User login
Who doesn’t text in 2022? Most state Medicaid programs
West Virginia will use the U.S. Postal Service and an online account in the summer of 2022 to connect with Medicaid enrollees about the expected end of the COVID public health emergency, which will put many recipients at risk of losing their coverage.
What West Virginia won’t do is use a form of communication that’s ubiquitous worldwide: text messaging.
“West Virginia isn’t set up to text its members,” Allison Adler, the state’s Medicaid spokesperson, wrote to KHN in an email.
Indeed, most states’ Medicaid programs won’t text enrollees despite the urgency to reach them about renewing their coverage. A KFF report published in March found just 11 states said they would use texting to alert Medicaid recipients about the end of the COVID public health emergency. In contrast, 33 states plan to use snail mail and at least 20 will reach out with individual or automated phone calls.
“It doesn’t make any sense when texting is how most people communicate today,” said Kinda Serafi, a partner with the consulting firm Manatt Health.
State Medicaid agencies for months have been preparing for the end of the public health emergency. As part of a COVID relief law approved in March 2020, Congress prohibited states from dropping anyone from Medicaid coverage unless they moved out of state during the public health emergency. When the emergency ends, state Medicaid officials must reevaluate each enrollee’s eligibility. Millions of people could lose their coverage if they earn too much or fail to provide the information needed to verify income or residency.
As of November, about 86 million people were enrolled in Medicaid, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. That’s up from 71 million in February 2020, before COVID began to ravage the nation.
West Virginia has more than 600,000 Medicaid enrollees. Adler said about 100,000 of them could lose their eligibility at the end of the public health emergency because either the state has determined they’re ineligible or they’ve failed to respond to requests that they update their income information.
“It’s frustrating that texting is a means to meet people where they are and that this has not been picked up more by states,” said Jennifer Wagner, director of Medicaid eligibility and enrollment for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a Washington-based research group.
The problem with relying on the Postal Service is that a letter can get hidden in “junk” mail or can fail to reach people who have moved or are homeless, Ms. Serafi said. And email, if people have an account, can end up in spam folders.
In contrast, surveys show lower-income Americans are just as likely to have smartphones and cellphones as the general population. And most people regularly use texting.
In Michigan, Medicaid officials started using text messaging to communicate with enrollees in 2020 after building a system with the help of federal COVID relief funding. They said texting is an economical way to reach enrollees.
“It costs us 2 cents per text message, which is incredibly cheap,” said Steph White, an enrollment coordinator for the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services. “It’s a great return on investment.”
CMS officials have told states they should consider texting, along with other communication methods, when trying to reach enrollees when the public health emergency ends. But many states don’t have the technology or information about enrollees to do it.
Efforts to add texting also face legal barriers, including a federal law that bars texting people without their consent. The Federal Communications Commission ruled in 2021 that state agencies are exempt from the law, but whether counties that handle Medicaid duties for some states and Medicaid managed-care organizations that work in more than 40 states are exempt as well is unclear, said Matt Salo, executive director of the National Association of Medicaid Directors.
CMS spokesperson Beth Lynk said the agency is trying to figure out how Medicaid agencies, counties, and health plans can text enrollees within the constraints of federal law.
Several states told KHN that Medicaid health plans will be helping connect with enrollees and that they expect the plans to use text messaging. But the requirement to get consent from enrollees before texting could limit that effort.
That’s the situation in Virginia, where only about 30,000 Medicaid enrollees – out of more than a million – have agreed to receive text messages directly from the state, said spokesperson Christina Nuckols.
In an effort to boost that number, the state plans to ask enrollees if they want to opt out of receiving text messages, rather than ask them to opt in, she said. This way enrollees would contact the state only if they don’t want to be texted. The state is reviewing its legal options to make that happen.
Meanwhile, Ms. Nuckols added, the state expects Medicaid health plans to contact enrollees about updating their contact information. Four of Virginia’s six Medicaid plans, which serve the bulk of the state’s enrollees, have permission to text about 316,000.
Craig Kennedy, CEO of Medicaid Health Plans of America, a trade group, said that most plans are using texting and that Medicaid officials will use multiple strategies to connect with enrollees. “I do not see this as a detriment, that states are not texting information about reenrollment,” he said. “I know we will be helping with that.”
California officials in March directed Medicaid health plans to use a variety of communication methods, including texting, to ensure that members can retain coverage if they remain eligible. The officials told health plans they could ask for consent through an initial text.
California officials say they also plan to ask enrollees for consent to be texted on the enrollment application, although federal approval for the change is not expected until the fall.
A few state Medicaid programs have experimented in recent years with pilot programs that included texting enrollees.
In 2019, Louisiana worked with the nonprofit group Code for America to send text messages that reminded people about renewing coverage and providing income information for verification. Compared with traditional communication methods, the texts led to a 67% increase in enrollees being renewed for coverage and a 56% increase in enrollees verifying their income in response to inquiries, said Medicaid spokesperson Alyson Neel.
Nonetheless, the state isn’t planning to text Medicaid enrollees about the end of the public health emergency because it hasn’t set up a system for that. “Medicaid has not yet been able to implement a text messaging system of its own due to other agency priorities,” Ms. Neel said.
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.
West Virginia will use the U.S. Postal Service and an online account in the summer of 2022 to connect with Medicaid enrollees about the expected end of the COVID public health emergency, which will put many recipients at risk of losing their coverage.
What West Virginia won’t do is use a form of communication that’s ubiquitous worldwide: text messaging.
“West Virginia isn’t set up to text its members,” Allison Adler, the state’s Medicaid spokesperson, wrote to KHN in an email.
Indeed, most states’ Medicaid programs won’t text enrollees despite the urgency to reach them about renewing their coverage. A KFF report published in March found just 11 states said they would use texting to alert Medicaid recipients about the end of the COVID public health emergency. In contrast, 33 states plan to use snail mail and at least 20 will reach out with individual or automated phone calls.
“It doesn’t make any sense when texting is how most people communicate today,” said Kinda Serafi, a partner with the consulting firm Manatt Health.
State Medicaid agencies for months have been preparing for the end of the public health emergency. As part of a COVID relief law approved in March 2020, Congress prohibited states from dropping anyone from Medicaid coverage unless they moved out of state during the public health emergency. When the emergency ends, state Medicaid officials must reevaluate each enrollee’s eligibility. Millions of people could lose their coverage if they earn too much or fail to provide the information needed to verify income or residency.
As of November, about 86 million people were enrolled in Medicaid, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. That’s up from 71 million in February 2020, before COVID began to ravage the nation.
West Virginia has more than 600,000 Medicaid enrollees. Adler said about 100,000 of them could lose their eligibility at the end of the public health emergency because either the state has determined they’re ineligible or they’ve failed to respond to requests that they update their income information.
“It’s frustrating that texting is a means to meet people where they are and that this has not been picked up more by states,” said Jennifer Wagner, director of Medicaid eligibility and enrollment for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a Washington-based research group.
The problem with relying on the Postal Service is that a letter can get hidden in “junk” mail or can fail to reach people who have moved or are homeless, Ms. Serafi said. And email, if people have an account, can end up in spam folders.
In contrast, surveys show lower-income Americans are just as likely to have smartphones and cellphones as the general population. And most people regularly use texting.
In Michigan, Medicaid officials started using text messaging to communicate with enrollees in 2020 after building a system with the help of federal COVID relief funding. They said texting is an economical way to reach enrollees.
“It costs us 2 cents per text message, which is incredibly cheap,” said Steph White, an enrollment coordinator for the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services. “It’s a great return on investment.”
CMS officials have told states they should consider texting, along with other communication methods, when trying to reach enrollees when the public health emergency ends. But many states don’t have the technology or information about enrollees to do it.
Efforts to add texting also face legal barriers, including a federal law that bars texting people without their consent. The Federal Communications Commission ruled in 2021 that state agencies are exempt from the law, but whether counties that handle Medicaid duties for some states and Medicaid managed-care organizations that work in more than 40 states are exempt as well is unclear, said Matt Salo, executive director of the National Association of Medicaid Directors.
CMS spokesperson Beth Lynk said the agency is trying to figure out how Medicaid agencies, counties, and health plans can text enrollees within the constraints of federal law.
Several states told KHN that Medicaid health plans will be helping connect with enrollees and that they expect the plans to use text messaging. But the requirement to get consent from enrollees before texting could limit that effort.
That’s the situation in Virginia, where only about 30,000 Medicaid enrollees – out of more than a million – have agreed to receive text messages directly from the state, said spokesperson Christina Nuckols.
In an effort to boost that number, the state plans to ask enrollees if they want to opt out of receiving text messages, rather than ask them to opt in, she said. This way enrollees would contact the state only if they don’t want to be texted. The state is reviewing its legal options to make that happen.
Meanwhile, Ms. Nuckols added, the state expects Medicaid health plans to contact enrollees about updating their contact information. Four of Virginia’s six Medicaid plans, which serve the bulk of the state’s enrollees, have permission to text about 316,000.
Craig Kennedy, CEO of Medicaid Health Plans of America, a trade group, said that most plans are using texting and that Medicaid officials will use multiple strategies to connect with enrollees. “I do not see this as a detriment, that states are not texting information about reenrollment,” he said. “I know we will be helping with that.”
California officials in March directed Medicaid health plans to use a variety of communication methods, including texting, to ensure that members can retain coverage if they remain eligible. The officials told health plans they could ask for consent through an initial text.
California officials say they also plan to ask enrollees for consent to be texted on the enrollment application, although federal approval for the change is not expected until the fall.
A few state Medicaid programs have experimented in recent years with pilot programs that included texting enrollees.
In 2019, Louisiana worked with the nonprofit group Code for America to send text messages that reminded people about renewing coverage and providing income information for verification. Compared with traditional communication methods, the texts led to a 67% increase in enrollees being renewed for coverage and a 56% increase in enrollees verifying their income in response to inquiries, said Medicaid spokesperson Alyson Neel.
Nonetheless, the state isn’t planning to text Medicaid enrollees about the end of the public health emergency because it hasn’t set up a system for that. “Medicaid has not yet been able to implement a text messaging system of its own due to other agency priorities,” Ms. Neel said.
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.
West Virginia will use the U.S. Postal Service and an online account in the summer of 2022 to connect with Medicaid enrollees about the expected end of the COVID public health emergency, which will put many recipients at risk of losing their coverage.
What West Virginia won’t do is use a form of communication that’s ubiquitous worldwide: text messaging.
“West Virginia isn’t set up to text its members,” Allison Adler, the state’s Medicaid spokesperson, wrote to KHN in an email.
Indeed, most states’ Medicaid programs won’t text enrollees despite the urgency to reach them about renewing their coverage. A KFF report published in March found just 11 states said they would use texting to alert Medicaid recipients about the end of the COVID public health emergency. In contrast, 33 states plan to use snail mail and at least 20 will reach out with individual or automated phone calls.
“It doesn’t make any sense when texting is how most people communicate today,” said Kinda Serafi, a partner with the consulting firm Manatt Health.
State Medicaid agencies for months have been preparing for the end of the public health emergency. As part of a COVID relief law approved in March 2020, Congress prohibited states from dropping anyone from Medicaid coverage unless they moved out of state during the public health emergency. When the emergency ends, state Medicaid officials must reevaluate each enrollee’s eligibility. Millions of people could lose their coverage if they earn too much or fail to provide the information needed to verify income or residency.
As of November, about 86 million people were enrolled in Medicaid, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. That’s up from 71 million in February 2020, before COVID began to ravage the nation.
West Virginia has more than 600,000 Medicaid enrollees. Adler said about 100,000 of them could lose their eligibility at the end of the public health emergency because either the state has determined they’re ineligible or they’ve failed to respond to requests that they update their income information.
“It’s frustrating that texting is a means to meet people where they are and that this has not been picked up more by states,” said Jennifer Wagner, director of Medicaid eligibility and enrollment for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a Washington-based research group.
The problem with relying on the Postal Service is that a letter can get hidden in “junk” mail or can fail to reach people who have moved or are homeless, Ms. Serafi said. And email, if people have an account, can end up in spam folders.
In contrast, surveys show lower-income Americans are just as likely to have smartphones and cellphones as the general population. And most people regularly use texting.
In Michigan, Medicaid officials started using text messaging to communicate with enrollees in 2020 after building a system with the help of federal COVID relief funding. They said texting is an economical way to reach enrollees.
“It costs us 2 cents per text message, which is incredibly cheap,” said Steph White, an enrollment coordinator for the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services. “It’s a great return on investment.”
CMS officials have told states they should consider texting, along with other communication methods, when trying to reach enrollees when the public health emergency ends. But many states don’t have the technology or information about enrollees to do it.
Efforts to add texting also face legal barriers, including a federal law that bars texting people without their consent. The Federal Communications Commission ruled in 2021 that state agencies are exempt from the law, but whether counties that handle Medicaid duties for some states and Medicaid managed-care organizations that work in more than 40 states are exempt as well is unclear, said Matt Salo, executive director of the National Association of Medicaid Directors.
CMS spokesperson Beth Lynk said the agency is trying to figure out how Medicaid agencies, counties, and health plans can text enrollees within the constraints of federal law.
Several states told KHN that Medicaid health plans will be helping connect with enrollees and that they expect the plans to use text messaging. But the requirement to get consent from enrollees before texting could limit that effort.
That’s the situation in Virginia, where only about 30,000 Medicaid enrollees – out of more than a million – have agreed to receive text messages directly from the state, said spokesperson Christina Nuckols.
In an effort to boost that number, the state plans to ask enrollees if they want to opt out of receiving text messages, rather than ask them to opt in, she said. This way enrollees would contact the state only if they don’t want to be texted. The state is reviewing its legal options to make that happen.
Meanwhile, Ms. Nuckols added, the state expects Medicaid health plans to contact enrollees about updating their contact information. Four of Virginia’s six Medicaid plans, which serve the bulk of the state’s enrollees, have permission to text about 316,000.
Craig Kennedy, CEO of Medicaid Health Plans of America, a trade group, said that most plans are using texting and that Medicaid officials will use multiple strategies to connect with enrollees. “I do not see this as a detriment, that states are not texting information about reenrollment,” he said. “I know we will be helping with that.”
California officials in March directed Medicaid health plans to use a variety of communication methods, including texting, to ensure that members can retain coverage if they remain eligible. The officials told health plans they could ask for consent through an initial text.
California officials say they also plan to ask enrollees for consent to be texted on the enrollment application, although federal approval for the change is not expected until the fall.
A few state Medicaid programs have experimented in recent years with pilot programs that included texting enrollees.
In 2019, Louisiana worked with the nonprofit group Code for America to send text messages that reminded people about renewing coverage and providing income information for verification. Compared with traditional communication methods, the texts led to a 67% increase in enrollees being renewed for coverage and a 56% increase in enrollees verifying their income in response to inquiries, said Medicaid spokesperson Alyson Neel.
Nonetheless, the state isn’t planning to text Medicaid enrollees about the end of the public health emergency because it hasn’t set up a system for that. “Medicaid has not yet been able to implement a text messaging system of its own due to other agency priorities,” Ms. Neel said.
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.
Biden plan to lower Medicare eligibility age to 60 faces hostility from hospitals
Of his many plans to expand insurance coverage, President-elect Joe Biden’s simplest strategy is lowering the eligibility age for Medicare from 65 to 60.
But the plan is sure to face long odds, even if the Democrats can snag control of the Senate in January by winning two runoff elections in Georgia.
Republicans, who fought the creation of Medicare in the 1960s and typically oppose expanding government entitlement programs, are not the biggest obstacle. Instead, the nation’s hospitals, a powerful political force, are poised to derail any effort.
“Hospitals certainly are not going to be happy with it,” said Jonathan Oberlander, professor of health policy and management at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Medicare reimbursement rates for patients admitted to hospitals average half what commercial or employer-sponsored insurance plans pay.
“It will be a huge lift [in Congress] as the realities of lower Medicare reimbursement rates will activate some powerful interests against this,” said Josh Archambault, a senior fellow with the conservative Foundation for Government Accountability.
Biden, who turns 78 this month, said his plan will help Americans who retire early and those who are unemployed or can’t find jobs with health benefits.
“It reflects the reality that, even after the current crisis ends, older Americans are likely to find it difficult to secure jobs,” Biden wrote in April.
Lowering the Medicare eligibility age is popular. About 85% of Democrats and 69% of Republicans favor allowing those as young as 50 to buy into Medicare, according to a KFF tracking poll from January 2019. (KHN is an editorially independent program of KFF.)
Although opposition from the hospital industry is expected to be fierce, that is not the only obstacle to Biden’s plan.
Critics, especially Republicans on Capitol Hill, will point to the nation’s $3 trillion budget deficit as well as the dim outlook for the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund. That fund is on track to reach insolvency in 2024. That means there won’t be enough money to fully pay hospitals and nursing homes for inpatient care for Medicare beneficiaries.
Moreover, it’s unclear whether expanding Medicare will fit on the Democrats’ crowded health agenda, which also includes dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic, possibly rescuing the Affordable Care Act if the Supreme Court strikes down part or all of the law in a current case, expanding Obamacare subsidies and lowering drug costs.
Biden’s proposal is a nod to the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, which has advocated for Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-Vt.) government-run “Medicare for All” health system that would provide universal coverage. Biden opposed that effort, saying the nation could not afford it. He wanted to retain the private health insurance system, which covers 180 million people.
To expand coverage, Biden has proposed two major initiatives. In addition to the Medicare eligibility change, he wants Congress to approve a government-run health plan that people could buy into instead of purchasing coverage from insurance companies on their own or through the Obamacare marketplaces. Insurers helped beat back this “public option” initiative in 2009 during the congressional debate over the ACA.
The appeal of lowering Medicare eligibility to help those without insurance lies with leveraging a popular government program that has low administrative costs.
“It is hard to find a reform idea that is more popular than opening up Medicare” to people as young as 60, Oberlander said. He said early retirees would like the concept, as would employers, who could save on their health costs as workers gravitate to Medicare.
The eligibility age has been set at 65 since Medicare was created in 1965 as part of President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society reform package. It was designed to coincide with the age when people at that time qualified for Social Security. Today, people generally qualify for early, reduced Social Security benefits at age 62, though they have to wait until age 66 for full benefits.
While people can qualify on the basis of other criteria, such as having a disability or end-stage renal disease, 85% of the 57 million Medicare enrollees are in the program simply because they’re old enough.
Lowering the age to 60 could add as many as 23 million people to Medicare, according to an analysis by the consulting firm Avalere Health. It’s unclear, however, if everyone who would be eligible would sign up or if Biden would limit the expansion to the 1.7 million people in that age range who are uninsured and the 3.2 million who buy coverage on their own.
Avalere says 3.2 million people in that age group buy coverage on the individual market.
