Tag Archives: Health Policy

GOP Sees Offensive Opening on Health Care for 2018

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

http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/gop-medicare-for-all-strategy?utm_source=rollcallheadlines&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletters&utm_source=rollcallheadlines&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletters

Image result for Medicare for All

Republicans plan to tie all Democrats to “Medicare for all” proposals.

As more and more Democrats come out in favor of some form of “Medicare for all” legislation, Republican campaign strategists are salivating.

In much the same way the GOP has tried to tie all Democrats to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi in attack ads, they’re planning to tie all Democratic incumbents and challengers to different proposals from Vermont independent Bernie Sanders in the Senate and Michigan Rep. John Conyers Jr. in the House, regardless of whether they’ve personally embraced those policies.

“I’m thrilled,” said Corry Bliss, executive director of the Congressional Leadership Fund, the leadership-backed super PAC that plans to spend $100 million to help Republicans keep their House majority in 2018.

“I love their new policy so much that I’m thinking about taking the $50 or so million I was planning on spending on attacking Nancy Pelosi and putting a small portion toward explaining how single-payer hurts the American people,” Bliss said Tuesday.

That strategy isn’t much different from the GOP strategy of the past seven years, when the party has gone after Democrats on the 2010 health care law. But after months of their own health care legislative failures, Republicans think they finally have an offensive opening on health care again.

“It’s first time we’ve been in that position in a long time,” said one GOP campaign strategist, who acknowledged that this year’s health care debate revived the 2010 law.

Attacking all Democrats

The National Republican Congressional Committee was especially vocal on Wednesday, with a digital ad and a slew of press releases trying to pin Sanders’ proposal on Democratic incumbents and challengers.

“Studies reveal that single-payer would cost taxpayers a staggering $32 trillion over the next ten years,” the releases say, all pointing to the same study from the Urban Institute from May 2016.

“Sanders and Pelosi are leading their members down a path with nowhere to turn but left,” NRCC communications director Matt Gorman said in a statement.

In reality, Pelosi has shied away from Medicare for all proposals, trying instead to keep her caucus’ focus on improving the 2010 health care law. Her reticence toward the issue is a fact Republicans sometimes highlight to underscore its unpopularity — as in, “This is such a bad idea, Nancy Pelosi doesn’t even support it.”

But when it comes to messaging against the proposals, Republicans are happy to include Pelosi — a perpetual boogeyman — to help tie the issue around the neck of all Democrats.

California Rep. Scott Peters, a member of the moderate New Democrat Coalition and chairman of the group’s PAC, brushed aside the threats of those kinds of attacks.

“That won’t be a very effective campaign technique. People understand where we are,” he said, walking down the House steps Wednesday afternoon. Peters, an NRCC target in 2018, doesn’t support the Conyers legislation.

But with a majority of House Democrats signing onto it, and many 2020 hopefuls embracing the Sanders plan in the Senate, Republicans see it as nationalized party issue they can apply down ballot to all candidates.

“This is going to help frame the choice next year,” Bliss said. “It will be a huge issue in every single district that we spend in next year.“

One Republican admitted, though, it may be harder to message against a Democratic proposal that doesn’t stand a chance of becoming law anytime soon and doesn’t have a Democratic president behind it.

“I don’t think it will get to the same level as Obamacare did in the 2010 cycle,” the GOP strategist said. “You don’t have the same boogeyman in President Obama and Pelosi.”

Still, Republicans hope the issue will help them by pushing Democratic candidates to the left and sinking nominees in red districts or states won by President Donald Trump last fall.

In Wisconsin, where Trump eked out a win, Sen. Tammy Baldwin has come out in support of Sanders’ legislation. She’s the only senator up for re-election in a state the president won to have signed onto the Sanders’ proposal.

Trump has called for “insurance for everybody,” but Republicans say it’d be very easy to message against a Medicare for all plan to his voters.

“Here’s a socialist idea where everyone gets the same thing,” the GOP strategist said. “That doesn’t play.” It doesn’t fit with what she called the “you deserve more” narrative that Trump pushed to working-class voters during the campaign.

Keeping up the heat

Democrats aren’t backing away from their own offensive attacks on health care, trying to make the GOP-controlled Congress own their repeal-and-replace efforts.

That continued on Wednesday, with the introduction of the Senate Republicans’ latest effort at repealing the 2010 health care law.

“The 2018 election will be a referendum on the toxic GOP health care plan that spikes costs and strips coverage,” said David Bergstein, spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

And they’re skeptical that this week’s attention on the Medicare for all legislation will take away from what a GOP-controlled Congress has been able to do — or not do — on health care this year.

“To have that be their golden ticket out of the nightmare they face right now seems just insane,” one Democratic operative said.

