Everybody in the Pool — High Risk That Is

By Labinot A. Berlajolli

Individuals with pre-existing medical conditions may now begin applying for the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan. Under the recently passed health care law (PPACA), the government set aside $5 billion to fund the plan from July 1, 2010 through Jan 1, 2014. Money is expected to be allocated based on each state’s population as well as its costs. Although, HHS officials said they might shift funding among states if the new $5 billion program to cover the uninsured runs out more quickly in some states than in others.

To qualify for coverage, individuals must be U.S. citizens or legal residents, have been denied coverage because of a preexisting medical condition, and have been uninsured for the past six months.  Administration officials said people who apply by July 15 will begin receiving coverage by Aug. 1.   States were required to let HHS know by April 30 whether they wanted to use federal grant money to set up a high-risk pool.  As of now, 21 states have chosen to join the federal run pools and 29 states and the District of Columbia have chosen to go it alone.  The 21 states that have chosen to opt into the federal plan are: Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Wyoming.  Several of the largest states operating their own plans, including California, Illinois and New York, are not expected to begin enrollment until August. The administration expects that all states will begin enrolling people by the end of the summer.

Joining the plan will not be cheap. The Los Angeles Times reports that premiums, as well as benefits, are expected to vary greatly from state to state, with some plans charging as little as $140 a month and some as much as $900 a month. Independent experts, on the other hand, estimate premiums will average around $400 to $600 a month.

However, serious questions remain about the new risk pools.  Specifically, whether the $5 billion allocated will be enough. Many experts expect the $5 billion to run out well before 2014 because of high demand. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has estimated that the $5 billion will last for only two years. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the funding is not enough to cover all eligible participants, and that the administration will have to limit enrollment to only 200,000 people through 2013, though there are roughly 12.6 million with pre-existing conditions, according to the Miami Herald.   Others who advise Congress and the administration have warned the funds could be exhausted as early as the end of 2011.

Those interested in applying for the high-risk pools may visit the newly launched website, healthcare.gov, for more information and instructions on how to apply.

High Risk Pools: Then and Now

By Christine Davis

For medically uninsurable people, or people with pre-existing conditions who cannot find coverage, coverage may soon materialize.   Even before President Obama signed the PPACA, CMS had provided “Qualified High Risk Pool” grants to qualifying states, in order to cover these higher risk people since 2007.  (45 CFR Part 148)  Thirty-five states participated.  Before health care reform passed in 2010, states could qualify for operational or seed grants, which they could use to cover eligible individuals.  (Federal Register, v 73, no 81).  PPACA authorizes the development of  a temporary national high risk pool, which will operate similar to what is happening now with the state grants and will function as a temporary fix until the insurances exchanges kick in after 2014 and insurance companies are mandated to cover all individuals with pre-existing conditions. This is a unique part of the new bill because it seems to be something both Republicans and Democrats can agree on.    Previously, the majority of these state high risk pools had lifetime maximum payouts, usually around $1 million, (three states had lifetime maximums of $500,000). Once these individuals reached that amount, they had no other way to be insured. (http://www.federalgrantswire.com/seed-grants-to-states-for-qualified-highrisk-pools.html).

The goal of the national risk pool is to transition the uninsurable until health care exchanges are established in 2014.  Once that happens, there will no longer be lifetime or annual limitations on coverage.  The idea here is that an individual will never reach a point where there is absolutely nowhere else to go for coverage.

By 2014, eligible individuals will be people “who have not had creditable coverage for the previous six months and now have a pre-existing condition.”   As of now, most state pools require those seeking coverage to (a) submit proof that they have been denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition, or (b) show that they have applied recently for coverage and were a victim of “adverse underwriting actions,” such as limiting benefits or charging extraordinary premiums (for example, diabetics). (Coverage: Creating a Temporary National High Risk Pool: the New Health Dialogue Jan 12, 2010). One concern of these eligibility requirements is that they might discriminate against those who only recently lost coverage, because they are making every individual prove they have not had coverage in the past.

An advantage to a national high risk pool as opposed to a state high risk pool is that it will be more balanced and less costly, because the premiums charged won’t be as high.  Although, if annual or lifetime limits aren’t capped once these exchanges kick in, these costs could skyrocket. However, a downside is that in some states, these high risk pools have limited eligibility and low enrollment, and for example, monthly premiums costing an individual well over $1,000/month.  However, the news is not all bleak. States like Minnesota have been doing it right all along, even with broad eligibility, by finding additional streams of revenue, such as tobacco settlement funds, with which to support the pool.  In order to  be successful, the national pool, should model itself after successful states like Minnesota.

An Update on the So-Called Young Invincibles: What Health Care Reform Does for Them

Last year I wrote about why the misconceptions about my generation, dubbed “young invincibles” by many, have perpetuated a belief that young people do not care about health insurance.  Thankfully, the health care reform legislators realized that we too, with our superpowers and all, prefer to be healthy and insured.

The most immediate benefit that dependent young people will see under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is the ability to stay on their parents’ insurance until the age of 26; this will take effect in six months. For recent college graduates, and many who have chosen not to pursue a college education, this brings a sigh of relief. The bill also loosens the requirements for who qualifies as a dependent. Even for those who will be approaching 26 soon after the bill passes, the new age limit will afford some time to get coverage through a job with benefits. Marriage status may not necessarily restrict whether or not a child can stay on their parents insurance, as noted by young uninsured expert Sara Collins. Employed children may also qualify for the dependency status as long as they do not have the option of health insurance through their employer. The new bill also applies to all health plans, whether fully insured or self-funded, which was not the case under most state health care extensions to young people.

For those young people that will be 26 before this September, there are other options. The organization that helped esure representation of young people throughout the health care debate, aptly named Young Invincibles, provides a timeline of the other health reform bill measures that will offer help to the young uninsured. It also shows  when these provisions will take effect.

One of the main benefits to consider is that by 2014, more young people will qualify for Medicaid. This will help insure about 9 million young people. Young Invincibles co-founder Ari Matusiak finds that young people will be some of the greatest beneficiaries of the health care reform bill because the young population is currently the poorest of the age demographic groups and because the bill aims to make health care more affordable for those least able to afford it.

