Tag Archives: Medicaid

Traveling The Valley Of The Shadow Of Death In 2017

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

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2017/10/18/traveling-the-valley-of-the-shadow-of-death-in-2017/

Image result for Traveling The Valley Of The Shadow Of Death

My mother has a letter from her mother written in 1942, telling of the death from pneumonia of a middle-aged neighbor with whom my grandmother had spoken at the post office just a week earlier. For most of human history, that sudden turn to death has been the common experience. Few managed to live into old age; and even for elders, the dying was usually fairly abrupt. There was little risk of living long with dementia, Parkinson’s disease, heart failure, cirrhosis, serious injuries, childbirth complications, or other fatal illnesses. Diabetes was fatal within a few months in 1900. Now, most of us will instead experience a long period of decline in advanced old age. The period of being unable to take care of yourself (mobility, dressing, feeding, toileting) averages more than two years in the last phase of life. During that time, we each will need another person’s help every day—often around the clock. And our society has not even figured out how to talk about the situation, much less how to reorganize to make this newly expectable phase of life comfortable and meaningful, or affordable.

US society seems stuck in an era of “happy talk.” When a fireman pulls a child from a swimming pool, it seems appropriate to call it “saving a life.” But how many times have you seen the newspaper headline touting a new drug or device that will “save X thousands of lives,” when, at best, it will delay the dying of very sick and usually elderly people by some months before something else causes death? That may be a good thing, but it is illusory to claim that it is “saving lives.” Advocacy organizations around each eventually fatal illness promote prevention and cure, but none say what would be a better way to come to the end of life. Influential authors tout odd claims such as “Toward a State of Complete Well-Being,” which persuasively argues for investments in prevention and social determinants of health but does not give voice to the limitations imposed by illnesses associated with aging. Public policy falls into the same pattern, with enthusiasm for supporting development of a costly drug that will delay the progression of heart failure, but inattention to issues such as the struggles of family caregivers, the waiting lists for home-delivered meals, and the misfit of available housing with disabilities.

My mother now lives through the peculiar torment of progressive disability from frailty in a “care system” that is not designed for her situation: losing nearly half of her weight, barely able to get up from a chair, having a plethora of symptoms with no treatable etiology, and yet having enough heart, lungs, kidney, and liver functions to go on for a while. There will be no letter from a neighbor who is startled when she dies; neighbors will be astonished that she lived so long with such severe disabilities. Hospital care is readily available and paid for, but medications after hours are not available, and she must pay out of pocket for personal care. Hospitals, physicians, pharmacists, and civic leaders have not made plans as to how to serve large numbers of elderly people living in the community with serious and worsening disabilities.

Making workable plans would require adopting some novel perspectives and taking account of some salient facts that are often set aside. First, the life possibilities of an elderly person with increasing disabilities is profoundly dependent upon the surrounding community. Is housing accessible? Can you readily get help with minor home repairs, such as changing a light or fixing a gutter? Can you get food delivered, and can you get prepared meals delivered? Can you stay engaged with other people—family, neighbors, and church or club members? Are you considered an embarrassment when out in public with a walker or wheelchair—or an adult diaper? Are walk lights lit long enough for you to cross the street? Are there personal care aides trained to deal with disabilities and challenging behaviors at home, and can elders in need afford them? Are there physicians attuned to your physiology and preferences who will, when needed, come to your home?

None of these things can be made available just for one person; they all are traits that affect whole communities, and they are available to all or most in the community, or to no one. Yet, communities have little voice or resources. Instead, what happens to be available is mostly the result of chance developments and leadership opportunities that vary over time and across communities. Health care has geographically overlapping hospitals, insurers, and other providers, none of which are involved in community planning for elder care and often none of which are actually anchored in any particular community.

Second, the preferences and priorities of elders in this phase of life vary much more than in earlier phases. A 50-year-old with gall bladder attacks is very likely to have about the same preferences for medical care as any other 50-year-old with gall bladder attacks. But two 90-year-olds with frailty syndrome are likely to require substantial customization of their care plans. It matters whether one has a volunteer family caregiver, or a home on one floor, or assets in the bank to hire help. So, elder-driven care planning becomes a central activity, and one that is not yet well-developed or commonly done. We do not yet evaluate care planning; we have aspirational sets of documentation requirements but little actual documentation, and we don’t assure that elders and their families are really driving the choices.

Third, we need more reliable and reasonable financing plans. Working-age people still don’t realize that they need to provide for themselves in old age. Policies need to change to make vehicles for saving affordable and reliable. The Bipartisan Policy Center, a Washington, D.C., think tank committed to balanced policy development, encouraged federal government catastrophic coverage for long-term care when the need for substantial personal care persists for more than a few years. That would make it plausible for many people to save or insure for the first few years of needing long-term supports and services, which is all that most people will need. Other approaches are appealing. For example, by providing flexible hours and part-time work, employers of family caregivers can make it much easier for them to stay at work and still provide care to an elderly family member. The range of possibilities is substantial but largely unexplored in public discourse and policy development.

Fourth, sick and disabled elders living in the community need continuity and reliability across time, instead of the cut-up care system we provide. Remarkable efficiencies are possible if services in the home were allowed to be organized geographically. As much as half of our spending on home care can go to supporting the inefficiencies of having each provider organization spread across a large area.

A substantial revision of Medicare and Medicaid that would put these observations and the existing research together is in order. Call it MediCaring Communities. What would be required? Allow some communities to take on responsibility for monitoring and improving their elder-care system’s performance and enable them to shift resources from medical care to supportive services when appropriate. Let them be able to develop their workforce and improve their built environment. Enable geographic concentration of home care services to capitalize on efficiencies. Help these pioneer communities develop metrics to monitor the local system’s performance over time and to guide setting priorities and monitoring the effects of changes. Explore the possibilities for reliable financing. We could learn a great deal from the first few highly efficient and highly reliable community-anchored care systems for elders. Everyone would want their community to follow suit!

