicare beneficiaries age 65 and older during the first six months of their enrollment in Medicare Part B and during other qualifying events (listed later in this brief). During these defined periods, Medigap insurers cannot deny a Medigap policy to any applicant based on factors such as age, gender, or health status. Further, during these periods, Medigap insurers cannot vary premiums based on an applicant’s pre-existing medical conditions (i.e., medical underwriting). However, under federal law, Medigap insurers may impose a waiting period of up to six months to cover services related to pre-existing conditions, only if the applicant did not have at least six months of prior continuous creditable coverage.5 As described later in this brief, states have the flexibility to institute Medigap consumer protections that go further than the minimum federal standards.

Federal law also imposes other consumer protections for Medigap policies. These include “guaranteed renewability” (with few exceptions), minimum medical loss ratios, limits on agent commissions to discourage “churning” of policies, and rules prohibiting Medigap policies to be sold to applicants with duplicate health coverage.6 (For further details on these requirements and a history of federal involvement in the Medigap market, see Medigap: Spotlight on Enrollment, Premiums, and Recent Trends, April 2013.)

When does federal law require guaranteed issue protections for Medigap?

Federal law provides guaranteed issue protections for Medigap policies during a one-time, six-month Medigap open enrollment period for beneficiaries ages 65 and older when enrolling in Medicare Part B, and for certain qualifying events. These limited circumstances include instances when Medicare beneficiaries involuntarily lose supplemental coverage, such as when their Medicare Advantage plan discontinues coverage in their area, or when their employers cancel their retiree coverage. Beneficiaries who are in a Medicare Advantage plan also have federal guaranteed issue rights when they move to a new area and can no longer access coverage from their Medicare Advantage plan. In these qualifying events, people ages 65 and older in Medicare generally have 63 days to apply for a supplemental Medigap policy under these federal guaranteed issue protections.

Federal law also requires that Medigap polices be sold with guaranteed issue rights during specified “trial” periods for Medicare Advantage plans. One of these trial periods is during the first year older adults enroll in Medicare. During that time, older adults can try a Medicare Advantage plan, but if they disenroll within the first year, they have guaranteed issue rights to purchase a Medigap policy under federal law. Another trial period applies to Medicare beneficiaries who cancel their Medigap policy to enroll in a Medicare Advantage plan. These beneficiaries have time-limited guaranteed issue rights to purchase their same Medigap policy if, within a year of signing up for a Medicare Advantage plan, they decide to disenroll to obtain coverage under traditional Medicare.

States have the flexibility to institute Medigap consumer protections that go further than the minimum federal standards, such as extending guaranteed issue requirements beyond the open enrollment period or adding other qualifying events that would require insurers to issue policies, as discussed later in this brief.

When does federal law not provide guaranteed issue protections for Medigap?

Broadly speaking, after 6 months of enrolling in Medicare Part B, older adults do not have federal guaranteed issue protections when applying for Medigap, except for specified qualifying events described earlier (Table 2). Therefore, older adults in traditional Medicare who miss the open enrollment period may, in most states, be subject to medical underwriting, and potentially denied a Medigap policy due to pre-existing conditions, or charged higher premiums due to their health status.

Medical Underwriting. Insurance companies that sell Medigap policies may refuse to sell a policy to an applicant with medical conditions, except under circumstances described above. The Text Box on this page provides examples of health conditions that may lead to the denial of Medigap policies, derived from underwriting manuals/guides from multiple insurance companies selling Medigap policies. Examples of conditions listed by insurers as reasons for policy denials include diabetes, heart disease, cancer, and being advised by a physician to have surgery, medical tests, treatments, or therapies.

Barriers for Beneficiaries Under Age 65 with Disabilities. Under federal law, Medigap insurers are not required to sell Medigap policies to the over 9 million Medicare beneficiaries who are under age of 65, many of whom qualify for Medicare based on a long-term disability. (However, when these beneficiaries turn age 65, federal law requires that they be eligible for the same six-month open enrollment period for Medigap that is available to new beneficiaries age 65 and older.)

