http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/blog/2016/dec/2016-health-care-year-in-review
This was a tumultuous year in health care and elsewhere. Wherever we looked, the improbable and unbelievable became true and believable: from Brexit to a President-elect Trump to alleged foreign sabotage of our political institutions. Historians will dissect the remnants of these events for decades. For us, for now, let’s focus on health care, which is plenty.
Healthcare Triage: Republican Plans for The Affordable Care Act
After campaigning for years on a plan of “repeal and replace Obamacare,” Republicans finally have the means within their grasp to make much of that possible. They control the presidency, the House, and the Senate. The filibuster still poses some potential threats to their plans, but it’s also within their means to abolish its widespread use in such a way that they could both repeal the Affordable Care Act and replace it with something of their own design.
What would that be? In contrast to what many say, there are Republican plans out there to consider. They’re the topic of this week’s Healthcare Triage.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/01/price-access/514262/
Why Republicans like HHS nominee Tom Price are emphasizing “universal access” over “universal coverage”
http://khn.org/news/not-turning-back-california-governor-vows-to-protect-states-health-care/
In an unusually impassioned speech, Gov. Jerry Brown vowed Tuesday to protect California’s health care gains under Obamacare against Republican attempts in Washington, D.C., to roll them back.
“More than any other state, California has embraced the Affordable Care Act,” Brown told state legislators and appointees in his annual State of the State address at California’s Capitol. “I intend to join with other Governors and Senators, and with you, to do everything we can to protect the health care of our people.”
Brown said California would not “turn back” on advances it’s made in health coverage under pressure from the new Republican administration in Washington. Under the new federal leadership, he said, the “future is uncertain and dangers abound.”
Health coverage for Californians under the Affordable Care Act “has come with tens of billions of dollars from the federal government,” said Brown. “Were any of that were to be taken away, our state budget would be directly affected, possibly even devastated.”
Leveraging an estimated nearly $20 billion federal money, health coverage has been extended to five million Californians under Obamacare, which includes federally subsidized private health plans and an expansion of eligibility for Medicaid, the program for low-income people — known in this state as Medi-Cal.
http://khn.org/news/health-law-coverage-helped-many-chronically-ill-but-still-left-gaps/
As President Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress devise a plan to replace the 2010 health law, new research suggests a key component of the law helped people with chronic disease get access to health care — though, the paper notes, it still fell short in meeting their medical needs.
Research published Monday in the Annals of Internal Medicine found that the number of chronically ill Americans with insurance increased by about 5 percentage points — around 4 million people — in 2014, the first year the law required Americans to have coverage, set up marketplaces for people to buy coverage and allowed for states to expand eligibility for Medicaid, the federal-state insurance plan for low-income people. If states opted into the Medicaid expansion, people with chronic illnesses such as heart disease, diabetes, depression and asthma were more likely to see those gains.
Still, the study suggests, the law fell short in terms of guaranteeing those people could get medical treatment, see a doctor and afford medications.
https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-affected-by-aca-repeal/31413/
As promised, President Donald Trump on Jan. 20 issued an executive order to undo the Affordable Care Act, or ACA, as his first order of business. Republican senators wasted no time advancing the president’s agenda, either, using a powerful process known as budget reconciliation on Jan. 12 to begin rolling back large sections of the health law. Passage of the resolution followed in the U.S. House of Representatives two days later.
But much of the public as well as members of Congress, including several Republicans, have expressed concern about both the lack of a replacement for the current program and a clear timeline for its implementation — in addition to the cost of repealing the ACA.
Since former president Barack Obama’s signature health-care legislation — more popularly known as “Obamacare” — was passed in 2010, more than 20 million individuals have gained insurance coverage, resulting in the lowest uninsured rate in history by early 2016. Reversal of the law is expected to raise the uninsured rate by an estimated 18 million in the first plan year following repeal, then 32 million by 2026, according to official estimates.
