Posts Tagged ‘Medicare’

« Older Entries

Websites like wine: healthcare.gov good now, getting better

Friday, July 2nd, 2010

HealthCare.gov: Take health care into your own hands Learn MoreThe web portal Healthcare.gov (@healthcaregov for all you twitterheads out there) went live, launching ahead of its July 1 deadline by hours Wednesday night. HHS deserves props for this site: not only was it delivered ahead of schedule, but it’s spiffy-looking, easy to use, and full of important info to help people get covered.

The website is what it says – a door through which consumers can check out what private insurance plans are available to them, depending on their age, state, current coverage, and health conditions.  There’s also information about public programs, like Medicaid, and how reforms in the new law affect people soon – such as the small business tax credit, high-risk pools for people with pre-existing conditions, and the ability of young people to join or stay on their parents’ plan till age 26.

If you haven’t checked it out yet, you should. We did a walk-through ourselves yesterday and were impressed by the clear, appealing design, the plain-language navigation to help consumers find out what their options are and, oh yeah, all that information.

In October, a more in-depth version will launch, and will include rates, coverage exclusions and other pricing information—a level of detail we think is critical for consumers looking for insurance options. To our mind, the more information, the better. And we’d like to see the portal move toward standard benefit descriptions that help people make “apples-to-apples” comparisons.

Other things we’d like to see on Healthcare.gov?  We think the website should include all private insurance products, such Medicare Advantage and Medigap plans. Right now, it doesn’t.

And it would be great instead of just describing and giving contact info or redirects to public programs, like state Medicaid agencies, if someone visiting the website could determine whether they were eligible and if so, enroll online.  Downloading an application, printing it out, finding out where to submit it, and getting there is often too many steps in a process that could be moved online. A report by the Urban Institute in January showed that there are 9.8 million uninsured individuals who are eligible for but not enrolled in Medicaid, and a one-stop online enrollment platform on the portal makes a lot of sense to help those people get health care coverage.

We’re glad to see that patient protections in the new law – what the administration’s calling the “patient bill of rights” – are prominent and spelled out clearly on the site.  In the future, we’d like healthcare.gov to point to consumer assistance programs, too, especially non-profit ones, which have a great track record of helping people navigate the system, determine eligibility, and enroll.

And for consumers with medical bills, we also want to make sure that the portal makes hospital financial assistance policies available, prominent, and easily searchable on healthcare.gov. We’re encouraged that there seems to be placeholder language about free and reduced care where more specific policy information will go in the future

Certainly there is room to refine and build. But this is day two. And improvements are already underway. In fact, a banner stretched across the top of every page says “Health care is getting better. So is HealthCare.gov. Help us improve by adding your comments”—this thing is a work in progress. But it’s also a work of progress, one we’ve proudly bookmarked.

–Kate Petersen, Health Policy Hub

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Hospital Accountability/Charity Care, national health reform, private insurance | No Comments »

The Insider: All this could be yours someday

Monday, June 14th, 2010

Fuzzy logic
As the “tax extenders” bill makes its way through the Senate, a provision to extend COBRA premium subsidies for the unemployed is in jeopardy. Opponents in the Senate and the Blue Dogs in the House who stripped the provision from legislation two weeks ago argue that it’s unfair to help people who are unemployed when other, equally needy people are getting no assistance.

Just stop and think about that for a minute: It’s not like they’re identifying an alternative beneficiary for assistance, or arguing to accelerate implementation of the Affordable Care Act. They are basically saying, “Because we can’t help everybody, we won’t help anybody.” If you apply that reasoning more broadly it leads you to advocate the repeal, or at least the suspension, of Medicare and Medicaid until 2014, when financial assistance to obtain coverage becomes more generally available–a move few Congressmembers would dare consider, even in a non-election year.

With unemployment remaining high, the COBRA premium subsidies in limbo are badly needed. They are good for the economy, the health care system, and mostly for the thousands of struggling families who will be able to retain their coverage. Find out more at Community Catalyst’s implementation headquarters.

Faulkner on health care
When William Faulkner wrote, “The past is never dead. It’s not even past,” he could have been talking about the politics of health care more than a half-century into the future. Congressional Republicans’ challenge of the White House public education campaign on Medicare changes as misuse of government funds for partisan advantage hearkens back to Democrats’ attacks on the Bush administration over the original Medicare Part D roll-out.

And Senators who opposed PPACA seem intent on re-debating the legislation at every opportunity: first, in the context of Don Berwick’s nomination to head CMS, and now in the debate over the Medicare physician payment fix. Republicans have offered an alternative that does more for the physicians but partially pays for it by eliminating desperately-needed financial assistance for state Medicaid programs—while slipping in a “poison pill” that would roll back the individual responsibility provisions in PPACA. Such a move could appeal to many on the left who are concerned that the affordability provisions don’t go far enough.

Someday, all this could be yours
As the “repeal and replace” drumbeat goes on, a third ‘r’ should be added to the sequence: Recycle. Congressional Republicans are recycling ideas from the debate that were shown to fail to reduce the number of uninsured or eliminate insurance discrimination.

But as several states move forward with anti-Affordable Care Act ballot measures, new research from Massachusetts shows just how wrongheaded such opposition is. Until the coverage provisions of the Affordable Care Act kick in in 2014, Massachusetts provides the closest thing we have to a “beta site” for what the health care system of tomorrow will look like. While critics focus on the continuing cost challenges (problems that pre-dated health reform in Massachusetts  and were not really addressed in the landmark law in 2006) new reports published by the Urban Institute and the National Bureau of Economic Research underscore just what other states can gain as they move forward with implementing the law.

Urban’s latest report shows that the coverage gap between racial and ethnic minorities and non-Hispanic whites has been closed—the only place in the country where this is true. Additional findings show:

  • –high rates of coverage in Massachusetts persist despite continued high unemployment
  • –economic barriers to obtaining care remain low and have declined further for some populations since the inception of the law
  • –four years into implementation, there is still no evidence of ‘crowd-out’ of private coverage, and public support for the Massachusetts system remains high.

