The doctor is out: PCP availability beyond 2020

The doctor is out: PCP availability beyond 2020

In 2020 and beyond, under the Senate’s BCRA, the working poor will have a very hard time finding primary care providers (PCP) who will schedule appointments with them. Providers, rightly, fear bad debt from high deductible plans. They will discriminate on the ability to pay upfront.

In the NEJM, Karin Rhodes, Genevieve Kenney, and Ari Friedman looked at PCP appointment availability in the from the end of 2012 to Spring 2013. They found that appointments were usually quickly available if the person had insurance and unavailable if they were cash paying patients who could not afford the median price of services.**

The overall rate of new patient appointments for the uninsured was 78.8% with full cash payment at the time of the appointment (Figure 2). The median cost of a new patient primary care visit was $120, but costs varied across the states, as indicated in the figure legend. Only 15.4% of uninsured callers received an appointment that required payment of $75 or less at the time of the visit, because few offices had low-cost appointments and only one-fifth of practices allowed flexible payment arrangements for uninsured patients.

Why does this matter in the BCRA environment?

The baseline plan will be a plan with a $7,500 deductible for a single person. For people with means, paying $120 for a PCP visit is unpleasant but not onerous. If I had to do that this afternoon, I would grumble as I pull out a credit card. I would pay that credit card off tomorrow after I got the transaction points. Not everyone can do that.

Craig Garthwaite raises a good point this morning:

Primary care providers will seek to minimize their net bad debt.

Michael Chernew and Jonathan Bush looked at how bad debt accumulates as a function of out of pocket expenses at professional offices.

The median PCP cash visit price is a large payment in the Chernew/Bush schema. Most of it will be paid as people with means take out their credit card, their HRA debit card, or their HSA card and swipe it through the machine. But a simple PCP visit will produce significant chasing and write-downs. The study is limited as it only looked at people who were commercially insured. It excludes most low income people who are in the Medicaid gap on an income qualification basis by design. The average income in the study group is highly likely to be higher than the income of people who would move from Medicaid to benchmark plans. Even so, there is significant chasing and write downs. I would predict that applying 100% first dollar obligations on people with even less income than the study population will lead to more provider bad debt. This is because these programs are income qualified and if a person income qualifies for these programs, they probably don’t have a spare $120 floating around or easy access to cheap, revolving credit.

If we assume that some normal PCP visits will include some extra services that increase the contracted payment rate to $200 or more (very large obligations in Chernew/Bush) significant sums will be written down and off. For provider practice viability concerns, providers will very aggressively screen against people with very high deductible insurance who can’t pay the entire amount of the contracted rate price up front at the receptionist desk. This is a very patient unfriendly system.

Most payment reform models focus on delivering more primary care. The objective is to substitute cheap primary care for expensive specialist, inpatient hospital stays and post-acute rehabilitation. This is the concept behind value based insurance design. VBID is supposed to encourage the routine, low cost, regular maintenance of chronic conditions in outpatient or community settings instead of having people end up in the hospital for preventable admissions.

Yet, under the very understandable incentives of primary care physicians wanting to stay in business, access to primary care for the working poor who would have several thousand dollar deductibles that apply to all services, will be greatly restricted because of the cost barrier. If we want all members of our shared society to have decent health and decent lives, should want people to have easy and ready access to primary care. This bill creates strong business incentives to create barriers to primary care access.

Changes to state innovation waivers in the Senate health bill undermine coverage and open the door to misuse of federal funds

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2017/06/23/changes-to-state-innovation-waivers-in-the-senate-health-bill-undermine-coverage-and-open-the-door-to-misuse-of-federal-funds/?utm_campaign=Brookings%20Brief&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=53522663

Image result for essential health benefits

Editor’s Note:This analysis is part of USC-Brookings Schaeffer Initiative on Health Policy, which is a partnership between the Center for Health Policy at Brookings and the University of Southern California Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics. The Initiative aims to inform the national health care debate with rigorous, evidence-based analysis leading to practical recommendations using the collaborative strengths of USC and Brookings.

