U.S. Uninsured Rate at New Low of 10.9% in Third Quarter

http://www.gallup.com/poll/196193/uninsured-rate-new-low-third-quarter.aspx

Uninsured by Quarter Q3 2016

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

  • Uninsured rate reaches nine-year low
  • Rate down 6.2 points since individual mandate took effect
  • Uninsured rate has dropped most among low-income households, Hispanics

In the third quarter of 2016, 10.9% of U.S. adults were without health insurance, representing a new low in Gallup’s and Healthways’ nearly nine years of trending the rate of uninsured. This is down from 11.9% in the fourth quarter of 2015, before the 2016 open enrollment period that allowed U.S. adults to obtain insurance through the government health insurance exchanges.

The uninsured rate has declined 6.2 percentage points from 17.1% in the fourth quarter of 2013, right before the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that Americans carry health insurance took effect in early 2014.

Results for the third quarter are based on approximately 44,000 interviews with U.S. adults aged 18 and older from July 1- Sept. 30, 2016, conducted as part of the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index. Gallup asks 500 U.S. adults each day whether they have health insurance, which, on an aggregated basis, allows for precise and ongoing measurement of the percentage of Americans with and without health insurance.

 

How Health Care Battles of the Past Shape the Candidates’ Positions Today

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/in-brief/2016/oct/past-as-prologue-presidential-politics-health-policy?omnicid=EALERT1108988&mid=henrykotula@yahoo.com

Despite the singular nature of this year’s presidential campaign, there is plenty of continuity with past elections when it comes to health care, argue David Blumenthal, M.D., and James A. Morone in their New England Journal of Medicine “Perspective.”

In “Past as Prologue—Presidential Politics and Health Policy,” Blumenthal, The Commonwealth Fund’s president, and Morone, director of Brown University’s Taubman Center for American Politics and Policy, discuss the “deep underlying political forces and historical experiences with health care politics and policy” that are reflected in the platforms of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

The authors previously collaborated on the book The Heart of Power: Health and Politics in the Oval Office (University of California Press, 2009).

Understanding the Value of Medicaid

View at Medium.com

Today, Medicaid provides coverage to nearly 73 million people — kids, low-income working adults, seniors, and people with disabilities — making it the nation’s largest insurer.

Biggest healthcare frauds in 2016: Running list

http://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/slideshow/biggest-healthcare-frauds-2016-running-list?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWVRrMVl6UmtNek5qTURkaSIsInQiOiJ0Q2t5WUwzMm1TMDZaM0NrVU53eWtLWXIrb2tNUDBRZWhpNHRBb3VqWWh0blIzNUR2S1BlSVwveGFCTG9EYStDTFNTWjIrXC9LMmR4YU1DYXU3NVY1QUNoNUxDOW5zWVJVcjdvcFU2TW9vOU04PSJ9

Lazy Image

 

Election 2016 FAQ: Proposition 52, Private Hospital Fees For Medi-Cal

http://www.capradio.org/articles/2016/10/03/election-2016-faq-proposition-52,-private-hospital-fees-for-medi-cal/?utm_campaign=CHL%3A+Daily+Edition&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=35302967&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8_y7tr7hjKlocU1Bf0RP6qo8AOsaLKyNwYTxsS4ZJy4709jXXIbWZfW2Fcz8YjL39HJrT6rBSjniGZ4BrgqygFdZHHFA&_hsmi=35302967

Image result for Election 2016 FAQ: Proposition 52, Private Hospital Fees For Medi-Cal

The Basics

In California, private hospitals pay an annual fee to the state that in turn helps bring in additional federal funds for Medi-Cal, the state’s health care program for low-income Californians. One in three Californians get their health care through Medi-Cal. The funds generated by the fee cover hospital services for Medi-Cal patients and health care for low-income children.

Hospitals originally approached the Legislature to create the “Hospital Quality Assurance Fee,” which state lawmakers enacted in 2009. This law is slated to expire in 2018. Proposition 52 would make the fee permanent and would make it tougher for the Legislature to use the money for other purposes.

The federal government matches state spending on health care for the poor, so the more California puts up for Medi-Cal, the more federal dollars it receives. The hospital fee boosts the state’s fund for Medi-Cal and thus attracts more federal money. Those dollars are then paid back to the hospitals to reimburse them for caring for their Medi-Cal patients.

What you’re voting on

Hospitals say the fee system is crucial to California’s medical safety net. They say they spend more to treat Medi-Cal patients than government reimbursement covers. The supplemental federal money hospitals get helps shrink their deficits. The estimated net benefit to hospitals in 2015-2016 was $3.5 billion.

Hospitals also contribute around $1 billion annually for children’s health care. This extra money acts like a handling fee that hospitals pay the state so the Legislature partners with them on Medi-Cal matching funds. Hospitals want to cement this law rather than have it re-upped every few years to avoid uncertainty and to make sure the amount of the extra fee for children’s health care doesn’t continue to increase, as it has in years past.

Proposition 52 requires a two-thirds vote in the state Legislature to end the program or to divert money from the hospital fee away from Medi-Cal. That’s something that lawmakers did in 2011, when they used approximately half a billion dollars for other purposes.

Snapshot of Where Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Stand on Seven Health Care Issues

Snapshot of Where Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Stand on Seven Health Care Issues

Image result for Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump on Health Care Issues

While health care has not been central to the 2016 Presidential campaign, the election’s outcome will be a major determining factor in the country’s future health care policy. A number of issues have garnered media attention, including the future of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), rising prescription drug costs, and the opioid epidemic.

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have laid out different approaches to addressing these and other health care issues. Central among these is their position on the future of the ACA. Hillary Clinton would maintain the ACA, and many of her policy proposals would build on provisions already in place. Donald Trump, in contrast, would fully repeal the ACA, and although his policy proposals and positions do not offer a full replacement plan, they do reflect an approach based on free market principles.

See where the candidates stand on seven key health policy issues.

Donald Trump’s Health Care Reform Proposals: Anticipated Effects on Insurance Coverage, Out-of-Pocket Costs, and the Federal Deficit

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Publications/Issue-Briefs/2016/Sep/Trump-Presidential-Health-Care-Proposal

Image result for Donald Trump's Health Care Reform Proposals: Anticipated Effects on Insurance Coverage, Out-of-Pocket Costs, and the Federal Deficit

Issue: Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has proposed to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and replace it with a proposal titled “Healthcare Reform to Make America Great Again.” Proposed reforms include allowing individuals to deduct the full amount of premiums for individual health plans from their federal tax returns, providing block grants to finance state Medicaid programs, and allowing insurers to sell insurance across state lines.

Goal: To assess how each of these reforms, when implemented individually, would affect insurance coverage, consumer out-of-pocket spending on health care, and the federal deficit in 2018.

Methods: RAND’s COMPARE microsimulation model.

Key findings and conclusions: The policies would increase the number of uninsured individuals by 16 million to 25 million relative to the ACA. Coverage losses disproportionately affect low-income individuals and those in poor health. Enrollees with individual market insurance would face higher out-of-pocket spending than under current law. Because the proposed reforms do not replace the ACA’s financing mechanisms, they would increase the federal deficit by $0.5 billion to $41 billion.

The Health Care Reform Proposals of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/blog/2016/trump-clinton-presidential-health-care-proposals?utm_medium=Facebook&utm_campaign=Health+Coverage&utm_source=Candidates+Blog

Image result for The Health Care Reform Proposals of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump

As president, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump would take the nation down distinctly different paths on health care. In this post, we summarize the health reform proposals of each candidate, and—drawing on new estimates by Christine Eibner and colleagues at RAND Health—compare the proposals’ implications for the total number of people with insurance coverage, people’s out-of-pocket health care costs, and the federal budget.

RAND’s analysis is based on publicly available health care proposals on the candidates’ websites. Where these proposals lacked sufficient clarity for modeling, RAND sought additional information from the campaigns. When answers were not forthcoming, or did not fully resolve questions, RAND made reasonable assumptions that were reviewed and critiqued by independent experts. RAND modeled only those proposals for which it had adequate detail and technical capacity.

The Starting Point

As a starting point, Clinton and Trump propose dramatically different approaches to the Affordable Care Act (ACA): Clinton would maintain the ACA and Trump would repeal it. In estimating the impact of Trump’s proposal, RAND assumes a full repeal of the law including insurance subsidies, expanded eligibility for Medicaid, and individual market reforms such as bans against preexisting condition exclusions. RAND also assumes that repeal would eliminate the ACA’s financing mechanisms such as its Medicare payment reforms and taxes on health plans and medical devices. Consequently, RAND estimates that compared to maintaining the ACA as is, repeal would cause nearly 20 million people to lose their insurance in 2018, increase average premium and out-of-pocket costs for people who buy insurance on their own, and increase the federal deficit. Trump’s repeal of the ACA would increase the federal deficit because the loss of savings from the law’s Medicare reforms and revenues from fees and taxes would be greater than savings from the elimination of insurance subsidies and the Medicaid expansion.

Why the U.S. Needs Medicaid

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/blog/2016/oct/value-of-medicaid?omnicid=EALERT1104254&mid=henrykotula@yahoo.com

Image result for Why the U.S. Needs Medicaid

While most news stories about Medicaid focus on states’ decisions on whether to expand eligibility, the collective impact of the program on beneficiaries, health providers and systems, and state economies is rarely discussed. Given the large share of federal funds devoted to Medicaid, it’s reasonable to assume that policymakers on both sides of the aisle will be considering programmatic or financing changes for the program—or both—early in a new presidential administration. To inform that process, it’s helpful to look at the multifaceted role Medicaid plays in our health system.

When it was signed into law in 1965 as an extension of welfare, few would have anticipated Medicaid would evolve into the nation’s largest health insurer, covering nearly 73 million Americans.1 Today, Medicaid is at the center of the American health care safety net, providing benefits to adults and children otherwise unable to afford care—and helping to support and drive innovation in the hospitals and clinics that treat these patients, as well as supporting state economies.

Medicaid provides people with good insurance. While the program can vary somewhat by state, a growing body of evidence finds that Medicaid provides a comprehensive set of benefits as well as strong financial protections. A 2015 analysis of the Commonwealth Fund Biennial Health Insurance Survey suggests that people with Medicaid coverage have better access to health care services, including proven preventive care, and fewer medically related financial burdens than those who lack insurance (Exhibit 1). The same study found that Medicaid enrollees have nearly equivalent access to care as those with private coverage in many areas.

We’re closer to a publicly funded health care system than you think

http://blog.academyhealth.org/were-closer-to-a-publicly-funded-health-care-system-than-you-think/

Image result for We’re closer to a publicly funded health care system than you think

Every time health care reform comes up for debate, I see people arguing about whether a publicly or privately funded system would be better. The Affordable Care Act, in an attempt to forestall this debate, decided to split the baby, and give half of its newly insured beneficiaries public insurance (Medicaid) and half private insurance (insurance exchanges). But this isn’t really true. Yes, the half of people getting expanded Medicaid are getting public insurance, but the vast majority of people getting private insurance are also getting public funds (subsidies) in order to purchase their private insurance.

In other words, even though we expanded private insurance, we’re doing it with taxpayer dollars. Overall, the reduction in the uninsured was due to mostly public spending, with relatively little private spending overall. This isn’t rare in the US health care system. A recently released policy brief from the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research, “Public Funds Account for Over 70 Percent of Health Care Spending in California“, explains this quite well.

If you just look at a simple analysis of Medicaid, Medicaid, and CHIP, you might find that about 45% (or less than half) of total US health care spending is public. But that ignores a ton of health care spending that is also paid for with public funds outside those programs. In an effort to document the different, researchers looked at health care spending in California. They included four major public funding categories:

  1. Payments for public health insurance programs (like Medicare and Medicaid)
  2. Government payments for health insurance coverage for public employees (like me at Indiana University, for instance)
  3. Tax subsidies for employer-sponsored insurance and those purchasing exchange plans who earn less than 400% of the poverty line
  4. County health care expenditures