Get the details here (pdf).

The NBER paper found that since reform in Massachusetts, there have been fewer preventable hospitalizations and emergency room-generated admissions, and length of hospital stays has been reduced, most likely due to improvements in access to ambulatory care.

Sure makes implementation look like a lot better idea than repeal.

–Michael Miller, director of strategic policy

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Health Reform Insider, Health disparities, Repeal Watch, affordability, national health reform, state reform | No Comments »

A big f#*@*!* deal

Wednesday, March 24th, 2010

4458527284_21d7409410_mPresident Obama’s signing of the national health reform bill yesterday marks an historic achievement in American history on par with the passage of Social Security and Medicare.  The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (summary here) establishes a framework to provide health security for all, and takes immediate steps in that direction.  Of course, there are flaws and omissions in the law as there were (and still are) with those earlier milestones, but PPACA gives us a strong foundation on which to build. How strong? Our fact sheet tells you.

This victory could not have happened without the commitment of the President and legislative leaders, the tireless dedication of staff, and the amazing work of advocates for the health and economic security of all Americans.

Ugly and Ducking

While we can and should celebrate this victory, it has certainly been sad and sobering to witness the opposition’s extremist acts.  Members of the Congressional Black and Hispanic caucuses, as well as openly gay Congressman Barney Frank, were verbally assaulted and spat on.

Someone threw a brick through the window of Rules Committee Chairwoman Louise Slaughter’s office, and Republican Congressman Neugebauer shouted an epithet at Rep. Bart Stupak from the House floor (Rep. Neugebauer later apologized, saying he was talking about the bill).

Many of the protests have called up the worst mob-like vitriol we saw on the 2008 Presidential campaign. House Republicans have generally declined to distance themselves from these events and instead offered embarrassingly weak rationales.

Apocalypse Now?  No?  Well how about now?

Those watching the House floor debate wouldn’t be blamed for feeling like they’d heard the GOP’s world-ending predictions somewhere before.

It seems through a warp in the space-time continuum (perhaps brought about by health reform’s passage) Congressional Republicans are using the same speechwriters as Alf Landon, the 1936 Republican candidate for president, and as the Medicare opponents who wrote this for then pitchman-for-hire Ronald Reagan.

In one sense, however, those who claim this health reform law marks the end of America as we know it are right.  In America as we know it, thousands of people die every year because they don’t have health insurance, and thousands more face bankruptcy from health care bills they can’t afford.

As of yesterday, that America is on its way to being history—the kind of history we learn from, and move beyond. As REM sang, “It’s the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine.”

The Senate Process—the end of the beginning

Democrats scored a key victory late Monday when the Senate parliamentarian ruled against an effort by Republicans to strike on technical grounds an amendment to the excise tax on high-cost health plans.  Yesterday the Senate voted to take up the amendments and started the clock on the 20 hours of debate allowed under the rules of reconciliation.

During the debate we are seeing Republicans do everything they can to delay passage, but their chance of derailing the bill is minimal. This is political theater, but it’s not responsible governing.

The bill now on the floor of the Senate makes mainly popular fixes to the now-law  reform by closing the Medicare prescription drug “doughnut hole,” increasing Medicaid funding for states, striking special deals, and reducing the excise tax on high-cost health plans.

Everything right is wrong again

With the law signed, opponents’ goal is no longer to stop these things from becoming law on the Senate floor (an almost certainly vain effort), but to offer amendments that will make good fodder and embarrassing ads for the November election.

Amendments are being offered on all kinds of subjects, many of them unrelated to the bill, for the express purpose of forcing Democrats to take hard votes. Although it’s possible that some changes will be made in the Senate, which would necessitate a conference committee or one more vote in the House, there is little doubt as to the final outcome.

While passage of the amendments to PPACA will mark a welcome end to a lengthy and often acrimonious debate, there is little time to pause to enjoy the achievement.

With the ink barely dry, the action is already moving in new directions. State and federal officials must begin the task of implementing the bill, some provisions that take effect almost immediately, while opponents are already launching legal and political challenges.

Not in My Backyard

Seven minutes after President Obama signed health reform into law yesterday, 13 state AGs filed a lawsuit claiming the individual mandate in unconstitutional. More than 30 states have threatened to bring bills and ballot questions to repeal health care reform, or elements of it.

Most legal scholars say such challenges are legally specious and will have little purchase on implementing reform. But rolling back reform isn’t the primary aim of such repeal threats anyway–it’s to drive reform opponents (plus the angry and misinformed) to the polls in November.

But already doubts are growing about this strategy. Some Republican leaders are suggesting that they’d like to repeal some parts of the law, but leave others alone (no one wants to be the guy who re-allows insurers to deny coverage to kids with pre-existing conditions).

And a Gallup poll yesterday suggests public support for health reform has already jumped. As more and more people understand what reform is (and what it’s not) those numbers are likely to improve even more.

And that’s the key to making this thing go—the more real people understand the real help that comes from this bill, the harder it will be for state politicos with dreams of the Governor’s mansion to make the case for taking it away.

So the work goes on. Advocates and others who helped this bill become a law now must step up to the challenge of keeping it strong.

–Michael Miller, director of strategic policy

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

How sweet it is

Monday, March 22nd, 2010

The U.S. House of Representatives passed the most comprehensive health care bill since Medicare last night–a bill that provides health care coverage to 32 million more Americans, ends decades of unjust health insurance practices that discriminate against those who get sick, and curbs runaway health care costs.

The President is expected to sign the bill tomorrow, and the Senate will begin debate then on a series of fixes to the bill. There is–as always–more work to be done.

But today we thank the Representatives who crafted the bill, who stood in support of reform and took the votes, all their “punk staffers” who have worked without weekends and sleep for the better part of a year (and some for much longer), and all of the reform advocates for their tremendous, sometimes Atlas-like work in helping to pass this bill.