On June 22, Senate Republicans released their much-awaited health reform bill, the Better Care Reconciliation Act of 2017 (BCRA). Much attention has rightfully focused on the bill’s myriad changes to the Medicaid program and to subsidies for the purchase of private insurance. But the legislation also makes potentially highly impactful changes to state innovation waivers, which are included in section 1332 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

Under current law, section 1332 provides broad flexibility for states to waive key ACA provisions so long as health coverage is not jeopardized and federal deficits not increased. Waivers can affect a wide range of provisions, including the premium tax credit, the definition of essential health benefits, the requirement that insurance plans cap annual out-of-pocket spending, and the requirement for states to operate a Marketplace, among others.

The changes in the Senate bill would upset this structure, removing the coverage-related guardrails and thereby opening the door for states to pursue waivers that would result in substantial losses in health coverage and affordability. The weakened guardrails would also allow states significant latitude to misuse federal health care dollars.

No Easy Choices: 5 Options to Respond to Per Capita Caps

No Easy Choices: 5 Options to Respond to Per Capita Caps

Congress is debating the American Health Care Act (AHCA) that would end the enhanced matching funds for the ACA Medicaid expansion and would also end the program-wide guarantee for federal Medicaid matching dollars by setting a limit on federal funding through a block grant or per capita cap.  Under a block grant, federal spending would be limited to a pre-set amount.  States could cap enrollment or impose waiting lists as mechanisms to control costs.  Under a per capita cap, per enrollee spending would be capped, but the total amount of federal dollars to states could vary with enrollment changes and states would not be able to impose enrollment caps.

Faced with restrictions in federal financing, states would have to make hard choices. Research shows that there is not strong evidence to support large savings through options aimed at achieving Medicaid efficiencies. Under a block grant, states could cap or limit enrollment; however, the incentives and options under a per capita cap could be different.  This brief outlines the key measures states could use to manage their budgets and the associated challenges under a per capita cap:

The Senate Puts Medicaid on the Chopping Block

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/ahca-senate-draft-medicaid-changes/531231/

Image result for chopping block

A draft version of the AHCA released Thursday shows even deeper cuts to the program than the House version.

The new AHCA is a lot like the old AHCA.

After weeks of secret gestation in back rooms, the Senate released a discussion draft of the chamber’s version of the American Health Care Act. Like the version passed through the House to cheers in May, it is likely to make health care less affordable for low-income, sick, and near-elderly people; it makes Obamacare tax credits for exchange coverage less generous; it restricts and slashes Medicaid funding deeply over the next decade; and it attempts to smooth euphemistically-named “market disruptions” from all those reforms by injecting billions into state funds and reinsurance.

There are some substantial changes in the specifics, though. For starters, the Senate bill would tweak the House bill’s tax subsidy for private insurance purchased on the exchanges. The final version of the House bill provided a tax credit to people making up to 400 percent of the federal poverty line that would be less generous than the existing ACA credits. It would also reduce the amount of expenses covered as recipients get older and have more expenses.

The Senate’s version would cut the eligibility for premium tax credits to those earning up to 350 percent of the poverty line. It would be slightly more generous for poor and near-poor people, although credit percentages would taper off more sharply as recipients grow older, and they would be severely restricted for people as their income approaches that 350 percent threshold. Unlike the House plan, however, the Senate plan would fund Obamacare exchange cost-sharing subsidies through 2019, which would soften some of the immediate impacts of a less generous tax credit.

The House’s bill would allow private insurers to charge people more as they grow older, and permit plans in certain states to cover fewer services. It also would have made exchange coverage more expensive and less comprehensive on average for low-income, sick, and older people. It would likely reduce coverage for pregnant women and people with mental-health issues as well. The last Congressional Budget Office score found that many of the 23 million fewer people who would be covered were drawn from those groups, as well as many of those who would keep coverage but suffer dramatic increases in premiums.

The Senate bill would alleviate some of these issues with slightly more generous credits for the poor, but would keep those central disruptions intact, and would leave more middle-class people without affordable coverage. It also allows even less generous plans to stand as benchmarks for exchange and employer coverage, which could likewise contribute to disruptions and deductible increases.

In recognition of the disruptions to the state-level exchanges through which individuals purchase coverage, the House bill set up a “Patient and State Stability Fund,” which would inject over $100 billion into state high-risk pools and reinsurance funds. The Senate largely replicates this approach with slightly less funding, although it does add an additional $2 billion fund for fighting the opioid crisis in 2018.

