Tag Archives: Medicaid Expansion

Americans’ Views on Health Insurance at the End of a Turbulent Year

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

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2018/mar/americans-views-health-insurance-turbulent-year#/utm_source=americans-views-health-insurance-turbulent-year&utm_medium=Facebook&utm_campaign=Health%20Coverage

The Affordable Care Act’s 2018 open enrollment period came at the end of a turbulent year in health care. The Trump administration took several steps to weaken the ACA’s insurance marketplaces. Meanwhile, congressional Republicans engaged in a nine-month effort to repeal and replace the law’s coverage expansions and roll back Medicaid.

Nevertheless, 11.8 million people had selected plans through the marketplaces by the end of January, about 3.7 percent fewer than the prior year.1 There was an overall increase in enrollment this year in states that run their own marketplaces and a decrease in those states that rely on the federal marketplace.

To gauge the perspectives of Americans on the marketplaces, Medicaid, and other health insurance issues, the Commonwealth Fund Affordable Care Act Tracking Survey interviewed a random, nationally representative sample of 2,410 adults ages 19 to 64 between November 2 and December 27, 2017, including 541 people who have marketplace or Medicaid coverage. The findings are compared to prior ACA tracking surveys, the most recent of which was fielded between March and June 2017. The survey research firm SSRS conducted the survey, which has an overall margin of error is +/– 2.7 percentage points at the 95 percent confidence level. See How We Conducted This Study to learn more about the survey methods.

HIGHLIGHTS

Adults were asked about:

  • INSURANCE COVERAGE 14 percent of working age adults were uninsured at the end of 2017, unchanged from March–June 2017.
  • AWARENESS OF THE MARKETPLACES 35 percent of uninsured adults were not aware of the marketplaces.
  • REASONS FOR NOT GETTING COVERED Among uninsured adults who were aware of the marketplaces but did not plan to visit them, 71 percent said they didn’t think they could afford health insurance, while 23 percent thought the ACA was going to be repealed.
  • CONFIDENCE ABOUT STAYING COVERED About three in 10 people with marketplace coverage or Medicaid said they were not confident they would be able to keep their coverage in the future. Of those, 47 percent said they felt this way because either the Trump administration would not carry out the law (32%) or Congress would repeal it (15%).
  • SHOULD AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE BE A RIGHT? 92 percent of working-age adults think that all Americans should have the right to affordable health care, including 99 percent of Democrats, 82 percent of Republicans, and 92 percent of independents.

 

Democrats considering a new strategy to expand health coverage as frustrations build with Obamacare

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

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-democrats-healthcare-agenda-20180227-story.html

Democrats considering a new strategy to expand health coverage as frustrations build with Obamacare

After spending most of 2017 defending the Affordable Care Act from GOP attacks, a growing number of Democrats believe the law’s reliance on private insurance markets won’t be enough and the party should focus instead on expanding popular government programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

The emerging strategy — which is gaining traction among liberal policy experts, activists and Democratic politicians — is less sweeping than the “single-payer” government-run system that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) made a cornerstone of his 2016 presidential campaign.

Many Democrats still fear such a dramatic change would disrupt coverage for too many Americans, but they have also concluded that the current law’s middle-ground approach to build on the private insurance market — originally a Republican idea — isn’t providing enough Americans with adequate, affordable health coverage.

These Democrats see the expansion of existing public programs as a more pragmatic and politically viable way to help Americans struggling with rising costs and correct the shortcomings of the 2010 law, often called Obamacare.

 “What is clear is that the Democratic Party as a whole is coming to the conclusion that stand-alone private market solutions to healthcare do not achieve affordability and coverage for all,” said Chris Jennings, an influential Washington health policy advisor who worked for Presidents Clinton and Obama.

“But there is a recognition that you can’t just snap your fingers and have political consensus. … And one of the lessons learned from 2017 is that you better do your homework.”

Democrats are eager to avoid mistakes made by Republicans, who proved unprepared last year as they struggled unsuccessfully to fulfill their years-long promise to repeal the current health law.

Developing a new healthcare agenda doesn’t promise to be easy, as liberal activists and others in the progressive wing of the Democratic Party remain committed to the single-payer solution championed by Sanders and may resist more incremental steps.

At the same time, even more modest moves to build on Medicare or Medicaid will face opposition from hospitals, drugmakers and others in the industry who fear that government health plans would pressure them to accept lower prices.

And no one expects any Democratic plan to go anywhere as long as Congress remains in Republicans’ hands and Trump holds a veto pen.

But in the wake of widespread public rejection of GOP healthcare proposals last year, Democrats see an opportunity to seize the initiative and advance the party’s long-held dream of universal health coverage.

“We’re on offense on healthcare,” said Brad Woodhouse, campaign director for Protect Our Care, an advocacy group formed last year to fight the GOP effort to roll back the 2010 health law. “We need to make healthcare the No. 1 issue.”

Speaking to a recent conference organized by Families USA, a leading national patients’ rights group, Woodhouse cautioned, however, that Democrats must offer voters more than just a defense of the current law.

In recent months, Democratic lawmakers on Capitol Hill have filed a growing number of bills that would expand eligibility for Medicare or Medicaid, which currently limit coverage to qualifying elderly, disabled or poor Americans. The two mammoth government programs are much cheaper than commercial insurance, in large part because they pay hospitals and other medical providers less.

In January, a group of influential liberal health policy experts gathered in Washington to explore these proposals, which typically would allow younger, wealthier consumers to “buy into” one of the two programs.

At the same time, Democratic leaders in several states, including California, New York and New Mexico are exploring state-based initiatives to expand government health plans.

And last week, the Center for American Progress, a leading liberal think tank, released a plan to open up Medicare to all Americans, while still giving workers the option to stick with coverage offered through an employer.

“Democrats have mostly been trying to keep Republicans from repealing the current law,” said Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.). “Now we need to come up with the next set of ideas about how to improve coverage and affordability.”

Kaine and Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) are cosponsoring yet another proposal — which they call Medicare X — for a new government program based on Medicare, particularly for consumers in parts of the country with limited commercial options.

The renewed interest among Democrats in government health insurance has buoyed the hopes of those who support a more ambitious push to create a single public health plan for everyone.

