House GOP warming to ObamaCare fix

House GOP warming to ObamaCare fix

Image result for aca stabilization

Key House Republicans are warming to a proposal aimed at bringing down ObamaCare premiums, raising the chances of legislative action this year to stabilize the health-care law.

House GOP aides and lobbyists say that top House Republicans are interested in funding what is known as reinsurance. The money could be included in a coming bipartisan government funding deal or in another legislative vehicle.

Any action from Republicans to stabilize ObamaCare would be a major departure from the party’s long crusade against the law, but after having failed to repeal the Affordable Care Act last year, the discussion is shifting.

Rep. Ryan Costello (R-Pa.) is one of the leaders of the push in the House and is sponsoring a bill to provide ObamaCare stability funding in 2019 and 2020. He notes the relatively short-term nature of his measure.

“That reflects the political reality that we are not going to be doing some large, sweeping health-care bill in the next year,” said Costello, who faces a competitive reelection race this year.

“I am optimistic that it would be under serious consideration for inclusion in the omnibus,” he added.

Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) noted the possibility of action on an ObamaCare stability measure, particularly funding for reinsurance, at an event in Wisconsin in January, saying he thought there could be a “bipartisan opportunity” on the issue.

Action on the reinsurance payments is far from certain; conservative opposition to what some view as a bailout of ObamaCare insurers could stop the proposal in its tracks. But there is growing momentum for the idea, and Republicans said the proposal would likely be discussed more at the GOP retreat this week in West Virginia.

The push on reinsurance matches up with one of the ObamaCare bills that Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) has been pushing in the Senate.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) gave Collins a commitment to support a reinsurance bill as well as another stability measure from Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.) in exchange for Collins’s support for tax reform in December.

Opposition in the House has always been the major impediment to those measures moving forward. But it now appears some of that resistance is softening, at least on the reinsurance measure, now that Republicans have repealed ObamaCare’s individual mandate through the tax bill.

Importantly, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Greg Walden (R-Ore.), whose panel has jurisdiction, is supporting the ObamaCare stabilization efforts and backs Costello’s bill.

“Chairman Walden is supportive of Rep. Costello’s efforts to help states repair their insurance markets that have been damaged by Obamacare,” an Energy and Commerce spokesperson wrote in an email. “Rep. Costello’s bill is a fair approach to granting states greater flexibility to help patients and lower costs.”

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), the fourth-ranking Republican in House leadership, is also a co-sponsor of Costello’s stabilization bill.

While House conservatives have opposed propping up ObamaCare, Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) did not dismiss the payments out of hand on Tuesday.

“If it lowers premiums, I’m willing to listen to any ideas,” said Meadows, who is chairman of the House Freedom Caucus.

He warned that he did not want a proposal to be an “insurance bailout,” but noted that he has been talking to colleagues in the House and Senate about the issue.

Another obstacle for an ObamaCare fix is a dispute over abortion. Republicans are adamant that a stabilization measure must include restrictions on the new funding being used to cover abortion services, a notion that is problematic for Democrats.

Reinsurance funding is used to help insurers cover the costs of especially sick patients, which helps relieve pressure on premiums for the broader group of enrollees.

The other main stabilization measure, from Alexander and Murray, would fund ObamaCare payments that reimburse insurers for giving discounts to low-income enrollees, known as cost-sharing reductions (CSRs).

Republican sources say there is less momentum in the House for funding CSRs than there is for the reinsurance measure. But even some Democrats are now questioning whether funding CSRs still makes sense, given that through a quirk in the law, President Trump’s cancellation of the payments last year actually led to increased subsidies and lower premiums for many enrollees.

Rep. Phil Roe (R-Tenn.), for example, a leading House Republican on health-care issues as co-chairman of the GOP Doctors Caucus, said Tuesday that he feels negatively about the idea of funding CSRs but likes the idea of reinsurance.

Roe pushed back on the idea that the funding would be propping up ObamaCare, saying that the repeal of the individual mandate had changed the discussion because people no longer were forced to buy coverage.

Roe said he runs into people in his district paying more than $1,000 per month in premium costs.

“We’re going to have to do something,” he said.