Beneficiaries Choosing to Switch from Medicare Advantage to Traditional Medicare. There are no federal guarantee issue protections for individuals who choose to switch from a Medicare Advantage plan to traditional Medicare and apply for a Medigap policy, except under limited circumstances described in Table 2. In most states, therefore, beneficiaries who want to switch from their Medicare Advantage plan to traditional Medicare may be subject to medical underwriting and denied coverage when they apply for a Medigap policy because they do not have guaranteed issue rights, with some exceptions (e.g., if they have moved or if they are in a limited trial period). In states that allow medical underwriting for Medigap, Medicare Advantage enrollees with pre-existing conditions may find it too financially risky to switch to traditional Medicare if they are unable to purchase a Medigap policy. Without Medigap, they could be exposed to high cost-sharing requirements, mainly because traditional Medicare does not have a limit on out-of-pocket spending (in contrast to Medicare Advantage plans).7

Some states require guaranteed issue and other consumer protections for Medigap beyond the federal minimum requirements

States have the flexibility to institute Medigap consumer protections that go further than the minimum federal standards. While many states have used this flexibility to expand guarantee issue rights for Medigap under certain circumstances, 15 states and the District of Columbia have not, relying only the minimum guarantee issue requirements under federal law (Table 3).

Only four states require Medigap insurers to offer policies to Medicare beneficiaries age 65 and older (Figure 5). Three of these states (Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York) have continuous open enrollment, with guaranteed issue rights throughout the year, and one state (Maine) requires insurers to issue Medigap Plan A (the least generous Medigap plan shown earlier in Table 1) during an annual one-month open enrollment period. Consistent with federal law, Medigap insurers in New York, Connecticut, and Maine may impose up to a six-month “waiting period” to cover services related to pre-existing conditions if the applicant did not have six months of continuous creditable coverage prior to purchasing a policy during the initial Medigap open enrollment period.8 Massachusetts prohibits pre-existing condition waiting periods for its Medicare supplement policies.

Many other states have expanded on the federal minimum standards in more narrow ways by requiring Medigap insurers to offer policies to eligible applicants during additional qualifying events (Table 3). For example, 28 states require Medigap insurers to issue policies when an applicant has an involuntary change in their employer (retiree) coverage. (This qualifying event is more expansive than federal law, which applies only when retiree coverage is completely eliminated.) Nine states provide guaranteed issue rights for applicants who lose their Medicaid eligibility.9

As noted above, federal law does not require Medigap insurers to issue policies to Medicare beneficiaries under the age of 65, most of whom qualify for Medicare because of a long-term disability. However, 31 states require insurers to provide at least one kind of Medigap policy to beneficiaries younger than age 65 (typically through an initial open enrollment period).10

Some states provide stronger consumer protections for Medigap premiums than others

States also have the flexibility to establish rules on whether or not Medigap premiums may be affected by factors such as a policyholder’s age, smoking status, gender, and residential area. Federal law allows states to alter premiums based on these factors, even during guaranteed issue open enrollment periods.

There are three different rating systems that can affect how Medigap insurers determine premiums: community rating, issue-age rating, or attained-age rating (defined in the Text box below). States can impose regulations on which of these rating systems are permitted or required for Medigap policies sold in their state. Of the three, community rating provides the strongest consumer protection for Medigap policies because it does not allow premiums to be based on the applicant or policyholder’s age or health status. However, insurers in states that require community rating may charge different premiums based on other factors, such as smoking status and residential area. In states that allow attained age rating, older applicants and policyholders have considerably less protection from higher premiums because premiums may increase at unpredictable rates as policyholders age.

Premium rating systems

Community rating: Insurers must charge all policyholders within a given plan type the same premium without regard to age (among people age 65 and older) or health status. Insurers can raise premiums only if they do so for all policyholders of the given plan type. Insurers may still adjust premiums based on other factors, including smoking status, gender, and residential area.

Issue-age rating: Insurers may vary premiums based on the age of the policyholder at the time of purchase, but cannot increase the policyholder’s premium automatically in later years based on his/her age. Additionally, insurers may charge different premiums based on other factors, including health status, smoking status, and residential area.

Attained-age rating: Insurers may vary premiums based on the age of the policyholder at the time of purchase and increase premiums for policyholders as they age. Additionally, insurers may charge different premiums based on other factors, including health status, smoking status, and residential area.

Currently, eight states (AR, CT, MA, ME, MN, NY, VT, and WA) require premiums to be community rated among policyholders ages 65 and older. This means that Medigap insurers cannot charge higher premiums to people because they are older or sicker, and therefore, must charge an 80-year old policyholder the same as a 70-year old policyholder regardless of health status (Table 4). Insurers may still adjust premiums based on other factors, including smoking status, gender, and residential area. A state’s community rating requirement does not, in itself, guarantee that applicants will be issued a policy in the state. However, as described earlier, four of the states that have community rating (CT, MA, ME, NY), have guarantee issue protections and require insurers to issue Medigap policies to eligible applicants either continuously during the year, or during an annual enrollment period.