“What has been happening in the last few years is that millions of working people and young people are getting involved in the party … and the grassroots movement is overwhelmingly clear about what it wants from healthcare,” Sanders said in an interview.

“That means that the debate over Medicare-for-all changes, and I think that is what is happening now.”

Indeed, Sanders’ Medicare-for-all bill, which would create a new government plan like Medicare for everyone, has drawn support from nearly every major Democrat in the Senate who is expected to seek the 2020 presidential nomination.

But many Democrats who aspire to something like Sanders’ proposal still worry about the cost and disruptions that would likely be necessary to create a large new government plan for everyone.

“I share the desire for universal coverage,” said Bennet. “The question is what approach is more practical to achieving that objective.”

Nearly a decade ago, Democratic leaders, concerned about the politics of expanding government health plans too aggressively, created the Obamacare insurance marketplaces, which rely on private insurers to provide coverage for Americans who don’t get health benefits through an employer or through a government program.

Democrats even rejected a proposal for a limited government plan to be sold on the marketplaces as a “public option.”

But the ceaseless GOP attacks on the marketplaces, which had been a conservative idea, and the failure of private health insurers to make more affordable plans available — even before Trump took office — has caused more Democrats to back a bigger role for government.

“That is a huge shift,” said Jacob Hacker, a Yale political scientist who helped develop the public option proposal.

Further emboldening Democrats is growing evidence that the public overwhelmingly supports existing government health plans, especially in the face of GOP threats to scale them back.

Eight in 10 Americans held a positive view of Medicare in a recent nationwide poll by the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation.

And majorities of both parties favor allowing more people to buy into the program, the survey found.

Medicaid enjoys similarly broad support, with three-quarters of Americans expressing a favorable view.

By contrast, the GOP proposals to roll back the 2010 health law and slash funding for Medicaid were overwhelmingly unpopular, drawing support from just one in five Americans in several nationwide polls.

Even supporters of this emerging Democratic healthcare agenda acknowledge it will take years to develop and may not be fully debated until the campaign for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination gets underway next year.

But many say it is not too early to begin planning.

“We saw support for Medicaid [during the 2017 GOP repeal push] that took even many longtime Medicaid advocates by surprise,” said Rep. Ben Ray Lujan (D-N.M.), who is sponsoring a proposal with Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) to allow people to buy into the Medicaid program.

“There is an opportunity now to build on that momentum,” Lujan said.

 

 

Will Federal Courts Uphold Trump Administration Medicaid Waiver Approvals?

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

https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20180213.18720/full/

Court decisions are likely to have an enormous impact on the future of the Medicaid program. On January 12, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced approval of a Medicaid demonstration waiver in Kentucky incorporating unprecedented restrictions on Medicaid eligibility for adults. These restrictions have been summarized by Sara Rosenbaum on Health Affairs Blog in the context of a powerful review of Medicaid demonstration law and policy. Kentucky’s new waiver includes not only a highly publicized “work/community engagement” requirement, but additional elements new to Medicaid including lockouts for beneficiaries who do not complete the annual renewal process or who fail to report changes in income.

Twelve days after the CMS approval announcement, the Kentucky Equal Justice Center, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the National Health Law Program filed suit to stop the waiver in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, representing 15 Medicaid beneficiaries in Kentucky. Similar lawsuits are virtually certain as Medicaid waivers imposing new coverage and benefits restrictions on adults are approved in Indiana and likely other states.

Why The Current Round Of 1115 Waivers Are Different

As noted by Sara Rosenbaum, Nicholas Bagley, and others, there is a limited history of federal lawsuits challenging Medicaid section 1115 demonstrations. But it is important to note the reason there have been few of these legal challenges: until 2018, over its 50-plus year history, Medicaid waiver authority was almost exclusively used to expand Medicaid eligibility and benefits rather than to restrict them, or to try a different approach to delivering existing benefits. When I oversaw Medicaid 1115 waiver review from 2013 to early 2017, the Obama administration agreed to try a variety of conservative ideas under Medicaid waiver authority for the Affordable Care Act (ACA) adult expansion population. But each of these ideas was tied into a good faith hypothesis about potential improved access or benefits within the Medicaid program. Premiums were to be tested as an alternative to cost-sharing in some states or in combined premium/cost-sharing approaches that sought to encourage and incentivize healthy behaviors; private marketplace plan networks were to be tested and evaluated as an alternative to traditional Medicaid providers; the impact of the Non-Emergency Medical Transportation benefit on unmet need would be measured closely to see if eliminating the benefit helped or hurt self-reported access to care.

The approvals in Kentucky and Indiana, and possible pending approvals in other states, base their legal claim to be promoting the objectives of the Medicaid program on a far more brazen and cynical premise. The waiver approvals assert that taking away Medicaid from statutorily eligible individuals can act as an incentive that ultimately improves health: either by forcing the beneficiary to get a job to stay insured in the case of work requirements, or by “educating beneficiaries on enrollment requirements” in the case of lockouts from eligibility for beneficiaries who fail to complete an annual renewal or inform the state of income changes.

Because the hypothesized Medicaid objectives are so dubious, a lot more than these specific waiver requests rests on the plaintiffs’ case in these states. At risk are not only specific Medicaid eligibility principles, but the entire statutory enterprise of congressional legislation of mandatory Medicaid eligibility or benefits of any kind. Consider what it would mean for Medicaid law were the justifications upheld: if waivers can overturn congressional Medicaid eligibility guarantees and claim to promote Medicaid objectives because Medicaid itself is a barrier to health, or because cutting off eligibility is a way to teach people about private insurance or enforce compliance with new extra-statutory eligibility requirements, then there is no meaningful legal limit on state waivers of federal Medicaid eligibility law. Congress’s ability—in place since 1965 and upheld in hundreds of federal court decisions—to mandate that state Medicaid agencies cover specific categories of individuals for specific periods of time and with specific benefits will be subject to an extra-statutory waiver process in toto.

Will courts allow it anyway? After all, section 1115(a) defining the scope of the demonstration authority specifically references “the judgment of the Secretary”, suggesting executive branch latitude.

Will Courts Overturn Work Requirements?

