President Obama Offers State Opt Out to Health Reform Law Provisions, What to Expect in Return

Interesting editorial/analysis over at the LA Times on President Obama’s support of an opt out for states from  provisions of the Health Reform law:

President Obama has thrown his support behind a bill to let states opt out of key features of the healthcare reform law before they take effect, including the controversial requirement that virtually all adult Americans buy insurance. The caveat, though, is that states must offer alternatives that provide comparable coverage to at least as many of the uninsured as the new law would, at no greater cost to federal taxpayers. It’s a small but welcome move that invites opponents of the law to shift from repealing it to improving it. Unfortunately, they probably won’t accept that invitation. Read more.

The editorial raises the spectre that the backlash witnessed to this proposal, from Republicans and other foes of the Health Care law, may be attributable to a fundamental difference in objectives.:

But there’s a fundamental disconnect between what the administration is offering and what opponents of the healthcare law are seeking. Obama wants to focus the debate on how best to achieve the law’s interrelated goals of increasing insurance coverage, improving the quality of care and slowing the increase in cost. Republican critics, however, don’t share those goals. To them, the reform should be primarily about controlling the cost of care.

It’s an interesting perspective, and  one which deserves  consideration and credit– especially by the light of the governors’ collective fiscal plight. But let’s not forget political gain as a motivation– President Obama is wildly unpopular among many. And the lack of approval for the President varies from state to state. A recent Gallup poll broke out the approval numbers by state, and the results are worth considering: Approval in Hawaii is (not surprisingly) 65.9%, Maryland is 57.6%, New York is 56.6. Half of the 10 most approving states are in the Northeast. But then there’s the West: Wyoming, 27.6%, Idaho, 31.6%, Utah, 33.8%. Half of the most disapproving states are in the West.The President didn’t fare all that well in West Virginia either, 33.4%.

There is political capital to be had in opposing President Obama– and at this juncture, the Health Reform law is still his signature piece of legislation. This simple truth has not escaped Republican strategists. Whether or not the olive branch opt out overture is ultimately accepted, the rhetoric will surely not reflect acceptance– at least in certain states.

The Boys Are Back In Town… But Will They Have Much Repeal?

A week before the election, the  L.A. Times quoted Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) as saying his party “could come up with a healthcare system that American people would not only be proud of, but would actually love.”  That same article reported how Republican and other conservative candidates have been promising to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) without proposing a viable alternative.  In fact, the Republican track record for the past decade isn’t anything to trumpet.  Rather than lowering healthcare costs and expanding access to care,

from President George W. Bush’s election in 2000 to the end of GOP congressional majorities in 2006, Republicans failed to pass major healthcare changes despite evidence of an escalating crisis.

American workers saw their health insurance premiums jump 78%, as the average price tag for an employer-provided family health plan surged to $11,480 a year, according to a survey of employer health benefits by the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust.

That took a toll on businesses and employees. In 2000, 69% of employers provided their workers with health benefits, the Kaiser surveys found. In 2006, 61% were offering health insurance.

By the time Republicans lost control of Congress, an estimated 43.6 million Americans did not have health insurance, up from 41.3 million six years before.

Be that as it may.  The election has taken place, the Republicans have regained control of the House, and the country is left to wonder: are the days of PPACA — or any kind of healthcare reform — numbered?  The Washington Post observes that election day “[e]xit polls showed… roughly half the public wants to repeal the bill but that the other half wants to keep or expand it, setting the stage for a potential showdown.”  Prescriptions, a N.Y. Times health blog, interviewed a a portfolio manager and health care strategist, and found that he “‘[didn't] think anybody wants to kiss off 30 million new customers’….  What the health insurers and drug and device makers want is not repeal, he argued, but ‘reform light.’”

Granted, the Democrats still control the Senate, a Democratic president remains in office for at least two more years, and the Republicans didn’t win enough seats to override a presidential veto.  So if an outright repeal isn’t in the cards, then what other options do the Republicans have to scale back this “monstrosity,” to borrow the colorful phrase used by incoming House Speaker and Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio)?

The N.Y. Times suggests that Republicans might direct Congress to chip away at or eliminate the less popular PPACA provisions, such as the tax on manufacturers of medical devices, the requirement for many employers to contribute to insurance for employees, or the mandate that everyone have health insurance.  The article notes that

with Republicans winning control of many governors’ mansions and making gains at the state legislative level, they will be able to determine how the new law is carried out locally.

Republicans in Congress said they would try to give states more latitude and discretion on issues like the design of health insurance exchanges. The law calls for creation of an exchange in each state and says only government-approved insurance plans can be sold on the exchange.

The new rules, though stricter than in the past, may well be less stringent than they would have been if Democrats had not taken what Mr. Obama described as “a shellacking.” In addition, Republicans said they would try to cut the budget for federal enforcement of the law and related rules.

