Posts Tagged ‘Kaiser Family Foundation’

« Older Entries

Public Perceives Supreme Court Justices As Biased Over ACA’s Legality

Monday, February 6th, 2012

Approximately 60 percent of Americans believe that the Supreme Court justices who will hear the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) will base their judgments more on personal ideology than a legal analysis of the individual mandate, according to a recent Kaiser Family Foundation poll.

Only 28 percent believe the justices will base their decision on the mandate without regard to politics and ideology.  The poll also asked about general views of the Supreme Court and found that 75 percent of the public believe that justices sometimes let their personal politics sway their decisions.  Seventeen percent said justices more often than not decide cases based on legal analysis.  The court is expected to hear oral arguments in March in a case brought against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) by 26 states.

The Kaiser poll found that the individual mandate, a requirement that most Americans purchase health insurance by 2014 or pay a fine, remains unpopular — 67 percent of Americans opposed the provision and just 30 percent supported it.  Overall, approximately 37 percent of Americans view the health law favorably, while 44 percent have an unfavorable view.

In terms of the “repeal and replace” agenda that House Republicans are pursuing, it’s not really winning over the public.  According to the Kaiser poll, 50 percent of respondents would prefer to expand the law or keep it in place; just 40 percent want to repeal it outright or replace it with an alternative.  That could be a problem, since House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee Chairman Joe Pitts said that a “replace” plan is on the subcommittee’s to-do list, at approximately the same time that the Supreme Court is expected to rule.  Pitts hopes that his caucus will be able to seize the opportunity to sway public opinion: “We’ll have a window of opportunity to — with everyone looking — to explain that the Affordable Care Act is not fully implemented yet.  A lot of people think it is.  So we’ll use that opportunity in that window to discuss the full ramifications of the Affordable Care Act and what we’ll replace it with.”

For example, Justice Elena Kagan (who was Solicitor General at the time the ACA was passed and has recused herself from the Supreme Court case) and noted Supreme Court litigator and Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe, who worked for the Justice Department at the time, had an email exchange in which they discussed the pending healthcare vote.  “I hear they have the votes, Larry!!  Simply amazing,” Kagan wrote to Tribe in an email.

“So healthcare is basically done!” Tribe responded to Kagan.  “Remarkable.  And with the Stupak group accepting the magic of what amounts to a signing statement on steroids!”  The “Stupak group” refers to then-Representative Bart Stupak (D-MI), who masterminded a group of House Democrats who had indicated they would not vote for the ACA if it permitted federal funds to pay for abortions.  Ultimately, Stupak and his allies voted for the bill, even though no additional language was added that would prevent federal funding for abortions.

Writing for KSL.com, contributor Curt Mainwaring muses on what will happen if the Supreme Court upholds the ACA. “If the Supreme Court rules that ACA is constitutional, healthcare costs will likely continue to rise — although at a slower rate than if the law were determined to be unconstitutional.  Healthcare costs currently make up approximately 18 percent of gross domestic product.  If expenditures continue on their current trajectory, ‘the share of GDP devoted to healthcare in the United States is projected to reach 34 percent by 2040.’  In more intimate terms, the Department of Health and Human Services demonstrates individuals paid approximately $1,000 per year in healthcare costs in 1960, more than $7,000 per year in 2007, and are projected to pay more than $13,000 per year by 2018.

“Simply put, this kind of a rise in healthcare costs is unsustainable — and these kinds of projections are part of the reason ACA was created in the first place.  Nevertheless, claims of ACA’s positive impact on the economy have likely been overestimated.  ACA focuses heavily on reducing the cost of health insurance — a factor that will likely result in reduced insurance costs.”

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Healthcare, Hospital Systems, Hospitals | No Comments »

Will Cuts in Healthcare Save the Federal Budget?

Tuesday, December 6th, 2011

Healthcare budget and policy experts are waiting for Washington to eventually face the difficult task of finding even more savings to cut the deficit.  They anticipate that health spending — which makes up more than 20 percent of the federal budget — will be targeted.  Some healthcare leaders are already planning to redirect a debate they’re expecting in 2013.  They hope to prevent spending from being shifted from one part of the system to another.  Jack Lewin, chief executive of the American College of Cardiology, said that proposals to address the basic causes of high healthcare costs have mostly been ignored in Washington.

“We talk about them all the time, but there’s nothing that we’re doing in any of these proposals to get that done,” Lewin said.  “What we would like to get on the table that’s not there is a paradigm shift in thinking about how you control costs.”  According to Thomas Scully, a former Medicare administrator under President George W. Bush and now a senior counsel at Alston & Bird, an Atlanta-based law firm, “There’s going to be a Round Two (of cuts), but after the election, because of the economic pressures exerted by the national debt.”

Proposals include reducing payments to providers; asking beneficiaries to pay more for coverage; and raising the Medicare eligibility age.  The healthcare interests that might take another hit in 2013 want to start planning now.  Several key healthcare leaders – the majority of whom have been through other cost-cutting campaigns — say efforts to reduce spending too often transfer costs from the federal budget and individuals, insurers, doctors and hospitals.