But there are a number of important legal and contextual factors that point to court action to overturn these waiver approvals. First, the work requirement component of these waivers is a particularly blatant attempt to achieve under waiver authority what could not be achieved via statutory change. Both the House and primary Senate version of “repeal and replace” 2017 included state options to impose work requirements in Medicaid. These efforts—in a rather high-profile manner—failed to pass Congress. Courts will be considering the tactic of the executive branch trying to change the Medicaid program via demonstration waivers when it failed to change the law.

Second, the primary federal court precedent for judicial review of Medicaid section 1115 demonstrations sets a high bar for legal scrutiny. Although (as summarized by Nicholas Bagley) the courts historically authorized some restrictive state section 1115 waivers with regard to Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) cash welfare in the name of supporting transitions to independence, these decisions were tied to a statutory framework for the AFDC program that itself supported transitions to work as an explicit goal beginning in the 1960s. This is not true when it comes to Medicaid: Medicaid’s statutory framework is as an ongoing health insurance program, and it now covers 70 million people, many times the enrollment level in AFDC/Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) over its history. And the limited court challenges to Medicaid section 1115 waivers have had a high success rate, with courts insisting that not only meet the “promote Medicaid objectives” standard but that they meet an additional level of scrutiny regarding research or experimental value relative to the health policy literature. Strikingly, the court in Newton-Nations v. Betlach—the primary precedent for Medicaid waiver judicial review—approvingly cited expert testimony on the health policy literature as evidence for why further research on cost-sharing was not needed. If judges are citing literature reviews to question whether waiver hypotheses involve groundbreaking experiments, that does not indicate a high degree of judicial deference.

Third, we have had strong indications in the last year that federal courts are not working with an assumption of good faith in stated agency rationales, particularly when significant published information from Trump administration leaders contradicts those ostensible public rationales. Judicial skepticism has extended from presidential tweets cited as evidence of discriminatory intent in immigration cases, to asserting “invidious partisan intent” in drawing of voting districts. And the Trump administration has made abundantly clear that its reasons for supporting restrictions on adult Medicaid enrollment have nothing to do with health: CMS Administrator Seema Verma has repeatedly stated her broad opposition to Medicaid coverage of low-income non-disabled adults as such, and the Trump administration worked vigorously to undo the Medicaid expansion during the ACA repeal effort in Congress.

Fourth, the fact that states are pairing work requirement waivers with other extra-statutory restrictions on Medicaid eligibility undermines whatever health claims they are making regarding the work requirement. With the exception of Mississippi—a state with Medicaid income eligibility levels for adults that are so low virtually no employed adults qualify—every state that has proposed a work requirement has also proposed to waive Medicaid law in other ways to take away coverage. Kentucky’s and Indiana’s new “lockout” provisions that will bar people from Medicaid for six months if they fail to report a change in income or if they fail to submit an annual redetermination of eligibility will likely lead to dramatic reductions in Medicaid coverage, given the high rates of enrollment churn associated with Medicaid’s unique annual redetermination requirements. States that are trying to cut Medicaid coverage for adults in multiple ways and a federal Administration that opposes Medicaid coverage of non-disabled adults would appear to be attacking Medicaid coverage of adults any way they can. They will not make for persuasive exponents of the health benefits of work requirements.

The pending litigation will be the first time the courts have thoroughly defined the scope of executive branch section 1115 waiver authority in Medicaid. As a matter of law and policy, one way or another this important part of the Medicaid program and the American health system will likely be changed by the time the federal courts have completed their adjudication. Many thousands of lives will be at stake. But with multiple judicial imperatives at stake as well, there is good reason to expect that the courts will step in.

 

Hospital Impact—Medicaid on the chopping block in 2018

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

https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/hospitals/hospital-impact-medicaid-chopping-block-2018?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTnpReE1EaGhZamt5TVRsbSIsInQiOiJ0UHBtVE1DclpRckhmUjVyMUF2ZWF1ZStSRE93QmtRYWM0ckdYXC9lalRYbERcL1E0R2o5S3g4blhTN2VZU1NsVkNndjRWZ1RRMnhJVXJHdmp6Z1liRWNXS2JyWHlrTyt6Y3hEeVVHZ0xxRWFUYmdjU2RsZWVhYzZmWWZxTCtBUjlcLyJ9&mrkid=959610

Filling out job application

Medicare and Medicaid have always been a “work in progress,” as they’ve evolved from entitlement programs for the elderly and the poor in the 1960s to the largest health insurers—public or private—in the nation.

Medicaid is the more controversial program of the two, as its original intent was to provide temporary, safety-net health coverage for the poor and not as a permanent entitlement. This issue has been politicized by both parties as of late with little attention paid to the impact that nonclinical determinants—such as genetics, socioeconomics, environment and lifestyle choices—have on healthcare outcomes and life expectancy.

Democrats support expanding Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act to every state for everyone within 138% of the federal poverty level. Republicans favor increasing beneficiary responsibilities to take greater control and responsibility over their own healthcare and are encouraging states to pursue waivers to experiment with different Medicaid models designed to optimize quality, drive down costs and enable beneficiaries to move toward greater economic self-sufficiency.

President Donald Trump’s proposed budget last May recommended $800 billion in Medicaid cuts as well as cuts in nutritional assistance ($192 billion) and welfare programs ($272 billion). With the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act adding $1 trillion to the federal deficit, Republicans are making cuts to Medicaid a priority for 2018.

The rise of work requirements

Last month, the Trump administration announced that it would grant states the right to impose work requirements for able-bodied Medicaid recipients. Pregnant women, full-time students, primary caretakers of children under 19, disabled adult dependents and frail elderly individuals would be exempt from these requirements.

There are many complex issues that arise from this proposal, including:

  • The likelihood that it will be challenged in federal court (as is already the case in Kentucky)
  • The impact that denial of coverage would have on healthcare costs with elimination of preventive healthcare services, treatment for opioid addiction and job restrictions for those with chronic addictions
  • The requirement that states would bear the burden of job training, child care, transportation to work sites and other administrative costs with limited resources.

Democrats responded that this proposal violates the Medicaid statute as well as the original intent of the state waiver program. They also pointed out that the majority of Medicaid beneficiaries who can work do work, and often carry more than one low-paying service job that does not permit them to afford commercial health insurance coverage.

