Two Lawsuits with Implications for the Coverage of Millions of Americans

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/blog/2018/jun/lawsuits-implications-for-coverage?omnicid=EALERT1421015&mid=henrykotula@yahoo.com

Image result for us district court of district of columbia

Significant legal challenges have marked the history of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) since its passage in 2010, and have largely determined the outlines of the law’s current structure. Similarly, as Sara Rosenbaum argues in a brief published this week, the courts have substantially shaped the Medicaid program over its 53-year history. Two recent legal challenges have potentially far-reaching implications for both the Affordable Care Act and the Medicaid program, and the millions of Americans who depend on them for their health insurance. While the plaintiffs take different positions regarding the ACA and Medicaid, the cases and the Trump Administration’s responses to them reveal an executive branch that is consistent in its efforts to reduce the federal government’s role in guaranteeing health insurance coverage for Americans.

Stewart v. Azar

Oral arguments in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia begin today in a class action lawsuit brought by 15 Kentucky Medicaid enrollees. The case challenges the legality of several aspects of Kentucky’s 1115 Medicaid demonstration waiver, which allows the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and states to test time-limited innovations in Medicaid and other public welfare programs without congressional action. Set to go into effect on July 1, the Kentucky waiver’s most controversial provision is the requirement that Medicaid beneficiaries work or perform community service for at least 80 hours per month to retain coverage. The suit also challenges the authority of HHS, now led by Secretary Alex Azar, to both encourage and approve Medicaid work demonstrations generally and the approval of Kentucky’s demonstration in particular.   The suit also challenges the legality of other aspects of the waiver, including the imposition of premiums, the use of six-month lock-out periods for beneficiaries who don’t comply with work requirements or pay their premiums on time, and the elimination of Medicaid’s requirement that new beneficiaries receive three months of retroactive coverage. Three other states have received approval for similar waiversseven states have applications under review at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and several others are developing them. Because the case challenges both the Kentucky waiver and HHS policy, it has implications for these states, as well as the future of the Medicaid program.

A critical issue highlighted by the case goes to the heart of the entitlement nature of the Medicaid program. Under the Medicaid Act and subsequent amendments, Congress has determined certain groups of people to be eligible for Medicaid coverage by virtue of their age, income, or health needs. These mandatory coverage groups include children, pregnant women, and the elderly, blind and disabled. Because working-age adults with low incomes were the least likely to work in a job that comes with health benefits, the ACA created a new mandatory eligibility category for adults with income less than 138 percent of the federal poverty level. The Supreme Court decision in 2012 effectively made this optional for states. But once a state elects to cover people who fall into this group, individuals at this income level become a mandatory coverage group. Kentucky expanded eligibility for this group in 2014, and most, but not all, of its waiver provisions apply only to this group. The lawsuit argues that suspending a beneficiary’s coverage for failure to comply with the new waiver requirements would be in violation of their entitlement to coverage under the Medicaid Act. In public speeches, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Administrator Seema Verma, also named as a defendant in the suit, has maintained that Congress’s decision to expand eligibility for Medicaid to “able-bodied” adults was a departure from the historical mission of the program and that states should have the opportunity to alter that through work and other requirements. While the vast majority of adults who have coverage through the ACA’s Medicaid expansion have jobs, work requirements will likely impose significant administrative barriers that could trigger eligibility losses even among those working full time. Estimates of coverage losses range from 95,000 to nearly 300,000 people in Kentucky. Because low-income workers remain the least likely group in the U.S. workforce to have coverage through their jobs, many will likely become uninsured.

Texas v. Azar

Secretary Azar is also the defendant in this case, brought by Texas and 19 other Republican-led states. So-called amici, or friend of the court briefs, are due today and several groups have filed briefs. The suit claims that Congress’s repeal of the individual mandate penalty renders the individual mandate — still part of the ACA — unconstitutional. Because the mandate is essential to the operation of the law, the case argues that the entire law is invalid. In an extraordinary departure from executive branch precedent — and as noted by Tim Jost — Attorney General Jeff Sessions notified Congress last Thursday that the administration agreed with the plaintiffs that the individual mandate was unconstitutional. Because of this, the administration argues that insurers selling policies in the individual market can no longer be banned from denying people coverage or charging higher premiums because of their health, gender, or age. However, the administration maintains that other parts of the law, including the Medicaid expansion, are not affected.

