Tag Archives: Medicaid

Telehealth Parity Laws

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

http://www.healthaffairs.org/healthpolicybriefs/brief.php?brief_id=162

Image result for Telehealth Parity Laws

Ongoing reforms are expanding the landscape of telehealth in the US health care system, but challenges remain.

What’s the issue?

Despite the fact that no other developed country even comes close to the United States in annual spending on health care, 20 percent of Americans still live in areas where shortages of physicians and health care specialists exist, and the United States still ranks the lowest overall among eleven industrialized countries on measures of health system efficiency, access to care, equity, and healthy lives. Many believe that the answer to issues of cost and access in the US health system lies in telehealth, which increases access to care, alleviates travel costs and burdens, and allows more convenient treatment and chronic condition monitoring.

With the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the federal government announced the move toward encouraging and including telehealth services in health care coverage. The ACA, however, only implemented telehealth at the federal level through Medicare, in selected circumstances; the power to determine which, if any, telehealth services is covered by Medicaid still remains largely within the powers of individual states. Also, states can govern private payer telehealth reimbursement policies. This means that telehealth implementation varies from state to state in terms of what services providers will be reimbursed for delivering, as well as what sort of “parity,” defined as “equivalent treatment of analogous services,” is expected between in-person health services reimbursements and telehealth reimbursements. This variation affects providers’ ability to implement telehealth options, thereby reducing the patients’ ability to use these services and become comfortable with the telehealth processes. Consequently, telehealth faces significant obstacles in becoming an accepted and used health care option for individuals, and states and the nation as a whole cannot fully realize the cost savings of telehealth.

House Bill Targets Pre-Existing Conditions in Multiple Ways

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

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

Image result for healthcare for all

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AHCA Would Affect Medicare, Too

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

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/blog/2017/may/ahca-would-affect-medicare?omnicid=EALERT1211869&mid=henrykotula@yahoo.com

Image result for ahca medicare

“Don’t touch my Medicare” has been a rallying cry in recent years, first as Congress considered health reform and now as it debates the fate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). While the bill that would repeal and replace the ACA—the American Health Care Act (AHCA)—does not include explicit changes to Medicare, the legislation could have a profound impact on the 11 million Medicare beneficiaries who also rely on Medicaid for key components of their care. Here’s a look at how the ACHA’s major changes in federal funding for Medicaid would affect low-income older adults and the Medicare program.

One-Third of All Medicaid Spending Is for People Covered by Medicare

Low-income Medicare beneficiaries who also are enrolled in Medicaid—often referred to as “dual eligibles”—could be disproportionately affected by congressional efforts to cut and cap federal Medicaid financing. Not only do these older adults account for one-third of all Medicaid spending, much of the Medicaid spending for low-income Medicare beneficiaries is “optional” for states.1

The nearly three-quarters (72%) of dual eligibles who receive full Medicaid benefits are most at risk under the AHCA’s funding caps.2  They tend to be in poorer health than other Medicare (and Medicaid) beneficiaries, and rely on Medicaid for high-cost services.3  While Medicare covers physician, hospital, and most other acute care, Medicaid covers some of dual eligibles’ behavioral health services as well as most of their long-term services and supports, such as nursing home and home and community-based services. Under federal law, many of these services are optional. Similarly, many low-income Medicare beneficiaries who qualify for Medicaid are “optional” beneficiaries who qualify only when they incur health and long-term care costs that are well in excess of their incomes. States can drop optional services and optional enrollees even without any new federal flexibility.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What moderate GOP senators want in ObamaCare repeal

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

What moderate GOP senators want in ObamaCare repeal

Related image

The House managed to narrowly pass its ObamaCare repeal bill by finding a delicate balance between hard-line conservatives and moderates. Now the Senate is looking to achieve the same feat, only with a smaller margin for error.

Senate moderates have already put their markers down on the healthcare issues that concern them the most. Individual senators hold much more power in advancing the health bill than individual House members, and if Senate Republicans can’t find a balance among their caucus, the ObamaCare repeal effort could be doomed.

The Senate will only need 51 votes to pass the bill, but because of their slim majority, Republicans can only afford to lose two votes.

The centrist senators have several major concerns with the House bill, known as the American Health Care Act (AHCA), most notably its changes to Medicaid.

The Affordable Care Act allows states to expand Medicaid coverage to more people, funded mostly by the federal government. So far, 31 states and D.C. have done so.

Even as the healthcare bill was working its way through the House, moderate GOP senators hailing from states that took the Medicaid expansion objected to the proposed cuts to the program.

In early March, Republican Sens. Rob Portman (Ohio), Shelly Moore Capito (W.Va.) Cory Gardner (Colo.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) sent a letter to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) objecting to the Medicaid cuts in the House bill. “We will not support a plan that does not include stability for Medicaid expansion populations or flexibility for states,” the lawmakers wrote.