These worries have caused “people from dramatically different quarters to start thinking about what to do to get their hands around this” and redirect the conversation, said Karen Ignagni, president of America’s Health Insurance Plans.  “I’ve been talking to a range of stakeholders about how to work together…to urge policymakers to look at what’s already out there now and build on it.”

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) is one element of this debate.  Administration officials and other supporters of the law say it will help drive down costs through initiatives designed to promote primary care, emphasize on preventive medicine, study treatments to evaluate their effectiveness and rate hospitals and other providers on quality.  Other healthcare authorities counter that the law will not strongly impact costs because its reforms are small and will mature incrementally.

Additionally, the law saves money by cutting Medicare payments to hospitals and other providers; it also places some unwelcome standards on health plans.  For example, insurers cannot reject people with pre-existing conditions, must justify rate increases of 10 percent or more, and send rebates to consumers if they don’t spend a minimum of 80 percent of premiums on healthcare.

Writing in the Washington Post, Drew Altman and Larry Levitt – both with the Kaiser Family Foundation — note that “Healthcare costs are driving people into poverty.  Indeed, if the burden of healthcare expenses were not taken into account, then 10 million fewer people would have been classified as poor.  One of the biggest jumps in poverty under the new method is among people with private health insurance.  We tend to think of such people, most of whom get coverage through their jobs, as being better equipped to handle the cost of getting sick.  But even those who are insured are increasingly vulnerable to high healthcare costs, in no small part because, as costs keep rising, employers have shifted more of the burden onto workers.  The share of employees with an insurance deductible of $1,000 or more for single coverage has tripled in the past five years.  The trend is especially strong among small businesses, where half of workers faced a deductible of at least $1,000 in 2011.  For those on the edge of poverty, a big medical bill could send you over it — even if you have insurance.  The effect of healthcare costs is particularly acute for the elderly, with the proportion of seniors living in poverty increasing from nine percent under the official census measure to 16 percent under the alternative measure.  An astounding 49 percent of seniors are living at or below twice the poverty level, a threshold at which people are still considered low-income (up from 35 percent under the official method).

“It’s up to us to get really serious with the agenda so that, when the time comes after the election, we are prepared to offer serious proposals that deal with costs and that do not impair the quality of care,” said Ron Pollack, executive director of the consumer group Families USA.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in General, Healthcare, Hospital Systems | No Comments »

Employer-Susidized Healthcare Insurance at a New Low

Wednesday, November 23rd, 2011

Fewer than half of  America employers - just 44.5 percent in the 3rd quarter, a decline of more than five percent in three years, — contribute to their employees’ healthcare coverage, according to a Gallup and Healthways Inc., poll.  The firms, which surveyed more than 90,000 adults, blamed the decline on high unemployment, under-employment and an increased number of employers who do not offer health insurance to their workers.

Employer-sponsored health insurance is one of the pillars of the $2.6 trillion U.S. healthcare industry.  Unfortunately, companies have scaled back benefits and raised employee charges to cope with fast-rising healthcare costs and anemic economic growth.  The latest figure was 5.3 percent below the 2008 high of 49.8 percent, when the companies began tracking trends in employer-sponsored health insurance.  “The health insurance system in the United States is experiencing numerous changes.  Governments and businesses have and will continue to cut back and/or reform their health coverage offerings,” according to the pollsters.

There was also an increase in the ranks of those covered by government plans from Medicaid, Medicare and military programs, which was up 2.2 percentage points since 2008 at 25.1 percent but off a 2010 high of 25.7 percent.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, there were 41 million uninsured American adults and 24 million adults under retirement age receiving the Medicaid program for low-income people and other public insurance plans last year.  Medicare covers an estimated 48 million beneficiaries.  The survey found higher levels of health insurance coverage among young people aged 18 to 26, which the pollsters attributed to a provision of the ACA that allows parents to cover grown children under their insurance plans.  Other portions of the law, including tax credits for small businesses, did not appear help those aged 25 to 64, whose uninsured ranks increased.

One large employer cutting back on healthcare coverage is Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest private employer.  Citing rising costs, the retailer told its employees that all future part-time employees who work less than 24 hours a week will no longer be eligible for any of the company’s health insurance plans.  Additionally, new employees who average 24 hours to 33 hours a week will no longer be able to include a husband or wife as part of their healthcare plan, although children can still be covered.  This is a massive shift from a few years ago when Wal-Mart expanded coverage after being criticized because so many of its 1.4 million workers could not afford or did not qualify for coverage — sending many of them to Medicaid.

“Over the last few years, we’ve all seen our healthcare rates increase and it’s probably not a surprise that this year will be no different,” said Greg Rossiter, a Wal-Mart spokesman.  “We made the difficult decision to raise rates that will affect our associates’ medical costs.  The decisions made were not easy, but they strike a balance between managing costs and providing quality care and coverage.”