While the 60-to-65 group has the lowest uninsured rate (8%) among adults, it has the highest health costs and pays the highest rates for individual coverage, said Cristina Boccuti, director of health policy at West Health, a nonpartisan research group.
About 13 million of those between 60 and 65 have coverage through their employer, according to Avalere. While they would not have to drop coverage to join Medicare, they could possibly opt to also pay to join the federal program and use it as a wraparound for their existing coverage. Medicare might then pick up costs for some services that the consumers would have to shoulder out-of-pocket.
Some 4 million people between 60 and 65 are enrolled in Medicaid, the state-federal health insurance program for low-income people. Shifting them to Medicare would make that their primary health insurer, a move that would save states money since they split Medicaid costs with the federal government.
Chris Pope, a senior fellow with the conservative Manhattan Institute, said getting health industry support, particularly from hospitals, will be vital for any health coverage expansion. “Hospitals are very aware about generous commercial rates being replaced by lower Medicare rates,” he said.
“Members of Congress, a lot of them are close to their hospitals and do not want to see them with a revenue hole,” he said.
President Barack Obama made a deal with the industry on the way to passing the ACA. In exchange for gaining millions of paying customers and lowering their uncompensated care by billions of dollars, the hospital industry agreed to give up future Medicare funds designed to help them cope with the uninsured. Showing the industry’s prowess on Capitol Hill, Congress has delayed those funding cuts for more than six years.
Jacob Hacker, a Yale University political scientist, noted that expanding Medicare would reduce the number of Americans who rely on employer-sponsored coverage. The pitfalls of the employer system were highlighted in 2020 as millions lost their jobs and workplace health coverage.
Even if they can win the two Georgia seats and take control of the Senate with the vice president breaking any ties, Democrats would be unlikely to pass major legislation without GOP support — unless they are willing to jettison the long-standing filibuster rule so they can pass most legislation with a simple 51-vote majority instead of 60 votes.
Hacker said that slim margin would make it difficult for Democrats to deal with many health issues all at once.
“Congress is not good at parallel processing,” Hacker said, referring to handling multiple priorities at the same time. “And the window is relatively short.”
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
Of his many plans to expand insurance coverage, President-elect Joe Biden’s simplest strategy is lowering the eligibility age for Medicare from 65 to 60.
But the plan is sure to face long odds, even if the Democrats can snag control of the Senate in January by winning two runoff elections in Georgia.
Republicans, who fought the creation of Medicare in the 1960s and typically oppose expanding government entitlement programs, are not the biggest obstacle. Instead, the nation’s hospitals, a powerful political force, are poised to derail any effort.
“Hospitals certainly are not going to be happy with it,” said Jonathan Oberlander, professor of health policy and management at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Medicare reimbursement rates for patients admitted to hospitals average half what commercial or employer-sponsored insurance plans pay.
“It will be a huge lift [in Congress] as the realities of lower Medicare reimbursement rates will activate some powerful interests against this,” said Josh Archambault, a senior fellow with the conservative Foundation for Government Accountability.
Biden, who turns 78 this month, said his plan will help Americans who retire early and those who are unemployed or can’t find jobs with health benefits.
“It reflects the reality that, even after the current crisis ends, older Americans are likely to find it difficult to secure jobs,” Biden wrote in April.
Lowering the Medicare eligibility age is popular. About 85% of Democrats and 69% of Republicans favor allowing those as young as 50 to buy into Medicare, according to a KFF tracking poll from January 2019. (KHN is an editorially independent program of KFF.)
Although opposition from the hospital industry is expected to be fierce, that is not the only obstacle to Biden’s plan.
Critics, especially Republicans on Capitol Hill, will point to the nation’s $3 trillion budget deficit as well as the dim outlook for the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund. That fund is on track to reach insolvency in 2024. That means there won’t be enough money to fully pay hospitals and nursing homes for inpatient care for Medicare beneficiaries.
Moreover, it’s unclear whether expanding Medicare will fit on the Democrats’ crowded health agenda, which also includes dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic, possibly rescuing the Affordable Care Act if the Supreme Court strikes down part or all of the law in a current case, expanding Obamacare subsidies and lowering drug costs.
Biden’s proposal is a nod to the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, which has advocated for Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-Vt.) government-run “Medicare for All” health system that would provide universal coverage. Biden opposed that effort, saying the nation could not afford it. He wanted to retain the private health insurance system, which covers 180 million people.
To expand coverage, Biden has proposed two major initiatives. In addition to the Medicare eligibility change, he wants Congress to approve a government-run health plan that people could buy into instead of purchasing coverage from insurance companies on their own or through the Obamacare marketplaces. Insurers helped beat back this “public option” initiative in 2009 during the congressional debate over the ACA.
The appeal of lowering Medicare eligibility to help those without insurance lies with leveraging a popular government program that has low administrative costs.
“It is hard to find a reform idea that is more popular than opening up Medicare” to people as young as 60, Oberlander said. He said early retirees would like the concept, as would employers, who could save on their health costs as workers gravitate to Medicare.
The eligibility age has been set at 65 since Medicare was created in 1965 as part of President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society reform package. It was designed to coincide with the age when people at that time qualified for Social Security. Today, people generally qualify for early, reduced Social Security benefits at age 62, though they have to wait until age 66 for full benefits.
While people can qualify on the basis of other criteria, such as having a disability or end-stage renal disease, 85% of the 57 million Medicare enrollees are in the program simply because they’re old enough.
Lowering the age to 60 could add as many as 23 million people to Medicare, according to an analysis by the consulting firm Avalere Health. It’s unclear, however, if everyone who would be eligible would sign up or if Biden would limit the expansion to the 1.7 million people in that age range who are uninsured and the 3.2 million who buy coverage on their own.
Avalere says 3.2 million people in that age group buy coverage on the individual market.
While the 60-to-65 group has the lowest uninsured rate (8%) among adults, it has the highest health costs and pays the highest rates for individual coverage, said Cristina Boccuti, director of health policy at West Health, a nonpartisan research group.
About 13 million of those between 60 and 65 have coverage through their employer, according to Avalere. While they would not have to drop coverage to join Medicare, they could possibly opt to also pay to join the federal program and use it as a wraparound for their existing coverage. Medicare might then pick up costs for some services that the consumers would have to shoulder out-of-pocket.
Some 4 million people between 60 and 65 are enrolled in Medicaid, the state-federal health insurance program for low-income people. Shifting them to Medicare would make that their primary health insurer, a move that would save states money since they split Medicaid costs with the federal government.
Chris Pope, a senior fellow with the conservative Manhattan Institute, said getting health industry support, particularly from hospitals, will be vital for any health coverage expansion. “Hospitals are very aware about generous commercial rates being replaced by lower Medicare rates,” he said.
“Members of Congress, a lot of them are close to their hospitals and do not want to see them with a revenue hole,” he said.
President Barack Obama made a deal with the industry on the way to passing the ACA. In exchange for gaining millions of paying customers and lowering their uncompensated care by billions of dollars, the hospital industry agreed to give up future Medicare funds designed to help them cope with the uninsured. Showing the industry’s prowess on Capitol Hill, Congress has delayed those funding cuts for more than six years.
Jacob Hacker, a Yale University political scientist, noted that expanding Medicare would reduce the number of Americans who rely on employer-sponsored coverage. The pitfalls of the employer system were highlighted in 2020 as millions lost their jobs and workplace health coverage.
Even if they can win the two Georgia seats and take control of the Senate with the vice president breaking any ties, Democrats would be unlikely to pass major legislation without GOP support — unless they are willing to jettison the long-standing filibuster rule so they can pass most legislation with a simple 51-vote majority instead of 60 votes.
Hacker said that slim margin would make it difficult for Democrats to deal with many health issues all at once.
“Congress is not good at parallel processing,” Hacker said, referring to handling multiple priorities at the same time. “And the window is relatively short.”
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
Of his many plans to expand insurance coverage, President-elect Joe Biden’s simplest strategy is lowering the eligibility age for Medicare from 65 to 60.
But the plan is sure to face long odds, even if the Democrats can snag control of the Senate in January by winning two runoff elections in Georgia.
Republicans, who fought the creation of Medicare in the 1960s and typically oppose expanding government entitlement programs, are not the biggest obstacle. Instead, the nation’s hospitals, a powerful political force, are poised to derail any effort.
“Hospitals certainly are not going to be happy with it,” said Jonathan Oberlander, professor of health policy and management at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Medicare reimbursement rates for patients admitted to hospitals average half what commercial or employer-sponsored insurance plans pay.
“It will be a huge lift [in Congress] as the realities of lower Medicare reimbursement rates will activate some powerful interests against this,” said Josh Archambault, a senior fellow with the conservative Foundation for Government Accountability.
Biden, who turns 78 this month, said his plan will help Americans who retire early and those who are unemployed or can’t find jobs with health benefits.
“It reflects the reality that, even after the current crisis ends, older Americans are likely to find it difficult to secure jobs,” Biden wrote in April.
Lowering the Medicare eligibility age is popular. About 85% of Democrats and 69% of Republicans favor allowing those as young as 50 to buy into Medicare, according to a KFF tracking poll from January 2019. (KHN is an editorially independent program of KFF.)
Although opposition from the hospital industry is expected to be fierce, that is not the only obstacle to Biden’s plan.
Critics, especially Republicans on Capitol Hill, will point to the nation’s $3 trillion budget deficit as well as the dim outlook for the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund. That fund is on track to reach insolvency in 2024. That means there won’t be enough money to fully pay hospitals and nursing homes for inpatient care for Medicare beneficiaries.
Moreover, it’s unclear whether expanding Medicare will fit on the Democrats’ crowded health agenda, which also includes dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic, possibly rescuing the Affordable Care Act if the Supreme Court strikes down part or all of the law in a current case, expanding Obamacare subsidies and lowering drug costs.
Biden’s proposal is a nod to the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, which has advocated for Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-Vt.) government-run “Medicare for All” health system that would provide universal coverage. Biden opposed that effort, saying the nation could not afford it. He wanted to retain the private health insurance system, which covers 180 million people.
To expand coverage, Biden has proposed two major initiatives. In addition to the Medicare eligibility change, he wants Congress to approve a government-run health plan that people could buy into instead of purchasing coverage from insurance companies on their own or through the Obamacare marketplaces. Insurers helped beat back this “public option” initiative in 2009 during the congressional debate over the ACA.
The appeal of lowering Medicare eligibility to help those without insurance lies with leveraging a popular government program that has low administrative costs.
“It is hard to find a reform idea that is more popular than opening up Medicare” to people as young as 60, Oberlander said. He said early retirees would like the concept, as would employers, who could save on their health costs as workers gravitate to Medicare.
The eligibility age has been set at 65 since Medicare was created in 1965 as part of President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society reform package. It was designed to coincide with the age when people at that time qualified for Social Security. Today, people generally qualify for early, reduced Social Security benefits at age 62, though they have to wait until age 66 for full benefits.
While people can qualify on the basis of other criteria, such as having a disability or end-stage renal disease, 85% of the 57 million Medicare enrollees are in the program simply because they’re old enough.
Lowering the age to 60 could add as many as 23 million people to Medicare, according to an analysis by the consulting firm Avalere Health. It’s unclear, however, if everyone who would be eligible would sign up or if Biden would limit the expansion to the 1.7 million people in that age range who are uninsured and the 3.2 million who buy coverage on their own.
Avalere says 3.2 million people in that age group buy coverage on the individual market.
While the 60-to-65 group has the lowest uninsured rate (8%) among adults, it has the highest health costs and pays the highest rates for individual coverage, said Cristina Boccuti, director of health policy at West Health, a nonpartisan research group.
About 13 million of those between 60 and 65 have coverage through their employer, according to Avalere. While they would not have to drop coverage to join Medicare, they could possibly opt to also pay to join the federal program and use it as a wraparound for their existing coverage. Medicare might then pick up costs for some services that the consumers would have to shoulder out-of-pocket.
Some 4 million people between 60 and 65 are enrolled in Medicaid, the state-federal health insurance program for low-income people. Shifting them to Medicare would make that their primary health insurer, a move that would save states money since they split Medicaid costs with the federal government.
Chris Pope, a senior fellow with the conservative Manhattan Institute, said getting health industry support, particularly from hospitals, will be vital for any health coverage expansion. “Hospitals are very aware about generous commercial rates being replaced by lower Medicare rates,” he said.
“Members of Congress, a lot of them are close to their hospitals and do not want to see them with a revenue hole,” he said.
President Barack Obama made a deal with the industry on the way to passing the ACA. In exchange for gaining millions of paying customers and lowering their uncompensated care by billions of dollars, the hospital industry agreed to give up future Medicare funds designed to help them cope with the uninsured. Showing the industry’s prowess on Capitol Hill, Congress has delayed those funding cuts for more than six years.
Jacob Hacker, a Yale University political scientist, noted that expanding Medicare would reduce the number of Americans who rely on employer-sponsored coverage. The pitfalls of the employer system were highlighted in 2020 as millions lost their jobs and workplace health coverage.
Even if they can win the two Georgia seats and take control of the Senate with the vice president breaking any ties, Democrats would be unlikely to pass major legislation without GOP support — unless they are willing to jettison the long-standing filibuster rule so they can pass most legislation with a simple 51-vote majority instead of 60 votes.
Hacker said that slim margin would make it difficult for Democrats to deal with many health issues all at once.
“Congress is not good at parallel processing,” Hacker said, referring to handling multiple priorities at the same time. “And the window is relatively short.”
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
Election gift for Florida? Trump poised to approve drug imports from Canada
Over the objections of drugmakers, the Trump administration is expected within weeks to finalize its plan that would allow states to import some prescription medicines from Canada.
Six states – Colorado, Florida, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Vermont – have passed laws allowing them to seek federal approval to buy drugs from Canada to give their residents access to lower-cost medicines.
But industry observers say the drug importation proposal under review by the administration is squarely aimed at Florida – the most populous swing state in the November election. Trump’s support of the idea initially came at the urging of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a close Republican ally.
The DeSantis administration is so confident Trump will move ahead with allowing drug importation that it put out a request June 30 for private companies to bid on a three-year, $30 million contract to run the program. It hopes to award the contract in December.
Industry experts say Florida is likely to be the first state to win federal approval for a drug importation plan – something that could occur before the November election.
“Approving Florida would feel like the politically astute thing to do,” said Mara Baer, a health consultant who has worked with Colorado on its importation proposal.
Ben England, CEO of FDAImports, a consulting firm in Glen Burnie, Maryland, said the OMB typically has 60 days to review final rules, although he expects this one could be completed before Nov. 3 and predicted there’s a small chance it could get finalized and Florida’s request approved by then. “It’s an election year, so I do see the current administration trying to use this as a talking point to say ‘Look what we’ve accomplished,’” he said.
Florida also makes sense because of the large number of retirees, who face high costs for medicines despite Medicare drug coverage.
The DeSantis administration did not respond to requests for comment.
Trump boasted about his importation plan during an October speech in The Villages, a large retirement community about 60 miles northwest of Orlando. “We will soon allow the safe and legal importation of prescription drugs from other countries, including the country of Canada, where, believe it or not, they pay much less money for the exact same drug,” Trump said, with DeSantis in attendance. “Stand up, Ron. Boy, he wants this so badly.”
The Food and Drug Administration released a detailed proposal last December and sought comments. A final plan was delivered Sept. 10 to the Office of Management and Budget for review, signaling it could be unveiled within weeks.
The proposal would regulate how states set up their own programs for importing drugs from Canada.
Prices are cheaper because Canada limits how much drugmakers can charge for medicines. The United States lets free markets dictate drug prices.
The pharmaceutical industry signaled it will likely sue the Trump administration if it goes forward with its importation plans, saying the plan violates several federal laws and the U.S. Constitution.
But the most stinging rebuke of the Trump importation plan came from the Canadian government, which said the proposal would make it harder for Canadian citizens to get drugs, putting their health at risk.
“Canada will employ all necessary measures to safeguard access for Canadians to needed drugs,” the Canadian government wrote in a letter to the FDA about the draft proposal. “The Canadian drug market and manufacturing capacity are too small to meet the demand of both Canadian and American consumers for prescription drugs.”
Without buy-in from Canada, any plan to import medicines is unlikely to succeed, officials said.
Ena Backus, director of Health Care Reform in Vermont, who has worked on setting up an importation program there, said states will need help from Canada. “Our state importation program relies on a willing partner in Canada,” she said.
For decades, Americans have been buying drugs from Canada for personal use — either by driving over the border, ordering medication on the Internet, or using storefronts that connect them to foreign pharmacies. Though illegal, the FDA has generally permitted purchases for individual use.
About 4 million Americans import lower-cost medicines for personal use each year, and about 20 million say they or someone in their household have done so because the prices are much lower in other countries, according to surveys.
The practice has been popular in Florida. More than a dozen storefronts across the state help consumers connect to pharmacies in Canada and other countries. Several cities, state and school districts in Florida help employees get drugs from Canada.
The administration’s proposal builds on a 2000 law that opened the door to allowing drug importation from Canada. But that provision could take effect only if the Health and Human Services secretary certified importation as safe, something that Democratic and Republican administrations have refused to do.
The drug industry for years has said allowing drugs to be imported from Canada would disrupt the nation’s supply chain and make it easier for unsafe or counterfeit medications to enter the market.
Trump, who made lowering prescription drug prices a signature promise in his 2016 campaign, has been eager to fulfill his pledge. In July 2019, at Trump’s direction, HHS Secretary Alex Azar said the federal government was “open for business” on drug importation, a year after calling drug importation a “gimmick.”
The administration envisions a system in which a Canadian-licensed wholesaler buys directly from a manufacturer for drugs approved for sale in Canada and exports the drugs to a U.S. wholesaler/importer under contract to a state.
Florida’s legislation – approved in 2019 – would set up two importation programs. The first would focus on getting drugs for state programs such as Medicaid, the Department of Corrections and county health departments. State officials said they expect the programs would save the state about $150 million annually.
The second program would be geared to the broader state population.
In response to the draft rule, the states seeking to start a drug importation program suggested changes to the administration’s proposal.
“Should the final rule not address these areas of concern, Colorado will struggle to find appropriate partners and realize significant savings for consumers,” Kim Bimestefer, executive director of the Colorado Department of Health Care Policy & Financing, told the FDA in March.
Among the state’s concerns is that it would be limited to using only one Canadian wholesaler, and without competition the state fears prices might not be as low as officials hoped. Bimestefer also noted that under the draft rule, the federal government would approve the importation program for only two years and states need a longer time frame to get buy-in from wholesalers and other partners.
Colorado officials estimate importing drugs from Canada could cut prices by 54% for cancer drugs and 75% for cardiac medicines. The state also noted the diabetes drug Jardiance costs $400 a month in the United States and sells for $85 in Canada.