The legislation has changed since then, but the Medicaid provisions have been largely left alone. The House bill would undo ObamaCare’s Medicaid expansion by 2020, and would cut over $800 billion from the program.

After the House passed the legislation last week, Portman, Capito and Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) were quick to say they still opposed the bill because of the Medicaid provisions.

Capito on Monday said she would like to see some form of Medicaid expansion remain permanent.

“I have seen a lot benefits to the Medicaid expansion in our state, particularly in the mental health and opioid and drug abuse areas,” Capito told reporters. As for the people who have gained coverage through expansion, Capito said “you can’t just drop them off and wish them good luck. “

Moderates have also objected to the fact that the most recent estimates of an earlier version of the House bill would have resulted in 24 million fewer people having insurance coverage over a decade.

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) has crafted, along with Collins, a different ObamaCare replacement bill that would allow states to decide whether they want to keep ObamaCare or enact something different.

Cassidy has repeatedly objected to the House version of the legislation because he says it doesn’t fulfill President Trump’s promises to “lower premiums, maintain coverage and protect those with pre-existing conditions.” During a May 8 speech at the American Hospital Association, Cassidy said that while the AHCA may lower premiums, it does so by giving people “terrible coverage.”

Aside from coverage issues, abortion is also likely to cause some headaches in the Senate.

The primary group in the Senate working on the bill includes prominent conservatives like Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Mike Lee (R-Utah), who are likely to insist that the Senate keep a provision from the House that largely strips Planned Parenthood of funding. But Collins has said any Planned Parenthood language is a non-starter.

Moderates are also likely to insist on making sure language is removed from the House bill that would prohibit the bill’s tax credits from being used to purchase coverage on insurance plans that cover abortion. That could be a major problem for conservatives, especially if the revised bill is to have any chance at passing the House again.

Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) on Monday acknowledged the balancing act leaders will need to pull off. “Now it’s a question of building consensus within the Republican conference. All 52 Republican senators are going to be part of the process … because we’re going to need everybody.”

Cornyn also said he wasn’t concerned about losing votes if the Planned Parenthood language remained in the bill.

A Squeaker In The House Becomes Headache For The Senate: 5 Things To Watch

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

A Squeaker In The House Becomes Headache For The Senate: 5 Things To Watch

Image result for aca repeal

After weeks of will-they-or-won’t-they tensions, the House managed to pass its GOP replacement for the Affordable Care Act on Thursday by a razor-thin margin. The vote was 217-213.

Democrats who lost the battle are still convinced they may win the political war. As the Republicans reached a majority for the bill, Democrats on the House floor began chanting, “Na, na, na, na … Hey, hey, hey … Goodbye.” They claim Republicans could lose their seats for supporting a bill that could cause so much disruption in voters’ health care.

Now the bill — and the multitude of questions surrounding it — moves across the Capitol to the Senate. And the job doesn’t get any easier. With only a two-vote Republican majority and no likely Democratic support, it would take only three GOP “no” votes to sink the bill.

Democrats have made clear they will unanimously oppose the bill. “Trumpcare” is just a breathtakingly irresponsible piece of legislation that would endanger the health of tens of millions of Americans and break the bank for millions more,” said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).

And Republicans in the Senate have their own internal disagreements, too.

Here are five of the biggest flashpoints that could make trouble for the bill in the upper chamber.

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

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

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

Abstract

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

Background

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

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

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

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

Findings

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

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

 

How Medicaid Enrollees Fare Compared with Privately Insured and Uninsured Adults

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

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2017/apr/how-medicaid-enrollees-fare?omnicid=EALERT1201088&mid=henrykotula@yahoo.com

Abstract

Issue: The number of Americans insured by Medicaid has climbed to more than 70 million, with an estimated 12 million gaining coverage under the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion.1,2 Still, some policymakers have questioned whether Medicaid coverage actually improves access to care, quality of care, or financial protection.

Goals: To compare the experiences of working-age adults who were either: covered all year by private employer or individual insurance; covered by Medicaid for the full year; or uninsured for some time during the year.

Method: Analysis of the Commonwealth Fund Biennial Health Insurance Survey, 2016.

Findings and Conclusions: The level of access to health care that Medicaid coverage provides is comparable to that afforded by private insurance. Adults with Medicaid coverage reported better care experiences than those who had been uninsured during the year. Medicaid enrollees have fewer problems paying medical bills than either the privately insured or the uninsured.

