Healthcare groups blast skinny repeal, warn premiums will spike

Healthcare groups blast skinny repeal, warn premiums will spike

Image result for higher premiums

Healthcare groups are coming out against the Senate GOP’s plan to pass a scaled-down ObamaCare repeal bill, saying it would spike insurance premiums.

The American Medical Association, the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association and the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network are among the range of healthcare groups blasting the bill.

The scaled-down, “skinny” repeal bill would repeal ObamaCare’s mandate for people to have insurance, which insurers and other groups warn would lead to a sicker group of enrollees and spiking premiums.

The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association warned of “steep premium increases and diminished choices that would make coverage unaffordable and inaccessible.”

“Eliminating the mandate to obtain coverage only exacerbates the affordability problem that critics say they want to address,” said Dr. David Barbe, president of the American Medical Association.

“We again urge the Senate to engage in a bipartisan process — through regular order — to address the shortcomings of the Affordable Care Act and achieve the goal of providing access to quality, affordable health care coverage to more Americans,” Barbe said.

The Congressional Budget Office previously found that repealing the individual mandate would lead to 15 million more uninsured people and cause premiums to increase by about 20 percent.

Republican senators argue the scaled-down repeal bill will never actually become law, and is just a way to set up negotiations with the House on a larger plan. But the House is making no guarantees that it won’t simply vote on the bill and send it to the president.

“The continuing effort by Senate leaders to figure out by trial and error some bill that might gain the needed 50 votes to pass is a threat to millions of Americans including cancer patients and survivors who must have comprehensive coverage in order to access prevention and medical treatment,” the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network said in a statement.

“The legislation could cause the individual insurance market to collapse putting millions of American families at financial risk,” the cancer group said.

In addition to repealing the individual mandate, the skinny bill would also defund Planned Parenthood, cut the ObamaCare prevention and public health fund, and repeal the employer mandate.

Many healthcare groups have been strongly opposed to the GOP effort to repeal ObamaCare throughout the process, instead urging a bipartisan approach.

Medicaid cuts had been a major focus, though those are not be included in the current bill.

Regardless, America’s Essential Hospitals, which is strongly opposed to Medicaid cuts, said it is still opposed to the “skinny bill.”

“While it doesn’t directly affect Medicaid, it still would badly undermine coverage and access by destabilizing the private marketplace,” Bruce Siegel, the group’s president, said in a statement.

The AARP, a powerful senior group, also warned against it.

“The bill will leave millions uninsured, destabilize the health insurance market and lead to spikes in the cost of premiums,” it wrote in a letter to congressional leaders.

“AARP will inform our members and the public how their Senators voted,” the letter added.

CBO: 16 million more uninsured under GOP ‘skinny’ repeal

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/344264-cbo-16-million-would-lose-coverage-under-gop-skinny-repeal

Image result for the skinny

The GOP’s newly released “skinny” repeal of ObamaCare would result in 16 million additional people without insurance by 2026, according to a report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released Thursday night.

The bill, released just hours before its vote Thursday night, would repeal ObamaCare’s individual insurance mandate permanently and its employer mandate for eight years.

The CBO also estimated that premiums in the individual market would increase by 20 percent compared to current law in all years between 2018 and 2026.

The bill would lower the deficit by $135.6 billion in ten years, the CBO estimates. 
The Senate’s scaled-down ObamaCare repeal bill, the Health Care Freedom Act, would also defund Planned Parenthood for a year, repeal the medical device tax for three years and increase contribution limits to Health Savings Accounts for three years.

A vote on the bill is expected after midnight. Lawmakers could then offer amendments to the legislation.

10 key points from the CBO report on Obamacare repeal

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/24/cbo-obamacare-repeal-health-care-238795

Image result for CBO Bill scoring

Here are some key facts and figures from the new CBO report on the American Health Care Act, the House-passed bill to repeal and replace Obamacare. CBO stressed the uncertainty of its estimates, given that it’s hard to know which states would take up the chance to opt out of certain key parts of Obamacare. All figures are for the decade spanning 2017-2026 unless otherwise specified.