On Wednesday, Rep. Boehner expressed his belief that “the health care bill will kill jobs in America, ruin the best health care system in the world and bankrupt our country.”  In response to these claims, Kaiser Health News asked 3 dozen people across the country,  including physicians, CEOs and Presidents, administrators: ”[i]f you ended up in an elevator with Rep. Boehner, what single thing would you urge him to do about health care in this country?”  (Click here to read their responses.)  I’d urge him to repeal his stance.

Public Option Alternatives

The public option has had a difficult time making its way through Senate Finance Committee mark-up sessions.  In the past week, two separate proposals for including a public option in health care reform were nixed.  Rejection of the plans, one proposed by Senator Charles Schumer of New York and the other by Senator John Rockefeller of West Virginia, is said to be indicative of a further adoption of the middle-of-the-road approach.  Still, some are optimistic that because Obama has the de facto final say on health reform legislation, he will work hard to include a public option; others debate whether the President is willing to compromise the public option for overall reform.

Instead of approving of Schumer’s or Rockefeller’s proposals, the Senate Finance Committee voted to include a proposal by Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington.  Cantwell’s amendment is said to be a compromise between Democrats and Republicans on the public option.  The plan, which would be federally-funded, would be available to those individuals who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but are below 200% of the federal poverty level.  At present, an implementation cost analysis for the plan is still unavailable, but Cantwell says that the plan, which also give states the power to negotiate down the price of insurance, would be able to cover 75% of the uninsured population.  The plan would mirror the current health care system of Washington State.

Though many important Committee members like Sen. Baucus have approved of such an amendment, others like Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine have voted against it.  Keep in mind, Snowe has been labeled “the key to health reform.”  For Snowe, a public option would only be provided in states in which 95% of the population is deemed to not have access to “affordable” insurance through an Insurance Exchange.  Senator Tom Carper of Delaware has proposed a similar plan; however, his version leaves it up to the states to decide what it deems best for its constituents.  Under Carper’s version, states would get to choose between opening up state-funded health care plans for government employees to all residents, or creating a health insurance provider or a co-op to compete with private insurance companies.

The proposals of Carper, Cantwell & Snowe have their respective positives and negatives and are subject to, and seemingly born of, the political process. They smack of compromise.

What will it take to get any one of these proposed bills passed during the full Senate vote? The ongoing divide between liberals and conservatives on the issue of providing a public competitor to private insurance companies has created a fissure which has echoed through the common landscape now for months. But we are getting close– as the NY Times  put it– “tantalizingly close,” to sweeping Health Reform.  Floor debate will ensue shortly. Predictions abound. But in the words of Lamar Alexander, the number 3 Republican in the Senate, “There is nothing predictable about the Senate floor.”

Compromise. President Lyndon B. Johnson, key to passage of both Medicare and the Civil Rights Act famously declared: “I’m a compromiser and a maneuverer. I try to get ’something.’ That’s the way our system works.” As evidenced by the two aformentioned Johnson successes, however, Johnson also knew when to expend enough political capital to make that ’something’ meaningful. I would suggest we stand at the precipice of one of those times.

Insurance Exchange May Help Solve Insurance Coverage Problem

Modern Healthcare reports that Nancy-Ann DeParle, director of the White House Office of Health Reform, has discussed the possibility of creating a national health insurance purchasing exchange directed towards Americans aged 50 to 64 years of age.  This particular age group is said to struggle with the procurement of affordable health insurance; they are not yet eligible for Medicare but are often subject to increased medical expenditures which accompany aging. Private insurers can be reluctant to take on such  risks, or may assign far greater premiums to people in this group in an attempt to make up for those greater risks.

Modern Healthcare states:

The meeting underscored the struggles of Americans ages 50-64 to get health insurance. “Half the calls we’ve received today” were from people of this age group who faced barriers to coverage either because they had a pre-existing condition, or couldn’t get coverage through their employer, David Certner, legislative counsel with AARP, informed reporters.

DeParle stated in a teleconference that the “Obama administration was working with Congress on a new plan to set up an insurance exchange, which would offer a range of private insurance options as well as a new public plan that would allow individuals and small businesses to buy affordable health coverage.”  Deparle further commented that “the goal was to build upon the existing healthcare system.” Those satisfied with their current coverage “shouldn’t be affected at all, except you’ll see your costs get lower over time.”

Annals of Internal Medicine has also weighed in on the prospect of  a health insurance marketing exchange and reports that such an exchange could be part of a greater restructuring of the health insurance marketplace.

The Annals states:

An effective insurance exchange (a new agency that would offer Americans a choice of health insurance plans while also regulating insurers) can lower the high administrative costs that are typical in the current individual and small group insurance markets (31). In addition, the Obama platform proposed more direct limits on insurance overhead.

The Annals article reports how programs similar to an insurance marketing exchange have worked internationally, and how the move to such would bring the U.S. closer to “the international standard.” The Annals states:

President Obama’s proposal for an insurance exchange also mirrors international experience with systems in which multiple organizations pay for medical care (often referred to as multipayer systems). Requiring common benefits; similar payment standards; and other simplifying rules, such as prohibiting medical underwriting, can reduce administrative expenses well below those of the United States, as demonstrated by Germany’s sickness funds (34). The Obama campaign’s planned prohibition of medical underwriting and its adoption of new insurance regulations would move U.S. insurance arrangements closer to the international standard (34).

