Tag Archives: Undersinsured

Trump admin now backs elimination of ACA in court

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

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/trump-admin-now-backs-elimination-of-aca-in-court/551319/

UPDATED: AHA blasted the decision, calling it “unprecedented and unsupported” by law or facts and warned it would lead to repeal of Medicaid expansion and gut protections for those with pre-existing conditions.

Dive Brief:

  • The Trump administration has reversed its stance on the Affordable Care Act, arguing in a court filing Monday that the entire law should be eliminated instead of just removing provisions protecting people with preexisting conditions.
  • The move came hours after Democratic attorneys general defending the ACA filed their brief arguing that the landmark law is still constitutional even without an effective individual mandate penalty. Both filings are in the Fifth Circuit following an appeal of a Texas judge’s decision from December declaring the law unconstitutional after Congress set the mandate penalty to zero in tax overhaul legislation. That decision was stayed pending appeal.
  • Industry groups lambasted the administration’s about-face. America’s Health Insurance Plans CEO Matt Eyles said in a statement the decision was, like the Texas ruling, “misguided and wrong.” He added the payer lobby “will continue to engage on this issue as it continues through the appeals process so we can support and strengthen affordable coverage for every American.” Federation of American Hospitals CEO Chip Kahn said in a statement the decision is “unfortunate but not unexpected considering [the administration’s] long-held views on the health law.”

Dive Insight:

Elimination of the ACA would be a particular blow for some payers that have found increasing profitability in the individual market. Centene and Molina have found success with the exchanges and have expanded their footprints.

It would also put major hospital chains in a bad spot. Companies like HCA, Tenet and Community Health Systems have exposure that could subject them to reduced patient volumes and more bad debt, Leerink analyst Ana Gupte said when the Texas ruling first came down.

Public support for the ACA has gradually increased over the years, and the latest polling from the Kaiser Family Foundation shows about 53% of respondents giving a favorable view and 40% unfavorable. Individual components of the law are even more popular.

The ACA, which just days ago marked its ninth anniversary, brought forth massive change in American healthcare. A repeal of the law would do the same, stripping insurance coverage for as many as 17 million people.

The Trump administration’s new stance presents an intensely stark contrast with the growing field of Democratic presidential contenders, who have shifted the healthcare conversation to the left as the 2020 field shapes up. Candidates have proposed various forms of Medicare for all as well as scaled back versions that still greatly expand government coverage.

It moves the DOJ away from even some Republicans. During last year’s midterms a few GOP candidates said they approved of the ACA’s most popular element — protection for people with preexisting conditions (although voting records didn’t necessarily back them up).

Most Democrats in Congress aren’t fully backing any single-payer model at the moment, but their support for the ACA is strong. Democrats in the House of Representatives are expected to announce a legislative package Tuesday that would strengthen the ACA by eliminating short-term health plans that don’t comply with the law and increasing subsidies for exchange plans.

Since the GOP’s quite public failure to repeal the law two years ago, efforts to do so through Congress have sputtered to nearly a halt. Instead, the Trump administration started chipping away at the law’s provisions. It cut the open enrollment period for ACA plans, as well as the advertising budget for promoting sign-ups, and stopped cost-sharing reduction payments to insurers.

More recently, HHS has bolstered short-term and association health plans that offer cheap but skimpy coverage not in line with ACA requirements. Analysts fear proliferation of these plans could draw young and healthy people away from the exchanges, jeopardizing the stability of the risk pool.

A Democratic-led House panel launched an investigation into short-term plans and is requesting documents from Anthem and UnitedHealth Group, among other companies.

The legal issue at hand is known as severability — the question of whether a single provision of the law, in this case the individual mandate, becoming unenforceable invalidates the entire statute. The mandate was also the key question in the original U.S. Supreme Court ruling allowing the ACA to move forward.

The high court has since lurched to the right, which is notable if the appeal on the Texas ruling reaches that stage, although that would likely be far down the road.

 

 

 

Can a Divided Congress Fix Health Care?

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

KFF Health Tracking Poll – November 2018: Priorities for New Congress and the Future of the ACA and Medicaid Expansion

The Kaiser Family Foundation’s latest tracking poll finds that costs and affordability are the health care issues Americans most want Congress to address — though the public remains highly skeptical that Democrats and Republicans can actually work together to do anything on health care.

The poll also finds that the favorability of the Affordable Care Act has risen to 53 percent and that 59 percent of people living in states that have not expanded Medicaid under the ACA want such an expansion.

Key Findings:

  • The November KFF Health Tracking Poll, conducted the week after the 2018 midterm election, finds a majority of the public wants the new Democratic majority in the U.S. House of Representatives to work with Republicans on legislation to address the major problems facing the country as well as conduct oversight of the Trump administration’s actions on policies such as health care. Yet, few Americans are “very confident” (6 percent) that Republicans and Democrats in Congress will be able to work on bipartisan legislation to address the health care issues facing the country.
  • The midterm elections brought Medicaid expansion to three additional states, bringing the total number of states that have expanded their Medicaid programs to cover more low-income uninsured adults to 37 (including Washington, D.C.). Those living in states that have not expanded their Medicaid programs continue to hold a favorable view of Medicaid expansion and most would like to see their state expand their Medicaid program. And as a possible indicator of how some other states may expand their Medicaid programs in the future, most of those living in a non-expansion state say that if their state government chooses not to expand, voters themselves should be able to decide if their state expands their Medicaid program.
  • The new Democratic majority in the House all but guarantees the Affordable Care Act (ACA) will remain the law of the land for at least the next two years. The most recent tracking poll finds a slight uptick – largely driven by Democrats – in the overall favorability of the law (53 percent) and many of the ACA’s provisions continue to be quite popular with a majority of the public. But the poll also finds the public is largely unaware about the law’s sixth open enrollment period, and four in ten 18-64 year olds who buy their own insurance or are currently uninsured say they will choose to go without coverage in 2019.

    Most Americans say it is “very important” to keep the ACA provisions barring insurers from denying coverage or charging more (62%) to people with pre-existing conditions, even after hearing that these may have increased costs for some healthy people

  • A divided Congress does not mean that the coming year will not see any changes to the country’s health care system. There is an impending lawsuit, Texas v. United States, which may end the ACA’s protections for people with pre-existing medical conditions as well as the Trump administration’s recent actions allowing employers to be exempt from covering the full cost of birth control for their employees if they oppose to it due to religious or moral reasons, which could lead to substantial changes to health coverage for many Americans. This month’s tracking poll examines the public’s support for these proposed changes and examines the malleability of these opinions.