Expert Advice For The Corporate Titans Taking On Health Care

Expert Advice For The Corporate Titans Taking On Health Care

An announcement Tuesday by three of the nation’s corporate titans — Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway and JPMorgan Chase & Co. — that they are joining forces to address the high costs of employee health care has stirred the health policy pot. It immediately sent shock waves through the health sector of the stock market and reinvigorated talk about health care technology, value and quality.

Though details regarding the undertaking are thin, the companies said in a release that their partnership’s intent is to improve employee satisfaction and hold down costs by bringing “their scale and complementary expertise to this long-term effort.”

They plan to create an independent company, “free from profit-making incentives and constraints,” to focus on “technology solutions.”

Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett described health care costs as “a hungry tapeworm on the American economy,” and Amazon founder and CEO Jeff Bezos said the partnership was “open-eyed about the degree of difficulty” ahead. Jamie Dimon, chairman and CEO of JPMorgan, said the results could benefit the employees of these companies and possibly all Americans

But what does all of this mean and how can it be successful when so many other initiatives have fallen short? KHN asked a variety of health policy experts their thoughts on this venture, and what advice they would offer these CEOs as they go forward. Some of the advice has been edited for clarity and length.


Tom Miller, resident fellow, American Enterprise Institute (Courtesy of Tom Miller)

Tom Miller, resident fellow, American Enterprise Institute:

“It’s great that someone theoretically with resources would try to build a better mousetrap. But it’s been difficult to do, and part of it is regulatory and competitive barriers are well-constructed in the health care sphere, which tend to make it less receptive or subject to competitive pressures.

“I welcome any new capital trying to disrupt health care. … The incumbents are comfortable and could use disruption. If Amazon has an idea, and is willing to put some money behind it, that’s wonderful. What they are willing to do other than fly low-cost providers for home visits in drones — I don’t know. They’d probably have to miniaturize them, wouldn’t they?”


Stan Dorn, senior fellow, Families USA (Courtesy of Stan Dorn)

Stan Dorn, senior fellow, Families USA:

“Number one, look at prices. America doesn’t use more health care than European countries, but we pay a lot more and that’s because of prices more than anything else. Look at hospital prices and prescription drug prices. I would also say, look to eliminate middlemen operating in darkness. I’m thinking in particular of pharmacy benefit managers. Often, the supply chain is hidden and complex and every step along the way the middlemen are taking their share, and it winds up costing a huge amount of money.”


Bob Kocher, partner, Venrock (Courtesy of Bob Kocher)

Bob Kocher, partner, Venrock:

“It has been said that health care is complicated. One thing that is not complicated is that the way to save money is to focus on the sickest patients. And that’s the only thing that has proven to work in great primary care. I hope Amazon realizes this early and does not think that [its smart digital assistant] Alexa and apps are going to make us healthier and save any money.

“It would sure be nice if they invest in a ‘post-CPT-ICD-10-and-many-bills-per-visit’ world where we know prices, can easily know what is known about quality and experience, and have same-day service.”


Tracy Watts, senior partner, Mercer (Courtesy of Tracy Watts)

Tracy Watts, senior partner, Mercer:

“Everyone thinks millennials want to do everything on their phones. But that’s not necessarily the case.

“[There was a recent] survey about this — specifically, millennials are the most interested in new health care offerings, but it wasn’t as much high-tech as it is convenience they are interested in — same-day appointments with a family doctor, guaranteed appointments with specialists, home visits, a wider array of services available at retail clinics. That was kind of an ‘aha’ — this kind of convenience and high-touch experience is what they’re looking for. And when you think of ‘health care of the future,’ that’s not what comes to mind.”


John Rother, president and CEO, National Coalition on Health Care (Courtesy of John Rother)

John Rother, president and CEO, National Coalition on Health Care:

“Health care is complex and expensive, so the aim should always be simplicity and affordability. Three keys to success: manage chronic conditions recognizing the life context of the patient, emphasize primary care-based medical homes and aggressively negotiate prescription drug costs.”


Suzanne Delbanco, executive director, Catalyst for Payment Reform (Courtesy of Suzanne Delbanco)

Suzanne Delbanco, executive director, Catalyst for Payment Reform:

“The biggest driver of health care costs is prices. Those are being driven up by health care providers who have consolidated and will continue to consolidate and amass more market power.