What is clear from the prospect of the ACA’s dissolution is that certain states stand to suffer more than others. In order to assess repeal’s impact on Americans based on where they live, WalletHub’s analysts compared the 50 states and the District of Columbia across seven key indicators of both economic and coverage losses. Our data set ranges from “growth in uninsured population by 2019 post-ACA repeal” to “potential economic impact due to repeal of premium tax credits and Medicaid expansion (2019 to 2023).” Read on for our findings, expert insight and a full description of our methodology.
http://khn.org/news/block-grants-medicaid-faq/
President Donald Trump’s administration made explicit this weekend its commitment to an old GOP strategy for managing Medicaid, the federal-state insurance plan that covers low-income people — turning control of the program to states and capping what the federal government spends on it each year.
It’s called “block granting.” Right now, Medicaid, which was expanded under the 2010 health law to insure more people, covers almost 75 million adults and children. Because it is an entitlement, everyone who qualifies is guaranteed coverage and states and the federal government combine funds to cover the costs. Conservatives have long argued the program would be more efficient if states got a lump sum from the federal government and then managed the program as they saw fit. But others say that would mean less funding for the program —eventually translating into greater challenges in getting care for low-income people.
Block granting Medicaid is a centerpiece of health proposals supported by House Speaker Paul Ryan and Rep. Tom Price, Trump’s nominee to run the Department of Health and Human Services. This weekend, Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway emphasized the strategy as key to the administration’s health policy.
But what would this look like, and why is it so controversial? Let’s break down how this policy could play out, and its implications — both for government spending and for accessing care.
About 27 percent of people under 65 are thought to have some sort of pre-existing condition that will most likely leave them without individual insurance if the law is repealed, according to a recent study. The guarantee of coverage has already become a rallying cry for people who want to keep the law.
The issue “is the third rail” for the Republicans, said Michael Turpin, a longtime health industry executive.
Before the law, a fairly typical life event — like a divorce or the loss of a job — and a relatively minor medical condition could upend a person’s health coverage options. Stories of sick people unable to get coverage when they needed it most were legion.
Mr. Trump insists he wants to keep the pre-existing requirement for insurers, and other top Republicans say people who want coverage should not be turned away. Details about how they will cover people with existing medical conditions have not yet emerged, but many lawmakers have started pushing an idea — known as high-risk pools — that left many people uncovered or with strict limits to their coverage in the past.
The challenge for lawmakers is this: How do you get insurers to cover people who will definitely need costly medical care — and do so without making insurance too expensive for everyone?
Rampaging goats and $10 million mansions: your guide to the weird world of Obamacare rhetoric
The Obamacare repeal effort is just getting underway and already the political wordplay is dizzying. On the GOP side, the rhetoric has gone from “repeal and replace” to “insurance for everybody” to “repair and rebuild.” Meanwhile, Democrats continually warn that the Republicans are trying to “rip apart our health care system.”
To help you keep pace with the debate, we’ve assembled this handy glossary of buzzwords and talking points. Enjoy.
This is the GOP’s attempt to describe its legislative strategy for Obamacare, and an evolution of the phrase “repeal and replace.” As Politico reported Thursday, it is the mantra of Oregon Representative Greg Walden, who is leading the offensive against Obamacare in the House. It is meant to soften the GOP’s tone and suggest the replacement effort will be carefully staged and surgical. It also opens the door to delay tactics if things don’t quickly shape up in the GOP’s favor.
A play on Donald Trump’s campaign slogan, this phrase emerged in early January as Democrats held rallies to generate support for Obamacare. Judging by the nation’s $3.2 trillion tab for health care costs in 2015, a number expected to jump as high as $3.6 trillion this year, it seems clear a lot of us are pretty sick already. But you get the point.
Stability and sustainability in health insurance marketplaces requires a more balanced risk profile for enrollees and rules that are communicated clearly and quickly to payers, according to a new report.
The analysis (PDF), published by the American Academy of Actuaries, examined the state of insurance markets under the Affordable Care Act and noted that, while the law’s implementation did slash uninsured rates, individual marketplace enrollment was lower than anticipated and many enrollees aren’t healthy. To be most effective, the report states that more healthy people need to enroll to help offset the costs of the most ill people.
HENRY KOTULA 