(Here is Community Catalyst’s official statement, and what you need to know about reform right now. And if you don’t follow the Hub on Twitter yet, get on board before the Senate debate begins.)

When it comes to reflecting on What This Means — in history, yes, but also in plain English — there are few who said it better than Michigan Rep. John Dingell, who’s father, John Dingell Sr., gaveled in Medicare in 1965 (and who lent that historic gavel to Speaker Pelosi for the vote last night.) Here’s what he said after the vote last night:

I gotta tell you, the air has been redolent with falsehoods and deceit. And Madame Speaker persisted clear through this, and my colleagues stuck. And nobody ran when the heat got high.

And I want you to know I am very proud of this leadership and of my colleagues, and of a lot of new members who made some very hard and difficult votes,  for which they can be proud, and for which they will be rewarded with re-election, because they showed courage and wisdom. And they did something that was very important.

But dear friends, there’s something else. Now when Americans lose their jobs, now when Americans go to bed, they won’t have to worry when they get up the next morning: Are they going to have health insurance?

We have established a basic principle now–finally–in a bill that is going to the President to be signed–that says  health, and good health, and health insurance, and health care, are not a matter of privilege for the privileged few, but rather they should  be for everyone.

And the government has finally decided we’re going to take care of that.

–Kate Petersen, Health Policy Hub

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Health Reform Insider, national health reform | No Comments »

Health Care Surprise (but keep your eye on the prize)

Monday, February 8th, 2010

Yesterday, in a surprise move to many (though apparently not to Majority Leader Reid or Speaker Pelosi, who immediately issued statements of support) President Obama invited Congressional leaders from both parties to a televised half-day health care reform summit on February 25.

The summit appears to be a major effort by the administration to redirect the debate over reform.  With the main health reform storyline focusing on the food fight between the House and Senate over who doesn’t trust whom and who needs to Go First,  it’s no wonder Congressional leadership embraced the new direction.  A summit several weeks in the future gives them more time to work through their differences free from the daily white smoke watch.

The summit will also gives the administration an opportunity to highlight the many positive aspects of reform and to point out weaknesses and inconsistencies in Republican arguments.  (For example, how can Republicans attack health reform for reducing Medicare spending when their own proposal includes a far more draconian cut?) We saw versions of this dialogue when Obama engaged in a give and take at the Congressional Republican retreat a few weeks back.  Obama and Congressional Democrats can repudiate certain controversial provisions, such as the special Medicaid subsidy for Nebraska. The setting–live TV–directly answers the public’s concern about secret negotiations with a much more open and transparent discussion.

As was true at the Republican Congressional retreat, there is very little chance of substantive changes in position from either side.  Republicans believe they are winning the debate on health reform and so have little reason to shift gears as the election approaches.  And even if the Republicans were willing and the administration were tempted to cut a deal, it seems likely that any significant shift to the right would cost the administration more in Democrats’ support than it could ever pick up from Republicans, especially in the House.

The main downside risk is that the summit delays the timetable for enacting reform by several weeks, and possibly longer, if discussion continues beyond the initial meeting.  Getting a fix-it bill through reconciliation is not a fast or simple procedure, and budget rules make it harder as time goes on.  As the days of the Congressional session slip away and elections approach, a crowded Congressional calendar and an aversion to taking tough votes right before facing the voters will add to the difficulty of getting reform done. But with health reform failing to command majority support from the public,  who lacks understanding of the bill and has concerns about the process, what’s there to lose?

Eyes on the prize

In the midst of all the political calculations and positioning, it is more important than ever to reassert how crucial covering the uninsured, slowing the growth of health care costs, improving the quality of care and ending abusive insurance industry practices is to our nation’s health and financial well-being.

Ultimately, this is not about Democrats or Republicans.  It’s not about achieving electoral advantage.  It’s about finally tackling one of the toughest social problems that confronts our country–one whose resolution has eluded policymakers for too many years.  It’s time to get reform done.

–Michael Miller, director of strategic policy

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Health Reform Insider, national health reform | No Comments »

The dam breaks, PLUS the votes are in! The Insider’s Naughty and Nice pol(e)

Monday, December 21st, 2009

By reaching a compromise with Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) (we’ll talk about how below), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has cleared the last major obstacle to historic passage of health reform in the U.S. Senate.

If all goes according to plan, the Senate will vote for passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) on Christmas Eve, putting the United States on the verge of enacting a major historic overhaul of health care financing and delivery and setting the stage of an intense round of negotiations between the House and the Senate over the shape of a final package.  (We’ll focus on those House-Senate negotiations next week).  The expected schedule of votes is as follows:

•    Monday 1 AM: add the “Manager’s amendment” to the underlying PPACA proposal (passed 60-40). See Community Catalyst’s reaction to the vote here.
•    Tuesday 7 AM: replace the underlying “shell bill” with the PPACA (60 votes needed)
•    Wednesday 1 PM: agree to stop talking and take a final vote (60 votes needed)
•    Thursday 7 PM: Vote on final passage (51 votes needed)

The Manager’s Amendment

The Manager’s Amendment includes a number of other improvements to the underlying bill including stronger accountability and transparency provisions for health insurers, a new approach to national plans overseen by the Office of Personnel Management (the same office that oversees the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan) stronger cost containment provisions and improved coverage for children.  Click here for CC summary of the key changes.

An agreement was also struck with physicians to do a two month patch on Medicare physician payment rates (as an amendment to the Defense appropriations bill) that would otherwise be cut Jan. 1 with the understanding that after the recess Congress would come back and work on a longer term solution.

The key to locking down the 60th vote for heath reform in the Senate was finding language that would be acceptable to both anti-choice Sen. Ben Nelson and pro-choice Senators represented by Senators Boxer and Murray. (Sen. Casey from Pennsylvania was the other main party to the negotiation).  The main elements of the proposed abortion compromise include giving states the right to determine whether abortion coverage will be available in their state exchanges, strict segregation of federal funds, and additional support for adoption and for pregnant teens.