“It sounds like they [the companies] are limiting the use of health plans, but if they’re going to get into that business, they’re going to come up with the same challenges health plans face. What would be really innovative would be to build some provider systems from the ground up where they can truly get a handle on the actual costs and eliminate the market power that drives the prices up, and they can have control over their prices.”


Brian Marcotte, president and CEO, National Business Group on Health (Courtesy of Brian Marcotte)

Brian Marcotte, president and CEO, National Business Group on Health:

“They recognize this is [a] long-term play to get involved in this. I’d have to say, this industry is ripe for disruption.

“I think we know technology will continue to play an increasing role in how consumers access and receive health care. We’ve also learned most consumers do not touch the health care delivery system with enough frequency to ever be a sophisticated consumer. What’s intriguing about this partnership is Amazon for many consumers has become part of their day-to-day world, part of their routine. It’s intriguing to consider the possibilities of integrating health care into consumer routine.

“And I think that therein lies the opportunity. Employers offer a lot of resources to their employees to help them maximize their experience, and their No. 1 challenge is engagement.”


Joseph Antos, health economist, American Enterprise Institute (Courtesy of Joseph Antos)

Joseph Antos, health economist, American Enterprise Institute:

“My first suggestion is to look at what other employers have done (some unsuccessfully) and consider how to adapt those ideas for the three companies and more broadly. Change incentives for providers. Change incentives for consumers. Work on ways to reduce the effects of market consolidation. The bottom line: Don’t keep doing what we are doing now. I don’t see that these three companies have enough presence in health markets to pull this off anytime soon, but perhaps this should be viewed as the private-sector version of the Affordable Care Act’s Innovation Center— except, this time, there may be some new ideas to test.”


Ceci Connolly, president and CEO, Alliance of Community Health Plans (Courtesy of Ceci Connolly)

Ceci Connolly, president and CEO, Alliance of Community Health Plans:

“We know that 5 percent of any population consumes 50 percent of the health care dollar. I would encourage this group to focus on how to better serve those individuals who need help managing multiple chronic conditions.”


David Lansky, CEO, Pacific Business Group on Health (Courtesy of David Lansky)

David Lansky, CEO, Pacific Business Group on Health:

“The incumbent providers of services to our members are not doing as much as we need done for affordability and quality. So, we are pleased to see them go down this path. We don’t know what piece of the puzzle they will tackle.

“We know well-intended efforts over the years haven’t added up to material impact on cost and quality. I would suspect they are looking at doing something broader, more disruptive than initiatives we have tried before.

“I think across the board they have the opportunity to set high standards for the health system in whatever platform they use. These companies have a history of raising the bar. Potentially, it could be a help to all of us.”

The state of our health care system is …

Image result for state of our healthcare system

The state of our health care system is …
Trump didn’t have much to say about health policy during SOTU last night. But we’re definitely at a health care crossroads right now. So I asked a handful of the smartest policy experts for their assessments.

What they’re saying: The state of the health care system is…

  • Mixed and murky … The ACA marketplace gets all the attention, and while enrollment has been stronger than expected and insurers are now profitable, the future is uncertain … Looking at the bigger picture, we in the U.S. spend far more on health care than any other wealthy country, and what we get for it is worse outcomes and shorter life expectancy.” — Larry Levitt, Kaiser Family Foundation
  • Exciting … There is a tremendous space for innovation and experimentation … The challenge now is for the states to find ways to craft programs that fit local circumstances and values.” — David Anderson, Duke University
  • Complicated, and things will get more complex before they get easier … It will be a time period of trade-offs, where attempts to gain savings will require that some people won’t get access to low-value care that they desire, while others will hopefully get the care that they need.” — Craig Garthwaite, Northwestern University
  • “Better than we expected a year ago, but still greatly uncertain … The irony of the past year is President Trump and Republicans have ratified the public consensus around the ACA, and maybe something more radical.” — Harold Pollack, University of Chicago

The bottom line: We’re in a period of intense change, both politically and practically.

SOTU Healthcare Speed-Read

Image result for state of healthcare

In State of the Union address last night, President Trump did mention a couple things about health care (not much new).

