Tag Archives: Underinsured

What’s Past Is Prologue: CBO’s Score for the House-Passed AHCA Reminds Us Why Insurance Markets Need Regulation

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

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/blog/2017/jun/why-insurance-markets-need-regulation

Related image

 

The Trump administration has been arguing for months that the insurance market reforms of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) are not working and are even harming consumers. But four years of accumulated data on Americans’ experiences in a reformed individual market provides considerable evidence to the contrary. Americans’ ability to buy comprehensive health plans on their own has improved significantly since the reforms went into effect in 2014. Most people with marketplace plans are satisfied with them and have used their plans to get health care they couldn’t have obtained in the past. A majority of those eligible for subsidies have premiums and deductibles similar to those in employer plans. And while policy fixes are needed to improve affordability, as well competition in some areas of the country, the marketplaces were looking increasingly stable for both consumers and insurers at the beginning of this year.

It is actually the lack of certainty about the administration’s actions regarding the enforcement of the market reforms, rather than the reforms themselves, that are the primary source of the marketplace’s current problems. The importance of the ACA’s insurance market reforms were underscored last week in the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) analysis of the House-passed American Health Care Act (AHCA), the Republican’s ACA repeal-and-replace bill. The report included an assessment of an amendment that would allow states to undo some of the reforms. That assessment is a powerful illustration of why these reforms were needed in the first place.

The MacArthur Amendment Relaxes ACA Individual Market Reforms

In the week before the House vote in May, Representative Tom MacArthur sponsored an amendment to the AHCA that provided waivers for states that wanted to relax two major sets of ACA reforms:

  • The requirement that insurance companies sell policies that cover a standard set of health benefits similar to those in employer-based coverage
  • The ban that prevents insurance companies from charging people more based on their health.

Under the first waiver, states could let insurers eliminate coverage for many services, significantly driving up out-of-pocket costs for people who need these services. Under the second waiver, states could allow insurers to price, or underwrite, people’s insurance based on their health if they applied for a plan and had a gap in their insurance of 63 days or more. States with the waivers would be required to establish high-risk pools or reinsurance programs to make coverage affordable for people who had higher premiums as a result. They could draw funds from the AHCA’s Patient and State Stability Fund, a pool of $10–$15 billion a year over 2018–2026 that was supplemented for various purposes through amendments.1

CBO Estimated About Half the U.S. Population Lives in States That Would Request Waivers

If there were doubts about whether any states would apply for the waivers, the CBO had some news: half the U.S. population could live in states that would use these waivers to begin deregulating their individual insurance markets. The basis for their estimate? In part, they considered state approaches to their individual markets prior to the ACA. States that had previously allowed insurers the freest rein in consumer coverage denials, rating on health, and flexibility in what services they would cover were expected to loosen the reins again.

CBO also expected that states that sought the waivers would implement them in different ways. Some states might modestly deregulate their markets while others might make more dramatic changes. For example, some states might require insurers to cover a core set of benefits but allow them to exclude maternity or mental health services. Using 2014 data, RAND researchers have estimated that this could increase the costs to families of having a baby by $6,900 to $9,300 and the annual costs of mental health care by $1,300 to over $12,000. Other states might go a step further and let insurers determine the entire content of their benefit packages as they did in many states prior to the ACA, leaving many people with preexisting conditions stuck with the full cost of their care.

Likewise, CBO assumed that some states would take different approaches to reintroducing individual underwriting in their markets. Because healthy people would face lower premiums if they were rated on the basis of their health, they would have little incentive to maintain continuous coverage, since they would prefer the lower rate they would receive if carriers rated them on health. In order to keep healthy people in the community-rated risk pool (the one with both healthy and unhealthy enrollees), a state might only allow underwriting of people with health problems.

Other states might go whole hog and allow underwriting on health for everyone who had a coverage gap, regardless of their health status. These markets over time would begin to look like those of the pre-ACA past: markets segmented into pools where people in good health could find affordable plans and those with health problems were priced out of the market. The CBO concluded that the funds set aside for state high-risk pools for people with health problems were inadequate to make coverage affordable for people with preexisting conditions in these states.

What’s Past Is Prologue

Decades of experience with the individual market in the United States has shown that without considerable regulation the market simply cannot function for all those who rely on it. Allowing insurers in the past to price each individual’s policy according to their health penalized those who were the sickest and rewarded those who were the healthiest. The 35 states that tried to patch high-risk pools onto their individually rated markets and the ACA’s own transitional Preexisting Conditions Insurance Plan program left robust evidence that high-risk pools were expensive for states and the people who enrolled in them, left millions uninsured, and were ultimately unsustainable. States that had attempted to ban pricing based on health status (like New York and New Jersey) also experienced instabilitybecause the lack of premium subsidies and an individual mandate left their markets lopsided: too many people in poorer health without the balance provided by those in better health.  As a result, premiums soared.