There’s also some good news on the employer-subsidized healthcare front. Nearly 75 percent of medium-to-large employers plan will continue to offer their workers health insurance once the major provisions of the ACA take effect, according to a survey by consulting firm Towers Watson.  According to the survey of 368 mid-to- large-sized companies, 71 percent plan to continue to offer healthcare benefits to their employees through 2014, the year that everyone will be required to have health insurance and state-based health insurance exchanges will kick off.  Approximately one-third of the companies are not certain if they will continue offering insurance, or, if they stopped providing insurance, whether they would compensate employees by offering pay raises.

“With so much still unknown regarding both the short- and long-term impact of healthcare reform, most employers will not make wholesale changes to employer-sponsored health plans in 2012,” said Ron Fontanetta, senior healthcare consulting leader at Towers Watson.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Healthcare, Hospital Systems | No Comments »

HHS Website Monitors Health Insurance Premium Increases

Monday, October 17th, 2011

Consumers can now select their state on a federal web page to see if any health insurers have raised rates, as well as the company’s reasoning behind the action. This information was previously unavailable, according to Steve Larsen, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) deputy director for oversight (only a few states include rate increases on their own websites).  Now, all insurance companies must file this information with HHS as one directive of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA).  “We are taking a good, hard look at why insurance companies are seeking to raise your rates, why your premiums might be going up, and making sure these decisions are public and justified,” HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said.  “This is just a start, and over time we will be reporting more of these requests.”

The announcement follows a recent survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation that showed premiums for an employer-sponsored plan for a family of four climbing nine percent in 2011.  A report by Barclays Capital Equity Research showed that in the first three months of 2011, 13 of the leading 14 health insurers exceeded their earnings per share estimates; average earnings were 46 percent over estimates.  Insurers who wanted to raise rates 10 percent or more for individual or small group plans are required to provide justification.

At the same time, an advisory group urged officials to create a list of essential health benefits under President Barack Obama’s healthcare overhaul that aligns with the cost of typical small-employer plans.  The Institute of Medicine (IOM) report recommended that HHS be specific in deciding what health benefits should be required in individual and small group plans as the ACA goes into full effect in 2014.  The IOM, one of the National Academies of Science that advises U.S. policymakers, did not address any specific benefits types, in keeping with its assigned task.  “We’re in a marathon.  What we’ve just gotten today is the first leg,” said Paul Keckley, executive director of the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions.

The IOM recommendation favors business groups and insurers who have sought a narrow package of required benefits because of concerns that the plans will cost too much, said Neil Trautwein, vice president for the National Retail Federation.  Government should limit premiums to levels no higher than what small businesses pay on average and choose benefits “within the context of financial constraints,” according to the report.  The recommendation “is the appropriate tack to take since the objective is to cover everyone with at least basic benefits,” Trautwein said.

The issue has seen businesses and patient advocacy groups — such as the American Cancer Society, which argues for robust coverage — at odds with each other.  The ACA requires insurance plans to cover 10 broad categories of care, including hospitalization, mental health and pediatrics starting in 2014 and left details to Obama’s HHS secretary, who has  asked the IOM to recommend the optimal way to select the benefits that should be included in the plans.  Employer lobby groups argue that a generous package of benefits would cause workers to desert company plans, which could have the effect of compelling employers to pay fines and raise premiums as the number of people covered by their health plans decreases.

According to the IOM, Sebelius should start with a package of benefits that mirrors what small businesses offer their employees.  She should set a “premium target” for the benefits that is approximately the same as what small businesses will pay, on average, in 2014.  Next, she should select benefits that meet the target, a process the IOM compared to shopping for groceries under a budget.  “If the package of essential health benefits gets too comprehensive, it quickly becomes unaffordable,” said John Ball, chairman of the institute committee that wrote the report.

Beginning in 2014, every health plan in the new marketplaces known as “exchanges” will have to provide a minimum package of “essential health benefits.”  The IOM report provides federal officials with a framework for devising that package, but doesn’t provide specifics.  “I’m sure a lot of people were expecting to get a list,” said Elizabeth McGlynn, a member of the IOM committee and head of the Kaiser Permanente Center for Effectiveness and Safety Research.  “That was outside of our charge.”

“With this thoughtful report, the IOM is urging policymakers to strike a balance between the affordability of coverage and the comprehensiveness of coverage,” said Karen Ignagni, president and CEO of the health insurance trade group America’s Health Insurance Plans.  “We agree that this balance is critical to ensuring that individuals, working families and small employers can afford health insurance.”  Amanda Austin of the National Federation of Independent Business termed the report “encouraging,” and “pretty thoughtful,” although she believes that HHS still has to do the heavy lifting to write the plans.