 

These 50 Health Issues Count as Pre-Existing Conditions

http://fortune.com/2017/05/04/ahca-pre-existing-conditions/

Image result for pre existing conditions

The Republican plan to repeal and replace the the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which narrowly passed a vote in the House today, rolls back protections for people with pre-existing conditions, which could increase health care costs for an estimated 130 million Americans.

The American Health Care Act stipulates that states can allow insurers to charge people with pre-existing conditions more for health insurance (which is banned under the ACA) if the states meet certain conditions, such as setting up high-risk insurance pools. Insurers still cannot deny people coverage outright, as was a common practice before the ACA’s passage, but they can hike up premiums to an unaffordable amount, effectively pricing people out of the market.

In fact, premiums could reach as high as $25,700 per year for people in high-risk pools, according to a report from AARP. People who receive insurance through their employer would not be affected, unless they lost their job or moved to the individual insurance market for some other reason.

But what counts as a pre-existing condition? While it depends on the insurer—they have the right to choose what counts as “pre-existing”—these ailments and conditions were universally used to deny people coverage, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit focusing on health care research.

  • AIDS/HIV
  • Alcohol or drug abuse with recent treatment
  • Alzheimer’s/dementia
  • Anorexia
  • Arthritis
  • Bulimia
  • Cancer
  • Cerebral palsy
  • Congestive heart failure
  • Coronary artery/heart disease, bypass surgery
  • Crohn’s disease
  • Diabetes
  • Epilepsy
  • Hemophilia
  • Hepatitis
  • Kidney disease, renal failure
  • Lupus
  • Mental disorders (including Anxiety, Bipolar Disorder, Depression, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, Schizophrenia)
  • Multiple sclerosis
  • Muscular dystrophy
  • Obesity
  • Organ transplant
  • Paraplegia
  • Paralysis
  • Parkinson’s disease
  • Pending surgery or hospitalization
  • Pneumocystic pneumonia
  • Pregnancy or expectant parent (includes men)
  • Sleep apnea
  • Stroke
  • Transsexualism

But Cynthia Cox, Kaiser’s associate director, notes that the above list is a conservative sampling of all of the issues and maladies that insurers could count as pre-existing conditions. ” There are plenty of other conditions, even acne or high blood pressure, that could have gotten people denied from some insurers but accepted and charged a higher premium by other insurers” says Cox.

Here are some examples of those other conditions that experts have noted could hike premiums:

  • Acid Reflux
  • Acne
  • Asthma
  • C-Section
  • Celiac Disease
  • Heart burn
  • High cholesterol
  • Hysterectomy
  • Kidney Stones
  • Knee surgery
  • Lyme Disease
  • Migraines
  • Narcolepsy
  • Pacemaker
  • Postpartum depression
  • Seasonal Affective Disorder
  • Seizures
  • “Sexual deviation or disorder”
  • Ulcers

The left-leaning Center for American Progress notes that high blood pressure, behavioral health disorders, high cholesterol, asthma and chronic lung disease, and osteoarthritis and other joint disorders are the most common types of pre-existing conditions.

Just how expensive are pre-existing conditions? A recent report from the Center for American Progress found that insurers could charge people with metastatic cancer as much as $142,650 more for their coverage, a 3,500% increase.

Pre-existing conditions drive moderates’ concern over repeal bill

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/27/healthcare-repeal-pre-existing-conditions-moderates-237713?utm_campaign=KHN%3A%20First%20Edition&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=51306136&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_Kd2qUCppTF1-MJzmxXc-yctQ3aukhBU3TjgUBmQorQj2jnFsKpRFmI9jaf7tldE1bHi7_7v6CLiebqofmJrqHhkUGzA&_hsmi=51306136

Image result for Pre-existing conditions

Moderate Republicans are largely withholding their support for the Obamacare repeal bill, arguing it would hurt people with pre-existing conditions

House Republican leaders hoped that the House Freedom Caucus’s endorsement of the latest Obamacare repeal bill would light a fire under enough moderates to get their whip count to the 216 votes needed to pass the measure. Instead, the holdouts are digging in, saying that the latest changes only moved the bill to the right and could put more Americans at risk of losing their health insurance.

