ACA Slow Enrollment as Uninsured Rate Remains Steady

https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20181120.831184/full/

Image result for ACA Slow Enrollment as Uninsured Rate Remains Steady

In most states across the country, the open enrollment period for 2019 began on November 1 and will end on December 15, 2018. As we near the halfway point for enrollment—at least for the states with a federal marketplace—recent federal data suggests that enrollment in Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace plans is lagging relative to last year.

In its “week 2” enrollment snapshot, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced that nearly 1.2 million consumers selected a plan between November 1 and November 10 in the 39 states that use HealthCare.gov. Of these consumers, about 275,000 were new consumers while about 901,000 were renewing their coverage from last year. This reflects a significant increase from the first three days of open enrollment when about 371,000 consumers selected a plan.

“Week 2” plan selections are down by about 302,000 consumers relative to last year. This can be read as between an 8 to 13 percent decline in plan selections compared to last year, when a total of 11.8 million consumers in all 50 states and DC selected or were automatically reenrolled in a marketplace plan. Enrollment remained largely stable from 2017 to 2018 despite a shortened open enrollment period and significant cuts to advertising and navigator funding.

This year, however, brings additional changes that could be contributing to what is, at least so far, depressed enrollment through HealthCare.gov. These changes include repeal of the individual mandate penalty; 2019 is the first year that consumers will no longer pay a penalty for being uninsured under the ACA. In addition, new federal rules are enabling expanded access to non-ACA plans (such as short-term, limited-duration insurance and association health plans). These non-ACA plans typically have a much lower premium than ACA plans and could lure consumers away from the marketplace.

It is too early to tell if the reduced enrollment trend will hold and if this pattern will continue. Enrollment may increase significantly before the December 15 deadline, and millions of Americans will enroll in coverage before the end of the year.

The declines are, however, significant. The former chief marketing officer for HealthCare.gov recently noted that the data “should be a wake-up call to everyone who cares about people having health care … on the need to step up efforts to raise awareness.” CMS intends to release enrollment snapshots on a weekly basis. Each snapshot also includes point-in-time estimates of call center activity and visits to HealthCare.gov and CuidadoDeSalud.gov, among other data.

The new open enrollment data comes at a time when the uninsured rate continues to remain steady. Data from the National Center for Health Statistics—in reports both from late August and November—shows that the uninsured rate of about 8.8 percent for 2018 remains largely unchanged from 2017. Although there was not a significant shift from 2017 to 2018, there has been a sizable drop in the uninsured rate since the ACA was enacted in 2010. Between 2010 and the first six months of 2018, the uninsured rate dropped from 16 percent (48.6 million people) to 8.8 percent (28.5 million people).

 

 

With Divided Congress, Health Care Action Hightails It to the States

https://www.rollcall.com/news/policy/divided-congress-health-care-action-states

Image result for With Divided Congress, Health Care Action Hightails It to the States

Medicaid expansion was the biggest winner in last week’s elections.

Newly-elected leaders in the states will be in a stronger position than those in Washington to steer significant shifts in health care policy over the next couple of years as a divided Congress struggles with gridlock.

State Medicaid work requirements, prescription drug prices, insurance exchanges and short-term health plans are among the areas with the potential for substantial change. Some states with new Democratic leaders may also withdraw from a multistate lawsuit aimed at killing the 2010 health care law or look for ways to curb Trump administration policies.

But last week’s biggest health care winner is undeniably Medicaid expansion, with upwards of half a million low-income Americans poised to gain insurance coverage following successful expansion ballot initiatives and Democratic victories in key governors’ races.

“In state health policy, it was a big election,” said Trish Riley, executive director of the nonpartisan National Academy for State Health Policy. “It was a year when many candidates had pretty thoughtful and comprehensive proposals.”

Boost for Medicaid expansion

Voters in three deep-red states — Nebraska, Idaho and Utah — bucked their Republican lawmakers by approving ballot initiatives to extend Medicaid coverage to more than 300,000 people.

Meanwhile, Democratic gubernatorial wins in Kansas and Wisconsin boosted the chances of expansion in those states. And Maine’s new governor-elect is expected to act quickly to grow the government insurance program when she takes office in January.