Looking forward

Taken together, these cases underscore the Trump Administration’s ongoing interest in reducing the number of people covered under the Affordable Care Act by withdrawing federal support for the law. Today’s oral arguments in the Stewart case will provide early indications as to how the courts will view the administration’s actions. The insurance coverage of millions of Americans and the future of the Medicaid program are at stake.

 

 

The fight over preexisting conditions is back. Here’s why the Obamacare battle won’t end.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/6/11/17441858/obamacare-repeal-debate-lawsuit

 

There is a persistent divide in the US: Is insurance a privilege to be earned through hard work? Or is it a right?

President Trump and Republicans are so committed to killing Obamacare they’ve decided, just months before the midterm elections, to take aim at the most popular part of the law: coverage for preexisting conditions.

The Trump administration signed on to a long-shot lawsuit this week that would overturn the parts of the law that require insurers to cover preexisting conditions and not charge more for them.

The lawsuit, which you can read more about from Vox’s Dylan Scott, is, in some ways, a perplexing move mere months before midterm elections. Polling finds that both Democrats and Republicans think it’s a good idea to ensure that sick people have access to health insurance.

Politically, though, Republicans spent eight years campaigning on a promise to repeal Obamacare. They believe they have a responsibility to do something, even if the something doesn’t poll well.

But after eight years of covering the Affordable Care Act, I think there is a much deeper tension that keeps the fight over Obamacare alive. It is a persistent, unresolved split in how we think about who deserves health insurance in the United States: Is insurance a privilege to be earned through hard work? Or is it a right?

The United States hasn’t decided who deserves health insurance

Since World War II, the United States has had a unique health insurance system that tethers access to medical care to employment. Changes to the tax code created strong incentives for companies to provide health coverage as a benefit to workers. Now most Americans get their insurance through their employer, and, culturally, health insurance is thought of as a benefit that comes with a job.

Over time, the government did carve out exceptions for certain categories of people. Older Americans, after all, wouldn’t be expected to work forever, so they got Medicare coverage in 1965. Medicaid launched the same year, extending benefits to those who were low-income and had some other condition that might make it difficult to work, such as blindness, a disability, or parenting responsibilities.

Then the Affordable Care Act came along with a new approach. The law aimed to open up the insurance market to anybody who wanted coverage, regardless of whether he or she had a job.

It created a marketplace where middle-income individuals could shop on their own for private health coverage without the help of a large company. It expanded Medicaid to millions of low-income Americans. Suddenly, a job became a lot less necessary as a prerequisite for gaining health insurance.

This, I think, is the divide over health insurance in America. It’s about whether we see coverage as part of work. In my reporting and others’, I’ve seen significant swaths of the country where people push back against this. They see health as something you ought to work for, a benefit you get because of the contribution you make by getting up and going to a job each day.

This came out pretty clearly in an interview I did in late 2016 with a woman I met on a reporting trip to Kentucky whom I’ll call Susan Allen. (She asked me not to use her real name because she didn’t want people to know that she uses the Affordable Care Act for coverage.)

Allen used to do administrative work in an elementary school but now is a caregiver to her elderly mother. Her husband has mostly worked in manual labor jobs, including the coal industry.

Allen told me a story about when she worked in the school. At Christmas, there would be a drive to collect present for the poorest families, presents she sometimes couldn’t afford for her own kids. It made her upset.

”These kids that get on the list every year, I’d hear them saying, ‘My mom is going to buy me a TV for Christmas,’” Allen says. “And I can’t afford to buy my kid a TV, and he’s in the exact same grade with her.”