One of the other benefits young people will be afforded comes in the form of  tax credits to purchase insurance from the individual market. These are available to those individuals who earn less than $43,320. While the individual market is not the friendliest place to be, new reform measures will ensure that health care prices will not be based on pre-existing conditions and limits the ratio of premiums based upon age (down to 3:1).  The pre-existing condition restriction certainly helps those young people who have chronic conditions (about 15% of us.) Though the age rating restriction benefits older people more than young people, Ari Matusiak rightfully points out that young people are not going to be young forever and can appreciate the idea that we will have security of being able to get insurance without being discriminated against in the future.

Scare tactics are rearing their ugly head again, as many say that the new benefits offered to young people are just increased burdens. Yes, young people will be required to purchase insurance under the new reform bill or they will be subject to a penalty.  The fine will be $95 in 2014 and will gradually increase each year (until 2016, when it tops out at $695 or 2.5% of an individual’s annual income). Given this minimal penalty at the outset, many assume that young people will opt out of purchasing insurance and just pay the fine instead. These are the same people that think young people don’t care about feeling secure with health insurance.  Well, to put this succinctly, we do care. Some may, out of economic desperation, eschew coverage, but so many of us have relatives and friends who have had catastrophic health issues that have left them in debt (or further in debt), that the choice is not likely to be made lightly. We have had our own health issues.  We need prescription medicines and regular checkups. We are not invincible– and we know it.

A majority of us are supportive of the health reform bill.  As young people, we must educate ourselves about the health reform bill so that we know where we stand. We are an integral piece of the reform legislation working as planned.  And while we won’t be duped to do something that harms us more than helps us, we also won’t be beguiled into believing that the new health care legislation is not for us — it is for us– and we should reap its benefits as part of our political patrimony, knowing that in doing so we also help to provide for our posterity.

Health Reform, a Class Act

Class Act

Thomas (Tim) Greaney
Director, Center for Health Law Studies
Saint Louis University School of Law

A few headlines from coverage of the passage of the health reform bill:

Winners, Losers in the House Healthcare Bill (Reuters)

Health Reform: What’s in it for you? (US News) 

Already Insured? Get Ready to Pay More (CBS)

Almost immediately after the House vote on Sunday, the media switched its “horse race” coverage from analyzing the politics of the affair to what it characterized as a clash of economic classes. Analysts were often quick to suggest that the average American might find himself in the loser column.  Others offered the conventional  ”on the one hand, on the other hand” pseudo-journalism, probably leaving most to assume (not unreasonably, based on their experience under trickle-down economics) that they have little to gain.  And inevitably, confusion spawns cynicism: The first question on Monday from my 91 year old uncle  was:  ”Do I still have Medicare?”

If we are going to do a triage by economic class, lets get it right:  I’m still waiting for a headline writer to capture the real story of the legislation: Health Reform Law Reallocates Opportunity to the Working Class

One unassailable fact that emerged from the year-long legislative debate is that the working poor and those in the middle economic stratum are the primary victims of our dysfunctional health system.  It is widely recognized that health care debt ranks at or near the top causes of personal bankruptcies. Less commented on, however, is the effect of widespread financial insecurity resulting from the high cost and lack of access to care.  More than 4 in 10 people earning under $40,000 per  year say their household has had problems paying medical bills over the past year. Not only does that statistic imply that many households are adjusting their budgets away from socially-important expenditures, like childcare and education, but it also reveals the personal toll imposed on lower income individuals and families. For those who have insurance, increasing premiums have forced them to take on more risk: Nearly one in five Americans say cost increases caused them or their employer to switch to a less comprehensive health plan, while almost half of all people purchasing insurance in the dysfunctional individual market say they have had to switch to a less comprehensive plan.

The misinformation spread throughout the debate has lent credence to those who would paint health reform as a victory for elites.  Judging from the expressions of outrage about health reform by some middle class citizens, many appear to carry the misapprehension that the primary beneficiaries of the legislation are those unwilling to work.  Nothing could be further from the truth; today’s uninsured are predominantly found in working families. In fact over 15% of employed workers and a stunning 41% of low income workers lack health insurance. And given the stampede of employers dropping health care coverage for their workers, the epidemic of uninsurance or underinsurance is undoubtedly spreading upward in the economic class order.

Also under-reported are the many ways the current health care system works to disadvantage the working class. Most prominent is the tax benefit which gives a significant and regressive tax subsidy to wealthy elites.  Excluding employer contributions for health insurance from taxable income–at $168 billion per year– is the largest “tax expenditure” in the budget– and obviously benefits the higher brackets more than the lower ones. (Revising this indefensible and economically inefficient  redistribution would have been a sensible way to help fund reform, but Congress settled for adding some progressivity to the payroll tax and some other taxes aimed at upper income citizens).

In addition, the health care system perversely redistributes wealth in a variety of other ways.  For example, as Mark Hall and Carl Schneider have made clear, hospitals and physicians price discriminate against those with lower incomes:  the uninsured and those in the individual market –who generally lack the bargaining power to command lower prices–pay higher prices to hospitals (often as much as two or three times higher) than those with group insurance.

Even less widely acknowledged is the fact that insurance favors the upper classes in subtle ways.  Co-pays, for example, burden those with low incomes much more severely than upper class insureds. Havinghurst and Richman aptly summarize the “distributive injustice” of the system:

[C]onditioning eligibility for insurer payments on patients’ willingness to make certain out-of-pocket payments causes lower income participants in employee health plans to get disproportionately fewer benefits than their more affluent coworkers receive in return for equivalent premiums

To be sure, the health reform legislation does not assure equal access to care among the social classes; but it certainly is a big step in the right direction.

I doubt that most Americans accept the idea that social class should dictate vast differences in opportunity for our citizens.  The capacity of health reform to lessen the economic and physical burdens imposed on the working class then should be headline news.