The election outcomes could bring the biggest increase in enrollment since an initial burst of more than two dozen states expanded Medicaid under the 2010 health care law in the early years of the landmark law’s rollout.

“This election proves that politicians who fought to repeal the Affordable Care Act got it wrong,” said Jonathan Schleifer, head of The Fairness Project, an advocacy group that supported the initiatives, referring to the 2010 health care law. “Americans want to live in a country where everyone can go to the doctor without going bankrupt.”

The successful ballot initiatives require state leaders to move quickly toward expansion. In Idaho, the state must submit an expansion plan to federal officials within 90 days of the new law’s approval, while Nebraska must submit its plan by April 1, according to the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. Utah’s new law also calls for the state to expand beginning April 1.

In Kansas, where Medicaid supporter Laura Kelly prevailed, state lawmakers passed expansion legislation last year only to have it vetoed by the governor. Meanwhile, Wisconsin’s new Democratic governor Tony Evers, who eked out a win over Republican incumbent Scott Walker, has said he will “take immediate action” to expand, though he faces opposition from a Republican-controlled legislature.

Expansions in the five states would bring the number of states that adopted expansion under the health law to 38, plus the District of Columbia.

Still, Democrats fell short of taking one of the biggest Medicaid expansion prizes — Florida — after Andrew Gillum’s defeat. The outcome of Georgia’s tight governor’s race was still unclear as of Monday, with Republican Brian Kemp holding a narrow lead over Democrat Stacey Abrams. Both Abrams and Gillum made health care, and Medicaid expansion in particular, central to their campaigns.

Florida might be a 2020 target for an expansion ballot initiative, along with other states such as Missouri and Oklahoma, according to The Fairness Project.

Expansion supporters also suffered defeat last week in Montana, where voters did not approve a ballot initiative that would have extended the state’s existing Medicaid expansion, which covers nearly 100,000 people but is slated to expire next year. However, state lawmakers have until June 30 to reauthorize the program, according to Kaiser.

In Maine, Democratic gubernatorial winner Janet Mills is expected to expedite expansion implementation. GOP Gov. Paul LePage stymied implementation over the past year, despite nearly 60 percent of voters approving an expansion ballot initiative in 2017.

Medicaid’s future

The midterm results carry other ramifications for Medicaid, including whether states embrace or move away from controversial work requirements backed by the Trump administration.

Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat who won Michigan’s governor race, opposed the idea and could shift away from an existing plan to institute them that’s awaiting federal approval.

“This so-called work requirement is not for one second about getting people back to work. If it was, it would have been focused on leveling barriers to employment like opening up training for skills or giving people child care options or transportation options,” Whitmer said in a September interview with Michigan Radio. “It was about taking health care away from people.”

Kansas, Wisconsin and Maine also have work requirement proposals that new Democratic governors could reverse.

But experts also say it’s possible some states, including those with Democratic governors, could end up pursuing Medicaid work requirements if that’s what it takes to get conservative legislators to accept expansion like Virginia did earlier this year.

Nebraska Republican state senator John McCollister, who supports expansion, predicted recently that the legislature would fund the voter-approved expansion initiative. But he indicated lawmakers might pursue Medicaid work requirements too.

Marie Fishpaw, director of domestic policy studies at the conservative Heritage Foundation, warned that states expanding Medicaid would face challenges. She called expansion “a poor instrument for achieving the goal that they’re trying to achieve.”

A number of new governors, including Whitmer, could pursue the so-called “Medicaid buy-in” concept.

More than a dozen state legislatures, such as in Minnesota and Iowa, explored the idea in recent years, according to State Health and Value Strategies, part of the nonprofit Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Nevada lawmakers passed a “Medicaid buy-in” plan last year that was vetoed by the governor.

There are a variety of ways to implement such a program, but the goal is to expand health care access by leveraging the government insurance program, such as by creating a state-sponsored public health plan option on the insurance exchanges that consumers could buy that relies on Medicaid provider networks. Illinois, New Mexico, Maine and Connecticut are among the states that could pursue buy-in programs, Riley said. States are considering the concept as a way to increase affordability and lower cost growth by getting more mileage out of the lower provider rates Medicaid pays, said Katherine Hempstead, a senior policy adviser with Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

“So many [people] struggle with the affordability of health care,” Hempstead said. “That is an environment in which Medicaid buy-in opportunities could flourish.”