Several states worry some of the most expensive drugs – including injectable and biologic medicines – were exempt from the federal rule. Those drug classes are not allowed to be imported under the 2000 law.
However, in an executive order in July, Trump said he would allow insulin to be imported if Azar determined it is required for emergency medical care. An HHS spokesman would not say whether Azar has done that.
Jane Horvath, a health policy consultant in College Park, Md., said the administration faces several challenges getting an importation program up and running, including possible opposition from the pharmaceutical industry and limits on classes of drugs that can be sold over the border.
“Despite the barriers, the programs are still quite worthwhile to pursue,” she said.
Maine’s top health official said the administration should work with the Canadian government to address Canada’s concerns. HHS officials refused to say whether such discussions have started.
Officials in Vermont, where the program would also include consumers covered by private insurance, remain hopeful.
“Given that we want to reduce the burden of health care costs on residents in our state, then it is important to pursue this option if there is a clear pathway forward,” Backus said.
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente. This story also ran on Miami Herald.
Over the objections of drugmakers, the Trump administration is expected within weeks to finalize its plan that would allow states to import some prescription medicines from Canada.
Six states – Colorado, Florida, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Vermont – have passed laws allowing them to seek federal approval to buy drugs from Canada to give their residents access to lower-cost medicines.
But industry observers say the drug importation proposal under review by the administration is squarely aimed at Florida – the most populous swing state in the November election. Trump’s support of the idea initially came at the urging of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a close Republican ally.
The DeSantis administration is so confident Trump will move ahead with allowing drug importation that it put out a request June 30 for private companies to bid on a three-year, $30 million contract to run the program. It hopes to award the contract in December.
Industry experts say Florida is likely to be the first state to win federal approval for a drug importation plan – something that could occur before the November election.
“Approving Florida would feel like the politically astute thing to do,” said Mara Baer, a health consultant who has worked with Colorado on its importation proposal.
Ben England, CEO of FDAImports, a consulting firm in Glen Burnie, Maryland, said the OMB typically has 60 days to review final rules, although he expects this one could be completed before Nov. 3 and predicted there’s a small chance it could get finalized and Florida’s request approved by then. “It’s an election year, so I do see the current administration trying to use this as a talking point to say ‘Look what we’ve accomplished,’” he said.
Florida also makes sense because of the large number of retirees, who face high costs for medicines despite Medicare drug coverage.
The DeSantis administration did not respond to requests for comment.
Trump boasted about his importation plan during an October speech in The Villages, a large retirement community about 60 miles northwest of Orlando. “We will soon allow the safe and legal importation of prescription drugs from other countries, including the country of Canada, where, believe it or not, they pay much less money for the exact same drug,” Trump said, with DeSantis in attendance. “Stand up, Ron. Boy, he wants this so badly.”
The Food and Drug Administration released a detailed proposal last December and sought comments. A final plan was delivered Sept. 10 to the Office of Management and Budget for review, signaling it could be unveiled within weeks.
The proposal would regulate how states set up their own programs for importing drugs from Canada.
Prices are cheaper because Canada limits how much drugmakers can charge for medicines. The United States lets free markets dictate drug prices.
The pharmaceutical industry signaled it will likely sue the Trump administration if it goes forward with its importation plans, saying the plan violates several federal laws and the U.S. Constitution.
But the most stinging rebuke of the Trump importation plan came from the Canadian government, which said the proposal would make it harder for Canadian citizens to get drugs, putting their health at risk.
“Canada will employ all necessary measures to safeguard access for Canadians to needed drugs,” the Canadian government wrote in a letter to the FDA about the draft proposal. “The Canadian drug market and manufacturing capacity are too small to meet the demand of both Canadian and American consumers for prescription drugs.”
Without buy-in from Canada, any plan to import medicines is unlikely to succeed, officials said.
Ena Backus, director of Health Care Reform in Vermont, who has worked on setting up an importation program there, said states will need help from Canada. “Our state importation program relies on a willing partner in Canada,” she said.
For decades, Americans have been buying drugs from Canada for personal use — either by driving over the border, ordering medication on the Internet, or using storefronts that connect them to foreign pharmacies. Though illegal, the FDA has generally permitted purchases for individual use.
About 4 million Americans import lower-cost medicines for personal use each year, and about 20 million say they or someone in their household have done so because the prices are much lower in other countries, according to surveys.
The practice has been popular in Florida. More than a dozen storefronts across the state help consumers connect to pharmacies in Canada and other countries. Several cities, state and school districts in Florida help employees get drugs from Canada.
The administration’s proposal builds on a 2000 law that opened the door to allowing drug importation from Canada. But that provision could take effect only if the Health and Human Services secretary certified importation as safe, something that Democratic and Republican administrations have refused to do.
The drug industry for years has said allowing drugs to be imported from Canada would disrupt the nation’s supply chain and make it easier for unsafe or counterfeit medications to enter the market.
Trump, who made lowering prescription drug prices a signature promise in his 2016 campaign, has been eager to fulfill his pledge. In July 2019, at Trump’s direction, HHS Secretary Alex Azar said the federal government was “open for business” on drug importation, a year after calling drug importation a “gimmick.”
The administration envisions a system in which a Canadian-licensed wholesaler buys directly from a manufacturer for drugs approved for sale in Canada and exports the drugs to a U.S. wholesaler/importer under contract to a state.
Florida’s legislation – approved in 2019 – would set up two importation programs. The first would focus on getting drugs for state programs such as Medicaid, the Department of Corrections and county health departments. State officials said they expect the programs would save the state about $150 million annually.
The second program would be geared to the broader state population.
In response to the draft rule, the states seeking to start a drug importation program suggested changes to the administration’s proposal.
“Should the final rule not address these areas of concern, Colorado will struggle to find appropriate partners and realize significant savings for consumers,” Kim Bimestefer, executive director of the Colorado Department of Health Care Policy & Financing, told the FDA in March.
Among the state’s concerns is that it would be limited to using only one Canadian wholesaler, and without competition the state fears prices might not be as low as officials hoped. Bimestefer also noted that under the draft rule, the federal government would approve the importation program for only two years and states need a longer time frame to get buy-in from wholesalers and other partners.
Colorado officials estimate importing drugs from Canada could cut prices by 54% for cancer drugs and 75% for cardiac medicines. The state also noted the diabetes drug Jardiance costs $400 a month in the United States and sells for $85 in Canada.
Several states worry some of the most expensive drugs – including injectable and biologic medicines – were exempt from the federal rule. Those drug classes are not allowed to be imported under the 2000 law.
However, in an executive order in July, Trump said he would allow insulin to be imported if Azar determined it is required for emergency medical care. An HHS spokesman would not say whether Azar has done that.
Jane Horvath, a health policy consultant in College Park, Md., said the administration faces several challenges getting an importation program up and running, including possible opposition from the pharmaceutical industry and limits on classes of drugs that can be sold over the border.
“Despite the barriers, the programs are still quite worthwhile to pursue,” she said.
Maine’s top health official said the administration should work with the Canadian government to address Canada’s concerns. HHS officials refused to say whether such discussions have started.
Officials in Vermont, where the program would also include consumers covered by private insurance, remain hopeful.
“Given that we want to reduce the burden of health care costs on residents in our state, then it is important to pursue this option if there is a clear pathway forward,” Backus said.
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente. This story also ran on Miami Herald.
Over the objections of drugmakers, the Trump administration is expected within weeks to finalize its plan that would allow states to import some prescription medicines from Canada.
Six states – Colorado, Florida, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Vermont – have passed laws allowing them to seek federal approval to buy drugs from Canada to give their residents access to lower-cost medicines.
But industry observers say the drug importation proposal under review by the administration is squarely aimed at Florida – the most populous swing state in the November election. Trump’s support of the idea initially came at the urging of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a close Republican ally.
The DeSantis administration is so confident Trump will move ahead with allowing drug importation that it put out a request June 30 for private companies to bid on a three-year, $30 million contract to run the program. It hopes to award the contract in December.
Industry experts say Florida is likely to be the first state to win federal approval for a drug importation plan – something that could occur before the November election.
“Approving Florida would feel like the politically astute thing to do,” said Mara Baer, a health consultant who has worked with Colorado on its importation proposal.
Ben England, CEO of FDAImports, a consulting firm in Glen Burnie, Maryland, said the OMB typically has 60 days to review final rules, although he expects this one could be completed before Nov. 3 and predicted there’s a small chance it could get finalized and Florida’s request approved by then. “It’s an election year, so I do see the current administration trying to use this as a talking point to say ‘Look what we’ve accomplished,’” he said.
Florida also makes sense because of the large number of retirees, who face high costs for medicines despite Medicare drug coverage.
The DeSantis administration did not respond to requests for comment.
Trump boasted about his importation plan during an October speech in The Villages, a large retirement community about 60 miles northwest of Orlando. “We will soon allow the safe and legal importation of prescription drugs from other countries, including the country of Canada, where, believe it or not, they pay much less money for the exact same drug,” Trump said, with DeSantis in attendance. “Stand up, Ron. Boy, he wants this so badly.”
The Food and Drug Administration released a detailed proposal last December and sought comments. A final plan was delivered Sept. 10 to the Office of Management and Budget for review, signaling it could be unveiled within weeks.
The proposal would regulate how states set up their own programs for importing drugs from Canada.
Prices are cheaper because Canada limits how much drugmakers can charge for medicines. The United States lets free markets dictate drug prices.
The pharmaceutical industry signaled it will likely sue the Trump administration if it goes forward with its importation plans, saying the plan violates several federal laws and the U.S. Constitution.
But the most stinging rebuke of the Trump importation plan came from the Canadian government, which said the proposal would make it harder for Canadian citizens to get drugs, putting their health at risk.
“Canada will employ all necessary measures to safeguard access for Canadians to needed drugs,” the Canadian government wrote in a letter to the FDA about the draft proposal. “The Canadian drug market and manufacturing capacity are too small to meet the demand of both Canadian and American consumers for prescription drugs.”
Without buy-in from Canada, any plan to import medicines is unlikely to succeed, officials said.
Ena Backus, director of Health Care Reform in Vermont, who has worked on setting up an importation program there, said states will need help from Canada. “Our state importation program relies on a willing partner in Canada,” she said.
For decades, Americans have been buying drugs from Canada for personal use — either by driving over the border, ordering medication on the Internet, or using storefronts that connect them to foreign pharmacies. Though illegal, the FDA has generally permitted purchases for individual use.
About 4 million Americans import lower-cost medicines for personal use each year, and about 20 million say they or someone in their household have done so because the prices are much lower in other countries, according to surveys.
The practice has been popular in Florida. More than a dozen storefronts across the state help consumers connect to pharmacies in Canada and other countries. Several cities, state and school districts in Florida help employees get drugs from Canada.
The administration’s proposal builds on a 2000 law that opened the door to allowing drug importation from Canada. But that provision could take effect only if the Health and Human Services secretary certified importation as safe, something that Democratic and Republican administrations have refused to do.
The drug industry for years has said allowing drugs to be imported from Canada would disrupt the nation’s supply chain and make it easier for unsafe or counterfeit medications to enter the market.
Trump, who made lowering prescription drug prices a signature promise in his 2016 campaign, has been eager to fulfill his pledge. In July 2019, at Trump’s direction, HHS Secretary Alex Azar said the federal government was “open for business” on drug importation, a year after calling drug importation a “gimmick.”
The administration envisions a system in which a Canadian-licensed wholesaler buys directly from a manufacturer for drugs approved for sale in Canada and exports the drugs to a U.S. wholesaler/importer under contract to a state.
Florida’s legislation – approved in 2019 – would set up two importation programs. The first would focus on getting drugs for state programs such as Medicaid, the Department of Corrections and county health departments. State officials said they expect the programs would save the state about $150 million annually.
The second program would be geared to the broader state population.
In response to the draft rule, the states seeking to start a drug importation program suggested changes to the administration’s proposal.
“Should the final rule not address these areas of concern, Colorado will struggle to find appropriate partners and realize significant savings for consumers,” Kim Bimestefer, executive director of the Colorado Department of Health Care Policy & Financing, told the FDA in March.
Among the state’s concerns is that it would be limited to using only one Canadian wholesaler, and without competition the state fears prices might not be as low as officials hoped. Bimestefer also noted that under the draft rule, the federal government would approve the importation program for only two years and states need a longer time frame to get buy-in from wholesalers and other partners.
Colorado officials estimate importing drugs from Canada could cut prices by 54% for cancer drugs and 75% for cardiac medicines. The state also noted the diabetes drug Jardiance costs $400 a month in the United States and sells for $85 in Canada.
Several states worry some of the most expensive drugs – including injectable and biologic medicines – were exempt from the federal rule. Those drug classes are not allowed to be imported under the 2000 law.
However, in an executive order in July, Trump said he would allow insulin to be imported if Azar determined it is required for emergency medical care. An HHS spokesman would not say whether Azar has done that.
Jane Horvath, a health policy consultant in College Park, Md., said the administration faces several challenges getting an importation program up and running, including possible opposition from the pharmaceutical industry and limits on classes of drugs that can be sold over the border.
“Despite the barriers, the programs are still quite worthwhile to pursue,” she said.
Maine’s top health official said the administration should work with the Canadian government to address Canada’s concerns. HHS officials refused to say whether such discussions have started.
Officials in Vermont, where the program would also include consumers covered by private insurance, remain hopeful.
“Given that we want to reduce the burden of health care costs on residents in our state, then it is important to pursue this option if there is a clear pathway forward,” Backus said.
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente. This story also ran on Miami Herald.
Using Obamacare authority, Trump aims to shift dialysis care to patients’ homes
President Trump on July 10 announced a bold plan to improve care to patients with kidney disease, which he claimed would save thousands of lives each year and billions of dollars for taxpayers.
“It could be higher if it works the way we anticipate,” Mr. Trump boasted in a 25-minute speech to dozens of kidney patients, their families, and kidney care providers in Washington.
Ten Americans die each day because of the shortage of organs, Mr. Trump said.
Kidney disease is the ninth-leading cause of death in the United States and accounts for 20% of annual Medicare spending, or about $110 billion, administration officials said.
Mr. Trump’s strategy centers on changing how Medicare pays doctors and dialysis centers to boost their incentives to help patients get dialysis at home and keep them healthy enough to be eligible for transplantation. This would be a far cry from the current system, which focuses on in-patient dialysis center treatment.
Mark E. Rosenberg, MD, president of the American Society of Nephrology, said he was pleased that some of the new payment models offered by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services have only “upside” potential for doctors. He said doctors now get paid more to see their patients at the dialysis center than at home. As a result, there is little incentive to promote home dialysis options.
“I have been a kidney doctor for 35 years, and this is the most game-changing thing ever to happen,” he said.
The authority to make such major changes without congressional approval comes from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI), which was created by the 2010 Affordable Care Act.
On Tuesday, the Trump administration was in a federal appeals court in New Orleans arguing the entire health law should be declared unconstitutional.
“If the law is invalidated, the Innovation Center, and all its authorities, would be eliminated,” said Nicholas Bagley, a University of Michigan law professor.
In touting the new effort, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex M. Azar II and CMMI Director Adam Boehler spoke about how kidney disease has affected their families. Mr. Azar noted his father was on dialysis for several years before receiving a kidney transplant. Mr. Boehler said an aunt died while on dialysis.
Since 1973, all Americans with end-stage kidney disease have been entitled to coverage through Medicare.
The administration said it would expand the number of kidneys available for transplant by increasing public awareness about the need for living donors and help those who donate a kidney. Currently, their medical costs are covered, but the president’s plan would provide financial assistance to cover day care and time missed from work. Mr. Trump said the initiative would also hold organ procurement organizations more accountable so that fewer usable organs are discarded.
Trump said his plan would help 17,000 additional Americans get a kidney transplant each year by 2030. The policy would also help 11,000 more Americans get hearts, lungs, and livers annually.
Kidney transplants cost less than having patients spend years on dialysis, according to government figures. Dialysis treatment runs on average about $89,000 a year, while a kidney transplant surgery averages about $32,000 and postsurgery care runs about $25,000 per year. Mr. Trump estimated his plan would save families and taxpayers $4.2 billion a year. “This is a dramatic and long overdue reform,” he said.
In the United States, only about 12% of patients get dialysis at home, far lower than in other countries, Mr. Trump said. The plan calls for increasing that share to 80% by 2025.
Nichole Jefferson, 47 years, of Dallas, who is awaiting a second transplant to replace a transplanted kidney that is failing, said getting the treatment at home is much less taxing. She had home dialysis for 4 years before her initial transplant in 2008.
“It’s great to be at home where I was more comfortable and more relaxed and the care was in my hands,” she said in an interview at the Trump event. By getting dialysis at night while she slept, she was able to work during the day and take part in family events.
She had to go to a center for the dialysis when the home dialysis stopped working. “I was depressed to be in the center tied to a chair for 4 hours next to people I did not know,” she said. Patients often have dialysis several days a week.
Other patient advocates applauded Mr. Trump’s plan.
“The administration’s commitment to charting a new course for kidney health will help revolutionize transplantation and dialysis and advance new innovations, therapies and treatments, which patients everywhere have been waiting on for far too long,” said Kevin Longino, CEO of the National Kidney Foundation and a kidney transplant patient.
DaVita, the Denver-based company that is the largest provider of home dialysis in the country, offered a more muted response, saying it looked forward to working with the administration. The company’s stock, which fell in recent days ahead of the announcement, rose about 5% Wednesday.
Administration officials said many aspects of their plan would begin next year. Health providers in half the country will be required to participate in one of the new payment models in which they will face some financial risk for caring for patients. Doctors and health systems will have options to take on more financial risk, which means they could make more money or lose more money based on the health of their kidney patients.
Patients, however, will continue to be able to choose their doctors and dialysis providers.
Joe Grogan, head of the White House Domestic Policy Council, said the kidney disease issue “fits in the wheelhouse of items the president likes to confront. ... The current quality of outcomes are pathetic in this area.”
About half of patients on dialysis die within 5 years, Mr. Azar said.
Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
President Trump on July 10 announced a bold plan to improve care to patients with kidney disease, which he claimed would save thousands of lives each year and billions of dollars for taxpayers.
“It could be higher if it works the way we anticipate,” Mr. Trump boasted in a 25-minute speech to dozens of kidney patients, their families, and kidney care providers in Washington.
Ten Americans die each day because of the shortage of organs, Mr. Trump said.
Kidney disease is the ninth-leading cause of death in the United States and accounts for 20% of annual Medicare spending, or about $110 billion, administration officials said.
Mr. Trump’s strategy centers on changing how Medicare pays doctors and dialysis centers to boost their incentives to help patients get dialysis at home and keep them healthy enough to be eligible for transplantation. This would be a far cry from the current system, which focuses on in-patient dialysis center treatment.