[Ed. note, post script: See excellent analysis published after this post by David Leonhardt characterizing the bill as "the federal government's biggest attack on economic inequality since inequality began rising more than three decades ago"
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/business/24leonhardt.html?src=me&ref=homepage]

IT PASSED!

In what is surely a watershed moment in American social and political history, the Health Reform bill passed on Sunday, March 21, 2010. In the company of historic enactments such as  Social Security and Medicare, the bill passed, 219 Yea, 212 Nay. The bill required 216 votes to pass.

Republican members of the House voted en masse against and vowed to further obstruct enactment of the bill through any means at their disposal.

To say that the battle to pass a health reform bill was long and arduous is not to engage in hyperbole. The debate raged on throughout the year, with a raucous and often maddening to and fro in an attempt to reach at first bipartisan consensus, and then just critical mass in a parliamentary sense.

To say, however, that the passage of this bill is an end to the battle to bring about health care reform is to miss the point. It is, I believe, a first but crucial step in what must be an ongoing effort. The bill encompasses well over a thousand pages; like anything that large it will have to be adjusted as need requires. The health care system is, perhaps, today one step closer to being just that– a system, as opposed to just an ill-fit hodgepodge of perverse incentives and dysfunction.

Last year, as President Obama took office, considering health care and national productivity, I wrote that

One of the first national health lessons this country received came on the heels of World War I.

“With the United States’ entry into the battle, hundreds of thousands of military personnel were drafted and trained for combat. After the war was fought and won, statistics were released from the draft with disturbing data regarding fitness levels. It was found that one out of every three drafted individuals was unfit for combat and many of those drafted were highly unfit prior to military training. Government legislation was passed that ordered the improvement of physical education programs within the public schools.”

“During the period from September 1917 through November 1918, records show that 2,801,635 men were inducted into the Army. Out of the approximately 10,000,000 registered men, roughly 2,510,000 were examined by local draft boards. During the first 4 months of mobilization, roughly one in three men were rejected on physical grounds, but the rejection rate dropped to one in four during the following 8 months.” (p. 149)

Having put forth the effort to remedy such, we were better physically prepared when it came time to fight World War II. We will be fortunate if some cataclysmic event does not lead us now to some statistical reckoning of our “unfit” and “extremely unfit” as regards our national productivity.

I do not point this out as a means of suggesting that we need to actively prepare ourselves for some form of larger global military conflict. But perhaps in some ways the “event” has already occurred, and only the reckoning remains. In his inaugural address President Barack Obama entreated us:

“Let it be told to the future world … that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive…that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet (it).”

“America, in the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children’s children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God’s grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.”

He’s right. We must “come forth to meet it.” We cannot turn back and we cannot falter as we struggle to deliver this hard won gift of freedom to future generations. And it would be best if– as we brave these icy currents in this winter of our hardship– we were not sick. And if we were sick, that we all had doctors. And if we all had doctors, that they were not too busy filling out paperwork designed to frustrate them. As we learned through World War I, as a nation, we simply cannot afford to squander our physical and intellectual capital.

And now, on March 21, 2010 we have come further forth to meet that challenge. It is reckoned that because of the enactment of the bill an additional 32 million people will now have health insurance. That is 32 million people who can see a doctor when they get sick. 32 million people who mostly will not show up in emergency rooms in a critical and costly condition which they could have avoided had they merely gone to a doctor sooner.  32 million people who stand a far better chance of not having to declare bankruptcy related to medical costs. And 32 million people who will not contribute to the shameful amount of deaths each year attributed in this country to a lack of health insurance.

A good start.

Reform Rodeo

1. Principle or Posturing (or both)? –Kaiser Health News discusses the sudden plea from certain Senators for a reintroduction of the public plan into the Senate’s bill.

2. Starting From Scratch? — The Hill highlights polling indicating that many Americans favor scrapping the health bill and starting over, an option that President Obama has repeatedly said is not an option.

2a. Presidential Preemption? — Interestingly, the New York Times details the possibility of Obama posting his own health reform bill on the Internet ahead of the much-hyped health care summit. Could Obama use his “new” bill as evidence of a “fresh start” to appease Republicans?

3. Back to Basics — Maggie Mahar details the longstanding debate about whether health insurance actually saves lives.

4. Scoop on Standards — Dr. John Halamka, a physician who serves as CIO of Beth Israel Hospital and Chairman of the Health Information Technology Standards Panel (HITSP) at the ANSI, shares his thoughts on the vocabulary standards that will come to be the Esperanto of HIT.

5. HIT Funding — On Febuary 12th, the first $1 billion of federal funding for HIT promised under the HITECH Act was made available, with $10.6 million going to Massachusetts for the creation of a health information exchange.

6. Health Reform “Casualty”: The New York Times reported that former Congressman-turned head of PhRMA Billy Tauzin is resigning.  Betting on the passage of health reform, Tauzin offered billions in concessions to the White House in exchange for, among other things, favorable patent exclusivity periods for pricey biologics.

7. Health 2.0 — The Health Care Blog reports on the purchase of online pain management company ReliefInSite.com by PatientsLikeMe.com–the popular patient web site which claims to be the  “leading online community for patients with life-changing diseases.” Don’t be to surprised to see further growth of similar “Health 2.0″ websites that seek to take advantage of the increasing digitization of health care delivery and research.

8. The Science Behind Reform — Stephen Novella at Science-Based Medicine revisits the question of the effectiveness of colonoscopies.

Obama’s Plan for a Health Care Summit and the Unenthusiastic Response

Last week, President Obama announced plans to hold a bipartisan health care summit to push forward on health care reform and to give both sides an opportunity to discuss ideas for health reform legislation that will be able to garner enough votes for passage.  While President Obama and Democratic Congressional leaders want to use the health care proposals that have already passed in the House and in the Senate, Republicans say that they are unlikely to vote for a bill unless the current proposals are scrapped and the process is started afresh.  It seems like Americans, once again, may be left watching the theatrics of the health care reform debate without actually being the focal point of it.