 

The Politics of Single Payer Healthcare

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

https://www.axios.com/how-single-payer-helps-republicans-change-the-subject-2484804538.html?utm_campaign=KFF-2017-Drew-Axios-Sept14-single-payer&utm_medium=email&_hsenc=p2ANqtz–Q_Zmd1SqMI79AseTc1OIcHEN8DwUamYUmNIxGr2HLethhmoTOcQG43KssI13yVmZtpoP_AaEj9gRTHI4q68FAj7yloQ&_hsmi=56318621&utm_content=56318621&utm_source=hs_email&hsCtaTracking=18c76970-ffc0-4c0b-bb7a-ae1162b26233%7C7e107385-a85c-47b5-9c31-a303df175f96

 

Since the collapse of the GOP effort to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, single payer has gained new life on the left. Sen. Bernie Sanders released his “Medicare for all” plan yesterday, and a majority of House Democrats have signed on to another version proposed by Rep. John Conyers.

Data: Kaiser Family Foundation Polls; Note: 2008-09 is an average of 7 polls; Chart: Andrew Witherspoon / AxiosThe big picture: Politically, single payer — the idea of having the government pay for health care rather than private insurers — can help rally the left much like the prospect of repealing the ACA rallied the right. But it could also help Republicans, who own the problems in health care now, switch the target to the Democrats and their sweeping new health reform plan.

The pros for Democrats:

  • As the chart shows, single payer is popular among Democrats, with about two thirds in favor. But it has also gained popularity among independents in recent years, with over half supporting it. Republicans, not surprisingly, aren’t so crazy about it.
  • Single payer is a big idea many Democrats can rally around. It excites the base and party activists by establishing health care as a right, achieving universal coverage, and eliminating insurance companies. This analysis is about politics, but most advocates of single payer advance the idea because they believe in it, not as a political calculation.

The cons for Democrats:

  • They could lose a one-time opportunity to tar Republicans with the damage their ACA replacement plan would have done to millions of people, according to the multiple analyses that showed lost coverage and higher premiums for vulnerable people.
  • By campaigning on their own sweeping health reform plan, Democrats could give Republicans a fighting chance to change the subject.
  • More targeted policy ideas, such as Medicaid buy-in options for the ACA marketplaces and a Medicare buy-in for 50-64 year olds, could also be popular on the left and the center, while offering far smaller targets than a sweeping single-payer plan would.

Reality check: Single payer is popular, but polling today doesn’t tell us much about where the public will be if there is a national debate about actual single-payer legislation in the Congress. ACA repeal had the support of about half the public in Kaiser Family Foundation polling in late 2016 and early 2017, but fell to closer to 30 percent once there was an replacement plan under the microscope.

Support for single-payer falls by 10 to 20 percentage points when people are read common criticisms, such as that it will increase taxes or give the government too much control over health care. Arguments in favor, including that single payer will make health a basic right or reduce administrative costs, increase support by similar amounts.

We cannot simulate what will happen in a real debate, which depends on the actual details of the legislation and the power of the arguments made.

Be smart: This is more than just a health policy debate. It is also a proxy debate about the future of the Democratic Party. The party can swing left trying to build energy in the base, or it can move to the center, trying to capture the votes of many of the more conservative working people who voted for President Trump.

Don’t forget: Most Americans are far less focused on sweeping health policy ideas than they are on lowering their out-of-pocket costs. Health reformers – left, right, or center – who make the connection between their policy ideas and these pocketbook concerns may capture the most voters.

Incentives Are All Wrong for Single-Payer Health Care

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

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-09-12/incentives-are-all-wrong-for-single-payer-health-care

Americans won’t give up their private insurance unless the government option is better. And that won’t be cheap.

The conventional wisdom these days is that the major Democratic presidential candidates for 2020 will end up endorsing some version of single-payer health care. Senator Bernie Sanders is expected to introduce his Medicare for All bill this week, with a considerable number of co-sponsors. This political posturing, however, is far from a practical proposal.

There’s an obvious problem with moving Americans to a single-payer system: Most people with private health insurance are pretty happy with their current arrangements. They are not looking to trade in that coverage for a new government program of uncertain quality, along with unknown higher taxes. When President Barack Obama was selling the Affordable Care Act, he promised Americans that they could keep their health insurance if they wanted to. When this didn’t turn out to be true for everyone, there was a significant backlash.

Progressive analysts thus have turned to how a single-payer system might come about more gradually. But longer transition times don’t solve the core problem.