Allen saw her health insurance as the same story: She works really hard and ends up with a health insurance plan that has a $6,000 deductible. Then there are people on Medicaid who don’t work and seem to have easier access to the health care system than she does.

”The ones that have full Medicaid, they can go to the emergency room for a headache,” she says. “They’re going to the doctor for pills, and that’s what they’re on.”

Is health insurance a right or a privilege?

More recently, Atul Gawande wrote a piece for the New Yorker exploring whether Americans view health care as a right or a privilege.

He reported the story in his hometown in Appalachian Ohio, where he kept running into this same idea: that health insurance is something that belongs to those who work for it.

One woman he interviewed, a librarian named Monna, told him, “If you’re disabled, if you’re mentally ill, fine, I get it. But I know so many folks on Medicaid that just don’t work. They’re lazy.”

Another man, Joe, put it this way: “I see people on the same road I live on who have never worked a lick in their life. They’re living on disability incomes, and they’re healthier than I am.”

As Gawande noted in his piece, “A right makes no distinction between the deserving and undeserving.” But he often found this to be the key dividing line when he asked people whether everyone should have health coverage. Often, it came down to whether that person was the type who merited such help.

This isn’t a debate that happens in most other industrialized countries. If you asked a Canadian who deserves health care, you’d probably get a baffled look in return. Our northern neighbors decided decades ago that health insurance is something you get just by the merit of living in Canada. It’s not something you earn; it’s something you’re entitled to.

But in the United States, we’ve never resolved this debate. Our employer-sponsored health care system seems to have left us with some really deep divides over the fundamental questions that define any health care systems.

Those are the questions we’ll need to resolve before the debate over Obamacare ever ends.

 

 

CBO’s Revised View Of Individual Mandate Reflected In Latest Forecast

https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20180605.966625/full/?utm_term=Read%20More%20%2526gt%3B%2526gt%3B&utm_campaign=HASU&utm_content=email&utm_source=06-10-18&utm_medium=Email&cm_mmc=Act-On%20Software-_-email-_-Health%20Affairs%20June%20Issue%3A%20Hospitals%2C%20Primary%20Care%20%2526%20More%3B%20ACA%20Round-Up%3B%20Harassment%20In%20Medicine-_-Read%20More%20%2526gt%3B%2526gt%3B

On May 23, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released updated projections of federal spending and tax expenditures related to supporting enrollment in health insurance, along with a new forecast of the number of Americans younger than age 65 who will have coverage or will be uninsured in the coming years.

The bottom line: The CBO continues to expect that the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA’s) markets will have relatively stable enrollment, more states will expand their Medicaid programs, and per-person health costs will rise at rates that exceed economic growth. Federal spending on subsidies for health insurance enrollment, along with tax breaks for employer coverage, will continue to grow at a rapid rate, thus intensifying pressure within the overall federal budget.

While the CBO’s new forecast looks in many ways quite similar to previous projections, the agency has revised its views on one very important aspect of its forecast—the effectiveness of the individual mandate—and also updated its forecast to reflect the effects of relevant executive decisions and proposed regulations by the Trump administration. These revisions and updates to the forecast are the primary reasons the current baseline does not differ more than it does from those issued by the CBO previously.

CBO’s Revised View Of The Individual Mandate

The most notable change in the CBO’s new forecast is the agency’s revised view of the effectiveness of the ACA’s individual mandate. During 2017, as Republicans in Congress attempted to pass legislation substantially rolling back and replacing the ACA, the CBO estimated that these efforts would dramatically increase the number of Americans going without insurance coverage. For instance, in July 2017, the CBO estimated that the version of repeal and replace assembled by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) would have increased the number of uninsured from 28 million in 2017 to 41 million in 2018 and 50 million in 2026. There were several reasons that the McConnell proposal would have led to more people going without coverage, but the CBO specifically cited the planned repeal of the individual mandate as the most important factor.

In December, Congress repealed the penalty associated with the individual mandate as part of the sweeping individual and corporate tax reform law. At the time of enactment, the CBO estimated that the repeal would eventually lead to an increase in the number of people going without health insurance by 13 million people annually.