The Public’s Priorities for Next Congress

With Democratic gains in the U.S. House of Representatives during the 2018 midterm election, Democrats and Republicans will split control of Congress next year. These results will mean that President Trump will have a divided Congress for the first time in his presidency. About half of the public (53 percent) say oversight of the Trump administration’s actions on policies such as health care, education, and the environment should be a “top priority” for House Democrats in the coming year. This is similar to the share (55 percent) who say that working to enact new laws to address the major problems facing the country should be a “top priority” for House Democrats in the coming year and substantially larger than the share who say investigating corruption within President Trump’s administration should be a “top priority” (36 percent).

Majority of The Public Say Working To Enact New Legislation And Oversight Are Top Priorities For Democrats

Figure 1: Majority of The Public Say Working To Enact New Legislation And Oversight Are Top Priorities For Democrats

Unsurprisingly, the share of partisans who say each of these should be a “top priority” for Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives varies drastically; majorities of Democrats saying conducting oversight (77 percent), working to enact legislation (67 percent), and investigating corruption (58 percent) should all be top priorities for the coming year. A majority of independents (54 percent) say working to enact legislation should be a “top priority,” while less than half of Republicans say any of these – including working to enact legislation – should be “a top priority” for House Democrats.

Figure 2: Most Democrats Say New Legislation, Oversight, and Investigating Corruption Are Top Priorities For House Democrats

Figure 2: Most Democrats Say New Legislation, Oversight, and Investigating Corruption Are Top Priorities For House Democrats

Immigration and Health Care Top Public’s Priorities

Similar to the issues driving voters in the 2018 midterm elections, the most recent KFF Health Tracking Poll finds immigration and health care as the top issues the public want to see the next Congress act on in 2019 with the issues offered largely driven by party identification. Overall, about one-fifth of voters offer immigration or border security (21 percent) when asked to say in their own words the issue Congress should work on next year. This is similar to the share of the public who offer health care (20 percent) as the top issue they want to see the next Congress work on. Fewer offer gun control/legislation (8 percent), tax reform (4 percent), or education (4 percent) as the issues they want to see Congress act on in 2019.

Four times as many Republicans (41 percent) offer immigration/border security as the issue they would most like the next Congress to act on in 2019 as Democrats (10 percent). On the other hand, health care is the top issue for Democrats. One-fourth of Democrats (27 percent) say health care is the issue they would most like to see the next Congress act on, compared to 11 percent of Republicans who say the same. Independents are divided across the top two issues, with similar shares offering immigration/border security (22 percent) and health care (21 percent) as the issues they want to see Congress work on.

Table 1: Immigration and Health Care Top Public’s Priorities for Next Congress
Thinking about next year, which issue would you most like the next Congress to act on in 2019? (open-end) Total Democrats Independents Republicans
Immigration/Border security 21% 10% 22% 41%
Health care 20 27 21 11
Gun control/legislation 8 13 4 8
Tax reform 4 2 7 8
Education 4 7 2 –
Note: Only top five responses shown. Question asked of half sample.
COST AND AFFORDABILITY CONTINUES TO DOMINATE HEALTH CARE PRIORITIES

When asked which health care issue they would most like to see the next Congress act on in 2019, more Americans offer issues around health care affordability and cost (19 percent) than other health care issues including the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA) (10 percent) or Medicare (6 percent). Health care affordability and cost are also the most frequently mentioned health care issues by Democrats (14 percent), independents (25 percent), and Republicans (17 percent). The ACA is the second most frequently mentioned health care issue among partisans, with Democrats saying they want to see Congress “protecting or improving the ACA” while Republicans say they want to see the next Congress “repealing the ACA.” Independents are divided on this issue, with similar shares saying they want to see Congress repealing and protecting the 2010 health care law.

Figure 3: Cost And Affordability Top Public’s Health Care Priorities For Next Congress

Figure 3: Cost And Affordability Top Public’s Health Care Priorities For Next Congress

While there appears to be consensus among the public on what health care issue they want to see Congress work on next year, not quite one-third are confident that Democrats and Republicans in Congress will be able to work together on bipartisan legislation to address the health care issues facing the country. In fact, seven in ten say they are either “not very confident” (34 percent) or “not at all confident” (35 percent) that Congress will be able to work on such bipartisan legislation, while fewer are confident, either “very confident” (six percent) or “somewhat confident” (24 percent), in Congress being able to work together.

Figure 4: Less Than One-Third Are Confident Congress Can Work Together To Address Health Care Issues Facing The Country

Figure 4: Less Than One-Third Are Confident Congress Can Work Together To Address Health Care Issues Facing The Country

Democrats are slightly more confident in the ability of Democrats and Republicans in Congress to be able to work together on bipartisan health care legislation (41 percent) compared to independents (27 percent) and Republicans (19 percent); yet, a majority across party identification say they are either “not very confident” or “not at all confident” (58 percent, 72 percent, and 79 percent, respectively).

The Future of the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid Expansion

The 2018 midterm elections have major implications for both the future of the 2010 health care law known as the Affordable Care Act (ACA) as well as one of its most popular provisions – individual state’s expansion of the Medicaid program for low-income people.

The Affordable Care Act

With Democrats regaining a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives for the first time since 2010, and without continued efforts among Republicans to repeal the ACA, the latest KFF Tracking Poll finds a slight uptick in the public’s view of the law with 53 percent saying they view law favorably compared to four in ten who have an unfavorable view of the law. This slight shift is largely driven by Democrats with about eight in ten saying they have a favorable opinion of the law, including about half (48 percent) who have a “very favorable” view. Similarly, three-fourths of Republicans (76 percent) continue to view the law unfavorably with more than half (54 percent) saying they have a “very unfavorable” opinion of the law.