Let’s say the federal government sets up a “public option,” as it sometimes is called. Individuals would have the opportunity to buy into government insurance at some price. The new government program would be competing with private insurance, but just how good will the new benefits be? If you’re healthy and have other coverage, you probably won’t switch — if you did, that would be a sign that the new government program was of very high quality and probably too expensive for the nation as a whole. Boosting the health care of the best-covered Americans isn’t the policy priority right now.

Instead, the public option might be set up to attract those who don’t already have good coverage. But those are the same people who don’t have the money to pay a fair market price for health insurance now. In essence, the program would come to resemble a Medicaid expansion, whether or not it would fall under the formal rubric of Medicaid.

That’s a plausible option for a marginal change; many states, of course, have already done a Medicaid expansion. The question remains whether such a program can evolve into single-payer health insurance. The answer is probably not. To become a single-payer system, as coverage climbs up the income ladder, the new reform would have to lure Americans out of private health insurance. It either has to make the private alternative worse, say by penalties like a stiff “Cadillac tax” on policies that exceed a certain level, or it has to make the public alternative especially appealing. We are then back to the change either being unpopular or spending too much money on people who already have decent coverage.

You can make a good case for continuing the forthcoming Cadillac tax on private insurance, as is embedded in Obamacare. But the point of that change was to get people to move to less health insurance coverage and to use less health-care resources, not to bounce them into a system with yet lower marginal cost for a doctor’s visit or extra medical procedures.

It’s worth thinking through why some single-payer systems, such as those on the European continent or in Hong Kong and Taiwan, seem to work. Typically those systems were instituted while health-care costs were still fairly low, and then kept down by government fiat. The U.S. is not in that position, and it’s hard to see doctors and hospitals — powerful lobbies — going along with significant cuts to their payments.

Single-payer systems can work for yet another reason: If a citizenry consumes much less health care, and it doesn’t damage patient outcomes so much. Patient queuing isn’t a disaster if people who really need treatment get priority, as is the case in the better-run single-payer systems. In other words, single payer has to be sold as a way of getting us all to cut back on the consumption of medical resources. Unfortunately, the Medicare for All movement is more about easing everyone’s access and boosting the usage of health-care resources, a typically American approach.

When it comes to access, the major problem in the U.S. is distributional: Some of the poor have insufficient access, and arguably some of the well-off receive health care at too low a user price. Given Americans’ love for consumption, it’s probably too late to fix the latter problem. We can, to some extent, improve lower-income access by Medicaid expansions.

The political war along the way to a full single-payer system is unlikely to be rewarding. According to one poll, single payer is supported by only 43 percent of Americans, hardly enough to overcome political gridlock.

Progress will come in bits and pieces. The notion of a universal cure-all is a myth, whether it comes to improving your health or improving America’s health-care system.

 

Why We Need Medicare for All

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

This is a pivotal moment in American history. Do we, as a nation, join the rest of the industrialized world and guarantee comprehensive health care to every person as a human right? Or do we maintain a system that is enormously expensive, wasteful and bureaucratic, and is designed to maximize profits for big insurance companies, the pharmaceutical industry, Wall Street and medical equipment suppliers?

We remain the only major country on earth that allows chief executives and stockholders in the health care industry to get incredibly rich, while tens of millions of people suffer because they can’t get the health care they need. This is not what the United States should be about.

All over this country, I have heard from Americans who have shared heartbreaking stories about our dysfunctional system. Doctors have told me about patients who died because they put off their medical visits until it was too late. These were people who had no insurance or could not afford out-of-pocket costs imposed by their insurance plans.

I have heard from older people who have been forced to split their pills in half because they couldn’t pay the outrageously high price of prescription drugs. Oncologists have told me about cancer patients who have been unable to acquire lifesaving treatments because they could not afford them. This should not be happening in the world’s wealthiest country.

Americans should not hesitate about going to the doctor because they do not have enough money. They should not worry that a hospital stay will bankrupt them or leave them deeply in debt. They should be able to go to the doctor they want, not just one in a particular network. They should not have to spend huge amounts of time filling out complicated forms and arguing with insurance companies as to whether or not they have the coverage they expected.

Even though 28 million Americans remain uninsured and even more are underinsured, we spend far more per capita on health care than any other industrialized nation. In 2015, the United States spent almost $10,000 per person for health care; the Canadians, Germans, French and British spent less than half of that, while guaranteeing health care to everyone. Further, these countries have higher life expectancy rates and lower infant mortality rates than we do.

The reason that our health care system is so outrageously expensive is that it is not designed to provide quality care to all in a cost-effective way, but to provide huge profits to the medical-industrial complex. Layers of bureaucracy associated with the administration of hundreds of individual and complicated insurance plans is stunningly wasteful, costing us hundreds of billions of dollars a year. As the only major country not to negotiate drug prices with the pharmaceutical industry, we spend tens of billions more than we should.