Key SOTU quotes:

  • “We repealed the core of disastrous Obamacare — the individual mandate is now gone.” (Fact check: The mandate is not gone yet; it disappears next year.)
  • “We must get much tougher on drug dealers and pushers if we are going to succeed in stopping this scourge. My administration is committed to fighting the drug epidemic and helping get treatment for those in need.”
  • “Patients with terminal conditions should have access to experimental treatments that could potentially save their lives … It is time for the Congress to give these wonderful Americans the ‘right to try.'”
  • “One of my greatest priorities is to reduce the price of prescription drugs. In many other countries, these drugs cost far less than what we pay in the United States. That is why I have directed my administration to make fixing the injustice of high drug prices one of our top priorities for the year. And prices will come down substantially.”

Yes, but: Standard caveats apply on drug prices — those other countries pay less, in many cases, because of government-imposed price controls that Republicans staunchly oppose implementing here.

Notable: There was no push, even rhetorically, to repeal the rest of the Affordable Care Act.

Poll: Majority want Trump to focus on health care in State of the Union

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/371219-majority-of-voters-want-trump-to-focus-on-health-care-in-state-of-the-union

Image result for state of the union

 

Most voters think President Trump‘s first State of the Union address should focus on improving the health-care system, according to a new Morning Consult–Politico poll.

According to the poll, 82 percent of voters say it’s important for Trump to address improving the health-care system in the speech, followed closely by the 81 percent who said it’s important for him to talk about the economy and creating jobs.

Providing direction and leadership and reducing poverty in the U.S. came in third, while fighting terrorism followed.The poll surveyed 1,994 registered voters from Jan. 18 to 20 and has a margin of error of 2 percentage points.

It’s unlikely Trump will put a large focus on health care during his speech Tuesday evening.

Congress failed to repeal and replace ObamaCare multiple times last year, though lawmakers did repeal the law’s unpopular individual mandate that most people have insurance or pay a fine.

Trump will likely pressure Congress on immigration as it works to find a deal on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

Trump is also going to focus on laying out an trillion-dollar infrastructure plan and the recently passed tax-reform bill.

Bipartisan Bill Would Increase Competition Among Drug Manufacturers and Lower Drug Prices

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/blog/2018/jan/bipartisan-bill-drug-manufacturers-competition-prices?omnicid=EALERT1349313&mid=henrykotula@yahoo.com

Image result for bipartisan generic drug bill

 

Congress is considering including bipartisan legislation that could expedite the availability of lower-priced generic drugs in its must-pass bill to fund the federal government in 2018. The legislation, called the CREATES Act, tackles one of the numerous problems driving high drug prices — brand-name drug manufacturers’ use of anticompetitive tactics to block access to generic drugs — that we describe in our report, Getting to the Root of High Prescription Drug Prices: Drivers and Potential Solutions. If passed, the CREATES Act, which has bipartisan support, would increase the development and availability of generic drugs by addressing anticompetitive behaviors of certain brand-name manufacturers that use limited distribution systems and congressionally mandated risk-mitigation programs as a way to delay generic drug development. And because the Act could save the federal government more than $3 billion over 10 years, it could help pay for other necessary federal spending, including funding for community health centers.

Purpose of the Bill

The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 — commonly referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Act — created the generic drug market in order to balance incentives for innovation (i.e., extended patent terms and market exclusivity protections) with a system that ensures safe, therapeutically equivalent generic drugs are available at lower prices when patents and exclusivities expire. Before a generic drug can be approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) it must demonstrate that it is bioequivalent to the brand-name drug it intends to compete against on the market.

The Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 authorized the FDA, when there are safety concerns like increased toxicity or risk factors, to require manufacturers to adhere to a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS. A REMS program can have four components: patient information, communication plan, elements to assure safe use (ETASU), and implementation system.

Some brand-name drug manufacturers have misused REMS programs to block generic drug manufacturer access in two different ways. First, a brand-name manufacturer may prevent a potential generic competitor from getting access to samples for bioequivalence testing by using the REMS program with ETASU to limit who can access or purchase the drug. More than half of drugs with REMS programs have limited distribution, which restricts access for generic manufacturers. Without access to samples of brand-name products, generic manufacturers cannot conduct bioequivalence testing, which is required for FDA approval of a generic.