The agreement was struck despite the opposition of virtually all outside advocacy groups on both sides of the abortion debate.  Setting the stage for conflict down the road, both Congressman Stupak (who authored the abortion restriction in the House) and Congresswoman DeGette (who leads the House pro-choice caucus) have voiced concerns about the Senate language.

Naughty and Niceelf-list
The results of the Insider’s holiday naughty and nice poll are in.

In the naughty category, Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut won by a landslide, easily eclipsing interest group leaders and other political figures. While Lieberman was not unique in his opposition to the inclusion of a public insurance option as part of reform, he angered proponents with his inability to articulate any consistent or fact-based basis for his opposition and perhaps equally for his flip-flop on a proposed Medicare buy-in that was advanced as a possible compromise.  Historically, Lieberman has been a supporter of the Medicare buy-in and appeared unable to give a coherent reason for his last-minute switch.  There was a late surge for Sen. Ben Nelson, but there’s no doubt who Insider readers regard as health reform Public Enemy Number One.

In the nice category, the winner was Hill staffers.  The vote reflects the experience of Insider readers who are mostly health reform advocates and activists.  While Senators and Congressmen get the headlines, a small group of Congressional staffers have worked countless hours to make reform happen.  They are truly the unsung heroes of health reform, and the Insider is happy to give them a shout out for their incredible dedication.

The other leader in the nice category was the late Senator Kennedy.  Though illness and untimely death kept him from exerting as much leadership in the debate as we’d come to expect from him over the years, Insider readers agreed that Kennedy remained the guiding spirit throughout the debate.  Final passage of reform will be an enduring monument to his tireless work over the decades to secure health security for all.

Jon Stewart also polled strongly in the nice category.  There have been many times when we desperately needed laughter at the inanity of the debate, and Stewart has probably done more than anyone else to highlight the frequent absurdities. (His panel discussion on death panels—should they be public or private and available to all or only through the exchange—is one of my personal favorites).  The Insider editor also gives an honorable mention in the nice category to Ezra Klein and Jonathan Cohn, two journalists whose blog coverage of the debate has been consistently excellent.  Hope Hanukah Harry was good to you guys.

The Great “Is it Worth it?” Debate or Two Cheers for Health Reform

A Health Reform Quiz:

Is the PPACA
a)    a great bill
b)    a terrible bill that is little more than a giveaway to private insurers
c)    a terrible bill that is a government takeover of the health care system that will explode the federal debt
d)    a flawed bill that nonetheless does a lot of good and must be passed

Depending on which health care “team” you play for, you’re likely to pick your answer from a-c. Senate Democratic leaders and their loyal supporters among some advocacy groups pick “a” (some of them really think the answer is “d” but aren’t allowed to say so), disappointed activists on the left pick “b”, and the (mostly Republican) opposition and certain special interest groups pick “c”.   But the truth—as best as I can determine it and as honestly as I can answer the question—is “d.”

Why isn’t the right answer “a”?  First and foremost, although the Senate bill does a lot to make coverage and care more affordable, it doesn’t do enough.  A person can drown in six feet of water or 60, and many low- and moderate-income families will still find the premiums and cost-sharing requirements in the Senate bill to be a significant financial burden that could limit their ability to access health care or threaten their ability to afford other necessities. Legislation passed in the House does a much better job of making coverage and care affordable for those most likely to need help.  And while there are many improvements in insurance oversight, there are still some troubling loopholes that could undermine the effectiveness of the new insurance exchanges as a tool for driving down costs and holding insurers accountable.

Finally, due to their inability to agree on adequate financing, the Senate bill takes too leisurely approach to reducing the number of uninsured.  It’s worth noting that when Medicare passed in 1965, benefits started the next year.  When Massachusetts enacted their groundbreaking reform in 2006, a major expansion of coverage was underway within six months.  In the Senate bill, it takes four years for the major coverage provisions to kick in.

Both Senate Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have spoken eloquently about the toll of preventable death, not to mention the financial damage and anxiety caused by our current system.  Yet these problems will continue essentially unchecked for four long years because Senators could not agree on a more robust financing package.  In fairness, some of the responsibility for this slow motion reform must also be laid on the President’s doorstep—a result of his mysterious insistence that the “cost” of reform not exceed $900 billion over 10 years even if fully or more than fully offset with new revenue and savings. Keeping under the $900 billion threshold is part of the reason why it takes reform so long to get going.

Certain corners of  the left claim that the bill is nothing more than a giveaway to insurers or that that the proposed excise tax on high cost health insurance plans is unfair. The first criticism is an exaggeration triggered largely by the disappointment around the public plan. While removal of the public plan is a real loss, basing support for reform on this single issue ignores the substantial good the bill would do (see below). The second criticism also has some merit, but the objection should not be enough to scuttle the bill. Though there’s every reason to think that there are better ways to control health care costs than taxing benefits as an incentive for people to have less comprehensive coverage, the reform proposal is hands down fairer than the status quo, even including the benefit tax.

What about the criticism from the right?  For the most part, it has no more reality to it than the death panels of summer did.

Health care is complicated, health reform is complicated and forecasting the future is far from an exact science.  So it’s possible the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) made mistakes in assessing the impact of the bill on the federal deficit, but it is just as likely that they have underestimated as overestimated the effect.  Despite its limitations, the CBO is the best umpire we have available.  Critics who were all too happy to cite earlier CBO analyses that supported their case look hypocritical now as they reject CBO findings that show that the Senate bill will substantially reduce the federal deficit over time.

And if prohibiting insurers from rejecting people because they have a pre-existing condition or keeping them from ratcheting up premiums to force people who file claims to drop coverage, or creating some transparency and accountability in the industry constitutes a government takeover, then bring it on, I say.  Defense of the status quo is unconscionable.