The much more drastic changes in the Senate bill as compared to the House bill come in the realm of Medicaid. The House bill immediately ended enhanced funding for the Medicaid expansion to able-bodied low-income adults under the ACA, while the Senate bill would slowly phase that funding out. This, in theory, would put millions fewer people immediately in the ranks of the uninsured and increase government spending over the House plan. But seven states (Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Washington) have “trigger laws” that would immediately void their Medicaid expansions with any change in federal support, and it’s likely more states would choose to shutter their expansions well before the end of the enhanced funding window in the face of rising costs.

Several independent analyses have concluded that this funding structure would lead to large-scale shortfalls in every state, which would need to be closed by reducing enrollment or benefits, and cutting capacity to respond to disasters and public-health crises. Those affected most would be poor children, people with mental-health issues, and disabled people.

After President Trump reportedly called the House draft “mean” earlier this month, many observers expected the Senate to produce a more moderate plan. Instead, the Senate plan actually deepens long-term Medicaid cuts. The bill keeps the same basic inflationary index of the House bill until 2025. But after that, instead of using the more generous medical inflationary index (since costs in the health-care sector increase faster than broader measures of inflation), the Senate plan uses the general Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers (CPI-U), which will dramatically slow the rate at which funding for the program increases.

A recent report from the Urban Institute shows some of the long-term effects of this switch in inflationary indexes. While it assumes an existing Medicaid expansion and compares an immediate difference in indexing, instead of the 2025 phase-in, the paper illustrates how Medicaid funding will be flattened in the future under the CPI-U. States will have to plan for much less generous Medicaid funding down the road, and most signs point to even more cuts in benefits and eligibility for some of the most vulnerable populations than under the House plan.

That restriction on Medicaid might seem like bad politics, and it remains to be seen if moderate Republicans will warm to the bill, or if public pressure will change some minds. But among the Republican base especially, Medicaid remains deeply unpopular, and is frequently maligned. Even as strengthening the private-insurance subsidies became a key issue for Senate Republicans, Medicaid remained a target, and reducing its generosity has long been a rather uncontroversial piece of the party’s goals.

The full impact of all these changes in the Senate draft won’t be known until it receives a score from the CBO. But what appears clear is that along with broad cuts in Obamacare taxes that mostly benefit middle-class and upper-income people, the Senate plan—perhaps even more so than the House plan—is a massive constriction of the safety net. It will have a substantial impact on both wealth and health, shifting the benefits of public policy away from the poor and the sick, and toward the healthy and the affluent. For Republicans who have long despised the redistributive effects of Medicaid, that is precisely the point.

The Senate health bill is out. Here’s your speed read

https://www.axios.com/the-senate-bill-is-out-heres-your-speed-read-2446201141.html

Image result for aca repeal bill

You can read it here, and a summary here. The highlights:

  • Ends the Affordable Care Act’s mandates and most of its taxes.
  • Phases out its Medicaid expansion over three years, ending in 2024.
  • Limits Medicaid spending with per capita caps, or block grants for states that choose them. The spending growth rate would become stricter in 2025.
  • States could apply for waivers from many of the insurance regulations.
  • The ACA’s tax credits would be kept in place, unlike the House bill — but their value would be reduced.
  • Funds the ACA’s cost-sharing subsidies through 2019, but then repeals them.

Want more? Keep reading.

  • There’s a stabilization fund to help states strengthen their individual health insurance markets.
    • $15 billion a year in 2018 and 2019, $10 billion a year in 2020 and 2021.
    • There’s also a long-term state innovation fund, $62 billion over eight years, to help high-cost and low-income people buy health insurance.
  • The ACA tax credits continue in 2018 and 2019.
  • After that, they’d only be available for people with incomes up to 350 percent of the poverty line.
  • The “actuarial value” — the amount of the medical costs that insurance would have to cover — would be lowered to 58 percent, down from 70 percent for the ACA’s benchmark plans. That’s likely to reduce the value of the tax credits.
  • All ACA taxes would be repealed except for the “Cadillac tax” for generous plans, which would be delayed.
  • Medicaid spending growth rate under per capita caps would be same as House bill until 2025. Then it switches to the general inflation rate, which is lower than House bill.
  • States would be able to impose work requirements for people on Medicaid, except for the elderly, pregnant women and people with disabilities.
  • Children with complex medical needs would be exempt from the per capita caps.