“My concern has always been and what a lot of us talked about: people with pre-existing conditions, the elderly,” said Rep. Mario Díaz-Balart (R-Fla.). “How this makes the original bill better? Where is the part that is better for the folks I’m concerned about it? I’m not seeing it at this stage.”

Protections for people with pre-existing conditions have only been in effect for seven years, but proven to be one of the most popular and well-known features of the Affordable Care Act. Moderate Republicans are worried about stripping the safeguards without a reliable replacement. If the resistance from moderates holds, it would be enough to block Obamacare repeal in the House — or send the effort back to square one.

GOP leaders have been buttonholing moderates for two days, arguing that the latest changes — drafted by Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-N.J.) with consultation from the House Freedom Caucus — would ensure people with pre-existing conditions wouldn’t be priced out of a reconfigured market, pointing to high-risk pool requirements in state that choose to opt out of Obamacare provisions.

Backers of the repeal measure say the bill protects people with pre-existing conditions, arguing that people with coverage, for instance, can’t be priced out if they maintain it.

But buying into the plan would pose big political risks for centrists in swing districts. Voicing concerns about pre-existing conditions could prevent a tough vote on an issue that Democrats would surely spotlight in the 2018 election.

 

Several Republican sources say at least some moderates have climbed aboard, but they’re not inclined to say so publicly. House Appropriations Chairman Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.), who was widely panned by fellow Republicans for not supporting an earlier version of the repeal bill given his high-profile post, is expected to now support it, according to several sources.

Other than Frelinghuysen, there are no moderates who have publicly flipped to support the bill.

Republicans can absorb no more than 22 defections (depending on how many members are seated when the vote is held) from the 238-member Republican conference. The leaders still need fewer than 10 votes, according to several sources.

Rep. Ryan Costello (R-Pa.) said the latest changes to the bill didn’t bring him to a yes.

“Protections for those with pre-existing conditions without contingency and affordable access to coverage for every American remain my priorities for advancing healthcare reform, and this bill does not satisfy those benchmarks for me,” he said in a statement.

Rep. Barbara Comstock (R-Va.), one of the most vulnerable Republicans in 2018, said she is still a no. Rep. Carlos Curbelo of Florida is undecided— he’s still talking with leadership but claims no one is twisting his arm.

“They know better than to pressure me,” he said.

It’s not just traditional moderates who have qualms. Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), who is very conservative on most social issues, is still a no.

Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.) doesn’t want Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion repealed under the latest GOP plan, but told POLITICO he would vote to move the bill forward and assumes the Senate would restore Medicaid expansion. If the bill were to come back with Medicaid repealed, “it would be a problem,” he said.

The latest changes may have even eroded the support of moderates who backed the earlier repeal bill that was pulled in March. Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois said he’s undecided. Rep. Steve King of Iowa, one of the House’s most conservative members, told reporters he’s undecided now, too.

Rep. Jim Renacci (R-Ohio), who supported the original repeal bill, is undecided but inclined to move the process forward.

“My biggest concern is that we’re changing things based on amendments written in backrooms and not everyone knows what is said and what’s part of the deal,” he said.

Some Republicans just don’t want to talk about it.

Rep. Darrell Issa of California paused to hear a reporter’s question on his vote, then kept walking.

Essential Facts About Health Reform Alternatives: Eliminating Cost-Sharing Reductions

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/explainers/2017/apr/cost-sharing-reductions?omnicid=EALERT1202020&mid=henrykotula@yahoo.com

How do cost-sharing reductions work?