Health care law

This month’s election also carries implications for the future of states’ administration of the 2010 health care law.

States that flipped to Democratic governors could switch to creating their own insurance exchanges rather than relying on the federal marketplace, said Joel Ario, a health care consultant with Manatt Phelps & Phillips and the former head of the federal health insurance exchange office under the Obama administration. The costs of running an exchange have come down in recent years, so it’s potentially cheaper for a state to run its own, Ario said.

Trump administration actions, such as cuts in federal funding for insurance navigators that help consumers enroll and the expansion of health plans that don’t comply with the law, may make states such as Michigan or Wisconsin rethink use of the federal exchange, he said.

“If [the administration] continues to promote policies that really leave a bad taste in the mouth for Democratic governors, I think they’ll be asking questions,” Ario said.

States where governors and attorneys general offices went from red to blue are likely to pull out of a lawsuit by 20 state officials that aims to take down the health care law, he added.

Wisconsin’s Evers vowed that his first act in office will be to withdraw from the lawsuit.

“I know that the approximately 2.4 million Wisconsinites with a pre-existing condition share my deep concern that this litigation jeopardizes their access to quality and affordable health care,” Evers wrote in a letter he said he plans to send to the state attorney general.

Hempstead said that states with both Republican and Democratic leaders will likely continue to pursue reinsurance programs, which cover high-cost patients, to bolster their marketplaces.

Republican governors could also pursue waivers under a recent Trump administration guidance that allows states to circumvent some requirements of the health law under exemptions known as 1332 waivers. But experts say it’s too soon to know exactly what approaches states might take.

“It will be interesting to see what the 1332 guidance means and whether it opens doors for some things and not for others,” Hempstead said. States that shifted to Democratic governors could also look to ban some Trump-supported policies, such as expansions of short-term and association health plans that avoid the health care law’s rules.

States are also likely to take steps to address high prescription drug costs in the coming years, with a number of new governors wanting to improve transparency, explore drug importation from other countries and target price gouging, Riley said.

“There’s a long history of the states testing, fixing, tweaking and informing the national debate,” said Riley.

 

Trends in Health Policy and the Mid-Term Elections Results

http://avalere.com/expertise/life-sciences/insights/series-trends-in-health-policy-and-the-mid-term-election-results

Image result for Series: Trends in Health Policy and the Mid-Term Elections Results

Tune in to hear Avalere experts discuss potential implications of the mid-term elections on health policy. Director Chris Sloan interviews Senior Vice President Elizabeth Carpenter on the mid-term elections results and what this could mean for the future of healthcare policy.

CS: Hello, and welcome to a special mid-term elections Avalere podcast. This is the last in a three-part series we’re doing on the health policy implications of the mid-term elections, and this time, we actually have results from the mid-term elections! My name is Chris Sloan, I’m a director with the federal and state policy group here at Avalere. Today, we’re going to discuss the results of the mid-term elections and the implications for health policy going forward.

As a reminder for those of you living under rocks, the mid-term elections ended with Democrats taking control of the House while Republicans increased their lead in the Senate. In three states, Medicaid expansion ballot initiative passed, which is likely to lead to about 325,000 new enrollees in Medicaid in Idaho, Nebraska, and Utah. Also, Democratic candidates who campaigned on Medicaid expansion won the governors races in Kansas, Maine, and Wisconsin, potentially leading to another 300,000 Medicaid enrollees in those states if they follow through with expansion.

Joining me today to talk about all of this and what we can expect in healthcare from the new Democratically-controlled House is Elizabeth Carpenter. She’s the senior vice president of our federal and state policy group, and she’s the preeminent expert at Avalere in all things health policy. Thanks for being here.

EC: Thanks for having me.

CS: The exit polling for the elections showed that healthcare again was one of the top issues for voters in the elections, eight years after the passage of the ACA. Can you talk about why this issue has continued to be such a big part of campaigns and elections in U.S. politics?

