Posts Tagged ‘Individual mandate’

Majority of Americans Want Healthcare Reform Thrown Out

Wednesday, June 20th, 2012

A newly released CBS News/New York Times poll concluded that nearly 70 percent of Americans want the Supreme Court to overturn either all of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) or declare the individual mandate unconstitutional.  In the poll, 41 percent think that President Obama’s healthcare law should be overturned, with another 27 percent saying they want the court to keep the law but overturn the mandate.

Nearly 25 percent of respondents want the entire law upheld.  The margin of error was three percentage points.

The percentage that wants to see the entire law declared unconstitutional has risen since April when 37 percent said they wanted the court to overturn the full law; 29 percent said the mandate should be overturned; and 23 percent wanted the law upheld.  The new poll shows that Republicans are much more likely to want the entire law overturned than Democrats, with 67 percent wanting the law to be overturned compared to just 20 percent of Democrats.  While 42 percent of Democrats say they want the entire law to be upheld, 42 percent of Independent respondents want the Supreme Court to throw out the law entirely.  Tea Party members want to see the entire law overturned — 70 percent back that.

Writing in the Washington Post, Ezra Klein says that “Bottom line: If you’re Anthony Kennedy and John Roberts, and you want to rule against the individual mandate but you’re worried about a public backlash, this poll calms your fears.”

The most anticipated Supreme Court ruling in years, it has the potential to impact the presidential race between Obama and likely Republican nominee Mitt Romney.  If elected, Romney has promised to repeal “Obamacare.”  Obama says the law will provide insurance to nearly all Americans, and cut medical costs over the long term.

Of course, public opinion is not the only driver in the high court’s decisions But the justices certainly are aware of the fact that Americans keep expressing their dislike of the ACA.  The court will base its decision on the strength of legal arguments and the justices’ interpretation of the Constitution.  The justices wouldn’t allow themselves to be influenced by popular opinion, would they?  Dahlia Lithwick, who covers the court for Slate, isn’t so certain.  According to Lithwick, “If public opinion was strongly in favor of the Affordable Care Act, I don’t think this law would be in question right now.  But because public opinion has been so muddled – polls even this week suggest that some people like some parts of the law but most people don’t like all of it – I think it might even embolden the Court to take that step of striking it down.”

Merrill Goozner, writing for MedCity Times, takes a more optimistic view, believing that the ACA will survive even if the individual mandate is thrown out.  According to Goozner, “It was deemed necessary to make the private marketplace for individual and small group insurance policies more efficient and affordable.  It worked by expanding the pool of participants, which would lower insurance costs for everyone.  How does that work? If families that buy insurance have to pick up the tab for people without coverage when they fall ill, the cost of every policy goes up. Estimates for uncompensated care provided to the uninsured range as high as $116 billion a year–enough to cost the average family $1,000 a year in higher premiums, according to the brief to the court submitted by the Obama administration.

“Supporters of the Affordable Care Act have passionately endorsed the individual mandate, largely based on those economics.  Jonathan Gruber, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist who helped Romney design the state law that became the model for ‘Obamacare,’ claims the mandate makes all the other insurance reforms in the law possible.  In particular, it enables the requirement that insurance companies sell policies to everyone no matter what their health status – known as guaranteed issue – at rates that do not discriminate based on health status – dubbed community rating.  Without a mandate, young and healthy people, knowing they could sign up at any time, even if there was a late enrollment penalty, ‘would take their chances… rather than sign up for insurance that they don’t fully value,’ Gruber wrote recently in a brief for the Center for American Progress.  ‘As these young and healthy individuals leave the (state) exchanges (where policies will be sold), they will raise prices for those left behind, causing even further exit – and potentially unraveling the entire market.’”

Handicapping the ACA’s Fate

Wednesday, June 13th, 2012

As the nation anticipates the Supreme Court decision on the future of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA),  pointed questioning by justices has supporters and opponents facing the possibility that the law could be declared unconstitutional.  That would eliminate — along with the contentious mandate that people purchase health insurance — popular provisions such as letting young adults stay on their parents’ plans until age 26, making prescription drugs more affordable for seniors, and requiring insurers to cover those with pre-existing medical conditions.