The remaining 38 states and the District of Columbia do not require premiums to be community rated; therefore, Medigap premiums in these states may be subject to issue-age and attained-age rating systems, depending on state regulation. Medigap insurers are permitted to offer community rated policies in these states, but most do not.11 Additionally, Medigap insurers may increase premiums due to inflation, regardless of the premium rating system.12

Discussion

Medigap plays a major role in providing supplemental coverage for people in traditional Medicare, particularly among those who do not have an employer-sponsored retiree plan or do not qualify for cost-sharing assistance under Medicaid. Medigap helps beneficiaries budget for out-of-pocket expenses under traditional Medicare. Medigap also limits the financial exposure that beneficiaries would otherwise face due to the absence of an out-of-pocket limit under traditional Medicare.

Nonetheless, Medigap is not subject to the same federal guaranteed issue protections that apply to Medicare Advantage and Part D plans, with an annual open enrollment period. As a result, in most states, medical underwriting is permitted which means that beneficiaries with pre-existing conditions may be denied a Medigap policy due to their health status, except under limited circumstances.

Federal law requires Medigap guaranteed issue protections for people age 65 and older during the first six months of their Medicare Part B enrollment and during a “trial” Medicare Advantage enrollment period. Medicare beneficiaries who miss these windows of opportunity may unwittingly forgo the chance to purchase a Medigap policy later in life if their needs or priorities change.13 This constraint potentially affects the nearly 9 million beneficiaries in traditional Medicare with no supplemental coverage; it may also affect millions of Medicare Advantage plan enrollees who may incorrectly assume they will be able to purchase supplemental coverage if they choose to switch to traditional Medicare at some point during their many years on Medicare.

Only four states (CT, MA, NY, ME) require Medigap policies to be issued, either continuously or for one month per year for all Medicare beneficiaries age 65 and older. Policymakers could consider a number of other policy options to broaden access to Medigap. One approach could be to require annual Medigap open enrollment periods, as is the case with Medicare Advantage and Part D plans, making Medigap available to all applicants without regard to medical history during this period. Another option would be to make voluntary disenrollment from a Medicare Advantage plan a qualifying event with guaranteed issue rights for Medigap, recognizing the presence of beneficiaries’ previous “creditable” coverage. For Medicare beneficiaries younger than age 65, policymakers could consider adopting federal guaranteed issue protections, building on rules already established by the majority of states.

On the one hand, these expanded guaranteed issue protections would increase beneficiaries’ access to Medigap, especially for people with pre-existing medical conditions. They would also treat Medigap similarly to Medicare Advantage in this regard, and make it easier for older adults to switch between Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare if their Medicare Advantage plan is not serving their needs in later life. On the other hand, broader guaranteed issue policies could result in some beneficiaries waiting until they have a serious health problem before purchasing Medigap coverage, which would likely increase premiums for all Medigap policyholders. A different approach altogether would be to minimize the need for supplemental coverage in Medicare by adding an out-of-pocket limit to traditional Medicare.14

Ongoing policy discussions affecting Medicare and its benefit design could provide an opportunity to consider various ways to enhance federal consumer protections for supplemental coverage or manage beneficiary exposure to high out-of-pocket costs. As older adults age on to Medicare, they would be well-advised to understand the Medigap rules where they live, and the trade-offs involved when making coverage decisions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kavanaugh Supreme Court Fight Will Be All About Health Care

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

https://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2018/07/10/Kavanaugh-Supreme-Court-Fight-Will-Be-All-About-Health-Care

Image result for supreme court

 

he fight over President Trump’s pick of Appeals Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court is on, with Democrats launching what The Washington Post called “an all-out blitz” to defeat the nomination.

So get ready to hear a lot about health care in the coming days.

The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank notes that former Republican senator Jon Kyl, now a lobbyist for the pharmaceuticals industry, has been tapped to guide Kavanaugh’s path through the Senate. Why? Because by picking Kavanaugh, “Trump has guaranteed that health care will be at the center of the confirmation fight,” Milbank says.

Democrats welcome that fight, even if they have little chance of actually blocking the nomination. “The liberal base is fired up about abortion rights, but Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer (N.Y.) will seek to emphasize access to affordable health care as much as Roe v. Wade in the battle over the Supreme Court,” The Hill’s Alexander Bolton reports.

Focusing on health care might make sense for Democrats in a number of ways:

  • It reinforces the party’s preferred midterm election messaging in an area where voters say they trust Democrats more than Republicans.
  • Framing women’s reproductive rights as a matter of access to health care will be less polarizing in red states where seats are at stake in November, Bolton writes.
  • Playing up access to affordable health care may also put more pressure on Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, both of whom voted against Obamacare repeal last year.