In contrast, four years of experience with the ACA’s insurance market reforms demonstrates that it is possible for this market to offer affordable, comprehensive insurance to people with diverse health needs. In 2010, 60 percent of adults who tried to buy a plan in the individual market said that they found it very difficult or impossible to find one they could afford. By 2016, that number had fallen by nearly half, to 34 percent. While this rate leaves plenty of room for improvement, the substantial decline suggests that the U.S. has been headed in the right direction if private markets are the nation’s preferred path to universal coverage. But any future movement along this path will require the full commitment of the Trump administration and Congress to enforcing and improving the ACA’s reforms of our complex private health insurance markets.

Following the ACA Repeal-and-Replace Effort, Where Does the U.S. Stand on Insurance Coverage?

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

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2017/sep/post-aca-repeal-and-replace-health-insurance-coverage

Image result for Following the ACA Repeal-and-Replace Effort, Where Does the U.S. Stand on Insurance Coverage?

Conclusion and Policy Implications

The findings of this study could inform both short- and long-term actions for policymakers seeking to improve the affordability of marketplace plans and reduce the number of uninsured people in the United States.

Short-Term

The most immediate concern for policymakers is ensuring that the 17 million to 18 million people with marketplace and individual market coverage are able to enroll this fall.

Congress could take the following three steps:

  1. The Trump administration has not made a long-term commitment to paying insurers for the cost-sharing reductions for low-income enrollees in the marketplaces, which insurers are required to offer under the ACA. Congress could resolve this by making a permanent appropriation for the payments. Without this commitment, insurers have already announced that they are increasing premiums to hedge against the risk of not receiving payments from the federal government. Since most enrollees receive tax credits, higher premiums also will increase the federal government’s costs.9
  2. While it appears that most counties will have at least one insurer offering plans in the marketplaces this year, Congress could consider a fallback health plan option to protect consumers if they do not have a plan to choose from, with subsidies available to help qualifying enrollees pay premiums.
  3. Reinsurance to help carriers cover unexpectedly high claims costs.10 During the three years in which it was functioning, the ACA’s transitional reinsurance program lowered premiums by as much as 14 percent.

The executive branch can also play an important role in two ways:

  1. Signaling to insurers participating in the marketplaces that it will enforce the individual mandate. Uncertainty over the administration’s commitment to the mandate, like the cost-sharing reductions, is leading to higher-than-expected premiums for next year.
  2. Affirming the commitment to ensuring that all eligible Americans are aware of their options and have the tools they need to enroll in the coverage that is right for them during the 2018 open enrollment period, which begins November 1. The survey findings indicate that large shares of uninsured Americans are unaware of the marketplaces and that enrollment assistance makes a difference in whether people sign up for insurance.

Long-Term

The following longer-term policy changes will likely lead to affordability improvement and reductions in the number of uninsured people.

  1. The 19 states that have not expanded Medicaid could decide to do so.
  2. Alleviate affordability issues for people with incomes above 250 percent of poverty by:
    1. Allowing people earning more than 400 percent of poverty to be eligible for tax credits. This would cover an estimated 1.2 million people at an annual total federal cost of $6 billion, according to a RAND analysis.11
    2. Increasing tax credits for people with incomes above 250 percent of poverty.
    3. Allowing premium contributions to be fully tax deductible for people buying insurance on their own; self-employed people have long been able to do this.
    4. Extending cost-sharing reductions for individuals with incomes above 250 percent of poverty, thus making care more affordable for insured individuals with moderate incomes.
  3. Consider immigration reform and expanding insurance options for undocumented immigrants.

In 2002, the Institute of Medicine concluded that insurance coverage is the most important determinant of access to health care.12 In the ongoing public debate over how to provide insurance to people, the conversation often drifts from this fundamental why of health insurance. At this pivotal moment, more than 30 million people now rely on the ACA’s reforms and expansions. Nearly 30 million more are uninsured — because of the reasons identified in this survey. It is critical that the health of these 60 million people, along with their ability to lead long and productive lives, be the central focus in our debate over how to improve the U.S. health insurance system, regardless of the approach ultimately chosen.

 

Healthcare Triage News: Let’s Talk Cassidy-Graham

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

Healthcare Triage News: Let’s Talk Cassidy-Graham

Image result for Healthcare Triage News: Let’s Talk Cassidy-Graham

We had a whole other video planned for today but we have to talk about the Cassidy-Graham bill, which is getting closer to passing despite our predictions last week.

What Graham-Cassidy means for pre-existing conditions

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

https://www.axios.com/what-graham-cassidy-really-means-for-pre-existing-conditions-2487720743.html

Image result for What Graham-Cassidy means for pre-existing conditions

Jimmy Kimmel’s takedown of Sen. Bill Cassidy, and Cassidy’s response, ripped open the question of whether the GOP’s latest health reform bill protects people with pre-existing conditions. Cassidy and co-sponsor Sen. Lindsey Graham insist it does — as did President Trump in a tweet last night — but experts say that’s not really the case.

The bottom line: The bill’s funding cuts could pressure states — even blue states — to waive protections for sick people, as a way to keep premium increases in check. Older, sicker people in every state could end up paying more as states try to make up for a funding shortfall.