Even if the court keeps most of the law intact and strikes down the individual mandate, many healthcare advocates, insurers, and legislators believe that these consumer protections will be meaningless.  “There are a series of provisions of the law which have already been enacted which have proven to be fairly popular,’’ said Andrew Dreyfus, president and CEO of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts.  “The question nationally is will there be bipartisan consensus to maintain those provisions even if the Supreme Court overturns some aspects of the law or the whole law?’’

Congress has been disinclined to talk about contingency plans, or the possibility of compromise.  There is agreement  that nothing will be done before November’s presidential election.  “Repeal and replace is a good slogan, but what kind of replacement are we talking about?’’ asked Gail Wilensky, a healthcare economist who administered Medicare and Medicaid under George H.W. Bush.  “Is it a replacement that will substantially extend coverage for people who have been uninsured?  At the moment it’s a little hard to see that happening.’’

“It’s a standard rule of politics that people value losses more than hypothetical gains,’’ said John McDonough, director of Harvard University’s Center for Public Health Leadership and who helped the Senate write the ACA.  “If the court were to strike down significant parts of the law that are already in place, there could quite possibly be a potent public reaction against what is being taken away from people.’’

In an interview with Kaiser Health News, Jon Kingsdale, Executive Director of the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority, who is working to implement the ACA said “We’re working with about a dozen states, and they fall, I’d say, into three camps: One, working very, very hard with a real strong vision of what they want to set up, to implement by October 1, 2013 – which is less than 18 months away.  Others that are planning – they’re preparing.  They’re waiting to see, in fact, if it’s implemented after the Supreme Court decision, which is expected to be announced in June – and/or the election in November.  And then there are states, frankly, we are not working with that are pretty much waiting to see this go away.”

Kingsdale believes that the entire law will not be thrown out by the Supreme Court.  “I think their striking down the entire law is much less probable than striking down the mandate,” he said.  “I’ve begun to talk to people in insurance companies and states and vendor organizations about what happens if the entire law is struck down, and I am struck by the lack of anticipation of what that would mean.  People are aware that there are huge problems. There are many things that have been implemented already, in terms of insurance coverage and Medicare payment policies and accountable care organizations, the authorization of which would be undercut.”

David Axelrod, chief campaign strategist to President Barack Obama, is denying reports that the White House may revisit healthcare in his second term.  “Our hope and our expectation is that the Supreme Court will affirm the healthcare law,” Axelrod said.  “Now is not the time to speculate on that.  We believe that the law is constitutional.  The Affordable Care Act is also really important to the health and well-being of the American people,” Axelrod said. “It is already helping people all over this country, and has improved the position of people relative to their insurance companies, and the kind of policies they are getting and the return they are getting for the premiums they are paying.”

As Many As 112 Million May Have Pre-existing Conditions

Wednesday, May 16th, 2012

Between 36 million and 112 million Americans have pre-existing conditions, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO).  Previously insurers have been able to deny coverage to sick people or offer policies that don’t cover their pre-existing conditions.  The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) prohibits insurers from charging higher prices to people with pre-existing conditions.

Americans with pre-existing conditions represent between 20 and 66 percent of the adult population, with a midpoint estimate of 32 percent.  The differences among the estimates can be attributed to the number and type of conditions included in the different lists of pre-existing conditions.

The GAO compared several recent studies that tried to determine how many adults have pre-existing conditions,  based on the prevalence of certain common conditions.  Hypertension, mental health disorders and diabetes are the most common ailments that lead insurers to deny coverage, GAO said.  The report doesn’t say how many of those people are presently uninsured, but the insurance industry said that number could be relatively low.  Most people have insurance through an employer that is available irrespective of pre-existing conditions, according to America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP).  The trade association stressed that requiring plans to cover everyone is closely linked to the individual mandate, which the Supreme Court could strike down this summer.  There is widespread agreement that the two policies must go hand-in-hand — the Obama administration told the Supreme Court that if it strikes down the mandate, it should also toss out the politically popular requirement to cover people with pre-existing conditions.

Adults with pre-existing conditions spend $1,504 to $4,844 more annually on healthcare, and the majority — 88 to 89 percent — live in parts of the country “without insurance protections similar to the Affordable Care Act provisions, which will become effective in 2014.”