Mark E. Rosenberg, MD, president of the American Society of Nephrology, said he was pleased that some of the new payment models offered by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services have only “upside” potential for doctors. He said doctors now get paid more to see their patients at the dialysis center than at home. As a result, there is little incentive to promote home dialysis options.
“I have been a kidney doctor for 35 years, and this is the most game-changing thing ever to happen,” he said.
The authority to make such major changes without congressional approval comes from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI), which was created by the 2010 Affordable Care Act.
On Tuesday, the Trump administration was in a federal appeals court in New Orleans arguing the entire health law should be declared unconstitutional.
“If the law is invalidated, the Innovation Center, and all its authorities, would be eliminated,” said Nicholas Bagley, a University of Michigan law professor.
In touting the new effort, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex M. Azar II and CMMI Director Adam Boehler spoke about how kidney disease has affected their families. Mr. Azar noted his father was on dialysis for several years before receiving a kidney transplant. Mr. Boehler said an aunt died while on dialysis.
Since 1973, all Americans with end-stage kidney disease have been entitled to coverage through Medicare.
The administration said it would expand the number of kidneys available for transplant by increasing public awareness about the need for living donors and help those who donate a kidney. Currently, their medical costs are covered, but the president’s plan would provide financial assistance to cover day care and time missed from work. Mr. Trump said the initiative would also hold organ procurement organizations more accountable so that fewer usable organs are discarded.
Trump said his plan would help 17,000 additional Americans get a kidney transplant each year by 2030. The policy would also help 11,000 more Americans get hearts, lungs, and livers annually.
Kidney transplants cost less than having patients spend years on dialysis, according to government figures. Dialysis treatment runs on average about $89,000 a year, while a kidney transplant surgery averages about $32,000 and postsurgery care runs about $25,000 per year. Mr. Trump estimated his plan would save families and taxpayers $4.2 billion a year. “This is a dramatic and long overdue reform,” he said.
In the United States, only about 12% of patients get dialysis at home, far lower than in other countries, Mr. Trump said. The plan calls for increasing that share to 80% by 2025.
Nichole Jefferson, 47 years, of Dallas, who is awaiting a second transplant to replace a transplanted kidney that is failing, said getting the treatment at home is much less taxing. She had home dialysis for 4 years before her initial transplant in 2008.
“It’s great to be at home where I was more comfortable and more relaxed and the care was in my hands,” she said in an interview at the Trump event. By getting dialysis at night while she slept, she was able to work during the day and take part in family events.
She had to go to a center for the dialysis when the home dialysis stopped working. “I was depressed to be in the center tied to a chair for 4 hours next to people I did not know,” she said. Patients often have dialysis several days a week.
Other patient advocates applauded Mr. Trump’s plan.
“The administration’s commitment to charting a new course for kidney health will help revolutionize transplantation and dialysis and advance new innovations, therapies and treatments, which patients everywhere have been waiting on for far too long,” said Kevin Longino, CEO of the National Kidney Foundation and a kidney transplant patient.
DaVita, the Denver-based company that is the largest provider of home dialysis in the country, offered a more muted response, saying it looked forward to working with the administration. The company’s stock, which fell in recent days ahead of the announcement, rose about 5% Wednesday.
Administration officials said many aspects of their plan would begin next year. Health providers in half the country will be required to participate in one of the new payment models in which they will face some financial risk for caring for patients. Doctors and health systems will have options to take on more financial risk, which means they could make more money or lose more money based on the health of their kidney patients.
Patients, however, will continue to be able to choose their doctors and dialysis providers.
Joe Grogan, head of the White House Domestic Policy Council, said the kidney disease issue “fits in the wheelhouse of items the president likes to confront. ... The current quality of outcomes are pathetic in this area.”
About half of patients on dialysis die within 5 years, Mr. Azar said.
Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
President Trump on July 10 announced a bold plan to improve care to patients with kidney disease, which he claimed would save thousands of lives each year and billions of dollars for taxpayers.
“It could be higher if it works the way we anticipate,” Mr. Trump boasted in a 25-minute speech to dozens of kidney patients, their families, and kidney care providers in Washington.
Ten Americans die each day because of the shortage of organs, Mr. Trump said.
Kidney disease is the ninth-leading cause of death in the United States and accounts for 20% of annual Medicare spending, or about $110 billion, administration officials said.
Mr. Trump’s strategy centers on changing how Medicare pays doctors and dialysis centers to boost their incentives to help patients get dialysis at home and keep them healthy enough to be eligible for transplantation. This would be a far cry from the current system, which focuses on in-patient dialysis center treatment.
Mark E. Rosenberg, MD, president of the American Society of Nephrology, said he was pleased that some of the new payment models offered by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services have only “upside” potential for doctors. He said doctors now get paid more to see their patients at the dialysis center than at home. As a result, there is little incentive to promote home dialysis options.
“I have been a kidney doctor for 35 years, and this is the most game-changing thing ever to happen,” he said.
The authority to make such major changes without congressional approval comes from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI), which was created by the 2010 Affordable Care Act.
On Tuesday, the Trump administration was in a federal appeals court in New Orleans arguing the entire health law should be declared unconstitutional.
“If the law is invalidated, the Innovation Center, and all its authorities, would be eliminated,” said Nicholas Bagley, a University of Michigan law professor.
In touting the new effort, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex M. Azar II and CMMI Director Adam Boehler spoke about how kidney disease has affected their families. Mr. Azar noted his father was on dialysis for several years before receiving a kidney transplant. Mr. Boehler said an aunt died while on dialysis.
Since 1973, all Americans with end-stage kidney disease have been entitled to coverage through Medicare.
The administration said it would expand the number of kidneys available for transplant by increasing public awareness about the need for living donors and help those who donate a kidney. Currently, their medical costs are covered, but the president’s plan would provide financial assistance to cover day care and time missed from work. Mr. Trump said the initiative would also hold organ procurement organizations more accountable so that fewer usable organs are discarded.
Trump said his plan would help 17,000 additional Americans get a kidney transplant each year by 2030. The policy would also help 11,000 more Americans get hearts, lungs, and livers annually.
Kidney transplants cost less than having patients spend years on dialysis, according to government figures. Dialysis treatment runs on average about $89,000 a year, while a kidney transplant surgery averages about $32,000 and postsurgery care runs about $25,000 per year. Mr. Trump estimated his plan would save families and taxpayers $4.2 billion a year. “This is a dramatic and long overdue reform,” he said.
In the United States, only about 12% of patients get dialysis at home, far lower than in other countries, Mr. Trump said. The plan calls for increasing that share to 80% by 2025.
Nichole Jefferson, 47 years, of Dallas, who is awaiting a second transplant to replace a transplanted kidney that is failing, said getting the treatment at home is much less taxing. She had home dialysis for 4 years before her initial transplant in 2008.
“It’s great to be at home where I was more comfortable and more relaxed and the care was in my hands,” she said in an interview at the Trump event. By getting dialysis at night while she slept, she was able to work during the day and take part in family events.
She had to go to a center for the dialysis when the home dialysis stopped working. “I was depressed to be in the center tied to a chair for 4 hours next to people I did not know,” she said. Patients often have dialysis several days a week.
Other patient advocates applauded Mr. Trump’s plan.
“The administration’s commitment to charting a new course for kidney health will help revolutionize transplantation and dialysis and advance new innovations, therapies and treatments, which patients everywhere have been waiting on for far too long,” said Kevin Longino, CEO of the National Kidney Foundation and a kidney transplant patient.
DaVita, the Denver-based company that is the largest provider of home dialysis in the country, offered a more muted response, saying it looked forward to working with the administration. The company’s stock, which fell in recent days ahead of the announcement, rose about 5% Wednesday.
Administration officials said many aspects of their plan would begin next year. Health providers in half the country will be required to participate in one of the new payment models in which they will face some financial risk for caring for patients. Doctors and health systems will have options to take on more financial risk, which means they could make more money or lose more money based on the health of their kidney patients.
Patients, however, will continue to be able to choose their doctors and dialysis providers.
Joe Grogan, head of the White House Domestic Policy Council, said the kidney disease issue “fits in the wheelhouse of items the president likes to confront. ... The current quality of outcomes are pathetic in this area.”
About half of patients on dialysis die within 5 years, Mr. Azar said.
Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
A large employer ‘frames’ the Medicare-for-all debate
EASTON, PA. — Walk into a big-box retailer such as Walmart or Michaels and you’re likely to see MCS Industries’ picture frames, decorative mirrors, or kitschy wall décor.
Adjacent to a dairy farm a few miles west of downtown Easton, MCS is the nation’s largest maker of such household products. But MCS doesn’t actually make anything here anymore. It has moved its manufacturing operations to Mexico and China, with the last manufacturing jobs departing this city along the Delaware River in 2005. MCS now has about 175 U.S. employees and 600 people overseas.
“We were going to lose the business because we were no longer competitive,” CEO Richard Master explained. And one of the biggest impediments to keeping labor costs in line, he said, has been the increasing expense of health coverage in the United States.
Today, he’s at the vanguard of a small but growing group of business executives who are lining up to support a Medicare-for-all national health program.
In February, Master stood with Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) outside the Capitol after she introduced her Medicare-for-all bill. “This bill removes an albatross from the neck of American business, puts more money in consumer products and will boost our economy,” he said.
As health costs continue to grow, straining employer budgets and slowing wage growth, others in the business community are beginning to take the option more seriously.
While the influential U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other large business lobbying groups strongly oppose increased government involvement in health care, the resolve of many in the business community – especially among smaller firms – may be shifting.
“There is growing momentum among employers supporting single-payer,” said Dan Geiger, codirector of the Business Alliance for a Healthy California, which has sought to generate business support for a universal health care program in California. About 300 mostly small employers have signed on.
“Businesses are really angry about the system, and there is a lot of frustration with its rising costs and dysfunction,” he said.
Mr. Geiger acknowledged the effort still lacks support from any Fortune 500 company CEOs. He said large businesses are hesitant to get involved in this political debate and many don’t want to lose the ability to attract workers with generous health benefits. “There is also a lingering distrust of the government, and they think they can offer coverage better than the government,” he said.
In addition, some in the business community are hesitant to sign on to Medicare-for-all with many details missing, such as how much it would increase taxes, said Ellen Kelsay, chief strategy officer for the National Business Group on Health, a leading business group focused on health benefits.
Democrats propel the debate
For decades, a government-run health plan was considered too radical an idea for serious consideration. But Medicare-for-all has been garnering more political support in recent months, especially after a progressive wave helped Democrats take control of the House this year. Several 2020 Democratic presidential candidates, including Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, strongly back it.
The labor unions and consumer groups that have long endorsed a single-payer health system hope that the embrace of it by employers such as Mr. Master marks another turning point for the movement.
Supporters of the concept say the health system overall would see savings from a coordinated effort to bring down prices and the elimination of many administrative costs or insurance company profits.
“It’s critical for our success to engage employers, particularly because our current system is hurting employers almost as much as it is patients,” said Melinda St. Louis, campaign director of Medicare-for-all at Public Citizen, a consumer-rights group based in Washington.
Mr. Master, a former Washington lawyer, worked on Democratic Sen. George McGovern’s presidential campaign before returning to Pennsylvania in 1973 to take over his father’s company, which made rigid paper boxes. In 1980, he founded MCS, which pioneered the popular front-loading picture frame and steamless fog-free mirrors for bathrooms. The company has grown into a $250 million corporation.
Mr. Master frequently travels to Washington and around the country to talk with business leaders as he seeks to build political support for a single-payer health system.
In the past 4 years, he has produced several documentary videos on the topic. In 2018, he formed the Business Initiative for Health Policy, a nonprofit group of business leaders, economists, and health policy experts trying to explain the financial benefits of a single-payer system.
Dan Wolf, CEO of Cape Air, a Hyannis, Mass.–based regional airline that employs 800 people calls himself “a free-market guy.” But he also supports Medicare-for-all. He said Mr. Master helps turn the political argument over single-payer into a practical one.
“It’s about good business sense and about caring for his employees and their well-being,” he said, adding that employers should no longer be straddled with the cost and complexity of health care.
“It makes no more sense for an airline to understand health policy for the bulk of its workers than for a health facility to have to supply all the air transportation for its employees,” he said.
Employers also are an important voice in the debate because 156 million Americans get employer-paid health care, making it by far the single-largest form of coverage.
Mr. Master said his company has tried various methods to control costs with little success, including high deductibles, narrow networks of providers and wellness plans that emphasize preventive medicine.
Insurers who are supposed to negotiate lower rates from hospitals and doctors have failed, he added, and too many premium dollars go to covering administrative costs. Only by having the federal government set rates can the United States control costs of drugs, hospitals, and other health services, he said.
“Insurance companies are not watching the store and don’t have incentives to hold down costs in the current system,” he said.
Glad the boss is trying to make a difference
What’s left of MCS in Pennsylvania is a spacious corporate office building housing administrative staff, designers, and a giant distribution center piled high with carton boxes from floor to ceiling.
MCS pays an average of $1,260 per month for each employee’s health care, up from $716 in 2009, the company said. In recent years, the company has reduced out-of-pocket costs for employees by covering most of their deductibles.
Medicare-for-all would require several new taxes to raise money, but Mr. Master said such a plan would mean savings for his company and employees.
MCS employees largely support Mr. Master’s attempt to fix the health system even if they are not all on board with a Medicare-for-all approach, according to interviews with several workers in Easton.
“I think it’s a good idea,” said Faith Wildrick, a shipper at MCS who has worked for the company 26 years. “If the other countries are doing it and it is working for them, why can’t it work for us?”
Ms. Wildrick said that even with insurance her family struggles with health costs as her husband, Bill, a former MCS employee, deals with liver disease and needs many diagnostic tests and prescription medications. Their annual deductible has swung from $4,000 several years ago to $500 this year as the company has worked to lower employees’ out-of-pocket costs.
“I’m really glad someone is fighting for this and trying to make a difference,” said Ms. Wildrick.
Jessica Ehrhardt, the human resources manager at MCS, said the effort to reduce employees’ out-of-pocket health costs means the company must pay higher health costs. That results in less money for salary increases and other benefits, she added.
Asked about Medicare-for-all, Ms. Ehrhardt said, “It’s a drastic solution, but something needs to happen.”
For too long, Mr. Master said, the push for a single-payer health system has been about ideology.
“The movement has been about making health care a human right and that we have a right to universal health care,” he said. “What I am saying is this is prudent for our economy and am trying to make the business and economic case.”
Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
EASTON, PA. — Walk into a big-box retailer such as Walmart or Michaels and you’re likely to see MCS Industries’ picture frames, decorative mirrors, or kitschy wall décor.
Adjacent to a dairy farm a few miles west of downtown Easton, MCS is the nation’s largest maker of such household products. But MCS doesn’t actually make anything here anymore. It has moved its manufacturing operations to Mexico and China, with the last manufacturing jobs departing this city along the Delaware River in 2005. MCS now has about 175 U.S. employees and 600 people overseas.
“We were going to lose the business because we were no longer competitive,” CEO Richard Master explained. And one of the biggest impediments to keeping labor costs in line, he said, has been the increasing expense of health coverage in the United States.
Today, he’s at the vanguard of a small but growing group of business executives who are lining up to support a Medicare-for-all national health program.
In February, Master stood with Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) outside the Capitol after she introduced her Medicare-for-all bill. “This bill removes an albatross from the neck of American business, puts more money in consumer products and will boost our economy,” he said.
As health costs continue to grow, straining employer budgets and slowing wage growth, others in the business community are beginning to take the option more seriously.
While the influential U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other large business lobbying groups strongly oppose increased government involvement in health care, the resolve of many in the business community – especially among smaller firms – may be shifting.
“There is growing momentum among employers supporting single-payer,” said Dan Geiger, codirector of the Business Alliance for a Healthy California, which has sought to generate business support for a universal health care program in California. About 300 mostly small employers have signed on.
“Businesses are really angry about the system, and there is a lot of frustration with its rising costs and dysfunction,” he said.
Mr. Geiger acknowledged the effort still lacks support from any Fortune 500 company CEOs. He said large businesses are hesitant to get involved in this political debate and many don’t want to lose the ability to attract workers with generous health benefits. “There is also a lingering distrust of the government, and they think they can offer coverage better than the government,” he said.
In addition, some in the business community are hesitant to sign on to Medicare-for-all with many details missing, such as how much it would increase taxes, said Ellen Kelsay, chief strategy officer for the National Business Group on Health, a leading business group focused on health benefits.
Democrats propel the debate
For decades, a government-run health plan was considered too radical an idea for serious consideration. But Medicare-for-all has been garnering more political support in recent months, especially after a progressive wave helped Democrats take control of the House this year. Several 2020 Democratic presidential candidates, including Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, strongly back it.
The labor unions and consumer groups that have long endorsed a single-payer health system hope that the embrace of it by employers such as Mr. Master marks another turning point for the movement.
Supporters of the concept say the health system overall would see savings from a coordinated effort to bring down prices and the elimination of many administrative costs or insurance company profits.
“It’s critical for our success to engage employers, particularly because our current system is hurting employers almost as much as it is patients,” said Melinda St. Louis, campaign director of Medicare-for-all at Public Citizen, a consumer-rights group based in Washington.
Mr. Master, a former Washington lawyer, worked on Democratic Sen. George McGovern’s presidential campaign before returning to Pennsylvania in 1973 to take over his father’s company, which made rigid paper boxes. In 1980, he founded MCS, which pioneered the popular front-loading picture frame and steamless fog-free mirrors for bathrooms. The company has grown into a $250 million corporation.
Mr. Master frequently travels to Washington and around the country to talk with business leaders as he seeks to build political support for a single-payer health system.
In the past 4 years, he has produced several documentary videos on the topic. In 2018, he formed the Business Initiative for Health Policy, a nonprofit group of business leaders, economists, and health policy experts trying to explain the financial benefits of a single-payer system.
Dan Wolf, CEO of Cape Air, a Hyannis, Mass.–based regional airline that employs 800 people calls himself “a free-market guy.” But he also supports Medicare-for-all. He said Mr. Master helps turn the political argument over single-payer into a practical one.
“It’s about good business sense and about caring for his employees and their well-being,” he said, adding that employers should no longer be straddled with the cost and complexity of health care.
“It makes no more sense for an airline to understand health policy for the bulk of its workers than for a health facility to have to supply all the air transportation for its employees,” he said.
Employers also are an important voice in the debate because 156 million Americans get employer-paid health care, making it by far the single-largest form of coverage.
Mr. Master said his company has tried various methods to control costs with little success, including high deductibles, narrow networks of providers and wellness plans that emphasize preventive medicine.
Insurers who are supposed to negotiate lower rates from hospitals and doctors have failed, he added, and too many premium dollars go to covering administrative costs. Only by having the federal government set rates can the United States control costs of drugs, hospitals, and other health services, he said.