Many Republican governors support the proposal, as they would like to see a greater number of Medicaid beneficiaries receive health insurance through an employer rather than through the state. Earlier this month, Kentucky became the first state to receive approval to impose job requirements as a part of its Medicaid program, followed in short order by Indiana.

Cost-sharing considerations

Another approach to reducing Medicaid costs is cost-sharing, which is already permitted under federal law. Like the job-requirement proposal, children, pregnant women and others are partially waived from this requirement with lower premiums and cost-sharing limits.

In addition, states may impose higher premiums and cost-sharing limits for the option to purchase brand as opposed to generic prescription drugs and the nonemergency use of emergency departments as determined by a medical screening exam under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act.

All about the execution

There is no question that the United States cannot sustain the current unfunded liabilities that include Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security. In addition, cuts to the Medicaid program are supported by a significant number of Americans. However, doing this successfully will be complicated by the fact that those receiving this coverage deeply appreciate its benefits and that many studies support the positive economic value of Medicaid expansion.

Imposing work requirements and cost-sharing on Medicaid beneficiaries will only work if the jobs available to them are not minimum-wage service jobs and provide employer-based insurance. Thus, the main question is: Can states invest in the infrastructure necessary to help get their most vulnerable populations on their feet in an economically meaningful way? Or is the intent to merely withhold healthcare services to compensate for federal and state budgets that have spiraled out of control?

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The arguments for and against Medicaid work requirements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Health Affairs 2017: Editor’s Picks

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

http://web.healthaffairs.org/acton/rif/17576/s-04f8-1801/-/l-00e1:5b3a/l-00e1/showPreparedMessage?sid=TV2:WbEgD1Dn4

 

For the third year in a row, Alan Weil, Health Affairs Editor-in-Chief, shares his own “Top Ten” favorite articles for 2017. His list of articles, in alphabetical order by first author, covers a broad range of topics. Many of these articles analyze the effects of a specific policy; others raise the profile of issues that deserve more attention. Some articles had unexpected findings. Their shared attribute is that the authors chose to focus on interesting and important questions. To read more details about the findings, please visit Alan’s blog post.

  1. ‘Go Back To California’: When Providers Fail Transgender Patients by Laura Arrowsmith | September 2017

  2. Iowa’s Medicaid Expansion Promoted Healthy Behaviors But Was Challenging To Implement And Attracted Few Participants by Natoshia M. Askelson, Brad Wright, Suzanne Bentler, Elizabeth T. Momany, and Peter Damiano | May 2017

  3. Los Angeles Safety-Net Program eConsult System Was Rapidly Adopted And Decreased Wait Times To See Specialists by Michael L. Barnett, Hal F. Yee, Jr., Ateev Mehrotra, and Paul Giboney | March 2017

  4. Lower-Income Countries That Face The Most Rapid Shift In Noncommunicable Disease Burden Are Also The Least Prepared by Thomas J. Bollyky, Tara Templin, Matthew Cohen, and Joseph L. Dieleman | November 2017
  5. Women In The United States Experience High Rates Of Coverage ‘Churn’ In Months Before And After Childbirth by Jamie R. Daw, Laura A. Hatfield, Katherine Swartz, and Benjamin D. Sommers | April 2017

  6. Impact Of Ambulance Diversion: Black Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Had Higher Mortality Than Whites by Renee Y. Hsia, Nandita Sarkar, and Yu-Chu Shen | June 2017

  7. Substantial Physician Turnover And Beneficiary ‘Churn’ In A Large Medicare Pioneer ACO by John Hsu, Christine Vogeli, Mary Price, Richard Brand, Michael E. Chernew, Namita Mohta, Sreekanth K. Chaguturu, Eric Weil, and Timothy G. Ferris | April 2017

  8. Only One In Twenty Justice-Referred Adults In Specialty Treatment For Opioid Use Receive Methadone Or Buprenorphine by Noa Krawczyk, Caroline E. Picher, Kenneth A. Feder, and Brendan Saloner | December 2017

  9. A National Profile Of End-Of-Life Caregiving In The United Statesby Katherine A. Ornstein, Amy S. Kelley, Evan Bollens-Lund, and Jennifer L. Wolff | July 2017

  10. Market Share Matters: Evidence Of Insurer And Provider Bargaining Over Prices by Eric T. Roberts, Michael E. Chernew, and J. Michael McWilliams | January 2017

Here’s how states are trying to overhaul Medicaid — without Congress

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

http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/18/news/economy/medicaid-state-waiver-requirements/index.html

Image result for Here's how states are trying to overhaul Medicaid -- without Congress

Work requirements are only the beginning.

Mandating Medicaid recipients work in order to receive benefits is in the spotlight right now, but states are seeking to make a host of other changes to their programs. These include requiring enrollees to pay premiums, limiting the time they can receive benefits, testing them for drugs and locking them out if they fail to keep up with the paperwork.

Many provisions would apply to working age, non-disabled adults who gained coverage under the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion. But several states also would require some who qualify under traditional Medicaid — very low-income parents, mainly — to meet these new rules.

Trump administration and state officials say these measures will help people gain independence and prepare them to purchase health insurance on their own. Critics, however, argue states are putting additional hurdles in place to winnow down their rolls.

“The practical impact of all these proposals is that it will knock people off of coverage,” said Patricia Boozang, a managing director at Manatt Health Solutions, a consulting firm.

Republicans have long wanted to overhaul the 53-year-old Medicaid program, which covers nearly 75 million mainly low-income children, parents, elderly and disabled Americans. The broadening of Medicaid to low-income adults under Obamacare — roughly 11 million have gained coverage under the health reform law’s Medicaid expansion provision — has further spurred GOP efforts.

Congress attempted last year to revamp the safety net program, hoping to sharply curtail federal support and turn more control over to the states. Studies showed that millions would lose coverage, helping to sink the measure in the Senate.

States, however, are undeterred. They are ramping up efforts to customize their Medicaid programs through the federal waiver process.