Why pass reform despite its flaws?  First, as I’ve said, because the bill is simply no where near as bad as its critics on the left and right would have it.  It is imperfect but it does a lot of good, such as elimination of pre-existing condition exclusions, a prohibition on charging people more based on gender or occupation, limits on how much more they can be charged based on age and much more. Here’s our short list of the good stuff.

Not only that, but there will be time and opportunity, as well as the necessity, to correct flaws as we go along.  Consider Medicare Part D.  The program as passed was considered with substantial justification, to be a giveaway to the insurers and drug industry.  It is also overly confusing and inefficient.  Nonetheless it provides important help accessing prescription drugs for millions of Medicare beneficiaries.  Moreover, substantial improvements in the program are being contemplated now as part of reform, and there is no reason to suppose that additional improvements to PPACA cannot be made in the future.  So has it been with Medicare and Medicaid, and so will it be with PPACA.

Like we wrote last week, every victory is partial and impermanent. It must be both defended constantly and built upon.  If the history of health reform teaches us anything, it’s that while incremental progress is possible often, the chances for big change are rare, and we should take them.   If we wait for the perfect, we will wait forever.

Those who want to provide health security for all but who counsel starting over not only undervalue the improvements that reform will make, but also underestimate the difficulty of starting over and the damage that would be done to millions of people in the meantime.  As a rallying cry, “Pass this legislation despite its flaws” may not be that inspiring, but it fits the imperfect world we live in, and captures the imperative before us.

Let’s get this bill passed and then get to work making it better.

–Michael Miller, director of strategic policy

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Health Reform Insider, national health reform | 1 Comment »

The New Nattering Nabobs of Negativity

Thursday, December 17th, 2009

So Howard Dean has joined the ranks of liberals piling on health reform and encouraging lawmakers to toss in the towel. (See Kos and Firedoglake for more reform-flogging from the left.)

Health reform does not succeed or fail by the public option, despite what Dean and others seem to suggest. This is not to say that the public option wasn’t important—at least as it was originally imagined (see Michael’s post here.) But we and others like Jonathan Cohn have pointed out the success of reform ultimately depends on strong subsidies, insurance reform and improvements in care delivery—things that are still in the bill.

Perhaps it’s because they hitched their wagons so closely to the Obama’s Technicolor campaign and the ’08 election that Dean, Kos and Co. feel such betrayal in the real-world policy give and take happening in the final stretch of health care reform.  And I’ll admit, it’s easy to see how eight years under the Bush administration could lead one to believe that everything is a black-white issue.

But that kind of thinking—a rugby-like mentality in which health reform is a game with a scoreboard—fails both the spirit of reform and the work that’s been done.  By dismissing health reform with such invective, Dean, Kos and the choir of liberals singing their tune haven fallen to the very same faulty syllogistic thinking they shun the “teabaggers” for: Giving any ground is akin to surrender and defeat, and the yield of such defeat must therefore be waste.

But it’s not.  It’s important to see how far health reform has come, within a year of an administration for whom reform was nearly always a dirty word. If, under the Bush Administration, we could have gotten any one of the things that are in the reform packages now – federal matching funds for all low-income people, say, or a ban on pre-existing conditions exclusions – the champagne would have flowed on the Left bank.  But now, the public option is out and folks are headed for the hills.

Far from the “so-called reform” Kos rolls his eyes at, the improvements this bill will make are real: Expanded coverage to hundreds of thousands of people who now go uninsured, critical insurance reforms that will protect American families from losing coverage and medical debt, subsidies to help people buy coverage who can’t afford to now, and innovations in the way the systems delivers and assesses care. Yes, it’s flawed. It doesn’t give low-wage workers help and health security fast enough, for instance. But it gets people help, and binning the whole thing and starting over leaves those people stranded.

Health care reform may have been a presidential campaign promise of Obama’s, but it wasn’t by bashing insurers that the candidates won support for health reform – it was because they were offering to help people who desperately need it.  Health care, despite what some of the news networks insist, is not a Democratic or Republican issue. It’s about helping people. It is about starting to mend a really broken system, and beginning to re-imagine how a country takes care of it’s sick and frail. To try things out and see what works. And it’s sure not a panacea. But when was it ever going to be?

All victories are partial. The Voting Rights Act was a victory by any standard, but it didn’t stop racial discrimination in the U.S. – it made way for a succession of other, smaller victories that helped turn back systemic racism. Passing Medicare was a victory – but not all at once. Coverage for the disabled, and the drug benefit, came later, and this bill continues those efforts to make the program work better. Despite the suggestions of these critics, it’s near impossible to get a project as complex and all-encompassing as reform right on the first try. But we need to make a first try, and the Congress recognizes that.

The flaws and compromises in the health reform proposals are not reason to dismiss them but to instead commit to the process of reform and the act of helping people. We should enact the best bill possible, then start working to make it better. Those bent on merely measuring the gap between Perfect Health Reform and what the Congress is working on now are selling their country short.

–Kate Petersen, Health Policy Hub

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in national health reform, prescription drugs | 1 Comment »

Public Option Post-Mortem

Monday, December 14th, 2009

public optionThe Huffington Post declared the public option’s time of death as 11:12 on 12/10/09–the time of a press conference in which Nancy Pelosi signaled her willingness to entertain a bill without the provision.   If that was the technical time of death, what was the cause?

Basically, the fate of the public option has always been bound up with the rules of the Senate and the willingness of the Senate to pursue a path that did not require 60 votes.  While there are 60 votes in the Democratic caucus, several members have staked unalterable opposition to a bill that includes a government-run insurance plan—in any form.

That means that to pass a bill with a public option Democrats had to either go the route of “budget reconciliation,” which requires only a simple majority, or take the “nuclear option” and change the rules of the Senate to bypass a filibuster. (You may remember that Republicans threatened the “nuclear option” when they controlled the Senate and Democrats were blocking a number of Bush nominees to the federal court, but there’s been no real discussion of amending Senate rules to make it possible to pass health care reform.)