Figure 5: Post-Election Tracking Poll Finds Slight Uptick in ACA Favorability, Largely Driven By Democrats

Figure 5: Post-Election Tracking Poll Finds Slight Uptick in ACA Favorability, Largely Driven By Democrats

AMERICANS CONTINUE TO HOLD FAVORABLE OPINIONS OF ACA PROVISIONS

Similar to previous KFF Tracking Polls, many of the ACA’s provisions continue to be quite popular, even across party lines. A majority of the public – regardless of party identification – hold favorable views of all of the ACA’s provisions with one exception (fewer than half of Republicans say they have a favorable opinion of the Medicare payroll tax increases on earnings for upper-income Americans).

Table 2: Americans’ Opinions of ACA Provisions
Percent who say they have a FAVORABLE opinion of each of the following provisions of the law: Total Democrats Independents Republicans
Allows young adults to stay on their parents’ insurance plans until age 26 82% 90% 82% 66%
Creates health insurance exchanges where small businesses and people can shop for insurance and compare prices and benefits 82 91 78 71
Provides financial help to low- and moderate-income Americans who don’t get insurance through their jobs to help them purchase coverage 81 92 82 63
Gradually closes the Medicare prescription drug “doughnut hole” so people on Medicare will no longer be required to pay the full cost of their medications 81 85 82 80
Eliminates out-of-pocket costs for many preventive services 79 88 78 68
Gives states the option of expanding their existing Medicaid program to cover more low-income, uninsured adults 77 91 77 55
Requires employers with 50 or more employees to pay a fine if they don’t offer health insurance 69 88 61 56
Prohibits insurance companies from denying coverage because of a person’s medical history 65 70 66 58
Increases the Medicare payroll tax on earnings for upper-income Americans 65 77 69 42
Note. Some items asked of half samples.

In previous KFF Health Tracking Polls, one of the ACA’s provisions – the individual mandate which required nearly all Americans have health insurance or pay a fine – was consistently viewed unfavorably by a majority of the public. As part of the federal tax bill passed in 2017, Congress zeroed out the dollar amount and percentage of income penalties imposed by the individual mandate. Overall, three in ten Americans (31 percent) are aware that Congress has gotten rid of the penalty for not having health insurance, while four in ten (38 percent) incorrectly say Congress has not gotten rid of this penalty and an additional three in ten (31 percent) are unsure. The results are similar among those under 65 years old who either buy their own insurance or are currently uninsured with three in ten (31 percent) aware Congress has gotten rid of the penalty for not having health insurance.

Figure 6: Most Americans Are Not Aware Congress Has Gotten Rid Of The Penalty For Not Having Health Insurance

Figure 6: Most Americans Are Not Aware Congress Has Gotten Rid Of The Penalty For Not Having Health Insurance

Medicaid Expansion

Three states (Idaho, Nebraska, and Utah) voted during the 2018 election to expand their Medicaid program to cover more low-income residents, bringing the total number of states that have expanded their Medicaid programs to 37 states including Washington, D.C. Overall, about three-fourths of the public – including 77 percent of those living in non-expansion states – have a favorable view of the ACA’s provision that gives states the option of expanding their existing Medicaid program to cover more low-income, uninsured adults. In addition, a majority (59 percent) of those living in non-expansion states would like to see their state expand Medicaid to cover more low-income uninsured people while one-third (34 percent) say they want to see their state keep Medicaid as it is today. A majority of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say they want to see their state expand Medicaid (84 percent) while most Republicans and Republican-leaning independents want to see their state keep Medicaid as it is today (65 percent).

Figure 7: Majority Of Residents In Non-Expansion States Want Their State To Expand Their Medicaid Programs

Figure 7: Majority Of Residents In Non-Expansion States Want Their State To Expand Their Medicaid Programs

Among those living in states without Medicaid expansion who want to see their state expand their Medicaid program, nearly nine in ten (51 percent of all residents living in non-expansion states) say that if their governor and state government choose not to expand Medicaid, voters themselves should be able to decide if their state expands Medicaid.

The ACA’s 2019 Open Enrollment Period

The ACA’s sixth open enrollment period for individuals who purchase health plans on their own began on November 2, 2018 and closes in most states on December 15, 2018.1 According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, as of November 21, 2018, 1.9 million people have signed up for insurance through the federal marketplace, which is slightly less than in previous years.2

The most recent KFF Tracking Poll finds a majority of the group most directly affected by open enrollment (those 18-64 years old who either purchase their own insurance or are currently uninsured) are unaware of the current open enrollment deadlines. About one-fourth (24 percent) of this group is aware of the current deadline to buy insurance for 2019 while six in ten (61 percent) say they “do not know” the deadline and 16 percent either offer the wrong date, incorrectly say there is no deadline or that the deadline has passed, or refuse to answer the question.

Figure 8: About One-Fourth Of Those Who Buy Their Own Insurance Or Are Uninsured Know Current Open Enrollment Deadline

Figure 8: About One-Fourth Of Those Who Buy Their Own Insurance Or Are Uninsured Know Current Open Enrollment Deadline

Slightly less than half (45 percent) of those 18-64 who either purchase their own insurance or are currently uninsured, say they have heard or seen any ads in the past thirty days from an insurance company attempting to sell health insurance. Fewer – about three in ten (31 percent) say they have heard or seen any information about how to get health insurance under the health care law.

IT IS STILL UNCLEAR HOW TWO MAJOR CHANGES TO ACA MARKETPLACES WILL AFFECT OPEN ENROLLMENT

This year’s open enrollment period has two major changes brought about by Republicans and President Trump’s administration: the removal of the penalty for not having health insurance and the introduction of short-term health insurance plans. About half of 18-64 year olds who buy their own insurance or are currently uninsured say they plan to buy their own insurance in 2019, despite the elimination of the fine for people who don’t have health insurance, while four in ten (42 percent) say they will choose to go without coverage in 2019.

Figure 9: Unclear How Changes To Individual Mandate Penalty And New Short-Term Plans May Affect Open Enrollment

Figure 9: Unclear How Changes To Individual Mandate Penalty And New Short-Term Plans May Affect Open Enrollment

One option available to those who buy their own insurance that would not have satisfied the ACA individual mandate in previous years are short-term health insurance plans. These plans cost significantly less than ACA-compliant plans but provide fewer benefits and may not pay for care for some pre-existing medical conditions.3 About one-fifth (21 percent) of those under the age of 65 who buy their own insurance or are currently uninsured say that if they had the opportunity, they would want to purchase a short-term plan. Seven in ten say they would either continue going without coverage or keep the plan they have now.