GAO’s analysis found that nearly 33.2 million adults age 19-64 years old, or about 18 percent, reported hypertension in 2009.  People with hypertension reported average annual expenditures of $650, but expenditures reached $61,540.  Mental health disorders and diabetes were the second and third most commonly reported conditions.  Cancer was the condition with the highest average annual treatment expenditures — approximately $9,000.

Non-Profit Hospitals Will Take Financial Hit If the Individual Mandate is Struck Down

Monday, May 14th, 2012

If the Supreme Court overturns the individual mandate that requires Americans to buy healthcare insurance that is contained in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), non-profit hospitals will struggle with higher costs, according to Moody’s Investors Service.  The individual mandate has become the focus for legal attacks on the healthcare law.  It “would result in a significant reduction in uncompensated care delivered by hospitals” and reduce “utilization of expensive emergency room services,” the rating agency said.

“If the Supreme Court overturns the individual mandate, the private health insurance market would likely weaken under the unbalanced weight of strict provisions to cover all those who seek insurance without the counterbalancing benefit of a new, largely healthy, population segment that would be provided under the mandate,” Moody’s said.  “This scenario could become untenable for many insurers and hospitals, as costs would rise but revenues would not.”

There are additional challenges to non-profit hospitals in the ACA, specifically cuts in reimbursement rates for Medicare and reduction of funds paid to hospitals that serve a disproportionate share of Medicaid recipients, Moody’s said.  “Removing the mandate would make the negative features of reform loom much larger.”  Moody’s said the federal government could turn to a voucher system in which individuals would receive public help for them to buy health insurance, but the results for non-profits hospitals “would be more complex and hard to foresee.”

This is bad news because by a nearly five-to-one margin, hospitals expect the ACA to shrink their revenues. The result suggests that hospital executives are having second thoughts about the deal they made with the Obama administration in exchange for supporting the healthcare overhaul will help them weather the law’s financial repercussions.

According to a recent poll, 55 percent of hospitals and health systems anticipate falling revenues as a result of the law, while 12 percent expect an increase.  Twenty-eight percent were unsure of the law’s effect on revenue, indicating continued concern in the industry over the changes wrought by healthcare reform.  Hospital executives agreed to give up $155 billion in government payments over 10 years in a deal to cap costs borne by the industry as a result of the ACA.  The agreement followed a similar agreement with pharmaceutical companies and enabled the reform.  Two crucial hospital groups — the American Hospital Association and the Federation of American Hospitals — backed the law.  “Hospitals have acknowledged that significant healthcare savings can be achieved by improving efficiencies, realigning incentives to emphasize quality care instead of quantity of procedures,” Vice President Joe Biden said at the time.  “Today’s announcement, I believe, represents the essential role hospitals play in making reform a reality.”

“Hospital and health systems’ financial health has a direct impact on the benefits offered to their employees,” said Maureen Cotter, a senior principal at HighRoads, which took the poll.   “Even though 70 percent of those surveyed stated that they are committed to providing coverage in the long term, and no organizations have plans to discontinue coverage now or in the future, the coverage provided may take a new shape,” Cotter said.

There’s even more bad news in the fact that Howard Dean, a physician who formerly was chairman of the Democratic National Committee, a 2004 presidential candidate and governor of Vermont thinks that the high court will declare the mandate unconstitutional.  Dean believes that Justice Anthony Kennedy’s swing vote will side with the conservative justices when it comes to the individual mandate.  “I do believe that it’s likely the individual mandate will be declared unconstitutional.  Kennedy will probably side with the four right-wing justices. The question is going to be, is this individual mandate question, can that be considered separately from the rest of the bill?  And I think it will be.”

Dean also said the ACA can remain in place without the mandate.  “It’s definitely not necessary for the bill to succeed,” Dean said.  “It was mainly put in by academics who built the program for Governor Romney in Massachusetts, they had did it there, and for insurance companies who will benefit from extra customers.”

According to Dean, “The number of so-called free riders — people who will refuse to get insurance until they get sick — is going to be very, very small.”  Dean noted that the actual benefit of the individual mandate is “relatively small.  Everyone is a libertarian in America, whether Democratic, Republican or independent.  They don’t like to be told what to do by government.”