Second, if a brand-name drug is subject to an FDA-mandated REMS, then the generic competitor drug is also.1  Shared REMS programs are generally required by statute to be implemented for the brand-name drug and the generic versions. Negotiations between manufacturers for a shared REMS program include confidentiality, product liability concerns, antitrust concerns, and access to a license for REMS program elements that are patented. Brand-name manufacturers can intentionally delay establishing a single, shared REMS program, which blocks the generic drug from the market. As of January 26, 2018, 10 of the 72 REMS programs were shared.

In addition to FDA-mandated REMS programs, manufacturers may voluntarily institute a REMS program or create a limited distribution system to control who may access their drug by allowing dispensing from a limited number of specialty pharmacies. For example, an investigation by the Senate Aging Committee found that Turing Pharmaceuticals put a limited distribution system into place in order to block competitors’ access to samples and significantly increase the drug price. (Daraprim was not subject to an FDA-mandated REMS program.) The anticompetitive behaviors associated with REMS programs and limited distribution systems are estimated to cost patients more than $5 billion each year.

Potential Impact

The CREATES Act would enable a generic manufacturer facing one of these delay tactics to bring an action in federal court for injunctive relief (i.e., to obtain the sample it needs, or to enter into court-supervised negotiations for a shared safety protocol). The CREATES Act would expedite legal review and change the burden from proving a violation of antitrust law to one in which the generic manufacturer would need to only prove that sufficient quantity of samples were being withheld by the brand-name manufacturer. In addition, the CREATES Act would permit the generic manufacturer to work with the FDA to establish its own REMS with ETASU that are comparable to the brand-name manufacturer’s REMS program.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has not officially scored the CREATES Act, but has estimated that similar legislation would save the federal government more than $3 billion over 10 years.2

Taking these steps to counter brand-name manufacturer tactics to delay generic competition could help address one of the factors driving high prescription drug prices. Such action also may serve as an important opening for further conversations on how we can regain the balance of incentives for drug innovation and competition that was established under the Hatch-Waxman Act.

 

How Trump may end up expanding Medicaid, whether he means to or not

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/how-trump-may-end-up-expanding-medicaid-whether-he-means-to-or-not/2018/01/28/df2ee6e8-01e1-11e8-8acf-ad2991367d9d_story.html?utm_term=.3e8f27612e2e

Republican lawmakers in a half-dozen states are launching fresh efforts to expand Medicaid, the nation’s health insurance program for the poor, as party holdouts who had blocked the expansion say they’re now open to it because of Trump administration guidelines allowing states to impose new requirements that program recipients work to get benefits.

In Utah, a Republican legislator working with the GOP governor says he hopes to pass a Medicaid expansion plan with work requirements within the year. In Idaho, a conservative lawmaker who steadfastly opposed Medicaid expansion in the past says the new requirements make him more open to the idea. And in Wyoming, a Republican senator who previously opposed expansion — a key part of President Barack Obama’s health-care law — says he’s ready to take another look at fellow Republicans’ expansion efforts in his state.

Moderate Republicans in North Carolina, Virginia and Kansas are similarly renewing calls to take up Medicaid expansion, though it’s unclear if there will be quite enough conservative support or whether Democrats would consider voting in favor of work requirements.

If successful, though, the efforts could make hundreds of thousands of Americans newly eligible for health coverage, while also opening the door to Medicaid changes that could kick some current beneficiaries out of the program and reduce its benefits to recipients — broadening the program’s reach into red states but with a decidedly conservative bent.

The arguments for and against Medicaid work requirements

The Trump administration is calling Medicaid work requirements a positive “incentive” for beneficiaries, but critics say they’re a harmful double standard.

“All of a sudden, we’re seeing some flexibility that allows us to do it our way, and that gives it a much better chance,” said Wyoming state Sen. Ogden Driskill, a Republican who helped defeat Medicaid expansion in a close vote in 2015. “Without the heavy hand of the government forcing it down our throats, many of us will take a much deeper look at it.”

The Trump administration earlier this month said states could apply to add work requirements to their state Medicaid programs, a first in the program’s history. Ten states have already filed requests for such waivers, and the Trump administration has approved a Kentucky plan to add work requirements and premiums to its program.