If confirmed, Kavanaugh may get to weigh in on any of a number of cases with the potential to reshape health policy well beyond abortion rights. Despite his long legal record, “many of his health-related decisions are open to parsing from either side of the aisle and don’t actually provide a clear insight into where he’d stand on the Supreme Court,” The Washington Post’s Colby Itkowitz says.

Here are some key issues and cases that could be decided by the Supreme Court and Kavanaugh:

Obamacare’s protections for people with pre-existing medical conditions: Americans overwhelmingly support keeping these protections in place, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation poll from last month, but Trump’s Justice Department has asked a federal court to rule that those provisions of Obamacare are invalid. The case will soon be heard in a district court in Texas and could make its way to the Supreme Court before long. Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, one of the few Democrats who might back Kavanaugh, said in a statement that he wants to hear where the judge stands on the ACA protections for those with pre-existing conditions before deciding whether to confirm him.

Medicaid: A federal court late last month blocked Kentucky’s plan to introduce work requirements for Medicaid recipients. The Trump administration is likely to appeal the ruling. Other states are also implementing work requirements. “As more states experiment with these programs and the cases wind their way through the courts, the Supreme Court may weigh in and shape how low-income Americans access Medicaid across the country,” Arielle Kane, director of health care at the Progressive Policy Institute, writes at the New York Daily News. The high court could also be asked to consider whether private health care providers can sue over Medicaid reimbursement rates, a question that could open the door to state funding cuts.

Risk adjustment payments to insurers: The Trump administration just froze billions of dollars of payments to insurers who enroll costlier-than-expected patients. The payments come from money collected from other insurers in the individual market. Legal challenges involving these payments are making their way through the courts. In the meantime, “the insurers in the individual market must manage uncertainty and constant change — resulting in higher prices for health care consumers,” Kane writes.

Industry consolidation: “Last year, four of the largest insurers tried, and failed, to merge into two. This year, CVS has proposed merging with Aetna, Amazon has acquired PillPack, and Walmart is seeking to combine with Humana,” Kane writes. “This so called ‘vertical integration’ raises questions about monopolies, competition and health-care pricing. It is likely that at some point courts will weigh in.”

 

 

Maryland governor signs federal all-payer health contract

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

https://www.myjournalcourier.com/news/medical/article/Maryland-governor-signs-federal-all-payer-health-13060454.php

Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, center, signs a contract with the federal government for the state's unique all-payer health care model in Annapolis, Md., on Monday, July 9, 2018. Seema Verma, administrator of the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, is on the right and Maryland Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller is on the left. Robert Neall, Maryland's health secretary is standing behind the governor. Photo: Brian Witte, AP / AP

Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan signed a contract with the federal government on Monday to enact the state’s unique all-payer health care model, which he said will create incentives to improve care while saving money.

Hogan signed the five-year contract along with the administrator of the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Seema Verma.

“The Maryland Model provides incentives across the health system to provide greater coordinated care, expanded patient-care delivery and collaboration of chronic-disease management … all while improving the quality of care at lower cost to the consumer,” Hogan said.

He said the model emphasizes the quality of care over the quantity of care.

The Hogan administration said the new contract is expected to provide an additional $300 million in savings a year by 2023, totaling $1 billion in savings over five years.

Maryland is the only state that can set its own rates for hospital services, and all payers must charge the same rate for services at a given hospital. The policy has been in place since the 1970s, though Maryland modernized its one-of-a-kind Medicare waiver about four years ago to move away from reimbursing hospitals on a fee-for-service basis to a fixed budget.

Because that change focused on hospitals only, the federal government required the state to develop a new model that would provide comprehensive coordination across the entire health care system.

Under the agreement, Maryland will be relieved of federal restrictions and red tape that the other 49 states face in the Medicare program. However, the state will have to meet benchmarks of improving access to health care while improving quality and reducing costs.

Verma said the model is the first involving the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services that holds the state “fully at risk for total Medicare costs for all residents.”

“The state and CMS have agreed on the goals, and now our job is to get out of the way and give the state the maximum flexibility to achieve success.”

Maryland health secretary Robert Neall says if successful, the plan could be replicated around the country to address financial strain on Medicare. Neall described the model as being “less transactional and more just taking care of the total person.”

“The incentives are going to be aligned so that it’s right place, right time, right purpose, right price, instead of, ‘Come back and see me in two weeks, and we’ll run the same set of tests on you,'” Neall said.

