The confused future of health care

The confused future of health care

021317_acaalternativesforum_3_605

With a new administration in Washington, it’s widely accepted that the Affordable Care Act (ACA), otherwise known as Obamacare, isn’t likely to survive in its current form. But nobody seems to know whether it will be replaced or repealed, or what shape health care coverage will take in the future. The experts who met for a Kennedy Schoolpanel on the subject Monday evening didn’t presume to answer those questions, but they did pinpoint the crucial issues for the transition.

While they disagreed on possible replacements, they agreed that any solution will take time to create, agree upon, and roll out.

The panel on “Alternatives to the Affordable Care Act” began with a look at the benefits and drawbacks of Medicaid. According to Katherine Baicker, the C. Boyden Gray Professor of Health Economics at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, expansion of Medicaid under Obamacare led to a decline in certain chronic diseases — but that also cost money, because the newly insured used more care. “This forced policymakers to think about how much they cared about the benefits to the insured, versus the costs of that care. That brought politics into it, and economists aren’t so good at politics.”

Two panelists represented opposite philosophies. Jonathan Gruber, the Ford Professor of Economics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a former Obama administration consultant on the health act, and Avik Roy, co-founder and president of the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity, argued respectively that government oversight of health care is the only sure way to leave fewer citizens behind, and that the free market, aided by block grants and tax credits, could do a better job.

Roy, speaking via Skype, said that Medicaid has failed the poor by directing too much funding to higher-income groups that don’t need it. Further, Roy said, doctors in many states avoid treating Medicaid patients because they can make more money on wealthier private patients. “Our argument is to say let’s take the money that we are sending to the Medicaid program and send it directly to the patients, so they can choose the program that serves their needs.” Tax credits and health savings accounts, he said, would give the poor more choices than Medicaid does.

“Poor people can’t do anything with health savings accounts,” Gruber replied. “If you have a $10,000 income, you can’t put $3,000 into a savings account.” He said that if you take away the individual mandate, one of the cornerstones of Obamacare, you lose the funding to insure the poor unless another mechanism is put in place. “We can’t escape the mathematics of insurance: 80 percent of the pool is paid by 20 percent of the people. Any alternative to Medicaid has to address affordability, it has to address adverse selection (i.e., people who opt out), and it has to address the architecture of the plan. But there is no alternative to the right of the ACA that does not increase un-insurance. It cannot be done.”

Gail R. Wilensky, senior fellow at Project HOPE and former director of Medicare and Medicaid, added that other countries have adopted strategies that probably would not be accepted here. Also speaking via Skype, she said, “There are alternative strategies to delivering health care, such as putting tight limits on technology. The light tech centers and digital imaging could be put under government control. You could theoretically lower costs that way. But if people were uncomfortable with the mandate, with government telling them what to buy, imagine what the reaction would be to that.”

Another question is whether patients would make the smartest decisions in an open health care market. Gruber said that under President George W. Bush, many elders simply chose the cheapest available plan, often with unfortunate results. Roy countered that low-income patients are often the shrewdest health care shoppers. “It is unreasonable to expect patients to be doctors,” Baicker said. Wilensky concurred, saying “I’ve talked to many patients with health savings accounts, and they found it incredibly difficult to know what they were buying.”

Everyone agreed, however, that the ACA is not near being definitively repealed or replaced. Chandra asked all four panelists when they expected a new plan to be in place. Estimates ranged from next winter to 2019. “One big difference is that Democrats were all united behind Obamacare, but there is no Republican consensus,” Roy said. “They’re against Obamacare, but they’re not sure what they’re for. There is literally nobody in Washington who knows what the new plans will look like, and I give it a 50-50 chance that they even come to agreement.”

One possible solution, Wilensky said, is to bring together all the affected parties — policymakers, physicians, and at-risk patients — in town-hall-type meetings that look into new solutions. “There are a lot of things that don’t make sense,” she said, “and in this country we’ve tried most of them.”

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/320286-kasich-house-gop-medicaid-plan-very-bad-idea

Kasich: House GOP Medicaid plan ‘very bad idea’

Kasich: House GOP Medicaid plan 'very bad idea'

Republican Ohio Gov. John Kasich on Sunday criticized the House Republicans’ plan to phase out ObamaCare’s expansion of Medicaid.