Sebelius issued her own statement on the report, saying she will hold “listening sessions” to help people choose what benefits they want included in the mandatory package.  “These conversations will help us ensure that every American can access quality, affordable health coverage they can rely on,” she said.  This seems to suggests to some that a proposal from the department won’t be coming anytime soon.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Healthcare, Hospital Systems | No Comments »

Uninsured Americans Uncertain About Healthcare Reform

Wednesday, September 14th, 2011

Americans have agreed to disagree about the efficacy of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). According to Kaiser Family Foundation President and CEO Drew Altman, Americans agree about this one thing: “It really does help the uninsured; 32 million uninsured people will get coverage.”  The foundation’s recent tracking poll found that only about 50 percent of uninsured people have any idea that help is on the way.  Fewer than one-third (31 percent) think the ACA means they will be able to purchase health insurance.

Those two misperceptions are unmistakably connected.  Among those who currently lack insurance, 41 percent incorrectly think the law has no provisions to help people with modest means buy health insurance coverage; (seven percent said they didn’t know); and 37 percent believe the law doesn’t include an expansion of the Medicaid program to low-income, able-bodied adults; and (16 percent were unsure). 

The logical conclusion, Altman says, is an apparent “communications failure” on the part of the law’s supporters to explain how the ACA will actually work.  “What’s going on here is people who are uninsured are busy just trying to make it through the week, paycheck to paycheck,” he said.  “They’re listening to a confusing political debate.”  But the bottom line, Altman says, is that the healthcare overhaul will eventually start to become clearer in 2014, “when there are benefits out there, real coverage out there that people can look at — and can get.”  That’s when people without insurance will really be able to decide whether they can afford insurance or they like the law or it helps them.  “Until then,” Altman says, “it’s just a political debate.” 

Writing in The Hill, Sam Baker says that “Only 29 percent knew that the law eliminates cost-sharing for some preventive services, and half said the law did not provide that benefit.  The poll was conducted just two weeks after the Health and Human Services Department (HHS) announced that it would require plans to waive cost-sharing for contraception and other women’s health services.  And strong majorities approved of that decision, despite not being aware that the healthcare law includes preventive benefits.  Eliminating cost-sharing for birth control garnered 66 percent support in the Kaiser poll.  Although support was higher among younger respondents than their older counterparts, partisanship was the sharpest fault line.  Fewer than half of Republican respondents approved of HHS’s decision, compared with 64 percent of independents and 82 percent of Democrats.” 

On the Politico website, Jennifer Haberkorn writes that “The coverage expansion isn’t due to go into effect until 2014, but Altman says people are unlikely to be truly aware of the benefits until up to two years later.  The figures reflect the struggle supporters of the law will have in getting the word out to consumers who can benefit from it.   President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats focused much of their ‘pitch’ for the health law on the benefits for the uninsured.  They frequently cited the Congressional Budget Office estimate that the law would insure 32 million Americans.  But since the law’s passage, some have criticized that pitch, insisting that they should have focused instead on the benefits for the middle class and those who already have coverage.  Altman said the figures do not reflect a communications failure.  He says busy people — particularly those struggling to afford insurance now — will only understand the law when it becomes tangible for them.  The law’s least popular provision — the requirement that nearly all Americans have to buy insurance — remains one of its most recognizable.  About 65 percent of Americans know about the provision, the poll found.” 

At the beginning of 2011, any Republican suggestion of “repeal” was nearly always followed by “Obamacare”.  Since then, the debate has drifted into the background, morphing into a new regulatory repeal push.  A memo outlining the strategy, issued by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), includes a single paragraph on a grandfathering rule for health insurance plans that will become a target in the winter.   While Republicans are moving away from a health repeal agenda, Democrats appear to be having a hard time explaining what exactly the ACA will do for Americans.

Despite their best efforts, both political parties see their bases moving away from them on health reform.  The number of Republicans who have a favorable opinion has gone up by nine points, while Democratic approval ratings fell by 10 points.  Independent voters held on to their original opinions, with nearly the same number favoring the ACA was as when it was passed.  Both parties are running up against the same two challenges here. First, the health reform law is really complicated.  Other than “repeal and replace,” the ACA doesn’t lend itself easily to slogans that explain how it works.  This hurdle has been especially thorny for Democrats, who have seen low support for the ACA, despite the fact its individual provisions are polling extremely well.  

Tim Hoff of the Albany Times-Union believes that “Offering health insurance at reasonable prices is a key component of making the reform law cost-effective and able to reach millions of uninsured people.  The logic of getting private insurance companies to participate in state health insurance exchanges and offer good coverage at those reasonable prices predicates itself on having a balanced ‘risk pool’ of individuals in the marketplace — who must purchase health insurance.  Through a mix of healthy and sick purchasers, some who overuse their insurance and some who underuse, private insurers can be assured of not losing money (and thus exiting the market) by signing up only high-risk individuals.

“Without a mandate, many healthy uninsured people, as they tend to do, will continue to roll the dice and go uninsured.  This is even truer for the increasing number of Americans who are out of work or who work for employers who do not provide insurance, but earn too much to qualify for Medicaid.  For them, paying for health insurance is lower on the priority list.  That is, until they get sick,” Hoff said.