 

 

The real driver of health care spending

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , • Leave a comment

https://commonwealthmagazine.org/opinion/the-real-driver-of-health-care-spending/

An inefficiency gap is boosting costs — and profits

THE HEALTH CARE DEBATES that occurred in Washington over the past year were largely irrelevant to what’s happening in the health care marketplace. Republicans couldn’t repeal the Affordable Care Act but they made some changes that weakened it. Those changes will increase insurance premiums in the individual market but they do nothing to address the most significant trends that are evolving across the system. To understand the important trends, one must look elsewhere.

In March, three researchers from the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health published a study in JAMA analyzing the well-known reality that the United States spends dramatically more on health care than other wealthy countries. They compared the US, where health care consumes 17.8 per cent of gross domestic product, to 10 comparable nations where the mean expenditure is 11.5 percent. Despite spending much less, the other countries provide health insurance to their entire populations and have outcomes equal to or better than ours. The researchers found that this inefficiency gap is primarily driven by two characteristics of the US system: the high cost of pharmaceuticals and inordinate administrative expenses.

The high administrative spending derives in large part from the fact that 55 percent of the people in the US are covered by private health insurers who embed their own billing requirements, expenses, and profit into the system. The next highest country in this regard is Germany, where 10.8 percent of the population is covered by private insurers. In many countries, there are no such middlemen.

Coincidentally, when the JAMA study was published, the large publicly traded health care companies that dominate the US market had just finished disclosing their 2017 financial results. Examining those results provides additional insight into the economic forces that make our system so expensive and inefficient. The scale of the money involved is sometimes hard to grasp. The largest health care corporations, those included in the S&P 500, had almost $2 trillion in revenue last year. (Table 1)

Most of these enormous companies are engaged in one of two businesses: they’re either selling drugs or they’re selling health insurance. The excess costs reported by the Harvard researchers serve mainly to support the revenue of the companies in those fields.

The 2017 reporting of corporate profits was complicated by the passage of the new tax bill. But most companies also reported “adjusted net income,” which shows their normalized profits after accounting for the one-time impact of the tax law. The chart below (Table 2) uses the adjusted numbers to show the largest annual profits among S&P health care companies.

Health insurers such as United Health and retailers such as CVS have enormous revenue and impressive profits but, when profit is measured as a percentage of revenue, they can’t compete with biotech and pharma. The highest relative profitability, using the same reported adjusted results, is in the chart below. (Table 3)

These profit margins show that there are many situations where between a third and a half of every dollar spent on a prescription drug falls to the bottom line of the of the company that made it. This profit derives in large part from the enormous difference in drug prices in the US versus other countries where such prices are more effectively controlled.

The high administrative cost of the US system stems from the large portion of the market dominated by insurance companies looking to maximize their profits.  Notwithstanding many news stories about turmoil in the insurance markets, 2017 was a banner year for the largest health insurers. The big players all had significant increases in annual profitability in 2017.

Note that Humana did not report “adjusted” numbers even though its profit was swollen by unusual events. A major distortion was a huge break-up fee the company received from a failed merger. That accounted for approximately $630 million in after-tax profit. Even discounting that, it was a very good year.

The revenue and profitability of these corporations support the proposition that high pharmaceutical prices and insurance-related administrative costs account for much of the extraordinary expense of our system. US health policy, or the absence thereof, has enabled these businesses annually to drive costs up for the benefit of their bottom line. That effect will continue. Not surprisingly, the big health care companies are developing new strategies to enhance their businesses and drive their profits going forward.

The term now heard often among health care giants is “vertical integration,” which means combining upstream suppliers with downstream buyers to control the flow of business. If this strategy persists, health care delivery will evolve significantly although it is unlikely to become less expensive. The most prominent current example of  vertical integration is the planned $68 billion acquisition of Aetna by CVS.

How would these companies work together? A Wall Street analyst recently described the vision as a way to “identify high risk patients and preemptively get them into a Minute Clinic.” Thus, your health insurer could send you to a local store for diagnosis, treatment, drugs, and anything else you might need from the shelves. This will keep even more of the health care dollar under their control.

Similarly, Cigna is in the process of acquiring Express Scripts, a huge pharmacy benefits manager, for $54 billion, another attempt to bring more services under one roof. The combined company would have annual revenue of $142 billion and, presumably, enough leverage with drug companies to improve profits although not necessarily to lower costs to patients. United Health, a leader of vertical integration, previously bought a pharmacy benefit manager but co-pays and deductibles for its patients have continued to climb. United has aggressively acquired physician practices in recent years and is now in the process of buying DaVita Medical Group, which operates nearly 300 clinics and outpatient surgical centers.

More striking are reports of a potential but unsigned merger of Walmart and Humana, a combined company that would have revenue of $550 billion. Walmart is a large operator of retail pharmacies inside its stores and the logic is similar to the Aetna-CVS deal. Humana, a huge insurer, is separately in the process of acquiring a large home health business from Kindred so this could represent yet another level of vertical integration.