The new Trump administration rules may also shake up the balance of power in state-level struggles over Medicaid expansion. Thirty-two states and the District have expanded Medicaid since the Affordable Care Act was enacted, giving health care to approximately 13 million additional people. (Maine voters approved a Medicaid expansion in a November ballot referendum, but it has not yet taken effect.)

The other 17 states are overwhelmingly GOP-dominated. In many, Democrats and some moderate Republicans repeatedly have attempted expansions, hoping to take advantage of federal funding available to provide health insurance for low-income patients. But they’ve seen their efforts thwarted by conservative lawmakers and governors, who argue that expansion would give health care to “able-bodied” Americans and explode state budgets.

Now, moderate Republicans hope to win over their conservative colleagues by packaging the expansion with work requirements or other limits on who is eligible for the program, under what circumstances and for how long.

Their chances of success vary widely depending on the state. In Utah, a Republican lawmaker who has opposed a more generous Medicaid expansion is working with a supportive governor and leaders in the state’s House and Senate on a version that would include work requirements.

Under the new rules, “we think that there may be a window of opportunity to revisit the idea of Medicaid expansion,” Utah Gov. Gary R. Herbert (R) said in a statement to The Washington Post. Utah has 46,000 residents who could gain insurance under Medicaid expansion, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, although the plans being discussed would probably cover a lower number.

Utah state Rep. Robert M. Spendlove (R) is spearheading a plan to expand Medicaid that would impose work requirements on some residents. Spendlove has wanted to craft this kind of package for years, but says he was told by Obama administration officials that the federal government would stop an expansion proposal that included work requirements.

To make the changes, states would need a waiver from the Trump administration’s Department of Health and Human Services. For the first time, that option is available.

“I’m not Captain Ahab; I didn’t see the point in pursuing an expansion bill that wasn’t going to get approved,” said Utah’s Spendlove, adding that he is working with leadership in the state House and Senate on his proposal. “The importance of the Trump administration’s willingness to give states flexibility to manage their programs can’t be overstated.”

Kansas in 2017 came within three votes of overriding outgoing GOP Gov. Sam Brownback’s veto of a Medicaid expansion plan. Moderate Republicans are hoping work requirements would be enough to get the proposal over the finish line, but it’s unclear if Brownback’s replacement, Republican Jeff Colyer, would support a deal. “This gives us a great opportunity and something to run with,” said Republican state Sen. Barbara Bollier, who has tried pushing conservatives in her state to accept Medicaid expansion.

The Affordable Care Act sought to extend Medicaid to every American living on less than 133 percent of the federal poverty line, implementing a national standard to replace a system in which each state sets its own eligibility threshold. But the Supreme Court struck down that portion of the law, allowing states to decline the extension.

As a result, millions of residents in holdout states fall in the “Medicaid gap.” Their incomes are too high to qualify for Medicaid, but they make too little to meet the minimum threshold for federal insurance subsidies to help them buy private health insurance policies on Obamacare’s exchanges.

“It was a huge roadblock that we did not have the ability to get a waiver for work requirements,” said Idaho state Sen. Marv Hagedorn (R), who said he will talk with colleagues about potential vehicles for expansion. “I’m very optimistic now that the administration has done a 180 on that. We’ll see if we can make something happen for people we have in the gap population.”

In states where lawmakers have repeatedly battled over Medicaid, the proposals face an uphill climb.

In Virginia, where Democrats picked up more than a dozen seats in elections last fall and Republicans hold only a two-seat advantage in the state House and in the Senate, a moderate Republican is seeking a bipartisan deal to pair expansion with work requirements. But a spokesman for new Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam, a Democrat, said the governor does not support work requirements and that “very initial” conversations about expansion are ongoingwith GOP lawmakers about Medicaid expansion in 2018.

The odds may be even longer in North Carolina, where moderates are pushing to pair expansion with work requirements but even proponents are skeptical the legislature’s conservative bloc can be won over. Roy Cooper, the state’s Democratic governor, is “pleased that there is some movement” on Medicaid expansion, said spokeswoman Sadie Weiner, though she added that Cooper has concerns about work requirements.

Many Democrats share those concerns. While they’ve long sought expansion, the deals being pushed would require them to accept rules they say will cost thousands of poor Americans their insurance. Republican-led states ranging from Arizona to Indiana are asking for a range of changes aimed at reducing the generosity of the program, including new fees for emergency-room use, premium payments for the poor, and the loss of coverage for those who miss payments.