The solution to this crisis is not hard to understand. A half-century ago, the United States established Medicare. Guaranteeing comprehensive health benefits to Americans over 65 has proved to be enormously successful, cost-effective and popular. Now is the time to expand and improve Medicare to cover all Americans.

This is not a radical idea. I live 50 miles south of the Canadian border. For decades, every man, woman and child in Canada has been guaranteed health care through a single-payer, publicly funded health care program. This system has not only improved the lives of the Canadian people but has also saved families and businesses an immense amount of money.

On Wednesday I will introduce the Medicare for All Act in the Senate with 15 co-sponsors and support from dozens of grass-roots organizations. Under this legislation, every family in America would receive comprehensive coverage, and middle-class families would save thousands of dollars a year by eliminating their private insurance costs as we move to a publicly funded program.

The transition to the Medicare for All program would take place over four years. In the first year, benefits to older people would be expanded to include dental care, vision coverage and hearing aids, and the eligibility age for Medicare would be lowered to 55. All children under the age of 18 would also be covered. In the second year, the eligibility age would be lowered to 45 and in the third year to 35. By the fourth year, every man, woman and child in the country would be covered by Medicare for All.

Needless to say, there will be huge opposition to this legislation from the powerful special interests that profit from the current wasteful system. The insurance companies, the drug companies and Wall Street will undoubtedly devote a lot of money to lobbying, campaign contributions and television ads to defeat this proposal. But they are on the wrong side of history.

Guaranteeing health care as a right is important to the American people not just from a moral and financial perspective; it also happens to be what the majority of the American people want. According to an April poll by The Economist/YouGov, 60 percent of the American people want to “expand Medicare to provide health insurance to every American,” including 75 percent of Democrats, 58 percent of independents and 46 percent of Republicans.

Now is the time for Congress to stand with the American people and take on the special interests that dominate health care in the United States. Now is the time to extend Medicare to everyone.

Sanders’ single-payer push splits Democrats

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

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/13/bernie-sanders-single-payer-democrats-medicare-242616

Image result for single payer healthcare

Most liberals are on board with the bill being introduced Wednesday, but Democratic leaders and vulnerable incumbents largely steer clear.

Bernie Sanders’ single-payer health care plan has won over most other liberal senators, including many weighing 2020 bids.

The rest of the Democratic Party is another matter.

As Sanders prepares to unveil his Medicare for All legislation on Wednesday, most of the party’s congressional leaders and vulnerable Senate incumbents are steering clear. Even as the left celebrates Sanders’ ability to push the Democratic agenda leftward after his primary challenge to Hillary Clinton last year, that success appears to have its limits.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told reporters that he would be “looking at all of” the party’s “many good” proposals to expand health care access, but declined to back Sanders. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi declared that her priority is shielding Obamacare from a GOP repeal push that’s not yet dead for good.

Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy, one of the few Democrats subject to 2020 speculation who has not signed on to the Sanders bill, warned against letting the party’s attention slip to “longer-term health care policy” while the future of the Affordable Care Act remains up for debate.

“I think the risk is that we get distracted,” Murphy told reporters. “September’s not done. They can still ram through a repeal bill.”

Wisconsin Sen. Tammy Baldwin on Tuesday became the single-payer bill’s first supporter from the class of Senate Democrats up for reelection next year in states Trump carried. But other politically imperiled incumbent Democrats have said no to Sanders.

Sen. Claire McCaskill said in a brief interview that lawmakers have more work to do to keep health care costs in check “before we would think about expanding that [Medicare] system to everyone.”

Single-payer on a national level would have “a lot of problems,” McCaskill added, although she came out in support of allowing individuals as young as 55 to buy into Medicare. That idea is also backed by Baldwin and two other red-state Democrats up for reelection next year who are declining to endorse Sanders’ bill: Sens. Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan.

Stabenow, also a member of Democratic leadership, said Tuesday that she would keep working on her Medicare-at-55 plan “because I think there is some bipartisan interest in that.” She said the party’s first order of business should be shoring up the Obamacare markets, followed by other goals.

“The first thing has to be to protect the health care people have now and stabilize markets, no question,” Stabenow said. “But we need to focus on lowering the cost of prescription drugs and providing more health care, more health care options.”

Improving the Affordable Care Act is the core of a bipartisan effort in the Senate health committee. The panel’s ranking member, Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, a member of the Democratic leadership, also declined to endorse Sanders’ bill on Tuesday.

“There’s a lot of Democratic ideas out there, and I haven’t had the chance to look at all of them,” Murray said, adding that she remains “very focused” on the committee’s work.