While reconciliation remains a technical possibility, and has all along, the clock really ran out on it during health reform’s slow walk through the Senate.  When a bill finally cleared Finance, Majority Leader Reid had, in theory, a last chance to combine the HELP and Finance bills in a way that would move via budget reconciliation.

But major technical challenges, a lengthy process, and the perceived political liabilities to doing reform with a narrower base of political support closed the door on reconciliation, and with it, any real chance that the public option would make it through the process in any recognizable form (notwithstanding the compromise version included in the bill Reid brought to the Senate floor.)

Well before a group of conservative and liberal Democrats started meeting to discuss alternatives, and a bevy of liberal bloggers began to toll its death knells, the public option had been significantly compromised from the original vision.  That vision contained two key elements: Universal availability, and Medicare-based networks, pricing and administration.

Universal availability went first, with the public option restricted to those who would purchase coverage through the exchange.  Medicare-based pricing fell in the House when many members from rural districts opposed using Medicare as basis for payment.

What survived would have had, in the short run, a modest impact on health insurance, an impact that  with potential to grow over time. Without 60 votes in the Senate or an alternative path, the question has always been more when than if it would get removed.

What’s the alternative?
With the public option out, the question remains: What will take its place?  The Senate is remaining very close-mouthed about the details of the negotiated alternative pending a CBO score later this week.

Elements of the alternative appear to include creating a national network of not-for-profit health plans overseen by the Office of Personnel Management (The same office that oversees the federal employee health plan), funding for CHIP through 2015 (instead of the current 2013), stricter regulation of private insurance, e.g. requiring 90 cents of every dollar to be spent on health benefits, and reducing the Medicare eligibility age to allow younger people to buy in, perhaps starting at age 55.  A proposal to also expand Medicaid to 150 percent FPL, as the House bill does, was discussed but rejected.

Several House progressives signaled that they would be prepared to entertain a Medicare expansion as an alternative to the public option, where the idea has long been popular.

But even before the deal has become available for public inspection it has taken fire from hospitals and doctors.  One Dem and an increasingly infamous Independent who negotiated the deal have started backing away from it, leaving its fate very much in doubt.  (Ironically, the only thing that could possibly resurrect the public option is if the conservative Democrats become too intransigent, forcing Senate leadership to reconsider budget reconciliation despite its difficulties.)

The Road, and November baseball
Little time remains to close a deal if the Senate intends, as it says, to complete their work before Santa’s circumnavigation.  Senate rules require a certain amount of time to elapse before the motion to halt debate can be acted on, so unless we see both the public option compromise and the Senate “Manager’s amendment” this week, it’s likely that the Christmas deadline will slip.  Once the Senate does act, there will be enormous pressure to seal a deal with the House, and fast.

There has been a lot of speculation this past week over whether Congress will bypass the conference committee process altogether, instead having the two chambers informally negotiate a small number of amendments that the House would pass and send back to the Senate for concurrence.  Failing that, leadership is seeking a very compressed conference process—Speaker Pelosi has said she thought they could do it in 48 hours.

While the pressure to wrap up is undeniable, the significant gulf between the House and Senate on financing, affordability, abortion, employer responsibility, and access for immigrants will make reaching a quick conclusion difficult.  (See our rundown of the issue gaps in last week’s Insider.)

President Obama wants health reform done before the State of the Union address and he may push the address into February to make that possible. Kind of like November baseball, but less hats.

–Michael Miller, director of strategic policy

photo courtesy of aflcio2008 on flickr

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Health Reform Insider, national health reform | No Comments »

Harry Reid’s Flying Circus

Monday, December 7th, 2009

Oops! Read the Public Option Post-Mortem and Dec. 14 Health Reform Insider here.

And now for something completely different, Senator McCain proclaims himself a defender of Medicare

The first week of Senate debate has seemed, at times, more like Monty Python satire than serious debate. Like when Sen. John McCain took the Senate floor to decry proposed Medicare savings in the bill. Apparently, McCain forgot his own proposal as a presidential candidate to make much deeper cuts. The Medicare debate highlights the extent to which the reform debate has become much less about health care and much more about partisan positioning. The main purpose of the McCain amendment appears to have been to afford Sen. McCain the opportunity to record a “robo-call” message casting Democratic politically vulnerable Senators as opponents of Medicare.

Perhaps as a sign of the significance Politico attaches to the floor proceedings, the Capitol Hill online news rag’s weekend health reform coverage focused more on President Obama’s meeting with the Democratic caucus and whether Sen. Baucus did something inappropriate by recommending his girlfriend for a job as a U.S. Attorney than on anything happening on the Senate floor.

Health Reform Punching Bag
It’s a good thing Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid is a former boxer. He’s going to need everything he learned in the ring to keep health reform from becoming a giant punching bag for opponents while he works to corral 60 votes. The Republican strategy seems to be to throw everything but the kitchen sink up against health reform and hope some of it sticks.

The Democrats’ counterstrategy is to file and debate their own “message amendments” meant to shape the news coverage and allow members, especially those facing difficult reelection fights, to champion popular causes. Examples include an amendment sponsored by Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) to ensure that there would be no cuts to Medicare benefits (passed 100-0), and an amendment by Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) to cap the tax deductibility of pay for insurance company executives (which fell short of passage by four votes, 56-42).

About those 60 votes
We’ll see a short break from these posturing and “message amendments” today as the Senate tackles abortion, one of the two main issues that appears to be hampering its ability to lock down 60 votes for reform (the other being the public option). Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) has said that he would not support reform legislation unless it included language restricting abortion similar to the language inserted in the House by Michigan Congressman Bart Stupak. But the Senate does not seem likely to approve an amendment that mirrors the House provision.

If Reid loses Nelson’s vote, he will need to rely on the pro-choice but anti-public option Republican Senators from Maine in order to get the 60 votes he needs. In the process, he could possibly pick up the vote of Sen. Lieberman, who has said he would support a filibuster if the public option was included in the Senate bill, but Reid risks losing support from progressives who feel that the “state opt-out” provision in the Reid bill is already too weak. A new public option proposal could emerge from negotiations between liberal supporters, conservative opponents and the White House sometime this week.