“Expanding does create the opportunity to cover more people, but if it’s done with things like work requirements, premiums and other similar policies we know reduce coverage, the gains won’t be as large,” said MaryBeth Musumeci, a Medicaid expert at Kaiser.

In other states, expanding Medicaid remains a non-starter for conservatives. Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal and South Dakota Gov. Dennis Daugaard, both Republicans, said through spokesmen that Medicaid expansion would not be on the table in their states.

“There will be state legislators who were previously skeptical of Medicaid expansion, but who now think they can get behind it,” said Akash Chougule, director of Americans for Prosperity, a right-leaning political advocacy group affiliated with the Koch brothers. “But for us, the fact remains that expanding eligibility will massively increase spending costs. That might be blunted a little bit by a work requirement, but we will continue to resist those calls to expand.”

 

Trump Administration Sued Over $1 Billion Obamacare Cut

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-26/trump-administration-sued-by-n-y-minnesota-over-health-funds

Image result for federal lawsuit

 

  • Suit cites U.S. decision to cut funding to New York, Minnesota
  • States say federal funding vital to 800,000 low-income people

The Trump administration’s ongoing effort to undermine Obamacare triggered a lawsuit accusing the government of trying to financially starve two state-run health care programs that serve almost 1 million low-income Americans.

The U.S. Health and Human Service Department waited until a day before Affordable Care Act payments were due to notify New York and Minnesota by email that more than $1 billion in annual funding was being cut off, according to a complaint filed Friday in federal court in Manhattan.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman called the state’s health plan a “lifeline” for 700,000 residents. “The abrupt decision to cut these vital funds is a cruel and reckless assault on New York’s families,” he said in a statement.

The agency’s decision represents a 25 percent cut in funding to the programs, which New York described as “extremely successful” due to their low cost for participants and generous benefits, according to the suit. In New York, about 40 percent of participants are legal immigrants who would otherwise qualify for Medicaid except for their immigration status, state data show.

‘A Disaster’

While President Donald Trump failed to overturn the Affordable Care Act, his administration has sought to undermine it in a variety of other ways, including cutting funding to various programs and ending the individual mandate through the recent tax overhaul. Trump has said Obamacare is “a disaster.”

HHS spokesman Ryan Murphy declined to comment on the lawsuit.

New York and Minnesota allege the agency made its decision without proper justification, offering no legal analysis or reasoning. Instead, the states say, the agency offered an opinion letter from the Justice Department, which in turn relied on a ruling in federal court, even though they only addressed so-called cost-sharing reduction subsidy payments for qualified health plans purchased through private companies — not the Basic Health Program Plans.

According to the states, the cut in funding constitutes “arbitrary and capricious” decision-making that violates the Administrative Procedure Act.

New York and Minnesota have state-based insurance exchanges under the ACA and don’t use the federal government’s healthcare.gov site. They’re the only two states that participate in the Basic Health Program at the center of the dispute, offering plans with very low out-of-pocket costs and monthly premiums from $0 to $80.

The plans, which merged with New York’s and Minnesota’s earlier state-run insurance programs, were created with millions of dollars in state funds with the expectation that they’d be kept afloat almost entirely with federal funds.

The Trump administration had been complying with funding requirements until Dec. 21, when Health and Human Services said it wouldn’t be paying $266 million due to New York and $32 million due to Minnesota for their Basic Health Program expenses in the first quarter of 2018, according to the suit. Over a full year, that would amount to about $1.2 billion.

“HHS’s termination of this critical funding inflicts direct and potentially devastating injury on the States, which passed legislation and collectively invested millions of dollars to create and operate” the state-run plans, according to the complaint.