States have long had this power, but the Obama administration rejected any waivers with work requirements and only sparingly granted requests to tighten eligibility. Many of the states that used waivers tied provider payments to performance goals or expanded mental health and substance abuse services and eligibility, for instance. A few turned to waivers to implement alternative Medicaid expansion models that include charging premiums or enrolling recipients in private insurance and covering the premiums, for example.

Indiana, for example, broke new ground in 2015 by getting permission to levy premiums on some traditional Medicaid enrollees, such as very low-income parents, and to lock out expansion recipients above the poverty line for six months if they don’t keep up with their payments.

But the Trump administration has taken a different approach. Seema Verma, who leads the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, sent a letter to governors hours after she was confirmed in March asking them to file waivers that promote a path to self-sufficiency. At least 10 states have responded with waivers that include work requirements and a host of other provisions. Last week, CMS granted Kentucky’s waiver to implement work requirements, marking the first time ever a state can mandate recipients work for their benefits.

Kentucky also can start charging its Medicaid enrollees monthly premiums ranging from $1 to $15, depending on income, and suspend some of those who fall behind on payments. The state will also provide recipients with a high-deductible health savings account, which it will fund, and offer incentives to purchase additional benefits, such as dental and vision coverage.

And the state can lock recipients out of the program for up to six months if they don’t renew their paperwork on time or promptly report changes in income that could affect their eligibility — the first time the federal government has granted such a request.

All told, Kentucky is expecting about 95,000 fewer people to be in its Medicaid program by the end of its five-year waiver period.

Kentucky joins Indiana, Michigan, Arizona, Montana and Iowa in gaining permission to charge premiums. However, states such as Maine and Wisconsin — that didn’t expand Medicaid — are also looking to levy premiums on certain enrollees, primarily low-income parents or childless adults.

Wisconsin also wants to implement additional changes, including drug testing and a 48-month time limit, after which the recipient loses coverage for six months. Months during which the enrollee works or participates in training programs wouldn’t count toward the limit. Utah, meanwhile, wants to impose a lifetime limit on coverage of 60 months. Arizona, Kansas and Maine also want to set caps on the length of time residents can be on Medicaid.

Other states want to reduce the income threshold for Medicaid expansion eligibility. Arkansas and Massachusetts have asked to cover adults only up to 100% of the poverty level, or roughly $24,600 for a family of four, rather than 138%, but the states would still get the enhanced federal match. Those who would fall off would be able to sign up for subsidized policies on the Obamacare exchanges, though consumer advocates say that coverage would be too pricey for most low-income Americans.

Each of these provisions is complicated and having to comply with multiple requirements could prove too much for some recipients, said MaryBeth Musumeci, an associate director at the Program on Medicaid and the Uninsured at the Kaiser Family Foundation.

“There’s a very real risk that eligible people can lose coverage,” she said.

Understanding the Intersection of Medicaid and Work

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

https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/understanding-the-intersection-of-medicaid-and-work/?utm_campaign=KFF-2018-The-Latest&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=59811229&_hsenc=p2ANqtz–JERFINvucriGGpU1rflJEeJxuQPVDm8Wxcl7b-PGXeAoVUch8Oz-J5zdRyTzl09wIqr9zHKJO6Lrp-P6xvIdaGh3oKQ&_hsmi=59811229

Image result for medicaid

Medicaid is the nation’s public health insurance program for people with low incomes. Overall, the Medicaid program covers one in five Americans, including many with complex and costly needs for care. Historically, nonelderly adults without disabilities accounted for a small share of Medicaid enrollees; however, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) expanded coverage to nonelderly adults with income up to 138% FPL, or $16,642 per year for an individual in 2017. As of December 2017, 32 states have implemented the ACA Medicaid expansion.1 By design, the expansion extended coverage to the working poor (both parents and childless adults), most of whom do not otherwise have access to affordable coverage. While many have gained coverage under the expansion, the majority of Medicaid enrollees are still the “traditional” populations of children, people with disabilities, and the elderly.

Some states and the Trump administration have stated that the ACA Medicaid expansion targets “able-bodied” adults and seek to make Medicaid eligibility contingent on work. Under current law, states cannot impose a work requirement as a condition of Medicaid eligibility, but some states are seeking waiver authority to do so.  These types of waiver requests were denied by the Obama administration, but the Trump administration has indicated a willingness to approve such waivers. This issue brief provides data on the work status of the nearly 25 million non-elderly adults without SSI enrolled in Medicaid (referred to as “Medicaid adults” throughout this brief) to understand the potential implications of work requirement proposals in Medicaid.  Key takeaways include the following:

  • Among Medicaid adults (including parents and childless adults — the group targeted by the Medicaid expansion), nearly 8 in 10 live in working families, and a majority are working themselves. Nearly half of working Medicaid enrollees are employed by small firms, and many work in industries with low employer-sponsored insurance offer rates.
  • Among the adult Medicaid enrollees who were not working, most report major impediments to their ability to work including illness or disability or care-giving responsibilities.
  • While proponents of work requirements say such provisions aim to promote work for those who are not working, these policies could have negative implications on many who are working or exempt from the requirements. For example, coverage for working or exempt enrollees may be at risk if enrollees face administrative obstacles in verifying their work status or documenting an exemption.

Data Findings

Among nonelderly adults with Medicaid coverage—the group of enrollees most likely to be in the workforce—nearly 8 in 10 live in working families, and a majority are working themselves. Because policies around work requirements would be intended to apply to primarily to nonelderly adults without disabilities, we focus this analysis on adults whose eligibility is not based on receipt of Supplemental Security Income (SSI, see methods box for more detail). Data show that among the nearly 25 million non-SSI adults (ages 19-64) enrolled in Medicaid in 2016, 6 in 10 (60%) are working themselves (Figure 1). A larger share, nearly 8 in 10 (79%), are in families with at least one worker, with nearly two-thirds (64%) with a full-time worker and another 14% with a part-time worker; one of the adults in such families may not work, often due to caregiving or other responsibilities.

Because states that expanded Medicaid under the ACA cover adults with family incomes at higher levels than those that did not, adults in Medicaid expansion states are more likely to be in working families or working themselves than those in non-expansion states (Table 1). Adults who are younger, male, Hispanic or Asian were more likely to be working than those who are older, female, or White, Black, or American Indian, respectively (Figure 2 and Table 2). Not surprisingly, adults with more education or better health were more likely to work than others (Figure 3 and Table 2). Perhaps reflecting job market conditions, those living in the South were less likely to work than those in other areas, though similar rates of enrollees in urban and rural areas were working (Table 2). 