Public Support Trump Administration’s Actions on Prescription Drug Advertisements, Divided on Actions Aimed at Women’s Health and Pre-Existing Coverage

In recent months, the Trump administration has announced several actions aimed at different aspects of the U.S. health care system. The most recent KFF Tracking Poll finds the public supports the Trump administration’s proposed actions on prescription drug advertisements, even after hearing counter-arguments. The public is more divided on the administration’s actions on women’s health and protections for people with pre-existing conditions.

PRESCRIPTION DRUG ADVERTISEMENTS

Earlier this year, President Trump announced a series of ideas aimed at lowering the price of prescription drugs. One of its key elements is to require drug manufacturers to publish list prices for their prescription drugs in television advertisements. About three-fourths (77 percent) favor the federal government requiring prescription drug advertisements to include a statement about how much the drug costs. In a rare instance of bipartisanship, this policy proposal is supported by a majority of Democrats (80 percent), independents (74 percent) and Republicans (77 percent).

Figure 10: Large Shares, Regardless Of Party, Favor Requiring Prescription Drug Advertisements To Include Pricing Information

Figure 10: Large Shares, Regardless Of Party, Favor Requiring Prescription Drug Advertisements To Include Pricing Information

After President Trump announced this proposal, there was some debate about how this could be implemented with opponents saying that since people often pay different prices for the same drug based on the type of insurance they have, including a price in a drug advertisement could be confusing to consumers. About one-fifth of those who originally supported this proposal change their minds after hearing this counter-argument, leaving a slight majority of the public (53 percent) continuing to support this proposal. On the other side of the debate, nearly half of those (7 percent of total) who originally opposed this proposal change their minds after hearing that putting the price of a drug in an advertisement would put pressure on drug companies to lower their prices.

Figure 11: Majority Of The Public Continue To Favor Putting Prices In Drug Advertisements Even After Hearing Counter-Arguments

Figure 11: Majority Of The Public Continue To Favor Putting Prices In Drug Advertisements Even After Hearing Counter-Arguments

EMPLOYER EXEMPTION FROM COVERING BIRTH CONTROL

On November 15, 2018, the Trump Administration issued final regulations expanding the types of employers that may be exempt from the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) contraceptive coverage requirement to all nonprofit and closely-held for-profit employers with objections to contraceptive coverage based on religious beliefs or moral convictions, including private institutions of higher education that issue student health plans.4 Overall, six in ten (57 percent) of the public, including most women, oppose allowing employers to be exempt from the requirement to cover the full cost of prescription birth control in their plans if they object to it for religious or moral reasons.

Figure 12: Majorities Across Groups – Except For Republicans – Oppose Allowing Employers To Be Exempt From Covering Birth Control

Figure 12: Majorities Across Groups – Except For Republicans – Oppose Allowing Employers To Be Exempt From Covering Birth Control

Few individuals, on either side of the debate, change their minds about employers being exempt from covering the cost of prescription birth control for religious or moral reasons after hearing counter-arguments. About one-fourth (9 percent of total) change their minds and now oppose employer exemptions after hearing that this means some women would not be able to afford birth control. On the other side of the argument, one in eight (7 percent of total) now favor this exemption if they heard that some business owners feel like they are being forced to pay for a benefit that violates their religious or moral beliefs.

Figure 13: Few, On Either Side Of Debate, Change Minds About Employer Birth Control Coverage After Hearing Counter-Arguments

Figure 13: Few, On Either Side Of Debate, Change Minds About Employer Birth Control Coverage After Hearing Counter-Arguments

PROTECTIONS FOR PEOPLE WITH PRE-EXISTING MEDICAL CONDITIONS

In June 2018, President Trump’s administration announced – as part of a lawsuit known as Texas v. United States, brought by 20 Republican state attorneys general – it will no longer defend the ACA’s protections for people with pre-existing medical conditions. These provisions prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage based on a person’s medical history (known as guaranteed issue), and prohibit insurance companies from charging those with pre-existing conditions more for coverage (known as community rating). The impending suit, Texas v. United States, will decide, among other things, whether both of these protections are unconstitutional and if they will be deemed invalid beginning on January 1, 2019.

The majority of the public say it is “very important” to them that the ACA’s provisions protecting those with pre-existing conditions remain law even after hearing that these protections may have led to increased insurance costs for some healthy people. Sixty-five percent of the public say it is “very important” to them that the provision that prohibits health insurance companies from denying coverage because of a person’s medical history remains law. An additional fifth (22 percent) say it is “somewhat important” this provision remains law. Similarly, about six in ten say it is “very important” that the provision that prohibits health insurance companies from charging sick people more remains law, while an additional one in five (22 percent) say it is “somewhat important.”

Figure 14: Majorities Say Pre-Existing Condition Protections Are Very Important To Them

Figure 14: Majorities Say Pre-Existing Condition Protections Are Very Important To Them

If the judge ruling on Texas v. United States decides the ACA’s protections for people with pre-existing conditions are unconstitutional, a majority of the public – including 87 percent of Democrats, 67 percent of independents, and about half of Republicans – say they would want their state to establish protections for people with pre-existing health conditions, even if this means some healthy people may pay more for coverage.

Figure 15: Majorities Say They Would Support State Action If ACA’s Pre-Existing Condition Protections Are Ruled Unconstitutional

Figure 15: Majorities Say They Would Support State Action If ACA’s Pre-Existing Condition Protections Are Ruled Unconstitutional

 

 

Is Obamacare Constitutional? The Battle Begins Again

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

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2018/09/05/Obamacare-Constitutional-Battle-Begins-Again

 

The debate over the Affordable Care Act entered a new phase Wednesday as a federal court in Texas began hearing oral arguments in a lawsuit brought by 20 Republican-led states challenging the constitutionality of the 2010 law.

Eighteen Republican state attorneys general and two GOP governors bringing the suit argue that the law’s individual mandate was rendered unconstitutional when Congress lowered the penalty for individuals who don’t buy coverage to zero.

The Supreme Court, in upholding the law in 2012, deemed that penalty a tax and thus a valid and legal exercise of Congress’ power of the purse. The lawsuit claims that the law is no longer constitutional because the zeroed-out penalty can no longer raise revenue. “It’s nothing but a hollow shell because its core has been invalidated,” said Misha Tseytlin, Wisconsin’s solicitor general.

