Tag Archives: Medicaid Expansion

Ten Ways That the House American Health Care Act Could Affect Women

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

Ten Ways That the House American Health Care Act Could Affect Women

Women have much at stake as the nation debates the future of coverage in the United States. Because the Affordable Care Act (ACA) made fundamental changes to women’s health coverage and benefits, changes to the law and the regulations that stem from it would have a direct impact on millions of women with private insurance and Medicaid. On May 4, 2017, the House of Representatives passed the American Health Care Act (AHCA), to repeal and replace elements of the ACA (Appendix Table 1). It would eliminate individual and employer insurance mandates, effectively end the ACA Medicaid expansion, cap federal funds for the Medicaid program, make major changes to the federal tax subsidies available to assist individuals who purchase private insurance, and ban federal Medicaid funds from going to Planned Parenthood. It would also allow states to waive the ACA’s Essential Health Benefits requirements and permit health status as a factor in insurance rating for individuals who do not maintain continuous coverage with the goal of reducing insurance costs.1 The Senate will now take up legislation to repeal and replace the ACA and may consider several elements that the House has approved in the AHCA. This brief reviews the implications of the AHCA for women’s access to care and coverage.

House Bill Targets Pre-Existing Conditions in Multiple Ways

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

http://www.realclearhealth.com/articles/2017/05/18/house_bill_targets_pre-existing_conditions_in_multiple_ways_110599.html?utm_source=RC+Health+Morning+Scan&utm_campaign=38995c8cb7-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_05_19&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b4baf6b587-38995c8cb7-84752421

Image result for healthcare for all

For those with pre-existing medical conditions, the House-passed health bill became notorious for a last-minute addition that would let insurers once again charge them higher premiums in the individual market based on their health status. But the focus on this single provision distracts from a troubling fact: even without it, the bill would threaten health care for those with pre-existing conditions in four broader ways.

#1: The bill would cap and cut federal funding for virtually all of Medicaid by imposing a per capita cap or letting states convert Medicaid into a block grant.

A per capita cap would set annual limits on federal funding per beneficiary that would grow more slowly than actual health care costs. A block grant would cap the amount of overall federal Medicaid funding the state could receive. Either way, states would receive significantly less federal funding compared to current law, under which the federal government pays a fixed share of state Medicaid costs, and the funding cuts would grow deeper each year.

Faced with large cuts in federal funding, states would have no choice but to sharply cut their programs. Consequently, tens of millions of people with pre-existing conditions – including millions of children with disabilities and special health care needs – would face the threat of Medicaid cuts.  They could lose coverage entirely or go without needed care as states scaled back covered benefits and payments to medical providers.

Home- and community-based services, an optional Medicaid benefit that most states already limit based on available funds, would be at particular risk. These services, which include nursing and home health care and help with chores, meals, transportation, and other services, let seniors and other low-income people with serious health problems remain in their homes instead of having to go to a nursing home.

#2: The federal government wouldn’t provide any more enhanced funding after 2019 for Medicaid enrollees who were enrolled because their states took the option, under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), to expand their Medicaid programs.

That would force states to pay three to five times more for the ACA’s Medicaid expansion.  Most or all of the 31 states and Washington, D.C. that have adopted it would have no choice but to drop it because they could no longer afford it.

The Medicaid expansion now covers 11 million people, including many who have pre-existing conditions. For example, almost 30 percent of those benefitting from the Medicaid expansion have a mental illness or substance use disorder. By effectively ending the Medicaid expansion starting in 2020, the House bill would leave millions of low-income people with pre-existing conditions without coverage.

#3: The bill would let insurers charge older people — many of whom have pre-existing conditions —at least five times more to buy coverage compared to younger consumers, while also slashing the subsidies that help them afford insurance. 

For example, a 60-year-old woman with $22,000 of annual income who faced the national average benchmark premium would pay $8,200 more in premiums after accounting for federal tax credits than she does now. The Congressional Budget Office projects that uninsured rates for people age 50-64 would double due to the House bill.  Some 84 percent of people age 55-64 have pre-existing health conditions.