49 States Are Acting to Implement the ACA

Tuesday, May 8th, 2012

Although 26 states oppose sections of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a new report suggests that a majority are taking steps to implement it – no matter what the Supreme Court decides.  The Commonwealth Fund study looked at provisions of the law that went into effect in 2010, specifically the so-called “patient’s bill of rights.”  The law gave states a choice on those matters — they could regulate insurance companies or opt out and let the federal government step in.  According to the report, every state but Arizona has taken some steps to establish its own system. The “bill of rights” contains 10 provisions, including rules that insurers cannot retroactively drop coverage when a customer becomes ill, as well as one that allows parents of young adults to keep their children on their insurance policies.  Ten states have acted on all of the provisions.  Twelve have passed laws or written final regulations.  Yet others have reviewed insurance policy forms providing unofficial guidance to insurers.  “States are responding to the federal law in pragmatic ways that suit their political culture and regulatory needs,” according to the report.

Rhode Island, Maryland and Oregon led the pack in implementing the ACA.  In fact, those states were working to expand health coverage well before the law was passed.  If the ACA is overturned by the Supreme Court, these states — and others supportive of the law’s goals – will keep pursuing reforms.  “What I hear is, they still intend to proceed,” says John Holahan, director of the Health Policy Research Center at The Urban Institute.

One provision of the ACA is that states must set up public insurance exchanges where uninsured residents can shop for coverage.  So far, 16 states and the District of Columbia already have passed legislation enabling implementation of the law, or have governors who have issued executive orders to move forward.  New York was the most recent when Governor Andrew Cuomo bypassed Republican lawmakers who were holding up the state’s effort to create a state insurance exchange by issuing an executive order to proceed.  Another 20 states either have legislation pending or have received some federal grant money to move forward.  The remaining 15 states have made little or no progress.

Two-thirds of the states will have viable exchanges up and running by 2013, according to Sam Gibbs, president of the Exchange Technology Group at eHealth Inc., which runs an online insurance marketplace and is bidding to help build state-level exchanges.  According to the law, the federal government will operate exchanges in states that don’t start them on their own.  That could be difficult to achieve in states that are hostile to the ACA, because implementation requires close cooperation with state government and insurance regulators.

The exchanges will be the entry portal for individuals and families who are currently uninsured.  They will be eligible for a federal insurance subsidy in cases where family income is less than 400 percent of the federally defined poverty level.  The size of the subsidy is based on a sliding scale to hold costs as a share of income between two and 9.5 percent.  States also are required to offer dedicated exchanges for small businesses that would let employers provide a subsidy for employee coverage.  Lower-income families will be eligible for Medicaid under a dramatic federally-financed expansion.  Between the exchanges and Medicaid expansion, coverage will be extended to 23 million uninsured Americans by 2019, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

If the Supreme Court declares the individual mandate unconstitutional and doesn’t touch the rest of the ACA, insurance companies are certain to push Congress for a remedy sometime after the November elections.  This would ensure that enough healthy young people sign up for insurance to balance the ACA’s requirement that carriers accept all applicants and don’t charge high-cost premiums based on age or health risk.  A Government Accountability Office study identified nine alternatives to the individual mandate; for example, setting strict open-enrollment windows with harsh financial penalties for failing to enroll.  That tactic works for Medicare, which charges senior citizens a 10 percent annual lifetime Part B surcharge for each year of delayed enrollment.

Congressional action on a fix would depend on who controls the next Congress — but the recent track record isn’t encouraging. “Since the two parties don’t speak to one another, the odds of a federal fix aren’t very good,” Holahan said.

Writing for Think Progress, Igor Volsky says that “Indeed, it seems that the law has already created an unstoppable momentum towards change and it’s very unlikely that they will take away these new benefits or obtain efforts to modernize their operations (in an effort to reduce spending). Regardless of the Supreme Court’s anticipated ruling on the law in late June, the changes the ACA inspired are here to stay — in one form or another.”

Sebelius Asks Civil Right Activists to Defend the ACA

Monday, April 23rd, 2012

Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius has asked civil rights activists to help defend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), noting that the healthcare law faces an “enemy” whose goal is to set American health policy back half a century.  The remarks come two months before the Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling that could strike down the law.