Some conservative Congress members have already responded to the President’s invitation publicly to make their steadfast positions known.  Representative Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said this past week that he was not willing to discuss a “health reform package that spends money we don’t have.”  He added that “House Republicans have offered the only plan that will lower health care costs.”  If that is true, it is likely attributable to the fact that the House Republican bill would cover only 3 million uninsured Americans, compared to the Democratic House bill which would  insure an additional 36 million Americans.

On Monday night, House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Oh.) joined Cantor in submitting a letter to White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, which said that the Republicans were not willing to come to the table unless certain prerequisite questions were answered.  You can see the whole letter here.  In the letter, Cantor and Boehner express their non-support for reform that the American people themselves are not supporting; the basis for such being the recent Republican Senate win in Massachusetts.

Exactly what are the citizens of American thinking about health care reform anyway?  CNN reported on Tuesday that nearly two-thirds of Americans want Congress to persist in passing health care reform legislation.  The poll, an ABC News/Washington Post survey, also indicates that Americans blame both Democrats and Republicans on their unwillingness to compromise.  HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius herself is quoted as saying, “When people look up close at the personal activities of Congress they are confused and disgusted with the whole process and too afraid that whatever is going on can’t possibly be good for them or their families.”

Many believe that the idea for the health care summit was to address the back-door processes that led to American distrust and to make it all more transparent.  Still, there appear to be more differences between the conservative version of reform and the liberal version than points of reconciliation.  Though the prolonged tug-of-war between both sides does not seem like one that might be resolved in a day of convening, the summit is, perhaps, at least a start.

And, while the political contenders decide what to do about the summit, the health reform stalemate has presently-occurring repercussions. Many hospitals, which were holding on to the hope of reform, are now at the point where downsizing their health systems is thought to be the only step left.  Hospitals all around the country have been seeing more and more uninsured patients, and with no one to cover the full cost of services, the hospitals providing unreimbursed care are said to be further sinking into debt– and must therefore cut staff as well as services.  On the individual level, Americans are also finding it difficult to  keep up with the costs of health care, and while many forgo insurance, those that cannot due to chronic illness or necessity of care are finding the cost further prohibitive.

It would make sense, then, that Americans do want reform.  Andrew Rubin, Vice President for Medical Center Clinical Affairs for NYU Langone Medical Center and radio show host for HealthCare Connect, says that one of the underlying reasons why Americans are reluctant to give support for legislation is their lack of understanding of what is happening, not because they do not want to see change.  Let’s hope that the proposed health care summit will be used to clarify issues for Americans who do need and want health care, instead of for just another political brouhaha.

Intersecting Issues: Immigration Reform and Health Care Reform

The LA Times reported this past week that the pending health care reform would negatively affect rather than improve the health of California’s citizens.  Why would this be the case?  Nearly thirty percent of the state’s population consists of immigrants.  In L.A. County itself, there are more uninsured residents than any other U.S. county; as the L.A. Times calculates, the majority of that uninsured population are likely immigrants:

It’s a safe bet that the majority of those people are immigrants, because health officials say that 40% of all the patients treated at county hospitals are undocumented. In recognition of that fact and of the hospitals’ legal and ethical responsibilities to treat the uninsured ill and injured — regardless of their immigration status — Washington currently subsidizes their care at facilities, like L.A. County’s, with “disproportionate” numbers of such patients.

The House bill for health care reform would reduce the funding for such subsidies modestly, while the Senate bill would significantly decrease payments towards the subsidies.  Whatever the outcome of the compromise bill, L.A. County will be left worse off.

As we know, neither the House nor the Senate bill would cover undocumented immigrants, or allow them to receive subsidies or tax credits for purchasing insurance.  However, even if the country will not be paying for the health coverage of such immigrants, it will be and already is paying for the high costs of having immigrants treated in emergency rooms, since many hospitals, such as those mentioned in the L.A. Times piece above, treat patients regardless of their immigration status.  Hospitals that provide emergency services and participate in Medicare are required to treat all who come to them for emergency services by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act; some of the costs for the emergency care are covered through Medicaid, while others result in expenditures that the hospitals incur as debt.  The effects of the debt can result in higher hospital fees for other patients.  But greater hospital charge rates for the uninsured are a matter of contention, and tend to obscure the actual value of services rendered and unpaid for. Having said that, it is not unimaginable to think that provisions in the health care bills may actually drive up medical expenses for some segments of the population–and that such increased expenses will have significant adverse affect upon the whole.

Again, the House bill does a better job than the Senate version does at addressing the issue of immigrant health, as the House would allow for undocumented immigrants to participate in the health insurance exchange by permitting them to purchase insurance policies. While the House bill would require immigrants to pay for the policies entirely, the Senate bill does not allow for immigrants to participate whatsoever.  It is worth considering that the immigrant community consists largely of young, healthy individuals; the impact upon the risk pool of their inclusion is no small thing.

Some health care advocates believe that resolution lies in immigration reform, so that immigrants can become citizens of the United States.  An LA Times story about a UCLA study released this last week is also worth considering:

The report said that legalization, along with a program that allows for future immigration based on the labor market, would create jobs, increase wages and generate more tax revenue. Comprehensive immigration reform would add an estimated $1.5 trillion to the U.S. gross domestic product over 10 years, according to the report.

Though many Americans seem to feel that immigrants are taking jobs away from unemployed American citizens, CNN writer Ruben Navarrette, Jr. points out that much of the labor immigrants participate in is in areas of work that Americans themselves have shunned.

Behind the politics of both health and immigration reforms lies the compelling stories of immigrants who have labored in our county and who are in desperate need of health care.  While data and numbers can show the cost-benefits of allowing immigrants to participate in health care, the issue of treating ill humans seems an ethical one– not something to be justified by statistics alone.  But at the heart of this is the simple question, is healthcare a  human right? Or is it a luxury–a “treat,” if you will,  to be dispensed according to the rules of carrots and sticks? and not just a luxury.