#4: The bill would eliminate a broad range of consumer protections that the ACA established in the individual market, threatening access to health care and coverage for those with pre-existing conditions.

Plans would no longer need to offer a comprehensive set of benefits and could exclude even core benefits such as maternity services and mental health care. Nor would they have to limit the amount that people with expensive health care must pay out-of-pocket for deductibles and other cost-sharing each year.  Insurers could again place annual and lifetime limits not only on individual and small-group plans but also on coverage that people get from large employers, leaving millions with costly pre-existing conditions to once again worry about exhausting their benefits.

All told, then, the House bill would bring back the highly-flawed, pre-ACA individual insurance market that made it impossible for millions with pre-existing conditions to get adequate, affordable health coverage.  Additionally, it would threaten the coverage of millions of Medicaid recipients with pre-existing conditions.

That’s not a health care system that should make us proud.

GOP Senators divided over Medicaid Cuts

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

Click to access PDF%20PoliticoProDatapointGOPSenatorsMedicaidCuts.pdf

No automatic alt text available.

Early negotiations over the shape and scope of the Senate’s bill to replace the ACA have divided conservative and moderate Republicans. One critical issue: the fate of the Medicaid program.

 

 

The ‘Medicaidization’ Of The Health Insurance Marketplaces: A Necessary Trend

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

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2017/05/08/the-medicaidization-of-the-health-insurance-marketplaces-a-necessary-trend/

A woman helps someone sign up for health insurance at healthcare.gov

When stripped of emotion and hyperbole, the debate about repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is fundamentally about how to stretch limited funds to offer health care to two populations in need: the poor, who receive health care through Medicaid, and the “near-poor,” who were frequently without coverage prior to the ACA’s enactment. While millions of the near-poor remain uninsured today, six out of 10 limited-income individuals who purchased health care through the ACA’s health insurance Marketplaces were uninsured prior to the ACA. It is this near-poor and recently insured population, and how to cost-effectively provide health care for them, that is the focus of this post.

Many insurers have ably managed their sicker- and poorer-than-expected Marketplace membership by borrowing from the playbook of the most similar market, Medicaid. In short, we believe that the “Medicaidization” of the Marketplaces is a necessary and positive trend, and we remind policy makers that regardless of legislation or regulatory change, health plans must employ the Medicaidization playbook to well-serve a population that both parties believe needs coverage.

Health insurance Marketplaces—the centerpiece of the ACA—provide health insurance in government-refereed individual and small-group markets. However, health plans offering coverage through Marketplaces have been confronted with challenges. Enrollment is roughly 12 million, far behind original Congressional Budget Office projections of 21 million by 2016. This is largely because fewer employers than expected dropped employee coverage after the law passed and because many younger and healthier people have chosen to remain uninsured or covered by their parents’ insurance. As a whole, Marketplace enrollees are sicker and more costly than expected, and more than 80 percent receive means-tested subsidies to buy down some of their insurance costs. Furthermore, lawsuits and congressional actions have hobbled the ACA’s risk mitigation programs and threaten its subsidies. As a result, several health plans left the Marketplaces in 2017 in many states, and at least one—Humana—will exit entirely in 2018.

While the struggles of the ACA-reformed markets and the insurers that operate within those markets are well-documented, there have also been some success stories. Medicaid-focused health plans, as well as commercial plans that adopted tactics common in the Medicaid market, have performed at near break-even or better while serving the near-poor population in the Marketplaces. The relative success of Medicaid-focused plans in the Marketplaces contrasts with the struggles of national for-profit insurers and has led to the Medicaidization of the Marketplaces.

The term “Medicaidization” is not new to this post. It has been used by others, sometimes with a negative connotation. So it is helpful to define the term more precisely. Medicaidization, as used here, describes a set of practices—from sensitivity to sociocultural issues to utilization management—that have evolved to serve the Medicaid population. Because of socioeconomic disadvantage and poor health, this population responds to its health care needs very differently than other populations. However, the term “Medicaidization” belies the fact that health plans beyond those that focus on Medicaid are capable of deploying these same practices—such as several Blues and provider-owned plans—as described below.