Dozens of revisions in delivery arrangements for elder care have been proven to be effective in improving care and reducing costs. The most comprehensive is PACE, the Program of All-Inclusive Care of the Elderly. PACE serves people who are disabled enough to qualify for nursing home care but who continue to live in the community with substantial support, and PACE provides all Medicare and Medicaid covered services, from enrollment to the end of life. More limited fixes, such as transitional care, have been effective. Our MediCaring Communities reform proposal would incorporate whatever improvements in service supply, quality, and delivery serve the priorities of the community. What’s novel about it would be the development of a deliberate local entity capable of some management of the community’s “system.” This entity could assure elder-directed care planning, adequate supportive services, appropriate medical care tailored to this population, monitoring of system performance, local priority setting, shifting of some resources from overuse of medical care, and implementation of improvements with evaluation to assure learning.

Long-term survival with serious disabilities for very large numbers of elderly people is already a major challenge, and one which will grow with the aging baby boomer population. The models that worked to provide and pay for hospital care for acute illnesses will not work for this new situation. We need an era of innovation and testing, shaped by the facts of the situation. We need a new set of policies for our new way of living at the end of our lives. Let’s try substantial innovations, mostly by relieving communities of the burdens of past policies and regulations, and let’s learn quickly so we can count on living comfortably and meaningfully in the last years of our lives.

 

What’s Next for CHIP?

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

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/blog/2017/oct/whats-next-for-chip

 

The Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) offers a critical health insurance pathway for children living in families with modest means. These families’ incomes exceed the basic Medicaid eligibility standard for children but they lack access to employer insurance for their children, either because none is offered or because of a phenomenon known as the “family glitch,” which bars working parents with affordable employer coverage for themselves from getting marketplace subsidies for their children.

CHIP fills these gaps, reaching nearly 9 million children. And because of its popularity, as well as a streamlined enrollment process built into the original law in 1997 and expanded under Affordable Care Act, CHIP has had a remarkable impact on children’s access to health insurance. By 2016, just 4 percent of U.S. children lacked health insurance. Yet Congress has still not reauthorized federal funding for this program.

Unlike Medicaid, which rests on a permanent federal funding authorization, CHIP funding authority must be periodically renewed. Administering CHIP is complex for states because they typically offer CHIP in two forms: coverage through Medicaid for children with incomes just above the Medicaid eligibility cutoff and a separate, companion program for children living in families with slightly higher incomes. As a result, there is a need to transition children between two sources of insurance coverage (and potentially separate managed care plans and provider networks) as family incomes fluctuate.

Fundamental to smooth program operation is reliable federal funding, which accounts for the lion’s share of CHIP program costs. The most recent federal extension came in 2015 as part of legislation that extended funding through September 30, 2017. Congress has therefore known about CHIP’s 2017 funding cliff for more than two years.  States have been unequivocal about the need for steady financing in order to avert coverage interruptions. In the face of continued financial instability, their agencies may need to cease enrollment and freeze coverage — and therefore access to care — for children already enrolled (along with some 370,000 pregnant women also covered through CHIP).

Congress failed to take up CHIP in advance of the deadline because the winter, spring, and summer were consumed by the ACA repeal-and-replace battle. CHIP never was part of this fight; none of the bills considered — even the proposals that would have fundamentally impaired Medicaid’s ability to function effectively for the nation’s 36 million poorest children — proposed to end CHIP. Indeed, the Graham-Cassidy bill would have built on CHIP. But only at the end of September, when the Senate set aside Graham-Cassidy, did Congress return to CHIP.

On October 4, committees in both the House of Representatives and the Senate completed their work on a CHIP extension. Both the House and Senate measures would extend federal CHIP funding for five years and both sides are in agreement on the proper federal CHIP funding level. In other words, the two committees are aligned on the policy.

The House CHIP measure also contains provisions to address other pressing matters such as a delay in scheduled reductions in federal Medicaid payments to hospitals that treat a disproportionate percentage of low-income patients and an increase in federal Medicaid payments to Puerto Rico to help the Commonwealth’s recovery from Hurricane Maria. The House CHIP measure is also part of a suite of other noncontroversial bills expected to move at the same time, including extension of the Health Center Grant Fund, which provides basic grant funding to the nation’s nearly 1,400 federally funded community health centers.

Congress still needs to determine the final contours of the bill, including whether to proceed with the controversial spending offsets the House has identified, in particular a $6.3 billion cut over 10 years to the Prevention and Public Health Trust Fund, which supports core public health services. As yet there is no word on next steps, even as states begin to fall over the edge of the fiscal cliff. Children covered through Medicaid CHIP are safe for the moment, although declining CHIP funding for Medicaid-enrolled children can be expected to trigger other offsetting Medicaid program cuts. But coverage for approximately 4 million children enrolled in separate CHIP programs is very much on the line.

Many hard decisions in a jam-packed fall schedule await Congress. Given the strong bipartisan support for CHIP and its totally predictable expiration, it is surprising — and unfortunate — that CHIP remains on the Congressional docket.

Healthcare Triage: Is Medicaid Coverage Better or Worse than Private Insurance?

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

Healthcare Triage: Is Medicaid Coverage Better or Worse than Private Insurance?

As we have discussed repeatedly here on HCT, it’s better for patients to have Medicaid than to be uninsured, contrary to critics of the program. But is having Medicaid, as those critics also say, much worse than having private insurance?

This episode was adapted from a column  Austin and I wrote for the Upshot. Links to further reading and sources can be found there.

Patients, Health Insurers Challenge Iowa’s Effort To Privatize Medicaid

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

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/10/07/555591770/patients-health-insurers-challenge-iowas-effort-to-privatize-medicaid

Iowa is one of 38 states that radically changed the way it runs Medicaid over the past few years. The state moved about 600,000 people on the government-run health program into care that is managed by for-profit insurance companies.

The idea is that the private companies would save the state money, but it has been a rocky transition in Iowa, especially for people like Neal Siegel.

Siegel is one of six disabled Iowans suing the state, alleging that Medicaid managed care, as it is known, deprives thousands of Iowans with disabilities the right to live safely in their homes.

Medicaid serves people with disabilities, low-income people and people in nursing homes. A combination of federal and state funds pays for the program. It covers 74 million people across the country these days, about half of whom are in Medicaid managed care.

