The Same Agency That Runs Obamacare Is Using Taxpayer Money to Undermine It

Image result for The Same Agency That Runs Obamacare Is Using Taxpayer Money to Undermine It

The Trump administration said on Thursday that it would slash spending on advertising and promotion for the Affordable Care Act, but it has already been waging a multipronged campaign against it.

Despite several failed efforts by Republican lawmakers to repeal it, the Affordable Care Act remains the law of the land. But the Department of Health and Human Services — an agency with a legal responsibility to administer the law — has used taxpayer dollars to oppose it.

Legal experts say that while it is common for a new administration to reinterpret an existing law, it is unusual to take steps to undermine it. Here are three ways the health department has campaigned against Obamacare.

1. REDIRECTING PROMOTIONAL FUNDING

Instead of using its outreach budget to promote the Affordable Care Act, the department made videos critical of the law.

In June, the health department posted 23 video testimonialson YouTube from people who said they had been “burdened by Obamacare,” including families, health care professionals and small business owners.

While it’s not certain where the money for the videos came from, several former health officials who worked in the Obama administration said that they suspect it came from the budget meant to promote the Affordable Care Act.

“There’s no other budget that makes sense,” said Lori Lodes, who oversaw outreach efforts under Mr. Obama.

The Trump administration defended the videos, saying that they were produced to inform Americans about the need for change so that people would have access to affordable health care.

“As evidenced by these important and educational testimonials, the status quo has made that impossible for millions of Americans,” a department spokeswoman, Alleigh Marré, said in July. “The administration is committed to reforming the current health care system to bring down the cost of coverage, expand health care choices, and strengthen the safety net for generations to come.”

The Daily Beast reported in July that one of the participants in the videos said he felt he was being pushed “for a harder line against Obamacare.”

While the health department refers to these testimonials as “educational videos” produced to inform Americans on the need to overhaul health care, some experts question whether they fit that definition.

“The lines between what is partisan, what is propaganda, and what is educational are nightmarish and subjective,” said Michael Eric Herz, a professor at the Cardozo School of Law in New York who has written about social media and the government.

2. ATTACKING THE LAW

The department targeted the Affordable Care Act with a marketing campaign as Republicans in Congress tried to repeal the legislation.

In addition to the YouTube videos, the department has used Twitter and news releases to try to discredit the health law. Since being sworn in as health secretary on February 10, Tom Price has posted on Twitter 48 infographics advocating against Obamacare, all of which bear the health department’s logo.

“Here, it’s an agency trying to destroy its own program because it opposes it,” said Kathleen Clark, a law professor at Washington University who is an expert on government ethics. “It is inconsistent with the constitutional duty to take care that the law is faithfully executed.”

The bulk of Mr. Price’s Twitter posts were from late June to mid-July, when Senate Republicans were trying to pass a bill to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. Once, Mr. Price tweeted five infographics in a single day.

Around the same time, the Trump administration ended $23 million worth of contracts with companies that help people sign up for coverage.

In August, five congressional Democrats wrote a letter to Mr. Price demanding detailed information about his plans for marketing and outreach. “Rather than encouraging enrollment in the marketplaces, the administration appears intent on depressing it,” the letter said.

3. DELETING INFORMATION ONLINE

The department removed useful guidance for consumers about the Affordable Care Act from its website.

Under the Obama administration, the health department’s website contained information to help consumers learn about the Affordable Care Act and how to obtain coverage through the health insurance marketplaces. Much of that information is now gone. Some was removed within hours of President Trump’s inauguration.

A link to a page about the Affordable Care Act disappeared from the health department’s home page the evening of the inauguration, according to a comparison of the sites, shown below.

The department also changed other areas of the website, removing overviews of the law and links to information on summaries of benefitsemergency services and doctor choice, making it more difficult for consumers to learn about the law.

It also appears to have erased positive references to the Affordable Care Act, including personal stories about individuals who benefited from the law.

For example, a video about a Florida man with diabetes who said he was able to enroll in coverage without worrying about his health status was removed from a page about pre-existing conditions. A link to a page about the number of young adults who gained coverage after the law took effect is also gone.


Even before President Trump took office, health insurance markets had serious problems in some states. But Sarah Lueck, a senior policy analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank, said the law would not be dying on its own.

“It’s these kinds of actions — pulling back on outreach and enrollment, disseminating negative propaganda about an existing law — those are the things that make the market implode,” she said.

 

 

Obstacles await as Congress resumes health care fight

https://apnews.com/fda562f69ceb44b48e7a492c11800c9e/Obstacles-await-as-Congress-resumes-health-care-fight

Image result for senate parliamentarian

 

Republican hopes for repealing and replacing former President Barack Obama’s health care law are still twitching in Congress, though barely.

Leaders lack the votes to pass something and face a fresh obstacle — the Senate parliamentarian ruled Friday that Republicans only have the ability to dismantle the law with 51 votes until the end of the month.

It’s among several health issues lawmakers face when they return from summer recess, even as fights over the budget and helping Texas recover from Hurricane Harvey grab center stage.

WHEN WE LEFT OFF IN LATE JULY

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., tried to push three plans through his chamber erasing the 2010 law called Obamacare. Republican defections denied him the 50 votes needed, with Vice President Mike Pence ready to seal victory with a tie-breaking vote.

The excruciating last roll call failed 51-49. Three Republicans voted “no,” one more than McConnell could afford to lose. President Donald Trump used August to insult McConnell for that flop, even suggesting he might need to relinquish his leadership post, inflaming tensions between the White House and congressional Republicans and lacerating party unity.