Ringing in a New Year in Health Reform: For Whom the Bell –Still– Tolls

As we come upon this new year and the prospect of House and Senate Bill reconciliation,  I find myself taken by the process. The length of it–the depth of it–or perhaps more precisely, the lack of depth thereof. Back in the dog days of summer I wrote this:

The debate wandering to and fro and fueled by hyperbole, the desire for “victory” (whatever that may mean), and lobbyist dollars descending upon the corridors of Washington until they have become, in the words of T.S. Eliot,  ”Streets that follow like a tedious argument / of insidious intent.”

The words, unfortunately, seem as apt now as they did then. The passage of time harboring more of the same as the process “followed” into the need for 6o votes and the compromises (if not betrayals) necessary to garner the same.

“Had we but world enough and time/ This coyness, Lady, were no crime”

This article published back in September is worth considering

Research released this week in the American Journal of Public Health estimates that 45,000 deaths per year in the United States are associated with the lack of health insurance. If a person is uninsured, “it means you’re at mortal risk,” said one of the authors, Dr. David Himmelstein, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School.

The researchers…determined that the uninsured have a 40 percent higher risk of death than those with private health insurance as a result of being unable to obtain necessary medical care. The researchers then extrapolated the results to census data from 2005 and calculated there were 44,789 deaths associated with lack of health insurance.

Last New Year’s Day I wrote this in anticipation of the continued economic meltdown as it regarded Health Reform:

As we ring in the New Year and begin to contemplate the inter-relatedness of the macro-economy and commence what may well be the “fall into a ‘death spiral’ of unemployment, disfiguring ailments, and a tendency to be underemployed due to such ailments,” it might be worth a moment to consider the often sudden and unexpected nature of both job loss and catastrophic illness– and John Donne.

The bell which John Donne refers to in his most famous quote is “the passing bell,” tolled by the Church for those who are dying. As Donne lay very ill in his bed and heard this bell being tolled, he wondered if he were, in fact, sicker than he thought. And that perhaps that bell was being rung for him personally. He came to realize, however, that whether that was the case or not was largely irrelevant because

“No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend’s or of thine own were. Any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.”

In the midst of the year long “tedious argument / of insidious intent,” that bell tolled for thee another 45,000 times.

Taking Steps Toward Reform

Should an imperfect health reform bill be passed?  Health reform should be about four things: 1) expanding coverage to all; 2) providing health security for those already insured; 3) ending the fragmentation of health care delivery in favor of sound coordination of care; and, 4) constraining cost to ensure that we can afford appropriate care in the future.

The House leadership bill (HR 3962) does a good job on the first, reaching a large proportion of the uninsured — although it will not achieve universal coverage.  It also gets good marks for reforming insurance regulations — although its weak version of the public plan will make true insurance reform more difficult to achieve.  It makes some tentative progress on care coordination, mostly through pilots and demonstrations in public insurance programs.  It provides some cost saving measures in Medicare and through encouraging alignment of financing systems — but cost containment is clearly the weakest aspect of the bill.   So, should the reform be passed, warts and all?

After months of criticism of the majority’s plans and promises of the production of a better plan, House Republicans proposed a substitute to the House leadership bill.   How does it stack up?  The CBO finds that the Republican substitute would reduce the deficit over the next ten years by about $68 billion, which is about $40 billion less than the reduction the CBO projects from the Democratic version.   The CBO also estimates that the Republican bill would reduce the number of uninsured over the next ten years by “about 3 million relative to current law, leaving about 52 million nonelderly residents uninsured,”  compared with its assessment that HR 3962 would reduce the number of nonelderly uninsured by 36 million during that time period.  So, the GOP substitute would do less to reduce the deficit, and cover 33 million fewer uninsured.   It includes some insurance reform provisions, many based on consumer-directed models that tend to further fragment, rather than coordinate care.  HR 3962 is far from perfect, and the CBO’s estimates have been subject to criticism, but the reports provide food for thought for those who hoped that the Republican plan would offer a meaningful alternative.

Sometimes proceeding in steps is necessary, particularly with complex systemic reform.  Massachusetts has in many ways been a model for drafters of federal reform plans, and stands as an example of incremental steps toward full reform.  It enacted sweeping health insurance reforms in 2006, creating a marketplace for regulated private insurance, the addition of public plans, and responsibility shared among businesses, individuals, and providers.  It has been remarkably successful at expanding access, driving the uninsurance rate down to 2.6% as of the spring of this year, and enjoying continuing strong support within Massachusetts.    Costs are a growing concern.  But the coalition of business, consumer, and provider groups behind the reform anticipated the need to circle back and tackle finance.  Cost concerns have only grown with the economic downturn, as tax receipts lag and countercyclical demand for Medicaid coverage strains budgets.  Resolve to push forward appears strong.  Representatives of several stakeholders reported last year that,

Since passage, all stakeholder groups have remained deeply engaged in implementation.  Despite news reports of higher-than-expected costs, the governor, legislative leaders, and stakeholders have repeatedly reiterated support for full implementation.  This consensus, crucial to enactment, has proved equally vital to implementation.

Massachusetts reformers made the decision to proceed in two steps: coverage first, cost control second.   While no one is proposing a two-step process for federal reform, expanding coverage and reforming insurance practices have been the overriding emphases in Washington.  And HR 3962 does advance the cause of care coordination for the chronically ill.  It was interesting to see the Dutch Health Minister in a recent interview emphasize coordinated care as a central feature of reform.  In describing his country’s reforms (from which some draw lessons for our country), he explained:

We are trying to make sure that no one receives health care that is not coordinated. And [we intend] that the general practitioners cannot negotiate any longer with insurance companies unless they are part of a coherent group that is offering coherent care.

What does the GOP bill do for people with chronic illness?   The CBO found that provisions in the proposed substitute would “tend to increase the premiums paid by less healthy enrollees.”   The substitute, then, entails fiscal benefits for the well at the expense of those who most need care and coverage.

HR 3962 reforms the insurance market to safeguard coverage for those who have it now; expands coverage for the uninsured; and begins the arduous task of shifting care delivery from fragmentation to coordination.  The GOP alternative covers one-twelfth as many uninsured, makes coverage for the chronically ill harder to maintain, and does less to reduce the deficit.  Common sense tells us that taking positive steps toward reform is vital, and that the GOP substitute is no reform at all.