Siegel, a former financial consultant, was in a hit-and-run bicycle crash four years ago that left him with a severe brain injury. He uses a wheelchair and can barely speak.

“I would probably put Neal at about 98 percent cognitive of what’s going on around him, but unfortunately not able to articulate it,” says Siegel’s girlfriend, Beth Wargo. “So it’s being trapped inside your own body.”

After the accident, Siegel qualified for Medicaid. He lived in a rehabilitation center for a while, and the lawsuit, filed in U.S. district court in June, says he was the victim of abuse and neglect while living there.

Eventually, he moved home with Wargo, where he is reliant on caregivers to assist him with all activities of daily life.

Then last year, Wargo says, they got a letter in the mail from AmeriHealth Caritas, the company that manages his care. Siegel’s budget for home help had been slashed by 50 percent, Wargo says. Siegel’s face lights up as Wargo talks about the lawsuit, and he manages to say, “Oh yeah,” when she mentions how happy they were that they could be part of it.

Cyndy Miller is the legal director with Disability Rights Iowa, the advocacy group that spearheaded the lawsuit.

“The system is too stressed right now with the way it’s being managed, and it’s not healthy for individuals with chronic or serious disabilities,” says Miller.

According to the lawsuit, the company claimed that spending on Siegel’s case was cut because it had exceeded a limit set in state policy. A spokesman for AmeriHealth Caritas said the company could not comment on ongoing litigation. The state has asked for the lawsuit to be dropped.

In addition to the suit, complaints about Medicaid from hospitals, doctors and patients have spiked in Iowa.

Iowa Department of Human Services Director Jerry Foxhoven defends moving the entire Medicaid population to managed care. He says more taxpayer dollars will be saved under private management.

But he says his agency is willing to make changes, especially for people like Neal, who have serious disabilities.

“Everything’s always on the table. We’re always looking at everything to say how do we best serve the people we’re trying to serve and be the best stewards of taxpayer dollars,” Foxhoven says.

For their part, the three companies with contracts in Iowa say in statements that the first 18 months have been successful. But they also have said to state officials that reimbursement rates were based on deeply flawed cost estimates provided to them before the project began.

They are now negotiating to get millions of dollars more in state funding.

So where is the savings? So far, no state has actually done a comprehensive review of whether private companies actually save Medicaid dollars, says Kelly Whitener, an associate professor with Georgetown University who studies managed care.

“You’d really need to be able to see are you saving money overall or not, and if you are spending less money, are you suppressing services that are needed? Or are you really finding efficiencies and only delivering care that families really need?” says Whitener.

For the moment, those questions don’t have definitive answers.

Meanwhile, Iowa has to balance its books. Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds had to tap more than $260 million of the state’s reserve fund this year, and officials expect next year’s budget will be even tougher to negotiate. Medicaid funding will likely be a large part of the discussion.

As ACA enrollment nears, administration keeps cutting federal support of the law

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

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-aca-enrollment-nears-administration-keeps-cutting-federal-support-of-the-law/2017/10/05/cc5995a2-a50e-11e7-b14f-f41773cd5a14_story.html?utm_term=.b9039864660d

Image result for sabotaging ACA

 

For months, officials in Republican-controlled Iowa had sought federal permission to revitalize their ailing health-insurance marketplace. Then President Trump read about the request in a newspaper story and called the federal director weighing the application.

Trump’s message in late August was clear, according to individuals who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations: Tell Iowa no.

Supporters of the Affordable Care Act see the president’s opposition even to changes sought by conservative states as part of a broader campaign by his administration to undermine the 2010 health-care law. In addition to trying to cut funding for the ACA, the Trump administration also is hampering state efforts to control premiums. In the case of Iowa, that involved a highly unusual intervention by the president himself.

And with the fifth enrollment season set to begin Nov. 1, advocates say the Health and Human Services Department has done more to suppress the number of people signing up than to boost it. HHS has slashed grants to groups that help consumers get insurance coverage, for example. It also has cut the enrollment period in half, reduced the advertising budget by 90 percent and announced an outage schedule that would make the HealthCare.gov website less available than last year.

The White House also has yet to commit to funding the cost-sharing reductions that help about 7 million lower-income Americans afford out-of-pocket expenses on their ACA health plans. Trump has regularly threatened to block them and, according to an administration official who was not authorized to speak publicly, officials are considering action to end the payments in November.

The uncertainty has driven premium prices much higher for 2018. A possible move by the Treasury Department to ease the requirement that most Americans obtain coverage could further erode a core element of the law.

On Friday, Sen. Margaret Wood Hassan (D-N.H.) called on the administration to abandon its “attempts to sabotage health care markets and raise health care costs for millions.” Such efforts, warn health advocates as well as state and local officials, will translate into more uninsured Americans.

“In Ohio, the Trump administration has already inflicted the damage,” said Lisa Hamler-Fugitt, executive director of the Ohio Association of Foodbanks. After its nearly $1.7 million enrollment-assistance grant was cut 72 percent last month, the group decided it no longer could effectively participate. “We are past the point of no return on this,” Hamler-Fugitt said.

HHS has told its regional administrators not to even meet with on-the-ground organizations about enrollment. The late decision, which department spokesman Matt Lloyd said was made because such groups organize and implement events “with their own agenda,” left leaders of grass-roots organizations feeling stranded.

“I don’t think it’s too much to ask the agency tasked with outreach and enrollment to be involved with that,” said Roy Mitchell, executive director for the Mississippi Health Advocacy Program, which receives no federal funding for its ACA efforts. “There’s money for HHS to fly around on private jets, but there’s not money and resources to do outreach in Mississippi.”

Administration officials make no apologies for actions scaling back federal support for the ACA, also known as Obamacare. Trump, Vice President Pence and those carrying out the law at different agencies take most every opportunity to claim that it is failing. HHS Secretary Tom Price’s abrupt resignation Friday, prompted by the furor over his use of expensive chartered planes for work trips, is not expected to shift this overall approach.

After failing to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, Republican leaders said it will “implode.” Health-care experts disagree, saying the ACA is stable under current law — but President Trump and congressional Republicans could change that. (Daron Taylor/The Washington Post)

“Obamacare has never lived up to enrollment expectations despite the previous administration’s best efforts,” Lloyd said in an email last week. “The American people know a bad deal when they see one, and many won’t be convinced to sign up for ‘Washington-knows-best’ health coverage that they can’t afford.”