If this course continues, the health care system will evolve quickly, giving fewer and larger companies even more market leverage. Integration of this kind benefits the large corporations that initiate it but there is no evidence it will lead to lower costs, improved access, or enhanced quality. These changes are driven by highly focused corporate financial interests and are occurring without reference to public policy. That’s because there is no coherent public policy to guide these changes.

On May 11, President Trump made a long-awaited speech to reveal what he described as “the most sweeping action in history to lower the price of prescription drugs for the American people.” His typically firebrand language struck at “drug makers, insurance companies, distributors, pharmacy benefit managers, and many others” who contributed to “this incredible abuse.” His attack seemed to target the large public companies that have benefited from the abuse. Unsurprisingly, his speech did not include specifics. His staff then released tepid policy details, which immediately generated a significant upward spike in the biotech stock index as well as the stock prices of other large health care companies. For all the presidential bombast, investors saw Trump’s policy for what it is: indifference to the current path and no threat to high prices.

It is not in the interest of huge profit-making corporations to restrain the overall cost of the US health care system. In fact, their interest is served by driving health care expenditures higher. When combined with the spending analysis provided by researchers, the financial data disclosed by public corporations point to a path that the country must follow to make our system more coherent and less costly. Any progress will require driving down pharmaceutical pricing and reducing administrative costs imposed by middlemen. We are not doing that yet but, ultimately, we must.

 

 

Just how bleak is the financial outlook for rural hospitals?

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

https://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/just-how-bleak-financial-outlook-rural-hospitals?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWm1abU9EWXhZMlppT0dSbSIsInQiOiJtQm1aMUNkVFBZWmNoUlpQMHRkOHBJcHlEMTg1MDRCa2xPR3h0bXJLWDVjSG1pZU5kZmx5ejNDbWFxMTRHVWR4N0FrQzA4cGgzXC9IdlpLMlBHcFBWemhOWTc3SHR0QUJjdXcxcHk2TTRBZFZxTk55Sis5NVJ2TnRyWFpyaHVWcVMifQ%3D%3D

Nearly half are operating with negative margins, according to new research, which says a high rate of uninsured patients is among the reasons.

With healthcare services being concentrated more and more among major health systems and larger providers, rural hospitals are struggling.

A new study from Chartis Group and iVantage Health Analytics sheds light on the scope of the problem. About 41 percent of rural hospitals faced negative operating margins in 2016, the report found.

If those hospitals were located in a state that elected not to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, those margins were generally worse than those of their peers, suggesting that such expansion had a mitigating effect on financial pressures.

Due to those financial pressures, 80 rural hospitals closed from 2010 to 2016, indicating that the rural health safety net has seen better days.

One of the key factors behind this was a high rate of uninsured patients, and a payer mix heavy on public insurers with lower claims reimbursement rates. More patients are seeking care outside rural areas, which isn’t helping, and many areas see a dearth of employer-sponsored health coverage due to lower employment rates. Many markets are also besieged by a shortage of primary care providers, and tighter payer-negotiated reimbursement rates.

Demographics aren’t helping rural hospitals, either. Patients in rural markets are generally more socioeconomically disadvantaged, with many patients over 65 years old and suffering from multiple health disparities, which lead to higher general healthcare costs.

To make matters worse, there’s a shortage of physicians in rural communities as well, with only about 39.8 physicians per 100,000 people. By contrast, the ratio in non-rural areas is 53.3 physicians per 100,000 people.

All this comes at a time when the shift from fee-for-service payment models to value-based reimbursement is in full swing, putting pressure on all hospitals to reduce costs — which is especially problematic for rural hospitals given that their demographic and staffing challenges have a tendency to drive costs up, not down.

The researchers pointed to the Graves-Loebsack Save Rural Hospital Act as a possible means of mitigating the problem. The bill, introduced by the House in 2015, would create a payment structure whereby 105 percent of “reasonable” costs would be reimbursed; 100 percent of bad debt would be reimbursed; and rural hospitals would be exempt from 2 percent of sequestration of payments.

The authors suggested revisiting the bill, which would also establish the Community Outpatient Hospital Program, a measure aimed at preserving emergency and outpatient care for rural markets. It would also recoup $5.4 billion in lost Medicare reimbursement among rural hospitals over 10 years.

 

 

Abortion debate surfaces in California governor’s race

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-john-cox-gavin-newsom-governor-abortion-20180707-story.html#

Abortion debate surfaces in California governor’s race

The nation’s divide over abortion rights is expected to be a telltale flashpoint between the two candidates for California governor who embrace starkly different views on the issue, even though protections for legal access to abortion have been cemented into state law for decades.