“Our country faces what may be an extended economic slump, a severe and perhaps more permanent absence of good jobs, rapid downsizing of the middle class and continued abdication by employers from offering benefits such as health insurance.  Yet, we leave it to lawyers and politicians to engage in armchair debates about what might or might not be ‘constitutional’ instead of supporting our government to do something beneficial that furthers the nation’s long-term health and prosperity.  Insuring every citizen is beneficial for our country.  It would do as much for our long-term future as a just, democratic society as any jobs program or debt reduction strategy would.  We are an increasingly sicker, unequal and less productive country in part because of the declining health and well-being of our citizenry, especially our poorer citizens,” according to Hoff.

 “How do we think we can fix the problem of the uninsured without requiring people to carry health insurance?  In our broken, polarized political system that is devoid of bold ideas, this health reform law and its insurance mandate were the best we could do to get health insurance to more people.  Asking almost everyone — citizens and legal residents — to have health insurance is fair, and subsidizing the poor’s ability to do it sensible.  At some point, everyone uses the health care system.  When the uninsured do, they cost us a lot more than those who are insured.  But the insurance mandate issue also speaks to how those of us with good health insurance often think selfishly about the role of healthcare in our own lives.”

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Healthcare, Hospital Systems | No Comments »

Medicare Changes Would Hit Lower-Income Seniors Hard

Tuesday, August 2nd, 2011

At a time when concern about federal deficits and the national debt are growing,  few quarrel with the need to reform Medicare.  The health insurance program for seniors and people with certain disabilities accounts for 15 percent of the federal budget – in third place behind Social Security and defense spending.  That share is rising as healthcare costs continue to rise and more baby boomers retire, threatening the program’s long-term solvency.

Several of the most prominent solutions under discussion largely derive their savings by shifting a greater share of the cost onto beneficiaries.  The plan sponsored by Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) and passed by the House of Representatives would significantly cut Medicare spending by capping the government’s contribution to the program and transforming it into a system of “premium supports” given to seniors to help subsidize their purchase of private insurance plans, with seniors paying additional costs.  This would double out-of-pocket spending by the average senior to $12,500 each year, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates.

The ability of a majority of seniors to shoulder that burden appears dubious.  Just five percent of Medicare beneficiaries make $80,000 or more, a figure that includes any income from a spouse. For the 47 percent of seniors who are at or close to poverty, on average they are already spending nearly 25 percent of their budgets on healthcare, according to an analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

“There’s this impression that there’s a great deal of wealth among the Medicare population, this image of wealthy seniors playing golf and enjoying their retirement years,” said Tricia Neuman, director of the Kaiser Family Foundation’s Medicare Policy Project.“But while some are lucky to do so, many are living on a fixed income, struggling to make ends meet…with really limited capacity to absorb rising costs.”

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation’s report, raising Medicare’s eligibility to 67 in 2014 would generate an estimated $5.7 billion in net savings to the federal government, but also result in an estimated net increase of $3.7 billion in out-of-pocket costs for 65- and 66-year-olds, and $4.5 billion in employer retiree healthcare costs.  In addition, the study projects that the change would raise premiums by about three percent both for those who remain on Medicare and for those who obtain coverage through health reform’s new insurance exchanges.  The study assumes both full implementation of the health reform law and the higher eligibility age in 2014 in order to estimate the full effect of both the law and the policy proposal.  In the absence of the health reform law, raising Medicare’s age of eligibility would result in an increase in the uninsured, according to other studies, as many older Americans would have difficulty finding affordable coverage in the individual market in the absence of Medicare.  With health reform, virtually all 65- and 66-year-olds would be expected to obtain alternative sources of coverage.”

Healthcare remains a major focus of budget talks on Capitol Hill,Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL) recently told the American College of Surgeons (ACS).  Every group that relies on federal funding should expect a 10 to 20 percent drop in that funding.  When Dr. L.D. Britt, president of the ACS, warned that such cuts could send some healthcare providers into a “tailspin,” Kirk responded that “the tailspin is the U.S. economy.  There is a new audience at play,” Kirk said, referring to U.S. creditors.  “The judgments they render, they are swift and severe.”  Kirk is optimistic that a solution to the country’s debt-ceiling dilemma “will have a way of concluding itself one day before the August 2 deadline.”

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Healthcare, Hospital Systems | No Comments »

CMS Issues Rules for Health Insurance Co-ops

Monday, August 1st, 2011

The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has issued rules impacting the creation of co-ops, or private not-for-profit insurers created by Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  The co-ops will receive funding via $3.8 billion in government loans.  They will be run by consumers and will qualify for start-up loans if they have a high probability of becoming financially viable.  CMS will determine viability based on evaluations of their legal, operational and business plans, according to Richard Popper, director of the Office of Insurance Programs at the CMS.  Additionally, CMS will offer “solvency” loans to provide insurers with the legally and financially required reserves.  The co-ops are intended as non-commercial alternatives for insurance consumers joining the health insurance exchanges that will begin in 2014.  The rules will require that any co-ops’ profits to go to reducing their customers’ costs or improving their care.  “That’s what really makes these plans different and why Congress chose to include these in the Affordable Care Act,” Popper said.

