Survey: Public Opinion on ACA Ahead of SCOTUS Ruling

[This article posted on February 1, 2012. It is posted within the following categories: Corporate, Healthcare Policy & The Media, Knowledge & Medicine, Politics & The Law, Science & Research, via Michael Douglas, MD, MBA.]

We’re inching closer to the multi-day arguments set to happen before the SCOTUS regarding the constitutionality of the ACA, specifically, the individual mandate provision. A Kaiser Foundation tracking poll indicates that a third of all voters (respondents) think that the entire law will be revoked if the high court finds the plaintiffs’ assertions has cause. Perhaps what is more important is the fact that Americans remain divided over the issue of the existence of the law.

As the anniversary of the Affordable Care Act approaches on March 23, Americans remain as divided on the law as ever, with 37 percent in January saying they have a favorable view of it, and 44 percent having an unfavorable view. At the same time, the share of the public that favors expanding the law (31%) or keeping it in its current form (19%) remains larger than the share who would like to see the law repealed outright (22%) or repealed and replaced with a Republican-backed alternative (18%).

Mitt Romney, the probable GOP nominee for president, will have to exploit the differences between presiding over the initiation of the reform law’s progenitor in his home state of Mass. and Obama’s finished product — backed by the full faith and support of Big Insurance. | LINK to study PDF

[This article is contained within the following tags:

Wisconsin Governor Backs Up Anti-Healthcare Reform Claim with Denial of Fed Funds

[This article posted on January 19, 2012. It is posted within the following categories: Healthcare Policy & The Media, Politics & The Law, via Michael Douglas, MD, MBA.]

Embattled WI governor, Scott Walker (R), issued a statement yesterday opposing the implementation of a state exchange as provisioned by the ACA — opting to defer action on the measure until the case is heard by the SCOTUS in March. In doing so, he will be returning almost $40 M in federal funding earmarked for the healthcare exchange. Whether this is earnest on his part or merely a symbolic gesture to Wisconsin GOP faithful in the wake of a pending certified recall vote on his office remains to be seen. Walker has always been against the passage of the reform law, instead focusing on efforts to deny federal assistance in doing so (states which choose this path will have to demonstrate fiscal independence on healthcare exchange creation by 1/1/13 or will be mandated a program by the feds).

Is this entire episode a game of chicken by Walker in light of his sudden vulnerability? It is, if one listens to the rhetoric from the state’s Democrats on the issue. Advocacy groups are also weighing their own disapproval of the governor’s intentions. The SOCTUS will hear testimony on the constitutionality of the reform law (notably, the mandate for coverage) over a two day period by the end of March. By the end of Februrary numerous amicus briefs will be filed by both Obama admin (DOJ) and plaintiffs (states) in the case. In spite of all the rancor surrounding this issue, it will difficult to envision striking of the mandate provision, much less the entire reform law as two lower courts have offered split decisions on the matter — prompting the SCOTUS to act quickly on a decision on the entirety of the ACA well before the election. | PDF brief from UCB Labor Center in support of the ACA’s constitutionality

Whistleblower Lawsuit Prompts Fed Action on Alleged Medicare Long Term Care Fraud

[This article posted on January 5, 2012. It is posted within the following categories: CMS, Corporate, via Michael Douglas, MD, MBA.]

The long term care marketplace is one of those sectors in healthcare delivery on the cusp of markedly innovative practices in this young century, buoyed by the sudden proliferation of the senior Boomer demographic. Sky’s the limit on the impact of care services and offerings a market-based approach can muster on the eve of reform. Unfortunately, certain models are ripe for abuse.

The DOJ said today it joined a whistleblower case against AseraCare in federal court in Birmingham, Alabama, accusing the closely held company of seeking to cheat Medicare for the hospice care of patients who weren’t terminally ill. The U.S. is seeking three times the damages and a penalty of $5,500 to $11,000 per claim.

The hospice company is owned by a national company that provides services within LTC. Whistleblowers prompted the government action when the hospice operation recruited Medicare beneficiaries and continued to fraudulently collect payments by inappropriately cycling those patients under the hospice benefit. The process would continue upon initial termination of Medicare payments for those services once the initial LTC services ceased. Multiple referrals for covered services later, the LTC contractor would continue to collect those payments, based upon allegedly fraudulent qualifying practices by the LTC contractor/company.

The case is an interesting one which will, hopefully, provide Medicare reform in yet another overlooked care sector that will only increase in prevalence as the rate of patients diagnosed with chronic disease and disability skyrockets. More here

[This article is contained within the following tags:

Obama Admin Announces Increased Flexibility of Basic Services by States under ACA

[This article posted on January 3, 2012. It is posted within the following categories: CMS, Corporate, Healthcare Policy & The Media, Politics & The Law, via Michael Douglas, MD, MBA.]