Most Medicaid enrollees who work are working full-time for the full year, but their annual incomes are still low enough to qualify for Medicaid. Among adult Medicaid enrollees who work, the majority (51%) worked full-time (at least 35 hours per week) for the entire year (at least 50 weeks during the year) (Table 3).2Most of those who work for only part of the year still work for the majority of the year (26 weeks or more). By definition (that is, in order to meet Medicaid eligibility criteria), these individuals are working low-wage jobs. For example, an individual working full-time (40 hours/week) for the full year (52 weeks) at the federal minimum wage would earn an annual salary of just over $15,000 a year, or about 125% of poverty, below the 138% FPL maximum targeted by the ACA Medicaid expansion.

Many Medicaid enrollees working part-time face impediments to finding full-time work.  Among adult Medicaid enrollees who work part-time, many cite economic reasons such as inability to find full-time work (10%) or slack business conditions (11%) as the reason they work part-time versus full-time. Other major reasons are attendance at school (14%) or other family obligations (14%).

Nearly half of working adult Medicaid enrollees are employed by small firms, and many work in industries with low employer-sponsored coverage offer rates.  Working Medicaid enrollees work in firms and industries that often have limited employer-based coverage options. More than four in ten adult Medicaid enrollees who work are employed by small firms with fewer than 50 employees that will not be subject to ACA penalties for not offering coverage (Figure 4). Further, many firms do not offer coverage to part-time workers. Four in ten Medicaid adults who work are employed in industries with historically low insurance rates, such as the agriculture and service industries. A closer look by specific industry shows that one-third of working Medicaid enrollees are employed in ten industries, with one in 10 enrollees working in restaurants or food services (Figure 5). The Medicaid expansion was designed to reach low-income adults left out of the employer-based system, so, it is not surprising that among those who work, most are unlikely to have access to health coverage through a job.

Among the adult Medicaid enrollees who were not working, most report major impediments to their ability to work.  Even though individuals qualifying for Medicaid on the basis of a disability through SSI were excluded from this group, more than one-third of those not working reported that illness or disability was the primary reason for not working. SSI disability criteria are stringent and can take a long time to establish. People can have physical and/or mental health disabilities that interfere with their ability to work, or to work full-time, without those impairments rising to the SSI level of severity. Other analysis indicates that nearly nine in ten (88%) non-SSI Medicaid adults who reports not working due to illness or disability has a functional limitation, and more than two-thirds (67%) have two or more chronic conditions such as arthritis or asthma.3

30% of non-working Medicaid adults reported that they did not work because they were taking care of home or family; 15% were in school; 6% were looking for work and another 9% were retired (Figure 6). Women accounted for 62% of Medicaid enrollees who were not working in 2016, and parents with children under the age of 6 accounted for 17%.

Policy Implications

Under current law, states cannot impose a work requirement as a condition of Medicaid eligibility. As with other core requirements, the Medicaid statute sets minimum eligibility standards, and states are able to expand coverage beyond these minimum levels. Prior to the ACA, individuals had to meet not only income and resource requirements but also categorical requirements to be eligible for the program. These categorical requirements provided coverage pathways for adults who were pregnant women or parents as well as individuals with disabilities, but other adults without dependent children were largely excluded from coverage. The ACA was designed to fill in gaps in coverage and effectively eliminate these categorical eligibility requirements by establishing a uniform income threshold for most adults. States are not allowed to impose other eligibility requirements that are not in the law.

Some states have proposed tying Medicaid eligibility to work requirements using waiver authority that may be approved by the Trump Administration. Under Section 1115 of the Social Security Act, the Secretary of HHS can waive certain provisions of Medicaid as long as the Secretary determines that the initiative is a “research and demonstration project” that “is likely to assist in promoting the objectives” of the program. The Obama administration did not approve waivers that would condition Medicaid eligibility on work on the grounds that they did not meet the waiver test to further the purpose of the program which is to provide health coverage. The Trump Administration has indicated a willingness to approve waivers to require work.

Research shows that Medicaid expansion has not negatively affected labor market participation, and some research indicates that Medicaid coverage supports work. A comprehensive review of research on the ACA Medicaid expansion found that there is no significant negative effect of the ACA Medicaid expansion on employment rates and other measures of employment and employee behavior (such as transitions from employment to non-employment, the rate of job switches, transitions from full- to part-time employment, labor force participation, and usual hours worked per week). In addition, focus groups, state studies, and anecdotal reports highlight examples of Medicaid coverage supporting work and helping enrollees transition into new careers. For example, individuals have reported that receiving medication for conditions like asthma or rheumatoid arthritis through Medicaid is critical in supporting their ability to work.  Addressing barriers to work requires adequate funding and supports.  While TANF spending on work activities and supports is critiqued by some as too low, it exceeds estimates of state Medicaid program spending to implement a work requirement.

Implementing work requirements can create administrative complexity and put coverage at risk for eligible enrollees who are working or who may be exempt.  States can incur additional costs and demands on staff, and some eligible people could lose coverage.  While work requirements are intended to promote work among those not working, coverage for those who are working could be at risk if beneficiaries face administrative obstacles in verifying their work status or documenting an exemption.  In addition, some individuals who may be exempt may face challenges in navigating an exemption which could also put coverage at risk.

Top 10 health care surprises of 2017

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

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/30/trump-health-care-surprises-248996

Image result for healthcare top stories of 2017

President Donald Trump stormed into office last January confident that he could knock off Obamacare in a nanosecond. It didn’t turn out that way — and from drug prices to the Tom Price travel scandal, a lot of health policy didn’t go according to plan. Here’s a look at 10 health care surprises from 2017.

1. Obamacare survives its seventh year

In control of the White House and both chambers of Congress, Republicans had their best shot ever at Obamacare repeal — and even thought they could have it on Trump’s desk on Inauguration Day. The grand ambitions quickly met roadblocks. Members rebelled over policy details, GOP leaders struggled to find consensus, moderates mutinied, and virtually the entire health care industry — along with Democrats and Obamacare advocates — lined up against every plan that Republicans put forward.