“Insurance companies are not watching the store and don’t have incentives to hold down costs in the current system,” he said.
Glad the boss is trying to make a difference
What’s left of MCS in Pennsylvania is a spacious corporate office building housing administrative staff, designers, and a giant distribution center piled high with carton boxes from floor to ceiling.
MCS pays an average of $1,260 per month for each employee’s health care, up from $716 in 2009, the company said. In recent years, the company has reduced out-of-pocket costs for employees by covering most of their deductibles.
Medicare-for-all would require several new taxes to raise money, but Mr. Master said such a plan would mean savings for his company and employees.
MCS employees largely support Mr. Master’s attempt to fix the health system even if they are not all on board with a Medicare-for-all approach, according to interviews with several workers in Easton.
“I think it’s a good idea,” said Faith Wildrick, a shipper at MCS who has worked for the company 26 years. “If the other countries are doing it and it is working for them, why can’t it work for us?”
Ms. Wildrick said that even with insurance her family struggles with health costs as her husband, Bill, a former MCS employee, deals with liver disease and needs many diagnostic tests and prescription medications. Their annual deductible has swung from $4,000 several years ago to $500 this year as the company has worked to lower employees’ out-of-pocket costs.
“I’m really glad someone is fighting for this and trying to make a difference,” said Ms. Wildrick.
Jessica Ehrhardt, the human resources manager at MCS, said the effort to reduce employees’ out-of-pocket health costs means the company must pay higher health costs. That results in less money for salary increases and other benefits, she added.
Asked about Medicare-for-all, Ms. Ehrhardt said, “It’s a drastic solution, but something needs to happen.”
For too long, Mr. Master said, the push for a single-payer health system has been about ideology.
“The movement has been about making health care a human right and that we have a right to universal health care,” he said. “What I am saying is this is prudent for our economy and am trying to make the business and economic case.”
Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
EASTON, PA. — Walk into a big-box retailer such as Walmart or Michaels and you’re likely to see MCS Industries’ picture frames, decorative mirrors, or kitschy wall décor.
Adjacent to a dairy farm a few miles west of downtown Easton, MCS is the nation’s largest maker of such household products. But MCS doesn’t actually make anything here anymore. It has moved its manufacturing operations to Mexico and China, with the last manufacturing jobs departing this city along the Delaware River in 2005. MCS now has about 175 U.S. employees and 600 people overseas.
“We were going to lose the business because we were no longer competitive,” CEO Richard Master explained. And one of the biggest impediments to keeping labor costs in line, he said, has been the increasing expense of health coverage in the United States.
Today, he’s at the vanguard of a small but growing group of business executives who are lining up to support a Medicare-for-all national health program.
In February, Master stood with Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) outside the Capitol after she introduced her Medicare-for-all bill. “This bill removes an albatross from the neck of American business, puts more money in consumer products and will boost our economy,” he said.
As health costs continue to grow, straining employer budgets and slowing wage growth, others in the business community are beginning to take the option more seriously.
While the influential U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other large business lobbying groups strongly oppose increased government involvement in health care, the resolve of many in the business community – especially among smaller firms – may be shifting.
“There is growing momentum among employers supporting single-payer,” said Dan Geiger, codirector of the Business Alliance for a Healthy California, which has sought to generate business support for a universal health care program in California. About 300 mostly small employers have signed on.
“Businesses are really angry about the system, and there is a lot of frustration with its rising costs and dysfunction,” he said.
Mr. Geiger acknowledged the effort still lacks support from any Fortune 500 company CEOs. He said large businesses are hesitant to get involved in this political debate and many don’t want to lose the ability to attract workers with generous health benefits. “There is also a lingering distrust of the government, and they think they can offer coverage better than the government,” he said.
In addition, some in the business community are hesitant to sign on to Medicare-for-all with many details missing, such as how much it would increase taxes, said Ellen Kelsay, chief strategy officer for the National Business Group on Health, a leading business group focused on health benefits.
Democrats propel the debate
For decades, a government-run health plan was considered too radical an idea for serious consideration. But Medicare-for-all has been garnering more political support in recent months, especially after a progressive wave helped Democrats take control of the House this year. Several 2020 Democratic presidential candidates, including Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, strongly back it.
The labor unions and consumer groups that have long endorsed a single-payer health system hope that the embrace of it by employers such as Mr. Master marks another turning point for the movement.
Supporters of the concept say the health system overall would see savings from a coordinated effort to bring down prices and the elimination of many administrative costs or insurance company profits.
“It’s critical for our success to engage employers, particularly because our current system is hurting employers almost as much as it is patients,” said Melinda St. Louis, campaign director of Medicare-for-all at Public Citizen, a consumer-rights group based in Washington.
Mr. Master, a former Washington lawyer, worked on Democratic Sen. George McGovern’s presidential campaign before returning to Pennsylvania in 1973 to take over his father’s company, which made rigid paper boxes. In 1980, he founded MCS, which pioneered the popular front-loading picture frame and steamless fog-free mirrors for bathrooms. The company has grown into a $250 million corporation.
Mr. Master frequently travels to Washington and around the country to talk with business leaders as he seeks to build political support for a single-payer health system.
In the past 4 years, he has produced several documentary videos on the topic. In 2018, he formed the Business Initiative for Health Policy, a nonprofit group of business leaders, economists, and health policy experts trying to explain the financial benefits of a single-payer system.
Dan Wolf, CEO of Cape Air, a Hyannis, Mass.–based regional airline that employs 800 people calls himself “a free-market guy.” But he also supports Medicare-for-all. He said Mr. Master helps turn the political argument over single-payer into a practical one.
“It’s about good business sense and about caring for his employees and their well-being,” he said, adding that employers should no longer be straddled with the cost and complexity of health care.
“It makes no more sense for an airline to understand health policy for the bulk of its workers than for a health facility to have to supply all the air transportation for its employees,” he said.
Employers also are an important voice in the debate because 156 million Americans get employer-paid health care, making it by far the single-largest form of coverage.
Mr. Master said his company has tried various methods to control costs with little success, including high deductibles, narrow networks of providers and wellness plans that emphasize preventive medicine.
Insurers who are supposed to negotiate lower rates from hospitals and doctors have failed, he added, and too many premium dollars go to covering administrative costs. Only by having the federal government set rates can the United States control costs of drugs, hospitals, and other health services, he said.
“Insurance companies are not watching the store and don’t have incentives to hold down costs in the current system,” he said.
Glad the boss is trying to make a difference
What’s left of MCS in Pennsylvania is a spacious corporate office building housing administrative staff, designers, and a giant distribution center piled high with carton boxes from floor to ceiling.
MCS pays an average of $1,260 per month for each employee’s health care, up from $716 in 2009, the company said. In recent years, the company has reduced out-of-pocket costs for employees by covering most of their deductibles.
Medicare-for-all would require several new taxes to raise money, but Mr. Master said such a plan would mean savings for his company and employees.
MCS employees largely support Mr. Master’s attempt to fix the health system even if they are not all on board with a Medicare-for-all approach, according to interviews with several workers in Easton.
“I think it’s a good idea,” said Faith Wildrick, a shipper at MCS who has worked for the company 26 years. “If the other countries are doing it and it is working for them, why can’t it work for us?”
Ms. Wildrick said that even with insurance her family struggles with health costs as her husband, Bill, a former MCS employee, deals with liver disease and needs many diagnostic tests and prescription medications. Their annual deductible has swung from $4,000 several years ago to $500 this year as the company has worked to lower employees’ out-of-pocket costs.
“I’m really glad someone is fighting for this and trying to make a difference,” said Ms. Wildrick.
Jessica Ehrhardt, the human resources manager at MCS, said the effort to reduce employees’ out-of-pocket health costs means the company must pay higher health costs. That results in less money for salary increases and other benefits, she added.
Asked about Medicare-for-all, Ms. Ehrhardt said, “It’s a drastic solution, but something needs to happen.”
For too long, Mr. Master said, the push for a single-payer health system has been about ideology.
“The movement has been about making health care a human right and that we have a right to universal health care,” he said. “What I am saying is this is prudent for our economy and am trying to make the business and economic case.”
Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
Walmart charts new course by steering workers to high-quality imaging centers
Walmart, the nation’s largest private employer, is worried that too many of its workers are having health conditions misdiagnosed, leading to unnecessary surgery and wasted health spending.
The issue crystallized for Walmart officials when they discovered about half of the company’s workers who went to the Mayo Clinic and other specialized hospitals for back surgery in the past few years turned out to not need those operations. They were either misdiagnosed by their doctor or needed only nonsurgical treatment.
A key issue: Their diagnostic imaging, such as CT scans and MRIs, had high error rates, said Lisa Woods, senior director of benefits design for Walmart.
So the company, whose health plans cover 1.1 million U.S. employees and dependents, has recommended that workers use one of 800 imaging centers identified as providing high-quality care. That list was developed for Walmart by Covera Health, a New York City–based health analytics company that uses data to help spot facilities likely to provide accurate imaging for a wide variety of conditions, from cancer to torn knee ligaments.
Although Walmart and other large employers in recent years have been steering workers to medical centers with proven track records for specific procedures such as transplants, the retail giant is believed to be the first to prod workers to use specific imaging providers based on diagnostic accuracy – not price, said employer health experts.
“A quality MRI or CT scan can improve the accuracy of diagnoses early in the care journey, helping create the correct treatment plan with the best opportunity for recovery,” said Ms. Woods. “The goal is to give associates the best chance to get better, and that starts with the right diagnosis.”
Walmart employees are not required to use those 800 centers, but if they don’t use one that is available near them, they will have to pay additional cost sharing. Company officials advise workers that they could have more accurate results if they opt for the specified centers.
Studies show a 3%-5% error rate each workday in a typical radiology practice, but some academic research has found mistakes on advanced images such as CT scans and MRIs can reach up to 30% of diagnoses. Although not every mistake affects patient care, with millions of CT scans and MRIs done each year in the United States, such mistakes can have a significant impact.
“There’s no question that there are a lot of errors that occur,” said Vijay Rao, MD, chair of radiology at the Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia.
Errors at imaging centers can happen for many reasons, including the radiologist not devoting enough time to reading each image, Dr. Rao said. The average radiologist typically has only seconds to read each image. “It’s just a lot of data that crosses your eye and there is human fatigue, interruptions, and errors are bound to happen,” she added.
Other pitfalls: the technician not positioning the patient correctly in the imaging machine or a radiologist not having sufficient expertise or experience, Dr. Rao said.
Employers and insurers typically do little to help patients identify which radiology practices provide the most accurate results. Instead, employers have been focused on the cost of imaging tests. Some employers or insurers require plan members to use freestanding outpatient centers, rather than those based in hospitals, which tend to be more expensive.
Ms. Woods said Walmart found that deficiencies and variation in imaging services affected employees nationwide. “Unfortunately, it is all over the country. It’s everywhere,” she said.
Walmart’s new imaging strategy is aligned with its efforts over the past decade to direct employees to select hospitals for high-cost health procedures. Since 2013, Walmart has been sending workers and their dependents to select hospitals across the country where it believes they can get better results for spine surgery, heart surgery, joint replacement, weight loss surgery, transplants, and certain cancers.
As part of its “Centers of Excellence” program, the Bentonville, Ark.–based retail giant picks up the tab for the surgeries and all related travel expenses for patients on the company’s health insurance plan, including a caregiver.
Sampling imaging centers’ work
Covera has collected information on thousands of hospital-based and outpatient imaging facilities starting with its previous business work in the workers’ compensation field.
“Our primary interest is understanding which radiologist or radiology practices are achieving the highest level of diagnostic accuracy for their patients,” said Dan Elgort, Covera’s chief data science officer.
Covera has independent radiologists evaluate a sampling of patient care data on imaging centers to determine facilities’ error rates. It uses statistical modeling along with information on each center’s equipment, physicians, and use of industry-accepted patient protocols to determine the facilities’ rates of accuracy.
Covera expects to have about 1,500 imaging centers in the program by year’s end, said CEO Ron Vianu.
There are about 4,000 outpatient imaging centers in the United States, not counting thousands of hospital-based facilities, he estimated.
As a condition for participating in the program, each of the imaging centers has agreed to routinely send a sampling of their patients’ images and reports to Covera.
Mr. Vianu said studies have shown that radiologists frequently offer different diagnoses based on the same image taken during an MRI or CT scan. Among explanations are that some radiologists are better at analyzing certain types of images – like those of the brain or bones – and sometimes radiologists read images from exams they have less experience with, he said.
Mr. Vianu noted that most consumers give little thought to where to get an MRI or CT scan, and usually go where their doctors send them, the closest facility or, increasingly, the one that offers the lowest price. “Most people think of diagnostic imaging as a commodity, and that’s a mistake,” he said.
Dr. Rao applauded the effort by Walmart and Covera to identify imaging facilities likely to provide the most accurate reports. “I am sure centers that are worried about their quality will not be happy, but most quality operations would welcome something like this,” she said.
Few guides for consumers
Consumers have little way to distinguish the quality of care from one imaging center to the next. The American College of Radiology has an accreditation program but does not evaluate diagnostic quality.
“We would love to have more robust ... measurements” than what is currently available, said Geraldine McGinty, MD, chair of the college’s board of chancellors.
Facilities typically conduct peer reviews of their radiologists’ patient reports, but there is no public reporting of such results, she said.
Covera officials said they have worked with Walmart for nearly 2 years to demonstrate they could improve the quality of diagnostic care its employees receive. Part of the process has included reviewing a sample of Walmart employees’ health records to see where changes in imaging services could have caught potential problems.
Covera said the centers in its network were chosen based on quality and price was not a factor.
In an effort to curtail unnecessary tests, Walmart, like many large employers and insurers, requires its insured members to get authorization before getting CT scans and MRIs.
“Walmart is on the leading edge of focusing on quality of diagnostic imaging,” said Suzanne Delbanco, executive director of the Catalyst for Payment Reform, an employer-led health care think tank and advocacy group.
But Mark Stolper, executive vice president of Los Angeles–based RadNet, which owns 335 imaging centers nationally, questions how Covera has enough data to compare facilities. “This would be the first time,” he said, “I have seen or heard of a company trying to narrow a network of imaging centers that is based on quality instead of price.”
Ms. Woods said that, even though the new imaging strategy is not based on financial concerns, it could pay dividends down the road.
“It’s been demonstrated time and time again that high quality ends up being more economical in the long run because inappropriate care is avoided, and patients do better,” she said.
Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
Walmart, the nation’s largest private employer, is worried that too many of its workers are having health conditions misdiagnosed, leading to unnecessary surgery and wasted health spending.
The issue crystallized for Walmart officials when they discovered about half of the company’s workers who went to the Mayo Clinic and other specialized hospitals for back surgery in the past few years turned out to not need those operations. They were either misdiagnosed by their doctor or needed only nonsurgical treatment.
A key issue: Their diagnostic imaging, such as CT scans and MRIs, had high error rates, said Lisa Woods, senior director of benefits design for Walmart.
So the company, whose health plans cover 1.1 million U.S. employees and dependents, has recommended that workers use one of 800 imaging centers identified as providing high-quality care. That list was developed for Walmart by Covera Health, a New York City–based health analytics company that uses data to help spot facilities likely to provide accurate imaging for a wide variety of conditions, from cancer to torn knee ligaments.
Although Walmart and other large employers in recent years have been steering workers to medical centers with proven track records for specific procedures such as transplants, the retail giant is believed to be the first to prod workers to use specific imaging providers based on diagnostic accuracy – not price, said employer health experts.
“A quality MRI or CT scan can improve the accuracy of diagnoses early in the care journey, helping create the correct treatment plan with the best opportunity for recovery,” said Ms. Woods. “The goal is to give associates the best chance to get better, and that starts with the right diagnosis.”
Walmart employees are not required to use those 800 centers, but if they don’t use one that is available near them, they will have to pay additional cost sharing. Company officials advise workers that they could have more accurate results if they opt for the specified centers.
Studies show a 3%-5% error rate each workday in a typical radiology practice, but some academic research has found mistakes on advanced images such as CT scans and MRIs can reach up to 30% of diagnoses. Although not every mistake affects patient care, with millions of CT scans and MRIs done each year in the United States, such mistakes can have a significant impact.
“There’s no question that there are a lot of errors that occur,” said Vijay Rao, MD, chair of radiology at the Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia.
Errors at imaging centers can happen for many reasons, including the radiologist not devoting enough time to reading each image, Dr. Rao said. The average radiologist typically has only seconds to read each image. “It’s just a lot of data that crosses your eye and there is human fatigue, interruptions, and errors are bound to happen,” she added.
Other pitfalls: the technician not positioning the patient correctly in the imaging machine or a radiologist not having sufficient expertise or experience, Dr. Rao said.
Employers and insurers typically do little to help patients identify which radiology practices provide the most accurate results. Instead, employers have been focused on the cost of imaging tests. Some employers or insurers require plan members to use freestanding outpatient centers, rather than those based in hospitals, which tend to be more expensive.
Ms. Woods said Walmart found that deficiencies and variation in imaging services affected employees nationwide. “Unfortunately, it is all over the country. It’s everywhere,” she said.
Walmart’s new imaging strategy is aligned with its efforts over the past decade to direct employees to select hospitals for high-cost health procedures. Since 2013, Walmart has been sending workers and their dependents to select hospitals across the country where it believes they can get better results for spine surgery, heart surgery, joint replacement, weight loss surgery, transplants, and certain cancers.
As part of its “Centers of Excellence” program, the Bentonville, Ark.–based retail giant picks up the tab for the surgeries and all related travel expenses for patients on the company’s health insurance plan, including a caregiver.
Sampling imaging centers’ work
Covera has collected information on thousands of hospital-based and outpatient imaging facilities starting with its previous business work in the workers’ compensation field.
“Our primary interest is understanding which radiologist or radiology practices are achieving the highest level of diagnostic accuracy for their patients,” said Dan Elgort, Covera’s chief data science officer.
Covera has independent radiologists evaluate a sampling of patient care data on imaging centers to determine facilities’ error rates. It uses statistical modeling along with information on each center’s equipment, physicians, and use of industry-accepted patient protocols to determine the facilities’ rates of accuracy.
Covera expects to have about 1,500 imaging centers in the program by year’s end, said CEO Ron Vianu.
There are about 4,000 outpatient imaging centers in the United States, not counting thousands of hospital-based facilities, he estimated.
As a condition for participating in the program, each of the imaging centers has agreed to routinely send a sampling of their patients’ images and reports to Covera.
Mr. Vianu said studies have shown that radiologists frequently offer different diagnoses based on the same image taken during an MRI or CT scan. Among explanations are that some radiologists are better at analyzing certain types of images – like those of the brain or bones – and sometimes radiologists read images from exams they have less experience with, he said.