Five things to watch in Senate GOP’s ACA repeal bill

Five things to watch in Senate GOP’s ObamaCare repeal bill

Related image

A draft of the long-awaited Senate healthcare bill, crafted behind closed doors, will be publicly unveiled on Thursday.

Just a day before the bill’s scheduled release, some senators said they still didn’t know the details of some key provisions, creating uncertainty as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) pushes toward a vote next week.

Here’s what to watch for.

Democrats to slow-walk Senate business over health care bill

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/06/19/democrats-halt-senate-business-over-health-care-bill/103012262/?utm_campaign=KHN%3A%20First%20Edition&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=53324518&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8NpDGDFUkQIuhKz8d8GWAlDDWC2mqcN0hJfp_LlAcTnc81nyyDtb3Ah782Ee3PptGo5xWZ8yPbj1T7bkeh-DIp55enpQ&_hsmi=53324518

Image result for Democrats to slow-walk Senate business over health care bill

Democrats will begin slow-walking Senate business on Monday as part of their opposition to Republican attempts to overturn the Affordable Care Act.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said Democrats will object to requests for “unanimous consent” to set aside rules and expedite proceedings. The procedural move is a tactic the minority party can use to draw out the legislative process for days, forcing Republicans to jump through procedural hurdles to get anything done.

The goal, he said, is to refer the GOP health care bill to a committee where it can be debated and amended publicly. Republicans are writing their bill “under the cover of darkness because they’re ashamed of it,” he said.

“This is a bill that would likely reorder one-sixth of the American economy and have life-and-death consequences for millions of Americans, and it’s being discussed in secret with no committee hearings, no debate, no amendments, no input from the minority,” he said. “This is the most glaring departure from normal legislative procedure that I have ever seen.”

The move coincides with a new #AmericaSpeaksOut campaign Senate Democrats launched Monday urging Americans to “speak out against Trumpcare and share their stories.” They also plan to hold the Senate floor tonight with speeches about health care.

The House passed its Obamacare repeal bill in May, but Senate Republicans have been drafting their own bill behind closed doors.

In a letter, Democrats provided some Senate Republican leaders with a list of all 31 potential Senate rooms “to assist” Republicans in scheduling a hearing.

They wrote that Democrats, by comparison, held about 100 hearings and meetings, accepted more than 150 amendments sponsored or cosponsored by GOP senators and spent 25 days in floor debate during the drafting of the Affordable Care Act.

The move by Democrats to slow Senate business will not impact consideration of President Trump’s nominee to lead the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Brock Long, who is expected to be confirmed Tuesday, according to a Senate Democratic aide. Schumer said Democrats would not object to requests for unanimous consent on honorary resolutions, either.

The greater impact likely will be the interruption of the legislative process and routine Senate business.

Speaking on the Senate floor, Schumer asked Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky to hold an all-senators meeting to discuss a bipartisan way forward on lowering the cost of health care, raising the quality of care and stabilizing the insurance marketplaces.

McConnell responded that senators would meet on the Senate floor with an unlimited amendment process. He said there would be “ample opportunity” to read and amend the bill when Schumer asked whether Democrats would have more than 10 hours to review it.

“I rest my case,” Schumer said.

Republicans blame Democrats for refusing to negotiate on a health care bill.

“Democrats for MONTHS have stated they have no interest in working with Republicans on fixing Obamacare,” Michael Reed, the Republican National Committee’s research director and deputy communications director, wrote in a statement. “Now, Democrat efforts to feign outrage over health care negotiations should be seen for what it is — a pure partisan game aimed at placating the far-left.”

McConnell, in a Senate floor speech, said Obamacare has increased costs and reduced choice, causing Americans to drop coverage. He said the entire Senate Republican conference has been “active and engaged” for months on legislation that would stabilize insurance markets, remove mandates to buy insurance, and preserve access to care for those with pre-existing conditions.

“We believe we can and must do better than Obamacare’s status quo,” he said.

The House-passed health care bill, called the American Health Care Act, would lead to 23 million fewer people having health insurance by 2026, according to the Congressional Budget Office. If the Senate is able to pass health care legislation, the two chambers will have to come to a compromise to get a final bill to Trump’s desk.

As Democrats prepared for battle over the Senate bill, conservative House Republicans planned to send a letter to McConnell warning against letting the legislation get too moderate if he wants to keep support from the House after it passed the Senate.