_____

OBAMACARE REPEAL MEETS THE PARLIAMENTARIAN

Republicans have used a procedure that’s prevented Democrats from killing the health bill by filibuster. It takes 60 votes to defeat a filibuster. Without that special step, Republicans controlling the Senate 52-48 would need support from eight Democrats to repeal Obamacare, impossible given unanimous Democratic opposition.

The safeguard against filibusters was included in a budget for the government’s 2017 fiscal year that Republicans pushed through Congress in January.

That protection expires at the end of September, the Senate’s nonpartisan parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, has ruled. That’s when the fiscal year ends.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., the ranking member of the Budget Committee, said in light of the ruling, “we need to work together to expand, not cut, health care for millions of Americans who desperately need it.”

That leaves Republicans with only September to nurture their slim repeal hopes unless the GOP-run chamber votes to overrule her.

___

A LAST REPEAL PUSH

This repeal push comes from GOP Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Louisiana’s Bill Cassidy and Nevada’s Dean Heller.

They’ve proposed funneling Obamacare’s federal dollars directly to states and erasing its requirements that people buy coverage and companies offer it to employees. They’d cut and reshape Medicaid, halt Obama subsidies that reduce consumers’ out-of-pocket costs and repeal the tax on some medical devices.

GOP aides say the proposal is evolving.

There’s no sign sponsors have enough Republicans to prevail and McConnell hasn’t been publicly encouraging. Further reducing its chances, lawmakers need September to prevent a damaging federal default and a government shutdown, help Texas recover from Harvey and craft a GOP tax overhaul.

“If people can show me 50 votes for anything that would make progress on that, I’ll turn back to it,” McConnell said in early August of repealing Obamacare.

___

A BIPARTISAN TRY

The brightest hope comes from Senate health committee chairman Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., and Washington state Sen. Patty Murray, that panel’s top Democrat. They’re seeking a deal on continuing federal payments to insurance companies who reduce costs for lower-earning customers.

Even this will be uphill.

Obama’s law requires the cost reductions and government subsidies to insurers, but a court has ruled Congress hasn’t legally authorized the payments. Obama and Trump have continued them, but Trump keeps threatening to stop, calling them an insurance company bailout. Many conservatives agree.

Yet those payments are a priority for Democrats and many Republicans. They and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office say halting the subsidies will force insurers to boost premiums for millions.

In exchange, Republicans want to revise parts of Obama’s law. They’ve suggested making it easier for insurers to avoid some Obama coverage requirements or steps like curbing lawsuits against health care providers.

Alexander wants to extend the insurers’ subsidies for one year while Democrats want two years or more. Another hurdle: Democrats have little interest in relaxing Obama’s law.

“Nobody is going to put their fingerprints on sustaining Obamacare without some sort of reform element,” Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., said of Republicans.

___

CHILDREN’S HEALTH

Funding for the popular Children’s Health Insurance Program expires Sept. 30. It provided health care to more than 8 million low-income children in 2015.

Democrats and most Republicans want to extend the program and success seems likely. First they must compromise on details like how many years to finance it and at what levels.

Washington pays for most of the federal-state program, and in recent years the federal share was bumped up by 23 percent for each state. Many Republicans want to phase out that boost, but Democrats are resisting.

Some Republicans say Congress needn’t act by Sept. 30 because states have enough money to continue coverage. Democrats and program advocates say without fresh funds by September’s end, some states would be forced to make cuts to wind down services.

Medicaid fueling opioid epidemic? New theory is challenged

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/medicaid-fueling-opioid-epidemic-theory-challenged-49540513

Image result for assigning blame

An intriguing new theory is gaining traction among conservative foes of the Obama-era health law: Its Medicaid expansion to low-income adults may be fueling the opioid epidemic.

If true, that would represent a shocking outcome for the Affordable Care Act. But there’s no evidence to suggest that’s happening, say university researchers who study the drug problem and are puzzled by such claims. Some even say Medicaid may be helping mitigate the consequences of the epidemic.

Circulating in conservative media, the Medicaid theory is bolstered by a private analysis produced by the Health and Human Services Department for Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis. The analysis says the overdose death rate rose nearly twice as much in states that expanded Medicaid compared with states that didn’t.

Independent experts say the analysis misses some crucial facts and skips standard steps that researchers use to rule out coincidences.

Johnson has asked the agency’s internal watchdog to investigate, suggesting that unscrupulous individuals may be using their new Medicaid cards to obtain large quantities of prescription painkillers and diverting the pills to street sales for profit. Diversion of pharmacy drugs has been a long-standing concern of law enforcement.

“These data appear to point to a larger problem,” Johnson wrote. “Medicaid expansion may be fueling the opioid epidemic in communities across the country.” He stopped just short of fingering Medicaid, saying more research is needed.

But if anything, university researchers say Medicaid seems to be doing the opposite of what conservatives allege.

“Medicaid is doing its job” by increasing treatment for opioid addiction, said Temple University economist Catherine Maclean, who recently published a paper on Medicaid expansion and drug treatment. “As more time passes, we may see a decline in overdoses in expansion states relative to nonexpansion states.”

Johnson is a conservative opponent of “Obamacare” who backed GOP efforts to curtail the Medicaid expansion. Wisconsin officials have urged him to push for changes in the health law to ensure the state wouldn’t be penalized for rejecting federal dollars to expand Medicaid.

Trump administration officials, including Health Secretary Tom Price and Seema Verma, head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, have strongly criticized Medicaid, saying the program doesn’t deliver acceptable results.

Price’s agency would not answer questions about the analysis for Johnson, and released a statement instead.

“Correlation does not necessarily prove causation, and additional research is required before any conclusions can be made,” the statement said.

Translation: Just because something happens around the same time as something else, you can’t assume cause and effect. The statement said the administration is committed to fighting the opioid crisis.