Sebelius described the ACA as an crucial weapon against racial disparities that have long meant higher infant mortality rates, shorter life spans and limited access to medical services for minorities.  “The enemy is at the door and we know that they would like to dismantle these initiatives,” Sebelius told the annual convention of the National Action Network, a civil rights group led by the Reverend Al Sharpton“Healthcare inequalities have been one of the most persistent forms of injustice,” she said. “Now is not the time to turn back.”

Civil rights advocates and the minorities they often represent form a key segment of the Democratic base, especially if the Supreme Court strikes down Obama’s signature domestic policy achievement.  Research shows that low-income Americans, including many minorities, have significantly less access to medical care and suffer higher rates of childhood illnesses, hypertension, heart disease, AIDS and other diseases.

Designed to bring healthcare coverage to more than 30 million uninsured Americans, the ACA has become a pet target for Republicans mainly because of an `individual mandate that requires most Americans to have healthcare insurance by 2014.  “We’ve got folks who are committed to undoing…the important initiatives that we’ve made in the last few years,” Sebelius said.  “Frankly, they want to go back and undo Medicare and Medicaid from the mid-1960s.  They want to roll us back years and years.”

The House of Representatives voted recently to partially privatize Medicare and convert Medicaid to a block-grant program for states, although the legislation is likely to be stalled in the Senate.  “I’m here to ask you to help,” Sebelius said.  “If we can begin to close the disparities in health, we begin to close disparities in other areas, too.”

Sebelius asked religious leaders, health advocates and other minority leaders to help the Obama administration educate the public about the healthcare law’s many benefits. The law, which becomes fully effective on January 1, 2014, has already benefited minorities by extending private insurance coverage to young adults, providing free preventive services for those with insurance and prohibiting coverage denials for children with pre-existing conditions.

The Supreme Court Takes on the ACA

Tuesday, March 27th, 2012

As the Supreme Court begins three days of hearing about the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), Americans have mixed feelings about President Barack Obama’s signature healthcare overhaul.  The individual mandate is extremely unpopular, despite the fact that approximately 80 percent of Americans have healthcare coverage through workplace plans or government insurance such as Medicare and Medicaid.  When the insurance obligation kicks in, the majority of Americans won’t need to buy anything new.  The bottom line appears to be that Americans object to being told how to spend their money, even if it solves the dilemma of the nation’s more than 50 million uninsured.  One critic dismissed the individual mandate by saying “If things were that easy, I could mandate everybody to buy a house and that would solve the problem of homelessness.”

Listen to Republicans describe the law as an attack on personal freedom, and you’d be surprised to learn that the idea originated with them.  Its model is the Massachusetts law enacted in 2006 when Mitt Romney was the governor.  Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich supported an individual mandate as an alternative to President Bill Clinton’s healthcare proposal, which put the burden on employers.  All four GOP candidates have promised to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which they describe as “Obamacare.”  Former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) terms it “the death knell for freedom.”

President Obama and congressional Democrats passed the mandate in 2010, without Republican support, in an effort to create a fair system that assures that all Americans — whether rich or poor, young or old — get the healthcare they need.  One thing that proponents point out is that other economically advanced countries have succeeded at it.  Congress determined that when the uninsured visit a clinic or the emergency room, the care they can’t afford costs roughly $75 billion a year.  A large percentage of that cost ends up adding $1,000 a year to the average family’s insurance premium.

In legal briefs challenging the law, opponents contend that the “minimum coverage requirement” — known as the individual mandate — would set a precedent that could apply to literally anything.  If it’s legal for Americans to be told to buy health insurance, Congress could try to impose “a broccoli mandate, a car-purchase mandate, really any other mandate that you’d want,” said Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University.  “There are lots of interest groups that would love to lobby Congress to require people to buy their products.”

The mandate is intended to ensure that new insurance market reforms in the law work as intended.  Unless younger, healthier people — who often don’t purchase insurance until they get sick — are covered, the costs of those changes would be exorbitant.  In response to opponents’ admonitions that a mandate to buy insurance could lead to other government-required purchases, the Obama administration argued that no such examples exist.  “Respondents acknowledge that states do have the power to enact purchase mandates, but they identify no example of any state ever having compelled its citizens to buy cars, agricultural products, gym memberships or any other consumer product,” according to the Obama administration.