The plaintiffs also claim that this means the entire ACA — and, in particular, its protections for patients with pre-existing conditions looking to buy insurance — must be struck down because the mandate can’t be severed from the rest of the law. The Trump Justice Department decided not to defend the ACA in the case.

What a Kavanaugh Confirmation Might Mean

The case, which legal experts see as a long shot, may still wind up before the Supreme Court — which is why Democrats have brought up Obamacare and its protections for patients with pre-existing conditions in this week’s confirmation hearing for Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump’s nominee to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy.

“Kavanaugh has signaled in private meetings with Senate Democrats that he is skeptical of some of the legal claims being asserted in the latest GOP-led effort to overturn the Affordable Care Act,” the Los Angeles Times’ Jennifer Haberkorn reported last week. Three Democrats in the meetings told the Times that Kavanaugh suggested that if one piece of the law is struck down, the rest of the law doesn’t necessarily have to fall with it.

But that may not be enough to assuage Democratic fears that Kavanaugh could be the deciding Supreme Court vote against Obamacare. “Democrats are more concerned about Kavanaugh’s past writings on expansive presidential powers, which they say could lead to his supporting efforts by the Trump administration to dismantle the health-care law without Congress,” The Washington Post’s Colby Itkowitz notes.

Where Public Opinion Stands

The political debate over Obamacare has shifted as public perception of the law has improved. The latest Kaiser Family Foundation tracking poll, released Wednesday, finds that 50 percent now view the law favorably while 40 percent see it unfavorably, with the divide still falling along partisan lines. Just under 80 percent of Democrats support the law, while a similar percentage of Republicans oppose it.

That may be why Republicans still view repealing the law as a potent issue with their base. Vice President Mike Pence, in Wisconsin last week to campaign for Senate candidate Leah Vukmir, said the GOP push to repeal and replace the health care law was still alive: “We made an effort to fully repeal and replace Obamacare and we’ll continue, with Leah Vukmir in the Senate, we’ll continue to go back to that,” he told reporters. With Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) replacing John McCain, a critical vote against the GOP’s 2017 Obamacare repeal bill, there has been chatter about another potential repeal effort — though Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell effectively shot that down on Wednesday.

In the meantime, open enrollment on the ACA exchanges is set to begin on November 1, with the Trump administration once again providing reduced funding for outreach groups that help people enroll. A recent report by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office criticized the administration’s management of Obamacare signup periods.

Priced Out of Health Insurance, Americans Rig Their Own Safety Nets

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

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-08-22/priced-out-of-health-insurance-americans-rig-their-own-safety-nets

Risking It: Stories From America's Uninsured

Consumers frustrated by high costs are bypassing the bureaucracy with patchwork plans.

When their son Sky was born four years ago, Lindsie and Chris Bergevin were hit with a big surprise: $7,000 in bills for the birth that their health plan didn’t cover. Sky was two when the couple jettisoned their medical insurance, which helped them eventually pay off the debt.

Now that they’re ready to have a second child, they’re not going back to their old coverage, with its premiums of more than $350 a month. Instead, they’ve patched together an alternative through a religious group and a primary-care doctor whom they can visit anytime for a monthly fee.

“I was so jaded with the whole health-care insurance situation,” Lindsie, 35, says. “I just didn’t want to deal with it.”

The Bergevins, who rent a snug little house near downtown Boise, Idaho, are joining a small but growing number of Americans rigging their own medical safety nets. They’re frustrated by the high costs, opaque pricing, and maddening bureaucracy of health insurance.

In their quest for a different way, they’re meeting doctors like Julie Gunther who are also fed up. These physicians have opted to reject insurance, instead charging patients directly in return for more personalized care.

“I like to think we can protect people in vulnerable moments where they’re going to get lost like a widget,” Gunther said, “because they’re not a widget for us.”
We Want to Hear Your Insurance Story:

Bloomberg News wants to hear about being uninsured in America in 2018 and what it means to you.
Please click here to tell us your story.

Bloomberg News is following people who are uninsured in a year-long effort to tell the story of Americans struggling to afford the rising costs of health care, and the financial and medical trade-offs they make.

No reliable data exist on how many people are replacing insurance with arrangements like the Bergevins’, but the trend appears to be gaining momentum.
The number of people joining so-called health-care sharing ministries—religion-based cost-sharing plans—rose 74 percent from 2014 to 2016, according to the latest Internal Revenue Service data. An alliance for the groups said that more than 1 million people now participate in such programs. Similarly, primary-care clinics like the one Julie Gunther started in 2014 have grown to almost 900 from just a handful in the early 2000s, according to the Direct Primary Care Coalition, a trade group for the clinics.

The number of people without traditional insurance is expected to increase. The Trump Administration lifted the Affordable Care Act’s penalty for those who go without insurance, while also encouraging the growth of lightly regulated products such as short-term health plans. Proponents of Obamacare fear the administration’s actions will draw healthy people out of the ACA marketplaces, raising costs for those who remain.

Though the ACA expanded coverage to 19 million Americans, some of those gains are reversing. About 28 million remain uninsured. A study by the Kaiser Family Foundation, a health-research nonprofit, determined that most uninsured families simply found health insurance too expensive.

The Bergevins are one of those families.
Lindsie is a freelance graphic designer who focuses on clients in the craft industry. Chris, 34, is a supervisor at the auto shop the Bergevins jointly own with another couple. Though the business is growing, things were tight enough that Chris didn’t draw a salary until last summer. Last year, the couple took home from $40,000 to $50,000, after taxes.

In 2014, when Lindsie was pregnant with Sky, the couple still had coverage through her job at the Idaho Statesman newspaper.
A calculator on her Aetna health plan’s website estimated the Bergevins would need to pay about $3,000 or $4,000 out-of-pocket for Sky’s birth. When the total bill came, the sum for prenatal care, hospital costs, anesthesia, and other care was triple the estimate.

They were still paying off Sky’s birth in 2016 when Lindsie had surgery to remove her tonsils and correct a deviated septum, leaving them with several thousands of dollars more in bills.