Medicaid is a federal-state program that covers more than 70 million low-income people, from newborns to elderly nursing home residents and the disabled. Thirty-one states have expanded Medicaid to serve able-bodied adults, while 19 have not. The expansion went into effect in January, 2014, and the most recent national overdose death numbers are for 2015.

That leaves researchers with just a small slice of data. Both sides agree more research is needed.

Still, some patterns are emerging.

Prescriptions for medications used to treat opioid addiction in outpatient settings increased by 43 percent in Medicaid expansion states compared with states that didn’t expand, according to Maclean’s research with Brendan Saloner of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. That indicates Medicaid is paying for treatment.

Maclean and Saloner also found another piece of the puzzle: Overdose death rates were higher to begin with in states that expanded Medicaid.

That’s important because it suggests that drug problems may have contributed to state decisions to expand Medicaid. States such as Ohio with high overdose rates might have wanted to leverage more federal money to help fight addiction

Maclean and Saloner looked at deaths from overdoses and fatal alcohol poisoning from 2010-2015, starting well before the Medicaid expansion. The HHS analysis for Sen. Johnson missed that underlying trend because it started with 2013 data.

When Gov. John Kasich, R-Ohio, talks about why he expanded Medicaid, “it has a lot to do with mental health and substance use disorders,” said Republican labor economist Craig Garthwaite of Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management.

Garthwaite finds the claim that Medicaid expansion fueled drug deaths “fundamentally flawed.”

Still another problem with the Medicaid theory is that it lumps all drug overdoses together. But illicit drugs — heroin and fentanyl — have been driving surges in deaths since 2010. A Medicaid card doesn’t provide access to illegal drugs.

“It’s worrisome because this is the type of numerical evidence that’s used to propose bad policy,” Garthwaite said.

Maclean, who reviewed the HHS analysis, said it seemed to rely on raw numbers without controlling for a range of differences among states, a standard technique.

Some researchers see hints that Medicaid expansion may be helping to mitigate the overdose epidemic.

Vanderbilt University economist Andrew Goodman-Bacon and Harvard’s Emma Sandoe drilled down to the county level in an informal analysis. From 2010 through 2015, counties with the largest insurance coverage gains experienced smaller increases in drug-related deaths than counties with smaller coverage gains.

More research is needed to provide conclusive evidence.

Relying on faulty research is “dangerous,” said Maclean. “It can lead to bad policies and people’s lives are at stake here.”

 

Governors urge keeping US health law’s individual mandate

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/apnewsbreak-governors-health-care-plan-retains-mandate-49537497

Image result for individual mandate

 

A bipartisan governor duo is urging Congress to retain the federal health care law’s unpopular individual mandate while seeking to stabilize individual insurance markets as lawmakers work on a long-term replacement.

The recommendation is part of a compromise plan that’s designed to be palatable to both parties. It was endorsed by six other governors.

Ohio Gov. John Kasich, a Republican, and Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, a Democrat, shared their plan in a letter to congressional leaders Thursday. They acknowledge that retaining the mandate may be a difficult sell for Congress, which has failed so far to pass a replacement health care bill.

“The current mandate is unpopular, but for the time being it is perhaps the most important incentive for healthy people to enroll in coverage,” they wrote to House and Senate leaders of both parties.

Experts concur that keeping younger, healthier people in the insurance pool protects against costs ballooning out of control.

The penalty and coverage requirement, or individual mandates, were intended to nudge healthy people into the insurance market. They have consistently polled negatively with Americans. In an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll conducted in July, 48 percent of those surveyed favored repealing the mandate, while 35 percent opposed repeal.

Kasich and Hickenlooper’s letter was signed by Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval of Nevada; Democratic Govs. Tom Wolf of Pennsylvania, John Bel Edwards of Louisiana, Steve Bullock of Montana and Terry McAuliffe of Virginia; and Alaska Gov. Bill Walker, a one-time Republican no longer affiliated with a political party.

After Republicans’ failure to pass a replacement of President Barack Obama’s health care law, Kasich and Hickenlooper teamed up to push for health care exchanges that would stabilize the market and assure affordability. Both took pains to quash speculation that their collaboration and public appearances suggested a bipartisan presidential ticket was in the making for 2020.

Hickenlooper emphasized Thursday that steadying individual markets is a top — and time-driven — priority. Addressing Medicaid expansion costs and other health care elements can follow, he told reporters in Denver.

“Is this going to fix all that is broken with our health care system? No,” he said. “If we can demonstrate success at stabilizing the individual markets, then we can move to the other parts of health care as well.”

Kasich and Hickenlooper also recommended that President Donald Trump commit to cost-sharing reduction payments to insurers and that Congress fund those offsets at least through 2019. Those payments reimburse insurers for providing low-income people with legally required reductions on copays and deductibles. If Trump follows through on threats to pull the plug, premiums would jump about 20 percent.

Kasich said the proposal satisfies the concerns of all parties studying the health care law.

“If you want to keep what you have, you can,” the Ohio governor said Thursday. “We’ve stabilized everything up front, but then over time, we open up the doors to innovation and individual plans, within guardrails.”

The governors support creating a temporary stability fund that states could tap to reduce premiums and limit losses; continuing to fund educational outreach and enrollment efforts under the Affordable Care Act; exempting insurers that agree to cover underserved counties from the federal health insurance tax; and supporting states’ efforts to find creative solutions for covering the uninsured.

The governors said states can pursue lots of options without federal assistance, but in some cases they are “constrained by federal law and regulation from being truly innovative.”

Kasich and Hickenlooper are expected to be in Washington next week to testify on their proposal. But congressional action on even a modest compromise is expected to be difficult following years of harsh partisan battling over the Republican drive to dismantle the health care law.