The CBO’s new forecast, however, places less weight on the importance of the mandate. The agency states that, for a number of reasons, it now believes that the mandate’s role in expanding coverage after 2013 is only about two-thirds of what it previously assumed. So instead of repeal adding 13 million more people to the ranks of the uninsured, the CBO now estimates the effect at slightly more than 8 million people.

The CBO cites a number of considerations for making this important revision to its forecast. Among other things, the agency is placing more emphasis on the financial reasons for expanded enrollment into coverage after 2013, such as the ACA’s subsidy structure, instead of nonfinancial factors, such as the expectation, or social norm, of insurance enrollment that the mandate was intended to create.

Summing Up 

In the aggregate, the CBO’s updated projections of health insurance enrollment and federal subsidies for coverage do not differ all that much from previous projections. What’s different are some of the assumptions. The CBO expects there will be more uninsured in the future than is the case today, but the agency does not expect a reversion back to the uninsured levels of the pre-ACA era. Furthermore, because of changes in policies set in motion by the Trump administration, there are likely to be more people enrolled in non-ACA compliant insurance plans than is the case today, and that coverage, while different, will still provide a reasonable level of financial protection to enrollees.

 

 

California’s Attorney General Vows National Fight To Defend The ACA

California’s Attorney General Vows National Fight To Defend The ACA

Image result for aca

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra pledged Friday to redouble his efforts as the Affordable Care Act’s leading defender, saying attacks by the Trump Administration threaten health care for millions of Americans.

Becerra’s pledge came in response to an announcement from the administration Thursday that it would not defend key parts of the Affordable Care Act in court. The administration instead called on federal courts to scuttle the health law’s protection for people with preexisting medical conditions and its requirement that people buy health coverage.

Becerra accused the administration of going “AWOL.” It “has decided to abandon the hundreds of millions of people who depend on” the law, he said in an interview with California Healthline.

“It’s, simply put, an attack on the health care that millions of Americans have come to count on, and California, being the most successful state in implementing the Affordable Care Act, stands to lose perhaps more than anyone else.”

About 1.5 million Californians buy coverage through the state’s ACA exchange, Covered California, and nearly 4 million have joined Medicaid as a result of the program’s expansion under the law.

The state has been at the forefront in resisting many Trump Administration policies, including on health care and immigration.

“This is not a new experience for us under this new Trump era of having to defend Californians,” Becerra said. In the case of health care, “fortunately we have 16 other  [Democratic attorneys general] who are prepared to do it with us. ”

At issue is a lawsuit filed by 20 Republican state attorneys general on Feb. 26, which charged that Congress’ changes to the law in last year’s tax bill rendered the entire ACA unconstitutional. In the tax law, Congress repealed the penalty for people who fail to have health insurance starting in 2019.

Becerra is leading an effort by Democratic attorney generals from others states and the District of Columbia to defend the ACA against that lawsuit. In May, the court allowed them to “intervene” in the case.

 

Plan to Cut $15B in Spending Squeaks Through House

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2018-06-07/house-takes-up-trump-sponsored-plan-to-cut-15b-in-spending

Image result for CHIP Spending Cuts

The House on Thursday only narrowly passed a White House plan to cut almost $15 billion in unused government money, a closer-than-expected tally on legislation that’s designed to demonstrate fiscal discipline in Washington even though it wouldn’t have much of an impact on spiraling deficits.

The measure, which passed 210-206, would take a mostly symbolic whack at government spending because it would basically eliminate leftover funding that wouldn’t have been spent anyway. The bill now goes to the Senate, where it faces long odds.

The deficit is on track to exceed $800 billion this year despite a strong economy. Republicans controlling Congress are not attempting to pass a budget this year.

The package of so-called rescissions has been embraced by GOP conservatives upset by passage in March of a $1.3 trillion catchall spending bill that they say was too bloated. More pragmatic Republicans on Capitol Hill’s powerful Appropriations panels aren’t keen on the measure since it would eliminate accounting moves they routinely use to pay for spending elsewhere.