Trump and his aides also are looking for ways to loosen the existing law’s requirements, now that the latest congressional attempt to repeal it outright has failed. The Treasury Department may broaden the ACA’s “hardship exemption” so that taxpayers don’t face costly penalties for failing to obtain coverage, a Republican briefed on the plan said. That is sure to depress enrollment among the younger, healthier consumers whom insurers count on to help buffer the health-care costs of sicker customers.

“We should fully expect the Trump administration to take a more activist route to deal with Obamacare, given the inability of Congress to move through with a repeal-and-replace bill,” said Lanhee Chen, a research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.

While the law’s open enrollment period has attracted the most public attention, a more obscure battle within the administration over several states’ proposed changes for their marketplaces speaks volumes about the president’s approach to the law.

It was a Wall Street Journal article about Iowa’s request that provoked Trump’s ire, according to an individual briefed on the exchange. The story detailed how officials had just submitted the application for a Section 1332 waiver — a provision that allows states to adjust how they are implementing the ACA as long as they can prove it would not translate into lost or less-affordable coverage.

Iowa’s aim was to foster more competition and better prices. The story said other states hoping to stabilize their situations were watching closely.

Trump first tried to reach Price, the individual recounted, but the secretary was traveling in Asia and unavailable. The president then called Seema Verma, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the agency charged with authorizing or rejecting Section 1332 applications. CMS had been working closely with Iowa as it fine-tuned its submission.

State Insurance Commissioner Doug Ommen has repeatedly described the “Iowa Stopgap Measure” as critical to expanding marketplace options there. The plan would abolish the ACA exchange there and convert consumer subsidies into a type of GOP-styled tax credit. New financial buffers would help insurers handle customers with particularly high medical expenses.

Without the measure, “over 20,000 middle class farmers, early retirees and self-employed Iowans will likely either go uninsured or leave Iowa,” Ommen warned in a Sept. 19 statement. Those who sign up for 2018 exchange coverage face premium rate increases of 57 percent on average from the single insurer participating.

Some administration officials are still pressing for the waiver to be granted, according to interviews with several Republicans. The HHS spokesman confirmed last week that Iowa’s application “has been deemed complete and is currently under review” but did not address the president’s directive on the matter.

Eliot Fishman oversaw such waivers at CMS during the previous administration and said in an interview that President Barack Obama weighed in on those decisions only in “unusual” cases” toward the end of the process.

“Things that are tough calls typically go to the president, but they go with a [staff] recommendation that often carries a great deal of weight,” said Fishman, now senior director of health policy for the liberal health-care advocacy group Families USA.

Iowa is not the only red state to chafe at the administration’s unwillingness to allow more flexibility.

On Friday, Oklahoma sent a letter to Price and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin saying it was withdrawing its federal waiver request because administration officials had not provided an answer “after months of development, negotiation, and near daily communication over the past six weeks.”

“While we appreciate the work of your staff, the lack of timely waiver approval will prevent thousands of Oklahomans from realizing the benefits of significantly lower insurance premiums in 2018,” wrote Terry Cline, the state’s health secretary.

In at least one case, CMS has approved a waiver in a way that upended a state’s plan to maximize health coverage for its residents. Minnesota applied to CMS for permission to establish a reinsurance program, which can lower premiums by giving insurers a guarantee that they will have limited financial exposure for customers with particularly high medical expenses. The agency informed Gov. Mark Dayton (D) on Sept. 22 that it would provide $323 million for the program since the lower premiums would mean savings to the federal government on subsidies to Minnesotans with ACA health plans.

But, Verma added, the federal government also would cut $369 million in funding for a separate program aimed at residents who earn between 138 percent and 200 percent of the federal poverty level and don’t qualify for the same subsidies.

Minnesota’s entire congressional delegation, Democrats and Republicans alike, issued a joint statement saying they were “disappointed that our state is facing a last-minute penalty” and “exploring possible paths forward.”

Sen. Patty Murray (Wash.), the top Democrat on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, said Trump should devote time to forging a bipartisan agreement to stabilize the ACA marketplaces.

“If he is only interested in sabotaging the market, that is a dangerous road for him to ride, because he will own it,” she said.

Senate Budget Won’t Let GOP Pursue Full Obamacare Repeal

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

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-29/senate-budget-allows-1-5-trillion-tax-cut-not-full-aca-repeal

Image result for Obamacare Repeal

Senate Republicans unveiled a fiscal 2018 budget resolution Friday that they intend to use to push through as much as $1.5 trillion of tax cuts in the coming months, but it won’t allow the GOP to pursue a full repeal of Obamacare.

The budget proposal would still allow Republicans to pursue a much narrower attack on the Affordable Care Act, including repealing the individual mandate to purchase coverage. The resolution also would let the GOP use the fast-track process to open up drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The budget, authored by Senate Budget Chairman Mike Enzi, forecasts a balance in nine years through $5 trillion in largely unspecified spending cuts. Unlike the House budget proposed in July, Enzi’s blueprint doesn’t call for cuts to Medicaid or a partial privatization of Medicare.

“A pro-growth tax plan will move the U.S. economy forward and help to produce better jobs and bigger paychecks for every American,” Enzi, of Wyoming, said in an emailed statement.

The Senate draft is to be voted on by the Budget Committee next week, with floor votes planned later in October and a conference to resolve differences with the House after that. The House plans a floor vote on its budget plan next week.

Tax Cut

Once in place, the budget resolution would allow Republicans to bring up a tax-cut bill that would increase deficits by as much as $1.5 trillion, compared with a Congressional Budget Office baseline. Under the fast-track process, the GOP-controlled Senate could pass the proposal with no Democratic votes.

The budget sets a target for the Senate Finance to report back with its draft tax bill by Nov. 13.

“The Senate budget resolution drafted by Budget Committee Chairman Mike Enzi is a critical step to advance President Trump’s agenda to provide tax relief for the middle-class and unleash economic prosperity for all Americans,” said White House budget director Mick Mulvaney in a statement. “I urge the Senate to pass this resolution and come to a swift agreement with the House so President Trump can sign America-first tax relief into law this year.”