Data-Driven Policy Making In An Age Of Anecdotes: What Happens When A Foundation Creates A Policy Center?

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2017/08/31/data-driven-policy-making-in-an-age-of-anecdotes-what-happens-when-a-foundation-creates-a-policy-center/

An image of the Nashville skyline.

Why would a health foundation create a public policy research center?

The Healing Trust, in Nashville, Tennessee, has funded a wide variety of health-related service and advocacy organizations in Middle Tennessee. But in 2014, we asked them what additional support we could give to these organizations engaged in policy and advocacy work. One priority quickly rose to the top: timely, high-quality, and nonpartisan research and analysis on public policy issues critical to our community.

Tennessee has several prominent academic institutions with respected researchers in this field, but an independent and nonpartisan public policy research center simply did not exist. We began to explore this idea, using research to vet different business models for similar centers in other states. Ultimately, we decided to incubate this new policy center inside our foundation before spinning it off into a separate and independent nonprofit organization.

Aiming to create a true community resource, The Healing Trust worked with the Nelson Andrews Leadership Center to engage eighty stakeholders in an intense, three-day, co-design process. A core group of participants then spent another three months hammering out the details. This collaborative process established community buy-in and developed the road map for everything from staffing needs and board composition to the policy center’s mission, name, and brand.

Inspired and encouraged by the community’s engagement, The Healing Trust board committed $2.5 million over five years as seed funding to launch the Sycamore Institute.

Lessons Learned Through Launching The Center

What has the foundation learned through launching the Sycamore Institute, and why should philanthropy think about supporting policy research?

Ability to respond quickly in a rapidly changing policy environment: The Sycamore Institute has only been fully staffed for about six months—a period that includes one full legislative session in Tennessee and months of head-spinning debate in Congress over health reform. Yet, in that short time, our foundation’s investment has shown a solid return in the form of more than thirty reports, policy briefs, and blog posts about health policy and budget issues affecting Tennessee. As an independent public policy research center, the Sycamore Institute has the ability and agility to weigh in on rapidly evolving topics like how health reform efforts in Congress could affect our state.

Educating policy makers, the public, the media, and nonprofit partners: No matter where one stands on the political spectrum, we can all agree on the value of helping public officials make better-informed decisions. “Public Policy 101s” like how health insurance markets work and the nuts and bolts of Medicaid are just as important as analysis of specific legislation like the American Health Care Act. Our governor, administrative agencies, and legislators at the state and federal levels have already used the Sycamore Institute’s work to better understand key issues and communicate with their constituents.

These resources are equally valued by our foundation’s other grantees, who have become (1) even more knowledgeable about policy issues that affect their missions and (2) better equipped to engage with policy makers, the public, and other potential funders.

And in an era of shrinking newsrooms, the Sycamore Institute also provides important context and unbiased information to journalists covering health and fiscal policy. In very short order, the institute has become a trusted source for media outlets across Tennessee.

Unexpected Challenges

What were some of the unexpected challenges faced in launching a nonpartisan policy center?

Hiring the right leader: Hiring the right person to lead the Sycamore Institute proved more challenging than expected. The Healing Trust initially focused on candidates with backgrounds in policy research, but the collaborative design process we used shifted our focus to people with leadership experience who could launch a start-up and cultivate a diverse board. (Political, professional, geographic, and cultural diversity were all important criteria for the board.) Going back to the drawing board, our hiring committee interviewed new candidates and ultimately hired an experienced nonprofit executive director with an advanced degree in public policy.

Hiring the right staff: Building a staff with the ability to conduct high-quality research and analysis in-house and communicate about it to interested stakeholders was another challenge. Fully staffing the Sycamore Institute with an executive director, policy director, research analyst, and communications director took fourteen months—just in time to hit the ground running for the 2017 session of the Tennessee state legislature.

Recruiting a bipartisan board: To maximize and broaden the Sycamore Institute’s impact, the design shop showed we needed a bipartisan board committed to supporting nonpartisan work. The board’s balance of Republicans, Democrats, and political independents has been critical to building relationships with policy makers on both sides of the aisle. A balance of skill sets, diversity, and leadership potential is also key. With both the Sycamore Institute and its original board members based in the state capital, Nashville, recruiting additional board members from other regions of Tennessee remains a top priority.

Advocacy or analysis? Another question we wrestled with early on was where to draw the line. The primary goal of founding the Sycamore Institute was to fill a void of credible, independent, and nonpartisan analysis of policy issues in Tennessee. But should the organization go a step further to offer conclusions and recommend specific policies? Ultimately, the board and executive director decided that the Sycamore Institute would not advocate for specific policies, reasoning that doing so could hurt its credibility as a trustworthy source of politically neutral information.

Concluding Words

Building and maintaining health and well-being, which are complex issues, demand significant public and private resources. In Tennessee, as in most states, health care and education are the state’s top two budget priorities. The Sycamore Institute is dedicated to understanding and explaining the state budget and existing and proposed laws that affect the health and well-being of Tennesseans. Its information has already enabled citizens, policy makers, nonprofit agencies, foundations, media outlets, service providers, and others to understand better the fiscal and human impact of pending policies, giving stakeholders a nonpartisan and informed stake in the process and the outcomes.

An Untapped Opportunity For Health Care Progress: Redesigning Care For High-Need Patients

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2017/08/28/an-untapped-opportunity-for-health-care-progress-redesigning-care-for-high-need-patients/

A doctor works with a patient

While uncertainty and debate about health care reform remains, there is near-universal agreement on the need to improve care delivery and health outcomes and decrease the rate at which spending continues to grow. An underrecognized but crucial component to achieving these goals is redesigning care for “high-need patients”—in other words, the small cohort of patients with complex needs who represent the greatest usage of the health care system.