“I’m in Munich, but I understand that there was an initial effort by House Republicans to, for example, phase out Medicaid expansion, which means phasing out coverage,” Kasich said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “That is a very, very bad idea, because we cannot turn our back on the most vulnerable. We can give them the coverage, reform the program, save some money and make sure that we live in a country where people are going to say, ‘At least somebody is looking out for me.’”

An outline of an ObamaCare replacement plan put forward by House Republicans on Thursday called for phasing out the Medicaid expansion by lowering the federal share of the cost back down to its traditional level, meaning that states would have to pour more of their own money into the program if they wanted to keep the expansion, a tall order.

 

Medicaid’s Role for Medicare Beneficiaries

Medicaid’s Role for Medicare Beneficiaries

Figure 2: Health and functioning of Medicare beneficiaries who receive Medicaid compared to other Medicare beneficiaries

Key Takeaways
 This brief describes the role that Medicaid plays for 10 million Medicare beneficiaries to help inform upcoming debates about proposals to restructure Medicaid financing in ways that could reduce federal funding.What is Medicaid’s Role for Medicare Beneficiaries?

  • Medicaid covers needed services that Medicare does not, such as long-term care in nursing homes and the community.  Medicaid also helps make Medicare affordable by covering Medicare premiums and/or cost-sharing, which can be high for people with low incomes.

Who are the Medicare Beneficiaries Who Receive Medicaid?

  • Nearly three in four Medicare beneficiaries who receive Medicaid have three or more chronic conditions, such as diabetes or heart disease, which can require regular doctor appointments, medication, and/or medical tests.
  • Over 60% of Medicare beneficiaries who receive Medicaid need help with daily self-care activities, such as eating, bathing, or dressing, which are important for independent living.
  • Nearly six in 10 Medicare beneficiaries who receive Medicaid have a cognitive or mental impairment, such as dementia, which can create the need for supports to live safely at home.

How Much Does Medicaid Spend on Medicare Beneficiaries? 

  • Medicare beneficiaries account for 14% of Medicaid enrollment but 36% of Medicaid spending, as a result of their more intensive health needs and service use compared to other Medicaid beneficiaries.
  • Nearly three-quarters of states devote more than 30% of their total Medicaid spending to Medicare beneficiaries, and spending for Medicare beneficiaries comprises more than 45% of Medicaid budgets in six states.

Looking Ahead

Because Medicaid spending for Medicare beneficiaries is disproportionate to their enrollment, policy changes that lead states to limit per enrollee Medicaid spending or cut costly services could especially affect these beneficiaries.  Medicare beneficiaries who receive Medicaid are poorer than other Medicare beneficiaries, and many have intensive medical and long-term care needs as a result of old age, disability, and chronic illness.  Medicare beneficiaries rely on Medicaid to cover expensive but necessary services, especially long-term care in the community and nursing homes, that are generally not available through Medicare or private insurance.  They also depend on Medicaid to make Medicare affordable because Medicare’s out-of-pocket costs can be high for those with low incomes.  In addition, because the share of state Medicaid budgets devoted to Medicare beneficiaries varies by state, any changes that limit federal Medicaid financing will impact individual states differently. Because changes to Medicaid’s financing structure could have significant consequences for enrollees and states, the potential implications warrant careful consideration for their impact on Medicare beneficiaries.

Understanding the Intersection of Medicaid and Work

http://kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/understanding-the-intersection-of-medicaid-and-work/

Figure 3: Industries with largest number of workers covered by Medicaid, 2015

Issue Brief

Medicaid is the nation’s public health insurance program for people with low incomes. Overall, the Medicaid program covers more than 70 million Americans, or 1 in 5, including many with complex and costly needs for care. Historically, nonelderly, non-disabled adults accounted for a small share (27%) of Medicaid enrollees; however, the enactment and implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has expanded coverage to nonelderly adults with income up to 138% FPL, or $16,394 for an individual in 2016. As of January 2017, 32 states have implemented the ACA Medicaid expansion. By design, the expansion extended coverage to the working poor (both parents and childless adults), most of whom do not otherwise have access to affordable coverage. With the expansion to more “able-bodied” adults, questions have arisen about tying work to eligibility.