The cornerstone of the ACA is the provision for a coverage mandate — whether that coverage includes complete subsidized services (Medicaid or another fed subsidized program) or via private insurer. In order that individual states comply with this most essential of the reform law’s benefits, HHS has announced that states have the option to create “essential benefits packages” as a method of increasing compliance within the ACA.

“Flexebility” is the key, according to Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

The national health law lists 10 categories of health care that all insurance policies must cover: hospitalization, emergency care, out-patient services, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance abuse services, prescription drugs, laboratory testing, preventive and wellness care, pediatric services (including dental and vision examinations), rehabilitative care and habilitative care such as services for children with developmental disabilities. But within those categories, the federal government is allowing each state to determine its own basket of essential benefits by choosing a “benchmark” package offered by any of a variety of insurers.

Sebelius: This move protects consumers by respecting states’ role in healthcare delivery under the ACA. Obama administration: This is the only way in which the mandate can be upheld while making essential services affordable in all fifty states. Consumers? Increased standardization among offerings of basic services by states under the ACA raises the possiblity of mandated coverage rather than making things too onerous for the feds in getting the legislation off the ground in just a couple of years. | LINK

Hospitals Spar with GOP in Latest Hill Fight on Medicare Cuts

[This article posted on December 13, 2011. It is posted within the following categories: CMS, Corporate, Healthcare Policy & The Media, via Michael Douglas, MD, MBA.]

The wrangling back and forth in the US legislature concerning the upcoming vote on the payroll tax cut extension (which includes a provision giving providers a two-year break on Medicare payment cuts) continues to raise the ire of acute hospitals, which would shoulder part of the financing for such an action. The amount to be financed, at the literal expense of hospitals, approaches $17 billion. Essentially, the proposed offsets to direct provider payments would come from reduced payments to hospital administrative and evaluatory functions.

House GOP leaders are in the hospitals’ crosshairs, as the hospitals complain that, under the proposal, there is little incentive for them to continue to collect other payments (copays, deductibles) in the face of such financing, compromising care delivery in the process. Republicans are quick to point out, however, hospitals did agree to major cuts in Medicare as part of reform and that overall Medicare spending would fall by less than 1 percent over the next 10 years. | LINK

[This article is contained within the following tags:

House GOP Actions Force Senate Showdown on Payroll Tax Cut Extension, Medicare ‘Doc-Fix’

[This article posted on December 8, 2011. It is posted within the following categories: CMS, Corporate, Politics & The Law, via Michael Douglas, MD, MBA.]

Honestly, these “clock-ticking countdowns” are getting a little irksome. The eleventh hour negotiations surrounding the legislative extensions of the payroll tax cuts for the middle class just hit another roadblock, outlets have reported. Cue the Senate showdown between the GOP and Dems. Closely tied into the GOP plan for the extension of the tax cut is the inclusion of the Keystone XL oil pipeline — a controversial project which President Obama had originally hoped to decide upon by 2013 its potential for environmental sustainability.

The Keystone pipeline pawn would force Obama to make a decision on its contruction by the end of this year.

With respect to healthcare, the inclusion of provisions to forestall cuts to Medicare payments for 2 years, preventing incremental threats to physician reimbursements (no permanent overhaul), would be the political gambit. It’s a political mixed bag for some healthcare entities. Hospitals would be better served by more long-term solutions to the so-called doc-fix problem. Providers would be spared more frequently intermittent threats to reimbursement. If passed, this payroll tax cut extension would eliminate the possibility of approximately 27 percent in cuts to Medicare payments.  | LINK

Berwick Offers Criticisms on Eve of Departure

[This article posted on December 5, 2011. It is posted within the following categories: CMS, Healthcare Policy & The Media, Politics & The Law, via Michael Douglas, MD, MBA.]

He’s leaving his much embattled post, and he is not mincing words. Don Berwick will be stepping down as CMS head in lieu of what was sure to be a highly contentious Senate confirmation procedure next year. Calling much of what Medicare “does” as wasteful, the departing CMS chief sounded more like he was delivering a eulogy than offering up hopeful solutions to be implemented in his absence.

Dr. Donald M. Berwick, listed five reasons for what he described as the “extremely high level of waste.” They are overtreatment of patients, the failure to coordinate care, the administrative complexity of the health care system, burdensome rules and fraud. “Much is done that does not help patients at all,” Berwick said, “and many physicians know it.”