EC: I think this election marked a new high in some ways in terms of how Americans thought and voted on health care. If you had asked me this question leading up to 2016, I would have focused on Americans talking about jobs and the economy, and I would have linked healthcare to jobs and the economy. People often talk about being worried about their job because they are worried about affording their health insurance and their healthcare. This year, from a domestic policy perspective, we saw healthcare at the top of the list, and when you look under the hood, what you see is that people were focused on healthcare costs and not necessarily those costs that are predictable—premiums ranked somewhat low on the list. People were very focused on surprise medical bills and certain areas where we’ve seen increased deductibles and coinsurance that are leading people to be more exposed to system costs. It’s clear that people were focused on healthcare, but they were really focused on having a surprise or unexpected healthcare expense where they were going to have to go out of pocket quite a bit at one time. As the economy has stabilized, people seem to be zeroing on the healthcare front. What I would say is, in all of our policy discussions of healthcare costs, you have to ask yourself, what is the policy doing to address that question? In many cases, I would opine that the policy is not doing much. So it is quite likely that we may see this issue continue as we head towards 2020.

CS: In that vein, a lot of the Democratic candidates this election cycle were campaigning on expansions of public programs, like Medicare for All, Medicare for More. Do we expect that to continue now that Democrats have taken control of the House? How big of an issue do you think recent campaign promises have been?

EC: I would say the Democrats face a choice in this moment about what they want their next step of health reform to look like in advance of 2020. In general, I would very much expect Democrats to use the next year or two to offer thought leadership and position their party in advance of the presidential race. What that looks like, I don’t think we know at this moment. There were a number of candidates, interestingly at the state and federal level, who embraced a Medicare for All or Medicare for More type of approach. Some of those candidates won and some didn’t, and it’s hard to pinpoint what role their position on this circular policy had in those results. But I think it is fair to say that there will be continued debate over what role Medicare and other public programs play in covering our citizens and that Democrats will need to land on something in advance of 2020.

CS: So that was one big issue in the campaign, and another big issue that was on both sides was pre-existing conditions protections that made its way into the campaign season this year. There is still a lawsuit in Texas challenging the Affordable Care Act and the pre-existing conditions now that the individual mandate is gone. Do you see this as an option for some sort of bipartisan consensus coming out of the divided congress? What do you see happening with this issue going forward?

EC: This is another issue where when you look under the hood, even people who say the same things mean potentially very different things. We had candidates on both sides of the isle running ads that talked about their desire to protect pre-existing condition protections, despite the fact that some of those candidates voted to uphold the Affordable Care Act and others voted to repeal it. You asked what might happen if we see the core go down this path where pre-existing conditions projections will be null and void and would Congress sweep in and produce a solution. On face, you could say both parties to some degree do want to maintain protections for some pre-existing conditions. In practice, how you do that gets complicated. Once you open up this particular issue, you’re going to have people on one side of the isle wanting to use it as an opportunity to do certain kinds of reforms, and you have people on the other side of the isle who want to change the insurance market in another way. We’ve heard already from Democrats, for example, who are interested in potentially pursuing limitations on some of the short-term plans, including association health plans and other types of plans that don’t meet all Affordable Care Act requirements. People have already said they want to pursue this in this congress. So you can imagine there being a real need to do something, but at the same time, you can envision how this gets complicated and partisan really quickly. The closer we get to 2020, the more complicated any kind of healthcare debate gets.

CS: Given those realities of a divided government and partisanship, are we in a holding pattern for health policy until 2020 and the next election?

EC: I think a TBD there. Based on what we’ve seen so far, I don’t think anyone holds out a lot of hope for kumbayah and bipartisan progress. At the same time, we’ve seen over the past 24-48 hours various lawmakers on both sides of the isle talking about, for example, the drug pricing issue. The important thing to remember here is that we have a president who is non-traditional in some of his thinking and not necessarily aligned with the positions of the historic Republican party, so to the degree that Congress can reach some kind of alignment, it’s quite possible the President would sign something that another president might not. But it really is up to Congress to decide if they can and want to work together. Both sides at this point are making a calculation about working together and governing is good for them heading into the next election or if fostering gridlock and highlighting differences is a better political path.

CS: Great. Well, thank you so much for being with us. That wraps up our final episode of our three-part Avalere mid-term elections podcast series. As always, watch for more updates and analysis from Avalere over the coming weeks. Feel free to reach out to us with any questions. You are listening to Avalere Podcasts.