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said the GOP plan would “blow a huge hole in the deficit and stack up debt, leading to cuts in programs that middle-class Americans rely on.”

Individual Tax Rate

President Donald Trump and Republican leaders announced a tax-cut plan Wednesday that would cut the top individual rate to 35 percent from the current 39.6 percent. It would let Congress decide whether to create a higher bracket for those at the top of the income scale. The rate on corporations would be set at 20 percent, down from the current 35 percent. Under Senate rules, any tax cuts that increase the deficit would have to expire in 10 years because the budget process can’t be used for long-term deficit increases.

The provision making it easier for Congress to allow oil and gas drilling in part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was sought by Alaska Republican Dan Sullivan. Under the proposal, royalties from oil and gas production in the wildlife refuge would be raise revenue that could help offset at least $1 billion in tax cuts over a decade.

The proposal’s instructions to the Finance Committee could allow a partial repeal of Obamacare, although panel Chairman Orrin Hatch has said he will keep that separate from a tax overhaul. Republican leaders have said they won’t try again on the health-care law until fiscal 2019.

Balanced Budget

When Republicans attempted to use the 2017 budget process to repeal Obamacare earlier this year, they didn’t provide a 10-year plan for reducing the deficit.

The new Senate plan proposes a balanced budget within nine years, while leaving it to other committees to figure out how to achieve that. The proposal calls for $4.8 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years and $1.635 trillion in revenue losses, including the tax cuts. Balance by 2026 is achieved by assuming $1.2 trillion in economic growth, in part due to the tax cuts. Enzi claims to achieve a $197 billion surplus in 2027.

The Republican assumptions of robust economic benefits from the budget were called into question by a separate CBO analysis. CBO predicted that the budget would reduce economic growth in the first two years and slightly increase it in later years.

CBO estimated that annual real GDP growth in the first two years would average 1.3 percent, down from an average of 1.6 percent in CBO’s baseline. In later years, real GDP growth would be 2.0 percent, compared with 1.9 percent in the CBO baseline.

The budget, unlike the one proposed by Trump in May, would hold defense spending at the current budget cap instead of the president’s proposed $489 billion defense increase over 10 years. Non-defense discretionary appropriations — which fund domestic agencies like the Agriculture Department and National Institutes of Health — would be cut by $632 billion over 10 years compared with $1.6 trillion in Trump’s budget request.

While the Trump and House budget proposals contain a number of nonbinding policy suggestions to carry out their spending cuts, Senate Republicans — weary of policy infighting — are keeping things vague.

Medicare, Medicaid

The House budget seeks to make $203 billion in cuts in entitlements such as Medicare, Medicaid and food stamps, and it could be used to fast-track changes to the Dodd-Frank financial law. The Senate plan avoids those options.

The Senate proposal does allow adjustments to increase the defense spending caps. It also urges senators to revise the Children’s Health Insurance Program, improve management of wildfire-prevention funding, prevent private-pension bailouts and improve services to veterans.

The budget resolution doesn’t address Social Security, which will run a trillion-dollar-plus deficit in the coming 10 years. In the past, Republicans have sought to balance a “unified budget” that includes the program. This time, they are keeping it “off-budget.”

CBO says that without the Social Security accounting move, Enzi’s budget would never balance and would show a $424 billion deficit in 2027.

The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said in a statement it prefers the House budget. “We encourage the Senate to look to the House Budget Committee, which passed a budget calling for revenue-neutral tax reform and at least $200 billion of mandatory spending cuts on top of that,” it said.

Dynamic Scoring

The Senate plan renews authority for the CBO and Joint Committee on Taxation to use so-called dynamic scoring when evaluating bills — a move allowing lawmakers to assume that tax cuts will cause economic growth that would offset some of the revenue loss.

And it changes several rules to allow senators to rush a tax bill through, including abolishing the need for a CBO analysis at least 28 hours before a vote.

The Senate plan avoids other tricks, though. Enzi included provisions to keep appropriators from using phantom cuts known as “changes to mandatory programs” to offset discretionary spending increases.

The chairman also rejected pressure from some lawmakers to use a baseline number for tax revenue that would allow $450 billion in additional tax cuts. Instead, he stayed with the baseline used by the CBO.

Polling Spotlight: A silver lining for the GOP on Obamacare repeal

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

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2017/09/27/polling-spotlight-a-silver-lining-for-the-gop-on-obamacare-repeal/

Image result for silver lining

There is good reason to question the assumption that by failing once again to pass legislation repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act, Republicans have shot themselves in the foot. Although the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) could not analyze in its usual detail the consequences of Graham-Cassidy, it was able to determine that the legislation would cut federal funding for Medicaid by more than $1 trillion over the next decade, throwing millions of low-income Americans off the rolls.

This outcome would have generated a huge political problem for Republicans. A Public Religion Research Institute poll released Monday found 69 percent of Americans opposed to cuts in Medicaid, with only 28 percent in favor. The opposition included 78 percent of Democrats, 69 percent of Independents—and 55 percent of Republicans. In a related finding, nearly 45 percent of Americans are worried that they or a member of their family will lose health coverage in the coming year.

No doubt, failing to act on Obamacare will anger a portion of the Republican base, adding fuel to the insurrection against the Republican establishment and depressing turnout in states and districts where Republican incumbents who support the party’s leadership are running for reelection. But in the long run, it would have been more politically damaging to deprive low-income Americans, including millions of Trump supporters in red states, of the Medicaid coverage they would otherwise have enjoyed.

As behavioral economists have shown, the fear of loss is more acute than the hope of gain. Health policy perfectly illustrates this proposition. Whoever moves to change the status quo must convince people that they will not lose what they already have. The larger the share of people who are satisfied with the status quo, the tougher the task. This is why President Obama put his personal credibility on the line to assure Americans that if they liked their current insurance policy, they could keep it under his proposed reform. When this turned out not to be entirely true, he and his party suffered.