Currently, 1 percent of patients account for more than 20 percent of health care expenditures, and 5 percent account for nearly half of the nation’s spending on health care, according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Driving these costs for high-need patients are the functional limitations that impact patients’ daily living and ability to cope with health challenges, leading to their use of health care and social services that are often too late and poorly matched to their needs.

A 2014 survey conducted by the Commonwealth Fund found that high-need patients are highly susceptible to lack of coordination within the health care system and are more likely to experience cost-related barriers to accessing care, compared to other older adults. A 2016 Commonwealth Fund survey found that nearly two-thirds of high-need patients reported hardships with housing, meals, or utilities and that this population was also more likely to report feeling socially isolated, compared with the general adult population. Providing quality care for these high-need patients is a sizable challenge—yet it’s also an area where strategic attention and investment could yield significant payoffs for patients and the entire health system.

Indeed, a number of health systems have designed successful models that leverage an understanding of the unique characteristics of high-need patients to deliver quality care at sustainable costs.

Although there is no one-size-fits-all solution, a new publication from the National Academy of Medicine (NAM) says successful models generally share a number of common features across four dimensions:

    • Focus of service setting. Successful models tailor their care settings for either a targeted age group with various combinations of illnesses or individuals who use a significant amount of care. Examples of care settings include enhanced primary care, transitional care, integrated care, home-based care, and others.
    • Care and condition attributes. Successful models include practices such as targeting patients most likely to benefit from an intervention, coordinating care and communication among patients and providers, promoting patient and family engagement in self-care, and facilitating transitions from the hospital and referrals to community resources.
    • Delivery features. Successful models often feature the use of care managers alongside primary care providers to identify and work with high-risk patients. In addition, they often put high-risk patients under the care of specific physicians who treat a limited number of patients to enhance communication and adherence.
    • Organizational culture. For care models to be successful, organizations must emphasize leadership at all levels; be capable of adapting based on the size of the program and local circumstances; offer specialized, customizable training for team members; and effectively use data access, sources, and application.

Denver Health: A Real-World Example

In 2012, Denver Health—an integrated system that includes an acute care hospital, all of Denver’s federally qualified health centers, a public health department, an emergency 9-1-1 call center, a health maintenance organization, and several school-based health centers—set out to create a new care model and transform its primary care delivery system by providing individualized care that would more effectively meet medical, behavioral, and social needs for its largely low-income population. In designing its 21st Century Care model, which included modifications to better serve its high-need patients, Denver Health’s goals were to improve the experience of care, improve the health of populations, and reduce per capita costs of health care. Early in its implementation, a fourth goal also emerged: improving provider engagement and creating healthier and happier patients.

With support from a Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation award, Denver Health was able to redesign its health teams and invest in health information technology to enable population segmentation and categorization of patients by clinical risk groups. Funds were also spent on rapid evaluation efforts to refine the care model’s design.

The new model matched care delivery to four risk tiers. Healthy individuals were assigned to tier one and interacted with staff using Denver Health’s eTouch text messaging platform. Individuals in tier two received additional chronic disease management, such as lay patient navigators, nurse care coordination and home visits, and environmental scans for children with asthma. For patients in tiers three and four, integrated behavioral health assessments and care were standard, as was the inclusion of nurse care coordinators, clinical pharmacists, and clinical social workers as part of the care team. For patients in tier four, Denver Health relied on specialized intensive outpatient clinics to serve as adult patients’ medical homes or multidisciplinary special needs clinics for high-risk pediatric patients. Targeted toward individuals who had experienced multiple potentially avoidable inpatient admissions within one year, care teams in these clinics included a dedicated social worker and navigator, and teams were responsible for a limited number of patients. This clinic also worked closely with the Mental Health Center of Denver.

Denver Health’s systems modification paid off, particularly for high-need patients. These innovations not only improved patient outcomes and patient and provider satisfaction, but also resulted in reductions in expected spending. Over a one-year period, the system saw an approximately 2 percent reduction in expected spending. Most of the savings were driven by a decrease in hospitalizations among patients in tier four. Denver Health’s success demonstrates the real potential of strategic models to improve care for these patients while curbing health care spending.

The Opportunity

Health systems can play an essential role in improving care for our nation’s high-need patients. That’s why we, as members of an initiative under the NAM Leadership Consortium for a Value and Science-Driven Health System, are spreading the word about the characteristics of high-need patients, the challenges they face, and the features of successful care models for this population. This initiative was conducted in partnership with the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, the Bipartisan Policy Center, the Commonwealth Fund, and publication sponsor, the Peterson Center on Healthcare.

To promote improvements to the care of high-need patients, health systems should work with payers, providers, and other health systems to better identify and target high-need patients, test new practices and tools, and develop interactive electronic health records that can include functional and behavioral status and social needs. They should use established metrics and quality improvement approaches to continuously assess and improve care models and partner with community organizations, patients, caregivers, and social and behavioral health service providers outside the health care system to create patient-centered care plans. Health systems can also assess their current culture and promote changes needed to build new and successful care models, blending medical, social, and behavioral approaches.

Of course, health systems can’t do this alone. At the federal level, policy makers should improve coordination among the Medicare and Medicaid programs to increase access to needed services and reduce the burden on patients and caregivers, and should continue payment policy reforms that align initiatives to incentivize pay-for-performance instead of fee-for-service models. Policy makers should also explore the expansion of programs that could mitigate the financial strain of caregiving, such as Medicaid’s Cash and Counseling—a national program in which the government gave people cash allowances to pay for the services and goods they felt would best meet their personal care needs and counseling about managing their services—and incentivize the adoption and use of interoperable electronic health records that include functional, behavioral health, and social factors.