Not surprisingly, 73 percent of Americans believe that the Supreme Court will be influenced by politics when it rules on the constitutionality of the ACA.  The attitude crosses party lines and is particularly popular with independent voters, of whom 80 percent believe that the court will not base its ruling strictly on its legal merits, according to a Bloomberg National Poll.  Seventy-four percent of Republicans and 67 percent of Democrats believe that politics will be a determining factor in the court’s healthcare decision.

“I always worry when the court steps into the political thicket,” said Barbara Perry, a Supreme Court scholar and professor at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville.  “It does so at its peril.”  The justices themselves say that politics doesn’t impact their decisions.  “It is a very serious threat to the independence and integrity of the courts to politicize them,” Chief Justice John Roberts said at his 2005 Senate confirmation hearing.  Justice Stephen Breyer told Bloomberg News that politics doesn’t influence the court, even in cases with electoral implications.  “It would be bad if it were there,” he said.  “And I don’t see it.”

In reviewing the ACA, the Supreme Court is entering territory that it hasn’t approached since the days of Franklin Delano Roosevelt: ruling on a president’s signature legislative victory in the midst of his re-election campaign.  Justices are taking more time to listen arguments — six hours over three days — than any other case in the last 44 years.   “This is a central challenge to the modern Constitution, which was fashioned during the New Deal and then elaborated further during the civil rights revolution,” said Bruce Ackerman, a professor at Yale Law School in New Haven, Connecticut and author of The Decline and Fall of the American Republic.  “This goes to the very foundations of modern American government.”

The closest comparable was 76 years ago, involving Roosevelt’s New Deal, a response to the Great Depression.  It wasn’t a single piece of legislation and included the creation of Social Security.  The court ruled against parts of the New Deal, while leaving others in place.  The principal decision came when the court struck down much of the National Industrial Recovery Act, which allowed industries to create trade associations that set quotas and fixed prices.

Those wishing to tune in and watch the excitement are destined to be disappointed. The Supreme Court will make available same-day audio of the oral arguments.  In its announcement, the court said it is making the audio available because of the “extraordinary public interest” in the case.

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.”

Will the ACA Survive the Supreme Court, 2012 Election?

Wednesday, February 1st, 2012

The 26 states that have challenged President Barack Obamas healthcare law face several dilemmas as they try to convince the Supreme Court to declare the law’s Medicaid expansion unconstitutional   The two lower courts that heard the Medicaid challenge ruled in favor of the Obama administration, even as those judges struck down the healthcare law’s individual mandate. Legal experts on both sides of the mandate debate were surprised that the Supreme Court agreed to also hear the Medicaid piece of the state’  lawsuit.  The healthcare law’s supporters claim that the states erred in their initial brief on the Medicaid expansion, which was filed with the Supreme Court.

According to the states involved in the lawsuit. the ACA’s Medicaid expansion is “coercive.” Although state participation in the program is strictly voluntarily, the brief argues, the healthcare law makes it impossible for states to opt out of Medicaid.  The brief tries hard to link the Medicaid expansion to the individual mandate, arguing that states won’t be able to exercise their legal right to leave Medicaid because it’s the only way for Medicaid-eligible residents to fulfill the mandate.

“While the (Affordable Care Act) purports to leave states’ participation in Medicaid nominally voluntary, multiple aspects of the Act evince Congress’ keen awareness that, in fact, no state will be able to reject its new terms and withdraw from the program,” the brief says. “Most obviously, the ACA’s individual mandate requires Medicaid-eligible individuals to obtain and maintain insurance.”  But most Medicaid-eligible people would be exempt from the mandate, said Timothy Jost, a law professor at Washington and Lee University and a supporter of the health law.

Then there’s the Supreme Court case, which will be heard in the spring and a verdict announced prior to the November presidential election. According to Kurt Mainwaring, a ksl.com contributor, “Far-reaching consequences of the court’s ruling will likely impact both the cost of healthcare and the outcome of the 2012 elections.  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.  At present, healthcare costs make up approximately 18 percent of GDP. 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.”  Translated to real numbers, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) notes that Americans paid approximately $1,000 annually 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.  This kind of increase in healthcare costs is not sustainable — and these kinds of projections are part of the reason ACA was enacted in the first place.