What the bill does: The bill wouldn’t repeal the Affordable Care Act’s rules about pre-existing conditions. But they might end up only existing on paper, the Kaiser Family Foundation’s Larry Levitt said.

Graham-Cassidy doesn’t let states waive the part of the Affordable Care Act that says insurers have to cover sick people. But it does allow states to opt out of several other ACA rules that can cause people with pre-existing conditions to pay more for their health care. Those provisions include:

  • The ban on charging sick people higher premiums than healthy people.
  • The requirement that insurers cover “essential health benefits,” including prescription drugs. People who need expensive drugs might not have access to a plan that covers those drugs, requiring them to pay out of pocket.
    • Services that aren’t “essential” benefits aren’t subject to the ACA’s ban on annual and lifetime limits.
  • The bill also would also loosen rules about how much insurers can raise their premiums because of a customer’s age. (Older people are more likely to have pre-existing conditions.)

What supporters will argue: The bill requires states to say how their waivers would provide affordable and accessible coverage for people with pre-existing conditions. But there’s no definition of what that means, and there’s also no enforcement mechanism.

  • “The bottom line is these protections are much more at risk under this bill than they are now,” said Cori Uccello, a senior health fellow with the American Academy of Actuaries.

Another level: At least theoretically, because the bill gives states so much control, a more liberal state like California might choose to preserve more of the ACA’s regulations than, say, Alabama. But this bill would radically redistribute federal health care funding — generally away from blue and purple states and toward red states. Those cuts could back blue states into seeking more expansive waivers.

  • Caroline Pearson of Avalere told me: “if you have less money, you either cover fewer people, or you cover the same amount of people with less generous coverage. People with pre existing conditions are very reliant on having access to affordable insurance and need insurance that is comprehensive. So if a bill reduces the availability of comprehensive insurance, people with chronic conditions are going to be disproportionately harmed.”

 

Stat of the Day

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

5 Ways the Graham-Cassidy Proposal Puts Medicaid Coverage At Risk

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

5 Ways the Graham-Cassidy Proposal Puts Medicaid Coverage At Risk

Image result for 5 Ways the Graham-Cassidy Proposal Puts Medicaid Coverage At Risk

 

The Graham-Cassidy proposal to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is reviving the federal health reform debate and could come up for a vote in the Senate in the next two weeks before the budget reconciliation authority expires on September 30. The Graham-Cassidy proposal goes beyond the American Health Care Act (AHCA) passed by the House in May and the Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA) that failed in the Senate in July. The Graham-Cassidy proposal revamps and cuts Medicaid, redistributes federal funds across states, and eliminates coverage for millions of poor Americans as described below:
  1. Ends federal funding for current ACA coverage and partially replaces that funding with a block grant that expires after 2026. The proposal ends both the authority to cover childless adults and funding for the ACA Medicaid expansion that covers 15 million adults. Under Graham-Cassidy, a new block grant, the “Market-Based Health Care Grant Program,” combines federal funds for the ACA Medicaid expansion, premium and cost sharing subsidies in the Marketplace, and states’ Basic Health Plans for 2020-2026. Capped nationally, the block grant would be lower than ACA spending under current law and would end after 2026. States would need to replace federal dollars or roll back coverage. Neither the AHCA nor the BCRA included expiration dates for ACA-related federal funds or eliminated the ability for states to cover childless adults through Medicaid.
  2. Massively redistributes federal funding from Medicaid expansion states to non-expansion states through the block grant program penalizing states that broadened coverage. In 2020, block grant funds would be distributed based on federal spending in states for ACA Medicaid and Marketplace coverage. By 2026, funding would go to states according to the states’ portion of the population with incomes between 50% and 138% of poverty; the new allocation is phased in over the 2021-2025 period. The Secretary has the authority to make other adjustments to the allocation. This allocation would result in a large redistribution of ACA funding by 2026, away from states that adopted the Medicaid expansion and redirecting funding to states that did not. No funding is provided beyond 2026.
  3. Prohibits Medicaid coverage for childless adults and allows states to use limited block grant funds to purchase private coverage for traditional Medicaid populations. States can use funds under the block grant to provide tax credits and/or cost-sharing reductions for individual market coverage, make direct payments to providers, or provide coverage for traditional Medicaid populations through private insurance. The proposal limits the amount of block grant funds that a state could use for traditional Medicaid populations to 15% of its allotment (or 20% under a special waiver). These limits would shift coverage and funds for many low-income adults from Medicaid to individual market coverage. Under current law, 60% of federal ACA coverage funding is currently for the Medicaid expansion (covering parents and childless adults). Medicaid coverage is typically more comprehensive, less expensive and has more financial protections compared to private insurance. The proposal also allows states to roll back individual market protections related to premium pricing, including allowing premium rating based on health status, and benefits currently in the ACA.
  4. Caps and redistributes federal funds to states for the traditional Medicaid program for more than 60 million low-income children, parents, people with disabilities and the elderly. Similar to the BCRA and AHCA, the proposal establishes a Medicaid per enrollee cap as the default for federal financing based on a complicated formula tied to different inflation rates. As a result, federal Medicaid financing would grow more slowly than estimates under current law. In addition to overall spending limits, similar to the BCRA, the proposal would give the HHS Secretary discretion to further redistribute capped federal funds across states by making adjustments to states with high or low per enrollee spending.
  5. Eliminates federal funding for states to cover Medicaid family planning at Planned Parenthood clinics for one year. Additional funding restrictions include limits on states’ ability to use provider tax revenue to finance Medicaid as well as the termination of the enhanced match for the Community First Choice attendant care program for seniors and people with disabilities. Enrollment barriers include the option for states to condition Medicaid eligibility on a work requirement and to conduct more frequent redeterminations.
Much is at stake for low-income Americans and states in the Graham-Cassidy proposal. The recent debate over the AHCA and the BCRA has shown the difficulty of making major changes that affect coverage for over 70 million Americans and reduce federal funding for Medicaid. Medicaid has broad support and majorities across political parties say Medicaid is working well. More than half of the states have a strong stake in continuing the ACA Medicaid expansion as it has provided coverage to millions of low-income residents, reduced the uninsured and produced net fiscal benefits to states. Graham-Cassidy prohibits states from using Medicaid to provide coverage to childless adults. With regard to Medicaid financing changes, caps on federal funding could shift costs to states and result in less fiscal flexibility for states. States with challenging demographics (like an aging population), high health care needs (like those hardest hit by the opioid epidemic), high cost markets or states that operate efficient programs may have the hardest time responding to federal caps on Medicaid spending. Faced with substantially reduced federal funding, states would face difficult choices: raise revenue, reduce spending in other areas, or cut Medicaid provider payments, optional benefits, and/or optional coverage groups.