Republicans have already seized on the high costs of imposing a single-payer system — which Sanders’ presidential campaign proposed to pay for with new taxes on employers and wealthy individuals — to hammer Democrats for supporting the idea. The National Republican Senatorial Committee criticized Baldwin on Tuesday for backing “the left’s radical plans for government-run health care.”

Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), a member of GOP leadership, also reminded reporters Tuesday that Sanders’ home state of Vermont had to back away from its own single-payer health proposal after the economic burden proved too onerous.

Backers of the Sanders bill acknowledge that single-payer is a heavy political lift but describe it as an important benchmark for Democrats’ future. As the party hones its identity beyond opposition to Trump’s agenda, single-payer fans see enough room to set big long-term goals while waging the shorter-term battle to protect Obamacare.

“There’s nothing about the politics of the moment or the Affordable Care Act that in any way precludes supporting Medicare-for-all as the ultimate goal, and there’s a clear path to it,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal. The Connecticut Democrat signed on to the bill Tuesday.

Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.), who has been mentioned as a possible 2020 candidate, also expects to sign on to the single-payer bill, a spokesman said Tuesday. Franken noted that his cosponsorship reflects the bill’s status as a long-term goal while the party continues short-term work on Obamacare.

“This bill is aspirational, and I’m hopeful that it can serve as a starting point for where we need to go as a country,” Franken said in a statement. “In the short term, however, I strongly believe we must pursue bipartisan policies that improve our current health care system for all Americans — and that’s exactly what we’re doing right now in the Senate Health Committee, on which both Senator Sanders and I sit.”

For other Democrats, however, the idea’s time may have not yet come.

Ben Cardin said in an interview that he supports universal health coverage but has “certain concerns” about using single-payer to achieve that goal.

“There’s the political issue, but there’s also the issue about how you make sure there will be adequate resources put into health care,” the Maryland Democrat said.

Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, a member of leadership who’s among the GOP’s top targets in 2018, walked a fine line Tuesday as Republicans revived his past comments welcoming a discussion of a government-run health care system.

“I am skeptical that single-payer is the right solution, but I believe that the Senate should carefully consider all of the options through regular order so that we can fully understand the impacts of these ideas on both our people and our economy,” Manchin said in a statement on Tuesday.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, facing consternation from liberals in her home state of California — where an effort to enact single-payer statewide ran aground this year — said that she would want to see the price tag before taking a position on Sanders’ bill.

“My understanding is, the cost of single-payer is enormous,” Feinstein said, noting that she supports a public option for health insurance outside the private market.

Murphy and Hawaii Sen. Brian Schatz have offered their own ideas to shift the party’s health care debate leftward without going as far as Sanders’ plan would. The Connecticut Democrat is working on legislation creating a Medicare buy-in for all individuals and businesses, while Schatz told POLITICO he expects to release a Medicaid buy-in proposal later this month.

Murphy said he would not sign on to Sanders’ bill before its release, urging “our party to take some time and look at all the options available to us before we decide on one unitary route.”

And even as some Sanders-aligned activists spook Democrats with talk of possible primary challenges to candidates who don’t support the single-payer plan, other liberals were content to cheer the Vermont independent for attracting more than one-quarter of the caucus to his legislation. Progressive Change Campaign Committee co-founder Adam Green, who worked with Murphy on the Medicare buy-in plan, said that “Democrats are increasingly wrapping themselves in the flag of” Medicare for all without closing off other options that advance the ball.

“This is how big ideas like expanding Social Security and debt-free college were moved into the mainstream — the North Star gets put up, solid organizing is done, critical mass is built in Congress and on the campaign trail, and party consensus falls into place,” Green said by email. “It’s happening now.”

Senate bargainers say deal reached on children’s health

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

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/senate-bargainers-deal-reached-childrens-health-49809048

Image result for children's health insurance program (chip)

Senate Republican and Democratic bargainers reached agreement late Tuesday to extend financing for the children’s health insurance program for five years, a pact that if approved would avert an end-of-month cash crunch for the popular program.

In a concession to Republicans, the agreement would phase out extra federal funds that have gone to states for the program since the additional money was mandated as part of President Barack Obama’s 2010 health care law.

Money for the federal-state program is due to expire at the end of September. The program provides health coverage to around 8 million low-income children and pregnant women.

It was initially unclear how the agreement would fare in the Senate and the House.

But the two negotiators — Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and that panel’s top Democrat, Ron Wyden of Oregon — work closely with party leaders. In addition, having embarrassingly failed in this year’s attempt to repeal Obama’s health care statute, Republicans and President Donald Trump are eager for an accomplishment and would be unlikely to stymie the continuation of such a widely supported initiative.