She put the sum on a CareCredit medical credit card and is paying $300 each month toward that debt.
As the couple thought more about it, maintaining their coverage made little sense. They were falling deeper into medical debt, despite having insurance which itself cost thousands of dollars a year. In 2016, Lindsie left her newspaper job to devote herself full-time to her thriving freelance design business—and they went uninsured.

“I couldn’t justify it,” she says. The cheapest policy she could find through the Affordable Care Act, she recalls, was $547 a month—more than half the family’s $875 monthly rent at the time. It had a high deductible that could leave them with out-of-pocket costs of more than $10,000.

“If something were to happen to us, we would have been in trouble,” she acknowledges. To hedge, the couple bought an inexpensive accident policy from Aflac that would cover some costs from an injury if, for example, Chris hurt himself working.

A friend told them about a small primary-care clinic called SparkMD less than a mile from their house. The doctors didn’t accept insurance. Instead, they charged a monthly fee of $130 per family. That allowed visits as needed without any limits. When Lindsie went to check it out, a physician began with an in-depth conversation about the family’s health.

“It was amazing. She sat down with me for an hour and talked about everything,” Lindsie says.

Gunther, the Bergevins’ new physician, had long wanted to be a family doctor in her hometown. Working for a large hospital system, though, she was soon chafing under a bureaucracy that seemed to make too many of her clinical decisions for her, down to what tools and equipment she could use. Even worse, Gunther was paid based on her volume of patients and services billed.

She saw patients in 15-minute intervals and says she felt like a factory line worker. She’d later joke that she spent longer waiting in line for her morning coffee than she did with a patient.

“I was saying ‘I’m sorry’ all the time,” Gunther, 42, recalls. “I’m sorry I’m late, I’m sorry this didn’t get called in, I’m sorry this got forgotten, I’m sorry they didn’t give me the message.”

Burned out, she quit her job in 2014 and started her own practice. She borrowed about $200,000 to renovate an old red-brick law office on a leafy corner of downtown Boise, a few blocks from one of the city’s big hospital campuses.

Along with a nurse practitioner and a small office staff, she cares for about 600 patients. A typical primary-care doctor carries at least double or triple that load. More than half of Gunther’s patients have health insurance, often in high-deductible plans. Others are small business owners like the Bergevins. Most are disenchanted with the health-care system.

Last year, Lindsie Bergevin had a bad fever and what she described as “the worst pain I think I ever had in my head.” She called Gunther at 9:30 p.m. on a Saturday. Gunther met her at the clinic 15 minutes later. “She’s like, ‘Girl, you have a double ear infection, and the worst I’ve ever seen.’”

Bergevin walked out with an antibiotic and says that if Gunther hadn’t seen her, she would’ve gone to the emergency room, which could have resulted in a bill for hundreds or thousands of dollars.

Gunther tells her patients that belonging to her practice is not a replacement for having health insurance.

“There’s a whole bunch of things I can’t take care of,” Gunther says. “If you’re not standing upright, or bleeding doesn’t stop, do not call me.”

In April, knowing that they wanted to conceive this year, the Bergevins paid to join a Christian nonprofit called Liberty HealthShare. Organizations like Liberty, sometimes called faith-based plans, help like-minded members share some medical costs. To join, members must pledge to adhere to Christian principles. They are required to make fixed payments each month, and the money is disbursed to cover health-care needs for other families.

Though health-sharing ministries function like insurance in some ways, they aren’t regulated by states, don’t have capital requirements to protect against large losses and don’t have to adhere to rules about minimum benefits. They decline to cover medical expenses that result from behavior they deem immoral. They won’t pay medical costs for a drunk driver in a car crash, for example, or for contraception.

There are other restrictions too: Liberty limits coverage of pre-existing conditions for up to three years, according to its guidelines. Members can also get bounced for “failure to fully disclose known or suspected pre-existing condition information” when they join. Those limits are part of the reason why they’re cheaper—and potentially riskier.

The Bergevins originally expected to pay $450 per month for Liberty. Because Lindsie is overweight, they pay a surcharge of $80 per month—a fee regulated insurers are barred from charging. When they joined, their plan had an “annual unshared amount”—the equivalent of a deductible—of $1,500. Two months later, they learned that amount would increase to $2,250. Lindsie wasn’t thrilled, but she calls it “a ton cheaper than a typical deductible.” And on the plus side, Liberty would reimburse them for some of the cost of membership in SparkMD.

In early June, Lindsie sat at her kitchen table with a stack of medical bills going back four years. Sky ran in from the living room, where Dr. Seuss cartoons played on the TV, looking for dessert before he  finished his dinner.

The Bergevins’ improvised plan has pros and cons. They didn’t have to pay premiums for almost two years while they were uninsured, easing their finances significantly while their businesses grew. They love the personalized care they get from Gunther. And their costs for having another child should be capped at a lower level under the Liberty plan.

But between Liberty and SparkMD, the Bergevins pay more than they did for health coverage through Lindsie’s old job, and, she estimates, about as much as Obamacare insurance would cost. The family is still exposed to considerable risk. Liberty caps reimbursements at $1 million—a limit that insurance companies can’t impose. They have two friends who have had cancer, and, Chris says, “a million’s definitely not enough.”

The Bergevins have their fingers crossed that their choices will allow them to expand their family without incurring the kind of debt that Sky’s birth and Lindsie’s surgery left them with. But they know their improvised approach isn’t for everyone.

“It’s not like I’m trying to say, just go without insurance,” Lindsie says. “You have to find something that’s going to work for you.”

Senate GOP Tax Cut Bill Heads To Full Senate With Individual Mandate Repeal

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

https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20171117.748105/full/

November 19 Update: Distributional Effects Of Individual Mandate Repeal

Late in the day of November 17, 2017, the Congressional Budget Office released a letter it had sent to Senator Ron Wyden, ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, on the Distributional Effects of Changes in Spending Under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act as of November 15, 2017 as they are affected by repeal of the Affordable Care Act’s Individual Responsibility Provision. The letter updated the analysis the JCT had released on November 15 of the distributional effects of the Tax Act that had focused solely on the effects of the legislation on revenues and refundable tax credits. The update also addressed changes the repeal of the mandate would cause in other federal expenditures, including cuts in Medicaid, cost-sharing reductions (which CBO sees as mandatory spending and thus includes in its analysis), and Basic Health Program spending, as well as increases in Medicare disproportionate share hospital payments.