Anyone who is confused about the status of their state’s insurance exchange can take advantage of two excellent resources for clarification.  One is a primer put out by the non-profit Kaiser Family Foundation which answers many basic questions about the online exchanges, where millions of individuals and small businesses will price and compare insurance plans starting in 2014, in clear-cut terms.  Additionally, the Commonwealth Fund provides its own explanation of how the insurance exchanges will work.

“Co-ops will provide consumers with a wider range of choices, greater plan accountability and help ensure a more competitive insurance market,” said Steve Larsen, director of the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight.  This “announcement shows how the Affordable Care Act is bringing new choices and giving consumers a voice in insurance markets throughout the nation.”

The co-ops are structured to increase competition in the insurance market and provide additional options for people and small businesses looking for affordable health insurance.  Their organization is similar to that of credit unions: profits are used to benefit members of the co-op, which can include reducing premiums, improving health benefits, improving the quality of care, expanding enrollment or taking other actions to contribute to stabilizing coverage.

“The co-op program also seeks to promote improved models of care. Existing health insurance cooperatives and other business cooperatives provide possible models for the successful development of Co-ops around the country,” noted the proposed rule.  “One major barrier to continued development of this model has been the difficulty of obtaining adequate capitalization for start- up costs and state reserve requirements.  The Co-op program is designed to help overcome this major barrier to new issuer formation by providing funding for these critical activities.”

Writing on Kaiser Health News, Christopher Weaver says that “The rules would steer a total of $3.8 billion in low-interest loans to groups such as The Evergreen Project in Baltimore, seeking to launch the so-called Consumer Oriented and Operated Plans. The health department hopes at least one ‘co-op’ will launch in each state and anticipates funding a total of 57 around the country.  The strategy is that new health plans run by consumers – most board members would also have to be plan members — would find ways to improve care, rather than boost profits. The new plans, made possible by the seed money, would also compete with established insurers to drive prices down.  The Evergreen Project, named after the coffee shop where its founders held initial meetings, is among a small cadre of groups that are laying the groundwork to launch these nonprofit insurers to care for families and individuals who will be required to buy coverage under the health law — but may be hard pressed to afford it.”

Dr. Peter Beilenson, one of the founders, said The Evergreen Project has already raised $315,000 in foundation grants and completed a 16-month feasibility study.  The members are expecting a report from hired actuaries before applying for the loans to move forward.  The key factor: Could the co-op actually cost less than other insurers?  “We actually think we can bring it in” — meaning the plan’s premium prices — “under Aetna and Coventry,” Beilenson said.

Mike Leavitt,  a former Secretary of Health and Human Services and governor of Utah said that governors need to take the lead in creating health insurance exchanges or the federal government will dictate how the exchanges should be run.  “This is a profoundly important moment for states,” Leavitt said.  “States need to lead.  Too often, we have just deferred this to the federal government, and the federal government needs guidance (from the states) to do it.”  Iowa Governor Terry Branstad said Iowans are “confused and, I think, very upset with what’s going on” with healthcare reform implementation.  According to Branstad, consumers must take “ownership” of their health decisions and the costs.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Healthcare, Hospital Systems | No Comments »

What’s at Stake? Medicaid, Not Medicare

Monday, June 27th, 2011

Seventy percent of Americans oppose cuts to Medicare and 57 percent are against cutting Medicaid, even when they are aware that the programs constitute an outsized weight in the federal deficit.  Of the two wildly popular programs, Medicaid is the most vulnerable.

Writing in the Washington Post about a report from the Kaiser Family Foundation about the health of Medicare and Medicaid, Ezra Klein says “It doesn’t matter whether Eric Cantor says he’s bargaining for the Ryan budget or not.  The GOP cannot privatize and voucherize Medicare.  They can’t even get close.  It’s too easy an issue for Democrats, too dangerous an issue with seniors, and too slipshod a policy even for Michele Bachmann.  The attack on Medicaid, however, is another story.  That one might actually work.  And if it does, it’ll actually be worse.  ‘in-the-know political circles,’ says Chris Jennings, who ran President Bill Clinton’s healthcare reform efforts, ‘it’s just assumed Medicaid is going to be hit.  No one is going to want to touch Medicare.  Medicare is where the political juice is.  But we’re going to need savings.  So that leads to Medicaid.’  There are two reasons Medicaid is more vulnerable than Medicare.  The first is who it serves.  Medicaid goes to two groups of people: the poor and the disabled. Most of the program’s enrollees are kids from poor families, though most of the program’s money is spent on the small fraction of beneficiaries who are disabled and/or elderly.  These groups have one thing in common: They’re politically powerless.”

It’s a little-known fact that Medicaid covers more people than Medicare. In 2010, according to the Department of Health and Human Services, Medicaid covered 53.9 million people, compared with Medicare’s 47.3 million.  Additionally, Medicaid patients are also among society’s most vulnerable.  “Kids (and) pregnant women are the vast majority,” according to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.  “But then older seniors, many of whom are in nursing homes…and very disabled individuals” are also covered by Medicaid.