Rival Senate healthcare group seeks to make waves

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

Rival Senate healthcare group seeks to make waves

Image result for aca repeal

A rival group of Republican senators is seeking leverage to influence the direction of the Senate’s ObamaCare replacement bill.

The group, led by Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.), has been meeting “a couple times a week,” according to Sen. Shelly Moore Capitol (R-W.Va.).

Cassidy is a physician and Collins is a former state insurance commissioner. Both have been outspoken opponents of the House-passed American Healthcare Act, and have co-sponsored their own version of an ObamaCare repeal bill called the Patient Freedom Act.

Cassidy told The Hill he and Collins have been meeting with Senate leaders to talk about their legislation. However, he noted the politics of the Senate mean that every member’s voice matters.

“When you only have 52 senators, everybody has significant leverage. That tight vote margin means everyone is essential,” Cassidy said.

The main GOP working group on healthcare includes 13 men backed by Senate leadership who are seeking to bridge the divide between conservatives and centrists.

What ever legislation emerges from that group is likely to be the bill that comes to the Senate floor.

But if all of the Senate’s Democrats oppose the measure, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) will only be able to afford two defections.

That gives the other group leverage.

“Let’s look at it practically,” Capito  told The Hill. “You can only lose two votes on any one issue … so I think a bloc of four or five can be very effective.”

Health lobbyists have noted many members of the leadership-led group have been fairly measured in their criticisms of the House bill approved earlier this month.

Collins and Cassidy, in contrast, both seem keen on turning sharply from the House bill.

The Impact of the ACA’s Medicaid Expansion on Hospitals’ Uncompensated Care Burden and the Potential Effects of Repeal

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

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2017/may/aca-medicaid-expansion-hospital-uncompensated-care

Abstract

Issue: By increasing health insurance coverage, the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid eligibility expansion was also expected to lessen the uncompensated care burden on hospitals. The expansion currently faces an uncertain future.
Goal: To compare the change in hospitals’ uncompensated care burden in the 31 states (plus the District of Columbia) that chose to expand Medicaid to the changes in states that did not, and to estimate how these expenses would be affected by repeal or further expansion.
Methods: Analysis of uncompensated care data from Medicare Hospital Cost Reports from 2011 to 2015.
Findings and Conclusions: Uncompensated care burdens fell sharply in expansion states between 2013 and 2015, from 3.9 percent to 2.3 percent of operating costs. Estimated savings across all hospitals in Medicaid expansion states totaled $6.2 billion. The largest reductions in uncompensated care were found for hospitals in expansion states that care for the highest proportion of low-income and uninsured patients. Legislation that scales back or eliminates Medicaid expansion is likely to expose these safety-net hospitals to large cost increases. Conversely, if the 19 states that chose not to expand Medicaid were to adopt expansion, their uncompensated care costs also would decrease by an estimated $6.2 billion.

Background

Prior to the Affordable Care Act (ACA), childless, nondisabled adults were ineligible for Medicaid in most states. The ACA allowed states to expand eligibility to nonelderly adults with incomes up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level (roughly $16,400 for an individual and $33,600 for a family of four in 2017). As of March 2017, 31 states and the District of Columbia had expanded Medicaid, while 19 states had not.1

One intended benefit of the Medicaid expansion was to reduce uncompensated care burdens that hospitals face. Uncompensated care is any treatment or service not paid for by an insurer or patient. We define uncompensated care costs as the sum of a hospital’s losses on both charity care (when hospitals forgo or reduce the cost of care) and bad debt (when hospitals bill for services but cannot collect payment).

Our previous research, detailed in a 2016 Health Affairs article, found that hospitals in Medicaid-expansion states experienced a sizeable reduction in their uncompensated care costs between 2013 and 2014, from 4.1 percentage points to 3.1 percentage points of operating costs.2 To see if this uncompensated care decrease has continued, we extended our analysis to 2015 and explored which hospitals saw the greatest decreases in uncompensated care costs.