Berwick’s ascension came at a time in which President Obama was looking for a CMS chief who shared the same sense of analytical urgency in efforts to fix the nation’s ailing healthcare delivery system. Berwick sounded the clarion call for reform, but received very little cooperation from the GOP side of the ideological aisle, with those members of congress (and some Dems) essentially putting up a wall between him and any actionable improvements. Perhaps his own words project why he was essentially doomed from the start.

Berwick said he had not sought the job. Indeed, he said, “I did not even know if I was fit for it.” He took the post, he said, because he sensed that immense “tectonic shifts” were occurring in the health care delivery system.“I came with an agenda,” Berwick said. “I wanted to try to change the agency to be a force for improvement, covering one out of three Americans.”

Restating the obvious really does physicians he laments no good unless positive change, outside of obvious hyperbole, does occur. According to many pundits — including this one — his replacement offers more of the same, with true change occuring only if legislative control swings back to the Dems in 2012. | LINK

[This article is contained within the following tags:

SCOTUS Sets Hearing Dates for ACA Constitutionality; Obama and Romney Weigh Options

[This article posted on November 15, 2011. It is posted within the following categories: Corporate, Politics & The Law, via Michael Douglas, MD, MBA.]

With the SCOTUS set to take up the ACA and its constitutionality this term, more fuel to the fire has just been added to an otherwise white hot election ’12.

Although recent polls seem to dignify the usually staid Newt Gingrich with the flavor-of-the-campaign tiara at the moment, the sure bet is on the “electable” former governor of Massachusetts and originator of all things Universal Healthcare, Mitt Romney. For President Obama, it presents an interesting “problem” which will require appropriate strategies for the White House in keeping the president on message, as they say, over the next twelve months.

No matter how the SCOTUS rules on the matter before it, Obama has got the winds of the ACA behind him. The wheels have been in motion for the past year-and-a-half to the get the first provisions of the reform law into place. Issues such as coverage extensions  for adult children of policy beneficiaries and increased employer-based protections for workers practically guarantees and confirms widening of likes versus dislikes ratio with respect to the law. All of this cannot be ignored by the court as it hears arguments early next year.

Conversely, Mitt Romney could benefit from a negative ruling by the court. After signing into law an individual mandate provision in Mass’s. law as governor, Romney initially praised the action, calling it the “ultimate conservative idea”. Known as much for his flip-flops on this issue (because he is running for president, after all) as he is for his corporatist, milquetoast demeanor — a negative decision of the courts would give him immediate justification for blasting it.

Perhaps that’s why he is mum on the issue now. Further, Romney can make the repeal of the law a central campaign mantra, if the SCOTUS upholds it — “realizing” that individual states can have mandates if they so desire, but not at the direct imposition of the feds.

Regardless, the rhetoric on the constitutionality of the ACA will ramp into high gear next summer; and the ride will be a tumultuous one for both candidates. | LINK

[This article is contained within the following tags:

Appeals Court Upholds Constitutionality of ACA

[This article posted on November 8, 2011. It is posted within the following categories: Healthcare Policy & The Media, Politics & The Law, via Michael Douglas, MD, MBA.]

News comes today from a largely conservative appeals court, no less. (Does the ruling in support of the law by a solid conservative justice on the appeals panel nix the idea that ideology is controlling the judges’ votes on this very politically-charged and polarizing issue?)

The Obama administration prevailed Wednesday in the first appellate review of the 2010 health care law as a three-judge panel from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that it was constitutional for Congress to require that Americans buy health insurance.

All of this — as the SCOTUS prepares to consider this week whether to resolve conflicting rulings over the law’s requirement that all Americans buy health care insurance.

[This article is contained within the following tags:

A physician advocacy group has released a report detailing the costs to Massachusetts in the wake of its healthcare reform. The goal is to shed light on the potential costs to the country as a whole once reform begins in earnest. The single-payer advocacy group mainly cites that cost shifting of taxpayer subsidies to fund the private insurance marketplace is creating an access burden for the state’s impoverished and lower middle class by pricing them out.

Most of the gains in coverage have come from expansions in publicly subsidized insurance. This largely represented a shift of patients from the state’s former Free Care Pool, which compensated hospitals and community health centers directly for care of the uninsured, to private insurance plans, which is a more costly way to provide care.

Read the PDF of the entire report. The report appears to yearn for a less-than-market-based approach to solving this financial crisis as a way in which access to care can remain intact amid long-term reform sustainability. This report was released jointly among this group and via the state chapter of Physicians For a National Health Program.