Although states and the federal government share the cost of Medicaid, what grates on some governors is the rules that come with the money.  “Governors just want flexibility to run our states,” said Republican New Jersey Governor Chris Christie at the annual National Governors Association meeting in February. “We don’t want to pay 50 percent of the cost of Medicaid and have zero percent of the authority.  And I don’t think that’s an unreasonable thing to be asking for.”  Governor Haley Barbour of Mississippi agrees.  “If I could get total flexibility, I would take a two percent cap in a heartbeat,” he said.  Barbour’s preference is to receive a lump sum – what it gets now from the federal government, plus two percent to fund Medicaid.

Dr. Donald Berwick, administrator of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, (CMS) said “There’s a right way to reform Medicare and a wrong way,”  Berwick believes that the direction he is taking — modeled on his successful patient safety campaigns at the Institute for Healthcare Improvement – will bring about needed healthcare change.  The Obama administration’s efforts to improve patient safety are more or less bipartisan.  There is little cause to dispute CMS’ data: the agency spent $4.4 billion in 2009 caring for patients harmed in hospitals and an additional $26 billion on patients who were readmitted within 30 days.  The Partnership for Patients, funded through the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), seeks to reduce preventable injuries by 40 percent and cut hospital readmissions by 20 percent in just two years.  According to CMS, achieving the Partnership’s goals will result in 1.8 million fewer patient injuries, allow more than 1.6 million patients to recover complication-free and save up to $35 billion in health costs.

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius described contentious portions of the ACA as the inaugural steps toward entitlement reform.  Sebelius criticized proposals to transform federal Medicaid funding into block grants for states.  When some lawmakers asked her to speak about the Obama administration’s alternative proposal to rein in entitlement spending, Sebelius pointed to two provisions of the new law.  The ACA created a new board of independent experts that will recommend Medicare payment cuts.  Its recommendations will take effect automatically unless Congress blocks them — and proposes equivalent savings.  According to Sebelius, the panel represents “a big step in terms of entitlement reform that actually doesn’t potentially cause harm to our seniors.”  She also pointed to an HHS effort to create new methods of dealing with people who are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid because those patients represent a lopsided share of the programs’ costs.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Healthcare, Hospital Systems | No Comments »

Will Proposed Medicare Reform Leave Seniors Out in the Cold?

Monday, April 11th, 2011

A Congressional proposal to reform Medicare will transfer a significant share of the cost to the nation’s senior citizens – a constituency that is known for high voter turnout in elections.  The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) added fodder for critics, concluding that the majority of future retirees would pay considerably more for healthcare under the “Path to Prosperity” approach — which turns Medicare into a voucher-like plan for Americans who are currently 54 and younger.  Representative Paul Ryan

(R-WI), who introduced the plan, said “We don’t want to turn the safety net into a hammock that lulls people to lives of complacencies and dependencies, into a permanent condition where they never get on their feet.”  Instead of coverage for a set of prescribed benefits, Americans in their mid-50s and younger would receive a federal payment to purchase private insurance from a choice of government-regulated plans.  If the proposal becomes law, beginning in 2022, Americans would have a vastly different experience when they became eligible for Medicare.  The age for eligibility would rise from 65 to 67, according to the CBO.

Ryan’s proposal slashes $1.4 trillion from Medicaid over the next decade.  He proposes to cut $630 billion off the budget by more or less repealing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s provisions that extend coverage to include anyone living on less than 133 percent of the poverty rate — just under $30,000 for a family of four.  Additionally, Ryan’s plan eliminates subsidies for private insurance premiums for those just above the poverty line.  According to CBO estimates, nearly 17 million people without insurance would have been covered by the Medicaid expansion.

Representative Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), the ranking Budget Committee Democrat, said Republicans are protecting tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy to the detriment of the middle class and the poor.  “It doesn’t reform Medicare, it deforms and dismantles it,” Van Hollen said.  As for Medicaid, Ryan’s proposal “rips apart the safety net” for poor and older people.  “A typical beneficiary would spend more for healthcare under the proposal,” according to the CBO analysis.  “Although the uncertainty in future federal spending on healthcare would decrease under the proposal, that uncertainty would be transferred to future beneficiaries,” the CBO analysis said.  “If the volume, complexity, and costs of medical services turned out to be greater than expected, future beneficiaries would pay higher premiums and cost-sharing amount than are currently projected.”

Ryan’s budget resolution would improve the nation’s overall fiscal health, cutting projected deficits in President Obama‘s budget and moving the federal government towards a surplus by 2040, according to the non-partisan CBO.  Ryan believes that the cuts are necessary to save the programs.  “This is not a budget.  This is a cause,” he said.  “The social safety net is fraying at the seams.”  Chip Kahn, president of the Federation of American Hospitals, said that Ryan’s proposal would “result in the loss of health coverage for millions of low-income Americans, reduce critical benefits for others, and make it more difficult for hospitals, clinicians and other healthcare providers to deliver the care so many need.”  Other critics maintain that Ryan’s approach will shift the higher costs to individuals, much as the change from defined-benefit pensions to 401(k) plans has increased retirement risk.  Senior citizens, the disabled and the poor likely will pay more for healthcare, even as Washington pays less.  Additionally, Ryan’s plan would permanently extend George W. Bush’s tax cuts.