Considering our recent post, “Surprise, Surprise: Older Americans are Sicker than their European Counterparts,”  this might be something to look forward to.

Mergers In State Health Reform: Increased Efficacy or More Bureaucracy?

State Delegate Don Perdue told the The Herald-Dispatch, “Health reform has been tried a number of times.  It fails because one agency is not talking to another, because the vision somewhere gets lost in the process.”  One might imagine Delegate Perdue to be referring to health reform in just about any state– and even the federal government.  Are West Virginia legislators so far ahead of our representatives in Washington?  Hopefully not.  As our blog reported last week (Obama Officially Establishes White House Office of Health Reform), President Obama recently signed an executive order with an arguably similar purpose: work with several federal executive branch agencies, states and local officials, and Congress to enact health reform and develop and implement strategic initiatives to strengthen the performance of the health care system.

In Massachusetts, Governor Deval Patrick isn’t having as much luck.  The Boston Globe reports of a letter the Governor wrote to the chair of the state’s Health and education Facilities Authority (HEFA) instructing the agency to merge with the state’s Development Finance Agency by July 1, 2009.  The Governor’s office maintains that the merge will enhance HEFA’s ability to provide tax-exempt financing for hospitals and health facilities (as well as state educational institutions).  Critics see the attempt as a “power grab” and an attack on the safeguards that keep HEFA, and other quasi-public authorities like it, safe from political pressure and “gubernatorial interference.” Read more

Obama Officially Establishes White House Office of Health Reform

President Obama signed an executive order yesterday establishing the White House Office of Health Reform, taking an important first step in formalizing his plans for U.S. health care reform.  The Washington Post reports that the office will be headed by Nancy-Ann DeParle, a former Clinton administration health official. 

According to the executive order, the White House Office of Health Reform will work with executive branch agencies, state and local officials, and Congress to enact health reform legislation. 

The Office of Health Reform is also charged with bringing to the President’s attention “concerns, ideas, and policy options for strengthening, increasing the efficiency, and improving the quality of the health care system.”  Additionally, the order calls for the office to “develop and implement strategic initiatives under the President’s agenda to strengthen the public agencies and private organizations that can improve the performance of the health care system.”  

Said President Obama in his executive order,

“The health care system suffers from serious and pervasive problems; access to health care is constrained by high and rising costs; and the quality of care is not consistent and must be improved, in order to improve the health of our citizens and our economic security.”   

Obama’s executive order also calls for the establishment of an Office of Health Reform within the Department of Health and Human Services.  Visit HealthReform.gov for more information.

Read the executive order in its entirety here.

Sebelius to Head HHS, Not Everyone is Thrilled

President Barack Obama formally nominated Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius as Secretary of Health & Human Services today, according to USA Today.  We have been following the likelihood of Sebelius’ nomination since Tom Dachle withdrew his nomination last month.

Sebelius made a reputation for herself as Kansas’ insurance commissioner for eight years before being elected governor.  While insurance commissioner, she established herself as a consumer advocate capable of reining in health care spending.

Sebelius has been the favorite to head HHS, but her nomination has raised concerns among anti-abortion advocates such as the conservative Catholic League, according to U.S. News.  Troy Newman, president of Wichita-based Operation Rescue, says that the group will aggressively oppose Sebelius’ confirmation in the Senate.

According to KSALLink.com, Sebelius said in a statement responding to the issue that as a public official she has worked hard to ensure that abortions are “rare, safe and within the bounds of the law.”

President Obama will host a summit later this week with representatives from various health care sectors to address his plans to revamp the U.S. health care system.  No word on whether Howard Dean, a physician and former governor of Vermont, will be in attendance.  FOXNews.com reports that Dean has expressed his disappointment with being passed up for the nomination again, stating:

“I was pretty clear that I would have liked to have been Secretary of HHS but it is the president’s choice and he decided to go in a different direction.”

Sebelius, Podesta on Obama’s Short List to Replace Daschle

A top official in the Obama administration says that Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius is at the top of the list to replace former Senator Tom Daschle as President Obama’s nominee for Secretary of Health & Human Services, according to the AP/Kansas City Star. This comes after Daschle withdrew his nomination last week, leaving many wondering about the future of U.S. health care reform.

Sebelius has been praised by advocacy groups for the “watchdog role” that she played for eight years as insurance commissioner before she became governor. The Kansas Governor was an early supporter of Obama’s campaign for the presidency. After Obama won the election in November, she was in consideration for several cabinet posts. In early December though, she announced that she had removed herself from consideration for a Washington job, citing Kansas’ budget problems that needed her attention.

Also on Obama’s short list is former White House chief of staff under President Clinton, John Podesta, and Tennessee Governor Phil Bredeson. Some advocacy groups are reportedly lining up to oppose the nomination of Democratic governor from Tennessee. Bredeson remains under consideration but was not as likely as Sebelius to make the final cut, the senior official said.

Read more