Payers can develop financing models to provide social and behavioral health services that will both improve care and lower the total cost of care for high-need patients, recognizing that even cost-neutral programs are worth supporting if the outcome is positive for patients. Providers can learn to work collaboratively in teams and engage with patients, care partners, and their caregivers in the design and delivery of care.

Return on investment for most models of care for high-need patients will take time. But one of the most expensive and challenging populations for the current health care system will remain underserved and continue to drive health care spending until there is a unified effort to improve their care. We know there are models that work. Now, action is critical, and while health care reform remains on center stage in the national policy agenda, the time is right. By taking the lead in the bold changes needed for this transformation, health systems can play a pivotal role alongside all stakeholders in reducing costs and improving the health of some of the nation’s most vulnerable patients.

Forgotten Heroes: Remembering Dr. Alvin Blount, Who Helped Integrate America’s Hospitals

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2017/09/01/forgotten-heroes-remembering-dr-alvin-blount-who-helped-integrate-americas-hospitals/

Related image

Mortar rounds shook the bunker. The 8225th Mobile Army Surgical Hospital (MASH) was crammed with casualties—civilians, Americans, and KATUSAs (Korean Augmentation to US Army). The four surgical tables under the direction of its acting chief surgeon, Alvin G. Blount, often operated around the clock, doing as many as 90 surgeries during sleepless protracted engagements. Blount could shut out the mayhem and focus only on his patient’s needs, as if everything else in the world had stopped. His calm, gentle demeanor commanded respect. His was the first racially integrated MASH unit, and he was its first black chief surgeon. Blount received the Korean War Service Medal for these efforts and would later become part of a group of doctors that helped radically reform US health care. He died earlier this year, the last surviving member of the group that initiated that effort.

The stories of the Korean MASH units would become popularized in a book, a movie, and a popular television series called M*A*S*H that ran from 1972 to 1983 and still appears in syndicated reruns. Yet, in an apparent attempt to assure “historical accuracy,” the television series chose to eliminate the black surgeon that appeared in the book and movie version.

After the war, Blount returned to private practice in racially segregated Greensboro, North Carolina. His Howard University medical school mentor, Charles Drew had warned him, “you boys going south will have to sweat it out, but victory will come.” Despite the US Supreme Court’s 1954 ruling in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka that separate was inherently unequal in education, “separate but equal” remained the law of the land for hospitals. The Hill-Burton Act of 1946 specifically permitted federal funding for the construction of the two white-only hospitals in Greensboro and made similar provisions for other Southern cities. Black physicians in Greensboro were excluded from medical staff privileges at these white hospitals, one of which was the Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital, the most well-endowed hospital in the region. Segregation in hospitals remained for another decade as Blount and a few courageous colleagues engaged in a polite and seemingly fruitless struggle against a powerful, entrenched white establishment.

George Simkins, Jr., a dentist and aggressive activist, took charge of the Greensboro chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in the early 1950s and sought the help of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF) to challenge the city’s segregated hospital system. But recruiting black physicians to join as plaintiffs proved difficult. Some were comfortable with the status quo, and most were concerned about damaging ties with white colleagues, who they relied on for help with their patients. Blount himself was reluctant, but he was close friends with Simkins and knew that the segregated system resulted in lower-quality care for his patients. Blount joined the lawsuit and helped Simkins recruit five other physicians to do the same. These five physicians, in addition to two black dentists, two black patients, Blount, and Simkins, made up the final list of 11 plaintiffs. Michael Meltsner, a young, white protégé of Thurgood Marshall, served as lead attorney.

The suit, filed in US District Court in 1962, argued that Greensboro’s two white hospitals, the Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital and the Wesley Long Hospital, functioned as an “arm of the state,” having received a total of $2.8 million in federal Hill-Burton program funds. By remaining segregated, the hospitals violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the US Constitution. Accordingly, the plaintiffs argued, the Hill-Burton law was unconstitutional because it provided federal funding for the construction of racially segregated institutions. As is customary with any case challenging federal law, the US attorney general was given the opportunity to defend the federal government. Surprisingly, however, Attorney General Robert Kennedy joined the plaintiffs, seizing the opportunity to push the administration’s stalemated civil rights agenda. Despite this unexpected support, the District Court dismissed the suit. The “victory” that Charles Drew had promised seemed increasingly distant.

Blount and his fellow plaintiffs, however, now found themselves at the beginning of a long and unpredictable journey to transform US health care. In a 3:2 decision in 1963, the US Court of Appeals of the Fourth Circuit ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. The hospital defendants appealed to the US Supreme Court, but in a rushed ruling, just days before the Senate began its longest debate on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Court chose to not review the lower court decision and let it stand. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, the most likely provision to be eliminated to assure the bill’s passage, prohibited the provision of any federal funding to organizations that discriminated on the basis of race. By letting the Fourth Circuit decision stand, the Supreme Court effectively made Title VI the law of the land before it had even passed through the legislative branch.

Resistant to any federal interference in their organization, the executive committee of the board of the Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital recommended to the full board that the hospital return its Hill-Burton funds to the federal government to relieve it of any obligation to desegregate. That recommendation was rejected. Nothing in the Court’s decision, of course, prevented other hospitals from choosing not to apply for Hill-Burton construction funds or from returning funds they had already received. There was also no provision in the law for federal enforcement for those hospitals that had already received federal money. The NAACP LDF or other parties could mount challenges against individual hospitals, but it would be a slow and costly process.