But now, after almost eight years of public disapproval, Obamacare has become the new status quo, the baseline from which most people assess gains and losses. While opposition to Obamacare still exists writ larger, individual provisions—some of which have been under threat from Republican alternatives—are wildly popular among Americans. By threatening to take Medicaid away from millions of people, the Republicans poked a hornets’ nest. Whatever they did after this, they would have been hurt. But by running away, they at least minimized the number of stings. Their legislative failure was a blessing, very effectively disguised.

Socialized Medicine Has Won the Health Care Debate

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

https://newrepublic.com/article/145067/socialized-medicine-won-health-care-debate

Image result for socialized medicine

 

“It’s coming down to a choice between Federalism vs Socialism,” Senator Lindsey Graham proclaimed on Twitter earlier this week. “I chose Federalism of #GrahamCassidy.” His tweet echoed his words at a press conference days earlier, where he framed his Affordable Care Act repeal bill as the only way “to stop a march toward socialism.”

It’s unclear if the Republican senator realized that he was cribbing from socialist revolutionary Rosa Luxemburg. In a pamphlet composed a century ago while in prison, Luxemburg wrote: “Bourgeois society stands at the crossroads, either transition to socialism or regression into barbarism.” Graham, presumably, didn’t mean to liken his bill to barbarism. But increasingly, those are the terms in which Americans view the health care debate—as a choice between socialism and regression. Republicans have used “socialized medicine” as a bogeyman—and they’ve steadily lost ground on the issue. Despite Graham’s attempts to portray the idea of caring for sick people regardless of their income level as a “nightmare” scenario, just 7 percent of those polled thought Graham-Cassidy would help them.

The repeated rebukes of attempts to undo Obamacare have shown that the average American is no longer moved by the threat of the “S-word.” If we are on a slippery slope toward socialized medicine, it appears that Americans are just fine with that. For the left, there’s a lot to learn from the successful battles against going backward on health care—lessons about how Trump-era politics can be used to push “socialist” policies that move Democrats, and the American public, forward in unexpected ways.

Introduced after the Bernie Sanders Medicare for all bill made its debut with 16 co-sponsors in the Senate, the Graham-Cassidy bill looked all the worse by comparison. Both bills arrived at the end of a summer of activism, a summer that has treated us repeatedly to the sight of people in wheelchairs carted out of the Senate chanting, “No cuts to Medicaid! Save our liberty!” The health care movement has been led by the people directly affected—people with disabilities, in many cases, along with veterans of the AIDS movement. They understood the power of spectacle, initiating those dramatic clashes at the Capitol. They also know better than anyone the inequalities baked into the existing system. Their fighting skills were honed fighting for decades against those who say, implicitly or explicitly, that they don’t deserve care.

Of course, politicians have long been disconnected from the American public on the issue of health care. But the movement to defend Obamacare has drawn into stark relief the difference between what people want and what politicians want to offer. Republicans like Graham banked on the attachment Americans have to the class system we like to pretend doesn’t exist. They played on the idea, honed through decades of dog-whistles, that government programs are always giveaways for the undeserving poor and people of color. As one law professor and conservative columnist complained on Twitter, “Years from now, when your child is denied a liver transplant bc of transplant diversity goals, you’ll be sorry you allowed single-payer.”

In the U.S., we tend to either deny the existence of class or treat it like a set of characteristics divorced from power relations. A Make America Great Again baseball cap, a taste for Budweiser and NASCAR—those, rather than income level or accumulated wealth, are the signifiers of class that we understand. Meritocracy is supposed to be the thing we have instead of class; you can hear it in the endless bipartisan odes to the ability to work hard and achieve anything—including, apparently, a liver transplant if necessary.

Barack Obama and Ben Carson are both heroes of the meritocratic tale, though with a different partisan inflection. Even Sanders falls victim to the meritocratic narrative at times, with his refrain that “No one who works 40 hours a week should be living in poverty.” The implication that comes with Sanders’s qualifier is that there are some people who may, in fact, deserve to be living in poverty. If class is just about some personal preferences rather than structures that maintain inequality, then it’s fine to maintain a healthcare system that treats only those who can afford it. After all, if they just worked harder, they’d have earned that liver.

Graham’s single most tone-deaf argument to sell his bill was drawing an analogy to welfare reform. Welfare reform, of course, was sold to the country by Reagan, Gingrich, and Bill Clinton through fearmongering about undeserving black mothersand “young bucks.” Graham’s rhetoric about the size of the Medicaid budget leaned hard on this analogy, hoping that Americans resented Medicaid as much as they were taught to resent welfare.

Like welfare reform, Graham-Cassidy would have turned Medicaid and the subsidies in the ACA into block grants for the states to manage as they see fit. But the problem with health insurance is that it is designed to be used. The goal of welfare reform was to kick people off of welfare; the goal of healthcare reform was theoretically to get more people onto health insurance plans. Welfare reform increased poverty; Graham and Cassidy didn’t want to admit their bill would do the same. The analogy failed, though it told us a lot about what Republicans think of the people who use Medicaid.

The ham-handed Republican attempts to dismantle the health care system—the “socialism” warnings, the appeals to the selfishness of privileged white folks—have only reinforced the public’s support for government taking care of its citizens. It was telling how, in Monday night’s televised debate between Graham and Cassidy and Senators Sanders and Amy Klobuchar, Graham fell right into a trap, unintentionally proving his opponents’ point about what Americans want. When Sanders asked, “Do you know what the most popular health insurance program in America is? It’s not the private insurance industry,” Graham jumped in like an overeager schoolchild: “It’s Medicare,” he said.

Both Republicans and Democrats have badly misunderstood what makes Obamacare unpopular. What people don’t like are the inequities that still prevail in our health care system, not the fact that “government is too involved.” When Vox’s Sarah Kliff visited Whitley County, Kentucky, to talk to Trump voters who benefited from the ACA, she heard complaints from those buying private insurance with their subsidies that their deductibles were still too high for them to access care. Others, not surprisingly, were angry that the very poor got Medicaid, while they had to pay monthly premiums for care they rarely used. But that anger hasn’t turned them against the program. Medicaid expansion—the “socialized” part of the ACA—remains wildly popular, with 84 percent of those polled by Kaiser Family Foundation saying it’s important to keep the expansion.