Last-Ditch Effort By Republicans To Replace ACA: What You Need To Know

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

http://khn.org/news/last-ditch-gop-effort-to-replace-aca-5-things-you-need-to-know/

Related image

Republican efforts in Congress to “repeal and replace” the federal Affordable Care Act are back from the dead. Again.

While the chances for this last-ditch measure appear iffy, many GOP senators are rallying around a proposal by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.), along with Sens. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) and Ron Johnson (R-Wis.)

They are racing the clock to round up the needed 50 votes — and there are 52 Senate Republicans.

An earlier attempt to replace the ACA this summer fell just one vote short when Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) voted against it. The latest push is setting off a massive guessing game on Capitol Hill about where the GOP can pick up the needed vote.

After Sept. 30, the end of the current fiscal year, Republicans would need 60 votes ­— which means eight Democrats — to pass any such legislation because special budget rules allowing approval with a simple majority will expire.

Unlike previous GOP repeal-and-replace packages that passed the House and nearly passed the Senate, the Graham-Cassidy proposal would leave in place most of the ACA taxes that generated funding to expand coverage for millions of Americans. The plan would simply give those funds as lump sums to each state. States could do almost whatever they please with them. And the Congressional Budget Office has yet to weigh in on the potential impact of the bill, although earlier estimates of similar provisions suggest premiums would go up and coverage down.

“If you believe repealing and replacing Obamacare is a good idea, this is your best and only chance to make it happen, because everything else has failed,” said Graham in unveiling the bill last week.

Here are five things to know about the latest GOP bill: 

1. It would repeal most of the structure of the ACA.

The Graham-Cassidy proposal would eliminate the federal insurance exchange, healthcare.gov, along with the subsidies and tax credits that help people with low and moderate incomes — and small businesses — pay for health insurance and associated health costs. It would eliminate penalties for individuals who fail to obtain health insurance and employers who fail to provide it.

It would eliminate the tax on medical devices. 

2. It would eliminate many of the popular insurance protections, including those for people with preexisting conditions, in the health law.

Under the proposal, states could “waive” rules in the law requiring insurers to provide a list of specific “essential health benefits” and mandating that premiums be the same for people regardless of their health status. That would once again expose people with preexisting health conditions to unaffordable or unavailable coverage. Republicans have consistently said they wanted to maintain these protections, which polls have shown to be popular among voters.

3. It would fundamentally restructure the Medicaid program.

Medicaid, the joint-federal health program for low-income people, currently covers more than 70 million Americans. The Graham-Cassidy proposal would end the program’s expansion under the ACA and cap funding overall, and it would redistribute the funds that had provided coverage for millions of new Medicaid enrollees. It seeks to equalize payments among states. States that did not expand Medicaid and were getting fewer federal dollars for the program would receive more money and states that did expand would see large cuts, according to the bill’s own sponsors. For example, Oklahoma would see an 88 percent increase from 2020 to 2026, while Massachusetts would see a 10 percent cut.

The proposal would also bar Planned Parenthood from getting any Medicaid funding for family planning and other reproductive health services for one year, the maximum allowed under budget rules governing this bill. 

4. It’s getting mixed reviews from the states.

Sponsors of the proposal hoped for significant support from the nation’s governors as a way to help push the bill through. But, so far, the governors who are publicly supporting the measure, including Scott Walker (R-Wis.) and Doug Ducey (R-Ariz.), are being offset by opponents including Chris Sununu (R-N.H.), John Kasich (R-Ohio) and Bill Walker (I-Alaska).