President Trump may consider waiver proposals with a work requirement, and the Administration and leaders in Congress are considering proposals to repeal the ACA and to transform Medicaid from an entitlement program with guaranteed federal matching dollars for states to a block grant with no entitlement and capped funding. Such proposals would grant states additional flexibility to design and administer their programs and potentially include an option to allow states to impose a work requirement for Medicaid beneficiaries, which is not allowed under current law.  This issue brief examines the work status of non-elderly, non-disabled adults with Medicaid coverage to understand the potential implications of work requirement proposals in Medicaid.

Key Takeaways
This brief provides an overview of work status of non-disabled, adult Medicaid enrollees and examines some of the policy proposals around tying Medicaid coverage to work.

  • Among non-disabled, non-elderly Medicaid adults (including parents and childless adults — the group targeted by the Medicaid expansion) nearly 8 in 10 live in working families, and a majority are working themselves. However, nearly half of working Medicaid enrollees are employed by small firms, and many work in industries with low ESI offer rates.
  • Among the non-disabled, non-elderly adult Medicaid enrollees who were not working, most report major impediments to their ability to work.
  • Under current law, states cannot impose a work requirement as a condition of Medicaid eligibility, but some states have sought to impose a work requirement for the Medicaid expansion population through waivers; the prior administration did not approve these requests.  The issue of work requirements may be re-examined by the new administration and may be debated in Congress as part of broader efforts to restructure Medicaid financing and core federal requirements.

 

THE SHAMEFUL REPUBLICAN ASSAULT ON MEDICAID

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/the-shameful-republican-assault-on-medicaid?mbid=social_facebook

Image result for medicaid

In terms of political theatre, Donald Trump’s press conference on Thursday was the event of the week, or maybe the year. Strictly in policy terms, though, it was less important than the media briefing that Paul Ryan, the House Speaker, and other House Republican leaders held, also on Thursday, about their plans to abolish Obamacare and replace it with some version of what we might call Trumpcare, or maybe Trump/Ryancare.

There are still huge questions about what this new system will look like, and when it might be enacted. In a new seventeen-page paper, “Obamacare Repeal and Replace,” the G.O.P. lawmakers outlined proposals that are familiar from a plan that Ryan put out last year. They included expanded health savings accounts, financial aid for the establishment of high-risk pools at the state level, and the replacement of income-based subsidies to purchase individual insurance with universal tax credits.

But the paper also contained some huge gaps. It didn’t say how large the new tax credits would be, or how they and other elements of the reform would be paid for. To pay for its provisions, the 2010 Affordable Care Act levied more than a trillion dollars in tax increases over a decade. The Republican replacement will, in all likelihood, cover millions fewer people than Obamacare, but it will still have to be paid for. Ryan and his colleagues were largely silent on where the tax burden would fall.

For all this deliberate obfuscation, though, House Republicans are now being very clear about one thing: whatever legislation emerges after the Senate and the White House have weighed in, it will almost certainly roll back the Obama Administration’s expansion of Medicaid, the federal health-insurance program for poverty-stricken and low-income households. Under the outline released on Thursday, the current Medicaid system would be replaced by block grants to the states, and the extra federal money that went to Medicaid as part of the A.C.A. would gradually be removed. In effect, the Medicaid expansion would be slowly suffocated.

Top 2017 challenges healthcare executives face

http://managedhealthcareexecutive.modernmedicine.com/managed-healthcare-executive/news/top-2017-challenges-healthcare-executives-face?cfcache=true&ampGUID=A13E56ED-9529-4BD1-98E9-318F5373C18F&rememberme=1&ts=15022017

Working as a managed care executive in today’s healthcare environment is a demanding role. According to Managed Healthcare Executive’s 2016 State of the Industry Survey, challenges abound. Government requirements and mandates, such as implementing value-based reimbursement, are difficult to meet. Meanwhile, employing new technologies, such as electronic health records and data analytics, is no easy task. Pharmaceutical costs continue to rise dramatically, burdening the entire system.

The survey findings, based on 160 responses, show the biggest challenges that executives at health systems, health plans, pharmacy benefit organizations, and more anticipate next year. Here’s a closer look at the survey results, and what industry experts say organizations can do to overcome them.

GOP Considers Medicaid Reforms for Reconciliation Bill

https://morningconsult.com/2017/02/14/gop-considers-medicaid-reforms-reconciliation-bill/

Image result for Medicaid Reforms for Reconciliation Bill

House Republicans are weighing specific reforms to Medicaid that could be included in a reconciliation measure to overhaul the Affordable Care Act.

How to deal with the federal expansion of Medicaid under the ACA is one of the main unanswered questions as Congress works to overhaul Obamacare — one that has exposed divisions between the House’s most conservative members and GOP lawmakers from states that chose to expand the federal program for low-income Americans.

Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.), the vice chairman of the Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee, said Tuesday that lawmakers are considering what types of reforms — specifically shifting to per capita allotments or allowing states to choose block grants — could be included in a House reconciliation bill to repeal the ACA.

“We’re going to deal with Medicaid reform in reconciliation, is kind of what was discussed. There’s no details yet,” Guthrie told reporters Tuesday after a House GOP conference meeting. Guthrie led a working group focused on Medicaid reforms in the last Congress.

Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas), who chairs the health subcommittee, told reporters Medicaid reform would be a discussion all week. House Majority Whip Steve Scalise’s office held a listening session Tuesday afternoon with members on Medicaid, and other committees are also gathering feedback. House Republicans are expecting to learn more information about health reform in a Thursday conference meeting focused on Obamacare.

House Speaker Paul Ryan attended the GOP senators’ policy lunch on Tuesday, and told attendees that appropriators and the authorizing committees are working out Medicaid reforms, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said.

In the House, proposals to transition to per capita allotment or block grants were included in the House GOP’s “Better Way” agenda, rolled out last year.

Indiana, Pence’s Home State, Seeks Federal OK To Keep Medicaid Expansion

http://khn.org/news/indiana-pences-home-state-seeks-federal-ok-to-keep-medicaid-expansion/

Statehouse of Indiana in Indianapolis (iStock/Getty Images Plus)

As Congress weighs repeal of the Affordable Care Act, the home state of Vice President Mike Pence Tuesday sought to keep its conservative-style Medicaid expansion under the federal health law.

Indiana applied to the Trump administration to extend a regulatory waiver and funding until Jan. 31, 2021, for its innovative package of incentives and penalties that are intended to encourage low-income Hoosiers on Medicaid to adopt healthy behaviors. Beneficiaries pay premiums, get health savings accounts and can lose their benefits if they miss payments.

Though Pence now supports the health law’s repeal, the Healthy Indiana Plan that he established in 2015 as the state’s governor has brought Medicaid coverage to more than 350,000 people. The architect of the plan was health care consultant Seema Verma, who has been nominated to head the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Without Trump administration approval, federal money for Indiana’s expansion will run out Jan. 31, 2018. Indiana officials said the Medicaid expansion would continue even if Washington follows through on a Republican proposal to distribute federal Medicaid funds through a block grant program that would give states more flexibility in setting benefits and eligibility levels.

State officials refused to say whether the expansion would continue if Congress repealed Obamacare and eliminated funds for Medicaid expansions. If that happened, it’s unlikely states would have the money to make up for the lost federal aid.

Indiana’s effort to continue its Medicaid expansion demonstrates how states that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act — even Republican-controlled ones — are counting on additional federal dollars to pay for those expansions. It also reflects deadline pressure: They can’t wait for Congress to finish its debate over the future of the health law because they need to set budgets and programs now for next year.

According to Indiana’s request, continuing the Medicaid expansion will cost Indiana $1.5 billion but bring $8.6 billion in federal funding from 2018 to 2020.

“Indiana has built a program that is delivering real results in a responsible, efficient, and effective way,” Gov. Eric Holcomb, a Republican, said in a statement. “I look forward to maintaining the flexibility to grow this remarkably successful tool and to preserve our ability to respond to the unique needs of Hoosiers.”

Several other states including Kentucky and Ohio are considering adopting features of Indiana’s Medicaid plan.