It was also unclear if the pact would move quickly and by itself through Congress, or become a vehicle for other, less widely backed legislation.

In a written statement, Hatch said “Congress needs to act quickly” to extend the program.

Without providing detail, Hatch said the agreement would give states “increased flexibility” to run the program. He also said lawmakers will “continue to advance this agreement in a way that does not add to the deficit,” suggesting that a compromise on how to pay for the extra funds may have not yet been found.

Wyden called the agreement “a great deal for America’s kids.”

The federal government pays around $7 billion annually for the program. States by law pay a small share — until recently, an amount ranging from 15 percent to 35 percent of costs.

But under Obama’s law, states each received an additional 23 percent share from Washington. Many Republicans, particularly conservatives, have chafed at that added amount.

Under the agreement, the full 23 percent share would continue for two more years. It would phase down to 11.5 percent in 2020 and the extra money would disappear completely the following year. The details were provided by a Senate aide who spoke on condition of anonymity because full details weren’t released.

After Rallies and a Resolution, These Patients Will Stay in San Francisco

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

https://ww2.kqed.org/stateofhealth/2017/09/12/after-rallies-and-a-resolution-these-patients-will-stay-in-san-francisco/

Image result for After Rallies and a Resolution, These Patients Will Stay in San Francisco

After months of protests from families, city supervisors and public health officials, California Pacific Medical Center (CPMC) announced that it will continue to care for 28 patients with complex medical needs, instead of transferring them to other facilities outside the city.

In June, the patients and their families received letters from CPMC saying that the skilled nursing unit where they lived  at St. Luke’s Hospital, known as a “subacute” unit, was closing permanently. The hospital as a whole is closing because it doesn’t meet earthquake codes, but CPMC officials are replacing it with a new building on the same site in the Mission district. But they did not plan to include any subacute beds in the new hospital, nor would they create a subacute unit  in another new hospital under construction near Japantown.

But in an unexpected reversal,  CPMC CEO Dr. Warren Browner said Monday the hospital system will continue to care for the 28 patients who would have been affected. Spokesman Dean Fryer said the medical center changed course after hearing concerns about the potential impact of the transition on patients and their families. CPMC officials also changed their minds after facing challenges securing beds for patients elsewhere in the Bay Area.

Subacute nursing units treat patients with complex medical needs, such as those on ventilators, for months or even years. The patients don’t need as much care as a regular “acute” hospital patient, but do need a level of skilled nursing care that is difficult to provide at home.

The subacute unit at St. Luke’s is the last one in San Francisco based at a hospital. Regionally and nationally, hospitals have been shuttering these units. The patients demand a high level of care, but reimbursements for the treatment  — typically through Medicaid — are low compared to private insurance.

Families were concerned that the move from St. Luke’s to another facility would be difficult for patients, who are in medically fragile states, and would also impose a burden on them because of the cost and difficulty of traveling farther away for visits.

When word circulated on Monday that the patients would stay in San Francisco, family members rejoiced. Leneta Anderson’s husband has lived in St. Luke’s subacute unit for 18 months. She visits him nearly every day at dinner time.

“I could cry right now. I am just thrilled, thrilled that my husband and the other patients don’t have to leave,” Anderson said over the phone on Monday. “It’s a victory.”

The new plan is for patients to move to another CPMC facility in August 2018 —  either the new Van Ness hospital, the new Mission Bernal hospital, which will replace St. Luke’s, or CPMC Davies.

Family members, subacute nurses, and city supervisors said Tuesday that their next goal is to increase access by advocating for the creation of more skilled nursing beds in San Francisco.

Uninsured Rate In U.S. Falls To A Record Low Of 8.8%

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

Uninsured Rate In U.S. Falls To A Record Low Of 8.8%

Three years after the Affordable Care Act’s coverage expansion took effect, the number of Americans without health insurance fell to 28.1 million in 2016, down from 29 million in 2015, according to a federal report released Tuesday.

The latest numbers from the U.S. Census Bureau showed the nation’s uninsured rate dropped to 8.8 percent. It had been 9.1 percent in 2015.

Both the overall number of uninsured and the percentage are record lows.

The uninsured rate has fallen in all 50 states and the District of Columbia since 2013, although the rate has been lower among the 31 states that expanded Medicaid under the health law. California’s rate was 7.3 percent in 2016, less than half of its 17.2 percent rate in 2013.

“California has shown that the Affordable Care Act is working to expand health coverage and provide new patient protections,” said Anthony Wright, executive director of Health Access California, a consumer advocacy group. “While many thought our nation’s rising uninsured rate was unsolvable, the advancement in California shows that if policymakers and the public are united in trying to make reform work, we can do big things.”