The measure includes $4 billion in cuts to a defunct loan program designed to boost fuel-efficient, advanced-technology vehicles, rescissions of various agriculture grant programs, and cuts to conservation programs at the Department of Agriculture, among others.

While Democrats blasted the cuts, the real objection to some of them, such as $7 billion from popular Children’s Health Insurance Program funding, is that it would take that money off the table so it couldn’t be used later as it was in the earlier spending bill. The CHIP cuts wouldn’t affect enrollment in the program, which provides health care to children from low-income families that don’t qualify for Medicaid.

“Targeting CHIP for a rescission prevents Congress from reinvesting in other priorities like child and maternal health, early childhood education, biomedical research and our community health centers,” said New York Rep. Nita Lowey, the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee.

Some GOP moderates also worry that they’re casting a difficult-to-explain vote to cut CHIP funding in the run-up to November’s midterm elections.

“I don’t think the vote’s intended for people in swing districts,” said Rep. Ryan Costello, R-Pa. Nineteen Republicans, mostly moderates, opposed the bill. No Democrats voted for it.

President Donald Trump is the first President to employ the so-called rescissions tool since the Clinton administration. The obscure process is one of the few ways around the Senate filibuster, though other parliamentary problems could await in that chamber — even if resistance from moderates and Republicans on the Appropriations Committee can be overcome.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office weighed in Thursday to estimate that the measure — pushed largely by White House budget director Mick Mulvaney and No. 2 House Republican Kevin McCarthy of California — would only cut the deficit by $1.1 billion over the coming decade. That’s because most of the cuts wouldn’t affect the deficit at all since CBO doesn’t give deficit credit for cutting money that would never have been spent.

Trump proposed the measure last month, but it was slow to come to a vote because some Republicans came out against it.

The White House submitted a revised package of cuts Tuesday, removing politically troublesome proposals to cut money to fight Ebola funds and to rebuild watersheds damaged by Superstorm Sandy. Trump weighed in soon after to urge Republicans to pass the plan.

It’s still unclear whether it will pass in the Senate, where pragmatic-minded Republicans are focusing on trying to get the troubled process for handling annual appropriations back on track on a bipartisan basis.

The White House and tea party lawmakers upset by the budget-busting “omnibus” bill have rallied around the plan, aiming to show that Republicans are taking on out-of-control spending.

“If this body cannot be trusted to reclaim money that will not or cannot be used for its intended purpose, can we really be trusted to save money anywhere else?” McCarthy said.

While some Democrats opposed the spending cuts as heartless, others mostly mocked the legislation.

“After spending nearly $2 trillion on tax cuts for the super-rich and blowing up the deficit, the Majority’s bill is like putting a Band-Aid on a gaping wound,” said Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass. “Republicans are trying to trick the American people into thinking they care about fiscal responsibility. They’re not fooling anyone.”

 

KHN’s ‘What The Health?’ Health Care Politics, Midterm Edition

Podcast: KHN’s ‘What The Health?’ Health Care Politics, Midterm Edition

Image result for KHN’s ‘What The Health?’ Health Care Politics, Midterm Edition

The 2018 midterm elections were supposed to be a referendum on President Donald Trump, not about issues such as health care. Still, voters, Democrats and, to a lesser extent, Republicans seem to be keeping health care on the front burner.

The news from Medicare’s trustees that its hospital trust fund is on shakier financial footing than it was last year, hefty premium increases being proposed in several states and activity on Medicaid expansion all take on a political tinge as the critical elections draw closer.

Also this week, an interview with Matt Eyles, president and CEO of America’s Health Insurance Plans, the health insurance industry trade group.

This week’s panelists for KHN’s “What the Health?” are Julie Rovner of Kaiser Health News, Stephanie Armour of The Wall Street Journal, Alice Ollstein of Talking Points Memo and Rebecca Adams of CQ Roll Call.