 

 

FTC: Florida company made $100M selling fake insurance

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/legal-regulatory-issues/ftc-florida-company-made-100m-selling-fake-insurance.html

Image result for skinny health plans

A federal judge has temporarily shut down Miami-based Simple Health Plans at the request of the Federal Trade Commission.

In a federal complaint against Simple Health Plans, the company’s owner and five other entities, the FTC alleges Simple Health Plans collected more than $100 million by selling worthless health plans to thousands of people. The company allegedly misled consumers to think they were buying comprehensive “PPO” health insurance plans when they were actually purchasing plans that provided no coverage for pre-existing conditions or prescription medications.

Many of the people who purchased plans from Simple Health Plans are facing hefty medical bills for expenses they assumed would be covered by their health insurance plan. In addition, because the limited health plans do not qualify as health insurance under the ACA, some people were subject to a fee imposed on those who can afford to buy health insurance but choose not to.

The FTC is seeking to permanently shut down Simple Health Plans and to have the company return money to consumers.

 

 

Pre-existing conditions: Does any GOP proposal match the ACA?

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2018/oct/17/pre-existing-conditions-does-any-gop-proposal-matc/?fbclid=IwAR2QXSwiwRryxaHWJVgO3evTUtJPk6QcV1HkxkaI2qq3iPWqsrXqGA0qPeY

From a routine visit to a critical exam, the stethoscope remains one of the most common physician tools. (Alex Proimos, via Flickr Creative Commons)

In race after race, Democrats have been pummeling Republicans on the most popular piece of Obamacare, protections for pre-existing conditions. No matter how sick someone might be, today’s law says insurance companies must cover them.

Republican efforts to repeal and replace Obamacare have all aimed to retain the guarantee that past health would be no bar to new coverage.

Democrats aren’t buying it.

In campaign ads in NevadaIndianaFloridaNorth Dakota, and more, Democrats charged their opponents with either nixing guaranteed coverage outright or putting those with pre-existing conditions at risk. The claims might exaggerate, but they all have had a dose of truth.

Republican proposals are not as air tight as Obamacare.

We’ll walk you through why.

The current guarantee

In the old days, insurance companies had ways to avoid selling policies to people who were likely to cost more than insurers wanted to spend. They might deny them coverage outright, or exclude coverage for a known condition, or charge so much that insurance became unaffordable.

The Affordable Care Act boxes out the old insurance practices with a package of legal moves. First, it says point-blank that carriers “may not impose any preexisting condition exclusion.” It backs that up with another section that says they “may not establish rules for eligibility” based on health status, medical condition, claims experience or medical history.

Those two provisions apply to all plans. The third –– community rating –– targets insurance sold to individuals and small groups (about 7 percent of the total) and limits the factors that go into setting prices. In particular, while insurers can charge older people more, they can’t charge them more than three times what they charge a 21-year-old policy holder.

Wrapped around all that is a fourth measure that lists the essential health benefits that every plan, except grandfathered ones, must offer. A trip to the emergency room, surgery, maternity care and more all fall under this provision. This prevents insurers from discouraging people who might need expensive services by crafting plans that don’t offer them.

At rally after rally for Republicans, President Donald Trump has been telling voters “pre-existing conditions will always be taken care of by us.” At an event in Mississippi, he faulted Democrats, saying, they have no plan,” which ignores that Democrats already voted for the Obamacare guarantees.

At different times last year, Trump voiced support for Republican bills to replace Obamacare. The White House said the House’s American Health Care Act “protects the most vulnerable Americans, including those with pre-existing conditions.” A fact sheet cited $120 billion for states to keep plans affordable, along with other facets in the bill.

But the protections in the GOP plans are not as strong as Obamacare. One independent analysis found that the bill left over 6 million people exposed to much higher premiums for at least one year. We’ll get to the congressional action next, but as things stand, the latest official move by the administration has been to agree that the guarantees in the Affordable Care Act should go. It said that in a Texas lawsuit tied to the individual mandate.