On Tuesday 10 governors — five Democrats, four Republicans and Walker — sent a letterto Senate leaders urging them to pursue a more bipartisan approach. “Only open, bipartisan approaches can achieve true, lasting reforms,” said the letter.

Bill sponsor Cassidy was even taken to task publicly by his own state’s health secretary. Dr. Rebekah Gee, who was appointed by Louisiana’s Democratic governor, wrote that the bill “uniquely and disproportionately hurts Louisiana due to our recent [Medicaid] expansion and high burden of extreme poverty.”

5. The measure would come to the Senate floor with the most truncated process imaginable.

The Senate is working on its Republican-only plans under a process called “budget reconciliation,” which limits floor debate to 20 hours and prohibits a filibuster. In fact, all the time for floor debate was used up in July, when Republicans failed to advance any of several proposed overhaul plans. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) could bring the bill back up anytime, but senators would immediately proceed to votes. Specifically, the next order of business would be a process called “vote-a-rama,” where votes on the bill and amendments can continue, in theory, as long as senators can stay awake to call for them.

Several senators, most notably John McCain, who cast the deciding vote to stop the process in July, have called for “regular order,” in which the bill would first be considered in the relevant committee before coming to the floor. The Senate Finance Committee, which Democrats used to write most of the ACA, has scheduled a hearing for next week. But there is not enough time for full committee consideration and a vote before the end of next week.

Meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office said in a statement Tuesday that it could come up with an analysis by next week that would determine whether the proposal meets the requirements to be considered under the reconciliation process. But it said that more complicated questions like how many people would lose insurance under the proposal or what would happen to insurance premiums could not be answered “for at least several weeks.”

That has outraged Democrats, who are united in opposition to the measure.

“I don’t know how any senator could go home to their constituents and explain why they voted for a major bill with major consequences to so many of their people without having specific answers about how it would impact their state,” said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) on the Senate floor Tuesday.

Senate GOP Has 12 Days to Repeal Obamacare and No Room for Error

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

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-19/senate-gop-has-12-days-to-repeal-obamacare-and-no-room-for-error

Image result for time running out

Senate Republicans making one last-ditch effort to repeal Obamacare have the daunting task of assembling 50 votes for an emotionally charged bill with limited details on how it would work, what it would cost and how it would affect health coverage — all in 12 days.

They need to act by Sept. 30 to use a fast-track procedure that prevents Democrats from blocking it, but the deadline doesn’t leave enough time to get a full analysis of the bill’s effects from the Congressional Budget Office. The measure would face parliamentary challenges that could force leaders to strip out provisions favored by conservatives. Several Republicans are still withholding their support or rejecting it outright.

And even if Republicans manage to get it through the Senate by Sept. 30, the House would have to accept it without changing a single comma.

Most Senate Republicans are still trying to figure out what it’s in the bill, which was authored by Republicans Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana. Until the past few days, most assumed that GOP leaders had no interest in reviving the Obamacare repeal effort after their high-profile failure to pass a measure this summer.

Republican Senator Steve Daines of Montana said he’s still trying to figure out how the bill will affect his state and wants to hear what GOP leaders say at a closed-door lunch Tuesday.

‘Active Discussion’

“It will be a very active discussion,” he said.

The new repeal bill would replace the Affordable Care Act’s insurance subsidies with block grants to states, which would decide how to help people get health coverage. The measure would end Obamacare’s requirements that individuals obtain health insurance and that most employers provide it to their workers, and it would give states flexibility to address the needs of people with pre-existing medical conditions.

But lawmakers won’t have much more information about the legislation by the time the Senate would have to vote. The CBO said Monday it will offer a partial assessment of the measure early next week, but that it won’t have estimates of its effects on the deficit, health-insurance coverage or premiums for at least several weeks. That could make it hard to win over several Republicans who opposed previous versions of repeal legislation.

So far, President Donald Trump has suggested he’d support the bill, but he hasn’t thrown his full weight behind it.

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has told senators he would bring up the bill if it had 50 votes, and under fast-track rules he could do so at any time before Sept. 30. That’s the end of the government’s fiscal year, when the rules expire and the GOP would have to start over.

Several Holdouts

Republicans can only lose two votes in the 52-48 Senate and still pass the measure, with Vice President Mike Pence’s tie-breaker. There are at least four holdouts, and getting any of them to back the measure would require the senators to change their past positions. Pence, who would cast the potentially deciding vote, will return to Washington from New York Tuesday, where he’s been taking part in United Nations General Assembly events, to attend Senate GOP lunches.

Republican Rand Paul of Kentucky said Monday he’s opposed to the Graham-Cassidy bill, saying it doesn’t go far enough. John McCain of Arizona said he’s “not supportive” yet, citing the rushed legislative process.

Two other Republicans — Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska — have voted against every repeal bill considered this year in the Senate, citing cuts to Medicaid and Planned Parenthood as well as provisions that would erode protections for those with pre-existing conditions. The Graham-Cassidy bill contains similar provisions on those three areas.