Mr. Vianu noted that most consumers give little thought to where to get an MRI or CT scan, and usually go where their doctors send them, the closest facility or, increasingly, the one that offers the lowest price. “Most people think of diagnostic imaging as a commodity, and that’s a mistake,” he said.
Dr. Rao applauded the effort by Walmart and Covera to identify imaging facilities likely to provide the most accurate reports. “I am sure centers that are worried about their quality will not be happy, but most quality operations would welcome something like this,” she said.
Few guides for consumers
Consumers have little way to distinguish the quality of care from one imaging center to the next. The American College of Radiology has an accreditation program but does not evaluate diagnostic quality.
“We would love to have more robust ... measurements” than what is currently available, said Geraldine McGinty, MD, chair of the college’s board of chancellors.
Facilities typically conduct peer reviews of their radiologists’ patient reports, but there is no public reporting of such results, she said.
Covera officials said they have worked with Walmart for nearly 2 years to demonstrate they could improve the quality of diagnostic care its employees receive. Part of the process has included reviewing a sample of Walmart employees’ health records to see where changes in imaging services could have caught potential problems.
Covera said the centers in its network were chosen based on quality and price was not a factor.
In an effort to curtail unnecessary tests, Walmart, like many large employers and insurers, requires its insured members to get authorization before getting CT scans and MRIs.
“Walmart is on the leading edge of focusing on quality of diagnostic imaging,” said Suzanne Delbanco, executive director of the Catalyst for Payment Reform, an employer-led health care think tank and advocacy group.
But Mark Stolper, executive vice president of Los Angeles–based RadNet, which owns 335 imaging centers nationally, questions how Covera has enough data to compare facilities. “This would be the first time,” he said, “I have seen or heard of a company trying to narrow a network of imaging centers that is based on quality instead of price.”
Ms. Woods said that, even though the new imaging strategy is not based on financial concerns, it could pay dividends down the road.
“It’s been demonstrated time and time again that high quality ends up being more economical in the long run because inappropriate care is avoided, and patients do better,” she said.
Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
Walmart, the nation’s largest private employer, is worried that too many of its workers are having health conditions misdiagnosed, leading to unnecessary surgery and wasted health spending.
The issue crystallized for Walmart officials when they discovered about half of the company’s workers who went to the Mayo Clinic and other specialized hospitals for back surgery in the past few years turned out to not need those operations. They were either misdiagnosed by their doctor or needed only nonsurgical treatment.
A key issue: Their diagnostic imaging, such as CT scans and MRIs, had high error rates, said Lisa Woods, senior director of benefits design for Walmart.
So the company, whose health plans cover 1.1 million U.S. employees and dependents, has recommended that workers use one of 800 imaging centers identified as providing high-quality care. That list was developed for Walmart by Covera Health, a New York City–based health analytics company that uses data to help spot facilities likely to provide accurate imaging for a wide variety of conditions, from cancer to torn knee ligaments.
Although Walmart and other large employers in recent years have been steering workers to medical centers with proven track records for specific procedures such as transplants, the retail giant is believed to be the first to prod workers to use specific imaging providers based on diagnostic accuracy – not price, said employer health experts.
“A quality MRI or CT scan can improve the accuracy of diagnoses early in the care journey, helping create the correct treatment plan with the best opportunity for recovery,” said Ms. Woods. “The goal is to give associates the best chance to get better, and that starts with the right diagnosis.”
Walmart employees are not required to use those 800 centers, but if they don’t use one that is available near them, they will have to pay additional cost sharing. Company officials advise workers that they could have more accurate results if they opt for the specified centers.
Studies show a 3%-5% error rate each workday in a typical radiology practice, but some academic research has found mistakes on advanced images such as CT scans and MRIs can reach up to 30% of diagnoses. Although not every mistake affects patient care, with millions of CT scans and MRIs done each year in the United States, such mistakes can have a significant impact.
“There’s no question that there are a lot of errors that occur,” said Vijay Rao, MD, chair of radiology at the Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia.
Errors at imaging centers can happen for many reasons, including the radiologist not devoting enough time to reading each image, Dr. Rao said. The average radiologist typically has only seconds to read each image. “It’s just a lot of data that crosses your eye and there is human fatigue, interruptions, and errors are bound to happen,” she added.
Other pitfalls: the technician not positioning the patient correctly in the imaging machine or a radiologist not having sufficient expertise or experience, Dr. Rao said.
Employers and insurers typically do little to help patients identify which radiology practices provide the most accurate results. Instead, employers have been focused on the cost of imaging tests. Some employers or insurers require plan members to use freestanding outpatient centers, rather than those based in hospitals, which tend to be more expensive.
Ms. Woods said Walmart found that deficiencies and variation in imaging services affected employees nationwide. “Unfortunately, it is all over the country. It’s everywhere,” she said.
Walmart’s new imaging strategy is aligned with its efforts over the past decade to direct employees to select hospitals for high-cost health procedures. Since 2013, Walmart has been sending workers and their dependents to select hospitals across the country where it believes they can get better results for spine surgery, heart surgery, joint replacement, weight loss surgery, transplants, and certain cancers.
As part of its “Centers of Excellence” program, the Bentonville, Ark.–based retail giant picks up the tab for the surgeries and all related travel expenses for patients on the company’s health insurance plan, including a caregiver.
Sampling imaging centers’ work
Covera has collected information on thousands of hospital-based and outpatient imaging facilities starting with its previous business work in the workers’ compensation field.
“Our primary interest is understanding which radiologist or radiology practices are achieving the highest level of diagnostic accuracy for their patients,” said Dan Elgort, Covera’s chief data science officer.
Covera has independent radiologists evaluate a sampling of patient care data on imaging centers to determine facilities’ error rates. It uses statistical modeling along with information on each center’s equipment, physicians, and use of industry-accepted patient protocols to determine the facilities’ rates of accuracy.
Covera expects to have about 1,500 imaging centers in the program by year’s end, said CEO Ron Vianu.
There are about 4,000 outpatient imaging centers in the United States, not counting thousands of hospital-based facilities, he estimated.
As a condition for participating in the program, each of the imaging centers has agreed to routinely send a sampling of their patients’ images and reports to Covera.
Mr. Vianu said studies have shown that radiologists frequently offer different diagnoses based on the same image taken during an MRI or CT scan. Among explanations are that some radiologists are better at analyzing certain types of images – like those of the brain or bones – and sometimes radiologists read images from exams they have less experience with, he said.
Mr. Vianu noted that most consumers give little thought to where to get an MRI or CT scan, and usually go where their doctors send them, the closest facility or, increasingly, the one that offers the lowest price. “Most people think of diagnostic imaging as a commodity, and that’s a mistake,” he said.
Dr. Rao applauded the effort by Walmart and Covera to identify imaging facilities likely to provide the most accurate reports. “I am sure centers that are worried about their quality will not be happy, but most quality operations would welcome something like this,” she said.
Few guides for consumers
Consumers have little way to distinguish the quality of care from one imaging center to the next. The American College of Radiology has an accreditation program but does not evaluate diagnostic quality.
“We would love to have more robust ... measurements” than what is currently available, said Geraldine McGinty, MD, chair of the college’s board of chancellors.
Facilities typically conduct peer reviews of their radiologists’ patient reports, but there is no public reporting of such results, she said.
Covera officials said they have worked with Walmart for nearly 2 years to demonstrate they could improve the quality of diagnostic care its employees receive. Part of the process has included reviewing a sample of Walmart employees’ health records to see where changes in imaging services could have caught potential problems.
Covera said the centers in its network were chosen based on quality and price was not a factor.
In an effort to curtail unnecessary tests, Walmart, like many large employers and insurers, requires its insured members to get authorization before getting CT scans and MRIs.
“Walmart is on the leading edge of focusing on quality of diagnostic imaging,” said Suzanne Delbanco, executive director of the Catalyst for Payment Reform, an employer-led health care think tank and advocacy group.
But Mark Stolper, executive vice president of Los Angeles–based RadNet, which owns 335 imaging centers nationally, questions how Covera has enough data to compare facilities. “This would be the first time,” he said, “I have seen or heard of a company trying to narrow a network of imaging centers that is based on quality instead of price.”
Ms. Woods said that, even though the new imaging strategy is not based on financial concerns, it could pay dividends down the road.
“It’s been demonstrated time and time again that high quality ends up being more economical in the long run because inappropriate care is avoided, and patients do better,” she said.
Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
Under Trump, number of uninsured kids rose for first time this decade
After years of steady decline, the number of U.S. children without health insurance rose by 276,000 in 2017, according to a Georgetown University report released Nov. 22.
While not a big jump statistically – the share of uninsured kids rose to 5% in 2017 from 4.7% a year earlier – it is still striking. The uninsured rate typically remains stable or drops during times of economic growth. In September, the U.S. unemployment rate hit its lowest level since 1969.
“The nation is going backwards on insuring kids and it is likely to get worse,” said Joan Alker, coauthor of the study and executive director of Georgetown’s Center for Children and Families in Washington.
Ms. Alker and other child health advocates place the blame for this change on the Trump administration and the Republican-controlled Congress, saying their policies and actions cast a pall on enrollment.
The number of children without coverage rose to 3.9 million in 2017 from about 3.6 million a year earlier, according to Census data analyzed by Georgetown. The overall uninsured rate for people of all ages – which plummeted from 2013 to 2016 following the health law’s implementation – remained unchanged at 8.8% last year.
The share of children with employer-sponsored coverage rose modestly in 2017, but not by enough to make up for the drop in children enrolling in Medicaid or getting coverage from Obamacare insurance exchanges, Ms. Alker said.
While no states made any significant gains in lowering children’s uninsured rate, nine states experienced significant increases. The biggest occurred in South Dakota (up from 4.7% to 6.2%), Utah (up from 6% to 7.3%), and Texas (from 9.8% to 10.7%).
More than one in five uninsured children nationwide live in Texas – about 835,000 kids – by far the highest number of any state.
Florida had 325,000 uninsured children last year, as its uninsured rate for that age group rose 0.7 percentage points to 7.3%. California had 301,000 children without insurance, though its number remained virtually unchanged, relative to the previous year.
Other states with significant increases were Georgia, Massachusetts, Ohio, Tennessee, and South Carolina.
The uninsured rates for children increased at nearly triple the rates in states that did not expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, according to the report. Studies have shown that children whose parents are insured are more likely to have coverage.
The uninsured rate among Hispanic children was 7.8%, compared with 4.9% among whites and 4.6% among blacks overall. (Hispanics can be of any race.)
Georgetown has been tracking these figures since 2008 when 7.6 million children – or about 10% of kids – lacked health coverage.
Because nearly all low-income children are eligible for Medicaid or the federal Children’s Health Insurance Program, known as CHIP, the challenge is making sure parents are aware of the programs, getting them enrolled, and keeping them signed up as long as they are eligible, Ms. Alker said.
Congress let the CHIP program funding lapse for several months in 2017, putting states in a position of having to warn consumers that they would soon have to freeze enrollment. Congress restored federal funding in early in 2018.
In addition, low-income families were bombarded by news reports last year of Congress threatening to repeal the health law that expanded coverage to millions. In the past 2 years, the Trump administration has slashed funding to Obamacare navigators to help people sign up for coverage.
Ms. Alker also pointed to the Trump administration’s September proposal, known as the “public charge” rule, which could make it harder for legal immigrants to get green cards if they have received certain kinds of public assistance – including Medicaid, food stamps, and housing subsidies. Green cards allow them to live and work permanently in the United States.
OLE Health, a large health provider based in Napa Valley, Calif., that serves many immigrants, said it has seen patients disenroll from Medicaid in the past year. CEO Alicia Hardy said many have dropped coverage over fears the help could jeopardize their immigration status. “They are afraid of being deported.”
All those events could have deterred families from getting their kids covered. “The welcome mat has been pulled back and as a result we see more uninsured children,” Ms. Alker said.
She said the easiest way to change the trend would be for more states to expand Medicaid under the health law. A total of 14 states have yet to do so. Though the expansion largely affects adults, as parents enroll, their children are likely to follow.
KHN’s coverage of children’s health care issues is supported in part by the Heising-Simons Foundation. Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
After years of steady decline, the number of U.S. children without health insurance rose by 276,000 in 2017, according to a Georgetown University report released Nov. 22.
While not a big jump statistically – the share of uninsured kids rose to 5% in 2017 from 4.7% a year earlier – it is still striking. The uninsured rate typically remains stable or drops during times of economic growth. In September, the U.S. unemployment rate hit its lowest level since 1969.
“The nation is going backwards on insuring kids and it is likely to get worse,” said Joan Alker, coauthor of the study and executive director of Georgetown’s Center for Children and Families in Washington.
Ms. Alker and other child health advocates place the blame for this change on the Trump administration and the Republican-controlled Congress, saying their policies and actions cast a pall on enrollment.
The number of children without coverage rose to 3.9 million in 2017 from about 3.6 million a year earlier, according to Census data analyzed by Georgetown. The overall uninsured rate for people of all ages – which plummeted from 2013 to 2016 following the health law’s implementation – remained unchanged at 8.8% last year.
The share of children with employer-sponsored coverage rose modestly in 2017, but not by enough to make up for the drop in children enrolling in Medicaid or getting coverage from Obamacare insurance exchanges, Ms. Alker said.
While no states made any significant gains in lowering children’s uninsured rate, nine states experienced significant increases. The biggest occurred in South Dakota (up from 4.7% to 6.2%), Utah (up from 6% to 7.3%), and Texas (from 9.8% to 10.7%).
More than one in five uninsured children nationwide live in Texas – about 835,000 kids – by far the highest number of any state.
Florida had 325,000 uninsured children last year, as its uninsured rate for that age group rose 0.7 percentage points to 7.3%. California had 301,000 children without insurance, though its number remained virtually unchanged, relative to the previous year.
Other states with significant increases were Georgia, Massachusetts, Ohio, Tennessee, and South Carolina.
The uninsured rates for children increased at nearly triple the rates in states that did not expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, according to the report. Studies have shown that children whose parents are insured are more likely to have coverage.
The uninsured rate among Hispanic children was 7.8%, compared with 4.9% among whites and 4.6% among blacks overall. (Hispanics can be of any race.)
Georgetown has been tracking these figures since 2008 when 7.6 million children – or about 10% of kids – lacked health coverage.
Because nearly all low-income children are eligible for Medicaid or the federal Children’s Health Insurance Program, known as CHIP, the challenge is making sure parents are aware of the programs, getting them enrolled, and keeping them signed up as long as they are eligible, Ms. Alker said.
Congress let the CHIP program funding lapse for several months in 2017, putting states in a position of having to warn consumers that they would soon have to freeze enrollment. Congress restored federal funding in early in 2018.
In addition, low-income families were bombarded by news reports last year of Congress threatening to repeal the health law that expanded coverage to millions. In the past 2 years, the Trump administration has slashed funding to Obamacare navigators to help people sign up for coverage.
Ms. Alker also pointed to the Trump administration’s September proposal, known as the “public charge” rule, which could make it harder for legal immigrants to get green cards if they have received certain kinds of public assistance – including Medicaid, food stamps, and housing subsidies. Green cards allow them to live and work permanently in the United States.
OLE Health, a large health provider based in Napa Valley, Calif., that serves many immigrants, said it has seen patients disenroll from Medicaid in the past year. CEO Alicia Hardy said many have dropped coverage over fears the help could jeopardize their immigration status. “They are afraid of being deported.”
All those events could have deterred families from getting their kids covered. “The welcome mat has been pulled back and as a result we see more uninsured children,” Ms. Alker said.
She said the easiest way to change the trend would be for more states to expand Medicaid under the health law. A total of 14 states have yet to do so. Though the expansion largely affects adults, as parents enroll, their children are likely to follow.
KHN’s coverage of children’s health care issues is supported in part by the Heising-Simons Foundation. Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
After years of steady decline, the number of U.S. children without health insurance rose by 276,000 in 2017, according to a Georgetown University report released Nov. 22.
While not a big jump statistically – the share of uninsured kids rose to 5% in 2017 from 4.7% a year earlier – it is still striking. The uninsured rate typically remains stable or drops during times of economic growth. In September, the U.S. unemployment rate hit its lowest level since 1969.
“The nation is going backwards on insuring kids and it is likely to get worse,” said Joan Alker, coauthor of the study and executive director of Georgetown’s Center for Children and Families in Washington.
Ms. Alker and other child health advocates place the blame for this change on the Trump administration and the Republican-controlled Congress, saying their policies and actions cast a pall on enrollment.
The number of children without coverage rose to 3.9 million in 2017 from about 3.6 million a year earlier, according to Census data analyzed by Georgetown. The overall uninsured rate for people of all ages – which plummeted from 2013 to 2016 following the health law’s implementation – remained unchanged at 8.8% last year.
The share of children with employer-sponsored coverage rose modestly in 2017, but not by enough to make up for the drop in children enrolling in Medicaid or getting coverage from Obamacare insurance exchanges, Ms. Alker said.
While no states made any significant gains in lowering children’s uninsured rate, nine states experienced significant increases. The biggest occurred in South Dakota (up from 4.7% to 6.2%), Utah (up from 6% to 7.3%), and Texas (from 9.8% to 10.7%).
More than one in five uninsured children nationwide live in Texas – about 835,000 kids – by far the highest number of any state.
Florida had 325,000 uninsured children last year, as its uninsured rate for that age group rose 0.7 percentage points to 7.3%. California had 301,000 children without insurance, though its number remained virtually unchanged, relative to the previous year.
Other states with significant increases were Georgia, Massachusetts, Ohio, Tennessee, and South Carolina.
The uninsured rates for children increased at nearly triple the rates in states that did not expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, according to the report. Studies have shown that children whose parents are insured are more likely to have coverage.
The uninsured rate among Hispanic children was 7.8%, compared with 4.9% among whites and 4.6% among blacks overall. (Hispanics can be of any race.)
Georgetown has been tracking these figures since 2008 when 7.6 million children – or about 10% of kids – lacked health coverage.
Because nearly all low-income children are eligible for Medicaid or the federal Children’s Health Insurance Program, known as CHIP, the challenge is making sure parents are aware of the programs, getting them enrolled, and keeping them signed up as long as they are eligible, Ms. Alker said.
Congress let the CHIP program funding lapse for several months in 2017, putting states in a position of having to warn consumers that they would soon have to freeze enrollment. Congress restored federal funding in early in 2018.
In addition, low-income families were bombarded by news reports last year of Congress threatening to repeal the health law that expanded coverage to millions. In the past 2 years, the Trump administration has slashed funding to Obamacare navigators to help people sign up for coverage.
Ms. Alker also pointed to the Trump administration’s September proposal, known as the “public charge” rule, which could make it harder for legal immigrants to get green cards if they have received certain kinds of public assistance – including Medicaid, food stamps, and housing subsidies. Green cards allow them to live and work permanently in the United States.