“The idealized notion that older consumers would be making these annual choices may have some merit as an idea, but it doesn’t seem to be taking place in practice,” said Patricia Neuman, director of the Medicare Policy Project at the non-partisan Kaiser Family Foundation.  Picking the right health plan could become even more critical if premiums outpace federal subsidies.  In 2010, 50 percent of the nation’s Medicare recipients reported incomes of less than $21,000 a year, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation analysis.

In an opinion piece in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the “Monday Morning Economist” Stephen Herrington writes “The tax cut proposal is not getting the attention it deserves.  If it shapes up to be anything like was described in Ryan’s Road Map, it will create massive dislocations and disruptions in the economy.  Ryan’s plan was/is to cut the top tax bracket from 35 percent to 25 percent with the promise/expectation that this would not impact revenues.  In a departure from the standard ‘trickle down’ excuse for tax cuts, Ryan meant/means to offset the admitted loss in revenues by eliminating all manner of deductions.  The deductions in our current tax code, such as medical, mortgage and state income tax expense are there for a purpose.  Eliminating them will introduce wild distortions in markets and effectively push the tax cuts for the rich onto the other 98 percent of us.  Elimination of the medical expense deduction will intensify the impact of the Medicare/Medicaid part of the plan.  It is as if Ryan thinks the magic of the free market can absorb any shock in real time.  No more mortgage deduction?  No problem, I just won’t buy a house at all until the lack of the mortgage deduction causes prices to fall by half.”

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Healthcare, Hospital Systems | No Comments »

Affordable Care Act Under Siege As It Celebrates Its 1st Birthday

Wednesday, March 30th, 2011

As the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) celebrates its first birthday, the future of the law is still unclear, but its effects have been enormous.  The debate over the law likely created the “tea party” movement.  Last November, Republicans took control of the House of Representatives and strengthened their numbers in the Senate.  Potential contenders for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination need only say one word, “Obamacare,” to get a negative reaction from a crowd.  President Obama at times himself has struggled to ensure that his first term isn’t defined solely by this legislation.

Public opinion over the ACA remains divided, despite the efforts of Democrats to showcase how it will provide healthcare insurance to millions of uninsured Americans.  Additionally, most Americans remain confused about what the healthcare overhaul actually accomplishes.  Republicans considering a 2012 presidential race for the most part stand united in their opposition to the legislation.  Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty is using his opposition to the law to gain a national following.  “If courts do not do so first, as president, I would support the immediate repeal of Obamacare and replace it with market-based healthcare reforms,” Pawlenty said.  Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is in a different position because he supported a similar law during his tenure.

Representative Steve King (R-IA), the Iowa Congressman who is in the vanguard to repeal the ACA, says that “America will never become the nation it can be if were saddled with Obamacare“, “I have a deep conviction that this is unconstitutional, that this is unsustainable, and I have a duty.  And that doesn’t mean I sit back and wait for the Supreme Court to save America from itself.  It’s my job to step up and lead.”

Taking a difference stance, Carmela Coyle, president and chief executive of the Maryland Hospital Association, said her group strongly supports the reform law and will work to assure that the effort translates into better and cost-effective care.  “We support healthcare reform because hospitals see every day what happens when patients don’t have the healthcare coverage they need and can’t get their care at the right time and in the right setting.  Expanding coverage was necessary, and it was right.  We must ensure that the health coverage now guaranteed to many Marylanders is meaningful coverage.”

What’s the future of the Affordable Care Act? House Republicans, who say the law gives the federal government too much control and doesn’t cut costs, passed a repeal bill after they became the majority in January.  Full repeal is unlikely unless Republicans successfully take control of the Senate and the presidency in the 2012 presidential elections.  The current Democratic-led Senate will not vote to repeal and President Obama would certainly veto a repeal bill.  Democrats argue the law’s reforms will slow the growth of healthcare costs while improving care and reducing the ranks of the uninsured.  Republican efforts to withhold funds to block the law’s implementation will be DOA in the Senate.  That leaves Republicans the option of picking apart the law regulation by regulation, a strategy that could prove more successful.

In the meantime, implementation is underway.  “As we look forward with implementation of the health reform law, the states really become the focus now,” said Jennifer Tolbert, a principal policy analyst at the Kaiser Family Foundation.  “When thinking about the coverage expansions in particular because it is going to be up to the states to implement the expansion of the Medicaid program for lower-income individuals and to create the new health-insurance exchanges that will provide access to private insurance for moderate and middle income individuals.”

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Healthcare, Hospital Systems | No Comments »

« Older Entries