“I’m concerned about what the effect would be on coverage, on Medicaid spending in my state, on the fundamental changes in Medicaid that would be made,” Collins told reporters Monday evening.

She said that Maine’s hospital association has calculated the state would lose $1 billion in federal health spending over a decade compared to current law.

“That’s obviously of great concern to me,” she added.

Hard Sell

Murkowski is getting a hard sell from Republican backers of the bill.

“What I’m trying to figure out is the impact to my state,” Murkowski told reporters Monday. “There are some formulas at play with different pots of money with different allocations and different percentages, so it is not clear.”

McCain, who is close friends with Graham, cast the deciding vote to sink an earlier repeal bill in late July when he made a dramatic return to the Senate after a brain cancer diagnosis. At the time, he made an eloquent plea for colleagues to work with Democrats and use regular legislative procedures instead of trying to jam it through on a partisan basis.

John Weaver, a former top adviser to McCain, said supporting Graham-Cassidy would require the Arizona senator to renege on his word.

‘Fair Process’

“I cannot imagine Senator McCain turning his back not only on his word, but also on millions of Americans who would lose health care coverage, despite intense lobbying by his best friend,” Weaver said in an email. “Graham-Cassidy, if truly attempted to pass, will bypass every standard of transparency and inclusion important to people who care about fair process.”

Despite the obstacles, the bill’s backers are putting on a good face about the prospects.

“We’re making progress on it,” said Republican Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin. “I’m still cautiously optimistic, but there are a lot of moving parts.” Johnson is planning a Sept. 26 hearing on the measure in the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, which he leads. The Senate Finance Committee is planning its own hearing Sept. 25 on the measure.

“There’s a lot of interest,” Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania said Monday. “Those guys have done some very good work.”

A number of Republicans are still pushing for changes to the bill, so the final version may evolve. It’s also subject to parliamentary challenges under the reconciliation process being used to circumvent the 60-vote threshold in the Senate. That could allow Democrats to strike provisions that take aim at Obamacare’s regulatory structure.

Last Chance

If it passed the Senate, the House would have to pass the bill without any changes. House Speaker Paul Ryan said Monday that the measure is Republicans’ last best chance to repeal Obamacare.

“We want them to pass this, we’re encouraging them to pass this,” Ryan told reporters at a news conference in Wisconsin. “It’s our best, last chance of getting repeal and replace done.”

But that won’t be easy either. The measure strives to equalize Medicaid funding between states, which means that some House Republicans from Medicaid expansion states could find it hard to support. That includes states like New York and California, which stand to lose federal funds under Graham-Cassidy. Those states have only Democratic senators, but have some GOP House members.

Another Run

In some ways, it’s remarkable that Republicans are mounting another run at repeal.

Two months ago, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s effort to pass a replacement with only Republican support suffered a spectacular defeat in the Senate. When members of the Senate health committee then began working on a bipartisan plan to shore up Obamacare, Graham and Cassidy revved up a new bid to get their GOP-only bill to the Senate floor.

Graham and Cassidy are hoping to channel the GOP’s embarrassment at failing to repeal Obamacare this summer after seven years of promising to do so. But Paul said Monday this legislation shouldn’t be treated like a “kidney stone” you pass “just to get rid of it.”

Despite all the obstacles, Democrats quickly geared up for another campaign against repeal, warning that the latest bill is a serious threat.

“This bill is worse than the last bill,” Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York told reporters Monday. “It will slash Medicaid, get rid of pre-existing conditions. It’s very, very bad.”

Healthcare: It’s complicated

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

http://www.theactuary.com/features/2017/07/its-complicated/

Istock_america_health

It has been a little over seven years since the US began implementing healthcare reform at the national level, following the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as Obamacare. However, the future of the law’s programmes has never seemed more uncertain now that the United States House of Representatives has passed legislation repealing and replacing many of the ACA’s key provisions.

While the ACA and the proposed replacement legislation are fundamentally different in their approaches to financing and regulating healthcare, they do have one thing in common: both are extraordinarily complicated.

Actuaries have had a front-row seat as healthcare reform has unfolded, and they are in a unique position to help address the challenges our complex system presents – whether that involves setting premium rates, calculating reserves, or just trying to explain healthcare policy to their Facebook friends. After all, actuaries were working to promote the financial stability of our complex healthcare system long before the ACA came along.

Even so, one might ask: Why is the American healthcare system so complicated? Does it have to be that way? Most stakeholders acknowledge that our current system has room for improvement, although opinions vary widely on what to do about that. In part, the complexity of our system is rooted in our history.

The healthcare system that we have today wasn’t formed in one fell swoop. Instead, it has been stitched together gradually over the past century by policymakers working to meet the challenges of their times. For example, the prevalence of employer-sponsored insurance was at least partly driven by price-wage controls implemented by the federal government in the 1940s during the Second World War, together with very favourable tax treatment. When the employer-sponsored market began to flourish, healthcare coverage became unaffordable for the non-working population – in particular, low-income workers, seniors, and disabled individuals – and the Medicare and Medicaid programmes were born. Currently, healthcare in the US is provided and funded through a variety of sources:

  • Employer-sponsored insurance – either self-funded by the employer or insured through a carrier
  • Individual major medical insurance – currently subsidised by the federal government for many individuals under the ACA
  • Medicare, Medicaid, and military health coverage – subsidised by federal and state governments and increasingly administered by privately managed care organisations
  • Other – for instance, the Indian Health Service, care provided to correctional populations, and uncompensated care provided to the uninsured.