Beach Conger, a Vermont internist writing in the Burlington Free Press believes that “Medicare for All” — a possibility that was raised during the lengthy debate over the ACA — should be reconsidered.  According to Conger, “Medicare and I were born in the same year. Professionally speaking, that is. We were raised together, and we have been married to each other for what seems an eternity. As with any long-term relationship, we have had our ups and downs, but we have both matured over the years, and I believe we are both the better for it. Without being too vain, I have to say I have done a better job at providing health care, and I have to admit that Medicare has helped me do it.  At first, it just made sure that those retired people who wished to pay me the fees to which those in my line of work have become so accustomed, could actually do so. But eventually it realized that there was more to the business than just money, and it began to keep an eye over my shoulder, making sure I was not leaving undone those things which ought to be done and not doing those things which I ought not.  So I can’t help but think, why not Medicare for everyone? It would be so simple. And that’s when I realized.  It was too simple.”

Dr. Conge, it should be pointed out, lives in Vermont, to date the only of 50 states to enact a single-payer public option — Green Mountain Care.

MLK & Healthcare Reform

Monday, January 30th, 2012

A recent byline article in Forbes magazine by Carolyn McClanahan, M.D., CFP, raises many issues about healthcare in the year 2012.  According to McClanahan “The New England Journal of Medicine’s (NEJM) article on the fate of healthcare reform in 2012 greatly saddens the optimist in me. It discusses four important events, and I’ll share my “simplistic view” of these events:

“State legislatures getting in gear to fill their role assigned by the ACA.  As I’ve discussed previously, we have a complicated healthcare system which is expensive and inefficient.  Instead of simplifying, each state will implement or delay implementing the law based solely on their political interest.  This is not productive.”

“The second event is the Supreme Court’s ruling on the legality of the ACA in May. It is possible that the entire law could be struck down, (albeit unlikely).  If this scenario plays out, we will have wasted billions implementing parts of the law to date.  Another more likely scenario is the law will be upheld but the mandate that everyone purchase health insurance be thrown out.  This would severely weaken the law because people will only buy insurance when they are sick.  There will still be a requirement that insurance companies have to sell insurance to everyone regardless of health status.  This is not financially feasible.  Most likely, the law will stand, but who really knows?”

“The third key event is the deadline for states to apply for federal grants to operate their health insurance exchange.  State who don’t apply will either have to cede control of the exchanges to the federal government or pay for the cost of implementation themselves.  State governors and legislatures against the ACA, like my home state of Florida, risk turning away resources and having more of the federal government running the show.  Talk about the law of unintended consequences.”

“The fourth key date is the election in November.  If President Obama wins re-election, implementation will continue.  If he loses, the winner will have a difficult time repealing the law unless the Republicans can win 60 seats in the Senate.  So what is their plan?  Have everyone drag their feet on implementation or do a half-baked job.  Wouldn’t it be nice if instead they came up with a good plan to fix the parts that are not working?  Simplify and clean up the mess of the insurance part of the law and implement with speed and clarity the good parts like preventive care initiatives, rebuilding our primary care workforce, and improving our ability to handle large disasters.”

A similar viewpoint was expressed by Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who said that access to healthcare is the next civil rights frontier.  According to Sebelius, “On Martin Luther King Day, it is easy to congratulate ourselves on our progress in moving beyond segregated schools, lunch counters and drinking fountains. The hard question is this: what injustices do we still accept that should, in fact, be intolerable?  Surely Dr. King would find the next civil rights frontier in healthcare, with nearly 50 million uninsured, almost 45,000 deaths annually due to lack of insurance, and more than half of all personal bankruptcies linked to illness and medical bills.”

“While the Affordable Care Act will bring improvements, such as decreasing the ranks of the uninsured, supporting community health centers, and investing in prevention, it leaves many gaps. At least 23 million people will still be uninsured in 2019. Tens of millions will be underinsured, one serious illness away from financial ruin. Most people who suffer medical bankruptcy had private insurance before getting sick. And medical bankruptcy is a cruel double whammy. Already beset with pain, anxiety and fear – due to serious illness – families find themselves financially devastated.  This doesn’t happen in other industrialized countries, which have high-quality health systems that cover everyone.”

As a department, we are committed to ensuring that all Americans achieve health equity by eliminating disparities and doing what we can to improve the health of all groups, including the poor and underserved,” Sebelius said. “One of the most important ways we are doing this is through our new health care law, the Affordable Care Act.”