Republicans Avoid Criticizing Own Costly Medicare Legislation

[This article posted on September 21, 2011. It is posted within the following categories: CMS, Corporate, Healthcare Policy & The Media, Knowledge & Medicine, Pharma & Devices, Politics & The Law, via Michael Douglas, MD, MBA.]

On the campaign trail recently, top GOP candidates have been rolling out the talking points with respect to the debate on healthcare policy and politics. That latter point is made quite clearly in the party’s stance on the “solvency”[1] of the prescription drug benefit under Medicare Part D. Asked whether this rather costly program — arguably one of the most significantly costly from the George W. Bush administration’s passage of MMA in 2003 — should be yanked (as they feel so-called Obamacare should be), you’ll get a resounding “no” on that policy point.

Although the House GOP have led the deficit hawk brigade in response to President Obama’s recent comments on balancing the budget, the party as a whole has been relatively quiet on the Medicare overhaul issue, especially as it pertains to Part D — a program the party structured and passed under Bush eight years ago. It’s no secret politics is in play, especially when monies to support the benefit have to come from the government’s general coffers — competing for earmarks for other priorities, like education funding.

Republicans like to point out that throwing drug coverage under Medicare, in part, to the pharma marketplace has offset initial costs for supporting the program via competition. But, currently, the wide variety (amid the spate of new branded preps) of traditionally cheaper generics probably has to do more with keeping costs low — with respect to beneficiary affordability and the marginal profits on such non-branded offerings by Pharma.

Fast forward to 2011 and the popular Medicare provision is being utilized by over 60 percent of retirees (with the balance coming from former employers’ plans), and it looks safe for now. The big unknown is when the inevitable resurgence in pharma spending increases will occur over the next ten to fifteen years — and how Part D will fare within the reform mix. | LINK

 

  1. There really is no dedicated tax toward funding the Medicare prescription drug benefit. []
[This article is contained within the following tags:

States Increasingly Concerned of Possible Changes to Medigap Policy

[This article posted on September 18, 2011. It is posted within the following categories: CMS, Politics & The Law, via Michael Douglas, MD, MBA.]

Say it isn’t so. Healthcare activists and state insurance commissioners are unlikely bedfellows in the fight to keep Medigap coverage plans static, avoiding the wide swath of projected cuts under the banner of entitlement reform in this term of Congress. House Speaker Boehner has made no secret of his plans for so-called entitlement reform, and Medicare programs are vulnerable, it is assumed.

Medigap plans are insurance supplementals which beneficiaries receive in paying for services not covered under traditional Medicare. The average Medigap beneficiary is more ill and older, and it is perceived by many lawmakers in favor of reform that massive savings within Medicare could be realized over the near term with cost shifting of the most popular (and usually more expensive) gap renewable policies.

Some state commissioners are crying foul and that implementation of such a move in the name of reform may be illegal — as beneficiaries are entitled to renewable Medigap benefits under fed law. Since 2003, when George W. Bush signed the MMA into law, much focus has been on Medicare Advantage plans and structure. In this Wild West scenario of budgetary slashing in Congress, the “sanctity” of Medigap legislation is at risk; some states have created working groups to inform beneficiaries and the general voting public of the issues. | LINK

[This article is contained within the following tags:

For Obama (and the GOP?), Medicare/Medicaid Austerity Cuts Embedded within Reform

[This article posted on September 14, 2011. It is posted within the following categories: CMS, Corporate, via Michael Douglas, MD, MBA.]

Just whose side is Barack Obama on, anyway? With the passage of the PPACA, Democrats had been assured that — although a complete reform of healthcare delivery was sacrificed at the hands of capitulation to Big Insurance — savings in the form of well-implemented subsidies for exchanges and overall cost shifting from Medicare and Medicaid would be realized over the course of the balance of the 2010s. When he announces his plans for deficit reductions next week, the proposals will carry the tone set forth by the president’s arch-nemesis in the recent debt ceiling debate — House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH). [h/t DailyKos]

[T]he proposal is expected to include the “grand bargain” policies the White House put on the table in the debt ceiling negotiations with Speaker John Boehner: “$150bn extracted from Medicare providers such as doctors and hospitals, $150bn coming from Medicare beneficiaries, and $125bn coming out of reforms to Medicaid,” including “an increase in the eligibility age for Medicare.” Additionally, the administration could propose more flexibility in negotiating drug prices and access to cheaper generic drugs.

Avoiding SS reforms in favor of balancing the federal ledger as it applies to Medicare and Medicaid smells more like a political stunt than a necessary action cloaked in the realm of “reform”, a move that, in the long run, benefits Republicans should they take this ball and run with it in 2012 — ironically negating any real chance of CMS payment reform come 2014.

[This article is contained within the following tags: