Fitch: Changes to Medicaid in ACA repeal bill pose risks for hospitals

http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/fitch-changes-to-medicaid-in-aca-repeal-bill-pose-risks-for-hospitals.html

Image result for hospital credit ratings

House Republicans’ proposed ACA repeal and replacement plan, known as the American Health Care Act, calls for changes to Medicaid that expose states and hospitals to new fiscal risks, according to a Fitch Ratings report.

The AHCA would eliminate Medicaid’s entitlement structure and restructure the program’s federal funding to a per-capita cap system on Jan. 1, 2020. This change is intended to slow Medicaid spending growth. The Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured estimates switching to a per-capita cap system would reduce federal spending on Medicaid by $1 trillion (or 26 percent) over 10 years. This reduction would require states to make significant budgetary changes and could result in reduced reimbursement for hospitals, according to the report.

The AHCA calls for the government to freeze expanded Medicaid programs on Jan. 1, 2020, and restrict funding only to people who were enrolled in the expanded programs as of Dec. 31, 2019. Under the ACHA, states that expanded Medicaid “will be faced with a unique policy predicament of denying Medicaid access to individuals who would otherwise qualify beginning in 2020, or taking on significant costs they had anticipated would be bored largely by the federal government,” according to Fitch.

Behold the G.O.P. Civil War on Health Care

 

As people began to digest the Republican health care plan on Tuesday, a few things became clear:

1. “This isn’t an Obamacare repeal, it’s a Medicaid repeal,” as the political writer Jonathan Allen put it.

Many Republicans have long viewed Medicaid — a health insurance program for the poor, the disabled and some elderly — with skepticism. This plan would make very large cuts to the program. The details are somewhat technical, and Edwin Park of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities explains them. But the real-world effects will be concrete: Many people will lose coverage, and some kinds of care, if the bill becomes law.

2. Conservative policy experts hate the bill, and the criticisms come from both the far right and the center right.

Peter Suderman of Reason had an excellent frame for understanding the right’s civil war over health care: Conservatives don’t even agree on what their goals are. Making health care less expensive? Reducing the government’s role? Ensuring that the poor receive fewer subsidies?

Lacking this agreement, many Republicans have pretended that a magical health plan exists, one that would cover everyone, provide good insurance and cost less money. Wouldn’t that be nice!

 

3 Republican concepts for replacing the ACA — and what they mean

http://www.healthcaredive.com/news/3-republican-concepts-for-replacing-the-aca-and-what-they-mean/437475/

The bottom line

These policy ideas popular among conservatives could certainly push health insurance costs down for some — like those with few healthcare needs and reliable income — but they also would undoubtedly offer fewer benefits to those with low incomes and high healthcare costs.

“The value of the policies that insurers are offering is going to go down under all these options,” Blumberg said. “They’re going to end up attracting the higher needs population and they can’t sustain that.”

Hospitals would see significant revenue losses if millions lose coverage under repeal of the ACA and are unable to afford new coverage under the replacement plans the GOP has put forward. Some executives have warned they would have to cut vital services, such as behavioral health.

A report prepared for the American Hospital Association found that hospital revenues would decrease nearly $400 billion between 2018 and 2026 with ACA repeal. The plans put forward by Republicans would barely dent that projection, experts say.


Hospital revenues are projected to decrease by $400 billion between 2018 and 2026 under ACA repeal, according to the AHA.


The leaders of the American Hospital Association and Federation of American Hospitals have written to President Donald Trump asking him not to repeal the ACA without an adequate replacement.

“Losses of this magnitude cannot be sustained and will adversely impact patients’ access to care, decimate hospitals’ and health systems’ ability to provide services, weaken local economies that hospitals help sustain and grow, and result in massive job losses,” they wrote. “As you know, hospitals are often the largest employer in many communities, and more than half of a hospital’s budget is devoted to supporting the salaries and benefits of caregivers who provide 24/7 coverage, which cannot be replaced.”

Republicans continue to debate whether, how and when to replace the ACA. Just as the reform law had major impacts on the industry, the process of finding alternatives will have significant consequences as well.

 

GOP releases bills to repeal and replace ObamaCare

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/322609-gop-releases-bill-to-repeal-and-replace-obamacare

Image result for gop healthcare plan

Click to access AmericanHealthCareAct.pdf

Click to access AmericanHealthCareAct_WM.pdf

House Republicans on Monday unveiled their long-awaited legislation to repeal and replace ­ObamaCare, with plans to quickly push the measure through committee votes this week.

The two measures dismantle the core aspects of ­ObamaCare, including its subsidies to help people buy coverage, expansion of Medicaid, taxes and mandates for people to have insurance. The bills also dramatically restructure the Medicaid program overall by capping federal payments.

In its place, Republicans would put a new system centered on a tax credit to help people buy insurance.

House Republicans plan to take up the legislation at a breakneck pace, with two committees — Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means — scheduled to hold votes on Wednesday. A vote in the full House is expected to soon follow, within weeks.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Texas) said Monday on Fox News that he’s confident the legislation will pass with solid Republican support despite recent party infighting over the details.

“We’ve been listening very carefully to our Republican members for months now to make sure we get it right,” he said. “I am confident we are going to pass this.”

Brady noted that many of the elements of the bills have passed the House “a number of times” over the years.

Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) in a statement claimed that ­ObamaCare “is rapidly collapsing” and vowed the GOP’s plan — dubbed the American Health Care Act — will “give every American access to quality, affordable health insurance.”

Republicans acknowledge that their plan will cover fewer people, saying that unlike ­ObamaCare, they are not forcing people to buy coverage through a mandate. They say their system is less intrusive and provides people a tax credit without mandates or a range of tax increases.

But the measures face a rocky path, particularly in the Senate. Four Republican senators earlier Monday objected to an earlier version of the House plan, saying that it fails to protect ­ObamaCare’s Medicaid expansion.

Even in the House, there are objections. Conservatives in the House Freedom Caucus object that the new tax credit is a “new entitlement.” They have enough votes to kill the legislation, but it remains to be seen whether they will actually vote against a bill that dismantles the core of ­ObamaCare.

The GOP measure significantly restructures the Medicaid program, which provides coverage for around 70 million poor, disabled and elderly people, to cap federal payments.

The repeal of the Medicaid expansion and ­ObamaCare’s subsidies would not take effect until 2020, meaning current enrollees could keep their coverage this year.

Republicans would also grandfather in current Medicaid enrollees so that they can stay on the program. But once 2020 arrives, the federal government would no longer provide the extra federal funds that allow for expansion.

That plan has drawn objections from more centrist Republican senators, who want to protect the expansion and are worried about constituents losing coverage and their states losing federal funds.

The legislation would maintain ­ObamaCare’s protections for people with pre-existing conditions, who could still not be denied coverage by insurers. Instead of ­ObamaCare’s mandate, the GOP plan would seek to encourage healthy people to sign up by allowing insurers to charge people 30 percent higher premiums if a new enrollee has had a gap in coverage.

The legislation also repeals nearly all of the taxes created by ­ObamaCare, including the medical device tax and health insurance tax, starting in 2018. The bills scrap a controversial Republican proposal in earlier drafts that would have started taxing some employer-sponsored health insurance.

To ensure that the legislation passes muster under special budgetary rules, it keeps ­ObamaCare’s “Cadillac tax” on generous plans after 2025. That provision, which could prove controversial, will help ensure that the measure does not add to the federal deficit in that decade.

Repeal of Health Law Faces a New Hurdle: Older Americans

Image result for Older Americans

Republican plans to repeal the Affordable Care Act have encountered a new obstacle: adamant opposition from many older Americans whose health insurance premiums would increase.

AARP and its allies are bombarding congressional offices with objections as two House committees plan to vote on the Republicans’ bill this week.

If the law is repealed, the groups say, people in their 50s and 60s could see premiums rise by $2,000 to $3,000 a year or more: increases of 20 percent to 25 percent or higher.

Under current rules, insurers cannot charge older adults more than three times what they charge young adults for the same coverage. House Republican leaders would allow a ratio of five to one — or more, if states choose.

Insurers support the change, saying it would help them attract larger numbers of young customers.

The current rating restrictions, they say, have increased premiums for young adults, discouraging them from enrolling.

But the Republican proposal would “increase the financial burden of older Americans, making coverage significantly less affordable,” says a letter to Congress from the Leadership Council of Aging Organizations, a coalition of nonprofit groups that represent the interests of older Americans.

The letter was addressed to Representative Greg Walden, Republican of Oregon and the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, one of two House panels planning to vote this week on a bill that would roll back major provisions of President Barack Obama’s signature domestic accomplishment.