OLE Health, a large health provider based in Napa Valley, Calif., that serves many immigrants, said it has seen patients disenroll from Medicaid in the past year. CEO Alicia Hardy said many have dropped coverage over fears the help could jeopardize their immigration status. “They are afraid of being deported.”
All those events could have deterred families from getting their kids covered. “The welcome mat has been pulled back and as a result we see more uninsured children,” Ms. Alker said.
She said the easiest way to change the trend would be for more states to expand Medicaid under the health law. A total of 14 states have yet to do so. Though the expansion largely affects adults, as parents enroll, their children are likely to follow.
KHN’s coverage of children’s health care issues is supported in part by the Heising-Simons Foundation. Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
Midterm election boosts Medicaid expansion, but challenges remain
Medicaid – which has been a political football between Washington and state capitols during the past decade – scored big in the Nov. 6 election.
Three deep-red states passed ballot measures expanding their programs and two other states elected governors who have said they will accept expansion bills from their legislatures.
Supporters were so excited by the victories they said they will start planning for more voter referendums in 2020.
Medicaid proponents also were celebrating the Democrats’ takeover of the House, which would impede any Republican efforts to repeal the ACA and make major cuts to the federal-state health insurance program for low-income people.
“Tuesday was huge for the Medicaid program,” said Katherine Howitt, associate director of policy at Community Catalyst, a Boston-based advocacy group. “The overall message is that the electorate does not see this as a Democrat or GOP issue but as an issue of basic fairness, access to care, and pocketbook issue. Medicaid is working and is something Americans want to protect.”
But health experts caution that GOP opposition won’t fade away.
David K. Jones, PhD, of the department of health law, policy and management at Boston University School of Public Health, said ballot organizers now have a blueprint on how to expand Medicaid in states that have resisted. “I see this as a turning point in ACA politics,” he said. Still, he added‚ “it’s not inevitable.”
Medicaid is the largest government health program, insuring at least 73 million low-income Americans. Half of them are children. To date, 32 states and the District of Columbia have expanded it under the ACA. Before that law, Medicaid was generally limited to children, sometimes their parents, pregnant women, and people with disabilities.
The ACA encouraged states to open the program to all Americans earning up to 138% of the poverty level ($16,753 for an individual in 2018). The federal government is paying the bulk of the cost: 94% this year, but gradually dropping to 90% in 2020. States pay the rest.
GOP opposition has left about 4.2 million low-income Americans without coverage in various states.
“It’s not over until it’s over is the story of Medicaid expansion and the Affordable Care Act as the politics never ends and the opportunity for obstruction never ends,” said Dr. Jones. “But the trend overall has been to increasing implementation and increasing coverage.”
Montana fails to endorse funding
Two years after President Donald Trump carried Idaho, Nebraska, and Utah by double-digit margins with a message that included repeal of the ACA, voters in those states approved the ballot referendums on Nov. 6. Together, the states have about 300,000 uninsured adults who would be eligible for the program.
In addition, Democrats secured the governor’s offices in Kansas and Maine, which will increase the likelihood those states will pursue expansion. Legislatures in both states have previously voted to expand, only to have GOP governors block the bills. Maine voters also passed a referendum in 2017 endorsing expansion, but Republican Gov. Paul LePage again refused to accept it.
Current and incoming Republican governors in Utah and Idaho said they wouldn’t block implementation of the effort if voters approved it. Nebraska Gov. Pete Ricketts (R) said on Nov. 7 he would follow the will of the voters but would not support paying for it with a tax increase.
It wasn’t a clean sweep, however, for Medicaid.
In preliminary results, a ballot issue to fund Montana’s Medicaid expansion – which is already in place and slated to expire next July – was failing. Tobacco companies had mounted a campaign to stop the measure, which would have partially financed the expansion with taxes on tobacco products.
The Montana legislature and the Democratic governor are expected to address the issue in the session that starts in January. No state has reversed its Medicaid expansion, even though GOP governors in Kansas and Arkansas have threatened to do so.
Nearly 100,000 Montana residents have received Medicaid since its expansion, twice as many as expected.
Nancy Ballance, the Republican chairwoman of the Montana House Appropriations Committee who opposed the bill that expanded Medicaid in 2015, said she is confident the state legislature will extend the program past July. But she expects the legislature to put some limits on the program, such as adding an asset test and work requirements.
“There are some people in the state who may not have disabilities but need some help to access coverage,” she said. “I think we can pass something without people having a gap in coverage. … That will be a priority.”
“It was never our intent to simply sunset the expansion and have it go away,” she said. Rather, the legislature put the sunset provision in to revisit the provision to make any changes.
Chris Jacobs, a conservative health policy analyst in Washington, said the Montana results showed that when voters are given a choice of having to pay for Medicaid expansion through a new tax, they were not willing to go along.
But in Utah, voters did agree to fund their state plan by adding 0.15% to the state’s sales tax, just over a penny for a $10 purchase.
Fernando Wilson, acting director of the Center for Health Policy at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha, said the vote on the state’s ballot question indicated many people wanted to help 80,000 uninsured Nebraskans gain coverage.
“I think it showed there was a clear need for it,” he said. The legislature likely won’t block the expansion, Wilson said, though it may try to add a conservative twist such as adding premiums or other steps.
Sheila Burke, a lecturer in health policy at Harvard Kennedy School in Cambridge, Mass., said voters approved Medicaid expansion not just because it would help improve health coverage for their residents but to help stabilize their hospitals, particularly those in rural areas. Hospitals have said this step helps their bottom lines because it cuts down on uninsured patients and uncompensated care.
“The broad population does see the value of Medicaid,” she said. “They saw it as a loss by their states not to accept the federal funds,” she said.
Despite the victories, Ms. Burke said, advocates should not assume other states such as Florida, Texas, and Tennessee will follow suit.
“I don’t see a radical shift, but it moves us closer,” she said.
‘Fertile ground’ for more referendums
If advocates press for more referendums, Florida might be a tempting target. More than 700,000 adults there could become eligible, but the campaign would likely also be very costly.
Jonathan Schleifer, executive director of the Fairness Project, which financed the ballot initiatives in Maine in 2017 and the four states this year, refused to say which states would be targeted next.
The group is funded by the Service Employees International Union–United Healthcare Workers West, a California health care workers union.
“The GOP has been bashing the ACA for nearly a decade, and voters in the reddest states in the country just rejected that message,” Mr. Schleifer said. “It’s a repudiation and a tectonic shift in health care in this country.”
“There is fertile ground” for more such ballot votes, said Topher Spiro, vice president for health policy at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. “It is clear that public opinion is on the side of Medicaid expansion and the election results merely confirm that.”
“This will build momentum for expansion in other states,” he added.
The election results also could have consequences on efforts by states to implement work requirements for Medicaid enrollees.
New Hampshire and Michigan — which expanded the program but recently won federal approval to add controversial work requirements — could revisit that additional mandate as a result of Democrats winning control over both houses of the legislature in New Hampshire and the governor’s office in Michigan.
Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
Medicaid – which has been a political football between Washington and state capitols during the past decade – scored big in the Nov. 6 election.
Three deep-red states passed ballot measures expanding their programs and two other states elected governors who have said they will accept expansion bills from their legislatures.
Supporters were so excited by the victories they said they will start planning for more voter referendums in 2020.
Medicaid proponents also were celebrating the Democrats’ takeover of the House, which would impede any Republican efforts to repeal the ACA and make major cuts to the federal-state health insurance program for low-income people.
“Tuesday was huge for the Medicaid program,” said Katherine Howitt, associate director of policy at Community Catalyst, a Boston-based advocacy group. “The overall message is that the electorate does not see this as a Democrat or GOP issue but as an issue of basic fairness, access to care, and pocketbook issue. Medicaid is working and is something Americans want to protect.”
But health experts caution that GOP opposition won’t fade away.
David K. Jones, PhD, of the department of health law, policy and management at Boston University School of Public Health, said ballot organizers now have a blueprint on how to expand Medicaid in states that have resisted. “I see this as a turning point in ACA politics,” he said. Still, he added‚ “it’s not inevitable.”
Medicaid is the largest government health program, insuring at least 73 million low-income Americans. Half of them are children. To date, 32 states and the District of Columbia have expanded it under the ACA. Before that law, Medicaid was generally limited to children, sometimes their parents, pregnant women, and people with disabilities.
The ACA encouraged states to open the program to all Americans earning up to 138% of the poverty level ($16,753 for an individual in 2018). The federal government is paying the bulk of the cost: 94% this year, but gradually dropping to 90% in 2020. States pay the rest.
GOP opposition has left about 4.2 million low-income Americans without coverage in various states.
“It’s not over until it’s over is the story of Medicaid expansion and the Affordable Care Act as the politics never ends and the opportunity for obstruction never ends,” said Dr. Jones. “But the trend overall has been to increasing implementation and increasing coverage.”
Montana fails to endorse funding
Two years after President Donald Trump carried Idaho, Nebraska, and Utah by double-digit margins with a message that included repeal of the ACA, voters in those states approved the ballot referendums on Nov. 6. Together, the states have about 300,000 uninsured adults who would be eligible for the program.
In addition, Democrats secured the governor’s offices in Kansas and Maine, which will increase the likelihood those states will pursue expansion. Legislatures in both states have previously voted to expand, only to have GOP governors block the bills. Maine voters also passed a referendum in 2017 endorsing expansion, but Republican Gov. Paul LePage again refused to accept it.
Current and incoming Republican governors in Utah and Idaho said they wouldn’t block implementation of the effort if voters approved it. Nebraska Gov. Pete Ricketts (R) said on Nov. 7 he would follow the will of the voters but would not support paying for it with a tax increase.
It wasn’t a clean sweep, however, for Medicaid.
In preliminary results, a ballot issue to fund Montana’s Medicaid expansion – which is already in place and slated to expire next July – was failing. Tobacco companies had mounted a campaign to stop the measure, which would have partially financed the expansion with taxes on tobacco products.
The Montana legislature and the Democratic governor are expected to address the issue in the session that starts in January. No state has reversed its Medicaid expansion, even though GOP governors in Kansas and Arkansas have threatened to do so.
Nearly 100,000 Montana residents have received Medicaid since its expansion, twice as many as expected.
Nancy Ballance, the Republican chairwoman of the Montana House Appropriations Committee who opposed the bill that expanded Medicaid in 2015, said she is confident the state legislature will extend the program past July. But she expects the legislature to put some limits on the program, such as adding an asset test and work requirements.
“There are some people in the state who may not have disabilities but need some help to access coverage,” she said. “I think we can pass something without people having a gap in coverage. … That will be a priority.”
“It was never our intent to simply sunset the expansion and have it go away,” she said. Rather, the legislature put the sunset provision in to revisit the provision to make any changes.
Chris Jacobs, a conservative health policy analyst in Washington, said the Montana results showed that when voters are given a choice of having to pay for Medicaid expansion through a new tax, they were not willing to go along.
But in Utah, voters did agree to fund their state plan by adding 0.15% to the state’s sales tax, just over a penny for a $10 purchase.
Fernando Wilson, acting director of the Center for Health Policy at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha, said the vote on the state’s ballot question indicated many people wanted to help 80,000 uninsured Nebraskans gain coverage.
“I think it showed there was a clear need for it,” he said. The legislature likely won’t block the expansion, Wilson said, though it may try to add a conservative twist such as adding premiums or other steps.
Sheila Burke, a lecturer in health policy at Harvard Kennedy School in Cambridge, Mass., said voters approved Medicaid expansion not just because it would help improve health coverage for their residents but to help stabilize their hospitals, particularly those in rural areas. Hospitals have said this step helps their bottom lines because it cuts down on uninsured patients and uncompensated care.
“The broad population does see the value of Medicaid,” she said. “They saw it as a loss by their states not to accept the federal funds,” she said.
Despite the victories, Ms. Burke said, advocates should not assume other states such as Florida, Texas, and Tennessee will follow suit.
“I don’t see a radical shift, but it moves us closer,” she said.
‘Fertile ground’ for more referendums
If advocates press for more referendums, Florida might be a tempting target. More than 700,000 adults there could become eligible, but the campaign would likely also be very costly.
Jonathan Schleifer, executive director of the Fairness Project, which financed the ballot initiatives in Maine in 2017 and the four states this year, refused to say which states would be targeted next.
The group is funded by the Service Employees International Union–United Healthcare Workers West, a California health care workers union.
“The GOP has been bashing the ACA for nearly a decade, and voters in the reddest states in the country just rejected that message,” Mr. Schleifer said. “It’s a repudiation and a tectonic shift in health care in this country.”
“There is fertile ground” for more such ballot votes, said Topher Spiro, vice president for health policy at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. “It is clear that public opinion is on the side of Medicaid expansion and the election results merely confirm that.”
“This will build momentum for expansion in other states,” he added.
The election results also could have consequences on efforts by states to implement work requirements for Medicaid enrollees.
New Hampshire and Michigan — which expanded the program but recently won federal approval to add controversial work requirements — could revisit that additional mandate as a result of Democrats winning control over both houses of the legislature in New Hampshire and the governor’s office in Michigan.
Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
Medicaid – which has been a political football between Washington and state capitols during the past decade – scored big in the Nov. 6 election.
Three deep-red states passed ballot measures expanding their programs and two other states elected governors who have said they will accept expansion bills from their legislatures.
Supporters were so excited by the victories they said they will start planning for more voter referendums in 2020.
Medicaid proponents also were celebrating the Democrats’ takeover of the House, which would impede any Republican efforts to repeal the ACA and make major cuts to the federal-state health insurance program for low-income people.
“Tuesday was huge for the Medicaid program,” said Katherine Howitt, associate director of policy at Community Catalyst, a Boston-based advocacy group. “The overall message is that the electorate does not see this as a Democrat or GOP issue but as an issue of basic fairness, access to care, and pocketbook issue. Medicaid is working and is something Americans want to protect.”
But health experts caution that GOP opposition won’t fade away.
David K. Jones, PhD, of the department of health law, policy and management at Boston University School of Public Health, said ballot organizers now have a blueprint on how to expand Medicaid in states that have resisted. “I see this as a turning point in ACA politics,” he said. Still, he added‚ “it’s not inevitable.”
Medicaid is the largest government health program, insuring at least 73 million low-income Americans. Half of them are children. To date, 32 states and the District of Columbia have expanded it under the ACA. Before that law, Medicaid was generally limited to children, sometimes their parents, pregnant women, and people with disabilities.
The ACA encouraged states to open the program to all Americans earning up to 138% of the poverty level ($16,753 for an individual in 2018). The federal government is paying the bulk of the cost: 94% this year, but gradually dropping to 90% in 2020. States pay the rest.
GOP opposition has left about 4.2 million low-income Americans without coverage in various states.
“It’s not over until it’s over is the story of Medicaid expansion and the Affordable Care Act as the politics never ends and the opportunity for obstruction never ends,” said Dr. Jones. “But the trend overall has been to increasing implementation and increasing coverage.”
Montana fails to endorse funding
Two years after President Donald Trump carried Idaho, Nebraska, and Utah by double-digit margins with a message that included repeal of the ACA, voters in those states approved the ballot referendums on Nov. 6. Together, the states have about 300,000 uninsured adults who would be eligible for the program.
In addition, Democrats secured the governor’s offices in Kansas and Maine, which will increase the likelihood those states will pursue expansion. Legislatures in both states have previously voted to expand, only to have GOP governors block the bills. Maine voters also passed a referendum in 2017 endorsing expansion, but Republican Gov. Paul LePage again refused to accept it.
Current and incoming Republican governors in Utah and Idaho said they wouldn’t block implementation of the effort if voters approved it. Nebraska Gov. Pete Ricketts (R) said on Nov. 7 he would follow the will of the voters but would not support paying for it with a tax increase.
It wasn’t a clean sweep, however, for Medicaid.
In preliminary results, a ballot issue to fund Montana’s Medicaid expansion – which is already in place and slated to expire next July – was failing. Tobacco companies had mounted a campaign to stop the measure, which would have partially financed the expansion with taxes on tobacco products.
The Montana legislature and the Democratic governor are expected to address the issue in the session that starts in January. No state has reversed its Medicaid expansion, even though GOP governors in Kansas and Arkansas have threatened to do so.
Nearly 100,000 Montana residents have received Medicaid since its expansion, twice as many as expected.
Nancy Ballance, the Republican chairwoman of the Montana House Appropriations Committee who opposed the bill that expanded Medicaid in 2015, said she is confident the state legislature will extend the program past July. But she expects the legislature to put some limits on the program, such as adding an asset test and work requirements.
“There are some people in the state who may not have disabilities but need some help to access coverage,” she said. “I think we can pass something without people having a gap in coverage. … That will be a priority.”
“It was never our intent to simply sunset the expansion and have it go away,” she said. Rather, the legislature put the sunset provision in to revisit the provision to make any changes.
Chris Jacobs, a conservative health policy analyst in Washington, said the Montana results showed that when voters are given a choice of having to pay for Medicaid expansion through a new tax, they were not willing to go along.
But in Utah, voters did agree to fund their state plan by adding 0.15% to the state’s sales tax, just over a penny for a $10 purchase.
Fernando Wilson, acting director of the Center for Health Policy at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha, said the vote on the state’s ballot question indicated many people wanted to help 80,000 uninsured Nebraskans gain coverage.
“I think it showed there was a clear need for it,” he said. The legislature likely won’t block the expansion, Wilson said, though it may try to add a conservative twist such as adding premiums or other steps.
Sheila Burke, a lecturer in health policy at Harvard Kennedy School in Cambridge, Mass., said voters approved Medicaid expansion not just because it would help improve health coverage for their residents but to help stabilize their hospitals, particularly those in rural areas. Hospitals have said this step helps their bottom lines because it cuts down on uninsured patients and uncompensated care.
“The broad population does see the value of Medicaid,” she said. “They saw it as a loss by their states not to accept the federal funds,” she said.
Despite the victories, Ms. Burke said, advocates should not assume other states such as Florida, Texas, and Tennessee will follow suit.
“I don’t see a radical shift, but it moves us closer,” she said.
‘Fertile ground’ for more referendums
If advocates press for more referendums, Florida might be a tempting target. More than 700,000 adults there could become eligible, but the campaign would likely also be very costly.
Jonathan Schleifer, executive director of the Fairness Project, which financed the ballot initiatives in Maine in 2017 and the four states this year, refused to say which states would be targeted next.
The group is funded by the Service Employees International Union–United Healthcare Workers West, a California health care workers union.
“The GOP has been bashing the ACA for nearly a decade, and voters in the reddest states in the country just rejected that message,” Mr. Schleifer said. “It’s a repudiation and a tectonic shift in health care in this country.”
“There is fertile ground” for more such ballot votes, said Topher Spiro, vice president for health policy at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. “It is clear that public opinion is on the side of Medicaid expansion and the election results merely confirm that.”