The ACA’s means-testing sets up a hierarchy of plans that at times seem calculated to fuel resentment of those getting “free stuff.” It also requires hours of work—I write from personal experience, as a freelancer who has attempted to explain repeatedly that my income varies from month to month and year to year—to prove to the system that you are not getting away with something you haven’t qualified for.

The ways that people have tried to patch the gaps that remain in Obamacare, through charities and crowdfunding, have also highlighted its inequities. As Helaine Olen recently wrote in The Atlantic, charities, too, are often means-testing applicants, while crowdfunding introduces a new kind of means-testing—“means-testing for empathy,” as writer Patrick Blanchfield told me recently. Most GoFundMe or YouCaring campaigns for medical bills don’t go viral; only around 10 percent of them met their stated goals. For those who have a big social media audience, or whose particularly compelling story takes off, crowdfunding might work. But the glut of such campaigns leaves people weighing story against story, deciding who is going to get their donations. It’s health care by popularity contest.

By focusing on the not-good poll numbers for Obamacare, politicians and pundits have missed the whole point: The law didn’t go too far for Americans to get behind. It didn’t go far enough. And while single-payer opponents continue to evoke rationed care, long lines and wait times, and other problems that supposedly plague England or Canada, the public seems well aware that the reality for many Americans is far worse. By their very complaints, the pundits and politicians continually highlight the inequality in the system; the complainers are those who can afford the kind of carethat comes with personal attention, privacy, shorter waits, and avoidance of rubbing elbows with undesirables.

To move forward, then, the single-payer movement should double down on what we learned through this fight: that expanding Medicaid made it harder, not easier, to claim that the program is a “giveaway” to undeserving poor. The willingness of people with disabilities to claim and hold the spotlight—as the New Republic’s Sarah Jones has written—has helped to challenge our preconceptions about who relies on Medicaid ,and to make politicians confront those who will not be served by a market-based program. And the willingness, finally, of politicians to fight publicly for single-payer—rather than mournfully shake their heads and say it will never happen—expands the range of policies that even establishment media is willing to discuss.

Most important, we have learned that the old fearmongering tropes about socialism are no longer enough to whip Republican votes for a major plank of their own platform. If anything, the successful fight should help progressives shed their fears of boldly advocating for what they know is right and working to change public sentiment without endlessly obsessing over potential political pitfalls.

It seems that barbarism, to Graham and his ilk, is the idea that they would lose their right to segregated, high-end care to some undeserving, poor person of color. To the rest of us, however, barbarism is a system that decides who deserves to live or die by the color of their skin, the money in their bank account, the hours that they work, or their ability to work at all. This is now an American consensus. And if socialism is the medicine our system needs, the country is ready to embrace it—even by name.

How investing in public health could cure many health care problems

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

http://theconversation.com/how-investing-in-public-health-could-cure-many-health-care-problems-84256?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20October%201%202017%20-%2084576980&utm_content=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20October%201%202017%20-%2084576980+CID_49b12b4a2a39e7f173235a40290664ab&utm_source=campaign_monitor_us&utm_term=How%20investing%20in%20public%20health%20could%20cure%20many%20health%20care%20problems

Now that the Cassidy-Graham bill has been pulled, it’s a good time to think about concrete ways to improve health and health care in our country. Despite advances in medicine, U.S. health care spending grew to US$3.2 trillion in 2015, or 17.8 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product. To contain health care costs, the U.S. needs to invest in strengthening the public health system and reconsider approaches to making all Americans healthier.

Making Americans healthier should not be a partisan issue. Conservatives and progressives alike should agree on the importance of keeping Americans healthy – both on principled and financial grounds. The sicker the American people, the more expensive their care, and much of that cost will inevitably be borne by Medicare and Medicaid. Yet major challenges loom.

As the Dean of Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health, I have dedicated my career to the health of populations, using science and evidence to transition to a world where health and health care are collective priorities for all. My research and that of others suggests that this situation can be improved, but it will require a major national strategy and commitment to invest in public health – one that can be highly cost-effective.

Just the facts

Take, for example, the toll of chronic disease in the U.S. As of 2012, about half of adult Americans were living with one or more chronic health conditions, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and one in four adults had two or more. Treating people with chronic diseases accounts for most of our nation’s health care costs. Eighty-six percent of the nation’s annual health care expenditures are for people with chronic and mental health conditions.

This problem will only grow as the U.S. population increases. And the census projects that the population will increase by 98 million between 2014 and 2060.

At the same time, America’s crumbling infrastructure is putting many Americans’ health at risk. The country’s drinking water systems, which are foundational to health, received a D grade on the 2017 Infrastructure Report Card of the American Society of Civil Engineers. Hazardous waste management and wastewater treatment earned only D+ grades.

The connection between health and infrastructure is strong: Infrastructure greatly affects access to healthy lifestyles. While access to clean drinking water and waste treatment are paramount, there are other examples, too.

Sidewalks and bike lanes encourage physical activity; public parks provide space for exercise and rejuvenation; and public transit is crucial to getting people out of cars, encouraging walking and, of course, reducing pollution and congestion. Subways and buses also enable older adults to reach needed services and remain in their homes longer.

Improvements to infrastructure are typically one-time expenses with recurring benefits. For example, one new sidewalk benefits an entire generation of walkers and runners. Research shows that every $1,300 New York City invested in building bike lanes in 2015 provided benefits equivalent to one additional year of life at full health over the lifetime of all city residents.

Other studies also have shown that preventing illness is far less expensive than paying for treatment. Trust for America’s Health estimates that “an investment of $10 per person per year in proven community-based programs to increase physical activity, improve nutrition, and prevent smoking and other tobacco use could save the country more than $16 billion annually within five years. This is a return of $5.60 for every $1.” With ever-rising health care costs, how can we overlook such opportunities?

Prevention policies and cessation help

The focus of American health care and health-related research needs to be shifted to include prevention, not just treatment. The “Cancer Moonshot,” which has strong bipartisan support, is a vital step in this direction, providing $1.8 billion in funding over seven years.

Cancer prevention must be a high priority, and the success of this effort could inspire a national consensus around future commitments to tackle other diseases and conditions.