David M. Certner, the legislative policy director of AARP, said the proposal would have “a severe impact on Americans age 50 to 64 who have not yet become eligible for Medicare.”

At the same time, Mr. Certner said, the Republican proposal could reduce the financial assistance available to help people pay insurance premiums.

Republicans say their proposal would reduce insurance prices by stimulating competition and by allowing insurers to sell a leaner, less expensive package of benefits.

 

 

Drowning In A ‘High-Risk Insurance Pool’ — At $18,000 A Year

http://khn.org/news/drowning-in-a-high-risk-insurance-pool-at-18000-a-year/

Image result for high risk pools

Some Republicans looking to scrap the Affordable Care Act say monthly health insurance premiums need to be lower for the individuals who have to buy insurance on their own. One way to do that, GOP leaders say, would be to return to the use of what are called high-risk insurance pools, for people who have health problems.

But critics say even some of the most successful high-risk pools that operated before the advent of Obamacare were very expensive for patients enrolled in the plans, and for the people who subsidized them — which included state taxpayers and people with employer-based health insurance.

Craig Britton of Plymouth, Minn., once had a plan through Minnesota’s high-risk pool. It cost him $18,000 a year in premiums.

Britton was forced to buy the expensive coverage because of a pancreatitis diagnosis. He called the idea that high-risk pools are good for consumers “a lot of baloney.”

“That is catastrophic cost,” Britton said. “You have to have a good living just to pay for insurance.”

State fears Trump will topple health care gains under Obamacare

http://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/California-fears-Trump-will-overturn-health-gains-10944890.php

Member services representative Nancy Chen helps a customer with their coverage at the Asian Health Services offices on the final day of open enrollment for Covered California, the state's health insurance marketplace created by the Affordable Care Act, in Oakland, CA on Tuesday, January 31, 2017. Photo: Michael Short, Special To The Chronicle

A Deep Dive Into 4 GOP Talking Points On Health Care

http://khn.org/news/a-deep-dive-into-4-gop-talking-points-on-health-care/

Image result for Talking Points

Republican leaders have a lengthy list of talking points about the shortcomings of the health law. Shortly before his inauguration last month, President Donald Trump said that it “is a complete and total disaster. It’s imploding as we sit.” And they can point to a host of issues, including premium increases averaging more than 20 percent this year, a drop in the number of insurers competing on the Affordable Care Act marketplaces and rising consumer discontent with high deductibles and limited doctor networks.

Yet a careful analysis of some of the GOP’s talking points show a much more nuanced situation and suggest that the political fights over the law may have contributed to some of its problems. Here is an annotated guide to four of the most common talking points Republicans have been using. 

 

How Would Republican Plans for Medicaid Block Grants Actually Work?

How Would Republican Plans for Medicaid Block Grants Actually Work?

Image result for How Would Republican Plans for Medicaid Block Grants Actually Work?

There are only so many ways to cut Medicaid spending.

You can reduce the number of people covered. You can reduce the benefit coverage. You can also pay less for those benefits and get doctors and hospitals to accept less in reimbursement. Or you can ask beneficiaries to pay more.

None of those are attractive options, which is why Medicaid reform is so hard. Medicaid already reimburses providers at lower rates than other insurance programs. How do you reduce the number of beneficiaries when the vast majority of people covered are poor children, poor pregnant women, the disabled, and poor older people? Which of those would you cut?

Reducing benefit coverage has always been difficult because most of the spending has been on the disabled and poor older people, who need a lot of care. Beneficiaries don’t have much disposable income, so asking them to pick up more of the bill is almost impossible.

That doesn’t mean that states haven’t tried. As I’ve discussed in past columns, a number are attempting to increase cost sharing. But this isn’t really a solution because it doesn’t change overall spending much at all.

Part of the challenge lies in the way Medicaid was set up in the first place. The federal government picks up between 50 percent and 100 percent (depending on the population and the per-person income) of whatever it costs to provide health care to a state’s population. Many, if not most, Republican plans would like to change that.

They are pushing for what many refer to as a block grant program. The federal government would give a set amount of money to each state for Medicaid; it would be up to the states to spend it however they like. These block grants could be set based on overall past state needs or based on the number of beneficiaries in the state, referred to as a “per capita” block grant. Some per-capita block grants function more like “ceilings” than outright grants, allowing the state to be paid at normal Medicaid rates, but with a maximum each state could get based on the per-capita calculation.