 

It’s therefore not surprising that the policies being proposed today are an attempt to fix the problems we currently face, such as expanding access to affordable healthcare, reducing the cost of healthcare, or improving the quality of care received by patients.

However, our system has evolved in such a way that trying to implement a solution is like trying to solve a Rubik’s Cube – it is hard to make progress on one side without introducing new problems into other parts of the puzzle. For a Rubik’s Cube, successful solvers focus on both the local and global picture, and sometimes must make short-term trade-offs to achieve a longer-term solution. Unfortunately, the short-term nature of political pressures make it difficult to implement longer-term strategies for healthcare. Yet, we see many areas where actuaries can be instrumental in addressing the challenges presented by our complex healthcare system.

Complex times call for complex models

The ACA made sweeping changes that impacted almost every source of coverage listed above. The most profound changes, besides the expansion of Medicaid coverage, were the changes made to the individual and small employer health insurance markets. These already small markets were fractured into several separate pieces (grandfathered business from before the ACA became law, ‘transitional’ business issued before 2014, and ‘ACA-compliant’ business issued in 2014 and beyond). The only constant has been change, with many regulatory changes occurring each year (often after premium rates were set by insurers) and with the stabilisation programmes intended to mitigate risk during this time of change often paradoxically increasing uncertainty. This led some to question whether these markets were inherently too unpredictable to be viable, whereas others felt that the markets were finally starting to stabilise before the election changed everything.

Besides predictability problems caused by regulatory or political factors, two challenges facing health actuaries during these transitional years have been (1) the lag between when market changes are implemented and when data on policies subject to the new rules becomes available, and (2) the difficulty in predicting consumer behaviour in reaction to major changes in market rules such as guaranteed issue and community rating. How many of the uninsured would sign up? How price-sensitive would members be when they renewed their coverage each year? How will changes in other sources of coverage (such as Medicaid expansion) impact the individual market? How will potential actions by competitors affect an insurer’s risk?

Despite the daunting nature of these challenges, actuaries have, out of necessity, found ways to try to address them. For example, faced with the data lag problem, they explored ways to augment traditional claim and enrollment data with new data sources such as marketing databases or pharmacy history data available for purchase. Such sources can be used to develop estimates of the health status of new populations not previously covered by an insurer. Many actuaries also developed agent-based stochastic simulation models that attempted to model the behaviour of consumers, insurers and other stakeholders in these new markets. Such models continue to be used to evaluate the potential outcomes of future changes to the healthcare system, and will probably be essential should efforts to repeal and replace the ACA prove successful.

Information problems: what is a rational actor to do?

Most goods and services in the US have a price tag that consumers can use to ‘shop’ for the option that they feel gives them the best value for their dollar. Healthcare is different. If you ask how much a healthcare service will cost in the US, the answer is “it depends”. List prices such as billed charges for hospitals and physicians and average wholesale prices for pharmaceuticals are increasingly meaningless, given the enormous contractual discounts and rebates that typically apply. The same service may have wildly different prices depending on who is paying for it, and prices may not correlate well with either the clinical value the service provides to the patient or the actual cost to the healthcare provider who renders it. Layered on top of this complex foundation are the often arcane policy provisions that determine a member’s ultimate cost for a claim.

Moreover, even if a patient can determine the cost of treatment at different healthcare providers, making an informed choice often requires clinical knowledge the average person is unlikely to possess. Also, many of the most costly services are non-discretionary and often emergent in nature. In other words, even if a consumer wanted to shop they would be hard-pressed to do so.

All of this means that it is exceedingly hard for various stakeholders – patients, doctors, even insurers – to know the true cost of a service at the point of care, much less manage it. Yet a lot of effort has been spent in trying to better align cost incentives for providers and patients. Past efforts have often used crude methods, such as high deductibles paired with health savings accounts, to create incentives. Current efforts such as value-based insurance designs, which vary cost sharing based on a patient’s clinical profile, use more nuanced approaches to encourage patients to use high-value care. Moving from fee-for-service to value-based payment models for reimbursing healthcare providers has been a focus of both private and public payers in the US.

While such initiatives show promise, they come at the price of even more complexity – and it isn’t always clear that this price is worth paying. The proliferation of more complex benefit designs and provider contracting arrangements can exacerbate the price transparency problems that existed even in the relatively simple fee-for-service world.

Actuaries are well equipped to help insurers, providers and consumers navigate these waters. For example, repricing healthcare claims in an equitable way using actuarial techniques, such as comparing reimbursement rates with a standard fee schedule, is

an efficient way for providers and payers to evaluate cost levels consistently across contracts that may use very different reimbursement methodologies.