The analysis concludes that under the Tax Bill, federal spending allocated to people with incomes below $50,000 a year would be lower than it would otherwise have been over the next decade. For example, CBO projects federal spending for people with incomes under $10,000 will be $9.7 billion less in 2027 than it otherwise would have been, spending on people with incomes from $10,000 to $20,000 will be $9.8 billion less; spending on people with incomes from $20,000 to $30,000 will be $8.7 billion less, spending on people with incomes from $30,000 to $40,000 will $3 billion less; and spending on people with incomes from $40,000 to $50,000 will be $1.2 billion less. The CBO calculated these figures by calculating the number of people who are projected to drop Medicaid enrollment in each income category and their average Medicaid cost considering age, income, disability status, and whether they gained coverage under the ACA.

More controversially, the CBO determined that individuals with incomes above $50,000 would benefit from the repeal. People with incomes between $100,000 and $200,000 would receive $1.7 billion more and people with incomes over $1 million would receive $440 million more. These increases are due to the increased expenditures on Medicare that will result from the bill, half of which the CBO distributed evenly across the population and half of which it allocated in proportion to each tax filing unit’s share of total income. As the increased Medicare disproportionate share payments are in fact paid directly to providers to cover their costs for serving the uninsured, who will predominantly be low-income, this seems to be an odd way to allocate these expenditures, although it is apparently standard CBO cost allocation practice, and ensuring that hospitals are not overwhelmed by bad debt does benefit people from all income categories.

The CBO specifies that it only considered the cost of the spending or spending reduction to the government, not the value placed on that spending by the recipients of the coverage it would purchase. A person who fails to enroll in Medicaid because the mandate is dropped is unlikely to value it at its full cost. Moreover, and importantly, the CBO did not take into account the cost of the mandate repeal to those who will feel it most acutely—individuals who are purchasing coverage in the individual market without subsidies who will face much higher premiums if the mandate is repealed.

The CBO also failed to consider the medical costs that will be incurred by individuals who drop health insurance coverage or the costs to society generally of a dramatic increase in the number of the uninsured.

Original Post

On November 16, 2017, the Senate Finance Committee approved by a party-line 14-to-12 vote a tax cut bill that will now be sent to the full Senate. The bill includes a repeal of the penalty attached to the Affordable Care Act (ACA)’s individual responsibility provision. This provision requires individuals who do not qualify for an exemption to obtain minimum essential coverage or pay the penalty.

A “Twofer” For Republicans: Additional Continuing Revenue And Elimination Of The ACA’s Least Popular Provision

The repeal of the individual mandate was included in the tax bill for two reasons. First, the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT­) scored the repeal as reducing the deficit by $318 billion over ten years. This repeal would provide enough savings, including continuing savings in years beyond 2027, to allow Republicans to permanently reduce the corporate tax rate without increasing the deficit by more than $1.5 trillion or otherwise violating budget reconciliation requirements. Second, it would allow Republicans to get rid of the least popular provision of the ACA, making up in part for their failing to repeal the ACA despite a summer of efforts.

The savings that will supposedly result from the repeal of the individual mandate come entirely from individuals losing health coverage which the federal government would otherwise help finance.  A cost estimate released by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) on November 8, 2017 projected that repeal of the mandate would cause 13 million individuals to lose coverage by 2017, including five million individual market enrollees, five million Medicaid recipients, and two to 3 million individuals with employer coverage.

The CBO estimated that this loss of coverage would result in reductions over ten years of $185 billion in premium tax credits and $179 billion in Medicaid expenditures and a change in other revenues and outlays of about $62 billion, primarily attributable to increased taxes imposed on people who would lose employer coverage. (The increases would be offset by $43 billion in lost individual mandate penalty payments and a $44 billion increase in Medicare disproportionate share hospital payments to hospitals that bore the burden of caring for more uninsured patients.)

The total reduction in the federal deficit, in the opinion of the CBO, would be $338 billion over ten years. (The difference between the $318 billion in savings in the JCT tax bill score and the $338 billion in the earlier CBO/JCT individual mandate repeal cost estimate is presumably due to the fact that the Finance bill would only repeal the mandate penalty, not the mandate itself, and some individuals would presumably continue to comply with the mandate even without the penalty because it is legally required.) The JCT also projects that the repeal of the mandate will effectively result in a tax increase for individuals with incomes below $30,000 a year because of the loss of tax credits that will accompany the loss of coverage, further tipping the benefits of the tax cut bill toward the wealthy.

Behind The Coverage Loss Estimate

At first glance, the estimate that 13 million would lose coverage from the repeal of the mandate, including five million who would give up essentially free Medicaid, seems improbable.  Moreover, supporters of the tax bill contend that no one would be forced to give up coverage—coverage losses would all be voluntary. And, the argument continues, most of the people who are now paying the mandate penalty earn less than $50,000 a year, so repeal of the mandate will in fact be beneficial to lower-income individuals.

In fact, the CBO’s estimates of coverage losses (and budget savings) may be too high. The November 8 CBO estimates were lower than earlier estimates, and the CBO admits that it is continuing to evaluate is methodology for estimating the effect of the individual mandate. There is substantial confusion regarding the mandate requirement. A fifth of the uninsured, according to a recent poll, believe that the individual market is no longer in effect while another fifth do not know whether it is or not. Compliance with the mandate may already be slipping—the Treasury Inspector General reported in April that filings including penalty payments were as of March 31 down by a third from 2015. Part of the potential effect of repeal is already being felt.

Although the mandate repeal would not go into effect until 2019, media coverage will surely cause even further confusion and even more people to drop coverage, likely dampening enrollment for 2018 in the open enrollment period currently underway.

S&P Global released a report on November 16 estimating that only three to five million individuals would lose coverage from the mandate repeal. Coverage losses of this magnitude, however, would only result in savings of $50 to $80 billion over the ten-year budget window, meaning the tax bill would add another $240 to $270 billion to the deficit and put it in violation of the budget reconciliation rules.