The letter from the Republican Study Committee, which has more than 150 members, states that its members have “serious concerns regarding recent reports suggesting that the Senate’s efforts to produce a reconciliation bill repealing the Affordable Care Act are headed in a direction that may jeopardize final passage in the House of Representatives,” according to a copy of the draft obtained by USA TODAY.

Medicaid overhaul faces tough test in Trump country

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/18/medicaid-overhaul-kentucky-matt-bevin-trump-country-239655

Image result for medicaid overhaul

Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin’s planned overhaul of Medicaid is running into the unforgiving reality of impoverished small towns like this one, which voted overwhelmingly for President Donald Trump.

Making adults work as a condition for getting health benefits is popular with the conservatives running many state capitals and Washington, D.C. But here in Magoffin County, where one of the last coal mines shuttered two years ago, there is little work to be had.

Trump’s Health and Human Services Department is expected to bless Bevin’s plan requiring poor adults to work to enroll in Medicaid in a first test of the GOP idea nationwide. Arizona, Arkansas, Indiana, Maine and Wisconsin have already asked the federal government for similar permissions, or will do so soon.

Trump’s top health officials, along with many Blue Grass Republicans, argue the work and other new requirements would bring much-needed discipline to a program that’s grown by more than 11 million people nationally under Obamacare’s coverage expansion.

“If I had my way, everybody who is able to work would be required to work for any program there is,” said Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.). “I think work is a good thing, not a bad thing. I don’t think work is punishment.”

“I think it incentivizes people to get out there,” agreed Kentucky state Sen. Ralph Alvarado, a physician, who said that able-bodied individuals relying on public assistance should find ways to give back to their communities.

Medicaid was never meant for “able-bodied” adults who obtained coverage under Obamacare and the program must be protected for more vulnerable populations, Alvarado said.

Under Kentucky’s proposal, able-bodied, low-income adults would be required to work up to 20 hours per week, or pursue activities such as job training or volunteer work to be eligible for Medicaid coverage. The state is also seeking federal approval for other conservative policies, including instituting monthly premiums ranging from $1 to $15 for certain low-income adults and parents, and co-pays if individuals miss premium payments.

ObamaCare: Six key parts of the Senate bill

ObamaCare: Six key parts of the Senate bill

Image result for Obamacare: Six Key Parts of the Senate Bill

While Senate Republicans are drafting their healthcare plan behind closed doors, they’ve given reporters a general idea of what might be in it.

The bill is shaping up to have a similar structure as the House’s bill, while more reflecting the principles of centrist Republicans in both chambers.

Senators are still hashing out the specifics, but here’s a look at where they appear to be headed.

 

U.S. Health Care Under Trump: Former Medicaid/Medicare Chiefs Square Off

https://www.commonwealthclub.org/events/2017-06-27/us-health-care-under-trump-former-medicaidmedicare-chiefs-square

Image - U.S. Health Care

Tue, Jun 27 2017 – 6:30pm

Gail Wilensky, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, Project HOPE; Former Administrator Under President George H.W. Bush, Health Care Financing Administration
Andy Slavitt, Senior Advisor, Bipartisan Policy Center; Former Acting Administrator President Barack Obama, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Mark Zitter, Chair, the Zetema Project—Moderator

Where is health care in the U.S. headed under the Trump administration? What do recent changes mean, and how will they affect consumers? Where should we be heading and why?

Now that the American Health Care Act (AHCA) has passed in the House, health care reform remains a hotter topic than ever. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) has proposed turning Medicare into a voucher program and funding Medicaid through block grants to states. Congress continues to discuss eliminating the individual mandate and providing more flexibility in terms of which benefits insurers must offer. Conservatives claim these changes would provide greater choice to consumers and more value to the federal budget, while progressives argue that these changes would reduce access to care and worsen health outcomes.

We’ll hear from two former senior officials on the ongoing efforts to repeal or repair the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Andy Slavitt recently stepped down as acting administrator for the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services under President Barack Obama. Gail Wilensky held the same post under President George H.W. Bush. Both experts continue to speak out from differing perspectives on Medicare and Medicaid as well as broader reform issues. Join us for a spirited discussion on the problems and prospects of U.S. health care.

Location: 555 Post St., San Francisco
Time: 5:30 p.m. check-in, 6:30 p.m. program
Notes: 
In association with the Zetema Project