Two issues that divide the Democratic caucus but are not likely to get resolved in the Manager’s Amendment are: How far to push the drug industry for savings, and how best to structure health coverage for children.

On the drug issue, many Democrats believe that the deal Senate Finance Chair Max Baucus and the White House struck with PhRMA lets the industry off too easily. They want to wring additional savings from the drug companies and use the money to close the Medicare Part D “donut hole.” Other Democrats fear, though, that if they push the drug industry too hard, the major investment the industry has been making in supporting reform will flip to opposition and could sink the bill. Even if the Senate decides to continue the kid-glove treatment for the drug companies, they will have to wrestle with the issue again because the House takes a more aggressive approach.

The children’s issue mirrors the long-running debate on affordability in that it is not so much about principle as about cash. Both Senators Casey and Rockefeller plan to file amendments aimed at making sure that kids don’t lose benefits they have now. While the Senate supports enhancing coverage for children, the amendments have not yet been scored by CBO, and it is unclear if they are budget neutral or will require an additional revenue source.

As soon as Reid gets 60 votes worth of support on these two issues, watch for a rapid increase in the pace of Senate debate, with many of the Senate Democrats’ main concerns getting wrapped into a final Manager’s Amendment.

Assuming all goes according to plan…
The Senate will conclude their debate prior to Christmas, leaving the House, Senate and White House to work through the many differences in the respective versions. Here are the key ones to watch:

Financing
The House relies largely on progressive income taxes to finance health reform, while the Senate proposal taxes health benefits. Interestingly, this chasm may be the hardest one to bridge, though it hasn’t attracted nearly the press coverage of other tough issues.

Affordability
The House does much better for low-income people, while the Senate, at least on premiums, does better for moderate-income folks—though in general, the House provides better benefits. The obvious solution is to take the best of both worlds, but the challenge goes back to the financing debate: Where will the money come from?

Exchanges and Insurance Regulation
In most ways, the House bill establishes tighter oversight and more consumer-friendly regulation of the insurance industry, including less scope for discrimination against older subscribers, or opportunities for the back-door reintroduction of the practice of charging people more when they are sick. The House also gives the exchange more power to negotiate with insurers and exclude plans from the exchange if they do not offer good value.

Abortion
As of this writing, we don’t know the outcome of the Senate debate, but odds are against the Senate adopting the House language. The question for conferees is whether there is anything in the middle that both sides can live with.

Public Option
After the Senate gets through wrangling over the public option, members will have to take the matter up again in the House, where support for a public plan runs much deeper. A number of  progressive members of Congress are on record saying they won’t vote for a bill without a public option, and advocates are working to hold them to their word.

Employer Responsibility
The House includes a “pay or play” provision, while the Senate charges employers penalties only if their employees actually access subsidized coverage.

Undocumented immigrants
Though relatively few undocumented immigrants could actually afford to pay the full cost of an insurance policy, the Senate bill prohibits them from buying insurance through the exchange, even with their own funds. During the House debate, members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus told Speaker Pelosi that they would not vote for a bill that contained such a restriction. If the same holds true for a conference report, the Senate may have to back down.

–Michael Miller, director of strategic policy

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Health Reform Insider, national health reform | 2 Comments »

Immigration, Choice, and the Cost Containment Condundrum

Monday, November 16th, 2009

3882780399_b1fc48da7e_mThroughout the reform debate, a constellation of key issues—financing, affordability and the inclusion and design of a public insurance option—have been key focal points of discussion.  Now, as reform inches closer to the finish line, another set of issues that have always been present but have received less attention are taking new prominence.  Reproductive rights and immigration, two issues that the Obama administration and Congressional leadership were hoping to keep off the table during the health reform debate, are now at the heart of the discussion.

Concerns that the bills as written do not do enough to “bend the cost curve” are being voiced more strongly, but aggressive cost containment action risks upsetting the fragile support for reform among health-industry stakeholders.  In other corners, advocates are raising concerns that reform does not do enough to improve coverage for children, and may actually leave some children worse off.  This issue of the Insider gives an overview of each of these difficult issues, and where the debate seems to be heading.

Choice: Getting Beyond Getting to No
As the House was taking a historic vote last week to pass a major health care overhaul, a long-simmering conflict over abortion burst into the open and now complicates further action.  In order to secure a narrow victory in the House, leadership agreed to allow a vote on the Stupak amendment, which went beyond the compromise that had previously been approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the Senate Finance Committee.  The Stupak amendment, named after Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), precludes coverage of abortions in the public insurance plan and also in any plan sold through the Exchange that receives subsidy dollars.  After intense lobbying by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and conservative Protestant groups, the amendment passed, and though pro-choice members of the House voted against it, they were left with a choice of voting for a health reform bill with Stupak, or rejecting health reform entirely.

As we know, they voted to keep health reform legislation moving forward. But as many as 40 House members have indicated that they will not vote in favor of the legislation if the same restrictive language comes back from a House-Senate conference committee.  At the same time, Rep. Stupak has warned that tinkering with the language could result in defeat of reform in the House, and Sen. Ben Nelson has announced that he wants to see similar language in the Senate bill, which is likely to complicate Majority Leader Reid’s efforts to secure 60 votes there.

But the anti-choice camp does not hold all the cards.  There is no guarantee that including Stupak-like language in the Senate wouldn’t cost as many votes as it would gain.  And if abortion foes overplay their hand and block a Senate compromise, it could force a bill to go to budget reconciliation, in which case language like Stupak’s would certainly be stricken as being non-germane (a major criteria for the budget reconciliation process).  Whether that would then lead to ultimate defeat in House or whether a bill rewritten for reconciliation would find some other way to thread the needle is a purely hypothetical question at this time, but it’s pretty clear that Stupak does not and cannot represent the last word on abortion coverage in health reform.