Actuaries also have a role to play in developing tools to support clinicians and consumers in understanding the financial dimensions of their healthcare decisions.

Technology: the cause of, and solution to, all our cost problems?

For better or worse, Americans seem determined to seek technological solutions to our health problems, even when lifestyle changes in diet and exercise habits might be just as effective.

Technological advances drive a significant portion of healthcare cost increases, and while many do result in profoundly valuable new therapies, some provide only marginal benefit over existing options at a significantly higher cost. Finding ways to leverage our love of technology to achieve health outcomes more cheaply would be a worthy goal, and one where an actuary could make a difference. Work to use machine learning (for example, in radiology), smarter medical devices, and other data-intensive methods to improve healthcare are still in their infancy, but show promise. From a policy perspective, actuaries could assist in designing novel approaches toward rethinking the incentives for clinical innovation, such as linking payment for new therapies to their clinical value relative to alternatives.

Will the US ever change its relationship status with healthcare from “it’s complicated” to something less ambiguous? In the near term, the answer seems to be “no.” But perhaps we can hope that – with a little help from actuaries – even a complicated relationship can be a good one.

Why We Need Medicare for All

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

This is a pivotal moment in American history. Do we, as a nation, join the rest of the industrialized world and guarantee comprehensive health care to every person as a human right? Or do we maintain a system that is enormously expensive, wasteful and bureaucratic, and is designed to maximize profits for big insurance companies, the pharmaceutical industry, Wall Street and medical equipment suppliers?

We remain the only major country on earth that allows chief executives and stockholders in the health care industry to get incredibly rich, while tens of millions of people suffer because they can’t get the health care they need. This is not what the United States should be about.

All over this country, I have heard from Americans who have shared heartbreaking stories about our dysfunctional system. Doctors have told me about patients who died because they put off their medical visits until it was too late. These were people who had no insurance or could not afford out-of-pocket costs imposed by their insurance plans.

I have heard from older people who have been forced to split their pills in half because they couldn’t pay the outrageously high price of prescription drugs. Oncologists have told me about cancer patients who have been unable to acquire lifesaving treatments because they could not afford them. This should not be happening in the world’s wealthiest country.

Americans should not hesitate about going to the doctor because they do not have enough money. They should not worry that a hospital stay will bankrupt them or leave them deeply in debt. They should be able to go to the doctor they want, not just one in a particular network. They should not have to spend huge amounts of time filling out complicated forms and arguing with insurance companies as to whether or not they have the coverage they expected.

Even though 28 million Americans remain uninsured and even more are underinsured, we spend far more per capita on health care than any other industrialized nation. In 2015, the United States spent almost $10,000 per person for health care; the Canadians, Germans, French and British spent less than half of that, while guaranteeing health care to everyone. Further, these countries have higher life expectancy rates and lower infant mortality rates than we do.

The reason that our health care system is so outrageously expensive is that it is not designed to provide quality care to all in a cost-effective way, but to provide huge profits to the medical-industrial complex. Layers of bureaucracy associated with the administration of hundreds of individual and complicated insurance plans is stunningly wasteful, costing us hundreds of billions of dollars a year. As the only major country not to negotiate drug prices with the pharmaceutical industry, we spend tens of billions more than we should.

The solution to this crisis is not hard to understand. A half-century ago, the United States established Medicare. Guaranteeing comprehensive health benefits to Americans over 65 has proved to be enormously successful, cost-effective and popular. Now is the time to expand and improve Medicare to cover all Americans.

This is not a radical idea. I live 50 miles south of the Canadian border. For decades, every man, woman and child in Canada has been guaranteed health care through a single-payer, publicly funded health care program. This system has not only improved the lives of the Canadian people but has also saved families and businesses an immense amount of money.

On Wednesday I will introduce the Medicare for All Act in the Senate with 15 co-sponsors and support from dozens of grass-roots organizations. Under this legislation, every family in America would receive comprehensive coverage, and middle-class families would save thousands of dollars a year by eliminating their private insurance costs as we move to a publicly funded program.

The transition to the Medicare for All program would take place over four years. In the first year, benefits to older people would be expanded to include dental care, vision coverage and hearing aids, and the eligibility age for Medicare would be lowered to 55. All children under the age of 18 would also be covered. In the second year, the eligibility age would be lowered to 45 and in the third year to 35. By the fourth year, every man, woman and child in the country would be covered by Medicare for All.

Needless to say, there will be huge opposition to this legislation from the powerful special interests that profit from the current wasteful system. The insurance companies, the drug companies and Wall Street will undoubtedly devote a lot of money to lobbying, campaign contributions and television ads to defeat this proposal. But they are on the wrong side of history.

Guaranteeing health care as a right is important to the American people not just from a moral and financial perspective; it also happens to be what the majority of the American people want. According to an April poll by The Economist/YouGov, 60 percent of the American people want to “expand Medicare to provide health insurance to every American,” including 75 percent of Democrats, 58 percent of independents and 46 percent of Republicans.

Now is the time for Congress to stand with the American people and take on the special interests that dominate health care in the United States. Now is the time to extend Medicare to everyone.