The individual mandate is the evil twin of guaranteed coverage. If companies were forced to cover everyone, the government would force everyone (with some exceptions) to have insurance, in order to balance out the sick with the healthy. In the 2017 tax cut law, Congress zeroed out the penalty for not having coverage. A few months later, a group of 20 states looked at that change and sued to overturn the entire law.

In particular, they argued that with a toothless mandate, the judge should terminate protections for pre-existing conditions.

The U.S. Justice Department agreed, writing in its filing “the individual mandate is not severable from the ACA’s guaranteed-issue and community-rating requirements.”

So, if the mandate goes, so does guaranteed-issue.

The judge has yet to rule.

Latest Republican plan has holes

In August, a group of 10 Republican senators introduced a bill with a title designed to neutralize criticism that Republicans don’t care about this issue. It’s called Ensuring Coverage for Patients with Pre-Existing Conditions. (A House Republican later introduced a similar bill.)

The legislation borrows words directly from the Affordable Care Act, saying insurers “may not establish rules for eligibility” based on health status, medical condition, claims experience or medical history.

But there’s an out.

The bill adds an option for companies to deny certain coverage if “it will not have the capacity to deliver services adequately.”

To Allison Hoffman, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, that’s a big loophole.

“Insurers could exclude someone’s preexisting conditions from coverage, even if they offered her a policy,” Hoffman said. “That fact alone sinks any claims that this law offers pre-existing condition protection.”

The limit here is that insurers must apply such a rule across the board to every employer and individual plan. They couldn’t cherry pick.

But the bill also gives companies broad leeway in setting premiums. While they can’t set rates based on health status, there’s no limit on how much premiums could vary based on other factors.

The Affordable Care Act had an outside limit of 3 to 1 based on age. That’s not in this bill. And Hoffman told us the flexibility doesn’t stop there.

“They could charge people in less healthy communities or occupations way more than others,” Hoffman said. “Just guaranteeing that everyone can get a policy has no meaning if the premiums are unaffordable for people more likely to need medical care.”

Rodney Whitlock, a health policy expert who worked for Republicans in Congress, told us those criticisms are valid.

“Insurers will use the rules available to them to take in more in premiums than they pay out in claims,” Whitlock said. “If you see a loophole and think insurers will use it, that’s probably true.”

Past Republican plans also had holes

Whitlock said more broadly that Republicans have struggled at every point to say they are providing the same level of protection as in the Affordable Care Act.

“And they are not,” Whitlock said. “It is 100 percent true that Republicans are not meeting the Affordable Care Act standard. And they are not trying to.”

The House American Health Care Act and the Senate Better Care Reconciliation Act allowed premiums to vary five fold, compared to the three fold limit in the Affordable Care Act. Both bills, and then later the Graham-Cassidy bill, included waivers or block grants that offered states wide latitude over rates.

Graham-Cassidy also gave states leeway to redefine the core benefits that every plan had to provide. Health law professor Wendy Netter Epstein at DePaul University said that could play out badly.

“It means that insurers could sell very bare-bones plans with low premiums that will be attractive to healthy people, and then the plans that provide the coverage that sicker people need will become very expensive,” Epstein said.

Insurance is always about sharing risk. Whether through premiums or taxes, healthy people cover the costs of taking care of sick people. Right now, Whitlock said, the political process is doing a poor job of resolving how that applies to the people most likely to need care.

“The Affordable Care Act set up a system where people without pre-existing conditions pay more to protect people who have them,” Whitlock said. “Somewhere between the Affordable Care Act standard and no protections at all is a legitimate debate about the right tradeoff. We are not engaged in that debate.”

 

 

How Will the Midterm Elections Impact Healthcare?

https://mailchi.mp/burroughshealthcare/pc9ctbv4ft-1586513?e=7d3f834d2f

Image result for 2018 Midterm Elections Impact Healthcare

With the midterms less than a week away,  a new poll published October 18th by the non-partisan Kaiser Family Foundation got a lot of attention. Over seventy percent of voters say health care is a very important issue in deciding who to vote for. 

But exactly what happens to key healthcare initiatives, especially the Affordable Care Act including expansion of Medicaid in many states—which tends to be more popular among Democratic lawmakers than Republicans–depends on whether it’s the Democrats or Republicans who get control of the House, says Eric Feigl-Ding, MPH, Ph.D., a health economist and visiting scientist at the Harvard Chan School of Public Health in Cambridge, Mass.