Bottom line: Expect a lot of conflict and an eventual, new compromise on abortion coverage to emerge from the Senate process.

The Cost Containment Conundrum
A growing chorus is emphasizing that “bending the cost curve,” not only for the public sector but for the private sector, as well, should be a central element of reform. (Notably absent from the choir is the general public, who is much more concerned about how much they have to pay out-of-pocket for premiums and co-payments than with the global cost of reform.) Two new reports cast a spotlight on this issue.

A report last week from the Business Roundtable (BRT) emphasized the potential for cost containment and held out a tantalizing carrot: major business backing for reform, which could be an important counterweight to opposition from groups such as the Chamber of Commerce and National Federation of Independent Businesses.

The politics of cost containment remain tricky. Much of the agenda advanced by the BRT, including malpractice reform and cautions about over-reliance on public sector spending cuts that could lead to cost being shifted to private payers, is likely to be warmly embraced by the health care industry.

But many proposals, such as increasing reliance on “value-based benefit design” (insurance benefits that include financial incentives not to use services considered to have little value or to not be cost-effective) and financial incentives for providers to adhere to best practice guidelines could touch off another round of controversy about “government rationing” similar to the “death panel” flap this past summer.  The report embraces the use of wellness incentives in employer health plans, but these provisions have raised concerns from many consumer advocates who worry that they are just a back door way to charge sick people more once such practices are supposedly eliminated by the proposed insurance reforms.  BRT also advocates for broader adoption of payment reductions for hospitals for preventable complications and readmissions, a recommendation the hospital industry is likely to resist.

At the same time, a new report by the CMS Office of the Actuary finds that the House legislation is unlikely to have a substantial impact on the overall growth of health spending (either positive or negative), and raises doubts about the ability of Congress to go through with proposed long term Medicare spending reductions.  The CMS Actuary’s report is already providing talking points for reform opponents, even though such opponents are also likely to fight changes that would drive costs down.

We should note that both bills out of the Senate made bigger inroads into delivery system reform than the final House bill did, and since such reforms are the biggest source of real cost containment, we anticipate the combined Senate bill will do better at bending the curve.

Bottom line: Expect “bending the curve” to play a much more prominent role in the Senate debate than it did in the House.  Look for Senate leaders to walk the tightrope by coming up with additional cost saving strategies to coax moderates on board without scaring of support from the health care industry.

Fault Lines on Immigrant Access
Immigrant rights groups have tried to keep immigration reform separate from health reform.  But after persistent attacks on immigrants in the context of health reform, coupled with responses from the Obama administration and Democratic leaders that were less vigorous and supportive than expected, many have come to feel that a more public case for health access for immigrants needs to be made.

Advocates for immigrant equality are focused on eliminating the five-year waiting period on coverage for legal immigrants in Medicaid and Medicare, preventing discrimination against legal immigrants in “mixed status” families (where some family members are citizens or legal immigrants and one or more members may lack legal authorization to be in the country), securing coverage for children regardless of their legal status, and allowing undocumented immigrants to purchase coverage with their own funds in the health insurance Exchange.  Reform opponents are likely to introduce amendments on the Senate floor to establish a five-year waiting period on subsidies for legal immigrants and to increase verification requirements in an effort to weed out any undocumented immigrants from getting coverage.

Bottom line: Expect Senate Democrats to beat back Republican attempts to add further restrictions on immigrant access.  Lifting the five-year bar on Medicaid access is a dark horse issue, but could come into play in conference committee because it saves money and conferees will be searching for adequate revenue and savings to pay for reform.

Will kids lose ground under reform?
Support for improving children’s health care is broad both within Congress and the general public, but lawmakers are struggling to figure out how to best integrate the current structure of children’s health coverage into a reformed system in a way that preserves the current benefits that children have.  The House and the Senate are taking distinctly different approaches—each of which has pros and cons—which will set up a challenging dynamic for conference committee.

In the recently passed House bill, Medicaid is expanded 150 percent of the federal poverty line and states that have Medicaid eligibility levels above this threshold will continue to cover children under Medicaid.  Once the Exchange is up and running, CHIP is eliminated and children on CHIP are transferred to the Exchange.

In contrast, in the Senate Finance proposal, Medicaid is only expanded to 133 percent FPL, but CHIP is maintained until 2019 (though the Finance proposal does not include funding for CHIP beyond 2013).  After 2019, CHIP would presumably be eliminated and CHIP kids would be moved to the Exchange.  States would also be free to roll back Medicaid coverage to the federally specified minimum.

The upside of the House approach is that it does more to preserve and expand Medicaid, the most comprehensive coverage for low-income children. When children are moved to the Exchange, they will be able to get the same coverage as their parents, and will no longer be subjected to the waiting lists and other enrollment restrictions some state CHIP programs feature.  The downside of the House approach is that even though premiums and cost-sharing are lower in the House than in the Senate, many moderate-income families could find themselves paying more and getting less for children’s coverage.  And the lack of a phase-in period for transition from CHIP to the Exchange could create confusion and gaps in coverage in the short run.

In the Senate, the current successes of CHIP would be preserved, at least in the short run, and any transition made more gradual.  On the other hand, there is no funding for the CHIP extension, which could mean another reauthorization fight in the offing, and if children are eventually moved over to the Exchange, their premiums and cost-sharing would not be as good as that offered in the House.  Additionally, the Senate bill would mean that some Medicaid children would lose eligibility and have to rely on the less comprehensive Exchange.

Bottom line: Who the heck knows?

Waiting for Harry
Although a Senate CBO score and a bill are expected any day, it’s unlikely that substantive debate will begin in the Senate before December.  While still possible for the Senate to move health reform legislation before the end of the year, it’s virtually certain that a bill will not go to the President’s desk before 2010.

–Michael Miller, Director of Strategic Policy

Photo: courtesy of ragesoss at flickr under creative commons license.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Health Reform Insider, Health disparities, national health reform | No Comments »

« Older Entries