The latest figures from the Census Bureau effectively close the book on President Barack Obama’s record on lowering the number of uninsured. He made that a linchpin of his 2008 campaign, and his administration’s effort to overhaul the nation’s health system through the ACA focused on expanding coverage.

When Obama took office in 2009, during the worst economic recession since the Great Depression, more than 50 million Americans were uninsured, or nearly 17 percent of the population.

The number of uninsured has fallen from 42 million in 2013 — before the ACA in 2014 allowed states to expand Medicaid, the federal-state program that provides coverage to low-income people, and provided federal subsidies to help lower- and middle-income Americans buy coverage on the insurance marketplaces. The decline also reflected the improving economy, which has put more Americans in jobs that offer health coverage.

The dramatic drop in the uninsured over the past few years played a major role in the congressional debate over the summer about whether to replace the 2010 health law. Advocates pleaded with the Republican-controlled Congress not to take steps to reverse the gains in coverage.

The Census numbers are considered the gold standard for tracking who has insurance because the survey samples are so large.

Among the states, the lowest uninsured rate last year was 2.5 percent in Massachusetts and the highest was 16.6 percent in Texas, the Census Bureau said. States that expanded Medicaid had an average uninsured rate of 6.5 percent compared with an 11.7 percent average among states that did not expand, the Census Bureau reported.

More than half of Americans — 55.7 percent — get health insurance through their jobs. But government coverage is becoming more common. Medicaid now covers more than 19 percent of the population and Medicare nearly 17 percent.

Home Visiting Programs Are Vital for Maternal and Infant Health

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

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/early-childhood/reports/2017/09/12/438414/home-visiting-programs-vital-maternal-infant-health/

A woman shows the footprints of her daughter, reaching into photo, in Texas, September 2015.

When 19-year-old Rosa went into labor three months early, she had to be taken 60 miles to the nearest hospital, according to a 2013 video interview with the organization Save the Children. Her baby, Sirena, was born premature and needed immediate and constant medical attention. Days after giving birth, Rosa was discharged to the home she shared with seven other family members in her small, economically challenged California community. Sirena stayed in the hospital’s intensive care unit to continue receiving treatment, miles away from her mother.

Even in the best circumstances, parents’ joy at greeting a new baby is tempered by stress and worry during a child’s first months. But mothers like Rosa face many additional stressors, including preterm birth, inadequate housing, economic uncertainty, and being young themselves. Fortunately, Rosa did not have to navigate these challenges alone. Diana, a dedicated home visitor—someone specially trained to provide support to new or expectant parents—immediately arranged Rosa’s transportation to and from the hospital to visit Sirena. This helped Rosa and her daughter bond during a crucial period and soothed Rosa’s heartache over their separation. Once Sirena was healthy enough to go home with her mother, Diana continued to visit them regularly, bringing books and educational tools to help Rosa support her baby’s development.1

Home visitors like Diana are support professionals, such as nurses or social workers, who are well-versed in child development, parenting, and family functioning. Local agencies—such as tribal organizations and departments of health, human services, or education—match home visitors with new or expectant parents interested in receiving services.2Home visiting is a voluntary, home-based service-delivery strategy that provides services to parents and children that help the whole family.3 Parents often learn about home visiting through their children’s pediatricians, social workers, and other support professionals. Although home visiting can benefit any family, it can be especially helpful for families who need additional support during stressful periods of economic insecurity or health concerns. Decades of research prove that home visiting can promote healthy child development and academic success, improve health outcomes, and support families’ economic security in both the short and long terms.4

This issue brief explores how home visiting programs—specifically, evidence-based programs funded by the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) program—address three key maternal risk factors that directly influence maternal and child health and disproportionately affect mothers who participate in home visiting: postpartum depression, domestic violence, and tobacco use. Each of these risk factors negatively affects a mother’s physical and emotional health, which in turn can produce worse outcomes for children, including low birth weight, prematurity, and even death. Although families face many more challenges, these health indicators highlight the diverse ways home visiting can benefit mothers and children. The brief also demonstrates how home visiting programs contribute to women’s economic security and, therefore, to the economy as a whole. Finally, it examines continued challenges to funding these programs, as well as potential solutions.

Click to access MaternalHealth-brief.pdf

 

Hospital Impact—The only thing clear about healthcare policy is the continued lack of clarity

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

http://www.fiercehealthcare.com/hospitals/hospital-impact-only-thing-clear-about-healthcare-policy-continuing-lack-clarity?utm_medium=nl&utm_source=internal&mrkid=959610&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWldFeE1XUXlPRFE0TlRneCIsInQiOiJ5dzRsZ1IwekxcL2FMZnN3NkJIOHZGbnpNV1RPcmtMNmdPd1MwV0RLUXNBSXl6QzJnK0s0NktPVzBLOUtRRjF1K0puZzZMZG95dERnN2VUcVRpeForakRVZVJsXC9GWllyU1g1Rk9ZY2pERVRQcjVyT1wvQkMycXdobjd5UnNKa2p3NiJ9

Executive looking out window

For healthcare leaders, it’s discouraging that federal policy decisions seem to be made at the last minute without much planning or consideration of unintended consequences.