Based on multiple polls, the New York Times reported on October 23 that a likely outcome is that Democrats will gain the majority in the House of Representatives and the Republicans will keep the majority in the Senate. But the Times and many other news outlets continually point out that many factors including the news of each day make it difficult to predict the outcome.

Feigl-Ding says having opposing parties in the House, Senate and White House could make it harder to pass national legislation. Changes can still happen to the ACA, however, because the President can continue to make certain executive level decision such as ending the penalty for not having health insurance which he did last year. That change takes effect in 2019.

In terms of new legislation, Feigl-Ding says a split Congress and White House means that passing legislation will be difficult because what comes from the House side, if most members are Democrats in the next sessions, could be more liberal and the corresponding bills from the Senate, likely to remain Republican, could be more conservative. So, says Feigl-Ding, either a bill won’t pass at all, or there will have to be much more of a compromise. “And assuming they would get to compromise is a big assumption, that then requires the president to agree to sign that legislation,” adds Feigl-Ding.

A report this week by strategy and policy group Manatt Health, based in Washington, DC lists the health care issues the firm thinks will dominate in states and the federal government after the elections:

  • The role of Medicaid as either a welfare program or health insurance for low-income Americans: While Democrats generally support continued expansion of Medicaid with no cost or work requirements for low-income adults, Republican governors in a number of states—with the approval of the Trump administration– have introduced premiums, work requirements, increased paperwork and penalties for falling off on requirements those that can keep many adults from applying for or remaining on Medicaid.
  • Differences in states about expanding and stabilizing the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Marketplace or promoting non-ACA coverage: The ACA allows states to open their own health insurance marketplaces or simply offer access to the federal marketplace. According to 2017 data from the National Academy for State Health Policy, more consumers sign up for health care coverage in states that run their own marketplaces
  • Drug prices: According to the Organization for Economic Development, an international forum with 36-member countries, consumers in the U.S. spend just over $1,100 on prescription drugs each year, more than consumers in any other country. President Trump has promised to help lower drug prices and on October 25 he released a plan that would tie some drug prices for patients on Medicare to an index based on international prices. Those prices are often far lower than Americans pay. PhRMA, the largest drug trade association announced its opposition to the plan the same day it was announced.

According to the report what states do will depend on the election outcomes for governors in more than a dozen states and many of those races are as impossible to predict as the Congressional races.

Other important health care issues for 2019-20120 include:

Pre-Existing Conditions 

Listening to ads for some Republicans candidates for Congress makes it appears protecting pre-existing conditions will be a top priority for some Republicans, even among some who voted against them previously. But Feigl-Ding says keeping coverage for preexisting conditions in health insurance plans also requires figuring out how to pay for it. Under the original ACA legislation, the hope was that a financial penalty for not having health coverage would keep more healthy people in the plans—along with the prohibition against letting insurers “cherry pick” only healthy consumers. But that penalty is now gone. “Take that away and you probably can’t sustain the preexisting conditions, says Feigl-Ding.

Medicaid Work Requirements and Other Conditions of Eligibility.

Legal challenges in several states could impact the implementation of work requirements. Some governors have said they’ll cut the number of state Medicaid beneficiaries to save money if work requirements are overturned.

ACA Repeal. Twenty states are challenging the constitutionality of the ACA in Texas v. The U.S., a case that could make it to the Supreme Court.

Association Health Plans and Short-Term Plans. Several Democratic state attorneys general have filed a lawsuit against the administration’s rule promoting association health plans that allow individuals and small businesses to join to purchase health care coverage and short-term plans. The suit argues that the new rules for both avoid protection for people with pre-existing conditions, according to Manatt.

No one has a crystal ball for what will happen, but everyone has hindsight. According to the Manatt report, in 2010 Republicans replaced Democratic governors in eleven states, and all but one of those states ended plans to establish a state-based health insurance marketplace (SBM). In five states where Democrats replaced Republicans, all those states set up those marketplaces.