First, Do No Harm to Patients With Pre-Existing Conditions

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

http://www.realclearhealth.com/articles/2017/04/26/first_do_no_harm_to_patients_with_pre-existing_conditions__110567.html?utm_source=RC+Health+Morning+Scan&utm_campaign=5d3df6bbc3-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_04_26&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b4baf6b587-5d3df6bbc3-84752421

Image result for First, Do No Harm to Patients With Pre-Existing Conditions

The recent U.S. House decision to pull the first iteration of the American Health Care Act (AHCA) off the floor doesn’t necessarily mean efforts to reform health care are at an end. As members of Congress work to develop legislation that will change the current health care system, they must develop policy that ensures people with pre-existing conditions will receive coverage without additional costs in premiums, deductibles or coinsurance for their pre-existing condition.

As it stands, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) prohibits insurers from denying coverage to Americans with pre-existing conditions – no matter how severe or costly their medical care might be. Had the AHCA passed, a new provision would have required that patients with pre-existing conditions maintain continuous coverage without a lapse of more than 63 days.

Theoretically, this provision should ensure all Americans have constant coverage. In reality, however, it’s possible many patients with pre-existing conditions would have difficulty meeting this requirement. For starters, many individuals with chronic conditions, such as spina bifida or sickle cell disease, often earn lower incomes precisely because of their medical needs – which in turn makes it difficult for them to afford meaningful insurance that covers their care. Further, millions of sick patients with chronic diseases rely on Medicaid for coverage. Any health reform legislation must ensure that these patients don’t lose coverage altogether by 2020.

These changes could inflict grave harm on Americans. A recent report from the Department of Health and Human Services estimates that anywhere from 61 million to 133 million non-elderly Americans have pre-existing conditions. All of these Americans could have been denied coverage, or offered coverage at extraordinarily steep prices, had they needed to shop for individual health insurance before 2014, when the ACA’s coverage provisions went into effect. In fact, between 2010 and 2014, the number of uninsured Americans with pre-existing conditions fell by 22 percent – a clear sign of the impact of the ACA’s market reforms.

The ACA is not perfect. Changes such as reducing prescription costs, addressing cost barriers created by high deductible plans and reducing unnecessary administrative burdens on physicians and patients would improve the law.

However, the current law’s provisions like the ban on discriminating against Americans with pre-existing conditions have led to an historically low number of uninsured Americans – estimated at 8.9 percent last November. In turn, that coverage, combined with access to primary physicians, leads to more timely prevention and treatment of disease and, ultimately, improved public health for all Americans.

Family physicians serve on the front lines of our health care system, and we know how important it is that chronically ill patients receive the care the need to get healthy. We have witnessed firsthand the positive effects of the ACA’s prohibition on discriminating against Americans with pre-existing conditions, and we urge our leaders in Washington – both in Congress and in the administration – to continue to protect them.

The Future Of Delivery System Reform

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

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2017/04/20/the-future-of-delivery-system-reform/

Over the past several years, the federal government has put billions of dollars into a variety of programs aimed at improving the way health care is delivered. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) authorized a broad agenda of reform projects, including accountable care organizations (ACOs), bundled payments, value-based purchasing, primary care initiatives, and other payment and service delivery models. The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) of 2015 established new ways of paying physicians intended to promote high-quality patient care.

What will happen to these initiatives under a Congress where Republicans are still seeking to enact major new health reforms and a president who could aggressively use authority granted by the ACA to make sweeping changes in Medicare and other health programs? Does this spell the end of delivery system reform, or could this be a new start with a greater potential to promote efficient and effective health care?

The prospect of ACA repeal has raised concerns among advocates, who argue that the enactment of Medicare-led efforts to promote higher-value care represents a real turning point in the battle to reduce waste and inefficiency. They fear that any reversal of the ACA framework would be a setback to the cause of lower costs and higher quality.

Those fears are overblown. There is bipartisan agreement on the goal of promoting more efficient and effective health care. MACRA, which is aimed at improving the value of physician services through payment changes, was enacted on a bipartisan basis. The debate is over the best way to accomplish the goal, not the goal itself.

We agree that it would be unwise to jettison entirely the delivery system reform provisions of the ACA, but their demise would not be the end of efforts to improve US health care. Rather, we see those provisions as far less consequential than their advocates claim, yet they can serve as departure points for putting in place more effective changes that provide room for private initiative and consumer preferences alongside changes in Medicare’s payment systems.

Summing Up

The cost of health care in the United States has grown rapidly for many years, typically well above growth in the overall economy. Those high costs have not guaranteed high-quality care or good patient outcomes, and our delivery system remains inefficient. What is needed is a process of continuous improvement in the efficiency and quality of the care delivered to patients. That is the core belief motivating the delivery system reform effort, which should be continued even as important features of the ACA come under review.

The key question is how best to pursue more cost-effective care delivery in the United States. At the moment, the federal government is trying to use its leverage to bring about greater efficiency, employing its regulatory powers under the Medicare program. That approach, while understandable, should be amended to make room for more private initiative and consumer incentives. Those are the driving forces for productivity improvement in other sectors of the national economy, and they should be harnessed to produce better outcomes in health care as well.