Staunchly anti-abortion and endorsed by organizations opposed to abortion, Republican John Cox argued in 2006 that cases of rape and incest should be no exception to a ban on abortion. Democrat Gavin Newsom wants to increase funding and accessibility for abortion and family planning and is strongly backed by Planned Parenthood, a frequent target of the Republican-led Congress and the Trump administration.

“I think anybody who has a rape and incest exception to abortion really hasn’t thought it through. Killing the baby is not going to absolve the crime of rape,” Cox said at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington 12 years before he finished in second place in the California primary.

Cox made the comment shortly before announcing an unsuccessful campaign for president. He also said he was “100% and proudly pro-life and I offer no apologies for it.”

With President Trump’s pending appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court rekindling the nation’s longstanding political clash over the issue, advocates on both sides foresee the court shifting to the right and a possible overturning of Roe vs. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision that guaranteed a nationwide right to abortion. Though just speculation ahead of having an actual nominee and confirmation hearings, a change in abortion rights probably would be tossed back into the mire of state politics.

“Depending on who Trump nominates, this issue starts to become an advantage to Democrats,” said Chapman University political scientist Lori Cox Han. “For John Cox, there’s really not any advantage at all.”
Though Cox in 2017 trumpeted his endorsement by the California Pro-Life Council and made his opposition to abortion clear, the issue has not been a major focal point of his campaign for governor. Instead, Cox has portrayed himself more as the conservative antidote to the policies of California Democrats that he says have wrought record poverty and homelessness and unaffordable housing and saddled residents with high taxes, including the recent increase in gas taxes.
It’s unlikely that Newsom or his supporters will let Cox’s past statements on abortion go unmentioned.
Cox has cited his Catholicism and also said his views on abortion were shaped after learning that his father “took advantage” of his mother before marrying her. The couple later divorced.
“She didn’t have the choice of an abortion because it wasn’t legal. If it had been, it might have been an easy decision to terminate me,” Cox wrote in “Politics, Inc.,” a political position paper that was published in 2006. “She didn’t, thank God, and so was born my absolute opposition to abortion on demand.”
Cox, a wealthy businessman from Rancho Santa Fe, also is a strong opponent of the death penalty.
“His personal positions on the death penalty and abortion are well known, but as Governor, he would abide by the law,” Cox campaign spokesman Matt Shupe said in an emailed statement to The Times.
Amy Everitt, director for NARAL Pro-Choice California, said the differences between the two candidates for governor who will be on the November ballot have never been more clear.
“John Cox, who’s never held elected office, has been consistent in one way, and that is as an anti-choice leader,” she said. “His values lie far outside mainstream California values.”
She said the group considers Newsom as someone who has been a strong supporter of abortion rights throughout his political career.
California’s lieutenant governor, formerly the mayor of San Francisco, boasted during the gubernatorial primary campaign about his efforts to raise money for Planned Parenthood to increase access to abortion and other healthcare services for women.

Newsom also has called for the state to increase Medi-Cal reimbursement rates to healthcare providers, including Planned Parenthood, and to provide a permanent $100-million allocation for reproductive healthcare from the money raised by Proposition 56, the tobacco tax increase approved by voters in 2016.

Newsom said California’s next governor needs to be a leader in defending abortion rights throughout the country.
“There’s a deliberative effort to roll back reproductive rights in the country, to attack women, to demean women,” Newsom said during a candidate forum sponsored by NARAL Pro-Choice California in January.
“You need leaders to step into that debate. You need to call it out. You need to explain it. You need to expose it.”
Organizers said Cox was invited to the NARAL event, but that he did not respond. It ultimately featured only Democratic candidates.
California first legalized abortion in 1967, years before the Roe vs. Wade decision, and those protections have since been expanded and solidified through legislative statute and rulings by the California Supreme Court. Those protections include the right for funding for abortions provided to women covered by the Medi-Cal program and the right of minors to obtain an abortion without parental consent.
Still, a California governor who opposes abortion possesses enough executive authority to, at the very least, disrupt access, said Susan Berke Fogel, director of the reproductive health and justice programs at the National Health Law Program in Los Angeles. The governor could appoint an anti-abortion director to the California Health and Human Services Agency and cut funding for state programs that help pay for abortions and provide access to birth control, she said.
The governor also appoints judges, including to the state Supreme Court, and could attempt to reshape the judiciary and subsequent legal decisions regarding abortion rights in California.