I spent my Labor Day vacation in Monterrey, California, watching the waves crash into the sand and wondering what the future of healthcare will look like in the coming months and years. Some clarity is emerging that we have not seen in the past, and I feel comfortable making some observations and predictions:

  • Congress will not revisit the repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act before the end of the year. It is simply dealing with far too many other issues—passing a budget, raising the debt ceiling, approving disaster aid for Harvey and Irma, not to mention its desire for tax reform—that lawmakers must address.
  • While the Senate HELP committee is attempting a bipartisan effort to shore up the ACA, the issues listed above will make it almost impossible for such a law to be passed during this session.
  • The leadership of the Department of Health and Human Services ideologically opposes the very concept of the ACA and is also responsible for implementing the law. The tension between those two facts will lead to confusion and uncertainty for those of us in healthcare.
  • The passage of the ACA changed the terms of debate around healthcare reform. Granting health insurance to more than 20 million Americans has now shifted public opinion so that a solid majority believes the federal government should ensure that its citizens have insurance.
  • The ACA is not failing, but going forward it can be undermined without congressional action.

As a former anatomic pathologist, I am always interested in postmortem examination of failures, and the failure of Republicans to repeal the ACA ranks high in any list of stunning political disasters. Pundits have identified several possible causes:

  • Republicans never had a clear replacement plan or goal.
  • Taking away benefits from 22 million Americans is politically unpopular.
  • The ACA was not in a “death spiral.”
  • The president did not exert necessary leadership to get GOP senators to support his unpopular position.
  • Republican governors who had expanded Medicaid did not support the effort.
  • Organized opposition to repeal led to most Americans not supporting repeal.

Autopsy results always arrive too late for those of us who are still alive, and it is more important for those of us in healthcare to interpret the mixed messages coming out of HHS and Congress so that our organizations can continue to care for patients under the current system.

HHS seems willing and eager to let states experiment with healthcare reform. Alaska has received approval for $323 million over five years to subsidize insurance carriers and stabilize its individual ACA marketplace. Iowa is likely to receive approval for a radical 1332 waiver approach to healthcare reform in the Hawkeye state, and other states are preparing waiver submissions.

Meanwhile, HHS actions that seem to undermine the ACA include refusing to guarantee cost-sharing reduction subsidies to insurance companies and slashing the budget to support ACA enrollment for 2018. HHS recently announced advertising budget cuts of 90% for 2018 and the navigator program cuts of 40%.

A recent study—detailed in a post on The Incidental Economist blog—compared Kentucky ACA enrollment under a Democratic governor who supported advertising and a Republican governor who cut advertising. It found that lack of TV advertising led to 450,000 fewer page views on the ACA website and 20,000 fewer unique visits to the enrollment website.

ACA supporters, meanwhile, have recently put together a private enrollment campaign for 2018 to fill in the gap created by HHS decisions, Axios reported.

Last week, the Senate HELP Committee heard from state insurance commissioners and governorsabout ideas to stabilize the ACA marketplaces. They include:

  • Funding the cost-sharing reduction subsidies to insurance companies.
  • Facilitating reinsurance programs.
  • Expanding the ACA 1332 waiver programs to let states innovate.
  • Funding enrollment activities such as advertising and navigator programs.

Although health policy experts largely support these recommendations, it is hard to see how such a divided Congress could pass such proposals. Even if such legislation were approved, it would likely come too late to impact health insurance company decisions for 2018.

So, as of early September, we are left with the ACA continuing to be the law of the land, but with those in charge of the federal government not entirely supporting its success. Healthcare organizations have difficulty caring for patients when the rules keep changing and when clarity is hard to come by. It is also discouraging that decisions seem to be made at the last minute without much planning or consideration for unintended consequences.

That said, we still need to keep taking care of patients. My advice is to:

  • Continue to prepare for the transition from fee-for-service to value-based payments, but be aware that the Trump administration might slow down this process.
  • Continue to cut unnecessary costs.
  • Continue to improve the measurable quality of the care you give.
  • Participate in efforts in your individual states to innovate through waiver programs.
  • Collaborate with your physicians who are confused by all the uncertainty.
  • Keep up to date with the frequent changes that nobody can predict.