The case is State of New York v. Department of Health and Human Services, 1:18-cv-00683, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

More Than One-Third of People with Traditional Medicare Spent at Least 20 Percent of Their Total Income on Health Care in 2013

http://connect.kff.org/many-people-with-traditional-medicare-spent-at-least-20-percent-of-their-income-on-health-care-in-2013?ecid=ACsprvsiFmfyaQUfADFrf32n4wh0OUu4gIROk6tAc4VZ2GmtOCvvgdhIWsEh3xLkkK2toktoTqJN&utm_campaign=KFF-2018-January-Medicare-Out-Of-Pocket-Spending&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=60277390&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8TexIgilMHyZy_2ZHSiNhSiGZ7_j6xP8h5pBC_LYjbUou03aHoJahmhFiI7UBZrjo7aWH-BfGSNqiNYCUmP5Ho5m9bNA&_hsmi=60277390

revisedmedicare.png

Health Costs Are Projected to Consume Half of Average Per Social Security Income by 2030

Health care costs are a substantial and growing burden for many people on Medicare and are projected to consume a larger share of total income over time, according to a new analysis from the Kaiser Family Foundation.

The studyMedicare Beneficiaries’ Out-of-Pocket Health Care Spending as a Share of Income Now and Projections for the Future, finds that more one-third of people with traditional Medicare spent at least 20 percent of their total income on out-of-pocket health care costs in 2013. That included premiums, deductibles and cost sharing for Medicare-covered services, as well as spending on services not covered by Medicare, such as dental and long-term care. The analysis of spending as a share of total income does not include enrollees in Medicare Advantage plans, who account for 19 million of the 59 million people with Medicare. Income is measured on a per person basis, which for married couples is income for the couple divided in half.

While some people with Medicare face relatively low out-of-pocket costs, the financial burden can be especially large for beneficiaries with modest incomes and significant medical needs. For instance, among beneficiaries in traditional Medicare, just over half with incomes below $20,000 and those ages 85 and over spent at least 20 percent of their total income on health expenditures in 2013, along with more than 4 in 10 beneficiaries in fair or poor health status.

Among all Medicare beneficiaries, out-of-pocket costs consumed 41 percent of beneficiaries’ per person Social Security income in 2013, on average. Older women and beneficiaries ages 85 and older tended to have higher average out-of-pocket spending as a share of average Social Security income than others, according to the analysis.

The analysis projects that the health care spending burden among Medicare beneficiaries will rise over time. By 2030, the study projects that under current policies 42 percent of people with traditional Medicare will spend 20 percent of their total income or more on health care costs.  Among all people with Medicare, out-of-pocket costs are projected to consume half of the average per person Social Security benefit by 2030.

With rising health care costs representing a growing challenge to the financial security of older adults, these findings have implications for policies that could shift costs on to beneficiaries as part of a broader effort to reduce federal spending on Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security.

GOP faces pressure on community health funding

http://click1.email.thehill.com/ViewMessage.do?m=rjwcnrwk&r=pvjhqjqm&s=vkymdqrbyffcqcfkhyymmyrzfrfttgybqjz&q=1516997831&a=view

Image result for community health centers

Congress has knocked one big item off of its health care to-do list, but there are some other controversial issues lawmakers will need to tackle.

The Children’s Health Insurance Program was funded for six years in the stopgap government funding bill that keeps the government open until Feb. 8, but another major health-care program needs to be extended as well: funding for community health centers.

That is one of the items that could get wrapped up in a future government funding bill, either ahead of the Feb. 8 deadline or in a longer-term spending bill down the road.

Democrats have started hammering home the need for community health center funding.

“I’m very glad we were able to pass the extension of children’s health care, but now we need to work together to tackle those other critical health care issues that Republicans have now allowed to expire, because there’s no excuse for leaving families wondering whether their local health care center will shut its doors,” Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said on Tuesday.

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Greg Walden (R-Ore.) has pushed back on the idea Republicans are to blame, noting that community health center funding was in a bill House Republicans passed in November but that the Senate did not take up.

“Republicans support community health centers and are continuing to work to fund the program for the long term,” Walden wrote in Morning Consult. “I know the ongoing debates have not been easy on the workers at these facilities and the families that rely on them for vital medical care, and I share their frustrations.”

On Monday, the Senate will hold a vote on a bill to ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, a major priority for anti-abortion groups. The bill is not expected to be able to get the 60 votes needed to advance, but it could pose a tough vote both for some red state Democrats and for Republicans who support abortion rights.

Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), and top Democrats are also pushing to pass a pair of bipartisan ObamaCare fixes aimed at stabilizing markets and bringing down premiums.

Those measures are opposed by House conservatives, but Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) has shown some openness to at least one of the bills, which provides funding known as reinsurance to bring down premiums.