This issue brief is intended to guide decisions around a possible ACA repeal and further state Medicaid expansions, as well as inform policies aimed at alleviating hospitals’ uncompensated care burden. In 2015, U.S. hospitals provided a total of $35.7 billion in uncompensated care, according to the American Hospital Association.3 However, this burden is unevenly distributed. Safety-net hospitals care for a larger-than-typical share of low-income and uninsured patients. In the past, Medicare and Medicaid disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments provided significant financial relief to safety-net hospitals. But the ACA mandates a sizeable reduction in DSH payments.

Findings

Uncompensated Care Declines in Expansion States Are Substantial Relative to Profit Margins

To identify trends in uncompensated care burdens for hospitals in expansion and nonexpansion states, we used data from Medicare Hospital Cost Reports to create a sample of 1,154 hospitals that report financial data for the calendar year. Focusing on hospitals within the 75th percentile, 50th percentile, and 25th percentile of the uncompensated care cost distribution, we found that between 2013 and 2014, these costs markedly declined in expansion states, and this downward trend continued into 2015 (Exhibit 1). The trajectories of uncompensated care costs were similar for hospitals across the three percentiles. In contrast, we found no similar break from historical trend in nonexpansion states.

 

Revised ACA Repeal-and-Replace Bill Likely to Increase the Uninsured Rate and Health Insurance Costs for Many

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

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/blog/2017/apr/amendment-aca-repeal-and-replace-bill

News outlets report that House Republicans are close to agreeing on an amended version of the American Health Care Act (AHCA), their proposed repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The all-important legislative language for the revised bill is not yet available, nor are Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projections of its effects on coverage and the budget, so any analyses are necessarily tentative.

Nevertheless, the summaries leaked to the media offer insight on the amended bill. If accurate, those summaries suggest that the revised AHCA will significantly increase the numbers of uninsured Americans, raise the cost of insurance for many of the nation’s most vulnerable citizens, and, as originally proposed in the AHCA, cut and reconfigure the Medicaid program. The new amendment specifically allows states to weaken consumer protections by, for example, permitting insurers to charge people with preexisting conditions higher premiums.

What the Amendment Leaves in Place

The amended proposed bill does little to change many provisions of the original AHCA including:

The CBO estimated in March that the combined effects of these provisions would increase the number of people without health insurance by 24 million by 2026. Older Americans would be particularly hard hit by the bill, experiencing much higher premiums relative to the ACA and the greatest coverage losses.

What the Amendment Changes

The amendment offers states the option to apply for waivers to reduce ACA consumer protections that have enabled people with health problems to buy private health insurance. States could waive the ban on charging people with preexisting conditions higher premiums, as long as states set up high-risk pools for people with conditions like cancer or heart disease who could no longer afford coverage. States could also change the ACA’s required minimum package of health benefits for health plans sold in the individual and small-group markets.

Despite the fact the federal ban on preexisting condition exclusions would remain under the AHCA, as Tim Jost points out, insurers could reach the same end by not covering services like chemotherapy that sick people need, or by charging very high premiums for individuals with expensive, preexisting problems. In addition, waiving the ACA’s essential benefit requirement could weaken other consumer protections like bans on lifetime and annual benefit limits and caps on out-of-pocket costs.

While states that allowed higher premiums for people with health problems would be required to use a high-risk pool under the amendment, prior research has found that such pools operated by states before the ACA were expensive both for states and for people enrolled in them, and covered only a small fraction of the individuals who would have benefited. An amendment proposed earlier in the month would provide federal funds for a so-called “invisible risk-sharing” program, a hybrid between a high-risk pool and reinsurance for high claims costs, but the allocated funding would likely need to be much higher to have an impact on costs.

The number of states that would apply for these waivers is unknown, but it seems reasonable to expect that many states with governors and legislatures that have opposed the ACA would do so. For a substantial part of the country, therefore, the amendment could seriously undermine the ACA’s protections for people with preexisting health conditions.

 

Medicaid expansion didn’t cause unexpected state budget problems, study finds

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

http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/medicaid-expansion-didn-t-cause-unexpected-state-budget-problems-study-finds.html

Image result for medicaid expansion states 2017

A study published in Health Affairs Wednesday found the states that expanded their Medicaid programs under the ACA didn’t encounter unforeseen budget problems as a result of the expansion.

Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia have expanded their Medicaid programs under the ACA. To determine the fiscal effects of Medicaid expansion on state budgets, researchers used data from the National Association of State Budget Officers for fiscal years 2010 to 2015.

Medicaid spending increased by 11.7 percent overall in states that expanded their programs, but this spending growth was covered by federal funds. Under the ACA, the federal government paid for 100 percent of the costs for newly eligible Medicaid enrollees from 2014 through 2016 in states that expanded the program.

The researchers also found states didn’t have to take funding away from education or other programs to fund their expanded Medicaid programs.

Since the data used in the analysis was only for years during which the federal government covered up to 100 percent of the cost of expanding Medicaid, the study likely underestimates the budgetary implications of the expansion beginning in 2017. That’s because states become responsible for 5 percent of expansion costs this year, and, absent any legislative changes, will be responsible for 10 percent of costs by 2020.

 

What Trump Can Do Without Congress to Dismantle Obamacare

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

Image result for What Trump Can Do Without Congress to Dismantle Obamacare

House Republicans left for spring break last week, without reaching a deal to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. Their bill to overhaul the health care system collapsed on the House floor last month, amid divisions in the caucus.

Even without Congress, however, President Trump has the authority to modify important provisions of the health law, including many that House Republicans sought to change or repeal. Here are some examples of actions he could take (or has already taken):

Don’t expect Medicaid work requirements to make a big difference

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

https://www.axios.com/dont-expect-medicaid-work-requirements-to-make-a-big-difference-2338186318.htm

Image result for Don't expect Medicaid work requirements to make a big difference

Liberals and conservatives have irreconcilable differences of policy and principle over the issue of Medicaid “work requirements.” But their impact depends on how they are implemented and is likely to be very small — because most people on Medicaid who can work already are.

With Trumpcare dead for now, expect Republican governors to begin submitting waiver proposals to the Department of Health and Human Services to move their Medicaid programs in a more conservative direction. Medicaid “work requirements” are likely to be an element of many of those waiver requests, possibly from Republican-led states now looking to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act.

During the Obama administration, HHS rejected mandatory work requirements as inconsistent with the purposes of the Medicaid statute, spurning requests from Arizona, Indiana, and Pennsylvania under a previous governor. Under the Trump presidency, HHS is expected to approve them.

Medicaid “work requirements” are not requirements to work in a literal sense. Generally, this is how states would define them:

  • Able-bodied beneficiaries — people who can work — would have to look for a job, participate in a job training program or go to school, or work full time or part time.
  • People who would be exempt: anyone who can document that they are too sick or disabled to work, have to take care of a sick child or family member, or do not have adequate child care.

Liberals find Medicaid work requirements repugnant because they believe that Medicaid beneficiaries want to work if they can, and that providing health coverage to people who cannot afford it is an obligation of any moral nation. Conservatives who favor work requirements see Medicaid coverage as another form of government welfare benefit, like cash assistance, requiring reciprocal obligations from beneficiaries, and a disincentive to work.

The reality, though, is that most Medicaid beneficiaries are working already, and the vast majority of those who are not working are likely to be exempted from all but the most draconian Medicaid work requirements when front-line caseworkers apply state rules.

As the chart shows:

  • 59% of all Medicaid beneficiaries who were not on Supplemental Security Income — the program for low-income people with disabilities — were working full time (41%) or part time (18%) in 2015.
  • That leaves 41% who were not working. Of those, the vast majority (89%) had reasons for not working, including that they were sick or had a disability (35%), were taking care of a family member (28%), or were in school (18%).
  • Another 8% said they could not find a job which, when documented, usually satisfies work requirements.
  • All told, just a tiny subset of Medicaid beneficiaries are-able bodied adults who do not have a reason for not working that would fail to pass muster with a state case worker.

Medicaid work requirements send signals conservatives like and liberals reject. As I learned a long time ago designing and implementing a leading welfare reform program as Commissioner of Human Services in New Jersey, the fight about policy and principle can get hot when it comes to work requirements, but their impact depends on how they are implemented.

With most beneficiaries working or with good reasons not to be, that impact will be small.