Thanks for Sharing, The Republican Party Offers Up a Health Reform Plan

Ezra Klein over at the Washington Post does a fine job of analyzing the political lesson in the recently proffered Republican health care reform plan–and the even more recent initial Congressional Budget Office analysis of the plan:

Late last night, the Congressional Budget Office released its initial analysis of the health-care reform plan that Republican Minority Leader John Boehner offered as a substitute to the Democratic legislation. CBO begins with the baseline estimate that 17 percent of legal, non-elderly residents won’t have health-care insurance in 2010. In 2019, after 10 years of the Republican plan, CBO estimates that …17 percent of legal, non-elderly residents won’t have health-care insurance. The Republican alternative will have helped 3 million people secure coverage, which is barely keeping up with population growth. Compare that to the Democratic bill, which covers 36 million more people and cuts the uninsured population to 4 percent.

But maybe, you say, the Republican bill does a really good job cutting costs. According to CBO, the GOP’s alternative will shave $68 billion off the deficit in the next 10 years. The Democrats, CBO says, will slice $104 billion off the deficit.

The Democratic bill, in other words, covers 12 times as many people and saves $36 billion more than the Republican plan.

Congressman Boehner had this to say: “Not only does the GOP plan lower health care costs, but it also increases access to quality care, including for those with pre-existing conditions, at a price our country can afford.”

In regard to savings, CBO notes that

some provisions of the legislation would tend to decrease the premiums paid by all insurance enrollees, while other provisions would tend to increase the premiums paid by less healthy enrollees or would tend to increase the premiums paid by enrollees in some states relative to enrollees in other states.

As to provisions of the legislation which would “tend to decrease the premiums paid by all,” CBO points out that savings may be derived from

“Changes in the extent of insurance coverage purchased”

Yes, that’s exactly what that says: the Republican plan will afford us all the opportunity of saving money on insurance (but not nearly as much as the Democrats’ plan), by granting us the right and ability to have less insurance coverage.

CBO states:

The second source of change in average insurance premiums is changes in the average extent of coverage purchased. Those changes can reflect both changes in the scope of insurance coverage–the benefits or services that are included–and changes in the share of costs for covered services paid by the insurer–known as the “actuarial value.” With other factors held equal, insurance policies that cover more benefits or services or have smaller copayments or deductibles have higher premiums, while policies that cover fewer benefits or services or have larger copayments or deductibles have lower premiums. Provisions in the amendment that would reduce insurance premiums by affecting the amount of coverage purchased include the State Innovations program, which would encourage states to reduce the number and extent of benefit mandates that they impose, and provisions that would allow individuals or affiliated groups to purchase insurance policies in other states that have less stringent mandates. CBO’s assessment was that the amendment would not have a substantial effect on actuarial values.

So the actuarial costs– “the share of costs for covered services paid by the insurer,” will not be substantially affected; but “the scope of insurance coverage–the benefits or services that are included” for people, will be decreased. Worse insurance, less money–thus a lower premium and Republican “savings.” Couple that with 17 percent uninsured after 10 years, increased premiums for “less healthy” enrollees, some malpractice “reform” and a few other sundry measures and we’ve got us a plan. Thanks for sharing.

Report: Uninsured Hospitalized Children Face a 6o Percent Increased Risk of Dying

Sometimes the numbers speak louder than words, and the words are just painful to hear: the New York Times’ Prescriptions reports that

Researchers analyzed data from more than 23 million children’s hospitalizations from 1988 to 2005.

Uninsured children who wind up in the hospital are much more likely to die than children covered by either private or government insurance plans, according to one of the first studies to assess the impact of insurance coverage on hospitalized children.

Researchers at Johns Hopkins Children’s Center analyzed data from more than 23 million children’s hospitalizations in 37 states from 1988 to 2005. Compared with insured children, uninsured children faced a 60 percent increased risk of dying, the researchers found.

On a regular basis writers on this blog have discussed health reform as a moral imperative: citing religious doctrine, philosophers, economists and statistics to show that health care, unlike the purchase of automobiles and designer shoes, is not correctly a conventional aspect of a market economy– that the distribution of healing and life itself should not be premised upon who is the best capitalist, or, for that matter, the child of the best capitalist. That uninsured hospitalized children face a 6o percent increased risk of dying says that in a way that I simply cannot add to. Lack of insurance kills.

The Times noted that “Although the research was not set up to identify why uninsured children were more likely to die, it found that they were more likely to gain access to care through the emergency room, suggesting they might have more advanced disease by the time they were hospitalized.”

According to the Times the study showed that “uninsured children were in the hospital, on average, for less than a day when they died.”

Which is to say that it was too late by the time they got there.

The Times noted that “Alison Buist, director of child health at the Children’s Defense Fund, a nonprofit advocacy organization,” said in response to the study’s findings:

If you wait until a child gets care at a hospital, you have missed an opportunity to get them the types of screening and preventive services that prevent them from getting to that level of severity to begin with.

The Times further noted that

The most common reasons for children being hospitalized were complications from birth, pneumonia and asthma. The study found that the reasons did not differ depending on insurance status.

Read the full NY Times article here.
Read the Report here.

Principles for the Homestretch

House and Senate leaders will soon have to reconcile several different versions of health reform bills. The bills are complex, but some simple principles should guide the process of integrating them into a final product. As the press reports on a whirlwind of proposed laws, we need to ask of any particular proposal: Does it . . .

1) Increase productive competition in health care? Everyone talks about “increasing competition” among insurers and providers, but there are many ways to compete. Hospitals and doctors can game the reimbursement system. Insurers may not directly discriminate against the sick, but can find other ways to keep high-risk patients out of their plans, as even the most market-oriented health policy experts realize:

[T]o avoid patients with costly, complicated medical conditions, health plans could include in their networks relatively few doctors who specialize in treating those conditions, said Mark V. Pauly, professor of health-care management at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School.

Both the Netherlands and Switzerland have already experienced problems in this area, even though the Netherlands has implemented risk-adjustment methods (which attempt to deter such “cherrypicking” and “lemondropping”) far more serious than anything proposed in current bills in the US. As Karen Pollitz has repeatedly argued, we’re going to need a much greater investment in insurance regulation to make any reform bill work.