The Medicare legislation enacted less than a year later, however, changed the game. Hospitals could survive without Hill-Burton funds, but they could not “choose” not to be Medicare and Medicaid providers. No hospital would be certified as a Medicare provider without being fully compliant with concrete nondiscrimination requirements. Local civil rights groups whose members included hospital workers served as the final arbiters. Any lapses in enforcement by federal volunteer inspectors or subterfuge by the hospitals would not escape notice.

In less than six months, 6,000 hospitals became fully compliant. Thanks to Medicare, America’s hospitals went from being our country’s most racially and economically segregated institution to our most integrated. Almost all of the separate wooden bench waiting rooms and welfare wards disappeared. Patterns of use of services that had always been shaped by racial and economic privilege began, for the first time, to reflect actual medical need. Over the next 20 years, racial and economic disparities in infant mortality and life expectancy narrowed. In Greensboro, Blount became the first black surgeon to operate at Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital. Yet, the events that propelled all of these changes have been almost forgotten. Only current political events in North Carolina and nationally have stirred some local reflection about that past.

A statue of Simkins was unveiled on the lawn of the Guilford County Courthouse in October 2016, near where he was jailed for trespassing in 1955 after trying to play golf with friends on the city-owned golf course. Only after his death was he honored as the city’s “Moses.”

In 2016, Blount, at age 94, was the only surviving plaintiff in the Simkins v. Moses Cone Hospital suit. He was still seeing a limited number of patients under the watchful eye of his loyal long-time practice manager, Martha Reid. His office on East Market Street was filled with memorabilia and memories of more than a half century of practice. In October, he was invited to a meeting at the regional nonprofit integrated health system that Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital became. About 250 health care professionals and community leaders attended, along with Blount’s children. Dr. James Wyatt, a black surgeon and president of the Cone Health medical and dental staff, thanked Blount “for opening doors for me.” Cone CEO, Terry Akin, addressed Dr. Blount: “It seems to me, and to our medical and dental staff, that we needed to take the opportunity to apologize for our role in this chapter of our history and to honor these individuals for challenging us to be our best selves, and for their foresight and courage in changing America.” Cone donated $250,000 to a scholarship fund honoring Blount and the other plaintiffs that will provide support for minority students pursuing careers in health care. It will be administered by the Greensboro Medical Society, one of many local black medical societies across the country that played a key role in the hospital desegregation struggle. A month later, a historical highway marker was unveiled on North Elm Street adjacent to the Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital, acknowledging the plaintiffs and their role in changing the nation’s hospitals.

Dr. Blount passed away on January 6, 2017, at Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital after a brief illness. His family marked his passing with a quiet event at the small Episcopal church adjoining the North Carolina A&T State University campus, which served as an early organizing center for the lunch counter sit-in movement. “My life is my memorial,” he had told his practice manager. “No big casket or cemetery plot either—cremation. … Just be sure I’m dead before you burn me.”

His life was indeed his memorial. From caring for wounded soldiers in Korea to feeding arrested Dudley High School students after a lunch counter sit-in, Blount was an endless source of compassion and integrity. He and his wife lovingly raised seven children, and his youngest daughter, Gwen Blount Adolph, now a lawyer in New York, recently reflected on her father’s life: “My daddy was a gentle soul who wanted to do right by everyone.” She recalled the night the arm fell off her brother Alvin’s teddy bear, and he was inconsolable. “We all had this vivid memory of my dad taking needle and thread and operating on Teddy…. We all gathered around, as if it was an operating room. He was so patient, and it was so important to my brother. It was as if everything else in the world had stopped—that was Daddy.”

In these divisive times, it is too easy to be dismissive of the past and despairing about the future. The lives of Dr. Blount and the other Moses Cone plaintiffs tell us something different. They tell us that landmark pieces of social policy such as Medicare, when implemented fairly and compassionately, can promote justice and equality. And they tell us that the power to remedy injustices lies with individuals who are willing to challenge the status quo and further the cause of universal health care for all Americans.

Advertising cutbacks reduce Marketplace information-seeking behavior: Lessons from Kentucky for 2018

Advertising cutbacks reduce Marketplace information-seeking behavior: Lessons from Kentucky for 2018

Image result for aca advertising

The Trump administration announced Thursday that it was cutting spending on advertisingfor the 2018 Marketplace open enrollment period from $100 to $10 million. Empirical work can inform our expectations for its impact, assuming these cuts are implemented. We already know that higher exposure to advertising has been associated with perceptions of feeling more informed about the ACA and counties with more television advertising saw larger decreases in the uninsured rate during the 2014 open enrollment period.

Kentucky— an early success story under the ACA—sponsored a robust multimedia campaign to create awareness about its state-based marketplace, known as kynect, to educate its residents about the opportunity to gain coverage. However, after the 2015 gubernatorial election, the Bevin administration declined to renew the advertising contract for kynect and directed all pending advertisements to be canceled with approximately six weeks remaining in the 2016 open enrollment period. The reduction in advertising during open enrollment gives us precisely the rare leverage needed to assess the influence of advertising using real-world data.

We obtained advertising and Marketplace data in Kentucky to identify whether a dose-response relationship exists between weekly advertising volume and information-seeking behavior. Television advertising data for Kentucky were obtained from Kantar Media/CMAG through the Wesleyan Media Project. These data provide tracking of individual ad airings, including date, time, sponsor, station, and media market. We used a population-weighted average to create a state-level count of kynect ads shown per week. Our outcome measures were related to information-seeking behavior—phone calls to the marketplace and metrics related to engagement on the kynect website—and came from the Office of the Kentucky Health Benefit Exchange via public records request. We used multivariable linear regression models to identify variation in each outcome attributable to kynect advertising and estimated marginal effects to identify the influence of advertising during open enrollment.