Decades ago, Republican Gov. George Deukmejian made several cuts to the state’s family-planning programs. Fogel doubts a similar move would survive a legal challenge, but that wouldn’t stop an activist anti-abortion governor from trying, and “it would be disruptive,” Fogel said.

Unlike the U.S. Constitution, California’s Constitution includes a clear-cut right to privacy, a legal foundation protecting a woman’s right to choose to have a child or a legal abortion.

Wynette Sills, director of the anti-abortion organization Californians for Life, agrees with Fogel that even if Roe vs. Wade was overturned, abortion would still be legal in the state.
Still, electing Cox to be the next governor would help prevent the Legislature from making abortion even more prevalent in California. Cox, for example, could use his veto power to reject Senate Bill 320, pending legislation that would require health clinics on University of California and California State University campuses to provide drugs prescribed for medication abortion by 2022.

“Reasonable citizens of California will agree that our state Legislature is to the far extreme in promoting abortion,” Sills said. “We are seeking a reasonable and critical balance to the aggressive abortion actions we’re seeing at the Capitol, and John Cox would provide that balance.”

Most Californians consider abortion to be a settled issue in the state, Han said. For years, they have rejected every attempt to chip away as those protections, including voting against statewide initiatives to require greater parental consent for minors seeking abortions.

A 2017 poll by the Public Policy Institute of California found that more than 70% of Californians believe government should not interfere with a woman’s access to abortion, compared with the 27% who wanted the government to pass more restrictions. That view was held across the political spectrum, including by a majority of Republicans, and the overall findings were consistent in surveys going back to 2000.

 

Insurers warn of rising premiums after Trump axes Obamacare payments again

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-healthcare-obamacare/insurers-predict-market-disruption-after-trump-suspends-obamacare-risk-payments-idUSKBN1JY0RI

Image result for Insurers warn of rising premiums after Trump axes Obamacare payments again

Health insurers warned that a move by the Trump administration on Saturday to temporarily suspend a program that was set to pay out $10.4 billion to insurers for covering high-risk individuals last year could drive up premium costs and create marketplace uncertainty.

The Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) “risk adjustment” program is intended to incentivize health insurers to cover individuals with pre-existing and chronic conditions by collecting money from insurers with relatively healthy enrollees to offset the costs of other insurers with sicker ones.

President Donald Trump’s administration has used its regulatory powers to undermine the ACA on multiple fronts after the Republican-controlled Congress last year failed to repeal and replace the law propelled by Democratic President Barack Obama. About 20 million Americans have received health insurance coverage through the program known as Obamacare.

America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), a trade group representing insurers offering plans via employers, through government programs and in the individual marketplace, said the CMS suspension would create a “new market disruption” at a “critical time” when insurers are setting premiums for next year.

“It will create more market uncertainty and increase premiums for many health plans – putting a heavier burden on small businesses and consumers, and reducing coverage options. And costs for taxpayers will rise as the federal government spends more on premium subsidies,” AHIP said in a statement.

It could also encourage more insurers to bow out of Obamacare.

“This is occurring right at the time of year that people (insurers) are making decisions about whether to participate in the exchanges and what premiums to charge if they do,” said Eric Hillenbrand, a managing director at consultancy AlixPartners. “This will affect their thinking on both of those decisions.”

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), which administers ACA programs, said on Saturday that months-old conflicting court rulings related to the risk adjustment formula prevent them from making payments.

CMS was referring to a February ruling from a federal court in New Mexico that invalidated the risk adjustment formula, and a January ruling from a federal court in Massachusetts that upheld it.

CMS administrator Seema Verma said in a statement the administration was “disappointed” in the February ruling and that CMS has asked the court to reconsider and “hopes for a prompt resolution that allows CMS to prevent more adverse impacts on Americans.”

But supporters of the ACA criticized the CMS announcement as the latest move by the Trump administration to undermine Obamacare.

“We urge the Trump administration to back off of this dangerous and destabilizing plan, and instead begin working on bipartisan solutions to make coverage more affordable,” said Brad Woodhouse, the executive director of Protect Our Care, a progressive group that supports Obamacare.

The administration has made several other moves in recent years to scale back or halt implementation of certain aspects of the ACA.

Late last year, it said it would halt so-called cost-sharing payments, which offset some out-of-pocket healthcare costs for low-income patients.

It has also scaled back the advertising budget for Obamacare healthcare plans during the open-enrollment period by about 90 percent.

“What you are effectively doing is dismantling pieces of [the ACA] without replacing them,” Hillenbrand said. “It moves us back to some extent to the status quo where people with pre-existing conditions found it very difficult to get insurance.”