Americans with low or moderate incomes can get their out-of-pocket health care expenses reduced if they have purchased a silver plan in the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) health insurance marketplaces. The ACA’s cost-sharing reductions (CSRs) mean lower copayments and deductibles for people in households earning between 100 percent and 250 percent of the federal poverty level (about $12,000 to $30,000 for an individual, and about $24,000 to $60,750 for a family of four).1 The federal government reimburses insurers for providing the subsidies, which in 2016 totaled $7 billion.2

Those who use health care the most see the largest savings. A 2016 Commonwealth Fund analysis of marketplace plans in 38 big-city markets found that without CSRs, a 40-year-old man with a silver plan who is a high health care user and earns $35,000 a year—too much to qualify—might face up to $6,500 in out-of-pocket expenses.3 But for someone earning $17,000 who is also a high user of care, projected out-of-pocket spending would be no higher than $650—a savings of nearly $6,000 compared to the average silver plan. In other words, instead of potentially spending more than a third of his income on health care expenses, he spends no more than 3.8 percent of his income with CSRs.

What’s the backstory?

In 2017, 7 million people qualified for CSRs—58 percent of all marketplace enrollees.4 But the subsidies face challenges on several fronts. In 2014, Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives sued the Obama administration, alleging that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ payments to insurers were unlawful because Congress had not appropriated funds to pay for them.5 A May 2016 ruling by a federal judge in favor of the GOP would have stopped payment of the subsidies, but the Obama administration appealed. The case, now known as House v. Price, has been paused since the November election.

The Trump administration has indicated that, at least for now, it will continue making payments to insurers.6 And some congressional Republicans, wishing to preserve the subsidies, are willing to appropriate the necessary funds.7 However, the GOP’s recent health care reform proposal—the American Health Care Act—would eliminate cost-sharing reductions entirely.

How would eliminating cost-sharing reductions affect consumers?

If the Trump administration decides at some point to stop defending the lawsuit to end cost-sharing reductions and Congress fails to appropriate funds for them, payments to insurers would end. While insurers have signed contracts with federal and state regulators to offer health coverage, some might seek to terminate them early because of the loss of payments. Doing so would throw consumers off their coverage midyear.8

Insurance costs would rise as well, as companies opting to remain in the market would be forced to increase premiums to make up for the lost government payments. Analysts say that marketplace insurers across the country would likely raise premiums for silver plans by anywhere from 9 percent to 27 percent.9 This also would increase federal spending above what the CSRs cost, since higher premiums mean larger premium tax credits.10

How would eliminating cost-sharing reductions affect insurance markets?

Eliminating cost-sharing reductions could destabilize insurance markets. The insurers relying most heavily on cost-sharing reduction payments could see their current 7 percent profit margins turn into 25 percent losses, on average.11 Since marketplace insurers would need to substantially raise premiums, there is a risk of further market instability as healthy individuals earning too much to be eligible for the ACA’s tax credits decide to drop out of the market entirely.12

Given the magnitude of their prospective losses, many insurance companies may opt to exit the ACA marketplaces altogether. Ending the cost-sharing reductions also would discourage insurers from participating in future years. Carriers must decide before June 21, 2017, whether they will sell plans on the marketplaces in 2018. Uncertainty surrounding the payment of cost-sharing reductions is already dissuading some insurers from participating.13

Ultimately, insurers might sue the federal government to recover cost-sharing reduction payments promised under the ACA. Such litigation would be expensive and time-consuming, with the legal costs likely passed on to consumers in the form of higher premiums and out-of-pocket costs.14

Estimates: Average ACA Marketplace Premiums for Silver Plans Would Need to Increase by 19% to Compensate for Lack of Funding for Cost-Sharing Subsidies

Estimates: Average ACA Marketplace Premiums for Silver Plans Would Need to Increase by 19% to Compensate for Lack of Funding for Cost-Sharing Subsidies

A new Kaiser Family Foundation analysis finds that the average premium for a benchmark silver plan in Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplaces would need to increase by an estimated 19 percent for insurers to compensate for lost funding if they don’t receive federal payment for ACA cost-sharing subsidies.