Whatever the level of loss of coverage under a mandate repeal, it is reasonable to believe that it would be extensive. The CBO estimated that repeal of the mandate would drive up premiums in the individual market by 10 percent. Without the mandate, healthy individuals would drop out, pushing up premiums for those remaining in the market. Unlike the increases caused by the termination of cost-sharing reduction payments, this increase would likely be loaded onto premiums for plans of all metal levels and onto premiums for enrollees across the individual market, including off-exchange enrollees. Moreover, repeal of the mandate would likely cause another round of insurer withdrawals from the individual market as insurers concluded that the market was just too risky. Insurers left as the lone participant in particular markets without competition to drive down premiums would likely raise their premiums well above 10 percent.

Who Would Have The Most To Lose From A Mandate Repeal?

The biggest losers from a mandate repeal would be individuals who earn more than 400 percent of the federal poverty level and thus bear the full cost of coverage themselves.  These are the farmers, ranchers, and self-employed small business people who have traditionally bought coverage in the individual market. They are also include gig-economy workers and entrepreneurs who have been liberated by the ACA from dead-end jobs with health benefits to pursue their dreams. Their increased premiums might well offset any tax cut they receive under the bill.

If members of these groups are healthy, they might be able to find cheap coverage through short-term policies which the Trump Administration has promised to allow to last longer than the current three month limit and to be renewable. But those policies will not cover individuals with preexisting conditions.  And if healthy individuals are allowed to purchase full-year “short-term” coverage without having to pay an individual mandate penalty, even more healthy people will leave the individual market, driving premiums up even higher as the individual market becomes a high risk pool for individuals not eligible for premium tax credits. As premiums increased, so would premium tax credits, driving up the cost for the federal government.

The CBO estimate that five million will lose Medicaid coverage seems questionable, as Medicaid coverage is essentially free for most beneficiaries. But, particularly in Medicaid expansion states, there is a thin line between individual market and Medicaid eligibility, and many people who apply for individual market coverage find out that they are in fact eligible for Medicaid. Without the mandate, fewer are likely to apply at all. Moreover, Medicaid does not have open enrolment periods—people can literally apply for Medicaid in the emergency room, and many do. Without the mandate many will likely forgo the hassle of applying (or more likely reapplying) for Medicaid and only get covered when they need expensive hospital care. But they will thereby forgo preventive and primary care that could have obviated an emergency room visit or hospitalization.

Finally, in many families, parents are insured in the individual market but children are on Medicaid or CHIP. Without the mandate, the parents may forgo coverage, causing the children to lose coverage as well—and with it access to preventive and primary care.

The Involuntary Impact From ‘Voluntary’ Coverage Losses

Even if these coverage losses are “voluntary,” they will affect many who continue to want coverage. As already noted, as healthy people leave insurance markets, costs will go up for those who remain behind. Some of these will be people who really want, indeed need, coverage but will no longer find it affordable, and who will thus involuntarily lose coverage. Indeed, this effect may extend beyond the individual market. As healthy individuals drop employer coverage, costs may go up for those employees left behind.

Moreover, the voluntarily uninsured will inevitably have auto accidents or heart attacks or find out that they have cancer. Many will end up receiving uncompensated care, undermining the financial stability of health care providers saddled with ever higher bad debt, and driving up the cost of care for the rest of us.

Republican repeal bills offered earlier this year included other approaches to encouraging continuous enrollment—imposing health status underwriting or late enrollment penalties on those who failed to maintain continuous coverage, for example. The tax bill includes no such alternatives, nor could it.  It may be possible that states could step into the gap. Massachusetts, for example, had an individual mandate penalty even before the ACA; it was the model for the ACA. The District of Columbia Exchange Board has recommended that D.C. impose its own individual mandate tax if the federal mandate ceases to be enforced. Perhaps other states will step into the gap. But I am not counting on many doing so.

The individual mandate is there for a reason. It is intended to drive healthy as well as unhealthy individuals into the individual market and thus make coverage of people with preexisting conditions possible. It has been a significant contributor to the record reductions in the number of the uninsured brought about by the ACA. Without the individual mandate, the number of the uninsured would once again rise. Maybe not by 13 million, but nonetheless significantly.

 

California Employer Health Benefits: Prices Up, Coverage Down

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

http://www.chcf.org/publications/2017/03/employer-health-benefits

Employers Offering Coverage, by Firm Characteristics, California, 2016

The majority of Californians rely on their employers for health insurance, but these benefits continue to shrink as the cost to workers continues to rise.

Since 2000, the percentage of employers offering health benefits has declined in California and nationwide, although coverage rates among offering firms have remained stable. Only 55% of California firms reported providing health insurance to employees in 2016, down from 69% in 2000. Implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2014 does not appear to have impacted the overall trend in employer offer rates.

Nineteen percent of California firms reported that they increased cost sharing in the past year, and 27% of firms reported that they were very or somewhat likely to increase employees’ premium contribution in the next year. The prevalence of plans with large deductibles also continues to increase.

How companies are quietly changing your health plan to make you pay more

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

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/09/14/the-quiet-change-to-insurance-plans-thats-making-health-care-more-expensive-for-patients/?_hsenc=p2ANqtz–a1tLHuuWbLDRr3vfl_vZWfJIr1163X7jwzsY9F5bjKZH9j8pjJ07N0ZJpCrTMnoGIXnIr7TqG7dAsJwyjClgznOWyIg&_hsmi=34365867&utm_campaign=CHL%3A%20Daily%20Edition&utm_content=34365867&utm_medium=email&utm_source=hs_email

C-suite feels ripple effect from Medicaid expansion, study says

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

http://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/c-suite-feels-ripple-effect-medicaid-expansion-study-says

Arkansas is one of the four Medicaid expansion states who participated in the study.

Arkansas is one of the four Medicaid expansion states who participated in the study.

Medicaid expansion is making a difference as to whether hospitals are investing in clinics, new equipment and hiring new staff, or looking at the status quo and layoffs, according to a recent report by Georgetown University Health Policy Institute.

Hospitals in Medicaid expansion states have realized a drop in uncompensated care; an increase in institutional financial security; new community efforts to integrate and improve care; and innovative programs to expand access to specialists, according to the study.

CEOs who head hospitals in both expansion and non-expansion states said they saw a drop in uninsured rates in expansion states that was not as dramatic in non-expansion states.

This has translated to a decline in uninsured patient stays by close to 40 percent. Non expansion states reported a decline of 2.9 percent.