 

Five Quick Ways HHS Secretary Tom Price Could Change The Course Of Health Policy

http://khn.org/news/five-quick-ways-a-new-hhs-secretary-could-change-the-course-of-health-policy/?utm_campaign=KFF-2017-The-Latest&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=42404172&_hsenc=p2ANqtz–5EWkVt5sjIUe_63Pbf6RTjOO_GqSTuaRBRwH_raPCxqrbMpsVfuUSNHyZm7pv8SbHa4es7RH84q1NOLCwj0m44NZyWQ&_hsmi=42404172

Image result for HHS Health Policy

After a bruising confirmation process, the Senate confirmed Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., to head up the Department of Health and Human Services, by a 52-to-47 vote.

As secretary, Price will have significant authority to rewrite the rules for the Affordable Care Act, some of which are reportedly nearly ready to be issued.

But there is much more now within Price’s purview, as head of an agency with a budget of more than $1 trillion for the current fiscal year. He can interpret laws in different ways than his predecessors and rewrite regulations and guidance, which is how many important policies are actually carried out.

“Virtually everything people do every day is impacted by the way the Department of Health and Human Services is run,” said Matt Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. HHS responsibilities include food and drug safety, biomedical research, disease prevention and control, as well as oversight over everything from medical laboratories to nursing homes.

Price, a Georgia physician who opposes the Affordable Care Act, abortion and funding for Planned Parenthood, among other things, could have a rapid impact without even a presidential order or an act of Congress.

Some advocates are excited by that possibility. “With Dr. Price taking the helm of American health policy, doctors and patients alike have sound reasons to hope for a welcome and long-overdue change,” Robert Moffit, a senior fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said in a statement when Price’s nomination was announced.

Others are less enthusiastic. Asked about what policies Price might enact, Topher Spiro of the liberal Center for American Progress said at that time: “I don’t know if I want to brainstorm bad ideas for him to do.”

Here are five actions the new HHS secretary might take, according to advocates on both sides, that would disrupt health policies currently in force:

The Republican health-care plan the country isn’t debating

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-republican-health-care-plan-the-country-isnt-debating/2017/02/09/919464e2-eee8-11e6-9662-6eedf1627882_story.html?_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_zh-MmG6tEeoYRPpXGnfQ4Br6yG61Zm_BUto5iuDDy7KmrCnce1x4mfC1IJZgA7lEGZpWUtS2wTehJJCZgUSr8nli9FQ&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_g3ACJaUm5w_DwBb7DyuzIOw5pujA6z1qZbrcFLgKCShQytC1zSXx63-Yuh-gFk2Ivyjf6z-tWrzEpQHRkhxEck_TU4w&_hsmi=42381353&_hsmi=42404172&utm_campaign=KFF-2017-Drew-WashPost-feb10-GOPplans&utm_campaign=KFF-2017-The-Latest&utm_content=42381353&utm_content=42404172&utm_medium=email&utm_medium=email&utm_source=hs_email&utm_source=hs_email&utm_term=.ce2754889c96

With the debate about the Affordable Care Act drawing so much scrutiny, a broader Republican agenda to fundamentally change the federal role in health care is flying under the radar. It’s the most important issue in health care we are not debating.

Many Republicans in Congress want to convert Medicaid to a block-grant program and transform Medicare from a plan that guarantees care into one in which seniors would receive a set amount of money to purchase coverage. Meanwhile, Republicans would replace existing subsidies for premiums under the ACA with less generous tax credits — all while eliminating the expansion of Medicaid that enables states to cover low-income childless adults.

Taken together, these changes would amount to a fundamental rewriting of the health-care role of the federal government. They would end the entitlement nature of Medicaid and Medicare, cap future increases in federal health spending for these programs and shift much more of the risk for health costs in the future to states and consumers.

If Republicans shy away from Medicare for the time being, for fear of angering senior voters, the fulcrum for this policy shift will be the debate about converting the Medicaid program to some form of a block grant, most likely one that would cap spending on a per- enrollee basis. This would be an enormous shift. Medicaid spending exceeds half a trillion dollars , and the program represents more than half of all federal funds spent by states. Medicaid has changed dramatically from its beginnings as a program largely for women and children on welfare. It now has more than 70 million beneficiaries, and its reach is so broad that almost two-thirds of Americans say that they, a family member or a friend have been covered by Medicaid at some point.