Another prevention priority should be healthy aging. Today there are more than 46 million Americans aged 65 years or older; and by 2060, the number of seniors is expected to more than double, according to the Department of Health and Human Services and the Census Bureau. Promoting healthy aging for older Americans should, therefore, be paramount.

And healthy aging begins far earlier than 65 or 70. Obesity, in particular, may be determined in early childhood, even before. According to research by my Mailman School colleague Andrew Rundle, prenatal exposure to air pollution raises risk for obesity in childhood. His research shows that children who are overweight or obese at age five are more likely to be overweight or obese by age 50. We also know that these adults, and increasingly children too, will be more likely to have diabetes, high blood pressure and high cholesterol.

Efforts at smoking cessation should also be increased. The total economic cost of smoking in the United States is more than $300 billion a year in direct medical care and lost productivity, according to the CDC.

That’s more than we’re spending on the Cancer Moonshot annually.

Thinking big

America has extraordinary research capability. The NIH invests nearly $32.3 billion annually in medical research for the American people. Targeted cancer therapies, for instance, are the focus of much anticancer drug development, according to the National Cancer Institute. Precision Medicine is a top priority at the NIH and other research agencies. Even at $32 billion, Americans are investing in the NIH only 1 percent of what we spend on health care annually. The U.S. should build its advantage by increasing research funding to enhance the potential of breakthroughs in preventing known diseases as well as future threats.

There is reason for optimism. The good news stems in large part from the fact that chronic diseases and conditions – such as heart disease, stroke, cancer, Type 2 diabetes, obesity and arthritis – are among the most preventable of all health problems. At least half of these diseases could be prevented, and we are making strides. Death rates from heart disease, the No. 1 cause of death in America, have been reduced by nearly half, for instance, since 1990, according to the American Heart Association.

The growth and aging of the U.S. population and the epidemic of chronic diseases and conditions pose major challenges for America’s health care costs, no matter how health care is constructed. But a relentless focus on public health – and disease prevention in all its dimensions – is the best way to reduce pressure on costs.

ACA “Bare Counties”: Policy Options to Ensure Access Must Address Longer-Term Stability and Competition

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

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/blog/2017/sep/aca-bare-counties

Image result for Bare Counties

 

Continued uncertainty about federal funding for health plans is contributing to higher individual market premiums and insurer withdrawals in 2018. The danger that consumers in some regions wouldn’t have any coverage option next year seemed to subside when insurers in the affected states eventually agreed to broaden their participation. But with the September 27 deadline for deciding to participate in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplaces fast approaching, Virginia officials announced an insurer withdrawal that may leave as many as 63 counties without coverage. At the same time, many more counties appear likely to have just one insurer offering marketplace coverage. The risk that any consumer might be without options for health coverage deserves the right response from policymakers.

Relief for Bare Counties?

The threat of counties without individual market insurers, known as “bare counties,” should be a real concern of policymakers. Even if consumers in all counties have a marketplace plan that gives them access to ACA subsidies, a single plan choice locks consumers into the plan that is available to them, not necessarily the one that best meets their needs. It also fails to foster competition on price and quality, and leaves state officials tasked with approving plans in a difficult position. Two proposals in the Senate would address bare counties, and although both might provide access to federal subsidies, each has significant side effects that are likely to negatively impact market stability and future plan choices.

The Health Care Options Act (S. 761), introduced earlier this year by Senator Lamar Alexander (R–Tenn.), would allow individuals who live in an area without a marketplace plan to qualify for premium tax credits — paid at year-end — to purchase coverage off of the marketplace, including coverage that doesn’t comply with ACA consumer protections. A second bill introduced by Senator Claire McCaskill (D–Mo.), the Health Care Options for All Act (S. 1201), would allow individuals living in a bare county to purchase coverage through the District of Columbia marketplace, where members of Congress and their staff obtain coverage.

By allowing tax credits to be used for coverage that does not meet ACA requirements, the Alexander bill will likely encourage insurers to sell skimpy policies and healthy individuals to enroll in them. Noncompliant policies would have far lower premiums than compliant ones, which, because of the ACA, cannot discriminate based on an individual’s health status. Consequently, insurers that choose to sell in the off-marketplace market likely will hike their premiums for comprehensive coverage to account for the likelihood of enrolling fewer and less healthy individuals. Indeed, they may find that offering such coverage is unsustainable, particularly given that they would still be able to capture healthy, subsidized enrollees through the sale of noncompliant plans.

In contrast, the McCaskill bill would allow consumers to continue to have access to the ACA’s upfront premium and out-of-pocket help and would limit federal financial help to marketplace plans that meet critical consumer protections. However, by requiring insurers selling in the District of Columbia’s small business marketplace to offer individual market coverage to out-of-state consumers, many of whom live in rural areas and are likely to be higher-cost individuals, the proposal may undermine premiums and plan choice for D.C.’s residents and small businesses.

Other potential solutions would offer help to residents of bare counties without the potential harm of the Senate proposals. For example, Congress could allow individuals living in bare counties to use ACA subsidies to buy into other comprehensive coverage — for example, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program or Medicaid — to ensure access to ACA financial help without undermining market stability.

Policymakers also might consider requiring a fallback plan modeled on the approach taken in the Medicare prescription drug benefit. When that program was enacted, policymakers ensured adequate plan participation in the new market by designating a fallback plan that would provide coverage in any county with two or fewer plans. Such an approach would solve not only the bare counties problem but also would foster competition and ensure adequate plan participation.

Looking Forward

Policymakers looking to stabilize the market and avoid bare counties are right to start by ensuring that payments for cost-sharing reductions continue. Insurers have made clear that guaranteeing federal funding for cost-sharing reductions is a defining factor in their decision to participate in marketplaces next year. In the event there are counties without insurers, it is important that policymakers consider not just the immediate effects of potential policy fixes, but also their longer-term consequences for access to affordable, comprehensive coverage. Solutions for bare counties that allow individuals to use upfront assistance to buy a fallback plan that offers comprehensive coverage would help those individuals who are affected buy and maintain comprehensive coverage while insuring healthy and competitive markets for all.