Even so, the GOP eventually squeaked a bill through the House and after several false starts put a proposal on the Senate floor. That’s when Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) delivered perhaps the biggest stunner of the year: a late-night thumbs-down that sunk the Senate bill and effectively ended the GOP’s repeal effort … until 2018.

Still, Senate Republicans concede that with an even narrower vote margin, dismantling Obamacare may become, as Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) delicately put it, “a little more difficult.”

2. Price jets away from HHS

After years of railing against Obamacare as a member of Congress, Tom Price finally got a chance to do something about it as Health and Human Services secretary. The former orthopedic surgeon would aid Republicans’ effort to repeal the law while simultaneously unraveling Obamacare’s web of regulations. He fell short on both counts. Price all but disappeared during the Senate’s bid to craft a repeal bill, frustrating Republicans and, more importantly, the president. Soon after, POLITICO revealed that he had routinely traveled by chartered private or military aircraft, costing taxpayers $1 million.

The scrutiny over his travel habits, combined with Trump’s irritation on Affordable Care Act repeal, sped Price’s resignation seven months into the job. He left few tangible accomplishments — other than the distinction of being the first Cabinet member to make his exit.

3. Tough talk and no action on drug prices

Trump lobbed insults at a host of health care targets, but perhaps none landed with more rhetorical force than his denunciations of the “disastrous” drug industry.

“The drug companies, frankly, are getting away with murder,” he seethed early on, suggesting he might empower Medicare to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies.

It didn’t happen. For all of Trump’s tough talk, he’s made no concrete moves toward cracking down on pharmaceutical prices. A promised executive order never materialized — and a leaked draft of the directive appeared largely pharma-friendly anyway.

In November, Trump nominated Alex Azar, a former pharmaceutical executive, to serve as his next HHS secretary. Azar has already rejected sweeping changes to rein in drug prices, like allowing drug reimportation or giving Medicare greater negotiating power. The administration’s agenda on drug prices now looks smaller, more traditional, and far less of a threat to the pharmaceutical industry.

4. GOP kills the individual mandate — in a tax bill

For all their failures on repealing and replacing Obamacare, Republicans did land a major blow — it just took a tax bill to get the job done. The GOP’s sweeping tax overhaul zeroes out the penalty levied on most people for not purchasing insurance starting in 2019, effectively gutting Obamacare’s individual mandate.

Republicans had long made the mandate a top target for repeal. But it’s also a pillar of the health law — the mechanism that Obamacare supporters contend is crucial to keeping enough healthy people in the market to stabilize premiums.

Yet, in a twist, Senate Republicans who months earlier proved too skittish to dismantle Obamacare jumped at the chance to eliminate the mandate, despite Congressional Budget Office projections that it would drive up premiums 10 percent and leave 13 million more people uninsured over the next decade.

With just 12 days left in a year they’d vowed was Obamacare’s last, Republicans passed their tax bill — and in the process, made their only major legislative change to the health law.

5. Planned Parenthood’s funding goes untouched

The GOP’s sweep into power also placed Republicans on the verge of accomplishing a second top health care goal: defunding Planned Parenthood. Once again, Republicans found themselves foiled by their own members. Moderate Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) used their leverage as Senate swing votes to protect the funding of an organization they ardently support.

When McCain joined them in voting down repeal in July, it also put the defunding efforts on hold indefinitely. And now facing only a two-vote advantage in the Senate in 2018, it’s unclear whether the GOP can find the political will to take federal action against Planned Parenthood.

6. The vaccine controversy that never was

When high-profile vaccine skeptic Robert Kennedy Jr. traveled to New York in January to meet with Trump, it looked like the start of a controversial plan to boost the scientifically disproved theory that vaccines can cause autism. Trump had previously suggested vaccines could be dangerous, and Kennedy emerged from Trump Tower touting plans to chair “a commission on vaccine safety and scientific integrity” at the president-elect’s behest.

“President-elect Trump has some doubts about the current vaccine policies and has questions about it,” Kennedy said.

But Trump’s team never confirmed Kennedy’s assertions, and after Inauguration Day any momentum for a vaccine commission appeared to fizzle out. The chiefs of the administration’s Food and Drug Administration, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Institutes of Health all advocate for vaccines, and there hasn’t been a peep from the White House so far about taking any close look at vaccine safety beyond the normal regulatory oversight.

7. Single payer gets serious

At this time last year, single-payer health care was a progressive pipe dream. Now it’s a rallying point for liberal Democrats, a possible litmus test for 2020 hopefuls and a serious policy proposal that’s won the backing of nearly a third of the Senate Democratic Caucus.

Sen. Bernie Sanders’ universal health care plan vaulted into the mainstream in September, after high-profile Democrats trying to strike a contrast to the GOP’s Obamacare repeal efforts latched onto the goal of universal coverage.

“Quality health care shouldn’t be the providence of people’s wealth. It should be a virtue of us being United States citizens,” Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), one of several likely 2020 candidates backing the plan, said at the time.

The single-payer push exposed divisions over how exactly to achieve universal coverage, and several Democrats have put forth their own ideas on how to move more gradually. But the shift in the Democratic platform is clear: Three years after Sanders (I-Vt.) failed to win a single co-sponsor for his plan, universal health care is becoming a defining issue for Democrats in the run-up to 2020.

8. Medicaid as a wedge issue

In a year that was supposed to be all about Obamacare, Congress spent much of its time on Medicaid. The GOP’s Obamacare repeal bills all targeted the low-income health insurance program as well. Their proposals would have profoundly changed the nature of Medicaid — not just the expansion that was part of Obamacare but the traditional parts that predated the ACA by decades.

That’s where the GOP’s health care effort hit perhaps its most intense resistance, as Medicaid — traditionally overshadowed by Medicare — suddenly became a third rail. Democrats seized on projections that capping federal funding would drive deep coverage losses and leave the nation’s most vulnerable worse off. State governors on both sides of the aisle warned that the changes would cripple their ability to deliver crucial services. Swing vote Republicans balked at deep cuts at a time when Medicaid offered the first line of defense against the growing opioid epidemic.