State-sponsored advertising for kynect fell from an average of 58.8 and 52.3 ads per week during the 2014 and 2015 open enrollment periods to 19.4 during the first nine weeks of the 2016 open enrollment period and none during the final four weeks. We found that advertising volume was strongly associated with information-seeking behavior through the kynect web site (see Figure 1). Each additional kynect ad per week during open enrollment was associated with an additional 7,973 page views (P=.001), 390 visits (P=.003), and 388 unique visitors (P<.001) to the kynect web site per week. Based on the average number of ads per week during the first two open enrollment periods, our estimates imply that there would have been more than 450,000 fewer page views, 20,000 fewer visits, and 20,000 fewer unique visitors per week during open enrollment without the television campaign. Advertising volume during open enrollment was not associated with calls to the kynect call center.

Our analysis tells us that state-sponsored television advertising was a substantial driver of information-seeking behavior in Kentucky during open enrollment––a critical step to getting consumers to shop for plans, understand their eligibility for premium tax credits or Medicaid, and enroll in coverage. Extrapolating to the national landscape, our data suggest that lower expenditures on outreach and advertising would reduce consumers’ information seeking. The announced 90% reduction will be paired with a nearly 40% cut to in-person enrollment assistance through navigator programs. This is particularly problematic after a tumultuous summer of legislative threats to the ACA, possibly leaving consumers confused about whether Obamacare is still the law of the land. Lower outreach could lead to a failure to engage so-called healthy procrastinators, resulting in weaker enrollment and a worsening risk pool for insurers. With an already shortened open enrollment period, this cascade of cuts is likely to further jeopardize the stability of the Marketplace.

Bipartisan group of governors calls on Congress to shore up elements of Affordable Care Act

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/bipartisan-group-of-governors-calls-on-congress-to-shore-up-elements-of-affordable-care-act/2017/08/31/7853b978-8e71-11e7-84c0-02cc069f2c37_story.html?utm_term=.3975c59ec12b

Image result for bipartisanship

A bipartisan group of governors is trying to jump-start efforts to strengthen private insurance under the Affordable Care Act, urging Congress to take prompt steps to stabilize marketplaces created by law while giving states more freedom from its rules.

In a blueprint issued Thursday, the eight governors ask House and Senate leaders of both parties to take several steps to reverse the rising rates and dwindling choices facing many of the 10 million Americans who buy health plans on their own through ACA marketplaces.

Specifically, the state leaders say Congress should devote money for at least two years toward “cost-sharing subsidies” that the 2010 health-care law promises to pay ACA insurers to offset deductibles and other out-of-pocket expenses for lower-income customers. The House sued the Obama administration over the subsidies’ legality, and President Trump has repeatedly suggested that he might halt the payments — sending tremors through insurance companies in the marketplaces.

Five days before the House and Senate return to Washington, the governors also recommend preserving “for now” the ACA’s requirement that most Americans carry health insurance. Though this rule is unpopular, they concluded that it is “for the time being … perhaps the most important incentive for healthy people to enroll in coverage.”

The proposal also calls for a federal fund, to be available for two years, to buffer insurers from high-cost customers, and for the government to foster competition in ACA marketplaces by encouraging insurers to move into counties with only one company. Those that do would have the law’s insurer taxes waived on health plans sold in those locations.

Led by Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) and Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (D), the blueprint essentially fleshes out the contours of four principals that many of the same governors recommended to Senate leaders in June. It focuses on the insurance market for individuals and families that buy coverage on their own — a fraction of the country’s consumers with private insurance but a perennially shaky part of the industry that the ACA was designed to strengthen.

Greg Moody, a longtime health-care aide to Kasich, said the blueprint is also an acknowledgment of the failure this year of Republicans who control Congress to deliver on their years-long goal of replacing the ACA. “We’ve recently seen how difficult that is,” Moody said.

The blueprint envisions a quick federal boost to shore up the marketplace for the coming year, while deferring to states longer term to experiment with potential changes in insurance subsidies, for instance, or different forms of penalties for consumers who drop coverage.

The proposal was released Thursday so that it would attract attention before two days of hearings scheduled next week by the Senate’s health committee, which will explore bipartisan ideas for improving the law and its marketplaces.

The other governors who signed on are Brian Sandoval (R-Nev.), Tom Wolf (D-Pa.), Bill Walker (I-Alaska), Terry McAuliffe (D-Va.), John Bel Edwards (D-La.) and Steve Bullock (D-Mont.).

Podcast: ‘What The Health?’ Hurricane Harvey And Health Costs

Podcast: ‘What The Health?’ Hurricane Harvey And Health Costs

Image result for hurricane relief

Hurricane Harvey and its torrential aftermath disrupted everything on the Texas and Louisiana coasts — including health care. Patients can expect months of chaos, as their providers scramble just to get back to work and sort out medical records. In addition, the storm may end up killing, injuring and sickening many more people, as toxins such as mold and chemical explosions take their toll.

Even so, Harvey could have been worse, says a panel of experienced health care journalists on the latest Kaiser Health News “What the Health?” podcast. That’s because the medical infrastructure, unlike in many previous national disasters, held up relatively well. Hospitals planned for flooding, to the point that underground tunnels connecting one to another could be sealed off with “submarine doors” to keep the water from invading every facility.

Julie Rovner of Kaiser Health News, Joanne Kenen of Politico and Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times also discuss what impact the relief effort in Washington could have on an already jampacked September agenda. The pressing need for money to rebuild in Texas and Louisiana could complicate and delay other important congressional decisions, including deliberations on stabilizing or changing the Affordable Care Act.

Also this week: an interview with KHN Editor-in-Chief Elisabeth Rosenthal, author of “An American Sickness,” about why medical care costs so much.