Among the takeaways from this week’s podcast:

  • Outside Washington, concerns about health care accessibility and prices remain a big issue.
  • Democrats, looking toward the midterm elections in the fall, think that health care can be a potent issue for them. But many also believe that they can’t just run on complaints that the Republicans are sabotaging the Affordable Care Act. They are seeking to find a message that looks to the future.
  • Republicans see the plans by the White House to implement new regulations that allow expansion of association health plans and short-term health plans as a strong action that will thwart complaints that they haven’t fixed the ACA.
  • The states are beginning to release the initial requests from health insurers for premium increases. They vary substantially, but many appear to be partly attributed to the decision last year by Congress to repeal the penalty for people who don’t get insurance.
  • The report this week by the Medicare trustees that the hospital trust fund is closer to insolvency has ignited Democratic criticism of changes in health care law that were part of the GOP tax cut last year.
  • Arkansas has begun implementing its work requirements for healthy adults covered by the Medicaid expansion. It’s the first state to do that. But critics point out that those adults will have to register their work hours online only — and many do not have access to computers.

 

Providers argue against Medicaid rate cuts without oversight

http://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/providers-argue-against-medicaid-rate-cuts-without-oversight?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTmpKa1pXWTVNVFkzWVRoaSIsInQiOiJNWHRUZHRjS2dlNkRPaGs2aFNZK0xBb05tS05iY2taMzBGZndmTGNWSWRubjFYVVNtOUhHb1N6VnlUVm40TGFyS3UyWitMM2ppc3VnVnM3eU03bHdFeTN4SFwvQktueldQUDd2YWN6dGJZZ0pBZ25OK0pcL2xrbDZoSWpuaitaRzhjIn0%3D

 

States with at least 85% of their Medicaid population in managed care could implement nominal payment cuts without assuring care.

Hospitals, particularly rural providers, would be hurt by a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services proposed rule that would force them to take lower Medicaid rates without a review of the impact of the cuts, according to comments made to CMS asking for a reconsideration of the plan.

Provider organizations, hospitals, the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission, are among those asking the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to rethink its proposed rule.

Comments were due this week.

CMS proposed the rule in March to allow states that have a comprehensive, risk-based Medicaid managed care enrollment that is above 85 percent of their total Medicaid population to get around network adequacy rules when implementing “nominal” rate changes.

States had raised concern over the administrative burden associated with the current requirements, particularly for states with high rates of Medicaid managed care enrollment.

For states proposing nominal cuts below 4 percent a year or 6 percent over two years, the rule amends the process for them to document whether Medicaid payments in fee-for-service systems are sufficient to enlist providers to assure access to covered care and services.

These states would be exempt from access monitoring requirements and they would not need to seek public input on the rate reductions.

America’s Essential Hospitals said, “Requiring states to ensure, through monitoring, that rate reductions do not diminish access to needed services is particularly important now, as access monitoring reviews are the only vehicle left for providers to challenge state payment rate decisions.”

The Federation of American Hospitals contends that the rule would allow for more than nominal rate changes. If finalized, FAH said, the rule would allow for an estimated 18 states to implement a rate reduction of up to 12 percent over a period of four years or 16 percent over five years, without going through requirements for ongoing monitoring of the impact of the rate changes.

This would disproportionately impact vulnerable Medicaid beneficiaries and subject providers with unsustainable rate reductions, FAH said.

Most states, even those with very high rates of managed care enrollment, often exclude certain categories of particularly vulnerable groups from managed care plans, the organization said. People with physical, mental or intellectual disabilities or who are elderly, largely get services through fee-for-service, FAH told CMS Administrator Seema Verma.

The Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission said it did not find the states’ argument of administrative burden compelling enough given the federal government’s obligations to oversee state performance and assurances related to access.

“Moreover, exceptions to reporting may introduce gaps in oversight,” MACPAC Chair Penny Thompson said. “In short, the need for states to maintain resources and tools to monitor access as an ongoing element of state program administration and decision making outweighs the limited savings states would achieve as a result of these changes.”