That hasn’t stopped the GOP from taking on Medicaid in other ways. The Trump administration is encouraging states to impose work requirements and has made entitlement and welfare reform — both of which could involve Medicaid — a priority for 2018.

9. Shkreli goes to jail over Hillary’s hair

That Martin Shkreli will finish off this year from prison isn’t a surprise — but it’s what put him there that was unexpected.

The former Turing Pharmaceutical CEO, who gained notoriety for hiking the price of an AIDS drug, was convicted of securities fraud in August. But he was living freely while awaiting sentencing until he offered $5,000 on Facebook for a strand of then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s hair. The post qualified as a “solicitation of assault,” a judge ruled, before revoking Shkreli’s bond and sending him to prison.

It’s just one of many strange twists in Shkreli’s saga, which included calling congressmen “imbeciles” on Twitter hours after refusing to answer questions at a House committee hearing; livestreaming on YouTube for hours on end, including right after his conviction; and purchasing the sole copy of a 2015 Wu-Tang Clan album for more than $1 million. He’ll now serve jail time over his request for Clinton’s hair until a mid-January sentencing hearing.

10. Collins, Murkowski play power brokers in the Senate

The most moderate members in a Republican Conference that narrowly controls the Senate, Collins and Murkowski were always going to be crucial players. But GOP leaders may not have anticipated just how much they’d flex that power.

Collins and Murkowski held out throughout the repeal effort over Medicaid cuts and skimpier subsidies they worried would hurt their states — and tanked a top GOP priority. At the end of the day, both voted for the big tax bill, with its individual mandate repeal. Collins got a promise from Senate leaders that two ACA stabilization bills would be included in Congress’ year-end spending agreement — though the bill have been pushed into 2018 and are in trouble, given the House opposition.

With Republicans’ margin in the Senate set to narrow to just 51-49 next year, Collins and Murkowski appear set to exercise even more influence over the party’s direction come 2018.

 

Medicaid is GOP target in 2018

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

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/366728-gop-could-push-medicaid-cuts-in-2018

Image result for medicaid target

Medicaid could face crucial tests in 2018 at both the federal and state levels.

Republicans in Congress failed in their attempts earlier this year to impose drastic cuts to the program as part of ObamaCare repeal, but GOP lawmakers could try again next year.

The tax bill that President Trump recently signed into law is projected to add $1 trillion to the federal deficit, making cuts to Medicaid an even more tempting target for some conservatives.

“Medicaid is front and center in any budget exercises, and now that deficits have increased, it puts Medicaid squarely in the bull’s-eye,” said Joan Alker, the executive director of the Georgetown University Center for Children and Families.

Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) has said he wants to bring down entitlement spending, saying in December that “health-care entitlements such as Medicare and Medicaid are the big drivers of debt.”

Any entitlement cuts from Ryan will likely face pushback from members of his own party, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). McConnell has said he doesn’t expect to see entitlement reform on the agenda next year ahead of the midterms.

“The sensitivity of entitlements is such that you almost have to have a bipartisan agreement in order to achieve a result,” McConnell told reporters in late December.

Medicaid covers nearly 75 million people, and the program has proven resilient in the face of conservative opposition.

Cindy Mann, a consultant at Manatt Health who ran Medicaid under former President Obama, said attacks on Medicaid have made it more popular.

“Medicaid has always been supported by the people closest to it,” Mann said.

Some Republican senators have recognized the political risks of Medicaid cuts, too. The GOP’s ObamaCare repeal push failed in part because of senators opposed to the Medicaid cuts.

“The Medicaid program is starting to get a politically powerful status,” said Eliot Fishman, the senior director of health policy at Families USA, an advocacy group.

Fishman noted that Maine, Arizona and Alaska are all Medicaid expansion states represented by Republican senators who have shown a willingness to protect the expansion funding.

Over 16 million people have enrolled in Medicaid since states began expanding coverage under ObamaCare. The program could continue to grow in the near future, as more states could seek to take advantage of the additional federal money offered by the health law.

Future Medicaid expansions could be especially likely if a Democratic wave in November’s midterms gives Democrats control in more statehouses.

In Virginia, Gov.-elect Ralph Northam (D) has promised to expand Medicaid, something Democrats in the state have been unable to accomplish in the last four years in the face of a GOP-controlled legislature. But with a 50-50 split in the House or even a 51-49 Democratic minority, depending on the results of a recount, Northam has much better odds than current Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D).

In Maine, voters approved a ballot initiative allowing the state to expand Medicaid. Gov. Paul LePage (R) has refused to implement it, but a new governor replacing LePage after he leaves office in the face of term limits could be more willing to accept the results.

If even a few more states choose to expand Medicaid, “it starts to get to be enough critical mass nationwide that I would hope it just makes it a permanent part of the Medicaid program,” Fishman said.

But advocates worry that unprecedented flexibilities offered by the Trump administration will allow states to completely change the nature of Medicaid.

Administration officials have said they will allow governors to add work requirements, time limits and lockout periods for people who can’t pay their premiums on time.

Advocates say adding such provisions would further the Republican case that Medicaid is a welfare program, instead of health insurance.

“Whether you support them or not, those activities are not the function of a Medicaid program,” Mann said. “People can differ as to the efficacy of those efforts, but few people can accurately say that’s what health insurance ought to be doing.”

In the coming months, the Trump administration could approve waivers allowing states like Arkansas, Arizona, Indiana and Kentucky to impose work requirements on Medicaid beneficiaries.

Arizona also wants to impose a five-year limit on Medicaid eligibility for the “able-bodied.”

States that want work requirements have acknowledged that tens or even hundreds of thousands of people would lose Medicaid coverage under the proposals.

Prior to ObamaCare, Medicaid mainly covered children, the disabled and pregnant women. The law’s optional expansion allowed many more low-income people to become eligible, leading to criticisms from conservatives that “able-bodied” beneficiaries were essentially freeloading off the government.

Alker said that’s the wrong way to look at it.

“[Medicaid is] predominantly run by managed care insurance companies, so that kind of rhetoric is a gross oversimplification,” Alker said. “But people who want to cut it, they tend to focus on one population.”