“This will build momentum for expansion in other states,” he added.
The election results also could have consequences on efforts by states to implement work requirements for Medicaid enrollees.
New Hampshire and Michigan — which expanded the program but recently won federal approval to add controversial work requirements — could revisit that additional mandate as a result of Democrats winning control over both houses of the legislature in New Hampshire and the governor’s office in Michigan.
Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
Booming economy helps flatten Medicaid enrollment and limit costs, states report
Medicaid enrollment fell by 0.6% in 2018 – its first drop since 2007 – because of the strong economy and increased efforts in some states to verify eligibility, a new report finds.
But costs continue to go up. Total Medicaid spending rose 4.2% in 2018, same as a year ago, as a result of rising costs for drugs, long-term care, and mental health services, according to the study released Oct. 25 by the Kaiser Family Foundation. (Kaiser Health News is an editorially independent program of the foundation.)
States expect total Medicaid spending growth to accelerate modestly to 5.3% in 2019 as enrollment increases by about 1%, according to the annual survey of state Medicaid directors.
About 73 million people were enrolled in Medicaid in August, according to a federal report released Wednesday.
Medicaid, the state-federal health insurance program for low-income Americans, has seen its rolls soar in the past decade – initially as a result of massive job losses during the Great Recession and in recent years when dozens of states expanded eligibility using federal financing provided by the Affordable Care Act. Thirty-three states expanded their programs to cover people with incomes under 138% of the federal poverty level, or an income of about $16,750 for an individual in 2018.
Medicaid spending and enrollment typically rise during economic downturns as more people lose jobs and health benefits. When the economy is humming, Medicaid enrollment flattens as more people get back to work and can get coverage at work or can afford to buy it on their own. The national unemployment rate was 3.7% in September, the lowest since 1969.
The falling unemployment rate is the main reason for the drop in Medicaid enrollment, but some states have reduced their rolls by requiring adults and families to verify their eligibility. Arkansas, for example, has cut thousands of people after instituting new steps to confirm eligibility.
The brightening economic outlook for states has led many to increase benefits to enrollees and payment rates for health providers.
“A total of 19 states expanded or enhanced covered benefits in fiscal 2018 and 24 states plan to add or enhance benefits for the current fiscal year, which for most states started in July,” the Kaiser report said. “The most common benefit enhancements reported were for mental health and substance abuse services. A handful of states reported expansions related to dental services, telehealth, physical or occupational therapies and home visiting services for pregnant women.”
A dozen states increased pay to dentists and 18 states added to primary care doctors’ reimbursements for fiscal year 2019.
Medicaid covers about 20% of U.S. residents and accounts for nearly one-sixth of health care expenditures. Nearly half of enrollees are children.
Overall, the federal government pays about 62% of Medicaid costs with state’s picking up the rest. Poorer states get a higher federal match rate.
Seventeen Republican-controlled states have not expanded Medicaid. For individuals accepted into the program as part of the ACA expansion, the federal government paid the full cost of coverage from 2014 through 2016. It will pay no less than 90% thereafter.
In 2018, the states’ share of spending rose 4.9%. This was the first full year that states were responsible for part of the cost of the expansion. States expect their spending will grow about 3.5% in 2019.
Robin Rudowitz, one of the authors of the study and associate director of the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, said the survey found many states were using Medicaid to address the opioid crisis by expanding benefits for substance disorders and also by implementing tougher restrictions on prescriptions.
“Almost every governor wants to do something, and Medicaid is generally a large part of it,” she said.
While the Trump administration’s approval of work requirements for some adults on Medicaid has generated controversy over the past year, the report shows that states are making many other changes to the program, such as increasing benefits and changing how it pays providers to get better value.
Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
Medicaid enrollment fell by 0.6% in 2018 – its first drop since 2007 – because of the strong economy and increased efforts in some states to verify eligibility, a new report finds.
But costs continue to go up. Total Medicaid spending rose 4.2% in 2018, same as a year ago, as a result of rising costs for drugs, long-term care, and mental health services, according to the study released Oct. 25 by the Kaiser Family Foundation. (Kaiser Health News is an editorially independent program of the foundation.)
States expect total Medicaid spending growth to accelerate modestly to 5.3% in 2019 as enrollment increases by about 1%, according to the annual survey of state Medicaid directors.
About 73 million people were enrolled in Medicaid in August, according to a federal report released Wednesday.
Medicaid, the state-federal health insurance program for low-income Americans, has seen its rolls soar in the past decade – initially as a result of massive job losses during the Great Recession and in recent years when dozens of states expanded eligibility using federal financing provided by the Affordable Care Act. Thirty-three states expanded their programs to cover people with incomes under 138% of the federal poverty level, or an income of about $16,750 for an individual in 2018.
Medicaid spending and enrollment typically rise during economic downturns as more people lose jobs and health benefits. When the economy is humming, Medicaid enrollment flattens as more people get back to work and can get coverage at work or can afford to buy it on their own. The national unemployment rate was 3.7% in September, the lowest since 1969.
The falling unemployment rate is the main reason for the drop in Medicaid enrollment, but some states have reduced their rolls by requiring adults and families to verify their eligibility. Arkansas, for example, has cut thousands of people after instituting new steps to confirm eligibility.
The brightening economic outlook for states has led many to increase benefits to enrollees and payment rates for health providers.
“A total of 19 states expanded or enhanced covered benefits in fiscal 2018 and 24 states plan to add or enhance benefits for the current fiscal year, which for most states started in July,” the Kaiser report said. “The most common benefit enhancements reported were for mental health and substance abuse services. A handful of states reported expansions related to dental services, telehealth, physical or occupational therapies and home visiting services for pregnant women.”
A dozen states increased pay to dentists and 18 states added to primary care doctors’ reimbursements for fiscal year 2019.
Medicaid covers about 20% of U.S. residents and accounts for nearly one-sixth of health care expenditures. Nearly half of enrollees are children.
Overall, the federal government pays about 62% of Medicaid costs with state’s picking up the rest. Poorer states get a higher federal match rate.
Seventeen Republican-controlled states have not expanded Medicaid. For individuals accepted into the program as part of the ACA expansion, the federal government paid the full cost of coverage from 2014 through 2016. It will pay no less than 90% thereafter.
In 2018, the states’ share of spending rose 4.9%. This was the first full year that states were responsible for part of the cost of the expansion. States expect their spending will grow about 3.5% in 2019.
Robin Rudowitz, one of the authors of the study and associate director of the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, said the survey found many states were using Medicaid to address the opioid crisis by expanding benefits for substance disorders and also by implementing tougher restrictions on prescriptions.
“Almost every governor wants to do something, and Medicaid is generally a large part of it,” she said.
While the Trump administration’s approval of work requirements for some adults on Medicaid has generated controversy over the past year, the report shows that states are making many other changes to the program, such as increasing benefits and changing how it pays providers to get better value.
Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
Medicaid enrollment fell by 0.6% in 2018 – its first drop since 2007 – because of the strong economy and increased efforts in some states to verify eligibility, a new report finds.
But costs continue to go up. Total Medicaid spending rose 4.2% in 2018, same as a year ago, as a result of rising costs for drugs, long-term care, and mental health services, according to the study released Oct. 25 by the Kaiser Family Foundation. (Kaiser Health News is an editorially independent program of the foundation.)
States expect total Medicaid spending growth to accelerate modestly to 5.3% in 2019 as enrollment increases by about 1%, according to the annual survey of state Medicaid directors.
About 73 million people were enrolled in Medicaid in August, according to a federal report released Wednesday.
Medicaid, the state-federal health insurance program for low-income Americans, has seen its rolls soar in the past decade – initially as a result of massive job losses during the Great Recession and in recent years when dozens of states expanded eligibility using federal financing provided by the Affordable Care Act. Thirty-three states expanded their programs to cover people with incomes under 138% of the federal poverty level, or an income of about $16,750 for an individual in 2018.
Medicaid spending and enrollment typically rise during economic downturns as more people lose jobs and health benefits. When the economy is humming, Medicaid enrollment flattens as more people get back to work and can get coverage at work or can afford to buy it on their own. The national unemployment rate was 3.7% in September, the lowest since 1969.
The falling unemployment rate is the main reason for the drop in Medicaid enrollment, but some states have reduced their rolls by requiring adults and families to verify their eligibility. Arkansas, for example, has cut thousands of people after instituting new steps to confirm eligibility.
The brightening economic outlook for states has led many to increase benefits to enrollees and payment rates for health providers.
“A total of 19 states expanded or enhanced covered benefits in fiscal 2018 and 24 states plan to add or enhance benefits for the current fiscal year, which for most states started in July,” the Kaiser report said. “The most common benefit enhancements reported were for mental health and substance abuse services. A handful of states reported expansions related to dental services, telehealth, physical or occupational therapies and home visiting services for pregnant women.”
A dozen states increased pay to dentists and 18 states added to primary care doctors’ reimbursements for fiscal year 2019.
Medicaid covers about 20% of U.S. residents and accounts for nearly one-sixth of health care expenditures. Nearly half of enrollees are children.
Overall, the federal government pays about 62% of Medicaid costs with state’s picking up the rest. Poorer states get a higher federal match rate.
Seventeen Republican-controlled states have not expanded Medicaid. For individuals accepted into the program as part of the ACA expansion, the federal government paid the full cost of coverage from 2014 through 2016. It will pay no less than 90% thereafter.
In 2018, the states’ share of spending rose 4.9%. This was the first full year that states were responsible for part of the cost of the expansion. States expect their spending will grow about 3.5% in 2019.
Robin Rudowitz, one of the authors of the study and associate director of the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, said the survey found many states were using Medicaid to address the opioid crisis by expanding benefits for substance disorders and also by implementing tougher restrictions on prescriptions.
“Almost every governor wants to do something, and Medicaid is generally a large part of it,” she said.
While the Trump administration’s approval of work requirements for some adults on Medicaid has generated controversy over the past year, the report shows that states are making many other changes to the program, such as increasing benefits and changing how it pays providers to get better value.
Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
Despite U.S. court’s ruling, Medicaid work requirements advance in other states
.
The decision by Judge James Boasberg immediately blocked Kentucky from enacting the provision in Campbell County, which had been set to start Sunday and roll out statewide later this year. Within 36 hours, Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin, a Republican, eliminated vision and dental benefits to nearly 500,000 Medicaid enrollees, saying the state could no longer afford it.
Meanwhile, Arkansas, New Hampshire and Indiana are moving ahead with the implementation of their versions of a Medicaid work requirement. It is not clear how or if Boasberg’s ruling invalidating the Trump administration’s approval of Kentucky’s plan affects these states.
Arkansas is implementing its requirement this summer while New Hampshire and Indiana plan to phase in their rules beginning In January.
Virginia health officials say they still plan to seek federal permission to enact a work requirement but it isn’t needed in order to expand Medicaid eligibility on Jan.1.
Virginia lawmakers approved Medicaid expansion in June with the condition the state apply for federal permission to include the new mandate.
“We remain focused on the work necessary to ensure that new health coverage for Virginia adults is available beginning on January 1, 2019,” Dr. Jennifer Lee, director of the Virginia Department of Medical Assistance Services, said in a statement. “Developing a waiver is a separate and ongoing process, as described in the final state budget.”
Virginia Medicaid is in discussions with the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services about its waiver, which has not yet been submitted.
Many Republican lawmakers in Virginia voted to expand Medicaid only after it was assured new enrollees would have to work or do volunteer service.
Dr. Scott Garrett, a Virginia House member from Lynchburg, Va., said he was under the impression the bill signed in June by Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam, a Democrat, meant the Medicaid expansion would begin only with a work requirement in place.
“The intent of the General Assembly ... was that you could not do one absent the other,” he said.
Garrett, a Republican, said he long opposed plans to add 400,000 adults to Medicaid because of cost concerns. He said requiring these enrollees to work or do volunteer service would make them healthier and improve their well-being.
Patricia Boozang, senior managing director for Manatt Health, a consulting firm, said she is not surprised states are moving ahead with work requirement plans regardless of the court ruling, which was specific to Kentucky.
She said the decision would cause the Trump administration to review the pending applications more closely so they could withstand a judicial review.
The federal court said Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar did not adequately take into account how many people would lose coverage for the work requirement and did not prove such a provision would improve enrollees’ health.
“It’s going to be challenging for them to make the case that health and well-being is going to be improved by the [work requirement] waiver,” she said.
In Arkansas, some Medicaid enrollees face a Thursday deadline to register their status – that they worked, did volunteer service in June or meet one of the state’s many exemptions.
“The ruling does not have an immediate effect on Arkansas’ work requirement,” said spokeswoman Marci Manley.
Advocates for low-income people are weighing whether to file lawsuits to stop the work requirement in other states that have won federal approval.
“We have ... partnerships with state legal advocates in these states and are exploring enforcement and litigation options with them,” said Jane Perkins, legal director of the National Health Law Program, which filed the suit on behalf of Medicaid enrollees in Kentucky to block the work requirements.
Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
.
The decision by Judge James Boasberg immediately blocked Kentucky from enacting the provision in Campbell County, which had been set to start Sunday and roll out statewide later this year. Within 36 hours, Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin, a Republican, eliminated vision and dental benefits to nearly 500,000 Medicaid enrollees, saying the state could no longer afford it.
Meanwhile, Arkansas, New Hampshire and Indiana are moving ahead with the implementation of their versions of a Medicaid work requirement. It is not clear how or if Boasberg’s ruling invalidating the Trump administration’s approval of Kentucky’s plan affects these states.
Arkansas is implementing its requirement this summer while New Hampshire and Indiana plan to phase in their rules beginning In January.
Virginia health officials say they still plan to seek federal permission to enact a work requirement but it isn’t needed in order to expand Medicaid eligibility on Jan.1.
Virginia lawmakers approved Medicaid expansion in June with the condition the state apply for federal permission to include the new mandate.
“We remain focused on the work necessary to ensure that new health coverage for Virginia adults is available beginning on January 1, 2019,” Dr. Jennifer Lee, director of the Virginia Department of Medical Assistance Services, said in a statement. “Developing a waiver is a separate and ongoing process, as described in the final state budget.”
Virginia Medicaid is in discussions with the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services about its waiver, which has not yet been submitted.
Many Republican lawmakers in Virginia voted to expand Medicaid only after it was assured new enrollees would have to work or do volunteer service.
Dr. Scott Garrett, a Virginia House member from Lynchburg, Va., said he was under the impression the bill signed in June by Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam, a Democrat, meant the Medicaid expansion would begin only with a work requirement in place.
“The intent of the General Assembly ... was that you could not do one absent the other,” he said.
Garrett, a Republican, said he long opposed plans to add 400,000 adults to Medicaid because of cost concerns. He said requiring these enrollees to work or do volunteer service would make them healthier and improve their well-being.
Patricia Boozang, senior managing director for Manatt Health, a consulting firm, said she is not surprised states are moving ahead with work requirement plans regardless of the court ruling, which was specific to Kentucky.
She said the decision would cause the Trump administration to review the pending applications more closely so they could withstand a judicial review.
The federal court said Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar did not adequately take into account how many people would lose coverage for the work requirement and did not prove such a provision would improve enrollees’ health.
“It’s going to be challenging for them to make the case that health and well-being is going to be improved by the [work requirement] waiver,” she said.
In Arkansas, some Medicaid enrollees face a Thursday deadline to register their status – that they worked, did volunteer service in June or meet one of the state’s many exemptions.
“The ruling does not have an immediate effect on Arkansas’ work requirement,” said spokeswoman Marci Manley.
Advocates for low-income people are weighing whether to file lawsuits to stop the work requirement in other states that have won federal approval.
“We have ... partnerships with state legal advocates in these states and are exploring enforcement and litigation options with them,” said Jane Perkins, legal director of the National Health Law Program, which filed the suit on behalf of Medicaid enrollees in Kentucky to block the work requirements.
Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
.
The decision by Judge James Boasberg immediately blocked Kentucky from enacting the provision in Campbell County, which had been set to start Sunday and roll out statewide later this year. Within 36 hours, Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin, a Republican, eliminated vision and dental benefits to nearly 500,000 Medicaid enrollees, saying the state could no longer afford it.
Meanwhile, Arkansas, New Hampshire and Indiana are moving ahead with the implementation of their versions of a Medicaid work requirement. It is not clear how or if Boasberg’s ruling invalidating the Trump administration’s approval of Kentucky’s plan affects these states.
Arkansas is implementing its requirement this summer while New Hampshire and Indiana plan to phase in their rules beginning In January.
Virginia health officials say they still plan to seek federal permission to enact a work requirement but it isn’t needed in order to expand Medicaid eligibility on Jan.1.
Virginia lawmakers approved Medicaid expansion in June with the condition the state apply for federal permission to include the new mandate.
“We remain focused on the work necessary to ensure that new health coverage for Virginia adults is available beginning on January 1, 2019,” Dr. Jennifer Lee, director of the Virginia Department of Medical Assistance Services, said in a statement. “Developing a waiver is a separate and ongoing process, as described in the final state budget.”
Virginia Medicaid is in discussions with the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services about its waiver, which has not yet been submitted.
Many Republican lawmakers in Virginia voted to expand Medicaid only after it was assured new enrollees would have to work or do volunteer service.
Dr. Scott Garrett, a Virginia House member from Lynchburg, Va., said he was under the impression the bill signed in June by Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam, a Democrat, meant the Medicaid expansion would begin only with a work requirement in place.
“The intent of the General Assembly ... was that you could not do one absent the other,” he said.
Garrett, a Republican, said he long opposed plans to add 400,000 adults to Medicaid because of cost concerns. He said requiring these enrollees to work or do volunteer service would make them healthier and improve their well-being.
Patricia Boozang, senior managing director for Manatt Health, a consulting firm, said she is not surprised states are moving ahead with work requirement plans regardless of the court ruling, which was specific to Kentucky.
She said the decision would cause the Trump administration to review the pending applications more closely so they could withstand a judicial review.
The federal court said Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar did not adequately take into account how many people would lose coverage for the work requirement and did not prove such a provision would improve enrollees’ health.
“It’s going to be challenging for them to make the case that health and well-being is going to be improved by the [work requirement] waiver,” she said.
In Arkansas, some Medicaid enrollees face a Thursday deadline to register their status – that they worked, did volunteer service in June or meet one of the state’s many exemptions.
“The ruling does not have an immediate effect on Arkansas’ work requirement,” said spokeswoman Marci Manley.
Advocates for low-income people are weighing whether to file lawsuits to stop the work requirement in other states that have won federal approval.
“We have ... partnerships with state legal advocates in these states and are exploring enforcement and litigation options with them,” said Jane Perkins, legal director of the National Health Law Program, which filed the suit on behalf of Medicaid enrollees in Kentucky to block the work requirements.
Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.