2) Make it easier for uninsured or underinsured individuals to buy coverage? Many of the proposals for allocating and awarding subsidies for coverage sound exceedingly complex. We’re hearing about serious limitations on access to exchanges, subexchanges, burdensome “free rider” provisions, etc. Any particular provision may sound good in the abstract, but taken as a whole they could become an obstacle course that makes obtaining insurance coverage a miserable and exasperating experience for those supposedly aided by reform. During the second Bush administration, hundreds of thousands of children eligible for subsidized health insurance were not enrolled because states failed to make enrollment convenient enough for time- and cash-strapped parents. As Liebman and Zeckhauser remind us, “we must design systems for mere mortals, not the people who inhabit the models of traditional economists.” What seems easy to one of DC’s privileged elite can be very hard for an overworked mom or minimum wage-earning service worker.

I believe that the main reason a solid 2/3 to 3/4 of the country supports a public option is because it is a straightforward, transparent way to provide a backstop of health insurance for everyone. If Congress both rejects a public option and makes subsidies for private insurance as complex as the tax code, health reform risks becoming a model case of government failure. Last week’s negative votes on Rockefeller’s strong and Schumer’s weak public options could easily become a “you broke it, you bought it” moment for centrist Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee.

3) Fairly distribute the burdens of reforming the health care system? This is the tax and finance question, and it promises to generate some epic battles on Capitol Hill. However the Senate Finance proposal ultimately evolves, it will be in tension with a House of Representatives that sees progressive taxation as a foundation for financing reform. The Baucus proposal to tax “high end”/Cadillac/”gold-plated” health plans may seem progressive, but it promises to gradually engulf even normal plans. While David Leonhardt offers some good economic arguments for such a tax, policymakers should be guided by Leonhardt’s observations on the propriety of taxing those at the very top of the income scale, who have disproportionately benefited from economic trends and tax cuts of the past decade.

4) Provide incentives for long-term cost-saving and preventive medicine? Comparative effectiveness research is a crucial tool for focusing pharmaceutical research on drugs that save lives. We have a shortage of primary care doctors vis a vis specialists. Reimbursement systems are too easy to game. Insurance markets are concentrated and need more competition and transparency. Any bill that ignores these problems (or fails to empower HHS or another agency to address them) can’t lead to truly sustainable universal coverage.

The health reform fight has been bruising, disappointing, and frustrating for many who care about health policy. Many unwise assumptions are already baked into leading bills. In the Senate, ostensibly Democratic lawmakers are promoting what are essentially Republican ideas and granting enormous subsidies to industries that may well betray them at the next electoral cycle. Nevertheless, there remain many opportunities for improving the final product at the beginning of the end of the legislative process.

The Truth About Young Invincibles

Recently released data has indicated that young people don’t care about health care reform.  Or at least not in large numbers. The poll, released by Gallup, says that only 34% between the ages of 18 and 34 want their Congress members to vote for reform legislation.

But this conclusion, drawn by so many, may be somewhat at odds with what the underlying situation might realistically be: that young people actually do care about health care reform itself– but are reluctant to bear the costs for not only themselves–but aging boomers as well–especially as young people have borne disproportionately the effects of the economic crisis.  For those of us who are in between still being dependents on our parents’ insurance and having health coverage of our own through employment, health care coverage is important –and we’re not so stubborn so as to not admit it– but the cost of insurance at the onset of a working life can be a significant barrier.

Why is there a problem of young uninsured people anyway?  19 years of age seems to be the limit for when young people in our country can still get medical coverage under their parents’ policies.  Although many states have altered this equation, many have not. For many private insurance companies as well as Medicaid, young people are cut off from coverage at the age of 19 or when they graduate from high school.  Many insurance companies cover those dependents that go on to college, and many college insurance plans provide some level of coverage. But those who choose to join the workforce  directly following high school graduation are largely left without.  In addition, once a “young and invincible” graduates from college, most are severed from insurance coverage altogether (that is, if they weren’t already).

Again, what might lend itself to misconstrual among all the data on health care legislation support is the difference between young people wanting health reform and being able to afford it– even if we get it.  According to the Commonwealth Fund, the majority of the uninsured young adult population (ages 19-29) are from low-income households.  Also, more than 2.5 million recent college graduates are unemployed.  Important to remember is the fact that recent graduates simultaneously face the difficulty of paying off college loan debt.  Thankfully, President Obama has not forgotten that fact.

Some policymakers think that because young people are so “invincible” we make an ideal group to add into the health care insurance pool: we are healthy, cheap to cover, and take up a small percentage of overall costs on health care.  For them, it makes perfect sense to add a relatively healthy group to the larger pool of Americans requiring insurance so as to drive premiums down overall and/or increase the profitability of insurers.  Ideas like this overlook (or disregard) the resultant fact that young people will then bear the responsibility of subsidizing health care costs of older generations– counterintuitive and somewhat contraindicated  when we look at wage status and unemployment numbers for recent high school and college graduates entering the workforce, don’t you think?

Importantly, besides the issue of unemployment, the types of work young people are usually able to secure affect their chances of getting health coverage too.  Those who are able to obtain jobs usually start off working part-time or lower-wage jobs, ones which typically do not offer benefits such as medical insurance.  Read the story about this young woman who was highlighted in the LA Times; she was unlucky enough to need an operation to remove a cyst while she was still in the introductory period as a new-hire (no insurance until you prove yourself, of course).  The only way she was able to cover the out-of-pocket expense of $12,000 was through her parents’ refinancing of their home.

Implicit in all this is age rating. For many reasons beyond its potential negative effects on both young and old, age rating should be divorced from actual health care reform.  Age rating would allow insurance companies to actively discriminate against its beneficiaries based on age alone.  For young people, such proposed age-rated, young-invincible plans are not even comprehensive; they would only cover medical care in times of emergencies or extreme illness, giving the plans the name of “catastrophic insurance.”  That sounds enticing.  Hard to believe young people wouldn’t be banging down the doors of their elected officials, adamantly demanding “catastrophic insurance,” right?