Established by the health law to reimburse insurers for the cost of reducing out-of-pocket costs for lower-income people buying marketplace plans (with incomes from 100% to 250% of the poverty level), the subsidies have been challenged in a lawsuit from the U.S. House. With a legal appeal pending, the federal government and Congress are in a position to choose whether to continue reimbursing insurers for their cost.

Among 12.2 million people who selected a 2017 ACA marketplace plan, about 58 percent, or 7.1 million, are receiving cost-sharing reductions. An earlier Foundation analysis of 2017 plans found the subsidies lower combined medical and prescription drug deductibles by as much as $3,354 and reduce annual out-of-pocket maximums by up to $5,587.

The Foundation’s new analysis examines the amount insurers would need to increase premiums to make up for the lack of funding, if federal payments cease for the cost-sharing reduction program.

 

Trump’s New Plan to Penalize the Sick

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/healthcare/news/2017/04/06/430156/trumps-new-plan-penalize-sick/

Image result for penalizing the sick

Republicans need to stop making a terrible health care bill even worse. A little over a week ago, President Donald Trump declared that the White House would be moving on from its efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, or ACA. However, in an abrupt about-face, the administration is now reportedly considering a new proposal in an attempt to reinvigorate talks: allowing insurers to drastically raise prices on people with pre-existing conditions, even to the point of preventing them from obtaining insurance at all.

First Republicans had a proposal that would lead to skyrocketing uninsurance and out-of-pocket costs while increasing premiums. Then they argued for driving up coverage prices for services like maternity care and substance abuse treatment while simultaneously weakening protections for employer-provided insurance. Now they’re threatening to eliminate protections for the up to 133 million individuals who have pre-existing conditions.

How will the House GOP health care bill affect individual market premiums?

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2017/03/16/how-will-the-house-gop-health-care-bill-affect-individual-market-premiums/?utm_campaign=Economic%20Studies&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=46659383

ES_20170316_FiedlerFigure1

Earlier this week, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) published a comprehensive analysis of the American Health Care Act, which is currently being considered by the House of Representatives. While many reactions to the CBO analysis focused on how the AHCA would affect insurance coverage, the bill’s effects on individual market insurance premiums have also received considerable attention.

In its report, CBO estimated that average individual market premiums under the AHCA would be 10 percent lower in 2026 than they would be under current law (before considering subsidies). However, as some observers have noted, this estimated change incorporates changes in the generosity of the plans being offered on the individual market, as well as a shift in the composition of individual market enrollment toward younger individuals, who pay lower premiums. The CBO estimate does not, therefore, answer the question of greatest interest, which is how CBO expects the AHCA to affect average premiums for a given generosity of coverage and a fixed population of individual market enrollees.

However, other information provided in CBO’s analysis can be used to answer this question. Using that information, we estimate that premiums would be around 13 percent higher under the AHCA than they are under current law, holding plan generosity and the individual market age distribution fixed at their current law levels. As illustrated in Figure 1, around three-fifths of the difference between this estimate and the CBO estimate of a 10 percent premium decline reflects the adjustment to hold the individual market age distribution constant. The remainder reflects the adjustment to hold plan generosity constant.

It is important to note that all of the premium changes reported in this analysis reflect premiums before accounting for subsidies available to people purchasing individual market coverage. They therefore do not reflect the effects of the AHCA’s changes to those subsidies. The AHCA would cut spending on such subsidies by around half on average, with lower-income people, older people, and people in high-cost areas seeing particularly large reductions. Thus, the increase in average premiums under the AHCA would be much larger if subsidies were incorporated into the analysis.

The remainder of this analysis presents these results in greater detail and briefly discusses the reasons that the AHCA increases individual market premiums when measured on an apples-to-apples basis.