And whatever the outcome of the 2018 elections, their impact on healthcare may only be short lived. At a foundation briefing on the midterm elections earlier this week Mollyann Brody, Executive Director, Public Opinion and Survey Research at the Kaiser Family Foundation reminded the crowd that “the day the 2018 elections are over the 2020 campaign starts.”

Still the end of the week also brought a glimmer of hope. In response to President Trumps remarks on October 25thabout his administration’s plan to test new drug pricing models in Medicare Part B help to lower drug prices Frederick Isasi, executive director of FamiliesUSA, a liberal leaning health insurance advocacy group, released a statement that said, in part, “I hope this is a serious policy that will be formally proposed and finalized by the Trump administration. If so, it is an important step forward for our nation’s seniors and taxpayers.”

 

 

The ACA Protects People with Preexisting Conditions; Proposed Replacements Would Not

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/blog/2018/aca-protects-people-preexisting-conditions-proposed-replacements-would-not?omnicid=EALERT%%jobid%%&mid=%%emailaddr%%

Patient with preexisting condition

The Affordable Care Act’s health insurance marketplaces open for enrollment today for the sixth time. But this year the marketplace health plans in many states will face some new competition from insurance products that don’t meet the law’s standards, including the ban on denying coverage or charging more based on a person’s preexisting health conditions.

New Trump administration regulations released earlier this year have undermined the coverage protections in the ACA by making it possible for insurers to renew often skimpy short-term health insurance for up to three years, and for small businesses to form associations that sell substandard health plans. One of the reasons insurers can charge low premiums for these plans is that they generally cover less that ACA-compliant plans and insurers can deny them to people with diabetes or a history of cancer, for example. Only healthy people get these plans. And the more healthy people who buy them, the more expensive coverage becomes for people with a history of illness who buy their own insurance and have incomes too high to qualify for marketplace subsidies. In guidance released last week, the administration will allow states to further encourage the sale of these plans by letting people use federal subsidies to buy them.

As a nation, it is important for us to focus our energy on ways to improve people’s health. We are experiencing an unprecedented decline in life expectancy which will ultimately affect our economic health and the ability of Americans to compete in a global workforce. One of the most basic things we can do is preserve the coverage protections for people with health problems that have been law for more than four years, rather than poke holes in them. Americans say they support this idea. Recent polls have found that majorities of Americans believe that people with health conditions should not be denied affordable health insurance and health care. As a result, House and Senate candidates of both parties are running on their support for protecting coverage for people with preexisting conditions. But some of those very candidates voted to repeal the ACA last year.

The ACA has dramatically improved the ability of people with preexisting conditions to buy coverage. In 2010, before the law passed, we conducted a survey that found 70 percent of people with health problems said it was very difficult or impossible to buy affordable coverage, and just 36 percent said they ended up purchasing a health plan. By 2016, the percentage of people who had trouble buying an affordable plan had dropped down to 42 percent — still high but much improved — and 60 percent ultimately bought a plan.

While the congressional ACA repeal bills failed last year, a Republican Congress could try again next year. And in the meantime, the law’s preexisting conditions protections and other provisions face another threat from a lawsuit brought by Republican governors and attorneys general in 20 states. The U.S Department of Justice has agreed with the plaintiff states in part, and refused to defend the law’s preexisting condition protections. The court decision is pending. Should the states win, an estimated 17 million people could become uninsured.

Some congressional candidates from these states and others are pointing to their support for Republican proposals, such as the “Ensuring Coverage for Patients with Pre-Existing Conditions Act,” as proof they support coverage for preexisting conditions. This bill would prevent insurers from refusing or varying premiums based on preexisting conditions. But, unlike the ACA, this bill would allow insurers to sell plans that entirely exclude coverage for care pertaining to the preexisting conditions themselves. The reality is that this bill would not protect sick Americans, or those who may become ill in the future, from high out-of-pocket health care costs.

Several million people will be going to the marketplaces in the next few weeks to sign up for coverage since they do not have it through an employer. At this time, not one of them who buys a plan in the marketplace has to fear that an insurance company will deny them coverage or charge them a higher premium because of their health. The efforts to undermine the individual market and invalidate the ACA’s consumer protections are real-life threats for people who depend on this insurance for their health care. The nation cannot move forward with tackling our most pressing health care problems if we continue to debate a core protection of the ACA that most Americans support.