Better plans would incorporate the real needs of young people: preventive care, prescription benefits, and affordability.  These issues are not just unique to older generations.  If we want to keep the so-called invincibles healthy, we have to give them better options than just care in times of dire need.  Keeping young people on their parents’ insurance until a certain age limit is a good idea, as long as it plays out in practice too.  Anything is better than forcing young people to get coverage they can’t afford.  If you want our support for health care reform, try tailoring some of the reform bills to what we actually need.

The 85% Solution and Health Costs

Reform may be bogging down over cost issues.

Blue Dogs and Republicans argue that the cost of reform is too high.  Attempting to predict what large expenditures set off fiscal responsibility alarms is chancy (Financial bailout? Iraq war? Health coverage for all?).   Public money should be spent wisely, but outrage at the scale of the thing — about $100 billion per year to bring equity and sense to a system that cost $2.4 trillion in 2008, and is projected to cost $4.4 trillion by 2018 — doesn’t scan well.  Time lines have been stretched.  The level of political energy has ratcheted up, with the President fully engaged, and business and the health industry  more publicly pushing back.

It may be time to think back to a catch-phrase of the last health reform period.  It was common at that time for objectors to assert that reformers were applying a 100% solution to a 15% problem — that is, that comprehensive reform was unnecessary to address a problem affecting “only” the 15% of the population without health coverage.  There are glimmers of a similar argument this time, with objectors asking whether it is worth it for the haves (taxpayers) to provide for the have-nots (the uninsured).  This argument would be flawed definitionally, as plenty of the working poor without insurance pay a higher total tax rate than better-off insured people.  More significantly, the message should be rejected on its merits: this round of reform is necessary for everyone, and not just the uninsured.

So, what’s the 85% solution?  The figure 85% pops up in a couple of interesting places in the health reform debate.  First, a NYT/CBS poll last month found that about 85% of Americans believe that the American health system needs to be “fundamentally changed or completely rebuilt,” numbers that match well with an EBRI Issue Brief published earlier this month.  This number demonstrates the inclination of the insured to support reform.  After all, the other place the figure 85% pops up in insurance coverage rates — 85% of Americans are insured, and 85% of Americans recently told Gallup that their own health care as “excellent” or “good.”  In the sharpening public debate, progressives should keep this group in focus.  They’re empathetic toward the uninsured, but that empathy is doing too much work.  They should be engaged, in addition, by the fact that health reform is in their direct interest.  They need reform for at least three reasons: our system is fiscally unsustainable and will run off the rails in coming years without comprehensive reform; our system encourages procedure-driven medical practice that serves patients poorly, and even harms them; and the basis for competition in the private insurance market is less on quality and service, and more on seeking out “good risks,” driving into public programs or uninsurance those who most need care, inefficiently increasing taxes or health insurance premiums for the 85%.  Those rallying support for reform should pay heed to these issues.

Attention to an 85% solution is not in tension with covering the 15%.  Uninsurance kills people, and extending coverage to all is critical.  Most Americans clearly care about universal coverage, but the negative blitz will be intense, and it will be helpful to also emphasize that reform helps the 85% as well as the 15%.  Benefit to the 85% sometimes gets underplayed, allowing nay-sayers to create a divisive us-them dynamic.  Today’s reform efforts are necessary because the system is broken with respect to all participants.

All of the health reform draft bills address the key issues of cost, practice reform, and risk selection to greater or lesser degrees.  They could, of course, be improved in these areas. But too often, the debate tends to be reported as though sponsors are advocates only for the uninsured, while Blue Dogs and Republicans fight a rear-guard action to protect those with insurance.  If the struggle is so mischaracterized, reform is unlikely to pass.  We need reform that contains cost for all, restores incentives to practice humane medicine, and reduces as much as possible insurers’ incentives to avoid covering those most in need of care.  Below are some quick thoughts on comparative effectiveness analysis as cost containment, in this spirit.  I hope to touch, in coming days, on the need for reimbursement reform and for an end to insurance competition on the basis of risk.

Cost containment: Health Technology Assessment

There’s been a lot of talk about how to “bend the curve” of health care cost projections.  Containing cost increases helps everyone, of course.  It would be tragic indeed for Congress to expand coverage to all only to find in a few years that we can’t sustain the new program.  One important, and controversial, aspect of cost containment is comparative effectiveness research (CER).   CER is often demonized as rationing.  The Institute of Medicine’s recent work in this area defines this hobgoblin, however, in terms that seem positively pro-patient:

[CER] is the generation and synthesis of evidence that compares the benefits and harms of alternative methods to prevent, diagnose, treat, and monitor a clinical condition or to improve the delivery of care.  The purpose of CER is to assist consumers, clinicians, purchasers, and policy makers to make informed decisions that will improve health care at both the individual and population levels.

Shouldn’t we care about whether expensive new devices and procedures improve health?  The scare tactics should be taken on in two ways.  First, as the IOM makes clear, most CER is directed toward choosing the clinically appropriate alternative.  A second, rhetorically more difficult task, is to point out (as have both my colleague Frank Pasquale and economist Uwe Reinhardt ) that “rationing” is not a swear word, but rather a description of a method for allocating scarce resources.  The choice isn’t whether rationing to some degree will occur, but rather whether it will be done through a transparent process rather than on the basis of ability to pay — or on the basis of an insurer’s preference.

That good health technology assessment should be a concern for the 85% was made clear by David Leonhardt’s recent NYT piece on slow-growing, early stage prostate cancer.  Leonhardt describes the five forms of treatment commonly prescribed, ranging from “watchful waiting” to proton radiation therapy.  The price, he reports, ranges from “a few thousand dollars” to over $100,000.  Which works best?  No one knows.  Remember — the question posed by the article isn’t which produces the most QALYs per unit cost; rather, it reveals that there is no real scientific basis to choose among the options.  Shouldn’t we encourage research to allow us, and our doctors, to choose wisely?

Next Page »